You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll hurl.

• About
• Staff
• Archive
• Send a Tip

We all feel betrayed when our heroes fall from grace. Yet, it’s so common these days that we’re constantly coping with the implosion of one of our idols. Our homerun heroes have embroiled themselves in steroid scandals. Our politicians get caught in sex trysts and human trafficking efforts. Apparently, Santa Claus manufactures his toys in Chinese sweat shops. I don’t take issue with their criminal lifestyle. Like many Americans, I merely resent a famous criminal that gets caught.

The last pillar of justice evasion, O.J. Simpson, was found guilty of 12 counts of various crimes—including kidnapping and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. This is the same guy that sped across 50 miles of a LA freeway according to the New York Times and eluded police. I remembered hoping he would get away the same way we hope Jason Voorhees kills all of the surprisingly well-figured counselors at Camp Crystal Lake. O.J. Simpson served as a model villain for aspiring criminals everywhere.

We love a villain. That explains the popularity of Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker in The Dark Knight. It explains why Daniel Day Lewis won an Oscar for There Will Be Blood. Unfortunately, in narrative, as in reality, villains must meet their demise in order to restore order to their world. We don’t like order though, which is why we pay $10.00 to see a movie. We like chaos.

Everyone watched the verdict in the first trial. My third grade teacher showed it on TV, interrupting our lesson on multiplication—hence a career in the creative arts. Thanks O.J., now I’m poor. I digress…most of us expected a big GUILTY. When the jury acquitted him, chaos erupted. It even outraged my class of nine year olds. If he were found guilty, though, we wouldn’t have had years of subsequent anarchy.

Post-trial, cameras filmed him playing golf far more than President Bush during Hurricane Katrina. Not that I can blame him. Then, he wanted to publish a book about how he didn’t kill his wife but how he would have killed his wife if he did kill his wife. You know you would have read that. On the fringe of total mental instability, O.J. kidnapped and robbed a sports memorabilia dealer, for items which he claimed ownership.

All due respect to O.J., his logic is a bit skewed. That’s like him robbing me for owning a DVD of The Naked Gun. And why reclaim some old dirty jerseys, or an autographed glossy? Have we placed no value on the integrity of our criminal activity? Is there no honor in robbing a bank any more?

I’m just glad he didn’t cry like his cohort when the jury read the verdict. He initially looked surprised. That look followed one of total recognition in which you could almost hear what he was saying in his head. “Oh, that’s right, the robbery,” he thought as he nodded in approval. I couldn’t help but feel a sense of personal loss.

I’d like to think—as an avid lawbreaker—that if O.J. could perpetually cheat the system that I could too. Now, I finally understand that justice prevails. That if, you beat jail the first time, you’ll get sentenced more harshly the second time.

I think I also understand his magic now, why he was able to elude the law all of these years, why he couldn’t do it this time, and why defendants may meet inevitable justice in the future. No more Johnny Cochrane.

I can’t help but feel sorry for Sarah Palin. Her most impressive political victory since her acceptance speech hinges on the notion Joe Biden didn’t completely crush her. That her solid performance didn’t win the game, but her confidence, her poise, and her sheer determination overcame tremendous odds against a 28-year Senator, which makes her the modern day political equivalent of Rudy.

True, she side stepped questions, completely changed the topic at times when it didn’t suit her, and at other times, defiantly refused to answer the questions the way “the moderator and Senator Biden want me to.” Her verbal electric slide only proved that she can not only operate, but, thrive in this murky government if she takes office. It wasn’t surprising that democrats tried to undercut her experience before she took the podium. What was surprising was that republicans consistently reinforced their counterparts’ argument in the past weeks.

Campaign managers hid her from the press. After her interviews with Katie Couric of NBC and Charles Gibson of ABC, it seemed like a good plan. In the meantime they probably drilled Palin like an offshore oil spot with facts for a strictly regulated debate that they demanded which, allowed no room for interaction between the combatants. Their moves propelled the underestimation of Palin and promoted the image of the Alaskan simpleton with the hornets’ nest hair-do.

After about twenty minutes of debate, I wondered why Gwen Ifill hadn’t pulled the large chain, which enacted the trap door underneath Sarah Palin’s high heels. No tomatoes thrown. No one tarred and feathered her. She hadn’t made any severe errors and argued some of her party’s most absurd ideologies in a democratic way. She even attempted to disconnect John McCain from the Bush administration by reiterating the word maverick a total of 743 times and told Joe Biden to “stop living in the past and start looking toward the future,” which rebuffed a classic democrat argument. Things seemed to sway in her favor until she did made her fatal mistake (which has been a contributing factor as to why people think she’s an idiot). She taunted the mainstream media.

The college journalism major attacked the press, again, as if there is another an alternative news media that isn’t filled with socialist conspiracy theorist loonies. Sure, people don’t have a high opinion of CNN and the New York Times these days. But, these media outlets have the resources to absolutely destroy people because in fact, that’s their job. For some reason I can’t shake from my head the scene in Rocky IV when Ivan Drago looks at Rocky and mumbles: “I must crush you.”

So it may seem to her like a maverick move to taunt the press like a nerd who’s confronting a bully in front of the principal. When the principal leaves though, the bully is going to stuff her into a locker upside down. How can this woman serve as vice president if all the blood rushes to her head?

Midway through part 2 of 11 of the YouTube version of the first presidential debate, I involuntarily bellowed a loud groan.

“They’re not saying anything!”

For a person who can watch C-SPAN with as much enthusiasm as SportsCenter, the first debate was a complete struggle. It was like watching two Russians in a slow, heavyweight boxing match. I was the fan that stayed the entirety just to boo.

The University of Mississippi based event was supposed to center on foreign policy—what countries we will and won’t invade in the next presidency and what not—until the damned economy went limp like a drunk date. Then, the moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS (the channel with Sesame Street and Barney), justified leading with the “global financial crises.” Thank sweet Buddha that the planet Algernon from the Pegasus Dwarf galaxy invested in Google. Obviously, neither of these men had prepared as extensively for economic debate as much as they had for the foreign policy portion.

As much as I like my money, I’d rather donate it to programming like News Hour than listen to respective referendums on tax reform. I’d rather have my eyeballs sanded out of my face actually. Inevitably, talks on the economy skewed this way for much of the debate. This segment could have been spiced up with some wife or mother insults, but no. McCain persisted with pork barrel spending (money spend on radio stations in Madagascar and clicky pens instead of twisty ones) and Obama pushed a supposed tax cut for 95% of the country. Thanks. We’ll need that money for when you guys bail the other 5% on our paychecks. When they finally focused on good stuff, on foreign policy, things got a bit edgier.

Like the usual sound bytes, Obama linked the war in Iraq to Bush and McCain. McCain acted like Ike Eisenhower and derided Obama’s voting record. At one point it seemed like they might have sparred, when Obama said he would fight on Pakistani soil to combat the Taliban. McCain responded: “You can’t say that out loud,” as if he said that Laura Bush was cheating on W with Harry Reid. Obama acted like some pacifist mediator though and wouldn’t punch back. They never got to the good stuff like black mail photos, name calling, and legacy pummeling, you know, the stuff we like to see on TV.

Things may end in Iraq, but, we’re in for a long haul in Afghanistan. Congress may pass a bill for $700 billion bills in economic aid. But, we’re still going to be broke for a while (not forever). The debate proved that as much as we want peace and prosperity we may have to settle patience and panhandling. At least give us some good TV while we wait.

In one week, the demise of three major banks has questioned the sustainability of our free market economy and one of the guiding principles of American democracy—individual greed.

Lehman Brothers, which has been around since before the Civil War, filed for bankruptcy when the government refused to cover their losses on bad investments, particularly in real estate. It raised the important question, how does a bank run out of money? Seems anomalous. Although Lehman couldn’t find a new pimp, Merrill Lynch did.

Bank of America, the biggest bank in America according to National Public Radio, announced that it would buy the titan, Merrill Lynch. The company with the cool bull logo also lost money on homes sales. Finally, the government did something quite unexpected of republicans. It virtually nationalized insurance.

On Tuesday evening, news broke that the Federal Reserve, the bank of the United States, announced that it would bail out the insurance company, AIG, in exchange for 80% ownership. Free health care for all finally? Probably not. Eat that malnourished baby in West Virginia.

What is going on in this country? Jeez, I wish I had stayed awake during economics in my senior year of high school. From what I can gather, I, personally am safe. You can’t take money from someone who doesn’t have money. That mentality kind of explains this whole crisis.

This all started when banks began doling out complicated mortgages for private homebuyers. These “sub-prime” loans that you’ve heard so much of, would have borrowers pay little up front and more later on unlike ‘fixed-rate’ loans which remain the same each month. Lenders thought they would profit from these sub-prime mortgages because the longer borrowers were kept in debt, the more money the bank would make off of interest.

The banks turned into bookies and loan sharks where they lent money in the hopes that people wouldn’t pay the loan back right away, but, pay the vig over time and basically forever. Bankers bet on debt. Except, bankers are unlike bookies in that they can’t brake fingers or hold pistols in the mouths of the borrowers who don’t pay them back.

When some homebuyers finally went broke, they refused to pay, because, quite simply, they didn’t have the money. The banks seized homes and couldn’t sell them, or lost money from decreasing property values and got stuck with these useless homes. Fuck the homeless, the banks need to make money off these things. But, they didn’t. And here we are now with banks with out cash.

Of course, it’s much more complicated then that. If Paul Krugman of the New York Times read my watered down version of this, he’d probably revoke my laptop. That just shows how complicated the whole financial system has become in general over the past few decades since (cringe) the Great Depression.

There’s a marked difference between the paupers in 2008 and the beggars of 1929. Then, people usually spent only what they had, if that. Credit (loans, credit cards, lay away) only started to grow in popularity during this time. Since then, the credit market has become so complex and interwoven in other facets of the economy that even the staunchest capitalists are calling for regulation. Still though, economists say we’re not in a depression, and the numbers show that we’re not even officially in a recession. Tell that to Lehman Brothers.

So who is to blame? And what of capitalism? Did ignorant home buyers purchase homes they couldn’t afford? Did the banks give away money they didn’t have? Really, it’s a combination of all of those things, plus more.

Ask a high school student what prompted the US involvement in World War II, and they’ll say the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Ask a historian and he’ll list dozens of reasons and name Pearl Harbor as a foot note. Disasters like this are a combination of bad practices on the part of a number of people. As for capitalism, as long as individuals covet money, the free market will survive. Maybe, though, we may have to stop betting against our own losses.

There’s a fundamental difference between Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain, which gives insight into how these two men will run their campaigns, especially in this last phase of the election.

Harvard educated Barack Obama recognizes logical equations as a result of his advanced education. Anything that defies that which is orderly would throw his brain into over load and his head would pop off like a Rock em’ Sock em’ robot. Last week, John McCain defied logic by picking Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. The announcement sent the seemingly sealed Democratic campaign teetering into a tailspin.

Best of all, McCain did it the day after Obama made his big speech at the football stadium. McCain might as well have crouched on his hand and knees behind Obama’s legs and let Sarah Palin push him. Because the choice made no sense, it forced the media to focus their attention on this unknown and away from the Obama campaign. This move is part of McCain’s military survival instinct.

You see, McCain survived a Vietnamese P.O.W. camp. That came after a fireball engulfed him out at sea. This guy is built to test fate. His strategy for victory in November should simply be out-surviving Obama. The deadlocked polls show that Obama’s vital signs are dimming.

Whether or not you agree with the pick, or you claim that “credentials” matter, Palin’s presence has undoubtedly shocked the McCain campaign back into life. They capitalized on Obama’s own slogan of “change,” the antithesis of conservatism. It’s raised an entirely new set of issues for at least a few weeks and drawn attention away from the collective lack of knowledge that these men share of how to fix the country as major banks fail day after day.

Once again, the country can now shift its focus to national conversations on race and gender inequality and the historic aura of this campaign. Of course, because of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Sarah Palin, we have a whole new set of questions to ask but, when someone finally crosses that boundary to offensive they get chastised and sent into exile. It’s unfortunate for them but, beneficial for us if you stop talking and listen to the conversation that’s already taking place.

In a very subtle way, rules and boundaries are being established with out us realizing that they’re drawn. When one of these people offends us, we confirm what we still will and won’t accept as a society. We are now finding out what is and isn’t sexist. Apparently that’s everything.

Questioning Sarah Palin about her ability to raise 5 children while serving as vice president, while not questioning Barack Obama, isn’t sexist. On the other hand, when a male calls Sarah Palin “attractive” or a frat boy calls her a PILF (Pol I’d Like to Fuck) it’s sexist. Bashing her 17 year-old daughter for getting pregnant isn’t abhorrent, but, photo-shopping her head onto Jenna Jameson’s body is?

What we need now, is someone to shock virtue into the world by offending it. Some men, outside the greater New York area, actually find women attractive. Women who enter the political sphere are still women and will be subjected to the same treatment as a lady walking down the street on windy, cold, and wet day—full eye scan, head to toe. If Sarah Palin ends up riding in a motorcade, some cabbie will honk at and a construction worker will whistle, despite the fact that 6 big dudes will accompany her.

As Americans, we can rely on the notion that some guy at the bar will always take the ribbing too far though and will make a crude and suggestive joke that revolts the rest of the men. That drunk is a hero, a patriot, and a boundary setter.

Judging a woman for appearance alone is as shallow as McCain picking her for shock value. I highly doubt that most men would vote for John McCain on the basis of his running mate’s looks. Certainly, if she were less attractive, a VP nod to an Alaskan governor would still have dropped a cherry bomb in the toilet.

Sure, some people will vote Republican just for that fact alone. Just as disgruntled Hilary Clinton supporters may swing Republican. A disproportionate number of West Virginians may not vote Obama because he is black and on that basis alone. As one West Virginian put so eloquently in the primaries, “some folk around here just don’t like black people.” It’s a sad truth, but, a truth nonetheless that these sentiments exist. It’s impossible to look away from them though because they are also the people who are setting boundaries.