The Nappy Cat Chronicles

I just wanted to say that it seems as if one of my friends is at it again, like so many other people stuck in our current political paradigm.  This was one of their twitters.

I will not be watching the Chicago Machine politician tonight. Although, Halloween is coming, and one has to admire a great costume.

I don’t know where to start.  I imagine this is how IOZ feels about most everything he comes across.  At this point in life, that is to say, outside the 1900s Plunkitt of Tammany Hall days, I would surmise that most every politician is a machine politician.  I’m not sure what my friend thinks they are proving.  The sky is blue?  You don’t say!

Calling what Obama does a costume as well is more of the same.  To think Obama is different, or that any politician is different is absurd.  What does my friend, or anyone for that matter, think they are saving?  Because I’ll be honest, I don’t know.  

Ultimately, I get a kick out of exploiting cognitive dissonance, or the utter lack of wherewithal that most people posses when it comes to politics.  That’s why I comment on it.  It’s like the joy of an adult watching a toddler figure out something – anything.  Why my friend comments on it?  I don’t know, but like Will said before, it seems like he’s just whining at this point.

The “vaccines cause autism” bullshit is, once again, being purveyed, this time by the cornucopia of popular bullshit, Newsweek. The article discusses Dr. Paul Offit, a relatively well-known pediatrician and author of the 2008 book Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure. In his book, Offit takes on the bullshit about which Jenny McCarthy likes to prattle. His arguments are driven by assertions like her’s that early childhood vaccinations cause autism spectrum disorders (ASD):

We think our health authorities don’t want to open this can of worms, so they don’t even look or listen. While there is strong debate on this topic, many parents of recovered children will tell you they didn’t treat their child for autism; they treated them for vaccine injury.

Many people aren’t aware that in the 1980s our children received only 10 vaccines by age 5, whereas today they are given 36 immunizations, most of them by age 2. With billions of pharmaceutical dollars, could it be possible that the vaccine program is becoming more of a profit engine then a means of prevention?

Other individuals who have exploited parental anxieties by positing causation include:

• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with his 2005 article “Deadly Immunity”.
• Autism activist Sallie Bernard, part author of “Autism: a novel form of mercury poisoning”.
• And Dr. Andrew Wakefield, part author of the flawed research article that was published by the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet, and forever linked the MMR vaccination and autism in the public’s mind.

If mishandled, ASD can be tragic. I work with a few gentlemen who are diagnosed with Autistic Disorder. At any given moment, they can be aggressive, frightened, silly, or friendly. Though they are very impulsive and lack the ability to communicate effectively, they are capable of learning new tasks through modeling and interacting appropriately with others.

McCarthy speaks of “recovery” and “healing.” Although she does not, in this article, specify the indicators of recovery, creating an appropriate diet and increasing an ASD individual’s independent living and communication skills can decrease observable symptoms. Unfortunately, she chooses to expound upon “prevention” as though the science is on her side:

We believe autism is an environmental illness. Vaccines are not the only environmental trigger, but we do think they play a major role. If we are going to solve this problem and finally start to reverse the rate of autism, we need to consider changing the vaccine schedule, reducing the number of shots given and removing certain ingredients that could be toxic to some children.

Sounds reasonable? Perhaps. However, there’s no need to enact any of her recommendations. She’s wrong on all four points. Need proof? Here’s a quick rundown of a few major studies:

In April 1993, the MMR vaccine was replaced with single vaccines in Japan. This enabled Japanese researchers to examine”cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven for [31,426] children born from 1988 to 1996 in…Yokohama, Japan. ASD cases included all cases of pervasive developmental disorders according to ICD-10 guidelines.” The researchers found that:

• [While] the MMR vaccination rate in the city of Yokohama declined significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1992, and not a single vaccination was administered in 1993 or thereafter….cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven increased significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1996 and most notably rose dramatically beginning with the birth cohort of 1993 [emphasis mine].
• MMR vaccination is most unlikely to be a main cause of ASD, that it cannot explain the rise over time in the incidence of ASD, and that withdrawal of MMR in countries where it is still being used cannot be expected to lead to a reduction in the incidence of ASD.

In 2005, an international team of researchers reviewed 31 MMR-related studies from around the world and found that:

• MMR was associated with a lower incidence of upper respiratory tract infections, a higher incidence of irritability, and similar incidence of other adverse effects compared to placebo.
• Exposure to MMR was unlikely to be associated with Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, autism or [mumps].

In 2006, researchers in Quebec “surveyed 27,749 children born from 1987 to 1998 attending 55 schools from the largest [English-speaking] school board. Children with pervasive developmental disorders [which included ASD] were identified by a special needs team.” The researchers found that:

• [T]himerosal exposure was unrelated to the increasing trend in pervasive developmental disorder prevalence.
• [P]ervasive developmental disorder rates significantly increased when MMR vaccination uptake rates significantly decreased.
• [P]ervasive developmental disorder prevalence increased at the same rate before and after the introduction in 1996 of the second MMR dose, suggesting no increased risk of pervasive developmental disorder associated with a 2–measles-mumps-rubella dosing schedule before age 2 years.
• [N]o relationship was found between pervasive developmental disorder rates and 1- or 2-dose MMR immunization schedule.

But, why risk it anyway? Science fumbles all the time, amiright? From the New York Times:

Death rates for 13 diseases that can be prevented by childhood vaccinations are at all-time lows in the United States, according to a study released yesterday.

In nine of the diseases, rates of death or hospitalization declined more than 90 percent since vaccines against them were approved, and in the cases of smallpox, diphtheria and polio, by 100 percent.

In only four diseases — hepatitis A and B, invasive pneumococcal diseases and varicella (the cause of chickenpox and shingles) — did deaths and hospitalizations fall less than 90 percent. Those vaccines are all relatively new — the one for chickenpox, for example, was adopted nationally only in 1995. Also, some diseases like hepatitis typically strike adults, who are less likely to be immunized.

The study showed total or near-total declines in cases of diphtheria, measles, polio, rubella, smallpox and invasive Hib disease, a type of pneumonia for which children are now normally vaccinated at as early as 2 months.

Although it’s not autism, you would think that parents would want to at least save their children the horrible experience of communicable disease infection. Unfortunately, that’s not the case:

Measles has become endemic in Britain, 14 years after its spread was halted in the resident population, the country’s public health watchdog says.

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) warned that the number of unvaccinated children was now large enough to sustain the “continuous spread” of the potentially lethal virus in the community. It blamed a failure by parents over the past 10 years to give their children the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

This has resulted in vaccine rates falling below the level necessary to prevent the disease becoming established in the general population….In the last quarter of 2007, the rate stood at 71 per cent for children at age two (first dose) and 50 per cent at age five (second dose) compared with the 95 per cent coverage needed to maintain herd immunity and prevent endemic spread.

So, if you’re a parent, get your loved one vaccinated and remember that rates of autism spectrum disorder are increasing because of three encouraging developments:

1. At one time, an individual with Autistic Disorder may have received a sole diagnosis of Mental Retardation. Doctors can now provide sharper diagnostics and earlier screenings.
2. The government recognizes the existence of autism spectrum disorders and is now providing more funding.
3. And, though we have a long way to go, the public attaches less shame and stigma to autism spectrum disorders and many more advocates have appeared.

The Freedom of Choice Act is not pro-choice. At this point I hope all people supporting Obama understand that he is pro-ABORTION. I hate to sound so single issue but seriously 3500 babies are killed every day in the US and Obama wants to increase this number. That’s like 7 million babies since the start of the war in Iraq. and nobody seems to care cuz Obama is the hip, cool vote. Es absurdo! qué pena

I like to imagine that one day, before the alien takeover, most of our more nutty citizens will move to Alaska and be our secesh neighbors of the northwest. In their own country, they squeeze all of the abortion, socialism, liberalism, nipples, Jews, Satan, gays, masturbation, and vegan cookbooks out of the minds of their youngins.

The same goes for the current crop of “Libertarian” whiners of which, from his Facebook updates, singer/songwriter Jude seems to be a part:

McCain finally won a debate, but Obama can never lose. The real losers are any of us left with Libertarian tendencies…

There may be whispering small-l-libertarians on my shoulders and the shoulders of most self-efficacious adults; but, we shouldn’t be under the illusion that our libertarian beliefs are shared by the people whom we repeatedly send to Washington to do something.

These do-something-ners are always going to find a way to find a way to do something. And if that means creating more departments of we-gotta-save-you-all-from-yourselves and hiring more do-something-ners , they’ll find a constituency who will be dramatically supportive.

My point is, haggling over marginal issues, like the barely-moving tax rate and the pureness of a politician’s Christianity, is a lot like drinking Bud Light: You get louder and louder until you pass out and forget everything that happened. If you really want “change,” you’ve got to “get out there” and make a good impression. By their nature, whiners and self-declared losers don’t impress. It’s the reason why Obama, a black man from an underprivileged family, has done so well.

Via Right Wing Watch, Janet Folger continues to entertain us with a “newscast from the future“. I found it humorous in a cringe-inducingly vulgar sort of way. Sort of like The Aristocrats only Folger believes her exaggerations. Judge for yourself:

deidrap on Politico’s article on the cost of primping Palin:

My goodness! Palin is a one-woman earmark!!

“Mondale to Hart: ‘Where’s the Beef?‘”

Obama has lately been compared to a socialist by John McCain in order to frighten people.  Relatively speaking, on the numbers, this would make Ronald Reagan a socialist as well.  How could I proclaim that so boldly?  Well, the McCain campaign has attacked Obama on the socialist front in a few ways.  One of which is taxes.  On the numbers, Obama’s planned rates would mirror those we had in the 80s. So, was America socialist in the 80s and before?

It’s all a red herring because the word, socialism, contains as many variations as democracy.  Politicians use the word to strike fear because socialism is only one step away from communism in political kindergarten.

Economically speaking, this is where the rubber meets the road.  Essentially, you need to ask yourself what matters most to you: efficiency, or equality?  I merely ask that however anyone responds to that question, that they do so honestly.  That is to say, if efficiency matters to you most, please do not complain about the poor to me.

Bringing up the word “socialist” is for fear purposes only.  As IOZ exclaims from time to time: follow the money.  Large businesses have as much concern in maintaining our current structure as anyone else would.  Honestly, I mean that.  Ask yourself, who controls the capital in capitalism?  Large businesses are not going anywhere.  And as our recent conversation shows, it is in all politicians interests to maintain the status quo of our economy.  That’s why, even George W. Bush himself, has allowed for the injection of capital into the markets from our government.  If John McCain really wants to address socialism, then maybe he should ask himself how he feels about our current handling of the economy.

Undoubtedly we are going to hear about socialistic healthcare.  If that’s your fear, then you should live in fear at all times because every other industrialized nation has socialized healthcare.

I would surmise that it’s all relative.  People don’t want to feel like money is being taken away from them.  That said, I just hope I can all still afford healthcare in ten years time.  The fact that I need to depend on someone else (my employer) to make healthcare affordable is frightening.  Healthcare should be easily purchasable to everyone, but because of the free rider problem, costs won’t go down.  In my opinion, if the ideal is to have people not go bankrupt when they go to the hospital, then we currently have a market failure.  And as I’ve written before, market failure has government intervention written all over it.  But McCain says that’s socialism.

If anyone were to criticize Obama, they should do so on policy grounds.  As Greg Mankiw shows us here, Obama’s plan is messy, and taxes people anyway, even if they buy health insurance on their own.  What I don’t understand is how we can mandate car insurance on people who register their vehicles, but not mandate that people have health insurance.  Sure, nobody has to have to have a car, but by that logic, I don’t have to go to the doctor, or the hospital.  So, why is it that when I get shot or in a car accident, I get taken to a hospital?

Here’s the thing.  What are we afraid of?  And here’s a better question.  Who here honestly thinks that socialism will penetrate and take hold here?  If I know my own country’s jingoistic tendencies, it’s that if something gets labeled socialism pretty well, it’ll reject it.  Let’s see how good McCain is at doing that.

Bob Beckel on FOX News on the race meme a few minutes ago:

They’ll say it’s not a shocker because he’s an African-American endorsing an African-American.

Indeed.

[This is our first stab at presenting the conversations that Michael and I have over instant messenger.]

Michael: I’m glad you used the term “cognitive dissonance” there as well.

Michael: I think ultimately, that is what we are dealing with.

Michael: Heck, Dan Ariely thinks we are dealing with it at all times. And I think he’s right.

Michael: Here’s something for you then…

Michael: Why does the media fall into this as well? Why talk only about two candidates? Isn’t it a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy to report on politics the way they do?

Michael: And more to the point. I agree that it is cognitive dissonance, but what’s the point? What’s in it for us to vote for one of the two established parties? Just the feeling that we are making an impact?

Will: Why doesn’t soccer use three teams instead of two?

Will: In terms of feeling like they’re making an impact, I think so. Take Michelle Malkin for example. She is, primarily, a voter who wants to prevent another 9-11 at all costs. Voters like her want to believe that, when another terrorist strike occurs, they did everything they could to prevent it.

Will: (Even if the growth of government surveillance is a byproduct of technology and even if the war has created more animosity.)

Will: So, an anti-abortion voter will want to believe that he’s done everything in his power to end abortion. Ultimately, that means voting for a candidate.

Will: Of course, if he wants to make an immediate impact, he can kill someone. But that precludes future action and, well, one death is a tragedy-a million, a statistic

Michael: I never heard it put like that.

Will: As for media, competition sells but adding a third team would be cost prohibitive.

Michael: Maybe you could address this concern. I worry that our current political structure might possibly not be the way it was intended to run.

Michael: Let me put it another way.

Michael: It’s hard to keep up the discourse when there are variables related to what I’m trying to discuss that I never knew mattered. For example, you said adding a third team would be cost prohibitive. Does that honestly end the argument? Does that mean it is in our best interest to concentrate on two powers only? Also, do you think I am right in believing that the differences between the two parties are a bit inconsequential (American hegemony and what we call “capitalism”)?

Will: In general, media is simple to figure out. Decisions are based upon profit potential. The media has become consolidated in order to increase this profit and power. There’s no real competition except on the margin.

Will: Notice how similar that is to the federal government. In truth, the United States is too disparate to have these consolidated powers serve its best interest. Its held together by the notion that all men are created equal and not the racial notion that all Spaniards or all Frenchmen are created equal. So, this diverse array of identities is not being well-governed. The more identity representation at a national level, the better.

Michael: Logically then, if we over time become diverse enough, we may as well have one party.

Michael: Or, at least, that could be a distinct possibility.

Michael: In fact, maybe that’s what’s already happened and once again, we’re simply arguing on the margins.

Michael: Ergo, Democrats and Republicans really are the same.

Michael: Ergo, our arguments really are arguments on the margins.

Michael: Which maybe is why those issues never change.

Michael: I.e., abortion.

Michael: So, wouldn’t having two parties the way we do in America be a way just to protect the little known fact that we only have one party?

Michael: Also, does that mean then that “third parties” are viewed in some way (either consciously or unconsciously) as subversive? And possibly dangerous?

Will: I maintain that two-party competition gives people a purpose.

Will: You know the answer to the latter.

Michael: I see.

Michael: Will, this begs the question.

Michael: Do you think this is conspiratorial? Or a machination as I’ve suggested in the past?

Michael: That is to say, do congressmen, pundits, know this?

Michael: Do they think in the terms that you and I do?

Michael: If not, then this is a machination.

Michael: If they do, then they do these things are based on what one can assume is power grab.

Will: Let’s posit two wills: the will to survive and the will to power. Generally, these wills are intertwined. A politician believes that if he says the right things to the right number of people, he will be given power and his survival will be ensured.

Michael: Is it benevolent?

Will: Should he be rated by the charity of his intentions or the utility of his actions?

Michael: In my case, intentions. Like, “what do they think” of themselves.

Will: Well, George Bush has been extremely well-intentioned

Michael: So, they don’t think of this in the terms that you and I do?

Michael: I’m just trying to ask you if they are self-aware.

Michael: Or, are we wrong?

Michael: And by “self-aware”, I mean like George Bush says to himself, “There really is no difference between me and Ted Kennedy. And abortion issues et. al. are just personal crusades that won’t ever change.”

Will: I can imagine him saying something like “Come’n Teddyboy, you know it’s fur the good of the country.” Also, Bush’s administration did nothing to end abortion.

Michael: Well then, all that said, I’m not sure I could see that they are self-aware.

Michael: And if they are, they hide it extremely well in order to maintain the appearances of partisanship so their constituents can vote for something. Or, at least think they are voting for something.

Will: A good defense is the key to victory

Michael: Maybe.

Michael: I just think how impossible it could be for anyone to realize where we are in terms of our political system.

Michael: And because of that, how much more impossible it would be to change things.

Michael: And it’s not control-a puppet master somewhere behind the scenes-it’s hegemony. It’s collective cognitive dissonance for the whole nation for fear of losing anything that we have.

Michael: In reality, it actually has a hint of mob rule, does it not?

Will: Sure. I think the Springfield riots are good satire.

Michael: Any one in particular?

Will: Like the riot in the hockey stadium when everyone felt ripped-off because the game ended in a tie.

Michael: Oh God, I had forgotten about that.

At this time, not much is going to change the fact that the U.S. economy will recede to recession.  It makes sense considering that the U.S. economy is consumer driven and J.P. Morgan is forecasting some pretty week retail numbers for the U.S. fourth quarter.

Behavioral economics will only gain in popularity because of what is now happening in the U.S. economy.  Anyone who trusts the efficient market hypothesis has to be asking themselves right now why it took forever and a day for us to figure out that asset values (of homes) were nowhere where they should have been.

I believe many of the answers regarding the sluggish realization of asset prices in the stock market (we knew of dropping values back in the summer of 2007) and reaction to market shocks that we should have known were coming will have some explanations in behavioral economics.

Why are new theories of economics coming about?  Well, some of the principles that drive economists and our theories revolves around ideas like, “consumers make decisions at the margins.”  I’m sorry, but I am pretty sure no one goes to the grocery market and buys steaks one at a time.  Nor, do they buy a meal at a restaurant at the margin.  There is a reason why there is a saying that goes, “My eyes were bigger than my stomach.”

In the end, everyone is speculating.  Even in their everyday decisions, as shown above in the supermarket example.  I have really yet to hear anyone say this, but I would surmise that one of the more relevant differences between economics and finance is the difference between long and short term.

It’s for the reason that the average person does not look so far into the future that behavioral economists exist.  With as many books that are now documenting our irrationality, one wonders if we were ever rational, looked into the future beyond five years, or how we even came up with principles for economics.

The principles of economics are not going anywhere, nor do I want them to.  However, the answers to economic problems are coming from different places these days.  A melding of academic disciplines is providing a new task force of economics.

The hope is that economists (or economics in general) start to get on the news more often.  Trust me on this.  Just turn on CNBC, and try to listen to anything of value.  You’re not going to get anything.  You’re going to hear “news items” that regard which stocks are moving up or down, or which are more being traded heavily.  You’ll hear nothing on their balance sheets, their cash positions, their liquidity ratios, or anything of the sort.  At this point, we’re not even talking about finance or economics, we’re talking about day traders.

If I could wish for something else of value to come of this recent economic downturn, it’s that we rethink how we present the economy, and news in general.  For example, GM’s stock is down, does that mean they will stop making cars tomorrow?  No, so lets ask the questions above and ask about other questions in regard to what they are going to sell, or how their business model might change.

I understand news today scares everyone, but it doesn’t mean we have to leave everyone uneducated.  And it does not mean that we have to keep looking at problems the same way. Present the economic news rationally, and we might start to respond rationally.

The fundamental purveyor of the American two-party system is the notion that any complex dilemma can be adequately resolved by either end of its spectrum. This form of political narcissism is held by those activists to whom the candidate is beholden until he or she is elected. As post-election day decisions tend toward the middle, pundits exhort, “They all lie!”

Of course, intentions vary by context. When the candidate becomes the elect, his statements and actions must reflect his new reality. In this case, the narcissistic voter has yielded his power to a candidate whose interests and ideologies often compete and he remains powerless. Discussion of a third party uprising proceeds but quickly dissolves when one candidate espouses that voter’s conviction and offers a logical solution. Another candidate will then provide a solution from the opposite side in order to shore up his support amongst the competing voting bloc.

Subsequently, a third party candidate must proffer a third solution. Assuming man is still nondeific by the time I finish writing this, this third solution must differentiate itself by being reasonable. Unfortunately, a reasonable solution cannot compete with the vicious sexiness of “pro-life/pro-death” and “pro-choice/anti-choice” rallying cries.

As such, two powerful and similar systems exist to ensure the assent of the two candidates and the non-assent of the “less than serious” candidates. It is in the interest of both parties to grow and encompass these diametrical ideologies in order to effectively weather the vicissitudes of evolving cultures. In turn, the multi-issue voter, resigned to pulling-and-praying, is constantly frustrated by the efforts of the single-issue voter.

Ultimately, the multi-issue voter is forced to project qualities onto his chosen candidate and predict the future in order to reduce the cognitive dissonance produced by the powerlessness that confronted him while he determined which candidate is “less worse” than the other. Unfortunately, because it would undermine his of self-importance, forbearance would be untenable .

In view of the truly despicable efforts, by Sarah Palin and others, to discredit Barack Obama by association, I thought that it might be appropriate to repost a relevant post of mine from this past April. I would add that some of the recent personal attacks fall outside the bounds of decency.

Dude, Cass R., they think Ayers wrote his first book. These are the same type of people who used Terri Schiavo and her nuclear family to further their political agenda. Instead of reposting of an article that relates to interpersonal nuance within a community, I think a punch to the face would be more appropriate.

John McCain, October 6, 2008:

Who is the real Barack Obama?

John McCain, October 10, 2008:

He’s a decent family man…citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues….[H]e is a decent person, and a person that you do not have to be scared as President of the United States.

(Kings Of Leon image by Cara Bloch)

MY TOP FIVE FAVORITE MOMENTS WITH MY FRIEND MICHAEL

6.  That time when we inexplicably began singing Gary Numan’s “Cars” at the same time.

5.  That time when I said “Hop in!” and he did and I pushed the shopping cart across a parking lot and into a curb.

4.  That time when entered some sort of animal-role-playing-sex-chatroom on AOL and made fun of everyone.

3. That time when our friend Ben kept asking Michael to ask one of his sisters to give him a back rub.

2. That time when I wrecked Ben while we played a racing game and he proceeded to get revenge by wrecking Michael who was easily in first place.

1. All those hours we logged playing inane racing, shooting, and basketball games.

Now, onto the music:

(Click the arrow after each track for Last.fm info)

For your downloading pleasure:

• Blitzen Trapper - Sleepytime in the Western World [MP3]
• Bomb The Bass - Butterfingers [MP3]
• Common Market - Weather Vane [MP3]
• Dungen - Mina Damer och Fasaner [MP3]
• Friendly Fires - In The Hospital [MP3]
• Fujiya & Miyagi - Sore Thumb [MP3]
• Jem - On Top Of The World [MP3]
• Jenny Lewis - See Fernando [MP3]
• Jessica Lea Mayfield - One That I Love Best [MP3]
• Kings Of Leon - Closer [MP3]
• Mercury Rev - People Are So Unpredictable (There’s No Bliss Like Home) [MP3]
• Mother Mother - Wrecking Ball [MP3]
• Okkervil River - Singer Songwriter [MP3]
• The Pica Beats - Shrinking Violets [MP3]
• Tricky - Council Estate [MP3]
• TV On The Radio - Golden Age [MP3]

Not many pundits seem to get it about the American Public.  They either suffer from supposing upon the american public opinions that they do not have, or they think the public has intelligence, which we do not possess.

For the first premise of pundits writing that we have opinions, which, in fact, we do not posses – please look no further than one of the many examples Glenn Greenwald cites about pundits.  No doubts, many pundits today will make claim about the American heartland, and real Americans, whoever they are, and what they think about last night’s debate.

Instead of dealing with that though, I want to make sure I deal with the patronization that we receive from major media outlets and others.  

A great example of this is from a post by Andrew Sullivan on last night’s presidential debate.  This is what he says about the public in a few instances of watching the debate.

9.49 pm. Two flashes from McCain so far: “that one,” referring to Obama, and citing Obama’s “secret.” Nasty, uncivil and not even effective.

…

I debated dozens of times at Oxford. All I can say is that, simply on terms of substance, clarity, empathy, style and authority, this has not just been an Obama victory. It has been a wipe-out.

Does anyone who reads this really think that the entire American public sees the intricacies that Andrew does?  I’m not saying Andrew is wrong.  I agree with him.  But Sullivan’s being right or wrong is not the issue.  The point is that McCain’s answers - all of them – are effective.  People who do not compromise the Republican base will still take McCain’s demeanor and answers, and run with them.  Just as they believe what they read in chain emails.

One other part on how we are not that smart.  Tom Brokaw said in the debate last night, “One of you will be president.”  However prophetic and true that statement may be, it was one of the most insulting, ignorant, and irresponsible things to say.  Brokaw himself, someone that should and probably does know better, completely immerses himself in a two party system that exists only because our citizenry unknowingly wills it.

That is to say, even though he’s right, Brokaw is right only in a cynical nature.  If we honestly demand true balance from our network news anchors, then they should not ignore the fact that other candidates and political parties exist in our world, and that we have the option of voting for them.  Who knows, maybe I should thank Tom Brokaw and our media establishment for narrowing my choice down to two already.  Who knew it would be so simple?

But this brings me to another pet peeve of mine.  Can anyone out there give me a response that does not involve the words “two party system” as to why someone should vote for one of these two candidates?  Remember, I use the phrase “should”, not “have to.”  I understand how the various commissions block some third party candidates from the ballots, and while that is a worthy discussion, my inquisition is more philosophical in the sense of getting at the heart of why Americans allow and/or believe in the “two party system.”

William, you want to take this one up for me?  You’re usually good at proving me wrong with cynicism.