Go Vote, America!

Operative BJ writes in with a then-timely but just-barely-by-the-time-we-got-to-it letter:

Your Fearsomeness,

I’m sure you were aware of the debate between Brown and Shaheen in New Hampshire last Thursday, and how there was (yet another) “Crowley Moment®” during a major political event just before an election.

Once again, a moderator “corrected” a Republican candidate during a debate, and once again the moderator was wrong and had to apologize. James Pindell asked Brown where Sullivan county was, and Brown said “West of Concord” (the state capital). Pindell corrected Brown during the debate twice–but later had to admit that Sullivan county is both north and west of Concord (it’s on the state’s west border, for crap’s sake!).

Some polls show that the mainstream media has an approval rate as low as Congress – if that was even possible. Perhaps this latest incident is merely another example of why: The People expect an independent and free press, not a media made up of lapdogs and partisans. The People expect the news to be reported fairly, evenly, and without bias – and they know that’s not what they’re getting.

Regardless of the election results, this lowly one expects the media to take out its frustrations on the American public and to continue to treat the American public like dolts, children, and brain-damaged idiots. And this lowly one expects the American public to…

… not react at all. After all, they have their new iPhones, Black Friday is only a couple of weeks away, and the cost of gasoline is below $3.00/gal for the first time in years.

Panem et circenses ad omnes.

The Czar is indeed aware of this, and so are people generally. No, not so much the entire “Where is Sullivan County” question, but the fact that many debates are being held on hostile ground, with questions asked by heavily partisan media types intent on ridiculing Republican candidates.

Making Republican candidates look stupid is essential to them, for some reason. Perhaps the candidates should be asked what being hoisted by one’s own petard means: the news of the public apology and the page 46 correction by the so-called moderator will never generate the same interest as “Scott Brown got it wrong.”

What a waste of time—probably a vast majority of New Hampshire residents have no clue where Sullivan County is, either, and if anything this generated sympathy.

Three paragraphs ago, the Czar mentioned that people, generally, are aware of this new trend: try to humiliate the Republican candidate while protecting the Democrat. The Brown v. Shaheen debate was by no means the second of these, nor was Romney v. Obama the first. Head of the GOP, Reince Priebus, has been particularly aggressive about this, basically taking the position that debates help Democrats more than they help or hurt Republicans. As a result, he mandated a while back that Republican candidates should not be participating in debates until the facts are known about how they will be presented. Not surprisingly, Democrats howled at this, but ultimately capitulated for the most part.

For example, here in Illinois, gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner refused to participate in any debate—an empty podium was left for him—except for a very few. And not surprisingly, the debates he stayed out of were using far-left journos as moderators. The few he in which he agreed to participate were moderated by respectable, even-handed, not evidently partisan presenters.

In other states, you will note this year, the same strategy played out. And in many of these debates, the Democrats looked terrible, with audience members bursting out in laughter at some of the inanity. There literally are too many examples for the Czar to backtrack and list. But Priebus’ strategy seems to be working effectively.

Republicans too often are the Stupid Party, but they don’t stay stupid for long.

Posted in Uncategorized

Predictions

At coffee, this morning, Dr. J. asked his fellow Gormogons their predictions for election day:

GorT chimed in first: “I think the Republicans will pick up about seven seats in the Senate putting them at 52. I think the GOP will have a harder time with the gubernatorial races.”

The Czar stared into his absinthe and laudanum laced tea, shuddered and said, “I’m loathe to predict based on 2012, but GorT has it right.”

Confucius, the Œcumenical Volgi, the notorious ŒV, was focused on Governor Walker’s chances saying, “Walker wins narrowly in Wisconsin – or major voteer fraud is uncovered next year and everyone shrugs.

‘Puter took a safe bet to the bank and went out on a limb, “The Democrats win in New York. I’m going with 53 Republicans in the Senate, holding their own at state level.

The Mandarin stared at Dr. J., muttered something about the irrelevance of democracy once he’s in charge…handing him this leaflet:

At this point, the Czar chimed in again, reminding Dr. J. that it’s gauche to poll the group without prognosticating himself. He  concurred with the Volgi regarding the Walker race, adding that a loss in WI would free him up to run for President in 2016.

At this point Dr. J. made his prediction. The D’s are locks for IL, MI, MN, NJ, NM, OR, and VA. The R’s will win MS, SD, WV, AR, and KY. That gets us to 45D and 47 R. That leaves 8 toss up states. CO, GA, IA, LA will go Republican. AK, KS, NH, NC go Democrat. That gets us to 51-49 Republicans.

Tennessee will stay very red with all 9 congressmen being reelected (7R/2D), and Senator Alexander (RINO, 3 miles down the road) Governor Haslan will be easily reelected. More importantly is how the four constitutional amendments will go.

Amendment 1 puts abortion laws back in the hands of the legislators. Given that three extreme liberal supreme court judges survived recall, this amendment will fail due to language regarding endangerment to the mother’s life. Amendment 2 makes it such that the governor can appoint judges subject to confirmation by the state assembly. It’s essentially what’s being done extralegally in Tennessee as Tennesseans are supposed to elect justices. It is contentious with strange bedfellows for and against it. The third amendment pretty much drives a stake into the heart of the income tax. It will pass provided that the amendments get enough votes for/against relative to the votes cast in the governor’s race. The last vote permits certain groups (501(c)(3) and (c)(19)) to have lotteries. No one cares about this one.

So there you have it, your Gormogon’s predictions. Share them or trade them with friends!

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized

Sometimes They Inform

Awesome Operative SW writes in about political ads, just before Election Day:

I actually saw a useful political ad here in Montana the other day.

The office was for State Supreme Court Justice, a position which is allegedly non-partisan. Once the ad mentioned that the evil Koch brothers were behind the opponent I knew the guy paying for the ad had little to no reasoning skills and was, at best, a hack. At last I had something on which to base my decision.

Voting for a judge has never been easier.

Indeed, the Czar mentioned that you can often decide for whom not to vote based on the presentation competency of the ad. Were it more often the case: if so, Illinois Governor Quinn would certainly be thumbing through the want ads this weekend. His ads against his opponent are laughably bad.

Posted in Uncategorized

Why Are Political Ads So Awful?

The Czar will posit, straight up, that the more educated you are, the less you like political ads.

The Czar is willing to bet you loathe them but that’s a safe bet. In fact, the Czar is willing to assume you’ve never been swayed to vote for a candidate because of their television or radio ad. You may well have been repulsed by the content of an ad, but that isn’t too likely to sway you.

And sway you how, exactly? That’s the crux of the issue: for whom are these ads even intended?

Look, if you’re a straight-voting Republican, you’re not going to suddenly jump for a Democrat except in a strange circumstance you will fully understand and justify.

And unless that candidate is Ronald Reagan, a straight-voting Democrat is not going to switch to a Republican vote.

And God knows the libertarians are not going to vote at all, because they’re too busy sending messages to both parties that no one can hear, not even dogs.

So once again, all the stupid stuff in politics revolves around the Independent voter. You already know the Czar thinks “independent voters” are a myth. These people know for whom they will vote—they just don’t want to admit it to pollsters.

A small chunk of them may be undecided. “I voted for a Republican last election, but this time I might go for that Democrat.” The Czar once met a physical therapist who voted for Obama because she thought he looked like Denzell Washington, whom she thought was dreamy. That isn’t independence: that’s stupidity.

So political ads are really written for the sliver of voters who are too dopey to get into the issues and probably don’t understand the fundamental differences between parties.

And that’s the big thing: political ads are doomed to inanity because you have about 15 seconds to convince someone who’s a moron.

You don’t do this with profound philosophical difference: “Democrats are allegedly in favor of a $10 an hour minimum wage; Republicans want everyone to make much more than that.” You can’t summarize the historical and sociological differences between Democrats and Republicans in 15 seconds. Hell, it would take you 30 minutes just to run through the Ku Klux Klan.

So if you already don’t understand the differences between, say, a Greg Abbott and a Wendy Davis, 15-minutes won’t help you, let alone 15 seconds. Therefore, the advertiser is forced to reduce things down to your level: My Guy Good, Their Guy Bad.

Political advertisements fall into two categories: the positive ad and the negative ad.

A truly positive ad is pretty rare and treasured. Remember Ronald Reagan’s ”Morning in America” ad? What a joy: it never acknowledged Democrats or strawmen or bad guys. Just why it was a good thing to vote for Reagan. Obama’s Hope and Change was a similar idea, and obviously effective: it never said a word for or against Republicans.

The typical positive ad, though, lacks this simplicity. It’s a sort-of negative ad.

Minor chord, sustained celli and basses. Doug Flemm is a tool for the Democrats. He supports eating children and animals. He once poked a bird in the eye. Everyone knows he has no crotch. Major chord, sustained woodwinds and trombones. Republican Bob Thwaites is a friend to all, including cuddly creatures. He once picked up his yard waste even when it blew onto your lawn. He routinely returns rental cars will full gas tanks.

The giveaway is the change in the music smack in the middle of the ad. Literally: seven and a half seconds into the spot, you hear the music change just as they talk about Their Guy. This is pure Us versus Them reductionism, and it’s ugly as hell.

But not as stupid as the negative ad.

Republican Bob Thwaites once laughed at a dick joke. He loathes and detests you. He’s raised taxes several hundred percent while paying no taxes himself. He thinks women belong in prison, making fighting movies, and minorities need to live elsewhere. God, how I hate him. I just can’t stand Bob Thwaites. Say NO to Bob Thwaites. Say NO to prison fight movies.

You might get the vox populi going in either direction: a worried homeowner talking about how your candidate saved him from a French kiss (positive), or a disgruntled factory worker talking about how the other guy came into his factory and stuffed a wooden shoe into the gears, just to get the whole shift fired (negative).

Again, these are written on the same premise: My Guy Good, Their Guy Bad. Because when you’re too dumb to realize you pay too much in taxes, you need something simple.

Educate the voters, of course, and not only do political ads get less dumb…they go away.

Posted in Uncategorized

Czar’s Ultra-Sciency Guide to Eclipses

The Czar, like you, was all excited by last week’s solar eclipse in the Midwest, which—if you missed it—looked like this for nearly everyone:

An eclipse, as you know, is when the moon moves in front of the Earth and starves us of sunlight, in another one of the moon’s crazy attempts to kill us. Eclipses happen on other planets, too, which is why sometimes you don’t see the moon in the night sky: it’s off bothering Mars or Jupiter at the time.

The next eclipse scheduled for your area is sometime in the future, so we really recommend you see it. Remember, even though the moon blocks the sun’s light, you shouldn’t look at the sun directly because, of course, the moon only gradually moves between us and the sun. Your eyes could wind up like this:

One of the best ways to look at an eclipse is to use a magnifying glass, which has the added benefit of burning ants. Of course, the sun seen through a magnifying glass can be just as deadly to your eyesight as pouring gasoline into them and lighting them on fire, while running around screaming and attempting to hug other people. The Czar really wishes he could remember what his point was, here, but he’s only now getting around to writing directions on viewing an eclipse that didn’t happen a couple weeks ago.

Here is a picture of an ostrich.

During an eclipse, lots of nature gets screwed up. Bats come out, birds go to sleep, coyotes howl at the night sky, armadillos come out, ducks eat flesh, rubber bands stretch, and Danny gets all sloppy drunk and tries to hit on the cab driver, as well as other activities you associate with at night time.

Sometimes, in the shadow of the moon, stars come out; other times, spectacular night-time astronomical events can be seen. For example, you can see the Southern Hemisphere’s stars from the North, and vice-versa, or other transdimensional gateways open up.

And then, several seconds or days later, the moon gets bored and moves on, returning us to 6 more weeks of Winter.

As you know, the rarity of eclipses is the direct result of global climate change. As mankind poisons Earth with dangerous pollutants like nitrogen, you can expect fewer and fewer eclipses. There wasn’t one today. There won’t be one tomorrow.

If you see an eclipse, you will remember it forever. Be sure and send a polite thank you note, as this is a free service the moon still provides, although rumors of spending cutbacks may make them rarer still. Astronomers to a man believe that by 2036, eclipses will be extinct, and students will learn about them only from grainy 1960s National Geographic photographs.

Posted in Uncategorized

Losers, murder, and the Jihâd

Yeah, I’m reusing this.

Ralph Peters writes a good column on NRO today, headlined “The Joy of Killing for Allah: Why our ‘messaging’ won’t stop terror.” It’s worth your time.

Loyal readers of the Gormogons will not be surprised by much in it, however, as the critique of our feckless response is right out of Confucius’s Fallacy of Foreign-Policy Egocentrism (three links there), and we’ve discussed the problem (and grim solution to) the problem of loser fantasists in the grip of power fantasies.

That said, Peters’ article, with its acute diagnosis of the relative rewards on offer to a grandiose schmuck between losing himself in a cosmic drama in which he is granted with power and dispensed from morality or conversely continuing on in the humdrum reality he can’t stand, inspires another couple observations.

First, the secular religion which rules the West is great if you’re at the top of the social pyramid. Not having to worry about the morality or purpose of your life is a manageable problem if you’re vacationing in Vail, drinking really good Cabernet (and getting your legislators to legalize weed for you), and using your new tablet to streaming Cosmos and Bill Maher yukking it up over the rubes back in Des Moines (Like you, Dad! See, I’m in New York now! I’m important!). However, for the folks down the pyramid, a world defined by “lifestyle choices” in which they’re condemned to second- and third-class options—and are acutely conscious thereof—is a cruel, embittering joke.

One of the principal consolations of religion (particularly the Abrahamic religions) is their assertion that every individual matters and is (or can be) equal in the sight of God. The position of Christopher Hitchens, et al., that we can do away with religion and yet cling to this maxim in the godless guise of “universal human rights” is obviously untenable. Because the reason religion (or God, if you’re a believer) must assert the equality of souls is that humans are glaringly unequal in body, appearance, mind, etc., and very naturally set up hierarchies on one or all of these bases, as even a passing acquaintance with ancient history beats into one. Obsessed with what we don’t like about Judaism and Christianity, we forget what a cruel and cold world they reformed. Secularism looks an awful lot like ancient paganism with glibber PR.

Second, the psychic rewards Peters points to are very real and echo the phenomena that John Douglas, et al., argue for with regard to serial killers. One of the motives that most serial killers have is that they are essentially losers who aren’t particularly good at anything. Drawn to killing by some factor, they come to enjoy it not merely for the adrenaline rush of violence, sadism, or whatever else they get out of it, but also for the sense of mastery it provides them. Not only do they get to play God, for once in their lives they actually become good at something. One strongly suspects that evil freak who’s ISIS’s Westerner-beheading internet celebrity is exactly this type of personality, feeling profoundly successful at his grisly, demonic task.

Third, Peters points (mostly implicitly) to the fact that the media’s role covering the DIY Jihadists (like the guy in Canada) rests on the same, morally problematic ground as does its coverage of mass murderers. While such events are quite newsworthy, coverage of them, particularly of the biography and psychology of the perpetrator, almost certainly drives copycats.* (This copycat factor seems even more crucial for school shooters, who are overwhelmingly adolescents and therefore more emotionally impulsive, driven by the perceptions of others, and sensitive to popular culture.) The problem is even thornier however: in theory, though they show no sign of wanting to, major media could anonymize school shooters and other madmen with some eff