Monday, August 11, 2008

The Broad Side of the Barn

Sir Walter Scott is reputed to have said, "If a farmer fills his barn with grain, he gets mice. If he leaves it empty, he gets actors."

And if he leaves the outside unpainted, he attracts Democratic presidential candidates:
Signs in front yards and stickers on car bumpers are apparently no longer enough -- Barack Obama wants his name emblazoned in huge letters on barns across rural Ohio.

The Democrat's White House campaign said Monday its volunteers were fanning out across the pivotal state -- which handed victory to President George W. Bush in 2004 -- to help supportive farmers paint their barns in his colors. [...]

Logan's barn was shown in a new campaign video undergoing a political makeover in time-lapse photography, emerging with Obama's red, white and blue horizon logo and name in huge lettering on its side.

So, Barack Obama wants his name in huge letters on barns across Ohio. Somehow that doesn't seem to fit Maureen Dowd's description of him as Mr. Darcy, does it?

Of course, Obama's supporters would say he's not vain at all. All that Obama/Messiah stuff? Embarrassing, probably created by overzealous supporters. Why, shucks darn, Obama's just a humble, simple man o' the people (get a corndog in his hand!).

And this humble, simple man of the people is upset at John McCain. Why? For, of all things, casting Obama as a celebrity:

In a presidential campaign freighted with war, recession and energy woes, a jibe featuring Paris Hilton, of all things, seems to have struck a nerve in Democrat Barack Obama. For the second time in two weeks, he aired a TV ad Monday rebutting Republican John McCain's claim that Obama is little more than a celebrity, like the blonde hotel heiress.

The first time, Obama dismissed the assertion as "baloney." On Monday, Obama took a different tack with a commercial that says McCain, not he, is "Washington's biggest celebrity."

Of course, all of this is a big waste of voters' time and attention, when much more serious issues demand our national attention, such as which candidate has better office Feng Shui:

With a few simple changes in their Senate offices, both presidential candidates could improve their health, relationships and maybe even get a few more votes, says Taylor Vance, a Feng Shui consultant. [...]

Feng Shui is an ancient Chinese philosophy that examines how a person's environment affects his life. [...]

There's one suggestion Vance thinks both candidates would benefit from — adding a small fountain in the back left corner of their offices, the area that relates to money and opportunities.

"That would help bring in more campaign contributions," Vance said.

I can't imagine that a real, live, paid journalist wrote the above story. I would say that it's the sort of piece that belongs in the National Enquirer, except that these days that would be an insult to the Enquirer.


Anonymous said...

The opinion is stated of disbelief in a reputable rag reporting on such a distraction. That's what it's come to, eh?

For, Mr. Obama can give his opinions, go on fact-finding missions, talk with the big guys (recall that he's not a republican and not going to go overseas as an emissary of the republican party at Mr. Bush's behest), and then let us know that he's listening to the MAJORITY of the country ready and willing for a change from samo samo, but he does have to be elected first.

Whereas, freewheeling dealing, no clean record on personal integrity and loyalty (sex) life talkingfrombothsides of mouth Mr McCain can keep talkingandshootingoff his mouth, but really nothing of substance except barbs, retaliatory snaps, etc. and we keep eating it up! Yay! We live in good ol' USA and we're citizens of this dear country.

Furthermore, the folks with abortion agenda e.g. RC, SB, etc. dissing Mr. Obama probably should be thinking about how similar the candidate's views (as is majority of US citizens) and head for fuller utilization of educational aspects of Planned Parenthood, and not necessarily under the name of that particular insidious organization. Face it, PP is out there for abortions, though they state they are for family-planning education. (Women do not seek their services for education, but for abortions.) So, our US government funds PP and related organizations under guise of improving education which is necessary, for who else is providing the EDUCATION necessary for intelligent women to come to the ethically correct decision in the matter? NOT the folks with their collective head in the sand, and surely not those burying others heads in the sand, for pete's sake!

Where are the RCs? Out touting implementation of the knowledge of a natural biological process for non-conception i.e. abstinence when fertile. Why isn't this stated in public schools instead of calling it something mystical or whatever in attempt to cover the facts with cloak of righteousnes. Isn't it ridiculous to be sitting around attempting to debate the merits of a biological process?

Choice is choice is choice when it comes to procreation. And, who better to make personal life-changing choices than a properly informed public? Disinformation, public uninformation, and withholding information from the uninformed by those knowledgeable sets up a division of humanity, doesn't it?

Feel free to confirm that we all have free will to learn if we want to. Do we know what we will find out before we look?

Bottom line--Mr. McCain is allowed to 'get away' with spurious and frittery BSing when it comes to catty and hiddent statements about his opponent, compared to the statements put forth by Mr. Obama. To be fair, where's the apples to apples and oranges to oranges argument?

And, also using the power of one's vote in a presidential election to attempt to outguess which one will decrease senseless abortions in the long-run is a lousy basis for choosing the next leader as there doesn't seem to be any personal difference nor translation into a specific agenda associated with an elected official, except maybe in naziland or other totalitarian regimes? (So, why keep counting and splitting hairs about that topic and get to something more realistic and meaty?)

Red Cardigan said...

You know, anonymous poster, if you're going to write a book-length comment, you might choose a nickname.

For now, though, I'll probably think of you as a "Vox Nova" reader--you sound like some of the people over there.

Maria said...

OMG, I about choked on my tea. That comment was so Vox Nova worthy!

Anonymous said...

Again, I state, the comment by anonymous is anonymous (sorry it was deleted by moderator), in the intent to express an unsolicited, intelligently self-formed opinion. I had not heard of Vox Nova, until I was referred to as a person expressing ideas promoted by this society, whereupon I Googled to ogle.

I have no wish nor desire to be associated with any other's opinion other than my own, which is why I call myself anonymous, because any other appellation would immediately instill in the mind of the reader some preconceived notion of who I am, and why I should have a divergent opinion, and I have no intent on involving myself in an argument as to why my opinion is any less valid than another. I picture someone in my mind when people call themselves something, so why should I think that anyone else would not?

Red Cardigan runs a blog that I find very interesting, but I rarely agree with any of the expressed statements with my intellect, We are probably in the same age group (and have heard of Groupthink) and have a Roman Catholic upbringing. Her experiences in life have made her the way she is, mine have made me look at things in a different way.