Zombie Zoo

Trifecta's weekend prompt is inspired by Zora Neal Hurston's encounter with an alleged Zombie in Haiti.  They are asking for "thirty three words that are somehow related to Hurston's zombie sighting." Here's the Photo:

Here's the challenge answer:

Eight o’clock.  Shadowed forms stagger in a macabre dance accompanied by an electronic hum.   Stiffly, they hunker down, wide-eyed, staring, bathed in the bluish glow of the cathode ray.  It eats their brains.

A Sinister Reality

Trifecta's weekly prompt this week is to do 33-333 words using the third definition of "Sinister," which is given as:

"3: singularly evil or productive of evil"

And... we're off:

“Hello!  I’m Wink Barkercrest,  welcoming you back to ‘America’s Next Top Serial Killer.’ Recapping last week, we saw two contestants go down, as they just didn’t meet your high standards of macabre mayhem.  So, we said goodbye to ‘Hacksaw’ Hank Hannigan and Marie Guadolo, AKA ‘The Angel of Death.’” 

“That leaves us with three finalists for the interview round.  Please give a warm welcome to ‘The Sheboygan Slasher,’ Sergei ‘Bullseye’  Wackoffski , and… Eugene.”

“OK, first up, ‘The Sheboygan Slasher.’  Sir, can I call you ‘slash?’  

“No.”

“All right… can you tell me your real name?”

“No.”

“Mr. Slasher  it is, then.  Tell America: what compels you to kill?”

“My goldfish, Aristotle.  He tells me who he wants for dinner, then I capture and filet that person.”

“Wow, sounds grisly!  Any idea who might be next?”

“Well, Aristotle’s been on a T.V. Personality kick recently…”

“O.K!  We’ll move on to contestant number two.  Mr. Wackoffski…”

“Please, call me Sergei, my last name does not translate well from Cyrillic.”

“I’ll say.  Now, Sergei, how do you keep track of how many people you have ‘offed?’”

“Say hello to my little friend… In this digital tablet, I have stored the particulars of all my contracts.”

“Hmmmm.  Bet Interpol would love to get their hands on that!”

“Absolutely.  That is why I would blow up this building rather than be taken alive.”

“Right!  Now, on to contestant three. It says here you go by “Eugene.”  Is that it?"

“That’s right; just Eugene.  I think it sounds more sinister that way, don’t you?” 

“Uh-huh.  So, Eugene, what do you do for a living?” 

“I’m a political consultant.  I recruit people for focus groups, lock them in a room and show them many political campaign commercials to gauge their reactions.”

“It’s a good thing we’re out of time, because I think I’m going to be sick. We’ll see you next time, and…Sergei, where are you going?”

“I am not sitting next to him.  He makes me feel dirty…”

"Wishing Well"

Trifecta's weekend prompt is inspired by W.W. Jacobs' classic short story "The Monkey's Paw." The challenge is to write "33 words exactly about three wishes that come at a high price to the wisher." 


Marty suddenly realized he should have specified he was speaking metaphorically when he wished to “rocket straight to the top,”  “burning brighter than a supernova,” having a golden parachute with “no strings attached.” 

The Problem With Twitter

I know that Twitter is "the best thing ever" right now, and I even see that it may be valuable in certain, fairly limited, circumstances.  But during the U.S. Presidential debate tonight, it struck me that the "Twitter phenomenon" may not necessarily be a positive development. 

It seems to me that it is another way to condition us to "sound byte" politics.  It is impossible, within the confines of Twitter, to make any kind of substantive argument for or against any policy or statement.  It may be fine for pithy observations, but it is completely useless for substantive discussion of issues as important as those involved in this Presidential Campaign. 

That, in and of itself, isn't a problem, except I worry that, as seems to be a trend in this country, people will begin to rely on services like Twitter for actual information, when it is not what they were designed to do. 

And that, as a continuing trend, is dangerous to our republic.

Apocalypse Now?

Well, back with a response to a Trifecta challenge.  This week it is 33-333 words using the 3rd definition of "Death," given as:

"The destroyer of life, usually pictured as a skeleton with a scythe."  Without further ado:

RRRrrrriiiiiiiiinnnngggg.

“Good afternoon, Four Horsemen P.A., this is Luci speaking, how may I help you?

Oh, hello sir. I’m fine; thank you for asking.  How are you? 

I’m sorry to hear that sir. War usually handles your account, doesn’t he?

No, I’m sorry, sir, he’s in meetings all day.  He really is swamped at the moment, what with the ‘War on Drugs,’ the ‘War on Poverty,’ the ‘War on Terror,’ the ‘War on Women …’ Not to mention all the real wars going on.  Could someone else help you?

No, unfortunately, Famine is out to lunch right now.

Let me check for you, sir…   Oh, that’s right, Pestilence called in sick; I’d forgotten.

 I’m afraid not sir. 

Yes, you see, Death has taken a holiday.  That does remind me though, I have to pick up his cloak from dry cleaning and get that scythe sharpened before he returns…

Well, sir, you could call our consultants, Cheney and Associates. 

No, I was not aware he was on a hunting trip.

I will most certainly pass on the message sir, and I’m sure someone will get back to you as soon as possible; after all, you are one of our best clients.

Thank you, you have a nice afternoon too, Mr. Rove."

Click.

An Open Letter to the Liberal Media

Dear Liberal Media,

Hi, how's it going?  I know you guys have been busy lately, what with undermining traditional American values, continuing your attempts to destroy marriage, the war on CHRISTmas, and all those meetings with the Illuminati elites to usher in The New World Order.  If you could land the black helicopters for just a minute, or at least set them to "hover" for a moment, I have a bone to pick with you.

See, it seems there was a U.S. Presidential debate on Wednesday evening, and I've been reading and listening all about it the past few days, and apparently, this guy Mitt Romney is pretty damn good.  It appears that he's like the best parts of JFK, Winston Churchill, Gandhi, and Jesus Christ all rolled into one adorable, well-coiffed package.  I mean, I'm thinking of voting for him, and I once voted for Ralph Nader.  (Don't ask, it's a long story.) 

I understand why the "Fair and Balanced" news outlets are talking him up; after all, he wants to make sure they can continue to make obscene amounts of money and listen in on everybody's conversations.  But I didn't realize you guys loved him too.  See, I watched the debate, (on tape delay, I admit,) and I'm a little confused.  I know Romney was all "mavericky" and had lots of cool quotes and anecdotes and everything, and good for him, because he seems like a nice enough guy, for a Mormon.  But it seems a little strange to me that all I've heard from you liberal media types for four days is how good he was and how bad the President was.

What I saw was one candidate who discussed issues and policies and made statements that included realistic assessments of the problems we face as a nation, and another who kept saying "taxes bad!" I'll let you guess who was whom.  It seems to me I've heard you guys complaining about style over substance before, and this might have been a good time to show that you care.  But when you keep repeating that the President was "distracted," and "uninspired," and "pedantic," it seems like you were only concerned with how the debate was presented, rather than what it was about.

Maybe you figure it doesn't matter.  Maybe you're right.  But I saw something to the effect that polls taken immediately after the debate showed about the same numbers as those taken before the debate; however, by Friday, after two days of endless hammering on by every news organization in the world about how badly the President "performed,"  they had swung toward Mr. Romney.  Let's face it, we Americans aren't the most politically sophisticated bunch around.   Many of us are more interested in who wins "Survivor" than a silly debate.  So we count on you to let us know who we should like.  Besides, 47% of us had to get up early to get in line for our welfare checks, so we couldn't watch it ourselves.

So my question is, as one Liberal to a Liberal Institution: "Why?"  Why would you talk endlessly about how much Mr. Romney won the debate by?  You know he's the anti-liberal here, right?  He wants to make the rich richer, and screw everybody else.  Are you scared that Bill O'Reilly might call you names?  That Rush Limbaugh might say you are biased?  (Hint: they are going to do that anyway.)  Is it because you are all owned by big corporations that stand to gain from Romney's pledge to lower the corporate tax rate?

Don't worry, Liberal Media; I still love you.  As long as you keep me updated on the latest dance craze from Korea, I'll be happy.  But you messed this one up.  Instead of commenting that perhaps we should look for a leader who sees that the country has problems, and that many of them are created by a terrible disparity in the distribution of wealth in our system, you focused on who seemed more "energetic."  Instead of pointing out that the most powerful country in the world might want a President who thinks a little, who has more knowledge about the world than the average person, you said that Obama "talked over people's heads."  Maybe what you fail to understand is that no matter what else happens, what you say tends to become the reality in people's minds. 

Next time, maybe you should challenge the narrow, conservative view of politics and economics. 

Unless, of course, you really aren't Liberal after all.

Carry on,

Eric Misener (President of the Kucinich 2016 fan club.)

P.S.  Could you guys be sure to get Todd Akin more coverage?  He's about the best advertisement we Liberals have...
   

It's Debatable

Though I've steered clear of Politics on this blog so far, it is meant to be a space for miscellaneous observations (hence the name), so I want to write briefly about last night's U.S. Presidential Debate. 

First, full disclosure: I am a registered Democrat and a supporter, in this election, of President Obama. So, you may count or discount my opinion as your partisanship moves you.

After finally seeing a good portion of the debate this morning, (I was otherwise engaged last evening), and reading and listening to the "analysis" of said debate, I have come to a conclusion: What is actually said by the candidates matters very little, excepting any "gotcha" gaffes such as Dan Quayle comparing himself to John Kennedy and opening himself up for Lloyd Bentsen's memorable rejoinder. (Speaking of which, if you're too young to have seen that moment, or saw it, but want a reminder of how a debater can make his point, and attack the opposition while maintaining a dignified, calm demeanor, go to youtube and search "Quayle-Bentsen.")

If one needs any evidence as to the fact that it is perception, rather than substance, that matters at these debates, one need only recall the actions of both campaigns in the past weeks leading up to last night's event.  Both camps went out of their way to paint the opposition as the more capable, more prepared debater.  The Obama campaign released statements with regard to the President having less time to prepare for the debate than his opponent, and how good Romney is at debating.  The Romney camp, on the other hand, made the point that the President is known as a good orator and that he would be a formidable opponent in a debate.  Though these practices may seem counter-intuitive, there is a good reason for them: to lower expectations, especially among the media.

To understand this, ask yourself who actually decides the "winner of a debate? (We'll leave aside for the moment the question of whether we should go about choosing a "winner" as if it was a sporting event.)  Generally it is the political analysts for the networks, newspapers and websites that make up the political media.  They all have their break-downs and post-mortems and bring in various experts to analyze the performance of both candidates.

"Performance" is exactly the correct word, too, because if you pay attention to the way the pundits talk about the debate, you will find that is what they are actually analyzing: how each candidate looked and sounded, rather than what was said.  Prior to the debate, each party wanted the expectations of the media to be as low as possible so that its candidate's "performance" would exceed those expectations by as wide a margin as possible. 

So, we now know that the consensus appears to be that Mitt Romney "won" the debate.  What reason is generally being given for this victory?  Romney appeared "relaxed," "confident," well-rehearsed,"  "aggressive," "polished."  Obama was "hesitant," "defensive," "reflective."  Romney's answers were "direct," "black-and-white."  Obama's were "winding," "provisional." 

I would argue there is a reason for this perception:  President Obama spoke a bit like one of my old law professors, while Mitt Romney's stock in trade were anecdotes and attempts to position himself to the Political Center; so much so that he ended up agreeing with Obama on several issues.

Let's take just the first 15 minute segment, ostensibly about "jobs."  The talk turned to taxes and the deficit almost immediately, with Obama stating that the deficit had to be reduced "responsibly" so that investment could be made in renewable energy, jobs programs and education.  He also called out Romney's proposal to cut taxes that would cost approximately $5 Trillion from the Federal treasury. 

Romney responded first by doing what he did all evening: trotting out anecdotes.  He "met a man who lost his job" and said "can you help me?"  His wife "met a woman" whose husband had had several part-time jobs and asked "can you help me?"  These are rhetorical ploys that mean absolutely nothing when it comes to public policy affecting the entire country.  (To be clear, the Democrats are guilty of using this tactic as well; Obama did not use it in this segment of the debate, however.) Romney also said he "had no $5 trillion tax cut," and that everything the president said in one of his answers was inaccurate.  Romney's own website states that his tax goals are to:

"Reduce individual marginal income tax rates across-the-board by 20 percent, whilekeeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Reduce the corporateincome tax rate – the highest in the world – to 25 percent."

The $5 Trillion dollar figure comes from a study done by the independent Tax Policy Center (which may be affiliated with the Brookings Institute), which showed the cuts Romney proposes to cost $360 Billion in the first year, which extrapolated to $5 Trillion over ten years. 

So, Obama should have been clearer in his representation of the tax cuts; and I really wish both sides, when citing "studies" would identify what studies they are talking about.  Romney at one point said, "I have six studies that say (the study referenced by Obama) is wrong."  Which ones? By what organizations?  Of course Obama didn't identify the study he cited, either.

According to the debate last night, Romney also wants to invest in energy and education, although it is unclear from where the funds to do this would come. 

One last thing I must point out about the debate has to do with health care.  Romney declared that "pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan."  This is a part of "Obamacare" that consistently polls favorably among voters.  Last night, a top Romney advisor  Eric Fehrnstrom restated what the Romney plan is with regard to pre-existing conditions.  Basically, he said Romney wants to ensure people who have no lapse in coverage continue to have coverage; which is exactly the way the system worked before Obamacare. Pre-existing conditions aren't "pre-existing" is there is no lapse in coverage.  With regard to people without insurance or with a 90-day lapse in coverage, Romney "hopes states will do what Massachusetts has done," which is ban pre-existing conditions.  So, Romney's plan is to "hope" states do what Obama's plan already does.

That's not the kind of "hope" I'm looking for, especially living in a state whose governor may have been involved in one of the biggest medicaid frauds ever perpetrated against the citizens of the United States.