"And if you really tick me off, I'm going to run you down with my car."

Holy crap, I agree with Mitt Romney. . . on the economy!

"In theory. Communism works - in theory."

I hate Ronald Reagan. I hate him so much. One of the things I hate him for is how much credit he gets for ending the Cold War. Despite the fact that Soviet communism was dying before Reagan even came to office and that George Bush, Sr. was the instrumental figure in bringing down the Berlin Wall and reuniting Germany, it was more the inherent inability of communism to work that killed it - not Ronald Reagan. He was just lucky enough to be in charge when its collapse became imminent in the late 80's.

Lately, I have been thinking a lot about the Cold War and I have developed a theory. When Leninism first began to gain popularity in Russia, the United States became openly hostile to the idea of communism. We made arguments that it was godless, deprived people of their freedom, would lead to the downfall of humanity, etc., which all may be legitimate arguments. Nevertheless, we didn't do much about it on the international stage until after the Soviet Revolution. Even then, we didn't do that much until after WWII when Stalin took the spoils of war and built an empire.

That's what I think the Cold War was about - not communism, but empire. The United States had just won its second world war and was set to become the global power of the next century. After the defeat of Germany and Japan, the only thing that stood in the way of our total world domination was the Soviet Union - the only country left with the military resources to challenge us.

This is even more true in light of how world hegemony has developed since the 1980's. Think of the remaining communist nations in the world and how the U.S. deals with them. The big glaring omission from our "anti-communist" history is China. (We have continued our embargo on Cuba, but Cuba is insignificant. We don't lose all that much from the embargo and now it's taken on a more symbolic meaning than anything else.) China is the largest country on the earth, possesses the largest military, is close to developing the largest economy, and is openly Communist. Despite that fact, we still trade heavily with them (they have MFN status), ignore their horribly repressive government, and are increasing relations with them every day.

There are a lot of reasons for our continued love/hate relationship with China, but the point is that if the U.S. were really anti-communist, we would be fighting against Chinese expansion tooth and nail. My point is that we were not anti-communist, but anti-Soviet. Nowhere is this difference more clear than in the doctrine of Containment. (Containment is basically the idea that Soviet Russia wanted to expand and enact xenophobic policies and we should do everything we could to stop them.) Containment was about stopping Soviet power, not communism. If the Soviets had been monarchs, we still would have opposed their expansion into other countries because they spread xenophobia and believed in empire. Obviously, that's bad for business.

Clearly, I am making this argument as part of a vast left-wing conspiracy to change America into a communist nation. We achieved a major victory in electing that socialist, Obama, and now it's only a matter of time before America finally becomes the worker's paradise we've always wanted. However, I am willing to abandon this pinko plot in exchange for a solemn oath never to name anything else after Ronald Reagan. Except maybe the border fence, which I suggest you style, "The Ronald Reagan Useless Barrier for American Xenophobia and Racism."

"And Maggie is having fun in her swing-a-majig."

I am sometimes surprised by how badly things are designed. Mrs. Jerkface and I recently had our second child, and naturally, we had to buy all new stuff for her. Among the items we bought was a playpen that has a spinning mobile. The mobile is like all other mobiles, you wind it up and it spins around while playing a song. However, I have found at least three defects in the mobile that I think are serious enough that I will never use it.

First and foremost: it winds up. It's my understanding that a mobile is installed with the purpose of soothing the baby to sleep. It's also my understanding that babies are often startled awake by loud, grinding noises. So why for pete's sake would a mobile have a loud, grinding wind-up system as its only method of activation? In order to start it up, I have to wind it up, waking up the baby. This foolishness is grounds for public flogging.

Not only is the loudness of the windup feature an absolute bar to its use, the mobile only functions independently for about a minute and a half. Now, my experience with babies is very limited (I have a no-exceptions policy of not interacting with babies that aren't my own), but it seems to me that there are few, if any, babies that are soothed in a minute and a half, especially if mom or dad is looking for some baby down-time.

A simple solution to both of these problems would be to make the toy battery operated. Then, it can start without that irritating loud grinding and it can run continuously until baby is asleep. Again, more proof that I am smarter than everyone else.

My second problem with the mobile is that the bears that are hanging from it are attached at the neck. This gives the impression that the bears are all being hung...by the neck. It's more than a little creepy. (I'll include a picture if I remember.)

My final quarrel with the mobile applies to pretty much every toy I've encountered since the births of my children: it's too loud. The sound is nearly deafening to me, and I don't have sensitive baby ears. The same goes for all of Little Jerkface One's toys. I've had to open up several and muffle the speakers, or simply remove the batteries for me to feel comfortable with him playing with them. I understand that toy companies feel that when a child is looking at two toys side by side, they'll probably pick the louder one, but for crying out loud, does it have to be that loud?

I propose that the readers of this blog write a petition to Graco and Carter's asking them to. . . oh, I don't care enough to do anything about it. I'll just keep circumventing the design of the toys as part of my quest to slowly undermine society and turn my kids into weird anti-social outcasts.

"He prefers the company of men." "Who doesn't?"

I love me a good protest. When I lived in D.C., I used to see them all the time. But now that I live in the nation's most complacent state, I just don't get to see them that often anymore. However, last Friday I was treated to a great protest right outside my office. A group of upset opponents of California's Proposition 8 gathered on the corner opposite the LDS Church Office Building to protest the LDS Church's involvement in supporting Prop. 8. It was a pretty impressive protest (please take the time to ignore the almost 1,500 comments left on that story). As always, I have a few observations.

First, their initial chant was terrible! It was, "The people have voted - you are intolerant." I'm not sure who came up with it, but they made a couple of mistakes. First, it's not catchy nor memorable. Second, it's way too long - twelve syllables, for crying out loud! Finally, it doesn't make much sense. Yes, the people voted, however, the majority voted in line with the position the LDS Church took, so I don't see how the people's vote shows that the LDS Church is intolerant. I guess the Church could be labeled as intolerant, but it's not because the people voted.

Fortunately, by the time they started marching around Temple Square, they picked a new chant, "Se-pa-rate church and state!" Now, that's a good chant! It's on message, short, rhyming and memorable.

Second, I was pretty proud of the people who showed up in support of Prop. 8. They didn't have the usual signs reflecting the bigotry and intolerance usually espoused by religious folks who oppose gay marriage. Rather, the signs included phrases such as, "God loves you" and "Proud to be Mormon". It was much less charged than I expected. It goes to show that people can be good and reasonable. It was a real breath of fresh air.

Third, I was also pretty happy with the LDS Church's response to the passing of Prop. 8. I think it did a good job of stating why the Church supported the amendment and the extent of its position. I'm glad that the Church came out and stated what I believe to be the correct position: that we should not discriminate against homosexuals, but we must not back down when it comes to protecting male/female marriage.

Finally, I take issue with the Church's official statement on the protests (both in Utah and California). The relevant portion reads as follows:

While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to
make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred
places of worship for being part of the democratic process.

I will concede that it's possible that this is just poor word choice. Their intent might have been to say, "it is wrong to target the Church's sacred places of worship." However, given the amount of thought that must of have been put into this, I presume that the wording is intentional. Therefore, I disagree with the first part of the statement. I believe that if a party ('party' in the legal sense of the word - meaning 'entity') decides to enter the public debate in this country, they must also live with the consequences. If you come out in support of a position, you must be ready to deal with democratic backlash, including the right of your opponents to exercise their freedoms of speech and assembly. The Church shouldn't feel as though it is being unfairly targeted for becoming involved in the debate. While the backlash they have received might be disproportionate to their invovlement, that doesn't change the fact that they opened themselves up to receive it.

On the other hand, I agree with the second part of the statement which condemns protests outside places of worship. Places of worship are sacred, no matter the religion, and I don't feel that it's appropriate to protest outside them. I'm glad that the Utah organizers chose to do it was after business hours so it didn't disrupt the normal operations there and in the surrounding buildings downtown.

In the end, I'm glad that I live in a country where these kinds of debates and protests can take place and I'm willing to take the bad with the good. Look at me, ending on an upbeat, philosophical note and stating an opinion that people couldn't possibly disagree with. Maybe I should write sitcoms.

"I'm sorry, but all of the animals have been reserved for celebrities. But there are still rocks...thousand and thousands of rocks."

Two things:

First, I was searching for a quote to use as a title to this post, when I had quite a nice surprise. I ran a Google search for the quote, and my blog came up as the second hit! Look at me!:

I have to admit, I was very excited.

Second, I saw an hilarious take on the societal significance of Obama winning the presidency. Once again, Larry Wilmore hits the spot!

"I'm Ralph Wiggum, and I've been a good boy."

Good morning, Comrades!

I have a few thoughts about the election.

First, I am very happy with the results. I believe that Barack Obama will be a great president and that he will work to inspire Americans to become better and work harder so that we can once again become a beacon of hope to the rest of the world.

Second, John McCain was a real class act. His concession speech was well-written, centrist, inspiring, and sincere. He even quieted the boos and catcalls against his opponents. If he had given more speeches like that during the campaign, he might have won. Also, I think it's funny that while Obama had a huge outdoor public gathering that anyone could attend, McCain, in true Republican fashion, had a small gathering of invite-only guests at a fancy hotel.

Third, KSL is the second-worst news station in Utah. Not only did their break-aways add nothing to the coverage being provided, they also spent a half-hour interviewing nobodies and wasting time with meaningless reporter mumbo-jumbo while NBC national was calling the election for Obama. It took 10 minutes before we even heard which state pushed him over the top. I would have liked to have watched another station, but since I live in a dank cave, KSL is the only station I can get with a clear signal. Hey, KSL, if you're Utah's number one news source, then maybe you can afford some producers that have a clue!

Fourth, I was disappointed with the coverage provided by all the news outlets (that I could see) after they called the election. Once they called Virginia for Obama, they stopped reporting on the election and went straight into "perspective" mode, analyzing how "historic" and "ground-breaking" this election was. The election wasn't over! As of the time I'm posting this entry, it's still not over! Missouri and North Carolina are still reporting. Plus, I think it's fair to say that history will be the judge of what is historical.

Fifth, I have mixed feelings over whether or not this is a victory for African-Americans. Obama is only half black ("Tina, it's not half-black history month.") and in either event, his race didn't affect my vote at all. On the other hand, it does show that racism is dying in our country - especially since it appears that the polls were correct in showing him in the lead. My only worry is that people might attribute his victory to "white guilt" or some other phenomenon that forced people to vote for a black person over any other candidate. I believe that Obama's appeal came not from his race, but from his personality and party affiliation (Thanks to W., it's a tough time to be Republican). As far as I am concerned, Obama won it on his credentials as a politician and a person, despite anything Justice Thomas says or does to the contrary.

Sixth, I thought that Obama's acceptance speech was great. It ran about two minutes too long, but otherwise it was very well done. It was inspiring, energizing, reassuring, and showed us what Obama can really do. I'm looking forward to the next eight years. (That's right, EIGHT!)

Finally, I hope that SNL gets someone else to play Obama. There's a lot of comedy to be had there, and it's going untapped with Fred Armisen doing the character.

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"

Don't forget to vote (Obama) today!