Obama’s N*gga Moment, McCain’s Senior Moment

This presidential race will be exciting—the clash between two seemingly polar opposite candidates; one an old war hero and conservative white man, and the other a young(er), charismatic, liberal African-American man. The exciting part isn’t just the possible regime change and blue shift towards a more liberal society and a potential re-claiming of American global cultural influence, but with two such opposites juxtaposed together for so long in such a gaffe-ridden and media nitpicky election season, there is a potential for a slip of the worst kind—Obama’s “nigga moment,” (as coined by the brilliant Aaron McGruder's Boondocks) and McCain’s senior moment.

Now, n*gga moments tend to be borne of the inner city frustrations and urban hopelessness that infect our African-American population (and it’s unfortunate). Obama doesn’t know much of this lifestyle. Though he had a childhood wrought with tragedy he always managed to get by on his ingenuity and motivation. But, one cannot easily dismiss the fact that, not only spending much of his professional career witnessing the defeated nature of Chicago’s worst neighborhoods, but also making his way in a profession full of wealthy, elitist white men had to have ingrained some sense of black animosity within him. This is merely speculatory, but odds are there is a whole other side of Barack Obama that we have yet to see.

As far as John McCain, he was born and raised in a different era. At 71, he is the oldest person ever to run for the office of President of the United States. Senior moments are exactly as they sound—moments where one’s age takes over the brain and causes that person to say or do something irrational and inexplicable. These moments can range from “oh, where did I put my car keys?” to, “North Korea, no way I’ll negotiate with those gooks!” (hypothetically speaking, of course). John McCain was put through hell in defense of our nation. He was tortured (but not enough to oppose torture), separated from his family and his country for years by people of a different race. Plus, he’s Irish; so he has a temper. And he’s a maverick, which means he has a penchant for calling his soon-to-be-named running mate (Mitt Romney?) "Goose," or always making love with “Take My Breath Away” by Berlin illuminating the conjugal background (with the help of Cialis [sorry, I had to]).

The beauty of this personal and political dichotomy is that there is a potential powder keg ready to burst. Chances are, if it does, McCain will be the instigator. He’s a man of a different era (see last paragraph). He was alive through the civil rights battles of the 50s and 60s, but was in the military, missing most of the activism whilst in the service, but still around during the repressive eras of the 40s and early 50s. Then, there’s the possibility that bitterness has been brewing inside him since the North took away his slaves in 1863 (that was a joke, he isn’t quite 145 yet). He’s also prone to gaffes to begin with. My theory is that, somewhere in this oversaturation of election coverage, McCain will have a senior moment—potentially revolving around the word “colored.” Now, this word isn’t the most offensive (case in point, the NAACP), and I don’t believe he is so far off the planet to utter the N word or something equally as inflammatory, but I think there is a possibility that his age will show itself in a ugly, pseudo-racist manner.

In response to such an archaic nod to racist roots, a spark could be lit, igniting the generally sanguine Obama. His response could range anywhere from, “Muthafucka, whatchu say?!” to a simple “Aw hell no!” to the more absurd act of actually whipping out a Gat. It’s unclear what would be the preferred course of action, but, regardless, white and black America would forgive him (except maybe whipping out the Gat).

I hope you’ll have your eyes glued on the TV screen as I will during this election season, and perhaps we’ll all see our candidates’ true colors.

-E.

George W. Bush and the American Dream

I am going to miss George W. Bush. Sure, he may go down in history as one of, if not the worst president ever. But, how joyous has it been these past eight years watching him stumble through speeches, utter gaffe after gaffe and, well, stumble through countless other speeches? It seems that in recent years Bush has become a kitchy, ironic caricature of the idea of a president. And those who are informed on the workings of the government go through cycles of despise, then back to ironic idolatry, then right back to despise when people realize that he is actually still in charge of our nation. There has been debate over what Bush’s legacy will be: some say AIDS relief, some say Iraq if it pans out well, others argue his legacy will be of incompetence and a systematic destruction of American ideals and freedom. Regardless of what future reflections will dictate, I think we need to take a step back and appreciate everything this man has done for us during his terms in office.

The truth is that Bush is the loveable fuck-up of this country. He’s like Dennis the Menace—the rapscallion we let run around and wreak havoc—except instead of a seemingly innocuous slingshot, he has the most powerful army in the world, and nuclear weapons. And the Middle East just happens to be Mr. Wilson, always getting the brunt of W’s hijinks. But in the end, isn’t that what makes Georgie great? Having him as a president is like seeing a child grow up before your very eyes; his head aflutter with fluttering butterflies fluttering in candy-filled meadows around milkshake waterfalls. How could anyone debase the wonderment of childhood?

There’s also the possibility that God is behind every aspect of his presidency. After all, he has made claims that he was divinely chosen to lead the USA, and that he is a vessel for the Holy Spirit. I ask, what implications does this have for God? My personal belief, is that, if all of this is true (which is very well might be), could God be pulling one over on us? Maybe God is responsible for George in the White House. And maybe, just maybe, He is doing all of this for his own amusement. What’s even funnier is the notion that God is just a prankster, not unlike Morgan Freeman in Bruce Almighty, and these past eight years have been a setup for Bush to learn life lessons.

The upsetting part about the fate of loveable W. is that unlike past elected presidents such as Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Al Gore who have taken on charities and remained active in the political arena, Bush is likely to fade out of the public eye more than most. I mean, no one would trust him to any sort of diplomatic position, or, let’s face it, any kind of position requiring thought. What follows is short list of possible alternatives for George to fight off boredom after his tenure as Leader of the Free World.

1. Hollywood—I’ve been thinking that it would be great if W. was just using the presidency as a jumping off point until he could get his big break in TV and/or movies. Which brings up the question: what would his projects look like? Well, there are a few options; perhaps he could shoot a pilot for a buddy sitcom with Jeff Foxworthy, or maybe a cameo or bit part on CBS’ Two and a Half Men with Charlie Sheen. Then there’s always the possibility of getting a feature spot on a “Weird Al” Yankovic album. Either way, W. seems like a sure-fire bet in the entertainment industry.

2. State Fairs—Many presidents, once out of office, tend to go on tours of the country/world, promoting books and giving lectures on salient world issues. Truth be told, Bush’s memoirs are likely to be in coloring, picture or pop-up form, so unless he’s touring elementary schools, he won’t make too much difference. So why not State Fairs? He can just get up on a stage, maybe have a couple drinks, and just riff with everyday, common, blue-collar Amuricans.

3. Sales—This may seem sort of a waste of talent for a man of such stature, but is there anything you wouldn’t buy from the former president? Picture W. wearing a cowboy hat, in the middle of Texas, selling Chevy trucks. He would make a killing. Or, he could do infomercials. Get George on at 2 a.m. or later selling Pocket Fishermen or time shares in Orlando and watch the money pile up. Maybe he could be a spokesman for Old Spice or Wrangler or some other product that highlights his red-blooded masculinity.

Whatever W. decides to do (and he will decide, because he’s the decider), I hope he doesn’t fade into obscurity like some may say he should. The man is an icon—a true manifestation of the American Dream—because never has one man with so many limitations gone so far for so long.

-E. (in collaboration with Vic)

I Miss George Carlin, and I Love Profanity

WARNING: Profanity Abounds.

If there are two things in this world that can warrant my constant and wholehearted approval, they would be the Internet and profanity. Slate has done a wonderful job of illustrating the beauties of the glorious Venn diagram intersection of the two.

Using bands with explicit titles (Holy Fuck, Fucked Up, The Shitty Beatles [from Wayne’s World], etc), writer Hua Hsu explains how the Internet has given bands the outlet to circumvent regulated forms of broadcast or mainstream media that would otherwise avoid printing (or saying) their names. Artists who can create Web sites, MySpace pages and blogs are able to exist in a censor-free world, and can be quite successful in the process. Which is not only a true, but a significant fact in our current media and musical climate.

I do, however, take issue with some of Hsu’s personal views on swearing. Claiming that “profanity is the rare instance in which the worn coin of language resounds with too much power and volume” seems like a silly claim for a writer to make. As a writer type myself, it seems like words that resound with too much power and volume are the words one would want to keep around, peppering them into conversation to add emphasis. “He was really angry!” or “He was fucking angry!”? I prefer the latter (it’s got a bit more teeth).

(UPDATE: An interesting article by Roy Baumeister from Psychology Today has brought up some grammatical challenges to the cavalier use of "fucking" as an adverb in place of "really." Hence, I amend my previous point to say "He was very mad!" or "He was fucking mad!" Though, I disagree with the notion that we should conform our profanities to the workings of our language. Isn't their beauty the fact that they almost transcend the common tenets of speech? I won't hesitate to just throw swears mid-sentence [and neither should you], English be damned. On a different note, Baumeister's article was silly to me. I mean, throughout it "fuck" and all its derivative forms are written as "f**k." Is there anyone who reads that and allows the voice in their head to bleep it? I say if you're going to write an article that uses the word "fuck" around 40 times, just go all out and actually use the fucking word.)

Hsu’s point that, “this isn't to say that our mainstream cultural outlets should begin dropping f-bombs. But maybe our vigilance with regard to dirty words is misplaced—it distracts from what truly disturb us” is an interesting one—one that questions the nature of profanity in the first place. If I were to say, “Hitler’s a fuck” (which he was), it’s almost not specific or harsh enough. What actually is “a fuck?” It’s a brash reference to the conjugal arts. So Hitler was a sexual act that some would deem rather beautiful? It’s not good enough. But, if I were to say, for instance, “Hitler’s an incestuous scatophile,” it’s so much more specific and illustrative, right? But I can’t say “fuck” in a proper newspaper. And, I’m pretty sure (depending on which style book is used), I could get away with “incestuous scatophile,” though it may need further clarification (neice-fucking shit-lover [breathe it in]).

(Aside: I am starting to like the prospect of venting frustrations on straw men. For example, I think one should be able, in any forum, to reference Hitler, or Stalin (to a lesser extent), or Dustin Diamond (to a greater extent) in any pejorative terminology they deem severe enough. So, if I were to say “Stalin’s a cunt,” I should be able to without any sort of punitive repercussions. Generally accepted assholes should be referred to as such.)

I think that this entire article is a testament to Hsu’s main thesis: that we live in a world of loosened morals with regards to what is and isn’t profane. I have no guilt about unleashing a stream of curse words online, because the fact of the matter is, with the Internet, any profanity, expletive, or well-articulated description of a former despot’s (or cunt’s, whichever you prefer) sexual fetishes, you can find an embed-able video featuring a live recreation of that profanity.

(Note: That last part wasn’t completely true. I have not yet been able to find an embed-able video of near-relatives shitting on each other. If you find one, tip me off and I’ll embed it.)

-E.