Andrew Hamm: the Bipolar Express

Ruminations on theatre, music, and just about anything else that crosses my bipolar brain.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Stop the Madness!

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the last couple weeks' political debate. Scotty, Phil, Joey, and anonymous have all had some great things to say, and have made me think in different directions than I have.

I find it somewhat interesting that most of the stuff I write about deals with comics, theatre, sci-fi, movies, and music. For example, these are some topics I'm currently considering blogging: the death of Optimus Prime in The Transformers: The Movie (which just had its 20th Anniversary DVD release), Lego's super-awesome "Exo-Force" line, my new favorite TV show Heroes, a review of Steve Hackett's new album Wild Orchids, and the status of my upcoming Christmas album, Under the Star.

Why is that interesting? Because I may have more responses to the two or three political articles I've written than to everything else combined. Before I proceed any further, I want to take a moment to write something about political writing.

I have often held back from talking about politics on this blog for several reasons, and I want to mention a few of them here.

It's often been said that the fastest way to ruin a friendship is by talking about politics. I know it's often said, because I say it often, especially in my classroom, where so many of my students have their natural, healthy, high school drama students' anti-establishmentarianism firmly in place. Frankly, I want people to like me, not be angry, and most political writing makes people of the opposing viewpoint angry. I really don't want my friends to be angry.

Further complicating the matter is the fact that I am a socially conservative white heterosexual Fundamentalist Christian male. This makes me the majority in many places in the country, but a very very small minority in every field I work in: theatre, music, and teaching. In theatre in particular, it is just assumed that everyone in the community is of a like mind about certain social and political issues. Well, sometimes I am and sometimes I'm not, and both the assumption that I feel a certain way and the open attacking of the opposing perspective (in green rooms, rehearsals, meetings, etc.) makes me feel incredibly uncomfortable. I feel like I have to be in the closet or I'm going to be ostracized. Open Bush-bashing, in particular, is de rigeur at both of my places of business, and regardless of my feelings about the man, I have a very old-school sense that the office of the president is due more respect than that. I absolutely hated President Clinton at times, and never believed him, but I went out of my way to speak of him with the respect he had earned from years of incredibly grueling and difficult public service.

So I have historically tried to keep my beliefs my own for the sake of survival. I do know of cases where conservatives, and Christians in particular, have been blacklisted (or I guess redlisted) in certain performing arts communities, and I know for a fact that it would have been much easier for me to get a university teaching job if I were a black lesbian Buddhist. I was told straight-up that they were looking for a black woman at one school I applied to. Not only is that illegal, it's incredibly stupid to tell someone who might sue you for discrimination that you're discriminating against him. Moron.

When I talk about something political on this blog, it isn't to vent, it isn't to glorify my perspective, it isn't to slurp a party, and it certainly isn't to get people mad so they write mad responses that I can shoot down self-righteously. If you'll look at my scant political postings, I hope you'll see a pattern, and it's this: I feel like someone needs to write about something that isn't being reported by the mainstream media. Cases in point: 1) the massive amount of fallacious and insulting implications in the Michael J. Fox campaign ad, and 2) the assumption that the Democratic victory last Tuesday was gigantic and sweeping when it was, in point of fact, far less than it probably should have been.

When I write about politics or social issues, my intention is almost never "I'm right and you're wrong." My intention is to provide perspective, and to say "You're probably not getting this angle or this piece of information, and you really should see it." I don't write about serious issues unless I have done a lot of thinking, praying, and research into them. And I'm not not not going to be writing about issues that I know do nothing but polarize, such as abortion, gay marriage, and the death penalty.

Here's my core belief when approaching sociopolitical debate: I think that honest discussion between opposing viewpoints is probably the single most important thing a republic needs to function. I also think that we have not had much of any honest discussion since the Kennedy administration, and pretty much none whatsoever since 2000. There are culprits on both sides.

For honest discussion and debate to take place, three things need to happen:

1) Both sides need to assume that the other side believes what they believe because they genuinely think it's right. We must assume that our opponents have thought it out and have made their decisions on what to believe in good conscience. Imbuing the opposition with sinister motives is totally counter-productive, almost always inaccurate, and impossible to prove unless you've developed telepathy and haven't told anyone. (If you have developed telepathy, please don't tell me. My mind will go to complete filth as soon as you enter the room.) Don't get me wrong, there are bastards out there on both sides of the aisle. I'm not talking about defending Mark Foley or William Jefferson, both of whom are demostrably corrupt nincompoops. I'm talking about ideas. (Hee hee hee. "Poops.")

2) Both sides need to be able to look in a mirror and say, "I may be completely and totally wrong on this one, and it is my responsibility to listen to opposing ideas with a genuinely open mind."

3) Both sides need to actually listen, and not just wait for their turn to talk.

So I want to hear what you, gentle readers (all three of you), think I should do. My impulse is to take a vacation from political writing for a while, focusing instead on the aforementioned music and toy-related subjects. But it's possible that social issues may be something we want to keep talking about. I have really felt blessed and flattered by the number of intelligent, passionate, respectful responses to the Michael J Fox and Election articles, and no one has insulted my mother yet...

Don't get me wrong, this is my blog and I'm going to write about what I want to write about, but if you're taking the time to read, your thoughts are something I want to hear. If you don't want to post them as a reply, feel free to email me at

And come out to the Alba Emoting workshop, PLEASE. Attendance is very light for the Training Department, and I'd like it to grow rather than vanish.

Labels: , , , ,


  • At 11/12/2006 11:57 AM , Blogger Joey Fanelli said...

    "socially conservative white heterosexual Fundamentalist Christian male"

    Don't even look at somebody wrong, or the ACLU will be all over your ass.

    Politics are intresting, simply beacuse no two people have compleatly the same stances on all issues. And when two people express these stances, it can leave the both of them walking away with something new in mind and heart (assuming both persons actually listen and actually contrubute to the discussion, and dont just join the Blind Bush-Bashing Bandwagon).

    But after a wile, politics can become a bit boring. And it's not that it's politics, talk about any one subject for an extended amount of time and you tend to yawn here and there. So maybe you should go off to other topics for now. I'm not saying hold off any and all politicial discussions untill the next presidental elections, but try and mix it up a bit, for the sake of your readers (all three of them!). But your right, thisis your blog, and you can post whatever you want. This is just one man's opinion.

    Wouldn't it be sweet if anonymous was Chuck Norris? Or at the very least, Clarence Gilyard.

  • At 11/12/2006 12:41 PM , Blogger Andrew Hamm said...


    You rule. I'm just going to assume that every anonymous posting here comes from either Chuck Norris or Mr. T.

  • At 11/12/2006 3:32 PM , Blogger Joey Fanelli said...

    Or possiably the coolest person of all time, Commander Cool.

    No, wait, that's me.

  • At 11/12/2006 4:22 PM , Blogger Andrew Hamm said...

    Or from Optimus Prime. Or Captain America.

  • At 11/12/2006 4:36 PM , Blogger Joey Fanelli said...

    There's more cheesy pop cultural refrences here then Cher as wrinkles.

  • At 11/12/2006 4:36 PM , Blogger Joey Fanelli said...


  • At 11/12/2006 6:28 PM , Blogger Andrew Hamm said...

    Cheesy pop culture references are this blog's bread and butter. Or at least its crackers and mustard.

  • At 11/12/2006 7:03 PM , Blogger Frank Creasy said...

    Well Andrew, I sometimes thought I was the only one who felt silently persecuted in theatre green rooms the past few years. The amount of vitriol present has been enough to make you TASTE the bile in the humid air at times. And to top it off, the dismissive, oh-so-clever, if-you-vote-Republican-you-must-be-a-complete-moron attitude prompts one to think how ironic it is that people who believe themselves inclusive when it comes to issues of diversity are anything BUT when it comes to an opposing viewpoint. Like you, there certainly are things Mr. Bush or his allies believe which I do not (though Mr. & Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Pelosi and their kindred fall into that disagreeable category FAR more often, and almost always on the issues of greatest importance to me). But I believe these people vote and act based on their values, and even if I think them wrong-minded, I don't think them malicious or evil. Not so with the left regarding those on the right - they believe Republicans and their supporters ARE the Axis of Evil! As such, they feel morally in the right by refusing to listen, shouting down anyone making a point contradictory to their own, or breaking into organized functions for Republican politicians or candidates. It's odd, isn't it, that while they think the opposition is evil, that you NEVER see a Democratic opponent's supporters busting into their speeches and shouting them down? No one yelling out "Stop the taxing and spending of the money I've earned!" to Jim Webb, Mark Warner, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton? It seems to me the liberal left has put on the blinders and picked up the placards they stashed in the attics back in the 60's. But the Vietnamese are not analagous to Islamic terrorists at all, nor do the economic implications of either conflict compare in any way whatsoever. The liberals who were stoned and tripping forty years ago are hyped up now only on Starbucks and the gas vapors from their mini-vans, SUV's and Volvos. They still want to save the world, but they're not quite sure from WHAT...corporate profits, which give them jobs and enrich their 401K plans? A defense budget that has grown slightly under Bush, but was cut by Clinton and still comes in double-digits below the government's allocation of Medicare and Social Security spending they insist is their birthright? These people want to claim the moral high ground but can't seem to find it with their OnStar satellite systems. They've given up thinking for themselves, because it takes up too damned much time while they drive Tiffany and Joshua to ballet/soccer/Chuck E. Cheese. It's easier to follow some vacuous but vocal leader like Cindy Sheehan as she protests outside the White House...the day AFTER the Dems win Congress! Is it really about your dead son Cindy, or about the media coverage that labels a "grieving mother" (who neglects her son's grave) a "hero"? And such are the rallying points of a group of rebels without a clue.

    Okay, I'm done. I feel better now!

  • At 11/13/2006 9:03 AM , Blogger Andrew Hamm said...

    Dang, Frank. I hope you feel purged there. Paragraphs might make you feel better. Thanks for posting, and I hope you stick around for the stupid conversations, too.

    It was graduate school, that incomparable mix of artistic and academic liberalism, that really showed me just how correct you are. As a man of faith and intellect, I feel a sense of mission here; to just shut up and stay in the closet is not an option. It didn't take long for me to realize that usually the only person listening in these sociopolitical conversations was me.

    There's a huge difference between thinking you're right and thinking you're righteous; righteousness gives you blanket permission to ignore all logic, shout down persuasion, and villify opposition. You can see it in religious fundamentalism all around the world, from Al Qaeda to the Klan. Hatred of Bush is the fundamentalist religious belief of the Western left.

    As far as the default Bush-bashing stance is concerned, I really think it all stems from the 2000 election. Democrats still feel like that election was stolen (despite the fact that independent press representatives did a non-governmental recount in Florida and came up with the same result, a fact that was barely reported anywhere), and remain angry at the president. At the risk of oversimplifying, I think hating President Bush because of 2000 is the article of faith that trumps all other considerations. That's certainly the elected Democrats' modus operandi; having decided that Bush's is an illegitimate presidency, they choose to oppose and belittle absolutely every Bush initiative regardless of its value.

    It's like when Pharaoh Akhenaten died and the Egyptian priests erased his image everywhere it was carved; if they chipped his face off the walls, it erased his place in history. That's what Congressional Democrats have spent six years doing: trying to make the "illegitimate" Bush presidency as if it never happened.

    I believe that George W. Bush and Rick Santorum may be the only national-level politicians in America who recognize that we're fighting World War III. (Actually, Bush is soft-pedaling it; it's only Santorum who recognizes just how close we are to disaster.) Two things scare the heck out of me: 1) that the GWBA is so poor at communicating this information to the American people, and 2) that the automatic Bush-hatred is blinding otherwise reasonable people to the fact that we're in more danger than this country has seen since Hitler.

  • At 11/13/2006 11:05 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Well, I'd have to say that Mr. Creasy is harboring some anger. Those are some pretty amazing generalizations about Liberals.
    But then maybe he was just trying to be ironic...

    Andrew, I can understand your comments about Clinton. But then the Republicans spent millions to investigate him and have him impeached for getting his dick sucked. And as I said before Bush is DAMN lucky that they are letting him off the hook for the stuff he has pulled. I think we are both in agreement though, it is hard being the leader of the free world. You are always going to be under the eye of partisan scrutiny.
    Let me just say this in response to the various generalized assumptions about Liberals. I think what Liberals resent the most about the current administration (aside from 2000) is the arrogant attitude towards foreign policy in a post 9/11 world. This compounded with smirks and catchy sound-byte rhetoric supported by an overhwleming military endeavor that has alienated the U.S. from the rest of the world and created a partisan divide that is deeper than ever. Unifier? No. Not even close. And the U.S.A. needed a unifier more than ever after 9/11. He had an opportunity and blew it. It's going to take decades before the U.S. will have the credibility or trust we had in previous generations. No, not all Bush's fault, but then nothing gets more publicity than invading a third world country that had a VERY small military and nothing to do with 9/11. I think this is the major thing that resonates with Liberals. What's even more discouraging is that Conservatism has morphed into something that is no longer recognizable, at least as far as they way things were during the days of Barry Goldwater. There's just nothing Conservative about this administration and I think that's what the reaction is to. It's just unfortunate that the figure-head attached to this administration is G.W. Bush. A man that is very easy to ridicule, especially in the conext of world leaders and intellectuals. Some leaders are remembered for words like "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself" or "Ask not what your country can do for you..." This leader will be remebered for fractured slogans that in most cases are pointed at the opposing party and not the good of the country: "Flip-Flop", "Cut & Run", "Stay the Course" "War on Terror" and my personal favorite "Operation Iraqi Freedom". But the days of Roosevelt and Kennedy are over, clearly.
    I have a lot of Republican friends and I never assume that they are stupid, but I'm sorry Liberals have made you and Frank feel the way you feel. But I just wanted to clear up WHY Bush is bashed the way he is. For the reasons I just named as well as the fact that he represents something that a lot of Liberals feel strongly about and that is ruling wisely from an intellectual platform, rather than emotional plattitudes. And by the way, we weren't in this much danger before we invaded and occupied Iraq & Afghanistan. All we did was fulfill all of Bin Laden's prophecies and then some.

    That's really it. I don't dislike Republicans at all. Just this particular administration and I think many Liberals will agree. In fact, I believe that Democrats are more likely to vote for a Republican candidate that they think is good than the other way around. That, perhaps, is the one generalization I will make.
    So there, I'm done.
    Sorry, I don't really spend much time thinking about comic books and toys, so I think our discussion is done.
    Good luck.

  • At 11/13/2006 3:14 PM , Blogger Bob said...

    The poster who chooses to remain "anonymous" stated: "I believe that Democrats are more likely to vote for a Republican candidate that they think is good than the other way around." That's not just a generalization, it's completely arbitrary. Joe Lieberman took 70% of the Republican votes in Connecticut (his opponent, Mr. Lamont, took 65% of the Democratic vote). I voted Democrat for the first time in my life in this last election because the Republicans needed to be thrown into the minority and given a "time-out" for their butting into our private moral decisions, their irresponsible fiscal policies, and their “tough-talk without action” on foreign policy.

    "Anonymous" also stated: "we weren't in this much danger before we invaded and occupied Iraq & Afghanistan”. Certainly a legitimate point to debate (though the Democrats now want even more resources expended in Afghanistan). Yet, the rhetoric and evidence suggest that if there had been a Democratic president or Congress these last six years, nothing would have been done about the REAL danger - Iran. The Democrats are now discussing negotiating with Iran about "stabilizing" Iraq (even though Iran is supplying the weapons being used to kill our troops). Granted, the Republicans seem paralyzed about taking any action to face down one of the greatest threats to Western Civilization, but to suggest that the Democrats have any answers (or principles) is absurd.

    As for alienating "the U.S. from the rest of the world" - I couldn't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks of us. The "rest of the world" has no vote in whether not I live or die in a nuclear, radiological, or chemical blast. Our protection is the only moral duty of the US government and its military. The Left seems to want to treat foreign policy as if it is a 5th grade popularity contest, or it judges the success of our foreign policy on whether or not Jacque Chirac or Vladimir Putin want to have a drink with our president. If we must “go it alone”, we have the resources (though, of course, we will always have allies like Israel who understand the threat we face).

    I would agree that Bush and the Right’s latest moral rationalization of invading Iraq simply to "free the Iraqis for democracy" (i.e, theocratic dictatorship) is obscene. But the result of a morality that leaves US foreign policy to a vote in the UN is suicide.

  • At 11/13/2006 7:20 PM , Blogger Frank Creasy said...

    Well, Anonymous, I'm nothing if not ironic. Sometimes funny (more often, UNfunny - just ask my wife) - but mostly ironic. Though I have to admit, that Sheehan bitch really cheeses me off.

    For the rest of it though, okay, a lot was meant for effect (though there's some truth there depending on the participants in question, including some in my family!) And hey, how the HELL could I work in theatre in this town and not LOVE my liberal friends? As Mr. King (Rodney, not Martin Luther) said, "can't we all just get along?" (maybe that was Himmler...can't remember now...)

    Hey, I completely understand the opposition to Bush. Among many miscalculations, he failed to clearly state the economic reasons why anyone should care about a war on terror (yet ANOTHER stupid label, let's face it). But no matter how you vote (and I HAVE voted for a few Dems in my day), the fact remains that we are in a market economy very much influenced by PERCEPTION as much as REALITY. Eaten any spinach lately? No, of course not! It killed two toddlers and an old lady...don't ANYBODY touch that poison!

    Which brings me to my MAIN issue with the liberals of today. Look, they make some very good points on some social issues, and I'm firmly in their camp on some particulars. But their economics just don't make sense to me of late. Rich people and profitable corporations should be taxed, liberals argue, because poor people need that money. Why is making money suddenly evil? And why is being poor suddenly noble? Why does it make sense to take away incentives for profits that create tax revenues, or to believe for one SECOND the government (regardless of party) can spend money better than private companies and charitable organizations? I'm giving more tax-deductible money to local theatres next year than I've ever done much would go to those organizations if the government took it in and "disbursed" it?

    There's always been rich people and poor people. There probably always will be. But increased government entitlements by way of increased taxes lead us down a path to where we could become (God help us all!) just like...gulp...the FRENCH.

    Anonymous, you conjure the ghosts of some noble Dems from the past. Mr. Roosevelt did some amazing things to pull us out of a depression and create what were, at the time, some great social programs. But he couldn't foresee a Social Security system crushed by the weight of an aging populous...nor could LBJ with regards to Social Security. But both are now sacred political cows we just can't touch. My financial advisor doesn't even CONSIDER Social Security in my financial plan...should anyone not already drawing a check count it in their financial forecast?

    The liberals have good intentions and want a prosperous America. But like Messrs Bush and Rumsfeld, they too need some fresh ideas before I'll rally round the flag. I'm waiting with bated breath.

    Enough paragraphs, Andrew? Geez, EVERYONE'S a critic these days! (and I'm not even in a show!!!)

  • At 11/13/2006 7:22 PM , Blogger Frank Creasy said...

    Damn it! MEDICARE from LBJ, not Social Security! Get me some coffee, STAT!

  • At 11/13/2006 9:29 PM , Blogger Joey Fanelli said...

    mmm mustard

  • At 11/14/2006 9:58 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Beautiful post, Frank. I do believe you're right about the Dems and their economic strategies. Believe me, I have all KINDS of problems with the Democratic party as well. I didn't mean to make it sound like I am defending their whole mess. Just looking to explain a bit behind the anti-BushCo sentiment. This country wants a legitimate third party so bad, we can taste it. Our options are not exactly broad. In fact, the whole direction modern politics is taking is a little disconcerting. But that's a whole other can of marshmellows.
    I thought your earlier post was pretty funny, by the way.

    Oh, and Bob? I think you should enlist.

  • At 11/14/2006 3:37 PM , Blogger Bob said...

    I know it’s easy to make ad hominem arguments when you hide your identity, but that’s ridiculous. On that ‘logic,’ anyone who advocates rationality in the field of medicine or honesty in banking should become a doctor or a banker (Or anyone who advocates for a third-party candidate should start campaigning as one).

    It might help to think before you write.

  • At 11/14/2006 3:43 PM , Blogger Andrew Hamm said...

    Let's keep it a bit more civil, folks. Don't make me delete posts.

    On the subject of enlistment: if I wasn't for my chronically bad shoulders, hernia, and eyesight--and my wife--I probably would have enlisted five years ago.

    Someone buy that bald man a double espresso. Oh, we're going to have some fun in Twelfth Night together, Mr. Creasy.

    And wow, a veritable plethora of paragraphs! Now in addition to the mysterious "anonymous" we have the ubiquitous "Bob." Someone find me a Doug and crack open a Molson, eh?

    First of all, Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for receiving a blow job. He was impeached for perjury in a Federal court of law. The affair was a lapse in morals. The lawyer-speak he used to wiggle out of it was a lapse in judgement. Lying under oath was a Federal crime, for which he was impeached and disbarred.

    Joe Lieberman is example #1 of the one-issue nature of Democratic politics today. Lieberman, a man I admire the hell out of despite disagreeing with most of his politics, breaks with the party on the issue of war. So, rather than allow a single dissenting view on the issue (which might engender dangerous dialogue!), they trot out a primary challenger, who is promptly crushed in the general election by Connecticut voters who (thank God) know better. One issue, one issue of disagreement with the platform and they boot him, ignoring years of service in the Senate and a vice-presidential nomination just six years ago! Apparently, the party can toletare all kinds of diversity except diversity of opinion on national security. This is one of the most shameful moments in American political history. And people say the Republicans are the "you're-either-with-us-or-against-us" crowd??? I don't see anyone kicking moderates like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani out of the party; they may in fact be presidential front-runners.

    Bob raises several excellent points. I'd like to see some actual evidence to support the premise that we are "less safe" since invading Afghanistan and Iraq. What does a lesser degree of safety look like, exactly? I don't see how that's in any was demonstrable, and I certainly don't see how it's at all true. If on 9/11 someone had told me that five years later we would have experienced no more attacks, that the airline industry would be solvent, that both the Taliban and the Hussein dictatorships would be gone, that Iraq would have the highest percentage of women in elected office of any Middle-Eastern nation by far, that the Dow would be above 12,000, that unemployment would be way down at 4.4%, and that tax revenues would be shaply up despite taxes being sharply cut, I would have called that person crazy. I, for one, feel a hell of a lot safer today.

    Like it or not, all those benefits above came from the Bush Administration and a Republican Congress. They didn't just happen miraculously in an environment of "corruption" and "incompetence."

    The great failure of the GWBA is its failure to communicate facts that are really very easily stated. Like the ones above. And like these:

    Fact: Iraq had WMDs, was stockpiling WMDs, was hiding WMDs, was developing new WMDs, and planned to give WMDs to terrorist organizations for use in attacking Israel and the West. No intelligence agency in the world disagrees with this. Many of them were destroyed, shipped out of the country, or buried in the desert while the UN debated how hard to slap Hussein on the wrist for not letting inspectors in. Our inability to locate gigantic stores of chemical weapons is not evidence of their nonexistence, it's evidence of the complete and utter uselessness of the UN's many resolutions and inspection programs. Yes, by all means, let's get our reputation back by working with the most impotent international organization in world history. I'm not so enamored of the leadership on the world stage that I give half a crap about our reputation in their community. Like Bob, I care much more about not having a radiological bomb explode in Times Square. If that makes me an isolationist warmonger, then so be it. I'm an isolationist warmonger.

    Fact: Military action in the Middle East is not about getting revenge for 9/11, it's about preventing 9/12. Theocratic and/or dictatorial Islamic nations will manufacture chemical and radiological weapons and these weapons will end up in the hands of suicide bombers, who will use them in the US, Britain, and Israel at the soonest opportunity. The War on Terror is a war of prevention.

    Fact: Success in a war of prevention is impossible to see, because it looks like everyday life. Victory looks like nothing because victory is a year that goes by without a massive terrorist attack on US soil. How do you sell lack of something as a sign of victory? This war will always have detractors if for no other reason than that engagements (and casualties) result in non-action rather than the taking of Normandy Beach. It's an impossible sell.

    I actually suspect that the Democratic leadership knows all of this. My suspicions continue to be borne out by Democrats implying an anti-war stance and then failing to state plans to change anything significant in the war. What I suspect we have is the most reprehensible of electioneering: the Democratic party is campaigning against an unpopular war because they know it will get them votes, but they don't actually plan to make anything but the most cosmetic changes because they know of no other way to fight it.

    Bob is right: Iran is the head of the snake, especially with news coming out today that enriched plutonium and uranium have been detected in an Iranian dump. The International Atomic Energy Commission (led by Hans Blix, Master of Impotence) has apparently "demanded" an explanation. Wow! That kind of tough talk is sure to get the quick and decisive results we've come to expect from international action hero Hans Blix!

    Do we really want to negotiate with an Iranian president who preaches the eradication of Israel in political speeches, who is developing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles as quickly as possible while building gigantic roads for the Islamic Messiah to travel in triumph after taking over the world, an event which he hopes will happen in his lifetime and believes it's his holy mission to hasten? (That was an amazing sentence.) We will be fighting a ground war in Iran, the only question is whether it happens before or after the Iranian-made atomic bomb explodes in Tel Aviv--or New York. Once again: if believing this makes me a reactionary, then so be it. I'm a reactionary.

    This is our chance to stop Hitler before fences are raised at Auschwitz, Stalin before gulags are built in Siberia.

    History will tell.

  • At 11/14/2006 5:22 PM , Blogger Bob said...

    FYI, Andrew, I'm still waiting for that post on Optimus Prime. You think politics makes me passionate? What until I get started on Transformers...

  • At 11/14/2006 8:50 PM , Blogger Frank Creasy said...

    Bob can't enlist. Flat feet. Then there's the whole "don't ask don't tell" thing, and...oh...never mind. Geez, nice weather we're having, huh? (All in good fun, Bob..hey, everyone KNOWS your huge stack of porn is hetero right down the for that one girl on girl video in the back. You know, the one you hide behind MARY POPPINS?)

    Keeping it short...Anon, we agree (and I don't think Bob disagrees so much as he lets on) on the need for more political party options. More often than not I'm entering the voting booth with a "lesser of the evils" approach. But as for running for office? Let's face it...most of our best and brightest don't see this as a good career option. Who could blame them? Dear God, I know we're all ready for a political breather at this point!

    On to weightier things...gotta see who wins on "Dancing with the Stars!" See ya!

  • At 11/14/2006 11:17 PM , Blogger Bob said...

    Frank, if you keep looking through my "special DVD's", you won't be invited back for karaoke again...

  • At 11/15/2006 10:30 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Sorry for upsetting you, Bob. I wasn't attacking you. Just teasing. Didn't think you'd get so upset.
    Sorry Andrew. You won't see me again.

  • At 11/15/2006 5:28 PM , Blogger Frank Creasy said...

    Big time bummer Anon - hope you don't make good on that...if we don't have some open dialogue, the future prospects are grim. I hope you come back, I know Andrew would want that, and Bob's bark is worse than his bite (Bob, bite me again and you are SO dead, MF!)

  • At 11/15/2006 5:37 PM , Blogger Andrew Hamm said...

    Anon, I hope you don't leave. I was actually taking a swipe at Bob's "think before you post" line, truth be told.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home