Morning Coffee (99)

Welcome back, Coffee drinkers, to the second or third best virtual barista on the net. I don’t know of a better one, but surely, one must exist in the great expanse of the World Wide Web.

Primary Mission: South Carolina Primary:

Yesterday, South Carolinians had their Democratic soiree. It was a rout. Barack Obama utterly dominated the event; he took 55% of the vote to Hillary Clinton’s 27%; 25 delegates to 12. Obama took 80% of the African-American vote, which is interesting when one considers that Hillary’s husband “Bubba” was our nation’s “first black President.” Not that anyone should be surprised with this, or the likely fact that Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President. It’s not that he’s more qualified than Clinton; it’s that Clinton is perceived to represent the Same Old Washington, whereas Obama is perceived to be New and Fresh.

Remember that the operative word is “perceived” in both cases. I do not think that Clinton inherently represents the Same Old Washington anymore than Obama is New and Fresh. Obama’s claim that he offers something new is somewhat undermined by his supporters, who in their zeal to defend him brusquely remind us that he’s been an elected representative in government a lot longer than Clinton has. This is true. Should we assume that just because the majority of his career has been in the Illinois legislative branch that he’s void of all the archetypical traits of political hacks?

In addition to this perception, and perhaps directly rooted in this perception, Clinton (and the Clintons) is easily the most divisive entity in modern politics. For example, take this bit from William Greider from “The Nation”, a left-liberal magazine, who was paraphrased by Peggy Noonan recently in the Wall Street Journal:

The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."

And that’s what their likeminded ilk say of them. You cannot get more divisive than this. Being high-minded but smarmily duplicitous underneath is not something you want to be known for in politics. At least not widely known for.

The bottom-line in the Democratic field is very similar to that in the Republican field: which is the lesser evil? Unfortunately, Obama might be the lesser of the two. Is that an MC endorsement of Obama? No. In fact, in the knife fight of foreign relations, I think I might rather have Hillary wielding the blade. But I suppose it doesn’t really matter, since if the Democratic nominee is elected, we’ll have finally elected either a woman or an African-American as President. At least we’ll have that burden off our backs.

But it is even possible for Obama to win in a general election? Is it possible for either candidate to win? I ask because it is possible that by the end of the nomination process, the Democratic nominee will be so battered that he/she will be unable to stand against the relatively unscathed Republican nominee. Take the most recent debates for example. The Democratic one was extremely aggressive and combative; the Republican one very congenial. Republicans might not have to do any digging at all to find dirt on the Dem’s nominee; the Dems will do it for them.

A Miss America for the New Age:

Enough of politics (for now). The Miss America pageant is distinctly, well, American. When you think of this pageant, you think of a wholesome pageant of young, attractive, talented and sometimes smart women parading around in conservative evening gowns and one piece bathing suits. No more. The clothes, er, gloves have come off. Miss Michigan Kirsten Haglund has won the new, hipper, Miss America pageant. One with gold and black two-piece bikinis. Yeah, that’s right. I said two-piece bikinis. While you were watching reruns of “Everybody Loves Raymond” on TBS, prospective Miss Americas were showing off skin in revealing evening gowns and sporting two-piece bikinis while singing songs and twirling batons on TLC. This is a new era in beauty pageants. We should rejoice.

Not really. Who cares?

War Declared on Scientology:

A group of hackers calling themselves Anonymous declared war on The Church of Scientology yesterday. Their declaration, in video form, can be viewed by clicking on the last link, and it is quite entertaining. Please watch it. For a better story, however, turn to this CNET article.

From what I’ve read, Anonymous went ahead and began their war by defacing a number of Scientology websites and actually succeeded in bringing down the official US site of Scientology. When I checked it was up, however. It’s possible that it went down simply because of the number of hits it got after the Anonymous video was put on YouTube. Interestingly enough, another hacker group called The Regime took down a site frequented by the members of Anonymous. From what I gathered, the site was back up within minutes, but was then hit again. When I visited it, I saw The Regime’s handiwork: “This site has been taken down for violating Church of Scientology copyright.” Interesting.

Anonymous wants to destroy Scientology. I think that’s a noble idea; probably not possible, especially by these people, but noble. Anonymous will maybe make life difficult for a few system administrators, but beyond that, it’s unlikely that they could do much of anything. It’s somewhat difficult to undermine an ideology as robust as Scientology simply by hacking its websites. The only way any damage at all could be inflicted would be through constant, systematic attacks on their sites, and then it might only succeed in slightly limiting conversions to the cult, er, religion.

It is possible that an ideology, even one as established as Scientology, can be defeated, but not through such paltry means. But perhaps the work has begun, as the German government does not acknowledge it as a religion. The most damaging thing that could be done to the Church of Scientology would be the revocation of its tax-exempt status by the US government. This would be a step towards recognizing the Church for what it is. This would never happen, not in the US where Freedom of Religion is so important that we allow dangerous cults to flourish so long as they have enough wealth to file innumerable lawsuits and wholesome looking spokesmen and women like Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. But I can dream, can’t I?

Word of the Day: Indelible (adjective) 1. That cannot be removed, erased, or washed away; 2. Making marks that cannot easily be removed or erased.
3. Incapable of being forgotten; memorable.

On This Day in History: Trajan becomes the Roman emperor (98 CE). The two-year siege of Stalingrad is lifted (1944).

“Went to a doctor and I asked her to make this stop. Got medication, a new addiction. Fuckin’ thanks a lot.” – Unwritten Law, “Save Me.”