The fbomber Told You So, Part I

In this article, "5 Myths About Those Civic-Minded, Deeply Informed Voters", Washington Post writer Rick Shenkman confirms many of the fbomber's theories about American voters*, but without resorting to overbroad generalizations, scatological analogies, scurrilous accusations, gratuitous insults, misogynistic rantings, a gross distortion of facts or a graph drawn on the back of an index card.

Yeah, I know. Bor-ing!

To summarize (and chime in):

1. American voters are Dumb, Dumb, Dumb. (Where's Iraq? Who's Karl Marx? What war was the Battle of Bunker Hill fought in? Don't ask Americans. Ask wikipedians**)
2. Conservative voters are not necessarily more dumb than liberal voters. (The study did not measure Meanness levels.)
3. Even if you give American voters the facts, they will still draw the wrong conclusions. (This should come as no surprise, in a country where half the population still believes in Creationism, despite being forcibly exposed to Evolution countless times during their journey through the educational system)
4. Voters are as Dumb as ever, and maybe even Dumber, despite rising educational levels. (A cursory viewing of the "Girls Gone Wild: Spring Break" documentary series should explain why a college degree need not automatically result in higher intellectual achievements.)
5. Young people don't follow the news, really, at all. (Facebook Status Updates, apparently, do not count.)

So what? So --- the fbomber repeats --- attempts to reach American voters through their heads are going to fail to engage the broader electorate. If Darwinism can't penetrate our thick skulls after 100 years, do you think that Obamanomics has a chance in 7 weeks?

Democrats have got to generate stronger emotions from American guts.

And not just the positive, happy, warm, hopeful emotions I watched being created in Denver either. Those emotions are nice, but fbomber has far too often watched them get beat up and hand their lunch money over to the uglier emotions of greed, fear and hate inside the election booth.

The McCain strategy coalesced late and is disjointed, but it is very powerful. I'll call it the High-Low-Fear approach.

At the High end, McCain's biography and history makes a convincing case to Sweet and Dumb Swing voters that he won't do ALL the stupid things Bush did. That he's a Maverick. That he's Competent. That he's a Reformer. That he's a Lifelong Public Servant, and Oh Yeah, One More Thing, A War Hero.

At the Low end, McCain's concessions to the Hard Right on war and taxes--- plus his pick of Hockey Mom*** Sarah Palin --- energize the Mean half of the voting spectrum, both Smart and Dumb.

Underneath it all, like a steady, throbbing bass beat, the Fear message --- Obama is young, he is inexperienced, we don't know him, he's kind of different from most of us, he doesn't kick ass, he's naive, he's not ready, he can't execute, he can't protect us --- will depress and demotivate support for Obama across the board.

Democrats have got to generate some fear themselves. Fear that McCain is too Old, too Crazy, to Angry, and too Unhealthy for the job. Fear that he'll continue the Worst and Stupidest of the Republican policies. Fear that Sarah Palin might wind up in the Oval Office, and make us nostalgic for the last eight years when we only had someone pretending to be a redneck in the White House.

Democrats have to generate enough fear to make the Smartest and Nicest of the Dumb & Mean people doubt their allegiance to McCain, and stay home on Election Day. And to make the Sweet & Dumb Swing Voters of America so afraid of a McCain/Palin victory that they go vote for Obama. Or, at the very least, don't go vote for McCain. Or at the very, very least NOT go to vote against Obama.

---

* The fbomber is not one of these self-hating Americans who believes that Americans are inherently stupider, greedier, meaner, lazier and more fearful than other nations. He is a self-hating American who believes that these elements are distributed more or less evenly throughout the entire human race. He does note, however, that American culture tends to glorify and actually revel in these characteristics more than any other nation he has seen. And that Americans, in fact, appear to willfully confuse these faults with virtues.

** Some might quibble that this characterization was based on measuring what someone knows, not their capability to learn and perform. So more accurately measures interests, not intelligence. A person uninterested in politics might score very low on this test, but be extremely informed and capable in other matters more relevant to daily life.

To which the fbomber responds: Nice try, dummy. Kicking ass in Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City does not count as having "street smarts."

*** Living in Southern California, the fbomber is unfamiliar with this taxonomic classification and hasn't yet had it clearly defined for him yet. As best he can tell, it's just like a soccer mom, but a complete cunt.

Virginia Tech Shooter:Liberal or Conservative?

Yes, I know that I am a sick, heartless fucker for even thinking this way, but I have been trying to figure out whether the Virginia Tech shooter was a liberal or conservative.

I know it shouldn't really matter. He was mentally ill, that's the main thing. And committed a heinous act that created devastating pain for 33 sets of families, friends and communties.

But still. I want to know. That's just how my brain has become wired over the last dozen years or so. Call it political polarization, call pop psychologizing, say that I am obsessed, but I really don't feel like I can get a grip on how someone's mind functions these days, without knowing where they fall in some basic questions.

Like whether they believe in evolution or creationism. Support or oppose the Iraq war. Are indifferent to or disgusted by homosexuals. Are pro-choice or anti-abortion. Side with corporations or people. Believe in punishing or helping others. Interested in cooperation or domination.

And, yeah, I do judge people --- negatively --- when they disagree with me on these issues. Who doesn't?

Usually, it's pretty easy to pick out the wingers from the moonbats, but Cho Seung-hui is kind of a tough one to label. Here's what I know about him, and where I think it puts him on the Liberal/Conservative spectrum.

Liberal Traits:
A minority
An English Major
Writes plays
Hates Rich Kids

Conservative Traits
Korean
A gun nut
A Religious Fanatic
Hates Debauchery (aka Fun)

All in all, it seems pretty much balanced. So I guess the deciding factor would have to be his actions.

That's an easy one.

A true liberal would have dealt with his hurt and disappointment by banding together with other similarly afflicted victims to whine and petition for recognition and special treatment. Culminating, perhaps, in some sort of march or sing-in in front of the Student Union.

A sullen, uncommunicative, Jesus-obsessed loser who blames all the troubles in the world on another group of people, then remorselessly kills those people as if they were not even human?

That's a conservative.