Canada, she beckons.

And, sadly, not in a Harry Potter context. The latest round of Supreme Court decisions had me once again on the Canada Immigration site, tallying up my entrance score. This is not something new. I've done this before.

I'm running out of unshattered bits of American idealism to cling to, and the fight or flight thing keeps coming down to flight because I've no clue whatsoever how to fight whats been going on the past few years. Head down, slogging away, is just feeling more and more dystopic - like I'm going to turn around in an unspecified number of months and find that the past few years have been the bits that happen right before the opening pages of (pick or combine any or all aspects of the following) (a) A Brave New World (b) Fahrenheit 451 (c) The Handmaid's Tale (d) V for Vendetta or (e) 1984. The fall of Rome and the rise of the Nazis are also not far from my mind.

And then I think I'm exaggerating.

And then I think I'm not.

Take my money - please.

Obama just got more of my money - basically for running a fun campaign. They are raffling off dinner with Obama for 4 people who donate any amount of money in the next week. (Although raffle isn't really right, since they say they will select the participants - well whatever).

I mean, why not shoot him another $25 bucks for the chance (and in appreciation for the sheer amusement value I gained out of the stunt) was my way of thinking? So, reader, I did.

A Good Cackle

As I was driving in to work today, NPR was reporting on a 2d Circuit panel ruling concerning utterances of expletives on TV. The rationale of the ruling caused me to laugh like a witch for a good while - the whole story is here, but the NYT briefly summarizes the Court's reasoning as follows:

"If President Bush and Vice President Cheney can blurt out vulgar language, then the government cannot punish broadcast television stations for broadcasting the same words in similarly fleeting contexts."

Pleasing. Most pleasing.

Captain Hillary Renault

Senator Clinton has managed to slip even further down my list with this story - my knee jerk reaction after reading this bit?

"Sen. Clinton, who complained about corporate America's largesse and skyrocketing executive pay during campaign events Wednesday, said she did not believe her message was undermined by her acceptance of the private [jet] flights."

"I'm shocked, shocked, to discover gambling in this establishment." And after this bit?

"'Those were the rules. You'll have to ask somebody else whether that's good policy,' she said."

Sweet baby Jesus - does the woman have no moral center that operates with independence from outside rules or forces which might be brought to bear to control her actions?

I know, it should be about policy, but....

I found this brief Salon article on Obama interesting - in part because its working theory would explain a whole lot of his appeal to me - particularly these two notions:

"In political terms, this campaign will test whether the Democratic voters will pick a nominee who waxes cool while his major rivals (certainly John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, by marriage and learned experience) burn hot."

"So here is a working theory, subject to many modifications as the campaign unfolds: Barack Obama is simultaneously both aware of the power of cheap rhetoric and easy emotion -- and intellectually contemptuous of it. He is a candidate in quiet rebellion against the banalities that too often govern political discourse."

I like people who wax cool - even more particularly do I like of the coolness in positions of authority. For example, I loathe emotional preaching in church - which tends to read to me as pandering to the lowest human emotions in order to disguise the fact that the speaker is cowering in the corner, terrified of the human intellect (and, yes, I say this fresh off a viewing of Jesus Camp - which, damn, shows an even more wack sort of fundie church camp than the one I attended in my youth). Hmm - perhaps not surprisingly I also loathe a 'hot' style in politics.

Numbers Game

I’m currently obsessed with this graphic over at the NYT, comparing all the fundraising by the candidates. It is no secret that I support Obama in this race, and I’m impressed by the comparison of the size of donations between Clinton and Obama - to recap (and, sorry for the disgusting presentation of data - to save my life I can't make blogger understand either (a) charts or (b) retention of tabs/spaces):

Donations
Under $200: (O)$5,384,178; (C) $1,159,011
$200-499: (O) $1,159,011; (C) $596,475
$500-1,499: (O) $4,230,389; (C) $2,643,173
$1,500-2,299: (O) $2,304,437; (C) $1,372,493
$2,300: (O) $12,628,038; (C) $19,173,040
TOTAL: (O) $25,706,053; (C) $24,944,192


It is, then, as some pundits predicted - Clinton has maxed out many of her core contributors during this first reporting period - the ‘well-is-dry’ portion of her intake is about 77% (in dollars) of her total intake, while Obama’s ‘well-is-dry’ portion of total intake is about 49%.

I am, of course, also particularly moved by Senator Obama's 'Under $200' number, of which I am one.

As the twins would say - instersting - very instersting.

Dear Senator Clinton,

Yes, I felt compelled to send the below to the Clinton campaign, although I feel a bit superficial because am annoyed by actual policy? No. Word choice. Inproper verbiage. But, whatever, her Obama baiting has ticked me off.

Senator Clinton,

I'm deeply disappointed in your decision to not only mischaracterize Mr. Geffen as having an official role in the campaign of Senator Obama, but then to continue to do so. Repeatedly. After having the mischaracterization pointed out to your spokesman. Repeatedly.

I’m sorry to say that all I can think of when your campaign does so is the infamous parsing of the meaning of the word ‘is.’ I will not be voting for someone who cannot use words accurately - even if the 'is' fiasco had never occurred, I’ve had enough Orwellian language in the past 6 years to last me a lifetime.

I will not exaggerate the level of my support prior to this incident, which was declining due in large part to what I perceive to be pandering to the religious right. But this really does seem to be the straw that has broken this particular camel’s back. You have certainly lost my support.