RevSpork

A note about my volunteer work

Now that my curmudgeon credentials have been seriously compromised, I might as well come out and admit it: I love my volunteer work.  I like working with the kids I make contact with, and my co-volunteers are cool people dedicated to not only raising Chicago's literacy rates, but making the journey enjoyable for everyone.  I speak of Open Books.

 I had been curious about Open Books for some time.  I'd been working at Borders for several years (and other bookstores years before then), but as years passed, I became increasingly dissatisfied with my career.  As the cliché goes, something was missing in my life.  I remember wanting to do something besides retail for some time, but as long as I was getting some job satisfaction, it was tolerable.  That's the problem with tolerance: if you're even just a tiny bit comfortable with an otherwise intolerable situation, you can endure it for quite some time.  By the end of the last holiday season, however, that job satisfaction had rapidly dissapated, as did the tolerance.  My final six months at Borders were even more nightmarish than the holiday season: a round of layoffs forced my manager, who I'd held in high esteem, out of the store, and I lost the job I had successfully lobbied for six months earlier and forced back into my old job.  Many of my coworkers followed my manager out of the bookstore, and I felt increasingly isolated and helpless.

When Tori and I went on our annual pilgrimage to the Printers' Row Book Fair in early June, I stopped by the Open Books tent and was impressed with both the organization and its participants.  I wanted in the worst way to sign up and volunteer with Open Books, but my constantly mutating work schedule prevented my making any sort of long-term commitment. 

Making decisions has never been my strong suit, and the decision I had to make was seemingly simple: stay at a job and pick up a paycheck, or drop the job and work for an organization for free.  Of course, in the words of a semi-famous cartoon character, "nothing easy is ever simple."  What my job offered me was a steady paycheck but demanded more than my labor: now it expected me to endure emotional abuse, zero morale, and a stapled-on smile for my paycheck.  Volunteering at Open Books offered me no money whatsoever and only one other thing: an opportunity for me to refill my soul.  It was a surprisingly easy choice.

I've been out of work for three months despite my job-hunting efforts.  In the Reverend Spork tradition, it looks as if my bad timing has struck again.  The job market is wretched; even retail establishments are cutting back on holiday season hiring.  But every Wednesday, I spend twenty minutes apiece reading a book with my two kids; on Thursdays, I help teach an entire class to write stories and poems.  I know that, if and when I finally manage to land a job, I might have to give them all up.  But only for a while.  I'll stay involved in some capacity, that's for sure. 

*blush*

I can explain. You might be thinking, "This does not bode well for the Reverend's image." I just want to point out that, in the photo...um, I'm actually reading the Satanic Bible. The, um, childrens' picture book version. Really. No, really. Dammit.

Maximum Obama

This election map is not a prediction.  This map, in my opinion, reflects the farthest Barack Obama can reach on Election Day.  My question is, would you consider this a landslide?

My answer: I don't think so.  I would consider 396-142 a solid victory, but when I think landslides, I think total domination, such as Reagan in 1980 and 1984, or Lyndon Johnson in 1964.  I don't define Bill Clinton's 1992 (370-168) and 1996 victories (379-159) as landslides. 

So what makes a electoral victory a landslide?  The modern shortcut definition is: if you won California, Texas, New York, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, the odds are pretty damned good you have yourself a landslide.  Nixon pulled it off in 1972, as did Johnson and Reagan.  Unless John McCain urinates on the Alamo or recreates the Charles Whitman shootings, he's got Texas.  To me, that's not a landslide.

A more general definition would be: did you capture a wide majority of states in three of four major regions (the West, New England, the Midwest, and the South)?  If yes, you have a landslide.  As you can tell below, according to my little CNN-stolen map, even if Maximum Obama occurs, Obama won't have captured a majority of the South, and the West is pretty much even. 

Finally, there's a numerical definition: did your opponent rack up fewer than a hundred electoral votes?  If yes, you have a landslide.  If the year was, say, 1832, then you can be forgiven for picking up, say, ninety electoral votes.  But this is 2008; if you can't pick up a hundred, your campaign pretty much bit the big one.  The only way McCain could do worse than a hundred is by losing the majority of the South, and unless McCain's caught on tape burning Confederate flags, that's not going to happen. 

  

This map looks great for an Obama fan, and if it pans out like this, I will be overjoyed.  But I wince every time I hear the word "landslide," partly because I think it's a fantasy, and partly because I think it's way too much to ask.  I'd be happy with a simple victory, and I believe a majority of Americans agree. 

The need for a new holiday

...for a new national holiday: National Primal Scream Day.

Given the tension of the election and the collapsing economy, Americans have all this stress built up.  They could blow at any time.  We need a release and soon.  What Americans need right now is to walk outside and scream at the top of their lungs for at least 60 seconds, or at least until they pass out. 

Now, we can't go too far on this: we can't have Unrestrained Panic Day.  As fun as it would be to watch, that would lead to needless fatalities and destruction of property.  Our economy is already screwed up enough as it is.

You're obviously asking yourself, "When should we observe National Primal Scream Day?"  That's a good question, Steve.  In order to properly publicize the holiday, we need to park it when there are no other holidays around to compete with it.  Unfortunately, that leaves August, when it's too hot to scream, or anything else.  You promote a screaming holiday in August, and you'll probably be met with massive indifference.  (In fact, "National Indifference Day" would be a perfect August holiday.)  Other areas of the calendar with sparse holidays are late July (nah), late January (who wants to go outside and scream in the middle of winter?), and...the middle of November.  Yes.  Perfect.  Squeeze that sucker between Veterans' Day and Thanksgiving, when it's not too cold to go outside, and when the holiday season is pressing in on us.  As for day of the week, I'd go with Monday, when people are sufficiently refuelled from the weekend to put their hearts into screaming.  For this year, this gives us Monday, 17 November. 

The next obvious question is, "What time?"  Should we all scream at once at a predetermined time, or whenever we feel the need to scream?  As my political quiz indicates, I'm a liberal with some libertarian leanings, so as much as I'd like to experience an all out scream-fest at the crack of noon, that sounds too fascist for my tastes.  Scream whenever the heck you want.  Earplugs will be made available at your local Walgreens. 

There should be some general rules for National Primal Scream Day, so as not to lead to the aforementioned loss of property and/or lives.  Screaming should be conducted outdoors, and you cannot scream directly into someone's ear.  Playing a Primal Scream CD, or blasting Yoko Ono, does not count.  You yourself must do the screaming.  If you are mute, you may select a screamer from among your friends or relatives.  If you are mute and have no friends or relatives, you may hire a proxy to scream for you.  (And yes, you may write off the expense on next year's taxes.)  Please do not scream cursewords; in fact, your screaming should be limited to your basic "AAAUIIIGGHHH!!!," although "ARGH!!!" or "WAAAAAH!!!" are also acceptable.  Other screaming variations must be cleared by the Office of National Primal Scream Day, which is me.  For approval of your scream, please have your alternate scream e-mailed to me no later than Friday, 7 November. 

I think I've covered all the holiday bases.  If you have any questions, you may e-mail me or, better yet, scream it at me on the 17th of November.

A few quick burning Qs

I'm of two minds on this item. Since there may be considerable controversy about this later in the week, I'm curious to know what you think.

Check out this cartoon from Ted Rall.

1. Without reading Mr. Rall's explanation, do you think the cartoon is fair or unfair to the McCain/Palin campaign?
2. Do you think Mr. Rall's explanation is valid?
3. Do you think Mr. Rall's syndicate is correct in its decision not to publish it?

This will drive my wife crazy - latest presidential prediction

Now I'm picking Obama 347-191.  I think the Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia will remain in the McCain camp, but I believe General Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama will tilt two toss-up states toward Obama: North Dakota and Missouri.  I think the Powell endorsement will lead to more votes for Obama in other GOP states with considerable military populations (such as South Carolina, Alabama, and Texas), but not enough to give the states to the Democrats.  (It may turn Georgia, where McCain's lead in the polls has shrunk over the last month, into a toss-up state.) 

Here's another tidbit: Pollster.com added another state to the toss-up list: Montana. 

Burning questions - autumn edition

Autumn is my favorite season; I love kicking piles of leaves, football, and switching from iced tea to hot tea.  Tori is less fond of autumn because it means summer is over, and winter is approaching.  However, I find winter more tolerable than summer; at least with winter you can wrap yourself up in extra clothes and blankets if you're too cold, whereas with summer, if you're still hot when you get naked, you're screwed. 

Anyway, enough with my babbling: it's time for burning Qs:

1.  Speaking as an adult approaching middle age, why do we not go outside and play anymore?  Do we lack the time, or do we feel playing is a children's activity and thus beneath us?  Or is it less about age and more about the lure of the internet and video games?

2. Why do people feel that they should want a president to be just like them, or someone they'd like to drink a beer with? 

3. List, in order of increasing hilarity, the following: peace, love, understanding, exploding mimes.  Would exploding mimes be funnier if you were nearby and wearing safety goggles?

4. Why *do* birds sing so gay?  What would a bird sound like if it sang straight?

5. I'm an Obama supporter through and through, but this needs to be asked: is it just me, or is there something obscene about raising $150 million - in one month - for a political campaign?  Obama raised more money in one month than the Gross National Incomes of 46 nations in an average month.  Get my drift?

6. It's 3:39am.  Why can't I sleep?

The man with the excrement touch

Matt Hale's supporters are at it again.  This time, a white supremacist has been charged with posting the name and address of a juror in the Matt Hale case on his website, which has since been shut down.  As in the case of the murderer of the mother and husband of Judge Joan Lefkow, it is doubtful if The Clown Prince of White Supremacy was directly connected to this person, but as we're painfully aware, hate breeds hate. 

Do white supremacists have a right to their ideology?  Sure.  They can create white supremacist web sites and spout white supremacist twaddle to their hearts' content.  Hell, they can post white supremacist recipes for white supremacist cookies for all I care.  But the First Amendment has its limits, and posting information about a person for the purpose of harrassment (or worse) is overstepping its boundaries.  The courts have ruled as such in similar cases.  Hale rots in a maximum-security prison, and his freedom to directly disseminate his views is extremely limited, but his ideas and "martyrdom" still percolate like a wayward virus, contaminating the internet for decades to come. 

Holy cow

This is amazing news.

Let's get this straight: saying the Chicago Tribune is and has been a staunch supporter of the Republican Party is a gross understatement. Since the creation of the Republican party, the Chicago Tribune generally endorsed the GOP's candidate for president. (Two exceptions: 1872, when they endorsed independent Horace Greeley; and 1912, when they endorsed Teddy Roosevelt, then of the Progressive Party) That's over 150 years worth of Republican candidates. That means the Trib endorsed Herbert Hoover in 1932 as well as 1928. They endorsed Richard Nixon three times, and both Bushies twice apiece. They were the newspaper whom Alf Landon and Barry Goldwater could count on for their endorsement, although the nation roundly rejected them. They endorsed Thomas Dewey twice; in 1948 they proclaimed him the winner before the election was even over, which delighted Harry Truman to no end. In contrast, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton never got a Trib endorsement. No Democratic presidential candidate in the newspaper's history ever got its endorsement.

On Friday, the Chicago Tribune endorsed Barack Obama.

Holy freaking cow.

North Dakota blues

Obama's poll numbers continue to pull ahead of McCain's.  One month ago, three tossup states - Missouri, Indiana, and North Carolina - were firmly in the GOP camp.  According to pollster.com, you can throw two more red states in the either-way camp: West Virginia (McCain ahead by one) and <i>North Dakota</i> (McCain ahead by 3 1/2).  In addition, only two states (Georgia and Montana) are leaning toward McCain compared to seven leaning toward Obama. 

North Dakota? 

Huh.

Of course, these are only polls, and we still have three weeks until the election.  The final debate has yet to happen, and I will not let out a cheer (or moan) until Election Day.  I know from watching the Cubs that the ball game ain't over until the final out, so don't get yer hopes up, bub.  But I have to say I like the signs.