I mean really, what the hell is this?

The gist is that our soon to be President (come on, what really are the odds that John McCain couldn't die in office faster than William Henry Harrison?) is going to be a grandmother. And if you're wondering why, since she looks so young, it's because her 17-year old daughter is having a baby. Of course the "Family Values" crowd denounced this. I mean, come on, a girl not even out of high school having a daughter? Oh the moral decay! Is there some way we can blame this on Paris Hilton?!

Ha! Of course they didn't! They're in fact lauding this, because a girl who isn't even at the minimum age to drink alcohol, not even old enough to be drafted, is keeping the damn thing.

Said Evangelical Leader Richard Land: "This is the pro-life choice. The fact that people will criticize her for this shows the astounding extent to which the secular critics of the pro-life movement just don't get it. Those who criticize the Palin family don't understand that we don't see babies as a punishment but as a blessing. Barack Obama said that if one of his daughters made a mistake and got pregnant out of wedlock, he wouldn't want her to be punished with a child. Pro-lifers don't see a child as punishment."

First off, the hypocrisy here is just nauseating. I don't doubt for a second that if Barack Obama's daughters had that kid they would cut him to pieces whether his daughter had the kid or not. You can't tell me that John Hagee or James Dobson wouldn't blatantly attack Obama's legitimacy on Family Values issues, especially after his having left his Church. Just like a Governor who consorts with prostitutes is far more of a threat than a baptist preacher who likes to unwind after an anti-drug, homophobic sermon with crystal meth and a bit of man-on-man romping, they clearly don't care about sins nearly as much as who does them.

But even that is beside the point here. And that is that a 17-year old girl is not fit to raise a child, especially without a steady partner, and that's for the same reason you shouldn't let an 9-year old drive, she simply isn't mature enough, end of story. Plenty of 17-year olds are smart enough to know that. Bristol Palin is just lucky she isn't one of the so many who aren't financially secure enough to have a child, but to whom these Evangelical Demons still think the same rules should apply. You know, all those people who can't afford organic baby food and 24-hour nannies?

And that just covers the needs of the mother, what about the child for Christ's sake? This is a boy or girl not asking to be brought into the world, and their happiness, emotional stability and livelihood are dependent entirely on the parent. The reason the option to end a life should be an option to the parent (the parent, not you) should not be viewed as murder, but saving someone from a life that is far short of what they deserve. If your child commits suicide, it is not their fault, but yours for not helping them to exist in a world since you decided they should.

I don't know much about Sarah Palin, but I think all you would need to know about her for any reason could be summed up here. That is, whether or not she was able to put politics aside and simply be a sympathetic human being to someone who may well have to be one herself.

Abortion is a human issue, not a religious issue, and there is no sanctity in possibly damning another human being to a life of loneliness and emotional torment they don't deserve because you're too afraid of being damned yourself.

To be sure, your constant relaying of internet videos, and holding meetings where you watch Loose Change, and giving money to Prisonplanet.com have been a thorn in our side. And when you sat on your asses watching V For Vendetta, well there were a few shudders around the Castle of Doom. But our sinister designs have been too long in the making to be foiled by a few rotten kids with dvd players and internet connections!

Make no mistake about it you meddling runts, soon you shall be slaves, working to build great temples and serving fine wine to your Level 33 and higher Freemason Masters! And that is to say nothing of what will become of the fairer among you, who shall be selected for a more, shall we say, intimate purpose.

From high atop our Castle of Doom, swirled by the many dragons for whom our fatter subjects will make a most fitting meal, I scoff at your pitiful attempts to undermine our designs to conquer the puny inhabitants of this world! Oh, post comments on David Icke Youtube videos while you can, my most unworthy opponents. His severed head shall make a fine addition to the throne room of our shape-shifting, reptilian overlords!

Behold! Yes behold our might ruler Reptilius XVII in all of his glory! Tremble before his awe-inspiring might! Soon he shall lay waste to your cities, make concubines of your children and rule over you with an iron (err, reptilian) fist! Oh how you shall rue the day you wore your 911truth.org shirts in public then! Yes, oh yes it is only a matter of time before you kneel feebly before his throne, begging for mercy for your meager attempts to oppose him! Yet you shall find none, and for you Reptilius XVII has prepared his greatest torments!

The time is coming, o impediments to our dark mission! Too long have we waited! Too long have we planned our evil scheme of world domination to be stopped now!

But I grow weary of your trifling interference! So I offer you a small mercy. Surrender now, and be spared. Those who do shall be granted slightly less horrific toil in the Factories of Despair for their loyalty! Those who do not accept my most generous charity shall suffer the greatest agonies imaginable!

Think it over, but choose wisely, for resistance is futile!

 

The easiest explanation for this is that as far as teenage perceptions go, liberalism is synonymous with the trifecta of hipness, known to everyone else as sex, drugs and rock and roll. Being that conservatives couldn't really able to come up with a comparably enticing answer short of abstinence, temperance and Pat Boone, they have long suffered at commanding a strong contingent of young voters.

Granted, I know that this isn't completely the case. Plenty of Republicans like screwing, snorting and rocking just as much as any Democrat, just like there are Democrats who find these things repellant (hey, who said Lieberman?). All I'm saying is that for the most part, 20-something Republicans typically manifest themselves either as popped-collar yuppies or hippie-hating College Republicans that like to play dress-up, and neither flavor comes within a mile of impeaching the cool of anyone who's ever taken a bong hit while watching The Daily Show.

Most Red Staters at this point have resigned themselves to the idea that their lifestyle of Jesus and Pro-Life Rallies will always be hopelessly square. However, hold tight guys, Daniel Coleslaw is here to help.

If you guys trust me, I promise that I can give you what you've always wanted: the power to turn the youth of America away from the path of midnight acid-fueled Marxism discussions at Denny's and to come back to the Moral Majority. Yes, I believe it is possible to create a generation of conservative hipsters, here's how.

The Tom Wolfe Template

First of all, your college Republican needs a role model, and there couldn't be much of a better one than Mr. Tom Wolfe:

Now, pinko scumbag as I am, even I cannot refute that Tom Wolfe is totally goddamn boss. First, notice the trademark white suit. Notice the difference from the "Sunday Best" uniform most of your ilk parades around in? Where duds like those are lame in the most ugly, conformist way, Mr. Wolfe here manages to look both classy and cool. In addition to this, he has written many works that no one can impeach, from The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, to The Bonfire of The Vanities, which was serialized in no less a liberal rag than Rolling Stone. And this is a man who has repeatedly expressed his public adoration of George W. Bush. Take heart conservatives, liberals may have Kurt Vonnegut, but you have TW, now start learning a few things from him.

Play the Libertarian Card

The easiest way to turn Neoconservatism into something more attractive is to profess some semblance of Liberatarian beliefs. Liberals do the same thing by playing the Socialism Card. You don't have to be a real Libertarian, after all, your liberal counterparts usually think that socialism is having an Anti-Bush bumper sticker and occasionally blogging about raising the minimum wage (and most of them voted for John Kerry, who no one but the most clueless politico would label a Socialist ,with a platform on par with Sweden or the Netherlands). Most people who label themselves Libertarians rarely vote for actual Libertarian candidates if a Republican is in the race anyway.

Beat Liberals at the Music Game

One of the easiest ways to be hip is to beat Liberals on their own turf: music. Formulate a near-encyclopedic knowledge of revered indie bands with no real political leanings, such as Pavement or Sufjan Stevens. Also, take a keen interest in bands that don't have lyrics, or lyrics in English, such as Godspeed! You Black Emperor or Sigur Rós. Finally, one of the best tricks is to take leftist political bands and assert that they are actually conservative. After all, one of the games that college radio kids love to play is who can over-analyze the most, so if you can present a convincing case for the disguised Bush-love of indie sacred cows, then you will have them speechless and dumbfounded. So, practice this in front of the mirror "It's like Radiohead doesn't even notice how blatantly conservative they are, and don't get me started on The Decemberists".

Attack The Inner-Squareness of Liberals

Though they are loath to admit it, there is a lot of squareness about your average College Democrat. If they even so much suggest that your Conservatism isn't completely bitching, cut them down with a quick remark like "I guess I just don't see a lot of allure in jerking off to West Wing reruns". It's crucial that you always attack their lifestyle rather than defend your own. If they call you a lover of big-business, attack their working class credentials, because most of them are upper-class enough where they can afford to buy overpriced clothes at small-businesses instead of being caught dead among the common people they profess to support at the Blue Light Special section in K-Mart.

So there you go Conservatives, I hope this has been informative. Though as a final word of advice, perhaps you shouldn't take what I say seriously, given that I am actually desperately uncool.

While God himself would not give an interview due to his infamously reclusive nature, some explanations for the long-gestating project's postponement have been leaked to the press. For one, the success and continued popularity of The Second World War has left The Divine Creator at a loss for ways to top himself. “World War II not only blew away its previous installment, but set a new creative high-water mark for God with its gripping storyline, colorful cast and epic scope” said theology scholar and Divine Art Critic Harold Aspell. “Even to this day we're still quoting our favorite Hitler and Churchill lines.”

In addition to the fear of his own critically-acclaimed legacy, insiders report that God is still trying to develop a story line that works to his satisfaction. “It seemed set in stone that Armageddon was getting a New Year's 2000 release, and we had all been marketing the shit out of that date for the fans. But then in November of 99' God scratches it and moves forward on production of 9/11 instead. Of course, this screws up everything because he'd have to redo the entire production. I mean, don't get me wrong, 9/11 was a great work to tide his fans over, but now the main event has to be completely redone.”

In spite of all the set-backs, God's fans are continuing to maintain good spirits, but many are expressing frustration as proposed release dates continue to fly by. “I know God really wants to end Earth with an event that will blow away all of his previous work” said Pat Robertson, one of God's most famous admirers “but this is really getting unbearable. At this point I just want to tell God to run with whatever he's got, even if it isn't perfect. I mean, it only took him seven days to make the Earth and everything on it, how long does he need to destroy it?”

In response to some of the reservations about the project, a press release has been issued from Heaven stating there is now a “tentative release date” for Summer of 2010.

Anyway, this won't surprise you, but it isn't a whole lot of fun being a Progressive Liberal in Modern America (as in, since about 1945 on). This is part of the reason I've long since gone off the news media in almost any form. However, every so often, an encouraging news story crops up that delays my transformation into a bomb-tossing anarchist by a few months.

Yes, those damn activist judges in California have decided that perhaps gay people are people after all, thus joining a handful of states who have already done so (and, errr, most of the Western World).

To this day I'll never quite be sure what the big fucking deal is with homophobia. Obviously, Christianity has a disproportionately sized bug up it's ass on the subject (except that they're stealing this one from the Jews, who don't seem to care nearly as much), which really isn't much of an excuse, but at least they've got something on paper. You know what, fuck it, that still isn't an excuse.

Yet what the rest of society is griping about is really a mystery. Well maybe not.

If you ask me, I have to wonder if the gay rights struggle for men isn't halfway what feminism was for women. After all, the last few decades have proven to us that women crossing into the Land of Man doesn't really hold disastrous consequences for society. Yet I still think it's interesting that, to this day, the same gender flexibility doesn't exist for men.

Women can wear pants in their business dress, but men can't wear lipstick or mascara. Women can go into the workplace, but a man staying home to do the chores is bizarre. A girl can listen to Led Zeppelin, but a guy that listens to Madonna probably is going to lose any invitations to the next Super Bowl Party.

Hell, even commercials (which are usually good as cultural thermometers) present a fairly traditional portrait of men. It's hard to find a man in an ad that doesn't watch football, wear plaid, pound brews and practically live in his garage with his arsenal of power tools. In fact, almost every time you see men traversing the gender boundary, it's almost universally just used as a sense of humor ("Oh brother, dad screwed up dinner again. Let's call Dominos!").

Simply put, while women have been allowed nearly the full spectrum of gender identity over the years, men have never really dared to make the same jump, except in the odd subculture, which usually results in scorn from their fellow fellas (Oh those faggy goth kids and their makeup! And poetry, poetry! Yuck).

That was, until gays started to put the kibosh on the whole business. This is why, to me, a possible dimension of the gay rights struggle is the idea that men of all sexualities shouldn't be scorned for wanting to deviate from a rigid and specific definition when it's clear that it doesn't work for them. Honestly America, we have enough actual problems to work on instead of harassing men that want to dress feminine, surrender their breadwinner status and, yes, like boys.

So it's good to see a story like this coming out of the nation's most populous state deciding that it's about time it started to progress. It reminds us that ideas like "all people are created equal" can still have meaning, and can overcome obstacles when their time has clearly passed.

So how do you choose? They have drawbacks of course (Obama lacks experience, Hillary isn't always a straight-talker and John McCain doesn't talk about hope or change), so how can we pull together all of these facts and make a reasoned decision about who should be allowed into the Oval Office?

We can bring up the old deal-breakers that really prove that someone is fit to command the world's largest nuclear arsenal (who can you have a beer with?) or capable of fixing our plummeting economy (who seems cold?), but in the end, they may not really answer the question.

That is why I propose a new question that should answer it once and for all: which candidate would you rather burn down an orphanage with? I mean, it's hard to come up with a more relevant query than this.

Take Hillary. Since she says she has experience, this means she most likely has experience in everything, including torching orphanages to the ground just for the fun of it. You know that she'll think of everything, like making sure that you board up the exits to prevent escape and do it at night to ensure that the orphans won't know what's going on until its too late. She even released that ad that ensured us that she would be ready for anything if we called her at 3am!

Obama, however, may not be the best choice when it comes to turning a bastard depository into a blazing firetrap. He can talk about hope and change, but we need more concrete platitudes when it comes to an effort like this. I mean, you can say “I hope they can't access their fire extinguishers”, but a real leader knows to remove them before you even start pouring the gas. Also, since Obama is an undeniable elitist, he'd probably ruin the moment by bringing up pompous literary references. You know, like “their terrified screams remind me of this passage from In Search of Lost Time”.

But how about McCain? Well he's a Vietnam Vet, so we know he has no problem with killing scores of Asian Communists, so it's safe to assume that he'd know exactly how to get the job done when it comes to ending the miserable lives of parentless children by immolating their bodies in the night. Hell, he'd probably have some great ideas, like dusting the fire escapes with Agent Orange, and blasting Wagner just to spook the kids even more in their final, hellish minutes of life.

Anyway, I hope this has been helpful in your decision for November. This is an important election, after all, and it goes without saying that we don't want it to be settled on the basis of tawdry criteria like voting records or something.

Happy Voting!