24 November 2009

Are we really that stupid?

It's a simple question and one I ask because I never cease to be amazed at how dumb people can be.

But, more importantly, I ask it because there are times when I am absolutely appalled when the actions of our so-called leaders (or those who would seek to become one) do nothing but mock our intelligence.

Case in point, in 2006, the Democratic National Committee ran on a one-issue platform: Stop the War! That was it. Almost no focus was given to things like the economy, health care, energy costs, or education; it was all about "the War". As such, every Democratic candidate in an election for a federal office ran on that platform. This made sense, as Congress are the ones who control the budget.

Unfortunately, just about every Democratic candidate for a state office here in New Hampshire made that part of their platform as well. Ask them about their platform and they'd eventually mention the war (in Iraq, they couldn't have cared less about Afghanistan).
This stunned me. The New Hampshire state legislature has no control over the United States Military. None, zero, zip, zilch, nada. Why were these candidates making this an issue?

Well, I guess I overestimated the general public because the Democrats won a historic victory, taking the control of both houses of the New Hampshire state legislature.

This brings me to something I saw today. It was an ad for Steve Pagliuca. Pagliuca is a candidate in the Massachusetts special election for US Senate. In his ad, Pagliuca explains that "Massachusetts is hurting" and he talks about how his plan will help turn around the economy in the state.

Again, I'm confused. Can someone please tell me how electing this clown to a federal office is going to directly help the economy in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? The short answer is that it can't. It's meaningless grandstanding. If he really wanted to help redevelop the Bay State's economy, he'd be better served running for a state-wide office in Massachusetts and not running for US Senate.

But there I go again, overestimating the intelligence of the general public.

12 November 2009

Minions, Lackeys, and Henchmen, who else?

In the world of the nefarious, there is a distinct pecking order.

At the top level, we have the Godfather. He has bosses who report to him and his is the final word of authority on all things. Below him, we have the bosses. Bosses come with lots of different titles, whether they go by don, jefe, or the man, these guys are sort of like the regional governors.

Then, then there are the underlings. These are the soldiers who make things happens. At the bottom, there are the minions. These guys are the cannon fodder, the red shirts. Next, there are lackeys, the grunts that lead the minions. They don't have to be smart, they just need to be good at getting people to get things done. Above them, there are the henchmen, who are higher up the food chain than lackeys but their roles aren't nearly as well defined. These guys can work for underbosses or directly for the bosses, but it seems as though they don't usually have people command of other guys.

It seems that I'm missing things. If you can think of what, let me know.