The hour badly spent

Tim Hadachek has spent all semester wooing his own doucherie. It’s pretty clear now that he’s fully in love with it and will never let it go, no matter what psychologists recommend. In the matter of HRC’s appointment to Secretary of State:

Hillary is burdened by the curse and blessing of her husband, Bill. On one hand, Hillary would not be where she is today if she hadn’t married a future president. On the other, Bill appears to still carry the lack of restraint that led to his impeachment.

A blowjob much too awesome for the nation to ever forget. Was it somehow special, or are all blowjobs really like this? Take some time to savor that question.

For example, compare the presidential campaigns of Obama and Clinton. Obama’s campaign was airtight; if there was internal conflict, we certainly didn’t hear about it. Some reporters even nicknamed him Barack "NoDrama."

Clinton’s campaign, by contrast, had more leaks than an old faucet. The Clinton camp might as well have invited the New York Times every time a senior adviser was fired. Often, these snippets of info took the form of a Hillary aid criticizing Bill for being reckless and uncontrollable.

Why should we expect Clinton’s gig as Secretary of State to be any different?

This election was an epic clusterfuck, the likes of which mankind has never seen before and will most certainly not see again for at least two years. Hillary ran a piss-poor campaign, but she had a job way before she became President of Harlem. Her goings-on there were probably far more relevant to her Cabinet appointment than some moronic off-the-cuff campaign-trail comments Bill made a zillion years ago that everyone’s forgotten about. We were sure the slinging of irrelevant mud would disappear after Nov. 4, that there was a glimmering hope for change we could believe in, but it’s almost as though one side has a vested interest in keeping political "science" at the level of finding the right table to sit at during lunch in middle school.

Obama has said he wants to assemble a "cabinet of rivals" in the same spirit as his hero Abe Lincoln. Indeed, there is much to be said for avoiding the current administration’s case of groupthink — it’s important to have different types of people advising you.

But Lincoln’s style is not one to be modeled. Civil War historian Chris Pinsker said Lincoln’s cabinet "nearly destroyed the president" and that they were a "plotting, feuding bunch."

Which is better for fostering democracy: an insular cabal of yes-men, or a team of opposing viewpoints trying to build a consensus? It doesn’t matter! To Hadachek, Democrats are wrong no matter what they actually do! Which leads to "critiques" without substance. This elephant is heckling at a game his team has already lost. Without anything constructive to add, wouldn’t it would be more fun if he just shut up and left the ballpark?

[Source: K-State Collegian]

PBS is the vegetarianism of television. Although it’s a good idea, few of us have the discipline to commit to it. Tim Hadachek’s got a solution.

Like so many other government endeavors, PBS falls into the long list of programs that have outlived their usefulness. Public broadcasting was created in 1967 to provide diversity to television at a time when it was dominated by the three broadcast networks.

But in today’s world of 6,000-channel cable packages, there is little need for more diversity. Science, cooking and home improvement shows — at one time exclusive PBS undertakings — now have networks of their own. Slashing the budget for public broadcasting is a favorite pastime of Republicans in Congress and the White House.

Starting with Newt Gingrich in the 1990s and continuing to the current president, it is almost a yearly ritual for the proposed budget to greatly limit PBS funding. Yuppies everywhere protest loudly, and the $400 million or so is begrudgingly put back into the federal budget.

The problem is that those who protest cutting spending don’t seem to be actually watching. As the New York Times noted, “the highest-rated shows on PBS barely garner half the ratings of the wrestling show ‘Friday Night Smackdown.’”

I couldn’t have said it better, but I will anyway. American media and culture would do better off by pandering to teenage boys. Teenage boys don’t want Shakespeare, classical music, modern art. They want Smackdown. Also: fast-food ads. And Jerry Springer. And Girls Gone Wild. Yeah, lots of medieval-era patriarchy, except you can reach a lot more people with TV than with sonnets.

Public television is based on the assumption that such a thing as “high culture” can be defined. Based on the current programming of PBS, high culture means watching 10-year-old British sitcoms and rich people sell their junk.

Culture can’t be defined; it is whatever people choose it to be, based on their own interests. Shoving large amounts of Shakespearean adaptations down our throats is not going to change that.

In Hadachek’s world — a utopia of Ayn Rand-level dickitude — history and culture are replaced with cynical devotion to the bottom line. Marketablity is the be-all of everything. Instead of Barack, our next prez would be The Rock. Our VP would be Trish Stratus.

Maybe Hadachek is on to something after all.

[K-State Collegian]

We are all judged by the people we associate with, writes Tim Hadachek. Everything is a continuation of high school.

Barack Obama should not be surprised then when John McCain and Sarah Palin bring up associations from the Democratic nominee’s past. And perhaps unlike your embarrassing roommate, these connections are very pertinent to today’s world.

During the 1960s and ‘70s, at the height of the anti-Vietnam War movement, Bill Ayers was a founding member of the radical group known as the Weather Underground.

Over a period of several years, Ayers and his fellow conspirators conducted various acts of domestic terrorism, the most notable of which were the bombings of the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon.

Fast forward to 1995. Ayers held a reception at his home for a little-known politician, Barack Obama. Later, Ayers and Obama would serve together on boards for two nonprofit organizations.

What’s interesting is that the actual nonprofit work is not as important as forty-year-old crimes committed by one person on the board. Tim Hadachek doesn’t think charity work is important.

Obama, of course, has denounced his backer’s actions, pointing out, correctly, that he was 8 years old when the terrorist acts were taking place. But he certainly knew of Ayers’ past when he worked with him as an adult.

Obama’s supporters have been outraged at what they see as unfair “guilt by association” attacks.

As an Obama supporter, I have no problem with "guilt by association" attacks. That way I can remind you that Charles Keating, a personal friend of John McCain, bribed McCain to avoid punitative measures during the S&L scandal and helped screw taxpayers out of a lot of cash. Why isn’t this being played up?

1. Obama is trying to avoid running a negative campaign, a campaign that relies on mudslinging to distract from things like the economy, foreign policy, etc. This is necessary because:

2. He’s being held to a much higher standard than McCain. When a Republican distorts situations and exercises doublethink to prove an obviously spurious (lol “provocative”) point, nobody’s surprised.

If we want to go the “guilt by association” route, we could also play up the fact that Cindy McCain stole drugs from her own charity and was investigated by the DEA. But Tim Hadachek is willing to overlook that; clearly he doesn’t place much value on nonprofit work anyway.

[Source: K-State Collegian]