Politics is something old people care about. We young'ns care about stuff like videogames, right? What's happening in 2008? Bioshock, Crytek, Halo 3, Fable 2, Resident Evil 5, Resistance Fall of Man Sequel, Spore, Final Fantasy 13, Gran Turismo 5, Half Life 2 Episode 3, Mario Party 9, Assassin's Creed. And apparently, an election of some sort.

(Update: If you read this post before June 7th, 11:49AM EDT, I've made some updates, adding some paragraphs, clarifying some passages, and fixing grammar mistakes. Sorry for originally posting it in an "incomplete" state, but it was getting late when I first wrote it (1 or 2AM), and I had to work the next day, so I just wanted to get it done.)

The RSS feeds I've been reading have been flooded with political news items. "Ron Paul" and "Rudy Giuliani" keep popping up. There are also claims of loss of democracy, police state, conspiracy shit going on, etc. So I caved in, got curious, and started reading about it. Some of this it is pretty unbelievable.

In your circle of friends, do you have this one guy who thinks he's so great, but he's actually kind of an ass, and all your friends agree, but none of you really say anything to him to his face, 'cause you think if you do, he'll get angry and kick your ass, but you all sort of secretly laugh at him behind his back? That's sort of like America and the rest of the nations, it seems.

Hopefully most of you have heard of 9/11, when those planes crashed into the towers, and it was an act of terrorism, and the US got pissed, and that whole "war on terrorism" became a big deal. I remember Canadians talking about it. Aside from the obligatory "Oh my God, it's a terrible tragedy" that everybody had to prefix the discussion with, the most common underlying message was "Why the heck are the Americans so shocked and surprised that there exists people who don't like them? Did they seriously not realize that they were being kind of an ass to everyone else?"

Of course, none of these people are saying that America deserved terrorist attacks (though undoubtedly, the unscrupulous warmongers will try to spin it that way as an appeal to emotion to garner more support). It's just that when you do stuff that annoys or piss other people off, you shouldn't be surprised when they end up not liking you so much. Imagine you're sitting at a bar, and there's this tough biker guy four times bigger than you sitting there, and you sort of casually glance in his direction, and he growls and says "Hey, I really don't like it when people stare at me" to which you say "Well, fuck you. It's a free country and I'll stare at you if I want" and then proceed to stare directly into his eyes, don't be surprised if he kicks your ass. Doesn't mean he was right to kick your ass. Clearly, he was in the wrong, as it is a free country. Still, being all confrontational and shit was a pretty stupid thing to do.

So after 9/11 happened, these people (the CIA, the FBI, and some other people... supposedly people who know their shit) wrote a report called "the 9/11 report" and they gave a fancy name to this concept of "If you piss off other people, they might do bad things to you": they called it "Blowback" (actually, the term "Blowback" was already used in the military for a while now, but the term started being used a lot outside of the military thanks to this 9/11 report).

9/11 is a big deal for Americans. So a report written by the CIA and the FBI and all that would probably be a big deal, right? It would be a big deal in the sense that you'd assume people who plan on debating about it would probably have read the book, right? That's what I thought too.

So there's this thing called a "Presidential Debate" where the people who want to become the president of the United States debate about stuff. Except, as Rice Connie points out, they're not really debates, 'cause you're not supposed to have cross-questions, rebuttals, follow-up questions or anything like that. Instead, it's more of a question and answer session with a moderator. But I digress. Anyway, a bunch of people showed up and the moderator posed questions and they tried to answer those questions that the "right" way to gain support from voters, or something like that.

So the moderator asks this Ron Paul dude something about 9/11, and he mentions blowback. Let me see if I can find the exact phrasing he used... Ah, here it is: Ron Paul was advocating non-interventionist policies (let's not fuck around with other countries, 'cause it pisses them off), and the moderator asks "You don't think that changed with the 9/11 attack?" to which Ron replies:

No: Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Did you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the middle east. I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationalities of middle-eastern politics, so... Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country, or in the gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.

The moderator then asks "Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?", to which Ron Paul replies:

I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reasons they did it. And they are delighted that we are over there, because Osama Bin Laden has said "I am glad you're over on our sand, because we can target you so much easier." They've already, since that time, have killed 3400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

At this point, Giuliani "breaks the rules" and decides to counter-comment:

I'd like to comment on that. That's truly an extraordinary statement... That's an extraordinary statement for someone who lives through the attacks of September 11th, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th.

(Crowd applauses, cheers, etc.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us he didn't really mean that.

Ron Paul:

I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shaw, yes there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages. And that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

There are several issues here, and it's difficult to know where to start. First of all, it seems like Paul is the only person here who actually realizes that not everyone in the world loves America. The fact that his "If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem." statement is controversial is shocking in itself. In fact, I think Ron Paul (understanbly) failed to realize what Giuliani (and the sheep-like audience) were taking issue with, because the focus of his answers were in the wrong place. When the moderator asks if Paul thinks the Americans invited the attack, Paul interprets this as a question about whether we should continue the war. He talks about the strategic failure of keeping our troops there. He thinks that nobody is stupid enough to actually think that the terrorists attacked America because America is the "good guy", the terrorists are the "bad guys", and that's just what bad guys do to good guys. That's fairy tale shit, right? We're all adults here, and we know that people don't just give up their lives in kamikaze plane crashes unless they're truly upset about something.

Well, it looks like Paul overestimate the audience here, 'cause that's exactly what they think. "They hate us 'cause of our freedom". If you want to talk about absurd statements, here's an absurd statement. It's one of those statements that makes your jaw drop. If there exists people out there dumb enough to believe this, then surely there exists people who are dumb enough to accept the alternative theory that the terrorists hate America because America has rainbows and lollipops, and no other country which also has rainbow and lollipops will ever be safe, unless they join America in the fight against terrorism.

Second of all, Giuliani claims to have never heard of this "blowback" concept before. Implicitly, he's claiming that he's never read the 9/11 report in which the CIA, FBI et all pretty much said exactly what Ron Paul said. Well, fine, maybe Giuliani just happens to be one of those rare Americans who isn't really all that interested in 9/11, and so didn't happen to read that report.

Except Giuliani is the mayor of New York, and New York is where the attack occurred. Giuliani was actively involved in the aftermath of the attacks:

Although few people outside of New York know it yet, there is an emerging controversy over Giuliani's heroic 9/11 legacy. Critics charge that Rudy's failure to resolve the feuding between the city's police and firefighters prior to the attack led to untold numbers of deaths, the most tragic example being the inability of firemen to hear warnings from police helicopters about the impending collapse of the South Tower. The 9/11 Commission concluded that the two departments had been "designed to work independently, not together," and that greater coordination would have spared many lives.

Rolling Stones

Furthermore, when the buildings collapsed, there were dust particles in the air that were toxic. Stuff like asbestos, dieoxin, etc. America had sent the professional organization OSHA to perform a cleanup of the area. They were to wear hazmat suits to protect them. Rudy, however, wanted to be seen as a hero, so he dismissed OSHA, and took control of the clean up operation, sending in workers without any respiration masks at all, and told them to cleanup day and night, at breakneck speed. These workers acquired leukemia, cancer, and other sicknesses and died.

"The likelihood is that more people will eventually die from the cleanup than from the original accident," says David Worby, an attorney representing thousands of cleanup workers in a class-action lawsuit against the city. "Giuliani wears 9/11 like a badge of honor, but he screwed up so badly."

When I first spoke to Worby, he was on his way home from the funeral of a cop. "One thing about Giuliani," he told me. "He's never been to a funeral of a cleanup worker."

Giulianin isn't a stupid guy, but he killed more people than the terrorists he's claiming to fight against, and tries to portray himself as the hero of 9/11. It doesn't make sense that he hasn't read the 9/11 report. It makes perfect sense for him to pretend that report doesn't exist, and to lie about it.

Did Giuliani know the air at the World Trade Center was poison? Who knows -- but we do know he took over the cleanup, refusing to let more experienced federal agencies run the show. He stood on a few brick piles on the day of the bombing, then spent the next ten months making damn sure everyone worked the night shift on-site while he bonked his mistress and negotiated his gazillion-dollar move to the private sector. Meanwhile, the people who actually cleaned up the rubble got used to checking their stool for blood every morning.

Now Giuliani is running for president -- as the hero of 9/11. George Bush has balls, too, but even he has to bow to this motherfucker.

That's not the end of the story, though. The debate was hosted and televised on Fox News. As part of their gimmick, Fox had a voting system where people could call in and vote for their favorite debater. Ron Paul won the popularity poll at 30%, against Giuliani's 16%. Fox tries to spin this by saying Ron Paul got destroyed so bad, that he got famous, and so the public voted him up in the polls. That, of course, makes no sense at all, as when someone gets totally pwned, you vote for the person doing the pwning, not the person being pwned. The commentator throws in additional theory behind Paul's success, for good measure, saying that Paul's campaign people probably got really organized and did lots of dialing, which explains why he got so many votes. Right. 'Cause we all know Giuliani and the other candidates are either too naive or too honest to be doing the same. Watch the video. When the commentator utters the word "With Ron Paul making the case for terror", did you, like I did, roll your eyes, and have a slight headache at how inconceivably evil and soulless puppets of propaganda can be?

It gets crazier.

Other news sites ran polls as well. ABC news, for example, had a web poll, and Ron Paul had 15'568 votes (86%). "None of the above" got second and third place (they differentiate between "none of them, but a democrat" and "none of them, but a republican") at 1503 and 245 for a total of 1748 (10%). After that is some dude named Mitt Romney at 221 (1%), and Giuliani at 211 (1%). Ron Paul at 86% vs Giuliani at 1%. Who got pwned there? Not only that, but basically the results of this poll say "we either want Ron Paul, or we want NOBODY." Aside from Ron Paul placing 1st, none of the candidates managed to place even 2nd or 3rd. Anyway, here's the crazy part: ABC doesn't like what's happening, so they delete Ron Paul from the poll. Now "none of them" is the leader and second place, with Mitt at 3rd and Giuliani at 4th. WTF? Did they think people just wouldn't notice? ABC apparently got a "deluge" of furious phone calls and e-mails, and so were forced to add him back.

Apparently, ABC wasn't the only site doing this. MSNBC, ABC, MySpace, CNN, and others have either deleted Ron Paul for their polls if they had one, or deleted comments from users which supported Ron Paul. "I realise that ABC can do whatever they wish with their site, but deleting hundreds of thoughtful posts seems arbitrary and wrong.", one blogger writes. Watch this video of a user trying to post a Ron Paul blog entry, and getting their MySpace account blocked. Unbelievable. Seriously, you'd think claims like "MySpace is not letting me blog about Ron Paul; the people who own MySpace must be anti-Ron-Paul, bla bla bla" is paranoid bullshit. But watch the video. It's completely insane.

It gets even crazier.

Okay, press conferences. You know what those are, right? Some political person stands at a podium with microphones. He says stuff. Sometimes, he'll ask "Any questions?" and then reporters start asking questions. So there's this conference, and while Giuliani isn't present to answer questions, one of his aides is. There's this video in which Giuliani talks about the world trade center collapsing, and he says this before any of those buildings have collapsed yet, so people were sort of wondering how Giuliani knew ahead of time that the building would collapse, and this is part of where the theory that the US was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. They call it the "Jennings video", probably because it was Giuliani being interviewed by someone called Jennings. People have been asking Giuliani about this for a while, and he tends to deny ever having said that the tower would collapse, despite the existence of the Youtube video I just linked to above. Anyway, so there's this press conference, right? And Giuliani isn't there, but one of his aides is. One of the reporters there asks about the Jennings video. I'm guessing it's semi rhetorical, but it's also for the records: Does Giuliani still deny having foreknowledge that the towers would collapse? At first the aide says that this never happened, and that he wants proof. The reporter says he has proof, the video is everywhere. The aide says if it's everywhere, show it to me. The reporter says ok, wait 2 minutes while I get my laptop, and I'll go onto GoogleVideos and show you the video. Can you guess what happens next?

If your guess was the reporter goes ahead and gets his laptop and shows the video, you're wrong. If you guess that the aide tries to change the subject by making some random outlandish statement, you're wrong. Here's what happened: Police come in and arrest the reporter for trespassing.

They arrested a news reporter, at a press conference, with an official press-pass, for trespassing.

The other reporters in the room are shocked. Some of them are telling the police not to arrest the guy, that he did nothing wrong, and that yes, he's an official member of the press, and not a protester or anything like that. Others, dumbfounded, can't believe he's being arrested for asking about the Jennings video, so they rush over to him as he's being dragged out by cops, holding a microphone up to him and asking him to repeat what the question was that led to his arrest. If you don't believe me, watch the video.

I don't know how anyone can support Giuliani after this. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

There are two main things I'd like my target audience, young Canadians, to take from this:

1. If you're bored, and looking for a good anime or television show to watch, watch this shit. This is reality TV that's really actually real. This shit is unbelievable, insane and fascinating.

2. The reason people like Giuliani get away with shit like this is that people aren't actually watching this. Seriously. Watch it.

Yes, Rudy is smarter than Bush. But his political strength -- and he knows it -- comes from America's unrelenting passion for never bothering to take that extra step to figure shit out. If you think you know it all already, Rudy agrees with you. And if anyone tries to tell you differently, they're probably traitors, and Rudy, well, he'll keep an eye on 'em for you. Just like Bush, Rudy appeals to the couch-bound bully in all of us, and part of the allure of his campaign is the promise to put the Pentagon and the power of the White House at that bully's disposal.

Rolling Stone