I did not want Obama to win. I consider myself conservative when it comes to economic issues, so I tend to recoil at concepts such as universal healthcare and increasing taxes on the wealthy. Though I was not particularly impressed with McCain’s campaign (this was not the McCain who ran against Bush in the Republican primary eight years ago), his economic philosophy more closely matches my own, and so he was “my guy” in this election.

However, as the campaign season dragged on and the election grew near, my support for McCain was replaced by something else altogether–bitterness toward outspoken, self-righteous “Obamaholics”. I wanted to see them cry like they did four years ago when they were so smugly certain that John Kerry would become our president.

In the end, my desire to see Obama defeated really had nothing to do with the man himself. Heck, I like Obama. I think he’ll make a great leader and I don’t even find his policies that objectionable. But his supporters, with their omnipresent anti-Bush, anti-Palin, anti-”Joe the Plumber” rants, along with their naive, unconditional faith that this one man can create some kind of American Utopia, drew my ire. Democrats could often be heard accusing McCain and Palin for making “divisive” comments, but there was nothing more divisive than the behavior of so many indignant Obama supporters.

They were (and I say “were”, not “are”, since I assume that Obama’s victory will temper their rage) like ravenous, angry fans of a local football team. McCain supporters may not have been any better, but they certainly didn’t make as much noise. You see, it’s not “cool” to support a Republican, and with such widespread disapproval of Bush (which took on a life of its own to such a degree that just about anyone felt socially secure railing against Bush, even if they were completely ignorant on the issues), supporters of McCain tended to keep quiet lest they be drawn into an irrational, angry political “discussion” with nearby liberals, who are never bashful about sharing their views.

The presidential race, as usual, became a sporting event, with people choosing their side and hurling venom at the opposing team. Civil discourse over the proper direction of the country was abandoned long ago by both sides. Do people even understand the issues at stake, or do they simply read some headlines, catch a few sound bites, and ride the wave of common sentiment around them? I suspect the latter.

For these reasons I will once again be tuning out the news for the foreseeable future. I’m tired of the arguments, the anger, the divisions. The ignorance disguised as knowledge. At least for the next four years I don’t have to listen to every other idiot complain about Bush.

Good luck, Obama. I’m sure you’ll do great. Maybe not. Either way, I’ll be blissfully unaware.

While the French get 30 days of paid leave and most other Europeans receive at least 20, the country with the world’s biggest economy does not guarantee workers a single day, researchers said on Wednesday.

This is one of my favorite topics, due to pride in my country’s work ethic, and because it is a real life illustration of laissez-faire economics vs. quasi-socialist systems. Invariably these articles compare the US to European countries who force their employers to provide paid time off. It’s generally not mentioned that these countrys’ economic growth and employment rates suck.

According to economist John Schmitt (a part of the think tank who conducted this research?), “It’s a national embarrassment that 28 million Americans don’t get any paid vacation or paid holidays.”

Hey John, ever wonder why the US has the biggest economy in the world? Since when is getting paid to sit on your ass a right?

This occurred at the peak of my addiction to “news”, or rather, the info-tainment that passes for news on the web and cable television. In my attempt to “stay informed”, I actually became detached, arrogant and misinformed, believing that the images I saw in the media were the real deal. It was nothing more than a TV show to me.

I don’t mean to suggest that the news outlets deliberately mislead, but their programming is just as scripted as any work of fiction. While the subject matter may be from real life, the method of presentation is carefully chosen with the goal of generating the most revenue. In the end, you’re not necessarily seeing what’s important, but rather what the network deems you are most likely to keep watching, thereby delivering the most eyeballs and eardrums to advertisers (there is no better illustration of this than the story of Natalee Holloway.)

I watched those tanks all night, by the way.

I don’t mean to imply some maliciousness on the part of news organizations, nor am I suggesting that “staying informed” is a bad thing. The danger comes when you start to believe that what you see and read in the news is genuine, unequivocal truth. There is a tendency, when a person believes they know the truth, to become overconfident, even arrogant, in his assessment of things. One must be weary of the natural human tendency to “choose a side”, especially when following politics. I shall long regret some of the things I said to my good buddy Miker in the heat of political debate.

Fortunately, about six months ago, a combination of factors led me to break free of my news addiction. I’ll tell ya, it feels great. I watch from a distance, occasionally tuning in to news outlets to get an overview of what’s going on, and I feel just as “informed” as I was in 2003. The difference is that now I’m not plagued by the arrogance of false certainty.

-Matt

For all of my complaints about Salon.com‘s leftist propaganda, it really is a great website. It’s updated daily with interesting and original content, and I thoroughly enjoy Cary Tennis’ advice column. For example, today I took perverse pleasure in reading this letter from an individual full of politically-based rage.

I hate to take pleasure in another’s discomfort, but it amuses me that people get so passionate about such things. It’s impossible for most of these people to know the real truth and thus earn the right to such passion. I know how it feels, because I’m one of them. I get in heated debates over political issues, only to see them evolve into philosophical arguments with no solid foundation in real-life events. That’s why I’m struggling to ignore world affairs; if I’m going to get passionate about something, I’d rather it be about a belief and not corrupted by some vague awareness of “facts”.

The news is not a reliable source of truth. You’re not “staying informed” by following the news. Well, that’s not entirely true–you are staying informed of what the news organizations want you to hear. They are businesses, and will run stories that draw the biggest audience. If they were focused on reporting events of worldly and historical significance, we wouldn’t get persistent coverage of some chick’s disappearance. There are some exceptions, like the BBC to some extent, but even they are guilty of sensationalism.

I just feel that such passion and anger needs to be earned in order to be taken seriously. An example would be if you were personally affected by particular world events. Otherwise it’s just so much bluster that serves only to further your own self-actualization.

-Matt