Help me Barack Obama, you're my only hope!

In the words of Al Gore - the debate is over. The debate, that is, as to whether the news media has a liberal bias. If the past thirty years hasn't convinced everyone, or the election season of 2006 wasn't enough to seal the deal, then the coverage of this year's presidential race has established as empircal fact the cogency of the news media's bias towards, and in some cases outright advocacy for, Barack Obama.

But it seems to me that 'bias' is no longer a sufficient descriptor. As the McCain campaign somehow continues to hold even in the polls, in spite of running against perhaps, the most charismatic and inspiring candidate of all time, their appears to be a growing desperation on the part of many commentators and members of the news media. Specifically, they seem to have, for the first time, allowed the possibility of defeat to enter their minds. And they are scared. Consequently they are already laying the groundwork for what will surely be (in the case of an Obama defeat) a massive backlash against the America they believe is ignorant, racist, and corrupt. A recent article published in Newsweek by Slate magazine editor Jacob Weisberg articulates this sentiment:

"Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race."

Are we racists if we don't vote for Obama? Will an Obama defeat mark then end of America? This kind of shrill posturing is the conseqeunce of several problematic trends and fallacious thinking.

The first is that Senator Obama (through no fault of his own) has been raised to such heights of sainthood by his followers that anything less than his ascendence to the American throne will be seen as nothing short of abandoning our only hope for a future.

Second, in order to compel the American people for the need for change, our political parties must paint our current state of affairs as bad as it has ever been. As Weisburg suggests, a vote for McCain will essentially send America into another dark age. I believe this kind of politicking is harmful to our country.

Third, we ignore the fact that African-Americans like Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell and Condaleezza Rice have served and are serving in the highest levels of government with distinction. To therefore suggest that how we vote in November will by itself either put an end to racism in America, or confirm that we are a savagely racist and hate-filled nation, is both irresponsible and stupid.

Is it really so outrageous to suggest that people who vote for McCain have principled reasons for doing so? I for one will not be voting for Barack Obama. Like many Americans, I can't help but like the guy. He's smart, charismatic and tough. I agree with some of his rhetoric, but like many Americans, I profoundly disagree with his policies and his vision for our country. Having said this, if he wins, it won't be the end of America because I don't believe my fate or future happiness depends on who happens to be living in the White House.

But as I watch the news media and others grow increasingly nervous about the current Sarah Palin phenomenon, checking their objectivity to avoid the horror that a McCain presidency would bring, I find myself almost hoping for an Obama victory. Who wants to see our country dragged through the mud should he lose? I cringe at the thought of the media trying to "make sense of it all." Don't you?

"...a slayer, with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth..."

For those who are fans of Robert E. Howard and his grim, northern barbarian, a recent surge of interest in Conan has been welcome treat. Over the last few years, a number of new books have been published that collect Howard’s fantastic tales. Among them are a series of trade paperbacks by Dark Horse Comics that collect the wildly popular Savage Sword of Conan magazine. Originally published by Marvel Comics, the series got its start in 1974 during the peak years of Conan’s popularity and is now a cult classic.

The magazine was more adult in nature than the Conan comic book and featured some stunning black and white artwork by the likes of Barry Windsor-Smith, John Buscema and Alfredo Alcala. The Hyborian age never looked so good. The stories were written by Roy Thomas and included adaptations of Howard’s classic yarns as well as original Conan stories. Savage Sword was also famous for its amazing cover art which usually included Conan fighting some hideous creature while a very nearly nude woman cowered below. This appeal to young men and teenage boys undoubtedly propelled its success.

This magazine became a staple of mine right after high school when a couple of buddies and I rented a house together. Several issues of the Savage Sword could be seen strewn about the house at any one time, or as reading material in the bathroom. Since copies of the magazine are scarce these days, I am grateful that I may enjoy all of Conan’s mighty exploits in these new trade paperbacks. Each one is about 500 pages and collects around fifteen issues. So for those, like me, who occasionally need a Conan fix, look no further. The pages spark with energy and are just plain fun to read.