In the off chance that someone will see this who hasn't voted yet... go do it!
And just in case it isn't clear, this blog completely endorses Barack Obama :)
Monday, November 3, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Nothing important
I know I haven't been on here much lately, between class and work and very sporadic campaigning (also a fair amount of drinking) I haven't found the time. But this is just hilarious. Especially if you remember the show from when you were really young.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
More endorsements
Endorsements for Barack have been coming from some unlikely sources lately. Including the son of the famous conservative William Buckley, whose endorsement prompted his resignation from the National Review.
Less surprisingly, there are plenty of VERY smart people that would also like you to vote Obama.
Also, I know that I promised I would let everyone know what new insights I gained about political discourse to help you in your efforts to convince your own jewish grandparents to vote for Obama, but all I really learned campaigning last weekend was that I really need to brush up on my spanish.
Less surprisingly, there are plenty of VERY smart people that would also like you to vote Obama.
Also, I know that I promised I would let everyone know what new insights I gained about political discourse to help you in your efforts to convince your own jewish grandparents to vote for Obama, but all I really learned campaigning last weekend was that I really need to brush up on my spanish.
Friday, October 3, 2008
New Yorker Endorsement
If you have some time, read this endorsment of Barack Obama by the editorial staff of the New Yorker. While I don't agree 100% with what they've said, it's a compelling read and a good motivator to consider voting for Obama if you're undecided and to put more effort into getting him elected if you've already decided.
After this weekend I'll post an advice post for how to convince people to vote for Obama. I've had some experience lately talking with conservatives, undecideds, and idiots and I'll just lay out my personal advice. Tomorrow though I'll be canvasing in WI (the first time I've had time to, damn you ultimate) so there will probably be a story or two to relate.
After this weekend I'll post an advice post for how to convince people to vote for Obama. I've had some experience lately talking with conservatives, undecideds, and idiots and I'll just lay out my personal advice. Tomorrow though I'll be canvasing in WI (the first time I've had time to, damn you ultimate) so there will probably be a story or two to relate.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Who do you want in charge of your economy?
Fine Ty... I'll write something substantive.
IT'S ABOUT THE ECONOMY STUPID!
At least it sure was when Clinton was running, an we look like we're in a whole hell of a bigger mess than we were then so it's more true today than it ever was then. So what I'm gonna do is lay it out there and tell you why I believe that Obama is better for the economy than G.W. McCain is.
Now here, I'm going to break cardinal rule #1 of being a pretentious blogger. I'm going to tell you that I don't know a whole lot about economics or finance. But the thing is, almost none of us really do. There are probably only a handful of people that really understand how the global economy works, and they themselves manage to royally screw it up every once in a while, so we can't even be sure that they know what's going on. And here's the thing, most presidents don't understand all of what is going on either. McCain said it himself "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated..." And while Obama has proven smarts, he was a professor of law at the University of Chicago, not economics. Clinton, Bush #1, Bush #2, Reagan, none of them came from strong economic backgrounds. I can't off the top of my head think of any that do. Most come from military, law, or state political backgrounds.
The truth is, a country's economic policies are dictated by the people that the president surrounds themselves with. The same can be said about many domestic policies as well as military decisions, but it applies especially for economics. The major difference between the two candidates now is that the people who are advising Obama are from the Clinton era. The people who are advising McCain are the same people who have been striving towards the deregulation that brought about the current economic collapse.
In 2000, Phil Graham, the same man who called America a "nation of whiners" was instrumental in writing and passing legislation that allowed mortgage lenders to pass their loans on to others. If you're familiar with the mortgage crisis, then you'll know that it was the ability of lenders to package and then sell overvalued loans that led to the shit-storm that we're currently in. This crisis came about because of that and other deregulatory practices. Realizing this, McCain is now in the news talking about the need for more regulation. But it rings hollow when you look at the statements he has been making for years.
Barack Obama has put forth a plan along the lines of what McCain originally agreed with but has not calculated his way out of backing. In the plan that is currently forming under the stewardship of the democratic leadership the lenders will be "bailed out", but with provisions that would prevent any spending on executive compensation packages and with guarantees of equity in the companies that are bailed out. All of that is a fancy way of saying that the CEOs that ruined these institutions by taking on too much risk will not get millions of dollars in golden parachutes when they are let go, and that as taxpayers we won't just be GIVING our hard earned money to the banks, but we'll be purchasing them. This way while we will be purchasing them at a loss, the end result should be that they can be sold off resulting in a bill to the taxpayers that falls well short of the 700 billion dollar figure that is being talked about. Good thing too, since that amounts to over 2500 dollars for every citizen of the country. (including children!)
To me on this issue, it comes down to trusting which candidate is putting THEIR trust in people that have the interests of the American people at heart, and are competent about how best to help them. I don't think there's any doubt during this crisis that the deregulation first crowd is the worst possible thing for the country at this point, and that's why I believe that Obama is a better choice for our country right now.
P.S. - If you think what's happened so far is scary, check out what McCain has to say about your health care.
IT'S ABOUT THE ECONOMY STUPID!
At least it sure was when Clinton was running, an we look like we're in a whole hell of a bigger mess than we were then so it's more true today than it ever was then. So what I'm gonna do is lay it out there and tell you why I believe that Obama is better for the economy than G.W. McCain is.
Now here, I'm going to break cardinal rule #1 of being a pretentious blogger. I'm going to tell you that I don't know a whole lot about economics or finance. But the thing is, almost none of us really do. There are probably only a handful of people that really understand how the global economy works, and they themselves manage to royally screw it up every once in a while, so we can't even be sure that they know what's going on. And here's the thing, most presidents don't understand all of what is going on either. McCain said it himself "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated..." And while Obama has proven smarts, he was a professor of law at the University of Chicago, not economics. Clinton, Bush #1, Bush #2, Reagan, none of them came from strong economic backgrounds. I can't off the top of my head think of any that do. Most come from military, law, or state political backgrounds.
The truth is, a country's economic policies are dictated by the people that the president surrounds themselves with. The same can be said about many domestic policies as well as military decisions, but it applies especially for economics. The major difference between the two candidates now is that the people who are advising Obama are from the Clinton era. The people who are advising McCain are the same people who have been striving towards the deregulation that brought about the current economic collapse.
In 2000, Phil Graham, the same man who called America a "nation of whiners" was instrumental in writing and passing legislation that allowed mortgage lenders to pass their loans on to others. If you're familiar with the mortgage crisis, then you'll know that it was the ability of lenders to package and then sell overvalued loans that led to the shit-storm that we're currently in. This crisis came about because of that and other deregulatory practices. Realizing this, McCain is now in the news talking about the need for more regulation. But it rings hollow when you look at the statements he has been making for years.
Barack Obama has put forth a plan along the lines of what McCain originally agreed with but has not calculated his way out of backing. In the plan that is currently forming under the stewardship of the democratic leadership the lenders will be "bailed out", but with provisions that would prevent any spending on executive compensation packages and with guarantees of equity in the companies that are bailed out. All of that is a fancy way of saying that the CEOs that ruined these institutions by taking on too much risk will not get millions of dollars in golden parachutes when they are let go, and that as taxpayers we won't just be GIVING our hard earned money to the banks, but we'll be purchasing them. This way while we will be purchasing them at a loss, the end result should be that they can be sold off resulting in a bill to the taxpayers that falls well short of the 700 billion dollar figure that is being talked about. Good thing too, since that amounts to over 2500 dollars for every citizen of the country. (including children!)
To me on this issue, it comes down to trusting which candidate is putting THEIR trust in people that have the interests of the American people at heart, and are competent about how best to help them. I don't think there's any doubt during this crisis that the deregulation first crowd is the worst possible thing for the country at this point, and that's why I believe that Obama is a better choice for our country right now.
P.S. - If you think what's happened so far is scary, check out what McCain has to say about your health care.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Who will tax you higher?
Don't take it from me, take it from NBC
I personally think it's the dumbest idea in the world to cut taxes in any way right now. I thought that before the bail-outs due to our giant national debt. After the bailouts, it's an even worse idea. Still, if taxes are going to be cut, I believe they should benefit the people that need the relief.
I personally think it's the dumbest idea in the world to cut taxes in any way right now. I thought that before the bail-outs due to our giant national debt. After the bailouts, it's an even worse idea. Still, if taxes are going to be cut, I believe they should benefit the people that need the relief.
Special guest comment
"Rich,
http://mccainkeatingfive.com/?p=6
Please post this link in your blog, this is the type of information that needs to be brought to the public's attention and refresh their short memories. This is an insight to the hypocrisy of John McCain, He's not a reformer, he's a charter member of the Washington insiders clique. He's not Mr. Everyman, he's a social climber who started dating Cindy McCain while married to his first wife. He does not personify "the American Experience" he has married into the type of wealth that insulates him from it! But mostly, this illustrates the wealthy's "above the law" attitude and their use of campaign donations and insider investment deals to shield themselves from prosecution. This type of corrosive influence peddling undermines the public's confidence in our nation's credo of "equal justice for all", and is more damaging to our democracy than any terrorist attack from outside our borders. Just my opinion, -Dad"
Over the last week I've been incredibly busy preparing for sectionals as well as starting up a political science course I'm taking so I haven't had any time for the blog. Thankfully my Dad has provided, and I'll be back to work soon!
http://mccainkeatingfive.com/?p=6
Please post this link in your blog, this is the type of information that needs to be brought to the public's attention and refresh their short memories. This is an insight to the hypocrisy of John McCain, He's not a reformer, he's a charter member of the Washington insiders clique. He's not Mr. Everyman, he's a social climber who started dating Cindy McCain while married to his first wife. He does not personify "the American Experience" he has married into the type of wealth that insulates him from it! But mostly, this illustrates the wealthy's "above the law" attitude and their use of campaign donations and insider investment deals to shield themselves from prosecution. This type of corrosive influence peddling undermines the public's confidence in our nation's credo of "equal justice for all", and is more damaging to our democracy than any terrorist attack from outside our borders. Just my opinion, -Dad"
Over the last week I've been incredibly busy preparing for sectionals as well as starting up a political science course I'm taking so I haven't had any time for the blog. Thankfully my Dad has provided, and I'll be back to work soon!
Friday, September 12, 2008
A first taste of Palin on foreign policy
Lets preface this short post (I'm working on something longer to be up soon) with a story regarding actuarial tables that try to estimate how likely it is that John McCain will yield the presidency in one way or another to Sarah Palin should they be elected:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080903/pl_politico/13096
So there is about a 15% chance that McCain won't survive four years in office, and if you add in the chances that he'll be impeached, that he'll be rendered unfit for office by something like a stroke or medical condition, or that he'll resign before the 2012 election to offer Palin a chance to run as an incumbent, I estimate the chances that Palin will be the president for some period of time at about 20-24%.*
So it's worrying when her lack of foreign affairs knowledge shows through. In the speech she gave yesterday she reportedly linked Iraq and 9/11. It's worrying to hear her talk like George W. Bush. It's even more worrying when her back story starts to sound a lot like his. It turns out that Palin has only ever been on one trip outside the U.S. (excluding I'm sure Canada, but I have no evidence to back that up), and that came in 2006 when she got her passport to go and visit Alaskan national guard troops in Germany and Kuwait. In that time of course she met with no foreign leaders, nor has she ever as she admitted in her interview with Charlie Gibson. She went on to say that most vice presidential candidates in the past hadn't either at the time of their nomination, which has been proven false through at least the last 32 years. This link has some clips and summaries from her interview with Gibson. All of the points brought up in the article are disturbing (especially the hard talk about Russia, see my previous WWIII posts!), but one of the most frustrating to me was the dialogue quoted in the end about the Bush Doctrine.
The Bush Doctrine was, to me, the most frightening aspect of the war with Iraq. It essentially set a precedent for waging preemptive war, and in the case of Iraq specifically, without the consent of many nations of the UN. In hindsight now that the intelligence has been shown to have been rigged, over-blown, and in cases falsified, it is highly likely that the government of the U.S. or another country will use this war as a precedent for waging similar actions. It's also been demonstrated how easy it is for an administration to start a war without even having to go so far as to stage another Gulf of Tonkin.**
You could tell when Gibson asked the question that Palin was frustrated by his attempt to see whether or not she knew what the Bush Doctrine referred to, which clearly she did not. Her canned answer about fighting terrorism was a little embarassing. Once she had it explained to her though, she seemed crystal clear about her willingness to do "whatever it takes" to stop "extremists". Well fuck me, I thought she was a maverick, but it turns out she's just another fake fucking Bush-clone cowboy. Couple her responses with her talk about Russia, and there's no way we can let this ex-sportscaster have her finger anywhere near the nuclear button.
So please, please do everything you can to make sure that Obama is elected this fall. Failing that though, pray hard for McCain's health.
*This is how I got my crude guesstimate
Of all 50 presidents:
JFK assassinated in 1st term.
Lincoln assassinated in 2nd term.
William McKinley assassinated in his 2nd term.
FDR died in his 4th term.
Richard Nixon resigned in his 2nd term.
Warren Harding died in his 1st term.
Zachary Taylor died in 1st term.
James Garfield died in 1st term.
William Henry Harrison died in 1st term.
So 9/43 presidents did not last their full term. Of those 5 died of natural causes. So that means 4/43 or 9.3% of them did not finish their terms for reasons other than those covered by the actuarial analysis covered in the article. That added to the 15%chance that McCain will not survive the next four year period yields about 24%. Of course this is a crude estimate and I think the actual chances are slightly less likely than 24%, but I just wanted to emphasize the point that there is an absolutely realistic chance that Palin will become president. This makes her lack of foreign affairs all the more poignant. I realize too that that this whole excercise is more than slightly morbid, and I apologize.
** While it's been revealed one of the attacks on a US ship was falsified, it's never been shown that the first was. To all wingnut conspiracists out there, please don't bring up 9/11 as an inside job based on this off-hand comment.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080903/pl_politico/13096
So there is about a 15% chance that McCain won't survive four years in office, and if you add in the chances that he'll be impeached, that he'll be rendered unfit for office by something like a stroke or medical condition, or that he'll resign before the 2012 election to offer Palin a chance to run as an incumbent, I estimate the chances that Palin will be the president for some period of time at about 20-24%.*
So it's worrying when her lack of foreign affairs knowledge shows through. In the speech she gave yesterday she reportedly linked Iraq and 9/11. It's worrying to hear her talk like George W. Bush. It's even more worrying when her back story starts to sound a lot like his. It turns out that Palin has only ever been on one trip outside the U.S. (excluding I'm sure Canada, but I have no evidence to back that up), and that came in 2006 when she got her passport to go and visit Alaskan national guard troops in Germany and Kuwait. In that time of course she met with no foreign leaders, nor has she ever as she admitted in her interview with Charlie Gibson. She went on to say that most vice presidential candidates in the past hadn't either at the time of their nomination, which has been proven false through at least the last 32 years. This link has some clips and summaries from her interview with Gibson. All of the points brought up in the article are disturbing (especially the hard talk about Russia, see my previous WWIII posts!), but one of the most frustrating to me was the dialogue quoted in the end about the Bush Doctrine.
The Bush Doctrine was, to me, the most frightening aspect of the war with Iraq. It essentially set a precedent for waging preemptive war, and in the case of Iraq specifically, without the consent of many nations of the UN. In hindsight now that the intelligence has been shown to have been rigged, over-blown, and in cases falsified, it is highly likely that the government of the U.S. or another country will use this war as a precedent for waging similar actions. It's also been demonstrated how easy it is for an administration to start a war without even having to go so far as to stage another Gulf of Tonkin.**
You could tell when Gibson asked the question that Palin was frustrated by his attempt to see whether or not she knew what the Bush Doctrine referred to, which clearly she did not. Her canned answer about fighting terrorism was a little embarassing. Once she had it explained to her though, she seemed crystal clear about her willingness to do "whatever it takes" to stop "extremists". Well fuck me, I thought she was a maverick, but it turns out she's just another fake fucking Bush-clone cowboy. Couple her responses with her talk about Russia, and there's no way we can let this ex-sportscaster have her finger anywhere near the nuclear button.
So please, please do everything you can to make sure that Obama is elected this fall. Failing that though, pray hard for McCain's health.
*This is how I got my crude guesstimate
Of all 50 presidents:
JFK assassinated in 1st term.
Lincoln assassinated in 2nd term.
William McKinley assassinated in his 2nd term.
FDR died in his 4th term.
Richard Nixon resigned in his 2nd term.
Warren Harding died in his 1st term.
Zachary Taylor died in 1st term.
James Garfield died in 1st term.
William Henry Harrison died in 1st term.
So 9/43 presidents did not last their full term. Of those 5 died of natural causes. So that means 4/43 or 9.3% of them did not finish their terms for reasons other than those covered by the actuarial analysis covered in the article. That added to the 15%chance that McCain will not survive the next four year period yields about 24%. Of course this is a crude estimate and I think the actual chances are slightly less likely than 24%, but I just wanted to emphasize the point that there is an absolutely realistic chance that Palin will become president. This makes her lack of foreign affairs all the more poignant. I realize too that that this whole excercise is more than slightly morbid, and I apologize.
** While it's been revealed one of the attacks on a US ship was falsified, it's never been shown that the first was. To all wingnut conspiracists out there, please don't bring up 9/11 as an inside job based on this off-hand comment.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Walter Reed
Just in case you were wondering what the mansion-looking building was that appeared behind John McCain during his speech was last night:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/213806.php
Seriously, and the republicans were making fun of Obama for speaking in front of columns.
Also, as usual Jon Stewart has done a much better job ripping into Palin apologists than I ever could.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/213806.php
Seriously, and the republicans were making fun of Obama for speaking in front of columns.
Also, as usual Jon Stewart has done a much better job ripping into Palin apologists than I ever could.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Sarah freakin' Palin
Much was made in the days leading up to McCain's VP pick about both the timing of the announcement and the secrecy surrounding it. There had been a lot of secrecy surrounding Obama's pick which was ruined when the secret service showed up at Joe Biden's house the day before he was announced, and it seemed McCain was determined to up the level of secrecy before his announcement. And then, the day before McCain was set to announce his pick, the same day that Obama would be giving his historic acceptance speech of the Democratic nomination, news broke that Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty had canceled all appearances over the weekend. With the popular governor of an important state appearing to ready himself to accept the VP nomination, speculating pundits seemed to conclude that Pawlenty had been tapped for the nomination. As it turned out, they couldn't be more wrong. On that day, Gov. Pawlenty had been informed that he was NOT John McCain's pick for running mate, and that instead the honor would be going to the Governor of Alaska who 95% of America had never even heard of. Gov. Pawlenty then, in a huff, canceled all of his events campaigning for McCain over the weekend.
It seems that McCain wasn't satisfied with trying to steal away some of the spotlight from Obama's historic speech just with a condecending campaign commercial the very evening Obama spoke, or with announcing his VP pick the day after his speech. He was going to surprise everyone. He was going to be a Maverick. He was going to run with Sarah Palin.
The problem with writing this has been that since I started, every day new information has come forth about Gov. Palin. Whereas a week ago, no one knew who the hell she was, now the news is inundated with information about her as the public struggles to find out what could have justified her selection as McCain's VP candidate. So far what we've found out hasn't really been pretty.
First off, Sarah Palin doesn't seem to have any credentials on international affairs or national security. Sure, as the dimmer bulbs on the right have pointed out, Alaska is indeed next to Russia. And they've even tried to point out that as Governor, she was head of the Alaska national guard. And from that clip, it seems that's all they've been able to come up with so far. But it turns out that experience not only didn't amount to any foreign affairs experience, it didn't even consist of any command experience at all. In fact by law, the governor of a state only has authority of the national guard within her own state. Any international use of the national guard falls solely under the scope of the federal government. As for other experience, Palin has been Governor of the 47th most populous state in the union for only the last two years. (Puerto Rico has more than 5 times as many citizens) Before that she served as the mayor of Wasilla, AL. A town with a population of about 7,000 people.
Then you have the apparent desire of McCain to take someone who is outside the Washington bubble, someone who is untouched by the culture of corruption that McCain himself likes to pretend that he's above. (Funny fact about the Keating five scandal, John McCain was officially reprimanded for having "poor judgment" in his actions involving Charles Keating.) Well it turns out that Sarah Palin might not be a good pick on that front either. She happens to have been a supporter of the "bridge to nowhere" before she campaigned against it during her gubernatorial* run. She may have been on board due to her having been on the committee of Sen. Ted Stevens 527 PAC. If you're not aware, Ted Stevens is the senior senator from Alaska, who is currently under indictment for corruption. He also appeared in campaign commercials endorsing Gov. Palin which until recently were available on her campaign website. The other story is something that Gov. Palin happens to be currently under investigation for. During the messy divorce of her sister and an Alaska state trooper, much pressure was put on the director of the state police force to fire her ex-brother-in-law. While Palin never directly ordered the man to be fired, she did end up firing the director who refused to fire the trooper, supposedly over budget issues.
Well, at least she can be on message with John McCain for being a moderate who has a proven record of reaching across the aisle to work with people in a non-partisan fashion right? Actually it turns out that as mayor, there was an incident where she was under threat of being recalled after firing the police chief and the library director upon taking office. Apparently she didn't feel she "had the support" of the police chief, but succumbed to public pressure and let the library director keep her job. What could have possibly possessed her to have wanted to fire the library director in the first place? Well it seems that Sarah Palin isn't much of a libertarian Alaskan after all, she wanted the directors support in banning certain books from the town library.
To top everything off, Palin is a true, dyed in the wool social conservative. She supports discrimination against homosexuals, teaching intelligent design in schools, is against any and all forms of abortion, even in the case of rape or when there is concern for the health of the mother (this means in the event the women may die if pregnancy is not terminated, just so you know what people are talking about when you hear this), and she believes in abstinence only education. And it turns out the whole abstinence only thing didn't work out so well with her oldest daughter. So as far for appealing to moderates in any way, Palin does active harm to the ticket. Especially when you consider that one of McCain's campaign goals was to appeal to Hillary supporters. They certainly won't appreciate Palin's vehement pro-life stance for sure.
But that brings me to my point in this, why exactly DID John McCain pick Sarah Palin? She doesn't seem to back up any of the themes that McCain has been stressing in his campaign. On top of that, she undermines the two biggest attacks he has been using against Sen. Obama. The first is that Obama is too inexperienced to be president. Well, while Palin argued in her speech last night that she is more experienced because of her less than two years as governor of one of the least populous states, neither than not her years as mayor of Wasilla lend much credibility to her experience as a leader or with how to run a country. Hell, she doesn't even know what a vice president does. (Ok I admit, the comment was half in jest. But let's be honest, it was only HALF in jest.) And secondly John McCain asserts that the president needs to be ready to lead on day one. Well as far as I'm concerned Barack is ready to lead on day one, and I can't for the life of me understand how anyone would think for a second that Palin might be. McCain has said many times that the VP must be someone who is able to lead the country in the event something happens to the president. Which would make Biden a good choice, and Palin, well, something else.
So you could accuse the campaign of failing to vet the Alaska governor enough. And you know what, you would be right. It turns out that when her home town paper was contacted by news organizations about stories from her time as mayor, they handed over files from before the paper had gone digital. The files hadn't been touched by anybody, not the McCain campaign or anyone. The campaign didn't even go so far as to ask prominent members of the Alaskan government about her. It turns out that McCain had only met Palin on one occasion before the Thursday before his announcement. On that day he met with Gov. Palin for only the second time and offered her the chance to be the vice president of the united states.
So what were the reasons that McCain went with Palin? There were other candidates considered that were truly more qualified for the job, better suited and less risky. There were even some that were women to woo Hillary voters. Well as far as I see it the reasons are three-fold.
1 - He needed to appeal to the base of the party.
The right wing has never been a huge fan of Sen. McCain. It's led to his Maverick image, but it's also led to him courting John Kerry for the VP spot in 2004. Die hard conservatives were frustrated with his victory in the primaries, and some swore never to vote for him. Some of these same conservatives are undoubtedly sporting McCain bumper stickers already, but he did need to shore up some support. In this regard, Palin is actually a good pick. Anyone who saw her speech last night can't deny that the crowd was behind her. True, it was behind her more when she was attacking Obama than it was at any other point, but it was behind her nevertheless. And as I've discussed she holds very conservative values. (socially at least) So as far a point one goes, I'll give him credit. Not because she's a good choice to actually govern as VP mind you, but because she fulfills this particular political function.
2 - He needs to shake up the race a little bit.
The polls took a bit of a dip for Obama lately but post-convention have opened back up with Obama leading anywhere from 5-8 points nationally. In more specific states he leads important states and it appears that if the election were held today he would win. What's more important is that Obama has rode through the first waves of negative campaigning and is poised to do some of his own. So his campaign worried that they were on the losing track if they didn't make a big move. They couldn't afford to go with a boring, predictable pick like Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney. Well, they certainly accomplished the goal of attracting attention. The media has been going nuts over the past week trying to uncover everything they can about Gov. Palin, and they've had plenty of success finding things to talk about. So I'm gonna go ahead and award McCain points on this. He certainly got people talking, even if I can't imagine he likes very much what they're saying.
3 - The simple fact that she's a woman.
As far as I'm concerned this is the most important aspect of McCain's choice. Now this is related to point one, because conservatives can feel inclusive and high and mighty about their acceptance of a woman when the ugly sexist democrats wouldn't let Hillary win. And it's related to point two because it's a (mildly) historic event, and it definitely got people talking. (Palin is NOT the first woman VP candidate, that honor belongs to Geraldine Ferraro, who since losing on the Dukakis ticket has gone bat-shit insane.) But the main reason is that they wanted to appeal to disenfranchised Hillary voters.
When Hillary Clinton gave her speech at the DNC, I thought one of her best points was summed up when she asked her supporters: "Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? ..." She essentially challenged her supporters to remember what it was that brought them to her in the first place. Not the fact that she was a woman, but because she was a politician that shared their principles and their goals for the country. Over the course of the campaign it became too focused on the fact that she was a woman, and some people lost sight of why she would have been good for the country.
And now John McCain is trying to pull these women into voting for him by inviting the token woman to the ticket. The party of actual sexism is using a woman not for who she is, but for WHAT she is. The true essence of sexism. McCain is trying to convince women to vote for him because he believes they'll vote for a woman solely based on the fact that she's there. John McCain thinks women are idiots. It CANNOT be argued that Sarah Palin adds anything to the ticket that could not have been added by another, more qualified choice, except being a woman. In patronizing the female voters of the country in this way his campaign reveals what he truly thinks of them. I can't imagine that any of the women that fought tooth and nail to earn the right to vote, to participate in democracy, to have a voice in America, would appreciate being used in this fashion. But that's not up to me to decide.
* this is an awesome word
It seems that McCain wasn't satisfied with trying to steal away some of the spotlight from Obama's historic speech just with a condecending campaign commercial the very evening Obama spoke, or with announcing his VP pick the day after his speech. He was going to surprise everyone. He was going to be a Maverick. He was going to run with Sarah Palin.
The problem with writing this has been that since I started, every day new information has come forth about Gov. Palin. Whereas a week ago, no one knew who the hell she was, now the news is inundated with information about her as the public struggles to find out what could have justified her selection as McCain's VP candidate. So far what we've found out hasn't really been pretty.
First off, Sarah Palin doesn't seem to have any credentials on international affairs or national security. Sure, as the dimmer bulbs on the right have pointed out, Alaska is indeed next to Russia. And they've even tried to point out that as Governor, she was head of the Alaska national guard. And from that clip, it seems that's all they've been able to come up with so far. But it turns out that experience not only didn't amount to any foreign affairs experience, it didn't even consist of any command experience at all. In fact by law, the governor of a state only has authority of the national guard within her own state. Any international use of the national guard falls solely under the scope of the federal government. As for other experience, Palin has been Governor of the 47th most populous state in the union for only the last two years. (Puerto Rico has more than 5 times as many citizens) Before that she served as the mayor of Wasilla, AL. A town with a population of about 7,000 people.
Then you have the apparent desire of McCain to take someone who is outside the Washington bubble, someone who is untouched by the culture of corruption that McCain himself likes to pretend that he's above. (Funny fact about the Keating five scandal, John McCain was officially reprimanded for having "poor judgment" in his actions involving Charles Keating.) Well it turns out that Sarah Palin might not be a good pick on that front either. She happens to have been a supporter of the "bridge to nowhere" before she campaigned against it during her gubernatorial* run. She may have been on board due to her having been on the committee of Sen. Ted Stevens 527 PAC. If you're not aware, Ted Stevens is the senior senator from Alaska, who is currently under indictment for corruption. He also appeared in campaign commercials endorsing Gov. Palin which until recently were available on her campaign website. The other story is something that Gov. Palin happens to be currently under investigation for. During the messy divorce of her sister and an Alaska state trooper, much pressure was put on the director of the state police force to fire her ex-brother-in-law. While Palin never directly ordered the man to be fired, she did end up firing the director who refused to fire the trooper, supposedly over budget issues.
Well, at least she can be on message with John McCain for being a moderate who has a proven record of reaching across the aisle to work with people in a non-partisan fashion right? Actually it turns out that as mayor, there was an incident where she was under threat of being recalled after firing the police chief and the library director upon taking office. Apparently she didn't feel she "had the support" of the police chief, but succumbed to public pressure and let the library director keep her job. What could have possibly possessed her to have wanted to fire the library director in the first place? Well it seems that Sarah Palin isn't much of a libertarian Alaskan after all, she wanted the directors support in banning certain books from the town library.
To top everything off, Palin is a true, dyed in the wool social conservative. She supports discrimination against homosexuals, teaching intelligent design in schools, is against any and all forms of abortion, even in the case of rape or when there is concern for the health of the mother (this means in the event the women may die if pregnancy is not terminated, just so you know what people are talking about when you hear this), and she believes in abstinence only education. And it turns out the whole abstinence only thing didn't work out so well with her oldest daughter. So as far for appealing to moderates in any way, Palin does active harm to the ticket. Especially when you consider that one of McCain's campaign goals was to appeal to Hillary supporters. They certainly won't appreciate Palin's vehement pro-life stance for sure.
But that brings me to my point in this, why exactly DID John McCain pick Sarah Palin? She doesn't seem to back up any of the themes that McCain has been stressing in his campaign. On top of that, she undermines the two biggest attacks he has been using against Sen. Obama. The first is that Obama is too inexperienced to be president. Well, while Palin argued in her speech last night that she is more experienced because of her less than two years as governor of one of the least populous states, neither than not her years as mayor of Wasilla lend much credibility to her experience as a leader or with how to run a country. Hell, she doesn't even know what a vice president does. (Ok I admit, the comment was half in jest. But let's be honest, it was only HALF in jest.) And secondly John McCain asserts that the president needs to be ready to lead on day one. Well as far as I'm concerned Barack is ready to lead on day one, and I can't for the life of me understand how anyone would think for a second that Palin might be. McCain has said many times that the VP must be someone who is able to lead the country in the event something happens to the president. Which would make Biden a good choice, and Palin, well, something else.
So you could accuse the campaign of failing to vet the Alaska governor enough. And you know what, you would be right. It turns out that when her home town paper was contacted by news organizations about stories from her time as mayor, they handed over files from before the paper had gone digital. The files hadn't been touched by anybody, not the McCain campaign or anyone. The campaign didn't even go so far as to ask prominent members of the Alaskan government about her. It turns out that McCain had only met Palin on one occasion before the Thursday before his announcement. On that day he met with Gov. Palin for only the second time and offered her the chance to be the vice president of the united states.
So what were the reasons that McCain went with Palin? There were other candidates considered that were truly more qualified for the job, better suited and less risky. There were even some that were women to woo Hillary voters. Well as far as I see it the reasons are three-fold.
1 - He needed to appeal to the base of the party.
The right wing has never been a huge fan of Sen. McCain. It's led to his Maverick image, but it's also led to him courting John Kerry for the VP spot in 2004. Die hard conservatives were frustrated with his victory in the primaries, and some swore never to vote for him. Some of these same conservatives are undoubtedly sporting McCain bumper stickers already, but he did need to shore up some support. In this regard, Palin is actually a good pick. Anyone who saw her speech last night can't deny that the crowd was behind her. True, it was behind her more when she was attacking Obama than it was at any other point, but it was behind her nevertheless. And as I've discussed she holds very conservative values. (socially at least) So as far a point one goes, I'll give him credit. Not because she's a good choice to actually govern as VP mind you, but because she fulfills this particular political function.
2 - He needs to shake up the race a little bit.
The polls took a bit of a dip for Obama lately but post-convention have opened back up with Obama leading anywhere from 5-8 points nationally. In more specific states he leads important states and it appears that if the election were held today he would win. What's more important is that Obama has rode through the first waves of negative campaigning and is poised to do some of his own. So his campaign worried that they were on the losing track if they didn't make a big move. They couldn't afford to go with a boring, predictable pick like Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney. Well, they certainly accomplished the goal of attracting attention. The media has been going nuts over the past week trying to uncover everything they can about Gov. Palin, and they've had plenty of success finding things to talk about. So I'm gonna go ahead and award McCain points on this. He certainly got people talking, even if I can't imagine he likes very much what they're saying.
3 - The simple fact that she's a woman.
As far as I'm concerned this is the most important aspect of McCain's choice. Now this is related to point one, because conservatives can feel inclusive and high and mighty about their acceptance of a woman when the ugly sexist democrats wouldn't let Hillary win. And it's related to point two because it's a (mildly) historic event, and it definitely got people talking. (Palin is NOT the first woman VP candidate, that honor belongs to Geraldine Ferraro, who since losing on the Dukakis ticket has gone bat-shit insane.) But the main reason is that they wanted to appeal to disenfranchised Hillary voters.
When Hillary Clinton gave her speech at the DNC, I thought one of her best points was summed up when she asked her supporters: "Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? ..." She essentially challenged her supporters to remember what it was that brought them to her in the first place. Not the fact that she was a woman, but because she was a politician that shared their principles and their goals for the country. Over the course of the campaign it became too focused on the fact that she was a woman, and some people lost sight of why she would have been good for the country.
And now John McCain is trying to pull these women into voting for him by inviting the token woman to the ticket. The party of actual sexism is using a woman not for who she is, but for WHAT she is. The true essence of sexism. McCain is trying to convince women to vote for him because he believes they'll vote for a woman solely based on the fact that she's there. John McCain thinks women are idiots. It CANNOT be argued that Sarah Palin adds anything to the ticket that could not have been added by another, more qualified choice, except being a woman. In patronizing the female voters of the country in this way his campaign reveals what he truly thinks of them. I can't imagine that any of the women that fought tooth and nail to earn the right to vote, to participate in democracy, to have a voice in America, would appreciate being used in this fashion. But that's not up to me to decide.
* this is an awesome word
Monday, August 25, 2008
Great new Obama Ad
I love this new Obama ad. It attacks McCain on an issue that he should NOT be leading on, and it includes the picture of McCain and Bush that should be run in EVERY commercial the rest of the election.
Somewhere in the vicinity of 4-7 houses
You may have heard something lately on the subject of McCain's houses. It turns out that McCain himself isn't quite sure how many houses he even has.
His campaign later told the press that McCain has "at least 4 houses." So apparantly they're not even really sure.
The topic has been brought to great attention lately thanks in no small part to this video from bravenewfilms.org, a progressive website that has been making many popular short progressive films.
Of course, all of this is in response to the attacks from the McCain campaign and conservatives against Barack Obama. They have been leveling charges that he and his wife are elitists.
McCain has leveled the charge himself: (at about 1:30)
And it's been hammered by right wing writers.
Now, I think this whole damn thing is frustratingly silly. Conservative bloggers try to accuse Obama of being "an arugula-eating elitist". (Arugula seems to get a bad rap just because the name sounds fancy, but in reality it tastes like crap and should never be part of a salad.) Obama is supposedly an elitist because of his Harvard education and because of his "Mansion" that he purchased near Chicago. To put the point to rest, of COURSE John McCain is more of an elitist than Obama. The man divorced his first wife in order to marry into money, came from a family of career navy admirals that paved the way for his entrance into Annapolis, owns somewhere in the vicinity of 4-7 houses, and flies around Arizona on his wife's private jet. Meanwhile But it doesn't MATTER who is more wealthy, or who came from the wealthier or more connected family. It doesn't matter how many houses they have or what their taste in disgusting weeds is. It doesn't even matter if they're a gold-digging adulterer.
What matters is how they will be for the country as president. (This is gonna be a theme so consistent in this blog over the next few months you'll grow to hate me for it.) The ONLY reason this issue is acceptable is as a proxy for evaluating traits about the candidates, and as such I have this to say. I'd much rather have a president that grew up in very modest circumstances, that continues to live on more modest circumstances, than one who doesn't. They're more likely to understand what the average American faces. But when it comes to the educational circumstances a candidate has been through, I want the absolute best and brightest, the average isn't good enough. I am not smart or hard-working enough to be president. The man who taught law at the University of Chicago and was the president of the Harvard Law Review is smart enough. (That's Obama by the way.) The man who finished 894th out of 899 students in his graduating class at his military academy is not smart enough in my opinion.
So as far as the elitism issue goes, it's a total loser for McCain. It emphasises that Obama is more in touch with the average American, and that he is a much smarter, well educated candidate. And that's all that should be taken away from this issue, it's by no means any more than a predictor of who would be a better president. But I do hope that McCain keeps shooting himself in the foot over this.
His campaign later told the press that McCain has "at least 4 houses." So apparantly they're not even really sure.
The topic has been brought to great attention lately thanks in no small part to this video from bravenewfilms.org, a progressive website that has been making many popular short progressive films.
Of course, all of this is in response to the attacks from the McCain campaign and conservatives against Barack Obama. They have been leveling charges that he and his wife are elitists.
McCain has leveled the charge himself: (at about 1:30)
And it's been hammered by right wing writers.
Now, I think this whole damn thing is frustratingly silly. Conservative bloggers try to accuse Obama of being "an arugula-eating elitist". (Arugula seems to get a bad rap just because the name sounds fancy, but in reality it tastes like crap and should never be part of a salad.) Obama is supposedly an elitist because of his Harvard education and because of his "Mansion" that he purchased near Chicago. To put the point to rest, of COURSE John McCain is more of an elitist than Obama. The man divorced his first wife in order to marry into money, came from a family of career navy admirals that paved the way for his entrance into Annapolis, owns somewhere in the vicinity of 4-7 houses, and flies around Arizona on his wife's private jet. Meanwhile But it doesn't MATTER who is more wealthy, or who came from the wealthier or more connected family. It doesn't matter how many houses they have or what their taste in disgusting weeds is. It doesn't even matter if they're a gold-digging adulterer.
What matters is how they will be for the country as president. (This is gonna be a theme so consistent in this blog over the next few months you'll grow to hate me for it.) The ONLY reason this issue is acceptable is as a proxy for evaluating traits about the candidates, and as such I have this to say. I'd much rather have a president that grew up in very modest circumstances, that continues to live on more modest circumstances, than one who doesn't. They're more likely to understand what the average American faces. But when it comes to the educational circumstances a candidate has been through, I want the absolute best and brightest, the average isn't good enough. I am not smart or hard-working enough to be president. The man who taught law at the University of Chicago and was the president of the Harvard Law Review is smart enough. (That's Obama by the way.) The man who finished 894th out of 899 students in his graduating class at his military academy is not smart enough in my opinion.
So as far as the elitism issue goes, it's a total loser for McCain. It emphasises that Obama is more in touch with the average American, and that he is a much smarter, well educated candidate. And that's all that should be taken away from this issue, it's by no means any more than a predictor of who would be a better president. But I do hope that McCain keeps shooting himself in the foot over this.
Friday, August 22, 2008
McCain attacks on the Economy
On the heels of a latest poll that has John McCain with a 5 point lead in national polling over Obama, there has been a genuine sense of panic among Obama supporters. Hidden in stories about the new poll though is information that is, in my mind, the most troubling.
"McCain now has a 9-point edge, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Obama on the critical question of who would be the best manager of the economy -- an issue nearly half of voters said was their top concern in the November 4 presidential election."
After about a month of intense negative campaigning from John McCain, voters are seeming to be swayed to believe that the man in the following clips (save the one that is about him rather than includes him) is a better choice to be a steward of our struggling economy.
So how is it that voters trust this guys on the economy? Well it's because most of them haven't seen those clips. What they have seen is attack ads threatening that Barack Obama is going to raise their taxes. (Which is an ABSOLUTE lie I will get into soon.) Barack should be crushing John McCain on the issue of the economy, but he won't unless he goes on the offense. I love that Obama has built a hopeful campaign, and I love being part of the hope that we can get at least a little above the partisan vitriol to have honest debate about policy. But I would never allow that to cost us such an important election. I hope Obama wakes up soon and comes to the same realization.
"McCain now has a 9-point edge, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Obama on the critical question of who would be the best manager of the economy -- an issue nearly half of voters said was their top concern in the November 4 presidential election."
After about a month of intense negative campaigning from John McCain, voters are seeming to be swayed to believe that the man in the following clips (save the one that is about him rather than includes him) is a better choice to be a steward of our struggling economy.
So how is it that voters trust this guys on the economy? Well it's because most of them haven't seen those clips. What they have seen is attack ads threatening that Barack Obama is going to raise their taxes. (Which is an ABSOLUTE lie I will get into soon.) Barack should be crushing John McCain on the issue of the economy, but he won't unless he goes on the offense. I love that Obama has built a hopeful campaign, and I love being part of the hope that we can get at least a little above the partisan vitriol to have honest debate about policy. But I would never allow that to cost us such an important election. I hope Obama wakes up soon and comes to the same realization.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
T - minus ??? until Obama's VP is announced
Well, I was pretty sure that I would have something to say about who Obama picked for VP by now, but he still hasn't announced who it is so I'll have to wait. This is despite the rumors I heard that he would announce to his supporters via text message on Tuesday. And then the rumors that he would announce that way today. And now rumors that he'll announce via text tomorrow. So I'm going to stop holding my breath, at least until Saturday when he's announced that he will be speaking WITH his VP candidate, so that should be a little more definite than rumors.
Still, the pick has been pretty much set by now. First off, the short list is down to about three candidates, and two of those have been all but eliminated. First off, senator Evan Bayh from Indiana. Despite being a trendy pick for most of July, and coming from a state that is surprisingly this year an important battleground state, there has been a very dull reaction whenever the Bayh balloon has been floated. Progressives and anti-war groups dislike him for his participation in the Iraq War group that recommended that the senate approve the Iraq War resolution. (Which of course technically wasn't a war authorization, but I don't want to drift off track.) Then there's former governor of Virginia Tim Kaine. Again, someone who would give Obama a boost in a state that typically isn't in play for the democratic candidate, and another crafty pick. However, speculation is that since the VP pick will be speaking Wednesday night, and on Tuesday the current governor of Virginia will be speaking, they won't schedule two Virginians in a row. I know that makes ABSOLUTELY no common sense, but this is politics, and is as over-thought as events get. But the real reason that I believe that neither of these two will be the VP pick is that it's been leaked that both of their surrogate teams have received word from the Obama camp that they will NOT be the pick.
So who does this leave us with? Well, surprisingly, we're lead back to Sen. Joe Biden. I have a lot to say about picking Joe Biden for VP, but I think I'll save it until he's actually the pick, and not just who I speculate will be picked.
Still, the pick has been pretty much set by now. First off, the short list is down to about three candidates, and two of those have been all but eliminated. First off, senator Evan Bayh from Indiana. Despite being a trendy pick for most of July, and coming from a state that is surprisingly this year an important battleground state, there has been a very dull reaction whenever the Bayh balloon has been floated. Progressives and anti-war groups dislike him for his participation in the Iraq War group that recommended that the senate approve the Iraq War resolution. (Which of course technically wasn't a war authorization, but I don't want to drift off track.) Then there's former governor of Virginia Tim Kaine. Again, someone who would give Obama a boost in a state that typically isn't in play for the democratic candidate, and another crafty pick. However, speculation is that since the VP pick will be speaking Wednesday night, and on Tuesday the current governor of Virginia will be speaking, they won't schedule two Virginians in a row. I know that makes ABSOLUTELY no common sense, but this is politics, and is as over-thought as events get. But the real reason that I believe that neither of these two will be the VP pick is that it's been leaked that both of their surrogate teams have received word from the Obama camp that they will NOT be the pick.
So who does this leave us with? Well, surprisingly, we're lead back to Sen. Joe Biden. I have a lot to say about picking Joe Biden for VP, but I think I'll save it until he's actually the pick, and not just who I speculate will be picked.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Recognizing the Exhibitionists
When I was younger I was something of a big reader, but ever since TV and the internet atrophied my attention span to near-goldfish status I haven't been going through as many. Lately though the monotony of my job has afforded me plenty of down time to get a lot more reading in. I never used to have to pause at the end of every page to investigate every shiny object stuck in the corner of the room, but I get by. If I ever sit down with a serious literary work though I'll have to order some adderall from Mexico.
Ok, so let me wrest the tangent from my mercurial focus. (SYNONYMS!) I've been reading the book Bluebeard by Kurt Vonnegut, and I came across a passage that I really enjoyed, and that got me thinking. In this passage the main character of the book is talking about his artistic talents and the sense that he was born to paint. He imagines the feeling of being born to do something is a leftover from a time when people lived in much smaller groups.
"That's what I think. And of course a scheme like that doesn't make sense anymore, because simply moderate giftedness has been made worthless by the printing press and radio and television and satellites and all that. A moderately gifted person who would have been a community treasure a thousand years ago has to give up, has to go into some other line of work, since modern communications put him or her into daily competition with nothing but world's champions.
"The entire planet can get along nicely now with maybe a dozen champion performers in each area of human giftedness. A moderately gifted person has to keep his or her gifts all bottled up until, in a manner of speaking, he or she gets drunk at a wedding and tap-dances on the coffee table like Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers. We have a name for him or her. We call him or her an 'exhibitionist.'"
"How do we reward such an exhibitionist? We say to him or her the next morning, 'Wow! Were you ever drunk last night!'"
And there are millions of amateur singers, writers, and athletes out there that feel that same way. It's pretty coincidental that I happened to read this at the time when the Olympics are going on. There are probably a dozen swimmers that are right now thinking "I could sure be something special if it wasn't for that damned Michael Phelps." In a way, I think that the apparent desperation for a glimmer of fame or recognition shown in stories like these is another extension of the exhibitionism Vonnegut writes about in this passage. Of course he (or his character), couldn't have anticipated how much the internet would open up an avenue for these forms of "self-expression".
Although that's not what is happening in this particular case. There's a huge difference between a person who has a talent so unrecognized and pent up that they post themselves on youtube, and a jackass just seeking his 15 seconds of fame. (thanks again to the internet, we can only expect 15 seconds of fame now) Unfortunately the media these days chooses rather to recognize the jackasses. Not that it's their fault, we're the ones that keep clicking on jackass content. But we shouldn't. We should reward people with our attention that deserve it, not people who are willing to prostitute themselves. And so just because I feel like making things a little more right in the world, and since I think we can agree that all of us exhibitionists deserved a little recognition once in a while, and a little recognition should be paid to the fact that we can all do SOMETHING well.... here is a clip of a random guy's talent from you-tube. He may or may not be drunk, we can never be sure.
OK, I admit some selfishness here, this is one of my favorite internet clips of all time. If I wanted to stay true to my point I probably should have posted someone juggling or playing guitar. You know, something marginally more useful.
- Also, I have no understanding at all of copyright law, but just to reiterate, the above quote was from the book Bluebeard by Kurt Vonnegut, and definitely not something I'm capable of writing myself.
Ok, so let me wrest the tangent from my mercurial focus. (SYNONYMS!) I've been reading the book Bluebeard by Kurt Vonnegut, and I came across a passage that I really enjoyed, and that got me thinking. In this passage the main character of the book is talking about his artistic talents and the sense that he was born to paint. He imagines the feeling of being born to do something is a leftover from a time when people lived in much smaller groups.
"That's what I think. And of course a scheme like that doesn't make sense anymore, because simply moderate giftedness has been made worthless by the printing press and radio and television and satellites and all that. A moderately gifted person who would have been a community treasure a thousand years ago has to give up, has to go into some other line of work, since modern communications put him or her into daily competition with nothing but world's champions.
"The entire planet can get along nicely now with maybe a dozen champion performers in each area of human giftedness. A moderately gifted person has to keep his or her gifts all bottled up until, in a manner of speaking, he or she gets drunk at a wedding and tap-dances on the coffee table like Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers. We have a name for him or her. We call him or her an 'exhibitionist.'"
"How do we reward such an exhibitionist? We say to him or her the next morning, 'Wow! Were you ever drunk last night!'"
And there are millions of amateur singers, writers, and athletes out there that feel that same way. It's pretty coincidental that I happened to read this at the time when the Olympics are going on. There are probably a dozen swimmers that are right now thinking "I could sure be something special if it wasn't for that damned Michael Phelps." In a way, I think that the apparent desperation for a glimmer of fame or recognition shown in stories like these is another extension of the exhibitionism Vonnegut writes about in this passage. Of course he (or his character), couldn't have anticipated how much the internet would open up an avenue for these forms of "self-expression".
Although that's not what is happening in this particular case. There's a huge difference between a person who has a talent so unrecognized and pent up that they post themselves on youtube, and a jackass just seeking his 15 seconds of fame. (thanks again to the internet, we can only expect 15 seconds of fame now) Unfortunately the media these days chooses rather to recognize the jackasses. Not that it's their fault, we're the ones that keep clicking on jackass content. But we shouldn't. We should reward people with our attention that deserve it, not people who are willing to prostitute themselves. And so just because I feel like making things a little more right in the world, and since I think we can agree that all of us exhibitionists deserved a little recognition once in a while, and a little recognition should be paid to the fact that we can all do SOMETHING well.... here is a clip of a random guy's talent from you-tube. He may or may not be drunk, we can never be sure.
OK, I admit some selfishness here, this is one of my favorite internet clips of all time. If I wanted to stay true to my point I probably should have posted someone juggling or playing guitar. You know, something marginally more useful.
- Also, I have no understanding at all of copyright law, but just to reiterate, the above quote was from the book Bluebeard by Kurt Vonnegut, and definitely not something I'm capable of writing myself.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
The beginning of the end of the race
This video may be a bit over the top, but that doesn't make the warnings it presents untrue.
The general election is now only about 11 weeks away. (yes, I had to look that up.) That means no more procrastinating. I'm going to have to use this space to tell anyone who reads this why they should vote for Barack Obama instead of John McCain. The problem is that most people I know are already going to vote for Barack, so hopefully my "reporting" will convince you to be more active in influencing the people that YOU know to vote for Obama. There's much to come, and first I'm going to address the offshore drilling issue since it's just starting to die out of the news cycle. But for now, enjoy the horrific video, it's gonna be a contentious and vitriolic fall, people.
Also, btw, the estimate of iraqi civilians killed in the video is ABSURDLY low. Some estimates have it in the hundreds of thousands, not to mention the several million injured and/or displaced from their homes.
Friday, August 8, 2008
The season
It's really too late into the political season for me to not be updating this blog. I really want to help people stay informed, so now my commitment is to update this thing at least twice a week. I apologize in advance for the fact that I won't be able to provide as much research and as many references, but hopefully you all trust me enough not to make shit up. And hopefully you know better than to take someone at their word when they say something like that, and will do the research on your own :)
That said, since I have no time to write anything now (I have to be at work in 6.5 hours, on a saturday) I've decided to post up a few things I've written while drunk. For drunk ramblings, I actually kinda like them. I can see where Hemingway was coming from. (spelling has not been corrected, for authenticities sake)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's been theorized that religion arises from our attempts to interpret the intentions behind acts that had no councious actor. A key step in the evolutionary processes that led to our building bi-planes was the ability to understand the intentions of another conciousness. If you put a two year old in a room with a man who is unable to reach an object, but who looks at the object incessintly, the two year old will recognize that the man wants the object, and offer the object to the man. If you show a two year old a man turning on a light switch with his nose, the child will repeat what they see and turn the light switch on with their nose. If the man turns on the light switch with his nose while his hands are full, the two year old will recognize that the mans intention is to turn on the light switch, not necesarilly with his nose, but since his hands are full he is using his nose, and they will turn on the switch with their hand. Our ancestors saw great actions occuring around them all the time, and because their brains were hard-wired through natural selection to attribute occurances to the intentions of concious actors, they felt that the sun rose and set because someone meant it to rise and set.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
sometimes it's better to just let things go. like when you have to fart but then hold on just long enough to get somewhere you can let one rip without people hearing, but when you get there it's gone. you could get it out if you squeezed hard enough, but nothings worth ruining your new underwear.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Introspection comes from sources of great inspiration, great jealousy, and great sorrow alike. They awaken yearnings, needs, and convictions that we often ignore for lack of our own ability to satisfy them. Those are not the times that define your life. You can't live your life in those moments. You can't live a life composed of those moments. It's in those moments that you define the laws/ that you live by. The conclusions reached in those moments guide the infinitude of decisions contemplated day by day. The goals, the dreams, the values, the that you live by are decided in those moments. Each new moment is an opportunity for creation, for revision, for new life. These moments, ruined by pragmatism, are nothing less ephereal than inspiration, and can be as inconsequential if not captured. Our lives are not decided in the decisions that we agonize over, but rather in the minutiae that fills our lives, that reveals our character. The momentum we create through habit and through blind chance becomes us, and can only be changed in these self-reflective moments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
So enjoy these while they're up, there's a 90% chance they'll be taken down due to embarrassment within the week.
That said, since I have no time to write anything now (I have to be at work in 6.5 hours, on a saturday) I've decided to post up a few things I've written while drunk. For drunk ramblings, I actually kinda like them. I can see where Hemingway was coming from. (spelling has not been corrected, for authenticities sake)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's been theorized that religion arises from our attempts to interpret the intentions behind acts that had no councious actor. A key step in the evolutionary processes that led to our building bi-planes was the ability to understand the intentions of another conciousness. If you put a two year old in a room with a man who is unable to reach an object, but who looks at the object incessintly, the two year old will recognize that the man wants the object, and offer the object to the man. If you show a two year old a man turning on a light switch with his nose, the child will repeat what they see and turn the light switch on with their nose. If the man turns on the light switch with his nose while his hands are full, the two year old will recognize that the mans intention is to turn on the light switch, not necesarilly with his nose, but since his hands are full he is using his nose, and they will turn on the switch with their hand. Our ancestors saw great actions occuring around them all the time, and because their brains were hard-wired through natural selection to attribute occurances to the intentions of concious actors, they felt that the sun rose and set because someone meant it to rise and set.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
sometimes it's better to just let things go. like when you have to fart but then hold on just long enough to get somewhere you can let one rip without people hearing, but when you get there it's gone. you could get it out if you squeezed hard enough, but nothings worth ruining your new underwear.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Introspection comes from sources of great inspiration, great jealousy, and great sorrow alike. They awaken yearnings, needs, and convictions that we often ignore for lack of our own ability to satisfy them. Those are not the times that define your life. You can't live your life in those moments. You can't live a life composed of those moments. It's in those moments that you define the laws/ that you live by. The conclusions reached in those moments guide the infinitude of decisions contemplated day by day. The goals, the dreams, the values, the that you live by are decided in those moments. Each new moment is an opportunity for creation, for revision, for new life. These moments, ruined by pragmatism, are nothing less ephereal than inspiration, and can be as inconsequential if not captured. Our lives are not decided in the decisions that we agonize over, but rather in the minutiae that fills our lives, that reveals our character. The momentum we create through habit and through blind chance becomes us, and can only be changed in these self-reflective moments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
So enjoy these while they're up, there's a 90% chance they'll be taken down due to embarrassment within the week.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Debate
Here are a few excerpts from an e-mail exchange I've been having with a pretty successful political cartoonist name Chuck Asay. While I disagree with just about every cartoon the guy puts out, I've had exchanges with him in the past, and he's not only been polite and willing to respond but also very fair about the points I make and more than willing to explain his own points of view. I've always found it fascinating to talk to somebody that views the world so differently, and I thought a few pieces of this particular exchange were interesting in how they show differences between your standard "liberal" vs. "conservative" thought process, even when we agree on the main issue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From e-mail #1, me to Mr. Asay:
"Dear Mr. Asay,I find it utterly unbelievable that you would choose to feature Sen. Dodd and Sen. Frank in your latest cartoon about the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bail-out when the plan has been enthusiastically endorsed by the president himself! Save for a very small handful of libertarian leaning politicians, the basic idea is agreed upon by EVERYONE. And of course, the reason for the whole crisis, which was increased risky lending, was brought about because of deregulation by REPUBLICANS in congress! Of course whenever you address any problem that arises from congress, ... the blame lies with 'Congress' as a whole entity. It's convenient of course to blame congress now that it's democratically controlled while ignoring the fact that the problem originated in a congress that had a republican majority and was endorsed and facilitated by the president. It amazes me how you can find a way to blame democrats for EVERYTHING."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail #2, Mr. Asay to me:
"Dear Rich, Thanks for your e-mail. ... I think our basic difference might be found in how we view our government. I see it as a Republic. You might see it as a Democracy. You mention in your e-mail that there is a consensus, including the President himself, that a taxpayer bailout of Fannie and Freddie is in order. It could be. I do understand some institutions are 'too big to fail'. ... I see truth applying to individuals, not groups. If I buy a home or take some other risk, I think the consequences should fall on me not you. I've attached a cartoon I like, which demonstrates this view. I've been reading the Wall Street Journal editorial pages for many years now. They have been sounding the alarm of the risk to taxpayers of Fannie and Freddie for many years now. It has gone unnoticed. As recently as two weeks ago, both Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have been saying the two huge semi-government institutions are sound. Now it appears they need help. ... I think Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are worse than George Bush and John McCain on most issues because they seem to have different world-views. Democrats tend toward collective solutions. Republicans, though flawed, tend toward solutions based on Truth...which is not determined by our collective views, in poll-testing or a vote. That's why you see me being more critical of Democrats than I am of Republicans. ... "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail #3 - me to Mr. Asay again:
" ... I feel I gave the impression that I think the bail-out is a good thing. Quite the opposite I'm incensed that tax payers have to save these companies from the burden they've brought upon themselves. What I gather from reading your e-mail is that what we disagree about is how to prevent problems like this in the future, or how this should have been prevented. I imagine you would suggest that by letting companies go under when they fail, other companies will be discouraged from taking on too much risk. I believe that in the case of a company whose survival is this important to the American economy, the government must regulate how much risk they can assume. That is the reason that I blame republicans for this crisis, because it was the deregulation of lenders that brought this about. ... As to your point about individuals, I feel that the bail out is also necessary to protect innocent individuals. These institutions are larger than just the decision makers that got them into this mess, and many homeowners have their fortunes tied up in what happens to them. These people aren't the ones that took the risk, and they were misled about how safe their investments were. To me that's what government regulation is all about, protecting people from the greed of others. ... My last point is that while I completely agree with you criticizing the bail-out, I find that you singling out democratic congressmen is unfair because of the reasons I've gone into. While they're certainly not without some blame (in my mind mostly for being complicit), they're not the only ones to blame, and shouldn't be treated as such."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail #4 - Mr. Asay to me once again:
"Rich, Thanks for your reply. We agree on many things...however, I think "Buyer Beware" is a better rule of thumb to protect people from their folly than the idea that it's the Government's job is to protect us from the greed of others. That's asking Government to do more than it should be doing. I've attached a cartoon here which I sent out yesterday which speaks to that point. I think Government should oversee contracts but when we ask our representatives to define, "greed", that's another matter. Greed if a subjective concept. Paul Gigot has an excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal today which gives some background on Freddie and Fannie. If you get a chance to read it, I'd be interested in your take on his view. Thanks again. Chuck"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is so far the extent of the exchange and it may be for this issue, though I fully intend to e-mail him with disagreements in the future. Me, I think that this is the kind of exchange that people should be having with each other when it comes to politics. Too often acrimony renders us unable not just to concede any point to another opinion, but even to understand it. That's another reason that I started this blog, I want to have these kinds of conversations more often. Now let's see if I can get back into the swing of things :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From e-mail #1, me to Mr. Asay:
"Dear Mr. Asay,I find it utterly unbelievable that you would choose to feature Sen. Dodd and Sen. Frank in your latest cartoon about the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bail-out when the plan has been enthusiastically endorsed by the president himself! Save for a very small handful of libertarian leaning politicians, the basic idea is agreed upon by EVERYONE. And of course, the reason for the whole crisis, which was increased risky lending, was brought about because of deregulation by REPUBLICANS in congress! Of course whenever you address any problem that arises from congress, ... the blame lies with 'Congress' as a whole entity. It's convenient of course to blame congress now that it's democratically controlled while ignoring the fact that the problem originated in a congress that had a republican majority and was endorsed and facilitated by the president. It amazes me how you can find a way to blame democrats for EVERYTHING."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail #2, Mr. Asay to me:
"Dear Rich, Thanks for your e-mail. ... I think our basic difference might be found in how we view our government. I see it as a Republic. You might see it as a Democracy. You mention in your e-mail that there is a consensus, including the President himself, that a taxpayer bailout of Fannie and Freddie is in order. It could be. I do understand some institutions are 'too big to fail'. ... I see truth applying to individuals, not groups. If I buy a home or take some other risk, I think the consequences should fall on me not you. I've attached a cartoon I like, which demonstrates this view. I've been reading the Wall Street Journal editorial pages for many years now. They have been sounding the alarm of the risk to taxpayers of Fannie and Freddie for many years now. It has gone unnoticed. As recently as two weeks ago, both Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have been saying the two huge semi-government institutions are sound. Now it appears they need help. ... I think Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are worse than George Bush and John McCain on most issues because they seem to have different world-views. Democrats tend toward collective solutions. Republicans, though flawed, tend toward solutions based on Truth...which is not determined by our collective views, in poll-testing or a vote. That's why you see me being more critical of Democrats than I am of Republicans. ... "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail #3 - me to Mr. Asay again:
" ... I feel I gave the impression that I think the bail-out is a good thing. Quite the opposite I'm incensed that tax payers have to save these companies from the burden they've brought upon themselves. What I gather from reading your e-mail is that what we disagree about is how to prevent problems like this in the future, or how this should have been prevented. I imagine you would suggest that by letting companies go under when they fail, other companies will be discouraged from taking on too much risk. I believe that in the case of a company whose survival is this important to the American economy, the government must regulate how much risk they can assume. That is the reason that I blame republicans for this crisis, because it was the deregulation of lenders that brought this about. ... As to your point about individuals, I feel that the bail out is also necessary to protect innocent individuals. These institutions are larger than just the decision makers that got them into this mess, and many homeowners have their fortunes tied up in what happens to them. These people aren't the ones that took the risk, and they were misled about how safe their investments were. To me that's what government regulation is all about, protecting people from the greed of others. ... My last point is that while I completely agree with you criticizing the bail-out, I find that you singling out democratic congressmen is unfair because of the reasons I've gone into. While they're certainly not without some blame (in my mind mostly for being complicit), they're not the only ones to blame, and shouldn't be treated as such."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail #4 - Mr. Asay to me once again:
"Rich, Thanks for your reply. We agree on many things...however, I think "Buyer Beware" is a better rule of thumb to protect people from their folly than the idea that it's the Government's job is to protect us from the greed of others. That's asking Government to do more than it should be doing. I've attached a cartoon here which I sent out yesterday which speaks to that point. I think Government should oversee contracts but when we ask our representatives to define, "greed", that's another matter. Greed if a subjective concept. Paul Gigot has an excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal today which gives some background on Freddie and Fannie. If you get a chance to read it, I'd be interested in your take on his view. Thanks again. Chuck"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is so far the extent of the exchange and it may be for this issue, though I fully intend to e-mail him with disagreements in the future. Me, I think that this is the kind of exchange that people should be having with each other when it comes to politics. Too often acrimony renders us unable not just to concede any point to another opinion, but even to understand it. That's another reason that I started this blog, I want to have these kinds of conversations more often. Now let's see if I can get back into the swing of things :)
Friday, June 6, 2008
End of hiatus celebration
I've been meaning to post again for so long. My hand is working fine again and there's so much I want to write about but I now find myself with so much less than an adequate amount of time to sit down and write something. I figure though that if I just post something it will encourage me to get back in the habit. So here you go, my two favorite things from the internet today. I promise though I'll get back to writing original material soon :)
Bird surfing
toothpastefordinner.com
Bird surfing
toothpastefordinner.com
Saturday, April 12, 2008
news to come...
Old people do not understand the internet...
I know this is seriously random, I do have actual news that's worth writing and I will soon. But the left hand is still slowly on the path to healing so I don't have the patience for it tonight.
I know this is seriously random, I do have actual news that's worth writing and I will soon. But the left hand is still slowly on the path to healing so I don't have the patience for it tonight.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Non-contact sports
I was filling out a survey about ultimate frisbee injuries just recently that I'm sure many of you received through the Ultimate Chicago. While taking the survey it dawned on me just how many injuries I've sustained playing ultimate. While it's a non-contact sport, you contact the ground more than in most other non-contact sports, so I've hurt myself much worse in 8 years of ultimate than I did in almost 15 years of soccer. So far I've broken a finger that's required surgery (most recent obviously), torn a ligament in my knee that came close to requiring surgery, broken my nose, blacked out from hitting my head twice, once going to the hospital with a concussion, and suffered knee and elbow tendinitis as well as the scrapes and bruises that come with laying out on patches of dirt. The thing is, I feel this is probably the typical experience for an ultimate player. Is our sport that dangerous?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
A flurry of links in lieu of writing
Still at one-hand capacity so instead of my own insight and opinion I've provided others' insights and opinions as well as some bizarre/interesting shit.
Section #1 - I hate John McCain
-It seems I'm not the only one who does
-Of course his campaign may soon run into monetary trouble, but far be it from the media's responsibility to call any attention to that.
Section#2 - I hate turncoat opportunists more
-When you're losing relevance in your own party, kiss the ass of those you used to oppose!
-But don't expect your former party to put up with it.
-Wait, it turns out McCain tried to do the same damn thing! You say you've never heard about this, but you know what Rev. Jeremiah Wright said in a sermon? Curious.
Section #3 - I shouldn't take glee from this, but douche bags do get comeuppance. Also spell check corrected the spelling of douchebags for me :D
-Look, if you're going to encourage voter fraud, at least maybe don't do it on the public air waves.
-Still I agree it's a bit of a fantasy to expect justice :\
Section #4 - Oh Hillary, Hillary why...
-It's hard to look this ridiculous on purpose.
-OK, maybe not as hard as it seems
Section #1 - I hate John McCain
-It seems I'm not the only one who does
-Of course his campaign may soon run into monetary trouble, but far be it from the media's responsibility to call any attention to that.
Section#2 - I hate turncoat opportunists more
-When you're losing relevance in your own party, kiss the ass of those you used to oppose!
-But don't expect your former party to put up with it.
-Wait, it turns out McCain tried to do the same damn thing! You say you've never heard about this, but you know what Rev. Jeremiah Wright said in a sermon? Curious.
Section #3 - I shouldn't take glee from this, but douche bags do get comeuppance. Also spell check corrected the spelling of douchebags for me :D
-Look, if you're going to encourage voter fraud, at least maybe don't do it on the public air waves.
-Still I agree it's a bit of a fantasy to expect justice :\
Section #4 - Oh Hillary, Hillary why...
-It's hard to look this ridiculous on purpose.
-OK, maybe not as hard as it seems
Friday, March 21, 2008
This thing is even MORE over
The democratic primary has been over for a long time now, but people have yet to get that point across to the Clinton campaign. Their current goal is to catch Barack in the popular vote (not including the caucus states for reasons that make sense only to them), but being 700,000 votes behind with only a few contests to go makes even that goal almost unattainable. And now, today huge news from the democratic leadership. Governor Bill Richardson has officially endorsed Sen. Obama. Those of you who have talked with me about vice presidential speculation know that I've always thought he would be Sen. Obama's vice presidential candidate. As the most prominent Hispanic politician in the democratic party he could shore up democratic support among the Hispanic population. Also he served as energy secretary under Bill Clinton and as ambassador to the UN. I think he would have been an excellent presidential candidate, but he will be a stellar vice president too. What is immediately relevant though is that one of the most important superdelegates left undecided has committed to Sen. Obama, which will definitely work to sway more superdelegates as well as Hispanic voters in the few remaining states. Hillary, you ran a good campaign (for the most part), and I would have whole-heartedly supported you had you become the nominee. But it's time to face the facts and start to help the party instead of threatening to tear it down.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Enchondroma
It turns out I had this in my middle finger, which is why it snapped like a pretzel log when I landed on it funny. So the doctors rebroke my finger, cleaned out all the tumory tissue, and put a few pins in to keep everything set. The result is that I'm only typing with one hand, not playing ultimate, and not getting into any fist fights for the next four weeks. (I'm really upset about the fist-fights) In a few weeks though the cast will come off and the pins will come out, and after a few more weeks of therapy beyond that I'll be back to normal.
So in the abscence of typing acuity I'll try to post some interesting stuff from other people and other sites, as well as post some older stuff that I wrote but didn't think was good enough to post initially. (Actually, I probably won't subject anyone to that.)
The thing that upsets me the most is that I'm failing in my duties to a true Chicago legend, a man who has inspired so many to achieve the pinnacles of greatness they hold within themselves. Because of my injury, and the injury to my fellow roommate, our spring league team will have difficulties in keeping to the high standards that Lieutenant-Major Bill Finn has held himself, and the Chicago ultimate community to. From the CUSL website - "Player's total win/loss/tie record: 112-36-1 ( 0.75% )" Legendary doesn't even begin to describe this accomplishment. So I just wanted to take this opportunity to apologize not just to Bill, but to the community as a whole for letting down their hero.
But I'll be fine in time for the tournament. PRINT OUT THE SHIRTS!
So in the abscence of typing acuity I'll try to post some interesting stuff from other people and other sites, as well as post some older stuff that I wrote but didn't think was good enough to post initially. (Actually, I probably won't subject anyone to that.)
The thing that upsets me the most is that I'm failing in my duties to a true Chicago legend, a man who has inspired so many to achieve the pinnacles of greatness they hold within themselves. Because of my injury, and the injury to my fellow roommate, our spring league team will have difficulties in keeping to the high standards that Lieutenant-Major Bill Finn has held himself, and the Chicago ultimate community to. From the CUSL website - "Player's total win/loss/tie record: 112-36-1 ( 0.75% )" Legendary doesn't even begin to describe this accomplishment. So I just wanted to take this opportunity to apologize not just to Bill, but to the community as a whole for letting down their hero.
But I'll be fine in time for the tournament. PRINT OUT THE SHIRTS!
Friday, March 14, 2008
Racism vs Sexism
Check out this snippet from an article in the Nation where a reporter is in Ohio talking to voters about who they're likely to vote for:
begin-
If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, this man said, he'd not only vote for but work for McCain, "and I hate McCain."
"Why not Obama?"
"He's too inexperienced."
"And why else?" a woman down the bar asked.
"Because he's black."
"Thank you!" she replied.
More talk, a little heat, and the man exclaimed, "I'm not going to vote for the n****r!"
Some in the bar seemed tensed; they were "undecided." The man goaded them; that's not what they had discussed the other day. He laughed. Another man from across the bar said he knew whom he wasn't voting for: "the n****r."
-end
I don't know how reading that affected any of you but I can't decide if I feel more disgusted, angry, or just plain discouraged by that exchange. As a supporter of Obama I hate to see people so blinded by their ignorance that they can't see the good such a remarkable man can do. As an objective observer I wince at the irony* that these people are dismissing a man who, if they just gave a chance, could conquer their preconceived notions about race. On the other hand I've known enough people who consider their black friends "one of the good ones" to know that's not likely true. Which is why it's a bit odd that every time I hear of something this blatantly racist in this country I'm still surprised. I've seen it, I know it exists. But it's an affect of the generation I'm from that we've grown up freer from it than our parents, and when I see it it still feels like a shock. What's egregious in the above exchange is that these people are comfortable enough in their bigotry that they talk this way in front of someone who they know is a reporter, let alone a stranger. It's not even about the words they used, it's about how nonchalant they were about their prejudice.
The topic I want to bring from this, as the title of the post implies, isn't that racism is bad, or that Obama will have to fight this kind of ignorance, or that Ohio is a shitty place to live, true as all those are. My point is that while these remarks aren't common about Obama out in the open, they're universally decried when they are. However, the same reaction doesn't seem to surface when people express reservations about Clinton due to her being a woman. I don't think it would be socially unacceptable for someone to say "well I'm just not sure how comfortable I would be with a woman leading the country." Sure it's sort of a misogynistic thing to say, but I think most people would be at most mildly offended by it. On the other hand replace "woman" in that sentence with "black man" and in most social circles you'd be asked kindly to leave the first time, and not so kindly the second. In essence the two kinds of bigotry seem the same, and it would be logical that they are treated with the same reaction, but they're not. I feel that they should be, but everyone may not agree with me there.
I'm not quite on the "the media is unfair to hillary!" band-wagon, but there is something to be said when it's more socially acceptable to be misogynistic than racist in a campaign. After all, Chris Matthews wasn't apologizing for nothing. And in media in general, racism is unacceptable, but the same rules don't always apply to sexism. It's true that sexism is much harder to define boundaries for than racism. Still, so is the fact that misogynism is possibly more acceptable in both a serious context and in a joking context.
I'm not arguing that politics be color or gender-blind. Barack's heritage and Hillay's sex are very important to who they are. Barack grew up in the waning days of socially acceptable racism, found inspiration in key black leaders, and learned his faith in black churches. Hillary struggled against glass ceilings in politics and in the law practice. Both of them are stronger for what they fought against. I however don't mean to compare the adversity of one to the other. When evaluating them as candidates though what matters isn't who they are on the surface or even what they've done. It even matters little who they are. What matters is what they will do for the country. Who they are and what they've done are important insofar as they are predictors of what they will do for the country. Their race and their gender, they are not.
* I know I'm using the word ironic incorrectly, but the colloquial meaning overtook the literal meaning long ago. Give it up english majors.
EDIT - I wrote this post before the Ohio primary and didn't think it was very good. However since I can't type much lately I decided I'll post it just so the people who still check in once in a while have something to read :)
begin-
If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, this man said, he'd not only vote for but work for McCain, "and I hate McCain."
"Why not Obama?"
"He's too inexperienced."
"And why else?" a woman down the bar asked.
"Because he's black."
"Thank you!" she replied.
More talk, a little heat, and the man exclaimed, "I'm not going to vote for the n****r!"
Some in the bar seemed tensed; they were "undecided." The man goaded them; that's not what they had discussed the other day. He laughed. Another man from across the bar said he knew whom he wasn't voting for: "the n****r."
-end
I don't know how reading that affected any of you but I can't decide if I feel more disgusted, angry, or just plain discouraged by that exchange. As a supporter of Obama I hate to see people so blinded by their ignorance that they can't see the good such a remarkable man can do. As an objective observer I wince at the irony* that these people are dismissing a man who, if they just gave a chance, could conquer their preconceived notions about race. On the other hand I've known enough people who consider their black friends "one of the good ones" to know that's not likely true. Which is why it's a bit odd that every time I hear of something this blatantly racist in this country I'm still surprised. I've seen it, I know it exists. But it's an affect of the generation I'm from that we've grown up freer from it than our parents, and when I see it it still feels like a shock. What's egregious in the above exchange is that these people are comfortable enough in their bigotry that they talk this way in front of someone who they know is a reporter, let alone a stranger. It's not even about the words they used, it's about how nonchalant they were about their prejudice.
The topic I want to bring from this, as the title of the post implies, isn't that racism is bad, or that Obama will have to fight this kind of ignorance, or that Ohio is a shitty place to live, true as all those are. My point is that while these remarks aren't common about Obama out in the open, they're universally decried when they are. However, the same reaction doesn't seem to surface when people express reservations about Clinton due to her being a woman. I don't think it would be socially unacceptable for someone to say "well I'm just not sure how comfortable I would be with a woman leading the country." Sure it's sort of a misogynistic thing to say, but I think most people would be at most mildly offended by it. On the other hand replace "woman" in that sentence with "black man" and in most social circles you'd be asked kindly to leave the first time, and not so kindly the second. In essence the two kinds of bigotry seem the same, and it would be logical that they are treated with the same reaction, but they're not. I feel that they should be, but everyone may not agree with me there.
I'm not quite on the "the media is unfair to hillary!" band-wagon, but there is something to be said when it's more socially acceptable to be misogynistic than racist in a campaign. After all, Chris Matthews wasn't apologizing for nothing. And in media in general, racism is unacceptable, but the same rules don't always apply to sexism. It's true that sexism is much harder to define boundaries for than racism. Still, so is the fact that misogynism is possibly more acceptable in both a serious context and in a joking context.
I'm not arguing that politics be color or gender-blind. Barack's heritage and Hillay's sex are very important to who they are. Barack grew up in the waning days of socially acceptable racism, found inspiration in key black leaders, and learned his faith in black churches. Hillary struggled against glass ceilings in politics and in the law practice. Both of them are stronger for what they fought against. I however don't mean to compare the adversity of one to the other. When evaluating them as candidates though what matters isn't who they are on the surface or even what they've done. It even matters little who they are. What matters is what they will do for the country. Who they are and what they've done are important insofar as they are predictors of what they will do for the country. Their race and their gender, they are not.
* I know I'm using the word ironic incorrectly, but the colloquial meaning overtook the literal meaning long ago. Give it up english majors.
EDIT - I wrote this post before the Ohio primary and didn't think it was very good. However since I can't type much lately I decided I'll post it just so the people who still check in once in a while have something to read :)
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Broken hand continuity
Diagnosis three weeks later... "Well looks like we ARE gonna have to put a pin in it so it'll heal." Thanks doc, I would have hated to get the whole process going ASAP. There's some frustratingly good stuff to write about lately, but I don't have the patience to do it with one hand. When I get the surgery done, or when something huge happens (like Hillary finally giving up), then I'll be back to posting more regularly. And with the Cubbies starting their season soon there will be a LOT more baseball talk :)
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Fuck
Well, fuck. Tonight turned out to decide exactly nothing. Obama was unable to put away Clinton and the struggle continues. The only thing that is a definite outcome from tonight is that the next few months will be bad for the democratic party.
I didn't believe for a second that if Hillary didn't win both Ohio and Texas that she would drop out. Even though her husband said in a speech that she needed to win both states to continue, her campaign made no hints that they were even considering dropping out in any scenario. In fact, they had been floating the idea of staying in the race in the face of an overwhelming pledged delegate deficit to try and win super delegates. But I thought that if Obama could win Texas, the rumblings inside the party leadership would grow louder for Hillary to drop out of the race for the sake of the party.
Now though the race will go past Pennsylvania in April. Obama will win Wyoming and Mississippi and the Clinton campaign will label the results as meaningless as the eleven in a row Obama won before tonight. And if Obama wins Pennsylvania, what precedent would make one think that Hillary would drop even then? What will likely happen is this race won't be decided until the temperatures are in the 80's throughout the beltway. It won't come to a contested convention because Obama will win more delegates than she will in the rest of the contests combined and she's already facing a pledged delegate deficit that it would be near impossible mathematically to make up. But Hillary will go through the spring making asinine comments like these sabotaging Obama in the general election. She'll keep running ads like the infamous "red phone ad" that play upon peoples fears to drive voters away from Obama. And in the end, when she loses, she'll have accomplished nothing more than damaging Obama's chances in the general election and wiling away valuable time that could be spent convincing her supporters that what is more important than having her in office is having a democrat in office.
It sounds like a strange argument I'm making doesn't it? I'm a huge Obama supporter and here I am talking about how voting for Hillary is damaging to the party instead of arguing why Obama is the better candidate, which is the only thing I like to believe people should vote based on. I guess you could call it a defense mechanism though to her making the same types of claims against Obama. It's come to the point in the campaign where what's best for the country now seems to take a back seat to winning the current step in the process. The fact remains after tonight that Clinton is almost assuredly not going to become the nominee. From now until the race is decided John McCain can parade around the country shoring up his conservative support while attacking the democrats. He's free to lunch with president dumbass tomorrow without having to respond to criticism that his policies follow almost verbatim the course of the last seven disastrous years.
This whole thing makes me sick.
Also, John McCain was born in Panama. That's right, Panama.
I didn't believe for a second that if Hillary didn't win both Ohio and Texas that she would drop out. Even though her husband said in a speech that she needed to win both states to continue, her campaign made no hints that they were even considering dropping out in any scenario. In fact, they had been floating the idea of staying in the race in the face of an overwhelming pledged delegate deficit to try and win super delegates. But I thought that if Obama could win Texas, the rumblings inside the party leadership would grow louder for Hillary to drop out of the race for the sake of the party.
Now though the race will go past Pennsylvania in April. Obama will win Wyoming and Mississippi and the Clinton campaign will label the results as meaningless as the eleven in a row Obama won before tonight. And if Obama wins Pennsylvania, what precedent would make one think that Hillary would drop even then? What will likely happen is this race won't be decided until the temperatures are in the 80's throughout the beltway. It won't come to a contested convention because Obama will win more delegates than she will in the rest of the contests combined and she's already facing a pledged delegate deficit that it would be near impossible mathematically to make up. But Hillary will go through the spring making asinine comments like these sabotaging Obama in the general election. She'll keep running ads like the infamous "red phone ad" that play upon peoples fears to drive voters away from Obama. And in the end, when she loses, she'll have accomplished nothing more than damaging Obama's chances in the general election and wiling away valuable time that could be spent convincing her supporters that what is more important than having her in office is having a democrat in office.
It sounds like a strange argument I'm making doesn't it? I'm a huge Obama supporter and here I am talking about how voting for Hillary is damaging to the party instead of arguing why Obama is the better candidate, which is the only thing I like to believe people should vote based on. I guess you could call it a defense mechanism though to her making the same types of claims against Obama. It's come to the point in the campaign where what's best for the country now seems to take a back seat to winning the current step in the process. The fact remains after tonight that Clinton is almost assuredly not going to become the nominee. From now until the race is decided John McCain can parade around the country shoring up his conservative support while attacking the democrats. He's free to lunch with president dumbass tomorrow without having to respond to criticism that his policies follow almost verbatim the course of the last seven disastrous years.
This whole thing makes me sick.
Also, John McCain was born in Panama. That's right, Panama.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Obama and foreign policy.
Broken hand or not, you just can't keep someone with strong opinions quiet, though it will keep this post pretty short. This post is somewhat by request.
A lot of criticism has been leveled at Barack about his inexperience and naivety when it comes to foreign policy. However while the senator does have less experience than either McCain or Clinton, his judgment has proven so far to be superior in my opinion. Look at what he said about the Iraq war back in 2002 before it began. He has also taken criticism for saying that he would use unilateral strikes against targets within Pakistan, especially from members of the Bush administration including the president himself. However that same administration just recently launched that exact kind of attack against a high level Al Qaeda target within Pakistan.* A third criticism often leveled against senator Obama is over remarks he made that he would be willing to meet with leaders of Iran, and other states that the US has deemed bad actors. First of all, the senator never said he would be willing to personally visit any heads of state without first going through the process of opening lines of communication and negotiation. Secondly, that is exactly the kind of communication we need with other countries during times of war to avoid misunderstandings that could lead to disaster and to open up the possibility of peace. During the cold war the US talked to Russia all the time. It was actual face to face talks that led to the brokering of a deal with North Korea. More communication is always a positive step.
*- link goes to a site which links to an unavailable msnbc article which links to a Washington post article which you have to register to see. Sorry that reference is such a pain in the ass but I'm sure you can find more info on it online if you'd like.
A lot of criticism has been leveled at Barack about his inexperience and naivety when it comes to foreign policy. However while the senator does have less experience than either McCain or Clinton, his judgment has proven so far to be superior in my opinion. Look at what he said about the Iraq war back in 2002 before it began. He has also taken criticism for saying that he would use unilateral strikes against targets within Pakistan, especially from members of the Bush administration including the president himself. However that same administration just recently launched that exact kind of attack against a high level Al Qaeda target within Pakistan.* A third criticism often leveled against senator Obama is over remarks he made that he would be willing to meet with leaders of Iran, and other states that the US has deemed bad actors. First of all, the senator never said he would be willing to personally visit any heads of state without first going through the process of opening lines of communication and negotiation. Secondly, that is exactly the kind of communication we need with other countries during times of war to avoid misunderstandings that could lead to disaster and to open up the possibility of peace. During the cold war the US talked to Russia all the time. It was actual face to face talks that led to the brokering of a deal with North Korea. More communication is always a positive step.
*- link goes to a site which links to an unavailable msnbc article which links to a Washington post article which you have to register to see. Sorry that reference is such a pain in the ass but I'm sure you can find more info on it online if you'd like.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Another hiatus...
I broke my finger at a tournament over the weekend so for the next two weeks probably no posts. This alone was hard enough with only one working typing hand. And please, no typing with one hand jokes.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Story Time!!!
This is a true retelling of events that happened to the brother of a close friend of mine, reprinted here with his permission. In the interest of disclosure, I have edited out a small part of the story to avoid the possibility of offending anyone, and that part is marked. Also, the names of the people and locations have been changed. I'm pretty sure that wasn't necessary, but I did it anyways since I'm not sure the level of anonymity he would have preferred. The changes are in bold. The rest of the story is in it's entirety, his. I'm posting it because, well, it's hilarious. This guy is a damned good writer. Enjoy
"So as for the story-
Over the past couple of weeks, our shows exploded. Last time we played we had the bar over capacity by 8pm. That's 500+ people. Even the stairs going up to the mezzanine were packed. You seriously couldn't move. This has never happened before in the history of the bar.
I am pleased.
One of the 500+ people in attendance happens to be a local reporter from "Fake Newspaper." Within the week, we had a ½ page article on us- page 3. Mike brought it to my attention Thursday night. The exact words out of my mouth were "This is terribly great." It's publicity, but the moron calls it a live power hour in the title, gives the name of the bar and our names as well. We are instant exiled heroes, just add press and watch us grow!
By Friday morning, I receive a call while in class. The mayor of Fakeville or someone high up in his cabinet would like to speak with both us and the bar management. I have to tell my professor the story quickly so it can count as an "emergency absence" (this being the coolest emergency note ever) and run to the bar to attend this impromptu meeting. So I get there and Mike and the manager are just sitting there with some dude in a suit. This dick of a puritan shoots me the look from hell as I am unshaved and unshowered and look quite hungover from being up all night writing my 3rd six page paper of the week. He introduces himself and proceeds to tell us how what were doing is wrong and dangerous to the student body. The manager and mike don't say a damn word. They sit there and let this jerk-store bend them over a table. Finally, I step in.
I must warn you: while the following may seem like melodrama, it is in its entirety completely true and unexaggerated. I had been sitting there biting my tongue for roughly five or so minutes while this asshole rambled on. Finally I could take no more. I excuse myself and interrupt him. I proceeded to tell him that at no time did the bar, mike or I EVER advertise or condone this so-called "power hour." In fact, we never even advertised our shows or mentioned it onstage. We simply played 60 songs in 60 minutes and left the decision up to the crowd. What they choose to do was there prerogative. It was all word of mouth. His retort was "The city doesn't support binge drinking in any form." My reply was neither do we, but if a patron chooses to come to a bar and get intoxicated, as long as he is not a danger to himself or others, that is his choice as a consenting adult and it is the individual bar staff's decision to refuse the patron service (which he knows in a college town takes quite a bit). At this point I order a pint, right in front of this asshole, just to piss him off. Keep in mind that it is barely past 12pm and the bar had just opened. He is visibly uncomfortable with this gesture, but the kicker comes when he tells us that the city would prefer that we not play live anymore.
I am less than pleased.
I tell him straight to his face that he has no solid grounds to keep us from playing live as long as we abide by Fakesville city ordinances which we have always done. At this point Mike and the manager are utterly worthless to our cause- *Edit* "They had no idea what kind of shit was about to go down" (Bob Dylan); they are deer in the headlights of this guy's Mack truck. The prospect of the bright beams from city hall benumbs them, thus preventing them from articulating a successful argument. I tell this guy "we always have the best interest of the patrons and university in mind, but if they try and shut down live music at the bar, technically we could sue the city for discrimination because this would put the bar at a disadvantage to their competitors through no fault of their own. If [he] shuts us down, there can't be any live music within campustown. Either way all [he is] going to succeed in doing is push it underground to parties where it cannot be responsibly regulated." Also, I remind him that all his information is completely unreliable and thus his argument unfounded. Our article comes in the same periodical that advertises musical condoms and Photoshops pictures of people's faces on animal's genitalia; a less than reputable source. At this point I take a very large pull of my beer, emptying roughly ¼ of its contents. This guy is defeated and he knows it.
I am Achilles to his Hector.
He responds with some bullshit excuse for needing to look into the matter further and parts with "we'll be keeping an eye on the matter over the coming weeks." I neither stand nor shake his hand as he leaves, but instead proceed to pinch my eye in an Uncle Rocco-esque manner while maintaining an ear to ear smirk and sipping on my beer (which I didn't even want, I ordered it simply to piss him off). The invisible man in the suit walks out of the bar with his tail between his legs.
I drag his lifeless corpse around the gates of Troy for all to see.
In doing so, I instantly become a hero to the entire crew of the bar and its management and get asked to go on the employee bar crawl with a free bar tab compliments of the staff.
All this debacle succeeded in doing was creating more publicity for our already growing fan base. I said it before and I'll say it again: "Despite my best efforts, we are becoming successful." While I'm not dumb and harbor no delusions of grandure, I still look out for my best interest before that of the bar or anyone else. So, we're going to give the 60 in 60 shows a rest for a while. Maybe after generic event we'll do it again, but we're probably going to get shut down. My view is that since we're going to get shut down anyway, we may as well go down swinging and get the beer garden open, get about 600 people out there and do 100 songs in as many minutes. If they try and shut that down they are going to have a horde of drunk frat guys on their hands. Thats the spirit that beat the Japanese!!"
"So as for the story-
Over the past couple of weeks, our shows exploded. Last time we played we had the bar over capacity by 8pm. That's 500+ people. Even the stairs going up to the mezzanine were packed. You seriously couldn't move. This has never happened before in the history of the bar.
I am pleased.
One of the 500+ people in attendance happens to be a local reporter from "Fake Newspaper." Within the week, we had a ½ page article on us- page 3. Mike brought it to my attention Thursday night. The exact words out of my mouth were "This is terribly great." It's publicity, but the moron calls it a live power hour in the title, gives the name of the bar and our names as well. We are instant exiled heroes, just add press and watch us grow!
By Friday morning, I receive a call while in class. The mayor of Fakeville or someone high up in his cabinet would like to speak with both us and the bar management. I have to tell my professor the story quickly so it can count as an "emergency absence" (this being the coolest emergency note ever) and run to the bar to attend this impromptu meeting. So I get there and Mike and the manager are just sitting there with some dude in a suit. This dick of a puritan shoots me the look from hell as I am unshaved and unshowered and look quite hungover from being up all night writing my 3rd six page paper of the week. He introduces himself and proceeds to tell us how what were doing is wrong and dangerous to the student body. The manager and mike don't say a damn word. They sit there and let this jerk-store bend them over a table. Finally, I step in.
I must warn you: while the following may seem like melodrama, it is in its entirety completely true and unexaggerated. I had been sitting there biting my tongue for roughly five or so minutes while this asshole rambled on. Finally I could take no more. I excuse myself and interrupt him. I proceeded to tell him that at no time did the bar, mike or I EVER advertise or condone this so-called "power hour." In fact, we never even advertised our shows or mentioned it onstage. We simply played 60 songs in 60 minutes and left the decision up to the crowd. What they choose to do was there prerogative. It was all word of mouth. His retort was "The city doesn't support binge drinking in any form." My reply was neither do we, but if a patron chooses to come to a bar and get intoxicated, as long as he is not a danger to himself or others, that is his choice as a consenting adult and it is the individual bar staff's decision to refuse the patron service (which he knows in a college town takes quite a bit). At this point I order a pint, right in front of this asshole, just to piss him off. Keep in mind that it is barely past 12pm and the bar had just opened. He is visibly uncomfortable with this gesture, but the kicker comes when he tells us that the city would prefer that we not play live anymore.
I am less than pleased.
I tell him straight to his face that he has no solid grounds to keep us from playing live as long as we abide by Fakesville city ordinances which we have always done. At this point Mike and the manager are utterly worthless to our cause- *Edit* "They had no idea what kind of shit was about to go down" (Bob Dylan); they are deer in the headlights of this guy's Mack truck. The prospect of the bright beams from city hall benumbs them, thus preventing them from articulating a successful argument. I tell this guy "we always have the best interest of the patrons and university in mind, but if they try and shut down live music at the bar, technically we could sue the city for discrimination because this would put the bar at a disadvantage to their competitors through no fault of their own. If [he] shuts us down, there can't be any live music within campustown. Either way all [he is] going to succeed in doing is push it underground to parties where it cannot be responsibly regulated." Also, I remind him that all his information is completely unreliable and thus his argument unfounded. Our article comes in the same periodical that advertises musical condoms and Photoshops pictures of people's faces on animal's genitalia; a less than reputable source. At this point I take a very large pull of my beer, emptying roughly ¼ of its contents. This guy is defeated and he knows it.
I am Achilles to his Hector.
He responds with some bullshit excuse for needing to look into the matter further and parts with "we'll be keeping an eye on the matter over the coming weeks." I neither stand nor shake his hand as he leaves, but instead proceed to pinch my eye in an Uncle Rocco-esque manner while maintaining an ear to ear smirk and sipping on my beer (which I didn't even want, I ordered it simply to piss him off). The invisible man in the suit walks out of the bar with his tail between his legs.
I drag his lifeless corpse around the gates of Troy for all to see.
In doing so, I instantly become a hero to the entire crew of the bar and its management and get asked to go on the employee bar crawl with a free bar tab compliments of the staff.
All this debacle succeeded in doing was creating more publicity for our already growing fan base. I said it before and I'll say it again: "Despite my best efforts, we are becoming successful." While I'm not dumb and harbor no delusions of grandure, I still look out for my best interest before that of the bar or anyone else. So, we're going to give the 60 in 60 shows a rest for a while. Maybe after generic event we'll do it again, but we're probably going to get shut down. My view is that since we're going to get shut down anyway, we may as well go down swinging and get the beer garden open, get about 600 people out there and do 100 songs in as many minutes. If they try and shut that down they are going to have a horde of drunk frat guys on their hands. Thats the spirit that beat the Japanese!!"
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
I did not know this, but now find it hilarious
From the wikipedia entry on Manuel Noriega:
"Noriega fled during the attack and a manhunt ensued. He finally turned up in the Apostolic Nunciature, the Holy See's embassy in Panama, where he had taken refuge. U.S. troops set up a perimeter outside this building, as any direct action on the embassy itself would have violated the customs of international law (and perhaps treaties to which the U.S. was a party at the time as well). The troops guarding it used psychological warfare, attempting to force him out by playing hard rock music and The Howard Stern Show outside the residence.[15] Reportedly the song "Panama" by Van Halen was played repeatedly.
The Vatican complained to President Bush because of this and U.S. troops stopped the noise. After a demonstration a few days later by thousands of Panamanians demanding he stand trial for human rights violations, Noriega surrendered on January 3, 1990."
I now understand more fully the pop culture references surrounding that song, which was originally written about a car. Also, I kinda like that song.
"Noriega fled during the attack and a manhunt ensued. He finally turned up in the Apostolic Nunciature, the Holy See's embassy in Panama, where he had taken refuge. U.S. troops set up a perimeter outside this building, as any direct action on the embassy itself would have violated the customs of international law (and perhaps treaties to which the U.S. was a party at the time as well). The troops guarding it used psychological warfare, attempting to force him out by playing hard rock music and The Howard Stern Show outside the residence.[15] Reportedly the song "Panama" by Van Halen was played repeatedly.
The Vatican complained to President Bush because of this and U.S. troops stopped the noise. After a demonstration a few days later by thousands of Panamanians demanding he stand trial for human rights violations, Noriega surrendered on January 3, 1990."
I now understand more fully the pop culture references surrounding that song, which was originally written about a car. Also, I kinda like that song.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Heroes #2
I did a post titled "Heroes" way back in July that probably no one remembers. It never became a recurring segment but something came along and I needed to bring it back.
http://www.samueladams.com/promotions/HopSharing/Default.aspx
Sam Adams, an American brewing company with a historic tradition, a great line of beers, and a great American attitude. For saving this years crop of microbrewed beers, there can be no amount of thanks we can give you that would be fitting. Here's to you Sam Adams, truly the heroes of the week.
http://www.samueladams.com/promotions/HopSharing/Default.aspx
Sam Adams, an American brewing company with a historic tradition, a great line of beers, and a great American attitude. For saving this years crop of microbrewed beers, there can be no amount of thanks we can give you that would be fitting. Here's to you Sam Adams, truly the heroes of the week.
Interpreting the 2nd amendment
Here
Here
Yet another tragedy that could have been avoided. This guy was obviously disturbed, obviously had mental problems, and in hindsight he should have been provided better care. The immediate question that hasn't been solved in the wake of Columbine, in the wake of Virginia Tech, or is likely to be solved in the wake of this shooting either is: Just what the fuck are we gonna do to keep this from happening again? From the gun advocate side people claim that arming more people will prevent a shooter from being able to kill as many people because armed citizens will be able to shoot back. Some people suggest closing off campuses more to prevent people with guns from getting into school buildings. Others suggest banning violent video games, or violent movies, or violence in popular culture all together.
Each suggested answer is a means towards an end designed to reduce these events.
1 - ARM MORE LAWFUL CITIZENS. THE END RESULT BEING, THEORETICALLY, THAT WHEN A GUNMAN ATTACKS, HE'LL BE STOPPED BEFORE HE CAN DO TOO MUCH DAMAGE. Sure, this would probably reduce the amount of people killed in these kinds of attacks. It also might discourage people from comitting them, knowing they're likely to get shot at themselves. However people that commit these crimes are intent on killing themselves anyways, how discouraged would they be by that? They know they're likely to face armed police in the end already. So while this might reduce the amount of people killed, it wouldn't necessarily reduce the frequency of the attacks. Also, having more people carrying around guns would increase the frequency of guns being used in crimes. A fight that normally might end up with a few loosed teeth and black eyes would have the potential to turn deadly. Add alcohol to the equation on a college campus, and it's hard to imagine that the overall result would be less dead or injured.
2 - LOCK DOWN COLLEGE CAMPUSES. We already live in a much less free society than we used to. Schools, airports, office buildings, all have had security increased drastically due to events like these. (In the case of airports, it's of course for other reasons as well) Still, events like this seem to be on the rise. It's not that more violent events are occuring, it's that the level of devastation per event is increasing drastically. I don't think that increased security is a bad idea, unlike idea number 1. Still it's an idea that I don't like. I hate living in a frightened, reactionary society, and I imagine most other people feel the same way. Still, this idea doesn't stop events from occuring as much as it does keep them from occuring in any specific place. The increase in security at schools and offices has led to the increase in shooting occuring at other public places like malls.
3 - THE INCREASE IN VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES, MOVIES, AND ON TV IS CORRELATED TO THE INCREASE IN THESE TYPES OF EVENTS. ALSO THE PEOPLE WHO COMMIT THESE ATTROCITIES ARE OFTEN FANS OF, OR ARE OBSESSED WITH THESE PRODUCTS. Some people feel that reducing or banning such violent entertainment would reduce these occurances, and others believe that they are the direct cause. I don't disagree that the level of violence in our popular culture has gotten to an unacceptable level. What I do disagree with is that it is the cause. The cause is people who are disturbed, who need help, who need to be watched out for. This doesn't mean that violent culture does not nurture them in the wrong direction, but it's difficult if not impossible to imply causation. I personally would hate to see games like GTA become banned, I find them alot of fun. Still it's disturbing the sadistic opportunities provided in those kinds of games. I've never found it the least bit entertaining to drive around mowing down pedestrians in a game like that, but some people do, and those impulses maybe shouldn't be nurtured. I'm not a psychologist, so I couldn't tell you whether providing those imaginary opportunites nurtures a sadistic desire or if it provides a consequence-free environtment to vent hurtful impulses. What I do know is that banning violence in entertainment is not the sure way to prevent these occurances.
So then what do we do about this problem? First of all as I said earlier I think it's important to take the issue of mental health seriously. I know it's difficult to be worried about someone close to you, or even about someone you don't know that well, and to try to take action about it. But we need to lose the stigma surrounding it so that people are more comfortable getting help if and when they need it. That aside, there's something quicker and easier we can do to completely solve the devastating scope of these incidents.
STOP SELLING GUNS THAT ARE ONLY USEFUL FOR KILLING PEOPLE! At Virginia Tech, the shooter had extended magazines that allowed him to get off a ridiculous amount of shots before he was stopped. In the NIU case, the shooter had extended magazines that allowed him to hold 33 bullets in each magazine. In both cases, the shooters ordered part of their stockpile from the same website, which shipped them to them! There is no fucking reason that a person needs this kind of weapon. Guns are made for, as I can see it, three reasons. Hunting, self-defense, and straight up fucking murdering people. I'm not for making all guns illegal. I believe that the 2nd ammendment give you the right to own a rifle to keep King George out of your front garden. I also believe that it gives people the right to defend your homes. I also believe people have the right to hunt. That only, however, covers shotguns, hunting rifles, and small caliber, small magazine handguns. There is no lawful reason I can concieve that a person should need any other weapon. Anything other than one of these weapons should be made illegal as soon as fucking possible. Everything other than one of these weapons should be made illegal to own, operate, sell, or to manufacture for sale to any other source than military or law enforcement. Sure this doesn't solve the problem completely, but it will certainly reduce the amount of casualties.
There is another simple fix that can help reduce the number of these events, but this post is already pretty long, and I get the sense that in my rambling I may have already lost the coherence I intended, so I'll save that for now.
Here
Yet another tragedy that could have been avoided. This guy was obviously disturbed, obviously had mental problems, and in hindsight he should have been provided better care. The immediate question that hasn't been solved in the wake of Columbine, in the wake of Virginia Tech, or is likely to be solved in the wake of this shooting either is: Just what the fuck are we gonna do to keep this from happening again? From the gun advocate side people claim that arming more people will prevent a shooter from being able to kill as many people because armed citizens will be able to shoot back. Some people suggest closing off campuses more to prevent people with guns from getting into school buildings. Others suggest banning violent video games, or violent movies, or violence in popular culture all together.
Each suggested answer is a means towards an end designed to reduce these events.
1 - ARM MORE LAWFUL CITIZENS. THE END RESULT BEING, THEORETICALLY, THAT WHEN A GUNMAN ATTACKS, HE'LL BE STOPPED BEFORE HE CAN DO TOO MUCH DAMAGE. Sure, this would probably reduce the amount of people killed in these kinds of attacks. It also might discourage people from comitting them, knowing they're likely to get shot at themselves. However people that commit these crimes are intent on killing themselves anyways, how discouraged would they be by that? They know they're likely to face armed police in the end already. So while this might reduce the amount of people killed, it wouldn't necessarily reduce the frequency of the attacks. Also, having more people carrying around guns would increase the frequency of guns being used in crimes. A fight that normally might end up with a few loosed teeth and black eyes would have the potential to turn deadly. Add alcohol to the equation on a college campus, and it's hard to imagine that the overall result would be less dead or injured.
2 - LOCK DOWN COLLEGE CAMPUSES. We already live in a much less free society than we used to. Schools, airports, office buildings, all have had security increased drastically due to events like these. (In the case of airports, it's of course for other reasons as well) Still, events like this seem to be on the rise. It's not that more violent events are occuring, it's that the level of devastation per event is increasing drastically. I don't think that increased security is a bad idea, unlike idea number 1. Still it's an idea that I don't like. I hate living in a frightened, reactionary society, and I imagine most other people feel the same way. Still, this idea doesn't stop events from occuring as much as it does keep them from occuring in any specific place. The increase in security at schools and offices has led to the increase in shooting occuring at other public places like malls.
3 - THE INCREASE IN VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES, MOVIES, AND ON TV IS CORRELATED TO THE INCREASE IN THESE TYPES OF EVENTS. ALSO THE PEOPLE WHO COMMIT THESE ATTROCITIES ARE OFTEN FANS OF, OR ARE OBSESSED WITH THESE PRODUCTS. Some people feel that reducing or banning such violent entertainment would reduce these occurances, and others believe that they are the direct cause. I don't disagree that the level of violence in our popular culture has gotten to an unacceptable level. What I do disagree with is that it is the cause. The cause is people who are disturbed, who need help, who need to be watched out for. This doesn't mean that violent culture does not nurture them in the wrong direction, but it's difficult if not impossible to imply causation. I personally would hate to see games like GTA become banned, I find them alot of fun. Still it's disturbing the sadistic opportunities provided in those kinds of games. I've never found it the least bit entertaining to drive around mowing down pedestrians in a game like that, but some people do, and those impulses maybe shouldn't be nurtured. I'm not a psychologist, so I couldn't tell you whether providing those imaginary opportunites nurtures a sadistic desire or if it provides a consequence-free environtment to vent hurtful impulses. What I do know is that banning violence in entertainment is not the sure way to prevent these occurances.
So then what do we do about this problem? First of all as I said earlier I think it's important to take the issue of mental health seriously. I know it's difficult to be worried about someone close to you, or even about someone you don't know that well, and to try to take action about it. But we need to lose the stigma surrounding it so that people are more comfortable getting help if and when they need it. That aside, there's something quicker and easier we can do to completely solve the devastating scope of these incidents.
STOP SELLING GUNS THAT ARE ONLY USEFUL FOR KILLING PEOPLE! At Virginia Tech, the shooter had extended magazines that allowed him to get off a ridiculous amount of shots before he was stopped. In the NIU case, the shooter had extended magazines that allowed him to hold 33 bullets in each magazine. In both cases, the shooters ordered part of their stockpile from the same website, which shipped them to them! There is no fucking reason that a person needs this kind of weapon. Guns are made for, as I can see it, three reasons. Hunting, self-defense, and straight up fucking murdering people. I'm not for making all guns illegal. I believe that the 2nd ammendment give you the right to own a rifle to keep King George out of your front garden. I also believe that it gives people the right to defend your homes. I also believe people have the right to hunt. That only, however, covers shotguns, hunting rifles, and small caliber, small magazine handguns. There is no lawful reason I can concieve that a person should need any other weapon. Anything other than one of these weapons should be made illegal as soon as fucking possible. Everything other than one of these weapons should be made illegal to own, operate, sell, or to manufacture for sale to any other source than military or law enforcement. Sure this doesn't solve the problem completely, but it will certainly reduce the amount of casualties.
There is another simple fix that can help reduce the number of these events, but this post is already pretty long, and I get the sense that in my rambling I may have already lost the coherence I intended, so I'll save that for now.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Am I wrong about delegate democracy?
This is from an e-mail I wrote in response to THIS PETITION
"I don't know about this. While I do agree that the delegates should follow the electorate, I don't think that there's anything actually wrong with them not doing so. The primary process isn't designed as an election. The process is for the democratic party to decide on their nominee, and since the democratic party isn't actually a government entity it doesn't make sense that it should be force to follow the results of an election it hasn't agreed to bind itself too. The superdelegate situation originally emerged because the party was worried that it might need to have a say in the result of a contested primary election process (which itself only began in the early '50s), and they might need to make an "executive decision" on who the candidate should be. When you consider that in many states you don't have to be a registered democrat to even vote in the democratic primaries, it doesn't make much sense to me that the democratic party should then be forced to follow the results of that primary. I still agree that they should honor the results of the elections with ALL of the delegates, but I disagree with the premise that it would be the fair democratic thing for them to do. I also don't feel that they should feel obligated to do so."
I'm just wondering, am I wrong about this?
"I don't know about this. While I do agree that the delegates should follow the electorate, I don't think that there's anything actually wrong with them not doing so. The primary process isn't designed as an election. The process is for the democratic party to decide on their nominee, and since the democratic party isn't actually a government entity it doesn't make sense that it should be force to follow the results of an election it hasn't agreed to bind itself too. The superdelegate situation originally emerged because the party was worried that it might need to have a say in the result of a contested primary election process (which itself only began in the early '50s), and they might need to make an "executive decision" on who the candidate should be. When you consider that in many states you don't have to be a registered democrat to even vote in the democratic primaries, it doesn't make much sense to me that the democratic party should then be forced to follow the results of that primary. I still agree that they should honor the results of the elections with ALL of the delegates, but I disagree with the premise that it would be the fair democratic thing for them to do. I also don't feel that they should feel obligated to do so."
I'm just wondering, am I wrong about this?
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Who's got the arm in 2008?
Every spring training is full of questions for the coming season, and this one is no different for the cubs. Who are their starting pitchers going to be? Will Zambrano pitch on opening day or will he cede the responsibility to Ted Lilly on what is typically his worst pitching day of the year? Will Felix Pie get his bat going and work out in center field? How will Fukadome adjust to US baseball?
I could keep on goin' but there's one question that I've been focusing on pretty intently and it's the one that I think is most open to debate and opinion. Who is going to be the closer in 2008?
The closer might change during the year so a better question might be "who will start the season as the closer?", but what I'm more concerned with is who people think would be the best closer for 2008. The way I see it, you have three candidates who pitch in slightly different styles, but are close to the same type of pitcher. Of the three Howry is the oldest and by necessity the craftiest. He still throws his share of strikeouts and will pitch to contact, but he's more able to work counts and get outs using his infield. Marmol is somewhat opposite in that he's a young pitcher with a young arm who can strike players out with ease but also throws a higher percentage of strikes than you might expect from a strikeout pitcher. Wood is in a position where he might be midway between the two in style. He used to be a dominant strikeout pitcher but after all the surgeries and time on the DL and hot tubs he's fallen out of, he's not the same pitcher he used to be. We saw last year that he can still be dominant on occasion, but he no longer can rely on pure throwing power to get outs.
To be honest, I'm not sure who I think would be the best. I'd love to see Wood be able to come back and be a hero in Chicago again. He has always tried to live up to what he feels is his obligation to the team and the city that gave him his chance, and has accepted less money and lesser roles throughout the time he was rehabbing. But I'm not sure that he would be best for the role. I'm waiting to see how things play out but what I expect will happen is that Marmol will start to be groomed for the role in the hopes that he will be the teams closer for a while to come.
So what do you guys think? Would you go with the experience, the youth, or the past success...the way in the the past success?
I could keep on goin' but there's one question that I've been focusing on pretty intently and it's the one that I think is most open to debate and opinion. Who is going to be the closer in 2008?
The closer might change during the year so a better question might be "who will start the season as the closer?", but what I'm more concerned with is who people think would be the best closer for 2008. The way I see it, you have three candidates who pitch in slightly different styles, but are close to the same type of pitcher. Of the three Howry is the oldest and by necessity the craftiest. He still throws his share of strikeouts and will pitch to contact, but he's more able to work counts and get outs using his infield. Marmol is somewhat opposite in that he's a young pitcher with a young arm who can strike players out with ease but also throws a higher percentage of strikes than you might expect from a strikeout pitcher. Wood is in a position where he might be midway between the two in style. He used to be a dominant strikeout pitcher but after all the surgeries and time on the DL and hot tubs he's fallen out of, he's not the same pitcher he used to be. We saw last year that he can still be dominant on occasion, but he no longer can rely on pure throwing power to get outs.
To be honest, I'm not sure who I think would be the best. I'd love to see Wood be able to come back and be a hero in Chicago again. He has always tried to live up to what he feels is his obligation to the team and the city that gave him his chance, and has accepted less money and lesser roles throughout the time he was rehabbing. But I'm not sure that he would be best for the role. I'm waiting to see how things play out but what I expect will happen is that Marmol will start to be groomed for the role in the hopes that he will be the teams closer for a while to come.
So what do you guys think? Would you go with the experience, the youth, or the past success...the way in the the past success?
Sunday, February 10, 2008
In the words of Jon Stewart, "Fuck you!"
Jon Stewart on Mitt Romney dropping from the race.
Fuckin' right Jon. It's been an interesting conflict in my mind lately. I wanted so much for Romney to succeed in the republican primaries. I happen to think that he's incredibly beatable in the general election. Yet at the same time I could hardly contain my contempt for that greasy, power-hungry son of a bitch. It amazes me the extent that he was able to fool conservative voters into believing in him. That flip-floppy cunt has spent his entire political career saying anything and everything to get ahead, and his supporters had the fucking gall to criticize Hillary Clinton for the same thing. Don't get me wrong, I think that it's also true about Hillary to a much, much lesser extent. But when I decide who I want to be president I decide who I think would be best for the country. There is no other criterion. In that respect I would give all worldly possessions I own or ever will own if it would ensure that Hillary Clinton would win a race against Mike Huckabee. While she is a calculating politician and he seems more unafraid to not compromise his principles, his principles are FUCKING INSANE and Hillary's "calculations" have landed on something that I often find myself in agreement with.
This doesn't mean that I want Hillary to be president. There is still something to be said about a candidate that both shares your values and had the backbone and principles to stand up for them, and for my money there hasn't been a candidate that better fits that mold since Al Gore. Until of course Obama came along. Sure Al Gore lost, but Obama also has the ability to not appear robot-like in person, so he's got that going for him.
Ok, I'm off point. I'll regroup. I fucking hate Romney. I could get into a giant protracted rant about what an asshole hypocrite he is, but with him dropping out of the race it isn't relevant any longer. I'll just say that the guy claimed he was the true conservative in this year's primaries, yet when he ran for governor of Massachusetts he claimed to be to the left of Ted Kennedy. What I want to address is the ridiculous statement that he made.* The part where he said that he doesn't want his campaign to be part of a surrender to terror. While he just said that so that he could further ingratiate himself with the conservative base that he figures he'll depend on for his next power-grab, I'm still sick of this particular attack on liberals. Fuck you Mitt Romney. Fuck you for exploiting people and turning them against their fellow Americans to advance your political career. Fuck you for implying that you, or conservatives you claim to think like, care about the future of this country any more than I do. Fuck you for claiming that I want anything good to ever happen to any of the damnable mother-fuckers that attack our troops, that terrorize innocent Iraqis, that take the lives of innocent civilians world-wide. Fuck you for basically equating MY ambitions to theirs. Fuck you for thinking that you deserve the respect that you have never done the hard work to earn. Fuck you even for taking advantage of conservatives, who you don't value any more than their potential to gain you more power. Fuck you for making us so angry at one another.
I don't want for the democrats to have to go up against John McCain in the general election. He can get the independent vote. People who disagree with him still respect him. Despite the fact that he kissed the ring of Jerry Falwell and the Evangelicals that threw him under the bus in 2000, who he called a bunch of lunatics.(1) Despite the fact that people working on his campaign are the same that accused him in 2000 of fathering an illegitimate black child.(2) Despite the fact that he too is an unapologetic power-hungry manipulator, who in 2001 courted the democratic party about switching parties before Jim Jeffords became an independent, making his potential switch irrelevant.(3) Then there's the fact that Republicans that oppose the war overwhelmingly favored John McCain, despite the fact that of the remaining candidates, he is the one that has most been in favor of the war, sometimes to a ridiculous degree. (4) I'll lay off a bit for now cuz I get the impression I'll be blogging against this guy for many of the summer months. But the point is that despite Mitt Romney's leaving the race meaning that the democrats will almost certainly go up against the stronger McCain, I am comforted that Mitt Romney will not be rewarded for selling every trace of his soul. Fuck you Mitt Romney, you got what you deserved.
* - Quote from Romney's speech made upon his announcement: "If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention … I’d forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I’d be making it easier for Sen. Clinton or Obama to win,” Romney said. “Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. - link
source 1
source 2
source 3
source 4
Fuckin' right Jon. It's been an interesting conflict in my mind lately. I wanted so much for Romney to succeed in the republican primaries. I happen to think that he's incredibly beatable in the general election. Yet at the same time I could hardly contain my contempt for that greasy, power-hungry son of a bitch. It amazes me the extent that he was able to fool conservative voters into believing in him. That flip-floppy cunt has spent his entire political career saying anything and everything to get ahead, and his supporters had the fucking gall to criticize Hillary Clinton for the same thing. Don't get me wrong, I think that it's also true about Hillary to a much, much lesser extent. But when I decide who I want to be president I decide who I think would be best for the country. There is no other criterion. In that respect I would give all worldly possessions I own or ever will own if it would ensure that Hillary Clinton would win a race against Mike Huckabee. While she is a calculating politician and he seems more unafraid to not compromise his principles, his principles are FUCKING INSANE and Hillary's "calculations" have landed on something that I often find myself in agreement with.
This doesn't mean that I want Hillary to be president. There is still something to be said about a candidate that both shares your values and had the backbone and principles to stand up for them, and for my money there hasn't been a candidate that better fits that mold since Al Gore. Until of course Obama came along. Sure Al Gore lost, but Obama also has the ability to not appear robot-like in person, so he's got that going for him.
Ok, I'm off point. I'll regroup. I fucking hate Romney. I could get into a giant protracted rant about what an asshole hypocrite he is, but with him dropping out of the race it isn't relevant any longer. I'll just say that the guy claimed he was the true conservative in this year's primaries, yet when he ran for governor of Massachusetts he claimed to be to the left of Ted Kennedy. What I want to address is the ridiculous statement that he made.* The part where he said that he doesn't want his campaign to be part of a surrender to terror. While he just said that so that he could further ingratiate himself with the conservative base that he figures he'll depend on for his next power-grab, I'm still sick of this particular attack on liberals. Fuck you Mitt Romney. Fuck you for exploiting people and turning them against their fellow Americans to advance your political career. Fuck you for implying that you, or conservatives you claim to think like, care about the future of this country any more than I do. Fuck you for claiming that I want anything good to ever happen to any of the damnable mother-fuckers that attack our troops, that terrorize innocent Iraqis, that take the lives of innocent civilians world-wide. Fuck you for basically equating MY ambitions to theirs. Fuck you for thinking that you deserve the respect that you have never done the hard work to earn. Fuck you even for taking advantage of conservatives, who you don't value any more than their potential to gain you more power. Fuck you for making us so angry at one another.
I don't want for the democrats to have to go up against John McCain in the general election. He can get the independent vote. People who disagree with him still respect him. Despite the fact that he kissed the ring of Jerry Falwell and the Evangelicals that threw him under the bus in 2000, who he called a bunch of lunatics.(1) Despite the fact that people working on his campaign are the same that accused him in 2000 of fathering an illegitimate black child.(2) Despite the fact that he too is an unapologetic power-hungry manipulator, who in 2001 courted the democratic party about switching parties before Jim Jeffords became an independent, making his potential switch irrelevant.(3) Then there's the fact that Republicans that oppose the war overwhelmingly favored John McCain, despite the fact that of the remaining candidates, he is the one that has most been in favor of the war, sometimes to a ridiculous degree. (4) I'll lay off a bit for now cuz I get the impression I'll be blogging against this guy for many of the summer months. But the point is that despite Mitt Romney's leaving the race meaning that the democrats will almost certainly go up against the stronger McCain, I am comforted that Mitt Romney will not be rewarded for selling every trace of his soul. Fuck you Mitt Romney, you got what you deserved.
* - Quote from Romney's speech made upon his announcement: "If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention … I’d forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I’d be making it easier for Sen. Clinton or Obama to win,” Romney said. “Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. - link
source 1
source 2
source 3
source 4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)