Andrew Slack, a student of my father (and one of the only readers of this blog) and one of the only readers of this blog was mentioned in last year's Time Magazine's Person of the Year issue. The year before, Time had named the Person of the Year as "You"...meaning that all of us are shaping the world.
This year with Obama on the cover, he writes in the following:
"In 2006 I was Time Magazine's Person of the Year. Then in 2007 their Person of the Year issue only mentioned me in two paragraphs. And then as an added slap in the face, this year, they've made Barack Obama Person of the Year without any mention of me any where.
"Fed up by this downward spiral, I complained to a good friend. But my friend quoted Obama, by saying "this has never been about me. It's been about you." Meaning me. So once again, I'm Time Magazine's Person of the Year. After only a two paragraph mention last year, it's nice to be back on top."
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Carrot and Stick
Where did this term come from and why does any one think that it could actually work? Carrot and Stick...really? Has any one ever got a child let alone someone of any age to do any thing by bribing them with a carrot? Why don't they call it cotton candy and stick?
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Blackwater Trial
It's important when murderers are both fairly tried and convicted for their crimes. The case should be no different with Blackwater guards. But the stakes are incredibly high here. It is imperative that the Arab world see that the United States does not believe that armed Americans who kill Iraqi civilians are acting honorably. It is imperative, if we truly wish to transform hearts and minds, that we show the entire world that they are brought to justice.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Somethings Up With Chris Matthews
He's not talking like a journalist at all.
He wants to make this Presidency work? That's not his job. And he shouldn't admit that out loud unless he wants to be a liberal version of Fox News.
On Tuesday night, he mentioned how he was in various meetings in Philadelphia a handful of times. I had read a rumor that he was thinking about running for Senate in Pennsylvania against Arlen Specter. I think that's a fair estimate.
You know, I like Chris Matthews the way I like a guy who I like that is also a real dick. And to be fair, I kind of like him. But that doesn't mean he isn't a real dick. And I don't like people screwing with journalism so they can win political points even if they're on my side. On the other hand, if someone has the star power to unseat a favorite like Specter, Matthews is a good pick. Doesn't stop him from being a dick though.
He wants to make this Presidency work? That's not his job. And he shouldn't admit that out loud unless he wants to be a liberal version of Fox News.
On Tuesday night, he mentioned how he was in various meetings in Philadelphia a handful of times. I had read a rumor that he was thinking about running for Senate in Pennsylvania against Arlen Specter. I think that's a fair estimate.
You know, I like Chris Matthews the way I like a guy who I like that is also a real dick. And to be fair, I kind of like him. But that doesn't mean he isn't a real dick. And I don't like people screwing with journalism so they can win political points even if they're on my side. On the other hand, if someone has the star power to unseat a favorite like Specter, Matthews is a good pick. Doesn't stop him from being a dick though.
Time's Person of the Year 2008
Gee? Who do you think it's going to be? Sarah Palin? Steve Schmidt? George W Bush? Karl Rove? Ted Stevens? Mark Foley? Dick Cheney? John McCain? Probably not. No. I wonder if intrade already has a bet going on this. But my take is that this year it's not going to be a dictator in Russia.
Most likely, it's going to be the man who takes time out of his busy schedule to read all of the Harry Potter books to his daughter Malia Obama. And that fills me with a sense of pride.
Most likely, it's going to be the man who takes time out of his busy schedule to read all of the Harry Potter books to his daughter Malia Obama. And that fills me with a sense of pride.
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Been away for a while but the title of this post says it all. :-)
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Stranger Than Really Strange Fiction
Um...so Judith Miller is a new contributor to Fox News. This is the same Judith Miller of the NY Times that did misleading reporting that helped get the US into war with Iraq.
We've all had stories that didn't come out exactly as we had hoped? I'm trying to suppress my laughter here. Okay. I'm trying to find a rational sounding way to tackle that comment by Mr. Moody. I mean. Um. I uh...I'm kind of at a loss for words.
How does Jon Stewart come out with new material? The sheer reality of Fox News is much more satirical of itself than the words of any satirist.
Can we all be sure of one thing? Whether the US ever gets to be like what it once was before Judith Miller and Fox News or whether we fall into obscurity, in the long view, Fox News will be thought of as being on the wrong side of history. Why do people not care about their being on the wrong side of history? I mean, they're egomaniacs. Don't they want history to look well on them?
I'm just...who writes this shit?
Miller will be an on-air analyst and will write for Fox's Web site. "She has a very impressive résumé," says Senior Vice President John Moody. "We've all had stories that didn't come out exactly as we had hoped. It's certainly something she's going to be associated with for all time, and there's not much anyone can do about that, but we want to make use of the tremendous expertise she brings on a lot of other issues. . . . She has explained herself and she has nothing to apologize for."
We've all had stories that didn't come out exactly as we had hoped? I'm trying to suppress my laughter here. Okay. I'm trying to find a rational sounding way to tackle that comment by Mr. Moody. I mean. Um. I uh...I'm kind of at a loss for words.
How does Jon Stewart come out with new material? The sheer reality of Fox News is much more satirical of itself than the words of any satirist.
Can we all be sure of one thing? Whether the US ever gets to be like what it once was before Judith Miller and Fox News or whether we fall into obscurity, in the long view, Fox News will be thought of as being on the wrong side of history. Why do people not care about their being on the wrong side of history? I mean, they're egomaniacs. Don't they want history to look well on them?
I'm just...who writes this shit?
Fact Checking Statements on the Weather Underground
While I think it's best to understand the historical context that helped the Weather Undergound come to the surface, there's a lot of good reason why people from all stripes in the US (including myself) are furious at the Weather Underground.
But as far as I know, it is factually wrong to imply as the McCain campaigns Robocalls have, that the Weather Underground killed any innocent civilians. I'm pretty sure that there was a short phase within their history when their most extreme wing had decided that attacking civilians would be justified. Of course, this was crossing a line that is despicable. The result of this, however, was that this extreme wing had created a bomb and accidentally killed themselves in the process. They were the only ones to die. After that the Weather Underground reevaluated their approach and did their best to make sure that innocent civilians would not be physically harmed by their acts of terrorism. And they were not. That's not a defense of the Weather Underground. But they were a lot more like Fight Club and a lot less like what we think of when we think of traditional terrorism.
At this point, it is disappointing though not shocking to watch the mainstream media's critique of activism in the 1960's of which the Weather Underground only consisted of a tiny minority. We sometimes make parallels between Iraq and Vietnam.
However, what goes little mentioned is that the FBI's COINTELPRO program which was established under the auspices of fighting Soviet/communist ties within the US ended up being used to attack the constitutional rights of many members of BOTH the left and the right. In the case of Black Panther Fred Hampton who was expecting a child and who never laid a finger on any one, the US government assassinated him while in his sleep by shooting him about seventeen times and then made it look like it was a shoot out between he and the Chicago Police. Even writing that makes me feel like I sound like some sort of delusional throwback who thinks the government is out to get us. I don't this this. But sometimes the facts are as strange as ficiton.
Further, in the case of Dr. King, very few realize the measures to which the FBI took in order to have Dr. King either kill himself or have someone assassinate him (black mailing him with tapes of his affairs, publishing his hotel room in a local paper...the hotel in which he was killed). This would in turn remind us of what a shame it is that people can name any building after J Edgar Hoover with a straight face.
And even less mentioned are the hideous acts that COINTELPRO took against the Ku Klux Klan (though those don't involve assassinations) and were, I believe, authorized (sadly) by Bobby Kennedy who I am a big fan of.
Why I bring all of this up is that Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground as a threat were never any thing compared to COINTELPRO. In fact, most members of the Weather Underground got off without jail time because of how many constitutional rights the FBI had stripped them of. After 1978 the FBI lost it's power to declare underground wars against it's own citizens.
After 9/11/01 it regained many of those powers.
It's not an issue that any one on wants to talk about right now before the election, but if there's any frightening parallels between now and the 1960's and 70's it's not the history of either the left or the right. It's the unchecked power of the FBI.
The Right's narration of the Weather Underground killing Americans is somewhat delusional. Not entirely wrong as they did intend to at one point and did kill their own members on accident. But still. It's factually inaccurate and on a much deeper level, ignores the larger threats being posed at that time by the FBI.
But as far as I know, it is factually wrong to imply as the McCain campaigns Robocalls have, that the Weather Underground killed any innocent civilians. I'm pretty sure that there was a short phase within their history when their most extreme wing had decided that attacking civilians would be justified. Of course, this was crossing a line that is despicable. The result of this, however, was that this extreme wing had created a bomb and accidentally killed themselves in the process. They were the only ones to die. After that the Weather Underground reevaluated their approach and did their best to make sure that innocent civilians would not be physically harmed by their acts of terrorism. And they were not. That's not a defense of the Weather Underground. But they were a lot more like Fight Club and a lot less like what we think of when we think of traditional terrorism.
At this point, it is disappointing though not shocking to watch the mainstream media's critique of activism in the 1960's of which the Weather Underground only consisted of a tiny minority. We sometimes make parallels between Iraq and Vietnam.
However, what goes little mentioned is that the FBI's COINTELPRO program which was established under the auspices of fighting Soviet/communist ties within the US ended up being used to attack the constitutional rights of many members of BOTH the left and the right. In the case of Black Panther Fred Hampton who was expecting a child and who never laid a finger on any one, the US government assassinated him while in his sleep by shooting him about seventeen times and then made it look like it was a shoot out between he and the Chicago Police. Even writing that makes me feel like I sound like some sort of delusional throwback who thinks the government is out to get us. I don't this this. But sometimes the facts are as strange as ficiton.
Further, in the case of Dr. King, very few realize the measures to which the FBI took in order to have Dr. King either kill himself or have someone assassinate him (black mailing him with tapes of his affairs, publishing his hotel room in a local paper...the hotel in which he was killed). This would in turn remind us of what a shame it is that people can name any building after J Edgar Hoover with a straight face.
And even less mentioned are the hideous acts that COINTELPRO took against the Ku Klux Klan (though those don't involve assassinations) and were, I believe, authorized (sadly) by Bobby Kennedy who I am a big fan of.
Why I bring all of this up is that Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground as a threat were never any thing compared to COINTELPRO. In fact, most members of the Weather Underground got off without jail time because of how many constitutional rights the FBI had stripped them of. After 1978 the FBI lost it's power to declare underground wars against it's own citizens.
After 9/11/01 it regained many of those powers.
It's not an issue that any one on wants to talk about right now before the election, but if there's any frightening parallels between now and the 1960's and 70's it's not the history of either the left or the right. It's the unchecked power of the FBI.
The Right's narration of the Weather Underground killing Americans is somewhat delusional. Not entirely wrong as they did intend to at one point and did kill their own members on accident. But still. It's factually inaccurate and on a much deeper level, ignores the larger threats being posed at that time by the FBI.
Colin Powell's endorsement
Endorsements are something that pundits like to make a big deal out of, but my favorite bloggers have assured me in their posts that they often mean very little. Except, I think, when you're a Democrat labeled as inexperienced in foreign policy and the endorsement comes from Colin Powell.
Nate Silver has pointed out that Obama's recent momentum surge in the polls is stalling. Not to worry, says Nate. There may be another surge once the last debate has been factored into all the polling. But I'm not so sure on that one. I mean, the last debate had Obama win but it gave McCain something of a hat to hang on...even if that something was just a line about how he's not George Bush and about a jerk who isn't a licensed plumber. Regardless of whatever bounce Obama does or doesn't get from this most recent debate, Nate assures us that just because Obama's momentum surge is stalling does not mean that it's going to reverse towards a surge in momentum towards John McCain. That sounds right.
But two new factors have been introduced today. One is the announcement record amount of money that Obama raised in September. That announcement won't help him too much in the polls, I wouldn't think. On the one hand, his fund raising ability shows how competent he is, on the other hand, it paints John McCain as the underdog, and Obama has done well as an underdog. It will however, help Obama overshadow McCain in advertising.
But going back to endorsements. Despite the fact that endorsements often do not translate into big bounces in the polls, this one from Colin Powell will, I think, mean something. It may cause a big bounce but I'm betting that it won't. What it will do is further justify why Obama supporters support Obama and give very little left for the McCain campaign to hang it's hat on. I mean, say bin Laden does make a video right now. Everyone just assumes that it will mean a surge in support for McCain. But why? Especially when you've got Colin Powell backing the other guy. The ramifications of Powell's endorsement may or may not show up in the polls. But it does mean something very substantial.
And it is telling that a moderate Republican foreign policy guy has clearly stepped over to Obama and condemned his own party. If the Republican Party loses this November, they may have to reconsider their entire playbook if they ever want to regain much of any thing.
Plus, on a much more profound level, Powell didn't simply endorse Obama today. He endorsed American Muslims. And outside of the world of presidential politics and back to reality, that's got to be the most profound endorsement that's happened all election season.
Nate Silver has pointed out that Obama's recent momentum surge in the polls is stalling. Not to worry, says Nate. There may be another surge once the last debate has been factored into all the polling. But I'm not so sure on that one. I mean, the last debate had Obama win but it gave McCain something of a hat to hang on...even if that something was just a line about how he's not George Bush and about a jerk who isn't a licensed plumber. Regardless of whatever bounce Obama does or doesn't get from this most recent debate, Nate assures us that just because Obama's momentum surge is stalling does not mean that it's going to reverse towards a surge in momentum towards John McCain. That sounds right.
But two new factors have been introduced today. One is the announcement record amount of money that Obama raised in September. That announcement won't help him too much in the polls, I wouldn't think. On the one hand, his fund raising ability shows how competent he is, on the other hand, it paints John McCain as the underdog, and Obama has done well as an underdog. It will however, help Obama overshadow McCain in advertising.
But going back to endorsements. Despite the fact that endorsements often do not translate into big bounces in the polls, this one from Colin Powell will, I think, mean something. It may cause a big bounce but I'm betting that it won't. What it will do is further justify why Obama supporters support Obama and give very little left for the McCain campaign to hang it's hat on. I mean, say bin Laden does make a video right now. Everyone just assumes that it will mean a surge in support for McCain. But why? Especially when you've got Colin Powell backing the other guy. The ramifications of Powell's endorsement may or may not show up in the polls. But it does mean something very substantial.
And it is telling that a moderate Republican foreign policy guy has clearly stepped over to Obama and condemned his own party. If the Republican Party loses this November, they may have to reconsider their entire playbook if they ever want to regain much of any thing.
Plus, on a much more profound level, Powell didn't simply endorse Obama today. He endorsed American Muslims. And outside of the world of presidential politics and back to reality, that's got to be the most profound endorsement that's happened all election season.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Barack Obama is not only a Senator.....
And he's not only the Democratic nominee for the US Presidency. He's also something of a historian. Here he is today:
"Don't underestimate the capacity of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Don't underestimate our ability to screw it up."
If there's any thing Democrats have been good at in the last thirty years, it's selling out their principles in order to win, losing at the last minute, or just blindly losing. I'd say this trend changed after Bush seriously proposed privatizing social security and Nancy Pelosi showed the President what it looks like to go up against a politician from Baltimore. She rallied Congress and the American people led by different groups like the AARP and MoveOn to say, "you fuck with FDR's legacy one more inch and you fuck with us all. And guess what? We won't let you." And the rest is a new history. A history of winning.
But the old history can repeat itself. So I like Obama's advice. It keeps us on our toes.
"Don't underestimate the capacity of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Don't underestimate our ability to screw it up."
If there's any thing Democrats have been good at in the last thirty years, it's selling out their principles in order to win, losing at the last minute, or just blindly losing. I'd say this trend changed after Bush seriously proposed privatizing social security and Nancy Pelosi showed the President what it looks like to go up against a politician from Baltimore. She rallied Congress and the American people led by different groups like the AARP and MoveOn to say, "you fuck with FDR's legacy one more inch and you fuck with us all. And guess what? We won't let you." And the rest is a new history. A history of winning.
But the old history can repeat itself. So I like Obama's advice. It keeps us on our toes.
Oh and Governor Palin
Good luck to you on your soon to be obscurity. I hope that wherever it takes you, be it throwing eggs at Planned Parenthood offices or Internet porn videos about the naughty after hour antics of Catholic school teachers, that you will be living in a state that is so pro-America it'll make you barf up your moose steaks all over every newspaper that you read...since you read all of them. Please tell Corey Feldman I loved him in the Burbs and give my regards to the Runaway Bride.
Boy, my contempt for Sarah Palin is getting so ridiculously heavy handed. To my 1 to 5 readers* (1 includes myself) I apologize for my most ungentlemanly behavior and tone.
I just can't stop myself. See I'm a straight talking maverick who bucks his own party and so I just cut through the Hebrew National Bologna of Washington insiders and tell it like it is. I think every Joe from Joe Six Pack to Joe the Plumber to Senator Joe Biden of Scranton to Joe Mamma would understand that as a true American, I just have to tell it like it is and be a complete asshole with no regard for other people's feelings or livelihood so long it is profits my shallow and compulsive drive for prestigious positions where I can make decisions that ruin people's lives and profit a few oil executives that mask their underlying depression and low self esteem with narcissistic plans to gain more power and control while eradicating 1 in 4 mammals and putting the entire human race in grave peril. I mean, after all, that's what we straight talkin' mavericks do. So while I may not have the polished Ivy League snobbish eloquence of say, Barack Obama, at least I tell it like it is and would never mean any disrespect to Joe the Plumber since he's proven to be such a useful pawn and gimmick for my fake populist surface talk that hides my contempt for America, humanity, and all sentient beings including my own family and self. I'm sure all true Americans would understand.
And yes, I am heavy handed. I'm a straight talkin' maverick. Being heavy handed goes with the territory. You got a problem with that and you'll get bitch slapped by Bill Kristol and David Brooks. So look out. 'Cause there's nothing scarier than getting bitch slapped by incompetent thinkers that the New York Times keeps employed to make it appear that they are not liberally biased.
Any way, Governor. Best of luck. With all sincerity I hope that you have enough health insurance for serious psychoanalysis and a full regimen of healing while serving time (for Troopergate, etc) in a new prison system that values rehabilitation over retribution.
Boy, my contempt for Sarah Palin is getting so ridiculously heavy handed. To my 1 to 5 readers* (1 includes myself) I apologize for my most ungentlemanly behavior and tone.
I just can't stop myself. See I'm a straight talking maverick who bucks his own party and so I just cut through the Hebrew National Bologna of Washington insiders and tell it like it is. I think every Joe from Joe Six Pack to Joe the Plumber to Senator Joe Biden of Scranton to Joe Mamma would understand that as a true American, I just have to tell it like it is and be a complete asshole with no regard for other people's feelings or livelihood so long it is profits my shallow and compulsive drive for prestigious positions where I can make decisions that ruin people's lives and profit a few oil executives that mask their underlying depression and low self esteem with narcissistic plans to gain more power and control while eradicating 1 in 4 mammals and putting the entire human race in grave peril. I mean, after all, that's what we straight talkin' mavericks do. So while I may not have the polished Ivy League snobbish eloquence of say, Barack Obama, at least I tell it like it is and would never mean any disrespect to Joe the Plumber since he's proven to be such a useful pawn and gimmick for my fake populist surface talk that hides my contempt for America, humanity, and all sentient beings including my own family and self. I'm sure all true Americans would understand.
And yes, I am heavy handed. I'm a straight talkin' maverick. Being heavy handed goes with the territory. You got a problem with that and you'll get bitch slapped by Bill Kristol and David Brooks. So look out. 'Cause there's nothing scarier than getting bitch slapped by incompetent thinkers that the New York Times keeps employed to make it appear that they are not liberally biased.
Any way, Governor. Best of luck. With all sincerity I hope that you have enough health insurance for serious psychoanalysis and a full regimen of healing while serving time (for Troopergate, etc) in a new prison system that values rehabilitation over retribution.
Anti-American States in the United States of America
Governor Palin says that North Carolina is one of the patriotic, pro-American states.
I'm proud to live in a state that Sarah Palin most probably does not consider pro-American.
What's interesting is that I hail from Philly and Boston. Arguably these two cities, more than any city in the United States produced intellectual elites who argued the United States of America into existence and led the fight to make sure that that existence was made manifest. While the Joe Sixpack loyalists were completely content to buy overtaxed six packs of tea from the British, it was intellectuals from the cities that I'm from that made the United States exist. Sadly though, according to omnipresent authorities like Governor Palin, I no longer reside in a state that is pro-American. I guess it's because we don't have high enough populations of people who want to secede from the United States of America to be pro-American. What a fucking shame.
I'm proud to live in a state that Sarah Palin most probably does not consider pro-American.
What's interesting is that I hail from Philly and Boston. Arguably these two cities, more than any city in the United States produced intellectual elites who argued the United States of America into existence and led the fight to make sure that that existence was made manifest. While the Joe Sixpack loyalists were completely content to buy overtaxed six packs of tea from the British, it was intellectuals from the cities that I'm from that made the United States exist. Sadly though, according to omnipresent authorities like Governor Palin, I no longer reside in a state that is pro-American. I guess it's because we don't have high enough populations of people who want to secede from the United States of America to be pro-American. What a fucking shame.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Live Blogging Last Debate
9:07: Both off to a good start. Obama is putting things down into numbers. He looks more presidential and is doing better right away.
9:08: John McCain is talking to a guy named Joe. Joe Six Pack? Any way, not bad Senator. Well played.
9:09: Oh sorry. It's Joe the plumber.
9:09: Watching ads from Senator McCain? Damn Gina!
9:09: Obama is getting all populist and shit. Nice.
9:10: Joe the Plumber: you gots to make sacrifices g. You been rakin' in all that shit and flushing the rest of us down the toilet.
9:11: Holy shit. My drinking game had Joe the Plumber means five shots. I'm already wasted.
9:17: We have to nuclear power? Sen McCain: answer the question bitch.
9:11: Class warfare? No you dittint. McCain is such a shit head. He's the one playing class warfare.
9:11: Obama is so cool. Joe the Plumber again. I'm so drunk I can hardly type.
9:14: Obama is the political answer to the Birth of Cool.
9:17: McCain. Your party was in charge of everything when all this shit went down. Where the fuck were you? Smoking grass? I wish you were and not showing up to vote. You were in lock stop with the bad guys every step of the way.
9:19: Nurse. Get me a scalpel.
9:19: No one likes pork. As usual, we Jews win.
9:20: Talk surplus to me B.
9:20: McCain's not President Bush? Well played again Senator. But you're still a fuck head.
9:23: Hey B, you got to stop playing into their hands. But then again, you're so good looking. Stay awake dude. We need you awake.
9:24: McCain is on the defense. He's a maverick. What's a maverick? Wasn't that a movie with that antisemetic fuck head Mel Gibson?
9:27: The question John, was about accountability for your own campaign.
9:30: Joe the Plumber again. I am so drunk.
9:32: McCain, you stepped into a fucking trap by talking about John Lewis. Obama got you.
9:33: McCain. You messed up by bringing up John Lewis.
9:37: Obama is point blank winning this debate right now.
9:46: Live blogging sucks. I just want to just watch this now.
9:52: Senator Obama has never traveled south of the border? What? Governor Palin has never traveled any where.
10:00: Jon Stewart is going to have so much fun with Joe the Plumber.
10:03: Joe you're rich? What does he even mean? Joe is rich. Joe is rich. I'm not a plumber. My name is not Joe. Not Joe Sixpack. Not Joe the Pumbler. Not Mario the Plumber. Not even Luigi the Plumber.
10:05: Senator Government? That wasn't bad.
10:09: McCain says no litmus test than says litmus test.
10:10: Lily. Bring it back to the economy B. Nice.
10:13: Obama is balancing the abortion debate pretty well. I hope.
10:15: Obama: say "safe, legal, and rare." Geez. I fear that McCain beat you on one of the most delicate issues in this country.
10:17: Okay, okay. Andrew Sullivan thinks Obama wins on abortion. That calmed me down.
10:23: America's youth are not an interest. They are our future. Too true.
10:31: Obama wins this debate.
Wrap Up Thoughts:
Look, I think McCain did pretty well. He did. He tried. He annoyed the shit out of me but on a political level he didn't do terribly. But Obama did better. Way way better. Obama had so many moments when he could have attacked McCain. And what's amazing is, I think he knew those moments were there and he didn't seize them. Instead of taking the quick win he went for the long win. Instead of making a whiny jab by correcting McCain on a point, he just accepted it and moved on because he recognizes that his warmth and tone are more important than the merits of tit for tat exchanges. McCain did just the opposite. Everything was an attack with barely any warmth or empathy. He was trying to deliver some kind of knock out punch, but too desperately. To bring this to dating, you don't "go all the way" with someone or "score a date" with someone if you're that desperate. Attraction is about being a warm human being with lots to give, lots of empathy and cleverness and interest and not being too needy and desperate. While McCain did well on some of the tit for tats, if these two fellas we're courting a lady, the lady is going to go for Obama unless she has a weird complex where she feels like she needs to take care of a needy desperate guy. So McCain did well on arguing but he didn't come off as human. Obama did fine on the arguing but what was remarkable was the moments where he didn't argue--where he nodded, where he smiled, where he said "congratulations" on McCain's baseball team winning.
Then we get to the places where Obama did argue. And he slammed McCain. Slammed him. And did so with a deft cool demeanor. McCain stood there shocked when Obama said that his fine for not having health insurance was zero. McCain looked like he wanted to be a member of that health care plan.
And then there was the closing arguments. McCain basically said he's a decent guy who is a good senator and wants to do more. There was a sadness and a desperation that I feel for, but really Senator, what you showed by saying how much you love serving is that you should stay senator. You did a really decent job at proving to the American people that you are a good senator.
Obama on the other hand showed that he's not only running cause he wants to serve and be president. He showed that he wants to elevate this country to a new level.
Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com just ended the debate by saying, "Congratulations, President Obama."
I don't want to commit hubris here, but it was really nice to see that from Nate. And at the moment, each time I hear Senator Obama speak I no longer see a candidate for president of the United States. I see the President of the United States. Well done Senator Obama. Well done.
9:08: John McCain is talking to a guy named Joe. Joe Six Pack? Any way, not bad Senator. Well played.
9:09: Oh sorry. It's Joe the plumber.
9:09: Watching ads from Senator McCain? Damn Gina!
9:09: Obama is getting all populist and shit. Nice.
9:10: Joe the Plumber: you gots to make sacrifices g. You been rakin' in all that shit and flushing the rest of us down the toilet.
9:11: Holy shit. My drinking game had Joe the Plumber means five shots. I'm already wasted.
9:17: We have to nuclear power? Sen McCain: answer the question bitch.
9:11: Class warfare? No you dittint. McCain is such a shit head. He's the one playing class warfare.
9:11: Obama is so cool. Joe the Plumber again. I'm so drunk I can hardly type.
9:14: Obama is the political answer to the Birth of Cool.
9:17: McCain. Your party was in charge of everything when all this shit went down. Where the fuck were you? Smoking grass? I wish you were and not showing up to vote. You were in lock stop with the bad guys every step of the way.
9:19: Nurse. Get me a scalpel.
9:19: No one likes pork. As usual, we Jews win.
9:20: Talk surplus to me B.
9:20: McCain's not President Bush? Well played again Senator. But you're still a fuck head.
9:23: Hey B, you got to stop playing into their hands. But then again, you're so good looking. Stay awake dude. We need you awake.
9:24: McCain is on the defense. He's a maverick. What's a maverick? Wasn't that a movie with that antisemetic fuck head Mel Gibson?
9:27: The question John, was about accountability for your own campaign.
9:30: Joe the Plumber again. I am so drunk.
9:32: McCain, you stepped into a fucking trap by talking about John Lewis. Obama got you.
9:33: McCain. You messed up by bringing up John Lewis.
9:37: Obama is point blank winning this debate right now.
9:46: Live blogging sucks. I just want to just watch this now.
9:52: Senator Obama has never traveled south of the border? What? Governor Palin has never traveled any where.
10:00: Jon Stewart is going to have so much fun with Joe the Plumber.
10:03: Joe you're rich? What does he even mean? Joe is rich. Joe is rich. I'm not a plumber. My name is not Joe. Not Joe Sixpack. Not Joe the Pumbler. Not Mario the Plumber. Not even Luigi the Plumber.
10:05: Senator Government? That wasn't bad.
10:09: McCain says no litmus test than says litmus test.
10:10: Lily. Bring it back to the economy B. Nice.
10:13: Obama is balancing the abortion debate pretty well. I hope.
10:15: Obama: say "safe, legal, and rare." Geez. I fear that McCain beat you on one of the most delicate issues in this country.
10:17: Okay, okay. Andrew Sullivan thinks Obama wins on abortion. That calmed me down.
10:23: America's youth are not an interest. They are our future. Too true.
10:31: Obama wins this debate.
Wrap Up Thoughts:
Look, I think McCain did pretty well. He did. He tried. He annoyed the shit out of me but on a political level he didn't do terribly. But Obama did better. Way way better. Obama had so many moments when he could have attacked McCain. And what's amazing is, I think he knew those moments were there and he didn't seize them. Instead of taking the quick win he went for the long win. Instead of making a whiny jab by correcting McCain on a point, he just accepted it and moved on because he recognizes that his warmth and tone are more important than the merits of tit for tat exchanges. McCain did just the opposite. Everything was an attack with barely any warmth or empathy. He was trying to deliver some kind of knock out punch, but too desperately. To bring this to dating, you don't "go all the way" with someone or "score a date" with someone if you're that desperate. Attraction is about being a warm human being with lots to give, lots of empathy and cleverness and interest and not being too needy and desperate. While McCain did well on some of the tit for tats, if these two fellas we're courting a lady, the lady is going to go for Obama unless she has a weird complex where she feels like she needs to take care of a needy desperate guy. So McCain did well on arguing but he didn't come off as human. Obama did fine on the arguing but what was remarkable was the moments where he didn't argue--where he nodded, where he smiled, where he said "congratulations" on McCain's baseball team winning.
Then we get to the places where Obama did argue. And he slammed McCain. Slammed him. And did so with a deft cool demeanor. McCain stood there shocked when Obama said that his fine for not having health insurance was zero. McCain looked like he wanted to be a member of that health care plan.
And then there was the closing arguments. McCain basically said he's a decent guy who is a good senator and wants to do more. There was a sadness and a desperation that I feel for, but really Senator, what you showed by saying how much you love serving is that you should stay senator. You did a really decent job at proving to the American people that you are a good senator.
Obama on the other hand showed that he's not only running cause he wants to serve and be president. He showed that he wants to elevate this country to a new level.
Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com just ended the debate by saying, "Congratulations, President Obama."
I don't want to commit hubris here, but it was really nice to see that from Nate. And at the moment, each time I hear Senator Obama speak I no longer see a candidate for president of the United States. I see the President of the United States. Well done Senator Obama. Well done.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Olmert Decides He Wants Peace
Far, far too much has been made of Ehud Olmert's outgoing comments as prime minister that appear to favor withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territory. As I have mentioned before, when Olmert was first elected to pursue a pro-disengagement agenda, he responded by invading Lebanon and reinvading Gaza. He also presided over an acceleration of settlement construction, and he leaves office in the wake of rising settler violence against Israelis.
It's easy to say you're pro-peace when you no longer have to confront your own radicals. But when the man was actually in a position to do something, he balked.
There's nothing admirable about that.
It's easy to say you're pro-peace when you no longer have to confront your own radicals. But when the man was actually in a position to do something, he balked.
There's nothing admirable about that.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Slime me in Spanish II
The plot in this week's Spanish soap opera thickens, as Obama responds to the McCain smear with a nasty ad of his own. As far as I can tell, the Obama ad is equally full of it. This is great if you're a left wing hack and you like Obama because he is going to give it to the right this November. If, however, you like Obama because you believe he offers something more honest in our political dialogue, it's rather disappointing. It would have been enough to point out, once again, that the McCain smear was inaccurate, and perhaps hit back by noting the truth, which is that the GOP has fully embraced xenophobia.
Instead Obama opted for a personal smear of his own. That may be tit for tat, and few will feel bad for McCain, but the truth would have been far more effective.
Instead Obama opted for a personal smear of his own. That may be tit for tat, and few will feel bad for McCain, but the truth would have been far more effective.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Slime me in Spanish
Much has been made of John McCain's campaign of lies this week. In fact, while campaigns are full of little lies, the past four to five days has seen an explosion, one could even say a surge, of lies. The latest, a Spanish-language attempt to portray Obama as anti-immigration, strikes me as the worst of the lot. Put aside the fact that Obama and McCain both voted the same on this issue (they were pro-migrants), and put aside that it was the Republicans who ultimately killed the immigration reform effort. In other words, put aside the fact that the ad is a smear and a lie. Just ask yourself a simple question: what kind of sleaze ball does it take to scare up a few votes by playing to the fear of their family's deportation?
Now to me this campaign has been a no-brainer ever since McCain demonstrated an inability to differentiate between Sunnis and Shiites (remember that?). Anyone who is actually serious about foreign policy, or who payed even the slightest attention while visiting Iraq, wouldn't make a mistake like that. He certainly wouldn't do it repeatedly. After eight years of incompetence, I want competence. It's straightforward and non-ideological.
But I have to say, watching this guy run through the absolute basement of human behavior, while all the time maintaining that crisp little grin on his face, and constantly bringing up his honor as if it's the 51st star on the American flag, is more than I can take. It's infuriating. It's unjust. It's anything but Country First.
The man must be stopped.
Now to me this campaign has been a no-brainer ever since McCain demonstrated an inability to differentiate between Sunnis and Shiites (remember that?). Anyone who is actually serious about foreign policy, or who payed even the slightest attention while visiting Iraq, wouldn't make a mistake like that. He certainly wouldn't do it repeatedly. After eight years of incompetence, I want competence. It's straightforward and non-ideological.
But I have to say, watching this guy run through the absolute basement of human behavior, while all the time maintaining that crisp little grin on his face, and constantly bringing up his honor as if it's the 51st star on the American flag, is more than I can take. It's infuriating. It's unjust. It's anything but Country First.
The man must be stopped.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Writing About Nothing...
David Brooks shows that it's possible to fill an entire op-ed space in the New York Times with trite psychoanalysis. But I agree with Kevin Drum that along the way he slips and lets out a damning truth:
"The Republicans are intellectually unfit to govern right now..."
That's quite a confession for a conservative, no? It might lead one down a more intellectual and self-reflective track, perhaps ending in the conclusion that, "I shouldn't be voting for Republicans." But no, instead we're treated to a gleeful play-by-play of the political cycle that ends in the revelation that "[w]eirdness wins."
And thanks to guys like Brooks, it just might.
"The Republicans are intellectually unfit to govern right now..."
That's quite a confession for a conservative, no? It might lead one down a more intellectual and self-reflective track, perhaps ending in the conclusion that, "I shouldn't be voting for Republicans." But no, instead we're treated to a gleeful play-by-play of the political cycle that ends in the revelation that "[w]eirdness wins."
And thanks to guys like Brooks, it just might.
Monday, September 1, 2008
I See Your Moose and Raise You a...
Ruggedness - the politically staged variety - has long been a growth industry in America. But the spectacle of Putin shooting a tiger kinda makes Bush, Cheney, and Kerry look like a bunch of JV sissies. As an American aware of my second ammendment rights I have to say it's shameful to be outclassed in this way. From now on, whenever a politician in America wants to show how tough he or she is by taking a bunch of reporters hunting, I say the minimum has got to be a tiger.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Obama!
My initial reaction is that Obama was at his best when he was drawing sharp contrasts between himself and the Republican Party. Directly confronting the charge that he's a celebrity, and challenging McCain in a head-on debate over the war, were necessary strokes along that line. I also liked when he said, "They make a big election about small things." He was calling them out on the pettiness of their political style.
But after raising my hope that he would follow that line of thought further, he meandered back into his own narrative. And one thing he did not do was point out the disconnect between Republican rhetoric and actual Republican values. For example, saying you're pro-freedom and being pro-torture. Or saying you're anti-elitist while passing wartime tax cuts for millionaires. He spoke of their failures, and he hinted at their cynicism, but he didn't call them on their hypocrisy.
Obama's narrative is compelling, but I think this convention has been at its weakest when it's fallen into narrative mode. Those convinced by the Obama story are already voting Democrat, and those left cold by it aren't going to buy into some rhetorical sap. The constant, droning emphasis on the sufferring of average Americans also strikes me as tone deaf. Yes, many are suffering. But many more are not directly suffering, and they are the ones who need to vote Democrat in order for Obama to be the next president. Those are the voters that need to come to despise the GOP and all its works. Those are the voters that need to understand that a vote for McCain isn't just a vote against change, it's a vote for failure. And not just failure in the concrete world of policy, but the moral failure characterized by a party that for eight gruelling years put its own interests ahead of the country.
I want Obama to shame the Republicans.
But after raising my hope that he would follow that line of thought further, he meandered back into his own narrative. And one thing he did not do was point out the disconnect between Republican rhetoric and actual Republican values. For example, saying you're pro-freedom and being pro-torture. Or saying you're anti-elitist while passing wartime tax cuts for millionaires. He spoke of their failures, and he hinted at their cynicism, but he didn't call them on their hypocrisy.
Obama's narrative is compelling, but I think this convention has been at its weakest when it's fallen into narrative mode. Those convinced by the Obama story are already voting Democrat, and those left cold by it aren't going to buy into some rhetorical sap. The constant, droning emphasis on the sufferring of average Americans also strikes me as tone deaf. Yes, many are suffering. But many more are not directly suffering, and they are the ones who need to vote Democrat in order for Obama to be the next president. Those are the voters that need to come to despise the GOP and all its works. Those are the voters that need to understand that a vote for McCain isn't just a vote against change, it's a vote for failure. And not just failure in the concrete world of policy, but the moral failure characterized by a party that for eight gruelling years put its own interests ahead of the country.
I want Obama to shame the Republicans.
A Post on Israel
Writing over at South Jerusalem, the awesomely named Gershom Gorenberg has an interesting take on the long, slow death of Israel's Labor Party. And as I mentioned back in March, I think Olmert has negated the rationale for the Kadima Party.
Unfortunately, that leaves only one large party with viability in Israel. And it ain't the cute and cuddly teddy bear party.
Unfortunately, that leaves only one large party with viability in Israel. And it ain't the cute and cuddly teddy bear party.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
John McCain as Blogger
Jonathan Chait zings Andrew Sullivan by noting that he has a lot in common with John McCain, in the sense that both men view world events in moral and ideological, rather than data-driven, terms.
It's a fair point, but Chait loses his mind when he suggests that John McCain would make a great blogger. The obvious dig here is blogger, not president. But of course John McCain would be a horrible blogger, as anyone who thinks about it a moment would conclude. Assuming he figures out how to log onto the internet, would anyone be able to stand the constant repetition of hawkish boilerplate and analogies to POW life? It would be an unending, digitalized stream of grandpa's "when I was young" rants.
This hints at something deeper, which is that Sullivan and McCain are actually quite different in their political styles. What makes Sullivan a compelling read is that he regularly cross-examines himself. Viewing the world in moral terms is his starting point, wheras for McCain (and Bush) it is the end point. This has led Sullivan into a commendable fit of apostasy, which is a strength, not the weakness that Chait would have you suppose it is.
It's a fair point, but Chait loses his mind when he suggests that John McCain would make a great blogger. The obvious dig here is blogger, not president. But of course John McCain would be a horrible blogger, as anyone who thinks about it a moment would conclude. Assuming he figures out how to log onto the internet, would anyone be able to stand the constant repetition of hawkish boilerplate and analogies to POW life? It would be an unending, digitalized stream of grandpa's "when I was young" rants.
This hints at something deeper, which is that Sullivan and McCain are actually quite different in their political styles. What makes Sullivan a compelling read is that he regularly cross-examines himself. Viewing the world in moral terms is his starting point, wheras for McCain (and Bush) it is the end point. This has led Sullivan into a commendable fit of apostasy, which is a strength, not the weakness that Chait would have you suppose it is.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Shit!
I had my phone on me all day. I kept giving it furtive glances, hoping I had missed a ring. I even checked my voice mail a few times.
But no. I'm not Barack Obama's running mate.
What about you?
But no. I'm not Barack Obama's running mate.
What about you?
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Where did everyone go? Did anyone clean up after the cats?
I finally had a full day to kick back and read. No hospital rounds, no running all over creation, no 5-minute "inbetween" reading while I was waiting for my pager to go off. Nope, I had the whole day to read. And man did I read. I poured through an Economist cover-to-cover over breakfast. The renewable energy articles flat out blew my mind. Then I read a few posts on fivethirtyeight.com, the most wonderfully nerdy polling blog ever created. After lunch I made my way over to the DC bloggers, and eventually found myself reading old Bernie Watersmouth posts.
This is all rather fragmented, but some initial bloggy insights gleaned during my long absence from blogging: A) Reihan Salam is the most exciting thing to happen to conservatism since Andrew Sullivan - it's all for the better that he pissed off Newt Gingrich B) Liberal bloggers should under no circumstances be trusted with healthcare reform - I don't doubt their wonkishness, just their ability to grasp what actually happens when people become seriously and chronically ill C) Barack Obama has tapped into a cultural phenomenon that is simply huge - he has managed to merge the public's distaste for cynical, dumbed down politics with the first technology available (the internet) that allows ordinary citizens to circumvent corporate media and financing.
On a more personal note, I've gained one additional insight from recent fatherhood. And that's that single men shouldn't be in charge of anything important. They don't know real beauty when they see it.
This is all rather fragmented, but some initial bloggy insights gleaned during my long absence from blogging: A) Reihan Salam is the most exciting thing to happen to conservatism since Andrew Sullivan - it's all for the better that he pissed off Newt Gingrich B) Liberal bloggers should under no circumstances be trusted with healthcare reform - I don't doubt their wonkishness, just their ability to grasp what actually happens when people become seriously and chronically ill C) Barack Obama has tapped into a cultural phenomenon that is simply huge - he has managed to merge the public's distaste for cynical, dumbed down politics with the first technology available (the internet) that allows ordinary citizens to circumvent corporate media and financing.
On a more personal note, I've gained one additional insight from recent fatherhood. And that's that single men shouldn't be in charge of anything important. They don't know real beauty when they see it.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
The End of the Primary!
HOORAY!!!!
It appears that I don't blog on here very often any more and Dr. Bellowsair seems to have given up as well. I'm sorry to the millions of people who read this blog each day looking for a new post. For now, please go elsewhere for your political entertainments. Thank ye!
It appears that I don't blog on here very often any more and Dr. Bellowsair seems to have given up as well. I'm sorry to the millions of people who read this blog each day looking for a new post. For now, please go elsewhere for your political entertainments. Thank ye!
Friday, May 2, 2008
Gential Party
A new political party known as the Genital Party has arisen in American politics. It's President, Laurence Olivier says, "Politicians talk tough. But no one has balls like us."
Treasurer Karate Kid says, "American politics smells like my nuts. That's why our new party is going to fit in so nicely. Chris Matthews you better guard those hard balls of yours. Cause we are going to karate chop them."
Even such celebrities like, Guy Onthe Street seem interested: "Some politicians talk about a new kind of politics. That's just talk. These guys want action."
Treasurer Karate Kid says, "American politics smells like my nuts. That's why our new party is going to fit in so nicely. Chris Matthews you better guard those hard balls of yours. Cause we are going to karate chop them."
Even such celebrities like, Guy Onthe Street seem interested: "Some politicians talk about a new kind of politics. That's just talk. These guys want action."
Bill Prohibits Bias Based On Jeans
Bill prohibits bias based on jeans
People with ugly jeans need not fear
The AP Examiner
A bill that would prohibit discrimination by people that you are interested in dating based on the style or look your genes won final approval in Congress on Thursday by an overwhelming vote.
The legislation, which President Bush has indicated he will sign, speaks to the mounting fear of a dystopia in which the brand and make of people's jeans will be the only determining factor in people being attracted to you. On the House floor Thursday, Democrats and Republicans alike cited anecdotes and polls illustrating that people feel they should not be penalized for the style of their jeans.
"People know we all have a couple pairs of bad looking jeans, and we are all potential victims of jeanetic discrimination," said Rep. Polly Ester, D-N.Y., who was a key sponsor of the bill, which passed the Senate by a vote of 95-0 on Tuesday and the House on Thursday by a 414-1 vote, with the one defector being Rep. Jord Dash, R-NM.
Rep. Dash made the statement, "There is no reason for us to be afraid of people being discriminated against by members of the opposite sex based on their jeans."
Rep. Ide Dehn Titty, D NJ responded: "Representative Dash's comments are heterosexist. Some of us are attracted to members of the same sex. Others are not attracted to members of the same or the so-called opposite gender but an alternative gender altogether."
Sen. Dick N Pussy-Rock hailed the measure. "Everyone knows that your attractiveness should not be determined by what your jeans look like. It's what's inside them that counts. Your genitals are all that actually matter. At the end of the day, they are the only thing that make life worth living."
Still, some experts said people still should be cautious with what brand of jeans they where. The bill leaves open the ability for people to be allowed to be unattracted to people who wear EXTREMELY crappy looking jeans.
Owners of dating agencies say a fear of discrimination on the part of their clients has prevented thousands of them from wearing the kind of jeans they wish to wear. A study introduced by the University of Sukmee shows that both male and female clients worry they may be denied blow jobs based on what their jeans look like.
If the bill is signed into law, many more people are expected to take advantage of wearing whatever they want.
The measure did not always have such overwhelming support. Similar legislation had foundered for more than a decade in the face of opposition from Big Jeans.
"Things have changed" says Rep Seth D Michaels, one of 20 newly elected representatives for the District of Columbia.. "And much faster than you can change in and out of your jeans."
"It's a new era," says Rep. Andrew Slack, D MA. Rep. Seth D Michaels replies: "Rep Andrew Slack is crazy but he's right about one thing: it is indeed a new era."
After eating the flesh of fifteen terrorists, Dr. Jonathan Dworkin, D MD says, "It's time to take some action!"
Indeed.
People with ugly jeans need not fear
The AP Examiner
A bill that would prohibit discrimination by people that you are interested in dating based on the style or look your genes won final approval in Congress on Thursday by an overwhelming vote.
The legislation, which President Bush has indicated he will sign, speaks to the mounting fear of a dystopia in which the brand and make of people's jeans will be the only determining factor in people being attracted to you. On the House floor Thursday, Democrats and Republicans alike cited anecdotes and polls illustrating that people feel they should not be penalized for the style of their jeans.
"People know we all have a couple pairs of bad looking jeans, and we are all potential victims of jeanetic discrimination," said Rep. Polly Ester, D-N.Y., who was a key sponsor of the bill, which passed the Senate by a vote of 95-0 on Tuesday and the House on Thursday by a 414-1 vote, with the one defector being Rep. Jord Dash, R-NM.
Rep. Dash made the statement, "There is no reason for us to be afraid of people being discriminated against by members of the opposite sex based on their jeans."
Rep. Ide Dehn Titty, D NJ responded: "Representative Dash's comments are heterosexist. Some of us are attracted to members of the same sex. Others are not attracted to members of the same or the so-called opposite gender but an alternative gender altogether."
Sen. Dick N Pussy-Rock hailed the measure. "Everyone knows that your attractiveness should not be determined by what your jeans look like. It's what's inside them that counts. Your genitals are all that actually matter. At the end of the day, they are the only thing that make life worth living."
Still, some experts said people still should be cautious with what brand of jeans they where. The bill leaves open the ability for people to be allowed to be unattracted to people who wear EXTREMELY crappy looking jeans.
Owners of dating agencies say a fear of discrimination on the part of their clients has prevented thousands of them from wearing the kind of jeans they wish to wear. A study introduced by the University of Sukmee shows that both male and female clients worry they may be denied blow jobs based on what their jeans look like.
If the bill is signed into law, many more people are expected to take advantage of wearing whatever they want.
The measure did not always have such overwhelming support. Similar legislation had foundered for more than a decade in the face of opposition from Big Jeans.
"Things have changed" says Rep Seth D Michaels, one of 20 newly elected representatives for the District of Columbia.. "And much faster than you can change in and out of your jeans."
"It's a new era," says Rep. Andrew Slack, D MA. Rep. Seth D Michaels replies: "Rep Andrew Slack is crazy but he's right about one thing: it is indeed a new era."
After eating the flesh of fifteen terrorists, Dr. Jonathan Dworkin, D MD says, "It's time to take some action!"
Indeed.
And We Thought the Democratic Primary Was Dysfunctional?
It has nothing on the "post-election/pre-runoff/boycott/other options" climate in Zimbabwe.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
The Beginning of the Beginning of the Beginning of the End of this Primary, Part Twenty Seven
This primary may be reaching its end now. For real this time. A few weeks ago Clinton was all like, "I'm winning the superdelegates" and Obama was all like, "I'm winning the actual states." Now that pattern is reversing. Clinton is winning the states. But she's not winning by large margins (with the exception of places like Kentucky). And Obama's getting a key defection by Joe Andrew today is a sign that this primary is about to be over. And I'm pretty optimistic that it's going to Obama.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Hoping For Change
Here's a CHANGE that I am filled with HOPE will happen: the end of the Democratic Primary. This blows.
69
This is the 69th post on Huntingdon Pike. In celebration of this momentous occasion, I have given myself a 69. And if you think that's impossible take a look at the mess that is the Democratic Primary. Any thing is possible. AH! I feel better now.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Getridofthemoderators.com
Geridofthemoderators.com – this could be a good and catchy web site that puts pressure on the moderators and exposes just how stupid they are. We could show quotes and graphs of how bad a job they do and have an honest discussion (as well as a grassroots campaign) around what it would be like to have a good old fashioned Lincoln-Douglass debate where the candidates slug it out without being spoon fed politics-lite BS from moderators who are making this country dumber with each passing second.
This would also remove the question of bias. So yeah, methinks that moderated debates should go "bye bye" and we should usher in a new era of debates based on an old era of debates.
This would also remove the question of bias. So yeah, methinks that moderated debates should go "bye bye" and we should usher in a new era of debates based on an old era of debates.
Barack-aby Bama on the Tree Top
Now my last post aside, I've got to say: Barack Obama did a shitty job at the debate last night. Now if it were me and I was being asked repulsive questions, I would have been pretty freakin' annoyed to. I mean, those were bad questions that Obama has mostly addressed many times over.
But that said, Barack looked as if he was going to fall asleep last night in the middle of each sentence. He looked so tired. I could hardly watch. It was almost as if he was annoyed at the questions not just because they were stupid questions, but because he was really cranky. I understand that and have sympathy for it.
I almost find it funny. I told my roommate, one day when I have a child I'm going to say to him or her when they are looking sleepy: "We better put you to bed! Why you look just as tired as Barack Obama at a Pennsylvania debate!"
But that said, Barack looked as if he was going to fall asleep last night in the middle of each sentence. He looked so tired. I could hardly watch. It was almost as if he was annoyed at the questions not just because they were stupid questions, but because he was really cranky. I understand that and have sympathy for it.
I almost find it funny. I told my roommate, one day when I have a child I'm going to say to him or her when they are looking sleepy: "We better put you to bed! Why you look just as tired as Barack Obama at a Pennsylvania debate!"
The Obama Partisan
Alright. So I'd say that I am a huge Obama fan and that I am pretty annoyed at this point with Hillary Clinton. While I wouldn't mind to see her as president, I would love to see Barack Obama as president. In many ways, I think this primary is a referendum on hope.
We have a choice between "hope" and a narcissistic circle that is determined to win and consolidate power at all costs. That's often how I see this race. Obama says he's running because this country needs a change. Hillary says she's running because she wants to be president. I mean, she didn't stay with her asshole husband for nothing right? She should at least get to be President of the United States.
Alright. That's mean. But I think there's a degree of truth in it. And frankly, it pisses me off.
We have a choice between "hope" and a narcissistic circle that is determined to win and consolidate power at all costs. That's often how I see this race. Obama says he's running because this country needs a change. Hillary says she's running because she wants to be president. I mean, she didn't stay with her asshole husband for nothing right? She should at least get to be President of the United States.
Alright. That's mean. But I think there's a degree of truth in it. And frankly, it pisses me off.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Democrats Duh-Bate
“Is Reverend Wright as patriotic as you?” “Why can’t you wear a pin with an American flag?”
There is a line in Billy Madison where after Adam Sandler speaks for a while, the principal gives a stark reply that I think should be applied to tonight’s moderators: “Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to (you). I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
It’s become popular in the blogosphere to ridicule these debates, but with good reason. And this one especially. There was barely any thing on environment, health care, human rights in Darfur, or most issues that are or should of value to most us. I am of the view that it’s time to get rid of the moderators. It’s time for a good old fashioned “Lincoln-Douglass” debate where the candidates go head to head without being spoon fed politics-lite crap that is making everyone in this country dumber. What is, essentially in the way of this happening?
There is a line in Billy Madison where after Adam Sandler speaks for a while, the principal gives a stark reply that I think should be applied to tonight’s moderators: “Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to (you). I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
It’s become popular in the blogosphere to ridicule these debates, but with good reason. And this one especially. There was barely any thing on environment, health care, human rights in Darfur, or most issues that are or should of value to most us. I am of the view that it’s time to get rid of the moderators. It’s time for a good old fashioned “Lincoln-Douglass” debate where the candidates go head to head without being spoon fed politics-lite crap that is making everyone in this country dumber. What is, essentially in the way of this happening?
Knock Knock
Who's there?
McCain.
McCain who?
Mc-ain't-he-the-one-who-supports-actual-elitist-policies?
INSIDE JOKE: Mr. D, did I finally pull it off?
McCain.
McCain who?
Mc-ain't-he-the-one-who-supports-actual-elitist-policies?
INSIDE JOKE: Mr. D, did I finally pull it off?
Monday, April 14, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Hard Rains Goin' Fall...Let's Get Building
Literally. Thanks to global warming, a hard rain will literally fall in certain areas. And completely not fall in other areas.
But actual rain is not what Dylan meant, right? He used "hard rain" in the figurative/metaphorical sense that ten thousand voices will start fighting to be heard if we choose not to hear them. And yet, while we in the West may be unnerved by car bombs and other tragic attacks, those in the poorest nations will feel the figurative "hard rain" the hardest. Because in times of great economic strife, poor people turn on the rich less often, and instead turn on each other.
And in a fascinating piece by Nick Kristoff, they turn on elderly women. Now if there is any thing disgusting in the world it's global trends that lead to the brutal executions of elderly women.
Al Gore wanted to create a lock box for Social Security to protect our elderly.
Looks like we should open up a box right now for the Social Security of elderly women across this world. In fact, we need to start preparing some sort of "Noah's Ark" plan for the coming invasion of global warming. And by "building an Ark" I do not necessarily mean a physical Ark. I mean something else. And I'm not sure what. I just know it's going to require some imagination and community building.
As Kristoff points out, there's no way to predict how human beings respond to terrible weather conditions. But if history has any thing to say, human beings do not respond well to crazy weather. They become insane. And so we need to start thinking about building an Ark. Cause Noah was the only visionary that we can point to who knew to think ahead. I mean, let's think about it. Let's create a plan on how to respond to the unpredictable, volatile, and vicious trends that global warming has in store.
I want to believe in hope (thank you Barack). But we have a progressive movement that is so (rightly) entrenched in the battle for universal health care and getting out of Iraq that I don't see many Noahs building arks for the future.
There is some serious shit looming that we could possibly have prevented in the Roaring Nineties and that we can still do something about, but far less it seems. Now we have to take into account that the worst of humanity that we are seeing in Darfur is a stone's throw away on an even wider scale.
Don't like the invention of trench war fare and all the other stuff that came out of the first half of the twentieth century? Well...we got to get moving then to prevent more "inventions" from humanity's worst nightmares.
I hate to be a doomsayer. I want to believe in hope. But in searching for my hope, I'm going to have to follow Dylan's advice and head for the Church of my choice where I might find God or Brooklyn State Hospital where I may still find Woodie Guthrie. But if I don't find either in these places, Dylan has a solution: you can find them both at the Grand Canyon at sundown. And if by the time I get there, the canyon is covered by the ocean, I hope to be with you all in an Ark that we had imagined and prepared.
But actual rain is not what Dylan meant, right? He used "hard rain" in the figurative/metaphorical sense that ten thousand voices will start fighting to be heard if we choose not to hear them. And yet, while we in the West may be unnerved by car bombs and other tragic attacks, those in the poorest nations will feel the figurative "hard rain" the hardest. Because in times of great economic strife, poor people turn on the rich less often, and instead turn on each other.
And in a fascinating piece by Nick Kristoff, they turn on elderly women. Now if there is any thing disgusting in the world it's global trends that lead to the brutal executions of elderly women.
Al Gore wanted to create a lock box for Social Security to protect our elderly.
Looks like we should open up a box right now for the Social Security of elderly women across this world. In fact, we need to start preparing some sort of "Noah's Ark" plan for the coming invasion of global warming. And by "building an Ark" I do not necessarily mean a physical Ark. I mean something else. And I'm not sure what. I just know it's going to require some imagination and community building.
As Kristoff points out, there's no way to predict how human beings respond to terrible weather conditions. But if history has any thing to say, human beings do not respond well to crazy weather. They become insane. And so we need to start thinking about building an Ark. Cause Noah was the only visionary that we can point to who knew to think ahead. I mean, let's think about it. Let's create a plan on how to respond to the unpredictable, volatile, and vicious trends that global warming has in store.
I want to believe in hope (thank you Barack). But we have a progressive movement that is so (rightly) entrenched in the battle for universal health care and getting out of Iraq that I don't see many Noahs building arks for the future.
There is some serious shit looming that we could possibly have prevented in the Roaring Nineties and that we can still do something about, but far less it seems. Now we have to take into account that the worst of humanity that we are seeing in Darfur is a stone's throw away on an even wider scale.
Don't like the invention of trench war fare and all the other stuff that came out of the first half of the twentieth century? Well...we got to get moving then to prevent more "inventions" from humanity's worst nightmares.
I hate to be a doomsayer. I want to believe in hope. But in searching for my hope, I'm going to have to follow Dylan's advice and head for the Church of my choice where I might find God or Brooklyn State Hospital where I may still find Woodie Guthrie. But if I don't find either in these places, Dylan has a solution: you can find them both at the Grand Canyon at sundown. And if by the time I get there, the canyon is covered by the ocean, I hope to be with you all in an Ark that we had imagined and prepared.
Nick Kristoff is da Awesomest
It seems to me that Nick Kristoff at the NYT puts out more original substance than all the other op-ed writers for the NYT Times put together. Frank Rich is a nice read. But I can basically get the same idea from 100 liberal bloggers and MoveOn emails. Maureen Dowd is basically a DC version of "People Magazine" or "Cosmo."
Paul Krugman has substance and doesn't stand down even in the face of unpopular opinion. So mad props to him. Also, some mad props to Tom Friedman for his unique take on globalization, etc...however, Friedman is give or take. For all his unique perspectives, he's also a bit of a wild card on his facts. He's more of a "I have a hunch and I'm going to present my hunch as FACT" kind of a guy."
Kristoff writes articles that speak to issues that are ignored by just about everyone except the International Crisis Center. He's original and he seems based on facts.
So yay Kristoff!
Paul Krugman has substance and doesn't stand down even in the face of unpopular opinion. So mad props to him. Also, some mad props to Tom Friedman for his unique take on globalization, etc...however, Friedman is give or take. For all his unique perspectives, he's also a bit of a wild card on his facts. He's more of a "I have a hunch and I'm going to present my hunch as FACT" kind of a guy."
Kristoff writes articles that speak to issues that are ignored by just about everyone except the International Crisis Center. He's original and he seems based on facts.
So yay Kristoff!
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Bill Richardson
Carville compares the guy to Judas. And let me go out on a limb here and tell you that I think Carville is absolutely correct. Bill Richardson is Judas Iscariot. Now here me out! You see, as James Carville understands, Bill Clinton is the Lord. And Hillary Clinton is Bill's son who has come down to earth to heal the sick with better health care. And Hillary had twelve disciples. One of them is James. James Carville! Another is Mark. Mark Penn! And another is Bill. Bill Richardson! The only one out of these three disciples that doesn't share a name with one of Jesus' disciples, thus betraying this weird joke. Which means, since he's betrayed something that involves a Jesus metaphor, regardless how bad the metaphor may be, that Bill Richardson is Judas.
Hillary Clinton recieved oral sex
from Bill Clinton. At some point. Oh my goodness! It's craziness! Every body! It's a controversy! Of course, no one pointed out that James Carville was in the room when it happened. No one thought to. He's always around.
I Hate Politics
So Barack Obama said the truth. That people cling to religion and guns. They fucking do. This does not de-legitimize either religion or guns. It just points out that in some cases people cling to them because they're desperate. That's true. It has always been true. What's the problem? That it's true?
For example, let me provide some other true remarks: police officers are allowed to arrest people. That's true. Is that controversial? Perhaps to hard core anarchists. But it's still true. Oh, here's another: five year olds wet their pants more often than sixteen year olds on average. This is true. But the "Sixteen Year Olds On Average Wet Their Pants More Often Than Five Year Old" Party thinks that's controversial. Oh, here's another one: that people without much hope for economic opportunity often cling to religion and guns out of desperation. Oh my! I think I shall faint for never has my fragile constitution been so blatantly challenged by such controversial remarks! Oh my!
For example, let me provide some other true remarks: police officers are allowed to arrest people. That's true. Is that controversial? Perhaps to hard core anarchists. But it's still true. Oh, here's another: five year olds wet their pants more often than sixteen year olds on average. This is true. But the "Sixteen Year Olds On Average Wet Their Pants More Often Than Five Year Old" Party thinks that's controversial. Oh, here's another one: that people without much hope for economic opportunity often cling to religion and guns out of desperation. Oh my! I think I shall faint for never has my fragile constitution been so blatantly challenged by such controversial remarks! Oh my!
Thank You Ezra
Apparently a guy named "Andrew" sent Ezra an argument that made him publicly reverse his opinion. I can surmise from a similar post by Kevin Drum, that this is "Andrew" is none other than "Andrew Slack." My godfather Dr. Theodore Watersmouth had/still has a student/protege/friend named "Andrew Slack."
I wonder if this is the same "Andrew Slack." I'm guessing it is. His arguments to Ezra seemed so familiar to me. Almost as if I had written them myself. But...no...NO! That's just impossible. Isn't it? I mean, it's impossible for both me and this Andrew Slack guy to have come up with the same exact arguments phrased the same exact way...right? Unless there's some kind of connection between the two of us that's more powerful than I have ever experienced with any individual before.
Any way, thanks Ezra Klein for changing your argument!
I wonder if this is the same "Andrew Slack." I'm guessing it is. His arguments to Ezra seemed so familiar to me. Almost as if I had written them myself. But...no...NO! That's just impossible. Isn't it? I mean, it's impossible for both me and this Andrew Slack guy to have come up with the same exact arguments phrased the same exact way...right? Unless there's some kind of connection between the two of us that's more powerful than I have ever experienced with any individual before.
Any way, thanks Ezra Klein for changing your argument!
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Et Tu, Ezra?
Ezra Klein has joined Matt Yglesias’ pretentious and primarily uninformed opinion on protesting the Olympics as not valuable. – and for Ezra, he doesn’t even seem to see the irony that its caused one of the first times he has ever even mentioned Darfur. So it’s aggravating me the white, hipster magazine bloggers are throwing shit up about a topic that they seem to do very little writing or research on.
The ramifications of their view runs against a basic understanding of media messaging as well as international progressive values. Here is a basic response to Ezra Klein’s above post:
I can’t speak for all human rights activism but I can say a few reasons as to why it’s incredibly important that we are protesting the Olympics:
1- There is a media strategy here that is incredibly effective. It already has bloggers who rarely blog about Tibet and Darfur mentioning Tibet and Darfur. And since the blogosphere does indeed hold some influence in people's consciousness and that affects political lobbying campaigns to get our politicians to act that means something.
2- Also, this could get the UN Security Council to make a very important decision come June. If you go to http://wantedforwarcrimes.org you will see that the ICC prosecutor has put out two indictments for war crimes in Darfur. However, the UN Security has not taken any steps to make arrests, mainly because China keeps slowing them down. The next vote on this, however, is in June. Watch China try to do that while we have the "Genocide Olympics" spotlight on them. If they don’t stand in the way of our efforts to make arrests and the Sudanese government does not hand over the two men indicted (in fact, one of these men is being promoted right now in the government) then we will freeze the assets of folks like al-Bashir and this will be one of the most effective steps in pushing for a stop to the arming, killing, and attacks that have persisted for five years.
3- China had not lifted a finger as far as Darfur goes. Then Mia Farrow wrote an NY Times op-ed coining the phrase "Genocide Olympics." Then China sent a diplomat to Sudan. This exposed a sort of Achilles Heel for China. They are playing an image game and the Olympics are how they are touting that image.
4- Governments don't act until citizens do. And the Olympics because they are so symbolic is an awareness raising campaign to get citizens to care enough to push their governments. And it’s happening.
5- Steven Spielberg dropped off as Creative Advisor to the Olympics after Mia Farrow and Dream for Darfur pressured him to and for him to state publicly that he's concerned about China's role in Darfur. President Bush immediately began talking tougher around China's relationship to Darfur when previously he had not. If get any of the Corporate Sponsors to do the same it puts enormous pressure on our governments to lobby harder. It puts pressure on Fidelity to release its holdings from PetroChina and Sinopec.
6- While the “One World, One Dream” symbolic spirit of the Olympics is taking place in a government that is actively working against this spirit, we by voicing our concerns around this are coming together with the authentic hope for “One World, One Dream.” And by my saying this, I mean that this campaign is not just against China’s policies, it’s in vocal grassroots SUPPORT of people's movements and the concerns of oppressed people's in Tibet, Burma, Darfur, and within China as well. This kind of action is lifting morale to both people's movements (and many movement leaders throughout history have said that morale is one of the most essential ingredients to victory) and and to people who are desperately feeling abandoned by the world….getting the message to refugee camps on the Chad/Darfur border that the world has not forgotten them. This means something for people who feel cut off and forgotten. It means that they can get up another day and know that there are good people out there fighting on their behalf.
The ramifications of their view runs against a basic understanding of media messaging as well as international progressive values. Here is a basic response to Ezra Klein’s above post:
I can’t speak for all human rights activism but I can say a few reasons as to why it’s incredibly important that we are protesting the Olympics:
1- There is a media strategy here that is incredibly effective. It already has bloggers who rarely blog about Tibet and Darfur mentioning Tibet and Darfur. And since the blogosphere does indeed hold some influence in people's consciousness and that affects political lobbying campaigns to get our politicians to act that means something.
2- Also, this could get the UN Security Council to make a very important decision come June. If you go to http://wantedforwarcrimes.org you will see that the ICC prosecutor has put out two indictments for war crimes in Darfur. However, the UN Security has not taken any steps to make arrests, mainly because China keeps slowing them down. The next vote on this, however, is in June. Watch China try to do that while we have the "Genocide Olympics" spotlight on them. If they don’t stand in the way of our efforts to make arrests and the Sudanese government does not hand over the two men indicted (in fact, one of these men is being promoted right now in the government) then we will freeze the assets of folks like al-Bashir and this will be one of the most effective steps in pushing for a stop to the arming, killing, and attacks that have persisted for five years.
3- China had not lifted a finger as far as Darfur goes. Then Mia Farrow wrote an NY Times op-ed coining the phrase "Genocide Olympics." Then China sent a diplomat to Sudan. This exposed a sort of Achilles Heel for China. They are playing an image game and the Olympics are how they are touting that image.
4- Governments don't act until citizens do. And the Olympics because they are so symbolic is an awareness raising campaign to get citizens to care enough to push their governments. And it’s happening.
5- Steven Spielberg dropped off as Creative Advisor to the Olympics after Mia Farrow and Dream for Darfur pressured him to and for him to state publicly that he's concerned about China's role in Darfur. President Bush immediately began talking tougher around China's relationship to Darfur when previously he had not. If get any of the Corporate Sponsors to do the same it puts enormous pressure on our governments to lobby harder. It puts pressure on Fidelity to release its holdings from PetroChina and Sinopec.
6- While the “One World, One Dream” symbolic spirit of the Olympics is taking place in a government that is actively working against this spirit, we by voicing our concerns around this are coming together with the authentic hope for “One World, One Dream.” And by my saying this, I mean that this campaign is not just against China’s policies, it’s in vocal grassroots SUPPORT of people's movements and the concerns of oppressed people's in Tibet, Burma, Darfur, and within China as well. This kind of action is lifting morale to both people's movements (and many movement leaders throughout history have said that morale is one of the most essential ingredients to victory) and and to people who are desperately feeling abandoned by the world….getting the message to refugee camps on the Chad/Darfur border that the world has not forgotten them. This means something for people who feel cut off and forgotten. It means that they can get up another day and know that there are good people out there fighting on their behalf.
Friday, April 4, 2008
HA!
Some were predicting that the Clintons had made up to 50 million dollars in the last few years and were ready to dump that news on a Friday when no one was paying attention. That's not what happened. Well they still dumped the news on a Friday when no one is paying attention. Only difference is that the figure isn't 50 million dollars. It's 109 million dollars. Senator Obama, I believe you have a working class keystone state to win on April 22.
Time To Take A Dump
Ezra Klein believes Mark Penn needs to resign either from his consulting job or from the Clinton campaign. Here's what's happening:
Mark Penn is Clinton's chief political strategist and has a second job for a firm called Burson-Marsteller (BM). As CEO of BM (which Ezra Klein points out has a unionbusting division), Penn has been advising the Colombian government on a free trade agreement that the Clinton campaign claims it's opposed to (at least while campaigning in Pennsylvania and Ohio). Yet the Clinton campaign is aware of the fact that Penn is doing this and aware that the Colombians are going to feel like he owes them. So...uh...well...you see friends:
Where I come from, my grandparents would always ask if I had made a "BM" after leaving the bathroom. "BM" was short for bowel movement. Well let's see if Hillary is ready to dump this shit head Mark Penn once and for all.
Mark Penn is Clinton's chief political strategist and has a second job for a firm called Burson-Marsteller (BM). As CEO of BM (which Ezra Klein points out has a unionbusting division), Penn has been advising the Colombian government on a free trade agreement that the Clinton campaign claims it's opposed to (at least while campaigning in Pennsylvania and Ohio). Yet the Clinton campaign is aware of the fact that Penn is doing this and aware that the Colombians are going to feel like he owes them. So...uh...well...you see friends:
Where I come from, my grandparents would always ask if I had made a "BM" after leaving the bathroom. "BM" was short for bowel movement. Well let's see if Hillary is ready to dump this shit head Mark Penn once and for all.
On David Brooks
I don't understand the man. Sometimes he's a jerk, right? Cause other times I remember why he gets to write for the New York Times. Damn, David Brooks. That was fantastic.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Sweeny Todd
Uh. I was under the impression that Sondheim had come up with the "Sweeny Todd" concept. But it turns out that while the great musical composer may have a sick mind, he's not THAT sick. Turns out Sweeny Todd has been a story told and retold since the 1840s. Kind of a Faustian tradition except a few hundred years younger. Me likes.
This is So Weird
This is such a weird video. It's kind of just disturbing. I feel like I've been in that guy's position before though I hope I didn't come off like that. Well, maybe he's a normal guy who just got overexcited. What a weird video.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
Modern Demian
I would be honored to one day write a book or a screenplay inspired by Hesse's "Demian." It would really be about me and Hesse. An interplay of sorts. And the main character would not necessarily be me. Just a version of me in modern times.
It would be a truly hallucinogetic experience. We'd watch a young man grow up in the eighties and nineties...a loner in a world that he feels alienated by. He has many mentors, the main one is a more advanced, Nietzchian version of himself: Demian.
By the end, as the story builds, as it does in Demian, he realizes that what happened to himself (his painful inner-renewal) is about to happen to the world. He can sense that something is coming. And as in Demian, something does come: September 11. And the world is at war. The old stone age gods want to be overthrown. And our main character finds himself in a hospital in Baghdad next to him is the Demian character lying in bed smiling, dying but before he does, telling the main character that the two of them had been integrated. That he need only look within himself if he ever needs to find Demian again. Wow. Suddenly putting the story in a modern context helps me understand the fervor around it back in 1919 after the first World War.
It would be a truly hallucinogetic experience. We'd watch a young man grow up in the eighties and nineties...a loner in a world that he feels alienated by. He has many mentors, the main one is a more advanced, Nietzchian version of himself: Demian.
By the end, as the story builds, as it does in Demian, he realizes that what happened to himself (his painful inner-renewal) is about to happen to the world. He can sense that something is coming. And as in Demian, something does come: September 11. And the world is at war. The old stone age gods want to be overthrown. And our main character finds himself in a hospital in Baghdad next to him is the Demian character lying in bed smiling, dying but before he does, telling the main character that the two of them had been integrated. That he need only look within himself if he ever needs to find Demian again. Wow. Suddenly putting the story in a modern context helps me understand the fervor around it back in 1919 after the first World War.
The Leaning Tower of Records
Cynicism is a dangerous thing. By nature, I think it's not very healthy. But here I go any way, experimenting with cynicism.
I shall start with an uncynical thought, one that I once discussed with my dear friend and coblogger, Dr. Bellowsair. The thought actually came from the doctor himself, but I am going to put it in my words: No one need cry that Tower Records closed thanks to Internet purhcases. Tower Records and other chain stores like it destroyed independent music stores. The destruction of Tower Records was just them getting what they deserved.
But then here's where I get cynical (or experiment with cynicism): we often talk about the importance of independent stores. Of watching chain stores like Wal-Mart come in and destroy family owned businesses. It's a terrible thing.
But in some ways (here we go with some dangerous cynicism) it's nothing more than watching the White Man get fucked by an even bigger White Man. Every square inch of the US was essentially stolen on broken promises and cultural genocide to American Indians. Land that once was free became imprisoned and riddled with what we now call "independent stores" but are also just another tattoo of the White Man's culture degrading what once did not belong to them and which they stole. And so when the corporate chain which is a greater personification of the White Man culture comes in and destroys the weaker version of the White Man, should any body shed a tear? Or should we be happy to watch the White Man get eaten in a dog eat dog fight as the spirit of things gets pulled into a sort of figurative hell?
I think it's an interesting point, but I would advocate that we should not rejoice when independent stores close. Even though one model of reality shows us that the US is sitting on stolen land and ideals (since many believe that land is a spirit...not an object that can be owned, so how can you even steal it?) there are other models of realities to consider. And in the end, it's important for all of us to understand the danger of the White Man's culture and to fight that with community...which these independent stores often foster.
In the end, it's not productive to always throw your hands in the air and say, "This land was stolen!" Because the reality is that it was, but that we need to live in the present and deal healthfully and soberly with the past. Not binge on destructive behavior which chains often represent.
And on that note, the collapse of Tower Records...that was probably a good thing.
I shall start with an uncynical thought, one that I once discussed with my dear friend and coblogger, Dr. Bellowsair. The thought actually came from the doctor himself, but I am going to put it in my words: No one need cry that Tower Records closed thanks to Internet purhcases. Tower Records and other chain stores like it destroyed independent music stores. The destruction of Tower Records was just them getting what they deserved.
But then here's where I get cynical (or experiment with cynicism): we often talk about the importance of independent stores. Of watching chain stores like Wal-Mart come in and destroy family owned businesses. It's a terrible thing.
But in some ways (here we go with some dangerous cynicism) it's nothing more than watching the White Man get fucked by an even bigger White Man. Every square inch of the US was essentially stolen on broken promises and cultural genocide to American Indians. Land that once was free became imprisoned and riddled with what we now call "independent stores" but are also just another tattoo of the White Man's culture degrading what once did not belong to them and which they stole. And so when the corporate chain which is a greater personification of the White Man culture comes in and destroys the weaker version of the White Man, should any body shed a tear? Or should we be happy to watch the White Man get eaten in a dog eat dog fight as the spirit of things gets pulled into a sort of figurative hell?
I think it's an interesting point, but I would advocate that we should not rejoice when independent stores close. Even though one model of reality shows us that the US is sitting on stolen land and ideals (since many believe that land is a spirit...not an object that can be owned, so how can you even steal it?) there are other models of realities to consider. And in the end, it's important for all of us to understand the danger of the White Man's culture and to fight that with community...which these independent stores often foster.
In the end, it's not productive to always throw your hands in the air and say, "This land was stolen!" Because the reality is that it was, but that we need to live in the present and deal healthfully and soberly with the past. Not binge on destructive behavior which chains often represent.
And on that note, the collapse of Tower Records...that was probably a good thing.
Hillary "Nader" Clinton
I think this name is beginning to suit her more and more. I'm not sure if being an Obama partisan in this way is even constructive. I am afraid that it isn't but also think that referring to Hillary as a Nader puts into perspective what she's doing by using Florida and Michigan as well as big donors to take the Democratic Party hostage. And therefore, I offer it to any one who wants to use it.
Simply substitute "Rodham" with "Nader" and there's your brand.
Simply substitute "Rodham" with "Nader" and there's your brand.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Has The Twenty First Century Even Started?
Modernism is not thought to have started in the year 1900 and for that matter neither did the twentieth century. History, is of course, a strange little bird and how we interpret it is very subjective. But most of us don't see the twentieth century starting on "day one" of the year 1900. Most of us don't see the Sixties having started on day one of 1960. Nor do we think the Sixties ended on day one of 1970. Normally, the Sixties are thought to either have ended in 1968 or somewhere between 1972 and 1974.
So why should we artificially think that history will view the twenty-first century as beginning in the year 2000? Perhaps, some will contend that it began with the appointment of George Bush Junior. Others may argue that it began on September 11, 2001. Still others may say that it began with the anthrax scare in October of 2001 or perhaps the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
But there may be others who will one day contend that the twenty first century did not start during the Bush presidency at all.
It is not an altogether unpopular thought to consider that the twentieth century did not begin until WWI in 1914.
So there's really no telling what will trigger off the birth of the twenty-first century.
I would contend that our present era starts with the birth of modernism. And that most of the issues facing the modernists are very much the same issues that plague today. The postmodern movement in my opinion is just an extension of modernism. And the post-post-modern era is just an extension of modernism as well. The Age of Modernism, which is of course a rather stupid name, is the age in which we find ourselves.
It is an age where human beings are more widely able to examine ourselves and our civilization in a way that has hitherto been improbable. It is an age where our destructive instincts are only matched by our creative instincts. It is an age that began some time ago and is still going.
Whatever bridge to the twenty-first century Bill Clinton "built" for us has since been washed away except in our memory. But the deeper existential questions that were posed and probed throughout the modern era have not been washed away. They have at times appeared more dormant than others, but they have only been latent waiting for their next appearance on the world stage.
Progressives and Conservatives take note: whether Obama, Hillary, or McCain are to be our next president will not mean an end to the "modern" era. The main difference is that each presents some sort of attitudinal shift in how the US and world approach the modern era. And perhaps McCain's terribleness and Obama's hopefulness are enough to do a decent job of shaping attitudes. But they will be in the end, more impermanent than the far more lasting (yet still impermanent) modern age that we are, I believe still in and have been in for well over one hundred years.
In fact, to take this a step further and border on the ridiculous for a moment: perhaps part of the dilemma is that the "Modern Age" is by definition Humanity itself. Perhaps every age prior has simply not had to face the same insecurity and doubt that have come with the close examination of Modernism. Perhaps Modernism is nothing more than an overthinking magnifying glass that has been placed over a humanity that has primarily been the same regardless of the era it has occupied. Perhaps modernism is simply a more direct way to approach humanity than the other eras before it.
Of course, this kind of talk just shows a conceit that comes from living inside an era and being the product of time. But perhaps such a conceit is a useful tool for helping to make manifest the era that you are in. Then again, most self-proclaimed modernists did that constantly. And yet they were a minority living amongst masses that were still intellectually clinging to prior ages without realizing the current awakening that was happening for all of Western civilization.
No matter. Western civilization is oddly becoming a very strange thing as China and India occupy greater importance on the economic stage.
So what of these ramblings? All I can say is that modernism is dormant, not dead. And perhaps it would be useful if Westerners began to consciously become aware of and embrace this fact on a wide scale. But I am really just a fool who does not have the faculty to answer these questions. I can only ask. And ask. And ask again. And for what purpose, I'm not quite sure.
Suffice it to say, the twenty first century has most probably not started in the subjective and silly eyes of historians who have yet to be born.
So why should we artificially think that history will view the twenty-first century as beginning in the year 2000? Perhaps, some will contend that it began with the appointment of George Bush Junior. Others may argue that it began on September 11, 2001. Still others may say that it began with the anthrax scare in October of 2001 or perhaps the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
But there may be others who will one day contend that the twenty first century did not start during the Bush presidency at all.
It is not an altogether unpopular thought to consider that the twentieth century did not begin until WWI in 1914.
So there's really no telling what will trigger off the birth of the twenty-first century.
I would contend that our present era starts with the birth of modernism. And that most of the issues facing the modernists are very much the same issues that plague today. The postmodern movement in my opinion is just an extension of modernism. And the post-post-modern era is just an extension of modernism as well. The Age of Modernism, which is of course a rather stupid name, is the age in which we find ourselves.
It is an age where human beings are more widely able to examine ourselves and our civilization in a way that has hitherto been improbable. It is an age where our destructive instincts are only matched by our creative instincts. It is an age that began some time ago and is still going.
Whatever bridge to the twenty-first century Bill Clinton "built" for us has since been washed away except in our memory. But the deeper existential questions that were posed and probed throughout the modern era have not been washed away. They have at times appeared more dormant than others, but they have only been latent waiting for their next appearance on the world stage.
Progressives and Conservatives take note: whether Obama, Hillary, or McCain are to be our next president will not mean an end to the "modern" era. The main difference is that each presents some sort of attitudinal shift in how the US and world approach the modern era. And perhaps McCain's terribleness and Obama's hopefulness are enough to do a decent job of shaping attitudes. But they will be in the end, more impermanent than the far more lasting (yet still impermanent) modern age that we are, I believe still in and have been in for well over one hundred years.
In fact, to take this a step further and border on the ridiculous for a moment: perhaps part of the dilemma is that the "Modern Age" is by definition Humanity itself. Perhaps every age prior has simply not had to face the same insecurity and doubt that have come with the close examination of Modernism. Perhaps Modernism is nothing more than an overthinking magnifying glass that has been placed over a humanity that has primarily been the same regardless of the era it has occupied. Perhaps modernism is simply a more direct way to approach humanity than the other eras before it.
Of course, this kind of talk just shows a conceit that comes from living inside an era and being the product of time. But perhaps such a conceit is a useful tool for helping to make manifest the era that you are in. Then again, most self-proclaimed modernists did that constantly. And yet they were a minority living amongst masses that were still intellectually clinging to prior ages without realizing the current awakening that was happening for all of Western civilization.
No matter. Western civilization is oddly becoming a very strange thing as China and India occupy greater importance on the economic stage.
So what of these ramblings? All I can say is that modernism is dormant, not dead. And perhaps it would be useful if Westerners began to consciously become aware of and embrace this fact on a wide scale. But I am really just a fool who does not have the faculty to answer these questions. I can only ask. And ask. And ask again. And for what purpose, I'm not quite sure.
Suffice it to say, the twenty first century has most probably not started in the subjective and silly eyes of historians who have yet to be born.
Moving Beyond the Nineties
Bill Clinton may go down in history as one of the most skilled politicians in US history. In the face of a "historical" movement against progressive ideas he managed to charm his way through. Clinton and it seems those who most intimately surround the current Clinton Campaign have a strong wish to win. They understand winning and they seem ready to go to the ends of the Earth in order to win. This desire to win in politics often means a high capacity to compromise. And the question arises: if one's core principle is to win, then what other principles are they willing to compromise in the process of winning?
It seems to me that "winning" should not be a core principle in any thing. Winning is a tactic in manifesting one's core principles. But winning by itself is a rather shallow principle. It was one that Bill was able to go to in the midst of Newt Gingrich's historic revolution against the Great Society and the New Deal...and survive. But at what cost? He left his presidency with a Party that lost its sense of direction and inspiration and in the end, allowed the Gingrich revolution to become more manifest in the Bush presidency. In the wake of September 11, the Democratic Party did not have Bill Clinton's charm. And it no longer had an intimate understanding of its own principles. Instead, all it had left was a wish to win. A feeble wish to win in comparison to the well greased right wing machine that it was on its march to "greatness."
Now look: I will admit that I am oversimplifying and perhaps even unfairly making a villain out of Bill Clinton. But let's not look back to his days as president as a heyday for progressivism. Instead, they were simply a well choreographed/well improvised game of backing off for survival's sake and eventually losing so much ground that we were unaware of the oncoming cliff.
I don't think I'm saying much new here. But the legacy of the Nineties, the only time that the US has had a notable era of peace since the 1920's was lost to the premise of Jerry Seinfeld's wonderful tv show. It was an era about nothing. In reality though, it was like the 1920's, an era focused on nothing while everything was taking place.
There will always be Bill Clintons who can charm their way to the top and keep things nice "in the mean time." But in the end, their work proves no more useful than the nice little tune that had come out of Nero's fiddle. Entertaining perhaps, but at the cost of something dearly profound.
This is one of the reasons why I feel an aversion to Hillary being president (though I would of course be happy about it in comparison to McCain). And besides that, Obama has shown that he can inspire in a way that Bill Clinton can charm. And this will prove most useful in the years ahead.
But let's also not be naive. What Bill Clinton proved is that politics will always be a safe haven for the Bill Clintons and therefore, is not the prime arena for change to take place. Obama seems to understand this despite his own shortcomings. Change in the US does not take place without the work of people outside the Beltway. Fortunately, unlike the Clinton years and even unlike 2004, there is a burgeoning progressive infrastructure that is ready to support the kind of leader that Bill Clinton could have been had he been elected at a different time or perhaps had he himself been different in character.
In the end, however, it always useful to look upon politicians with some doubt and criticism for they do not deliver us from our shortcomings. On the contrary, the infrastructure that we build helps deliver them from the shortcomings that we all share.
It seems to me that "winning" should not be a core principle in any thing. Winning is a tactic in manifesting one's core principles. But winning by itself is a rather shallow principle. It was one that Bill was able to go to in the midst of Newt Gingrich's historic revolution against the Great Society and the New Deal...and survive. But at what cost? He left his presidency with a Party that lost its sense of direction and inspiration and in the end, allowed the Gingrich revolution to become more manifest in the Bush presidency. In the wake of September 11, the Democratic Party did not have Bill Clinton's charm. And it no longer had an intimate understanding of its own principles. Instead, all it had left was a wish to win. A feeble wish to win in comparison to the well greased right wing machine that it was on its march to "greatness."
Now look: I will admit that I am oversimplifying and perhaps even unfairly making a villain out of Bill Clinton. But let's not look back to his days as president as a heyday for progressivism. Instead, they were simply a well choreographed/well improvised game of backing off for survival's sake and eventually losing so much ground that we were unaware of the oncoming cliff.
I don't think I'm saying much new here. But the legacy of the Nineties, the only time that the US has had a notable era of peace since the 1920's was lost to the premise of Jerry Seinfeld's wonderful tv show. It was an era about nothing. In reality though, it was like the 1920's, an era focused on nothing while everything was taking place.
There will always be Bill Clintons who can charm their way to the top and keep things nice "in the mean time." But in the end, their work proves no more useful than the nice little tune that had come out of Nero's fiddle. Entertaining perhaps, but at the cost of something dearly profound.
This is one of the reasons why I feel an aversion to Hillary being president (though I would of course be happy about it in comparison to McCain). And besides that, Obama has shown that he can inspire in a way that Bill Clinton can charm. And this will prove most useful in the years ahead.
But let's also not be naive. What Bill Clinton proved is that politics will always be a safe haven for the Bill Clintons and therefore, is not the prime arena for change to take place. Obama seems to understand this despite his own shortcomings. Change in the US does not take place without the work of people outside the Beltway. Fortunately, unlike the Clinton years and even unlike 2004, there is a burgeoning progressive infrastructure that is ready to support the kind of leader that Bill Clinton could have been had he been elected at a different time or perhaps had he himself been different in character.
In the end, however, it always useful to look upon politicians with some doubt and criticism for they do not deliver us from our shortcomings. On the contrary, the infrastructure that we build helps deliver them from the shortcomings that we all share.
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Beginning of the Beginning of the Beginning of the End of this Primary, Part Nineteen
Some big news in the ongoing Democratic primary this morning:
Exhibit A: Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey is supporting Obama. As of now, the biggest players in Pennsylvania politics seem to be with Clinton including Governor Ed Rendell and Rep John Murtha.
As of now, Obama is losing to Clinton in the keystone state by double digits. A simple endorsement will probably not allow Obama to win the state. Nonetheless, Casey who hails from Western PA, speaks to the Pennsylvania demographic that seems most resistant to the Illinois Senator: white, working class voters. This could help close the gap in a state that is critical for Clinton.
Exhibit B: Obama is apparently widening his lead in North Carolina.
Exhibit C: Perhaps this is saving the best for last. Senator Leahy is requesting that Clinton resign from the campaign, echoing Senator Dodd's recent statement that the primary is over and that Obama has won.
Now Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean are all eager for this thing to end but aren't taking sides. With the party leadership wishing to get this thing done and over with coupled by the beginning of Senatorial Dominos starting to fall with the request that Clinton quit and endorse Obama, it may be time to say, "Mr. Carville, tear down that job!"*
*your job
Exhibit A: Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey is supporting Obama. As of now, the biggest players in Pennsylvania politics seem to be with Clinton including Governor Ed Rendell and Rep John Murtha.
As of now, Obama is losing to Clinton in the keystone state by double digits. A simple endorsement will probably not allow Obama to win the state. Nonetheless, Casey who hails from Western PA, speaks to the Pennsylvania demographic that seems most resistant to the Illinois Senator: white, working class voters. This could help close the gap in a state that is critical for Clinton.
Exhibit B: Obama is apparently widening his lead in North Carolina.
Exhibit C: Perhaps this is saving the best for last. Senator Leahy is requesting that Clinton resign from the campaign, echoing Senator Dodd's recent statement that the primary is over and that Obama has won.
Now Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean are all eager for this thing to end but aren't taking sides. With the party leadership wishing to get this thing done and over with coupled by the beginning of Senatorial Dominos starting to fall with the request that Clinton quit and endorse Obama, it may be time to say, "Mr. Carville, tear down that job!"*
*your job
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Senator, Could You Please Be Less Specific?
If Harry Reid were any more vague on what "the plan" is, he'd be George Bush.
"Love Is A Full Length Mirror"- Stephen Colbert
Alright. This is going to speak for itself. But as someone who has done a bit of dabbling in sketch comedy not to mention been a member of many a sketch comedy audience, I give this the Watersmouth Sketch Comedy Seal of Approval. Watch as High Brow meets Low Brow meets pop culture, politics, and poetry and prepare to shed some laughter:
Exploiting Jewish Fears of Anti-Semitism is NOT Kosher
And that's exactly what the Clinton campaign is doing. I hope there's a backlash against them for this. Every Jew in the United States and beyond has the right to be UP IN ARMS right now that theClinton campaign is exploiting our fears and our history. It's not only throwing mud at Obama, it's throwing mud at the Jewish people and this is just another step too far.
As an American Jew let me say to the Clinton campaign quite seriously, what a good friend of mine likes to say as a joke: "SHALOM! And I don't mean 'hello' or 'peace.'"
As an American Jew let me say to the Clinton campaign quite seriously, what a good friend of mine likes to say as a joke: "SHALOM! And I don't mean 'hello' or 'peace.'"
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Dear Sir or Madam, Sorry But We Need You To Return The Last Thing We Sent You. It Was The Atom Bomb. Much Obliged, The USA
One time I mistakenly sent a letter to the wrong friend. You can imagine my embarrassment!
"'Oh well," I thought, "it's not like I sent materials linked to the building of nuclear war heads to the wrong country."
I mean, the idea that me or even a Republican controlled Pentagon could send nuclear war heads to the wrong country....that's just not possible. Right? RIGHT?
UPDATE 1: Will this influence us to consider that Republicans are pathetically weak on security?
UPDATE 2: If by some miracle the answer to update one was "yes" perhaps a larger miracle: could this help foster a real dialogue on whether nuclear weapons by nature should exist?
UPDATE 3: If by some miracle the answer to updates 1 and 2 were "yes" perhaps a larger miracle: will my dad ever genuinely say he's sorry?
"'Oh well," I thought, "it's not like I sent materials linked to the building of nuclear war heads to the wrong country."
I mean, the idea that me or even a Republican controlled Pentagon could send nuclear war heads to the wrong country....that's just not possible. Right? RIGHT?
UPDATE 1: Will this influence us to consider that Republicans are pathetically weak on security?
UPDATE 2: If by some miracle the answer to update one was "yes" perhaps a larger miracle: could this help foster a real dialogue on whether nuclear weapons by nature should exist?
UPDATE 3: If by some miracle the answer to updates 1 and 2 were "yes" perhaps a larger miracle: will my dad ever genuinely say he's sorry?
What You Talkin' About Bubba?
I'm trying to remember why many of us have ever thought Bill Clinton was charming. Maybe there was a time that he was. But what is going on now? Is his blood sugar always low or something? I mean, this is not charming. It's downright obnoxious behavior to young people who are asking him perfectly legitimate questions.
Bill. Please. Shut up.
Bill. Please. Shut up.
Monday, March 24, 2008
The Obama Doctrine
In 2004 the presidential election for me was less about being FOR John Kerry (who I happen to like quite a lot) and more about being AGAINST George Bush. 2008 is very different because I am FOR Barack Obama, who unlike Kerry and Hillary has a similar vibe to the HPA.
He has put together one of the most exciting foreign policy teams imaginable: a team that interested in actually targeting Al Qaeda, in targeting genocide, and targeting poverty and disease in third world countries. The cornerstone of his policy is not about spreading democracy, but about spreading DIGNITY. This is fundamentally different because it doesn’t impose any thing on any one other than their right to be human. What his team is referring to as the Obama doctrine seems to be exactly what we need at this exact moment in history.
Obama stands for the principles and leadership that we need in a post-9/11 society. He is the September 12 President.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
"Is Our Economy Learning?"
Nick Kristoff's excellent piece today, in which he explains that not only is the US occupation of Iraq costing us lives, it's dare we say it?!, costing us money. Though sarcasm aside, it's costing us money that is costing us lives. And that's effed up.
But what could we be doing besides keeping our troops in a war that has no direction or strategy and is fundamentally undermining our national security, economy, and the core principles of a healthy society and world?
Kristoff has some suggestions:
Imagine the possibilities. We could hire more police and border patrol agents, expand Head Start and rehabilitate America’s image in the world by underwriting a global drive to slash maternal mortality, eradicate malaria and deworm every child in Africa.
But if children are dewormed than the terrorists win!
But what could we be doing besides keeping our troops in a war that has no direction or strategy and is fundamentally undermining our national security, economy, and the core principles of a healthy society and world?
Kristoff has some suggestions:
Imagine the possibilities. We could hire more police and border patrol agents, expand Head Start and rehabilitate America’s image in the world by underwriting a global drive to slash maternal mortality, eradicate malaria and deworm every child in Africa.
But if children are dewormed than the terrorists win!
Saturday, March 22, 2008
I Fought Saddam, I Was a Terrorist
Get a whiff of this logic:
Ahmad, a Kurd, once served in the KDP's military force, which is part of the new Iraqi army. A U.S. ally, the KDP is now part of the elected government of the Kurdish region and holds seats in the Iraqi parliament. After consulting public Web sites, however, the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services determined that KDP forces "conducted full-scale armed attacks and helped incite rebellions against Hussein's government, most notably during the Iran-Iraq war, Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Ahmad's association with a group that had attempted to overthrow a government -- even as allies in U.S.-led wars against Hussein -- rendered him "inadmissible," the agency concluded in a three-page letter dated Feb. 26.
Saman Ahmad, who helped keep US marines alive in Iraq, had his green card request denied, on the grounds that prior to 2003 he was fighting Saddam!
The only thing I can add to this, from my own experience in Ahmad's home town in 2006, is that the civilian agencies of the US government have been worse than useless in Iraq. Not only have they failed to involve themselves in reconstruction projects like Halabja, but they have actively discouraged such work from private groups (in the case of the State Department), and have obstructed visas and green cards (in the case of the State and Homeland Security Departments).
In other words, we might actually all be better off without them. That's your government at work.
Ahmad, a Kurd, once served in the KDP's military force, which is part of the new Iraqi army. A U.S. ally, the KDP is now part of the elected government of the Kurdish region and holds seats in the Iraqi parliament. After consulting public Web sites, however, the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services determined that KDP forces "conducted full-scale armed attacks and helped incite rebellions against Hussein's government, most notably during the Iran-Iraq war, Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Ahmad's association with a group that had attempted to overthrow a government -- even as allies in U.S.-led wars against Hussein -- rendered him "inadmissible," the agency concluded in a three-page letter dated Feb. 26.
Saman Ahmad, who helped keep US marines alive in Iraq, had his green card request denied, on the grounds that prior to 2003 he was fighting Saddam!
The only thing I can add to this, from my own experience in Ahmad's home town in 2006, is that the civilian agencies of the US government have been worse than useless in Iraq. Not only have they failed to involve themselves in reconstruction projects like Halabja, but they have actively discouraged such work from private groups (in the case of the State Department), and have obstructed visas and green cards (in the case of the State and Homeland Security Departments).
In other words, we might actually all be better off without them. That's your government at work.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Before and After
I want to make a little ad for "SENTIENT LIFE" that shows a picture of BEFORE and it's an image from an ultra sound juxtaposed next to a picture that says AFTER and it's an image of a skeleton or a rotting corpse.
Or on a less morbid note, it would say BEFORE and it's an image of an ultra sound and AFTER and it's an image of a beautiful child smiling. Or maybe, dare I say it, an adult smiling.
I think both have important things to say.
Or on a less morbid note, it would say BEFORE and it's an image of an ultra sound and AFTER and it's an image of a beautiful child smiling. Or maybe, dare I say it, an adult smiling.
I think both have important things to say.
Fat Tuesday
Doesn't any one feel bad for Tuesday? I mean our culture has "Good Friday," "Manic Monday," "Palm Sunday," "Thirsty Thursday," and "Fat Tuesday." If these days were children, poor little Tuesday would be the outcast at a fat kid's camp.
Thank goodness for Mitch Albom not increasing Tuesday's complex by naming his book "Fat Tuesdays With Morrie." Though he could have named it "Phat Tuesdays With Morrie" because Mitch's time with Morrie could be described as PHAT (in other words, "fun," "enjoyable," and "profound).
But the point is, I love you Tuesday and I don't care how much you weigh. I love you for who you are.
Thank goodness for Mitch Albom not increasing Tuesday's complex by naming his book "Fat Tuesdays With Morrie." Though he could have named it "Phat Tuesdays With Morrie" because Mitch's time with Morrie could be described as PHAT (in other words, "fun," "enjoyable," and "profound).
But the point is, I love you Tuesday and I don't care how much you weigh. I love you for who you are.
Good Friday
Today is Good Friday, which I believe is a beautiful holiday if looked at in certain ways. But in other ways, why do they call it good? I mean, it's the crucifixion. But then again, this is also from the only religion in the world that generates thousands upon thousands of strange statues of mothers with serious expressions and a half naked man who came down to Earth to help people, only to be tortured on a cross. It's more guilt ridden than morbid. And that is why I believe that Christianity is more Jewish than Judaism.
In all seriousness though, Good Friday.
In all seriousness though, Good Friday.
Poopyhead Productions
I think that's a great name for a production company. And if any of you weren't cowards, you'd start that production company right now. But the fact is that every one of you, including me is a coward! And that's just all there is to it.
Florida and Michigan
I am so biased toward Obama's candidacy at this point that I have a hard time getting angry about the injustice done to voters in Florida and Michigan. After all, if Clinton had an issue with their votes not counting she should have taken an issue with it back when Howard Dean said that that's what was happening. But she was too busy playing "the inevitable candidate" to care about those states working something out (at least that's the impression I'm under). So now she cares because she's no longer the inevitable candidate.
But in truth, in all fairness, voters in Florida and Michigan SHOULD have a say. It's not fair. Suddenly they can't have a say because their state's party leaders and the national party leaders got into a clash that to them was nothing more than obscure? I mean, that's just a really bad symptom of representative democracy at work. And Obama did not try his best to get their votes to count and most likely, that's because he wants to win this primary. But that's not fair. Hillary may be right: if Obama were to be consistent with his message, he would be fighting for them to have a right to vote. Yet then again, he didn't cause a stink about it a while ago either.
So the whole thing stinks. It really stinks. And disempowering Florida Democrats doesn't sound like such a bright idea nor does it end up helping Dean's 50 state strategy. I don't really know what went wrong but all I got to say is that it's not fair.
But in truth, in all fairness, voters in Florida and Michigan SHOULD have a say. It's not fair. Suddenly they can't have a say because their state's party leaders and the national party leaders got into a clash that to them was nothing more than obscure? I mean, that's just a really bad symptom of representative democracy at work. And Obama did not try his best to get their votes to count and most likely, that's because he wants to win this primary. But that's not fair. Hillary may be right: if Obama were to be consistent with his message, he would be fighting for them to have a right to vote. Yet then again, he didn't cause a stink about it a while ago either.
So the whole thing stinks. It really stinks. And disempowering Florida Democrats doesn't sound like such a bright idea nor does it end up helping Dean's 50 state strategy. I don't really know what went wrong but all I got to say is that it's not fair.
5 ways Richardson's Endorsement Helps Obama
Here are five reasons. I will add a sixth: Hillary Clinton has barely any chance of winning the primary and the fact that she is still being considered as heavily as she is helps create an illusion that she does have a chance. This illusion is making us waste our time in getting into the ring with McCain and the GOP. Seriously. The DNC is not raising enough money and the convention in Denver is not meeting it's goals primarily because the candidate's campaigns are taking all of the money. Richardson just helps us acknowledge reality. Obama is going to win this thing and we should stop being dip shits and wasting our time.
Don't Stand In The Doorways, Don't Block Out The Hall
Look Senator Clinton, your own aides are saying that you have virtually no chance of winning this primary. Yet as Ezra Klein notes, this primary is seriously costing us the opportunity to go after McCain now. What are you doing and why? Has your compulsion to win so outweighed your interest in change that you just can't stop running?
Don't you realize that you're wasting valuable, valuable time for us to win this election in November? Don't you realize that the only way you could win, if you actually did pull it off, would create historic animosity in the Democratic party? And don't you realize that there are more important things in life than winning. I mean, for goodness sakes, if you read the below post, there are infants that can shoot urine six feet through the air.
Please Senator Clinton, please heed the call. Don't stand in the doorway. Don't block out the hall. Please, for once in your life, accept that winning isn't everything, play the role of underachiever, and accept being a measly US Senator who has a good chance of becoming Senate Majority Leader. I know mediocre posts like this are really a sign of professional failure, but sometimes having a lowly position like Senate Majority Leader will free you up to enjoy the real things in life. Like male babies who's little penises can squirt urine at a height that is taller than the average American man.
Don't you realize that you're wasting valuable, valuable time for us to win this election in November? Don't you realize that the only way you could win, if you actually did pull it off, would create historic animosity in the Democratic party? And don't you realize that there are more important things in life than winning. I mean, for goodness sakes, if you read the below post, there are infants that can shoot urine six feet through the air.
Please Senator Clinton, please heed the call. Don't stand in the doorway. Don't block out the hall. Please, for once in your life, accept that winning isn't everything, play the role of underachiever, and accept being a measly US Senator who has a good chance of becoming Senate Majority Leader. I know mediocre posts like this are really a sign of professional failure, but sometimes having a lowly position like Senate Majority Leader will free you up to enjoy the real things in life. Like male babies who's little penises can squirt urine at a height that is taller than the average American man.
Physics Lessons from my Son
I didn't think that a boy weighing under 10 pounds could send a spiral of urine 6 feet through the air.
But I was wrong.
But I was wrong.
Rolling The Dice Against Casinos
I am not used to being against the plans of progressive Democrats, but I am against Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick's plans for casinos in Massachusetts. And I am happy that MA Republicans and some Democrats (I imagine) have put an end to it for now.
While I am someone who would go to a casino and have fun at one, but I would prefer that casinos did not exist. Patrick's claims that they will help the Massachusetts economy is so Faustian it's ridiculous. Casinos foster addictions of all kinds, add to crime, add to spirals of social disorganization in hyper ghetto environments, and fundamentally hustle poor and middle class people out of money. It's one of the most regressive ideas I've ever heard for boosting an economy and I am happy that it's not happening in Massachusetts.
But to complicate matters, some say Native Americans may be building casinos on reservations in Massachusetts and they already have in Connecticut. One part of me is so sad that Native Americans have had their cultures so broken that the only way that they can rebuild is by letting themselves be co-opted by the White Man's culture. But another part of me, and here's where I'm very contradictory takes schadenfreude in the phenomenon on Indian casinos. The reason: because American Indians deserve the entire United States back. Something that will not happen. The White Man used genocidal tactics (small pox, etc) to get rid of their culture and a countless number of their lives. It gives me a satisfying sense of schadenfreude that they are now fighting the White Man on the White Man's weaknesses. Casinos are bad for the United States. They are, despite my willingness to go to them, fundamentally rotten things. So let Indians use them to help bring us down a little. I mean, we owe them more than we can ever give them in return. So let them help gut our culture from the inside. It's their right.
At the same time, I'm not inclined to believe that my schadenfreude will be productive in the end for Indians (who will continue to get more necessary attention from Congress now that some have money) or for the rest of us. My anger at the White Man's culture really leads to nowhere but Hell on Earth and that's something that I do not want. So rather than my acting on this anger and saying, "go ahead tribes: kill us off with our own poisons" there must be a better way toward healing. After all, remember what Gandhi said about an eye for an eye.
On a lighter note, Lindsay Lohan may or may not have been involved in the production of a sex tape. Kind of makes the cultural genocide and takeover of the United States worth it just so we can catch a web video of that piece of ass. Oh yeah.*
*irate sarcasm
While I am someone who would go to a casino and have fun at one, but I would prefer that casinos did not exist. Patrick's claims that they will help the Massachusetts economy is so Faustian it's ridiculous. Casinos foster addictions of all kinds, add to crime, add to spirals of social disorganization in hyper ghetto environments, and fundamentally hustle poor and middle class people out of money. It's one of the most regressive ideas I've ever heard for boosting an economy and I am happy that it's not happening in Massachusetts.
But to complicate matters, some say Native Americans may be building casinos on reservations in Massachusetts and they already have in Connecticut. One part of me is so sad that Native Americans have had their cultures so broken that the only way that they can rebuild is by letting themselves be co-opted by the White Man's culture. But another part of me, and here's where I'm very contradictory takes schadenfreude in the phenomenon on Indian casinos. The reason: because American Indians deserve the entire United States back. Something that will not happen. The White Man used genocidal tactics (small pox, etc) to get rid of their culture and a countless number of their lives. It gives me a satisfying sense of schadenfreude that they are now fighting the White Man on the White Man's weaknesses. Casinos are bad for the United States. They are, despite my willingness to go to them, fundamentally rotten things. So let Indians use them to help bring us down a little. I mean, we owe them more than we can ever give them in return. So let them help gut our culture from the inside. It's their right.
At the same time, I'm not inclined to believe that my schadenfreude will be productive in the end for Indians (who will continue to get more necessary attention from Congress now that some have money) or for the rest of us. My anger at the White Man's culture really leads to nowhere but Hell on Earth and that's something that I do not want. So rather than my acting on this anger and saying, "go ahead tribes: kill us off with our own poisons" there must be a better way toward healing. After all, remember what Gandhi said about an eye for an eye.
On a lighter note, Lindsay Lohan may or may not have been involved in the production of a sex tape. Kind of makes the cultural genocide and takeover of the United States worth it just so we can catch a web video of that piece of ass. Oh yeah.*
*irate sarcasm
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Talking Bloggers
I really like the web show, "The Table." You've got Marc Ambinder who almost cartoonishly represents a fair minded white politico in Washington. Megan McArdle who I don't know as well but seems to be a pretty sharp thinking liberal. And Matt Yglesias who is kind of just fun to watch either on mute or with the sound on. I mean, he's just got one of those classic voices (like Ira Glass) that's so distinctive and intellectual. How can you not agree with everything he says? :-) Actually, I don't agree with everything Yglesias says, he sticks to a more logical world view than I do (that's not putting myself down either), but nonetheless he's pretty awesome.
And the cheesy opening that Yglesias continues to make fun of...are they doing this on purpose?
I mean, I can't figure it out. But it's really realy cheesy. Like one of the cheesiest things I've seen come out of any thing made this decade/century/millenium.
Here's the show. Enjoy that opening.
And the cheesy opening that Yglesias continues to make fun of...are they doing this on purpose?
I mean, I can't figure it out. But it's really realy cheesy. Like one of the cheesiest things I've seen come out of any thing made this decade/century/millenium.
Here's the show. Enjoy that opening.
On Spitzer
On a purely political level, I think the Spitzer scandal is more shocking and sad than intriguing.
Where it's most intriguing is how strangely Shakespearean or Freudian the whole thing is. Meaning, there's something literary or psychologically intriguing about understanding, resenting, and sympathizing with the character (or dare I say person) that is Elliot Spitzer.
As Obama pointed out in his amazing speech on race, the media doesn't dig deep enough...making racial issues either a temporary spectacle or something that doesn't exist. The sheer wish to not delve deeper into an issue's complexity is so common that most of us can get away with thinking the issues actually aren't very complex.
Not that the Spitzer scandal penetrates our society in the same way that race does in the US. I'm not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that bloggers who I have a lot of respect for have reduced the scandal to questions around the legality of prostitution, around what "Kristen" looked like, and around this idea that Spitzer wasn't being self-destructive so much as he was acting on the urge to get laid and feel a little powerful.
But there is more to it than even that. And here's just one additional level that I haven't seen explored: Spitzer has spent his career fighting "the bad guys." On the Shakespearean/Freudian levels what happens when the knight/king/lawyer starts to envy his opponents? These men who he has fought against so vigorously don't seem to have remorse for their shadowy actions andhe is constantly battle worn and all he has to show for it is a lot of people angry at him (or unrealistically idolizing him...something he probably wanted but didn't like once he got it, ah there's the rub). And he's in pain. He feels alone. He feels trapped. And where are his enemies? They're having fun. No matter how many he puts in prison, the ones who are free are having fun. Out being "men" reducing him to a tattle tale good two shoes girlie man on the playground showing that he has no understanding of the way "real" men play.
Well, I would conjecture that Mr. Spitzer grew a bit tired of this feeling. That he was ready to fight the bad guys while becoming one all at the same time. To show himself, "hey they aren't the only ones who can do high class prostitutes. I can too. And the difference between me and them is that I bring some good in this world...so unlike them, I deserve being a little naughty."
The case with Spitzer is terribly cliche and pathetic and yes he brought it on himself and showed an overt lack of consideration for his office and more profoundly, his family. But for what purpose? Why? Not because he just wanted to get laid. And not simply that he was interested in more power. That's part of it, but I don't think it's all of it.
My guess is that Spitzer's lonely psychological view of himself and the world had him caught in a comic book where he was tired of playing only one of the characters. And he was tired of the one he was playing to feel like he wasn't a real man. There are issues around masculine and sexual identity here that goes far beyond simple questions such as "should prostitution be legal." The Spitzer scandal is not black and white. It's so painfully gray and reveals such a deep complexity amongst the minds and identities of those we extol and those we abhor...on all of those who seek public personas as part of their very definition of themselves and how this rattles the cage of the psyche in a way that can lead to some very destructive choices.
Where it's most intriguing is how strangely Shakespearean or Freudian the whole thing is. Meaning, there's something literary or psychologically intriguing about understanding, resenting, and sympathizing with the character (or dare I say person) that is Elliot Spitzer.
As Obama pointed out in his amazing speech on race, the media doesn't dig deep enough...making racial issues either a temporary spectacle or something that doesn't exist. The sheer wish to not delve deeper into an issue's complexity is so common that most of us can get away with thinking the issues actually aren't very complex.
Not that the Spitzer scandal penetrates our society in the same way that race does in the US. I'm not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that bloggers who I have a lot of respect for have reduced the scandal to questions around the legality of prostitution, around what "Kristen" looked like, and around this idea that Spitzer wasn't being self-destructive so much as he was acting on the urge to get laid and feel a little powerful.
But there is more to it than even that. And here's just one additional level that I haven't seen explored: Spitzer has spent his career fighting "the bad guys." On the Shakespearean/Freudian levels what happens when the knight/king/lawyer starts to envy his opponents? These men who he has fought against so vigorously don't seem to have remorse for their shadowy actions andhe is constantly battle worn and all he has to show for it is a lot of people angry at him (or unrealistically idolizing him...something he probably wanted but didn't like once he got it, ah there's the rub). And he's in pain. He feels alone. He feels trapped. And where are his enemies? They're having fun. No matter how many he puts in prison, the ones who are free are having fun. Out being "men" reducing him to a tattle tale good two shoes girlie man on the playground showing that he has no understanding of the way "real" men play.
Well, I would conjecture that Mr. Spitzer grew a bit tired of this feeling. That he was ready to fight the bad guys while becoming one all at the same time. To show himself, "hey they aren't the only ones who can do high class prostitutes. I can too. And the difference between me and them is that I bring some good in this world...so unlike them, I deserve being a little naughty."
The case with Spitzer is terribly cliche and pathetic and yes he brought it on himself and showed an overt lack of consideration for his office and more profoundly, his family. But for what purpose? Why? Not because he just wanted to get laid. And not simply that he was interested in more power. That's part of it, but I don't think it's all of it.
My guess is that Spitzer's lonely psychological view of himself and the world had him caught in a comic book where he was tired of playing only one of the characters. And he was tired of the one he was playing to feel like he wasn't a real man. There are issues around masculine and sexual identity here that goes far beyond simple questions such as "should prostitution be legal." The Spitzer scandal is not black and white. It's so painfully gray and reveals such a deep complexity amongst the minds and identities of those we extol and those we abhor...on all of those who seek public personas as part of their very definition of themselves and how this rattles the cage of the psyche in a way that can lead to some very destructive choices.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The Philadelphia Speech
This was without a doubt the best speech on race I've ever heard from a politician. It occurs to me that the immediate instinct will be to try to determine whether it helps or hurts Obama. That's the wrong way to look at it. Instead we should be asking ourselves the question Obama posed near the end, about whether we want this election - and the next one, and the one after that - to be about distractions, or whether we want a grown up conversation about race and opportunity in this country.
Every family in America has been touched by some kind of negative experience with race. In my own family it was my grandmother, who worked as a guidance counselor, and who struggled over 40 years as the schools in Philadelphia suffered from white flight. They became more black, more poor, and ultimately they failed.
Obama doesn't offer an easy solution to problems like that, but his genius is that he offers enough fresh air for us to talk about them openly, honestly, and with good intent.
It's up to the rest of us to decide whether we're really ready for that.
Every family in America has been touched by some kind of negative experience with race. In my own family it was my grandmother, who worked as a guidance counselor, and who struggled over 40 years as the schools in Philadelphia suffered from white flight. They became more black, more poor, and ultimately they failed.
Obama doesn't offer an easy solution to problems like that, but his genius is that he offers enough fresh air for us to talk about them openly, honestly, and with good intent.
It's up to the rest of us to decide whether we're really ready for that.
I've Got 15 Bucks for Your Bear Stearns
I'm not an economist. In part this is because I preferred history and geography as a boy. And in part it's because I'm not nearly smart enough to understand how unprecedented wealth leads naturally to rising inequality.
But someone (I forget who) made a comment a few days ago that stuck with me. Big business, and the rich people in office who represent them, have a tendency to demonize government when the economy is good. This is when we here paeans to free markets, deregulation, and the genius of individual avarice. It's also when we hear that taxes will destroy wealth, that spending on healthcare and education will set dangerous precedents for meddling, and that standards of ethics and corporate governance will stifle innovation.
However, when the economy turns bad, the tune changes. Suddenly the government has a core responsibility to stabilize the market. That phrase - "stabilize the financial markets" - must have been repeated thirty times today on NPR during my ride home. And no cost is too great. The same government too incompetent to manage a pre-kindergarten program is suddenly required to arrange a multi-billion dollar buyout for a flailing bank. After all, if it didn't fulfill this basic duty, the markets would "remain jittery."
The funny thing is, I don't really resent corporate welfare. I basically agree with the premise that we should throw these guys a safety net, and in so doing help a lot of regular people caught up in the mess. But the hopelessly ignorant non-economist in me wants to see something in return. Like full benefits for veterans. Like health and education for working poor people. Like transparency and accountability in corporate business dealings. And most of all, more than anything else in all the world, I want those cheap crooks to pay their taxes.
That ought to be the price of a bail out.
But someone (I forget who) made a comment a few days ago that stuck with me. Big business, and the rich people in office who represent them, have a tendency to demonize government when the economy is good. This is when we here paeans to free markets, deregulation, and the genius of individual avarice. It's also when we hear that taxes will destroy wealth, that spending on healthcare and education will set dangerous precedents for meddling, and that standards of ethics and corporate governance will stifle innovation.
However, when the economy turns bad, the tune changes. Suddenly the government has a core responsibility to stabilize the market. That phrase - "stabilize the financial markets" - must have been repeated thirty times today on NPR during my ride home. And no cost is too great. The same government too incompetent to manage a pre-kindergarten program is suddenly required to arrange a multi-billion dollar buyout for a flailing bank. After all, if it didn't fulfill this basic duty, the markets would "remain jittery."
The funny thing is, I don't really resent corporate welfare. I basically agree with the premise that we should throw these guys a safety net, and in so doing help a lot of regular people caught up in the mess. But the hopelessly ignorant non-economist in me wants to see something in return. Like full benefits for veterans. Like health and education for working poor people. Like transparency and accountability in corporate business dealings. And most of all, more than anything else in all the world, I want those cheap crooks to pay their taxes.
That ought to be the price of a bail out.
Happy Saint Patty's Day
I just spent an hour and a half with my in-laws. I talked a lot, but I didn't make a single intelligent comment.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Like Rain On Your Wedding Day
A good friend recently asked me that if just about everyone likes to laugh, why do we hate being tickled?
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Some Thoughts on Olmert
So as far as I understand it, the logic behind Sharon's defection from Likud, and the subsequent creation of the Kadima Party in Israel, was the recognition by senior members of Sharon's old party that the Likud approach was no longer possible. In other words, Israel could either be a Jewish democracy, or it could occupy the entire holy land, but it couldn't do both at the same time. Sharon and his cohort chose the "Jewish democracy" route, and though he later went into a coma, his successor Olmert was elected to continue this strategy.
I provide all of that context and history because I want to be clear that I think the entire justification for Olmert's administration was to build on Sharon's disengagement legacy. That's why they defected from Likud, that's why they formed an alliance with Shimon Peres and the Labor Party, and that's why they got elected by the public.
So what happened next? Before the ink was dry on the new government Olmert invaded Lebanon. Following the American style, he did so incompetently, and ended up strengthening Hezbollah. Just recently he re-invaded the Gaza strip, a move that left almost 120 Palestinians dead (many civilians), strengthened Hamas, and did absolutely nothing to stop rocket fire on Israel. But that's not all. There's also the plan to expand settlements around Jerusalem. Like his other moves, this is a public humiliation to his Arab counterparts (the non-crazy ones), and it is certainly the opposite of disengagement.
So can someone explain to me what rationale is left for an Olmert Administration? As far as I can tell he has negated himself, and the only thing left for him to do is delay the next election.
I provide all of that context and history because I want to be clear that I think the entire justification for Olmert's administration was to build on Sharon's disengagement legacy. That's why they defected from Likud, that's why they formed an alliance with Shimon Peres and the Labor Party, and that's why they got elected by the public.
So what happened next? Before the ink was dry on the new government Olmert invaded Lebanon. Following the American style, he did so incompetently, and ended up strengthening Hezbollah. Just recently he re-invaded the Gaza strip, a move that left almost 120 Palestinians dead (many civilians), strengthened Hamas, and did absolutely nothing to stop rocket fire on Israel. But that's not all. There's also the plan to expand settlements around Jerusalem. Like his other moves, this is a public humiliation to his Arab counterparts (the non-crazy ones), and it is certainly the opposite of disengagement.
So can someone explain to me what rationale is left for an Olmert Administration? As far as I can tell he has negated himself, and the only thing left for him to do is delay the next election.
Friday, March 14, 2008
My Experience With A Red Phone
At Taegan Goddard's Political Wire I just found a little post about Senator Clinton's experience being overstated "in serious ways."
In light of this news the following theory came to me: "If Hillary Clinton is overstating her experience, one of the hallmarks of her entire campaign, then perhaps she's overstating other things as well." Well, I had to put my theory to the test. So here's what I did.
It was 3 in the morning. I called the Clinton campaign with an emergency. But all I got was a voice recording to tell me to call back during business hours. I called back at 3 pm. They answered. And I said, "Jeez Louise...I think you guys lied on that youtube ad. You said you'd be there to answer the phone at 3 am when my children were sleeping. Instead you only answered at 3 pm when my hypothetical children are awake."
Their reply revealed that they weren't lying but simply overstating reality: "it is 3 am somewhere in the world and someone's children were sleeping."*
*This story was a dramatization. May Not Have Actually Occurred (in other words, the experience I recounted may be as exaggerated as Hillary Clinton's experience)
In light of this news the following theory came to me: "If Hillary Clinton is overstating her experience, one of the hallmarks of her entire campaign, then perhaps she's overstating other things as well." Well, I had to put my theory to the test. So here's what I did.
It was 3 in the morning. I called the Clinton campaign with an emergency. But all I got was a voice recording to tell me to call back during business hours. I called back at 3 pm. They answered. And I said, "Jeez Louise...I think you guys lied on that youtube ad. You said you'd be there to answer the phone at 3 am when my children were sleeping. Instead you only answered at 3 pm when my hypothetical children are awake."
Their reply revealed that they weren't lying but simply overstating reality: "it is 3 am somewhere in the world and someone's children were sleeping."*
*This story was a dramatization. May Not Have Actually Occurred (in other words, the experience I recounted may be as exaggerated as Hillary Clinton's experience)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)