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.
Monday, March 31, 2008
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)
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Ye Kemi. Ye Kemi, Baladam
So I'm learning a little Farsi. I figure there's a few advantages to the game: 1) It stretches the mental muscles 2) It allows me to communicate respectfully to some close friends 3) After audio disc 16 there's a CIA recruitment pitch.
Choudo howfez, bitches.
Choudo howfez, bitches.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
That Spooky Look
Over at Jezebel's "crappy hour," the following exchange may be telling:
my friend ryan was telling me that he was at Dunkin Donuts the other night (in Philadelphia) and an old Italian lady was like "you two! Who are you voting for? John McCain, or the black guy?" And him and his boyfriend were like "um, the black guy!" and the old lady got a spooky look in her eye and said "you know he's a COMMUNIST."
Meanwhile, I have a friend here who told me a couple weeks ago that his ex-wife got all spooky looking when he told her he was voting Obama. "You know he's a MUSLIM," she said.
I guess if McCain can transition from secular conservative to Chistianist ass kisser, Obama can make a similar journey from Islamofascist to godless Stalinist. But I'm not sure what this reveals about America, other than that some very stupid people really, really don't like Barack Obama.
my friend ryan was telling me that he was at Dunkin Donuts the other night (in Philadelphia) and an old Italian lady was like "you two! Who are you voting for? John McCain, or the black guy?" And him and his boyfriend were like "um, the black guy!" and the old lady got a spooky look in her eye and said "you know he's a COMMUNIST."
Meanwhile, I have a friend here who told me a couple weeks ago that his ex-wife got all spooky looking when he told her he was voting Obama. "You know he's a MUSLIM," she said.
I guess if McCain can transition from secular conservative to Chistianist ass kisser, Obama can make a similar journey from Islamofascist to godless Stalinist. But I'm not sure what this reveals about America, other than that some very stupid people really, really don't like Barack Obama.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Day One
Can any one tell me exactly what a president does on Day One? My hunch is that it involves a lot of "welcome to the White House, let's show you around." In which case Hillary could say, "Oh no need. You see, I have the experience of living in this house for eight years so I know exactly where to go."
In Obama's case, he'll probably need to be shown where various meeting rooms are, where he should put the laundry, and where the guest house is. So I guess Hillary is right when she says she'll have a better sense of what to do on Day One. It's Day Two where Obama would be a more effective president. Day 2 through Day 732.
In Obama's case, he'll probably need to be shown where various meeting rooms are, where he should put the laundry, and where the guest house is. So I guess Hillary is right when she says she'll have a better sense of what to do on Day One. It's Day Two where Obama would be a more effective president. Day 2 through Day 732.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Clinton the Magnanimous
I was impressed, though not surprised, to read that Hillary Clinton is offering Barack Obama the Vice Presidency on the Democratic ticket. Now Obama has won more states than Clinton. He's won more delegates. He's won the popular vote by over half a million. And none of these facts are likely to change before the nomination. So on what basis, other than her lead in superdelegates, does Clinton presume to take the lead on that ticket? And does she really think no one is going to notice if she enters the convention losing in every objective category but emerges as the nominee?
Either she has a much better sense of humor than she has let on previously, or she just flat out believes it's her right to steal it.
Fortunately Obama is a pretty tenacious guy and has made all of these points himself. But I think he should go a step further, and offer Clinton an important new cabinet post called "Tickler of Dr. Bellowsair's funny bone." Because I find the Clinton chutzpah amusing, and I think she would be ready on Day 1.
Either she has a much better sense of humor than she has let on previously, or she just flat out believes it's her right to steal it.
Fortunately Obama is a pretty tenacious guy and has made all of these points himself. But I think he should go a step further, and offer Clinton an important new cabinet post called "Tickler of Dr. Bellowsair's funny bone." Because I find the Clinton chutzpah amusing, and I think she would be ready on Day 1.
Just Throwing This Out There
Mike Gravel is still running for President. It's a little known fact but it's true.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Predictable
Obama won in Wyoming which will blunt Hillary's recent momentum a little and he's almost definitely going to win in Mississippi this week. After he does the press may add that this further blunts Hillary's momentum.
But most of the press won't put out a story now about how Obama is probably going to win in Mississippi and what that will do for his momentum...they will wait until after his win.
They kind of did the same thing with Wisconsin. After Wisconsin they flipped out. What a surprise! Obama takes Wisconsin! But a week before Wisconsin it was a pretty popular idea that Obama was going to win that race. Now it was a surprise how much he won, but his victory was not a surprise (he was gaining significantly in Wisconsin and he was campaigning much better in that state and people in that state were saying that for days before the election).
They did the same thing this week for Clinton. Obama was almost always behind in polls around Ohio and one day before the election, she took the lead in polls in Texas. So where is the surprise? No surprise.
The surprise is how close Obama came to winning in Texas and Ohio when just months ago he was so far behind. This didn't just come from momentum of winning eleven contests in a row (though that helped). It came because Obama is good at campaigning. His campaign knows how to build an effective grassroots infrastructure and it's really impressive. Ted Strickland was getting worried about Ohio just a week before the election there. Now his worry may have been pre-spin in the event that Hillary lost, but either way the fact that the Ohio Governor had to make pre-spin when Ohio was a shoe in state for her just months ago says something remarkable about what Obama has done and what he is currently doing.
New Hampshire was a genuine surprise. But for the most part, particularly after Super Tuesday, the polls have been correct and the press keeps treating the results like a surprise. Whoopdeedoo! The polls were right. What a surprise!
But most of the press won't put out a story now about how Obama is probably going to win in Mississippi and what that will do for his momentum...they will wait until after his win.
They kind of did the same thing with Wisconsin. After Wisconsin they flipped out. What a surprise! Obama takes Wisconsin! But a week before Wisconsin it was a pretty popular idea that Obama was going to win that race. Now it was a surprise how much he won, but his victory was not a surprise (he was gaining significantly in Wisconsin and he was campaigning much better in that state and people in that state were saying that for days before the election).
They did the same thing this week for Clinton. Obama was almost always behind in polls around Ohio and one day before the election, she took the lead in polls in Texas. So where is the surprise? No surprise.
The surprise is how close Obama came to winning in Texas and Ohio when just months ago he was so far behind. This didn't just come from momentum of winning eleven contests in a row (though that helped). It came because Obama is good at campaigning. His campaign knows how to build an effective grassroots infrastructure and it's really impressive. Ted Strickland was getting worried about Ohio just a week before the election there. Now his worry may have been pre-spin in the event that Hillary lost, but either way the fact that the Ohio Governor had to make pre-spin when Ohio was a shoe in state for her just months ago says something remarkable about what Obama has done and what he is currently doing.
New Hampshire was a genuine surprise. But for the most part, particularly after Super Tuesday, the polls have been correct and the press keeps treating the results like a surprise. Whoopdeedoo! The polls were right. What a surprise!
Whales!
I was driving down a beautiful coast that will remain anonymous, and I was thinking about whales. For two years all I've heard about is winter whales. "When do they get here?" I asked. "Oh, around January or February," everyone says. But much as with the case of sharks, locals seem to see them everywhere and I never see them. I started doubting the whole existance of the species. Are we supposed to go purely on the word of French marine explorer Jacque Cousteau and a bunch of stoners?
But then as I was circling a curve on the anonymous coast, out of the corner of my eye I saw two giant flukes, then a huge splash. I almost crashed my car. Then there was some spouting. And every time I've driven that road in the past week, I've seen whales. Every frikkin time!
So they exist, despite humanity's best efforts. You can take my word for it.
But then as I was circling a curve on the anonymous coast, out of the corner of my eye I saw two giant flukes, then a huge splash. I almost crashed my car. Then there was some spouting. And every time I've driven that road in the past week, I've seen whales. Every frikkin time!
So they exist, despite humanity's best efforts. You can take my word for it.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Some Bitter Thoughts About Ohio
I was trying to think of something clever and counterintuitive to write about Hillary Clinton's strong performance in Ohio. There's lots to choose from that may have motivated the state's voters to support her flailing candidacy, from her non-existant opposition to NAFTA to her non-existant national security credentials. It could have been racism, but as we all know, Democrats are highly evolved people and never allow racial considerations to guide them.
But on balance I think folks in Ohio just prefer bad candidates. The state - normally described as "swing" - voted to re-elect Bush in 2004, though by then the depth of his moral and technical failures was clear to anyone paying attention. The Clinton campaign shows many of the same low qualities as the Bush Administration - secrecy, fear-mongering, and an insulated political machine - and is apparently preferable to a majority of Ohio residents.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I drove through Cleveland once and thought it was a nice town, but I guess I wouldn't mind if the state just disappeared from electoral prominence for the next few cycles.
But on balance I think folks in Ohio just prefer bad candidates. The state - normally described as "swing" - voted to re-elect Bush in 2004, though by then the depth of his moral and technical failures was clear to anyone paying attention. The Clinton campaign shows many of the same low qualities as the Bush Administration - secrecy, fear-mongering, and an insulated political machine - and is apparently preferable to a majority of Ohio residents.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I drove through Cleveland once and thought it was a nice town, but I guess I wouldn't mind if the state just disappeared from electoral prominence for the next few cycles.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
My New Book
I’m right now writing a book called “I’m Codependent, If You Are Too.” I’m writing it right now in my head while I’m writing this post. I’m really good at multi-tasking. Any way, the message is that I don’t know if I’m a full blown codependent but I am if you are too. It’s kind of right there in the title.
Loneliness
"I was feelin' kinda lonesome and blue,
I needed somebody to talk to.
So I called up the operator of time
Just to hear a voice of some kind.
"When you hear the beep
It will be three o'clock,"
She said that for over an hour
And I hung it up." -Bob Dylan, "Talkin' WWIII Blues"
I feel you Bob. Sometimes I get so lonely I look forward to getting emails at 3 am from Jackincumaton, letting me know that I can join millions of men who need to re-up their "size" just by clicking on a little blue hyperlink. But not only does it relieve my sense of loneliness, it also gives me some semblance of hope.
I needed somebody to talk to.
So I called up the operator of time
Just to hear a voice of some kind.
"When you hear the beep
It will be three o'clock,"
She said that for over an hour
And I hung it up." -Bob Dylan, "Talkin' WWIII Blues"
I feel you Bob. Sometimes I get so lonely I look forward to getting emails at 3 am from Jackincumaton, letting me know that I can join millions of men who need to re-up their "size" just by clicking on a little blue hyperlink. But not only does it relieve my sense of loneliness, it also gives me some semblance of hope.
Gross!
Hillary accuses Barack of plagiarism and then says "Yes We Will!" at a rally. The only thing more gross than the Clinton's hypocritical thirst to win at all costs are the Republicans thirst to win at all costs. And the only thing grosser than the Republicans thirst to win at all costs is poop from flies that are slowly eating Osama bin Laden's fecal matter.
A New Institute
In a world that is too often unkind and unloving, a world that divides people based on race, class, sexuality, and religious belief—a world that is closed to honest, truly human exploring and communication, don’t you think it’s time for a change?
That’s why I’ve been involved in creating the Institute for Friendship, Understanding, Compassion, Kindness, Assistance, Love, Openness, Talking, Goodness, Unity, Yearning, and Seeking---or, I FUCKALOTOFGUYS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)