8:10 pm - I like it when Joe Biden cheers. He is cheering louder than everyone else, and you can hear his voice over the TV. It reminds me of that scene in "Rome" when Titus Pollo is cheering for Caesar louder than anyone else, even though he is actually cheering because he knows that Caesar's son is actually his own. That's a metaphor.
8:11 pm - Yes! First historical reference: The First Battle of Bull Run. Despite initial setbacks, America always finds a way to rally and win in the end. Plus, we're gonna stick it to the South again.
8:13 pm - "1 in 10 Americans cannot find work." PBS cuts to Timothy Geithner. Booooo.....
8:15 pm - John McCain looks angry. Drink.
8:17 pm - "Americans deserve a government that embodies their strength." Biden just about lept out of his seat on that line. Seriously, he is psyched about this speech. He also keeps nodding and clapping when no else is.
8:18 pm - "I hate the bank bail-out... The bank bail-out is as popular as a root canal." Zing! Cut to Geihtner. (Booooo.... "He's a witch!" "Burn him!" "Make a bridge out of him!")
8:21 pm - The Republicans refused to applaud when Obama talked about tax cuts, and he called them out on it. He's gotten as many laughs as he has rounds of applause so far. He looks to me like he's relaxed and having fun. Or maybe he's just being flippant. You say tomato, I say vodka.
8:24 pm - "Jobs must be our #1 focus in 2010." The Republicans are applauding that one.
8:26 pm - John Boehner has the worst fake tan ever.
8:29 pm - "I want a jobs bill on my desk right away." The House Democrats are applauding that like crazy, and are way more excited than their Senate counterparts. I know that other people have said this before, but why is the U.S. Senate the only legislative body where you cannot pass bills with a simple majority, but some kind of mysterious and sacred "super majority"?
8:32 pm - "I am not interested in punishing banks." Cut to Chris Dodd. The ball is in your court now, Eyebrows.
8:33 pm - I like that Obama is calling out the Senate while he praises the House for passing necessary legislation. It is squarely on Harry Reid's shoulders to get something done, and he, so far, as proved to not be up to that task at all.
8:35 pm - "I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year." That's 3, Reid.
8:36 pm - "I know some disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on global warming." Zing! Obama can be so sassy sometimes. Especially when he's trying really hard not to be pissed.
8:41 pm - Education reform. Again, the major theme so far seems to be that, while the House has been getting things done, the Senate has just been sitting on their... hands.
8:42 pm - "I asked Vice President Biden to chair a taskforce on middle class families." Cut to Biden: "Oh, shit! I completely forgot to do that!"
8:43 pm - Healthcare. Bum bum bum. "First, let's clear some things up." Run laugh tracks.
8:45 pm - I like it when Michelle Obama smirks and glares at her husband. "She gets embarrassed," he says, to a laugh. I think she's just criticizing him with her eyes.
8:48 pm - Mitch McConnell looks like a turtle.
8:49 pm - The national debt. Also known as the, "Why George Bush Sucks" part of the speech. Cut to John McCain. He's laughing.
8:51 pm - Woah. PBS just cut to a crazy roof camera shot. That just gave some wicked vertigo.
8:54 pm - That was weird. Obama just announced a spending freeze to huge applause, and then, after the applause, said that it would begin... next year. Then everyone laughed. Very surreal.
8:56 pm - The local PBS channel just cut out. Switching to ABC.
8:57 pm - Calling out the Supreme Court on allowing unlimited corporate investments in political elections. Then everyone stands and applauds: Shame! Shame on you Supreme Court! Seriously, though. You guys do suck.
9:02 pm - Awesome, calling out the Republicans. Robyn hears a boo or two.
9:04 pm - Switching to foreign policy. Shot of Janet Napolitano looking worried.
9:05 pm - Al Franken is sitting right behind the Joint Chiefs of Staff. For a second, I thought that he was a general. That would be weird. And awesome.
9:06 pm - "This war is ending, and all our troops are coming home." Applause from both sides of the aisle. Joe Lieberman looks sad.
9:10 pm - I love it when they cut to the scan camera and you can see that all of the Senators who are not standing and applauding are madly Twittering away.
9:13 pm - Obama just promised to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. ABC cut to the Joint of Chiefs of Staff all looking very stern and army-y and not gay at all so don't even think about it. (Except for maybe Al Franken.)
9:16 pm - Hmmmm... probably not the best idea to title your speech, "2010: We're Starting to Lose Faith."
9:17 pm - That dude was totally picking his nose.
9:20 pm - Obama just looked at the camera for the first time in his speech at the very, very end of the whole thing. The man definitely grew up in the age of television.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Friday, August 7, 2009
Yet Another Weekend Update
Well, I haven't been doing a very good job of blogging on a regular basis. But, in my defense, quite alot has been going on recently. R.A. and I are moving to Champaign-Urbana in less than two weeks, and my parents are going to come out from Oregon to help us move. R.A. already has a part-time job lined up in addition to her classes that she will be taking, and my brain has been pretty much fraggled with all of the shuttling back and forth between Chicago and Champaign that I have been doing for job interviews. I have one or two prospects down there, so please keep good thoughts/ pray/ make animal sacrifices/ invoke the Law of Attraction on my behalf. I would appreciate it.
In the meantime, well, it has been pretty cold and rainy here in Chicago. I feel kinda bad when I read about the sweltering and oppressive heat that my friends and family have been enduring on the west coast. It's almost as if our summers this year have been switched this year, with Portland being hot and muggy and miserable and Chicago being cool and rainy and damp. (Seriously! I had to wear a friggin' sweatshirt today, and it's August!)
So, in short not too much interesting has been happening in my life. At least, not much blog-worthy. However, the USA Today did release its first college football poll of the season!
And do you know who USA Today's preseason top 5 are? Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and Alabama. Seriously, Orrin Hatch should be spending his time trying to ban these preseason polls if he really wants Utah in the championship. (They have Notre Dame at 23, for Touchdown Jesus' sake! Have these people even been watching college football for the past ten years?)
Here is a weird and rather disturbing gender-biased article from the Boston Globe about the color of Red Sox fans hats: "Why is the Pink Hat so Hated?" If it were up to me, I would ban those green Irish baseball caps. They have those for both the Cubs and the White Sox now, and even though Chicago does have a long tradition of Irish violence, I still feel like those hats do nothing but encourage general douchebaggery.
And, finally, speaking of violent douchebags, what is up with all of the disruptions of Democrats town hall meetings about universal health care about?
Seriously, what is with these people? Barging into other people's political rallies, shouting down speakers and elected officials, threatening violence and rioting. It's like we have our very own brand of the SA! Only these are all old people. But, you know, they're old people with Second Amendment rights.
Pledge to attend a health care meeting here.
On a slightly brighter note:
I'm thinking of changing John Bolton's Wikipedia page to just a link of the footage of Hillary Clinton laughing derisively.
In the meantime, well, it has been pretty cold and rainy here in Chicago. I feel kinda bad when I read about the sweltering and oppressive heat that my friends and family have been enduring on the west coast. It's almost as if our summers this year have been switched this year, with Portland being hot and muggy and miserable and Chicago being cool and rainy and damp. (Seriously! I had to wear a friggin' sweatshirt today, and it's August!)
So, in short not too much interesting has been happening in my life. At least, not much blog-worthy. However, the USA Today did release its first college football poll of the season!
And do you know who USA Today's preseason top 5 are? Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and Alabama. Seriously, Orrin Hatch should be spending his time trying to ban these preseason polls if he really wants Utah in the championship. (They have Notre Dame at 23, for Touchdown Jesus' sake! Have these people even been watching college football for the past ten years?)
Here is a weird and rather disturbing gender-biased article from the Boston Globe about the color of Red Sox fans hats: "Why is the Pink Hat so Hated?" If it were up to me, I would ban those green Irish baseball caps. They have those for both the Cubs and the White Sox now, and even though Chicago does have a long tradition of Irish violence, I still feel like those hats do nothing but encourage general douchebaggery.
And, finally, speaking of violent douchebags, what is up with all of the disruptions of Democrats town hall meetings about universal health care about?
Seriously, what is with these people? Barging into other people's political rallies, shouting down speakers and elected officials, threatening violence and rioting. It's like we have our very own brand of the SA! Only these are all old people. But, you know, they're old people with Second Amendment rights.
Pledge to attend a health care meeting here.
On a slightly brighter note:
I'm thinking of changing John Bolton's Wikipedia page to just a link of the footage of Hillary Clinton laughing derisively.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Because Everyone Has To Be On Someone's Team, Right?
It seems that no one can get enough of the baseball-as-politics-as-baseball metaphor these days. And why should they? These are perhaps two of the greatest of American traditions, and they give citizens of all class and creed a chance to come together, wear silly hats, shout slogans, and vilify one another for more-or-less arbitrary reasons.
But the similarities don't end at mere bigotry, demagoguery, and name-calling. Both baseball and politics involve an obsessively complex system of numbers and statistics that people can - and do - spend their entire lives dissecting and analyzing. Nate Silver has taken this affinity to a new level with his website fivethirtyeight.com. Silver, an alum of the University of Chicago, created a highly effective way for predicting baseball outcomes based on very specific statistics. This year, he has applied this same system to the political process, and the results are both fascinating and good (for Obama - Silver's latest data shows/ says... shows.... no... pre-dicts... sorry, where was I? Oh, gives Obama a 94.7% chance of winning the Election. This means that Silver's software has simulated the election 10,000 times and, based on data collected from hundreds of different polls, Obama has won in 9,470 of those simulations. Of course, I look at this stat and all my monkey brain thinks is, "So McCain can still win?")
As Silver says in an article in Newsweek:
Henry James once said,"Cats and monkeys; monkeys and cats; all human life is there." So when your monkey brain looks at Silver's data and starts to get all hurty and angry and just wants to get back to the social grooming, it's probably time for your cat brain to take over and demand that the numbers give you something. Preferably something edible. Or something that can be exchanged for goods and services. That are edible.
Enter intrade.com, a website where you canbet on which candidate will win invest in a candidate. Right now, Obama is "trading" at 83.9, meaning that you can "invest" $83.90 in Obama right now, and if he wins the election, you get $100. John McCain is trading at 16.8. But that's not all! You can also put down money on whether or not the U.S. will go into a recession (the "market" says yes) or whether or not another hurricane will make landfall this year! (Probably not - better luck next time, all you venture capitalists.)
So, yes, betting on the fortunes of others. As American as mom, apple pie, and union busting.
But aren't I being a bit callous here? I mean, Major League Baseball may be a $4 Billion a year business, but it's a chance to identify with the trials and triumphs of your fellow human being first, dammit! And you know who else loves identifying with your fellow human beings? Politicians. And it's not just by talking baseball either; pretty much anything involving competition and gambling will do:
Wrong!
But it can be a dangerous game, this "identifying" with people, for a politician not versed in the fine points of pandering. Because even if being a baseball fan means that you identify yourself with and emotionally (and financially) invest yourself in the fortunes of a group of nine strangers who happen to all be employed by the same company that is near your geographical location, it is still an identity not to be taken lightly. And just as this identity can be politically exploited to make you seem more "human", it can also burn you if you get your signals crossed and end up coming across as, shall we say, a little less than authentic.
Especially if your name is Sarah Palin and you are in the heart of Red Sox Nation.
P.S. - Speaking of monkey brains.
P.P.S. -
But the similarities don't end at mere bigotry, demagoguery, and name-calling. Both baseball and politics involve an obsessively complex system of numbers and statistics that people can - and do - spend their entire lives dissecting and analyzing. Nate Silver has taken this affinity to a new level with his website fivethirtyeight.com. Silver, an alum of the University of Chicago, created a highly effective way for predicting baseball outcomes based on very specific statistics. This year, he has applied this same system to the political process, and the results are both fascinating and good (for Obama - Silver's latest data shows/ says... shows.... no... pre-dicts... sorry, where was I? Oh, gives Obama a 94.7% chance of winning the Election. This means that Silver's software has simulated the election 10,000 times and, based on data collected from hundreds of different polls, Obama has won in 9,470 of those simulations. Of course, I look at this stat and all my monkey brain thinks is, "So McCain can still win?")
As Silver says in an article in Newsweek:
"Baseball and politics are data-driven," ... "But a lot of the time, that data might be used badly. In baseball, that may mean looking at a statistic like batting average when things like on-base percentage and slugging percentage are far more correlated with winning ballgames. In politics, that might mean cherry-picking a certain polling result." In other words, different sport—same skill set.
Henry James once said,"Cats and monkeys; monkeys and cats; all human life is there." So when your monkey brain looks at Silver's data and starts to get all hurty and angry and just wants to get back to the social grooming, it's probably time for your cat brain to take over and demand that the numbers give you something. Preferably something edible. Or something that can be exchanged for goods and services. That are edible.
Enter intrade.com, a website where you can
So, yes, betting on the fortunes of others. As American as mom, apple pie, and union busting.
But aren't I being a bit callous here? I mean, Major League Baseball may be a $4 Billion a year business, but it's a chance to identify with the trials and triumphs of your fellow human being first, dammit! And you know who else loves identifying with your fellow human beings? Politicians. And it's not just by talking baseball either; pretty much anything involving competition and gambling will do:
Wrong!
But it can be a dangerous game, this "identifying" with people, for a politician not versed in the fine points of pandering. Because even if being a baseball fan means that you identify yourself with and emotionally (and financially) invest yourself in the fortunes of a group of nine strangers who happen to all be employed by the same company that is near your geographical location, it is still an identity not to be taken lightly. And just as this identity can be politically exploited to make you seem more "human", it can also burn you if you get your signals crossed and end up coming across as, shall we say, a little less than authentic.
Especially if your name is Sarah Palin and you are in the heart of Red Sox Nation.
P.S. - Speaking of monkey brains.
P.P.S. -
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Battleground: Florida (Arrrr!!!)
So here's Florida... again, thanks to uselectionatlas.org and again, with the god damn colors backwards!
Again, the same trends that we have discussed are coming to the fore - the major urban areas of Miami (in the south) and Orlando (in the center) went for Kerry, but the rest of the state, to differing degrees, went for Bush. The one exception worth notice is the metropolitan area around Jacksonville, in the northeast of the state, which went pretty solidly for the Republican. Again, what we are probably seeing is the influence of a traditional Southern culture in an otherwise swing state.
So, you ask, how can Obama win this phallic shaped state? His best chance probably lies not with Jacksonville but with the St. Petersburg/ Tampa metropolitan area. These areas tend to be not quite as culturally conservative as Jacksonville, and, perhaps more importantly, they have been consistently ranking in the top ten nation wide in house foreclosures per capita per county. That is probably Obama's biggest selling point - at least for now - in Florida.
Again, the same trends that we have discussed are coming to the fore - the major urban areas of Miami (in the south) and Orlando (in the center) went for Kerry, but the rest of the state, to differing degrees, went for Bush. The one exception worth notice is the metropolitan area around Jacksonville, in the northeast of the state, which went pretty solidly for the Republican. Again, what we are probably seeing is the influence of a traditional Southern culture in an otherwise swing state.
So, you ask, how can Obama win this phallic shaped state? His best chance probably lies not with Jacksonville but with the St. Petersburg/ Tampa metropolitan area. These areas tend to be not quite as culturally conservative as Jacksonville, and, perhaps more importantly, they have been consistently ranking in the top ten nation wide in house foreclosures per capita per county. That is probably Obama's biggest selling point - at least for now - in Florida.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Battleground: Ohio (pakeeeww!)
Is that not the sound a missile makes?
So here is a map of the way that Ohio voted in 2004, thanks to usaelectionatlas.org, although the colors are reversed, with the red being districts that went Democrat, and the blue being Republican.
Now, the Democratic centers - as you know - focus around large industrial centers, so all of that red that you see in the northeast corner is around the cities of Cleveland, Akron, and Youngstown. The other Democratic "blips" occur around the cities of Columbus and Dayton. The key to winning the state, though? That tiny county in the southwest of the state, colored light blue, called Hamilton county. Home of the great city of Cincinnati. And Obama's best chance at carrying Ohio.
Why?, you ask? Because Cincinnati exists on a kind of border, between the Democratic-leaning urban areas of the Rust Belt and the culturally conservative southern regions that border Kentucky and West Virginia. And this is precisely the kind of region that needs to prioritize its economic interests over its cultural ones and vote for the Democrat!
So if you know anyone living in Ohio, specifically in the Cincinnati area, call their asses up an tell them to vote! Also, remember this: Cincinnati's population 1910: 363,591 1950: 503,998 2000: 331,285 Percentage of Black or African-American inhabitants: %42.92
Just sayin'.
So here is a map of the way that Ohio voted in 2004, thanks to usaelectionatlas.org, although the colors are reversed, with the red being districts that went Democrat, and the blue being Republican.
| Town (m) |
Now, the Democratic centers - as you know - focus around large industrial centers, so all of that red that you see in the northeast corner is around the cities of Cleveland, Akron, and Youngstown. The other Democratic "blips" occur around the cities of Columbus and Dayton. The key to winning the state, though? That tiny county in the southwest of the state, colored light blue, called Hamilton county. Home of the great city of Cincinnati. And Obama's best chance at carrying Ohio.
Why?, you ask? Because Cincinnati exists on a kind of border, between the Democratic-leaning urban areas of the Rust Belt and the culturally conservative southern regions that border Kentucky and West Virginia. And this is precisely the kind of region that needs to prioritize its economic interests over its cultural ones and vote for the Democrat!
So if you know anyone living in Ohio, specifically in the Cincinnati area, call their asses up an tell them to vote! Also, remember this: Cincinnati's population 1910: 363,591 1950: 503,998 2000: 331,285 Percentage of Black or African-American inhabitants: %42.92
Just sayin'.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Never, Ever, Mix Baseball and Politics
I have made a difficult decision.
Tonight, rather than watch the first televised presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, I will go to U.S. Cellular Field to watch the White Sox play the Indians.
But please, please don't use me as your exemplar of citizenship. Watch the debate. And then, immediately after Jim Lehrer says goodnight, turn the TV OFF. Don't change the channel. Don't go online. Don't turn on the radio. Do nothing until you have had a chance to think quietly by yourself or a few friends about what you just heard. Then you can turn to the news media and find out how wrong you are about everything!
For me, however, I have more important things to do. The Sox just blew their division lead by getting swept by the Minnesota Twins, and now need every break they can get going into the final weekend of the regular season. This is crunch time, ladies and gentlemen. Bring your hats.
In the meantime, however, I was thinking about how well by predictions have turned out. You see, back in March, I wrote about the strange fact that, for the past five years, the AL champ has always come from a blue state whereas the NL champ has always come from a red state. I also mentioned that during the last presidential election the Democratic nominee was a senator from Massachusetts, and, that same year, the Boston Red Sox were able to break the curse and win their first World Series in 86 years.
But, as we all know, Kerry lost. So, this year, I hypothesized, we need to reach across party lines and get the NL to send a blue-state team to the World Series, a team whose state will be represented by the Democratic nominee, and a team looking to win their first World Series in 100 years: the Cubs. (Of course, almost immediately after saying this, I started rooting for their cross-town rivals the White Sox.)
So now it's September. And so far things are looking pretty good. The Cubs have won their division, Obama is leading in the polls. But there are still many obstacles to be overcome, like fighting against voter fraud in Ohio and seeing if the Brewers get the wildcard. But, I wondered, could we use the same impeccable logic of Obama=Cubs to analyze the fortunes of the rest of Major League Baseball? Well... why the fuck not - I mean, Yes We Can!
1) New York Yankees - Everyone has been waiting for the Evil Empire to return to power. But a string of losses early in the season doomed them, despite a strong resurgence near the end. Parallel: Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
2) Tampa Bay Devil Rays - Surprising everyone, this scrappy team from the Sunshine State has won the toughest division in baseball. Will they be the ones to rain on the Cubs parade in October?
Parallel: Over 65, Jewish, and Cuban voters in Florida
3) Arizona Diamondbacks - Once the media darlings, the D-Backs may have shot themselves them in the foot by alienating immigrant hispanic voter Manny Ramirez, who now plays for the rival Dodgers.
Parallel: John McCain (R-AZ), GOP immigration policy
4) Boston Red Sox - They're old. They're rich. They have an incredible amount of power and influence, even after having surgery on their brains.
Parallel: Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
5) New York Mets - They looked so good, for so long. But a meteoric crash to Earth in September may have doomed them and all of their fans.
Parallel: The financial markets
6) Los Angeles Angels - The Halos have quietly been dominating the West. But are they waiting for bigger things to come in the future?
Parallel: Committee to Elect Schwarzenegger President, 2012
7) Minnesota Twins - Nobody gave them a chance. But this under funded group of misfits could win their division through small-ball and wit.
Parallel: Al Franken
6) Washington Nationals - They have the worst record in the NL, are regularly booed by their fans, and had their final home game of the season rained out.
Parallel: President George W. Bush
I can do this all day long, folks. But I should maybe accomplish something today. In the meantime, are there any other connections out there between baseball and politics that might you know, be a more useful way to learn about our government then watching Fox News?
Tonight, rather than watch the first televised presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, I will go to U.S. Cellular Field to watch the White Sox play the Indians.
But please, please don't use me as your exemplar of citizenship. Watch the debate. And then, immediately after Jim Lehrer says goodnight, turn the TV OFF. Don't change the channel. Don't go online. Don't turn on the radio. Do nothing until you have had a chance to think quietly by yourself or a few friends about what you just heard. Then you can turn to the news media and find out how wrong you are about everything!
For me, however, I have more important things to do. The Sox just blew their division lead by getting swept by the Minnesota Twins, and now need every break they can get going into the final weekend of the regular season. This is crunch time, ladies and gentlemen. Bring your hats.
In the meantime, however, I was thinking about how well by predictions have turned out. You see, back in March, I wrote about the strange fact that, for the past five years, the AL champ has always come from a blue state whereas the NL champ has always come from a red state. I also mentioned that during the last presidential election the Democratic nominee was a senator from Massachusetts, and, that same year, the Boston Red Sox were able to break the curse and win their first World Series in 86 years.
But, as we all know, Kerry lost. So, this year, I hypothesized, we need to reach across party lines and get the NL to send a blue-state team to the World Series, a team whose state will be represented by the Democratic nominee, and a team looking to win their first World Series in 100 years: the Cubs. (Of course, almost immediately after saying this, I started rooting for their cross-town rivals the White Sox.)
So now it's September. And so far things are looking pretty good. The Cubs have won their division, Obama is leading in the polls. But there are still many obstacles to be overcome, like fighting against voter fraud in Ohio and seeing if the Brewers get the wildcard. But, I wondered, could we use the same impeccable logic of Obama=Cubs to analyze the fortunes of the rest of Major League Baseball? Well... why the fuck not - I mean, Yes We Can!
1) New York Yankees - Everyone has been waiting for the Evil Empire to return to power. But a string of losses early in the season doomed them, despite a strong resurgence near the end. Parallel: Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
2) Tampa Bay Devil Rays - Surprising everyone, this scrappy team from the Sunshine State has won the toughest division in baseball. Will they be the ones to rain on the Cubs parade in October?
Parallel: Over 65, Jewish, and Cuban voters in Florida
3) Arizona Diamondbacks - Once the media darlings, the D-Backs may have shot themselves them in the foot by alienating immigrant hispanic voter Manny Ramirez, who now plays for the rival Dodgers.
Parallel: John McCain (R-AZ), GOP immigration policy
4) Boston Red Sox - They're old. They're rich. They have an incredible amount of power and influence, even after having surgery on their brains.
Parallel: Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
5) New York Mets - They looked so good, for so long. But a meteoric crash to Earth in September may have doomed them and all of their fans.
Parallel: The financial markets
6) Los Angeles Angels - The Halos have quietly been dominating the West. But are they waiting for bigger things to come in the future?
Parallel: Committee to Elect Schwarzenegger President, 2012
7) Minnesota Twins - Nobody gave them a chance. But this under funded group of misfits could win their division through small-ball and wit.
Parallel: Al Franken
6) Washington Nationals - They have the worst record in the NL, are regularly booed by their fans, and had their final home game of the season rained out.
Parallel: President George W. Bush
I can do this all day long, folks. But I should maybe accomplish something today. In the meantime, are there any other connections out there between baseball and politics that might you know, be a more useful way to learn about our government then watching Fox News?
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Gordon Smith Has a Boring Name
I've been trying hard lately to avoid writing about politics. It isn't proper, you know? One's opinions, generally, are dreadful things to converse about, and to talk openly about them shows a definite lack of good breeding.
Furthermore - at least as far as the presidential election goes - all of the states from which I'm from (Oregon, New York, and Illinois) are all pretty securely in the Obama column. This takes a little bit of the urgency out of getting out the vote. But this was all before I listened to this piece last night on NPR. It discusses our dear Senator Gordon Smith's (R-OR) attempts to distance himself from President Bush and to aggressively court what the reporter calls potential "Obama-Smith voters." In order to do so, Sen. Smith is spending a lot of time talking up his moderate credentials as being bi-partisan and supporting health care and immigration reform.
Is there any credibility to Smith's claims to be such a friendly, cooperative, "I like hope and change too" kind of guy? Yes, kind of. According to the Washington Post, Smith has voted with the Republican Party 72% of the time. However, over the last year and a half, he has broke with the GOP and has supported a phased withdrawal from Iraq (on 3/15/07), has sought to censure Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez (6/11/07), and voted to expand children's health insurance (8/2/07).
On the other hand, Smith has been predictably pro-Bush on several other key issues: In 2007, he worked to prevent affordable access to birth control, and has voted to cut funding to organizations that provide abortions. He has been one of the most steadfast supporters of repealing the estate tax and for making Bush's tax cuts permanent. He also supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, which aims to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
So what does this all mean, Mr. Natural? Well, that Smith isn't as conservative as some members of Congress, but also that he definitely is not the buddy-buddy kind of guy with Kerry or Obama that he is trying to project in his recent ads. Most importantly, though, is that:
So, yes, Obama has a 9-point lead over McCain in Oregon, making it definitely not a swing state this year. But that is even more reason for those who believe in Obama's agenda to get to the voting booths in November and to give him the support that he is going to need. And even though my pick this year for Senate - Steve "I-Have-A-Hook-For-A-Hand" Novick - isn't the Democratic nominee, I am sure that President Obama (see? feels good, right?) wouldn't mind having a pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-workers politician in the Senate like Jeff Merkley, (who also supports ending the war in Iraq and providing universal health care) who is less likely to, say, block re-negotiating free trade agreements then Obama's fair-weather friend Gordon Smith is.
Plus, Smith is getting a little desperate in his advertising:
Ooooh!! I just hate that annual Senate Leather Sofa Tax, don't you? On the other hand, maybe Smith believes that he can trick some viewers into thinking that, if they vote for him,
they too can win this fabulous living room set!
Post-Script: Of course, my entire argument here is based on the assumption that Obama
doesn't lose the election to Paris Hilton:
Furthermore - at least as far as the presidential election goes - all of the states from which I'm from (Oregon, New York, and Illinois) are all pretty securely in the Obama column. This takes a little bit of the urgency out of getting out the vote. But this was all before I listened to this piece last night on NPR. It discusses our dear Senator Gordon Smith's (R-OR) attempts to distance himself from President Bush and to aggressively court what the reporter calls potential "Obama-Smith voters." In order to do so, Sen. Smith is spending a lot of time talking up his moderate credentials as being bi-partisan and supporting health care and immigration reform.
Is there any credibility to Smith's claims to be such a friendly, cooperative, "I like hope and change too" kind of guy? Yes, kind of. According to the Washington Post, Smith has voted with the Republican Party 72% of the time. However, over the last year and a half, he has broke with the GOP and has supported a phased withdrawal from Iraq (on 3/15/07), has sought to censure Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez (6/11/07), and voted to expand children's health insurance (8/2/07).
On the other hand, Smith has been predictably pro-Bush on several other key issues: In 2007, he worked to prevent affordable access to birth control, and has voted to cut funding to organizations that provide abortions. He has been one of the most steadfast supporters of repealing the estate tax and for making Bush's tax cuts permanent. He also supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, which aims to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
So what does this all mean, Mr. Natural? Well, that Smith isn't as conservative as some members of Congress, but also that he definitely is not the buddy-buddy kind of guy with Kerry or Obama that he is trying to project in his recent ads. Most importantly, though, is that:
Smith is described as a rank-and-file Republican by GovTrack.us,[16] and throughout 2006 Smith voted with Republican leader Bill Frist (TN) on 82% of contentious bills, in contrast to predecessor Mark Hatfield's 55% record of agreement with party leader Trent Lott (MS) in 1996.[17] Based on five senate votes in 2006, the abortion rights advocacy group NARAL gave Smith a score of 15% on abortion rights (100% being a complete pro-choice score.)[18] For votes cast in 2006, Smith received a 14% rating from the League of Conservation Voters (out of a possible 100%).[19] Smith's votes have run contrary to widespread public sentiment on several issues, notably minimum wage[20][21][22][23] and the Oregon Death with Dignity Act.[24](That's all from Smith's Wikipedia page.) Basically, the truth is that, when the chips are down, Smith can be depended upon to be right there at his party's side. The way I see it is that President Obama (go ahead... say it to yourself a few times) is going to need exactly the same thing. More specifically, he is going to need as large of a Democratic majority in congress as possible in order to be able to avoid filibusters whenever possible and to make it as easy as possible for him to enact real change, such as tax reform, or appointing pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court, or say, raising the minimum wage.
So, yes, Obama has a 9-point lead over McCain in Oregon, making it definitely not a swing state this year. But that is even more reason for those who believe in Obama's agenda to get to the voting booths in November and to give him the support that he is going to need. And even though my pick this year for Senate - Steve "I-Have-A-Hook-For-A-Hand" Novick - isn't the Democratic nominee, I am sure that President Obama (see? feels good, right?) wouldn't mind having a pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-workers politician in the Senate like Jeff Merkley, (who also supports ending the war in Iraq and providing universal health care) who is less likely to, say, block re-negotiating free trade agreements then Obama's fair-weather friend Gordon Smith is.
Plus, Smith is getting a little desperate in his advertising:
Ooooh!! I just hate that annual Senate Leather Sofa Tax, don't you? On the other hand, maybe Smith believes that he can trick some viewers into thinking that, if they vote for him,
they too can win this fabulous living room set!
Post-Script: Of course, my entire argument here is based on the assumption that Obama
doesn't lose the election to Paris Hilton:
Friday, July 18, 2008
How I Spend My Free Time
People who know me know at least two things about me:
1) I like to drink.
2) I have a bizarre obsession with coming up with games that have strangely intricate and unnecessarily complicated rules. I'm sure that my parents remember coming into my room to call me down for dinner only to find me kneeling in the middle of my floor, surrounded by pages and pages of un-lined computer paper, each page filled from top to bottom with (to what them must have seemed like) random words and numbers usually scribbled in #2 pencil.
"Watcha doing, Joel?"
"Umm.... nothing. I'll be down in a minute."
It wasn't that I didn't want to tell anyone what I was doing, it was just that it would take so long to explain that I had "invented" a new sport called Deathball that was roughly a combination of rugby and polo if polo were played on various carnivorous mammals instead of horses and that, after a grueling overtime victory against Kenya, French Guyana had an outside chance at winning their group and advancing to elimination play if only Ukraine can score an upset win over powerhouse Mongolia. (They were the first to play the game back in 1258 after the sack of Baghdad.) See? I bet that even you at this point are inclined to say, "Uh-huh. That's great, Joel. I have to go put on the water for the pasta, now. You have fun."
This habit of mine has gone through various permutations over the years, but it has never really gone away. Partially, it is a substitution for video games, as the last system that I actually bought was a Sega Saturn, and that I haven't actually been able to use a controller since Sega Genesis. (Who needs all those buttons, anyways? Does XBox really have to have an L1 and an L2?) But it is also a way for me to channel my particular brand of OCD and other neurotic tendencies. Yeah, I could stay up all night worrying about the effects of Global Warming. Or I could stay up all night deciding whether or not Rousseau can hang on to defeat Descartes in Ultimate Philosopher Championship in order to win the French Division and advance to meet either Locke or Hume in the prestigious Elizabeth's Cup. You tell me which is better for my mental health and longevity.
Occasionally, others have gotten involved with these games, or at least been made aware of them. For example, in college there was the iTunes Game. The rules were simple: I would put my iTunes on random shuffle, and each time a song got played, it got 2 points. If I skipped a song, it would lose a point. And if I absolutely had to listen to a song at that moment and broke the randomization in order to play it, it got 3 points. I would keep track of the scores on a spreadsheet and at the end of six weeks, the top 24 songs would compete against each other in a single elimination tournament. Simple, right? Well, as it turned out, a little too simple. Eventually, my friends started to figure this out and started to mess with my rankings! (And hence, my ability to sleep at night.) I would go to the bathroom and come back to discover that Heavy Metal James had played "Kill You Tonight" by Type 0 Negative, like, five times. Or that 'Viva had gone through the shuffle mix and removed all of the Modest Mouse songs because she was rooting for Daft Punk's "Around the World" to make the Final 24. After that, I decided to make my private games much more convoluted, esoteric, and arbitrary in order to make it that much harder for other people to understand them, and, therefore, mess with them.
I tell you all these things because sometimes the internets provide me with new opportunities to invent games, opportunities that I never would have come up with on my own. On USAToday.com they have the "Presidential Election Electoral Vote Tracker" that "gives you historical election data and lets you look at possible outcomes for the 2008 election. Create various scenarios, save your choices and send them to a friend." Basically, it's a map of the United States with each state designated with the number of electoral votes it gets this Fall. You (!) get to color in each state according to who you think will carry it in November, thus have power to create a near infinite number of different electoral outcomes. (I've found 2 so far that result in perfect 269-269 ties.)
Of course, I've taken this several steps further and created numerous other games with this map. How about some Electoral Tic-Tac-Toe? Or how about trying to see if you can get Obama to win without having any of his states actually touch each other? (I can get him to tie, but not to win.) I've also played a little bit of Electoral College Risk, where every large state gets to "invade" the smaller, weaker states around it. Hell, why not try recreating the Civil War. Could the South win today with all the huge electoral power of retired Jews and Cubans in Florida? Try it out for yourself and see! The possibilities are endless!
What's my point, you ask? Well, none, really. Except that this game is awesome. Oh, and this fact: If Obama can carry every state that has voted Democratic since 1992 plus one big one or two or three smaller ones, he will win the Presidency. That may be a rather big "if" in that sentence, but at this point it is looking good. According to electoral-vote.com as of today, Obama has 312 votes to McCain's 199. Sure, the election is a long ways off, but you should play that vote tracker game for yourself. (The actual one, not the one's that I made up. Unless you want to.) I think you will find it really hard to come up with a realistic way for McCain to win a victory. (Short of the expert opinion of Obama being suddenly eaten by giant pill bugs.)
And while you're doing that, I'll be busy trying to find a way to pitch the video game version of "Ultimate Philosopher Championship" to Sony for exclusive use on the PlayStation 3.
1) I like to drink.
2) I have a bizarre obsession with coming up with games that have strangely intricate and unnecessarily complicated rules. I'm sure that my parents remember coming into my room to call me down for dinner only to find me kneeling in the middle of my floor, surrounded by pages and pages of un-lined computer paper, each page filled from top to bottom with (to what them must have seemed like) random words and numbers usually scribbled in #2 pencil.
"Watcha doing, Joel?"
"Umm.... nothing. I'll be down in a minute."
It wasn't that I didn't want to tell anyone what I was doing, it was just that it would take so long to explain that I had "invented" a new sport called Deathball that was roughly a combination of rugby and polo if polo were played on various carnivorous mammals instead of horses and that, after a grueling overtime victory against Kenya, French Guyana had an outside chance at winning their group and advancing to elimination play if only Ukraine can score an upset win over powerhouse Mongolia. (They were the first to play the game back in 1258 after the sack of Baghdad.) See? I bet that even you at this point are inclined to say, "Uh-huh. That's great, Joel. I have to go put on the water for the pasta, now. You have fun."
This habit of mine has gone through various permutations over the years, but it has never really gone away. Partially, it is a substitution for video games, as the last system that I actually bought was a Sega Saturn, and that I haven't actually been able to use a controller since Sega Genesis. (Who needs all those buttons, anyways? Does XBox really have to have an L1 and an L2?) But it is also a way for me to channel my particular brand of OCD and other neurotic tendencies. Yeah, I could stay up all night worrying about the effects of Global Warming. Or I could stay up all night deciding whether or not Rousseau can hang on to defeat Descartes in Ultimate Philosopher Championship in order to win the French Division and advance to meet either Locke or Hume in the prestigious Elizabeth's Cup. You tell me which is better for my mental health and longevity.
Occasionally, others have gotten involved with these games, or at least been made aware of them. For example, in college there was the iTunes Game. The rules were simple: I would put my iTunes on random shuffle, and each time a song got played, it got 2 points. If I skipped a song, it would lose a point. And if I absolutely had to listen to a song at that moment and broke the randomization in order to play it, it got 3 points. I would keep track of the scores on a spreadsheet and at the end of six weeks, the top 24 songs would compete against each other in a single elimination tournament. Simple, right? Well, as it turned out, a little too simple. Eventually, my friends started to figure this out and started to mess with my rankings! (And hence, my ability to sleep at night.) I would go to the bathroom and come back to discover that Heavy Metal James had played "Kill You Tonight" by Type 0 Negative, like, five times. Or that 'Viva had gone through the shuffle mix and removed all of the Modest Mouse songs because she was rooting for Daft Punk's "Around the World" to make the Final 24. After that, I decided to make my private games much more convoluted, esoteric, and arbitrary in order to make it that much harder for other people to understand them, and, therefore, mess with them.
I tell you all these things because sometimes the internets provide me with new opportunities to invent games, opportunities that I never would have come up with on my own. On USAToday.com they have the "Presidential Election Electoral Vote Tracker" that "gives you historical election data and lets you look at possible outcomes for the 2008 election. Create various scenarios, save your choices and send them to a friend." Basically, it's a map of the United States with each state designated with the number of electoral votes it gets this Fall. You (!) get to color in each state according to who you think will carry it in November, thus have power to create a near infinite number of different electoral outcomes. (I've found 2 so far that result in perfect 269-269 ties.)
Of course, I've taken this several steps further and created numerous other games with this map. How about some Electoral Tic-Tac-Toe? Or how about trying to see if you can get Obama to win without having any of his states actually touch each other? (I can get him to tie, but not to win.) I've also played a little bit of Electoral College Risk, where every large state gets to "invade" the smaller, weaker states around it. Hell, why not try recreating the Civil War. Could the South win today with all the huge electoral power of retired Jews and Cubans in Florida? Try it out for yourself and see! The possibilities are endless!
What's my point, you ask? Well, none, really. Except that this game is awesome. Oh, and this fact: If Obama can carry every state that has voted Democratic since 1992 plus one big one or two or three smaller ones, he will win the Presidency. That may be a rather big "if" in that sentence, but at this point it is looking good. According to electoral-vote.com as of today, Obama has 312 votes to McCain's 199. Sure, the election is a long ways off, but you should play that vote tracker game for yourself. (The actual one, not the one's that I made up. Unless you want to.) I think you will find it really hard to come up with a realistic way for McCain to win a victory. (Short of the expert opinion of Obama being suddenly eaten by giant pill bugs.)
And while you're doing that, I'll be busy trying to find a way to pitch the video game version of "Ultimate Philosopher Championship" to Sony for exclusive use on the PlayStation 3.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
I Bet That The Czechs and The Slovaks Aren't Too Happy About This Either
I feel kinda bad because I haven't posted in a while. Mostly that's because I have been desperately trying to finish all of my final papers in time to go home to Oregon next week, but it's also because I am lazy. And to show you all how lazy I am, instead of doing an actual post, I am just going to put up a YouTube video that was on the Daily Kos a few weeks ago, that R.A. pointed out to me, and that I have watched like, every day many times a day for the last several weeks. (It starts to get good at about the four minute mark.)
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Have You Voted Yet?
Well, have you?
Election ballot drop-off sites:
Bend:
Deschutes Service Center
1300 NW Wall St.
Deschutes County Road Department
61150 SE 27th St.
Drive-By Drop Box
Corner of Wall St. and Lafayette Ave.
Eugene:
Lane County Annex Bldg.
Corner of Oak St. and 6th Ave.
Eugene City Hall
Pearl St. and 8th Ave.
Elections Office
Lincoln St. and 10th Ave.
Ballots are due by 8 pm! Stop procrastinating!
Election ballot drop-off sites:
Bend:
Deschutes Service Center
1300 NW Wall St.
Deschutes County Road Department
61150 SE 27th St.
Drive-By Drop Box
Corner of Wall St. and Lafayette Ave.
Eugene:
Lane County Annex Bldg.
Corner of Oak St. and 6th Ave.
Eugene City Hall
Pearl St. and 8th Ave.
Elections Office
Lincoln St. and 10th Ave.
Ballots are due by 8 pm! Stop procrastinating!
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Why I Am an Obama Boy
The following is from Senator Obama's victory speech after the North Carolina primary:
Did you catch that? I'll give you a moment to look over the text again. Take your time.
Oh, yeah. There it is:
Cicero himself would be proud. Obama strikes that perfect chord of suggesting the inevitability of his nomination without outright saying it. In other words, Clinton's supporters are going to support him; they won't have any choice. On the other hand, if we were to imagine an alternate universe in which Clinton somehow managed to win, then we should assume that Obama's supporters would, in that special case, support her.
Wouldn't it be nice if we were to have a President who could use the English language for rhetorical purposes. (Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that the subjunctive doesn't technically exist in English...)
This has been one of the longest, most closely fought contests in American history. And that's partly because we have such a formidable opponent in Senator Hillary Clinton.
Tonight, many of the pundits have suggested that this party is inalterably divided, that Senator Clinton's supporters will not support me and that my supporters would not support her. Well, I am here tonight to tell you that I don't believe it.
Yes, yes, there have been bruised feelings on both sides. Yes, each side desperately wants their candidate to win. But ultimately this race is not about Hillary Clinton; it's not about Barack Obama; it's not about John McCain.
This election is about you, the American people.
Did you catch that? I'll give you a moment to look over the text again. Take your time.
Oh, yeah. There it is:
"Tonight, many of the pundits have suggested that this party is inalterably divided, that Senator Clinton's supporters will not support me and that my supporters would not support her."A perfect use of the subjunctive tense.
Cicero himself would be proud. Obama strikes that perfect chord of suggesting the inevitability of his nomination without outright saying it. In other words, Clinton's supporters are going to support him; they won't have any choice. On the other hand, if we were to imagine an alternate universe in which Clinton somehow managed to win, then we should assume that Obama's supporters would, in that special case, support her.
Wouldn't it be nice if we were to have a President who could use the English language for rhetorical purposes. (Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that the subjunctive doesn't technically exist in English...)
Monday, May 5, 2008
Getting Out The Midget Vote
So I got my Oregon absentee ballot in the mail the other day, and promptly sat down with a pen and a bottle of Jim Beam and exercised my civic duty to vote. However, I opened my envelope to discover, much to my surprise, that there were, like, a million different things that I needed to vote on! "What gives?" I said to Coraline the Cat as I took a shot, "I just want to vote for the nice colored fella with the big ears!" But here they had all of these people I had never even heard of, running for offices I had never even heard of, like "Secretary of State," and "Senator"!
Being the conscientious citizen than I am, I opted not to vote for whichever candidate's name came first on the ballot, or for whomever had the best-sounding name. (Sorry, Pavel Goberman.) Rather, I took to the internets, hoping that they could objectively inform me about the candidates and the issues important to Oregonians. But instead, they gave me something way better:
Steve Novick has a hook for a hand! A hook that he can use as a bottle opener! Not only that, the guy is also 4'9", on account of not being born with any fibula bones. A hook-handed midget who drinks? Does he spend his free time sailing the sea, plundering and carrying off booty? Now there's a candidate who shares my values! My vote is sold!
"But Joel!" said the cat, "Not only are you vaguely racist, but you are also picking your candidate on a purely superficial basis, thereby abusing your rights and responsibilities as a voter!"
"Shut up, Cat!" said I, "Steve Novick spearheaded the fight against Bill Sizemore's Measure 91, which would have cut the state budget for schools, health care, and public safety by more than 20%! He has been endorsed by former Governor John Kitzhaber and by The Oregonian, which said that 'he has the potential to make Oregonians proud'!"
I paused to take another shot.
"Plus, he's a midget-robot-pirate."
Being the conscientious citizen than I am, I opted not to vote for whichever candidate's name came first on the ballot, or for whomever had the best-sounding name. (Sorry, Pavel Goberman.) Rather, I took to the internets, hoping that they could objectively inform me about the candidates and the issues important to Oregonians. But instead, they gave me something way better:
Steve Novick has a hook for a hand! A hook that he can use as a bottle opener! Not only that, the guy is also 4'9", on account of not being born with any fibula bones. A hook-handed midget who drinks? Does he spend his free time sailing the sea, plundering and carrying off booty? Now there's a candidate who shares my values! My vote is sold!
"But Joel!" said the cat, "Not only are you vaguely racist, but you are also picking your candidate on a purely superficial basis, thereby abusing your rights and responsibilities as a voter!"
"Shut up, Cat!" said I, "Steve Novick spearheaded the fight against Bill Sizemore's Measure 91, which would have cut the state budget for schools, health care, and public safety by more than 20%! He has been endorsed by former Governor John Kitzhaber and by The Oregonian, which said that 'he has the potential to make Oregonians proud'!"
I paused to take another shot.
"Plus, he's a midget-robot-pirate."
Friday, April 18, 2008
Stupid President, ooh! I Hate Him So Much!
Most of the time, I try to approach our president with a kind of zen attitude. Sure, he's horrible and hateful and has ushered in a disastrous age for America, but after seven and a half years of anger and bitterness, I decided that it was best to just try and relax and not get so worked up over the things that he says and does. After all, all that being mad does is raise my blood pressure and increase the odds of me meeting an early death.
But then he goes and gives a speech so dripping in utter hypocrisy and deceit that I can't help but shake my tiny fists in rage and then go on a very long drinking binge until I drown out all of the stupidity and inanity that pervades our nation and makes myself want to bathe in, as Chaucer said, sweet liquor.
The source of my anguish this time was Bush's speech welcoming ex-HJ member Pope Benedict XVI to the White House. If you're a masochist like me, you can find the text of the speech here, but if you really want the full effect, you should watch the video here. But if you absolutely have no time to spare, which is unlikely since you're reading this (GET BACK TO WORK!) let me give you the proverbial highlight reel:
BUSH: Here in America you'll find a nation of compassion. Americans believe that the measure of a free society is how we treat the weakest and most vulnerable among us. So each day citizens across America answer the universal call to feed the hungry and comfort the sick and care for the infirm. Each day across the world the United States is working to eradicate disease, alleviate poverty, promote peace and bring the light of hope to places still mired in the darkness of tyranny and despair.
This isn't so bad, except for the fact that it isn't true. This administration has probably done more than any other administration in our history to ensure that the weakest and most vulnerable among us are forgotten and that the hungry, sick, and infirmed stay that way. But this is just par for the course for Bush. In the "How Audacious is He?" this rates a mere 3 out of 10. But it gets better.
Here in America you'll find a nation that welcomes the role of faith in the public square. When our Founders declared our nation's independence, they rested their case on an appeal to the "laws of nature, and of nature's God." We believe in religious liberty. We also believe that a love for freedom and a common moral law are written into every human heart, and that these constitute the firm foundation on which any successful free society must be built.
This passage doesn't get my blood worked up as much on the moral audacity level (although I feel that Bush's concept of "religious liberty" is just a little, um, anti-liberty) as it is philosophically bizarre. Do we welcome the role of faith in the public square? Is our nation rested on natural laws? You can't really blame Bush here for asserting controversial arguments as if they were universally held beliefs. After all, logically speaking, the proposition that "All men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." is a self-evident truth is well, wrong. Very wrong. "All triangles have three sides," now THERE'S a self-evident truth! Also, while I'm here, I want point out that the last sentence from this quote might as well come right out of The Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. I didn't know that Bush was a Kantian - oh, wait, we're all Kantians. But I digress.
In our nation, faith and reason coexist in harmony.
No they don't!
In a world where some invoke the name of God to justify acts of terror and murder and hate, we need your message that "God is love." And embracing this love is the surest way to save men from "falling prey to the teaching of fanaticism and terrorism."
Okay, so this is where the Audacity Level kicks it up a notch. Who do I know who invokes the name of God to justify acts of terror and murder and hate? I mean, no Christian could ever do that. And he's saying that the surest way to save men from falling prey to the teaching of fanaticism and terrorism is to embrace the message of the Pope? Next thing you know, the White House will be releasing those photos they obtained of Osama bin Laden playing bocce ball with Satan himself. In the streets of Tehran. With Ahmadinejad serving them tea and crumpets. And Nancy Pelosi was invited, but she was too busy trying to turn America's youth gay. (Sure as Hell that never happened to Germany's youth!)
Does Bush realize that no matter how much he kisses the Pope's... ring, Catholic dogma still says that he is Hellbound? And, by Dante's count, that he technically has qualified for circles six, seven, and eight already? That's like, the triple crown of damnation. But again, I digress.
In a world where some treat life as something to be debased and discarded, we need your message that all human life is sacred, and that "each of us is willed, each of us is loved" -- (applause) -- and your message that "each of us is willed, each of us is loved, and each of us is necessary."
Yeah, yeah, Blah, blah, blah. Life begins with conception and ends by lethal injection. I also like how the people at whitehouse.gov made sure to include the spontaneous applause in their official transcript of the speech.
So Bush has covered all of his bases so far - God = good, terrorism = bad, America = good, abortion = bad, and thereby, through his expert use of logical syllogisms, concludes that abortion=terrorism. His usual schtick. But then he goes into his grand finale, and even I have to admit that I didn't see this coming:
In a world where some no longer believe that we can distinguish between simple right and wrong, we need your message to reject this "dictatorship of relativism," and embrace a culture of justice and truth. (Applause.)
"Dictatorship of Relativism"? "Dictatorship of Relativism" DICT-ator-SHIP of RELATIV-ism
Really, Mr. President? Really? That's what I need to fear and loathe today? Not Islamic Fundamentalism or Terrorism but Moral Relativism? Granted, Bush is borrowing this phrase from the Pope - whose fatherland, I might add, has always been on the frontlines of resistance against the Dictatorship of Relativism - but it seems to me that the belief that we cannot distinguish between SIMPLE right and wrong has not caused most of today's problems in the world.
In the grand scheme of things, I feel that Moral Relativists aren't amongst the movers and shakers of world affairs. That is to say, they're not in the powerful positions to make the crucial decisions for America or the world. They're not, shall we say, "the deciders". And even suggesting that there could be such a "Dictatorship of Relativism" is absurd, like saying there's a Church of Atheists, or the Anarchist Party.
Etymologically, a dictator is someone who dictates, who speaks. It's his job (sorry feminists, no lady dictators) to say what is right and wrong, what is true and false, to give laws, and to generally tell people what to do. But Moral Relativism (at least the kind I am acquainted with) holds that no one can ever know right from wrong. So what on earth would a relativist dictator say? "What is your bidding, oh benevolent leader?" "I don't know." "Oh, ok... I'm going to get a snack pack, then." "Cool." It would be a very inefficient way to govern.
A better way to govern - or at least, more efficient way - would be to tell everyone that there IS a moral right and wrong, that you know it and have special access to it (say, like, a voice in your head tells it to you) and that there are bad and dangerous people out there who are to trying to convince the people that there isn't such a moral authority and want the people to think that you (benevolent leader and conduit for the higher moral Truth) are full of shit. And that these people are only out for power and don't actually care about the people the way that you and your magic friend do. Oh, and your magic friend sometimes gets cranky and starts smiting people because it is all powerful and all-knowing. So watch out. Stop masturbating.
I guess that I just want to know more about this Dictatorship of Relativism. Who are its citizens? Intellectuals, I bet. And atheists. And Jews, too, although only the bad Jews from Hollywood and Manhattan. Not the good Jews in Jerusalem. And homosexuals. And the Communists were invited, but they wouldn't shut up about some other Dictatorship they were working on. And those filthy Papis....oh, nevermind. And who is the Stalin-esque dictator of this dictatorship? Zizek? I bet it's Zizek. If nobody has any objections, I am hereby nominating Zizek to be the dictator of the Dictatorship of Relativism.
Our next meeting will be Thursday at 5 in the Old Grange Hall.
Punch and pie will be served.
But then he goes and gives a speech so dripping in utter hypocrisy and deceit that I can't help but shake my tiny fists in rage and then go on a very long drinking binge until I drown out all of the stupidity and inanity that pervades our nation and makes myself want to bathe in, as Chaucer said, sweet liquor.
The source of my anguish this time was Bush's speech welcoming ex-HJ member Pope Benedict XVI to the White House. If you're a masochist like me, you can find the text of the speech here, but if you really want the full effect, you should watch the video here. But if you absolutely have no time to spare, which is unlikely since you're reading this (GET BACK TO WORK!) let me give you the proverbial highlight reel:
BUSH: Here in America you'll find a nation of compassion. Americans believe that the measure of a free society is how we treat the weakest and most vulnerable among us. So each day citizens across America answer the universal call to feed the hungry and comfort the sick and care for the infirm. Each day across the world the United States is working to eradicate disease, alleviate poverty, promote peace and bring the light of hope to places still mired in the darkness of tyranny and despair.
This isn't so bad, except for the fact that it isn't true. This administration has probably done more than any other administration in our history to ensure that the weakest and most vulnerable among us are forgotten and that the hungry, sick, and infirmed stay that way. But this is just par for the course for Bush. In the "How Audacious is He?" this rates a mere 3 out of 10. But it gets better.
Here in America you'll find a nation that welcomes the role of faith in the public square. When our Founders declared our nation's independence, they rested their case on an appeal to the "laws of nature, and of nature's God." We believe in religious liberty. We also believe that a love for freedom and a common moral law are written into every human heart, and that these constitute the firm foundation on which any successful free society must be built.
This passage doesn't get my blood worked up as much on the moral audacity level (although I feel that Bush's concept of "religious liberty" is just a little, um, anti-liberty) as it is philosophically bizarre. Do we welcome the role of faith in the public square? Is our nation rested on natural laws? You can't really blame Bush here for asserting controversial arguments as if they were universally held beliefs. After all, logically speaking, the proposition that "All men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." is a self-evident truth is well, wrong. Very wrong. "All triangles have three sides," now THERE'S a self-evident truth! Also, while I'm here, I want point out that the last sentence from this quote might as well come right out of The Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. I didn't know that Bush was a Kantian - oh, wait, we're all Kantians. But I digress.
In our nation, faith and reason coexist in harmony.
No they don't!
In a world where some invoke the name of God to justify acts of terror and murder and hate, we need your message that "God is love." And embracing this love is the surest way to save men from "falling prey to the teaching of fanaticism and terrorism."
Okay, so this is where the Audacity Level kicks it up a notch. Who do I know who invokes the name of God to justify acts of terror and murder and hate? I mean, no Christian could ever do that. And he's saying that the surest way to save men from falling prey to the teaching of fanaticism and terrorism is to embrace the message of the Pope? Next thing you know, the White House will be releasing those photos they obtained of Osama bin Laden playing bocce ball with Satan himself. In the streets of Tehran. With Ahmadinejad serving them tea and crumpets. And Nancy Pelosi was invited, but she was too busy trying to turn America's youth gay. (Sure as Hell that never happened to Germany's youth!)
Does Bush realize that no matter how much he kisses the Pope's... ring, Catholic dogma still says that he is Hellbound? And, by Dante's count, that he technically has qualified for circles six, seven, and eight already? That's like, the triple crown of damnation. But again, I digress.
In a world where some treat life as something to be debased and discarded, we need your message that all human life is sacred, and that "each of us is willed, each of us is loved" -- (applause) -- and your message that "each of us is willed, each of us is loved, and each of us is necessary."
Yeah, yeah, Blah, blah, blah. Life begins with conception and ends by lethal injection. I also like how the people at whitehouse.gov made sure to include the spontaneous applause in their official transcript of the speech.
So Bush has covered all of his bases so far - God = good, terrorism = bad, America = good, abortion = bad, and thereby, through his expert use of logical syllogisms, concludes that abortion=terrorism. His usual schtick. But then he goes into his grand finale, and even I have to admit that I didn't see this coming:
In a world where some no longer believe that we can distinguish between simple right and wrong, we need your message to reject this "dictatorship of relativism," and embrace a culture of justice and truth. (Applause.)
"Dictatorship of Relativism"? "Dictatorship of Relativism" DICT-ator-SHIP of RELATIV-ism
Really, Mr. President? Really? That's what I need to fear and loathe today? Not Islamic Fundamentalism or Terrorism but Moral Relativism? Granted, Bush is borrowing this phrase from the Pope - whose fatherland, I might add, has always been on the frontlines of resistance against the Dictatorship of Relativism - but it seems to me that the belief that we cannot distinguish between SIMPLE right and wrong has not caused most of today's problems in the world.
In the grand scheme of things, I feel that Moral Relativists aren't amongst the movers and shakers of world affairs. That is to say, they're not in the powerful positions to make the crucial decisions for America or the world. They're not, shall we say, "the deciders". And even suggesting that there could be such a "Dictatorship of Relativism" is absurd, like saying there's a Church of Atheists, or the Anarchist Party.
Etymologically, a dictator is someone who dictates, who speaks. It's his job (sorry feminists, no lady dictators) to say what is right and wrong, what is true and false, to give laws, and to generally tell people what to do. But Moral Relativism (at least the kind I am acquainted with) holds that no one can ever know right from wrong. So what on earth would a relativist dictator say? "What is your bidding, oh benevolent leader?" "I don't know." "Oh, ok... I'm going to get a snack pack, then." "Cool." It would be a very inefficient way to govern.
A better way to govern - or at least, more efficient way - would be to tell everyone that there IS a moral right and wrong, that you know it and have special access to it (say, like, a voice in your head tells it to you) and that there are bad and dangerous people out there who are to trying to convince the people that there isn't such a moral authority and want the people to think that you (benevolent leader and conduit for the higher moral Truth) are full of shit. And that these people are only out for power and don't actually care about the people the way that you and your magic friend do. Oh, and your magic friend sometimes gets cranky and starts smiting people because it is all powerful and all-knowing. So watch out. Stop masturbating.
I guess that I just want to know more about this Dictatorship of Relativism. Who are its citizens? Intellectuals, I bet. And atheists. And Jews, too, although only the bad Jews from Hollywood and Manhattan. Not the good Jews in Jerusalem. And homosexuals. And the Communists were invited, but they wouldn't shut up about some other Dictatorship they were working on. And those filthy Papis....oh, nevermind. And who is the Stalin-esque dictator of this dictatorship? Zizek? I bet it's Zizek. If nobody has any objections, I am hereby nominating Zizek to be the dictator of the Dictatorship of Relativism.
Our next meeting will be Thursday at 5 in the Old Grange Hall.
Punch and pie will be served.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Never Mix Baseball and Politics
This thought came to me on the toilet:
Here is a list of the last 5 World Series results:
2007: Boston Red Sox (AL) defeat Colorado Rockies (NL) 4-0
2006: St. Louis Cardinals (NL) defeat Detroit Tigers (AL) 4-1
2005: Chicago White Sox (AL) defeat Houston Astros (NL) 4-0
2004: Boston Red Sox (AL) defeat St. Louis Cardinals (NL) 4-0
2003: Florida Marlins (NL) defeat New York Yankees (AL) 4-2
Have you noticed anything yet? I mean, besides the fact that we haven't had a competitive World Series in at least five years? Here's a hint:
The American League champions have come from these four states: Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New York.
The National League champions have come from these four states: Colorado, Florida, Missouri, and Texas.
Do you see it yet? Give up?
All of the AL Champs come from Blue States that voted against George W. Bush.
All of the NL Champs come from Red States that voted for George W. Bush. (Or, in the case of Florida, "voted".)
Yes, you have to go back to 2002, when the Anaheim Angels beat the San Francisco Giants in a Cali vs. Cali match-up, to find the last NL team to come from a Blue State.
The last AL team to come from a Red State? The Cleveland Indians, in 1997, when they lost to the Florida Marlins in 7. (And, again, Ohio "voted" for Bush in much the same way Florida did. You really have to go all the way back to 1985, when the Kansas City Royals beat the St. Louis Cardinals, to find a real Red State representing the AL) (I am counting Ontario as a Blue State, because I just don't see Canadians being big Bush fans in general.)
Is this some kind of conspiracy? A bizarre plot to tear America apart for good, with Democrats always rooting for the American League and Republicans rooting for the National? Is this a sign of these to come, when we do away with democracy for good and just settle our differences on the baseball diamond? (I wish!)
No, not really. But it does say something about demographics. By my count, of the 14 AL teams, only four hail from Red States: Cleveland, Kansas City, Tampa Bay, and Texas. And, of course, two of those four states are Ohio and Florida, which are more purple than red.
By contrast, seven of the 16 NL teams come from pro-Bush states: Arizona, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Colorado, Florida, Houston, and St. Louis. So it is, statistically speaking, a bit of a surprise that no NL team from a Blue State has made it to the World Series since 2002, since more than half of them come from Blue States. But overall, 17 out of 30 MLB teams come from Blue States, 11 from Red, 1 from Washington, D.C. (which is Blue), and one from Toronto. Which is Canadian, yet, for some reason, in the American League. Do the teams that make the World Series reflect this ratio? Not really. In the last fifteen World Series', 15 teams were from Blue States (11 from the AL), 13 were from Red States (11 from the NL) and 2 were Canadian (Toronto in 1992 and 1993). But if you extend the survey all the way back to 1972, you end up with 41 teams from Blue States (18 from the AL) compared to 21 from Red States (18 from the NL).
What this actually tells us is that the Democratic Party and Major League Baseball draw their support from the same places: big cities. In particular, Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles, but also Boston, San Francisco, Detroit, and others. Historically, the most successful franchises in baseball are the Yankees, the Dodgers, the Cardinals, the Giants, the A's, and the Red Sox.
But that is just in terms of World Series appearances. Financially speaking, the most successful teams based on 2006 payrolls are: the Yankees (duh), the Red Sox (also, duh), the Angels, the White Sox, the Mets, the Dodgers, and the Cubs. Or: New York, Boston, LA, Chicago, NY, LA, Chicago. (www.onestopbaseball.com)
My point? That MLB is getting its [financial] support from the same places that the DNC gets its [political] support. And this means that, politically, it's more useful to be thinking about our national divide not in terms of East vs. West, North vs. South, Blue vs. Red, or even AL vs. NL, but as Urban vs. Rural.
But, because of this fact and because of some misconceptions about what it means, it is easy for the Republican Party to make it seem as if they represent a majority of Americans. Also, because of the way the Electoral College is set up, it favors the Republican candidate in the only national election in America, the Presidential election.
Come November, watch CNN. They will give you state-by-state "analysis" showing where McCain's and Obama/ Clinton's support is coming from, and every state will follow a very basic pattern: The Democrat will be depending on a large turnout from the cities to counteract the Republican's support in the rural areas. I would say that the inverse is true, but it's not; the Republican Party is always hoping for low voter turnout, as this generally improves their chances of winning. CNN will also give us a map that looks like this: (This is a map of the Kerry/Bush results that I lifted from politicalmaps.org)
Wow! Look at how much more Red there is on that map than Blue! You have to really stop and think about what this map means. If you just glance at it, it seems as if there is a clear Republican majority in the United States. But let's look at the next map, which reflects voting county-by-county:
Still a lot of red, but now we can see where Kerry's support was coming from: the cities. To emphasize this again, here is a map that includes "shades" of purple to better show the percentages each candidate received county-by-county:
Try to see if you can identify the following cities on this map: Boston, MA, New York, NY, Washington, D.C., Miami, FL, New Orleans, LA, Cleveland, OH, Detroit, MI, Chicago, IL, Los Angeles, CA, San Francisco, CA, Portland, OR, Seattle, WA. (Hint: Look for Blue.) If you need more help, this next map "distorts" each county to show its relative population. See if you can find the blue spots now:
Seen this way, we get a different sense - some would say "more accurate" - of our nation's political tendencies. Instead of a few islands of blue awash in a sea of red, you have a crazy psychedelic swirl of different shades of purple with some very solid blue core areas, and most of your real Reds are on the fringes, a minority. This is what we should see when CNN shows us that first map with only red and blue states.
James Carville, who worked for Bill Clinton's campaign and is a supporter of Hillary, once called Pennsylvania "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between." And this is why Pennsylvania is a swing state: it has a fairly balanced ratio of urban to rural population. (Unlike, say, New York, which is dominated by the 8,143,197 inhabitants of New York City, 18,747,320 in the greater metro area, even though most of the rest of the state is very conservative.) Most of the rest of the swing states follow this pattern. Nevada is the most striking graphically: it will look like a sea of red with a tiny blue dot in the corner called "Las Vegas". But the actual number of votes will probably be very close to 50-50.
Hillary Clinton makes the argument that she is winning all of the "important" states in the primary, and that this makes her the stronger potential candidate against McCain. But the states that she has won are mostly the traditional strongholds: California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc. But I would bet money that all of these states - homes of the Angels, Yankees, and Red Sox, just to bring back kind of randomly my analogy here - will go Democratic no matter what. You could run my labrador retriever against McCain and he would carry Massachusetts. (Actually... not a bad idea...) The big exception to this is that Clinton did win Ohio, which a Democrat has to win, and Florida, although Florida "voted" again in that way that it likes to "vote".
What I like Obama is that he's getting votes in Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc. I'm not saying that he can carry Wyoming or anything, but if his presence can get out the vote in the general election the way that has in been in the primaries, especially among young voters and southern blacks, then suddenly a lot of states that are off the board for Clinton are in play for Obama. When was the last time a Democrat actually campaigned in the South? It could be a big step towards re-drawing the political map, and getting rid of the Red-Blue dichotomy that has been a taint of the Bush years. Literally, a taint. And one of many.
The World Series starts on October 22, 2008. The election is November 4.
Four years ago, the Boston Red Sox reversed the curse after 86 years. But a Senator from Massachusetts still lost the presidential election.
Maybe the Democrats just need someone from the NL.
Go Cubs.
Here is a list of the last 5 World Series results:
2007: Boston Red Sox (AL) defeat Colorado Rockies (NL) 4-0
2006: St. Louis Cardinals (NL) defeat Detroit Tigers (AL) 4-1
2005: Chicago White Sox (AL) defeat Houston Astros (NL) 4-0
2004: Boston Red Sox (AL) defeat St. Louis Cardinals (NL) 4-0
2003: Florida Marlins (NL) defeat New York Yankees (AL) 4-2
Have you noticed anything yet? I mean, besides the fact that we haven't had a competitive World Series in at least five years? Here's a hint:
The American League champions have come from these four states: Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New York.
The National League champions have come from these four states: Colorado, Florida, Missouri, and Texas.
Do you see it yet? Give up?
All of the AL Champs come from Blue States that voted against George W. Bush.
All of the NL Champs come from Red States that voted for George W. Bush. (Or, in the case of Florida, "voted".)
Yes, you have to go back to 2002, when the Anaheim Angels beat the San Francisco Giants in a Cali vs. Cali match-up, to find the last NL team to come from a Blue State.
The last AL team to come from a Red State? The Cleveland Indians, in 1997, when they lost to the Florida Marlins in 7. (And, again, Ohio "voted" for Bush in much the same way Florida did. You really have to go all the way back to 1985, when the Kansas City Royals beat the St. Louis Cardinals, to find a real Red State representing the AL) (I am counting Ontario as a Blue State, because I just don't see Canadians being big Bush fans in general.)
Is this some kind of conspiracy? A bizarre plot to tear America apart for good, with Democrats always rooting for the American League and Republicans rooting for the National? Is this a sign of these to come, when we do away with democracy for good and just settle our differences on the baseball diamond? (I wish!)
No, not really. But it does say something about demographics. By my count, of the 14 AL teams, only four hail from Red States: Cleveland, Kansas City, Tampa Bay, and Texas. And, of course, two of those four states are Ohio and Florida, which are more purple than red.
By contrast, seven of the 16 NL teams come from pro-Bush states: Arizona, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Colorado, Florida, Houston, and St. Louis. So it is, statistically speaking, a bit of a surprise that no NL team from a Blue State has made it to the World Series since 2002, since more than half of them come from Blue States. But overall, 17 out of 30 MLB teams come from Blue States, 11 from Red, 1 from Washington, D.C. (which is Blue), and one from Toronto. Which is Canadian, yet, for some reason, in the American League. Do the teams that make the World Series reflect this ratio? Not really. In the last fifteen World Series', 15 teams were from Blue States (11 from the AL), 13 were from Red States (11 from the NL) and 2 were Canadian (Toronto in 1992 and 1993). But if you extend the survey all the way back to 1972, you end up with 41 teams from Blue States (18 from the AL) compared to 21 from Red States (18 from the NL).
What this actually tells us is that the Democratic Party and Major League Baseball draw their support from the same places: big cities. In particular, Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles, but also Boston, San Francisco, Detroit, and others. Historically, the most successful franchises in baseball are the Yankees, the Dodgers, the Cardinals, the Giants, the A's, and the Red Sox.
But that is just in terms of World Series appearances. Financially speaking, the most successful teams based on 2006 payrolls are: the Yankees (duh), the Red Sox (also, duh), the Angels, the White Sox, the Mets, the Dodgers, and the Cubs. Or: New York, Boston, LA, Chicago, NY, LA, Chicago. (www.onestopbaseball.com)
My point? That MLB is getting its [financial] support from the same places that the DNC gets its [political] support. And this means that, politically, it's more useful to be thinking about our national divide not in terms of East vs. West, North vs. South, Blue vs. Red, or even AL vs. NL, but as Urban vs. Rural.
But, because of this fact and because of some misconceptions about what it means, it is easy for the Republican Party to make it seem as if they represent a majority of Americans. Also, because of the way the Electoral College is set up, it favors the Republican candidate in the only national election in America, the Presidential election.
Come November, watch CNN. They will give you state-by-state "analysis" showing where McCain's and Obama/ Clinton's support is coming from, and every state will follow a very basic pattern: The Democrat will be depending on a large turnout from the cities to counteract the Republican's support in the rural areas. I would say that the inverse is true, but it's not; the Republican Party is always hoping for low voter turnout, as this generally improves their chances of winning. CNN will also give us a map that looks like this: (This is a map of the Kerry/Bush results that I lifted from politicalmaps.org)
Wow! Look at how much more Red there is on that map than Blue! You have to really stop and think about what this map means. If you just glance at it, it seems as if there is a clear Republican majority in the United States. But let's look at the next map, which reflects voting county-by-county:
Still a lot of red, but now we can see where Kerry's support was coming from: the cities. To emphasize this again, here is a map that includes "shades" of purple to better show the percentages each candidate received county-by-county:
Try to see if you can identify the following cities on this map: Boston, MA, New York, NY, Washington, D.C., Miami, FL, New Orleans, LA, Cleveland, OH, Detroit, MI, Chicago, IL, Los Angeles, CA, San Francisco, CA, Portland, OR, Seattle, WA. (Hint: Look for Blue.) If you need more help, this next map "distorts" each county to show its relative population. See if you can find the blue spots now:
Seen this way, we get a different sense - some would say "more accurate" - of our nation's political tendencies. Instead of a few islands of blue awash in a sea of red, you have a crazy psychedelic swirl of different shades of purple with some very solid blue core areas, and most of your real Reds are on the fringes, a minority. This is what we should see when CNN shows us that first map with only red and blue states.
James Carville, who worked for Bill Clinton's campaign and is a supporter of Hillary, once called Pennsylvania "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between." And this is why Pennsylvania is a swing state: it has a fairly balanced ratio of urban to rural population. (Unlike, say, New York, which is dominated by the 8,143,197 inhabitants of New York City, 18,747,320 in the greater metro area, even though most of the rest of the state is very conservative.) Most of the rest of the swing states follow this pattern. Nevada is the most striking graphically: it will look like a sea of red with a tiny blue dot in the corner called "Las Vegas". But the actual number of votes will probably be very close to 50-50.
Hillary Clinton makes the argument that she is winning all of the "important" states in the primary, and that this makes her the stronger potential candidate against McCain. But the states that she has won are mostly the traditional strongholds: California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc. But I would bet money that all of these states - homes of the Angels, Yankees, and Red Sox, just to bring back kind of randomly my analogy here - will go Democratic no matter what. You could run my labrador retriever against McCain and he would carry Massachusetts. (Actually... not a bad idea...) The big exception to this is that Clinton did win Ohio, which a Democrat has to win, and Florida, although Florida "voted" again in that way that it likes to "vote".
What I like Obama is that he's getting votes in Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc. I'm not saying that he can carry Wyoming or anything, but if his presence can get out the vote in the general election the way that has in been in the primaries, especially among young voters and southern blacks, then suddenly a lot of states that are off the board for Clinton are in play for Obama. When was the last time a Democrat actually campaigned in the South? It could be a big step towards re-drawing the political map, and getting rid of the Red-Blue dichotomy that has been a taint of the Bush years. Literally, a taint. And one of many.
The World Series starts on October 22, 2008. The election is November 4.
Four years ago, the Boston Red Sox reversed the curse after 86 years. But a Senator from Massachusetts still lost the presidential election.
Maybe the Democrats just need someone from the NL.
Go Cubs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
