I did not watch the debate. Instead, Jason and I got swept up in a rousing meal at "Chinese Super Buffet" and then some Sci-Fi Channel. I think Jason knows my tolerance for the presidential debates is pretty low thanks to crippling ADD.
We did, however, watch Post-Game on CNN, MSNBC and Fox.
The most hilarious moment was not the punchiness of the CNN assembled reporters and analysts (who obviously all need a week off), but Fox declaring John McCain a winner by 89% of its viewership and trying to get Geraldine Ferraro to put some stock in the Fox viewership Text vote as a telling sign. I'm not saying CNN or MSNBC don't have bias, but sometimes I wonder what its like to work in a place dedicated to and serving a particular constituency where you constantly are trying to angle for Your Guy.
It DOES certainly make me wonder about the scientific basis for polls on CNN and elsewhere. But I assume CNN, etc... have a stake in working with 3rd party polling in order to maintain credibility. It would also be interesting to see a breakdown of how the news organizations manage the different candidates, and what would happen if they gave ALL of the candidates equal time in the debates. There are, like, seven candidates on the sample ballot I looked at online for Austin/ Travis Co.
I'm never really sure why we tend to consider anyone running in a party other than Dem or Republican to be insane. But we sure do. And that's too bad. It sort of reminds me of what they call "conversation enders", such as describing an idea to be "a no brainer", as if questioning the idea is simply beyond logic. Is what these 3rd, 4th and 5th party candidates have to say really any more less legitimate than the highly compromised platforms and big-tent appealing ideals of the big 2?
It just doesn't seem like its a good way to do much but fight to reinforce the attitudes of a constituency rather than driving new thinking.
I'm not 100% on board with any party these days, and I'm not particularly convinced My Guy is a prince in need of a coronation. If you can't question your own candidate in a democracy, and THEN hold them to the highest of standards when in office, it seems to sort of miss the point of having elected leaders.
I'm also in a weird position where I'm tired of the election coverage (the primaries made this election extra-long, it seems), but I also am curious to follow election coverage on a daily basis, hoping to hear something new that isn't just mud-slinging. I'm mostly curious to hear more on how each candidate is planning to deal with the economy at this point (my other major issues: international relations, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and healthcare have been covered pretty well). And, I want to hear from people with experience how those models could play out. However, guessing from how well anyone dealt with financial models the past few years, my guess is: they don't really know.
Here's some helpful reading material on economic plans:
McCain - lookout, this section has audio that kicks in
Obama - lookout, this is some logical but dull web design
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Cracked and George Will
Many will be surprised to learn that I enjoy reading the columns of George Will in the back of Newsweek (I do not keep up with him in the Post, but probably should).
Will seems to me an unapologetic intellectual and elite in a country mad for "everyman" politicians (something the media tends to feed). Will is also an unapologetic conservative, but not a particularly social conservative... I'm not even sure what the term might be. Constitutional conservative? He seems to have a tremendous grasp of history, politics, the law, to a point where he seems endlessly put out that others are not as up on all of this stuff as he... but not in a snotty way. Just sort of in a way that charmingly informs the reader Will doesn't spend a lot of time drinking Bud Light at "Lefty's Bar & Grill".
For further evidence, up until recently, Will also thought it wasn't weird to wear a bow tie (which Tucker Carlson shamelessly tried to emulate with none of the panache).
Anyway, Will is a favorite of mine among conservative voices that I can read (or listen to on Sunday morning programs) who I feel is acutely interested in analysis on merit, not on sticking to talking points or bluster.
Anyway, I highly recommend checking out Will's recent column on the expectations of the public for the "common man" element in politics.
And this ALSO got me thinking about the other great voice of nuanced discussion, Cracked.com. Sometimes I think Cracked is having, perhaps, too much of a determining effect on both Randy and myself. But, anyway...
Cracked recently published a list of the six brainwashing techniques they're using on you EVEN NOW. Here's that article. Warning: The article is juvenile and strays into some territory our sensitive readers will find objectionable.
As the election cycle has been going on so long, I've been pondering how I've been absorbing the news, political messages, etc... The point about how headlines are written has especially hit home. I'm absolutely someone who skims newsfeeds and mostly picks out articles to read based on topic, and so I've become quite used to how news sources will frame their headlines. And, honestly, it kind of bugs me.
So why am I talking about George Will and Cracked in the same breath?
I know this is probably reaching levels of annoyance, but I think its important to take a look at not just what the politicians say and do, but how the press deals with the stories and frames them for us, both intentionally and otherwise. Will has taken the "common wisdom" perception of who we want in the White House to task of seeking just plain folks versus seeking the best and brightest (not that McCain or Obama aren't best and brightest, but its about perception), and I think challenges a single issue pretty convincingly.
But I think the Cracked list, goofy as it might be, is worth reading just once to compare against how we blindly accept ideas and how they seem to creep in to our subconscious. Sure, the article is a bit blue (this is Cracked.com, after all), and some of it is pretty obvious, but in our media-saturated world, where the election and bias are pushing both the parties and the press to find advantage anywhere, its always good to take a mo' to consider how your chain is being yanked.
None of this is probably new to the readers here, but why not take a break from the news cycle a bit and look at what your news source of choice is telling you, and what your candidate of choice is telling you about the opposition? And if they're willing to use ham-handed propaganda now, what are they going to do for 4-8 years running the free world?
Anyhoo... When you get to #1 (no, not the first #1, for which I can only apologize to our more sensitive readers), I think that's whats at the crux of the matter... I leave our less sensitive readers to read on.
Will seems to me an unapologetic intellectual and elite in a country mad for "everyman" politicians (something the media tends to feed). Will is also an unapologetic conservative, but not a particularly social conservative... I'm not even sure what the term might be. Constitutional conservative? He seems to have a tremendous grasp of history, politics, the law, to a point where he seems endlessly put out that others are not as up on all of this stuff as he... but not in a snotty way. Just sort of in a way that charmingly informs the reader Will doesn't spend a lot of time drinking Bud Light at "Lefty's Bar & Grill".
For further evidence, up until recently, Will also thought it wasn't weird to wear a bow tie (which Tucker Carlson shamelessly tried to emulate with none of the panache).
Anyway, Will is a favorite of mine among conservative voices that I can read (or listen to on Sunday morning programs) who I feel is acutely interested in analysis on merit, not on sticking to talking points or bluster.
Anyway, I highly recommend checking out Will's recent column on the expectations of the public for the "common man" element in politics.
And this ALSO got me thinking about the other great voice of nuanced discussion, Cracked.com. Sometimes I think Cracked is having, perhaps, too much of a determining effect on both Randy and myself. But, anyway...
Cracked recently published a list of the six brainwashing techniques they're using on you EVEN NOW. Here's that article. Warning: The article is juvenile and strays into some territory our sensitive readers will find objectionable.
As the election cycle has been going on so long, I've been pondering how I've been absorbing the news, political messages, etc... The point about how headlines are written has especially hit home. I'm absolutely someone who skims newsfeeds and mostly picks out articles to read based on topic, and so I've become quite used to how news sources will frame their headlines. And, honestly, it kind of bugs me.
So why am I talking about George Will and Cracked in the same breath?
I know this is probably reaching levels of annoyance, but I think its important to take a look at not just what the politicians say and do, but how the press deals with the stories and frames them for us, both intentionally and otherwise. Will has taken the "common wisdom" perception of who we want in the White House to task of seeking just plain folks versus seeking the best and brightest (not that McCain or Obama aren't best and brightest, but its about perception), and I think challenges a single issue pretty convincingly.
But I think the Cracked list, goofy as it might be, is worth reading just once to compare against how we blindly accept ideas and how they seem to creep in to our subconscious. Sure, the article is a bit blue (this is Cracked.com, after all), and some of it is pretty obvious, but in our media-saturated world, where the election and bias are pushing both the parties and the press to find advantage anywhere, its always good to take a mo' to consider how your chain is being yanked.
None of this is probably new to the readers here, but why not take a break from the news cycle a bit and look at what your news source of choice is telling you, and what your candidate of choice is telling you about the opposition? And if they're willing to use ham-handed propaganda now, what are they going to do for 4-8 years running the free world?
Anyhoo... When you get to #1 (no, not the first #1, for which I can only apologize to our more sensitive readers), I think that's whats at the crux of the matter... I leave our less sensitive readers to read on.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Obama y Unicorn
Shoemaker mentioned the first picture to me, so I looked it up using search words "Obama Unicorn". This is what I found.
If you don't click on this for the full size, you are missing out
From the JibJab website.
I have no idea.
I like that I know who the "we" is now.
And this one is... interesting, but the "adult" end of the spectrum (sensitive eyes should not click).
Make of all of this what you will. I will find it awesome.
I told you this was going to get dumber before it got better.
If you don't click on this for the full size, you are missing out
From the JibJab website.
I have no idea.
I like that I know who the "we" is now.
And this one is... interesting, but the "adult" end of the spectrum (sensitive eyes should not click).
Make of all of this what you will. I will find it awesome.
I told you this was going to get dumber before it got better.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Getting Political
Ahhhh... It's that time in a young country's life when so many things are due for a change. That country keeps hearing about "Change" and may even be discovering girls (on the ticket).
For folks newer to the site, here's some background:
The site was originally a bit more political. I was deeply dissatisfied with the Bush administration and the push to war in Iraq (do not equate this with a push into Afghanistan or other Al Qaeda related pushes of the day). The American press was rolling over for talking point dispatches, and more than I was bothered by Bush's strategies, I was deeply bothered by the way the press was happy to play along.
I should note, the force singly most responsible for the creation of League of Melbotis is a thought-provoking conservative in his own right. And while he and I could disagree, there was always an opportunity for me to see things from a new angle. I have no idea if he felt the same way, but that was something I could take away from it.
That's really all I ask out of political discussion. Rational discourse. Keep the emotion to a limited degree (I've been known to get pretty hot about certain issues, I confess), and trying not to deny logic in an argument.
I started LoM in the Boogeyman Era of politics, where the call of the day was "If you don't support X, you hate America", "If you don't buy into Y, you hate our troops", "If you don't agree to Z, you hate freedom", and, my favorite "You're trying to appease the terrorists!". No other time in the history of man has the phrase "appease" been bandied about so much.
For me, the end result of the Bush/ Cable News era, sadly, has been a sneering cynicism about politics in general. Cynicism = bad. If you find our system goofy, go live in Canada, right? Whatever.
Instead, it's been a 7 year lesson in watching the entire populace (who supposedly took high school civics) look the other direction as the law and basic decency have been put to the curb for expediency.
Worse, possibly, it's ingrained in me a cynicism about party loyalists of any stripe. If folks will believe anything That Guy says, why should I believe anything Our Guy says?
It's sort of left me with the impression that we are not so far away from our silver-back respecting primate cousins. There's a reason that against all logic, we spent 100,000 years erecting kings to live in palaces while we toiled on turnip farms and paid them taxes, believing God himself had selected Our Guy for the job. When push came to shove, if we backed Our Guy and adorned him in jewels and let him kick the crap out of us, maybe when the jerks from the other side of the island showed up to kill us and take our turnips, our belief that Our Guy was the REAL guy (and not THEIR jewel adorned guy, who was so obviously a jerk) God would help us smite our enemies.
And because winners tend to write history, sure, God was on our side.
Despite our proclamations of love for the system, I'm not convinced we're not all secret monarchists at heart, in search of a king (or queen). We choose our candidates by how they support the lifestyle we believe we (and everyone else) should be living. We don't look to candidates to change our ways with new and challenging ideas. Every four years is a chance to crown new royalty, and to feel some small victory when or if the victor is the one who confirms our preconceived notions.
If Our Guy wins, things will be better for everyone. He will protect our turnips. Or at least the way we think turnips should be raised and distributed. If the other guy wins, we'll all be turnipless.
The improvement in the situation is that we have an opportunity to choose which guy we're going to go with on this turnip situation very four harvests.
A bit of personal frustration I find in myself is that I absolutely have knee-jerk reactions, and despite the abundance of information available on candidates and their game plans for the future that I came to a decision so quickly regarding who was My Guy. I found myself rationalizing criticisms of My Guy, and backing shakier criticisms against All Those Other Guys. As it's become Our Guy vs. Their Guy (and Our Guy-1 vs. Their Guy-1), things are starting to get serious.
But I don't take any of the candidates all that seriously. You can't.
I often have no idea if My Guy's plans will work. It's just that My Guy's plans sound more like something I'd do than The Other Guy's plans. When I hear our two candidates talking about their energy plans, is it really that shocking that the solution they came up with matches the preconceived notions of their party faithful? Is the science behind what their saying a legitimate response? Why the @#$% are we asking politicians (of all people) how we should be moving forward with energy solutions? Why aren't we finding out what the facts and science are from someone who doesn't have a political stake in this stuff (such as Ms. Paris Hilton)?
We're looking to our Officially Anointed and Elected Sun Gods to pretend they know how to do everything from run international tariff laws to understanding the complex issues behind our natural resources. Luckily, they gladly fake authority and certainty on such topics, and we go right along with it, mostly because it fulfills the conclusions we've already come to.
I quit talking politics on the site because, honestly, it totally wears me out. I say "red", someone else chimes in to say "blue", someone else says "you don't understand colors, moron", and yet another person says "God only likes blue." And the truth is, we're all right and we're all wrong. We won't ever live in a state of utter hegemony in which we're all moving the same direction and the same solutions work for everyone. (You can try this, but then you're a big, spooky country where people tend to disappear when they disagree.)
The fact is, it's a single vote I'll cast in November. In a state that is massively, proudly Republican, it totally doesn't matter what I think (no matter who I vote for). The arcane and out-dated workings of the electoral college tell me that voting in National Politics is, in fact, pointless. And with the results of the 2000 Election, I'm kind of inclined to think the whole thing is so astonishingly flawed that its going to come down to the fact that we have a Republican-placed Supreme Court, anyway.
It doesn't mean I won't vote. It's just... you know, I'm not completely dumb nor overly illogical. And it sure as hell beats the alternative of not having any say. That's been our lot for the vast, vast majority of human history. And, I don't think too kindly of that particular right being infringed upon.
So I vote more for the ritual of the thing, and because I have hope that one day a vote will actually count for something (we do live in a Republic after all, not a true democracy. But things change.). And that my vote can be a reminder to The Other Guy, if My Guy does lose (and he probably will), that nobody walks into office on a 100% mandate. Anyone taking the Oval Office should remember that almost half the country didn't want to see them in office, and keep that in mind when they start making decisions.
But I'll be dipped if that's what I see actually happen. It's hard to not believe the monkeys howling your name and dropping all those red and blue balloons (all for you!) in those first 100 days. You get to be festooned in jewels and tell the whole country that despite the council's decisions regarding turnip planting, you're not agreeing to plant any turnips until they start growing them and distributing turnips in the way you see fit...
We choose our kings and queens in odd ways and maybe by asking the wrong questions. And certainly by expecting them to be all knowing and seeing with their army of advisors. I don't know what criteria we should be using to make our decisions, but too often we seem to make our decisions based on someone else's checklist. And maybe that's what needs to change a bit.
A quick PS: I am neither for or against Sarah Palin, Joe Biden or anyone else seeking office. I've given Palin a hard time the past few days here at LoM and Steanso's blog. This is not to suggest anything about Palin (other than that probably Photoshopped pics with accompanying taglines are amusing). Here's a hoax link.
I could care less about Sarah Palin or Joe Biden other than their official capacities, and more or less the same about McCain and Obama. If you are in some way related to any of these people and become offended by future links regarding stuff I find funny, then my apologies. Any hang up other readers have regarding the sun god worship of candidates is their own.
I assure you, all of this will get stupider before it gets better.
For folks newer to the site, here's some background:
The site was originally a bit more political. I was deeply dissatisfied with the Bush administration and the push to war in Iraq (do not equate this with a push into Afghanistan or other Al Qaeda related pushes of the day). The American press was rolling over for talking point dispatches, and more than I was bothered by Bush's strategies, I was deeply bothered by the way the press was happy to play along.
I should note, the force singly most responsible for the creation of League of Melbotis is a thought-provoking conservative in his own right. And while he and I could disagree, there was always an opportunity for me to see things from a new angle. I have no idea if he felt the same way, but that was something I could take away from it.
That's really all I ask out of political discussion. Rational discourse. Keep the emotion to a limited degree (I've been known to get pretty hot about certain issues, I confess), and trying not to deny logic in an argument.
I started LoM in the Boogeyman Era of politics, where the call of the day was "If you don't support X, you hate America", "If you don't buy into Y, you hate our troops", "If you don't agree to Z, you hate freedom", and, my favorite "You're trying to appease the terrorists!". No other time in the history of man has the phrase "appease" been bandied about so much.
For me, the end result of the Bush/ Cable News era, sadly, has been a sneering cynicism about politics in general. Cynicism = bad. If you find our system goofy, go live in Canada, right? Whatever.
Instead, it's been a 7 year lesson in watching the entire populace (who supposedly took high school civics) look the other direction as the law and basic decency have been put to the curb for expediency.
Worse, possibly, it's ingrained in me a cynicism about party loyalists of any stripe. If folks will believe anything That Guy says, why should I believe anything Our Guy says?
It's sort of left me with the impression that we are not so far away from our silver-back respecting primate cousins. There's a reason that against all logic, we spent 100,000 years erecting kings to live in palaces while we toiled on turnip farms and paid them taxes, believing God himself had selected Our Guy for the job. When push came to shove, if we backed Our Guy and adorned him in jewels and let him kick the crap out of us, maybe when the jerks from the other side of the island showed up to kill us and take our turnips, our belief that Our Guy was the REAL guy (and not THEIR jewel adorned guy, who was so obviously a jerk) God would help us smite our enemies.
And because winners tend to write history, sure, God was on our side.
Despite our proclamations of love for the system, I'm not convinced we're not all secret monarchists at heart, in search of a king (or queen). We choose our candidates by how they support the lifestyle we believe we (and everyone else) should be living. We don't look to candidates to change our ways with new and challenging ideas. Every four years is a chance to crown new royalty, and to feel some small victory when or if the victor is the one who confirms our preconceived notions.
If Our Guy wins, things will be better for everyone. He will protect our turnips. Or at least the way we think turnips should be raised and distributed. If the other guy wins, we'll all be turnipless.
The improvement in the situation is that we have an opportunity to choose which guy we're going to go with on this turnip situation very four harvests.
A bit of personal frustration I find in myself is that I absolutely have knee-jerk reactions, and despite the abundance of information available on candidates and their game plans for the future that I came to a decision so quickly regarding who was My Guy. I found myself rationalizing criticisms of My Guy, and backing shakier criticisms against All Those Other Guys. As it's become Our Guy vs. Their Guy (and Our Guy-1 vs. Their Guy-1), things are starting to get serious.
But I don't take any of the candidates all that seriously. You can't.
I often have no idea if My Guy's plans will work. It's just that My Guy's plans sound more like something I'd do than The Other Guy's plans. When I hear our two candidates talking about their energy plans, is it really that shocking that the solution they came up with matches the preconceived notions of their party faithful? Is the science behind what their saying a legitimate response? Why the @#$% are we asking politicians (of all people) how we should be moving forward with energy solutions? Why aren't we finding out what the facts and science are from someone who doesn't have a political stake in this stuff (such as Ms. Paris Hilton)?
We're looking to our Officially Anointed and Elected Sun Gods to pretend they know how to do everything from run international tariff laws to understanding the complex issues behind our natural resources. Luckily, they gladly fake authority and certainty on such topics, and we go right along with it, mostly because it fulfills the conclusions we've already come to.
I quit talking politics on the site because, honestly, it totally wears me out. I say "red", someone else chimes in to say "blue", someone else says "you don't understand colors, moron", and yet another person says "God only likes blue." And the truth is, we're all right and we're all wrong. We won't ever live in a state of utter hegemony in which we're all moving the same direction and the same solutions work for everyone. (You can try this, but then you're a big, spooky country where people tend to disappear when they disagree.)
The fact is, it's a single vote I'll cast in November. In a state that is massively, proudly Republican, it totally doesn't matter what I think (no matter who I vote for). The arcane and out-dated workings of the electoral college tell me that voting in National Politics is, in fact, pointless. And with the results of the 2000 Election, I'm kind of inclined to think the whole thing is so astonishingly flawed that its going to come down to the fact that we have a Republican-placed Supreme Court, anyway.
It doesn't mean I won't vote. It's just... you know, I'm not completely dumb nor overly illogical. And it sure as hell beats the alternative of not having any say. That's been our lot for the vast, vast majority of human history. And, I don't think too kindly of that particular right being infringed upon.
So I vote more for the ritual of the thing, and because I have hope that one day a vote will actually count for something (we do live in a Republic after all, not a true democracy. But things change.). And that my vote can be a reminder to The Other Guy, if My Guy does lose (and he probably will), that nobody walks into office on a 100% mandate. Anyone taking the Oval Office should remember that almost half the country didn't want to see them in office, and keep that in mind when they start making decisions.
But I'll be dipped if that's what I see actually happen. It's hard to not believe the monkeys howling your name and dropping all those red and blue balloons (all for you!) in those first 100 days. You get to be festooned in jewels and tell the whole country that despite the council's decisions regarding turnip planting, you're not agreeing to plant any turnips until they start growing them and distributing turnips in the way you see fit...
We choose our kings and queens in odd ways and maybe by asking the wrong questions. And certainly by expecting them to be all knowing and seeing with their army of advisors. I don't know what criteria we should be using to make our decisions, but too often we seem to make our decisions based on someone else's checklist. And maybe that's what needs to change a bit.
A quick PS: I am neither for or against Sarah Palin, Joe Biden or anyone else seeking office. I've given Palin a hard time the past few days here at LoM and Steanso's blog. This is not to suggest anything about Palin (other than that probably Photoshopped pics with accompanying taglines are amusing). Here's a hoax link.
I could care less about Sarah Palin or Joe Biden other than their official capacities, and more or less the same about McCain and Obama. If you are in some way related to any of these people and become offended by future links regarding stuff I find funny, then my apologies. Any hang up other readers have regarding the sun god worship of candidates is their own.
I assure you, all of this will get stupider before it gets better.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Friday, August 01, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Peabo/ Onion/ Al Gore/ Jor-El/ Superman connection
Last fall, Peabo sent me an e-mail regarding his theory on an Al Gore/ Superman/ Jor-El connection. You can go here for Peabo's thoughts.
Well, Mr. Harms made my morning by sending me this article from The Onion. And, later, Jim D sent it as well.
I think The Onion owes Peabo a dollar.
Well, Mr. Harms made my morning by sending me this article from The Onion. And, later, Jim D sent it as well.
I think The Onion owes Peabo a dollar.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Viva La Gorbie!
I have very little idea what these guys are literally saying, but I appreciate the overall message of the video.
As I said to Steven, when he sent me the video, What isn't awesome in this video? That said, its not meant for the eyes of our more sensitive viewers, so please view with discretion.
GORBACHOV: THE MUSIC VIDEO - BIGGER AND RUSSIANER from Tom Stern on Vimeo.
For something of an explanation, go here.
As I said to Steven, when he sent me the video, What isn't awesome in this video? That said, its not meant for the eyes of our more sensitive viewers, so please view with discretion.
GORBACHOV: THE MUSIC VIDEO - BIGGER AND RUSSIANER from Tom Stern on Vimeo.
For something of an explanation, go here.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Vote Harvey Dent
I don't know if you live in Gotham City or not, but with the election cycle heating up, its hard to miss the campaign to make Harvey Dent Gotham's newest District Attorney. I've found the ground swell of support for a man with whom I feel I share so many values to be particularly gratifying.
But... despite the campaign and us fellow Dent supporters partaking in a door-to-door grassroots effort, I still feel like I'd better cover my bases.
If you're thinking of voting (and you should!), you can register to vote online, or register to vote. RIGHT NOW.
Here's the link.
It'd be great if you'd vote for Harvey, but what really matters is that you share your voice in this historic election.
But... despite the campaign and us fellow Dent supporters partaking in a door-to-door grassroots effort, I still feel like I'd better cover my bases.
If you're thinking of voting (and you should!), you can register to vote online, or register to vote. RIGHT NOW.
Here's the link.
It'd be great if you'd vote for Harvey, but what really matters is that you share your voice in this historic election.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Wow. Just... wow.
Democrat who won't vote for Obama because he's a Muslim. Go here.
I am not in favor of any kind of written test in order to be allowed to vote. But, c'mon, America... work with me here.
Democrat who won't vote for Obama because he's a Muslim. Go here.
I am not in favor of any kind of written test in order to be allowed to vote. But, c'mon, America... work with me here.
Superman Red/ Superman Blue
Over the weekend, DC Comics revealed that they are planning a mini-series to be released in the weeks leading up to the very real 2008 presidential election. The series will be entitled "DCU: Decisions".
Here for a Newsarama interview with DCU Editor-in-Chief, Dan Didio.
"Decisions" is supposed to define the political leanings of various folks within the DCU. I assume we'll see some folks pop out exactly as previously defined. Green Arrow as the lefty, Green Lantern as his right-swinging pal. Hawkman coming out as a firm GOP'er. Ambush Bug as a registered Democrat.
See..!
A large part of me wonders about the wisdom of bothering to identify the political leanings of characters from whom you're trying to derive a profit. Had this been the months leading up to the highly devisive 2004 election, I would have felt Didio and Co. had lost their marbles altogether.
Politics are almost always only mentioned in some super-villainous light in super-hero comics. In 2000, Lex Luthor took the Oval Office (with Pete Ross, Superman's boyhood chum, as VP). The story seemed a bit forced, but was mostly intended to put Lex not just completely outside of Superman's grasp as a deputized officer of the law, but to give Lex the one thing he'd always wanted: the adoration of the people/ almost unlimited power.
The story didn't really bounce off of devotees of either side of the aisle too badly as Lex ran as a third party candidate, and pretty much tried to act as President as he had as CEO of LuthorCorp.
It's worth noting that real life events, such as 9-11 and the real-life US's entry into Iraq and Afghanistan, are mentioned mostly in allegory in the comics.
Anyway, Lex left office under less than ideal circumstances. Whether he achieved his goals, foreign and doemstic, seems unlikely.
Unlike Nixon, Lex knew how to leave office with a little panache
Unfortunately, I can't shake the notion that the continuity nutty and emotionally stunted fans of super-hero-dom in comics will handle the series with acomplete lack of the perspective that Didio is assuming that reasonable and mature adults are supposed to keep in mind when discussing politics. I've been on the message boards.
In short, I think that with "Decisions", DC is opening the door for a series that's just going to welcome people to abruptly turn on some of their characters when they find out that, say, Cyborg votes Libertarian. And, in the long run, that's going to cause DC some readers/ dollars.
No matter the intention of the series, people come to politics with a boatload of pre-conceived notions about "the other guys". Even today, as Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama continue the drudgery of the 2008 campaign to clinch the Democratic Nomination, the actual policy differences are fairly limited. Most of the discrepancy is in how each candidate wants to achieve the exact same goals. Yet, right now the Democratic party is suffering major upheavals as the schizm causes silly in-fighting so "our guy" can win instead of "your guy".
Apply that to a system with essentially two parties. Each has significant platform differences and where they DO agree, they might choose vastly different paths for achieving the same outcomes. No big deal, but for those of us who didn't snooze their way through 2001-2004 and how unnecessarily uncivilized it became, I'm foreseeing a lot of unhappiness with readership if these real-life political wedges are driven into their super-heroes. Isn't fighting off Despero enough? Ithat a school voucher issue?
The DC Universe is populated with characters who the reader is supposed to like. Even Ollie Queen (Green Arrow) and his nutty liberalism could be embraced by right-wingers, as Ollie can be a caricature of the beatnik with half-baked ideas. It's not too far off from how conservatives caricature liberals to begin with. Especially a limousine liberal like billionaire Ollie Queen. In the end, everyone can find something to like.
However, most of the characters aren't so well defined, and DC has carefully side-stepped getting in too much political discussion over the years. I had assumed that this tac was taken so that anyone could just assume that the hero(es) they've chosen to follow might fall in with their own basic set of beliefs. All are do-gooders, all lend a helping hand to those who need it, just as most folks would like to believe they would. If they had heat-vision.
This isn't necessarily limited to comics. When one considers the characters on TV, how often does one think about the political affiliations of their favorite sitcom characters? The characters may occasionally express some political notions, but the characters are usually portrayed as center of the road quite intentionally, so as to keep the viewership within a large tent and ensure the show reaches all kinds of audiences.
Defining, say, Aquaman, as a member of the Democrats may surprise right-leaning readers who had otherwise not given the matter much thought (I have no idea what party Aquaman would throw in with. He'd be a nut for environmental matters, but as a monarch... well... it just seems that he wouldn't buy much into all this voting business, anyway.). Why give your audience an opportunity to suddenly question their own loyalty to a character? Especially these days, when loyalty is largely what's keeping the DCU afloat.
Further, why take the opportunity to further define and explore the characters away from writers/ editors/ etc... who will handle the character in the future? Writers are not without their own biases. If I, as a writer, believe that all GOPers think Alaska serves no purpose but as a place to drill for oil, and Red Tornado has been cast as a Republican, can I write a story about Reddy fighting off evil corporate merchants hellbent on destroying the Alaskan wilderness for fun and profit?
My hope is that the "Decisions" series will explore the heroes while keeping the discussion open ended and friendly, just as its often fascinating to learn more about your own friends of all different political stripes. Part of why I became a DC fan was that, as I became an adult and found myself in the workplace, I recognized the JLA, the JSA, and the partnership between Batman and Superman for what it was... people putting aside their differences, and even their motivations, to work toward a common cause. Where Marvel's FF had unbreakable family bonds and a cosmic accident which forged their team, the JLA had only their intentions and good-will to pull them together. Where the X-Men were a team of folks banding together to fight a common cause by accident of their birth (which I still see as a great set-up), the JSA pulled together, at least initially, as a domestic front to battle our WWII enemies. That dynamic, which reflected a friendly working relationship was easier for me to identify with than the Steans Clan being bathed in cosmic rays, and JLA became something I could relate to.
If the "Decisions" series is complex enough, if it takes the time to explore and appreciate nuance... then there's a place for this series beyond the shrill point-counterpoint of the cable news networks and their talking heads. Do I think DC can actually pull that off...?
I have my doubts. It a 4-issue series with two writers which Didio has promised have diametrically opposing viewpoints. Part of my wariness may be taste, given the two writers they've listed. Neither of whom I particularly trust.
Right now, I'm also not ready for DC's PR push on this one and the inevitable, attention getting headlines during an election year: "Wonder Woman a LaRouche Democrat?"
Yurgh.
Last year, Marvel's epic "Civil War" painted a picture of government obedience for masked vigilantes. Some have accused the DCU of following suit with a devisive topic, but I never felt that Marvel's "analogy" really worked. After all, it seems unlikely that in any universe that laws would not be passed managing crime-fighting. Or that crime-fighting without a license of some sort wouldn't be looked upon a bit suspiciously by law-enforcement and the citizenry alike. If the analogy was supposed to be about getting on-board because the government says so, they needed something a bit trickier than the story they presented. And it's possible that "Decisions" will be all too concrete and preachy.
Mostly, I worry about defining any of DC's Big 3 (Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman) in any political light. As law-eforcing (and somewhat abiding) do-gooders, one could paint the characters either way. And, in my opinion, part of the attraction of such larger-than-life figures is that all 3 characters have well-developed personalities, given the current writing, and the writers (and fans) would have an idea as to the opinions of the Trinity on any given topic. But rather than discuss those topics, the characters can express their beliefs through their actions, staying above the petty squabbling of political discourse. After all, none of the three ever stopped to ask a politicians to take on crime, social injustice, etc... They've always simply acted where others have not. That's the ideal for the costumed, crime-fighting, super-hero, anyway. Respecting the law while always being forced to live just outside of it in order to do what others cannot.
To complicate matters, many superheroes, especially Batman and Superman, were born out of the issues and circumstances of the Depression, with a huge dose of the idealism that comes with youth (Siegel and Shuster were in their mid-20's when Superman hit the stands for the first time. As were Bob Kane and Bill Finger when Batman first appeared.). Crime was rampant, families still fought poverty, and the world was in a precarious political position. However, in the post WWII years, and thanks to editorial codes, increased marketing, and various other influences, Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman each changed greatly. Just as they would again and again, reflecting the time and place in which they were written.
I have my personal opinions. And occasionally you'll see them in print here at The League. I also see how certain characters are defined by their actions and how they've been written for years. And I'm comfortable with that. I also believe in followong one of the basic rules of writing a narrative: show, don't tell. "DCU Decisions" seems to be doing exactly the opposite of all that.
And, honestly, having my opinions of each character's political leanings hasn't ever taken away my enjoyment of the comics.
I personally don't talk politics here because I believe in a big tent, just like those sit-com producers. But, like the JLA, I also think most folks who come to The League can agree on end results, if not the way we get there. And when we can't agree on those end-results, on what we really, really want.... well, hopefully we can hear each other well enough to agree to disagree and move on. Nothing that can't be smoothed out on with a good sit on the back porch with a drink.
After all, just as Supermans Red and Blue learned... there are two ways to do everything, and when they work together... they end all crime, solve all social injustice, and each get a girl of their dreams.
Leaguers... behold. Two sides, working together: Superman Red/ Superman Blue
Make of that what you will.
Here for a Newsarama interview with DCU Editor-in-Chief, Dan Didio.
"Decisions" is supposed to define the political leanings of various folks within the DCU. I assume we'll see some folks pop out exactly as previously defined. Green Arrow as the lefty, Green Lantern as his right-swinging pal. Hawkman coming out as a firm GOP'er. Ambush Bug as a registered Democrat.
See..!
A large part of me wonders about the wisdom of bothering to identify the political leanings of characters from whom you're trying to derive a profit. Had this been the months leading up to the highly devisive 2004 election, I would have felt Didio and Co. had lost their marbles altogether.
Politics are almost always only mentioned in some super-villainous light in super-hero comics. In 2000, Lex Luthor took the Oval Office (with Pete Ross, Superman's boyhood chum, as VP). The story seemed a bit forced, but was mostly intended to put Lex not just completely outside of Superman's grasp as a deputized officer of the law, but to give Lex the one thing he'd always wanted: the adoration of the people/ almost unlimited power.
The story didn't really bounce off of devotees of either side of the aisle too badly as Lex ran as a third party candidate, and pretty much tried to act as President as he had as CEO of LuthorCorp.
It's worth noting that real life events, such as 9-11 and the real-life US's entry into Iraq and Afghanistan, are mentioned mostly in allegory in the comics.
Anyway, Lex left office under less than ideal circumstances. Whether he achieved his goals, foreign and doemstic, seems unlikely.
Unlike Nixon, Lex knew how to leave office with a little panache
Unfortunately, I can't shake the notion that the continuity nutty and emotionally stunted fans of super-hero-dom in comics will handle the series with acomplete lack of the perspective that Didio is assuming that reasonable and mature adults are supposed to keep in mind when discussing politics. I've been on the message boards.
In short, I think that with "Decisions", DC is opening the door for a series that's just going to welcome people to abruptly turn on some of their characters when they find out that, say, Cyborg votes Libertarian. And, in the long run, that's going to cause DC some readers/ dollars.
No matter the intention of the series, people come to politics with a boatload of pre-conceived notions about "the other guys". Even today, as Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama continue the drudgery of the 2008 campaign to clinch the Democratic Nomination, the actual policy differences are fairly limited. Most of the discrepancy is in how each candidate wants to achieve the exact same goals. Yet, right now the Democratic party is suffering major upheavals as the schizm causes silly in-fighting so "our guy" can win instead of "your guy".
Apply that to a system with essentially two parties. Each has significant platform differences and where they DO agree, they might choose vastly different paths for achieving the same outcomes. No big deal, but for those of us who didn't snooze their way through 2001-2004 and how unnecessarily uncivilized it became, I'm foreseeing a lot of unhappiness with readership if these real-life political wedges are driven into their super-heroes. Isn't fighting off Despero enough? Ithat a school voucher issue?
The DC Universe is populated with characters who the reader is supposed to like. Even Ollie Queen (Green Arrow) and his nutty liberalism could be embraced by right-wingers, as Ollie can be a caricature of the beatnik with half-baked ideas. It's not too far off from how conservatives caricature liberals to begin with. Especially a limousine liberal like billionaire Ollie Queen. In the end, everyone can find something to like.
However, most of the characters aren't so well defined, and DC has carefully side-stepped getting in too much political discussion over the years. I had assumed that this tac was taken so that anyone could just assume that the hero(es) they've chosen to follow might fall in with their own basic set of beliefs. All are do-gooders, all lend a helping hand to those who need it, just as most folks would like to believe they would. If they had heat-vision.
This isn't necessarily limited to comics. When one considers the characters on TV, how often does one think about the political affiliations of their favorite sitcom characters? The characters may occasionally express some political notions, but the characters are usually portrayed as center of the road quite intentionally, so as to keep the viewership within a large tent and ensure the show reaches all kinds of audiences.
Defining, say, Aquaman, as a member of the Democrats may surprise right-leaning readers who had otherwise not given the matter much thought (I have no idea what party Aquaman would throw in with. He'd be a nut for environmental matters, but as a monarch... well... it just seems that he wouldn't buy much into all this voting business, anyway.). Why give your audience an opportunity to suddenly question their own loyalty to a character? Especially these days, when loyalty is largely what's keeping the DCU afloat.
Further, why take the opportunity to further define and explore the characters away from writers/ editors/ etc... who will handle the character in the future? Writers are not without their own biases. If I, as a writer, believe that all GOPers think Alaska serves no purpose but as a place to drill for oil, and Red Tornado has been cast as a Republican, can I write a story about Reddy fighting off evil corporate merchants hellbent on destroying the Alaskan wilderness for fun and profit?
My hope is that the "Decisions" series will explore the heroes while keeping the discussion open ended and friendly, just as its often fascinating to learn more about your own friends of all different political stripes. Part of why I became a DC fan was that, as I became an adult and found myself in the workplace, I recognized the JLA, the JSA, and the partnership between Batman and Superman for what it was... people putting aside their differences, and even their motivations, to work toward a common cause. Where Marvel's FF had unbreakable family bonds and a cosmic accident which forged their team, the JLA had only their intentions and good-will to pull them together. Where the X-Men were a team of folks banding together to fight a common cause by accident of their birth (which I still see as a great set-up), the JSA pulled together, at least initially, as a domestic front to battle our WWII enemies. That dynamic, which reflected a friendly working relationship was easier for me to identify with than the Steans Clan being bathed in cosmic rays, and JLA became something I could relate to.
If the "Decisions" series is complex enough, if it takes the time to explore and appreciate nuance... then there's a place for this series beyond the shrill point-counterpoint of the cable news networks and their talking heads. Do I think DC can actually pull that off...?
I have my doubts. It a 4-issue series with two writers which Didio has promised have diametrically opposing viewpoints. Part of my wariness may be taste, given the two writers they've listed. Neither of whom I particularly trust.
Right now, I'm also not ready for DC's PR push on this one and the inevitable, attention getting headlines during an election year: "Wonder Woman a LaRouche Democrat?"
Yurgh.
Last year, Marvel's epic "Civil War" painted a picture of government obedience for masked vigilantes. Some have accused the DCU of following suit with a devisive topic, but I never felt that Marvel's "analogy" really worked. After all, it seems unlikely that in any universe that laws would not be passed managing crime-fighting. Or that crime-fighting without a license of some sort wouldn't be looked upon a bit suspiciously by law-enforcement and the citizenry alike. If the analogy was supposed to be about getting on-board because the government says so, they needed something a bit trickier than the story they presented. And it's possible that "Decisions" will be all too concrete and preachy.
Mostly, I worry about defining any of DC's Big 3 (Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman) in any political light. As law-eforcing (and somewhat abiding) do-gooders, one could paint the characters either way. And, in my opinion, part of the attraction of such larger-than-life figures is that all 3 characters have well-developed personalities, given the current writing, and the writers (and fans) would have an idea as to the opinions of the Trinity on any given topic. But rather than discuss those topics, the characters can express their beliefs through their actions, staying above the petty squabbling of political discourse. After all, none of the three ever stopped to ask a politicians to take on crime, social injustice, etc... They've always simply acted where others have not. That's the ideal for the costumed, crime-fighting, super-hero, anyway. Respecting the law while always being forced to live just outside of it in order to do what others cannot.
To complicate matters, many superheroes, especially Batman and Superman, were born out of the issues and circumstances of the Depression, with a huge dose of the idealism that comes with youth (Siegel and Shuster were in their mid-20's when Superman hit the stands for the first time. As were Bob Kane and Bill Finger when Batman first appeared.). Crime was rampant, families still fought poverty, and the world was in a precarious political position. However, in the post WWII years, and thanks to editorial codes, increased marketing, and various other influences, Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman each changed greatly. Just as they would again and again, reflecting the time and place in which they were written.
I have my personal opinions. And occasionally you'll see them in print here at The League. I also see how certain characters are defined by their actions and how they've been written for years. And I'm comfortable with that. I also believe in followong one of the basic rules of writing a narrative: show, don't tell. "DCU Decisions" seems to be doing exactly the opposite of all that.
And, honestly, having my opinions of each character's political leanings hasn't ever taken away my enjoyment of the comics.
I personally don't talk politics here because I believe in a big tent, just like those sit-com producers. But, like the JLA, I also think most folks who come to The League can agree on end results, if not the way we get there. And when we can't agree on those end-results, on what we really, really want.... well, hopefully we can hear each other well enough to agree to disagree and move on. Nothing that can't be smoothed out on with a good sit on the back porch with a drink.
After all, just as Supermans Red and Blue learned... there are two ways to do everything, and when they work together... they end all crime, solve all social injustice, and each get a girl of their dreams.
Leaguers... behold. Two sides, working together: Superman Red/ Superman Blue
Make of that what you will.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Voting in Austin
I'm getting geared up to vote for 3 city council seats here in Austin. As skeptical as I might feel about my ability to influence the November elections for President (the Republicans could put up a pelican for Prez, and Texas would still vote GOP), I DO think my vote counts when it comes to local politics.
But local politics are just as complicated as national, in some ways. I have some things I firmly believe will and will not work for Austin today and looking 10, 20, 30, 100 years in the future. So I'm looking for candidates who share my ideals.
And given the nature of the issues, there's a lot of splitting hairs. We all agree that Austin's traffic is a mess, but how do you solve that? We all know Austin will continue to grow, so how do you manage that? We need to protect the environment in Austin, but how do you enforce that or get industry and individuals to play along because they feel its the right thing to do?
Here's one of my challenges: Jennifer Kim made a pretty big PR flub trying to bypass airport security last year, flashing her City Council credentials, and I haven't always loved interviews I've seen on News 8. But I also think, from reading her site, that she's learned a lot. But I also think Randi Shade seems like a right-on kind of candidate. But I'm not sure, exactly how she'll vote, partly because her website seems a bit unclear other than "I think Austin should have a great future".
And then there's a third candidate for place 3, Ken Weiss. And, seriously, I have no idea what this fellow is up to.
For a bit of compare and contrast.
Jennifer Kim's informative, well-managed site. Here.
Randi Shade's well-designed, but somewhat ambiguous site. Here.
Ken Weiss's website based around begging for money. Here.
He sort of makes me wonder how far I could get raising money for a campaign I couldn't possibly win. What are the rules for how you spend that money once the campaign is over with? Can you keep it? Because if you get to keep it...
I'm just sayin'...
Anyhow, I'm not going to run for city council this year. Maybe one day. It seems better than working.
But, really, if any of them would agree to refuse to allow anymore damn skyscraper condos from going up, they'd get my vote. I don't really how crazy the rest of their policies are.
Now, off to read up on the candidates for the other two seats.
Oh, if you have a good reason why I should vote for Jennifer Kim or Randi Shade, let me know.
But local politics are just as complicated as national, in some ways. I have some things I firmly believe will and will not work for Austin today and looking 10, 20, 30, 100 years in the future. So I'm looking for candidates who share my ideals.
And given the nature of the issues, there's a lot of splitting hairs. We all agree that Austin's traffic is a mess, but how do you solve that? We all know Austin will continue to grow, so how do you manage that? We need to protect the environment in Austin, but how do you enforce that or get industry and individuals to play along because they feel its the right thing to do?
Here's one of my challenges: Jennifer Kim made a pretty big PR flub trying to bypass airport security last year, flashing her City Council credentials, and I haven't always loved interviews I've seen on News 8. But I also think, from reading her site, that she's learned a lot. But I also think Randi Shade seems like a right-on kind of candidate. But I'm not sure, exactly how she'll vote, partly because her website seems a bit unclear other than "I think Austin should have a great future".
And then there's a third candidate for place 3, Ken Weiss. And, seriously, I have no idea what this fellow is up to.
For a bit of compare and contrast.
Jennifer Kim's informative, well-managed site. Here.
Randi Shade's well-designed, but somewhat ambiguous site. Here.
Ken Weiss's website based around begging for money. Here.
He sort of makes me wonder how far I could get raising money for a campaign I couldn't possibly win. What are the rules for how you spend that money once the campaign is over with? Can you keep it? Because if you get to keep it...
I'm just sayin'...
Anyhow, I'm not going to run for city council this year. Maybe one day. It seems better than working.
But, really, if any of them would agree to refuse to allow anymore damn skyscraper condos from going up, they'd get my vote. I don't really how crazy the rest of their policies are.
Now, off to read up on the candidates for the other two seats.
Oh, if you have a good reason why I should vote for Jennifer Kim or Randi Shade, let me know.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Stand by your man...?
League pal and houseguest, Nicole and I wound up discussing the Elliot Spitzer debacle in the New York governor's offices over the past two nights or so. Like most, neither of us are surprised that a powerful official was spending inordinate amounts of money on hookers (I am trying to imagine a scenario in which someone would pay $4000 for an evening with The League, and, ya'll... I find myself feeling inadequate).
We've also become familiar with the wife of said scandalized officials coming to the pdoium to stand by their man in their hour of shame. To some extent, we're all familiar with the script.
What Nicole pointed out is that these spouses always/ often dress in a sensible Chanel suit. In some cases, virtually identical Chanel suits.
Above: Ex-New Jersey Governor James E. McGreevey and wife Dina. Below: Eliot Spitzer and Silda Spitzer
A little weird, no?
Husband looking serious in dark, somber suit? Wife in sensible, cheery looking suit like one might wear to a fund raiser, but not necessarily to work. Plus the pearls, as Nicole mentioned. You must have the pearls. Heck, Hillary Clinton's been wearing them out of habit on and off for years.
How many other grown women do you see wearing pearls? Who aren't visiting church from the old folks' home?
I imagine it's part of the script for the political handlers trying to manage the catastrophe.
Step 1) Must obtain suit. Nothing too flashy, but must exude class and confidence. And money. Money is good. But not too much money.
Step 2) Wife should look reserved, and to remind the press the spouse is a mother, have her add pearls.
Step 3) Get the funeral suit out for the deposed politician. He can look stately and somewhat dignified in deep navy jacket and power tie as he fesses up to a weakness for $4000 hookers, young male interns, what have you...
Honestly, I have no evidence to suggest this, but I kind of suspect most people feel the same about the private lives of elected officials as they do about celebrities. The quarterly outing of some politician for sex/drugs/murder/what-have-you and the circus that follows is usually forgotten in a month or two, and business proceeds as usual. It isn't going to affect your taxes, so... really...
Personally, I sort of assume that powerful people with yes-men surrounding them forget that they're doing something they shouldn't when they take a few liberties with their personal lives.
Far more mysterious to me (and to Nicole, in our discussion) are the wives who stand beside their husbands. I suppose there's political pressure to do so from handlers making suggestions when it seems your world is sort of being sucked into a deep, black well. There can be light at the end of the tunnel. Hillary put up with that business all the time, and, hey, look, that turned out pretty well for her...
After all, at some point, you're hitching yourself to someone else's wagon when you fall in with a politician, etc... You're making that conscious decision to go along for the ride, and enjoy the fruits of what sitting in the Governor's mansion might bring you. So perhaps there's the unenviable task of having to also stand by the guy's side when the moron philanderer gets taken down.
These wives can't be completely oblivious to the stereotypes of the politician running around with other women. I suppose you trust your spouse and all, but...
Sometimes I wonder if the strain is coming from shock or if its coming from the many, many times the wives looked the other way and now its all coming out, and nobody ends up looking great.
At least you'll get a sort of Jackie-O looking dress out of it, perhaps purchased by the party (a small price to pay if things go okay, right?).
Perhaps in coming years as more women enter the political arena there's going to be husbands in pearls and a sensible suit from Chanel standing distraught beside their wives as the wives fess up to their "relationship" with some gigolo. Honestly, I can't wait for that day. On that day I'll know that the sexes have found true, disappointing equality.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
why does saying "caucus" make me giggle?
Well, I don't think this will be too shocking to know I voted Democrat in the Texas primary. Which means I also got off my duff and went to my local polling place for the caucus this evening.
We showed up about 6:50ish, and wandered into a fairly crowded room. We were to begin caucusing after the polls officially closed. Not when they closed the doors at 7:00, but after the people running the poll down the hall decided they were done. So from 7:00 until 7:30, the room filled. And filled. And filled.
Apparently the last time they did this, they had around a dozen people show up. I think we had, and this is sort of a guess... but I would guess around 500 people in the room. It was hot and sweaty.
I had the passing thought about leaving. I was pretty sure my vote wasn't going to matter much in the grand scheme of things. But then I thought... Hey, I like me some democracy. I thought about the stories of people in other countries who get shot at on their way to vote, and who die for voting, and, well.. standing in a crowded room next to an annoying girl didn't seem like such a big deal.
So I caucused. Tee hee!
And while I am not sure my political apathy is completely gone, it seems voters in Travis County district 355 are all about the Democracy. And the chance to vote twice. Legally.
Anyway, I will be curious to see the results in the morning, or whenever they shake out. Apparently Texas is still too close to call.
We showed up about 6:50ish, and wandered into a fairly crowded room. We were to begin caucusing after the polls officially closed. Not when they closed the doors at 7:00, but after the people running the poll down the hall decided they were done. So from 7:00 until 7:30, the room filled. And filled. And filled.
Apparently the last time they did this, they had around a dozen people show up. I think we had, and this is sort of a guess... but I would guess around 500 people in the room. It was hot and sweaty.
I had the passing thought about leaving. I was pretty sure my vote wasn't going to matter much in the grand scheme of things. But then I thought... Hey, I like me some democracy. I thought about the stories of people in other countries who get shot at on their way to vote, and who die for voting, and, well.. standing in a crowded room next to an annoying girl didn't seem like such a big deal.
So I caucused. Tee hee!
And while I am not sure my political apathy is completely gone, it seems voters in Travis County district 355 are all about the Democracy. And the chance to vote twice. Legally.
Anyway, I will be curious to see the results in the morning, or whenever they shake out. Apparently Texas is still too close to call.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Clinton/ Obama debate
I watched my first debate of the political season this year, tuning in to the Clinton/ Obama debate.
The debate was in Austin, about a mile from my office, and Jason and Jamie made me watch it instead of watching basketball or something involving Superman.
I haven't read any post-game analysis yet, but a few things are pretty obvious to me. Both front-runners for the Democrats hold very similar viewpoints, and its going to come down to how you think they should go about approaching their goals rather than what goals they're considering in order to make a selection. This means that you're talking a few degrees of separation in policy the two are advocating. Which means a lot is going to come down to a gut or emotional reaction to the two.
Congrats to both candidates for, at no time, attempting an awkward "howdy, ya'll!"
Both agreed on the basics of getting the uninsured insured, border fences (and I wasn't particularly blown away by either candidates' approach on that one), major points on Iraq and that George Bush has dug a hole they believe they're going to have to climb out of.
So, once again, you're left with a gut reaction. While Obama lacks national-stage political experience, its tough to point to Clinton's national-stage political experience without noting on whose coattails she rode to get there. Both have worked on legislation which is appealing to a lefty like myself. Both have voted for some things that leave me unimpressed.
Them's the brakes.
So left to gut feelings about twenty years of Bush/ Clinton rule of the White House, its appealing to want to go to the unknown factor. But I'm not sure Obama has the political experience or clout to move things through, just as I'm not sure that a Clinton in the White House wouldn't re-mobilize the GOP and make sure Clinton was unable to pass a single initiative in four years. No one is sure what would happen with Obama in the White House. He could start dressing as a crazed Admiral and firing cannons from the roof of the White House for all I know.
I'll tell you one thing that drives me berserk about Clinton: The smirk
I'm not sure why nobody has not spoken to Clinton about this, but sitting next to your opponent and smirking while he answers is really... unbecoming. It's kind of like the "heh, heh, heh!" that Bush has become famous for. Or Gore's wandering around the stage during the debates.
Anyhow, I can't tell if she's thinking "I've got this sucker on the ropes", if that's some nervous tick, or if she's remembering last night's episode of Venture Bros. But, seriously... Senator Clinton. I implore you. Stop it.
Now, while waiting for Clinton to finish her thoughts, Obama does this weird "I'm a Vulcan" bit, where he presses his fingers together and tries to look serene. Not annoying, but... I guess it's inappropriate to be texting friends or playing with the cover-flow feature on your iPod when your opponent is speaking. I'm fairly ADD, so I know in either of their places, I'd be making faces or, when the moderator wanted me to respond, I'd say "Wha-...? Can you repeat that whole last thing you just said?" and then go off on a tangent about a jet-pack in every household.
Otherwise, I thought both did a great job, even when I didn't necessarily agree with them.
I didn't hear much on education aside from some perfunctory opening statements.
I guess I'd now be willing to watch McCain and Huckabee debate, but I'm not sure there's a point until McCain is up against his Democratic opponent later this year.
I'd also like to salute them for their basic collegiality. There weren't any low-blows. The one moment where Hilary took a dig at Obama, I sort of felt fell back into karmic balance when she alluded to Bill's indiscretions. I grew to really, really dislike the political process during the past few years, and last night's debate made me feel a wee bit better about the whole thing.
We'll see what happens when it gets down to the GOP/ Dem debates, but I believe McCain is basically sane and decent, even when I disagree with the guy. So I'm not foreseeing anything too ugly. And, hey... I could be convinced. Let's see what McCain's got.
The debate was in Austin, about a mile from my office, and Jason and Jamie made me watch it instead of watching basketball or something involving Superman.
I haven't read any post-game analysis yet, but a few things are pretty obvious to me. Both front-runners for the Democrats hold very similar viewpoints, and its going to come down to how you think they should go about approaching their goals rather than what goals they're considering in order to make a selection. This means that you're talking a few degrees of separation in policy the two are advocating. Which means a lot is going to come down to a gut or emotional reaction to the two.
Congrats to both candidates for, at no time, attempting an awkward "howdy, ya'll!"
Both agreed on the basics of getting the uninsured insured, border fences (and I wasn't particularly blown away by either candidates' approach on that one), major points on Iraq and that George Bush has dug a hole they believe they're going to have to climb out of.
So, once again, you're left with a gut reaction. While Obama lacks national-stage political experience, its tough to point to Clinton's national-stage political experience without noting on whose coattails she rode to get there. Both have worked on legislation which is appealing to a lefty like myself. Both have voted for some things that leave me unimpressed.
Them's the brakes.
So left to gut feelings about twenty years of Bush/ Clinton rule of the White House, its appealing to want to go to the unknown factor. But I'm not sure Obama has the political experience or clout to move things through, just as I'm not sure that a Clinton in the White House wouldn't re-mobilize the GOP and make sure Clinton was unable to pass a single initiative in four years. No one is sure what would happen with Obama in the White House. He could start dressing as a crazed Admiral and firing cannons from the roof of the White House for all I know.
I'll tell you one thing that drives me berserk about Clinton: The smirk
I'm not sure why nobody has not spoken to Clinton about this, but sitting next to your opponent and smirking while he answers is really... unbecoming. It's kind of like the "heh, heh, heh!" that Bush has become famous for. Or Gore's wandering around the stage during the debates.
Anyhow, I can't tell if she's thinking "I've got this sucker on the ropes", if that's some nervous tick, or if she's remembering last night's episode of Venture Bros. But, seriously... Senator Clinton. I implore you. Stop it.
Now, while waiting for Clinton to finish her thoughts, Obama does this weird "I'm a Vulcan" bit, where he presses his fingers together and tries to look serene. Not annoying, but... I guess it's inappropriate to be texting friends or playing with the cover-flow feature on your iPod when your opponent is speaking. I'm fairly ADD, so I know in either of their places, I'd be making faces or, when the moderator wanted me to respond, I'd say "Wha-...? Can you repeat that whole last thing you just said?" and then go off on a tangent about a jet-pack in every household.
Otherwise, I thought both did a great job, even when I didn't necessarily agree with them.
I didn't hear much on education aside from some perfunctory opening statements.
I guess I'd now be willing to watch McCain and Huckabee debate, but I'm not sure there's a point until McCain is up against his Democratic opponent later this year.
I'd also like to salute them for their basic collegiality. There weren't any low-blows. The one moment where Hilary took a dig at Obama, I sort of felt fell back into karmic balance when she alluded to Bill's indiscretions. I grew to really, really dislike the political process during the past few years, and last night's debate made me feel a wee bit better about the whole thing.
We'll see what happens when it gets down to the GOP/ Dem debates, but I believe McCain is basically sane and decent, even when I disagree with the guy. So I'm not foreseeing anything too ugly. And, hey... I could be convinced. Let's see what McCain's got.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Stray thought of the day - 02/11
I still have to pause and remember that Obama is Obama's last name. It still sounds to me like a first name. I think it's the fact that it ends with a long "a" sound, whereas his first name sounds like a last name, ending with a hard consonant.
Apparently in high school, he went by "Barry".
Also, Mike Huckabee is still hilarious. Watching him on the Colbert Report using Texas as a piece in air hockey was somehow deeply satisfying and said more about our process than I think was intended.
Apparently in high school, he went by "Barry".
Also, Mike Huckabee is still hilarious. Watching him on the Colbert Report using Texas as a piece in air hockey was somehow deeply satisfying and said more about our process than I think was intended.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Super Tuesday
Still undecided going into the primaries? How can you make it a SUPER Tuesday?
The League has selected a candidate based on his support of The Man of Steel.
Until McCain, Romney, Paul, Clinton, Huckabee or someone else shows support for the Last Son of Krypton, Obama is our man.
Of course, I can't vote until March, so all the candidates have an opportunity to pick a superhero between now and March.
Who would each of the candidates pick to represent them?
You tell me!
The League has selected a candidate based on his support of The Man of Steel.
Until McCain, Romney, Paul, Clinton, Huckabee or someone else shows support for the Last Son of Krypton, Obama is our man.
Of course, I can't vote until March, so all the candidates have an opportunity to pick a superhero between now and March.
Who would each of the candidates pick to represent them?
You tell me!
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Oh no
The least fortunate part of politicking has now arrived in Texas.
I just saw my first televised campaign ad of the 2008 presidential race. God bless each and every one of you living in states where you've already slogged through a primary.
The ad was a fairly simple ad for Mike Huckabee (I'm going to nail the "out of business" sign on the IRS. Perhaps you've seen it?)
It was on during the first bit of pre-Superbowl broadcast I flipped to this morning, and I am wondering if the campaigns can actually afford Superbowl time. After all, the campigns aren't selling cheap, watery beer or powerful trucks. How much advertising can they afford?
Anyhooo.... so it begins. And will end in November, I suppose.
Hooray for my DVR and my ability to FFWD thru the commercials.
I just saw my first televised campaign ad of the 2008 presidential race. God bless each and every one of you living in states where you've already slogged through a primary.
The ad was a fairly simple ad for Mike Huckabee (I'm going to nail the "out of business" sign on the IRS. Perhaps you've seen it?)
It was on during the first bit of pre-Superbowl broadcast I flipped to this morning, and I am wondering if the campaigns can actually afford Superbowl time. After all, the campigns aren't selling cheap, watery beer or powerful trucks. How much advertising can they afford?
Anyhooo.... so it begins. And will end in November, I suppose.
Hooray for my DVR and my ability to FFWD thru the commercials.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)