Are they keeping this stat? How many times has Eli Manning followed an "Unstoppable Eli Manning Eco-Drive" commercial with an interception or a sack?
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Ho Ho Ho
I'm Jewish, and I've been fortunate to learn about Christmas from wonderful friends, who welcome me into their celebrations, teach me about their faith beyond the popular public stereotypes, and understand a little better how gentle and kind the holiday can be.
In fact, from what I've been able to gather, the phrase, "final clearance" doesn't even appear in the Gospels. Nor do they mention the Beverly Center's "Hunky Santa and the Candy Cane Girls". The report is courtesy of the Los Angeles Times, or more specifically, from their "Health." (I know, I know, strip-aerobics is an exercise thing, I'm a prude, yadda yadda.)
Maybe I'm being offended on behalf of my friends, and maybe they're not offended at all. It's just that, it's one thing to try to make every last dime on the holiday; it's another thing entirely to turn a sacred celebration into a festival of soft porn.
And I can tell you this: if they were pushing "Passover Pin-Ups," I'd be picketing.
Crawling Toward Oblivion
To the Cable News and Sports Networks:
To tell a story, you have to make choices. Every day, at every moment in the world, there’s an infinite number of stories are taking place.
The human brain can process, give or take, about 1 story at a time.
If you decide to simply fling at me all the pieces of “information” you’ve got at once, I’ll end up with a bunch of unrelated bits swimming randomly in my head. And I'll be no more aware or informed than I was before switching on your circus.
To tell a story well, you have to focus on that story.
Most of us have made the concession that, okay, you’ve resolved to run a crawl at the bottom of the screen. So that, while you’re doing a story about pandas, the bottom of the screen will tell us about a severe winter storm in the Ural Mountains.
But, at least, you could make the decision that some stories don’t belong on the crawl. And that some stories that you cover shouldn’t have a crawl beneath them.
Somehow, watching your coverage of the Mumbai (Bombay) terrorist attacks, and the suffering and the destruction, as it was happening, I felt that perhaps at a moment like this, I don’t need to know who is BFF with Lindsay Lohan.
To tell a story, you have to make choices. Every day, at every moment in the world, there’s an infinite number of stories are taking place.
The human brain can process, give or take, about 1 story at a time.
If you decide to simply fling at me all the pieces of “information” you’ve got at once, I’ll end up with a bunch of unrelated bits swimming randomly in my head. And I'll be no more aware or informed than I was before switching on your circus.
To tell a story well, you have to focus on that story.
Most of us have made the concession that, okay, you’ve resolved to run a crawl at the bottom of the screen. So that, while you’re doing a story about pandas, the bottom of the screen will tell us about a severe winter storm in the Ural Mountains.
But, at least, you could make the decision that some stories don’t belong on the crawl. And that some stories that you cover shouldn’t have a crawl beneath them.
Somehow, watching your coverage of the Mumbai (Bombay) terrorist attacks, and the suffering and the destruction, as it was happening, I felt that perhaps at a moment like this, I don’t need to know who is BFF with Lindsay Lohan.
Perhaps, I don’t need to know which pro athlete has been offered a three year extension on his contract, or which Las Vegas venue will host a special episode of a TV show. Yet, I saw such stories rolling over and over again at the bottom of your terrorism coverage.
How you cover stories, what you cover, and what you emphasize, are the three most important factors in establishing who you are as a news network, and whether you perform a valuable service to society. If you can’t make these choices, you’re no better than the randomness of the Internet world.
About 20 years ago, Andy Rooney wrote, about the dismantling of his company’s news operation, "CBS, which used to stand for the Columbia Broadcasting System, no longer stands for anything." How about you?
How you cover stories, what you cover, and what you emphasize, are the three most important factors in establishing who you are as a news network, and whether you perform a valuable service to society. If you can’t make these choices, you’re no better than the randomness of the Internet world.
About 20 years ago, Andy Rooney wrote, about the dismantling of his company’s news operation, "CBS, which used to stand for the Columbia Broadcasting System, no longer stands for anything." How about you?
Not I, Said the Duck
It’s in the back of your mind. Something else is still bothering you about these hundreds of billions of dollars going to banks, car companies, or anyone else. It’s not the greed, or the mismanagement, or the smug attitude of the suits coming to pick up bales of bailout money.
It’s not the spa retreats, the ruining of pension plans, or the uncertainty that all this bailout money will achieve its intended purpose. It’s not even the fact that, already, we don’t know where the first couple hundred billion went.
Nope. The thing we don’t talk about is, these companies hire large staffs of tax lawyers and accountants, who spend every waking moment trying to figure out how to pay the fewest possible dollars in taxes.
In the case of the car companies, this money could have gone toward developing a family vehicle that’s more fuel efficient than a Sherman tank.
We all try to limit our tax bill, but most Americans agree, we need to pay our fair share.
But the banks, the mortgage companies, the car companies, want money from a fund they didn’t kick in to.
They violated the Little Red Hen rule. You don’t plant or harvest or grind the wheat, you don’t bake the bread, you don’t even get a crouton.
We’ve gotta somehow pump money back into the system anyway. But I feel a little better figuring out what that other outrage was, scratching in the back of my head.
It’s not the spa retreats, the ruining of pension plans, or the uncertainty that all this bailout money will achieve its intended purpose. It’s not even the fact that, already, we don’t know where the first couple hundred billion went.
Nope. The thing we don’t talk about is, these companies hire large staffs of tax lawyers and accountants, who spend every waking moment trying to figure out how to pay the fewest possible dollars in taxes.
In the case of the car companies, this money could have gone toward developing a family vehicle that’s more fuel efficient than a Sherman tank.
We all try to limit our tax bill, but most Americans agree, we need to pay our fair share.
But the banks, the mortgage companies, the car companies, want money from a fund they didn’t kick in to.
They violated the Little Red Hen rule. You don’t plant or harvest or grind the wheat, you don’t bake the bread, you don’t even get a crouton.
We’ve gotta somehow pump money back into the system anyway. But I feel a little better figuring out what that other outrage was, scratching in the back of my head.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Auto Efficiency
Anyone who’s been to a Department of Motor Vehicles office knows that bureaucracy has the power to suck the momentum, life force, and money out of any individual, family, or business.
Yet, we may be entering a time when government influence can potentially speed up innovation and progress.
Our country’s car companies are asking to be bailed out. Some argue that we should simply allocate money and give it to these critically wounded companies.
But some economists argue that bankruptcy will be good for the industry, forcing the companies to reorganize and restructure their debt, and reworking their antequated product line and dealership systems.
Sounds like progress—unless you’re a union member, one of the remaining autoworkers whose job wasn’t exported to Mexico or elsewhere; or a former employee with benefits still in effect.
But what if we got some sort of equity in the company in exchange for the bailout? No, we wouldn’t have to nationalize the industry—but we would be treated as an important member of the board.
If Warren Buffett owned 20% of your company’s stock, that wouldn’t make him a majority stockholder, but that’s a lot of voting shares. If you were planning a major move, you’d be checking in with Warren before making them.
If, for the time being, the federal government had a boardroom seat at the “Big 3” car makers, sure, there’d be cries of “socialism.” But these companies would be quicker to respond to the human and technological demands of our time.
For over fifty years, Ford, GM and Chrysler have repeated the same cyclical dance with the government:
1. The government sets a new standard, like higher gas mileage, seat belts or air bags, then sets a date, five ten or fifteen years in the future, when the new models must comply.
Yet, we may be entering a time when government influence can potentially speed up innovation and progress.
Our country’s car companies are asking to be bailed out. Some argue that we should simply allocate money and give it to these critically wounded companies.
But some economists argue that bankruptcy will be good for the industry, forcing the companies to reorganize and restructure their debt, and reworking their antequated product line and dealership systems.
Sounds like progress—unless you’re a union member, one of the remaining autoworkers whose job wasn’t exported to Mexico or elsewhere; or a former employee with benefits still in effect.
But what if we got some sort of equity in the company in exchange for the bailout? No, we wouldn’t have to nationalize the industry—but we would be treated as an important member of the board.
If Warren Buffett owned 20% of your company’s stock, that wouldn’t make him a majority stockholder, but that’s a lot of voting shares. If you were planning a major move, you’d be checking in with Warren before making them.
If, for the time being, the federal government had a boardroom seat at the “Big 3” car makers, sure, there’d be cries of “socialism.” But these companies would be quicker to respond to the human and technological demands of our time.
For over fifty years, Ford, GM and Chrysler have repeated the same cyclical dance with the government:
1. The government sets a new standard, like higher gas mileage, seat belts or air bags, then sets a date, five ten or fifteen years in the future, when the new models must comply.
2. The car companies announce that the new regulation will make it impossible for them to stay in business.
3. There are hearings, court battles, and intense lobbying efforts, sometimes involving suddenly massive campaign contributions. Perhaps timelines are adjusted, or slightly easier-to-meet standards are set.
4. Eventually, the car companies end up complying.
5. Back to step 1, with another innovation that the industry will fight tooth and nail.
Every step of the way, America’s automakers have fought every possible innovation, until it was forced on them.
But, suppose a prominent member of the board of directors was pushing for higher fuel economy, and more alternative technology? Wouldn’t that make the industry more responsive to innovation? Wouldn’t the process be less cumbersome?
This way, it becomes a partnership. That way, GM, Ford and Chrysler have a strong incentive to move forward, and Americans have a strong incentive to demand better cars, and then to buy them.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Fear Itself
"I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter.” –Newscaster Howard Beale, played by Peter Finch, speaking Paddy Chayefsky’s words in “Network.” (1976)
It is time for us, as Americans, to get our act together. I am tired of the moaning and hand wringing about the task awaiting President-elect Obama. Since I am doing some of that wailing myself, I’m going to dial that back starting now.
Government has never been the answer to our problems, but there are things that government can do awfully well. Not at a profit, not cheaply, but well.
We’re coming out of a time of cynicism and indulgence, based on the assumption that nothing’s worth believing in, just get yours while you can, and if there’s a problem, just turn on the t.v., a bigger t.v., a flat screen, and soak your consciousness away.
It’s time for us to look in the mirror, and look at each other, and start to have faith in each other. If you’re an optimist, that will be easy. If you’re a pessimist, let me assure you—we have no other choice.
Barack Obama, his advisors, the Congress, people of every political stripe are going to hunker down now, and focus on making progress. As of January 20th, 2009, what ever happened before is over. Loosen our grip on those quarrels from before. And we have to look at each other with hope and open hearts.
If you worked long and hard on this campaign, and you wish this historic first African-American President didn’t have so many crises on his plate, foreign and domestic, let me give you a gentle reminder.
Take a look at our money; sneak a peak at Mount Rushmore. Lincoln and Washington; Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt. You don’t become a great American President by taking over when things are quiet and leaving things as they are. .250 hitters don't make the Hall of Fame.
Barack Obama is already in the history books, no matter what he does. The only question is, will he be remembered only as our first African-American President, or as a great President?
He’s going to have some difficult decisions to make. And we’re going to have to work together, hope together, fail together and ultimately succeed together, to make the Change and the Hope he campaigned for, take shape, take root, and rejeuvenate this country we love.
It is time for us, as Americans, to get our act together. I am tired of the moaning and hand wringing about the task awaiting President-elect Obama. Since I am doing some of that wailing myself, I’m going to dial that back starting now.
Government has never been the answer to our problems, but there are things that government can do awfully well. Not at a profit, not cheaply, but well.
We’re coming out of a time of cynicism and indulgence, based on the assumption that nothing’s worth believing in, just get yours while you can, and if there’s a problem, just turn on the t.v., a bigger t.v., a flat screen, and soak your consciousness away.
It’s time for us to look in the mirror, and look at each other, and start to have faith in each other. If you’re an optimist, that will be easy. If you’re a pessimist, let me assure you—we have no other choice.
Barack Obama, his advisors, the Congress, people of every political stripe are going to hunker down now, and focus on making progress. As of January 20th, 2009, what ever happened before is over. Loosen our grip on those quarrels from before. And we have to look at each other with hope and open hearts.
If you worked long and hard on this campaign, and you wish this historic first African-American President didn’t have so many crises on his plate, foreign and domestic, let me give you a gentle reminder.
Take a look at our money; sneak a peak at Mount Rushmore. Lincoln and Washington; Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt. You don’t become a great American President by taking over when things are quiet and leaving things as they are. .250 hitters don't make the Hall of Fame.
Barack Obama is already in the history books, no matter what he does. The only question is, will he be remembered only as our first African-American President, or as a great President?
He’s going to have some difficult decisions to make. And we’re going to have to work together, hope together, fail together and ultimately succeed together, to make the Change and the Hope he campaigned for, take shape, take root, and rejeuvenate this country we love.
All right, people! Forward we march, voluntarily and energetically together. Eyes front and upward, hearts open, we roll up our sleeves and get ready, comforted by the knowledge that we chose well.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Gotcha
This is not the first campaign where we’ve heard whining about “gotcha” –type questions from reporters. Usually, these complaints come from Republicans; George W. Bush has a record of complaining about them. Now Governor Palin makes the same claim. Perhaps it’s not a matter of party affiliation; it could just be page 31 of the Karl Rove playbook.
Both Bush and Palin are correct—among the softballs, fastballs and curves the media throw at you, there are some “gotcha” questions mixed in.
But, remember—in the White House, they’re ALL gotcha questions.
Issues don’t reach the White House unless they’re at some critical point.
Spin-meisters aside, there are no questions you can “hit out of the ballpark.” There are going to be thousands of decisions that make winners and losers—you balanced your budget but cut funding for pre-school kids; you shored up our military, but left in money for failed weapons systems; you pushed through a plan to bail out our financial institutions, and in doing so abandoned your own administration’s economic plans and promises.
The questions you’ll have to deal with, as President, are going to be much tougher than “What’s your foreign policy experience?” and “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?”
Those are questions for sophomores. Those questions are in “Politics for Jocks.”
The job requires that you constantly give your answer to questions that don’t have answers. Even if that means you begin by saying, “I don’t know,” a phrase that neither the President nor the Governor feel confident enough to say.
Both Bush and Palin are correct—among the softballs, fastballs and curves the media throw at you, there are some “gotcha” questions mixed in.
But, remember—in the White House, they’re ALL gotcha questions.
Issues don’t reach the White House unless they’re at some critical point.
Spin-meisters aside, there are no questions you can “hit out of the ballpark.” There are going to be thousands of decisions that make winners and losers—you balanced your budget but cut funding for pre-school kids; you shored up our military, but left in money for failed weapons systems; you pushed through a plan to bail out our financial institutions, and in doing so abandoned your own administration’s economic plans and promises.
The questions you’ll have to deal with, as President, are going to be much tougher than “What’s your foreign policy experience?” and “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?”
Those are questions for sophomores. Those questions are in “Politics for Jocks.”
The job requires that you constantly give your answer to questions that don’t have answers. Even if that means you begin by saying, “I don’t know,” a phrase that neither the President nor the Governor feel confident enough to say.
Before You Bail on the Bailout
Recent chats with experts, including my brother Paul, who knows more about economics than you do--okay, more than I do-- have given me a glimpse of what we’re in for, if we don’t do something immediately about our nation’s plummeting credit confidence.
I’ll share with you a few things that I now understand:
Lifestyle
What’s going on in your day-to-day life? Do you use credit cards? Are you paying off a mortgage? A car loan? Have you borrowed against the equity of your home for any reason? Are you, or is anyone in your family planning on going to college?
Do you have an IRA, a 401K, a pension fund, money market accounts?
Does your city or your state issue bonds to fund roads, schools, colleges, firefighters, police, or other municipal or state costs?
Do your favorite stores order constantly restore their shelves, make improvements, rent their facilities? Do you, or your friends, relatives or neighbors work at businesses that work this way?
All of these fundamental parts of our lives work through a flow of credit. Without that flow of credit, each of these parts start to weaken, wobble, or even collapse.
Their greed made you money
Did we get in this mess because banks and brokerages, fancy folks in fancy clothes, got too greedy? Yes. Shouldn’t an institution have more tangible assets at hand when they make these loans? Probably. Should these markets operate with a lifeguard watching the pool, in the form of regulation? Sure. Did deregulation by both Democrats and Republicans set these corporations free to take these risks? Absolutely.
That doesn’t change the fact that, over the past ten to twenty years, these greedy #$&*( -ers made us money. The reason your home has increased in value, the reason your IRA gained value, the reason for a lot of our prosperity over the last couple of decades, has been that with easier credit, we’ve all been gaining by hitching our wagons to these less traditional forms of investment, whether directly or indirectly. And those same personal assets will wither if our country’s credit flow doesn’t improve. And quickly.
Angioplasty/ Bypass
It’s now commonplace for a cardiologist to say, “Don’t go home. We need to get rid of this blockage now.”
Yes, we want conditions and safeguards attached to any money the government is sending to relieve this credit crunch. We don’t want to send money that ends up in some CEO’s payoff deal.
Reckless behavior got us into this mess. We don’t want our government to follow it with more reckless behavior.
And yet, we can’t afford to let the patient go home. As the credit crisis deepens, and confidence drops, these problems won’t worsen at a constant speed—they will accelerate very quickly.
Action must be taken right now. Let’s sign the release form for the “surgery” before the patient is flat-lining.
I’ll share with you a few things that I now understand:
Lifestyle
What’s going on in your day-to-day life? Do you use credit cards? Are you paying off a mortgage? A car loan? Have you borrowed against the equity of your home for any reason? Are you, or is anyone in your family planning on going to college?
Do you have an IRA, a 401K, a pension fund, money market accounts?
Does your city or your state issue bonds to fund roads, schools, colleges, firefighters, police, or other municipal or state costs?
Do your favorite stores order constantly restore their shelves, make improvements, rent their facilities? Do you, or your friends, relatives or neighbors work at businesses that work this way?
All of these fundamental parts of our lives work through a flow of credit. Without that flow of credit, each of these parts start to weaken, wobble, or even collapse.
Their greed made you money
Did we get in this mess because banks and brokerages, fancy folks in fancy clothes, got too greedy? Yes. Shouldn’t an institution have more tangible assets at hand when they make these loans? Probably. Should these markets operate with a lifeguard watching the pool, in the form of regulation? Sure. Did deregulation by both Democrats and Republicans set these corporations free to take these risks? Absolutely.
That doesn’t change the fact that, over the past ten to twenty years, these greedy #$&*( -ers made us money. The reason your home has increased in value, the reason your IRA gained value, the reason for a lot of our prosperity over the last couple of decades, has been that with easier credit, we’ve all been gaining by hitching our wagons to these less traditional forms of investment, whether directly or indirectly. And those same personal assets will wither if our country’s credit flow doesn’t improve. And quickly.
Angioplasty/ Bypass
It’s now commonplace for a cardiologist to say, “Don’t go home. We need to get rid of this blockage now.”
Yes, we want conditions and safeguards attached to any money the government is sending to relieve this credit crunch. We don’t want to send money that ends up in some CEO’s payoff deal.
Reckless behavior got us into this mess. We don’t want our government to follow it with more reckless behavior.
And yet, we can’t afford to let the patient go home. As the credit crisis deepens, and confidence drops, these problems won’t worsen at a constant speed—they will accelerate very quickly.
Action must be taken right now. Let’s sign the release form for the “surgery” before the patient is flat-lining.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Value for your Dollar
Your taxes are too high.
Guess what. Your taxes will always be too high. Mine, too. They may jump a bit or dip a bit, but we always wish we could pay less.
The question is, as long as you're paying taxes, wouldn't you like to get something for your money?
In the last eight years, despite all the money you’ve sent to Washington, the EPA has taken a vacation, the infrastructure of the country is falling apart, the Food and Drug Administration is understaffed, our food is unhealthy, our jobs have left the country, terrorism has gotten worse, world opinion of the U.S. has made it more difficult for us to lead the world community, gas is close to four dollars a gallon, we owe $9 trillion dollars, much of it to China, America’s home financing system has become a pyramid scheme, and we’re treating our soldiers, their families, and our veterans, like they’re broken cell phones we can just throw away.
And it gets worse. The National Guard, the Police and Fire Departments, and any benefits the cities and counties used to get, afterschool programs and preschool programs and music programs are rapidly disappearing, because the federal funds that used to help make these things happen, and the staffers that used to do the work, have been shipped off to Iraq.
That’s what you’ve gotten for your money.
I’m voting for Barack Obama not because of what my tax bill will be, but because, for once, I’d like to get something for my money.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Our Bravest, Without Question
There are people in our society who, when there is danger, they head toward it, and we are grateful for that. Police officers, fire fighters, and of course, the heroic soldiers of our military.
The American soldier is fully committed to the task at hand. On the field of battle our troops don’t waver. They commit to the objective and they go out and do what must be done. If there are setbacks, they regroup and once again go out and do the job. Failure is not an option.
It’s because of this attitude that the United States has the greatest fighting force on Earth.
It’s also because of this attitude that the United States Armed Forces are subordinate to our civilian government.
It doesn’t always work for the best. Over the last seven-plus years, our military has had its expert advice thrown back in its face and its traditions ignored.
In the long run, though, we don’t ask for or expect objectivity from the American soldier. Because, an American soldier won’t say, “This is the wrong mission,” “You shouldn’t have sent me here,” or “Who, exactly, am I protecting by attacking this country?” It’s not their place to question.
It is our duty, though. Those of us out of harm’s way owe it to these courageous soldiers to only summon them to battle when we have exhausted all other options.
For our political leaders to use the enthusiasm of our soldiers to justify acts of war, is unethical and unfair. Of course our soldiers are enthusiastic. They are brave heroes, taking orders and fighting on our behalf without question.
We don’t ask our soldiers for perspective, and they’re in a bad position to provide it. We ask them to accept the mission, pick up our flag, and move forward. When they do so, it’s not a sign of our wisdom. It’s a sign of their character.
The American soldier is fully committed to the task at hand. On the field of battle our troops don’t waver. They commit to the objective and they go out and do what must be done. If there are setbacks, they regroup and once again go out and do the job. Failure is not an option.
It’s because of this attitude that the United States has the greatest fighting force on Earth.
It’s also because of this attitude that the United States Armed Forces are subordinate to our civilian government.
It doesn’t always work for the best. Over the last seven-plus years, our military has had its expert advice thrown back in its face and its traditions ignored.
In the long run, though, we don’t ask for or expect objectivity from the American soldier. Because, an American soldier won’t say, “This is the wrong mission,” “You shouldn’t have sent me here,” or “Who, exactly, am I protecting by attacking this country?” It’s not their place to question.
It is our duty, though. Those of us out of harm’s way owe it to these courageous soldiers to only summon them to battle when we have exhausted all other options.
For our political leaders to use the enthusiasm of our soldiers to justify acts of war, is unethical and unfair. Of course our soldiers are enthusiastic. They are brave heroes, taking orders and fighting on our behalf without question.
We don’t ask our soldiers for perspective, and they’re in a bad position to provide it. We ask them to accept the mission, pick up our flag, and move forward. When they do so, it’s not a sign of our wisdom. It’s a sign of their character.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Favorite Olympic Moment
Matt Lauer is charming, self-effacing, and constantly improving as an interviewer.
Mr. Lauer, may you have many more healthy and happy years to come.
That having been said, Lauer (or someone in his ear) created my first Golden Moment of the 2008 Olympic Games.
The opening night of the Olympics, with its parade of nations, gives each one of us a chance to learn about the world beyond our borders, and about the people, cultures and history all around our planet.
That’s why I was so delighted to learn from Matt, as the team from Malawi entered the stadium, that we’ll recognize Malawi because that’s the country where Madonna built an orphanage.
So, if you’re scoring at home, that’s Greece, birthplace of the ancient Olympics, Turkey, crossroads between Asia and Europe, and Malawi, where Madonna did some nice things.
Mr. Lauer, may you have many more healthy and happy years to come.
That having been said, Lauer (or someone in his ear) created my first Golden Moment of the 2008 Olympic Games.
The opening night of the Olympics, with its parade of nations, gives each one of us a chance to learn about the world beyond our borders, and about the people, cultures and history all around our planet.
That’s why I was so delighted to learn from Matt, as the team from Malawi entered the stadium, that we’ll recognize Malawi because that’s the country where Madonna built an orphanage.
So, if you’re scoring at home, that’s Greece, birthplace of the ancient Olympics, Turkey, crossroads between Asia and Europe, and Malawi, where Madonna did some nice things.
Ooh. Here comes Norway. Don’t bore me with stories of Valhalla and Odin and Thor. Don’t tell me about Norwegian resistance in World War II. Just tell me—what does Leonardo di Caprio think of it?
We learn so much from the stars.
Beijing! Awhawww ....Mmmm!!!
In the Simpsons episode "Lisa Gets an A," Homer buys a small lobster named Pinchy, and brings him home to fatten him up, to eventually have a large lobster dinner.
Homer becomes attached to his red friend, and when it comes time to eat him, Homer cries as he remembers their friendship, and then says “Mmmm” after every bite, because the lobster is so delicious. “Aw-haww...Mmmm! Aw-hawww....Mmmm!”
It’s the experience I had watching Beijing’s opening ceremonies to the 2008 Olympics. Boy is that beautiful—my God, they’re so repressive. Gee, look at all the people who worked on that— How many of them at gunpoint?
Look at the beautiful children of China— whose parents needed a permit to have them in the first place! Such strong and limber gymnasts—what happened to the kids who didn’t make the cut? Are they in camps somewhere?
Homer becomes attached to his red friend, and when it comes time to eat him, Homer cries as he remembers their friendship, and then says “Mmmm” after every bite, because the lobster is so delicious. “Aw-haww...Mmmm! Aw-hawww....Mmmm!”
It’s the experience I had watching Beijing’s opening ceremonies to the 2008 Olympics. Boy is that beautiful—my God, they’re so repressive. Gee, look at all the people who worked on that— How many of them at gunpoint?
Look at the beautiful children of China— whose parents needed a permit to have them in the first place! Such strong and limber gymnasts—what happened to the kids who didn’t make the cut? Are they in camps somewhere?
How lovely… there’s the symbol for peaceful unity… and there’s the symbol for Walmart!
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Eyes Open, Please.
Already, the mumbling and grumbling have begun. Liberals are discovering that, lo and behold, Barack Obama is—horror of horrors!—a politician.
People have, for months, been crusading for a new kind of politics, and a clear choice against war, and a candidate who will bring us all together, a pure candidate. Now they’re discovering that Senator Obama first, and foremost, wants to win the election.
The liberals made the same miscalculation about Governor Howard Dean, the current Democratic Party Chairman. He, like Obama, believed in a fair and well-run government, but he was also a politician.
I disagree with Alvy Singer, Woody Allen’s character in his masterpiece, “Annie Hall,” who says “Lyndon Johnson’s a politician. That’s one notch underneath child molester.”
There’s no purity in politics. It’s not a field for people who don’t want their food to touch on the plate. In a democratic republic, the American form of government, compromise is called for in the Constitution. That was the whole point of dividing up the power.
Any candidate for the Presidency is committed to formulate policy that will work best for the United States. If that means you pledged “no new taxes,” but now find you have to raise taxes, you do it. Not because you lack character, but because nobody campaigning for the White House can possibly know how our circumstances will change.
If the Illinois senator has shared a detail or two about potential future policies, and those details don’t fit the liberal or independent orthodoxys, that’s no reason to withdraw your support.
The devil is in the details, of course. Which leads me back to my original reservation about Obama. Not that it would ever sway me over to vote for Senator Doubletalk.
My reservation is, Mr. Obama’s enjoys listing all the specific ways that the politicians and the politics of the last thirty years have failed. But he talks about the future in lofty generalities.
While he’s spoken nobly of improving all of our lives, and the character of our country, in general, I know of no one precise policy that Mr. Obama has promised to uphold. Perfect for an era where specifics make you vulnerable.
And just like a politician.
Conservation Guru, Anyone?
Advocates are calling on us to reduce fossil fuel emissions and conserve energy by reducing our speeds on the road. We’re also recycling more, to reduce waste and get more out of the packaging we use.
Plus, it helps to reduce the amount of air conditioning we run and to turn off lights once you leave the room.
All good ideas, but I need to find a “Conservation Guru” on some mountaintop to ask (after removing my sandals and bowing in humility):
If I’m driving uphill, do I conserve more energy by driving slowly, or by getting out of first gear, where my car works the hardest?
If I’m going downhill, do I conserve more energy by braking the car to slow down, or by using the momentum of gravity to create some of my cars acceleration?
Do I save more energy by shutting off the air conditioning completely when I leave, or by setting it at a reasonable temperature so that when I come in at 2 in the afternoon I don’t have to blast it to cool it down?
Do I save more energy by turning the lights off every time I leave the room, or only if I’m sure I’m not coming back in in a couple of minutes? In other words, does it take more energy for the bulb to burn, or to turn it on? Actually, I have the same question about the car. If I’m stopping for under a minute should I keep the car running? Doesn’t it use the most fuel when I start it up?
Does the amount of energy and water used to clean my recyclables, and the resources necessary to reconvert the plastics back into usable plastic objects, justify the recycling process?
How about paper? Why don’t newspapers simply pick up the papers at the end of the week, the way milkmen did back in the day?
Pick up the “empties,” recycle them, and send ‘em right back to us the next week.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Is it fair?
I rent my home.
It’s not that I don’t want to own a house. It’s not that I don’t understand that home ownership is one of the keystones of our communities.
It’s that I can’t afford to buy a house.
My work supports me. But when I looked at the cost of houses, the crazy mortgage terms out there, the important additional budgeting you need for repair, maintenance and upgrading the property, and the insecurity of the business I’m in, I felt that it’d be irresponsible to buy a home.
If you bought your home, that’s terrific. I think it’s wonderful.
Now, here comes the tough part. I pay taxes. Including property taxes, by the way—they’re passed along in my rent. But why should my tax dollars be used to help out homeowners who got in over their heads?
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want anyone to go homeless, or needlessly suffer.
But while I’ve been living within my means, people have been going out and getting second and third mortgages, and buying themselves everything they “deserve.”
Life challenges all of us. All of us deserve the best.
But if you’ve just eaten a lavish gourmet meal, why should somebody who never entered the restaurant have to pick up the check?
Saturday, July 12, 2008
S U V; No C U
While we’re on the subject of happy motoring, let me mention… gas guzzler gas guzzler gas guzzler… that’s all I hear about SUVs. Believe me, they’ll eventually find a way to make SUVs a lot more fuel efficient. And when they do… SUVs will still be a terrible idea.
Let’s remember that all of our roads, parking spaces, no parking zones, signs, lights, intersections and lane lines, are all based on the idea of a society predominantly filled with sedans, wagons, or coupes, their widths fairly standardized, their drivers relatively close to the ground.
All these years, when the surveyors came out with their little tripods and markings, they’ve based their measurements on the standard lines-of-sight in a sedan-dominated world.
Our roads are a national, state and city “common.” They’re an area we all share. It’s like a neighborhood grazing ground. If your cows eat more, it’s less for everyone else. If your vehicle is taller and wider, you take away visibility, maybe safety, and certainly peace of mind, from everyone else on the road.
If you’re in front of me in an SUV, I can’t see where I’m going. If you’re parked next to my car, in an SUV, I can’t see oncoming cars when I back out.
In traffic, the driver behind you has no idea what’s going on—what other traffic is in the area, why there’s a delay, or what obstacles might be coming up.
My first objection to the whole giant car craze is, you’ve just built walls around the rest of us.
Sure, then there’s that whole thing of consuming the same amount of gas that I use when I drive my sedan, if I’m towing a flaming gas tank behind me.
I Hate to Nit-Pick
On July first, California's new "hands-free" cellphone law went into effect, requiring all drivers to use hands-free cellphones.
There are only 2 things wrong with the law:
1. Drivers aren't complying with it. I've seen dozens of fellow motorists zipping by with their hands welded to their ears; and
2. If everyone complies, it won't work. The National Safety Council did a study on the dangers of cellphone use while driving. Their conclusion? It's not what your HANDS are doing; it's what your HEAD is doing:
"The study found that driver distractions due to cell phone use can occur regardless whether handheld or handsfree cell phones are used, and that cell conversations create much higher levels of driver distractions than listening the radio or audio books.
The authors suggest that banning handheld devices, but permitting handsfree devices in motor vehicles is not likely to significantly reduce driver distractions associated with cell phone conversations."
Carnegie Mellon Professor Marcel Just told the Pennsylvania State Legislature the same thing, in March of this year.
But there are benefits. If you own a company that makes Bluetooth or other hands-free gadgets, this is a terrific law.
It's not that hands-free is a bad idea. It just doesn't solve the problem.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Welcome to "Carry the 3," a running commentary about social, political and entertainment/ cultural issues, and whatever else comes to mind.
The title comes from an episode of the "Batman" tv series. The episode features Victor Buono, as the archvillain "King Tut," a gentle Egyptology professor who occasionally has psychotic breaks where he thinks he's the reincarnation of King Tut and wreaks havoc on Gotham City.
In this episode, King Tut discovers that the Batcave is directly under "stately Wayne Mansion"!!! Buono is hilarious, as "Tut" says "Why...carry the three...why that means Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson are Batman and Robin!!"
So, "Carry the 3" is my shorthand for processing the information we have and making some sense out of it.
The title comes from an episode of the "Batman" tv series. The episode features Victor Buono, as the archvillain "King Tut," a gentle Egyptology professor who occasionally has psychotic breaks where he thinks he's the reincarnation of King Tut and wreaks havoc on Gotham City.
In this episode, King Tut discovers that the Batcave is directly under "stately Wayne Mansion"!!! Buono is hilarious, as "Tut" says "Why...carry the three...why that means Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson are Batman and Robin!!"
So, "Carry the 3" is my shorthand for processing the information we have and making some sense out of it.
Tim Russert, 1950 -2008
We had him, we didn’t realize what we had, and now he’s gone. Tim Russert was so consistently excellent at his job, and so grateful and delighted to be doing it, that it was easy for most of us to take him for granted. He acted as though he was just a working stiff, and we took him at his word. Mr. Russert loved the workings of politics; he loved to dig in and find out who had the cards and who was bluffing.
It was never an ego trip with Russert; it was the process of getting at the heart of things. It was never done with anger or arrogance; it was done with delight at being part of it all. That’s why so many of his interview “victims” have been praising him over these past few days.
At a time when politicians hire a staff of people to control access to them, Mr. Russert established himself as the one interviewer who had to be told the truth. And no one who wanted political power could afford to avoid his forum.
I don’t mean to diminish all the tributes pouring in about what a wonderful family man, friend, and humanitarian Tim Russert was.
For most Americans, though, what we’re most grateful for, is a man who insisted that powerful people stop tap dancing and tell us the truth.
From 3/16/08:
Another 5 tenths of a percent, and this would be a blowout.
To be totally upfront about this, let me start by saying, Barack Obama has the delegate lead he has, fair and square. He has the popular vote lead as well, fair and square.
So, why doesn’t Hillary just concede and quit?
Here’s one reason.
2.6%. That’s Obama’s lead in vote totals. Superdelegates have already started to say, “the voters have spoken, so we’ll go with Obama.”
Well, once again, here’s what the voters have said when they’ve spoken: 13.3 million for Barack, 12.6 million for Hillary. With Pennsylvania, and North Carolina still undecided, and however they resolve those pointless primaries in Michigan and Florida (whose votes obviously shouldn’t count, but something’s gotta be done.)
Yup. A clear consensus. Out of about 26 million votes, Barack Obama leads by about 700,000.
It’s March. The convention is this summer. I say, let's all take a nice deep breath. Everything will be just fine.
Another 5 tenths of a percent, and this would be a blowout.
To be totally upfront about this, let me start by saying, Barack Obama has the delegate lead he has, fair and square. He has the popular vote lead as well, fair and square.
So, why doesn’t Hillary just concede and quit?
Here’s one reason.
2.6%. That’s Obama’s lead in vote totals. Superdelegates have already started to say, “the voters have spoken, so we’ll go with Obama.”
Well, once again, here’s what the voters have said when they’ve spoken: 13.3 million for Barack, 12.6 million for Hillary. With Pennsylvania, and North Carolina still undecided, and however they resolve those pointless primaries in Michigan and Florida (whose votes obviously shouldn’t count, but something’s gotta be done.)
Yup. A clear consensus. Out of about 26 million votes, Barack Obama leads by about 700,000.
It’s March. The convention is this summer. I say, let's all take a nice deep breath. Everything will be just fine.
From 3/19/08:
SUPERDELEGATES! Who have powers far beyond mortal delegates. But, how should they vote? We're asking the wrong question, says Professor Stanley Fish, in this fascinating piece in the New York Times.
SUPERDELEGATES! Who have powers far beyond mortal delegates. But, how should they vote? We're asking the wrong question, says Professor Stanley Fish, in this fascinating piece in the New York Times.
From 3/19/08:
HAMMER TIME!!
Wanna feel really terrific?? Then do what I just did. About fifty different websites say, the simplest way to protect your security when you recycle your old computer, is to HAMMER THE BEJEBUS OUT OF YOUR HARD DRIVE!!! My hard drive served me well, I know. Even so, I thought of it as revenge. I decided to punish the hard drive for every
$*&#(% “error message,”
every rassafrassin'
“you have performed an illegal operation”
(right. I tried to save a Word document. Take me in, officer...),
all the nonsense these contraptions cause.
“Contraptions?” Are they “new-fangled” contraptions? Do the “youngsters” enjoy them? I guess it’s about 5 minutes before liniment over at my place. And get off my lawn, by gum. The good news: a hard drive is pretty durable.
You really get to release all your anger to get the job done. Running it over with my car didn't even make a dent. I may be buying new hard drives, just for therapy.
$*&#(% “error message,”
every rassafrassin'
“you have performed an illegal operation”
(right. I tried to save a Word document. Take me in, officer...),
all the nonsense these contraptions cause.
“Contraptions?” Are they “new-fangled” contraptions? Do the “youngsters” enjoy them? I guess it’s about 5 minutes before liniment over at my place. And get off my lawn, by gum. The good news: a hard drive is pretty durable.
You really get to release all your anger to get the job done. Running it over with my car didn't even make a dent. I may be buying new hard drives, just for therapy.
From 3/13/08:
When Senator Barack Obama was kind enough to respond to our request for a hands-off policy toward other Democrats, he was quick to remind us that pointing out differences isn't the same as attacking. Wouldn't it be great if everyone in the Obama camp grasped this concept? Of course, strongly in his favor is the fact that, at least Senators Obama and Edwards, and Democratic Chairman Howard Dean responded. I haven't heard word one from Senator Clinton. So, as always, it's a mixed bag. You've got to credit the Senator, and his campaign, for being attentive and responsive to different points of view. But you've also got to wonder what all the griping is about.
When Senator Barack Obama was kind enough to respond to our request for a hands-off policy toward other Democrats, he was quick to remind us that pointing out differences isn't the same as attacking. Wouldn't it be great if everyone in the Obama camp grasped this concept? Of course, strongly in his favor is the fact that, at least Senators Obama and Edwards, and Democratic Chairman Howard Dean responded. I haven't heard word one from Senator Clinton. So, as always, it's a mixed bag. You've got to credit the Senator, and his campaign, for being attentive and responsive to different points of view. But you've also got to wonder what all the griping is about.
From 3/4/08:
"Let the seas clap hands in gladness about how wonderful I am"
Hang on for a second. I’ve got the vertigo again. Always happens when I hear the Oracle of Illinois, Barack Obama, once again give his commencement speech. For months, Senator Obama has done his thing… his well-written mash-ups of Franklin Roosevelt, Mario Cuomo, John F. Kennedy and the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, with a little Thomas Jefferson tossed in.
Other candidates, especially Hillary Clinton, have stood there like a stunned moose, either dazzled by his eloquence, or afraid to challenge him. Mrs. Clinton, in particular, had been seeing this as some sort of “America’s Next Model” competition, trying to prove that she could be as smooth and attractive and genial as Senator Obama. Nice try, Hill. Nobody beats Barack Obama on that score. Senator Clinton has moved on from that approach. Now we’re in a new phase. After all these months of listening to Obama’s orations from Mount Olympus, Hillary has begun to campaign as though she wants the job. First the Oprah challenge: After months of hearing that Obama’s “story” makes him the best candidate, Hillary is piercing that by talking about the actual requirements of the job.
The reaction from the Obama camp is “how dare she?” Like she’s spitting on the flag by going beyond the “story.” Then, she talks about “experience.” For a while, the Clinton campaign had been acting as though if she didn’t mention her age, everyone would think she was 41. Finally, Senator Clinton is talking about her own resume, and pointing out specific ways that she’s been tested, that Senator Obama hasn’t. I’ve heard two responses from the Obama camp: first, experience doesn’t count if you’re wrong. Second, what experience has she had?
Notice that neither of those questions responds to the issue. Because she has had vastly more experience, in a variety of kinds of service. But let’s answer those questions. The answer to the first: one of the values of experience is understanding that inevitably, you will be wrong, not infallibly “right” , that your adversaries have reasons for what they do, that might be no less noble than your own, and a grasp of the massive complexities involved in running this country. That decisions about defense, about health care, all the decisions you make, aren’t necessarily about how noble you are, but how willing you are to take a half a loaf when that’s all that’s on the table.
The answer to the second, is that she’s worked for children, for foster children, for parents, worked on laws to fight child abuse, and was on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee when it considered impeaching Richard Nixon, who left office before that impeachment could take place. She ran a legal aid clinic for the poor in Arkansas, President Carter appointed her to the United States Legal Services Corporation, a federal nonprofit program that funds legal assistance for the poor. She improved education in Arkansas, serving on that state’s task force. She also led the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, fighting against sexual harassment and for equal pay for women. All this was before the White House.
She’s done plenty since, including her service in the U.S. Senate since 2000, and she’s served on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrats are angry about Bush’s treatment of the CHIP program. (Children's Health Insurance Program). But it seems few remember how Senator Clinton has worked to build it. You can read for yourself on her website. The point is, there’s plenty of experience there and the question is kinda ridiculous. The Clinton campaign has called attention to how often Senator Obama has voted “present” rather than yes or no, on a variety of Senate issues. Obama’s supporters say they’re nitpicking. They don’t say he hasn’t voted “present” a great many times. On the meeting between a senior economic adviser from the Obama campaign and Canadian officials, Obama’s campaign says that nobody said anything to anyone. But in fact, there was a meeting.
I don’t expect anyone to be able to openly discuss the meeting. I’d expect everyone to deny the statements in the resulting memo from a Canadian official, saying that Obama’s opposition to NAFTA was more political than actual. But we don’t know what happened. Obama supporters are quick to blame Senator Clinton. Right. Now let’s take a look at some of the punches and slices Senator Obama has dealt Mrs. Clinton. Much has been made about how savvy the Obama campaign is about new media. But check out a chat room sometime, and you’ll hear plenty. You’ll see, over and over again, how the Obamans link the Clintons and the Bushes. As though we haven’t just spent seven-plus years with the lamest president of the modern era, who followed eight years of peace and prosperity, social progress, and a far more compassionate government, with Bill Clinton. Somewhere, on his nightstand, or inscribed in the breast pocket of every jacket, Barack Obama must have the phrase, “she was for the war before she was against it.” In this campaign, the Iraq War is a loser issue for Senator Clinton, so she tries to zip through a response and change the subject. But it sure would be nice if someone would just point out what a pile of disingenuous nonsense that remark is. It worries me that someone who wants to lead the free world is that glib and facile in making political hay out of that difficult vote. And I can’t wait until he has to deal with the Senate and the House. Beyond that, we’ve heard lecture after lecture about the divisiveness of the “old politics.” That “divisiveness” is an American tradition going back to the founders of this country. In fact, even before.
If you’d have put it to a vote, historians say, you’d have been hard pressed to find a majority who wanted Independence from England. Granted, the Bush administration has created a far more vitriolic form of governing and settling scores than anyone since James Buchanan, back in the 1850’s. Where we can work together, we should. But where we differ, we should point that out too. It’s messy. It’s upsetting. But all that noise is what the pulse of a democracy sounds like. Maybe that’s why I’m able to avoid going ballistic when Obamans repeatedly call for Hillary to drop out of the race. Entering the March fourth primaries, Obama has a 160-delegate lead. Again, as always with Obama’s campaign, the tactics are perfect. Time to start selling your own inevitability. I understand why many Obamans want Clinton out. They want the new politics, where you run unopposed and are ushered into office by an omni-partisan welcoming committee of noble, gentle, people. For all this time, Senator Obama has been saying “this campaign isn’t about me—it’s about YOU!!!! It’s taken all this time for Senator Clinton to say, “But what if it IS about you? Not about your story, not about your parents, not about everyone else in America and the world, but about you, your short track record, meteoric rise, and your campaign, based not on achievements, but on the power of your personality?”
"Let the seas clap hands in gladness about how wonderful I am"
Hang on for a second. I’ve got the vertigo again. Always happens when I hear the Oracle of Illinois, Barack Obama, once again give his commencement speech. For months, Senator Obama has done his thing… his well-written mash-ups of Franklin Roosevelt, Mario Cuomo, John F. Kennedy and the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, with a little Thomas Jefferson tossed in.
Other candidates, especially Hillary Clinton, have stood there like a stunned moose, either dazzled by his eloquence, or afraid to challenge him. Mrs. Clinton, in particular, had been seeing this as some sort of “America’s Next Model” competition, trying to prove that she could be as smooth and attractive and genial as Senator Obama. Nice try, Hill. Nobody beats Barack Obama on that score. Senator Clinton has moved on from that approach. Now we’re in a new phase. After all these months of listening to Obama’s orations from Mount Olympus, Hillary has begun to campaign as though she wants the job. First the Oprah challenge: After months of hearing that Obama’s “story” makes him the best candidate, Hillary is piercing that by talking about the actual requirements of the job.
The reaction from the Obama camp is “how dare she?” Like she’s spitting on the flag by going beyond the “story.” Then, she talks about “experience.” For a while, the Clinton campaign had been acting as though if she didn’t mention her age, everyone would think she was 41. Finally, Senator Clinton is talking about her own resume, and pointing out specific ways that she’s been tested, that Senator Obama hasn’t. I’ve heard two responses from the Obama camp: first, experience doesn’t count if you’re wrong. Second, what experience has she had?
Notice that neither of those questions responds to the issue. Because she has had vastly more experience, in a variety of kinds of service. But let’s answer those questions. The answer to the first: one of the values of experience is understanding that inevitably, you will be wrong, not infallibly “right” , that your adversaries have reasons for what they do, that might be no less noble than your own, and a grasp of the massive complexities involved in running this country. That decisions about defense, about health care, all the decisions you make, aren’t necessarily about how noble you are, but how willing you are to take a half a loaf when that’s all that’s on the table.
The answer to the second, is that she’s worked for children, for foster children, for parents, worked on laws to fight child abuse, and was on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee when it considered impeaching Richard Nixon, who left office before that impeachment could take place. She ran a legal aid clinic for the poor in Arkansas, President Carter appointed her to the United States Legal Services Corporation, a federal nonprofit program that funds legal assistance for the poor. She improved education in Arkansas, serving on that state’s task force. She also led the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, fighting against sexual harassment and for equal pay for women. All this was before the White House.
She’s done plenty since, including her service in the U.S. Senate since 2000, and she’s served on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrats are angry about Bush’s treatment of the CHIP program. (Children's Health Insurance Program). But it seems few remember how Senator Clinton has worked to build it. You can read for yourself on her website. The point is, there’s plenty of experience there and the question is kinda ridiculous. The Clinton campaign has called attention to how often Senator Obama has voted “present” rather than yes or no, on a variety of Senate issues. Obama’s supporters say they’re nitpicking. They don’t say he hasn’t voted “present” a great many times. On the meeting between a senior economic adviser from the Obama campaign and Canadian officials, Obama’s campaign says that nobody said anything to anyone. But in fact, there was a meeting.
I don’t expect anyone to be able to openly discuss the meeting. I’d expect everyone to deny the statements in the resulting memo from a Canadian official, saying that Obama’s opposition to NAFTA was more political than actual. But we don’t know what happened. Obama supporters are quick to blame Senator Clinton. Right. Now let’s take a look at some of the punches and slices Senator Obama has dealt Mrs. Clinton. Much has been made about how savvy the Obama campaign is about new media. But check out a chat room sometime, and you’ll hear plenty. You’ll see, over and over again, how the Obamans link the Clintons and the Bushes. As though we haven’t just spent seven-plus years with the lamest president of the modern era, who followed eight years of peace and prosperity, social progress, and a far more compassionate government, with Bill Clinton. Somewhere, on his nightstand, or inscribed in the breast pocket of every jacket, Barack Obama must have the phrase, “she was for the war before she was against it.” In this campaign, the Iraq War is a loser issue for Senator Clinton, so she tries to zip through a response and change the subject. But it sure would be nice if someone would just point out what a pile of disingenuous nonsense that remark is. It worries me that someone who wants to lead the free world is that glib and facile in making political hay out of that difficult vote. And I can’t wait until he has to deal with the Senate and the House. Beyond that, we’ve heard lecture after lecture about the divisiveness of the “old politics.” That “divisiveness” is an American tradition going back to the founders of this country. In fact, even before.
If you’d have put it to a vote, historians say, you’d have been hard pressed to find a majority who wanted Independence from England. Granted, the Bush administration has created a far more vitriolic form of governing and settling scores than anyone since James Buchanan, back in the 1850’s. Where we can work together, we should. But where we differ, we should point that out too. It’s messy. It’s upsetting. But all that noise is what the pulse of a democracy sounds like. Maybe that’s why I’m able to avoid going ballistic when Obamans repeatedly call for Hillary to drop out of the race. Entering the March fourth primaries, Obama has a 160-delegate lead. Again, as always with Obama’s campaign, the tactics are perfect. Time to start selling your own inevitability. I understand why many Obamans want Clinton out. They want the new politics, where you run unopposed and are ushered into office by an omni-partisan welcoming committee of noble, gentle, people. For all this time, Senator Obama has been saying “this campaign isn’t about me—it’s about YOU!!!! It’s taken all this time for Senator Clinton to say, “But what if it IS about you? Not about your story, not about your parents, not about everyone else in America and the world, but about you, your short track record, meteoric rise, and your campaign, based not on achievements, but on the power of your personality?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)