When I was in highschool there were some baptist kids whose moms would come to campus and protest every Halloween about the un-Christian imagery. Guess they never met these folks:
In The Know: Has Halloween Become Overcommercialized?
P.S.> I bet they wish they had Palin's minister...
Thursday, October 30, 2008
When I was in highschool there were some baptist kids whose moms would come to campus and protest every Halloween about the un-Christian imagery. Guess they never met these folks:
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Here's a chart from the Economic Policy Institute, that shows how much economic stimulus you get for each federal dollar spent on different types of stimulus (please show it to anyone who espouses Grover Norquist-style corporate, capital, or estate tax cuts):
Ezra puts it best:
The basic way to think about this is that you get less stimulus when you focus on the ri[c]h, and more when you focus on the poor. That's pretty intuitive. If you don't have enough money to make ends meet, and you get some money, you spend it now. If you have ple[n]ty of money, and you get some money, you put it away, That's not very stimulating. As such, tax cuts which primarily focus on the well-off sit at the bottom of the chart, tax cuts for the working class are near the top (like the payroll tax holiday), and things like infrastructure spending and food stamps lead the way.
Notice that the bottom three are related to Shrub & Grover tax policy, while the top three are food stamps, unemployment insurance, and infrastructure spending. It's strange: things are so clear when you actually have research to back up opinion...
Stanley Fish has an op-ed today, which he compares the rhetoric of McCain and Obama to two surprising antecedents:
Now, I don’t mean to suggest that McCain is the devil or that Obama is the Messiah (although some of his supporters think of him that way), just that the rhetorical strategies the two literary figures employ match up with the strategies employed by the two candidates. What Satan wants to do is draw Jesus out, provoke him to an unwisely exasperated response, get him to claim too much for his own powers. What Jesus does is reply with an equanimity conveyed by the adjectives and adverbs that preface his words: “unaltered,” “temperately,” “patiently,” “calmly,” “unmoved,” “sagely,” “in brief.”
Of course, he's not going to the original source here; he's drawing from Milton's Paradise Regained. But the famous Milton scholar doesn't say so. I wonder why not? Maybe he thinks those who know him will know this, or perhaps he figures that it broadens the demographic accessibility of his point. But how often do you have the opportunity to plug Milton in the NYTimes? I would think this grounds for expulsion from the Secret Milton Society.
Monday, October 27, 2008
I just got back from early voting. Didn't punch straight-Dem ticket (actually voted for one Republican, and a couple of libertarians, shockingly enough). But I did vote Obama, Noriega, and Skelly.
Then I went back to my car, and sat there for fifteen minutes or so. How amazing is this country? I've spent the last eight years insisting that the "average" American, those folks living somewhere between L.A. and N.Y.C., is neither a moron nor unfit to vote. I didn't realize, until today, how hard (emotionally, as well as intellectually) that argument had become. And suddenly, it's no longer an argument for me. It's fact.
What launched the last eight years was basic political cynicism -- you know, all the candidates are essentially equal, are crooks, our vote doesn't count, etc. Bush and the Supreme Court stole the election, but he was a passionate conservative, and didn't give speeches about lockboxes, so meh. Hey -- I was a political dilettante who wanted to vote for McCain in 2000 because he'd "shake things up." For me, this election has purged, permanently, that cynicism. President Obama won't turn water into wine, and he probably won't even give us national health care or a green economy. But he'll bring us closer, in every sense. It turns out that's not too much to ask.
A New Republic reader suggests:
McCain drew less than 500 people to a rally in suburban PA two days ago. Then he went to Western PA and flubbed the attack lines against John Murtha's comments so that the sound bite was completely incoherent. On Monday he drew crowds of about 2000, then 15 people at an airport rally (yes, that is correct--no zeros) ....
Now the Obama campaign is doing a major head fake in PA. They "accidentally" leaked an "internal" poll showing Obama up by only 2 percent in PA. I guarantee you that no such poll exists and that this was done both to motivate volunteers in the state (and maybe elsewhere) and prevent them from getting too complacent and also to sucker the McCain campaign into spending more time there. Ed Rendell has asked Obama to come back and campaign in the state-another major ruse. They know that McCain makes most of the decisions for his campaign and that they can goad him into spending more time in PA by pretending that it is close there. Let's see if Obama actually returns to PA before November 4th, but I sincerely doubt it. They are brilliant.
Ezra's comment: "It wouldn't shock me."
Well, it would shock me. There are two key problems with the idea that Obama head-faked McCain into PA. First, it's just too smooth and subtle for a major campaign to rely on it (leak one poll and get Rendell to issue one plea, and the entire McCain campaign will switch gears? Please.) It just gives too much credit (and affords too much power) to the campaign. It's like movies where they have the CIA tracking someone in the U.S., live, from multiple satellite cameras, while simultaneously tapping all of their twittering, debiting, and toilet paper consumption. If the CIA could actually do any of this, do you think 9/11 would have happened? Would the FBI still be struggling to identify the anthrax attacker? Hell, would the N.O. levies still be beaver-inspired shit piles? Campaigns, like govt bureaucracies, have about 1/10 the power that is credited to them. Mostly, they are large, unwieldy, and harder to maneuver than the Exxon Valdez.
The other key problem with the PA juke-out theory is that the Obama campaign has proved, time and time again, that they don't work this way. They don't worry about winning the week, or psyching McCain out, or quick-spinning the press. They keep their eye on the long game, and assume the short game will fall into place. McCain's campaign, which has done the opposite (c.f. suspending the campaign, "Joe the Plumber," and that twinkly flautist from Alaska), would be much more likely to try something like this -- and as his performance proves, while it's great copy and solid Hollywood scripting, it just doesn't work on the trail.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Was listening to This American Life this morning during the pledge drive, and Glass had assembled some bits from Fresh Air: specifically, letters and recollections of Robert Kennedy, and his assassination. Kennedy's son was on, and he read Kennedy's speech the night he learned M.L.K. died, which he announced to a black and white audience in Indianapolis. I've pasted in the video below (for some reason, the best Youtube video has Italian subtitles). I think it's profound, and moving. I'm listening to it now, again, and my chest hurts. The next few years hold so much hope. But sometimes, I'm worried, too.
And, while I'm at it, an excerpt of the speech MLK had given that night.
An interesting article came out in Technology Review about Wikipedia and its standard of truth, "verifiability." As Simson Garfinkel puts it:
So how do the Wikipedians decide what's true and what's not? On what is their epistemology based?
Unlike the laws of mathematics or science, wikitruth isn't based on principles such as consistency or observability. It's not even based on common sense or firsthand experience. Wikipedia has evolved a radically different set of epistemological standards--standards that aren't especially surprising given that the site is rooted in a Web-based community, but that should concern those of us who are interested in traditional notions of truth and accuracy. On Wikipedia, objective truth isn't all that important, actually. What makes a fact or statement fit for inclusion is that it appeared in some other publication--ideally, one that is in English and is available free online. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," states Wikipedia's official policy on the subject.
As Garfinkel sees it, this practical approach is also a bit of a dodge, because so many of us treat the product of these standards as the truth on a variety of subjects. He concludes:
So what is Truth? According to Wikipedia's entry on the subject, "the term has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree." But in practice, Wikipedia's standard for inclusion has become its de facto standard for truth, and since Wikipedia is the most widely read online reference on the planet, it's the standard of truth that most people are implicitly using when they type a search term into Google or Yahoo. On Wikipedia, truth is received truth: the consensus view of a subject.
Garfinkel finds this standard of "truth" troubling -- especially when talking about something like LOTR or Dr. Who. But, not to get too armchairish, what other kind of truth is there? Traditionally speaking, it's only since the Enlightenment that we've begun to think of the truth as something directly accessible -- something "out there" that can be seen and measured, rather than an ideal that doesn't exist in the mundane world [EDIT: a shift only achieved by radically curtailing what would be accepted as truth]. To put this differently, truth is necessarily referential -- built of a network of associations, standards, and testimonies about what you're looking at, what you're using to look at it, and what all of it should be taken to mean. [EDIT: When "truth" looks simpler, or more transparent than that, it's only because you've lost hold of all those threads.] From this perspective, Wikipedia's standard seems a bit more direct and honest than, say, the absurd simplifications ofcollege textbooks, or even some scholarly articles. To work on a Wikipedia entry is to confront how unstable "truth" really is, in a manner not too far from that the experience of a scientist at his bench or an anthropologist in the field. Maybe "wikitruth" will help disseminate some healthy epistemological skepticism. (Or, from experience grading college essays, maybe not.)
Saturday, October 25, 2008
In other AWESOME news, it looks like Michelle Bachmann, after calling Obama "un-American," might now lose her Congressional seat to a Wicca practitioner. That's wicced -- Go Willow! I don't know if you remember her from the Republican convention, but Bach-mann was the eerie robot woman who would say eight words, and then flash this incredibly mechanical smile for pi seconds (time it below). In related news, MIT reports that their android project has suffered a huge setback: "we're still years away from ironing out all the kinks."
P.S.> I just made that Wicca stuff up.
P.P.S.> My favorite line: "As. Americans. We. Are. Hard. Wired. For Compassion. [SMILE]"
P.P.P.S.> Of Immigrants: "Some. Of. Us. Came. With. All. We. Owned. In. A. Shopping. Bag." You know -- cuz the starving Irish had just hit up Nieman's.
... screw over the McCain campaign? Just one.
Wow do I have a better costume idea for Halloween. I'm sure you've all heard, but it's just too bat-shit crazy not to bring it up. Ashley Todd, a College Station student who went up to Pittsburgh to stump for McCain, reported that she'd been mugged at an ATM, and that the assailant, after noticing her McCain bumper sticker, knocked her down, told her he'd "make her" an Obama supporter, and then carved a backward "B" on her face (mirror, anyone?). She even produced her twitter posts, leading up to her attack, as proof, and capped with "Oh, the blog I'll be making soon ... It's been a rough night" (Oh Ashley, you enchant us with your stoic understatement, great Seneca of the Dixie Chicken). As Wonkette put it, this "angry dyslexic negro monster" story sounded weird. But McCain and Palin called to comfort the victimized white girl. Here's the photo:
Of course, it wasn't too weird for McCain spokespeople and a Fox News Vice President to suggest it would be game over for Obama. But it was, alas, way too weird for the Pittsburgh PD, who decided to check up on it. And she hadn't used the ATM, wasn't on its video, and couldn't say where the attacker had come from or gone to. Of course, it was a big, and incredibly stupid lie:
I'd just like to point out that the Texas legislature slashed the budget for the U-Texas system and doubled it for A&M last year. Where's the accountability, people? If a Texas student wanted to frame someone as race-bait, I'm sure they'd have taken the time to get 'er done right -- complete with ATM receipt, hooded accomplice, and hastily shot cell phone photo of the fleeing YesWeCaner. And at the very least, I imagine a UT grad would realize that mirrors, you know, reverse things (though it looks like Ashley probably avoids them -- as Dice Clay would say, "AOOOw"). I mean, what's a college degree coming to?
Thursday, October 23, 2008
You may have noticed a new AP poll that says McCain is within 1 point of Obama. Seems like one hell of a jump, right? Well it turns out there's a huge difference in terms of how each pollster adjusts their number to reflect the "likely" outcome. Basically, some think that the actual voters this year will reflect voters four years ago -- when Republican voters were more enthused and united (the AP is one such group). So they adjust the numbers they're actually getting to fit the mold of the 2004 elections. Others think that the huge surge in Democrat enthusiasm and registration will result in a dramatic increase in Democratic voters from four years ago (all of these polls still show the race at around 8-point Obama lead).
To visit a real guru, you could do no better than Nate Silver, who's taken formidable baseball number-crunching and statistical skills to analyze the various polls (and provide some handy-dandy regression models that project the likely outcomes). Take a look at his article on the likely voter problem.
I just got off a conference call the McCain campaign held to deny that al-Qaeda, contrary to reports in the AP and the Washington Post, is rooting for their man.
To describe the call as panicked would be an understatement. ...
What was absent from the call, oddly enough, was any discussion about why al-Qaeda might want McCain to win. And there the case is simple enough. al-Qaeda prefers an indefinite U.S. occupation of Iraq and a bellicose U.S. all across the Muslim world in order to radicalize Muslims to its terrorist cause and drain the U.S. of its financial wealth -- what Osama bin Laden calls his "bleed to bankruptcy" strategy. Hence the reason why, as the CIA eventually concluded, bin Laden tried to help George W. Bush's reelection in 2004 by releasing a late-October tape. McCain pledges basic continuity with Bush on the Iraq war. As Scheunemann put it, "John McCain will spend what it takes to win."
Yet the idea of al-Qaeda preferring a U.S. strategy that strengthens it confounded the McCain camp. "It is ridiculous to believe that in its heart of hearts, al-Qaeda wants John McCain to be the president," Woolsey said. "It's ludicrous."
You know, the funny thing is, I think that Woolsey really doesn't believe it's true (despite the opinion of the CIA, which he used to head). Not only are they absurdly wrong about mid-East policy -- they don't even know it.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
McCain tells West Virginia he agreed when John Murtha called them "racist":
David Kurtz puts it best:
You can see the glimmer of recognition of the flub, like he just chased Road Runner off the edge of the cliff. There's the split-second decision to try to pull off a miracle escape. But his legs stop spinning and gravity takes over and from there it's a long way down. For a guy who spent the last week reminding everyone he's not Bush, that's got to hurt.
It's awesome. On a side-note, I never liked Looney Tunes till I got older. And I'm not sure I really got them till now. Thank you, John McCain.
Apparently conservatives are unhappy, because news of Palin's $250K shopping spree has displaced coverage of Biden's "gaffe" (he recently suggested that early on, Obama's administration would have to confront "an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy"). Ross Douthat, in his typically moderate tone, suggests:
Biden's bizarrely honest remarks are an almost too-perfect exemplar of the Kinsleyan definition of a "gaffe" as an accidental statement of the truth - and in a different, closer election, one untouched by a global economic crisis (and, yes, the ongoing Sarah Palin story), they might have been the game-changing flub that conservatives keep looking for. (At the very least, I think they summon up a much more compelling argument against the Democratic ticket than Obama's comments to Joe the Plumber.)
The problem with what Biden said, and with Douthat's take, is that it's not "an accidental statement of the truth" -- it's an accidental statement of G.O.P. delusion. Conservatives (especially neocons) have long argued that we need tough-talking hawks in the White House because it will cow the Muslims -- even Thomas Friedman advanced this argument in his infamous "suck on this" rant.
In reality, it's pretty clear that Muslim extremists see Republicans as more likely to play along with their attacks by over-reacting and overreaching. As Yglesias reminds us, not only was this Bin Laden's aim with the 9/11 attacks, there was pretty much a consensus that he mailed that tape to Al-Jazeera on the eve of the 2004 elections because he wanted to swing the elections toward Bush, who kept playing along. Hence, what makes Douthat's argument so "compelling" is the same thing that helped Bush in 2004 -- a mass national delusion rooted in our basic ignorance about what serves our objectives in the Middle East (and Al Qaeda's clear understanding of what our ignorance leads us to do).
The key point: these terrorists see conservatives and the G.O.P. as their defacto American allies. What does this mean? It means terrorists believe they get more out of attacking someone erratic and bellicose like Bush/McCain, rather than a more moderate Democrat. And this risk/payoff analysis, in turn, suggests Al Qaeda is more likely to attack a president McCain, whose response it can count on, than Obama.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Nikon just announced the winner of their Best Microscopic Image competition. The winner: a photograph of diatoms (filament algae) using polarized filters. Cool.
Sinewy filaments within squirming microscopic diatoms, a type of algae, are artificially rainbow hued as a result of being photographed through polarizing light filters.
Captured by retired British microscopist Michael Stringer, the photo took top prize--and U.S. $3,000--in the 2008 Small World Photomicrography Competition, organizers announced on October 15. Sponsored by Nikon, the annual contest showcases "the beauty and complexity of life as seen through the light microscope."
So for those of you who didn't notice, UT slaughtered Mizzou last Saturday. It was great to be in the stands, but a bit boring after a while. I mean, after the score reaches 35-0 in the first half, you're just cheering for the time to run out.
But one of the best moments came when they cut to attendees Derek Jeter and his new girlfriend on the Godzilla Tron screen. The crowd booed. LOUDLY. For a whole minute. Jeter looked *very* uncomforable -- and Matt Damon sort of sidestepped away to be out of the shot. I'm not sure I understand why this was the instant, visceral reaction of the Texas crowd. But as a beleaguered 'stros fan, it was kinda nice.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
I'm on my way now to Austin where I'll be in Darrel K. Royal for the Texas-Mizoo game. How do I get so lucky? Perhaps I was born on Krypton, too. My lips are sealed, but I do think I'll buy a lottery ticket on my way up.
But should the pick-4 fall through, maybe the Horns will treat me to a Souljah Boy "Crank Dat":
For those of you who don't know: Houston is a foodie city. From living near Manhattan for a few years (and participating in restaurant week religiously), I'd say it bests the big apple easily. Went to eat last night at Feast again -- it's a Houston restaurant started by a former St. John's chef. St. John's is the London eatery that helped launch the snout-to-tail dining movement -- they use the whole beast, which means lots of yummy, rich organ meat. (Want to feel like real a carnivore? Forget those milquetoast sweetbreads -- snarf some deviled chicken hearts in grape sauce.)
Anyway, last night was someone's birthday, and they rented the top floor (with a nice balcony that looks toward downtown) and asked the Chef (Richard Knight) and master butcher James Silk to prepare two suckling pigs. We had appetizers (including strips of salt-cured back fat wrapped around walnuts and flat leaf parsley) and watched them present, then watch James carve up the piggies. My friend and I roasted a pig for our birthday a few months ago, and I think that our pork might have edged theirs in a side-by-side comparison (though we had the advantage of Cuban mojo). By the way, cheek meat, fresh from the spit -- makes memories from Lord of the Flies almost seductive. But the sides! Kale with white anchovy paste, a salad of arugula with fried cheeks and roast pearl onions in lemon dressing, braised Brussel sprouts -- it was a richer, tastier thanksgiving meal.
For desert: a date and currant crumble with custard paired with a re-donculous ice wine from the great white north. Awesome. Now I just have to find a way to use the 6K plus calories -- marathon, anyone?
Friday, October 17, 2008
In case you missed them, Obama and McCain each gave roasts at the annual Al Smith dinner. I don't mind saying (though I thought both were funny) that McCain's script and delivery were better. They say the best comedy comes from pain...
Thursday, October 16, 2008
To expand upon the exchange below, here is the size of the subprime mortgage market (from bloomberg.com) versus the credit default swap (CDS) market which expanded, thanks to chief McCain advisor Phil Gramm's 2001 legislation, from a 1 trillion dollar market ten years ago to more than 62 trillion dollars (from Yahoo):
Now look at that chart, and ask yourself: which of the two slices would have banks scared shitless that if they lend to other banks, those banks might lose everything? It's those kinds of numbers (and the reality that AIG almost folded because of CDSs) that are at the root of the credit crunch. And a further point: mortgage brokers have been talking about the huge demand for "paper" that came filtering down from on high, the pressure to generate mortgages. This pressure came from speculators (domestic and foreign) who wanted more fuel for Ponzi schemes like the CDS market. It's a situation where an instrument intended to mitigate mortgage risk far outstripped its object and magnified the risk -- not only did the cart get before the horse, it picked the horse up carried it off a cliff.
And in case you think part of the credit problem is all the plastic we've been burning (and which the "culture of responsibility" pablum keeps bringing up), chew on this: total consumer credit card debt was 2.55 trillion in 2007 (from creditcards.com). That's less than 5% of the CDS market. And this is why Matt Taibbi gets pissed at Byron York below -- blaming minorities and consumers*** is standard Republican bullshit.
The worst thing about this bullshit (as I suspect most of what comes from the G.O.P.) is that most of them believe it, because they don't understand what they're talking about. Byron York is only a lead contributor to The National Review -- perhaps the foremost conservative rag in the U.S. Why should he bother to do research that took me 20 minutes? Of course, the guy from fucking Rolling Stone had the time -- but I guess covering Kanye West and Tool leaves you with more free time to do market research than, say, professional policy commentary.
It has to be rare for an entire half of the political spectrum to be so completely, so unabashedly out of their fucking minds. But, you know, it takes a village...
*** And don't get me started on the plastic safety net that consumers turn to when their real wages decline over seven years of Republican (non)-domestic policy.
Matt Taibbi, writer for Rolling Stone, IMs with Byron York of the National Review and brings the hatchet. There must have been blood on the keys when he finished:
M.T.: Oh, come on. Tell me you're not ashamed to put this gigantic international financial Krakatoa at the feet of a bunch of poor black people who missed their mortgage payments. The CDS market, this market for credit default swaps that was created in 2000 by Phil Gramm's Commodities Future Modernization Act, this is now a $62 trillion market, up from $900 billion in 2000. That's like five times the size of the holdings in the NYSE. And it's all speculation by Wall Street traders. It's a classic bubble/Ponzi scheme. The effort of people like you to pin this whole thing on minorities, when in fact this whole thing has been caused by greedy traders dealing in unregulated markets, is despicable.
B.Y.: I was struck by the recent Senate testimony of James Lockhart, who is head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, about the sheer recklessness of Fannie in recent years. Despite "repeated warnings about credit risk," Lockhart testified, Fannie became more reckless in 2006 and 2007 than they had been in the scandal-ridden tenure of Franklin Raines (who departed in 2004). In 2005, Lockhart said, 14 percent of Fannie's new business was in risky loans. In the first half of 2007, it was 33 percent. So something terribly wrong was going on there, and it became a significant part of the present problem.
M.T.: What a surprise that you mention Franklin Raines. Do you even know how a CDS works? Can you explain your conception of how these derivatives work? Because I get the feeling you don't understand. Or do you actually think that it was a few tiny homeowner defaults that sank gigantic companies like AIG and Lehman and Bear Stearns? Explain to me how these default swaps work, I'm interested to hear.
Because what we're talking about here is the difference between one homeowner defaulting and forty, four hundred, four thousand traders betting back and forth on the viability of his loan. Which do you think has a bigger effect on the economy?
B.Y.: Are you suggesting that critics of Fannie and Freddie are talking about the default of a single homeowner?
M.T.: No. That is what you call a figure of speech. I'm saying that you're talking about individual homeowners defaulting. But these massive companies aren't going under because of individual homeowner defaults. They're going under because of the myriad derivatives trades that go on in connection with each piece of debt, whether it be a homeowner loan or a corporate bond. I'm still waiting to hear what your idea is of how these trades work. I'm guessing you've never even heard of them.
I mean really. You honestly think a company like AIG tanks because a bunch of minorities couldn't pay off their mortgages?
B.Y.: When you refer to "Phil Gramm's Commodities Future Modernization Act," are you referring to S.3283, co-sponsored by Gramm, along with Senators Tom Harkin and Tim Johnson?
M.T.: In point of fact I'm talking about the 262-page amendment Gramm tacked on to that bill that deregulated the trade of credit default swaps.
Tick tick tick. Hilarious sitting here while you frantically search the Internet to learn about the cause of the financial crisis — in the middle of a live chat interview.
B.Y.: Look, you can keep trying to make this a specifically partisan and specifically Gramm-McCain thing, but it simply isn't. We've gone on for fifteen minutes longer than scheduled, and that's enough. Thanks.
It's like that scene from Apocalypse Now -- in which they slaughter the yak. It's head is almost severed with the first blow, but it just keeps standing for a few moments, and you can't look away.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
At some point before the end of the primaries, Barack Obama decided that he didn't need Hillary Clinton on his ticket to win these elections. Many disagreed (including some of my friends) but it seems clear that, at the end of the day, he was right. On the other hand, it looks like he did need Sarah Palin on the ticket -- see this article by Dana Milbank, and Palin's ability to rally Hillary supporters to Obama's cause, or this poll which shows enthusiasm for Palin cratering. It looks like the woman McCain chose to win the Hillary vote is the woman who lost it.
If the voters get any more rational I'm going to freak out.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Conservative Daniel Larison makes a great point about the inanity of "the surge":
The reason why McCain was smart, if gutless, to avoid talking about Obama’s associations last night is that he and his advisors seem finally to have recognized that invoking Ayers is not an effective tactic. This is remarkable because this tactic is incredibly popular among people on the right who think that talking endlessly about the “surge” is a good idea, and McCain still doesn’t understand that the “surge,” like his obsession with earmarks, means little to most voters who want out of Iraq anyway. Even though there is little or no evidence that his obsession with the “surge” works with the general electorate at all, McCain has continued to invoke it every chance he gets. Just as he does not understand that the “surge” represented a change in tactics (it is not a strategy!), he has never grasped that the tactic of hitting Obama on his opposition to the “surge” was achieving nothing.
Which makes me wonder: what if he called it something else? The swelling? The swelling? The great engorgement? There are some awesome, bulging words out there just waiting to be tapped. (Cough)
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
And a funny thing happened today on the way to the forum -- I was listening to sports radio (I listen to sports and talk radio a lot) and thinking to my self again, why don't people ever talk about politics? Just a few notches down on the dial is a channel with endless right-wing inanity (and I mean that literally, to snag a Bidenism). But the sports jockeys never mention political events (beyond the recent baseball hearings) and neither do the call-in listeners. And then a regular caller came on to inveigh against the Texans (as usual) and added: "And fellas, I watched the debate last night. Man, she makes my head hurt, man. I mean, it hurt." Then he apologized for the politics and hung up. No reaction from the Charlie Palillo (sp?). And I couldn't help but think, most of them aren't giving their former sportscasting sister from Wasilla much love right now.
P.S.> Palin Bingo? A good drinking game, but an enormous let-down otherwise. (Not one Bingo. And I even made my own card.)
Spent another day phone banking for the Michael Skelly campaign (read more here) and people really wanted to talk about the bailout. Mostly, they're pissed, don't think it will really fix the problems with the economy, and don't feel like they understand it well enough to know for sure. Here, here. If only most of Congress wasn't in the same boat. On the plus side for Skelly, Houston's 7th district is feeling a whole lot of "let's throw all the bums out" sentiment -- especially life-long Republicans.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
I guess we'll see what "the people" think about the debate in the coming days, but it seems to me that Palin saved her future in the Republican party tonight, and sealed the end of McCain's campaign. She wasn't a bad surrogate. But she needed to be amazing. Instead she came across as a reasonable Republican, and someone who didn't tow the party line. At the same time she didn't tow the McCain line effectively enough -- especially when it came to emphasizing some of the worst talking points, especially that they represent the change/outsider ticket. She delivered what she was given in workmanlike fashion. But she'll benefit from it in the long run much more than he ever will.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The Couricopia just keeps on giving ... So Palin, in this interview, simultaneously said she disagreed with Roe v. Wade, and said that she believed in a constitutional right to privacy. Couric politely pointed out that the right to privacy is the foundation of Roe v. Wade. The whole "penumbra" argument (that the right to privacy isn't explicitly spelled out but cast by the shadow of other protective rights) is probably the most legally controversial aspect of Roe v. Wade (per Griswold v. Connecticut). Now that may seem like a bit of a wonky point -- but given that Roe v. Wade is the only Supreme Court case that Palin could name off the top of her head, and given that opposition to it is perhaps her signature issue right now, you'd think she might take the time to learn about it.
I imagine in Palin's mind, the text of Justice Blackmun's decision reads something like: "The court finds that abortions are awesome. Elitism, too. Blah blah blah, Jesus sux, peace out."
P.S.> On the more interesting side, she seems to think that interpretation of the federal constitution is up to the states. I guess the south will rise again (if it thinks it has the right to).