That's right, I said a theater review, absolutely foreign territory for me.
But first, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, the movie I saw with Sara on my first-ever Christmas Day away from any family and in NYC. First, the 6:00 showing sold out completely and only through dumb luck did I bump into a guy willing to unload two tickets for $20 (that's a $5 discount) because his friend "got sick." So that won me the privilege of not waiting in the ticket line but waiting at the end of a massive entrance line. Evidently lots and lots of people wanted to see this film. We were only going because it was playing at the closest theater at the right time.
I read a book a few years ago called The Confessions of Max Tivoli, which features as its protagonist a man born to an old body who then gets younger as he ages. Perhaps for this reason I wasn't as enthralled by the story as I may otherwise have been, seeing as how that is a very interesting and specific plot. But I was very underwhelmed by this film. The people involved are all proficient enough and the film is attractive enough, but in my opinion it's definitely not worth its 165 minutes and whatever it cost to make. The reason for this is the story and the inattention to detail.
Maybe the producers thought that the simple aging story was fascinating enough and chose not to accentuate it. Maybe they were worried about adding to the length. Maybe they just failed miserably. In the above referenced book, a central struggle is that of the character pining after a woman his age but not his appearance. There is the constant disconnect between a young soul inside an old body (and later, to a lesser extent, an old soul in a young body). This is emotionally compelling. In the film, the character seems usually to be born simply an old man in both soul and body. When he falls in love with the girl, we don't appreciate any of the tragedy of his condition. Instead the whole film seems to be a mere succession of events that ends up being almost boring. Also, in the book, since the character lives backward, he is necessarily aware of exactly when he will die, which gives much space for the author to consider the devastating human effect such knowledge causes. The film never mentions this and actually is forced to spend almost no time covering the end of Benjamin's life because they've already decided that he will recede into infancy and therefore have no ability to complexly think about his own existence.
The other serious issue I had with the film was it very loose attention to details, specifically plot details. I've already mentioned that the film starts with a baby with a frail old man's body. They don't consistently show us whether his soul is old or young. We see him desiring to play with kids and zealously listening to a bedtime story, but he's otherwise always playing the part of an old man unfazed by the world around him (you can almost conspiratorily wonder whether the filmmakers realized their "young" Benjamin was too blandly old and so forced in a couple of anecdotes). Getting back to my point, since the baby grows like a normal person, only reversing in appearance, you would then expect the small baby that looks like an old man to end his life as a near-fully-grown old man that looks like a baby. Instead, what we get is a progressively younger Benjamin who decreases in size back to an infant. This might seem hard to follow or like a small detail, but it bothered me and it's not the only example. There were somewhat liberal references to Benjamin's age and/or the date, so simple math would allow you to fill in the gaps. More often than not, they didn't match up. Again, I know this film is just a fantasy tale, and you're supposed to give allowances, but these transgressions were too much for me.
Before I finish telling about how I didn't like this film and how it's only average at best, I will mention that there is a very nice emotional scene at the end when Cate Blanchett is holding the dying baby Benjamin and she says how he gave her knowing look. Those moments of connected emotion were unfortunately far too rare.
Now, the moment you've been waiting for: the review of "Pal Joey" (I'm not even sure if I'm supposed to quote or italicize that), my first ever Broadway show (yeah, I succeeded in living in this city for 5.5 years without seeing one). Actually, I don't have much of an idea what I'm talking about regarding theater, and my response to the show was similarly sparse, so I won't say much. Sorry.
For some reason, I wasn't completely prepared for how long it was. Start to finish, including the intermission, it was 2.5 hours. The chairs appeared cushioned enough (you don't sit in a reclinable movie-theater style chair at these theaters, but instead a simple stationary chair), but were far too close together and ended up being the source of quite a bit of discomfort. The show itself wasn't boring, but still I was counting down the songs during act two on account of the chairs. The theater was also extremely hot and almost foggy. I'm not sure where the mustiness came from but it was another unexpectedly uncomfortable twist.
As for the show itself, I think it would not be classified with your stereotypical Broadway shows, because it had a somewhat compelling story that moved forward more through plot than through song. None of the songs were very memorable for me, though few were painful either. I was able to bear them without struggle, though during the intermission, I made a point of counting the upcoming songs in the program so I knew how to pace myself through act two's 12 numbers (act one contained 13 songs).
Not being a lavish song-and-dance show, the dances didn't really inspire much comment. They were certainly entertaining. Actually, that's a good simple word to use about the whole production: entertaining. I guess that's as high a compliment as a Broadway show usually requires. Also, I'm not sure if it was due to the subject matter of "Pal Joey" or if it's common to all Broadway, but I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of dancer ogling that is possible, and at nicely consistent intervals.
I agree with Sara's assessment of the actors: Stockard Channing is a fine stage performer but her singing is distractingly sub-par. There was one song where she was forced to alternate verses with another actor, and her inabilites were put on unfortunate display. The male lead was actually a late fill-in because the "name" guy (oddly I can't remember his name) was forced to leave at the last minute. He was extremely competent on all fronts. From my perch in the rear mezzanine, he appeared young too, so maybe he'll get around a bit in the future. The third large part was played by Martha Plimpton, whom most people my age know primarily for her work in Goonies. She was right in her element here, which is a definite compliment as her part was that of a nightclub singer, so any inadequacies would be terribly glaring.
To wrap this up: no, I don't think I'd return by my own motivation to Broadway for a musical after having seen this one. I have other motivations now though, and the sheer joy Sara derived from this experience, coupled with what I can best describe as ambivalently pleasant acceptance of the medium, will surely lead to more appearances.
Still, for my gameness, she owes me a little now. (Which is odd, because she claimed that I owed her a movie after the discomfort that attended her viewing of The Wrestler, which was my pick and something she would never have seen alone. (Disclaimer--she thought The Wrestler was great too, just a little to hard to watch.) So she was going to get to choose any movie for us to jointly see in the theater regardless of my tastes and I'd be forced to go, except her everlasting girl-ness took over and she decided to force me to watch two movies on TV instead. I lost about 2 hours from my life in this deal, but gained $25. No, my life is not worth more than $12.50/hr, so I call this a win. Anyway, the two movies ended up being White Christmas, which I didn't even watch all of, and Love, Actually. I won't waste too many keystrokes on it, but I just want to say what a truly horrible movie the latter is. I was fully expecting chick-flick crap, but this thing was so bad I was laughing at it. It was so bad I googled the people involved in making it and can you believe my astonishment to learn that its writer/director is fairly well-respected. Unbelievable.)
Monday, December 29, 2008
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Film Reviews
For a Christmas special, I'm bringing a long-dormant film review. I've seen two in theaters lately: Slumdog Millionaire and The Wrestler. I'll start with the former.
SM is a fun movie to watch. It's got just the right amount of comedy (regular enough so that the last laugh is still fresh in your mind when the next one hits, but not so much that you feel like you're just watching a "comedy") and just the right amount of suspense (so you are always wanting to know what's happening next, as in a good page-turning book). It almost goes too far in the schmaltzy department, and as I saw it, there were some acting deficiencies, but in some ways, that's the point.
This movie is very Indian-centric, from the very numerous and specific details of poor Indian life to the heavily accented speakers, to the liberal use of what must be Indian slang. As such, it can't help but to deal with Western assumptions regarding the well-known Bollywood movies. As with the ending, when all the characters spontaneously launched into an aggressively choreographed dance number, at times the director Danny Boyle chose to directly embrace the Indian movie-stereotype. I think this was a smart choice, as it had the effect of recalling the artistically bankrupt Bollywood films as an easy way to make clear that SM is anything but.
The story of Slumdog Millionaire is perfect, basically. Use the structure of a foreign version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" as a frame for flashbacks telling the story of a person's life, all while borrowing the constant escalation of suspense that's endemic of the show. Even during the movie I caught myself thinking, "Jeez this is a great idea for a storyline." And there's not much more to say about it: a great idea is a great idea.
Unfortunately, the actors responsible for bringing the great story to life didn't quite equal their material, with one very notable exception. First, I want to make clear that this was a very nicely done movie, so the acting being a detriment isn't as harsh as it would be if we were talking about a Martin Lawrence movie. Nonetheless, the lead male actor, in a role that was ripe for the taking, was pretty underwhelming. Passable and often likable, but underwhelming. I can't even say as much about the adult lead female role or the adult brother, both of whom were very close to being distractingly eptless.
Now, let's get to the exception: Anil Kapoor, Bollywood veteran. He plays the Regis Philbin role as game show host and dominates every scene just exactly as much as you'd want him to. Midway through the movie, I found my laughing just at his intoxicatingly flamboyant pronunciation of the word "millionaire," as well as silently hoping he'd be in every scene. I'll call it a Roberto Benigni performance, after Benigni's comic but appropriate dominance of Down By Law. He doesn't distract from the story or the other characters, but he steals every scene. I was impressed. Even if Mr Kapoor is no Brando, he is sure a professional actor.
Bottom line on this movie: well-done, time well spent. It won't probably win any awards but it doesn't need to.
Now, after taking longer than I expected with that, let me get to the reason I decided to write today: The Wrestler. It's been 3 days now since I've seen it, and it's effect on me is actually still growing. Leaving the theater, I felt moved by it: physically and emotionally, but its overall impact as a piece of art hadn't fully sunk in. It's that brilliantly subtle (and let me say for the record that "brilliantly subtle" is something for which I have a weakness). I'm going to go ahead and say that in these past three days, The Wrestler has for me transformed from simply "good 2008 film," to "hopefully an Oscar-winning film," to simply "great film regardless of year."
If you're going to see this film, please do yourself a favor and spend thirty minutes googling its star, Mickey Rourke. His personal story and the story within the film are impossibly tied together. I can't imagine having a full appreciation for his work here without knowing much beforehand about him.
So how about Mickey Rourke? I've done myself the favor of steering mostly clear of this stuff, but he's been getting some good press lately. Of course, it's easy for people to get carried away with that, so you never know. I purposefully chose not to too closely analyze Rourke while watching, so I would get a better feel for the film as a whole and not have any preconceived notions about what I was seeing or not seeing with him. Well, let me report that after some consideration, he's as good as advertised.
Not all great acting performances were created alike. Some are like Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood. Others are like Marlon Brando in Last Tango in Paris. Mickey Rourke here is definitely not at all like the former, though perhaps not quite so much like the latter. He obviously carries this film but he doesn't knock you over the head about it. He's subtle. He's real. He's exactly what's required to be perfect for The Wrestler.
The scene where he's working at the deli for the first time--and enjoying it (there is another, more ominous one)-- is so good and so simple and so perfect that it almost tricked me into thinking it was just an average effort in just an average scene. (Does that even make sense? I don't know. I'll lazily say you just have to see it to understand.) The scene when he's playing Nintendo with the kid, the ones early on where he's getting ready for a match, the ones with his daughter that were almost begging to be overacted, and the wonderful speech before his last match--practically every scene is the best scene. That's exactly why it's easy to simply appreciate the performance in real time but wonder at it as it sinks in afterward.
I can't help but wonder what it was like on the set of this film, with Rourke lumbering around being amazing. Was it lighthearted and fun, so as to cut the emotional tension of the film, or was it incredibly intense, so as not to disrupt the possibly Method techniques of the star or the definitely meta dynamics of same? If you're the director do you treat Rourke like a pitcher working on a no-hitter (silence and distance), or like a guy who just hit a walk-off homer (enthusiasm and loud positive reinforcement). Whatever Darren Aronofsky did, it worked.
The most interesting thing about this acting job is: where could Mickey Rourke possibly go from here? does he start getting intense parts again? (Cause you know he could never honestly do anything at all light at this point.) Or should he just suffer a tragic death or retirement, so this role can be raised up and our memory of it never tampered? (I say no. The possibilities are too endlessly interesting that I selfishly want to see what happens.)
Back to the film as a whole now. It's lazy and cliche to say it's shot in a documentary-style, but if I were to say that, you would know exactly what to expect. The fact is that it is not shot that way; it is clearly a staged production. It's the lighting (lack thereof) and the settings (Jersey shitlands) that make it so gritty. I think this is a good time to mention that these were choices made by Aronofsky that--like whatever his approach to Rourke was--worked beautifully for this film. They don't result in pretty cinematography or fancy directorial stamps, and they don't probably result in lavish accolades, but they go a long way to making a great film. So good work to him. (Disclaimer: I am a sucker for a lot of those big director moves and camerawork. It's nice to take time acknowledge that it doesn't have to be that way to be effective.)
The last thing I'd like to mention is the ending. (Spoilers, obviously.) A film like this one needed to have a good ending. We got a nice snapshot of a time in the character's life, so the story didn't necessarily need to be wrapped up neatly or anything, but the film itself needed to go out on a high note. As with the other things I've talked about, here The Wrestler was superb.
The film is about a man struggling to move on with his life, about a wrestler trying to learn that it's ok not to be a wrestler anymore, to accept that his essence is directly harmful to himself. (This is interesting of course, and lends itself perfectly to a film.) Randy the Ram has some success in this endeavor: strangely enjoying his deli clerk job, making progress with his dancer-lady, finally connecting with his daughter, doing coke and banging a young ho (he, kidding on that last one); but of course he cracks and is forced to heed the siren call of himself. He's a wrestler. He's a failure. He's a deadbeat. If his heart explodes, then so be it, cause if he can't be hmself then what sense is there in being.
When he steps in the ring at the end, post-heart attack, the sense of doom is palpable. This is why his speech just prior is so incredible and oddly triumphant. And all the horrible things we've been forced to see inside the ring leading up to this final match set the stage wonderfully. That there is no real brutality is of no consequence, because we are constantly expecting it. It's almost hold-your-breath uncomfortable.
I think a lot of people will view the ending as sad, when Randy appears in the onset of another heart attack but still climbs the top ropes and launches himself off in his trademark "Ram Jam," but I feel very differently. As I hinted before, I think it's great that Randy has tried to change himself, but ultimately realized he is who he is. To quote my most favorite movie of the last several years: "You can't change what's coming." If he's going to go out, he's going out on his own terms doing what he loves to do. Standing on the top ropes hearing the cheers of the crowd, he very literally and figuratively went out on top. Good for him. And good for The Wrestler. A perfect ending to a great film.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
1. Ok. It was a long time coming this year, but I'm finally and legitimately excited for the OSU-Michigan game tomorrow. Michigan's pathetic 3-8 is still not enough to taint what is the most anticipated football game for me every year The only exceptions to this would be if the Steelers were playing in the AFC Championship game or of course the Super Bowl. All other games of any level or importance would be secondary, even, believe it or not, an OSU national title game appearance (though I'm sure this opinion is colored by semi-recent events). So it will be fun tomorrow, and I'm semi-confident that the game might itself be interesting for quite a while, or at least long enough to give Michigan a victory against the historically-high 20.5 point spread.
After our game at noon, what I think might be the biggest game of the year is at 8:00 with Texas Tech and Oklahoma. TT is good and all, but I think a lot of people are forgetting how ridiculous Oklahoma is. I think they're going to put the hurt on Texas Tech, and I think they ought to get into the title game over Texas, even though they lost head-to-head.
This is a small digression, but this would be a great year for a playoff, maybe the best yet. I'm fairly certain there will be no major unbeatens (sorry Alabama), and at least 6-8 legitimately good teams to duke it out, in order of quality: Oklahoma, Florida, USC, Texas, Alabama, Texas Tech, Penn State. Add to that potentially-undefeated Utah and you've got a nice playoff lineup (first-round games: OU-Utah, Florida-Penn St, USC-TT, Texas-Bama. Excellent).
2. There has been a minor controversy online regarding a guy trying to use shady means to prove his theory that Obama was elected because the media covered the race unfairly. First, know that the guy at the center of this, John Ziegler, used to be a conservative talk-radio host, which really is about all you need to know about him. This guy cooked up a survey to show that Obama voters absorbed slanderous news about McCain/Palin better than about Obama/Biden, and that this obviously means that the liberal media played up the Republicans' faults while obscuring the Democrats'. Never mind that Obama is black and therefore belongs to a minority group that hasn't ever been portrayed remotely fairly by any form of media, or the fact that it would take some impressive kind of conspiracy in 2008 to effectively filter info.
Anyhow, I'm not as interested in that part of the debate. I'd like to look at a couple examples of why Ziegler/conservatives are angry about the media's treatment of the election, as found through his survey. People were much more likely to know that Palin has a pregnant teenage daughter and received $150,000 worth of clothes than they were to know about Obama's (out of context and misquoted) comment about the coal industry or Biden's past plagiarism. To any observer, partisan or not, this should come as no surprise. Even accepting Ziegler's general assumption--that this is because the media focused on the former stories and ignored the latter--should not be at all debatable. He--we--everyone, unfortunately--is assuming the media is operating with any kind of journalistic standards in mind, that the media is concerned with reporting honest stories and presenting honest pertinent information. Maybe it's archaic, but the major TV and radio networks are subject to federal oversight because they were originally intended to be responsible guardians of the public's information absorption. This has gone by the wayside, and is only really ever expected out of PBS anymore.
Instead, what we have now in almost all media outlets (and throughout all entertainment in fact) is a constant pandering to a least-common-denominator. The media doesn't give us what we ought to know, they give us what they think we want to know. We're interested in trivial scandal and personal details about politicians, cause lord knows those are the things that affect a person's governance (sometimes I know, they do, but you know what I mean).
I've criticized news and entertainment industries about this stuff before but so many people seem unfazed by this that it bears repeating. Our culture is different now, and not for the better. I don't care that Sarah Palin's daughter doesn't use contraception, I don't care that Eliot Spitzer sees prostitutes, I don't care that Bill Clinton got a hummer in the White House. I care that it's perfectly legal to discriminate against gay people, I care that U.S. leaders don't need to adhere to the same standards we hold to the rest of the world, I care that this country isn't remotely solvent.
3. The other day, I received an email from my good friend David Plouffe asking me for money again. (A reminder, Plouffe was Obama's campaign manager.) It was more or less your standard request for donation, this time to help fund the transition effort, except I noticed a couple lines that hint at something I find--at the risk of sounding naive--wholly remarkable and admirable:
For the first time, transition efforts won't be financed with donations from Washington lobbyists and PACs -- which means we'll need to keep asking for your help. Your generosity during the campaign helped get us here, but building a more transparent and open government means continuing to rely on a broader group of people to do this the right way.
First, the theme is the same as always, the same as it was since the day Obama rejected public financing and instead decided to raise all his money on his own. Through these constant emails from them, the campaign has been consistently proud of this fact. Although it sets a dangerous precedent toward ever-escalating money spent on political campaigns, I'm inclined to agree with their pride. Why not be supported quite literally from your supporters, and not some taxpayer funds or professional lobbyists? I know my ignorance on this forces such simplicity, but it makes sense. Again, I'd be worried about the path this could lead us down, but in this moment, I like it.
The much more interesting part of the quoted paragraph, though, is this: "building a more transparent and open government means continuing to rely on a broader group of people."
Obama has found himself in a difficult position after managing to somewhat transcend some of the usual politics in the eyes of millions of people. It's a corny cliche word here, but he's given hope that he might be different or run things differently than we're used to. In this task, and given these expectations, he will of course fail. He's a politician after all. He might represent better things to people but in the end he's one of them.
Nonetheless, if there is one thing that I've sorta noticed about how Obama and his people have gone about things, it's that he seems to genuinely be making an effort at transparency and accountability. Of course, after 8 horribly secretive Bush years, this is politically fruitful, but it seems more of an institutional mandate for the future from the future Prez himself, rather than a comment on the past. I'm too lazy to provide specific examples here from his campaign or the last couple weeks, but I'm happy to say that it seems to me at least that he's trying to deliver on a pretty important bit of promise that his victory represents. So good for him. But don't fuck it up.
After our game at noon, what I think might be the biggest game of the year is at 8:00 with Texas Tech and Oklahoma. TT is good and all, but I think a lot of people are forgetting how ridiculous Oklahoma is. I think they're going to put the hurt on Texas Tech, and I think they ought to get into the title game over Texas, even though they lost head-to-head.
This is a small digression, but this would be a great year for a playoff, maybe the best yet. I'm fairly certain there will be no major unbeatens (sorry Alabama), and at least 6-8 legitimately good teams to duke it out, in order of quality: Oklahoma, Florida, USC, Texas, Alabama, Texas Tech, Penn State. Add to that potentially-undefeated Utah and you've got a nice playoff lineup (first-round games: OU-Utah, Florida-Penn St, USC-TT, Texas-Bama. Excellent).
2. There has been a minor controversy online regarding a guy trying to use shady means to prove his theory that Obama was elected because the media covered the race unfairly. First, know that the guy at the center of this, John Ziegler, used to be a conservative talk-radio host, which really is about all you need to know about him. This guy cooked up a survey to show that Obama voters absorbed slanderous news about McCain/Palin better than about Obama/Biden, and that this obviously means that the liberal media played up the Republicans' faults while obscuring the Democrats'. Never mind that Obama is black and therefore belongs to a minority group that hasn't ever been portrayed remotely fairly by any form of media, or the fact that it would take some impressive kind of conspiracy in 2008 to effectively filter info.
Anyhow, I'm not as interested in that part of the debate. I'd like to look at a couple examples of why Ziegler/conservatives are angry about the media's treatment of the election, as found through his survey. People were much more likely to know that Palin has a pregnant teenage daughter and received $150,000 worth of clothes than they were to know about Obama's (out of context and misquoted) comment about the coal industry or Biden's past plagiarism. To any observer, partisan or not, this should come as no surprise. Even accepting Ziegler's general assumption--that this is because the media focused on the former stories and ignored the latter--should not be at all debatable. He--we--everyone, unfortunately--is assuming the media is operating with any kind of journalistic standards in mind, that the media is concerned with reporting honest stories and presenting honest pertinent information. Maybe it's archaic, but the major TV and radio networks are subject to federal oversight because they were originally intended to be responsible guardians of the public's information absorption. This has gone by the wayside, and is only really ever expected out of PBS anymore.
Instead, what we have now in almost all media outlets (and throughout all entertainment in fact) is a constant pandering to a least-common-denominator. The media doesn't give us what we ought to know, they give us what they think we want to know. We're interested in trivial scandal and personal details about politicians, cause lord knows those are the things that affect a person's governance (sometimes I know, they do, but you know what I mean).
I've criticized news and entertainment industries about this stuff before but so many people seem unfazed by this that it bears repeating. Our culture is different now, and not for the better. I don't care that Sarah Palin's daughter doesn't use contraception, I don't care that Eliot Spitzer sees prostitutes, I don't care that Bill Clinton got a hummer in the White House. I care that it's perfectly legal to discriminate against gay people, I care that U.S. leaders don't need to adhere to the same standards we hold to the rest of the world, I care that this country isn't remotely solvent.
3. The other day, I received an email from my good friend David Plouffe asking me for money again. (A reminder, Plouffe was Obama's campaign manager.) It was more or less your standard request for donation, this time to help fund the transition effort, except I noticed a couple lines that hint at something I find--at the risk of sounding naive--wholly remarkable and admirable:
For the first time, transition efforts won't be financed with donations from Washington lobbyists and PACs -- which means we'll need to keep asking for your help. Your generosity during the campaign helped get us here, but building a more transparent and open government means continuing to rely on a broader group of people to do this the right way.
First, the theme is the same as always, the same as it was since the day Obama rejected public financing and instead decided to raise all his money on his own. Through these constant emails from them, the campaign has been consistently proud of this fact. Although it sets a dangerous precedent toward ever-escalating money spent on political campaigns, I'm inclined to agree with their pride. Why not be supported quite literally from your supporters, and not some taxpayer funds or professional lobbyists? I know my ignorance on this forces such simplicity, but it makes sense. Again, I'd be worried about the path this could lead us down, but in this moment, I like it.
The much more interesting part of the quoted paragraph, though, is this: "building a more transparent and open government means continuing to rely on a broader group of people."
Obama has found himself in a difficult position after managing to somewhat transcend some of the usual politics in the eyes of millions of people. It's a corny cliche word here, but he's given hope that he might be different or run things differently than we're used to. In this task, and given these expectations, he will of course fail. He's a politician after all. He might represent better things to people but in the end he's one of them.
Nonetheless, if there is one thing that I've sorta noticed about how Obama and his people have gone about things, it's that he seems to genuinely be making an effort at transparency and accountability. Of course, after 8 horribly secretive Bush years, this is politically fruitful, but it seems more of an institutional mandate for the future from the future Prez himself, rather than a comment on the past. I'm too lazy to provide specific examples here from his campaign or the last couple weeks, but I'm happy to say that it seems to me at least that he's trying to deliver on a pretty important bit of promise that his victory represents. So good for him. But don't fuck it up.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The Big Republican Problem
This ought to be the last political post for a while, or at least the last one focused mainly on politics. They're fun in doses, and I'm sure I will have had my fill soon enough.
During the last several weeks as I've habitually politics-loaded, I've tried to make sure I get a little of both sides. The problem with internet surfing for legit but opinionated information is that similar-minded sites tend to link to each other but not as much to dissenting ones. To get around this, you have to follow a link where a liberal is making fun of what a conservative is saying, and then once at the other site, to browse around rather than simply read what was linked. For your information, one site that's dedicated to conservative thinking (and no I'm not using that phrase ironically. I think it's terribly stupid when liberals (or any group that might ever drift toward elitism) act like it's impossible to find extremely intelligent arguments from the other side. No one has a monopoly on good ideas.) which I have found to contain plenty of smart, readable content is nextright.com. There are many others but my laziness has limited me mostly to revisiting this one.
Anyhow, in reading some of these Republican sites, I can't help but notice some of the comments to articles. As with any site, the comments are on another planet than the articles, quality-wise, but since I don't have as many righty friends anymore, and I don't see many here in Manhattan, it can be slightly if curiously informative. Being from Eastern Ohio, and raised in a somewhat culturally conservative household, I have some experience with both sides of the political debate. Of course over time I have tended to the left in my own thinking but I can certainly respect and often agree with either side.
Now, there are a lot of conservatives lamenting their performance Tuesday, for good reason, but there may be even more (the more ambitious or enthusiastic at least) that are attempting to lay out how to regain traction and eventually return to national power. Many of the excuses/ideas offered are reasonable, but I've found that my own personal feeling regarding the biggest Republican problem has gone laregly unmentioned.
Somewhere along the line (I'll leave others to decide when exactly), Republicans made a decision that, sure, it's ok if a large portion of our base consists of bigoted, ignorant, uninformed, and homogenous individuals. By letting too many of these types of voters run amok as a big chunk of their base, the Republicans took up residence on the wrong side of history. By consistently doing this, they ensured that no matter what else happened in the present, sooner or later, they were going to fall. I talked about this is my gay marriage post a few back, but it's a guarantee that fairness and virtue will win out in this country in the long run (And let's pause here to note that no matter the flaws of the country or its people, this fact stands high as evidence of its true greatness).
You could probably trace today's versions of the Democratic and Republican parties directly to the civil rights era, when Lyndon Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Act changed the south from a Democratic stronghold to the Republican one it has remained to this day. Starting there, they fell behind (in many cases, to say they "fell behind" is very generous, more descriptive to say they "vigorously opposed.") on racism, abortion, guns, the environment, anything science-related, homosexuality, and pretty much any other progressive social/cultural issue. They took the easy road and pandered to the ignorances, fears, and insecurities of the present, somehow not noticing that the supporters of intolerance would shrink as the years went on and people naturally became more accepting of others' differences. They somehow didn't notice that the national share of white males was diminishing every year as this country continued it's centuries-old tradition of receiving immigrants in high numbers (I don't have a source handy, but it's estimated that in the not-too-distant future, there will be no more majority race).
Of course, not all Republicans favor oppression and intolerance. Most of the leaders of the party and a great percentage of its members nationwide are personally appalled at that behavior. But too many of their base is not, and because it's "the base," Republican leaders have gone to great lengths not to alienate it.
The Democrats are imminently capable of screwing up their current majority (also let's not overlook the poorly educated sections of their party) and they might sometimes consider themselves lucky to have stumbled into their preferred socially progressive positions, but assuming they steer the ship reasonably enough, I predict that the Republicans as we know them will never become a majority national party again until they've accepted this as ground zero and simply cast off their lot of ignorant fools. In consecutive national elections, this base has proven utterly futile, so what good is it to them? They need to rework the party from the bottom up. If their various strategists and thinkers can't see that their uneducated and intolerant base is nothing but a huge albatross, then they don't deserve the status as anything more than a minor third-party. Let their factions form their own parties: the Racist Party, the Homophobic Party, the Creationist Party, the Guns Don't Kill People I Kill People Party. What would be left of the Republicans would be absolutely certain to peel off lots of the not-yet-entrenched newly moderate part of the Democratic party. If they were somehow able to commit to their policy issues in any kind of big-tent way, they would probably stand a great chance to defeat the Democrats again.
But this kind of eschewing of their embarrassing base would take time and result in many failures in the near future, so they are sure not to heed it. It's the easy way out, and it's what got them into this mess 40-some years ago.
Finally, from a personal standpoint, can you imagine this country with the various intolerant groups having been marginalized politically? I'd say that's as close as a large society like the US could get to eutopia.
During the last several weeks as I've habitually politics-loaded, I've tried to make sure I get a little of both sides. The problem with internet surfing for legit but opinionated information is that similar-minded sites tend to link to each other but not as much to dissenting ones. To get around this, you have to follow a link where a liberal is making fun of what a conservative is saying, and then once at the other site, to browse around rather than simply read what was linked. For your information, one site that's dedicated to conservative thinking (and no I'm not using that phrase ironically. I think it's terribly stupid when liberals (or any group that might ever drift toward elitism) act like it's impossible to find extremely intelligent arguments from the other side. No one has a monopoly on good ideas.) which I have found to contain plenty of smart, readable content is nextright.com. There are many others but my laziness has limited me mostly to revisiting this one.
Anyhow, in reading some of these Republican sites, I can't help but notice some of the comments to articles. As with any site, the comments are on another planet than the articles, quality-wise, but since I don't have as many righty friends anymore, and I don't see many here in Manhattan, it can be slightly if curiously informative. Being from Eastern Ohio, and raised in a somewhat culturally conservative household, I have some experience with both sides of the political debate. Of course over time I have tended to the left in my own thinking but I can certainly respect and often agree with either side.
Now, there are a lot of conservatives lamenting their performance Tuesday, for good reason, but there may be even more (the more ambitious or enthusiastic at least) that are attempting to lay out how to regain traction and eventually return to national power. Many of the excuses/ideas offered are reasonable, but I've found that my own personal feeling regarding the biggest Republican problem has gone laregly unmentioned.
Somewhere along the line (I'll leave others to decide when exactly), Republicans made a decision that, sure, it's ok if a large portion of our base consists of bigoted, ignorant, uninformed, and homogenous individuals. By letting too many of these types of voters run amok as a big chunk of their base, the Republicans took up residence on the wrong side of history. By consistently doing this, they ensured that no matter what else happened in the present, sooner or later, they were going to fall. I talked about this is my gay marriage post a few back, but it's a guarantee that fairness and virtue will win out in this country in the long run (And let's pause here to note that no matter the flaws of the country or its people, this fact stands high as evidence of its true greatness).
You could probably trace today's versions of the Democratic and Republican parties directly to the civil rights era, when Lyndon Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Act changed the south from a Democratic stronghold to the Republican one it has remained to this day. Starting there, they fell behind (in many cases, to say they "fell behind" is very generous, more descriptive to say they "vigorously opposed.") on racism, abortion, guns, the environment, anything science-related, homosexuality, and pretty much any other progressive social/cultural issue. They took the easy road and pandered to the ignorances, fears, and insecurities of the present, somehow not noticing that the supporters of intolerance would shrink as the years went on and people naturally became more accepting of others' differences. They somehow didn't notice that the national share of white males was diminishing every year as this country continued it's centuries-old tradition of receiving immigrants in high numbers (I don't have a source handy, but it's estimated that in the not-too-distant future, there will be no more majority race).
Of course, not all Republicans favor oppression and intolerance. Most of the leaders of the party and a great percentage of its members nationwide are personally appalled at that behavior. But too many of their base is not, and because it's "the base," Republican leaders have gone to great lengths not to alienate it.
The Democrats are imminently capable of screwing up their current majority (also let's not overlook the poorly educated sections of their party) and they might sometimes consider themselves lucky to have stumbled into their preferred socially progressive positions, but assuming they steer the ship reasonably enough, I predict that the Republicans as we know them will never become a majority national party again until they've accepted this as ground zero and simply cast off their lot of ignorant fools. In consecutive national elections, this base has proven utterly futile, so what good is it to them? They need to rework the party from the bottom up. If their various strategists and thinkers can't see that their uneducated and intolerant base is nothing but a huge albatross, then they don't deserve the status as anything more than a minor third-party. Let their factions form their own parties: the Racist Party, the Homophobic Party, the Creationist Party, the Guns Don't Kill People I Kill People Party. What would be left of the Republicans would be absolutely certain to peel off lots of the not-yet-entrenched newly moderate part of the Democratic party. If they were somehow able to commit to their policy issues in any kind of big-tent way, they would probably stand a great chance to defeat the Democrats again.
But this kind of eschewing of their embarrassing base would take time and result in many failures in the near future, so they are sure not to heed it. It's the easy way out, and it's what got them into this mess 40-some years ago.
Finally, from a personal standpoint, can you imagine this country with the various intolerant groups having been marginalized politically? I'd say that's as close as a large society like the US could get to eutopia.
This is slightly unfair for its generalism, but do you want to see where racism lives in America?
Take a look at what is my favorite election map so far (it's my favorite for two reasons, just one of which is racism). Click on "Voting Shifts" on the left, and just leave the "Compare to" button over 2004 for simplicity, and because the farther back you go the more and larger political variables you encounter. That is one ridiculously blue map. It shows how each county voted as compared to 2004. Things to remember when looking at the map:
1. Nationally, the number was red +2 in 2004, blue +6 in 2008, so on average those counties should be 8% redder in 2004 (or bluer in 2008).
2. Campaigning and thus exposure to both sides is hugely disproportionate to the battleground states, so those should have smaller swings.
3. Many states overall flipped red to blue in 08: VA, NC, FL, OH, IN, IA, NM, CO, NV, so these states should include bluer counties than other states on average.
4. Indiana and Arizona contain home-state advantages to consider. This is why Arizona holds 8 of the 10 counties to go more red in the entire Mountain and Pacific time zones, and also why Indiana is the bluest state on the whole map.
So, absorbing all that, what does the map tell us, besides the obvious and instant fact that the Democrat did much better this time? Or, given the 8 point swing from 2004, plus the more inclusive nature of this campaign's advertising, leaving us to expect a generally bluer map all over, what would be the reason for the clustered deep red on the map?
John McCain received his greatest disparity of support over what Bush received primarily in one congruent area of the country centered over Arkansas but running from East Texas and Oklahoma across Tennessee and up into Eastern Kentucky and far western Virginia and West Virginia. The national vote (from D perspective) went from -2 to +6, but Arkansas managed to go from -10 to -20. Softening the national swing because Arkansas is a deep Republican state, we still should have expected something more like -6 for the Democrat this time, not -20, and that is a huge difference.
Outside of this corridor of increased Rep support, look at one of the blue flip states, Ohio. As I said before, we might expect some of the margins in this massive battleground state to be smaller than nationally; however, the vote there almost exactly mirrored the national in 04 and 08: -2 and +4. So why did 13 of its 88 counties vote more red in this election? Those 13 mostly reside in southern or eastern parts of the state.
I think it's clear that there is one possible answer to all of these questions, the one I mentioned at the beginning: racism. It's always controversial to accuse people of racism but sometimes the truth is hard, and problems will never be overcome if they are kept hidden. (I'm obliged to say that I'm no expert on local politics of the Ozarks, so there might be some mitigating factor that causes the region to buck the national trend. My perhaps lazy conclusion just seems fairly likely. At the very least, it's a large part of the whole answer.)
The other striking thing about the map is how it illustrates the comprehensive nature of Obama's performance relative to Kerry. As per my usual, I'll use numbers: 22 states saw every single one of their counties with increased Democratic numbers. Four more had all but one county, and three additional had only two counties show Republican increases. 29 out of 50 states had two of fewer counties give more support to Republicans. That's amazing. It wasn't just pockets of strength that gave the Democrats the edge, it was across the board. That would be ominous news for Republicans. They better hope that most Americans view Obama as a transcendent figure and crossed idealogical lines just to vote for him personally, rather than his party.
Take a look at what is my favorite election map so far (it's my favorite for two reasons, just one of which is racism). Click on "Voting Shifts" on the left, and just leave the "Compare to" button over 2004 for simplicity, and because the farther back you go the more and larger political variables you encounter. That is one ridiculously blue map. It shows how each county voted as compared to 2004. Things to remember when looking at the map:
1. Nationally, the number was red +2 in 2004, blue +6 in 2008, so on average those counties should be 8% redder in 2004 (or bluer in 2008).
2. Campaigning and thus exposure to both sides is hugely disproportionate to the battleground states, so those should have smaller swings.
3. Many states overall flipped red to blue in 08: VA, NC, FL, OH, IN, IA, NM, CO, NV, so these states should include bluer counties than other states on average.
4. Indiana and Arizona contain home-state advantages to consider. This is why Arizona holds 8 of the 10 counties to go more red in the entire Mountain and Pacific time zones, and also why Indiana is the bluest state on the whole map.
So, absorbing all that, what does the map tell us, besides the obvious and instant fact that the Democrat did much better this time? Or, given the 8 point swing from 2004, plus the more inclusive nature of this campaign's advertising, leaving us to expect a generally bluer map all over, what would be the reason for the clustered deep red on the map?
John McCain received his greatest disparity of support over what Bush received primarily in one congruent area of the country centered over Arkansas but running from East Texas and Oklahoma across Tennessee and up into Eastern Kentucky and far western Virginia and West Virginia. The national vote (from D perspective) went from -2 to +6, but Arkansas managed to go from -10 to -20. Softening the national swing because Arkansas is a deep Republican state, we still should have expected something more like -6 for the Democrat this time, not -20, and that is a huge difference.
Outside of this corridor of increased Rep support, look at one of the blue flip states, Ohio. As I said before, we might expect some of the margins in this massive battleground state to be smaller than nationally; however, the vote there almost exactly mirrored the national in 04 and 08: -2 and +4. So why did 13 of its 88 counties vote more red in this election? Those 13 mostly reside in southern or eastern parts of the state.
I think it's clear that there is one possible answer to all of these questions, the one I mentioned at the beginning: racism. It's always controversial to accuse people of racism but sometimes the truth is hard, and problems will never be overcome if they are kept hidden. (I'm obliged to say that I'm no expert on local politics of the Ozarks, so there might be some mitigating factor that causes the region to buck the national trend. My perhaps lazy conclusion just seems fairly likely. At the very least, it's a large part of the whole answer.)
The other striking thing about the map is how it illustrates the comprehensive nature of Obama's performance relative to Kerry. As per my usual, I'll use numbers: 22 states saw every single one of their counties with increased Democratic numbers. Four more had all but one county, and three additional had only two counties show Republican increases. 29 out of 50 states had two of fewer counties give more support to Republicans. That's amazing. It wasn't just pockets of strength that gave the Democrats the edge, it was across the board. That would be ominous news for Republicans. They better hope that most Americans view Obama as a transcendent figure and crossed idealogical lines just to vote for him personally, rather than his party.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Some notes on voting this morning, but first a couple follow-ups to my last post:
1. I read my post again, and I notice it seems naive, almost precious. What can I say, the guy does that to you. I do not rescind anything.
2. I would be seriously remiss to mention my Obama-vote without placing it in the context of my life with Sara. She is as intense a supporter of her home state/home city-man as any I've encountered. She's such a staunch liberal/Democrat that she gets physically upset when watching anyone from the Bush administration speak. Democrats could nominate Karl Marx and she might question his moderacy.
Anyway, when I said I was researching the candidates last night, I was doing this (at least initially) while sitting on the couch next to her. She asked me what I was up to, and I said I was deciding who I was going to vote for. She said "For President?" and I said "Yeah." The utter disappointment/horror across her face as she said "You're not voting for Obama?" was striking. I followed with my standard reminder of my no D/R position, but even though she has heard this screed before, it did not serve to placate her much. Shortly after she left and went to bed I resumed my skull session in earnest. I think had it not been for her bluntly honest reaction to my intents I might not have come to my relative epiphany regarding what I see as the true and transcendent nature of Obama's candidacy. I mean, I've known all along from a historical standpoint that this is really a big deal, but it hadn't much trickled down to me personally.
I don't think that we will always vote for the same people--far from it--but in certain special cases, I think it's important to note the inevitability, spawned by our closeness, of our one mind.
3. Voter turnout, particularly among blacks and youths, has been a point of discussion throughout this campaign. But I'd like to state from eyewitness report (albeit a pathetically small sample sized-report) of my experiences voting this morning, the turnout this year could be spectacularly large, so much to cause potentially big problems in some states. I've never taken more than 3-5 minutes total to vote in any NYC election, including for governor and for mayor. Of course these are far less attended than a presidential election, but a respectable 30% of the electorate voted in the 2005 mayoral election, which is roughly half of what's expected to be something near 60% turnout nationally in this year's contest. Anyhow, it took me almost 90 minutes to get through the line this morning, and I arrived at 7:50AM. The line was distinctly longer when I left. Also, in NY this year there is only one ballot proposal, and no other race above the US Congress-level. Of the perhaps 8 races in NYC this year, plus the proposal, it couldn't take even a complete dunce more than 30 seconds to finish voting (an assumption I can confirm from my time standing in the long but fast-moving line).
So I'm going to predict that turnout for this election blows away the expectations, which is clearly a good thing in general but a bad one specifically:
4. There are going to be big problems in some swing states, problems that will invariably end up in courts, something that will do huge damage to what would otherwise surely turn into an easy and triumphant night for Obama. I'm not suggesting something like 2000 where it's December before we can confirm a winner, but turnout will overwhelm polling places to the point that perhaps we will finally get some reform on the matter. How there is not some tiny temporary % tax increase initiated to upgrade voting systems on a comprehensive scale is borderline criminal. The machines we at least still use in NYC, with their pathetic punchcard results, would barely be suitable in a third-world country.
5. It's really just about time we declared Election Day a national holiday and got the day off work. I say this not lazily, but more as a way of reforming the polling place voting experience. Of perhaps 20 people working my location this morning, maybe 6 were remotely competent. This is unsurpising because who would take time off to volunteer to work the polls? A memory from my childhood is tagging along with my parents when they voted and spending maybe 30 minutes there with my grandmother, who worked the polls every year. That's right, a 4 year old was playing inside the polling place while his aggressively and menacingly Republican (75 year old) grandmother acted as gatekeeper to democracy. Today there was a man with one eye (one bad eye, he was in charge of reading people's cards to ensure they were where they should be. I saw he squint and lean in to try to read a card given to him. He struggled for 4 seconds before realizing he was reading the back--blank--side of the card.), two women too obese to stand up, and several people unable to direct as many as ten people into two lines.
If everyone had the day off, you would get intelligent and competent people volunteering. I would even make it mandatory of poll workers to attend two rehearsal sessions: one to organize the team and space, and another to do a full walk-through. This stuff need not be difficult. Lord knows it's important enough to devote some energy to trying to get right.
1. I read my post again, and I notice it seems naive, almost precious. What can I say, the guy does that to you. I do not rescind anything.
2. I would be seriously remiss to mention my Obama-vote without placing it in the context of my life with Sara. She is as intense a supporter of her home state/home city-man as any I've encountered. She's such a staunch liberal/Democrat that she gets physically upset when watching anyone from the Bush administration speak. Democrats could nominate Karl Marx and she might question his moderacy.
Anyway, when I said I was researching the candidates last night, I was doing this (at least initially) while sitting on the couch next to her. She asked me what I was up to, and I said I was deciding who I was going to vote for. She said "For President?" and I said "Yeah." The utter disappointment/horror across her face as she said "You're not voting for Obama?" was striking. I followed with my standard reminder of my no D/R position, but even though she has heard this screed before, it did not serve to placate her much. Shortly after she left and went to bed I resumed my skull session in earnest. I think had it not been for her bluntly honest reaction to my intents I might not have come to my relative epiphany regarding what I see as the true and transcendent nature of Obama's candidacy. I mean, I've known all along from a historical standpoint that this is really a big deal, but it hadn't much trickled down to me personally.
I don't think that we will always vote for the same people--far from it--but in certain special cases, I think it's important to note the inevitability, spawned by our closeness, of our one mind.
3. Voter turnout, particularly among blacks and youths, has been a point of discussion throughout this campaign. But I'd like to state from eyewitness report (albeit a pathetically small sample sized-report) of my experiences voting this morning, the turnout this year could be spectacularly large, so much to cause potentially big problems in some states. I've never taken more than 3-5 minutes total to vote in any NYC election, including for governor and for mayor. Of course these are far less attended than a presidential election, but a respectable 30% of the electorate voted in the 2005 mayoral election, which is roughly half of what's expected to be something near 60% turnout nationally in this year's contest. Anyhow, it took me almost 90 minutes to get through the line this morning, and I arrived at 7:50AM. The line was distinctly longer when I left. Also, in NY this year there is only one ballot proposal, and no other race above the US Congress-level. Of the perhaps 8 races in NYC this year, plus the proposal, it couldn't take even a complete dunce more than 30 seconds to finish voting (an assumption I can confirm from my time standing in the long but fast-moving line).
So I'm going to predict that turnout for this election blows away the expectations, which is clearly a good thing in general but a bad one specifically:
4. There are going to be big problems in some swing states, problems that will invariably end up in courts, something that will do huge damage to what would otherwise surely turn into an easy and triumphant night for Obama. I'm not suggesting something like 2000 where it's December before we can confirm a winner, but turnout will overwhelm polling places to the point that perhaps we will finally get some reform on the matter. How there is not some tiny temporary % tax increase initiated to upgrade voting systems on a comprehensive scale is borderline criminal. The machines we at least still use in NYC, with their pathetic punchcard results, would barely be suitable in a third-world country.
5. It's really just about time we declared Election Day a national holiday and got the day off work. I say this not lazily, but more as a way of reforming the polling place voting experience. Of perhaps 20 people working my location this morning, maybe 6 were remotely competent. This is unsurpising because who would take time off to volunteer to work the polls? A memory from my childhood is tagging along with my parents when they voted and spending maybe 30 minutes there with my grandmother, who worked the polls every year. That's right, a 4 year old was playing inside the polling place while his aggressively and menacingly Republican (75 year old) grandmother acted as gatekeeper to democracy. Today there was a man with one eye (one bad eye, he was in charge of reading people's cards to ensure they were where they should be. I saw he squint and lean in to try to read a card given to him. He struggled for 4 seconds before realizing he was reading the back--blank--side of the card.), two women too obese to stand up, and several people unable to direct as many as ten people into two lines.
If everyone had the day off, you would get intelligent and competent people volunteering. I would even make it mandatory of poll workers to attend two rehearsal sessions: one to organize the team and space, and another to do a full walk-through. This stuff need not be difficult. Lord knows it's important enough to devote some energy to trying to get right.
A Different Kind of Obama Voter
Many of you know that I've boycotted the Democratic and Republican parties because I feel that there should be more than two parties in this country, and that the repressive nature of the current two-party system leads to uninspiring (at best) or whore-to-party (at worst) candidates. This has led to a series of elections only interesting for their closeness; the candidates themselves have always seemed so unimportant or ultimately indistinguishable.
In the last NY gubernatorial election, I voted for a member of The Rent Is Too Damn High Party. I did this without fear of consequence.(1) In 2006 I spread my various votes around the spectrum of Third Parties: one for the Socialists, one for the Greens, one for the Libertarians, one for the Constitutionists. It felt good to make a choice for something other than the status quo. It felt good to support other voices, even if the candidates themselves were not truly qualified for the task with which my vote would charge. Unfortunately, none of the third parties ever had any chance to win and so my votes were merely symbolic, and therefore not as irresponsible as they might otherwise be.
So now I found myself today with what seemed like a more serious choice for president, though not really serious for the normal reasons. Last night, I was doing my final familiarizations with the third party candidates appearing on the ballot(2): Roger Calero (Socialist Worker's), Gloria La Riva (Socialism & Liberation), Cynthia McKinney (Green), Bob Barr (Libertarian), and Ralph Nader (Independent).
At this time, I found myself eliminating candidates(3) and was left with only Nader as a realistic choice. Now, it's not like I have anything against Nader, but I had to stop and consider what I was debating in my head: Nader over Obama. What was I doing? On the one hand we have an actual independent with a strong record, and on the other we have a Democrat, and a pretty classic one at that. But while Obama is still in my mind "just a Democrat," he's also something more than that. He's something we haven't seen in presidential elections in many years. He's someone that people really truly connect to and respond to, not just a product of partisan hype and enthusiasm, or so it seems to me. I am truly interested and excited to see what he might do as President, how he might lead. He seems to transcend the simple politics of at least the last 40+ years, and for that reason alone it's exciting to see how the country will react to him.
I've got nothing really against John McCain. He's a largely inoffensive candidate. Reminds me a lot of John Kerry actually, and GWBush in 2000, and any number of candidates before him. He's someone I'd never vote for. In a race with two of him, I'd surely have gone with Nader. But there aren't two of him. There's a guy who seems just different enough to me, so my vote this morning went outside of my tendencies and to him.(4) Godspeed sir.
1. No, Eliot Spitzer resigning in the wake of a sex scandal does not count as a consequence. Not even close.
2. I've never seriously considered casting a write-in vote, for a couple of reasons. First, I've never felt so strongly about a person to so definitively cast a vote "for" that person. Second, my votes have been more about dissenting from the current system than specifically identifying with a marginal sector of it.
3. Calero--not even born in the US. Come on, people.
La Riva--interestng, but not my cup of tea.
McKinney--kindof a joke, almost certainly in it only for the exposure. In other words, no better than Ds or Rs.
Barr--I don't mind Libertarians but this is not the right guy. He led the impeachment effort of Clinton. No, that wasn't at all partisan. Also, it was because he banged someone and lied. I'm what you'd call a cultural liberal, like a crazy-far-left kind, so indignation at Clinton's action is confusing to me.
The guy who I might have considered had he been on the ballot was Ron Paul but even there we miss on several of the issues. Of course he's also just a Republican, but I respect the defiantly outsider stance.
4. Just for the record, I didn't officially vote for a Democrat. In New York state, third parties are allowed to nominate candidates from the two major parties and still get their party's name on the ballot. This year, McCain was nominated by the Conservative and Independence Parties, as well as the Republicans. Obama was nominated by the Working Families Party in addition to the Democrats. I checked Obama's name in the Working Familes column. So there.
In the last NY gubernatorial election, I voted for a member of The Rent Is Too Damn High Party. I did this without fear of consequence.(1) In 2006 I spread my various votes around the spectrum of Third Parties: one for the Socialists, one for the Greens, one for the Libertarians, one for the Constitutionists. It felt good to make a choice for something other than the status quo. It felt good to support other voices, even if the candidates themselves were not truly qualified for the task with which my vote would charge. Unfortunately, none of the third parties ever had any chance to win and so my votes were merely symbolic, and therefore not as irresponsible as they might otherwise be.
So now I found myself today with what seemed like a more serious choice for president, though not really serious for the normal reasons. Last night, I was doing my final familiarizations with the third party candidates appearing on the ballot(2): Roger Calero (Socialist Worker's), Gloria La Riva (Socialism & Liberation), Cynthia McKinney (Green), Bob Barr (Libertarian), and Ralph Nader (Independent).
At this time, I found myself eliminating candidates(3) and was left with only Nader as a realistic choice. Now, it's not like I have anything against Nader, but I had to stop and consider what I was debating in my head: Nader over Obama. What was I doing? On the one hand we have an actual independent with a strong record, and on the other we have a Democrat, and a pretty classic one at that. But while Obama is still in my mind "just a Democrat," he's also something more than that. He's something we haven't seen in presidential elections in many years. He's someone that people really truly connect to and respond to, not just a product of partisan hype and enthusiasm, or so it seems to me. I am truly interested and excited to see what he might do as President, how he might lead. He seems to transcend the simple politics of at least the last 40+ years, and for that reason alone it's exciting to see how the country will react to him.
I've got nothing really against John McCain. He's a largely inoffensive candidate. Reminds me a lot of John Kerry actually, and GWBush in 2000, and any number of candidates before him. He's someone I'd never vote for. In a race with two of him, I'd surely have gone with Nader. But there aren't two of him. There's a guy who seems just different enough to me, so my vote this morning went outside of my tendencies and to him.(4) Godspeed sir.
1. No, Eliot Spitzer resigning in the wake of a sex scandal does not count as a consequence. Not even close.
2. I've never seriously considered casting a write-in vote, for a couple of reasons. First, I've never felt so strongly about a person to so definitively cast a vote "for" that person. Second, my votes have been more about dissenting from the current system than specifically identifying with a marginal sector of it.
3. Calero--not even born in the US. Come on, people.
La Riva--interestng, but not my cup of tea.
McKinney--kindof a joke, almost certainly in it only for the exposure. In other words, no better than Ds or Rs.
Barr--I don't mind Libertarians but this is not the right guy. He led the impeachment effort of Clinton. No, that wasn't at all partisan. Also, it was because he banged someone and lied. I'm what you'd call a cultural liberal, like a crazy-far-left kind, so indignation at Clinton's action is confusing to me.
The guy who I might have considered had he been on the ballot was Ron Paul but even there we miss on several of the issues. Of course he's also just a Republican, but I respect the defiantly outsider stance.
4. Just for the record, I didn't officially vote for a Democrat. In New York state, third parties are allowed to nominate candidates from the two major parties and still get their party's name on the ballot. This year, McCain was nominated by the Conservative and Independence Parties, as well as the Republicans. Obama was nominated by the Working Families Party in addition to the Democrats. I checked Obama's name in the Working Familes column. So there.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Forgive me if you've seen this before, but since I'm on a little civil rights tangent today, here is some of the Tao of BB King:"Water from the white fountain didn't taste any better than from the black fountain."
How good is that? Not only is this quote one of my all-time favorites, but it's also--for better or worse--more or less a perfect simplification of how I approach life. So what if someone feels like he is better than you? So what if you're getting a bit of a raw deal? Are things ok? If so, what else really matters?
If you need $10 and by chance you find two $10 bills on the sidewalk, then some jackass comes by almost instantly and steals one of them from you, hey, great, you've got the $10 you needed now. And that's enough. $20 might be better but come on, now you've got what you needed.
You give me water and I will drink it. If you are doing it hatefully or ignorantly to try to make a point, well too bad for you that's your problem not mine. Maybe it's weak or nonconfrontational but it is what it is and I'm not losing sleep over it. I know I'm the better man and I don't have to prove it to you. So good luck with those ignorant presumptions of yours.
Enough with the Ignorance Already, People
I've been inadvertently reading a lot of political election-related content online the last couple days. It's pretty easy to ride the wave of web info in this particular subject, and I've got to say I haven't stopped myself. Something that caught my attention was California's Proposition 8. It's a proposed ban on gay marriage in the state, something doubly important because California is one of only three(1) states that actually currently recognizes gay couples.
Many states have put gay marriage bans to a vote in the last few elections, so that on its own is not noteworthy. But the current polling on the issue that calls the proposal's chances a toss-up is, especially when you consider that California has the fifth-highest percentage of same-sex households in the nation, as well as the ninth-highest score on a liberal-conservative Likert scale (meaning it's the ninth-most liberal). So what we have is quite clearly a very liberal state, and beyond that, in fact a very progressive state, which has been traditionally gay-friendly so that it's population is made up of a high number of gays, but that is still about a 50-50 shot to outright ban gay marriage in less than two weeks.
I find this slightly amazing. But I find the culture that allows Prop 8 to be a toss-up and not a clear failure endlessly more amazing.
What is a gay person? What is so fundamentally different about a gay person that should disqualify him or her from being married? What is it inside a seemingly rational person that prompts him from deciding that a gay person is so different that he should be disqualified from marriage?
A gay person is not an animal. He is not a monster or a devil. He is not an infidel worthy of assassination.
I try pretty hard to understand both sides of any issue. I mean I can empathize very well and I try always to give the benefit of the doubt. But the continued prejudice against homosexuals in this country--LEGAL prejudice--is just embarrassing. There is no argument, there is no appropriate opposing viewpoint. If you oppose gay rights today it is just like if you had favored slavery in 1850. People who oppose gay rights have to know that they are on the wrong side of history, that opposition to equal rights has, in the long run, been defeated every single time in the history of this country. You can fight it all you want today--and you might be able to prey on certain fears or ignorances--but you will lose in the end. I guarantee you will lose because you have nothing to stand on but hate. Were the US a fascist country, then the ultimate resolution of this issue might be in doubt, but fortunately for us, it is not.
I don't know how many times I can say this or how many times I can be utterly disappointed in the American people and especially those in power who allow these things to happen. There is simply no excuse.
I understand now of course that banning gay marriage is a more specific issue than general gay rights, that there are narrow factors at play, that it can be more of a political issue than a civil one.(2) But I know that this is about more than specific laws or political procedures. It's about fairness and the freedom to live in this country as a human being. It took a war, but eventually no one worried about whether or not it was prudent before ratifying the 13th amendment to the constitution (3), they just did it because it was right. It's a shame we had to effect such a serious course of action as a constitutional amendment, but that speaks more to the sorry state of a large minority of the American population at the time that was ,as we all know, on the wrong side of history.
Unfortunately since close to half of the people in the largest and usually one of the most progressive states in the country still seems to oppose equality for homosexuals, maybe we'll eventually need to draft another amendment.
I'd rather that we as Americans woke up and stopped being so goddamned ignorant.
1. I'm counting Connecticut even though it hasn't taken effect there yet.
2. So let's talk about them briefly. You could argue that gay marriage should be banned because god wants marriage to be one man and one woman. Fine. Make it a church issue. Let dumbfuck preachers decide who they want to join in holy matrimony. But then you'd have to eliminate the tax breaks for married couples cause that would be 1) unfair and obviously discriminatory, and 2) a clear violation of the constitution's separation of church and state. If you get rid of the federal tax breaks and simply make marriage a religious ceremony (as it should be), then I think over time, the idea of "marriage" would rightfully lose some of its perceived luster, as more and more people in this country seem to be making the inevitable drift away from organized religion. Back to the point though. Putting the power in the hands of the churches would clearly have the effect of legalizing gay marriage because the whole reason these ballot initiatives are always for a BAN on gay marriage is that some churches have already stepped up and begun marrying homosexuals in some states. And as much as I like to find flaws with religion in general, it's adherents are not all bad of course, and their overall mission is to spread good, so definitely some preachers and churches actually support equality and happiness and love for all. Good for them. Welcome to modern civilization. Or to the ideals of their friend Jesus.
3. Abolition of slavery, of course.
Many states have put gay marriage bans to a vote in the last few elections, so that on its own is not noteworthy. But the current polling on the issue that calls the proposal's chances a toss-up is, especially when you consider that California has the fifth-highest percentage of same-sex households in the nation, as well as the ninth-highest score on a liberal-conservative Likert scale (meaning it's the ninth-most liberal). So what we have is quite clearly a very liberal state, and beyond that, in fact a very progressive state, which has been traditionally gay-friendly so that it's population is made up of a high number of gays, but that is still about a 50-50 shot to outright ban gay marriage in less than two weeks.
I find this slightly amazing. But I find the culture that allows Prop 8 to be a toss-up and not a clear failure endlessly more amazing.
What is a gay person? What is so fundamentally different about a gay person that should disqualify him or her from being married? What is it inside a seemingly rational person that prompts him from deciding that a gay person is so different that he should be disqualified from marriage?
A gay person is not an animal. He is not a monster or a devil. He is not an infidel worthy of assassination.
I try pretty hard to understand both sides of any issue. I mean I can empathize very well and I try always to give the benefit of the doubt. But the continued prejudice against homosexuals in this country--LEGAL prejudice--is just embarrassing. There is no argument, there is no appropriate opposing viewpoint. If you oppose gay rights today it is just like if you had favored slavery in 1850. People who oppose gay rights have to know that they are on the wrong side of history, that opposition to equal rights has, in the long run, been defeated every single time in the history of this country. You can fight it all you want today--and you might be able to prey on certain fears or ignorances--but you will lose in the end. I guarantee you will lose because you have nothing to stand on but hate. Were the US a fascist country, then the ultimate resolution of this issue might be in doubt, but fortunately for us, it is not.
I don't know how many times I can say this or how many times I can be utterly disappointed in the American people and especially those in power who allow these things to happen. There is simply no excuse.
I understand now of course that banning gay marriage is a more specific issue than general gay rights, that there are narrow factors at play, that it can be more of a political issue than a civil one.(2) But I know that this is about more than specific laws or political procedures. It's about fairness and the freedom to live in this country as a human being. It took a war, but eventually no one worried about whether or not it was prudent before ratifying the 13th amendment to the constitution (3), they just did it because it was right. It's a shame we had to effect such a serious course of action as a constitutional amendment, but that speaks more to the sorry state of a large minority of the American population at the time that was ,as we all know, on the wrong side of history.
Unfortunately since close to half of the people in the largest and usually one of the most progressive states in the country still seems to oppose equality for homosexuals, maybe we'll eventually need to draft another amendment.
I'd rather that we as Americans woke up and stopped being so goddamned ignorant.
1. I'm counting Connecticut even though it hasn't taken effect there yet.
2. So let's talk about them briefly. You could argue that gay marriage should be banned because god wants marriage to be one man and one woman. Fine. Make it a church issue. Let dumbfuck preachers decide who they want to join in holy matrimony. But then you'd have to eliminate the tax breaks for married couples cause that would be 1) unfair and obviously discriminatory, and 2) a clear violation of the constitution's separation of church and state. If you get rid of the federal tax breaks and simply make marriage a religious ceremony (as it should be), then I think over time, the idea of "marriage" would rightfully lose some of its perceived luster, as more and more people in this country seem to be making the inevitable drift away from organized religion. Back to the point though. Putting the power in the hands of the churches would clearly have the effect of legalizing gay marriage because the whole reason these ballot initiatives are always for a BAN on gay marriage is that some churches have already stepped up and begun marrying homosexuals in some states. And as much as I like to find flaws with religion in general, it's adherents are not all bad of course, and their overall mission is to spread good, so definitely some preachers and churches actually support equality and happiness and love for all. Good for them. Welcome to modern civilization. Or to the ideals of their friend Jesus.
3. Abolition of slavery, of course.
Friday, October 17, 2008
1. I feel like shit. I'm sick of getting sick at the same time every year. Whoever heard of seasonal allergies unrelated to pollen? Bullshit. Worst part is, this was the year that I finally resolved to get my first-ever flu shot. Then, about two weeks ago, I got an email from the HR director at work announcing free flu shots given right here at my office--in three weeks, or next Friday. So I first thought, gee that's kinda late for a flu shot. Then I thought, yeah but it's free. So I saved myself maybe $20 and here I am sick. I know it's after the fact, but I don't know what's more pathetic: that I'm so cheap that I refused to spend $20 on something like this, or that I'm so cheap that even now I actually think that not spending the $20 was the right call. At least I'm leaving work early today. Going to go home at taking a fucking nap. On a Friday evening. Middle-age here I come.
2. Did you know that there are only five political parties even on the ballot in enough states to plausibly win the presidential election? That's exactly what I'd like to see change. For posterity, the three non-major parties are: Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and Green Party. Notice that I had to say "on the ballot in enough states." This is interesting as the United States and Switzerland are the only two countries that do not have national standards of ballot access for federal elections. Laws for ballot access within each state are complex and diverse to say the least. The state of New York has slightly easier standards than some states (they allow something called electoral fusion, look it up but it basically amounts to riding the coattails of the major parties), so there are eight non-major parties on the ballot for President in NY state: Independence, Conservative, Working Families, Socialist Workers, Socialism & Liberation, Green, Libertarian, and Populist. Seems like a lot of choices, doesn't it? Seems like we're on the right track? Only kinda. The first two I listed have nominated McCain, and the third has nominated Obama. This is the electoral fusion at work. What it amounts to is a total of seven names on the ballot for President in NY state, probably not much better than average nationally.
3. The "Independence" Party I mentioned just a moment ago? They are actually just the NY chapter of the National Independence Party of America, which could easily be misunderstood as simply the Independent Party. There is also an Independent American Party, which was founded in 1998. I, as a true independent and unaffiliated voter, find this rather deceitful.
4. We were arguing about geographical recognition of cities last night, spurred by my frequent general claim that I am from "close to Pittsburgh." It was stated that this might be somewhat disingenuous because I am of course not from Pittsburgh, but moreso because what guarantee is it that anyone who wouldn't be expected to know where Steubenville is would know where Pittsburgh is? To draw that arbitrary line of geographic recognition seemed obvious to me but is it really? How do people understand placement of national cities? Do they picture their state first then the city's position within? Or do they generally ascribe the city to a specific region and leave it at that? The city that caused me to wonder about all this was Chicago. Everyone knows Chicago, and they know it's in Illinois and the Midwest, but what does all that mean to someone not from there? Most people could think about it and know that Chicago is on a lake, but there are five Great Lakes of course. If someone had a map with state boundaries drawn, I'm confident they could point to Chicago, but without the state lines, probably not. So I think those state lines are pretty damned important. At any rate, I wonder what's the biggest city that you couldn't find within 50 miles on a blank map? For me (using Wikipedia), it would be somewhere in the 30s, with Tuscon, Oklahoma City, Fresno and/or Long Beach. But as always, I feel like my abilities in here are higher than most.
5. Now for fun, here are my NFL picks (listed first) that I'm tracking. Special picks asterisked. Incidentally, I'm not as confident in these picks in general as past weeks. In fact, if I were betting for real I wouldn't choose more than 3 games I don't think.
KC +8.5 vs TEN under 35.5
SD* pickem at BUF over 44.5*
PIT -9.5 at CIN over 35*
MIA -3 vs BAL under 36.5
DAL -7 at STL over 44
CHI -3 vs MIN over 37.5
NO* +3 at CAR over 44.5
NYG* -10.5 vs SF under 45.5
HOU -8.5 vs DET under 47
OAK +3 vs NYJ under 41
CLE +7.5 at WAS over 42
GB +1 vs IND over 46.5
SEA +10.5 at TB under 38
DEN +3 at NE over 47.5*
6. Finally, I really dislike the Boston Red Sox. And I'm still confident in the Rays. James Shields is a tough motha.
2. Did you know that there are only five political parties even on the ballot in enough states to plausibly win the presidential election? That's exactly what I'd like to see change. For posterity, the three non-major parties are: Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and Green Party. Notice that I had to say "on the ballot in enough states." This is interesting as the United States and Switzerland are the only two countries that do not have national standards of ballot access for federal elections. Laws for ballot access within each state are complex and diverse to say the least. The state of New York has slightly easier standards than some states (they allow something called electoral fusion, look it up but it basically amounts to riding the coattails of the major parties), so there are eight non-major parties on the ballot for President in NY state: Independence, Conservative, Working Families, Socialist Workers, Socialism & Liberation, Green, Libertarian, and Populist. Seems like a lot of choices, doesn't it? Seems like we're on the right track? Only kinda. The first two I listed have nominated McCain, and the third has nominated Obama. This is the electoral fusion at work. What it amounts to is a total of seven names on the ballot for President in NY state, probably not much better than average nationally.
3. The "Independence" Party I mentioned just a moment ago? They are actually just the NY chapter of the National Independence Party of America, which could easily be misunderstood as simply the Independent Party. There is also an Independent American Party, which was founded in 1998. I, as a true independent and unaffiliated voter, find this rather deceitful.
4. We were arguing about geographical recognition of cities last night, spurred by my frequent general claim that I am from "close to Pittsburgh." It was stated that this might be somewhat disingenuous because I am of course not from Pittsburgh, but moreso because what guarantee is it that anyone who wouldn't be expected to know where Steubenville is would know where Pittsburgh is? To draw that arbitrary line of geographic recognition seemed obvious to me but is it really? How do people understand placement of national cities? Do they picture their state first then the city's position within? Or do they generally ascribe the city to a specific region and leave it at that? The city that caused me to wonder about all this was Chicago. Everyone knows Chicago, and they know it's in Illinois and the Midwest, but what does all that mean to someone not from there? Most people could think about it and know that Chicago is on a lake, but there are five Great Lakes of course. If someone had a map with state boundaries drawn, I'm confident they could point to Chicago, but without the state lines, probably not. So I think those state lines are pretty damned important. At any rate, I wonder what's the biggest city that you couldn't find within 50 miles on a blank map? For me (using Wikipedia), it would be somewhere in the 30s, with Tuscon, Oklahoma City, Fresno and/or Long Beach. But as always, I feel like my abilities in here are higher than most.
5. Now for fun, here are my NFL picks (listed first) that I'm tracking. Special picks asterisked. Incidentally, I'm not as confident in these picks in general as past weeks. In fact, if I were betting for real I wouldn't choose more than 3 games I don't think.
KC +8.5 vs TEN under 35.5
SD* pickem at BUF over 44.5*
PIT -9.5 at CIN over 35*
MIA -3 vs BAL under 36.5
DAL -7 at STL over 44
CHI -3 vs MIN over 37.5
NO* +3 at CAR over 44.5
NYG* -10.5 vs SF under 45.5
HOU -8.5 vs DET under 47
OAK +3 vs NYJ under 41
CLE +7.5 at WAS over 42
GB +1 vs IND over 46.5
SEA +10.5 at TB under 38
DEN +3 at NE over 47.5*
6. Finally, I really dislike the Boston Red Sox. And I'm still confident in the Rays. James Shields is a tough motha.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Yes, There Are Other Options
Let's stay mostly topical today. Politics. Elections. Votes. If you know me, maybe you know that after the 2004 election I enacted a boycott against both of the two major parties in the US, vowing never to vote for a member of either one again.(1) The reasons for this boycott, or more specifically for this extreme distaste for the major parties that precipitated their boycott, are somewhat lengthy and complex, such that I'd rather not partake in the argument now. Another time, I promise. Suffice to say that I'd much prefer a political environment where many different ideas or platforms have room to be taken seriously, and where people don't have to compromise their beliefs in order to fit into one party or the other.
Of course what I'm talking about is being elected, since any person can support any other person or belief, but it's a very different thing to have actually hope that their candidate has a chance to get elected. A member of a third party could never get elected to national office in this country as it's currently operated. The two major parties are simply too rich and powerful, suffocating any possibility for another voice. The only option is to change the election system.
The US currently uses a plurality voting system(2), which just means that the most votes win, no many how small a percentage that person has. I encourage you to read up on it yourself, but trust me that this system inevitably leads to the two-party system. Fortunately, there is a simple solution to this problem: negative votes. It's called a balanced plurality system and it's actively and thoughtfully proposed by someone named Donald Kronos.(3)
If we can vote for someone, why can't we vote against someone? It's so simple and obvious. More importantly, it much more accurately reflects a voter's intent, which is really the whole point of getting off your ass and voting in the first place.
Take 2004 for instance. Many people did not like George Bush. Many. Many people also did not like John Kerry, but were forced to vote for him as their only chance to speak their opinion about Mr Bush. So in this particular election, you could say that a lot of independent voters cast votes for the Democrat when really they were just voting against the Republican. After time this dissatisfaction would manifest itself in more varied parties winning more and more votes, until ideally anyone would have a chance.(4)
A side thought on this: imagine the possible effects of negative voting if it were enacted for the first time in 2004. Presumably Bush would have had almost as many negative votes as positive--totaling millions of each--while Kerry would have likely garnered slightly more positive than negative, though with ridiculously fewer votes in both column. Let's play with this example:
In 2004, a total of 121,069,054 votes were cast for either Bush or Kerry, 62,040,610 for Bush, 59,028,444. Let's assume that of Bush's 62M, 38M were actually "pro" votes, while 12M were "anti" -Kerry votes, with 12M belonging to independent or 3rd-party sympathizers drawn in by the close race. Similarly, we'll assume that of Kerry's 59M, 9M were pro votes while 40M were anti-Bush, with 10M others. This is very rough, but it covers the national consensus somewhat at least. What we're left with is Bush at -2,000,000, Kerry at -3,000,000, and 22,000,000 votes that would have been spread around amongst the smaller party candidates. The highest-polling of these was Ralph Nader at close to half a million votes. But that's positive votes, so theoretically he would be our winner, depending on how those 22,000,000 people decided to cast their ballots. Amazing.
This is no personal reflection on everyone's favorite consumer advocate(5), but that result sounds better to me.
(1) Technically, this boycott was broken when I voted for the "Republican" Michael Bloomberg for mayor of New York in 2005. Mr Bloomberg switching to Independent in 2007 merely made official what was quite obvious for the duration of his public life as a "Republican." I say I keep my honor.
(2) Go ahead and wikipedia that, I did when I was curious about different electoral processes. You would be amazed at how many different ways there are to choose a government. Not just half-baked systems either, as many countries (democracies of course, big ones too--Germany) use completely different systems than we do.
(3) See his full blog for multiple variations on the balanced plurality theme. He has a three-step proposal: negative votes, multi-stage voting, and split votes, but I prefer the first and simplest of those described on its own here.
(4) Lookup "feedback" to understand this differently. Basically, the results of one election will directly influence the voting behavior in the next, and so on. This results in the consolidation of power in two major parties. It's why the Democrats, and not some third party, are now in power after general dissatisfaction with the Republicans the last few years, and why the Republicans took power in 1994 after the Democrats were turned out, and on and on through history.
(5) Sometimes you just have to love the guy though: when asked about possibly spoiling a Democratic victory in 2008: "Not a chance. If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, and emerge in a different form." Couldn't agree more.
Of course what I'm talking about is being elected, since any person can support any other person or belief, but it's a very different thing to have actually hope that their candidate has a chance to get elected. A member of a third party could never get elected to national office in this country as it's currently operated. The two major parties are simply too rich and powerful, suffocating any possibility for another voice. The only option is to change the election system.
The US currently uses a plurality voting system(2), which just means that the most votes win, no many how small a percentage that person has. I encourage you to read up on it yourself, but trust me that this system inevitably leads to the two-party system. Fortunately, there is a simple solution to this problem: negative votes. It's called a balanced plurality system and it's actively and thoughtfully proposed by someone named Donald Kronos.(3)
If we can vote for someone, why can't we vote against someone? It's so simple and obvious. More importantly, it much more accurately reflects a voter's intent, which is really the whole point of getting off your ass and voting in the first place.
Take 2004 for instance. Many people did not like George Bush. Many. Many people also did not like John Kerry, but were forced to vote for him as their only chance to speak their opinion about Mr Bush. So in this particular election, you could say that a lot of independent voters cast votes for the Democrat when really they were just voting against the Republican. After time this dissatisfaction would manifest itself in more varied parties winning more and more votes, until ideally anyone would have a chance.(4)
A side thought on this: imagine the possible effects of negative voting if it were enacted for the first time in 2004. Presumably Bush would have had almost as many negative votes as positive--totaling millions of each--while Kerry would have likely garnered slightly more positive than negative, though with ridiculously fewer votes in both column. Let's play with this example:
In 2004, a total of 121,069,054 votes were cast for either Bush or Kerry, 62,040,610 for Bush, 59,028,444. Let's assume that of Bush's 62M, 38M were actually "pro" votes, while 12M were "anti" -Kerry votes, with 12M belonging to independent or 3rd-party sympathizers drawn in by the close race. Similarly, we'll assume that of Kerry's 59M, 9M were pro votes while 40M were anti-Bush, with 10M others. This is very rough, but it covers the national consensus somewhat at least. What we're left with is Bush at -2,000,000, Kerry at -3,000,000, and 22,000,000 votes that would have been spread around amongst the smaller party candidates. The highest-polling of these was Ralph Nader at close to half a million votes. But that's positive votes, so theoretically he would be our winner, depending on how those 22,000,000 people decided to cast their ballots. Amazing.
This is no personal reflection on everyone's favorite consumer advocate(5), but that result sounds better to me.
(1) Technically, this boycott was broken when I voted for the "Republican" Michael Bloomberg for mayor of New York in 2005. Mr Bloomberg switching to Independent in 2007 merely made official what was quite obvious for the duration of his public life as a "Republican." I say I keep my honor.
(2) Go ahead and wikipedia that, I did when I was curious about different electoral processes. You would be amazed at how many different ways there are to choose a government. Not just half-baked systems either, as many countries (democracies of course, big ones too--Germany) use completely different systems than we do.
(3) See his full blog for multiple variations on the balanced plurality theme. He has a three-step proposal: negative votes, multi-stage voting, and split votes, but I prefer the first and simplest of those described on its own here.
(4) Lookup "feedback" to understand this differently. Basically, the results of one election will directly influence the voting behavior in the next, and so on. This results in the consolidation of power in two major parties. It's why the Democrats, and not some third party, are now in power after general dissatisfaction with the Republicans the last few years, and why the Republicans took power in 1994 after the Democrats were turned out, and on and on through history.
(5) Sometimes you just have to love the guy though: when asked about possibly spoiling a Democratic victory in 2008: "Not a chance. If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, and emerge in a different form." Couldn't agree more.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Once more into the breach
But now with trepidation.
Ok so I thinking of falling off the wagon again. Or falling on or whatever. I participated in an NFL picks minipool with a couple friends two weeks ago and did fairly well. So well that I'm rueing not having made actual online wagers on the games. So well that I'm wanting to open up an account and have a go at online gambling again. Actually, if you know me even a tiny bit, you know that it doesn't take much to effect these desires.
As I am a few years older and some dollars lighter thanks to my last foray into online gambling, I approach this attempt more conservatively and certainly more analytically (or at least I'm going to give the impression of the latter). In this vein, I've decided to pick every game both on point spreads and over/unders, in order to get a true feel for my prognosticating powers. Picking every game is key because when gambling online for real I will usually only select 5-6 wagers per week, the ones I'm presumably most confident in, while the others I'll leave for the suckers to pick. The problem is that unless you are truly excellent are picking games, your judgement on what's most certain will be just as random as your overall picks. The other reason for selecting every game is to expand the sample size and to eliminate having the memory of only a couple nice victories overshadow several losses. This selective memory I believe is my achilles heel as a sports gambler, and truly the mark of a potentially dangerous gambler. So I'm approaching this from a hopefully humble and pragmatic fashion. (Also, for my own curiosity and vanity, I'm going to specially designate 6 games each week as confident picks, to simulate games that I would actually bet on were the exercise done for real. This will allow me to track my overall acumen while getting a feel for whether or not my confidence is lucky or actually a product of some positive trend.
Results so far:
Week5:
14-8 overall (2 pushes)
5-5 Against the spread
9-3 over/unders
Week 6:
16-12 overall
10-4 ATS
6-8 O/U
5-1 in Special Picks
So we've got a bit to work with so far. 30-20 overall, 15-9 ATS, 15-11 O/U. Assuming a standard $22 bet on each wager gives me a +$160 overall, split into +$102 for ATS and +$58 O/U. My 5-1 special picks from Week 6 would have netted me $78 in profit.
These obviously are good results overall, but still erratic when you notice my strong suit switched from ATS wagers one week to O/Us the next. And of course the 83% success rate on special picks far outpaces my 60% mark overall, meaning that it real terms I would have won lots of money this week but would surely have to expect to come back to earth some in the coming weeks. The big positive news is that, for now, "back to earth" is still a 60% success rate.
It should be noted that given the standard vig ($22 bet only wins you $20 profit on a win, whereas a $22 bet loses you the full $22 on a loss), you must win at least 52.38% of the time to break even. So if I'm not doing at least that well, I shouldn't be playing.
I'll be checking back in periodically with updates on my performance. I promise it will be cleaner and more concise. Not like anyone cares. Well, after I start winning big and turning into a big shot and picking up bar tabs, then some sonsabitches will care.
*To look at my Week 6 results even closer, my ATS bets won by a total of 122 pts for an average victory margin of +8.7. My 10 wins were by an average +15.6 pts, while my 4 losses were by an average -8.5 pts. This is good and indicates that my wins weren't simply due to luck or close calls.
Ok so I thinking of falling off the wagon again. Or falling on or whatever. I participated in an NFL picks minipool with a couple friends two weeks ago and did fairly well. So well that I'm rueing not having made actual online wagers on the games. So well that I'm wanting to open up an account and have a go at online gambling again. Actually, if you know me even a tiny bit, you know that it doesn't take much to effect these desires.
As I am a few years older and some dollars lighter thanks to my last foray into online gambling, I approach this attempt more conservatively and certainly more analytically (or at least I'm going to give the impression of the latter). In this vein, I've decided to pick every game both on point spreads and over/unders, in order to get a true feel for my prognosticating powers. Picking every game is key because when gambling online for real I will usually only select 5-6 wagers per week, the ones I'm presumably most confident in, while the others I'll leave for the suckers to pick. The problem is that unless you are truly excellent are picking games, your judgement on what's most certain will be just as random as your overall picks. The other reason for selecting every game is to expand the sample size and to eliminate having the memory of only a couple nice victories overshadow several losses. This selective memory I believe is my achilles heel as a sports gambler, and truly the mark of a potentially dangerous gambler. So I'm approaching this from a hopefully humble and pragmatic fashion. (Also, for my own curiosity and vanity, I'm going to specially designate 6 games each week as confident picks, to simulate games that I would actually bet on were the exercise done for real. This will allow me to track my overall acumen while getting a feel for whether or not my confidence is lucky or actually a product of some positive trend.
Results so far:
Week5:
14-8 overall (2 pushes)
5-5 Against the spread
9-3 over/unders
Week 6:
16-12 overall
10-4 ATS
6-8 O/U
5-1 in Special Picks
So we've got a bit to work with so far. 30-20 overall, 15-9 ATS, 15-11 O/U. Assuming a standard $22 bet on each wager gives me a +$160 overall, split into +$102 for ATS and +$58 O/U. My 5-1 special picks from Week 6 would have netted me $78 in profit.
These obviously are good results overall, but still erratic when you notice my strong suit switched from ATS wagers one week to O/Us the next. And of course the 83% success rate on special picks far outpaces my 60% mark overall, meaning that it real terms I would have won lots of money this week but would surely have to expect to come back to earth some in the coming weeks. The big positive news is that, for now, "back to earth" is still a 60% success rate.
It should be noted that given the standard vig ($22 bet only wins you $20 profit on a win, whereas a $22 bet loses you the full $22 on a loss), you must win at least 52.38% of the time to break even. So if I'm not doing at least that well, I shouldn't be playing.
I'll be checking back in periodically with updates on my performance. I promise it will be cleaner and more concise. Not like anyone cares. Well, after I start winning big and turning into a big shot and picking up bar tabs, then some sonsabitches will care.
*To look at my Week 6 results even closer, my ATS bets won by a total of 122 pts for an average victory margin of +8.7. My 10 wins were by an average +15.6 pts, while my 4 losses were by an average -8.5 pts. This is good and indicates that my wins weren't simply due to luck or close calls.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Get Real: Two Points on Election 2008
Gee, this is two straight posts about politics. You'd think there was an election going on or something.
1. As it seems more likely that Obama will win (see #2), it's interesting to view his candidacy and campaign and compare it to the past couple elections. Please now note the seeming superficial absurdity of comparing GWBush to Obama, with all the attendant automatic shock involved therein.
- Democrats now hate that part of why Bush beat Gore in 2000 was the simple and irresponsible fact that many people voted for him based on the fact that he seemed like a more personable guy (The infamous "who would you rather have a beer with" approach to voting, which seemed like a benign enough idea in fall 2000 as both the economy and the twin towers were still riding fairly high).
So, how is election 2008 going? Not like I am a perfect national bellweather, but it seems pretty obvious that a large chunk of Obama's advantage right now could be attributed to the fact that most of America finds him to simply be more personable and generally attractive.
The most instructive way to react to this analysis is not to revel in the hypocrisy of any Obama-supporting Democrat who complains about how dumb Americans vote not on issues but on superficialities, but instead to realize simply that most presidential elections are won by the more attractive candidate, and to accept that in the current climate that's just the way it is (not that that makes it right).
- Probably the other major reason Obama is ahead at the moment is due to his huge financial advantage. It's almost a waste of time to mention that the oil-rich Bush family and the well-known Republican money machine contributed mightily to GW's two victories.
I'd like to think that with the almost infinite expansiveness of media lately, this $=win effect has become more and more important. Elections have always been about money, but naturally as the amount of money required simply to compete increases exponentially, so too does it's importance as a single end-all issue.
2. Using info I've absorbed partially through the excellent site http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ (warning: the editorial content is admittedly slanted), I can't help but see how this election could more and more likely turn into an electoral college rout, even though such a result would seem impossible given the tightness of recent presidential elections. I'm not saying now that McCain has no chance, but that if Obama wins as is currently expected, it could end up a much wider margin than expected.
Let's break it down a little:
Obama looks very safe in 16 states worth a total of 197 EC votes (the Northeast: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Marland, Deleware, and DC; the Pacific: California, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii; plus his home state of Illinois and the corn capital of Iowa (McCain is strangely stubborn against biofuels)).
McCain is very safe in 16 states worth a total of 134 EC votes (the South: South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma; and the Great Plains: Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming; plus his home state of Arizona and Palin's home state of Alaska).
197 - 134 doesn't look terribly bad but to that we can add all the 10 states that are clearly favoring Obama right now (New Hampshire 4, plus the Big Ten: Pennsylvania 21, Michigan 17, Wisconsin 10, and Minnesota 10; plus "battleground" states of Florida 27, Virginia 13, Colorado 9, New Mexico 5, and Nevada 5). This adds a huge 121 EC votes to make it 318-134. Note that this also puts Obama well over the 270 needed to win, and we've only included states where he is currently in very good shape; there are still 86 votes unaccounted for.
If we give McCain three states he clearly leads in (Montana 3, North Dakota 3, and South Dakota 3), that only moves it to 318-143, with only six states left (Ohio 20, Indiana 11, North Carolina 15, Missouri 11, West Virginia 5, and Georgia 15).
For the purposes of this exercise, and because it's still almost four weeks to go, we are going to take some liberties. But if you look at the polls and give Obama wins in all the states we've already given him, then it becomes very easy to give Obama Ohio and Indiana. It's also not hard at all to assume that if he maintains a strong lead into November, that McCain's status will have deteriorated in many of these tight states, so that we can go ahead and turn current close Obama leads in Missouri and North Carolina into wins. It might end up closer than currently but go ahead and let McCain keep West Virginia.
This changes the total to 375-148, with only Georgia not counted. I think you would agree that 375-148 would be considered a pretty big victory, important insomuch that it would allow Obama and the Democrats to actually declare something close to an actual mandate, which is usually not much more than posturing but would have some credence considering a black man had won such support and in the process knocked off many states that had been recently locked in as Republican.
Let's turn for a second finally to Georgia. Georgia is a Deep South state. It would be big big news for a Democrat to win there, not to mention a black Democrat. But if Obama's national numbers mostly hold til election day, it's a real possibility.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/in-georgia-small-improvements-in-black.html
This is a good and interesting synopsis. He might need to gain a point or two generally but support of blacks and a higher-than-usual turnout (indicative of his superior organization possible through his vast budget) could actually push him over the top. It's something worth watching as a barometer for how some extremely important beneath-the-surface issues will play out all around the country.
Unless something big happens to change the course of the election, I think everything is going to start cascading for Obama and lead him to a huge victory. The likability factor will keep him ahead in the polls and his massive funding advantage will turn all these little things in his favor. In the end, he probably won't even need both advantage, just one or the other would suffice.
1. As it seems more likely that Obama will win (see #2), it's interesting to view his candidacy and campaign and compare it to the past couple elections. Please now note the seeming superficial absurdity of comparing GWBush to Obama, with all the attendant automatic shock involved therein.
- Democrats now hate that part of why Bush beat Gore in 2000 was the simple and irresponsible fact that many people voted for him based on the fact that he seemed like a more personable guy (The infamous "who would you rather have a beer with" approach to voting, which seemed like a benign enough idea in fall 2000 as both the economy and the twin towers were still riding fairly high).
So, how is election 2008 going? Not like I am a perfect national bellweather, but it seems pretty obvious that a large chunk of Obama's advantage right now could be attributed to the fact that most of America finds him to simply be more personable and generally attractive.
The most instructive way to react to this analysis is not to revel in the hypocrisy of any Obama-supporting Democrat who complains about how dumb Americans vote not on issues but on superficialities, but instead to realize simply that most presidential elections are won by the more attractive candidate, and to accept that in the current climate that's just the way it is (not that that makes it right).
- Probably the other major reason Obama is ahead at the moment is due to his huge financial advantage. It's almost a waste of time to mention that the oil-rich Bush family and the well-known Republican money machine contributed mightily to GW's two victories.
I'd like to think that with the almost infinite expansiveness of media lately, this $=win effect has become more and more important. Elections have always been about money, but naturally as the amount of money required simply to compete increases exponentially, so too does it's importance as a single end-all issue.
2. Using info I've absorbed partially through the excellent site http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ (warning: the editorial content is admittedly slanted), I can't help but see how this election could more and more likely turn into an electoral college rout, even though such a result would seem impossible given the tightness of recent presidential elections. I'm not saying now that McCain has no chance, but that if Obama wins as is currently expected, it could end up a much wider margin than expected.
Let's break it down a little:
Obama looks very safe in 16 states worth a total of 197 EC votes (the Northeast: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Marland, Deleware, and DC; the Pacific: California, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii; plus his home state of Illinois and the corn capital of Iowa (McCain is strangely stubborn against biofuels)).
McCain is very safe in 16 states worth a total of 134 EC votes (the South: South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma; and the Great Plains: Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming; plus his home state of Arizona and Palin's home state of Alaska).
197 - 134 doesn't look terribly bad but to that we can add all the 10 states that are clearly favoring Obama right now (New Hampshire 4, plus the Big Ten: Pennsylvania 21, Michigan 17, Wisconsin 10, and Minnesota 10; plus "battleground" states of Florida 27, Virginia 13, Colorado 9, New Mexico 5, and Nevada 5). This adds a huge 121 EC votes to make it 318-134. Note that this also puts Obama well over the 270 needed to win, and we've only included states where he is currently in very good shape; there are still 86 votes unaccounted for.
If we give McCain three states he clearly leads in (Montana 3, North Dakota 3, and South Dakota 3), that only moves it to 318-143, with only six states left (Ohio 20, Indiana 11, North Carolina 15, Missouri 11, West Virginia 5, and Georgia 15).
For the purposes of this exercise, and because it's still almost four weeks to go, we are going to take some liberties. But if you look at the polls and give Obama wins in all the states we've already given him, then it becomes very easy to give Obama Ohio and Indiana. It's also not hard at all to assume that if he maintains a strong lead into November, that McCain's status will have deteriorated in many of these tight states, so that we can go ahead and turn current close Obama leads in Missouri and North Carolina into wins. It might end up closer than currently but go ahead and let McCain keep West Virginia.
This changes the total to 375-148, with only Georgia not counted. I think you would agree that 375-148 would be considered a pretty big victory, important insomuch that it would allow Obama and the Democrats to actually declare something close to an actual mandate, which is usually not much more than posturing but would have some credence considering a black man had won such support and in the process knocked off many states that had been recently locked in as Republican.
Let's turn for a second finally to Georgia. Georgia is a Deep South state. It would be big big news for a Democrat to win there, not to mention a black Democrat. But if Obama's national numbers mostly hold til election day, it's a real possibility.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/in-georgia-small-improvements-in-black.html
This is a good and interesting synopsis. He might need to gain a point or two generally but support of blacks and a higher-than-usual turnout (indicative of his superior organization possible through his vast budget) could actually push him over the top. It's something worth watching as a barometer for how some extremely important beneath-the-surface issues will play out all around the country.
Unless something big happens to change the course of the election, I think everything is going to start cascading for Obama and lead him to a huge victory. The likability factor will keep him ahead in the polls and his massive funding advantage will turn all these little things in his favor. In the end, he probably won't even need both advantage, just one or the other would suffice.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Some Unbiased Politics Talk (I Promise)
1. It's almost October and Obama holds a small but significant lead in the polls, so I think it's a fair time to think macro about this whole election business. I say this now from a completely unbiased perspective: it's pretty damn exciting to think that Obama--a black man--might actually become President. Exciting in a general sense and exciting in a historic sense. Exciting like it was exciting during the recent Olympics to consider that Michael Phelps had a real shot to win eight gold medals. And whether or not you were completely turned off by Mr Phelps's incredibly annoying speech impediment or his huge Michigan douchebag quotient, you were no doubt influenced by the mere spectacle of what he was trying to do.
We're talking about a black President here. This is not a small thing. And he beat a woman to get there. Suddenly it seems almost anything is possible. Remember that just recently it wasn't at all extraordinary to ask whether there would ever be a black president in the US.
So I guess this election in some basic and non-cheesy ways really is about hope and change. Not the adopted and bastardized "hope" and "change" that have been enlisted for the joint purpose and glory of power and of course party, but the real, simple meanings of the words. Hope for any marginalized entity. Hope that something different, or something unexpected, or something unentitled can break the paradigm. It's probably not "Change you can believe in," but it's still an honest-to-goodness change, and that's all we really need. The rules really are changing, if at least superficially. Small steps, you know. Unfortunately people are going to pick up on these larger issues and they're going to focus on them and generalize. But as long as you don't completely buy into the manufactured image, and see past the pomp, and don't get carried away by people falling over themselves to say something iconic about the event, you can hopefully sit back and quietly appreciate what may be happening. It's quite certainly never going to be the same again.
2. (for the liberals) Let's face it folks, if he's elected, Obama is going to disappoint you. He's going to be indecisive sometimes and he's going to stutter and stammer and sound unprepared at a press conference. He's going to go off-the-cuff sometime and say something stupid and/or insensitive. He's going to make a horrible appointment based solely on party affiliation. He's going to compromise his--and your--values more than once. He's going to lose touch. He's going to sell out to the conservatives. Let's repeat that one: he's going to sell out to the conservatives. He's just a man, and he'll be trying to do a difficult job in a difficult time and place. There is only so much a president can do, good or bad. Let him have his failures and his successes and don't begrudge him for them.
3. I'm way late for the party on this one, but this whole Palin circus has gone from funny to discomforting to almost frightening. Traditionally, the election is not about the VP, it is never about the VP, they have virtually no effect on the votes or the policy of the eventual winner (let's excuse Mr Cheney and the ridiculously-expanded-power-for-the-executive-branch zealots for a moment here). But there are two very important things that make this election somewhat unique (actually one super important thing that is multiplied by another thing):
a. Sarah Palin might very well be less qualified than I am, and
b. John McCain is very old and in case you haven't heard has lived a fairly difficult life. You can be fairly sure that today's medicine and doctors wouldn't let the maverick kick the bucket in the White House, but some things can prove unavoidable.
I'm not sure who the worst Vice Presidents ever are, but what I do know is that none of them ever became President. 99 times out of 100 who the VP should be irrelevant when choosing a President. This is that one time. She's so clearly inept and he's so clearly incapble of getting cheap life insurance that for once you really do have to consider the running mate.
Supposedly, there is actually a chance she's replaced on the ticket, but if that were to happen it wouldn't really matter who the replacement is cause McCain would have no shot unless Jesus Christ reappears (sorry Jews--"appears") and starts talking about the dangers of big government.
4. (to the liberals and ambulence-chaser-types) I hate to break it to you, but Ms Palin is not going to explode in a blast of incompetence in the debate Thursday night. She probably won't even get demolished. Her recent struggles have served to bring expectations of her to essentially zero, so by definition her performance must improve. She will have had the most intense preparation and coaching that probably any prospective national-level debater has ever had by the time she hits the stage, and much like all politicians will appear more informed and likable than she/they really is/are. She will also have the benefit of everyone tuning in just to watch her, so as long as she can stay upright and lets the moderator do his/her job in sending questions around equally, people will naturally be inclined to believe her and more importantly sympathize with her. Most importantly, after she completes the debate respectably, the media will be so itching to get out a story to counteract all the justifiably negative stories they've been running that they'll overcompensate and give her loads of credit for merely being passable. Joe Biden will be absolutely crushed if he attacks her and so will be left answering direct questions with indirect and circular answers (which will bore watchers) or with constant attacks on McCain (which will turn off watchers). His presence will at best be inconsequential for the Democrats, so if they're smart they'll feed him a few prepared sound bites and just wait for his opportunity to release them. There is almost no chance that this debate will be nearly as entertaining as it potentially could be.
We're talking about a black President here. This is not a small thing. And he beat a woman to get there. Suddenly it seems almost anything is possible. Remember that just recently it wasn't at all extraordinary to ask whether there would ever be a black president in the US.
So I guess this election in some basic and non-cheesy ways really is about hope and change. Not the adopted and bastardized "hope" and "change" that have been enlisted for the joint purpose and glory of power and of course party, but the real, simple meanings of the words. Hope for any marginalized entity. Hope that something different, or something unexpected, or something unentitled can break the paradigm. It's probably not "Change you can believe in," but it's still an honest-to-goodness change, and that's all we really need. The rules really are changing, if at least superficially. Small steps, you know. Unfortunately people are going to pick up on these larger issues and they're going to focus on them and generalize. But as long as you don't completely buy into the manufactured image, and see past the pomp, and don't get carried away by people falling over themselves to say something iconic about the event, you can hopefully sit back and quietly appreciate what may be happening. It's quite certainly never going to be the same again.
2. (for the liberals) Let's face it folks, if he's elected, Obama is going to disappoint you. He's going to be indecisive sometimes and he's going to stutter and stammer and sound unprepared at a press conference. He's going to go off-the-cuff sometime and say something stupid and/or insensitive. He's going to make a horrible appointment based solely on party affiliation. He's going to compromise his--and your--values more than once. He's going to lose touch. He's going to sell out to the conservatives. Let's repeat that one: he's going to sell out to the conservatives. He's just a man, and he'll be trying to do a difficult job in a difficult time and place. There is only so much a president can do, good or bad. Let him have his failures and his successes and don't begrudge him for them.
3. I'm way late for the party on this one, but this whole Palin circus has gone from funny to discomforting to almost frightening. Traditionally, the election is not about the VP, it is never about the VP, they have virtually no effect on the votes or the policy of the eventual winner (let's excuse Mr Cheney and the ridiculously-expanded-power-for-the-executive-branch zealots for a moment here). But there are two very important things that make this election somewhat unique (actually one super important thing that is multiplied by another thing):
a. Sarah Palin might very well be less qualified than I am, and
b. John McCain is very old and in case you haven't heard has lived a fairly difficult life. You can be fairly sure that today's medicine and doctors wouldn't let the maverick kick the bucket in the White House, but some things can prove unavoidable.
I'm not sure who the worst Vice Presidents ever are, but what I do know is that none of them ever became President. 99 times out of 100 who the VP should be irrelevant when choosing a President. This is that one time. She's so clearly inept and he's so clearly incapble of getting cheap life insurance that for once you really do have to consider the running mate.
Supposedly, there is actually a chance she's replaced on the ticket, but if that were to happen it wouldn't really matter who the replacement is cause McCain would have no shot unless Jesus Christ reappears (sorry Jews--"appears") and starts talking about the dangers of big government.
4. (to the liberals and ambulence-chaser-types) I hate to break it to you, but Ms Palin is not going to explode in a blast of incompetence in the debate Thursday night. She probably won't even get demolished. Her recent struggles have served to bring expectations of her to essentially zero, so by definition her performance must improve. She will have had the most intense preparation and coaching that probably any prospective national-level debater has ever had by the time she hits the stage, and much like all politicians will appear more informed and likable than she/they really is/are. She will also have the benefit of everyone tuning in just to watch her, so as long as she can stay upright and lets the moderator do his/her job in sending questions around equally, people will naturally be inclined to believe her and more importantly sympathize with her. Most importantly, after she completes the debate respectably, the media will be so itching to get out a story to counteract all the justifiably negative stories they've been running that they'll overcompensate and give her loads of credit for merely being passable. Joe Biden will be absolutely crushed if he attacks her and so will be left answering direct questions with indirect and circular answers (which will bore watchers) or with constant attacks on McCain (which will turn off watchers). His presence will at best be inconsequential for the Democrats, so if they're smart they'll feed him a few prepared sound bites and just wait for his opportunity to release them. There is almost no chance that this debate will be nearly as entertaining as it potentially could be.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Truth Hurts
We're kinda average.
Why in god's name is Ohio State's football team currently ranked in the top 25?
Really: 13th? Why?
We've played four games. We had an average game and soundly beat a D1-AA team. We looked terrible and beat OU, an average-at-best MAC team. We were pounded on the road by the best team in the country. And then we scuffled around and beat an above-average Sun Belt team. You take "Ohio State" and "Preseason top 5 ranking" off the top of that resume and you're not left with much. Just look at the results, or--more damning--the play on the field and we're talking about a Wake Forest or Oregon State or Texas A&M or Iowa or--god forbid--TCU or Fresno type performance. Are those teams consistently ranked? No of course not cause more often than not they're jokes.
Look, I love that my team benefits from name recognition and consistently favorable preseason poll positioning, but those things are probably the top two things wrong with college football. It sorta pains me to say it, but Ohio State currently represents the worst of the NCAA football structure.
Let's roll around in my own depravity for a moment now. Have a look at Auburn, just one of more than 100 teams ranked below us right now. They're also 3-1. They didn't play any 1-AAs yet but they beat in average-ish performances two overmatched teams, then got an ugly win against a conference opponent. Their loss was to the current #5 team in the country after leading most of the game. I'm sorry but that's a better showing so far than us. Now let's try Ball State. They outclassed an 1-AA team, snuck by a 2007 bowl team, beat an average MAC school, then defeated a Big Ten school on the road. Still that's better than us. Going further, go ahead and scan the results of schools like Kansas, Maryland, UConn, hell even Duke and tell me with a straight face that they couldn't have produced the same results as us with our schedule.
I'll list those again: Kansas, Maryland, UConn, Duke. I'm talking about football, not basketball. Would anyone ever consider ranking Duke 13th in the country?
Just think about that one when watching Pryor open up our Big Ten schedule this week, and hope he helps to start bringing our performance in line with our spot in the polls.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
my favorite living author
pretty sure i've talked about david foster wallace here before. he hung himself last friday. he was 46, so he beat hemingway by a decade and a half. this certainly wasn't my first reaction but it was a reaction: he certainly didn't seem like the kind of guy for which "attempted" suicide would apply. rather much more detail-oriented than to fail at really anything he tried. also not my first reaction but less whimsical and therefore more instructive of my overall reaction: there is an absolutely spectacular passage in infinite jest where he describes in first-person an attempted suicide by drug overdose. i've never attempted it myself but the hazy disconnect between human-brain, human-human, and human-world was so well-done it was literally chilling for me to read it. i don't know how you respond to books or written words but finishing reading that passage was maybe the only time in my life where i had to stop and put the book away. it was too much and i just had to stop for the day. too much. it's something the very same character says and something of a melancholic motto for me. it's also a central theme of the book, which might be all the explanation that's required in conveying my love for it. i'm not going to take this time to do any sort of intelligent review of infinite jest, not least because any thoughts on it necessarily can't be separated from the so-recent demise of its author, but i can say with measured emotion that it's one of the handful of best books i've ever read and maybe the best book since the spread of modernism. actually if you've read much of his own opinions of literature you'd agree that it can be silly to compare works with regard to literary era or even to label such eras, so maybe i ought to simply stick with my first statement and leave it at that.
that a man has died is not of much consequence to me. people come and go all the time, and, while it's perhaps pretentious for a 27-year-old to act flippant on the subject, i currently possess neither the disposition nor the experience to philosophize any deeper. what's personally interesting is the depression and obviously therefore the disconnection present in this man that could cause such an outcome. to write as he did requires an incomprehensibly huge amount of emotional depth. to truthfully express both exultant and utterly despairing feelings through mere words requires a man to possess a dangerously massive range of emotions, and therefore all the subsequent vulnerabilities that come with them. i guess i'm saying that suicide from such a person as this should not ever be a surprising result. tragic of course, but not surprising.
there are people--artisans of various types--that transcend simple human existence through their ability to create fully-formed existances for others. these people don't really exist simply as people, as private entities; they belong to the world that they've rendered almost obsolete. i would personally consider bob dylan another such person. he's not who he was born as, he's something else now. wallace i consider similarly. and that's why it's tragic to lose him. more interestingly, though, that's why it's difficult to understand his discontinued existence. here is someone that beat the system, someone who became for the world around him something more than simply alive. so how could he be dead? his output is and will always be alive, it's the creation that has died. or dried up. i don't know. maybe i'm getting carried away but it makes sense to me to think this way.
something else that's somewhat personal about all this is that when you really understand a book or a writer it is impossible not to feel a real connection, as if you know the person. writing and sharing words is an incredibly intimate activity, both for the giver and the receiver. as with every literary consideration, wallace certainly understood this. it makes you wonder if the stress involved in exposing parts of himself was just too much to bear. or, further, if the acknowledgement of his own genius and his own transcendence was too much for his mortal cognition. i know this all seems pretty heady and that real people don't think this way but if there is one person who would have it was him.
it's too bad what happened but in a way it was inevitable. too much. he was too much.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
my radio news
some things i'd like to comment on after hearing the business report from joe connolly (that's him to the left) on wcbs 880 this morning at about 7:52am:
(but first a few perhaps interesting words about wcbs 880. this is the station on which my radio alarm clock is set and which wakes me up at precisely 7:48am each morning so that the first thing i hear on a weekday is the traffic and weather report, given on the 8s of course. they do traffic first, then weather, the timing of which has prompted me to often consider switching my wake-up time to 7:49 instead of 7:48, so as to eliminate my hearing the traffic report, which since the subways are pretty much invincible this report is of no use to me but since the nyc metro area is chock full of auto commuters, and even more full of auto access points and roads, the traffic report takes quite a long time to get through. in spite of this consideration, i've held fast to the 7:48 alarm time.
i am a slow waker, and so even after the traffic and weather reports are done i usually linger in bed for several minutes if i don't simply hit the snooze and fall back asleep alogether. after weather the two main radio hosts come in and give short news briefs and then will often (i can't say always here because i don't pay as much attention during this few-minute interval) send it out to mike saranac for a news bit. this news bit is thoroughly annoying for me because mike saranac must live somewhere in nassau or suffolk county and must refuse to file reports from anywhere else because his reports are always inane, rarely newsworthy, and invariably about something long-island-related. i know they need to spend some time pandering to what must be a sizable chunk of their morning listeners, but it drives me nuts to have to hear dumb community news about long island when they are obviously pressed for time. the following statement is undoubtedly colored by my displeasure for the reports, but mr saranac's voice and reporting style i find to be wholly pathetic. he inflects his voice like he's trying out either for a national news job or the carnival barker's hall of fame. i hate it.
anyhow, moving along, after mr saranac's waste of precious seconds, 880 always sends it out to joe connolly of the wall street journal for the aforementioned business report. this report is noteworthy only for it's pacing. it's a perfectly standard and boring report but mr connolly--perhaps deliberately wanting to distinguish himself from his time-conscious colleagues--speaks extremely slowly and heavily, actually pausing even in the middle of phrases instead of merely between them. (an example: "the hou-sing market....spurred by slow-er.........than...expected em-ploy-ment.............numbers..........has fallen a percentage...............point....to-day.") no matter how many times i hear this guy, and no matter how groggy i may still be, it amazes me both that he chooses to speak so deliberately and that his bosses at the station allow him to do it. i can't tell if he's just be a totally pompous dick or if his pace is a carefully considered antidote to the fast-paced speech of the other radio personalities.
to contrast mr connolly, the regular traffic guy, whose name for some reason i can't recall, packs a ridiculous amount of verbal information into his alloted time. he speaks so fast that it seems almost a different language in the way you are forced to pause and digest bits of words before jumping back into the flow and realizing that you've just missed a few phrases. even if i'm paying attention to him, by the time i've had the time to comprehend that there was a tractor spill on the hutch, the traffic guy has already moved "over and across the tappan zee." whoever this guy is, he's impressive, so impressive that you can pretty easily tell when his replacement is on the job.)
so that's my wcbs 880. such a small part of my existence but such a constant and consistent one.
1. a kid at a brooklyn job fair which received three times more applicants than available positions was the only one hired on the spot because he was also the only one wearing a necktie. i'm pretty sure this bit of odd news was mentioned in mr connolly's report to show with a touch of shame how sad it is that kids, specifically inner-city ones 1) don't have any respect, 2) are stuck in a terrible job market, 3) are ignorant of what small things they must do in order to get ahead. basically: look, kids, just show some respect for the workplace and wear a tie and you too can break free from the cycle of poverty.
i have a slightly different take on the kid-at-job-fair-wears-tie-gets-hired story. i think it's pathetic and sad that something as arcane and arbitrary as a necktie would prompt an employer to hire one person or not hire another. are these people (the employers) that lazy? granted, you can call the other kids lazy too for not wearing a tie but that doesn't change the fact that a tie doesn't in itself carry any value or bestow upon its wearer any value. it's just a piece of fabric. maybe this respectful little worker drone was actually packing heat at this job fair, heat which he used on his trip to mug another worker drone and steal his tie. i suppose you could give him points for ambition (if you're into that sort of thing. i'm not) or determination, but let's get real about the tie nonsense. when i was finishing up college i was worried that employers would put too much stock on simple grade point average when i thought that was a somewhat shallow way to evalute a candidate, but gpa is far more reliable than a damned tie. i wear ties on the weekend, maybe i should be appointed to the supreme court.
2. another business news bit centered on how sales figures are being reported down dramatically across all sectors, "from boutiques to bartenders." not positive the first one was "boutiques," but it was something alliterative with "bartenders." either way, the point remains, namely: i guess those stimulus payments are having the desired effect. i've yet to enact the intensely spiteful plan i hatched to invest my $600 in foreign companies, but maybe some other people have beaten me to it. of course that would be dumb since the dollar is worthless and in fact all the american companies are presenting themselves as gold mines to foreign investors, which is why american companies are slowly being bought by foreigners, which reminds me of an article i read in the times about how anheiser-busch is going to be sold to an international company likely soon for the above-mentioned reasons. apparantly miller and coors are already foreign-owned. who knew? i guess now there truly is no reason to drink inferior "american" beer.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
ipod/stroller digressions
fuck all you people and your ipods. there is enough white noise drifting through my world today that i really really don't need your trebled dissonance permeating my consciousness during our shared 18-flight ascension of the elevator shaft. i'm sure it sounds quite lovely way back there in your ambivalent eardrums i'm sure, but out here in the other 99.99999999% of the world it's quite obnoxious. i don't mean to be too utilitarian here, but we of the rather vast majority would appreciate if you might sacrifice whatever joy it causes you to pass the volume meter beyond what can be contained to your own audibility so that we can catch a break.
now that i've got that little bit of nuisance out of the way, let me turn to the truly evil consequence of the small white menace: complete social and spatial ignorance, where i place particular selfish emphasis on the latter. i've had just about enough of having to bump into someone because said someone is mindlessly drifting in and out of the reasonable or expected flow of pedestrain traffic.
do you know how some people think it ought to be illegal to drive while talking on the cell phone? ipods are only very slightly less malevolent devices. it's been proven that drivers have less awareness when talking on a cell phone, not to mention that it usually means the person is using only one hand to drive. i've always been annoyed by the inconvenience it would cause to ban cell phones while driving but resigned to complete agreement with the reasons for and the effects of such a law. for me, it seems like anytime there is a car accident, three questions arise when wondering how it happened: was he speeding? was he drinking and driving? and was he on the phone? any of these three questions answered affirmatively will cease any investigation because they are accepted as severe hindrances to safe driving.
before you call me a prude, just stop and think about what it means to live in a crowded place such as nyc. we all learn very early on that one of the important sacrfices we must make is to always share at least a little consideration for those around us. if we all walked around the city with utter self-determination, then the violence levels would be off the charts.
now let me make another car-related example. imagine a smaller city with no traffic lights. what would happen, or what would drivers be forced to do? after an intial period of accidents, of course, drivers would learn that they can't go careening through intersections, that they must stop and consider other drivers going the other way, and eventually a simple kind of truce will be formed wherein every driver understands that he has a responsibility to every other driver not to crash into them. cars running into each other can kill, people doing the same usually do not. this is no excuse for people to behave differently than cars (controlled by people, yes i understand).
pedestrians learn at least one basic rule of high-traffic movement early on: always stay to the right. if this rule were not followed, there would literally be chaos in the streets of new york. allow me to suggest another extremely important rule: when a large group of people is approaching a single person on the sidewalk, it's the responsibility of the group to partially give way to allow the single to continue along unabated. basically, if you are taking up more space that you should reasonably be expected to, then you must move. if you're carrying a wide load of groceries, i'm sorry if it's heavy but you don't get the whole sidewalk. this rule is especially important if you're carrying an umbrella: if you're one of those dicks who uses a giant golf umbrella to navigate the city, then you sure as shit better be the one who's constantly raising it up above everyone elses so you don't knock into them, and you also better be a passive walker, never cutting in front of people or making unnecessary passes.
now, i suppose it was inevitable, but this whole thing has led me to baby strollers. i hate baby strollers. they serve a need, and i accept that. but if you think that because you happen to be pushing a stroller, then you are entitled to whatever path you choose as you walk down an extremely crowded steet, well you're sadly mistaken. you and your giant stroller are taking up much more than the expected amount of space, so it's you who should be patient and try to accommodate everyone else walking down the street. instead, because of little precious sitting in the stroller, these people pushing them have the highest sense of entitlement. get this through to yourself: you are not more important than me simply because you have a child. it was your choice to burden yourself, do not take that shit out on me.
even a bit more on the strollers:
1. i'd like to take a swing at the genius designer who decided that these damnable things needed to be so big. there are cars in europe smaller than some baby strollers. a kid is maybe 2.5 feet tall and weighs maybe 40-50 pounds. think of a sack of concrete. do you need something so massive to push around a sack of concrete? if what you have is bigger than what you need to move on bag of concrete, it's too big.
2. people pushing strollers have a harder time navigating crowded streets, obviously. this can cause the pusher of the stroller to get agitated, obviously. when standing behind theses behemoths, these pushers can also tend to get a sense of invincibility (call it the SUV principle). what happens is, people use the fronts of their strollers as plows. this is not only unnessarily aggresive and rude, but also extremely selfish on behalf of the pusher at the expense of the presumably precious cargo just inches away from the parts being used as plows. sometimes, it is ok to tell other people how to raise their kids, that's all i've got to say about that.
3. if i am ever stricken with a case of fatherhood, i can assure you that i will do all that's in my power to avoid adding to the scourge of the city. i've seen people who tie a sheet or some other large garment around their back/neck so that it forms a pouch in front into which you can easily and comfortably fit a child too small to walk on its own. this is a superb solution to the problem and i salute these people. it's not hard to be reasonable toward others. it doesn't take a huge sacrifice. just a small one, or a tiny amount of thought.
now that i've got that little bit of nuisance out of the way, let me turn to the truly evil consequence of the small white menace: complete social and spatial ignorance, where i place particular selfish emphasis on the latter. i've had just about enough of having to bump into someone because said someone is mindlessly drifting in and out of the reasonable or expected flow of pedestrain traffic.
do you know how some people think it ought to be illegal to drive while talking on the cell phone? ipods are only very slightly less malevolent devices. it's been proven that drivers have less awareness when talking on a cell phone, not to mention that it usually means the person is using only one hand to drive. i've always been annoyed by the inconvenience it would cause to ban cell phones while driving but resigned to complete agreement with the reasons for and the effects of such a law. for me, it seems like anytime there is a car accident, three questions arise when wondering how it happened: was he speeding? was he drinking and driving? and was he on the phone? any of these three questions answered affirmatively will cease any investigation because they are accepted as severe hindrances to safe driving.
before you call me a prude, just stop and think about what it means to live in a crowded place such as nyc. we all learn very early on that one of the important sacrfices we must make is to always share at least a little consideration for those around us. if we all walked around the city with utter self-determination, then the violence levels would be off the charts.
now let me make another car-related example. imagine a smaller city with no traffic lights. what would happen, or what would drivers be forced to do? after an intial period of accidents, of course, drivers would learn that they can't go careening through intersections, that they must stop and consider other drivers going the other way, and eventually a simple kind of truce will be formed wherein every driver understands that he has a responsibility to every other driver not to crash into them. cars running into each other can kill, people doing the same usually do not. this is no excuse for people to behave differently than cars (controlled by people, yes i understand).
pedestrians learn at least one basic rule of high-traffic movement early on: always stay to the right. if this rule were not followed, there would literally be chaos in the streets of new york. allow me to suggest another extremely important rule: when a large group of people is approaching a single person on the sidewalk, it's the responsibility of the group to partially give way to allow the single to continue along unabated. basically, if you are taking up more space that you should reasonably be expected to, then you must move. if you're carrying a wide load of groceries, i'm sorry if it's heavy but you don't get the whole sidewalk. this rule is especially important if you're carrying an umbrella: if you're one of those dicks who uses a giant golf umbrella to navigate the city, then you sure as shit better be the one who's constantly raising it up above everyone elses so you don't knock into them, and you also better be a passive walker, never cutting in front of people or making unnecessary passes.
now, i suppose it was inevitable, but this whole thing has led me to baby strollers. i hate baby strollers. they serve a need, and i accept that. but if you think that because you happen to be pushing a stroller, then you are entitled to whatever path you choose as you walk down an extremely crowded steet, well you're sadly mistaken. you and your giant stroller are taking up much more than the expected amount of space, so it's you who should be patient and try to accommodate everyone else walking down the street. instead, because of little precious sitting in the stroller, these people pushing them have the highest sense of entitlement. get this through to yourself: you are not more important than me simply because you have a child. it was your choice to burden yourself, do not take that shit out on me.
even a bit more on the strollers:
1. i'd like to take a swing at the genius designer who decided that these damnable things needed to be so big. there are cars in europe smaller than some baby strollers. a kid is maybe 2.5 feet tall and weighs maybe 40-50 pounds. think of a sack of concrete. do you need something so massive to push around a sack of concrete? if what you have is bigger than what you need to move on bag of concrete, it's too big.
2. people pushing strollers have a harder time navigating crowded streets, obviously. this can cause the pusher of the stroller to get agitated, obviously. when standing behind theses behemoths, these pushers can also tend to get a sense of invincibility (call it the SUV principle). what happens is, people use the fronts of their strollers as plows. this is not only unnessarily aggresive and rude, but also extremely selfish on behalf of the pusher at the expense of the presumably precious cargo just inches away from the parts being used as plows. sometimes, it is ok to tell other people how to raise their kids, that's all i've got to say about that.
3. if i am ever stricken with a case of fatherhood, i can assure you that i will do all that's in my power to avoid adding to the scourge of the city. i've seen people who tie a sheet or some other large garment around their back/neck so that it forms a pouch in front into which you can easily and comfortably fit a child too small to walk on its own. this is a superb solution to the problem and i salute these people. it's not hard to be reasonable toward others. it doesn't take a huge sacrifice. just a small one, or a tiny amount of thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
