I absolutely hate reality televisions, but I’m still going to watch this, even though I know its probably going to suck.
My guess is that it will be way too much about the people and their petty drama, and not enough about the dogs and their awesomeness.
The problem with the intersection of politics and the blogosphere is that - like the 24 hour news channels - there’s too much time to fill and not enough real news or insight to fill it. So bloggers jump on whatever tiny piece of nothing is floating around and try to pump it up into the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER. They try to turn every tiny offhand comment into a HUGE GAFFE, they make mountains out of molehills, and they generally act in a way that would make chicken little seem calm, reasoned, and rational.
Bloggers live in an echo chamber to begin with, where particular types of crazy that exist only on the internet seem sane and normal. Issues that the majority of the country doesn’t care about - especially regarding technology - seem of paramount importance to them and they honestly believe something like support for net neutrality would decide an election. Add the partisanship of politics on top of that, where everything my guy does is great and everything your guy does proves how evil he is, and you have a recipe for sheer fucking stupidity in a teacup.
There’ve already been so many examples of this, but the latest is libloggers insistance that somehow John McCain referring to himself as “computer illiterate” disqualifies him from the job of being President.
This argument is EXACTLY THE SAME as saying that Obama can’t be commander in cheif because he never served in the military.
But lets take it further. Neither McCain nor Obama (nor Clinton, Edwards, or Kucinich for that matter) are doctors. Does that mean they can’t have any kind of health care policy?
None of them are engineers and I’ll bet none have either designed, built, or installed a windmill. Nor have they developed enzymes that can break switchgrass down into cellulosic ethanol. Can they not have an energy strategy?
None of these guys have ever worked a manufacturing job in their life. Does that mean none of them should do anything to try to help bring our manufacturing jobs back from China?
The fact is that even most folks who use computers regularly are not tuned into the issues tech geeks and bloggers obsess over (net neutrality, drm, etc). The fact is also that Presidents rely on advisers for most of their work. They’re the people who need to be the experts. The President just has to have good judgement and good leadership abilities. But mostly, the fact is that no liberal would decide to vote for McCain if Obama said he let Michelle and the kids handle all the computer stuff. Which makes this a non-issue being hyped simply because it gives our side an excuse to talk down to the other side.
There are real policy differences between Obama and McCain, and real reasons to support Obama. But jumping on every tiny piece of nonsense to demonize McCain makes libloggers look at best like incredibly petty zealots, and at worst like disingenuous assholes.
Not to mention the fact that the facebook and twitter crowd is probably about 2% of the voting population, and they’re essentially calling the rest of us stupid - which isn’t the best strategy I’ve ever heard of.
George Carlin wasn’t that funny. At least not in my teenage or adult lifetime. I mean, the guy’s been trading on routines he did when I was an infant for decades, but I never saw those. All I ever saw what a bitter, hateful, unfunny man who was not a little bit misogynistic.
I also felt he was fairly conservative, but like many “hip” conservatives took enough potshots at the most puffed up religious moralists to pretend that he was a freethinking rebel.
Last night I went to see the Neutral Nation reunion (there’s another one Sunday at The Living Room if you missed it). I’m sitting there thinking, “The Celtics just won a championship, Buddy Cianci just got out of jail, Unemployment is 7.2% in the state, and I’m at a Neutral Nation show at The Rocket. It’s like the late 80s all over again.”
From the ProJo: Recession report: R.I. jobless rate soars to 7.2%, the highest rate in 14 years
Meanwhile, Massachusetts yesterday reported payroll jobs last month grew by 3,900 but the unemployment rate rose to 4.9 percent. In Connecticut, jobs were up by 2,900 and the unemployment rate was 5.4 percent.
The national unemployment rate in May was 5.5 percent.
Rhode Island’s lack of any strong engine of job growth, coupled with fallout from the housing market and the state’s budget crisis mean that the state has “three major problems where most states only have one,” the housing market, said Andres Carbacho-Burgos, an economist at Moody’s Economy.com.
Here’s a pretty good article that compares the top potential running mates for Barack Obama.
So I just checked Google News and I see several articles with titles like “Teachers defend shock tactics in DWI program.” The gist of the story is that school officials (read: administrators) and the California Highway Patrol (read: Ponch and John) basically staged a hoax where they told students that several of their classmates had been killed in drunk driving accidents over the weekend.
Students were justifiably upset, and the very fact that this move needs to be “defended” shows that obviously students and parents think this was a boneheaded stunt at best.
But here’s what annoys me. The teachers had nothing to do with this. The only mention of a teacher in the entire story was that a teacher admitted to the kids that the whole thing was a hoax. This is one of those ridiculous ideas that can only be dreamed up by managers and consultants, but is being layed at the feet of the teachers who have to follow orders and go along with this sort of nonsense.
Teachers didn’t implement this plan, and teachers aren’t defending it. Administrators, guidance counselors, and the police are the ones behind this nonsense.
I think its an important distinction, because I know that teachers can easily become everyone’s favorite political punching bag.
Given that their party is on the wrong side of pretty much every issue - thinking tax cuts for rich people are the solution to every economic problem; being against higher fuel mileage standards that would have kept the price of gas down, protected our environment, and preserved thousands of good-paying union jobs; wanting to stay in Iraq forever; wanting to start even more wars in Iran and Syria; opposing extending unemployment benefits to help workers after a record jump in unemployment; opposing a G.I. Bill that would help todays war veterans go to college just like their parents and grandparents did - its unsurprising that their party and its mouthpieces have given up on trying to win this election on the issues and are resorting to character assassination, mudslinging, smear campaigns, and pretty much flat-out lying.
Generally they can’t even dig up that much on Barack Obama, so they resort to taking out-of-context quotes from everyone who’s ever met the guy and using their talk-radio and cable-news “pundits” to create the illusion of some sort of mass outrage. One of their current smears is that Michelle Obama is unpatriotic. So you see otherwise intelligent people who obviously know better spouting this nonsense on every cable news show that will have them, using the Himmleresque axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth, regardless of the facts.
As usual the “experts” on the show - whether journalists or often spineless democrats - fail to do their job and actually correct the record, either because they’re too incompetent or too scared of confrontation. So as usual, it falls to all of us to do the highly paid hacks jobs for them.
In that vein, I got this email this morning:
Steven Hayes, senior writer with “The Weekly Standard,” said on “Race for the White House with David Gregory” on MSNBC tonight the following about Michelle Obama: this is an exact quote of what he said:
“she said that she wasn’t proud of her country until her husband was essentially close to the nomination.”
NO ONE corrected him. The other members of the panel were Rachel Maddow, Eugene Robinson and Michael Smerconish. Here are the facts. Please blast David Gregory and his bosses. I also have Eugene’s email address. I’m tired of this urban legend. Send them this report from The New York Times of what she really said and WHEN she said it. Note: the video no longer works but it doesn’t matter- her whole speech is all over you tube and The New York Times is a good enough “reference” for the truth.
First of all she made this remark on February 18th, far from Barack having the nomination. And another thing they are so careful to play anything McCain says in context and in full- like his Today show comments this morning that were replayed all day in their entirety – why doesn’t Michelle Obama get the same treatment???
MSNBC all day made SURE to play McCain’s explosive comments in FULL CONTEXT to protect him! If you missed it: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/11/1132092.aspx
Here’s the truth on Michelle: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/blogtalk-michelle-obama-under-fire/
The Caucus
The New York Times
February 19, 2008, 5:40 pm
Blogtalk: Michelle Obama Under Fire
By Ariel Alexovich
Michelle Obama has been criticized in the past for being too frank, like when she divulged that her husband, Barack Obama, unchivalrously leaves his laundry on the floor and sports terrible morning breath.But never have her words sparked such an outcry in the blogosphere and among commentators here on The Caucus.Needling her husband is one thing, but some folks are interpreting her remarks yesterday as a direct slam on America and calling them unpatriotic. They came back into the forefront today when Senator John McCain’s wife Cindy took an indirect swipe by saying she had always been proud of America.To step back, let’s put Mrs. Obama’s comments in context. She made this statement during a speech in Milwaukee on Monday:
“What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something — for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I’ve seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it’s made me proud.”
david.gregory@nbcuni.com and race08@msnbc.com
The Bosses: steve.capus@nbc.com and phil.griffin@nbc.com
Also, eugenerobinson@washpost.com
Lets face it, this “unpatriotic” smear is just a load of hypocritical horseshit. Conservatives who spent all of the 90s riding around with “I love my country but I hate my government” bumper stickers now want to claim that any criticism of the U.S. Government is unpatriotic. Conservatives who complain endlessly about secular values and liberal media and the like have no right to feign outrage when someone else says that American society and culture is not perfect.
And clearly, what Michelle Obama said on Februrary 18th is in line with how most Americans feel. We’ve lived through decades of partisan bickering, petty poltics, polarization, and putting party before people. We’ve all been sick of it, but felt powerless to do anything about it. Now, finally, the American people are saying, “enough is enough”. We’re getting involved, demanding change, and people in both parties have nominated decent folks who they think would make good presidents, not just the guy with the best zingers or the one they think is the least of all evils.
And yes, that does make us proud. Admitting that the way politicians have conducted themselves for the last few decades gives us little to be proud of does not make one unpatriotic. It makes one honest.
“What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something — for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I’ve seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it’s made me proud.”
Here’s what she didn’t say:
I’m unpatriotic and I hate America. And whitey.
The Obama campaign has launched a new website: Fight the Smears. It seems like an update of the old factcheck.barackobama.com. But next time your idiot uncle forwards you one of those “Barack Obama is a secret muslim” or “Michelle Obama hates America” emails, you can respond quickly with the truth.
It’s like snopes.com for the Presidential race.
See this puppy here? She’s very sad.
Why is she sad?
Because you haven’t donated to Barack Obama through my fundraising page.
Why do you want to make this puppy sad? Is it because you hate puppies?
Don’t be a Romney - be nice to puppies. Donate today.
Now that Barack Obama has clinched the nomination, I’ve decided I’m going to try to be as active as I can in trying to get him elected. Obviously this will be somewhat difficult given that the time between now and the election is my busiest time of the year with work, plus I actually have something of a social life now (if you count scooter rides and D&D as a social life). But still, I went to the Obama site for the first time in a while and looked to see how I could get involved. I logged into my.barackobama.com and started going through all the stuff there.
They seem to put a premium on blogging and social networking functions, so this is basically a long way of introducing the fact that I now have another blog I will rarely update: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/davidgrenier
I’ll probably be crossposting a lot of stuff, or maybe being a dick and posting full length articles on one site with teasers on the other. Who knows.
Anyway, I have real work to do and autos to theft grandly, so that’s it for now.
Who is the sorer loser:
Bonus poll - who is more likely to lie and cheat to win:
Liberty City Police Face Allegations Of Incompetence, Brutality
Many blame the LCPD directly for the increase in criminal activity, citing the department’s lax procedure for arresting criminals, which involves taking 10 percent of the suspect’s money, confiscating his weapons, and simply releasing him from custody later that day. Outraged citizens say this is not enough, especially in a city where assault rifles can be found on factory roofs and grenade caches are located under the globe at the old World’s Fair site.
Perhaps even more alarming, city records indicate that more than 75 percent of perpetrators in mass-murder or vehicular-manslaughter cases escape, usually by simple methods such as driving into a car-repainting facility. Criminals have even eluded pursuit by walking into their apartment and going to bed for six hours, after which the search has been called off.
By the way, I still haven’t finished the game. I played pretty much nonstop for the first week or so that I had it, and I’ve been putting in a couple hours every few days since then. The game really is huge and you really can see and do so much that it’s just crazy.
This was supposed to be the election the Democrats couldn’t lose no matter how poorly they ran. Yet suddenly it looks like any other race. If Obama loses in the fall, the Hillary camp will say he never had a chance and its all because of the elitists and sexists in the party who keep nominating horrible candidates that we keep losing. The Obama camp will say its because Hillary did McCains work for him and sabotaged any chance at party unity.
But where we stand is that Obama will be the nominee, and you have white women up in arms about how unfair it is that a black man gets a turn at the Presidency before a white woman.
Now remember, White women elected Bush, so it’s not like they’re a reliable Democratic constituency to begin with. So how does McCain exploit this division to win in November?
Five words I don’t think I’ve heard anyone mention: Vice President Christie Todd Whitman.
She’s a white woman, so she can give pissed off Hillary supporters an excuse to support McCain despite his strong pro-life record and his desire to take away their social security. She was also head of the EPA under Bush, but has credibility since she resigned rather than subvert the agency to Rove’s agenda. That gives her points as both an environmentalist (where McCain hopes to draw a distinction between himself and Bush in an attempt to reach out to independents) and as a moderate, maverick, or just a person with integrity at a time when folks are sick of government being subverted to the permanent campaign. Plus, New Jersey is something of a swing state and she can certainly help there - especially if there are loads of pissed off Hillary supporters. She might even help in some of the surrounding states.
My money’s been on Tom Ridge for Veep for a year or so now, with a small side bet on Condi Rice (who I don’t think wants the job). Whitman’s not on anyone’s list that I’ve seen, but I think I’m moving my money there. It may be a 50 to 1 shot, but those are the ones that pay off big.
[Of course, the central questions surrounding Whitman would be: a) whether naming a pro-choice, moderate, environmentalist woman allied with the Log Cabin Republicans would cause the base to stay home or vote for a third party; and b) whether McCain is looking for a running mate born in the second half of the last century].
So the other day I noticed a short blurb in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette sports section about tryouts for the Pittsburgh Force - their women’s football team. I thought that was odd, because I remembered the team being named the Pittsburgh Passion, and in fact I remember them winning a championship last year. I also remember reading that they were the team with the highest attendence record at games, and seemed to have more support in their hometown than most other teams. In other words, they were the most succesful women’s football team.
Usually teams change their name when they’re doing badly (see the Tampa Bay Rays and the Miami Ice Dolphins).
It turns out they didn’t change their name, and the Force isn’t a second Pittsburgh team. The Passion has left the National Women’s Football Association (NWFA) and is now part of the Independent Women’s Football League (IWFL).
When I checked the NWFA’s website for the list of teams, it seems like they’ve had a mass defection, as well as possibly a number of teams folding. I can understand teams folding - the teams are mostly funded out of the owners pockets and likely don’t generate much revenue - but the defection has me puzzled. I wonder if the IWFL offered more support to teams/owners. I wonder if the NWFA started raising franchise fees and the like. I wonder if the ridiculous number of teams (pretty much anyone with the franchise fee could form a team, leading to several Massachusetts teams if I remember correctly) had anything to do with it.
The only difference I can see is that the NWFA definitely seemed like a business built to enrich its founder through franchise fees, whereas the IWFL bills itself as a non-profit league. At least that’s what I gather as an outsider based mostly on skimming their websites.
But on the off chance that someone stumbles across this site who knows more about the situation, I’d love to hear the inside dirt.
Can anyone tell me what makes dembloggers so coo-coo for cocoa puffs over Kathleen Sebelius? I mean, what does she have going for her aside from the fact that she’s a woman? I’m not asking to be snarky, I honestly know nothing about her aside from the fact that she’s a woman, she’s Governor of Kansas, and she gave a really mediocre response to the State of the Union.
I just want to know if people like her because of something she’s accomplished as Governor, or at least something she’s tried to accomplish, or if it really just comes down to, “here’s an older white woman that can win back Hillary supporters.”
Now that the primary is basically done, everyone and there brother is going to have a Veep post. I may do one too, but most likely by the time I get around to it everything I was going to say will have already been said.
So apparently John Edwards came out the other day and “praised” Barack Obama without actually endorsing him.
It’s a little frustrating, because if Edwards had immediately dropped out after Iowa and endorsed Obama, I think this whole thing might have been over by Super Tuesday. When he dropped out and refused to endorse, I was confused. After Super Tuesday I was beginning to think that maybe he was saving his endorsement until the North Carolina primary, when it might have the greatest impact. Yet that has come and gone with nothing.
I’m pretty sure he’s hedging his bets, not wanting to piss off either candidate by endorsing the other. He’s likely either hoping for a VP slot or cabinet post this time around, or thinking that if Obama fails he can be Hillary’s VP pick in 2012.
Which is just slimy, weasely, politician shit that belies his newfound progressive/antipoverty identity he discovered in time for this election.
But I think he still holds out hope that he can be the nominee this time. Remember, he never officially dropped out of the race - he merely suspended his campaign. I think he thinks there’s an outside chance this will go to a floor fight at the convention and he can be the charming white southern man that comes in to save the party. I’m sure even he knows its a long, long, longshot… but it does explain why he won’t actually drop out of the race and endorse Obama, pledging his handful of Iowa delegates to the front-runner. It would be difficult to do that, and then turn around in Denver and say, “I didn’t mean it. Pick me instead.”
Though it might not be as long of a shot as you’d think. Remember, if it becomes an almost-tie between Obama and Clinton, those 12 delegates or so pledged to him can throw the whole thing into open balloting. If nothing else, that will give him leverage to horsetrade with either Clinton or Obama - 12 delegates for the VP spot.
Taking a break from Grand Theft Auto for a bit to celebrate my wife finishing another semester of school and watch some Battlestar Galactica season 3. I heard all the news about last nights primaries, and its funny how the media have gone from writing Obama’s obituary back to Hillary’s.
The calls for her to step down are likely premature, unless all of the remaining high-profile superdelegates come out and endorse Obama this week. Much more likely, both because it helps her save face and it helps the party is a decision to let the process play out without the ridiculous negative campaigning and attempts at character assassination. Its only a few more weeks until the primaries are over, and there’s no reason they can’t be like the final primaries between Huckabee and McCain before McCain finally clinched the nomination.
By giving voters a choice in states that have never really had it, they’ll increase excitement about the election, register new voters and activate folks who don’t usually participate. If they can do this without the Clinton smear tactics and ridiculous pandering (repeal the gas tax? really?) it will be a net benefit to the party, not a negative.
Moreover, by finishing the final races it allows Clinton to save face. Lets face it, she’s the closest thing this entire season had to an incumbent and it has to be pretty humiliating to go from the inevitable candidate to the loser. She’s got a few weeks to both rally the party in the remaining states and work on a concession speech that doesn’t sound like sour grapes or leave the door open to “if we can only get Michigan and Florida seated….” If she can manage to avoid her campain instincts to go negative in the last few weeks, she can really heal the damage this campaign has done to her reputation and her legacy. Imagine the day after she loses in Montana and South Dakota she concedes to Obama, mentions how great it was that every state got a chance to vote and how many new Democrats have been brought into the process, and does the traditional call-to-unity. This is immediately followed by endorsements by Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and whatever other big-name supers haven’t endorsed yet.
Of course, this whole situation is bringing back talk of the so-called “dream ticket” of Obama/Clinton - which has always seemed like a bad idea to me. However, it is true that Obama needs someone who can help him either with white women or blue collar men. While I can’t really see Clinton as the VP nominee, I can see a backroom deal where Obama basically allows her to populate his short list.
The real big question, honestly, is whether the Clintons will really work to get Obama elected, or whether they’ll sabatoge his efforts in the hope that she can win in 2012.
