Just so much power, it's almost too much for a human head to withstand without exploding.
And not one time-wasting puerile lyric about the Devil either.
Friday, October 17, 2008
sepultura -territory
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
David Brooks: Using black magic to pull rabbits from his ass
I love to hate saccharin-coated gourmet crapslinger David Brooks. Every week he graces the NY Times with a fresh example of a high art: writing as black magic. His method is simple but extremely well executed. He'll compose an article of smoothly-phrased selective information, and carefully place within it one KEY implied assumption.
It's like a magician's trick, where he sets the stage, points the audience towards the Left and pulls a rabbit from his ass.
His latest article, "Big Government Ahead", doesn't disappoint.
First, Brooks sets the stage as firmly in the present and the future.
Here we see Brooks is a true master. A lesser conservative writer would blame the Left for the current situation, while they excuse the Right. But by simply starting as if the world began today, he gracefully avoids any need to even deal with how Republican and conservative people, policies, and ideology might be even partly responsible for how we got here.
Next, Brooks writes several paragraphs of how bad things are now, and how bad he thinks they will become. Here he shows more of his subtle slickness; he doesn't even mention the Republican party. Instead he only gives a passing nod to John McCain, and a scaremongering mention of Newt Gingrich - who doesn't even hold office. Thus Brooks conjures a future in which Republicans will have NO effect on economic policy - not even as a minority party, not even as voices in the wilderness.
And therefore all the hypothetical bad things in the future can only be blamed on the Democrats, you see.
This implication of minority-party powerlessness, is clearly contradicted by a quick look into the past Brooks is avoiding. Recall how the minority party House Republicans completely derailed the $700 billion bailout package, until they got the added goodies they desired?
...But to just stop at this logical mistake, is to be distracted from it's lower purpose. It's a seeming oversight that's a setup for the misdirect. Just like a stage magician might appear to stumble - while he is in fact preparing to launch the rabbit in his pants.
Now that an unwary reader's eyes are pointed critically towards the Left, Brooks launches the rabbit from his haunches:
The new situation will reopen old rifts in the Democratic Party.
One the one side, liberals will argue...
On the other hand, the remaining moderates will argue...
Did you catch that?
The hidden key assumption is that with a President Obama and a Democratic House and Congress, it won't be liberals vs. conservatives, but liberals vs. moderates.
From this seed, many further implications spring.
First, as we all know, moderates are safe, reasonable and balanced. Therefore if liberals are opposed to moderates, they must be unreasonable, unsafe and insane radicals.
Next, by describing Democratic non-liberals as the "few remaining moderates" Brooks implies that the crazy Democratic party liberals will outnumber and overpower all the sane, helpless moderates within the entire effective government.
Then, possibly most deceptively at all, this hidden key assumption also obliviates(*tm) the fact that the Democratic party *also* has conservatives. And, once again looking at the past Brooks is avoiding, constantly clash with Democratic liberals and often side with their Republican conservative counterparts.
A few sentences later, as a stage magician would make a final flourish with the inexplicably brown-stained rabbit, Brooks gracefully tap-tap-taps his key assumption just a wee bit further to set it firmly in place. The subtle efficiency with which Brooks achieves this is true writing craftsmanship.
Obama will try to straddle the two camps - he seems to sympathize with both sides - but the liberals will win.
Now, the first tap is slick enough:
Tap 1. The completely crazy non-moderate liberals will certainly win, to the point of overruling Obama.
But hidden beneath this are no less than three further innuendos driving this assumption home:
Tap 2: Obama is only HALF sane, because he's both a liberal sympathizer and a Democrat moderate sympathizer.
Tap 3: There's only *two* sides in the Democratic party. Liberals and moderates. No one else, that's it! And certainly no conservatives!
Tap 4: If the Democratic party has only 2 sides, liberal and moderate - then Obama has no sympathy for Republican or even Democratic conservative views.
Four innuendoes in just one sentence! The last three so easily missed, in fact, that I didn't even parse them out until just now, well past the 5th draft of this post.
So to sum up the badly-smelling brown-covered pants-rabbit of Brooks' article:
1. anything and everything that goes wrong in America for the next 8 years can only be the fault of Democrats, because they're the only people in power, and no one else exists
2. certainly no conservatives will be involved in anything that goes wrong, because none of them exist in government now either
3. of those Democrats, it will be more the fault of liberals than moderates - because liberals are crazy non-moderates
4. Obama will fail in controlling the insane unsafe never-moderate liberals, because he sympathizes with some of them - which means he's at least partly insane as well.
I hate all that Brooks is trying to accomplish here. Nevertheless I must at the same time acknowledge that this is great writing. That it's used for dark aims of deception doesn't detract from the focus, skill and craft involved. It only makes it more tragic. A very smart man with schooled charm and very sharply honed writing skills, is using his gifts to try and fool people.
For us humans to do anything consistently, we must convince ourselves that it's right. So the only way I could see putting that much conscious effort and years of honed skill into manipulation like this, is to think that people must be fooled for their own good. What a sad, messed up world. Where our democracy is not a blessing but an inconvenience; the peasants can't be trusted to make up their own free minds - they must be beguiled towards the goals of their betters.
Brooks concludes this article, in a way sure to salve the wounds of those conservatives wounded by reality's recent economic meltdown, election of Barack Obama, and other refutations of their worldviews:
The over-reach is coming. The backlash is next.
Brooks' problem is that the over-reach was committed by the 2000-2006 GOP, and the backlash gave the Democrats control of both houses for the first time in decades. And it's only getting started. The more Americans realize how awful the so-called conservative movement and it's GOP host-succubus has been for America, the greater this backlash will become.
Big changes are clearly coming in the political environment, and hence for both David Brooks and the ideological constituency which he serves. I think Brooks is trying to reposition himself. He probably will avoid mentioning conservative figures or ideology - favorably OR unfavorably - as much as possible. He will instead camouflage himself and the politics he serves by deifying conservative figures and goals in the holy cloak of "moderation". And demonize all non-conservatives as doubleplusungood liberals. And thus try to maintain his facade as a reasonable pundit, while waiting for the mob of angry peasants to pass by.
* obliviate - (noun) - 1. to obliterate from memory by blowing over it with bloviation. 2. In the Harry Potter universe, a memory charm which erases the recipients memory.
It's like a magician's trick, where he sets the stage, points the audience towards the Left and pulls a rabbit from his ass.
His latest article, "Big Government Ahead", doesn't disappoint.
First, Brooks sets the stage as firmly in the present and the future.
We're in the middle of a financial crisis, but most economists say there is a broader economic crisis still to come...By the time the recession is in full force, America's Democrats will probably be running the government.
Here we see Brooks is a true master. A lesser conservative writer would blame the Left for the current situation, while they excuse the Right. But by simply starting as if the world began today, he gracefully avoids any need to even deal with how Republican and conservative people, policies, and ideology might be even partly responsible for how we got here.
Next, Brooks writes several paragraphs of how bad things are now, and how bad he thinks they will become. Here he shows more of his subtle slickness; he doesn't even mention the Republican party. Instead he only gives a passing nod to John McCain, and a scaremongering mention of Newt Gingrich - who doesn't even hold office. Thus Brooks conjures a future in which Republicans will have NO effect on economic policy - not even as a minority party, not even as voices in the wilderness.
And therefore all the hypothetical bad things in the future can only be blamed on the Democrats, you see.
This implication of minority-party powerlessness, is clearly contradicted by a quick look into the past Brooks is avoiding. Recall how the minority party House Republicans completely derailed the $700 billion bailout package, until they got the added goodies they desired?
...But to just stop at this logical mistake, is to be distracted from it's lower purpose. It's a seeming oversight that's a setup for the misdirect. Just like a stage magician might appear to stumble - while he is in fact preparing to launch the rabbit in his pants.
Now that an unwary reader's eyes are pointed critically towards the Left, Brooks launches the rabbit from his haunches:
The new situation will reopen old rifts in the Democratic Party.
One the one side, liberals will argue...
On the other hand, the remaining moderates will argue...
Did you catch that?
The hidden key assumption is that with a President Obama and a Democratic House and Congress, it won't be liberals vs. conservatives, but liberals vs. moderates.
From this seed, many further implications spring.
First, as we all know, moderates are safe, reasonable and balanced. Therefore if liberals are opposed to moderates, they must be unreasonable, unsafe and insane radicals.
Next, by describing Democratic non-liberals as the "few remaining moderates" Brooks implies that the crazy Democratic party liberals will outnumber and overpower all the sane, helpless moderates within the entire effective government.
Then, possibly most deceptively at all, this hidden key assumption also obliviates(*tm) the fact that the Democratic party *also* has conservatives. And, once again looking at the past Brooks is avoiding, constantly clash with Democratic liberals and often side with their Republican conservative counterparts.
A few sentences later, as a stage magician would make a final flourish with the inexplicably brown-stained rabbit, Brooks gracefully tap-tap-taps his key assumption just a wee bit further to set it firmly in place. The subtle efficiency with which Brooks achieves this is true writing craftsmanship.
Obama will try to straddle the two camps - he seems to sympathize with both sides - but the liberals will win.
Now, the first tap is slick enough:
Tap 1. The completely crazy non-moderate liberals will certainly win, to the point of overruling Obama.
But hidden beneath this are no less than three further innuendos driving this assumption home:
Tap 2: Obama is only HALF sane, because he's both a liberal sympathizer and a Democrat moderate sympathizer.
Tap 3: There's only *two* sides in the Democratic party. Liberals and moderates. No one else, that's it! And certainly no conservatives!
Tap 4: If the Democratic party has only 2 sides, liberal and moderate - then Obama has no sympathy for Republican or even Democratic conservative views.
Four innuendoes in just one sentence! The last three so easily missed, in fact, that I didn't even parse them out until just now, well past the 5th draft of this post.
So to sum up the badly-smelling brown-covered pants-rabbit of Brooks' article:
1. anything and everything that goes wrong in America for the next 8 years can only be the fault of Democrats, because they're the only people in power, and no one else exists
2. certainly no conservatives will be involved in anything that goes wrong, because none of them exist in government now either
3. of those Democrats, it will be more the fault of liberals than moderates - because liberals are crazy non-moderates
4. Obama will fail in controlling the insane unsafe never-moderate liberals, because he sympathizes with some of them - which means he's at least partly insane as well.
I hate all that Brooks is trying to accomplish here. Nevertheless I must at the same time acknowledge that this is great writing. That it's used for dark aims of deception doesn't detract from the focus, skill and craft involved. It only makes it more tragic. A very smart man with schooled charm and very sharply honed writing skills, is using his gifts to try and fool people.
For us humans to do anything consistently, we must convince ourselves that it's right. So the only way I could see putting that much conscious effort and years of honed skill into manipulation like this, is to think that people must be fooled for their own good. What a sad, messed up world. Where our democracy is not a blessing but an inconvenience; the peasants can't be trusted to make up their own free minds - they must be beguiled towards the goals of their betters.
Brooks concludes this article, in a way sure to salve the wounds of those conservatives wounded by reality's recent economic meltdown, election of Barack Obama, and other refutations of their worldviews:
The over-reach is coming. The backlash is next.
Brooks' problem is that the over-reach was committed by the 2000-2006 GOP, and the backlash gave the Democrats control of both houses for the first time in decades. And it's only getting started. The more Americans realize how awful the so-called conservative movement and it's GOP host-succubus has been for America, the greater this backlash will become.
Big changes are clearly coming in the political environment, and hence for both David Brooks and the ideological constituency which he serves. I think Brooks is trying to reposition himself. He probably will avoid mentioning conservative figures or ideology - favorably OR unfavorably - as much as possible. He will instead camouflage himself and the politics he serves by deifying conservative figures and goals in the holy cloak of "moderation". And demonize all non-conservatives as doubleplusungood liberals. And thus try to maintain his facade as a reasonable pundit, while waiting for the mob of angry peasants to pass by.
* obliviate - (noun) - 1. to obliterate from memory by blowing over it with bloviation. 2. In the Harry Potter universe, a memory charm which erases the recipients memory.
Woke up and had to hear "Mean Streets" this morning.
By good ol' Van Halen. So I went straight to youtube, and dug this up: a CD version of
the song that some unnamed VH devotee synced up to a 1981 Italian TV performance.
Man, I forgot just how completely, ridiculously, beyond-shameless-to-the-point-of-brilliant over-the-top David Lee Roth was.
This music has enough smart writing to make it prog-rock, if it didn't rock so hard. And the lyrics to this song, like almost of all Roth's lyrics, also show real depth on close inspection. Roth wrote them after touring around the world with Van Halen for a couple of years, and seeing what it was like to live in really poor areas. The lyrics are about what it's like to live in a place where there is no hope except what you're ready to fight and kill for.
From the performance, we can see the visual template this era of Van Halen provided for the hair-metal bands to follow: the sleaziness, the glam, the rivers of long hair, the screaming guitar-solo heroism. These were the only things the wearying streams of lesser bands were able to copy. They missed the substance beneath the style: the musical cleverness of Van Halen's writing and arrangements, Eddie Van Halen's great skills as a rhythm guitarist, and the real philosophy behind the Roth-era Van Halen's bohemian hedonism. Van Halen was not braindead rock antics; it was brainy rock antics filled with originality, joy and life. It was broadcasting the realization that life is perhaps short and anyways always now, so it is incumbent on us the living to have as much joy as possible.
Sans shame, regret, or any thought of being cool to others. More like being so cool yourself, from the inside out, that there's no way anyone else can ever dim it...
Or it was just about all the girls.
But more probably, both.
And so, Van Halen of the Roth variety, from my office job this morning I salute you.
the song that some unnamed VH devotee synced up to a 1981 Italian TV performance.
Man, I forgot just how completely, ridiculously, beyond-shameless-to-the-point-of-brilliant over-the-top David Lee Roth was.
This music has enough smart writing to make it prog-rock, if it didn't rock so hard. And the lyrics to this song, like almost of all Roth's lyrics, also show real depth on close inspection. Roth wrote them after touring around the world with Van Halen for a couple of years, and seeing what it was like to live in really poor areas. The lyrics are about what it's like to live in a place where there is no hope except what you're ready to fight and kill for.
From the performance, we can see the visual template this era of Van Halen provided for the hair-metal bands to follow: the sleaziness, the glam, the rivers of long hair, the screaming guitar-solo heroism. These were the only things the wearying streams of lesser bands were able to copy. They missed the substance beneath the style: the musical cleverness of Van Halen's writing and arrangements, Eddie Van Halen's great skills as a rhythm guitarist, and the real philosophy behind the Roth-era Van Halen's bohemian hedonism. Van Halen was not braindead rock antics; it was brainy rock antics filled with originality, joy and life. It was broadcasting the realization that life is perhaps short and anyways always now, so it is incumbent on us the living to have as much joy as possible.
Sans shame, regret, or any thought of being cool to others. More like being so cool yourself, from the inside out, that there's no way anyone else can ever dim it...
Or it was just about all the girls.
But more probably, both.
And so, Van Halen of the Roth variety, from my office job this morning I salute you.
Monday, September 22, 2008
And now for a fresh break with some fresh Breaks
I had tons of fun making these quick tunes over the past few days:
http://www.neophiliac.com/music/weirdkinh.mp3
http://www.neophiliac.com/music/unknown_sojourn_into_dawn.mp3
http://www.neophiliac.com/music/smash_loop.mp3
http://www.neophiliac.com/music/weirdkinh.mp3
http://www.neophiliac.com/music/unknown_sojourn_into_dawn.mp3
http://www.neophiliac.com/music/smash_loop.mp3
Thursday, September 18, 2008
The enigma of modern Conservatism(tm)
Conservatism (tm) the brand is fascinating to me. It puts candidates in office, publishes millions of dollars in books and fills our media with thousands of hours of intensely spirited blather - but Conservatism (tm) still has no consistent underlying philosophy that I've been able to identify.
I don't even know if self-called conservatives know what Conservatism (tm) is. There's a general list of things they like - "State's rights, small government, keep government out of private affairs, no abortions, fiscal responsibility, interpret the Constitution as it was originally intended, support the troops." All fine in theory, but it seems like a bunch of stuff that's just baked together. With God, Guns, and no Gay marriage sprinkled on top.
And not only that, when the rubber meets the road:
- They're for "state's rights" unless a Federal court can overturn a state and put their President in power;
- They're for the Constitution as originally interpreted unless it can shut off speech they don't like;
- They're against earmarks unless they benefit a GOPerated state;
- They're against big government unless they're running it;
- They're against government intrusion in people's private lives, unless those people are having sex,
- They're against Hollywood celebrities but love Arnold Schwarzenegger, Drew Carey, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Fred Thompson...
- They're against abortion because "it's murder", but don't want to fund programs that would help women actually support and raise their children - which would also result in less abortions
- They're "for the troops" but vote against benefits for veterans,
- They're against big-city fancy-talking latte-drinking wine-snob elitists, except for cross-dressing NY multimillionaires like Rudy Guiliani
- They're against "Washington insiders" and "lying politicians", except for every candidate they've nominated for President since Eisenhower, with the possible exception of Gerald Ford;
-They're "for fiscal responsibility" but somehow have - **every time** they have a President in office - unbalanced the budget and increased the national debt. More than any Democratic presidents have done.
Quite a long list of contradictions in action. And there is nothing I've been able to figure out, that ties all this together.
Now, part of what eases these contradictions is whether or not Conservatism (tm)'s customer base - white males from the Midwest and the South - wants 'em. And their familes and parents, to a lesser degree.
But there must be some sort of metaphysical component to it - because a lot of people sincerely believe in Conservatism (tm). Even though - and this is the part that really baffles me - ***there doesn't seem to be anything to believe in***.
(They're cognitive dissidents?)
Perhaps it's like "believing" in a rock band, or an actor? It's much more of an emotional connection, or a personal identification? But rock bands and actors don't spontaneously inspire commitees and laws to do their bidding.
I thought I had figured out a basic unspoken belief system for "Conservatism (tm)" that tied all the tenets together **and** explained how easily conservatives can wander away from them. It's simply: “Fuck everyone else”. But that Unified Freak Theory was trashed this year, when I saw some of the Republican National Convention. The crowd itself responded in spontaneous droves to the brutal increase in oil prices, with "Drill! We need to drill for oil! That will solve our dependence on oil! Drill! Drill! DRILLLL!!!!!!!!"
Even though:
- our energy companies aren't asking to drill offshore, and have no plans to
- these companies aren't even pursuing drilling on all the property they **already are able to drill** at;
- and even tho every study tirelessly released to the media shows:
a) the US would again much more gas by increasing fuel standards
b) the most oil this new drilling could generate would only be a sliver of what we import, and thus would barely affect the price at all
c) the oil would take years or more to even reach the market.
From the above, our OBVIOUS best choice is to start the transition off of oil. Come on! We burn it, and the Earth doesn't make more of it! The longer we burn it, the harder the transition will get! How hard is that to understand?
But as this factless "DRILL YEEAARRGHH!!" outlook on reality shows, the followers of Conservatism (tm) are heartily resisting any transition off of oil that they can possibly imagine.
And why?? What does drilling for oil even have to do with the mess of things they *say* they care about? It has screw-all to do with big government, abortion, God guns or gays. Replacing oil would make us *less* dependent on furriners, not more. In a logical world you’d think they’d love that.
This *is* a logical world, of course. It’s just the logic gets hidden when it’s unconscious. Oil usage is now part of the Big America they love; part of that ideology that they’ve been sold on that’s all boiled together into one greasy sugary mess.
So the way I think of it now is, Conservatism (tm) is one part "Fuck everyone else", one part “Don't make me think, I want what I feel!”, and one part “blarg goofle vshitiltfixaxen huff huff AYEEEEH USA USA USA!”
I could make a flow chart from this that would blow your mind.
I don't even know if self-called conservatives know what Conservatism (tm) is. There's a general list of things they like - "State's rights, small government, keep government out of private affairs, no abortions, fiscal responsibility, interpret the Constitution as it was originally intended, support the troops." All fine in theory, but it seems like a bunch of stuff that's just baked together. With God, Guns, and no Gay marriage sprinkled on top.
And not only that, when the rubber meets the road:
- They're for "state's rights" unless a Federal court can overturn a state and put their President in power;
- They're for the Constitution as originally interpreted unless it can shut off speech they don't like;
- They're against earmarks unless they benefit a GOPerated state;
- They're against big government unless they're running it;
- They're against government intrusion in people's private lives, unless those people are having sex,
- They're against Hollywood celebrities but love Arnold Schwarzenegger, Drew Carey, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Fred Thompson...
- They're against abortion because "it's murder", but don't want to fund programs that would help women actually support and raise their children - which would also result in less abortions
- They're "for the troops" but vote against benefits for veterans,
- They're against big-city fancy-talking latte-drinking wine-snob elitists, except for cross-dressing NY multimillionaires like Rudy Guiliani
- They're against "Washington insiders" and "lying politicians", except for every candidate they've nominated for President since Eisenhower, with the possible exception of Gerald Ford;
-They're "for fiscal responsibility" but somehow have - **every time** they have a President in office - unbalanced the budget and increased the national debt. More than any Democratic presidents have done.
Quite a long list of contradictions in action. And there is nothing I've been able to figure out, that ties all this together.
Now, part of what eases these contradictions is whether or not Conservatism (tm)'s customer base - white males from the Midwest and the South - wants 'em. And their familes and parents, to a lesser degree.
But there must be some sort of metaphysical component to it - because a lot of people sincerely believe in Conservatism (tm). Even though - and this is the part that really baffles me - ***there doesn't seem to be anything to believe in***.
(They're cognitive dissidents?)
Perhaps it's like "believing" in a rock band, or an actor? It's much more of an emotional connection, or a personal identification? But rock bands and actors don't spontaneously inspire commitees and laws to do their bidding.
I thought I had figured out a basic unspoken belief system for "Conservatism (tm)" that tied all the tenets together **and** explained how easily conservatives can wander away from them. It's simply: “Fuck everyone else”. But that Unified Freak Theory was trashed this year, when I saw some of the Republican National Convention. The crowd itself responded in spontaneous droves to the brutal increase in oil prices, with "Drill! We need to drill for oil! That will solve our dependence on oil! Drill! Drill! DRILLLL!!!!!!!!"
Even though:
- our energy companies aren't asking to drill offshore, and have no plans to
- these companies aren't even pursuing drilling on all the property they **already are able to drill** at;
- and even tho every study tirelessly released to the media shows:
a) the US would again much more gas by increasing fuel standards
b) the most oil this new drilling could generate would only be a sliver of what we import, and thus would barely affect the price at all
c) the oil would take years or more to even reach the market.
From the above, our OBVIOUS best choice is to start the transition off of oil. Come on! We burn it, and the Earth doesn't make more of it! The longer we burn it, the harder the transition will get! How hard is that to understand?
But as this factless "DRILL YEEAARRGHH!!" outlook on reality shows, the followers of Conservatism (tm) are heartily resisting any transition off of oil that they can possibly imagine.
And why?? What does drilling for oil even have to do with the mess of things they *say* they care about? It has screw-all to do with big government, abortion, God guns or gays. Replacing oil would make us *less* dependent on furriners, not more. In a logical world you’d think they’d love that.
This *is* a logical world, of course. It’s just the logic gets hidden when it’s unconscious. Oil usage is now part of the Big America they love; part of that ideology that they’ve been sold on that’s all boiled together into one greasy sugary mess.
So the way I think of it now is, Conservatism (tm) is one part "Fuck everyone else", one part “Don't make me think, I want what I feel!”, and one part “blarg goofle vshitiltfixaxen huff huff AYEEEEH USA USA USA!”
I could make a flow chart from this that would blow your mind.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Dear Barack: The Veep Choice That Could Shock the World
sigh.
Hillary Clinton will NOT be Obama's choice for VP because:
1) HIllary will not give Obama one state he does not have already.
2) Hillary as VP will make thousands more Republicans in swing states actually go to the polls and vote for McCain - when otherwise, unexcited by McCain, they are morely likely to stay home.
3) Hillary and Bill introduce noise and missteps to a campaign that Obama has run nearly flawlessly.
4) Bill seems to personally resent Barack Obama, and will be unpredictable *and* put under the microscope - producing even more noise.
5) Most importantly, if elected Hillary is not likely to follow Obama's lead. They both want to be the boss, and only one of them can be. If Hillary won, Obama would be an unlikely choice for her VP for precisely this same reason.
I think Obama's VP choice will not be Biden, Bayh, Daschle, Sibelius, or even Clark. It will be someone who most of us have not heard of. Someone who has credible and serious experience in foreign policy, and (hopefully) domestic policy, at high levels, but is also relatively new to the national stage.
Along those lines, of the names I've heard mentioned I think the most likely bet is Tim Kaine. Governor of Virginia, bipartisan experience, blue-collar background and Harvard-educated lawyer, winner of many accolades for his work in fair housing. He would put Virginia in play, and also strengthen opportunities for Congress and Senate candidates in Virginia.
That's my prediction.
We'll all see, in just a few days. Things are heating up for a greatly-watched season finale here. I hope the good guys win. Or at least, the non-incompetent guys who haven't been in the White House for the past 7 years.
Update:
Ahem! Turns out it was Biden after all. OK then.
In retrospect, this was a good choice in that it was quite safe, and not providing any sort of in-line for McCain: Biden's differed from Obama somewhat, which insulates Obama from criticisms of groupthink; Biden comes from Delaware which is considered relatively non-latte-drinking, and therefore Biden is hard to tag as an elitist.
McCain of course picked Palin. In some ways a smart political decision for the McCain campaign; it was his best chance to unite his own party, perhaps get some Hillary-supporting dead-enders. And possibly cause the Obama campaign to overreact. Which some thought they did, at least for a while.
Unfortunately for the McCain campaign, those who aren't GOP Uber Alles see Palin as completely unqualified, not intellectually curious, possibly power-abusing, and absolutely on-record before the cameras a liar. A serial liar who just keeps lying.
I think the American people as a majority are seeing this, and seeing also how her choice reflects on McCain, and will vote accordingly.
The next step: making sure this election isn't close enough to steal.
Friday, August 1, 2008
5.8? No, 5.4
So there I was talking with a co-worker about a manual I was writing, when the building started shaking like a bag of jelly. I suggested, "Looks like it's time to go outside then." But surprisingly there were no takers. People were just standing around, kind of frozen. Some acoustic ceiling tile fell about this time. The shaking was done, in fact the quake was done. And I was kind of frozen too, just 'cause no one else was moving.
Another guy said "Come on. Let's go outside. Who are the real native californians here?" and the spell was broken. We went down the stairwell. Part of the way down the stairwell the panic started to take effect among some. They started rushing past where I and others were to get outside.
It's a funny thing. I felt the trouble was already passed, but wanted to get outside to make sure. I later heard that you're not supposed to go outside. Maybe if there's no clear open space nearby, and you're in danger of being clobbered by power lines or falling debris. Otherwise I consider the stay-inside strategy pure nonsense.
Soon everyone was in the courtyard, chatting it up but no one relaxed enough to have a cigarette. We started a betting pool. I went with 5.3, another co-worker went with 5.4.
Several hours we were all back in the office, and all the power went off. Everyone's computers went down. I'm just a contractor - like "I'm just a caveman" - but maybe we should have something ready for that contingency.
Another guy said "Come on. Let's go outside. Who are the real native californians here?" and the spell was broken. We went down the stairwell. Part of the way down the stairwell the panic started to take effect among some. They started rushing past where I and others were to get outside.
It's a funny thing. I felt the trouble was already passed, but wanted to get outside to make sure. I later heard that you're not supposed to go outside. Maybe if there's no clear open space nearby, and you're in danger of being clobbered by power lines or falling debris. Otherwise I consider the stay-inside strategy pure nonsense.
Soon everyone was in the courtyard, chatting it up but no one relaxed enough to have a cigarette. We started a betting pool. I went with 5.3, another co-worker went with 5.4.
Several hours we were all back in the office, and all the power went off. Everyone's computers went down. I'm just a contractor - like "I'm just a caveman" - but maybe we should have something ready for that contingency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
