What with the coming Republican National Convention, it’s going to be John McCain’s week.
At least, it should be John McCain’s week; Barack Obama’s triumph at the Democratic Convention is going to be hard to beat. (And I use "triumph" with regard to his success at the convention; to use it beyond that would be to tempt fate and fate doesn’t need me to tempt her.) But there are several questions that I, for one, would like to have answered. Not the obvious ones that would involve a comparison between Obama or McCain; everyone and his brother is going to be asking those. I’m talking about questions about how I’m going to comment of the goings-on in Minnesota.
Not that I think that my opinion matters a bit to anyone but myself; clearly, it doesn’t. I’m just one guy writing on a blog that nobody (well, almost nobody) is reading. What concerns me is how I’m going to comment; in other words:
1. Can I impartially cover speeches/people/events that I clearly do not agree with?
2. Should I attempt to impartially cover speeches/people/events that I clearly do not agree with?
3. Should I care?
Keep in mind (as I need to keep in mind) that I’m not a reporter, not a columnist, not a commentator in any of the traditional senses (not a reporter in any sense); I’m just a "blogger." (I hate that word.) I’m just a guy writing what he thinks, and anybody who doesn’t like it doesn’t have to read it. I don’t have to be impartial, or to even feign impartiality; in fact I don’t have to do a bloody thing. This is a hobby, not something I do for a living. No one is paying me for my thoughts. Hell, no one in their right mind would pay me for my thoughts. I have no inflated opinion about the value of what I write.
But back to the matter. Can I be impartial? Should I try to be impartial? No. I’m not an impartial kind of guy, and I’m not going to try too hard to keep my own obvious bias out of what I write. Should I care? Again, no. This is my blog and I'll write what I like; if that's a problem for you then you can kiss my hairy posterior.
I guess it’s all about why I’m doing this in the first place (the blog, I mean). I never wanted to be a reporter or anything like one; I’m not trying to make myself heard in the halls of power; I’m not trying to get everyone to read what I write (really, I’m not!); for me, this is just writing. I have always loved to write, and after a few strokes I wasn’t sure I could write intelligently anymore. Maybe I can’t; maybe I’m not the best person to judge. Maybe with all that bleeding into my brain pan I’m not the person to say whether I can still do this or not.
You are.
There’s a "comment" feature in this blog software; please use it. I won’t be commenting on your comments (much) but I’ll be reading them all. If you agree, tell me; if you disagree tell me. Some feedback would be helpful.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Obama's Epistle unto the Democrats
(Full text of Obama's speech from MSNBC)
There are several reasons why I didn’t cover Barack Obama’s speech to the Democratic National Convention last Thursday, not just because (as I suspect) no one is reading this blog except me. I’m not going into them too deep, except to say that if I had been diligently typing away notes on the speech (as I did for both Hillary and Bill Clinton’s speeches) I wouldn’t have been able to truly listen to the speech. And that would have been a shame; Obama’s speech before the DNC was one of the most amazing things I had ever heard.
But I don’t really want to talk about what Obama said; instead, I want to focus on what the media has said since.
Now I had planned to try not to sound partisan here, but it’s difficult not to. I can’t help it; I’m not doing news and I have no pretensions to do the news. I don’t have to display a reporter’s objectivity because I’m not a reporter, not pretending to be a reporter, not playing at being a reporter (well, OK, playing at it a little); this is a commentary made up of my opinions and anyone who doesn’t like it can go hang. With that said, here’s my impression of the coverage of the Obama speech.
The range of coverage is interesting. On the one hand you had Fox News, trying desperately to find some fault, any fault, to cast Obama as grasping at straws when he wasn’t, to outright ignore most of the speech (since it was mostly directly on point and the Republicans couldn’t claim that he wasn’t directly on point), and generally doing everything possible to minimize the impact of a speech that had the force of an ICBM up the collective Republican ass.
On the other hand, you had everyone else.
As I listened to one Fox commentator after another try to put a spin of Obama’s speech that was at complete odds with reality, I couldn’t help but wonder if they had even been listening to the same speech I had. Was there a different Barack Obama addressing a different Democratic National Convention that night? It seemed to me that Fox was totally unprepared for the speech Obama delivered; odd, since the speech was distributed in printed form to news media before it was actually given.
I remember Keith Olberman (MSNBC) actually quoting Obama’s speech half an hour before Obama had given it (at least he cited his printed source). Nothing wrong with this; it’s done all the time on the stage of political theater where everything is scripted and as little as possible is left to chance. But I wonder what Fox was doing with that extra time. You’d think that they’d have their news writers working at warp speed trying to find some fault, some hole, some factual error in the text; if the coverage they gave the speech was any indication, they couldn’t find a thing and were unprepared to refute any of the very direct and specific arguments Obama had made. So, by and large, they ignored them and even went so far as to imply that Obama hadn’t made any direct or specific arguments. Huh?
As you might have guessed, I listened to the speech on MSNBC (look for it here) and followed the glowing praise after the speech for about fifteen minutes, before switching to Fox News to see what other opinions were being expressed. From what Fox was saying, I might have been listening to the wrong speech. Fox was characterizing Obama's speech as the desperate attempt of an eventual loser to try to shore up support and steel a few undecided fools away from the inevitable victor, Saint John the Veteran. I certainly hadn’t been listening to that speech!
But just to see what was being said elsewhere, I went elsewhere. I looked in on CNN’s coverage, and what I heard there was more in keeping with my own impressions of a masterful political speech delivered clearly, of a speech that avoided demonizing John McCain and that was all about unity, not just party unity but national unity. A speech that, rather that being divisive, attempted (and to a surprising degree succeeded) to bring us all together as Americans. Now, that was my impression of the speech, which I watched, but which was echoed by most commentators in their comments after the fact, commentators on MSNBC and CNN and a few other places I checked.
It was not the direction that Fox went with its coverage. Reality wasn’t in that direction either.
If I wanted to, I could fill this blog with examples of bias in Fox News, indeed could make this entire blog about the misstatements, inaccuracies, and outright lies from Fox News. I’m not going to. Others do a much better job of that than I; besides, if I did that I’d have to actually watch a lot more of Fox News. I don’t think I could stomach that. But in this case, with the best political speach since JFK’s inaugural address still ringing in my ears, I could not sit back and let Fox’s totally biased coverage under the guise of news go by without comment. A biased comment, I will admit, but at least I didn’t make anything up.
The gang at Fox can’t say the same.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
There are several reasons why I didn’t cover Barack Obama’s speech to the Democratic National Convention last Thursday, not just because (as I suspect) no one is reading this blog except me. I’m not going into them too deep, except to say that if I had been diligently typing away notes on the speech (as I did for both Hillary and Bill Clinton’s speeches) I wouldn’t have been able to truly listen to the speech. And that would have been a shame; Obama’s speech before the DNC was one of the most amazing things I had ever heard.
But I don’t really want to talk about what Obama said; instead, I want to focus on what the media has said since.
Now I had planned to try not to sound partisan here, but it’s difficult not to. I can’t help it; I’m not doing news and I have no pretensions to do the news. I don’t have to display a reporter’s objectivity because I’m not a reporter, not pretending to be a reporter, not playing at being a reporter (well, OK, playing at it a little); this is a commentary made up of my opinions and anyone who doesn’t like it can go hang. With that said, here’s my impression of the coverage of the Obama speech.
The range of coverage is interesting. On the one hand you had Fox News, trying desperately to find some fault, any fault, to cast Obama as grasping at straws when he wasn’t, to outright ignore most of the speech (since it was mostly directly on point and the Republicans couldn’t claim that he wasn’t directly on point), and generally doing everything possible to minimize the impact of a speech that had the force of an ICBM up the collective Republican ass.
On the other hand, you had everyone else.
As I listened to one Fox commentator after another try to put a spin of Obama’s speech that was at complete odds with reality, I couldn’t help but wonder if they had even been listening to the same speech I had. Was there a different Barack Obama addressing a different Democratic National Convention that night? It seemed to me that Fox was totally unprepared for the speech Obama delivered; odd, since the speech was distributed in printed form to news media before it was actually given.
I remember Keith Olberman (MSNBC) actually quoting Obama’s speech half an hour before Obama had given it (at least he cited his printed source). Nothing wrong with this; it’s done all the time on the stage of political theater where everything is scripted and as little as possible is left to chance. But I wonder what Fox was doing with that extra time. You’d think that they’d have their news writers working at warp speed trying to find some fault, some hole, some factual error in the text; if the coverage they gave the speech was any indication, they couldn’t find a thing and were unprepared to refute any of the very direct and specific arguments Obama had made. So, by and large, they ignored them and even went so far as to imply that Obama hadn’t made any direct or specific arguments. Huh?
As you might have guessed, I listened to the speech on MSNBC (look for it here) and followed the glowing praise after the speech for about fifteen minutes, before switching to Fox News to see what other opinions were being expressed. From what Fox was saying, I might have been listening to the wrong speech. Fox was characterizing Obama's speech as the desperate attempt of an eventual loser to try to shore up support and steel a few undecided fools away from the inevitable victor, Saint John the Veteran. I certainly hadn’t been listening to that speech!
But just to see what was being said elsewhere, I went elsewhere. I looked in on CNN’s coverage, and what I heard there was more in keeping with my own impressions of a masterful political speech delivered clearly, of a speech that avoided demonizing John McCain and that was all about unity, not just party unity but national unity. A speech that, rather that being divisive, attempted (and to a surprising degree succeeded) to bring us all together as Americans. Now, that was my impression of the speech, which I watched, but which was echoed by most commentators in their comments after the fact, commentators on MSNBC and CNN and a few other places I checked.
It was not the direction that Fox went with its coverage. Reality wasn’t in that direction either.
If I wanted to, I could fill this blog with examples of bias in Fox News, indeed could make this entire blog about the misstatements, inaccuracies, and outright lies from Fox News. I’m not going to. Others do a much better job of that than I; besides, if I did that I’d have to actually watch a lot more of Fox News. I don’t think I could stomach that. But in this case, with the best political speach since JFK’s inaugural address still ringing in my ears, I could not sit back and let Fox’s totally biased coverage under the guise of news go by without comment. A biased comment, I will admit, but at least I didn’t make anything up.
The gang at Fox can’t say the same.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Friday, August 29, 2008
The Past Through Today
Being old sucks.
Or I should say, "being oldER sucks." Here I sit, approaching fifty real damn fast, not being able to see as well as I once did, reliant on hearing aids, with an enlarged prostate, missing teeth, pronounced pattern baldness, and what hair I still have is rapidly turning gray. Not to mention that I walk with a cane (but then I’ve had the cane for twenty years now, result of a traffic accident, so it really doesn’t count).
And while complaining doesn’t really help, it feels good to gripe now and then. Perhaps it’s human nature to complain. It’s my nature, anyway. I think there’s something in all of us that makes us remember "the good old days" with fondness and nostalgia, even when "the good old days" weren’t all that good.
Which brings me to the point of this essay (which isn’t just to complain about being old). What I want to go into is the way we look at the past.
I’ve been involved in historical reenactment over the years (Medieval, that is; the Society for Creative Anachronism to be specific). When people hear that, they often ask me if I wish I had lived in Medieval times. I suppose "yes" is the standard answer, but it’s not the answer that I give. You see, if I had lived hundreds of years ago I would almost certainly have been dead by my age; dead of natural causes in an age when people didn’t live much past 45 but probably dead of diabetes or heart disease or any of the several conditions that I daily medicate myself against. Physically, I’m a wreck; in another, simpler age I’d be worm food.
When we turn to the past to find our identity, we tend to ignore the fact that times past tended to be harder than we’re used to; we think of them as simpler but in reality they’re just as complicated and in ways that we modern humans can’t really fathom. I may have learned to use a sword, but against someone who was raised to use a sword, who has been trained to use a sword from birth, whose life often depends of his being able to use a sword, I wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell.
My point is, the "Golden Age" that we all turn to in our dreams, whatever age that may be (and it’s different for each of us), sucked in comparison to the times in which we now live. I have to laugh when, at a Medieval event in Medieval clothing living in a Medieval (-ish) shelter and doing Medieval (-ish) things, that people still look for a place where they can use their hand-held video games or recharge their cell phones or use their wifi or whatever. The "Quest for the Golden Age" runs only surface deep; cut us and we bleed coffee and diet cola.
And they weren’t "simpler" times, either. On the surface, blacksmithing may seem simpler than computer programming, but it ain’t. (Trust me; I’ve done both.) On the other hand, it isn’t entirely true that lives in the past were "nasty, brutish and short." (Thomas Hobbes, 1671) But it’s true enough. Anyone who says that they’d rather live in the past just hasn’t thought things through.
We live in an age where I can take insulin for my diabetes, where I can get a bypass for my clogged arteries, where we know what clogged those arteries and I can do something about it. I am alive today because I live in the modern age, and it would be ungrateful of me to wish that I lived in a time when I would have died long before. I may not like life much, but it beats the hell out of the alternative.
But still, feeling this way and believing as I do, I still spent all those years playing at being someone of a different age. Why? ‘Cause it was a hell of a lot of fun, and I’d be doing it still if life hadn’t intervened. That’s not the point. Yes, I looked to the past (as people often do) to find something that was missing in my life. I was lucky; I found what was missing even if, for a while, I had to find it in historic play-acting. But I never lost sight of the debt I owe the modern world. I honor the modern world even as I dress up in armor to go and bash away at some other Medieval enthusiast, who probably wishes he actually lived in times past.
That jerk.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Or I should say, "being oldER sucks." Here I sit, approaching fifty real damn fast, not being able to see as well as I once did, reliant on hearing aids, with an enlarged prostate, missing teeth, pronounced pattern baldness, and what hair I still have is rapidly turning gray. Not to mention that I walk with a cane (but then I’ve had the cane for twenty years now, result of a traffic accident, so it really doesn’t count).
And while complaining doesn’t really help, it feels good to gripe now and then. Perhaps it’s human nature to complain. It’s my nature, anyway. I think there’s something in all of us that makes us remember "the good old days" with fondness and nostalgia, even when "the good old days" weren’t all that good.
Which brings me to the point of this essay (which isn’t just to complain about being old). What I want to go into is the way we look at the past.
I’ve been involved in historical reenactment over the years (Medieval, that is; the Society for Creative Anachronism to be specific). When people hear that, they often ask me if I wish I had lived in Medieval times. I suppose "yes" is the standard answer, but it’s not the answer that I give. You see, if I had lived hundreds of years ago I would almost certainly have been dead by my age; dead of natural causes in an age when people didn’t live much past 45 but probably dead of diabetes or heart disease or any of the several conditions that I daily medicate myself against. Physically, I’m a wreck; in another, simpler age I’d be worm food.
When we turn to the past to find our identity, we tend to ignore the fact that times past tended to be harder than we’re used to; we think of them as simpler but in reality they’re just as complicated and in ways that we modern humans can’t really fathom. I may have learned to use a sword, but against someone who was raised to use a sword, who has been trained to use a sword from birth, whose life often depends of his being able to use a sword, I wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell.
My point is, the "Golden Age" that we all turn to in our dreams, whatever age that may be (and it’s different for each of us), sucked in comparison to the times in which we now live. I have to laugh when, at a Medieval event in Medieval clothing living in a Medieval (-ish) shelter and doing Medieval (-ish) things, that people still look for a place where they can use their hand-held video games or recharge their cell phones or use their wifi or whatever. The "Quest for the Golden Age" runs only surface deep; cut us and we bleed coffee and diet cola.
And they weren’t "simpler" times, either. On the surface, blacksmithing may seem simpler than computer programming, but it ain’t. (Trust me; I’ve done both.) On the other hand, it isn’t entirely true that lives in the past were "nasty, brutish and short." (Thomas Hobbes, 1671) But it’s true enough. Anyone who says that they’d rather live in the past just hasn’t thought things through.
We live in an age where I can take insulin for my diabetes, where I can get a bypass for my clogged arteries, where we know what clogged those arteries and I can do something about it. I am alive today because I live in the modern age, and it would be ungrateful of me to wish that I lived in a time when I would have died long before. I may not like life much, but it beats the hell out of the alternative.
But still, feeling this way and believing as I do, I still spent all those years playing at being someone of a different age. Why? ‘Cause it was a hell of a lot of fun, and I’d be doing it still if life hadn’t intervened. That’s not the point. Yes, I looked to the past (as people often do) to find something that was missing in my life. I was lucky; I found what was missing even if, for a while, I had to find it in historic play-acting. But I never lost sight of the debt I owe the modern world. I honor the modern world even as I dress up in armor to go and bash away at some other Medieval enthusiast, who probably wishes he actually lived in times past.
That jerk.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
McCain Chooses Palin (who?)
Today John McCain finally named his running mate, just days away from the scheduled Republucan National Convention. In a move that surprised many, McCain named Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, someone seen as an "outsider" within the traditional elements of the Repuiblican party. Also, a woman.
A couple of points:
First of all, I think McCain has dealt himself an injury in that he can no longer use the "experience" argument against Obama, since he’s put someone with even less experience within a heartbeat of the Presidency. And a seventy-two year old heart, at that.
Second, this is a rather obvious attempt to sway renegade Hillary Clinton supporters away from Obama and into McCain’s camp. Are there really that many dissatisfied Clinton hardliners looking for an excuse to vote for John McCain? I rather doubt it; granted, the media usually finds some but they’re really looking. There don’t seem to be that many in real life, especially after Obama’s brilliant speach at the DNC.
Another point: Sarah Palin is under investigation for firing Alaska’s Public Safety Commissioner, over (I think) his failure to fire the state trooper who was her ex-brother-in-law and, by all reports, a real prick. (You confused yet? Does this seem like nothing much to you? Me, too.) The question is, did she do anything illegal in getting rid of the guy, was she acting as a sister and not a governor? I’m not going to express an opinion, because I don’t really have one. Hell, I hadn’t even heard of Sarah Palin when I got up this morning, and have never formed much of an opinion on Alaskan internal politics. So I’m going to give myself, and the country, time to get into the matter before I jump in.
In spite of the legal issues, it’s a good choice, even if it didn’t really succeed in steeling some of Obama’s thunder. McCain didn’t cave in to the conservative wing of his party, who wanted someone more like them; someone such as Mitt Romney, for example. And it is yet one more way to put distance between McCain and the "traditional" Republican party, which isn’t all that popular right now. It’s good to have a woman involved in the race, even if she’s not actually in the race herself. If nothing else, this points out that we as a nation have indeed come a long, long way.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
A couple of points:
First of all, I think McCain has dealt himself an injury in that he can no longer use the "experience" argument against Obama, since he’s put someone with even less experience within a heartbeat of the Presidency. And a seventy-two year old heart, at that.
Second, this is a rather obvious attempt to sway renegade Hillary Clinton supporters away from Obama and into McCain’s camp. Are there really that many dissatisfied Clinton hardliners looking for an excuse to vote for John McCain? I rather doubt it; granted, the media usually finds some but they’re really looking. There don’t seem to be that many in real life, especially after Obama’s brilliant speach at the DNC.
Another point: Sarah Palin is under investigation for firing Alaska’s Public Safety Commissioner, over (I think) his failure to fire the state trooper who was her ex-brother-in-law and, by all reports, a real prick. (You confused yet? Does this seem like nothing much to you? Me, too.) The question is, did she do anything illegal in getting rid of the guy, was she acting as a sister and not a governor? I’m not going to express an opinion, because I don’t really have one. Hell, I hadn’t even heard of Sarah Palin when I got up this morning, and have never formed much of an opinion on Alaskan internal politics. So I’m going to give myself, and the country, time to get into the matter before I jump in.
In spite of the legal issues, it’s a good choice, even if it didn’t really succeed in steeling some of Obama’s thunder. McCain didn’t cave in to the conservative wing of his party, who wanted someone more like them; someone such as Mitt Romney, for example. And it is yet one more way to put distance between McCain and the "traditional" Republican party, which isn’t all that popular right now. It’s good to have a woman involved in the race, even if she’s not actually in the race herself. If nothing else, this points out that we as a nation have indeed come a long, long way.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
What, no convention coverage?
Why am I not covering either Obama's formal acceptance or Al Gore's comments? Because I just got new hearing aids and I'm still trying to get used to them. TV is uncomfortable right now. If you must have election coverage go to CNN.com or MSNBC.MSN.com
Chain of Fools
The other day I was on a site I frequent, one of recent crop of web-based BBS sites that seem to have replaced the old dial-up BBS’s from back in rhe day. What made this occasion worthy of note was that I was insulted.
Now, me being insulted is not an uncommon occurrence; it happens every day. But somehow this time I took it personally. Here’s what happened: I said something informative (at least I considered it informative) with nothing personal toward anyone, and a guy responded (in words verify close to this) "Are you on crack?" and went of to call into question my knowledge, judgment, and reason.
Them’s fight’n’ words.
So I responded. I told him (in an email, of course) that I found his tone insulting and that I resented the drug use implication. Then he wrote back to me, saying in effect "chill out, dude" and saying that if I didn’t I’d "stroke out." His whole manner was condescending in the extreme. Now, this probably wouldn’t have bothered me all that much if I hadn’t had four - count ‘em - four strokes, with a bit of permanent impairment along the way.
OK, so I probably took this more seriously than it was intended. No matter; I was pissed. I wrote him back saying "I'm not going to bother to refute the rest of this post, because I find the above quote (and the accusation) to be offensive and wholly uncalled-for. Shame on you."
I didn’t go so far as to "call him out" or anything, but I was truly tempted. But by this point I had had enough of all of this, and I’m sure that other people on that board felt the same (keep in mind that all this played out in a public chat room). In responding to one message of support from another user, I made it clear that I was done with the thread. And I thought that was the end of it.
But wait; there’s more...
A few days later I happened to look into that same forum to check something (I really had had no intention of carrying on the whole back-and-forth thing) and there, in spite of my announcement that I was finished on that forum, was another message of support from yet another user. This one was a bit more vitriolic than I had been; my unknown supporter said: "I hope you're a diabetic and your fingers fall off so you can't type such insults to fellow (board users) in the future. Shame on you."
Now I’m not one to strike out at someone who’s actually supporting me, but I nearly did...you see, I’m diabetic and have been taking daily insulin injections for the last twenty years, and I’ve started losing bits of myself to the complications of the disease.
Up to this point I had tried not to resort to name-calling, or casting aspersions on anyone else’s sanity or reason, or anything like that. My unnamed opponent hadn’t been so charitable, but that’s him and I don’t rule him. I only rule me, and even if I hadn’t resorted to name-calling I had been a bit rude. But now I had not only my opponent’s comments to be annoyed by, but the comments of someone actually supporting my position. That my supporter was also being insulting to me (unintentionally) was a clear indication to me that I just couldn’t win here. I suppose I could have lashed out at this new insult, in fact I considered doing just that, but that would have been churlish in the extreme (in other words, that would be acting like a dick).
So I decided on a different approach: I decided that my original plan to ignore that thread had probably been a good idea.
And what, I’ll bet you’re wondering, is the point of this long preamble? Well, this whole exchange left me wondering about the nature of the Internet; how people who may be the nicest, most polite people in person turn into total assholes as soon as they get online; about how people’s "online personas" are often in such drastic opposition to the people they are (or at least appear) in their normal lives.
I blame the inherent anonymity of the web. We are all willing to say things, do things, challenge people online in ways that we wouldn’t even consider if we met the same people in the street. I frankly doubt that I’d have gotten so PO’d initially were it not for the fact that I truly didn’t know this guy, would likely never meet this guy, and could be secure in the knowledge that he would probably never come within ten feet of me. When we go online (and I mean all of us) we hide behind our personas and avatars and handles and whatever and conceal our true faces, either out of shame, a deliberate desire to deceive, or simply because that’s the way it’s done on the Internet.
And we all accept this as normal.
It is not normal to be rude or impolite, however. At least it shouldn’t be. We should not accept lower standards of behavior, either for ourselves or for others, just because we never see anyone’s faces online. The rules by which a polite society functions should not be allowed to degrade simply because we have an impenetrable wall between us that will not allow us to see each other or harm each other but allows us to shout at each other.
Maybe it’s time to stop hiding. I’ll start.
The Blues Viking
known in the real world as Michael S. Rosecrans
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Now, me being insulted is not an uncommon occurrence; it happens every day. But somehow this time I took it personally. Here’s what happened: I said something informative (at least I considered it informative) with nothing personal toward anyone, and a guy responded (in words verify close to this) "Are you on crack?" and went of to call into question my knowledge, judgment, and reason.
Them’s fight’n’ words.
So I responded. I told him (in an email, of course) that I found his tone insulting and that I resented the drug use implication. Then he wrote back to me, saying in effect "chill out, dude" and saying that if I didn’t I’d "stroke out." His whole manner was condescending in the extreme. Now, this probably wouldn’t have bothered me all that much if I hadn’t had four - count ‘em - four strokes, with a bit of permanent impairment along the way.
OK, so I probably took this more seriously than it was intended. No matter; I was pissed. I wrote him back saying "I'm not going to bother to refute the rest of this post, because I find the above quote (and the accusation) to be offensive and wholly uncalled-for. Shame on you."
I didn’t go so far as to "call him out" or anything, but I was truly tempted. But by this point I had had enough of all of this, and I’m sure that other people on that board felt the same (keep in mind that all this played out in a public chat room). In responding to one message of support from another user, I made it clear that I was done with the thread. And I thought that was the end of it.
But wait; there’s more...
A few days later I happened to look into that same forum to check something (I really had had no intention of carrying on the whole back-and-forth thing) and there, in spite of my announcement that I was finished on that forum, was another message of support from yet another user. This one was a bit more vitriolic than I had been; my unknown supporter said: "I hope you're a diabetic and your fingers fall off so you can't type such insults to fellow (board users) in the future. Shame on you."
Now I’m not one to strike out at someone who’s actually supporting me, but I nearly did...you see, I’m diabetic and have been taking daily insulin injections for the last twenty years, and I’ve started losing bits of myself to the complications of the disease.
Up to this point I had tried not to resort to name-calling, or casting aspersions on anyone else’s sanity or reason, or anything like that. My unnamed opponent hadn’t been so charitable, but that’s him and I don’t rule him. I only rule me, and even if I hadn’t resorted to name-calling I had been a bit rude. But now I had not only my opponent’s comments to be annoyed by, but the comments of someone actually supporting my position. That my supporter was also being insulting to me (unintentionally) was a clear indication to me that I just couldn’t win here. I suppose I could have lashed out at this new insult, in fact I considered doing just that, but that would have been churlish in the extreme (in other words, that would be acting like a dick).
So I decided on a different approach: I decided that my original plan to ignore that thread had probably been a good idea.
And what, I’ll bet you’re wondering, is the point of this long preamble? Well, this whole exchange left me wondering about the nature of the Internet; how people who may be the nicest, most polite people in person turn into total assholes as soon as they get online; about how people’s "online personas" are often in such drastic opposition to the people they are (or at least appear) in their normal lives.
I blame the inherent anonymity of the web. We are all willing to say things, do things, challenge people online in ways that we wouldn’t even consider if we met the same people in the street. I frankly doubt that I’d have gotten so PO’d initially were it not for the fact that I truly didn’t know this guy, would likely never meet this guy, and could be secure in the knowledge that he would probably never come within ten feet of me. When we go online (and I mean all of us) we hide behind our personas and avatars and handles and whatever and conceal our true faces, either out of shame, a deliberate desire to deceive, or simply because that’s the way it’s done on the Internet.
And we all accept this as normal.
It is not normal to be rude or impolite, however. At least it shouldn’t be. We should not accept lower standards of behavior, either for ourselves or for others, just because we never see anyone’s faces online. The rules by which a polite society functions should not be allowed to degrade simply because we have an impenetrable wall between us that will not allow us to see each other or harm each other but allows us to shout at each other.
Maybe it’s time to stop hiding. I’ll start.
The Blues Viking
known in the real world as Michael S. Rosecrans
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Bill Clinton Rides Again
A commentary on President Bill Clinton's address before the 2008 Democratic National Convention
(Bill Clinton's speech, full text)
Once again Bill Clinton took the platform at the Democratic National Convention but this time he did so not as a candidate but to anoint his hopeful successor, Barack Obama. It was a speach relitively free of self-praise and long on the virtues of Barack Obama, putting an end to speculation that somehow Bill Clinton would throw a monkey wrench into the convention’s machinery by giving Barack Obama an endorsement that was anything less than enthusiastic.
"Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" played as Clinton ascended the podium; Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign theme song. He was greeted by a rousing standing ovation and a sea of American flags in the hands of the gathered Party faithful; he actually had trouble getting the crowd to shut up. He was greeted with more cheers when he announced that he was there to support Barack Obama and to "...warm up for Joe Biden." (Biden spoke later that night.)
President Clinton began by talking about how proud he was of Hillary’s campaign, but he didn’t dwell on Hillary’s bid for office. Tonight it was all about Barack Obama. Not that Bill ignored Hillary entirely; he pointed out that Hillary Clinton had said she would do everything she could to elect Barack Obama, adding "That makes two of us."
He gave an outline of the problems we face, accusing the President of ‘...a failure to consistently use the power of diplomacy" and saying, "The job of the next president is to rebuild the American Dream and restore American leadership throughout the world."
He praised Obama’s abilities, his policies, his heritage, and his choice of a running mate. He also praised Joe Biden’s experience and wisdom.
He talked about Obama’s much maligned readiness to negotiate, his preparedness to use diplomacy even with America’s enemies; something that has given the Right plenty of fodder recently. He said that Obama "will choose diplomacy first and military force as a last resort." He also said that "Barack Obama is ready to lead America and to restore America’s leadership in the world" and that "when he cannot convert adversaries into partners he will stand up to them."
Interestingly, President Clinton pointed out that the Republicans had also said, in the ’92 campaign, that he (Clinton) was too young and inexperienced to be Commander in Chief (Clinton was younger in ’92 than Obama is now). This is a good point, but one that isn’t likely to sway anyone who already thinks that the "experience" argument carries no weight.
In all, it was precisely the speech that the Democrats needed Clinton to make. Bill Clinton is almost deified among democrats, and he could have made the election far more difficult for Obama if he had given a lackluster endorsement. He didn’t. He made it clear that he gave his enthusiastic support to Obama, just as Hillary did last night. There were no sour grapes, no dwelling on bitter memories of the campaign just past except to breifly acknowledge Hillary’s achievements. But this was entirely Obama’s night, and Bill Clinton was happy to toe the Party line.
One thing bothers me...we are actually considering a nominee for President who is younger than I am. Damn, I feel old...
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
(Bill Clinton's speech, full text)
Once again Bill Clinton took the platform at the Democratic National Convention but this time he did so not as a candidate but to anoint his hopeful successor, Barack Obama. It was a speach relitively free of self-praise and long on the virtues of Barack Obama, putting an end to speculation that somehow Bill Clinton would throw a monkey wrench into the convention’s machinery by giving Barack Obama an endorsement that was anything less than enthusiastic.
"Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" played as Clinton ascended the podium; Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign theme song. He was greeted by a rousing standing ovation and a sea of American flags in the hands of the gathered Party faithful; he actually had trouble getting the crowd to shut up. He was greeted with more cheers when he announced that he was there to support Barack Obama and to "...warm up for Joe Biden." (Biden spoke later that night.)
President Clinton began by talking about how proud he was of Hillary’s campaign, but he didn’t dwell on Hillary’s bid for office. Tonight it was all about Barack Obama. Not that Bill ignored Hillary entirely; he pointed out that Hillary Clinton had said she would do everything she could to elect Barack Obama, adding "That makes two of us."
He gave an outline of the problems we face, accusing the President of ‘...a failure to consistently use the power of diplomacy" and saying, "The job of the next president is to rebuild the American Dream and restore American leadership throughout the world."
He praised Obama’s abilities, his policies, his heritage, and his choice of a running mate. He also praised Joe Biden’s experience and wisdom.
He talked about Obama’s much maligned readiness to negotiate, his preparedness to use diplomacy even with America’s enemies; something that has given the Right plenty of fodder recently. He said that Obama "will choose diplomacy first and military force as a last resort." He also said that "Barack Obama is ready to lead America and to restore America’s leadership in the world" and that "when he cannot convert adversaries into partners he will stand up to them."
Interestingly, President Clinton pointed out that the Republicans had also said, in the ’92 campaign, that he (Clinton) was too young and inexperienced to be Commander in Chief (Clinton was younger in ’92 than Obama is now). This is a good point, but one that isn’t likely to sway anyone who already thinks that the "experience" argument carries no weight.
In all, it was precisely the speech that the Democrats needed Clinton to make. Bill Clinton is almost deified among democrats, and he could have made the election far more difficult for Obama if he had given a lackluster endorsement. He didn’t. He made it clear that he gave his enthusiastic support to Obama, just as Hillary did last night. There were no sour grapes, no dwelling on bitter memories of the campaign just past except to breifly acknowledge Hillary’s achievements. But this was entirely Obama’s night, and Bill Clinton was happy to toe the Party line.
One thing bothers me...we are actually considering a nominee for President who is younger than I am. Damn, I feel old...
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Conventional Wisdom part II
A few days ago I was saying that there weren’t likely to be any surprises at the Democratic National Convention. Well, that shows how much I know...lo and behold, there was a surprise today. Not a huge one, but important none the less. It didn’t effect who the candidate was going to be, or what his platform would be, or who his running mate would be, or any of the other things that are already decided, but still...
During the standard role-call ballot, where each state is called in turn to cast it’s delegates’ votes for President (a ballot that Clinton supporters had asked for, some of them hoping that their candidate would still win the vote despite both the math and her own stated wishes) it came time to call on Hillary Clinton to cast the votes for the State of New York.
That’s where she dropped her bombshell; she called for the end of the voting and for Barack Obama to be nominated "by acclamation."
This might have seemed like a slap in the face to her die-hard supporters, those who still hoped that somehow she would emerge from the selection process as the Democratic nominee. But it was not to be; by calling for the suspension of the voting process (which was largely symbolic in any case) she put a final end to her long months of hard campaigning and her supporters’ dearest hopes for the future, all at once.
After her impassioned speech last night, it should have come as no surprise. Should have, but didn’t. I believe that many "Hillary Hopefuls" hoped that despite all the odds, all the poles, all the votes, and all that said that Barack Obama would be the candidate, that the final vote would actually go to Hillary and she would, despite anything she had said previously, answer her party’s call and run for President herself.
With her actions today, she put an end to those hopes once and for all.
I expect that many of her diehard followers will never forgive her for this, just like they will never forgive Obama for winning. Like many of them never forgave Bush for "stealing" the election in 2000 (remember all that Florida nonsense?). If there’s one thing Democrats seem to be good at, it’s holding grudges.
How this will eventually bear on the fall election is anybody’s guess. I expect that it won’t have that much effect unless we get involved in another damned close election...like the last two. Some of Hillary’s supporters are already openly supporting McCain. Others are simply not voting. How much impact this has on the election is the question. We’ll just have to wait and see.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
During the standard role-call ballot, where each state is called in turn to cast it’s delegates’ votes for President (a ballot that Clinton supporters had asked for, some of them hoping that their candidate would still win the vote despite both the math and her own stated wishes) it came time to call on Hillary Clinton to cast the votes for the State of New York.
That’s where she dropped her bombshell; she called for the end of the voting and for Barack Obama to be nominated "by acclamation."
This might have seemed like a slap in the face to her die-hard supporters, those who still hoped that somehow she would emerge from the selection process as the Democratic nominee. But it was not to be; by calling for the suspension of the voting process (which was largely symbolic in any case) she put a final end to her long months of hard campaigning and her supporters’ dearest hopes for the future, all at once.
After her impassioned speech last night, it should have come as no surprise. Should have, but didn’t. I believe that many "Hillary Hopefuls" hoped that despite all the odds, all the poles, all the votes, and all that said that Barack Obama would be the candidate, that the final vote would actually go to Hillary and she would, despite anything she had said previously, answer her party’s call and run for President herself.
With her actions today, she put an end to those hopes once and for all.
I expect that many of her diehard followers will never forgive her for this, just like they will never forgive Obama for winning. Like many of them never forgave Bush for "stealing" the election in 2000 (remember all that Florida nonsense?). If there’s one thing Democrats seem to be good at, it’s holding grudges.
How this will eventually bear on the fall election is anybody’s guess. I expect that it won’t have that much effect unless we get involved in another damned close election...like the last two. Some of Hillary’s supporters are already openly supporting McCain. Others are simply not voting. How much impact this has on the election is the question. We’ll just have to wait and see.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
"No way, no how, no McCain."
A commentary on Hillary Clinton's address before the Democratic National Convention
(Hillary Clinton's speach, full text)
In her address to the Democratic Convention, Hillary Clinton made an impassioned plea for party unity and placed herself squarely behind Barack Obama, throwing her support in with him entirely. All the speculation as to whether she would "fall into line" behind the chosen candidate ended when she declaired, "It is time to unite as a single party with a single purpose."
She began by declaring herself "...a proud supporter of Barack Obama", for which she received a standing ovation. She then went into some depth about her own campaign for the Democratic nomination, going all "touchy-feely" with the reminiscing, waxing nostalgic about her own failed bid for the nomination. (Her barely failed bid; she came closer that any other unsuccessful candidate ever has to actually winning that nomination.)
Predictably, she talked about the failures of the current administration, saying that, "Our standing has eroded around the world." This is not new at all; indeed, this has been a point that Democrats have been hammering home for weeks now. Months, even. In fact, she hit all the talking points; health care, the war, the economy, energy, global warming, and so on and so on dooby dooby doo.
The question in my mind was this: Has Hillary Clinton’s contentious campaign for Democratic Presidential candidate gone so far in demonizing Obama that the people who carried out that campaign, the foot solders in that bitter contest, cannot see their way clear to now put aside their animosity and support Obama and the causes that Hillary championed? Could they, in other words, work and play well together? That question remains; I imagine that there will still be "Hillary hard-liners" that won’t support Obama under any circumstances for reasons that really don’t matter now. But I don’t think there’ll be that many of them. Not that there ever were, but with Hillary Clinton’s eloquence tonight it makes continuing to oppose Obama seem like the sour grapes that it (mostly) is.
She spent a lot of time talking about herself and her own unsuccessful campaign. She praised her supporters, referring to them all as the "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants Suits." She talked about all the things she had tried to do with her campaign, talking the same old talking points one more time, talking about all she had tried to do without mentioning Obama until she finally claimed "Those are the reasons I ran for President and those are the reasons I support Barack Obama for President."
Now onto the topic of Obama himself, she was no less eloquent. She cast Obama as a true "working person’s candidate" and tried to tie his hoped-for success to the past success of Bill Clinton. She made it clear that to support everything she stands for her supporters must now support Barack Obama. She said, "We are on the same team and none of us can sit on the sidelines." To her supporters she said, "You never gave in, you never gave up." But she also addressed the dissatisfaction of many of them with Obama, asking "Were you in this campaign just for me?" She spent a lot of time telling her supporters not only that they should support Obama. but why.
I did note that her words about Obama bringing our troops home didn’t get nearly the cheers that talking up his economic wizardry to come did; I think this clearly shows where the American people’s collective mind is at.
She also gave a brief history of the Women’s Movement and the history of women in the Civil Rights Movement. This didn’t really have anything to do with Obama, but it certainly got her supporters listening.
It was interesting to watch how the cameras watched Hillary Clinton. When not focused on her or her family, the cameras focused of various faces in the crowd, either listening attentively or smiling idiotically in idolization. I could almost believe that the camera operators had been given the locations of particular "random" spectators beforehand. Almost; even I am not that paranoid. It was clear, however, the whole event, and its television coverage, was sell scripted. I expected nothing less.
It was a speech full of soundbites for tomorrow's news reports. That’s not entirely a bad thing; in fact, it’s all you hear in a political speech anymore. For example, her observation that McCain and Bush are "awfully hard to tell apart" is one that will be widely quoted tomorrow, as will the line, "We are on the same team and none of us can sit on the sidelines." She also mentioned "faith in God and our country" prominently...I knew she’d have to bring God into it somewhere. We can’t seem to have a secular political speech anymore. (Is that bad? Depends...am I the only Atheist in the room?)
And after the speach, after the pundits have had their say, after the cameras have finally been switched off and the monitors have gone dark, one nagging question remains: I still can’t figure out why they were playing "Disco Inferno" on the convention floor after Hillary’s address.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
(Hillary Clinton's speach, full text)
In her address to the Democratic Convention, Hillary Clinton made an impassioned plea for party unity and placed herself squarely behind Barack Obama, throwing her support in with him entirely. All the speculation as to whether she would "fall into line" behind the chosen candidate ended when she declaired, "It is time to unite as a single party with a single purpose."
She began by declaring herself "...a proud supporter of Barack Obama", for which she received a standing ovation. She then went into some depth about her own campaign for the Democratic nomination, going all "touchy-feely" with the reminiscing, waxing nostalgic about her own failed bid for the nomination. (Her barely failed bid; she came closer that any other unsuccessful candidate ever has to actually winning that nomination.)
Predictably, she talked about the failures of the current administration, saying that, "Our standing has eroded around the world." This is not new at all; indeed, this has been a point that Democrats have been hammering home for weeks now. Months, even. In fact, she hit all the talking points; health care, the war, the economy, energy, global warming, and so on and so on dooby dooby doo.
The question in my mind was this: Has Hillary Clinton’s contentious campaign for Democratic Presidential candidate gone so far in demonizing Obama that the people who carried out that campaign, the foot solders in that bitter contest, cannot see their way clear to now put aside their animosity and support Obama and the causes that Hillary championed? Could they, in other words, work and play well together? That question remains; I imagine that there will still be "Hillary hard-liners" that won’t support Obama under any circumstances for reasons that really don’t matter now. But I don’t think there’ll be that many of them. Not that there ever were, but with Hillary Clinton’s eloquence tonight it makes continuing to oppose Obama seem like the sour grapes that it (mostly) is.
She spent a lot of time talking about herself and her own unsuccessful campaign. She praised her supporters, referring to them all as the "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants Suits." She talked about all the things she had tried to do with her campaign, talking the same old talking points one more time, talking about all she had tried to do without mentioning Obama until she finally claimed "Those are the reasons I ran for President and those are the reasons I support Barack Obama for President."
Now onto the topic of Obama himself, she was no less eloquent. She cast Obama as a true "working person’s candidate" and tried to tie his hoped-for success to the past success of Bill Clinton. She made it clear that to support everything she stands for her supporters must now support Barack Obama. She said, "We are on the same team and none of us can sit on the sidelines." To her supporters she said, "You never gave in, you never gave up." But she also addressed the dissatisfaction of many of them with Obama, asking "Were you in this campaign just for me?" She spent a lot of time telling her supporters not only that they should support Obama. but why.
I did note that her words about Obama bringing our troops home didn’t get nearly the cheers that talking up his economic wizardry to come did; I think this clearly shows where the American people’s collective mind is at.
She also gave a brief history of the Women’s Movement and the history of women in the Civil Rights Movement. This didn’t really have anything to do with Obama, but it certainly got her supporters listening.
It was interesting to watch how the cameras watched Hillary Clinton. When not focused on her or her family, the cameras focused of various faces in the crowd, either listening attentively or smiling idiotically in idolization. I could almost believe that the camera operators had been given the locations of particular "random" spectators beforehand. Almost; even I am not that paranoid. It was clear, however, the whole event, and its television coverage, was sell scripted. I expected nothing less.
It was a speech full of soundbites for tomorrow's news reports. That’s not entirely a bad thing; in fact, it’s all you hear in a political speech anymore. For example, her observation that McCain and Bush are "awfully hard to tell apart" is one that will be widely quoted tomorrow, as will the line, "We are on the same team and none of us can sit on the sidelines." She also mentioned "faith in God and our country" prominently...I knew she’d have to bring God into it somewhere. We can’t seem to have a secular political speech anymore. (Is that bad? Depends...am I the only Atheist in the room?)
And after the speach, after the pundits have had their say, after the cameras have finally been switched off and the monitors have gone dark, one nagging question remains: I still can’t figure out why they were playing "Disco Inferno" on the convention floor after Hillary’s address.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Conventional Wisdom
Once again we find ourselves deep in the election season, facing political conventions by the two major parties. The Democrats are up first. And I find myself wondering why anyone bothers with the actual conventions...we all know who the two nominees will be, we know who the Democrats are putting up for Vice President and will almost certainly know the Republican VP candidate before that convention, we know who the principal speakers will be and I don’t expect what they say to pack any major surprises.
So what’s the point of the convention, anyway? Is it just to give the speakers a place to speak? Is it an excuse to show the candidate(s) before the public? Is it all a stage for some grand political pageant? Is it a small lump of sentient green putty from another galaxy stranded in Tulsa, Oklahoma over Labor Day weekend? The truth is, it’s all of the above (except for the putty thing). Basically, it’s theater. It’s all a show.
There was a chance, up until a few weeks ago, that the quest for a democratic candidate might be finally settled at the convention itself, but as it happened no one really wanted that much drama and it appeared that the Powers That Be in the Democratic Party were going to do everything necessary to settle the matter before the show.
Even the party malcontents (this year it’s the supporters of Hillary Clinton) are playing their assigned parts, attempting to "disrupt" the convention process in a formally scripted way that should make good theater even if it doesn’t make a bit of difference. They’ll have their ballot, lose it, and become (mostly) reluctant supporters of Barack Obama. How can they do otherwise, with Hillary Clinton herself supporting Obama? And yes, her role at the convention is as well scripted as anyone’s.
So what, I ask, is the point? The candidates have been selected, the players are on stage, and the curtain is about to rise, but what the Hell is the point? The convention certainly isn’t necessary.
It does, however, do a couple of things. It gives commentators and pundits a chance to earn a living, for one thing. For another, it gives TV news networks themselves a justification for their continued existence beyond just reporting the news that actually matters. Are the conventions more for them than they are for us? Maybe.
Another thing that the convention does is to take the decisions made behind closed doors and present them in such a way that we don’t realize that they were made behind closed doors. Think about it; "we the people" don’t actually get a say in who becomes vice president, or in whatever deals are made to secure nominations between contentious parties, or to gain the cooperation of rebellious factions within the party.
Perhaps that is the real reason for the convention’s existence; to provide a framework for these "backroom" deals while still concealing their existence from the rest of us.
Conventions were a different sort of beast, once upon a time. Candidates were actually selected at conventions in the past. Television eventually changed all that. Now the theatrical aspect has taken over.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
So what’s the point of the convention, anyway? Is it just to give the speakers a place to speak? Is it an excuse to show the candidate(s) before the public? Is it all a stage for some grand political pageant? Is it a small lump of sentient green putty from another galaxy stranded in Tulsa, Oklahoma over Labor Day weekend? The truth is, it’s all of the above (except for the putty thing). Basically, it’s theater. It’s all a show.
There was a chance, up until a few weeks ago, that the quest for a democratic candidate might be finally settled at the convention itself, but as it happened no one really wanted that much drama and it appeared that the Powers That Be in the Democratic Party were going to do everything necessary to settle the matter before the show.
Even the party malcontents (this year it’s the supporters of Hillary Clinton) are playing their assigned parts, attempting to "disrupt" the convention process in a formally scripted way that should make good theater even if it doesn’t make a bit of difference. They’ll have their ballot, lose it, and become (mostly) reluctant supporters of Barack Obama. How can they do otherwise, with Hillary Clinton herself supporting Obama? And yes, her role at the convention is as well scripted as anyone’s.
So what, I ask, is the point? The candidates have been selected, the players are on stage, and the curtain is about to rise, but what the Hell is the point? The convention certainly isn’t necessary.
It does, however, do a couple of things. It gives commentators and pundits a chance to earn a living, for one thing. For another, it gives TV news networks themselves a justification for their continued existence beyond just reporting the news that actually matters. Are the conventions more for them than they are for us? Maybe.
Another thing that the convention does is to take the decisions made behind closed doors and present them in such a way that we don’t realize that they were made behind closed doors. Think about it; "we the people" don’t actually get a say in who becomes vice president, or in whatever deals are made to secure nominations between contentious parties, or to gain the cooperation of rebellious factions within the party.
Perhaps that is the real reason for the convention’s existence; to provide a framework for these "backroom" deals while still concealing their existence from the rest of us.
Conventions were a different sort of beast, once upon a time. Candidates were actually selected at conventions in the past. Television eventually changed all that. Now the theatrical aspect has taken over.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Well, I THOUGHT it was interesting...
A few days ago I was writing an email to a list I'm on, talking about how Russia would just love to see John McCain as US President over Barack Obama. My reasoning went like this: If Obama is elected he'll pull us out of Iraq, and McCain won't. With our troops stuck in the sand, so to speak, we are powerless to actually do anything to counter the moves of a now more militant Russia.
Well, it seemed like a reasonable argument...
Now Iraq has announced that the US has agreed to a timetable (yes, I said timetable) for the eventual withdrawl of US troops from Iraq. It looks like I may have to eat those words. Assuming, of course, that the US actually does pull its troops out, as we have promised. With the current administration, that's a mighty big assumption. We'll see if the USA is as good as its word; frankly, I'm not so sure we are, but I keep hoping.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Well, it seemed like a reasonable argument...
Now Iraq has announced that the US has agreed to a timetable (yes, I said timetable) for the eventual withdrawl of US troops from Iraq. It looks like I may have to eat those words. Assuming, of course, that the US actually does pull its troops out, as we have promised. With the current administration, that's a mighty big assumption. We'll see if the USA is as good as its word; frankly, I'm not so sure we are, but I keep hoping.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Well, everybody else has a blog...
...so I figured, why not? Because I'm bloody boring, maybe? Anyway, here it is, and I'll at least try to be interesting. No promises, though...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
