Monster Island by David Wellington
(print version) Running Press, Philadelphia $13.95
Full text available on-line at brokentype.com
A small band of Somali child-solders, with a former UN weapons inspector, survivors of the zombiefication of the Earth, come to New York in search of vital medical suplies. The only things in their way are about forty million New Yorkers. Dead ones.
I don’t normally read horror novels. Mostly because they’re normally horrible.
So believe me when I tell you that I didn’t initially pick up Monster Island for the subject matter; rather, in spite of it. Not that I think there’s anything all that wrong with the genre; H. P. Lovecraft was a masterful author, as were Bram Stoker (Dracula) and Mary Shelly (Frankenstein). And, of course, Richard Matheson wrote a classic novel very like Monster Island in theme, namely I Am Legend.
But as for more "modern" horror authors, well, I’ve read a few, all highly regarded authors with well reviewed books, and even if I admired the writing I’ve never warmed to what was written. So now you know where I’m coming from.
What attracted me initially to Monster Island was the way it had been published. It originally appeared free on-line as a series of blog posts, a few new posts every week, back in 2004. The book gained quite a following that way and was finally brought out in print (that’s actual hard-copy print) in 2006 (the free "ebook" is still available on-line). Since then there have been two sequels, Monster Nation and Monster Planet, making a well-reviewed trilogy.
I liked the idea of publishing a novel on-line that way, but privately I doubted that it would be any good. I’ve read a couple of similar "on-line publishing" attempts in the past, and found them lacking. Bloody awful, actually. But since this one had gone from on-line book to print, and was still available on-line, I thought this one might be different.
Not different enough to bother looking up, though; because I didn’t find the idea of a "zombie novel" all that appealing, I never even bothered to look for the web site. I had just heard about the book from someone, and filed that information away in what’s left of my mind and went on with reading books with ships on the covers.
Then I’m in a bookstore a week or so ago, looking for (of all things) a book to read and finding nothing that struck my fancy, when I noticed a copy of Monster Island just asking to be bought and read. So I bought it and read it.
And I have to admit that I really liked it.
But I’m no fan of horror novels, and aside from Matheson’s I Am Legend a total stranger to books about shambling hordes of the undead wondering the streets, so perhaps I’m not qualified to review the novel. So I won’t. Suffice to say that the book deals with a small band of survivors in zombie-infested New York, and leave it at that; not all that imaginative, perhaps, but pretty damned well written and it certainly kept me reading. No mean feat, that.
As much as I liked the novel, from the start I was more taken with the way it had been published. Frankly, in a type of publishing venture that has so often failed this one succeeded and succeeded brilliantly. That alone would have made the book worth looking at; the fact that it turned out to be a damn good read was a bonus.
I found it extremely interesting that what had been published was, in effect, the first draft. As a first draft, this is an amazing achievement. I imagine it must have been quite the experience to read the novel as he wrote and posted individual chapters on-line, and I wonder how much of a plan the guy wrote to. In other words, I can’t help but wonder how much of the novel followed any sort of outline and how much was allowed to, as it were, grow organically. In my own writing, I’ve tried both approaches, with varying degrees of success; I have never found a workable balance between the two approaches and I wonder if Wellington has.
And I like the idea of keeping the on-line version available free even as the printed novel is selling in bookstores, in effect competing with itself. I get the impression that for David Wellington, getting his work before the public is more important than selling it. I admire such an attitude.
It’s risky to publish this way, without an editor or a publisher or a group of "beta" readers. You’d be publishing blind, working, as it were, without a net. All of these people, in traditional publishing environments, provide layers of protection for the author, and each successive step in the process provides one more chance to fix anything that needs fixing. That’s why traditional publishing works the way it does...because that way does work. It may be cumbersome, and a bit frustrating, but it works.
Wellington has taken a non-traditional approach and made it work for him, and work very well indeed. I can admire him for that. Sadly, his is the exception rather than the rule. But I can’t help but notice that if you added up all of my blog posts, I’d be a fair way along to a novel myself, if I had chosen to go that route.
As I said, I really liked this book. Will I read the others in the trilogy? Probably...eventually. Well written though they may be, they’re still not my kind of novels, so I won’t be rushing right out to pick up the unread volumes. Even though I’m glad I read the first novel, right now I feel like rereading Redwall or Watership Down...something with cute furry talking animals. Live ones.
The Blues Viking
Further Reading
Read what Wikipedia has to say about this novel
The on-line version of the book
Order the printed novel from Amazon.com
David Wellington’s web site
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Better late than never...
I actually wrote this back on September 11, 2008, and I don’t have to tell you what that’s the anniversary of. That was also the time my Internet connection went the way of all things not paid for. I intended to post it as soon as I had my connection back, but for reasons I now don’t recall I failed to do so. My bad.
But while cleaning out old files I ran across it as a MSWord file, and realized it was too good (and to long) to just trash, even though it is a bit out of date and the next anniversary of the event in question won’t come for ten months. So rather than hold on to the article until September of 2009, I present it here. Sorry about the delay.
The original title of the article was simply September 11, 2001.
But while cleaning out old files I ran across it as a MSWord file, and realized it was too good (and to long) to just trash, even though it is a bit out of date and the next anniversary of the event in question won’t come for ten months. So rather than hold on to the article until September of 2009, I present it here. Sorry about the delay.
The original title of the article was simply September 11, 2001.
September 11, 2001
(As I write this, my Internet connection is down. This isn’t really that big a problem, as I usually compose off-line and post later anyway, saving final editing until I’ve posted. It’s now Thursday, September 11, 2008 and the connection is still down. I’ll be posting this as soon as I have a connection again. I apologize for not being able to post this in a timely fashion and hope you’ll be, or have been, patient.)
WARNING - This is going to be a longish post full of a lot of history that you probably already know, with a smattering of remarks from me that probably won’t surprise you either. If you want, and aren’t smart enough to just skip the whole damn thing, skip ahead to the section titled "In Conclusion" to read my conclusions and find out what the hell all this history stuff was getting to. But I’m feeling wordy tonight, so I’m going to keep typing.
This is the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and if I need to tell you that then you’re living either in another country from me or under a rock. Here’s the story as I remember it, about the attacks and their aftermath, and a bit about where they’ve taken us. A bit about what we have become in the years since, and it ain’t all that complementary.
Reliving History
That September morning, I was on my way to work. and running a tad late.
I had a forty-five minute drive to my office, and I was pushing it a bit to get there as close to on time as I could. So, there I am, driving down the freeway, when I notice car after car pulling over to the side of the road. I had no idea what was going on. Thinking that there might be a problem with the road up ahead, I turned on my radio to try to get a warning of any upcoming difficulty.
I could not possibly have predicted what I heard next.
The station I had set was a music station that never had network news, but I was suddenly listening to a network newscast about something that had just happened in New York. What the hell?
Within five minutes I was one of those drivers that had pulled over to try to get a handle on what they were hearing. For the record, I didn’t. Not then, and not entirely even now.
I sat, stunned, listening to how a jumbo jet had crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center. Even though the newscasters were already speculating about terrorists, I didn’t want to believe that...after all, something very similar had happened in the 1940’s when a B-25 crashed into the Empire State building. That certainly could have happened again; I did not believe--did not want to believe--that this could be a terrorist attack.
I remembered that on the day of what had previously been the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, the Oklahoma City bombing, many people had initially cried "Arab terrorists!" when in fact the terrorists had been entirely home grown. I thought that if this did turn out to be an act of terror that it was far more likely to be domestic malcontents rather than foreign "Solders of God." But really, I wasn’t thinking terrorists; after all, it had happened before.
Then a second plane crashed into the other tower, stretching probability beyond the possibility of an accident. From that moment on, the America that I lived in became a far different, far darker place.
In the months that followed, a wave of highly un-American feeling swept through the country and disguised itself as patriotism and "Americanism." It was anything but. I watched as Americans and their government institutionally accepted acts that would have been unthinkable, illegal, immoral, or downright evil on September 10. Racial discrimination, gross violations of the Bill of Rights, sweeping powers given to the government (and particularly the President), restrictions on free travel, free speech and habeas corpus, all things that would have been unthinkable on September 10, became not only accepted but the law of the land (or when not actually written into the law, at least the rule that governed the of the application of the law).
What amazed me, and amazes me to this day, was that the very people who had been so steadfast in championing the rights of the individual, the people with bumper stickers that read I Love My Country but I Fear My Government, the people who up until September 10 had yelled the loudest at any threat to individual freedoms, became the first people to jump on the government’s bandwagon in their efforts to severely restrict those very same freedoms, come September 11. The same people who had laughed about G. Gordon Liddy printing President Clinton’s picture on paper shooting targets, and asked where they could get one, and had scoffed at the "liberal media" for making a big deal of it, now treated any word spoken against President Bush as an act of treason.
What a difference a day makes.
I remember stumbling on a web site that someone had put up following the attacks, a web site that showed pictures from U.S. embassies around the world showing the spontaneous outpouring of grief and sympathy felt by people in other countries; Europeans and Asians and Arabs and Persians and Indians and all manner of people from all manner of places. People crying, flowers left at the gates, signs of sympathy and support. I have to admit, I cried when I saw that site. (I imagine that that site is long gone now; if anyone has the URL of such a site please send it to me.) The sympathy of the entire world was with us. We could have used that universal good will to accomplish so much in the months that followed September 11, 2001. Our people, though grieving, were never more united; our nation was willing and able to move as one to accomplish a common goal.
The Bush League
Unfortunately, our leader was George W. Bush. Bush used the united American people to push his own agenda. In addition to the one thing he did that I don’t have a problem with, invading Afghanistan (some of us had been saying since the Taliban came to power that they should be dealt with, and I regret what it actually took to get us moving), most of what GWB did wasn’t so laudable.
For example, immediately after invading (and achieving victory in) Afghanistan, Bush pushed is into a war in Iraq on the pretext that :
1. Iraq and its President, Saddam Hussain, were somehow linked to Al Queda and Osama bin Laden (they weren’t.), and partially responsible for the attacks of September 11 (no evidence of this, either).
2. Iraq had, or was developing, "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD’s), notably nuclear and biological/chemical weapons, which they would inevitably deploy against the U.S. (Despite exhaustive searching, not one WMD was ever found, nor could we find any evidence of them, no evidence that any were in storage or any evidence that such weapons were currently under development.)
3. The Iraqi people were just waiting for us to liberate them and they would all welcome us with open arms. (How late do they stay open? Still waiting on this one.)
We let these things happen. We let a lot of things happen back then. For example, we let our government detain and brutalize prisoners and deny them the rights guaranteed by the Constitution; indeed, the government tried to argue that since they weren’t U.S. citizens they had no rights. This radical interpretation of the Constitution hasn’t stood up to the Supreme Court’s standards, but I haven’t seen the Bush administration in any hurry to make changes.)
And the most tragic thing about the whole Iraq mess is that, initially, most of us bought into it. Even me. While I was expressing doubts about the invasion before it had even happened, even I thought we’d actually find WMD’s or at least some evidence of them. I didn’t buy all of the garbage Bush was spewing to get us into war, but I never thought that once we were there that we’d find nothing. I rather think that Bush was counting on finding something to use to justify what he had done, but nothing. Nothing.
So George starts to spin things another way. Suddenly it wasn’t about WMD’s at all, but it was about liberating Iraq from a despot who would use poison gas on his own people. Which he did do; no question, he was a bad guy and deserved removing, but that is not how the war was sold to us and I wouldn’t have gone along with a war just to change an unfriendly regime. Whether there actually was a justification for Iraq based on Saddam’s actual behavior and not his imagined behavior, as bad as he was I can’t say that it was enough to justify an invasion, especially not one billed as an act of self defense. When we invaded we did it for other reasons, more selfish reasons, and to say otherwise when the lies are exposed is disingenuous.
And while he was doing all this, GWB also managed to piss away damn near every ounce of goodwill that the U.S. had gained after the attacks. (It wasn’t just abroad that George had blown it; his own popularity at home, which had been phenomenally high after September 11--higher than any President other than Reagan--is now phenomenally low.) More than anything else, this really pisses me off. We had spent decades being thought of as the neighborhood bully, despised yet almost always deferred to (a status greatly diminished since the other big kid, the Soviet Union, had left town) when fate makes us the objects of the entire world’s sympathy and respect. So what did we do with that? We invaded a couple of Middle Eastern countries and started throwing our weight around trying to regain our lost bully status. Respect went out the window, with sympathy close behind. GWB obviously wanted us feared again; he got us hated and distrusted, but not exactly feared.
In Conclusion
It all comes down to this: Bush lied and we let ourselves be lied to. Even though what he was saying wasn’t true, we so wanted it to be true that it became a justification for our actions. (That’s our actions, not just our government’s; the government was not only acting in our name, but with our blessing.) When it all proved to be smoke and mirrors, a different story was created, one that still cast us as the Good Guys, and even though many of us were by then ready to say that the Emperor was naked it was and remains a story that a good many Americans are more than willing to buy.
And here’s where we actually get to the point:
Notice that I keep saying "our actions." It’s one thing to blame George Bush, et al, for lying to us and leading us down the primrose path, but we have to admit that he couldn’t have led us if we hadn’t wanted to be led. This all wasn’t something he did, or at least not just him; this was an action of the United States of America, and that’s us. All of us. Remember that Congress, even the democrats in Congress, largely supported Bush’s drive to the Persian Gulf. Remember that public opinion, while not without significant dissent, was solidly behind Bush.
It bothers me not only that so many of us are still willing to go along with all this crap, but that we were all so damn quick to buy into it in the first place. None of us have clean hands in this, and we can’t entirely blame our leaders for doing what we wanted them to do; leading us. We the people were, for s long time, more than willing to be led.
(I take no comfort in the fact that we didn’t actually elect Bush in 2000; the Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiters of all things Constitutional, defied the Constitution and selected a President for us. But that’s another topic for another day.)
I don’t hold out much hope that we’re going to become a nation of people who tell their leaders what to do; after all, we have a long-standing tradition of being told what we want and buying it (literally). But we need to be aware of just where our leaders are leading us; it’s one thing to rally behind the President in a time of national crisis, but we can not, should not follow so blindly that we’re led right off a cliff. It’s one thing to say, as an old favorite song of mine said, we won’t get fooled again; the truth is that we might. Politicians being what they are, we probably will. But it’s our responsibility to be aware of where, and how, we’re being led. Any time someone says "trust me; I know what’s best for you" demand an explanation, and if one isn’t forthcoming then perhaps it’s time to stop following.
If your trying to go east and the train you’re on is headed west, the time to jump off is well before the train gets to wherever it’s going.
The Blues Viking
UPDATE - 11/22/08
If ever an article needed updating, it's this one, even though I've just published it.
Remember that I wrote this more than two months ago; the economy hadn't completely collapsed, Barack Obama hadn't been elected, we were facing an election with an uncertain outcome and things looked a bit bleak.
Well, the ecomomy has fallen apart and the election is over without any of the disruptions that I and others had feared. And even though things certainly look bleak as far as the economy goes, I have to say I have more hope for the future than I probably have a right to. I credit this not so much to Obama's election, as unlikely as that was, but more to the President that Obama promises to be. Here I am, facing a far more dismal future than I could have contemplated just a few months ago...and I feel better about it than I really should.
In short, I have hope.
But hope or not, I stand by what I said in the article; that the greatest loss to America in the attacks of September 11 was the loss of ourselves, of the high ideals that America had always, before GWB, aspired to. I hate what that man has made of us,and I hate that he actually got us to do it to ourselves, and I recognize the uphill battle that Obama will have to fight to undo all that Bush has wrought.
Good luck, President Obama. -BV
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Friday, November 21, 2008
About last week...
Last week I wrote an article about Rush Limbaugh.
Now, normally I try to ignore Limbaugh, and in general I do a good job of that. But last week I called Limbaugh (and others, like that notorious Rush-wannabe Sean Hannity) to task for saying one of the most absurd things I have ever heard: that Barack Obama was to blame for the current economic crisis.
Is that crazy or what?
I won’t get deep into the details here (use this link for that) but the gist of it is this: that fear of Obama and what he might do...in six to nine months...is actually responsible for all our current economic woes. Seriously; Rush actually said that! But something that happened today has made me revisit this silly idea. Today Obama said that he’s prepared to name his "economic team" as soon as Monday, and the Dow Jones exchange finished up nearly five hundred points. Not a huge rally, I’ll grant you, but a rally nonetheless.
So I‘m wondering if these guys are prepared to claim that if Obama is to blame for recent market falls, as they apparently are, are they also prepared to give him credit for today’s rally?
In a pig’s eye they are.
I fully expect most "right wing" pundits to ignore this occurrence; any who do mention it will either minimize it or try to deny that Obama is in any way responsible. This last approach is dangerous for them; I don’t see how they can claim on the one hand that Obama’s influence is to blame for months of economic free fall and on the other hand deny that Obama’s influence had anything to do with today’s rally, especially when the rally can be directly linked to something Obama actually did.
But it’s just one day’s worth of rally. For now. Monday, either the market will be down again and Rush and Sean will be saying "See? I said it wouldn’t last!" (whether they actually said so or not) or the market will continue upward, in which case they will either ignore it, deny it or say it’s only temporary.
The odd thing is, I don’t see this small recovery anything that Obama can really take much credit for, myself. (And I notice that he hasn’t.) The market, starved for good news, reacted to a bit of good news. This is hardly surprising. But Limbaugh and Hannity et al can’t claim that Obama isn’t responsible for a bit of recovery, however small and however brief, unless they are also willing to admit that their previous drivel, that bit about Obama being responsible for the current economic crisis, was just so much cow flop.
But I never expect that much reason to come out of these guys’ mouths.
Oh, and about that "rally"...the one thing I’ve learned from watching the economy of late, listening to all of the "experts" and following all of the "conventional wisdom" about the market and the economy, all I can say for sure is this:
No one knows a damn thing about it. Not the experts, not the pundits, not the bloggers and certainly not me.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Now, normally I try to ignore Limbaugh, and in general I do a good job of that. But last week I called Limbaugh (and others, like that notorious Rush-wannabe Sean Hannity) to task for saying one of the most absurd things I have ever heard: that Barack Obama was to blame for the current economic crisis.
Is that crazy or what?
I won’t get deep into the details here (use this link for that) but the gist of it is this: that fear of Obama and what he might do...in six to nine months...is actually responsible for all our current economic woes. Seriously; Rush actually said that! But something that happened today has made me revisit this silly idea. Today Obama said that he’s prepared to name his "economic team" as soon as Monday, and the Dow Jones exchange finished up nearly five hundred points. Not a huge rally, I’ll grant you, but a rally nonetheless.
So I‘m wondering if these guys are prepared to claim that if Obama is to blame for recent market falls, as they apparently are, are they also prepared to give him credit for today’s rally?
In a pig’s eye they are.
I fully expect most "right wing" pundits to ignore this occurrence; any who do mention it will either minimize it or try to deny that Obama is in any way responsible. This last approach is dangerous for them; I don’t see how they can claim on the one hand that Obama’s influence is to blame for months of economic free fall and on the other hand deny that Obama’s influence had anything to do with today’s rally, especially when the rally can be directly linked to something Obama actually did.
But it’s just one day’s worth of rally. For now. Monday, either the market will be down again and Rush and Sean will be saying "See? I said it wouldn’t last!" (whether they actually said so or not) or the market will continue upward, in which case they will either ignore it, deny it or say it’s only temporary.
The odd thing is, I don’t see this small recovery anything that Obama can really take much credit for, myself. (And I notice that he hasn’t.) The market, starved for good news, reacted to a bit of good news. This is hardly surprising. But Limbaugh and Hannity et al can’t claim that Obama isn’t responsible for a bit of recovery, however small and however brief, unless they are also willing to admit that their previous drivel, that bit about Obama being responsible for the current economic crisis, was just so much cow flop.
But I never expect that much reason to come out of these guys’ mouths.
Oh, and about that "rally"...the one thing I’ve learned from watching the economy of late, listening to all of the "experts" and following all of the "conventional wisdom" about the market and the economy, all I can say for sure is this:
No one knows a damn thing about it. Not the experts, not the pundits, not the bloggers and certainly not me.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
What color is your lifejacket?
Here’s a couple of terms for you to ponder. Well, the same one really, but different definitions.
"Bail out" is something you do in a sinking boat in the hope of keeping it afloat.
OR:
"Bail out" is to exit a burning plane before it crashes.
Similar, I’ll grant you, but notably different as they apply to the proposed auto industry bailout.
"If you go down in the flood, it’s gonna be your own fault..."
On the surface (if I dare use that term) the proposed bailout is intended to allow the auto industry protection from the ravages of the financial crisis while it (hopefully) recovers. In theory, a loan from the government now would protect the auto industry from having to go bankrupt, and allow them to continue to do business while the economy recovers enough to buy new cars again. In the interim, the auto industry would (again, in theory) "retool" to produce cars that the American public will actually want to buy. Their business operations would (in theory; see a pattern here?) be streamlined to operate more efficiently, more economically.
Sounds pretty good, but it has a few problems. Unless sweeping changes in Detroit’s business practices are mandated by law, I don’t see them happening. The history of the automotive industry is one of changing as little as possible at any given moment, and when change is mandated they try to find a "loophole" (if not a reversal by the next administration) in any new law or regulation that has mandated any kind of meaningful change. In short, I don’t see change happening, unless the "old guard" in charge of the Big Three are thrown out. (Which is a road strewn with landmines; read on.)
(There’s a movie about all of this; Tucker; The Man and his Dream. It’s about Preston Tucker, who tried to produce a better, and much safer, car back in the late ‘40s. I loved this movie.)
Think about it. The automobile industry has resisted safety features (like seat belts, safety glass and air bags, to name a few), mileage standards, crash test standards, a plethora of mileage-increasing measures, electric cars (any kind of alternate fuels, for that matter); in fact Detroit has resisted any changes in their product line that would cost anything to develop or produce.
I remember when California mandated an increase in gasoline mileage (avereged over all of the vehicles in any manufacturer’s fleet) that spurred the development of an electric car, the EV1, by General Motors. Factory space was found, parts and materials were allocated, and production had actually begun (the initial vehicles were available for lease in California) when there was an administration change; the then-new Bush administration was more willing to do whatever the auto industry asked, as was the new Republican governor in California (Arnold the Barbarian); the regulations were "rolled back," the car was canceled, and every one that had already been produced was crushed and recycled. Even though the people who had driven them generally loved them. (There’s yet another movie about all of this, Who Killed the Electric Car? that I haven’t seen.)
This is typical of what has gone on in the auto industry for decades. And I don’t think they’re likely to change until they’re forced to. But the problem with mandating anything is that Detroit will do as little as they can and hope that the next administration will be more to their liking. This is how they always operarte.
Besides, there already is a provision in the law which protects any corporation from their creditors, giving them time to reorganize and retool and possibly pull themselves back fro the abyss. It’s called bankruptcy.
Going down in flames
Then there’s the other metaphore; the one about the burning plane, remember? I very much fear that this will be the road that Detroit takes; rather than put forth any effort to save their industry, if no bailout is forthcoming they will likely just let it fail and get themselves out of it as best they can. That’s the potential danger of not giving them a bailout; they may just take one themselves, and leave no one at the controls. And like a jumbo jet, the auto industry is just too big to let fall wherever it happens to fail, with no capable hand on the stick.
So I’m of two minds on this; on the one hand, letting the industry go bankrupt may be the best thing for them, giving them the necessary "breathing room" to save their industry themselves. On the other hand, I fear that if left to save themselves they might do just that—save themselves, and the rest of us can clean up their mess.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
"Bail out" is something you do in a sinking boat in the hope of keeping it afloat.
OR:
"Bail out" is to exit a burning plane before it crashes.
Similar, I’ll grant you, but notably different as they apply to the proposed auto industry bailout.
"If you go down in the flood, it’s gonna be your own fault..."
On the surface (if I dare use that term) the proposed bailout is intended to allow the auto industry protection from the ravages of the financial crisis while it (hopefully) recovers. In theory, a loan from the government now would protect the auto industry from having to go bankrupt, and allow them to continue to do business while the economy recovers enough to buy new cars again. In the interim, the auto industry would (again, in theory) "retool" to produce cars that the American public will actually want to buy. Their business operations would (in theory; see a pattern here?) be streamlined to operate more efficiently, more economically.
Sounds pretty good, but it has a few problems. Unless sweeping changes in Detroit’s business practices are mandated by law, I don’t see them happening. The history of the automotive industry is one of changing as little as possible at any given moment, and when change is mandated they try to find a "loophole" (if not a reversal by the next administration) in any new law or regulation that has mandated any kind of meaningful change. In short, I don’t see change happening, unless the "old guard" in charge of the Big Three are thrown out. (Which is a road strewn with landmines; read on.)
(There’s a movie about all of this; Tucker; The Man and his Dream. It’s about Preston Tucker, who tried to produce a better, and much safer, car back in the late ‘40s. I loved this movie.)
Think about it. The automobile industry has resisted safety features (like seat belts, safety glass and air bags, to name a few), mileage standards, crash test standards, a plethora of mileage-increasing measures, electric cars (any kind of alternate fuels, for that matter); in fact Detroit has resisted any changes in their product line that would cost anything to develop or produce.
I remember when California mandated an increase in gasoline mileage (avereged over all of the vehicles in any manufacturer’s fleet) that spurred the development of an electric car, the EV1, by General Motors. Factory space was found, parts and materials were allocated, and production had actually begun (the initial vehicles were available for lease in California) when there was an administration change; the then-new Bush administration was more willing to do whatever the auto industry asked, as was the new Republican governor in California (Arnold the Barbarian); the regulations were "rolled back," the car was canceled, and every one that had already been produced was crushed and recycled. Even though the people who had driven them generally loved them. (There’s yet another movie about all of this, Who Killed the Electric Car? that I haven’t seen.)
This is typical of what has gone on in the auto industry for decades. And I don’t think they’re likely to change until they’re forced to. But the problem with mandating anything is that Detroit will do as little as they can and hope that the next administration will be more to their liking. This is how they always operarte.
Besides, there already is a provision in the law which protects any corporation from their creditors, giving them time to reorganize and retool and possibly pull themselves back fro the abyss. It’s called bankruptcy.
Going down in flames
Then there’s the other metaphore; the one about the burning plane, remember? I very much fear that this will be the road that Detroit takes; rather than put forth any effort to save their industry, if no bailout is forthcoming they will likely just let it fail and get themselves out of it as best they can. That’s the potential danger of not giving them a bailout; they may just take one themselves, and leave no one at the controls. And like a jumbo jet, the auto industry is just too big to let fall wherever it happens to fail, with no capable hand on the stick.
So I’m of two minds on this; on the one hand, letting the industry go bankrupt may be the best thing for them, giving them the necessary "breathing room" to save their industry themselves. On the other hand, I fear that if left to save themselves they might do just that—save themselves, and the rest of us can clean up their mess.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
"Say it ain’t so, Joe..."
UPDATED 6:00 PM 11/18/08
The news this morning says that the decision is in regarding Joe Lieberman, the former Democrat turned Independent who supported John McCain and campaigned against Barack Obama.
This sort of behavior was unlikely to be ignored by the Democrats...there was talk of booting Lieberman out of the Democratic caucus and stripping him of his chair of the Homeland Security committee. But today the word came down that the Democrats were going to be magnanimous and allow Lieberman to continue to caucus with them and to keep the chair of the Homeland Security committee, but he’ll lose his place on the Environment and Public Works committee.
Lieberman was able to achieve this only through the intervention of President-elect Obama, who surprisingly came out in support of Leiberman both staying with the party and staying at the helm of the Homeland Security committee. This soon after the election, Congress still has a sort of "Whatever Barack wants..." attitude, so his wishes were law with them.
(A thought that I didn't include in the original article, but should have: The Democrats are still imn persuit of that magic sixty seats. This would be impossible to acheive without Lieberman's seat on their side...and the Republicans have been openly courting him. As far as I know, he hasn't said that he'd definiterly bail on the party if he lost that chair, but it's certainly more likely. And notice that word "magic" ceaping into the article; what is this, Harry Potter and the Renegade Senator?)
It may seem like Lieberman has gotten away with a slap on the wrist...but think about it. The Homeland Security committee was important because of the emphasis George Bush put on homeland security, on using the very words "homeland security" to browbeat Congress and the public and bend them to his will. When the Democrats came into the majority in Congress a couple of years ago, the White House must have breathed a sigh of relief when Lieberman, who many considered Bush’s "tame Democrat," got that particular chair.
But even though we don’t actually live in a different world today, we look at it differently. In the incoming administration, the words "homeland security" aren’t likely to be uttered as some sort of magic phrase that will bring people to their knees in fright. The Homeland Security committee, while it will remain important, isn’t likely to be as important as it was under GWB.
The Environment and Public Works committee, now; that’s another kettle of mercury-tainted fish. The environment and the state of the nations' infrastructure were sadly ignored for most of the Bush administration as resources were sent to the Middle East. Under Barack Obama, these things are more likely to get the attention (and funding) they deserve.
It’s likely that in the new administration the Environment and Public Works committee will be as important as, if not more important than, the Homeland Security committee.
So Joe Lieberman has indeed been punished, and with public dissatisfaction regarding his performance on the rise back in his home state it’s unlikely that he’ll see reelection, with or without the Democratic party’s help. Which I doubt he’d get in any case. Lieberman was Al Gore’s vice-presidential candidate, and he still has a lot of friends in congress on both sides of the aisle, but I don’t think that all the king’s horses and all the king’s men can put his career back together again. I think this is just the beginning of Joe Lieberman’s marginalization.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
The news this morning says that the decision is in regarding Joe Lieberman, the former Democrat turned Independent who supported John McCain and campaigned against Barack Obama.
This sort of behavior was unlikely to be ignored by the Democrats...there was talk of booting Lieberman out of the Democratic caucus and stripping him of his chair of the Homeland Security committee. But today the word came down that the Democrats were going to be magnanimous and allow Lieberman to continue to caucus with them and to keep the chair of the Homeland Security committee, but he’ll lose his place on the Environment and Public Works committee.
Lieberman was able to achieve this only through the intervention of President-elect Obama, who surprisingly came out in support of Leiberman both staying with the party and staying at the helm of the Homeland Security committee. This soon after the election, Congress still has a sort of "Whatever Barack wants..." attitude, so his wishes were law with them.
(A thought that I didn't include in the original article, but should have: The Democrats are still imn persuit of that magic sixty seats. This would be impossible to acheive without Lieberman's seat on their side...and the Republicans have been openly courting him. As far as I know, he hasn't said that he'd definiterly bail on the party if he lost that chair, but it's certainly more likely. And notice that word "magic" ceaping into the article; what is this, Harry Potter and the Renegade Senator?)
It may seem like Lieberman has gotten away with a slap on the wrist...but think about it. The Homeland Security committee was important because of the emphasis George Bush put on homeland security, on using the very words "homeland security" to browbeat Congress and the public and bend them to his will. When the Democrats came into the majority in Congress a couple of years ago, the White House must have breathed a sigh of relief when Lieberman, who many considered Bush’s "tame Democrat," got that particular chair.
But even though we don’t actually live in a different world today, we look at it differently. In the incoming administration, the words "homeland security" aren’t likely to be uttered as some sort of magic phrase that will bring people to their knees in fright. The Homeland Security committee, while it will remain important, isn’t likely to be as important as it was under GWB.
The Environment and Public Works committee, now; that’s another kettle of mercury-tainted fish. The environment and the state of the nations' infrastructure were sadly ignored for most of the Bush administration as resources were sent to the Middle East. Under Barack Obama, these things are more likely to get the attention (and funding) they deserve.
It’s likely that in the new administration the Environment and Public Works committee will be as important as, if not more important than, the Homeland Security committee.
So Joe Lieberman has indeed been punished, and with public dissatisfaction regarding his performance on the rise back in his home state it’s unlikely that he’ll see reelection, with or without the Democratic party’s help. Which I doubt he’d get in any case. Lieberman was Al Gore’s vice-presidential candidate, and he still has a lot of friends in congress on both sides of the aisle, but I don’t think that all the king’s horses and all the king’s men can put his career back together again. I think this is just the beginning of Joe Lieberman’s marginalization.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Monday, November 17, 2008
This has been an especially bad day
POSTSCRIPT 11/18/08
This is going to be another self-absorbed article, the sort that I write whenever I’m feeling self-indulgent. If it bores you, I don’t overmuch care. -BV
My heart is heavy and I’m not sure I can cope. Tonight I had to tell my mother (again) that my brother Mark was dead.
My mother hasn’t had what you’d call an easy life. She grew up in suburban London during the German blitz, she came to America alone in the early 50’s and ended up on the docks in NYC alone on New Years Eve, expecting to be met by her fiancé but met by no one. She made her own way for a few years before marrying my father...and that was no picnic either. Neither were her two sons.
The younger of those sons, Mark William Rosecrans, died last January at the age of 47. I remember that night all too well; the phone call, the tears, having to tell my mother that her youngest son was gone, telling her that no, it wasn’t a mistake, holding her as we both cried. The events of that night are engraved as if in stone in my memory.
And I’ve never gotten over them...and I’m not sure I want to. For me, "letting go" (as my friends all advise) would feel like giving up all that I still hold of Mark, and I don’t care if all I have left is this gnawing grief; if that’s all I have to hold on to then that’s what I’ll hold on to.
But tonight, as I was making her dinner, she asked me where my brother had gone, said he was just here with his son and where had he gone?
My mother will be eighty years old in January, and she’s not altogether all together any more. In short, she forgets things. Lots of things. She forgets to do things I ask her to do, she forgets not to do the things I’ve asked her not to do, she forgets to bathe or feed herself and can’t turn on her TV or light her own cigarettes. I’m sure she doesn’t know her age or who’s President or what day or month or year it is.
And tonight she forgot that she had lost her son.
And I had to tell her. Again.
I told her that Mark was lost to us, that she would never see him again, that it must have been a dream when she thought she’s seen him. What else could I say? Should I have lied to her, told her that he’d just gone to the store and he’d be back soon, told her that I’d let her know as soon as he got back? I could never do that. (It would be so much easier if I could, but I can’t.)
Should I have taken her at her word, and believed her? Should I just accept that (for her at least) Mark had come back to her, perhaps to say goodbye? That, too, would be easier but I can’t do that either; I can’t make myself believe in something that I can’t otherwise believe, and I can’t pretend that I believe. Not to my mother, anyway.
So I told her what I’d told her that night in January. I told her that he was gone, that we’d lost him, that I was so sorry, that I would miss him for the rest of my life just as I knew she would.
And the worst part is that I know that is a few weeks, or however long it takes for her to forget, I’ll have to do it again. Now, how could I possibly let go of my brother when I’ll periodically have to reenact the night I learned of his death, the most difficult moment of my life?
Oddly enough, I’d been planning an article about Mark, about how this was his favorite time of year, about how hard it was to see the leaves turning or the snow falling without having him around, but I just can’t do it now. I can’t get all nostalgic about something that is causing me so much pain. I miss Mark so terribly. It’s taken me a while to write this article because I have to stop frequently and cry like a baby. I am not, and I suspect never will be, over his loss.
And all I have to look forward to is having to relive this horror again.
The Blues Viking
I held on to this article for about an hour, unsure that I would post it. I finally decided to do so (obviously) since I didn’t think I’d ever be able to post again with the specter of this article haunting me. So here it is, more for my own peace of mind than for anyone's enlightenment, and if you don’t appreciate drivel like this I can’t say I blame you, but go fuck yourself. -BV
Postscript--A reader has advised me to remove that last "go fuck yourself" line, saying that it "...besmirches a beautiful blog entry." My response was that perhaps it needed besmirching. I went on: "I am, by nature, a crude man and I make no apologies for that, nor do I revel in it, but it does sometimes color how I express myself and I am aware that that's not a good thing. But I felt that way when I posted the article, and I feel that way now." But I do sincerely apologize if my language offended anyone; I do not apologize in the slightest for what I said, merely for how I chose to say it. Which I would probably choose again. I also said, "These are the dangers of not having an editor." -BV
This is going to be another self-absorbed article, the sort that I write whenever I’m feeling self-indulgent. If it bores you, I don’t overmuch care. -BV
My heart is heavy and I’m not sure I can cope. Tonight I had to tell my mother (again) that my brother Mark was dead.
My mother hasn’t had what you’d call an easy life. She grew up in suburban London during the German blitz, she came to America alone in the early 50’s and ended up on the docks in NYC alone on New Years Eve, expecting to be met by her fiancé but met by no one. She made her own way for a few years before marrying my father...and that was no picnic either. Neither were her two sons.
The younger of those sons, Mark William Rosecrans, died last January at the age of 47. I remember that night all too well; the phone call, the tears, having to tell my mother that her youngest son was gone, telling her that no, it wasn’t a mistake, holding her as we both cried. The events of that night are engraved as if in stone in my memory.
And I’ve never gotten over them...and I’m not sure I want to. For me, "letting go" (as my friends all advise) would feel like giving up all that I still hold of Mark, and I don’t care if all I have left is this gnawing grief; if that’s all I have to hold on to then that’s what I’ll hold on to.
But tonight, as I was making her dinner, she asked me where my brother had gone, said he was just here with his son and where had he gone?
My mother will be eighty years old in January, and she’s not altogether all together any more. In short, she forgets things. Lots of things. She forgets to do things I ask her to do, she forgets not to do the things I’ve asked her not to do, she forgets to bathe or feed herself and can’t turn on her TV or light her own cigarettes. I’m sure she doesn’t know her age or who’s President or what day or month or year it is.
And tonight she forgot that she had lost her son.
And I had to tell her. Again.
I told her that Mark was lost to us, that she would never see him again, that it must have been a dream when she thought she’s seen him. What else could I say? Should I have lied to her, told her that he’d just gone to the store and he’d be back soon, told her that I’d let her know as soon as he got back? I could never do that. (It would be so much easier if I could, but I can’t.)
Should I have taken her at her word, and believed her? Should I just accept that (for her at least) Mark had come back to her, perhaps to say goodbye? That, too, would be easier but I can’t do that either; I can’t make myself believe in something that I can’t otherwise believe, and I can’t pretend that I believe. Not to my mother, anyway.
So I told her what I’d told her that night in January. I told her that he was gone, that we’d lost him, that I was so sorry, that I would miss him for the rest of my life just as I knew she would.
And the worst part is that I know that is a few weeks, or however long it takes for her to forget, I’ll have to do it again. Now, how could I possibly let go of my brother when I’ll periodically have to reenact the night I learned of his death, the most difficult moment of my life?
Oddly enough, I’d been planning an article about Mark, about how this was his favorite time of year, about how hard it was to see the leaves turning or the snow falling without having him around, but I just can’t do it now. I can’t get all nostalgic about something that is causing me so much pain. I miss Mark so terribly. It’s taken me a while to write this article because I have to stop frequently and cry like a baby. I am not, and I suspect never will be, over his loss.
And all I have to look forward to is having to relive this horror again.
The Blues Viking
I held on to this article for about an hour, unsure that I would post it. I finally decided to do so (obviously) since I didn’t think I’d ever be able to post again with the specter of this article haunting me. So here it is, more for my own peace of mind than for anyone's enlightenment, and if you don’t appreciate drivel like this I can’t say I blame you, but go fuck yourself. -BV
Postscript--A reader has advised me to remove that last "go fuck yourself" line, saying that it "...besmirches a beautiful blog entry." My response was that perhaps it needed besmirching. I went on: "I am, by nature, a crude man and I make no apologies for that, nor do I revel in it, but it does sometimes color how I express myself and I am aware that that's not a good thing. But I felt that way when I posted the article, and I feel that way now." But I do sincerely apologize if my language offended anyone; I do not apologize in the slightest for what I said, merely for how I chose to say it. Which I would probably choose again. I also said, "These are the dangers of not having an editor." -BV
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Am I getting boring?
Then maybe you'd like a look at my other blog.
http://blueblogslinks.blogspot.com/
http://blueblogslinks.blogspot.com/
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Is Obama drawing a wild card?
Hillary Clinton...Secretary of State?
For the last couple of days the news has been full of the story (once a rumor only, but since confirmed) that Barack Obama was possibly going to offer the job of Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton. Remember her? The one who told us that Obama was not prepared for the infamous 3 A.M. phone call? The one who hammered away at Obama’s lack of experience before John McCain ever weighed in on the subject? The one who fought him tooth-and-nail for the Democratic nonination? Yep, same woman.
This strains one’s credulity for several reasons. First of all, there’s all of those unflattering things she had to say about Obama back when they were still contesting the nomination. Did she actually feel this way, or was all that just electioneering? Politics being what it is, I can believe that it was all just election hype, and that hardly matters now since Obama has won, does it? If it was just hype...
And another thing...Hillary Clinton made it a practice to point out the differences between what she believes (believed?) about foreign policy, what she would do in foreign policy once she had the authority of President, as opposed to Obama’s stated positions. Given that Obama hasn’t changed his stance much (he’s been remarkably consistent for a Presidential candidate, and has remained so even after winning the election) will Hillary Clinton now willingly put aside her own strongly-held beliefs in the service of Obama, once she has his the President’s authority if not his job?
I don’t know. And, since she hasn’t said she’d actually want the job, perhaps these are questions she’s asking herself right now.
But this is a smart move for Obama, as well. Obama’s (potentially) greatest challenge might not come from the Republicans in congress, but from within his own party. Remember that those in Congress tend to feel themselves fundamentally responsible to those at home first, not so much to the nation as a whole. You can’t expect that their goals and ambitions will always mesh well with his. By bringing Hillary Clinton on board, he removes a strong personality from the ranks of his potential adversaries.
And remember that he’ll be facing election again in four years; if Hillary stayed outside of his circle, she could become a potential rival for the nomination in 2012. A focal point for those dissatisfied with Obama’s first term (and there will be those unhappy with Obama’s first term, no matter how well he does; that’s one reality of politics in America). By making her a part of his administration, sure she’ll share in the laurels from his successes but she’ll also shoulder some of the blame for his failures. (Potential successes and failures, that is; nothing has happened yet.)
But it remains to be seen if Hillary Clinton will even want the job. If she had been thinking about another run in 2012, she would be as much as saying that she would be putting it off now until 2016. And if thae Presidency is still her ambition, she has to be aware that riding Obama’s coattails could become an uncomfortable perch if Obama’s popularity nose-dives.
Is she willing to take that risk? I don’t know...and, I suspect, neither does she.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
For the last couple of days the news has been full of the story (once a rumor only, but since confirmed) that Barack Obama was possibly going to offer the job of Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton. Remember her? The one who told us that Obama was not prepared for the infamous 3 A.M. phone call? The one who hammered away at Obama’s lack of experience before John McCain ever weighed in on the subject? The one who fought him tooth-and-nail for the Democratic nonination? Yep, same woman.
This strains one’s credulity for several reasons. First of all, there’s all of those unflattering things she had to say about Obama back when they were still contesting the nomination. Did she actually feel this way, or was all that just electioneering? Politics being what it is, I can believe that it was all just election hype, and that hardly matters now since Obama has won, does it? If it was just hype...
And another thing...Hillary Clinton made it a practice to point out the differences between what she believes (believed?) about foreign policy, what she would do in foreign policy once she had the authority of President, as opposed to Obama’s stated positions. Given that Obama hasn’t changed his stance much (he’s been remarkably consistent for a Presidential candidate, and has remained so even after winning the election) will Hillary Clinton now willingly put aside her own strongly-held beliefs in the service of Obama, once she has his the President’s authority if not his job?
I don’t know. And, since she hasn’t said she’d actually want the job, perhaps these are questions she’s asking herself right now.
But this is a smart move for Obama, as well. Obama’s (potentially) greatest challenge might not come from the Republicans in congress, but from within his own party. Remember that those in Congress tend to feel themselves fundamentally responsible to those at home first, not so much to the nation as a whole. You can’t expect that their goals and ambitions will always mesh well with his. By bringing Hillary Clinton on board, he removes a strong personality from the ranks of his potential adversaries.
And remember that he’ll be facing election again in four years; if Hillary stayed outside of his circle, she could become a potential rival for the nomination in 2012. A focal point for those dissatisfied with Obama’s first term (and there will be those unhappy with Obama’s first term, no matter how well he does; that’s one reality of politics in America). By making her a part of his administration, sure she’ll share in the laurels from his successes but she’ll also shoulder some of the blame for his failures. (Potential successes and failures, that is; nothing has happened yet.)
But it remains to be seen if Hillary Clinton will even want the job. If she had been thinking about another run in 2012, she would be as much as saying that she would be putting it off now until 2016. And if thae Presidency is still her ambition, she has to be aware that riding Obama’s coattails could become an uncomfortable perch if Obama’s popularity nose-dives.
Is she willing to take that risk? I don’t know...and, I suspect, neither does she.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Friday, November 14, 2008
"Did ya hear the one about..."
There’s an old joke from the FDR administration about how the rich blamed everything that went wrong on Roosevelt.
It’s about a banker who gets up one morning at five A.M. He has five eggs, five strips of bacon and five slices of toast for breakfast. He waits five minutes for the No. 5 bus that takes him to work on Fifth Avenue. He goes into his office on the fifth floor and after his fifth cup of coffee he notices, on page five of his paper, that there’s a horse called "Five Aces" (number five, of course) running in the fifth race. He knows a sign from God when he sees one; he immediately calls five bookies and places five bets of $5,555 to win on the five horse in the fifth race.
It comes in fifth.
The banker throws his coffee across the room, kicks his cat, and tears his coat in half as he screams, "THAT SONOFABITCH ROOSEVELT!"
I tell that old joke because we are living in it.
Right-wing pundits, the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, have been referring to the current economic crisis as the "Obama recession." Seriously. They’re trying to blame the current economic crisis, which seems to have started years ago on GWB’s watch, on Barack Obama. Never mind that Obama isn’t even President yet, that he won’t be President until January, that the economy started falling apart years ago and the collapse was in full swing before the election was even over, back when McCain was still a strong contender and perhaps even the President-to-be (well, it looked that way for a time). Never mind all that...Obama is to blame. Yeah. Right.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
I’ve heard about this for a couple of days, and today I decided to look into it. Looking for "obama recession" on Google I looked for the first reference. Rush Limbaugh first used the phrase (as far as I can tell) on November 6. I was able to turn up a post on the Drudge Retort from October 13 and blog post from October 11. I only went back three pages into the Google results--I’m not made of free time—but it was clear that the phrase was in use for at least a month before the election. (The Drudge post went further, calling it the "Pelosi-Reid-Obama recession.")
I looked up the Rush Limbaugh reference from November 6. Interestingly enough, he actually stated that he believed that the collapse in the financial market was due to anxiety over fears of what Obama might do in six to nine months. Huh?
Then in the very next breath, he says, "That 4,000-point drop, that was also due to Obama." As for evidence of what he claims, well there isn’t any. That doesn’t seem to stop him from making, and repeating, that claim.
He also goes on to make several other far-fetched claims, but the main thrust of what he’s saying remains; that despite the absence of any evidence, despite Obama’s lack of any involvement in the financial crisis to date, despite the fact that Obama wasn't in a position to have any effect on the crisis while GWB certainly was, in Rush’s view it’s all Obama’s fault.
This is, plainly, insane.
Obama shouldn’t feel bad about being in company with Franklin D. Roosevelt. In his day, Roosevelt was also called a communist, a radical, a leftist, an enemy of business and America. And a lot of things that even I won’t publish. But if I were Obama, I wouldn’t fret much over being placed in Roosevelt’s historic circle.
I wonder...if Obama mentioned "New Deal" would it be enough to cause Limbaugh to die of apoplexy?
The Blues Viking
Further reading
The "enhanced" transcript of what Limbaugh said at his web site
Right-wing media feeds its post-election anger (LA Times)
It’s about a banker who gets up one morning at five A.M. He has five eggs, five strips of bacon and five slices of toast for breakfast. He waits five minutes for the No. 5 bus that takes him to work on Fifth Avenue. He goes into his office on the fifth floor and after his fifth cup of coffee he notices, on page five of his paper, that there’s a horse called "Five Aces" (number five, of course) running in the fifth race. He knows a sign from God when he sees one; he immediately calls five bookies and places five bets of $5,555 to win on the five horse in the fifth race.
It comes in fifth.
The banker throws his coffee across the room, kicks his cat, and tears his coat in half as he screams, "THAT SONOFABITCH ROOSEVELT!"
I tell that old joke because we are living in it.
Right-wing pundits, the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, have been referring to the current economic crisis as the "Obama recession." Seriously. They’re trying to blame the current economic crisis, which seems to have started years ago on GWB’s watch, on Barack Obama. Never mind that Obama isn’t even President yet, that he won’t be President until January, that the economy started falling apart years ago and the collapse was in full swing before the election was even over, back when McCain was still a strong contender and perhaps even the President-to-be (well, it looked that way for a time). Never mind all that...Obama is to blame. Yeah. Right.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
I’ve heard about this for a couple of days, and today I decided to look into it. Looking for "obama recession" on Google I looked for the first reference. Rush Limbaugh first used the phrase (as far as I can tell) on November 6. I was able to turn up a post on the Drudge Retort from October 13 and blog post from October 11. I only went back three pages into the Google results--I’m not made of free time—but it was clear that the phrase was in use for at least a month before the election. (The Drudge post went further, calling it the "Pelosi-Reid-Obama recession.")
I looked up the Rush Limbaugh reference from November 6. Interestingly enough, he actually stated that he believed that the collapse in the financial market was due to anxiety over fears of what Obama might do in six to nine months. Huh?
Then in the very next breath, he says, "That 4,000-point drop, that was also due to Obama." As for evidence of what he claims, well there isn’t any. That doesn’t seem to stop him from making, and repeating, that claim.
He also goes on to make several other far-fetched claims, but the main thrust of what he’s saying remains; that despite the absence of any evidence, despite Obama’s lack of any involvement in the financial crisis to date, despite the fact that Obama wasn't in a position to have any effect on the crisis while GWB certainly was, in Rush’s view it’s all Obama’s fault.
This is, plainly, insane.
Obama shouldn’t feel bad about being in company with Franklin D. Roosevelt. In his day, Roosevelt was also called a communist, a radical, a leftist, an enemy of business and America. And a lot of things that even I won’t publish. But if I were Obama, I wouldn’t fret much over being placed in Roosevelt’s historic circle.
I wonder...if Obama mentioned "New Deal" would it be enough to cause Limbaugh to die of apoplexy?
The Blues Viking
Further reading
The "enhanced" transcript of what Limbaugh said at his web site
Right-wing media feeds its post-election anger (LA Times)
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Electoral College Education
Now that the election is over (well, nearly over; there are still three senate seats undecided) perhaps it’s time to take a long, hard look at the Electoral College: what it is, why it is, and why many people say it’s time has come and gone. And what we might use instead.
Please note that I am not, myself, calling for the abolition of the Electoral College, or its widespread revamping. But others are, and they have a point. Several points, actually. And while I may suggest a few things, I suggest them more for discussion purposes than for anything else. I don’t claim to have any answers, and I don’t necessarily agree with anything here, but it’s something that should be discussed rather than dismissed out of hand.
What it is: The Electoral College is how we choose our President; contrary to popular opinion, we don’t select them by election. Did you know that you never actually voted for President?
We vote for electors, who are pledged to one candidate or the other but are actually free (in theory) to vote for anyone they please. Each state has a number of electors equal to its number of Representatives in the House plus its Senators. In most states, it’s a matter of "to the victor go the spoils;" whoever wins the popular vote in that state gets all of that state’s electoral votes. (Maine and Nebraska use a system in which one elector is chosen by each congressional district and two are selected by the state as a whole.) Most states don’t bother to list potential electors on the ballot.
The potential problems are numerous, not limited to the possibility that the guy that comes in second nationally can still win the election through the Electoral College (this is what happened in 2000). Remember that electors can, in theory, vote for whoever they like; it’s possible that one candidate could win both the popular vote and the Electoral College and still lose when the electors actually get together and themselves vote for President. (This isn’t as unlikely as you might think; "renegade" electors voting for someone other than their pledged candidate aren’t all that uncommon. Electors who behave in this way are called "faithless electors" and less than half of the states have laws to punish them.)
(This is all explained at Wikipedia in far more detail.)
Arguments for and against this system are numerous. You could say (I’m quoting Wikipedia) that the Electoral College "...is inherently undemocratic and gives certain swing states disproportionate clout." You could also say that (again quoting Wikipedia) it is "...an important and distinguishing feature of the federal system, and protects the rights of smaller states."
You could also say that if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.*
Like I said, I’m not coming out in support of any specific plan to reform this system, but these alternatives I offer for your consideration and/or discussion.
1. Popular vote
It would seem to make sense to choose the President by direct popular vote. Simply put, this would mean that whoever gets the most votes wins. Period. No Electoral college, no electors, no one (like me) constantly griping that the public will has been subverted.
The problem is that this gives the more populous states like California or New York more power to select the President than, say, Delaware or Alaska.
2. Take the states out of it
This would involve several things. First of all, a single national authority to manage the elections rather than each state having its own. Similarly, you would need one national set of election laws and regulations that would apply to all states equally. Electoral votes would be assigned (and this is just one way of doing it, and just my suggestion) one to each congressional district. Whether you still have electoral votes for each senatorial seat is something we’d have to work out...but this business of a single candidate taking all of the electoral votes in any given state would be right out.
This isn’t going to make anyone who fears and distrusts federal authority happy, obviously.
3. "Electors? We don’t need no stinkin’ electors!"
Maybe we could keep the Electoral College as it is but just do away with the electors. This would certainly solve the problem of "faithless electors." frankly, I’m not sure I see the point of having electors, anyway.
The problem with all of these suggestions is that it would take a Constitutional amendment to enact any of them...and the U.S. Constitution is a damned difficult thing to amend. It’s intended to be. For good reasons. So if you want to change it, you’ve got a tough row to hoe. It’s difficult, but it can be done. It would take a full-time commitment from someone, at the very least.
Anyone want that job?
The Blues Viking
*Thanks, Groucho.
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Please note that I am not, myself, calling for the abolition of the Electoral College, or its widespread revamping. But others are, and they have a point. Several points, actually. And while I may suggest a few things, I suggest them more for discussion purposes than for anything else. I don’t claim to have any answers, and I don’t necessarily agree with anything here, but it’s something that should be discussed rather than dismissed out of hand.
What it is: The Electoral College is how we choose our President; contrary to popular opinion, we don’t select them by election. Did you know that you never actually voted for President?
We vote for electors, who are pledged to one candidate or the other but are actually free (in theory) to vote for anyone they please. Each state has a number of electors equal to its number of Representatives in the House plus its Senators. In most states, it’s a matter of "to the victor go the spoils;" whoever wins the popular vote in that state gets all of that state’s electoral votes. (Maine and Nebraska use a system in which one elector is chosen by each congressional district and two are selected by the state as a whole.) Most states don’t bother to list potential electors on the ballot.
The potential problems are numerous, not limited to the possibility that the guy that comes in second nationally can still win the election through the Electoral College (this is what happened in 2000). Remember that electors can, in theory, vote for whoever they like; it’s possible that one candidate could win both the popular vote and the Electoral College and still lose when the electors actually get together and themselves vote for President. (This isn’t as unlikely as you might think; "renegade" electors voting for someone other than their pledged candidate aren’t all that uncommon. Electors who behave in this way are called "faithless electors" and less than half of the states have laws to punish them.)
(This is all explained at Wikipedia in far more detail.)
Arguments for and against this system are numerous. You could say (I’m quoting Wikipedia) that the Electoral College "...is inherently undemocratic and gives certain swing states disproportionate clout." You could also say that (again quoting Wikipedia) it is "...an important and distinguishing feature of the federal system, and protects the rights of smaller states."
You could also say that if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.*
Like I said, I’m not coming out in support of any specific plan to reform this system, but these alternatives I offer for your consideration and/or discussion.
1. Popular vote
It would seem to make sense to choose the President by direct popular vote. Simply put, this would mean that whoever gets the most votes wins. Period. No Electoral college, no electors, no one (like me) constantly griping that the public will has been subverted.
The problem is that this gives the more populous states like California or New York more power to select the President than, say, Delaware or Alaska.
2. Take the states out of it
This would involve several things. First of all, a single national authority to manage the elections rather than each state having its own. Similarly, you would need one national set of election laws and regulations that would apply to all states equally. Electoral votes would be assigned (and this is just one way of doing it, and just my suggestion) one to each congressional district. Whether you still have electoral votes for each senatorial seat is something we’d have to work out...but this business of a single candidate taking all of the electoral votes in any given state would be right out.
This isn’t going to make anyone who fears and distrusts federal authority happy, obviously.
3. "Electors? We don’t need no stinkin’ electors!"
Maybe we could keep the Electoral College as it is but just do away with the electors. This would certainly solve the problem of "faithless electors." frankly, I’m not sure I see the point of having electors, anyway.
The problem with all of these suggestions is that it would take a Constitutional amendment to enact any of them...and the U.S. Constitution is a damned difficult thing to amend. It’s intended to be. For good reasons. So if you want to change it, you’ve got a tough row to hoe. It’s difficult, but it can be done. It would take a full-time commitment from someone, at the very least.
Anyone want that job?
The Blues Viking
*Thanks, Groucho.
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
UPDATED YET AGAIN "It ain't over till it's over..."
YET ANOTHER UPDATE posted at 12:00 Noon Novwember 13, 2008
http://thebluesvikingonline.blogspot.com/2008/11/it-aint-over-till-its-overand-sometimes.html
http://thebluesvikingonline.blogspot.com/2008/11/it-aint-over-till-its-overand-sometimes.html
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The (Fake) New York Times
This isn't the sort of thing I usually post, but this was so clever I couldn't resist.
Seems some jokers in NYC produced a fake edition of the New York Times (realistic ads and all) and put it out on the streets. I wish I had done that.
Anyway, here's the paper (in a .PDF). Enjoy.
http://www.guerillartivism.net/nytimes/NYTimes-SE.pdf
The Blues Viking
Seems some jokers in NYC produced a fake edition of the New York Times (realistic ads and all) and put it out on the streets. I wish I had done that.
Anyway, here's the paper (in a .PDF). Enjoy.
http://www.guerillartivism.net/nytimes/NYTimes-SE.pdf
The Blues Viking
Republicans Through the Looking Glass
There’s a meeting of Republican state governors going on now down in Miami. That’s appropriate; isn’t Miami where so many people go to retire? Maybe they should all look into getting a condo.
OK, maybe that was unfair. Maybe the Republicans will take a good long look at themselves and see that the ideals that carried them into power, that sustained them in power for so long, no longer reflect the ideals of a majority of American voters. Maybe they will realize that for the party to regain the advantage then the party itself has to change. Maybe they are prepared to accept that it is more their message that has been ill-received than it is that they chose the wrong messenger.
Maybe. Probably not, though.
Sadly, the Governors will probably conclude that they’re not to blame, that their politics/policies/dogma aren’t to blame, that they don’t need to change what they’re saying but just adjust how they’re saying it. I would really love to see them finally abandon the tactics that they have used in the past; the negative attacks, the flag-waiving hype, the fear-mongering, the whole assortment of "dirty tricks" that have served them so well in the past but which didn’t work this time. But I don't think I'll be seeing that.
I fear that Republicans will adhere to the same strategies: "vote-for-me-or-you’ll-die" or "vote-for-me-because-my-flag-is-bigger" or "vote-for-me-because-I’m-a-true-American" or "vote-for-me-because-my-opponent-is-a-communist/socialist/nazi/liberal/whatever." They will continue to make unsupported allegations, exagerated claims, bogus pronouncements, and if they don't work than it's all someone else's fault.
Hasn’t the campaign just concluded taught them anything? Sadly, I don’t think so. I think they will continue to assign blame to people who don’t deserve it, to situations that were beyond their control, to the voters; to anyone, in fact, but themselves, the Republican elite, the people who have taken the low road for so long that to aspire to a higher road would, to them, seem disloyal.
Then again, I don’t actually know what’s going on in Miami. (I’ve never been closer than Daytona.) For all I know, the Republican governors will take that long, hard look at themselves and decide that what is needed is a new party, a less negative party, a party that plays their message more to people’s hopes than to their fears. Maybe they’ll realize that they don’t need a "cooler" Grand Old Party; they need a Grand New Party.
Probably not, though.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
OK, maybe that was unfair. Maybe the Republicans will take a good long look at themselves and see that the ideals that carried them into power, that sustained them in power for so long, no longer reflect the ideals of a majority of American voters. Maybe they will realize that for the party to regain the advantage then the party itself has to change. Maybe they are prepared to accept that it is more their message that has been ill-received than it is that they chose the wrong messenger.
Maybe. Probably not, though.
Sadly, the Governors will probably conclude that they’re not to blame, that their politics/policies/dogma aren’t to blame, that they don’t need to change what they’re saying but just adjust how they’re saying it. I would really love to see them finally abandon the tactics that they have used in the past; the negative attacks, the flag-waiving hype, the fear-mongering, the whole assortment of "dirty tricks" that have served them so well in the past but which didn’t work this time. But I don't think I'll be seeing that.
I fear that Republicans will adhere to the same strategies: "vote-for-me-or-you’ll-die" or "vote-for-me-because-my-flag-is-bigger" or "vote-for-me-because-I’m-a-true-American" or "vote-for-me-because-my-opponent-is-a-communist/socialist/nazi/liberal/whatever." They will continue to make unsupported allegations, exagerated claims, bogus pronouncements, and if they don't work than it's all someone else's fault.
Hasn’t the campaign just concluded taught them anything? Sadly, I don’t think so. I think they will continue to assign blame to people who don’t deserve it, to situations that were beyond their control, to the voters; to anyone, in fact, but themselves, the Republican elite, the people who have taken the low road for so long that to aspire to a higher road would, to them, seem disloyal.
Then again, I don’t actually know what’s going on in Miami. (I’ve never been closer than Daytona.) For all I know, the Republican governors will take that long, hard look at themselves and decide that what is needed is a new party, a less negative party, a party that plays their message more to people’s hopes than to their fears. Maybe they’ll realize that they don’t need a "cooler" Grand Old Party; they need a Grand New Party.
Probably not, though.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
A well-regulated Second Amendment...
Gun control has always been a touchy subject for Americans.
At the heart of the controversy is that badly worded Second Amendment to the Constitution , the one that says:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This is one of the most argued-about and over-analyzed passages in the Constitution. I’ve heard arguments (on both sides) focusing on the arrangement of the words, the meaning of the words, the meaning of the arrangement of the words, the original version Jefferson wrote, the meaning and arrangement of the words in the original version, and on and on and on. (Is it any surprise that nearly all of the opinions about the "right to keep and bear arms" center on some interpretation of the Second Amendment? I mean, that is where the phrase comes from, after all.)
And I’m not going to jump into that particular fire. Not with both feet, anyway.
Instead, let’s talk about where Barack Obama stands on all of this.
Obama has come out in support of an individual’s right to bear arms, be they hunting weapons or handguns for personal defense. He’s somewhat less supportive of military-stile rifles, what are often erroneously called "assault weapons," in fact he and Joe Biden both have supported a ban on such weapons. (Though it is true that Obama supported a ban on handguns, twenty years ago. He’s said different since then.)
Also in support of the "Obama-will-take-away-your-guns" crowd is the notion that Obama supports a 500% increase in tax on guns and ammo; but this is based on a comment he made back in 1999 (twenty years ago...see a pattern?) and has not since repeated. It would be a bit foolish to automatically assume, based on no better evidence than that, that that’s his position now. (God, that’s a lot of "thats.")
That hasn’t stopped the National Rifle Association from labeling Obama a "serious threat to Second Amendment liberties." Nor did they heed Ohio governor Ted Strickland when he said, "If you are a sportsman, if you are a gun owner, if you are someone that honors and respects the Second Amendment, you have nothing to fear from Barack Obama."
As to where I stand, not that it matters much:
I’m with Obama here (at least, I’m with what his stated position is). I’ve got no problem with possession of handguns for personal defense or with high-powered rifles for sporting purposes, but I don’t see the need for individual civilians to own "assault weapons" or fully-automatic machine guns or sub-machine guns.
I’m not in some paramilitary order (although I once was a Boy Scout) and I’m not a hunter, but I come from hunters and I do own several guns. I don’t own any handguns (except for an old flintlock pistol that won’t stay at full- or even half-cock) and I don’t have an assault rifle (though I did once, back during my survivalist days; a Valmet M56 5.56mm semiautomatic rifle made in Finland in the venerable Soviet AK stile); in fact the only military weapon I own is a WWI era Mauser (not including my Dad’s old Kabar knife).
And, frankly, I don’t think we really need to have "assault weapons" in civilian hands. True, I once felt differently; I once felt that we, as civilians, had every right to rise up in rebellion against a tyrannical government thus we had every right to have the means to do so at our disposal. (I did have that Valmet, after all.) Frankly, this was kind of silly. The idea that we the people could rise up in opposition to the government wasn’t a reasonable one. Isn’t a reasonable one. We might have rifles and ammunition but we the people were always way short on tanks, artillery, fighter jets, stealth bombers, destroyers, aircraft carriers, ant-ballistic missiles and stuff like that.
Makes the possession of an "assault rifle" seem kind of pointless.
(Oh, and about that Valmet rifle...I sold it many years ago. I doubled my money on that sale, and if I’d held on to the gun until last year I’d have at least tripled my original investment. I have no idea what they’re going for now.)
The Blues Viking
Further Reading
"Obama win triggers run on guns in many stores" (Reuters)
"NRA Targets Obama" (FactCheck.org)
Read what Barack Obama’s web site has to say on the matter.
Want to read opposing views? Fine. Want me to find them for you? Do you also want me to wipe your ass? Try the NRA’s website. Hell, I gave you the links I had...go find your own and don’t expect me to do all your research.
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
At the heart of the controversy is that badly worded Second Amendment to the Constitution , the one that says:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This is one of the most argued-about and over-analyzed passages in the Constitution. I’ve heard arguments (on both sides) focusing on the arrangement of the words, the meaning of the words, the meaning of the arrangement of the words, the original version Jefferson wrote, the meaning and arrangement of the words in the original version, and on and on and on. (Is it any surprise that nearly all of the opinions about the "right to keep and bear arms" center on some interpretation of the Second Amendment? I mean, that is where the phrase comes from, after all.)
And I’m not going to jump into that particular fire. Not with both feet, anyway.
Instead, let’s talk about where Barack Obama stands on all of this.
Obama has come out in support of an individual’s right to bear arms, be they hunting weapons or handguns for personal defense. He’s somewhat less supportive of military-stile rifles, what are often erroneously called "assault weapons," in fact he and Joe Biden both have supported a ban on such weapons. (Though it is true that Obama supported a ban on handguns, twenty years ago. He’s said different since then.)
Also in support of the "Obama-will-take-away-your-guns" crowd is the notion that Obama supports a 500% increase in tax on guns and ammo; but this is based on a comment he made back in 1999 (twenty years ago...see a pattern?) and has not since repeated. It would be a bit foolish to automatically assume, based on no better evidence than that, that that’s his position now. (God, that’s a lot of "thats.")
That hasn’t stopped the National Rifle Association from labeling Obama a "serious threat to Second Amendment liberties." Nor did they heed Ohio governor Ted Strickland when he said, "If you are a sportsman, if you are a gun owner, if you are someone that honors and respects the Second Amendment, you have nothing to fear from Barack Obama."
As to where I stand, not that it matters much:
I’m with Obama here (at least, I’m with what his stated position is). I’ve got no problem with possession of handguns for personal defense or with high-powered rifles for sporting purposes, but I don’t see the need for individual civilians to own "assault weapons" or fully-automatic machine guns or sub-machine guns.
I’m not in some paramilitary order (although I once was a Boy Scout) and I’m not a hunter, but I come from hunters and I do own several guns. I don’t own any handguns (except for an old flintlock pistol that won’t stay at full- or even half-cock) and I don’t have an assault rifle (though I did once, back during my survivalist days; a Valmet M56 5.56mm semiautomatic rifle made in Finland in the venerable Soviet AK stile); in fact the only military weapon I own is a WWI era Mauser (not including my Dad’s old Kabar knife).
And, frankly, I don’t think we really need to have "assault weapons" in civilian hands. True, I once felt differently; I once felt that we, as civilians, had every right to rise up in rebellion against a tyrannical government thus we had every right to have the means to do so at our disposal. (I did have that Valmet, after all.) Frankly, this was kind of silly. The idea that we the people could rise up in opposition to the government wasn’t a reasonable one. Isn’t a reasonable one. We might have rifles and ammunition but we the people were always way short on tanks, artillery, fighter jets, stealth bombers, destroyers, aircraft carriers, ant-ballistic missiles and stuff like that.
Makes the possession of an "assault rifle" seem kind of pointless.
(Oh, and about that Valmet rifle...I sold it many years ago. I doubled my money on that sale, and if I’d held on to the gun until last year I’d have at least tripled my original investment. I have no idea what they’re going for now.)
The Blues Viking
Further Reading
"Obama win triggers run on guns in many stores" (Reuters)
"NRA Targets Obama" (FactCheck.org)
Read what Barack Obama’s web site has to say on the matter.
Want to read opposing views? Fine. Want me to find them for you? Do you also want me to wipe your ass? Try the NRA’s website. Hell, I gave you the links I had...go find your own and don’t expect me to do all your research.
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Friday, November 7, 2008
It ain’t over till it’s over...and sometimes not even then
UPDATED Friday 11/7/08 10:30 PM
UPDATED AGAIN Wednesday 11/12/08 2:15 PM
YET ANOTHER UPDATE Thursday 11/13/08 12:00 Noon
And you thought the election was over...well, it is. Totally over. Irreversibly over. Decided. In the bag for Obama. No question. But there’s still the Senate...
As of this evening, (Thursday) there were still three Senate races undecided; and the Democrats are three short of the magic 60 seats, the number of seats necessary to defeat a Republican filibuster. At least, that’s how the math works on paper; in reality the vote won’t usually split along party lines (though it happens often enough to be fustrating) and the "magic number" isn’t that much more than symbolic. So what’s the big deal?
I haven’t quite figured that out.
Perhaps it’s because without a clear majority in the House and that magical 2/3 majority in the Senate, it’s not as easy to claim a "mandate" (there’s that word again) for Democratic/liberal policies and goals. I don’t think it’s as clear cut as that; I don’t think we live in a world where, say, 51 % of the vote equals a mandate and 50% doesn’t. I don’t think that a world where 52% of the voters approved your policies and 48% didn’t (those are the numbers we’re facing now) gives you clear authority to do any damn thing you please.
You can spin it so that every vote that didn’t go toward your main opponent is the same as a vote that went to your candidate, as if the "third" party candidates don’t matter, but those sort of numbers are pure voodoo mathematics, the sort that Bush used to justify a lot of what he did, and we shouldn’t make him our teacher.
There are still conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, and still a few independents, so the magic 60 senate seats isn’t as important as the media would make you think. Still, enough votes do split directly along party lines that it does mean something, if not all that much. So as of Thursday night, here’s the few Senate seats still outstanding.
Minnesota
This race pitted Republican incumbent Norm Coleman against Democratic challenger Al Frankin. Frankin, if you’ve never heard of him, was a comedian and a writer for Saturday Night Live for a long time. (Remember Trading Places? Remember the two stoners who were minding the caged gorilla on the train? One of them was Frankin.) In recent years Frankin has become a popular liberal author and radio talk show host.
The Frankin-Coleman race is the closest of them all; last time I heard, there were just over 300 votes separating them—under the ½ of 1% that automatically triggers a recount under Minnesota law. That recount won’t happen until sometime in December, and neither side is giving up (and with a vote this close, they shouldn’t), so we’re not likely to know the results here for a while yet.
Georgia
This race, between Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss and Democratic challenger Jim Martin, isn’t all that close, with Chamblis holding more than 49% and Martin holding less than 47%. Georgia law, however, requires a margin of at least one vote over 50%, so this one appears to be headed for a run-off. And like the Minnesota recount, that run-off won’t happen until December.
This race was complicated by a Libertarian candidate (Allen Buckley) who got about 3% in the election and won’t be in the run-off, so if the run-off happens (there were still enough uncounted ballots, as of Thursday, to yet decide the election for Chamblis) enough of them may go to either candidate to decide the election one way or the other.
Alaska
This is a weird one. The incumbent, Republican Ted Stevens, is a convicted felon (seven felonies, to be precise) and with 9,000 uncounted ballots (as of Wednesday) it’s still too close to call. A convicted felon can’t serve in the senate so even if he wins, as seems likely, there’ll have to be a "special election" for the seat which will happen in two years. In the interim, Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin will appoint someone to fill the seat.
While Sarah Palin can’t appoint herself, she could resign as Governor and have her Lieutenant-Governor appoint her to the job, thus getting a foothold in Washington. If she still wants it.
Then again, there’s one other possibility; Stevens could win his case(s) on appeal, and be allowed to serve.
And that’s how it breaks down. Perhaps in a literal sense, though I hope not. In any case, none of this matters all that much except for achieving the magical, mythical 60 seats, and I can’t see that as being all that important save for bragging rights. Still, where votes fall along party lines then 60 seats becomes the number necessary to cut off a Republican filibuster, and the Republicans have shown themselves in the past to be more than willing to resort to filibuster when persuasion hasn’t worked, so I suppose it could be important, after all. But not terribly so; I imagine it will be the rare vote that doesn’t draw votes from one side or the other, and I suspect that the Democrats will find they need more than that magic 60 to really feel comfortable.
Some people are never satisfied.
The Blues Viking
UPDATE 11/7/08: New data--The Coleman-Frankin race in Minnesota is down to just over 200 votes. (Coleman over Frankin, though a recount appears to be inevitable.)
One other bit worth noting: Joe Lieberman, formerly a Democrant but currently an Independant, is having a bit of trouble holding on to his committee chair these days and has been asked to step down by the Democrats. Joe is currently being courted by the Republicans and may start caucusing with them. This would change the balance in the Senate. A bit.
BV
UPDATED AGAIN Wednesday 11/12/08 2:15 PM
YET ANOTHER UPDATE Thursday 11/13/08 12:00 Noon
And you thought the election was over...well, it is. Totally over. Irreversibly over. Decided. In the bag for Obama. No question. But there’s still the Senate...
As of this evening, (Thursday) there were still three Senate races undecided; and the Democrats are three short of the magic 60 seats, the number of seats necessary to defeat a Republican filibuster. At least, that’s how the math works on paper; in reality the vote won’t usually split along party lines (though it happens often enough to be fustrating) and the "magic number" isn’t that much more than symbolic. So what’s the big deal?
I haven’t quite figured that out.
Perhaps it’s because without a clear majority in the House and that magical 2/3 majority in the Senate, it’s not as easy to claim a "mandate" (there’s that word again) for Democratic/liberal policies and goals. I don’t think it’s as clear cut as that; I don’t think we live in a world where, say, 51 % of the vote equals a mandate and 50% doesn’t. I don’t think that a world where 52% of the voters approved your policies and 48% didn’t (those are the numbers we’re facing now) gives you clear authority to do any damn thing you please.
You can spin it so that every vote that didn’t go toward your main opponent is the same as a vote that went to your candidate, as if the "third" party candidates don’t matter, but those sort of numbers are pure voodoo mathematics, the sort that Bush used to justify a lot of what he did, and we shouldn’t make him our teacher.
There are still conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, and still a few independents, so the magic 60 senate seats isn’t as important as the media would make you think. Still, enough votes do split directly along party lines that it does mean something, if not all that much. So as of Thursday night, here’s the few Senate seats still outstanding.
Minnesota
This race pitted Republican incumbent Norm Coleman against Democratic challenger Al Frankin. Frankin, if you’ve never heard of him, was a comedian and a writer for Saturday Night Live for a long time. (Remember Trading Places? Remember the two stoners who were minding the caged gorilla on the train? One of them was Frankin.) In recent years Frankin has become a popular liberal author and radio talk show host.
The Frankin-Coleman race is the closest of them all; last time I heard, there were just over 300 votes separating them—under the ½ of 1% that automatically triggers a recount under Minnesota law. That recount won’t happen until sometime in December, and neither side is giving up (and with a vote this close, they shouldn’t), so we’re not likely to know the results here for a while yet.
Georgia
This race, between Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss and Democratic challenger Jim Martin, isn’t all that close, with Chamblis holding more than 49% and Martin holding less than 47%. Georgia law, however, requires a margin of at least one vote over 50%, so this one appears to be headed for a run-off. And like the Minnesota recount, that run-off won’t happen until December.
This race was complicated by a Libertarian candidate (Allen Buckley) who got about 3% in the election and won’t be in the run-off, so if the run-off happens (there were still enough uncounted ballots, as of Thursday, to yet decide the election for Chamblis) enough of them may go to either candidate to decide the election one way or the other.
Alaska
This is a weird one. The incumbent, Republican Ted Stevens, is a convicted felon (seven felonies, to be precise) and with 9,000 uncounted ballots (as of Wednesday) it’s still too close to call. A convicted felon can’t serve in the senate so even if he wins, as seems likely, there’ll have to be a "special election" for the seat which will happen in two years. In the interim, Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin will appoint someone to fill the seat.
While Sarah Palin can’t appoint herself, she could resign as Governor and have her Lieutenant-Governor appoint her to the job, thus getting a foothold in Washington. If she still wants it.
Then again, there’s one other possibility; Stevens could win his case(s) on appeal, and be allowed to serve.
And that’s how it breaks down. Perhaps in a literal sense, though I hope not. In any case, none of this matters all that much except for achieving the magical, mythical 60 seats, and I can’t see that as being all that important save for bragging rights. Still, where votes fall along party lines then 60 seats becomes the number necessary to cut off a Republican filibuster, and the Republicans have shown themselves in the past to be more than willing to resort to filibuster when persuasion hasn’t worked, so I suppose it could be important, after all. But not terribly so; I imagine it will be the rare vote that doesn’t draw votes from one side or the other, and I suspect that the Democrats will find they need more than that magic 60 to really feel comfortable.
Some people are never satisfied.
The Blues Viking
UPDATE 11/7/08: New data--The Coleman-Frankin race in Minnesota is down to just over 200 votes. (Coleman over Frankin, though a recount appears to be inevitable.)
One other bit worth noting: Joe Lieberman, formerly a Democrant but currently an Independant, is having a bit of trouble holding on to his committee chair these days and has been asked to step down by the Democrats. Joe is currently being courted by the Republicans and may start caucusing with them. This would change the balance in the Senate. A bit.
BV
ANOTHER UPDATE 11/12/08:
The Minnesota race is still tight, with Coleman holding on to barely over 200 votes over Frankin.
But the Georgia race is the interesting one; highly placed Republican bigwigs (McCain, Huckabee, Romney and Gulliani, all failed Presidential candidates) are expected to decend upon Georgia in support of Chambliss with Obama sending key mambers of his team in support of Martin.
I'm not sure that the Republican startegy of Big Republicans is a good one; the four defeated wannabe-presidents all come from four different places politically, and you can't even call all of them conservative.
But it's interesting to note the kind of campaign ads that they're running; very anti-Obama, even after Obama has won the election. The plan now seems to be to make people afraid of what Obama would do with a "veto proof" majority in the Senate. (Remember that there already is a majority for the Democrats in the Senate, but short of the magic 60 seats.)
I don't recall a Predident-elect being so demonized before; I don't think it will work. Nor do I think that the Four Dead Horsemen are going to be much of a help. But I may be wrong.
With regard to the situation in Alaska, a bit of a correction is in order. Stevens doesn't automatically lose his seat for being a convicted felon; but he's very likely to be removed from the senate because of it, just the same. But that decision has yet to be made, and when it is made it will be by the Senate as a body. But I wouldn't bet the farm on his staying in office. But then, there are still 9,000 uncounted ballots and Stevens is leading by about 3,200 votes, so this one still counts as undecided.
(Oh, and with regard to Joe Lieberman: Barack Obama has come forward in support of Lieberman retaining both his committee chairmanship and his place in the Democratic caucus, so it looks like he'll be with us for a while yet. Beholden to Obama.)
BV
AND YET ANOTHER UPDATE 11/13/08:
Mark Begich, Mayor of Anchorage, AK, now leads convicted felon Ted Stevens. By 800 or so votes (up from just 3 votes when I turned in last night). This is still very much anyone's race. Go here for details.
BV
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
If you're not doing anything...
...why not cruise on over to my other blog for a look around?
http://blueblogslinks.blogspot.com/
http://blueblogslinks.blogspot.com/
Cue the fat lady...
Will this be my last word on the election, now that it’s over? Probably not...but it’s the last one I’m planning on writing. -BV
In the end, it wasn’t even all that close.
Well, the popular vote was kinda close, with Obama winning by more than five percent. But the Electoral College wasn’t close; not even kinda close. While final numbers weren’t in when I checked this morning, Obama had at least 333 electoral votes sewn up...well over the 270 that he needed. So if you are counting purely by electoral votes, it was a landslide.
But enough of what did happen. Let’s look at a few things that didn’t, things that I (and others) had spoken of as possibilities, things we feared might happen but didn’t.
There was no wide-spread voter fraud, no "hanging chads," no recounts, no Supreme Court selection, no cause to question the results whatsoever. Nor was there any cause given for civil unrest, no need for a stockpile of survival supplies (though I still have that backpack in my trunk).
In short, there wasn’t anything to fear. Not even fear itself. So what was I afraid of?
McCain could have made trouble at the end; he could have vowed to keep fighting, to contest close states, to seek to change the results somehow. Could have, but didn’t. His concession speech was a model of what such speeches should be. While we haven’t seen much of the "old" John McCain in this campaign, the man who earned the title "maverick" and who challenged GWB in the bitter campaigns of the past, we saw him clearly at the very end. It’s a pity we didn’t see that man during the campaign; that man I could have supported (but I probably still would have voted for Obama).
McCain’s supporters could have made a hell of a lot of trouble at the end. They could have risen up in a wave of partisan fury and declared their own results, could have refused to accept the election of Barack Obama. Could have, but didn’t. By and large, they accepted McCain’s defeat, their defeat, with all the graciousness of their candidate.
George Bush could have tried to subvert the will of the people. He could have used some pretext to declare the election results void. He could have caused massive unrest by doing so, and used that unrest to declare a state of emergency and keep himself in power. Could have, but didn’t. His congratulatory speach was briming with pride to have been the leader of a nation where such an election, such a candidate, such a victory was possible (I could even believe he meant it.)
(The above scenario may seem far fetched; indeed, looking back now it certainly does seem far fetched, but this was a real fear that some of us had. Even I have to admit that I thought it possible, if unlikely; read the comments after "Conventional Wisdom part III" to see what I mean.)
Not to mention all of the dire predictions about what might happen if McCain were victorious; dire, but in retrospect unlikely. In any case, they won’t be happening now.
Which only leaves all of the dire predictions about what might happen if Obama wins; though he did win. And frankly, I never thought those were at all likely. I still don’t, but if I’m going to be proven wrong he’d better get a move on and get into his tyrant costume. Can’t wait all year, you know.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
In the end, it wasn’t even all that close.
Well, the popular vote was kinda close, with Obama winning by more than five percent. But the Electoral College wasn’t close; not even kinda close. While final numbers weren’t in when I checked this morning, Obama had at least 333 electoral votes sewn up...well over the 270 that he needed. So if you are counting purely by electoral votes, it was a landslide.
But enough of what did happen. Let’s look at a few things that didn’t, things that I (and others) had spoken of as possibilities, things we feared might happen but didn’t.
There was no wide-spread voter fraud, no "hanging chads," no recounts, no Supreme Court selection, no cause to question the results whatsoever. Nor was there any cause given for civil unrest, no need for a stockpile of survival supplies (though I still have that backpack in my trunk).
In short, there wasn’t anything to fear. Not even fear itself. So what was I afraid of?
McCain could have made trouble at the end; he could have vowed to keep fighting, to contest close states, to seek to change the results somehow. Could have, but didn’t. His concession speech was a model of what such speeches should be. While we haven’t seen much of the "old" John McCain in this campaign, the man who earned the title "maverick" and who challenged GWB in the bitter campaigns of the past, we saw him clearly at the very end. It’s a pity we didn’t see that man during the campaign; that man I could have supported (but I probably still would have voted for Obama).
McCain’s supporters could have made a hell of a lot of trouble at the end. They could have risen up in a wave of partisan fury and declared their own results, could have refused to accept the election of Barack Obama. Could have, but didn’t. By and large, they accepted McCain’s defeat, their defeat, with all the graciousness of their candidate.
George Bush could have tried to subvert the will of the people. He could have used some pretext to declare the election results void. He could have caused massive unrest by doing so, and used that unrest to declare a state of emergency and keep himself in power. Could have, but didn’t. His congratulatory speach was briming with pride to have been the leader of a nation where such an election, such a candidate, such a victory was possible (I could even believe he meant it.)
(The above scenario may seem far fetched; indeed, looking back now it certainly does seem far fetched, but this was a real fear that some of us had. Even I have to admit that I thought it possible, if unlikely; read the comments after "Conventional Wisdom part III" to see what I mean.)
Not to mention all of the dire predictions about what might happen if McCain were victorious; dire, but in retrospect unlikely. In any case, they won’t be happening now.
Which only leaves all of the dire predictions about what might happen if Obama wins; though he did win. And frankly, I never thought those were at all likely. I still don’t, but if I’m going to be proven wrong he’d better get a move on and get into his tyrant costume. Can’t wait all year, you know.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Mandate, Mandate, Who’s Got the Mandate...
UPDATED Wednesday Nov. 5 2008 9:30 PM
If you were to go by the electoral votes, the election was won by Obama in something near a landslide; 349 to 159 (when last I heard; the numbers may have changed some). If you go by electoral votes, it was a clear mandate for Barack Obama and the Democrats.
I don’t go by electoral votes.
The word "mandate" is one that gets over-used during and after elections. The victors are always saying that they’ve received a "mandate" from the people and the losers are saying "Mandate? WHAT mandate?" And when the tables are turned, when the roles are reversed, someone else is claiming a mandate and someone else is saying it ain’t so.
The dictionary isn’t all that helpful; mine defines "mandate" as "an authorization to act given by an electorate to its representative" and by that definition any elected representative can say they’ve got a mandate. But a mandate to do what?
A mandate to do something implies something to do; somthing specific. A "general" mandate, a blanket authority to do what the elected official damn well pleases, isn't iomplied (in my view) by anything in the U.S. electoral system. I can’t remember any candidate for any office who ever ran on a single issue; likewise, I cannot conceive of any office that restricts its elected representative to deciding just one issue. When we elect people to office, we expect them to use their best judgment and act accordingly, but to think they’ve got any kind of a mandate to do anything is absurd.
Well, mostly absurd; a candidate who won a vast majority of the popular vote could say they’ve got a mandate from the people (though I’d still ask, to do what?); someone who has a scant 52% majority can’t.
As happy as I am about Obama’s victory, I must point out that his majority in the overall popular vote was 52%.
Just the same, Obama isn’t going to be just the President of those 52%. He’s our President, yours and mine and Keith Olbermann’s and Rush Limbaugh’s. All of ours. But this is more than just our responsibility to support them; it’s also their responsibility to serve us.
This, I think, is where the current Bush administration had failed. They stopped behaving as our servants, and started believing that we served them.
Think about it. They’ve curtailed our rights and tried to secure for themselves privileges far beyond those granted by the U.S. Constitution. They’ve detained and questioned and punished and spied and intimidated, all in the name of America, in our name, and clamed it was all for our own good and we shouldn’t ask questions. (That the courts, including the Supreme Court, have been calling them on this right left and center is a vindication of the system of checks and balances, the system which keeps any one branch of government from becoming too powerful, which the administration has also tried to gut.) All this we initially let them do...because we were doing what we were supposed to do, supporting our President in a time of crisis.
They dropped the ball, and we replaced them. That is also what we were supposed to do.
But don’t read more into it than that; if the Republicans had done a better job they’d still be in power. Saying that the Democrats have a "mandate" because they’ve won a 52% (barely over half of the electorate) majority is itself dangerous.
I remember George Bush and his supporters claiming a mandate after winning in 2000, and they didn’t even have a majority. Al Gore got the majority. But through a bit of manipulation through the Supreme Court, Bush was selected to be our President. No reasonable person could claim a mandate under those circumstances, yet there they were claiming a mandate.
And even though Obama won fair and square, even though he actually did get a majority, Obama won with a thin majority of the popular vote; it would be incorrect to claim that Obama has a mandate.
Even if he does have more of one than George W. Bush.
The Blues Viking
UPDATE: 9:30 (ish) PM--I've just been listening to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC refuting the assertion that Obama had no mandate; her point was that if Bush could claim a mandate in 2004 then Obama should certainly be able to claim one now. My point is that GWB had no business claiming a mandate in 2004 (much less in 2000) and just because GWB did it and got away with it that's no reason for Obama to behave in the same manner. I had hoped for better; and, to his credit, Obama's not the one making that claim, it's being made for him. By people like Rachel Maddow.
As much as I like her show (I watch it nearly every weeknight) I've got to say this is crap. Yes, Bush claimed a mandate in 2004, but he had an extremely thin victory and had no business doing so; and even though Obama has more of a right to claim a mandate than GWB he still doesn't have all that much. According to my dictionary, any majority can correctly be termed a mandate; but if you're saying that a "mandate" of eleven people in twenty is enough to claim that you've been given broad authority to do as you please than you're no better than GWB. Frankly, I think Obama is better than that. I hope so, anyway.
BV
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
If you were to go by the electoral votes, the election was won by Obama in something near a landslide; 349 to 159 (when last I heard; the numbers may have changed some). If you go by electoral votes, it was a clear mandate for Barack Obama and the Democrats.
I don’t go by electoral votes.
The word "mandate" is one that gets over-used during and after elections. The victors are always saying that they’ve received a "mandate" from the people and the losers are saying "Mandate? WHAT mandate?" And when the tables are turned, when the roles are reversed, someone else is claiming a mandate and someone else is saying it ain’t so.
The dictionary isn’t all that helpful; mine defines "mandate" as "an authorization to act given by an electorate to its representative" and by that definition any elected representative can say they’ve got a mandate. But a mandate to do what?
A mandate to do something implies something to do; somthing specific. A "general" mandate, a blanket authority to do what the elected official damn well pleases, isn't iomplied (in my view) by anything in the U.S. electoral system. I can’t remember any candidate for any office who ever ran on a single issue; likewise, I cannot conceive of any office that restricts its elected representative to deciding just one issue. When we elect people to office, we expect them to use their best judgment and act accordingly, but to think they’ve got any kind of a mandate to do anything is absurd.
Well, mostly absurd; a candidate who won a vast majority of the popular vote could say they’ve got a mandate from the people (though I’d still ask, to do what?); someone who has a scant 52% majority can’t.
As happy as I am about Obama’s victory, I must point out that his majority in the overall popular vote was 52%.
Just the same, Obama isn’t going to be just the President of those 52%. He’s our President, yours and mine and Keith Olbermann’s and Rush Limbaugh’s. All of ours. But this is more than just our responsibility to support them; it’s also their responsibility to serve us.
This, I think, is where the current Bush administration had failed. They stopped behaving as our servants, and started believing that we served them.
Think about it. They’ve curtailed our rights and tried to secure for themselves privileges far beyond those granted by the U.S. Constitution. They’ve detained and questioned and punished and spied and intimidated, all in the name of America, in our name, and clamed it was all for our own good and we shouldn’t ask questions. (That the courts, including the Supreme Court, have been calling them on this right left and center is a vindication of the system of checks and balances, the system which keeps any one branch of government from becoming too powerful, which the administration has also tried to gut.) All this we initially let them do...because we were doing what we were supposed to do, supporting our President in a time of crisis.
They dropped the ball, and we replaced them. That is also what we were supposed to do.
But don’t read more into it than that; if the Republicans had done a better job they’d still be in power. Saying that the Democrats have a "mandate" because they’ve won a 52% (barely over half of the electorate) majority is itself dangerous.
I remember George Bush and his supporters claiming a mandate after winning in 2000, and they didn’t even have a majority. Al Gore got the majority. But through a bit of manipulation through the Supreme Court, Bush was selected to be our President. No reasonable person could claim a mandate under those circumstances, yet there they were claiming a mandate.
And even though Obama won fair and square, even though he actually did get a majority, Obama won with a thin majority of the popular vote; it would be incorrect to claim that Obama has a mandate.
Even if he does have more of one than George W. Bush.
The Blues Viking
UPDATE: 9:30 (ish) PM--I've just been listening to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC refuting the assertion that Obama had no mandate; her point was that if Bush could claim a mandate in 2004 then Obama should certainly be able to claim one now. My point is that GWB had no business claiming a mandate in 2004 (much less in 2000) and just because GWB did it and got away with it that's no reason for Obama to behave in the same manner. I had hoped for better; and, to his credit, Obama's not the one making that claim, it's being made for him. By people like Rachel Maddow.
As much as I like her show (I watch it nearly every weeknight) I've got to say this is crap. Yes, Bush claimed a mandate in 2004, but he had an extremely thin victory and had no business doing so; and even though Obama has more of a right to claim a mandate than GWB he still doesn't have all that much. According to my dictionary, any majority can correctly be termed a mandate; but if you're saying that a "mandate" of eleven people in twenty is enough to claim that you've been given broad authority to do as you please than you're no better than GWB. Frankly, I think Obama is better than that. I hope so, anyway.
BV
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
PRESIDENT Barack Obama
11:00 PM November 4, 2008
It's over.
Barack Obama has been elected the next President of the United States, and in spite of a close popular vote (but hardly challenge-it-in-the-courts close) the electoral college wasn't close; even without all of the votes counted, projected counts all indicate (even on Fox) that Obama has gone well over the 270 electoral votes necessary to secure victory.
(11:13 PM--There has just been a report that John McCain has made the phone call.)
History has been made.
I'll have more to say about this tomorrow, but for now I just wanted to make a note of the fact that he did it. For now, I'll just say this:
Mr. Obama, for good or ill the nation is yours to lead. Lead it well.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
It's over.
Barack Obama has been elected the next President of the United States, and in spite of a close popular vote (but hardly challenge-it-in-the-courts close) the electoral college wasn't close; even without all of the votes counted, projected counts all indicate (even on Fox) that Obama has gone well over the 270 electoral votes necessary to secure victory.
(11:13 PM--There has just been a report that John McCain has made the phone call.)
History has been made.
I'll have more to say about this tomorrow, but for now I just wanted to make a note of the fact that he did it. For now, I'll just say this:
Mr. Obama, for good or ill the nation is yours to lead. Lead it well.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Monday, November 3, 2008
"And, oh, what heights we’ll hit..."
In a few hours, it’ll all be over...or will it? I’m not going to say much tonight, but I want to make one observation:
I’m hearing reports that it may take a few days to count all the absentee and early ballots in some states. You know what that means, don’t you? That we may not know the actual results for a couple of days after the election. Again!
Am I the only one terrified by this? Am I the only one concerned that the specter of the 2000 election will return to haunt us? Is this, my worst nightmare, likely to actually come to pass?
I hope not...I hope that the election tomorrow delivers clear and decisive results. I hope that Americans can accept those results. I hope that no one tries again to steal the election from us. I hope. And since so much of this election has been about hope, I’m going to hold on to a bit and wish you all well tomorrow, no matter who you’re voting for.
Like the song says;
"...on with the show, this is it."
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
I’m hearing reports that it may take a few days to count all the absentee and early ballots in some states. You know what that means, don’t you? That we may not know the actual results for a couple of days after the election. Again!
Am I the only one terrified by this? Am I the only one concerned that the specter of the 2000 election will return to haunt us? Is this, my worst nightmare, likely to actually come to pass?
I hope not...I hope that the election tomorrow delivers clear and decisive results. I hope that Americans can accept those results. I hope that no one tries again to steal the election from us. I hope. And since so much of this election has been about hope, I’m going to hold on to a bit and wish you all well tomorrow, no matter who you’re voting for.
Like the song says;
"...on with the show, this is it."
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Days of Future Past
I’ve been asked what I’m going to do with myself (actually, with this blog) after Tuesday’s election.
In spite of whatever intentions I may have had, this blog has become (mostly) a liberal anti-McCain blog. I can’t much help that; the news is mostly about the election these days and most of the news favors Obama.
In one sense, I’m following national trends. In another sense, I am a commentator and not a reporter. I am under no obligation to be impartial, and feel only a moral obligation to be honest. Having looked at some other blogs lately (most of which run to family snapshots or ads for computer services, but focusing on the political blogs specifically) very few "bloggers" appear to be interested in doing the "fair and impartial" thing. Blogs, or "web logs" as they’re properly called, are inherently biased one way or the other, according to how the owner(s) see the world. And, frankly, I’ve found a hell of a lot more right wing blogs than left wing blogs. Or maybe it’s that the right wing, conservative blogs tend to be more vocal and draw attention to themselves better.
But I’m not a conservative. Never have been. And since I’m the one running this blog, it’s not going to be a conservative blog. It’s going to reflect my own opinions and bias. And yes, like most human beings I have a bias. I make no apologies for that.
None of which, of course, answers the question, "What am I going to do with this blog after the election?" Well, it kind of depends on how the election turns out.
Obviously, it’s a two horse race and only one can win. ("In the end, there can be only one.") If McCain wins, and it’s still at least possible, don’t expect much to change here. I’ll still be griping about the party in power, still gripping about the man in charge, still speaking my mind even if it’s not much of a mind to speak of.
And if Obama wins, as expected, what then? Pretty much the same, I expect. Whatever happens, I don’t expect all that much to change. Washington has a way of dimming hope as newly-elected candidates run their good intentions headlong into a wall of red tape, inertia and lobbyists that stands in opposition to actually getting anywhere.
How well I remember the early days of the Clinton administration, when Bill Clinton tried to make good on his campaign promises to reform health care. He placed his wife Hillary in charge of the operation and she tried, oh how she tried, but in her efforts to change a fundamental way Washington worked she found that there was far too much Washington to change. The Clinton health care effort met so much resistance in congress that it was abandoned and never saw the light of day. And we still don’t have proper health care.
Washington is like that; the road to hell, the one paved with good intentions, starts in DC. The stone steps of the Capitol are where many hopes have been dashed. The city has seen many a tired metaphor breath it’s last gasp of...oh, hell, I can’t keep this up.
The point is, hope dies in Washington. Or at least it gets real damn sick.
But back to the future of this blog...
It’s not like I haven’t tried other topics besides politics. I’ve done pieces on technology, books, atheism, survivalism, Medicaid, historical reenactment, the Internet, and my late brother. So I’m in no danger of running out of topics, even if (and I find this highly unlikely) politics ceases to be something worth blogging about.
In other words, people are dumb and will continue to do dumb things, and I expect that I’ll be there to chronicle all of it. Human nature will continue to give me material, even if the political well runs dry.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
In spite of whatever intentions I may have had, this blog has become (mostly) a liberal anti-McCain blog. I can’t much help that; the news is mostly about the election these days and most of the news favors Obama.
In one sense, I’m following national trends. In another sense, I am a commentator and not a reporter. I am under no obligation to be impartial, and feel only a moral obligation to be honest. Having looked at some other blogs lately (most of which run to family snapshots or ads for computer services, but focusing on the political blogs specifically) very few "bloggers" appear to be interested in doing the "fair and impartial" thing. Blogs, or "web logs" as they’re properly called, are inherently biased one way or the other, according to how the owner(s) see the world. And, frankly, I’ve found a hell of a lot more right wing blogs than left wing blogs. Or maybe it’s that the right wing, conservative blogs tend to be more vocal and draw attention to themselves better.
But I’m not a conservative. Never have been. And since I’m the one running this blog, it’s not going to be a conservative blog. It’s going to reflect my own opinions and bias. And yes, like most human beings I have a bias. I make no apologies for that.
None of which, of course, answers the question, "What am I going to do with this blog after the election?" Well, it kind of depends on how the election turns out.
Obviously, it’s a two horse race and only one can win. ("In the end, there can be only one.") If McCain wins, and it’s still at least possible, don’t expect much to change here. I’ll still be griping about the party in power, still gripping about the man in charge, still speaking my mind even if it’s not much of a mind to speak of.
And if Obama wins, as expected, what then? Pretty much the same, I expect. Whatever happens, I don’t expect all that much to change. Washington has a way of dimming hope as newly-elected candidates run their good intentions headlong into a wall of red tape, inertia and lobbyists that stands in opposition to actually getting anywhere.
How well I remember the early days of the Clinton administration, when Bill Clinton tried to make good on his campaign promises to reform health care. He placed his wife Hillary in charge of the operation and she tried, oh how she tried, but in her efforts to change a fundamental way Washington worked she found that there was far too much Washington to change. The Clinton health care effort met so much resistance in congress that it was abandoned and never saw the light of day. And we still don’t have proper health care.
Washington is like that; the road to hell, the one paved with good intentions, starts in DC. The stone steps of the Capitol are where many hopes have been dashed. The city has seen many a tired metaphor breath it’s last gasp of...oh, hell, I can’t keep this up.
The point is, hope dies in Washington. Or at least it gets real damn sick.
But back to the future of this blog...
It’s not like I haven’t tried other topics besides politics. I’ve done pieces on technology, books, atheism, survivalism, Medicaid, historical reenactment, the Internet, and my late brother. So I’m in no danger of running out of topics, even if (and I find this highly unlikely) politics ceases to be something worth blogging about.
In other words, people are dumb and will continue to do dumb things, and I expect that I’ll be there to chronicle all of it. Human nature will continue to give me material, even if the political well runs dry.
The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
