Tomorrow, the world will be a very different place. We may not feel the effects immediately, but it will be a very different place. Almost everyone seems to accept this reality. Almost everyone...
Just a few predictions found on Huffington Post
Karl Rove
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 338 McCain 200
Matthew Dowd, former Bush strategist
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 338 McCain 200
Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans
House Seats: 250 Democrats 185 Republicans
George Will, conservative columnist
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 378 McCain 160
Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans
House Seats: 254 Democrats 181 Republicans
Donna Brazile, Democratic strategist
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 343
Senate Seats: 59 Democrats 39 Republicans
House Seats: 262 Democrats 173 Republicans
George Stephanopoulos, ABC News anchor
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 353 McCain 185
Senate Seats: 58 Democrats (59 if there's a run-off in Georgia) Republicans 40
House Seats: Democrats 264 Republicans 171
Mark Halperin, Time editor
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 349 McCain 189
Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 40 Republicans
House Seats: 261 Democrats 174 Republicans
Chris Matthews, MSNBC host
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 338 McCain 200
Senate Seats: 56 Democrats 42 Republicans
House Seats: 264 Democrats 171 Republicans
Nate Silver, statistician
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 347 McCain 191
Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans
House Seats: 258 Democrats 177 Republicans
Chris Cillizza, Washington Post columnist
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: 312 McCain 226
Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans
House Seats: 266 Democrats 169 Republicans
Arianna Huffington
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 318 McCain 220
Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 40 Republicans
House Seats: 254 Democrats 181 Republicans
Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard editor
Winner: McCain
Electoral College: Obama 252 McCain 286
Senate Seats: 55 Democrats 43 Republicans
House Seats: 255 Democrats 180 Republicans
Eleanor Clift, political writer
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 349 McCain 189
Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 40 Republicans
House Seats: 265 Democrats 170 Republicans
Markos Moulitas, DailyKos founder
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 390 McCain 148
Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 40 Republicans
House Seats: 268 Democrats 167 Republicans
Ed Rollins, Republican strategist
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 353 McCain 185
Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans
House Seats: 249 Democrats 186 Republicans
Paul Begala, Democratic strategist
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 325 McCain 213
Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 40 Republicans
James Carville, Democratic strategist
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 330 McCain 208
Senate Seats: 60 Democrats 38 Republicans
Charles Mahtesian, Politico national politics editor
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 311 McCain 227
Senate Seats: 56 Democrats 42 Republicans
House Seats: 256 Democrats 179 Republicans
Morton Kondracke, Fox News host
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 379 McCain 159
Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans
House Seats: 269 Democrats 166 Republicans
David Plotz, Slate editor
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 336 McCain 202
Senate Seats: 59 Democrats 39 Republicans
House Seats: 257 Democrats 178 Republicans
Alex Castellanos, Republican media consultant
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 318 McCain 220
Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 42 Republicans
Dan Gerstein, Democratic media consultant, former manager of Sen. Joe Lieberman's re-election campaign
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 318 McCain 220
Senate Seats: 55 Democrats 43 Republicans
House Seats: 260 Democrats 175 Republicans
Tom Doherty, New York Republican consultant
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 331 McCain 207
Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 42 Republicans
House Seats: 255 Democrats 180 Republicans
Robert Y. Shapiro, Columbia University political scientist
Winner: Obama
Popular Vote: Obama 53 McCain 47
Senate Seats: 58 Democrats 40 Republicans
House Seats: 259 Democrats 176 Republicans
Gary Jacobson, (University of California-San Diego political scientist
Winner: Obama
Major Party Vote: 52.7 Obama 47.3 McCain
Senate: 57 Democrats 43 Republicans
House: 264 Democrats 171 Republican
Sandy Maisel, Colby College political scientist
Winner: Obama
Electoral College 353 Obama 185 McCain
Senate Seats 59 Democrats 41 Republicans
House 265 Democrats 170 Republicans
Robert Erickson, Columbia University political scientist
Winner: Obama
Popular Vote: Obama 52.5 McCain 47.5
Senate Seats: 59 Democrats 41 Republicans
House Seats: 253 Democrats 182 Republicans
Alan Abramowitz, Emory University political scientist
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 361 McCain 177
Senate Seats: 59 Democrats 40 Republicans (with a run-off in Georgia)
House Seats: 256 Democrats 179 Republicans
Reminds me of the Sesame Street Game "One Of These Is Not Like The Others"
November 3, 2008
November 1, 2008
The Narcotic Farm
NPR provides a look into one of our society's first attempts at rehabilitation instead of punishment as a means of addressing the serious social problem of drug addiction.
The Narcotic Farm
The Narcotic Farm
Please Vote No on Prop 8
If you live in California, or know someone who does, please read this post.
I feel incredibly moved by what I just saw.
I have to admit that although much of my political ideology is often terribly obvious and might lead one to believe that my position on this issue could simply be assumed, in reality it has not been so simple for me. This is largely a result of the time in which I grew into political maturity.
As a Democrat whose first self-initiated volunteer experience was holding signs on street corners for Al Gore, you can imagine what kind of political disappointments I have endured and what a formative impact they have had on me. I remember liking Bill Clinton but mostly because my parent did. Ever since I have been capable of independent thought on the state of the world around me, how it came to be, and how it might be different, I have only experienced that Democrats are not good enough to be part of that process.
Being beaten into the ground in this way during such personally influential years has an affect on one's psyche. Was it possible my parents didn't know everything??? This realization is an earth-shattering moment for every young adult. But it led me toward a much more critical approach to understanding politics and the deeply held beliefs that often drive it. I began to ask questions about why I believed what I believed and why most other people apparently did not.
Although I realized it was possible I wasn't "right" on every issue, mostly I just hated it when someone assumed I was naive for holding my beliefs with such ferocity. And I swore that I wouldn't do the same to others because of my experiences; I swore that I wouldn't take someone else's deeply held, fundamental beliefs for granted.
This is how I ended up ambivalent toward gay marriage. The argument I heard most often against gay marriage was that marriage was a sacred religious institution defined first in the Bible as between one man and one woman. While I personally didn't agree with this strict adherence to dogmatic tradition, especially when so many other Biblical traditions appeared to no longer be tenable in today's society, my experiences refused to let me simply brush aside other people's fundamental beliefs. Indeed, they still don't permit such dismissiveness.
While I want to respect those who still hold their beliefs about the sanctity of marriage dearly, I cannot support the idea of denying any law-abiding, loving, constructive member of society equal rights. Most especially when the upholding of those rights does not prevent anyone from fulfilling the religious and moral obligations to marriage they have prescribed for themselves.
If Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders has the courage to purge any ambivalence on this issue from his rhetoric, it is time I do as well.
If you live in California, please, please, vote NO on Proposition 8.
I feel incredibly moved by what I just saw.
I have to admit that although much of my political ideology is often terribly obvious and might lead one to believe that my position on this issue could simply be assumed, in reality it has not been so simple for me. This is largely a result of the time in which I grew into political maturity.
As a Democrat whose first self-initiated volunteer experience was holding signs on street corners for Al Gore, you can imagine what kind of political disappointments I have endured and what a formative impact they have had on me. I remember liking Bill Clinton but mostly because my parent did. Ever since I have been capable of independent thought on the state of the world around me, how it came to be, and how it might be different, I have only experienced that Democrats are not good enough to be part of that process.
Being beaten into the ground in this way during such personally influential years has an affect on one's psyche. Was it possible my parents didn't know everything??? This realization is an earth-shattering moment for every young adult. But it led me toward a much more critical approach to understanding politics and the deeply held beliefs that often drive it. I began to ask questions about why I believed what I believed and why most other people apparently did not.
Although I realized it was possible I wasn't "right" on every issue, mostly I just hated it when someone assumed I was naive for holding my beliefs with such ferocity. And I swore that I wouldn't do the same to others because of my experiences; I swore that I wouldn't take someone else's deeply held, fundamental beliefs for granted.
This is how I ended up ambivalent toward gay marriage. The argument I heard most often against gay marriage was that marriage was a sacred religious institution defined first in the Bible as between one man and one woman. While I personally didn't agree with this strict adherence to dogmatic tradition, especially when so many other Biblical traditions appeared to no longer be tenable in today's society, my experiences refused to let me simply brush aside other people's fundamental beliefs. Indeed, they still don't permit such dismissiveness.
While I want to respect those who still hold their beliefs about the sanctity of marriage dearly, I cannot support the idea of denying any law-abiding, loving, constructive member of society equal rights. Most especially when the upholding of those rights does not prevent anyone from fulfilling the religious and moral obligations to marriage they have prescribed for themselves.
If Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders has the courage to purge any ambivalence on this issue from his rhetoric, it is time I do as well.
If you live in California, please, please, vote NO on Proposition 8.
October 27, 2008
Abaraka!
A tribute to Obama in Bambara, the most wide-spread local language in Mali.
Allah ka san chaman di Obama ma!
(May God give Obama many years!)
Allah ka san chaman di Obama ma!
(May God give Obama many years!)
Thud!
Same day, same opportunity to say something powerful. And this is how McCain chose to use that opportunity. It's like his eye is badly cut open and he can't even see what he is swinging at as he slowly begins to fall to the floor. Thud!
TKO
Obama lands his first of a probable series of knock-out punches with less than a minute left on the clock.
It is easy to forget how inspirational Obama's oratory could be. Speeches like these were what propelled him past Hillary in the primaries. But like all amazing things, his highly inspirational speeches couldn't be sustained for long stretches without people growing numb. Recall the "Obama fatigue" that began circulating throughout the news shortly after his return from a world tour this summer. So he seamlessly morphed into a much more conventional, yet adept, pol. He just kept landing persistent blows to the rib cage outside the direct vision of most spectators. We could see McCain was weakening but we couldn't understand exactly what the cause was. Obama knew that a knock-out punch would be all that more easy if he had laid the ground work in advance. This is the beginning of that last flurry of punches that will send McCain to the floor. What a finish...
It is easy to forget how inspirational Obama's oratory could be. Speeches like these were what propelled him past Hillary in the primaries. But like all amazing things, his highly inspirational speeches couldn't be sustained for long stretches without people growing numb. Recall the "Obama fatigue" that began circulating throughout the news shortly after his return from a world tour this summer. So he seamlessly morphed into a much more conventional, yet adept, pol. He just kept landing persistent blows to the rib cage outside the direct vision of most spectators. We could see McCain was weakening but we couldn't understand exactly what the cause was. Obama knew that a knock-out punch would be all that more easy if he had laid the ground work in advance. This is the beginning of that last flurry of punches that will send McCain to the floor. What a finish...
WFTV or WTF V
This interview from WFTV is crazy. If you feel that Obama and Biden have a socialist agenda go ahead and ask that. But what is going on here is beyond contempt for basic journalistic integrity. These are radical talking points, not investigative inquiries. I think WFTV might better be labeled WTFV, as in What The F#*@ Vision.
It's Over
One could have reasonably concluded this a week ago but I believe it is undeniable now. If there was an October Surprise it would have been played by now. Even if McCain does pull something out of his sleeve, Obama's crisis management skills have been on full display this election season several times and they've been masterful. This edited clip from TPM sums it up pretty well.
Regardless of the fact that this clip has obviously been processed through the "filter of the biased media," it cannot take away the things people are saying and most importantly who is saying them.
Regardless of the fact that this clip has obviously been processed through the "filter of the biased media," it cannot take away the things people are saying and most importantly who is saying them.
October 25, 2008
Law School
I just got my LSAT score back. When I look to the statistics from the 2008 incoming class at the University of Washington, I notice that there were 44 people last year who applied to the law school in my score/GPA range. 2 were accepted. Some pop culture wisdom seems appropriate here.
What the heck. I'm going for it.
What the heck. I'm going for it.
Vote No on Prop 8
I found these two videos over at Ezra Klein.
Ezra's take...
I think the Prop 8 opponent's strategy is telling of just how far we have come that it is even a plausible scenario that there are more people who either support or tolerate gay marriage then are threatened by it.
(Italics mine)
Ezra's take...
The messaging of these ads is pretty interesting: They're aimed more at turning out supporters than convincing opponents. The message is fairly clear: You can be a troglodyte, or you can step forward into the future. There's the chance that the ads will turn off as many voters as they'll turn on, but the Prop 8 opponents are making a simple bet: That when activated, their base is bigger. It's not a bet I've seen gay marriage proponents make before, and it suggests that their polling and data shows the issue changing rapidly enough that they feel able to run a campaign that attempts to win, rather than just tries to avoid losing.
I think the Prop 8 opponent's strategy is telling of just how far we have come that it is even a plausible scenario that there are more people who either support or tolerate gay marriage then are threatened by it.
(Italics mine)
October 24, 2008
Prescience
If you can get past the slapstick and presentational differences between Chris Rock and Barack Obama there are some amazing similarities between the dichotomy portrayed in this clip (from the movie "Head of State" released in 2003) and the one that has emerged during this election. I especially like the "knock 'em out" line referring to parental responsibilities.
(Video found on Slate)
(Video found on Slate)
October 23, 2008
Collective Preferences and Voting
I am loving my econ class. I just wanted to state that again.
A fun question brought up in class: "Can a voting mechanism always find a socially-optimal allocation?"
Let's begin with the following voter preference scenario...
A brief (and probably obvious) explanation. Person 1 prefers "policy option" A to policy option B. And person 1 prefers policy option B to policy option C. And so on for persons 2 and 3.
Basic logic dictates that if someone prefers A to B and B to C, then through the transitive property that person should prefer A to C. But look at how the above preferences when processed through a voting mechanism yield an illogical outcome.
If policy options A and B were on a ballot A would win because persons 1 and 3 would vote for it while only person 2 would vote for B. Likewise, if options B and C were on the ballot, B would win because persons 1 and 2 would vote for it while only person 3 would vote for C. So clearly we have established democratically that collectively the group prefers A to B and B to C.
But look what happens if you put options A and C on the ballot. C wins because persons 2 and 3 would vote for it while only person 1 would vote for A. This now has given us the following illogical result.
Collectively, the group prefers A to B and B to C. But it prefers C to A.
As it turns out, the only way for a voting mechanism to yield a socially-optimal (and logical) result is if the individuals have an identical preference ordering.
A fun question brought up in class: "Can a voting mechanism always find a socially-optimal allocation?"
Let's begin with the following voter preference scenario...
A brief (and probably obvious) explanation. Person 1 prefers "policy option" A to policy option B. And person 1 prefers policy option B to policy option C. And so on for persons 2 and 3.
Basic logic dictates that if someone prefers A to B and B to C, then through the transitive property that person should prefer A to C. But look at how the above preferences when processed through a voting mechanism yield an illogical outcome.
If policy options A and B were on a ballot A would win because persons 1 and 3 would vote for it while only person 2 would vote for B. Likewise, if options B and C were on the ballot, B would win because persons 1 and 2 would vote for it while only person 3 would vote for C. So clearly we have established democratically that collectively the group prefers A to B and B to C.
But look what happens if you put options A and C on the ballot. C wins because persons 2 and 3 would vote for it while only person 1 would vote for A. This now has given us the following illogical result.
Collectively, the group prefers A to B and B to C. But it prefers C to A.
As it turns out, the only way for a voting mechanism to yield a socially-optimal (and logical) result is if the individuals have an identical preference ordering.
October 22, 2008
It's Been A Rough Year...
A friend points out a sad truth for Seattle sports fans.
After watching our poor pathetic Seahawks lose yet another game last night, I was sad and embarrassed to hear one of the commentators sum things up for our city:
"So, the Seahawks are one and five, the Huskies are zero and six, the Mariners have lost 101 games, and their basketball team moved to Oklahoma City. It's been a rough year for Seattle."
Why yes, yes it has. Thanks for pointing that out. Ugh, totally tragic.
Yes... Totally
Economic vs. Social Populism
Dick Morris argues completely against my posts on income disparity in his recent article, "The Populism Divide." Not too surprising given the source but I do agree that a dichotomy of economic vs. social populism has emerged as an (if not the) issue driving this election. Dick concludes that social populism has made a comeback as if it is going to represent a real challenge to the economic populism of Obama (to be honest its Edwards' issue which almost every other democratic candidate usurped). Social populism won the day four years ago, leaving the democrats dumbfounded at how they lost the election on "values." But when the economy is in the tank as it currently is, people know that social populism is a luxury they can't afford right now. I think that has been pretty obvious over the last few weeks and will be made even more so on Nov. 4th.
October 21, 2008
Income Growth Despairity part 2.
Some more economic food for thought. Take a look at the first significant spike. The crash of the stock market followed immediately. Now look at where we are heading right now.
Perhaps this financial crises should not be as surprising as it has been and perhaps there are policies that could have been implemented to avoid such income disparities. This evidence does not prove causality but it does suggest that there may be a reasonable link.
Perhaps this financial crises should not be as surprising as it has been and perhaps there are policies that could have been implemented to avoid such income disparities. This evidence does not prove causality but it does suggest that there may be a reasonable link.
Income Growth Despairity
I am taking a fascinating class right now in microeconomics. This wasn't my favorite class as an undergrad but at a public policy school you get the chance to think about some basic principles of economics in terms of policy (of course) and how making certain policy decisions will have certain impacts. Today we were discussing various types of efficiency models and comparing efficiency and equity.
Over the last 20-30 years people have debated the efficacy of trickle-down economics. The question is does trickle-down economics do what its name implies? Does it trickle down and reach those at the lower strata of the socio-economic classes? What I saw in class today seemed to suggest convincingly that it doesn't and in fact did more to create income growth inequity than any other economic policy between 1947 and 1979.
Take a look at the following slide from today's lecture.
Now look at the data between 1980 and 2005.
Leaves an impression, huh?
Over the last 20-30 years people have debated the efficacy of trickle-down economics. The question is does trickle-down economics do what its name implies? Does it trickle down and reach those at the lower strata of the socio-economic classes? What I saw in class today seemed to suggest convincingly that it doesn't and in fact did more to create income growth inequity than any other economic policy between 1947 and 1979.
Take a look at the following slide from today's lecture.
Now look at the data between 1980 and 2005.
Leaves an impression, huh?
October 19, 2008
The Powell Endorsement
The significance of the Powell endorsement is not that it happened so much as the way in which it happened. He single handedly repudiated all the disjointed elements of McCain's strategy. He helps us realize that the haphazard way in which he has run his campaign should be a warning about the way he would run our country. On the flip side, one of the most compelling arguments for Obama, in my mind, has been his politically and intellectually mature and deliberate approach to his campaign and what that tells us about how he would run our country.
(Video found on Daily Kos)
October 16, 2008
Electric Sheep
I can't tell if this guy is super- or sub-human. I keep waiting for him to say, “My mind is going, I can feel it. I'm afraid,” the famous last words of HAL. He is definitely not normal, but often times the world's geniuses are not.
(Dime dropped by Micah)
(Dime dropped by Micah)
McCain at the Al Smith Dinner
This is the respectable McCain that I think most of us have forgotten exits.
McCain shows some tremendous grace here. I wonder how much of the unbecoming behavior we have seen over the last few weeks is more a sign of poor judgement in letting himself be over handled by advisors. It happens to many people who run for president and usually results in that person losing. It happened to Al Gore and it happened to John Kerry, although it looked very different coming from the DNC. I wonder what McCain's campaign would have looked like had he not surrounded himself (or at least let himself be surrounded) with some truly cynical people.
McCain shows some tremendous grace here. I wonder how much of the unbecoming behavior we have seen over the last few weeks is more a sign of poor judgement in letting himself be over handled by advisors. It happens to many people who run for president and usually results in that person losing. It happened to Al Gore and it happened to John Kerry, although it looked very different coming from the DNC. I wonder what McCain's campaign would have looked like had he not surrounded himself (or at least let himself be surrounded) with some truly cynical people.
Musical McCain
This was too good not to post. Who knew McCain could actually be funny? His attempts at humor on the stump seem less successful.
john mccain does streisand
For more musical politicians go to Time Magazine online. There are some doozies in there. I really like John Ashcroft's Let the Eagle Soar.
john mccain does streisand
For more musical politicians go to Time Magazine online. There are some doozies in there. I really like John Ashcroft's Let the Eagle Soar.
Drunk Pumpkins
This has been circulating for a couple of weeks now but it is entertaining enough to warrant posting!
It is pretty similar to what my Peace Corps group created in Mali a few years ago for Halloween but where only watermelon were available and the supposed catalyst was giardia not alcohol.
It is pretty similar to what my Peace Corps group created in Mali a few years ago for Halloween but where only watermelon were available and the supposed catalyst was giardia not alcohol.
Substance, finally... mostly
Health Care
Now McCain does have a point to make here on Health Care but he just didn't make it well. What he should have asked is, "Why do you think it is a good idea to force people to buy health insurance for their children? Shouldn't that be up to the parent's discretion?" That would be a legitimate question. The reason this was a legitimate debate moment despite McCain not asking this question is because he was trying to get at a fundamental difference in philosophies between the two candidates on Health Care. He was trying to establish that there is an option in this election. Either you believe in everyone pitching in to reduce overall health care costs or you believe in your personal freedom to choose what you want to do with you own health care. McCain just posed the question poorly.
Taxes
Again, fundamental differences in philosophy. Either you believe in Reagan's trickle-down economics or you believe that middle class America is the backbone of the economy. Regardless of whether Obama's plan will actually work to get this economy going again, I think Obama is going to win this debate because trickle-down economics is exactly was hasn't been working the last eight years during the Bush administration. The tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy was supposed to create millions of new jobs for middle class Americans. Of course, we know that that hasn't been the case.
Roe v Wade, Supreme Court Justices
McCain had a very respectable answer here (whether of or not you agree with a litmus test approach) until the end when he said, "I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test." I could be interpreting this incorrectly, but it sounds to me like he is saying that supporting Roe v Wade is evidence that you are not qualified. If that is what he is saying than there is a litmus test for Mccain. I am not arguing wether or not there should be a litmus test but you can't have it both ways.
Other thoughts:
There were also great exchanges on trade and climate change. Overall, I think the voters who watched the debate are the ones who really won. Bob Schieffer was by far the most effective moderator. For the full transcript go here.
There were also great exchanges on trade and climate change. Overall, I think the voters who watched the debate are the ones who really won. Bob Schieffer was by far the most effective moderator. For the full transcript go here.
(Completely shallow and substance-free thought: Do John and Cindy McCain look like a scary Halloween couple in the picture above?)
October 15, 2008
QRM
School is starting to settle down a bit. The first few weeks were pretty chaotic as I tried to balance the demanding work load with studying for the LSAT (done!!!!) and two weddings. I feel like I can really start to focus on school now.
October 14, 2008
Hiatus
The last few weeks have been incredibly busy. So much so that I completely abandoned this blog. I am hoping now that I have some major events behind me (LSAT, two weddings, and starting grad school), that I will be able to give this site some more attention. It was a horribly inopportune time to become busy given all the action over the last few weeks. I really regret not being able to post on the first three debates although being busy was a great excuse to not have to pretend I know anything about the economy, what drives it, and what solutions seem most practical. Hopefully I'll be back tomorrow with something insightful or, at a minimum, entertaining.
September 12, 2008
Unaccompanied Thought
From what I have seen thus far of Charlie Gibson's interview with Palin, his questions have been almost exclusively policy related questions. Not "pig on lipstick" questions. Where was this Charlie Gibson during the ABC hosted Democratic primary debate last April?
Dangerous
James Fallows points out that we all have our areas of interest. Some like sports, some like fine dining, some like music, some like international affairs. Our ability to speak on these issues intelligently and with fluency is directly related to our interest in them. If you are not sufficiently interested in them then you wont have familiarized yourself with broader points of an ongoing debate surrounding that issue. This interview seems to make clear this is the case with Palin and international affairs.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with not having an interest in international affairs, it does seem disqualifying for someone who is supposed to be ready to be commander in chief should they ever be required to do so for reasons tragic or otherwise.
But here is the money quote from James
A further point. The truly toxic combination of traits GW Bush brought to decision making was:
1) Ignorance
2) Lack of curiosity
3) "Decisiveness"
That is, he was not broadly informed to begin with (point 1). He did not seek out new information (#2); but he nonetheless prided himself (#3) on making broad, bold decisions quickly, and then sticking to them to show resoluteness.
This looks an awful lot like Palin's response above. To accept such a combination of qualities is not only undesirable, its dangerous.
QRM
Much in the way that many of Orwell's journal entries seem to be centered around the weather, I find that most of mine seem to be centered around food. Having thus established this...
Drill, Baby, Drill!!!
From Ezra...
This, it should be noted, is the primary solution emphasized by the woman John McCain says"knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America." At least he left a "probably" in there as a hedge.
Incidentally, that comment is actually a little chilling. Imagine Sarah Palin was actually an extremely learned governor on energy issues, rather than just an extremely effective shill for Alaskan energy interests. She still wouldn't be the country's leading energy expert. She's been governor of Alaska for 18 months. She did not study energy before that. She is not a hydrocarbon engineer, or an energy economist. She is not a geologist or a surveyor. She studied journalism in college, and did not proceed to cover energy as a beat. Obviously, it's a good and authentic thing that John McCain is utterly unaware of the existence of expert opinion on this issue, and I wouldn't dare criticize his inspiring
faith in the common-sense wisdom of the finest governor Alaska has had within the last year, but it's still worth pointing out.
Cooling a Hyper-Sensitivity
Yesterday morning, it goes without saying, I was pretty depressed - a knee-jerk reaction, really, to a currently unfavorable trend for the Obama campaign. I feel I have regained a certain degree of composure and feel once again confident in Obama's (and in my opinion the American people's) future prospects. Here is where a little perspective is useful. When I think about the state of the primary race leading up to its last couple of months it was equally hand-wringing. But one thing Obama never did was listen to all the unsolicited advice calling for drastic actions. These actions betray desperation. Obama's actions on the contrary have always thus far been measured and appropriate to the task at hand - a quality that seems remarkably demonstrative of how he would approach crises as president and which reflects a temperament that has been conspicuously absent in the oval office over the last eight years. He avoids the knee-jerk reactions that seem all too inherently natural and necessary to the rest of us. The following quote from the New York Times' Adam Nagourney is relevant here...
This may sound typical of the rhetoric one would expect from a campaign that seems to have lost a bit of steam as of late. I would believe so as well had I not already been through this during the primaries when Obama was faced with a far more formidable candidate in Clinton.
At this point, instead of screaming, yelling, ranting and raving about what Obama should do, what opportunities he is missing, what line of attack he should be taking, I think we could all do ourselves a favor and realize that thus far Obama has proven not only to be a talented speaker, and someone whose stances on the issues jive better with the broader trends of the American populace, but also a talented and redoubtable politician.
... Mr. Obama’s aides said they were confident with the course of the campaign. They said that, other than making some shifts around the edges, particularly in response to Mr. McCain’s effort to seize the change issue from Mr. Obama, they were not planning any major deviation from a strategy that called for a steady escalation of attacks on Mr. McCain as the race heads toward the debates.
[...]
“We’re sensitive to the fluid dynamics of the campaign, but we have a game plan and a strategy,” said Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe. “We’re familiar with this. And I’m sure between now and Nov. 4 there will be another period of hand-wringing and bed-wetting. It comes with the territory.”
This may sound typical of the rhetoric one would expect from a campaign that seems to have lost a bit of steam as of late. I would believe so as well had I not already been through this during the primaries when Obama was faced with a far more formidable candidate in Clinton.
At this point, instead of screaming, yelling, ranting and raving about what Obama should do, what opportunities he is missing, what line of attack he should be taking, I think we could all do ourselves a favor and realize that thus far Obama has proven not only to be a talented speaker, and someone whose stances on the issues jive better with the broader trends of the American populace, but also a talented and redoubtable politician.
Winning Arguments
I received this email over a year ago but I was just going over some old emails and I think this one deserves reissuing.
I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:
Suppose you are at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove that Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you'll be damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say instead: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1, 452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."
If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published on May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say, "You left your soiled underwear in my bathroom."
Memorize this list:
Let me put it this way
In terms of
Vis-a-vis
Per se
As it were
Qua
So to speak
You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.", "e.g.", and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you don't."
Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say, "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money."
You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say, "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D."
Only a fool would challenge that statement.
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:
You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples to oranges.
What are your parameters?
This last one is especially valuable. Nobody (other than engineers and policy wonks) has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means.
Here's how to use your comebacks:
You say: As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873...
Your opponent says: Lincoln died in 1865.
You say: You're begging the question.
You say: Liberians, like most Asians...
Your opponent says: Liberia is in Africa.
You say: You're being defensive.
So that's it. You now know how to out-argue anybody.
HOW TO ARGUE AND WIN EVERYTIME
I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:
Drink liquor
Suppose you are at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.
Make things up
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove that Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you'll be damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say instead: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1, 452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."
NOTE: Always make up exact figures
Use meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases.
Memorize this list:
Let me put it this way
In terms of
Vis-a-vis
Per se
As it were
Qua
So to speak
You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.", "e.g.", and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you don't."
Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say, "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money."
You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say, "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D."
Only a fool would challenge that statement.
Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:
You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples to oranges.
What are your parameters?
This last one is especially valuable. Nobody (other than engineers and policy wonks) has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means.
Here's how to use your comebacks:
You say: As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873...
Your opponent says: Lincoln died in 1865.
You say: You're begging the question.
You say: Liberians, like most Asians...
Your opponent says: Liberia is in Africa.
You say: You're being defensive.
So that's it. You now know how to out-argue anybody.
September 11, 2008
Let Us Remember
A Good Place To Start
Civics is grossly underrepresented in today's classrooms. I have not read through the textbooks but Project Citizen seems to get at the right idea.
Entire classes of students or members of youth or adult organizations work cooperatively to identify a public policy problem in their community. They then research the problem, evaluate alternative solutions, develop their own solution in the form of a public policy, and create a political action plan to enlist local or state authorities to adopt their proposed policy. Participants develop a portfolio of their work and present their project in a public hearing showcase before a panel of civic-minded community members.
Quote of the Day
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
- Thomas Jefferson
Some Good Advice
Not just for Obama but for all of us who are pulling our hair out.
From Andrew Sullivan...
If you had told me two months ago that this would be the state of the race at this point I would have told you you were crazy. I have gone through a wide range of emotions over the last week and a half since Palin was tapped as McCain's runningmate - first shock, then cautious optimism, then tepid concern, now depression. I think the recent polls say a lot about the degree of maturity with which the electorate is approaching this election. If this election had ANYTHING to do with the issues that affect American's Obama would be blowing McCain out of the water. Unfortunately the arguments for Palin (not McCain mind you) are that she is tough, she knows what I am going through, and I can relate to her. These are admirable qualities. I have learned a concept while preparing for the LSAT that seems to me very appropriately applied here - the average voter is apparently mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition. That is, while it may be necessary for our leaders to be tough and able to relate to what we are going through it is not sufficient. It does not qualify you for the position. I still have yet to hear from anyone who is not a surrogate one policy area that they agree with her on. I don't blame them - she doesn't spend much time talking about policy so how could they know. But a candidate's stance on the issues goes a long way in bridging the gap between necessary and sufficient conditions. Perhaps not the entire gap but they too are indispensable, they too are necessary. Yet they are being almost entirely ignored.
While I don't lend too much credence to polls normally, they can be indicators of broad general trends. So while a poll showing Obama up by 2 or 3 nationally doesnt really tell you whether or not he is up it does tell you that the race is relatively close. So as Obama has gone from an average of 6 or 8 point lead to being down by about 2 or 3 points it has become obvious that the trend is not in his favor regardless of his actual position. This together with what I said above is the primary source of my current depression. It is not that Obama is not doing well, its why he is not doing well and what that says about the current intellectual maturity of the electorate and the lack of seriousness with which they are approaching this election.
From Andrew Sullivan...
Just a word about the usual excrescence from Karl Rove this morning. Obama knows this lipstick thing is a cynical, knowingly dishonest attempt to push the news cycle one more day into triviality before Palin has to actually face real scrutiny, and we have our first chance to see whether she is who she says she is. It's a desperate tactic to run out the clock or to find a way to navigate the now-tsunami of evidence that Sarah Palin is unfit for the vice-presidency on account of her total lack of knowledge or expertise in foreign affairs, the thinnness and extremism and recklessness of her public record as mayor and governor, and the obvious and most important fact that she clearly cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
Obama mustn't let these schoolyard tactics unbalance him. He hasn't in the slightest, so far, mind you, a feat of astonishing mental and psychological calm. My advice for what it's worth: Hang in. The facts are on your side and the issues are overwhelmingly in your favor. They're trying to force you to blink. Don't. Hysteria will end at some point.
Patience and steel.
Patience and steel
If you had told me two months ago that this would be the state of the race at this point I would have told you you were crazy. I have gone through a wide range of emotions over the last week and a half since Palin was tapped as McCain's runningmate - first shock, then cautious optimism, then tepid concern, now depression. I think the recent polls say a lot about the degree of maturity with which the electorate is approaching this election. If this election had ANYTHING to do with the issues that affect American's Obama would be blowing McCain out of the water. Unfortunately the arguments for Palin (not McCain mind you) are that she is tough, she knows what I am going through, and I can relate to her. These are admirable qualities. I have learned a concept while preparing for the LSAT that seems to me very appropriately applied here - the average voter is apparently mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition. That is, while it may be necessary for our leaders to be tough and able to relate to what we are going through it is not sufficient. It does not qualify you for the position. I still have yet to hear from anyone who is not a surrogate one policy area that they agree with her on. I don't blame them - she doesn't spend much time talking about policy so how could they know. But a candidate's stance on the issues goes a long way in bridging the gap between necessary and sufficient conditions. Perhaps not the entire gap but they too are indispensable, they too are necessary. Yet they are being almost entirely ignored.
While I don't lend too much credence to polls normally, they can be indicators of broad general trends. So while a poll showing Obama up by 2 or 3 nationally doesnt really tell you whether or not he is up it does tell you that the race is relatively close. So as Obama has gone from an average of 6 or 8 point lead to being down by about 2 or 3 points it has become obvious that the trend is not in his favor regardless of his actual position. This together with what I said above is the primary source of my current depression. It is not that Obama is not doing well, its why he is not doing well and what that says about the current intellectual maturity of the electorate and the lack of seriousness with which they are approaching this election.
September 10, 2008
September 9, 2008
Happy Birthday!
Happy Birthday to Micah - my brother, my best friend, and a really tall dude. Allah ka fete diya!
September 7, 2008
Who Needs Books Anyway?
Lessons learned from this video:
1) Mega sports centers good (especially ones that perpetually operate on subsidies and therefore continue to be a drain on the financial viability of a small town)
2) Libraries bad (especially ones with books containing words in them that we don't like)
And we are supposed to be believe she is a fiscal conservative??? Just imagine this type of decision making carried out on a national level.
I am not against a sports center if it is an economically intelligent idea to pursue. Especially in a small town with few other opportunities for generating revenue (so we can afford that library). But I'd love to see the business plan which suggested that this was going to be a profitable endeavor. While I value sports in society if I had to choose between a publicly funded play area and a publicly funded library and it was my job to promote the well-being of my community, I would error on the side of education.
September 6, 2008
Culture Wars!
Does anyone actually want to be engaged in this kind of culture war? Is this the kind of division that serves anyone's best interest? What part of community organizing does not put country first? How does Palin's rhetoric here put country first? I understand that for a long time small town America has felt looked down on by the "liberal elite." But its not the liberal elite that have shit on your country for the last eight years. And now that we are given a chance to reflect upon the destructiveness of our being so divided over the last couple of decades why are we not bleeding a desire to really put our country first by putting that which divides us aside? In this election who even attempts to offer us a chance at this? McCain? Palin???
QRM
I have fallen into a bit of a crush with Carla Bruni - yes, that Carla Bruni, the first lady (or is it the third lady?) of France. Her new album, "No Promises" is as folksy and sexy as I have heard. To get an idea go to emusic and have a listen.
PS - Anyone else find the album title ironic coming from a politician's wife?
Mutual Bounce = Wash
At this point it looks like the Democratic and Republican conventions provided moderate bounces for their respective candidates effectively making them a wash. What they did do was bring the electorate into the race. As hard as it might be to imagine, I think the majority of the American people have not been paying close attention to the campaigns thus far but the Palin tabloids and resulting drama have sparked people's interest and, in my opinion, reduced politics down to its lowest common denominator. Depressing. But at least people are paying attention now as was demonstrated by Obama, Palin, and McCain each grabbing record breaking ratings for their convention speeches (Palin for a VP and Obama and McCain for Ps).
So the question now is, Now that they have the audiences attention what are the candidates going to do with it? Honestly, I don't know. Most of what I have heard and read seems to cohere around the idea that Obama should ignore Palin and go after McCain. And although McCain looks better off than before the conventions in terms of having injected some life back into his campaign, I don't think there is much consensus about where he goes from here. Most people believe that he has effectively rallied the base. But in a year when only 28% of the electorate identifies themselves as Republicans, I am not sure that's really what he wanted to do.
Personally, I think Obama went too far on focusing on the issues. He needs to find a good balance. Before he was "all talk" and got a reputation as a Hollywood star with many admitting to Obama fatigue. Since then - and for the most part during the convention - he tried to get back to the meat and potatoes issues that really effect people's lives. Both are appealing to me. But, although I wish the American people at large based their decisions to a greater degree on the issues, it is pretty obvious that this most do not. If McCain can make this race about character and personal biography, he stands a chance. If Obama can make this about the issues and reclaiming America's position as a valued leader in the world then McCain is toast. We'll see...
September 5, 2008
QRM
These two make a great combination!
I have found that I have a growing affinity for an almost masochistic level spiciness. Its not good until your sweating, your eyes are watering, and your nose is running.
I have found that I have a growing affinity for an almost masochistic level spiciness. Its not good until your sweating, your eyes are watering, and your nose is running.
QRM
I am apparently alone among my friends who think that McCain's speech was politically effective.
September 4, 2008
Great Finish
Here are my initial thought in all their unrefinedness...
The very ending of John McCain's speech sounded almost as if Obama had delivered it. Well not quite. He is not the orator Obama is but at the end I actually had a bit of goosebumpage. It was obviously from a very conservative perspective in that there was plenty of emphasis on being strong and standing up for and fighting for what's right as opposed to Obama's we can all do this together if we work together. Definitely a difference in tone between those two messages but I think they both work for their respective presenters. I didn't hear too much specifics on policies but at least he focused some of his attention back on the American people. And I still think that the majority of his speech sounded more like the acceptance speech for a Medal of Honor than a expounding of what he would do as President for the average American. Overall, though I think this will be politically effective.
Palin's Speech
Best response I have read so far...
Over the past week, Palin had begun looking like a character from Twin Peaks. Tonight, she looked like an up-and-coming Republican politician. It was an auspicious debut, the sort of address that would be judged a success if she were a newcomer keynoting the convention. She landed clean punches, temporarily silenced some of her critics, and retold John McCain's story with a keen sense for the drama of his experience. But I expected more. As delivered, the speech was effective as theater but curiously hollow as an enduring campaign argument: It contained the seeds of a medal ceremony for McCain, and marked Palin as a politician to watch, but it said nothing about the presidency she hopes to be part of.From Ezra Klein
An early example came in the halfhearted attempt to redefine Sarah Palin. No one doubts that things have happened in Alaska over the past 18 months, and Palin has been involved in some of them. But I wasn't quite expecting them to cede the 42 years before she assumed the governorship.
The crucial juncture came early in the speech. They had the opening to weave a narrative around her preparation for the vice presidency, and decided instead to throw it away on a jab against Barack Obama. "I was mayor of my hometown," she said. "And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."
Good line. But no responsibilities followed. Instead we heard about Obama's characterization of economically depressed Americans as "bitter." Another straight shot, but a missed opportunity. Palin could have taken the moment to define her mayoralty as an education in the concerns of small town Americans, or an experience leading to the realization that government works best when it is closest. Instead, she essentially agreed with her critics: Her experience amounts to 18 months as governor of one of the smallest states. Tonight, she put the best spin on that experience, but she didn't challenge its basic shape or limitations. She chose the applause line, not the deeper argument. In that sense, the speech was slave to the same priorities that governed her selection as vice president: It was aimed at wining the news cycle, not the campaign.
Again and again, strong narratives were sacrificed for good lines. Later, Palin set forth a powerful contrast when she said, "Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things. And then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things. They're the ones who are good for more than talk." Again, a clean shot landed on Obama, but I listened for the "great things" John McCain would do to no avail. I went back to the transcript. "It's a long way from the fear and pain and squalor of a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office," Palin said a few paragraphs later.
Nowhere did we hear of the great things John McCain would do, Instead, we heard, over and over, of the agonies John McCain endured. The presidency was presented tonight as if it were the Medal of Honor, or a purple heart. As if it is only a quirk of our political process that stops us from simply finding the longest serving prisoner of war and gifting him the keys to the office. On a rhetorical level, it was effective, if only because McCain's story is so powerful. But it is not, fundamentally, a sustainable approach to this campaign. If McCain is more appealing for what he did than what he will do, he will lose the election. It is, after all, only during the convention that you get to tell your story. Throughout the rest of the campaign, you have to argue with your opponent. And tonight, Palin added very little to that argument.
September 3, 2008
QRM
Today, my brother, Micah, moves into the apartment that will be our apartment for the next year. If I recall correctly ours is the top, middle apt! I wish I could be in Seattle to help move in but with less than two weeks left in San Diego I know I will be there soon enough.
The Effects of Torture
From Ezra...
And a commenter takes Thompson's idea to its logical conclusion.
I do not intend to denigrate McCain's experience as a POW. I cannot begin to imagine what such a tragic and painful experience would do to me. But one can see what a profound impact it has had on his life and worldview. Whether that has an impact on your decision to vote for him up to you although I, too, am a bit skeptical of the POW=POTUS argument.
But I think the more important thing to take from the commenter's caustic remark is not that anyone who is being held at Gitmo is going to be a future world leader, but rather... What kind of worldview are we creating in the prisoners we torture and does that really serve our country's best interests?
After a long retelling of McCain's experience as a prisoner, Thompson intoned, "civilizations since the dawn of time have looked for this sort of character in their leaders." Which sort of raises the question: Should we just find the longest serving POW in the country and elect him president?
And a commenter takes Thompson's idea to its logical conclusion.
So torture builds character that leads to leadership.
I can only imagine the sign above Gitmo:
"Welcome future world leaders"
I do not intend to denigrate McCain's experience as a POW. I cannot begin to imagine what such a tragic and painful experience would do to me. But one can see what a profound impact it has had on his life and worldview. Whether that has an impact on your decision to vote for him up to you although I, too, am a bit skeptical of the POW=POTUS argument.
But I think the more important thing to take from the commenter's caustic remark is not that anyone who is being held at Gitmo is going to be a future world leader, but rather... What kind of worldview are we creating in the prisoners we torture and does that really serve our country's best interests?
September 2, 2008
QRM
Today was the first day back to school for many today. Not for me, though. I have to admit that I am very much looking forward to starting school again. I am sure I will look back and ask why I was once school starts.
September 1, 2008
Low-Key Biden?
Ezra makes an interesting observation...
Even from early on in the Democratic Primary I really liked Joe Biden. My one concern about him being a VP selection for Obama was his seeming inability to keep his mouth shut. I even speculated just after Biden was tapped that that might have been the reason he was picked. But perhaps I was mistaken. Thus far (it's still early) it does seem to be the case that Biden is the better VP pick of the two. Of course the bar doesn't seem to have been set very high.
And this brings up a second issue. There has been some comparing and contrasting between Obama's and Palin's records and whether or not their experience is sufficient to be President of the United States. Obviously, I think experience is desirable. I think most others would agree. But what sold me on Obama's readiness to be president was his book the Audacity of Hope. Point by point he laid out a comprehensive vision for the future of America on every issue from domestic policy to foreign affairs that seemed both practical and ambitious while demonstrating a great deal of maturity and sober-mindedness. But what has continued to confirm my faith in his ability has been the his management of the last 19 months. When you compare Obama's campaign to his two main rivals - Clinton and McCain - his has been one of composure and a general sense of knowing what they want to accomplish and brilliant execution. "Low-Key" Biden is just one manifestation of this tremendous demonstration of leadership.
In this election, Joe Biden is proving the low-key, stable, drama-free vice presidential candidate who basically does his job and stays out of the news. Joe Biden.
Even from early on in the Democratic Primary I really liked Joe Biden. My one concern about him being a VP selection for Obama was his seeming inability to keep his mouth shut. I even speculated just after Biden was tapped that that might have been the reason he was picked. But perhaps I was mistaken. Thus far (it's still early) it does seem to be the case that Biden is the better VP pick of the two. Of course the bar doesn't seem to have been set very high.
And this brings up a second issue. There has been some comparing and contrasting between Obama's and Palin's records and whether or not their experience is sufficient to be President of the United States. Obviously, I think experience is desirable. I think most others would agree. But what sold me on Obama's readiness to be president was his book the Audacity of Hope. Point by point he laid out a comprehensive vision for the future of America on every issue from domestic policy to foreign affairs that seemed both practical and ambitious while demonstrating a great deal of maturity and sober-mindedness. But what has continued to confirm my faith in his ability has been the his management of the last 19 months. When you compare Obama's campaign to his two main rivals - Clinton and McCain - his has been one of composure and a general sense of knowing what they want to accomplish and brilliant execution. "Low-Key" Biden is just one manifestation of this tremendous demonstration of leadership.
QRM
Two things perhaps not so mundane...
1) Although the damage from Hurricane Gustav will undoubtably be tragic, it seems undeniable that we learned a lot from Hurricane Katrina. Damage is one thing, lives are another.
2) Happy Labor Day!
1) Although the damage from Hurricane Gustav will undoubtably be tragic, it seems undeniable that we learned a lot from Hurricane Katrina. Damage is one thing, lives are another.
2) Happy Labor Day!
August 29, 2008
A Good Day To Be A Blogger
Between Obama's speech
and McCain's VP pick...
it's a good day to be a blogger.
Andrew Sullivan has posted 50 times today and its only mid day.
and McCain's VP pick...
it's a good day to be a blogger.
Andrew Sullivan has posted 50 times today and its only mid day.
Main Point Questions
For some obscure reason, on the LSAT reading comprehension questions I can answer almost any question about the passage except, "What is the author's main point?" This is truly embarrassing but perhaps by acknowledging it publicly I will force myself to be able to distinguish purpose from relevance.
In recognition of other's ability to do so I would like to quote Marc Ambinder's compendium of Barack's speech tonight...
Who he is. Why McCain is bad. We need to come together.
I do not posses a talent for pithiness. But I respect it whole-heatedly!
In recognition of other's ability to do so I would like to quote Marc Ambinder's compendium of Barack's speech tonight...
Who he is. Why McCain is bad. We need to come together.
I do not posses a talent for pithiness. But I respect it whole-heatedly!
History
Tonight I arrived at Cal Western's student lounge around 2pm. My intention was to study the whole night through, breaking only to watch Barack Obama's speech. But once the buzz began there was no point resisting. I was captivated. What would he say? Would he be aggressive and yet respectful? Would he clearly lay out, once and for all, the specifics of his policy proposals in a distilled enough fashion such that they could still be digested by the electorate at large?
My initial response is... WOW! This is a unique man in history. But it is important to define unique here. Unique does NOT mean special, nor does it mean rare. It has inherent within it a sense of singularity. That there is no one person who is like Obama. Now before someone pulls the Messiah card, it is important to distinguish between the holy and the unique. I do not intend to say that Obama is divine - rather that he is the only person right now who inspires and engages such a disparate and ostensibly mutually exclusive cast of characters towards such collective aspirations.
Many have spoken accolades of Obama's speech tonight but the comments I find most expressive of my thoughts come from Joshua Marshall of TPM...
I thought this was a very strong speech. About exactly what was needed. It was a strong speech. He made the case for himself; he laid out clear policy goals; and he aggressively set forth the stakes of the campaign. He made the case against John McCain while not attacking his character -- which makes a clear contrast with McCain's aggressively personal, denigrating campaign strategy.
I've heard a few people say that he seemed to hold back from giving the soaring speech he might have given. But I suspect that was intentional and I think a good decision. Meta-themes and tonality form the deeper structure of political communication. And the aim of this speech was not eloquence but strength.
I've said myself that Obama's campaign needs to be more aggressive. They need to hold the initiative, and attack, attack, attack. But attacking doesn't mean bludgeoning -- at least not necessarily. It means making the case and defining the argument. Not running a campaign by reacting -- well or not -- to your opponent's attacks. As Paul Begala said in our interview with him a couple days ago, it's not about rapid response but rapid attack. Personally I might prefer an even more aggressive tack from Obama's surrogates. But I think here Obama himself had the balance just right.
Contrary to what might seem as my unwavering support of Obama, there are times when I question whether his actions are are really what this country needs. Tonight I am a proud supporter of Barack Obama.
For further exploration of the accomplishments of Obama's speech tonight PLEASE see Ezra Klein.
August 28, 2008
Can I Get An Advisor?
First there was Phil Gramm and the "nation of winers" slip. And now this...
Ezra Klein scoffs
To keep reading Ezra's response click here.
Mr. Goodman, who helped craft Sen. John McCain's health care policy, said anyone with access to an emergency room effectively has insurance, albeit the government acts as the payer of last resort. (Hospital emergency rooms by law cannot turn away a patient in need of immediate care.)
"So I have a solution. And it will cost not one thin dime," Mr. Goodman said. "The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care.
"So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."
Ezra Klein scoffs
Yep, problem solved. If you can't afford a doctor, but the census bureau stops describing you as uninsured, voila! Your problem is solved! And if you're getting your wages garnished because you fell ill and had to be rushed to the emergency room but the census bureau puts you in a different category, voila! You problem is solved! And if you have cancer, and you go to the ER, and they refer you to a hospital for scheduled treatment, and the hospital turns you away because you don't have insurance, I bet they can call John Goodman and, voila! Problem will be solved.
This is what we call a Kinsleyan gaffe: A mistake that reveals the truth. John McCain's health care plan is, by the admission of his own advisers, not particularly interested in the problem of the uninsured...
To keep reading Ezra's response click here.
August 27, 2008
QRM
Today, I unleashed my inner elitist self by ordering a pizza. What was on it? Pears and arugula. And it was good!
Of Course It Was Better
Like many Obama supporters, I have been pretty disgusted with some of President Bill Clinton's remarks over the last year and a half. But, man, can that guy give a speech. Last night Hillary's speech was the best I have ever seen from her. But you can tell that it was the culmination of over a year of stumping all over America and a lot of hard work.
I think for Bill Clinton it just comes naturally. Its not fair. But that's the way it is. He did everything he needed to do without once saying something that he didn't believe. He never said Obama would be better than Hillary. He never even directly said that Obama was ready to be Comander in Chief. But he did say that he is ready to be President and spoke very convincingly so. And he outlined a future for America that was not as soaring as Obama tends to be but just as inspiring (if not more so, shhh). Take a look for yourself...
I think for Bill Clinton it just comes naturally. Its not fair. But that's the way it is. He did everything he needed to do without once saying something that he didn't believe. He never said Obama would be better than Hillary. He never even directly said that Obama was ready to be Comander in Chief. But he did say that he is ready to be President and spoke very convincingly so. And he outlined a future for America that was not as soaring as Obama tends to be but just as inspiring (if not more so, shhh). Take a look for yourself...
The Question...
I love regular old common bloggers. Everyone expects something great from the likes of Andrew Sullivan. But when you get something that is truely insightful from an unestablished blogger, the kind who has zero comments on his blogs day in day out, that is fun. John from Talent Earthquake Productions blogs much in the same way I do and seems to gravitate toward the same sources as I do. But I think for the most part he is more insightful. Today he posted his thoughts on what Obama's speech is going to look like tomorrow and suggests a question that Obama should pose that I think would be as wonderful as it is simple.
"[W]hat is [McCain's] plan to restore American greatness?"
I feel this is not something that has really been explored. Obama has touched on it but he should focus more of his energy on it. Its something that almost every American can rally around and is so simple that it requires almost no thinking. Obama has talked a lot about reclaiming America's place in the world. About a foreign policy that enables that while ceding nothing that could compromise our sovereignty. But I have yet to hear anything from McCain that speaks to this issue. What I hear instead is a series of policies that ensures that America is beholden to no one. Being beholden to no one is what North Korea is doing now. But that is something entirely different than restoring America's greatness. So the obvious question is, Do you want to be isolationist North Korea or do you want to engage in and lead a global community of shared responsibilities and shared opportunities?
Actually, President Bill Clinton hinted at this idea of restoring American greatness tonight in his address at the Democratic National Convention in a brilliant and succinct manner when he said "People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power."
This demonstrates that our greatness lies within ourselves. It is something that is manifested not by being better than others but by being our best selves. Now some might try to point to a contradiction in the two statements I have just made - that our greatness depends on our engaging in a global community and that our greatness lies within ourselves. But the two could not be more dependent on each other. America's greatest self is actually realized through its engagement with and providing leadership within the global community.
If Obama can adopt this story line - the one that demands McCain to spell out how he will restore American greatness - he is already perfectly positioned to capitalize on it with predictable results. He has already set the tone for it, his policies are already lined up for it. All he needs to do now is ask the question.
"[W]hat is [McCain's] plan to restore American greatness?"
I feel this is not something that has really been explored. Obama has touched on it but he should focus more of his energy on it. Its something that almost every American can rally around and is so simple that it requires almost no thinking. Obama has talked a lot about reclaiming America's place in the world. About a foreign policy that enables that while ceding nothing that could compromise our sovereignty. But I have yet to hear anything from McCain that speaks to this issue. What I hear instead is a series of policies that ensures that America is beholden to no one. Being beholden to no one is what North Korea is doing now. But that is something entirely different than restoring America's greatness. So the obvious question is, Do you want to be isolationist North Korea or do you want to engage in and lead a global community of shared responsibilities and shared opportunities?
Actually, President Bill Clinton hinted at this idea of restoring American greatness tonight in his address at the Democratic National Convention in a brilliant and succinct manner when he said "People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power."
This demonstrates that our greatness lies within ourselves. It is something that is manifested not by being better than others but by being our best selves. Now some might try to point to a contradiction in the two statements I have just made - that our greatness depends on our engaging in a global community and that our greatness lies within ourselves. But the two could not be more dependent on each other. America's greatest self is actually realized through its engagement with and providing leadership within the global community.
If Obama can adopt this story line - the one that demands McCain to spell out how he will restore American greatness - he is already perfectly positioned to capitalize on it with predictable results. He has already set the tone for it, his policies are already lined up for it. All he needs to do now is ask the question.
Twitter What?
As I peruse the web, more and more I have been hearing about Twitter. Most of the time I saw in in live-blogging contexts, for example when Marc Ambinder from The Atlantic Monthly twittered the DNC night two...
Live From The Floor
#DNC08 Michael Chabon will be at the Tattered Corner bookstore today. 56 minutes ago
#DNC08 Obama campaign DID review HRC speech beforehand, aides say. about an hour ago
#DNC08 Plouffe says independent swing-voting women are key to Obama election... More on blog later about 2 hours ago
#DNC08 No Springsteen at Invesco Field. about 3 hours ago
#DNC08 Live on Katie Couric's convention webcast: WWE's Battista! about 14 hours ago
#DNC08 Obama "loves" HRC's speech.. Nodding and clapping, per aide about 14 hours ago
#DNC08 HRC "twin cities" line gets loudest applause of convention. about 14 hours ago
#DNC08 about 14 hours ago
#DNC08 "Unity" signs.... about 14 hours ago
So I decided to finally find out what this Twitter thing is all about. Here it is...
Interesting for sure and it seems to be like my QRM on steroids. For now though I am not sure that I need to be spending more time online so I am not sold - although I am sure its great for others!
Live From The Floor
#DNC08 Michael Chabon will be at the Tattered Corner bookstore today. 56 minutes ago
#DNC08 Obama campaign DID review HRC speech beforehand, aides say. about an hour ago
#DNC08 Plouffe says independent swing-voting women are key to Obama election... More on blog later about 2 hours ago
#DNC08 No Springsteen at Invesco Field. about 3 hours ago
#DNC08 Live on Katie Couric's convention webcast: WWE's Battista! about 14 hours ago
#DNC08 Obama "loves" HRC's speech.. Nodding and clapping, per aide about 14 hours ago
#DNC08 HRC "twin cities" line gets loudest applause of convention. about 14 hours ago
#DNC08 about 14 hours ago
#DNC08 "Unity" signs.... about 14 hours ago
So I decided to finally find out what this Twitter thing is all about. Here it is...
Interesting for sure and it seems to be like my QRM on steroids. For now though I am not sure that I need to be spending more time online so I am not sold - although I am sure its great for others!
WOW!
I'm hearing mostly good things about this speech. Personally, I think it was by far her best and I think she said almost everything that she was supposed. The one complaint I have read is that she never explicitly said that she thought Barack was ready to be Commander in Chief - one of her most strident criticisms of him during the primaries. Not sure most people will catch that unless its something that gets heavy play time among the talking heads. Overall, I was more than impressed. But when someone is saying what you want to hear you tend to be so.
(Video found over at Huffpost)
QRM
I'm reverting back to taking two LSAT classes a week instead of four. This should allows me more study time to get my homework done.
August 25, 2008
House of Cards
Here is a new video released by Radiohead.
The song is titled, "House of Cards" and I think the video does a good job of portraying the sense of frailty and precariousness that its title suggests.
The song is titled, "House of Cards" and I think the video does a good job of portraying the sense of frailty and precariousness that its title suggests.
August 24, 2008
If It's Leiberman...
Ezra Klein speculates that McCain could pick Joe Lieberman as his running mate. If he does, consider the contrast to the election 4 years ago. On the one side you have a centrist Republican who has recently shifted to the right coupled with an historically centrist Democrat who recently shifted (pretty significantly) to the right vs. a quasi-centrist democrat (rhetorically at least) coupled with an intensely devoted leftist. Now compare this to four years ago when it was a leader of neocon ideology propping up a born-again christian vs. an intensely devoted leftist and a social justice advocate (although he was southern).
Initially it seemed to me that McCain's smartest choice would be Lieberman. But think of what this would do to the dynamic of the race. Lines become blurred. And despite the predictable Republican rhetoric we would have a much more nuanced decision to confront. The black and white world of good and evil that has been the foundation of the last eight years of the Bush administration would dissolve. Its tough to say exactly who this would benefit but if I were forced to guess I think overall it would benefit Democrats. In my limited experience Republicans have faired much better when lines are drawn with much greater distinction between "right and wrong," "good and evil," and "us and them."
Initially it seemed to me that McCain's smartest choice would be Lieberman. But think of what this would do to the dynamic of the race. Lines become blurred. And despite the predictable Republican rhetoric we would have a much more nuanced decision to confront. The black and white world of good and evil that has been the foundation of the last eight years of the Bush administration would dissolve. Its tough to say exactly who this would benefit but if I were forced to guess I think overall it would benefit Democrats. In my limited experience Republicans have faired much better when lines are drawn with much greater distinction between "right and wrong," "good and evil," and "us and them."
War Prism
Andrew Sullivan posted the following video today
His post's title was "Noun, Verb, POW" - a play off Joe Biden's humorous criticism of Rudy Guliani and his seeming inability to refer to anything that was not somehow related to 9/11. This meme of noun, verb, pow is starting to take hold in the media. To me, though, a more important point is becoming clear than whether or not McCain is politicizing his experience as a prisoner of war. The more I listen to McCain I realize that he refers back to his POW experience and other military experiences for the simple reason that they have had an obvious transformative effect on him. Rightfully so. And unlike many who returned from Vietnam tragically dysfunctional, McCain has been able to make something quite productive out of his life.
But to ignore the impact that his experiences have had is to ignore something very fundamental about McCain - he would be a war president. The more one listens the more it is obvious that his whole existence is lived through a military prism. I really don't think that this is somehow a relentless attempt to draw attention to his heroism. I think his experiences have had such a profound impact on him that he is no longer able to disassociate military affairs with other aspects of policy.
I do not necessarily mean to imply that one should make such distinctions. I personally feel conflicted as to whether or not one can realistically do so. But it does tell you something about who John McCain is and what to expect from him as a president. If you too believe that all matters have military implications than maybe he is your guy. If not, well, then maybe not.
His post's title was "Noun, Verb, POW" - a play off Joe Biden's humorous criticism of Rudy Guliani and his seeming inability to refer to anything that was not somehow related to 9/11. This meme of noun, verb, pow is starting to take hold in the media. To me, though, a more important point is becoming clear than whether or not McCain is politicizing his experience as a prisoner of war. The more I listen to McCain I realize that he refers back to his POW experience and other military experiences for the simple reason that they have had an obvious transformative effect on him. Rightfully so. And unlike many who returned from Vietnam tragically dysfunctional, McCain has been able to make something quite productive out of his life.
But to ignore the impact that his experiences have had is to ignore something very fundamental about McCain - he would be a war president. The more one listens the more it is obvious that his whole existence is lived through a military prism. I really don't think that this is somehow a relentless attempt to draw attention to his heroism. I think his experiences have had such a profound impact on him that he is no longer able to disassociate military affairs with other aspects of policy.
I do not necessarily mean to imply that one should make such distinctions. I personally feel conflicted as to whether or not one can realistically do so. But it does tell you something about who John McCain is and what to expect from him as a president. If you too believe that all matters have military implications than maybe he is your guy. If not, well, then maybe not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
