House of Eratosthenes

I was reading in a liberal blog all about how people who voted for George W. Bush are a bunch of silly dolts, and of course that people who voted against him and castigate him are much, much smarter. Which liberal blog I was reading, is an interesting story in and of itself, and I will get to that. But for now I want to discuss the premise.

I suppose it is a mechanism in the human mind that determines we see just a tiny bit more of what we want to see, and just a smidgen less of what we do not. On this point, I can’t resist running down a side trail: “everybody knows,” I’m told, that all attributes in the human species, and any other, have culminated as a result of “evolution.” Natural selection. Survival of the fittest. Strengths arriving over time where they did not previously exist, as an evolving species competes for limited resources with other species less-evolved, and thus doomed. What does it have to do with survival in a harsh ecosystem, to recognize falsehoods you find palatible, and to deny truths that you do not? It’s a delicious insult to the prevailing wisdom, but I digress.

Whatever the reason is, the blogger and I both must fall victim to the weakness under discussion, for his “observation” runs starkly against my own:

Those of you who have been around for a while may have noticed something about the conservative blowhards on the net. I’m not just talking about the ones here, but in general. A great example is guns-and-gear forums, which swarm with the kind of person I’m talking about.

The observation?

These people aren’t much for the written word. They can’t spell. They mangle grammar and syntax to varying degrees, sometimes to the point where they’re almost unintelligible. And the worse the problem is, the more vociferous they are about supporting George Bush.

See, I’m sitting here, much more of a veteran than a more practical man would be, of arguing with snotty college students half my age on Internet forums. I have been doing it, pretty much non-stop, since before I began my unbroken biannual vote-at-seven-in-the-morning streak fourteen years ago; since long before I was determined to see the Democratic party go away, permanently; indeed, since you could only do said arguing by going on a “bulletin board” which sent “characters” to your “modem” about what was written in the “room.”

And I’ve noticed the opposite. Take a blistering Internet screed against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney — they aren’t that hard to find — and load it into Microsoft Word, you’re going to tie the grammar/spell checker into a raging, apoplectic fit. Perhaps those who type the screeds, are already doing that, as I’ve noticed “apoplectic fit” is a good description of their disposition to begin with.

But it’s a particularly pronounced problem when they argue with me one-on-one, because I feel this sense of obligation to accurately determine what exactly it is they are trying to tell me. And the initial sentence, in particular, is often missing so many articles and pronouns and plurals, I have to read it three times to find out just why it is, exactly, that I’m such an infuriating simpleton.

What’s written above has to do with grammar/punctuation/spelling. What’s written below has to do with logic.

Whether the Bush-haters throw material up on their own blogs to preach to the choir, or don their armor and do battle on the field in some forum somewhere, overall I’ve noticed substantial swagger and confidence in the belief that after they’re done typing and the dust has settled, the point has been made. Indeed it has been, to those who were predisposed to absorb the point in the first place, but this belief shows an appearance of going much deeper. With a triumph that would draw envy from Daniel Webster himself, fresh out of his famous duel with the devil, or earn a raised eyebrow of approval from Spock, just after he and Kirk have short-circuited their latest ancient alien computer with his devastating logic — Internet left-wingers really do seem to believe, to the depths of their souls, they’ve supported an argument. Oh boy howdy, have they ever. All sane men, behold their argument in trembling fear, for your sanity must surely be questioned if your opinion doesn’t emerge from their onslaught chiseled down to precisely match the liberal’s, like a statue from a block.

And what are these liberal arguments, anyway, which are so incredibly compelling they leave no room for any sane man to disagree, or to even question?

I think it is fair to say, that upon weeding out statistical anomalies like the “observation” above, and an abundance of smarmy ad hominems and bits of humor and sarcasm, I have not seen anything written by the Bush-haters except proclamations of what has earned their approval vs. what has not. I mean, clear back to the first day in early 2000, when we nationally recognized a George W. Bush we could do some arguing about. “Bush did x,” goes the argument — and the all who wait for someone to say “x is wrong, because…” are left waiting indefinitely. That bunny trail will not be tread upon by man. Why should the wrongness of x be explained? It’s wrong — we all know it’s true, it simply is.

Two years ago, a presidential election was shoved into overdrive, and a nation breathlessly awaited the challenging party’s official position on the War on Terror. This country has had its share of war presidents, and it has a dismal history of keeping the powers of those war presidents in check. It would have served our interests well, to diligently explore how our current administration was managing our various conflicts and to address the ways in which our freedoms were being eroded in ways said freedoms didn’t have to be.

Well, we didn’t get that. What we heard, was that “Bush” was “torturing detainees” and that our “civil liberties” were being “lost.” Those who researched what torture meant ended up a little surprised, for they found out that torture had nothing to do with torture. Those who looked into what a what a detainee was, found they really were terrorists and terrorist-wannabes who clung to no possibility of innocence, except wherever “reasonable doubt” was expanded to encompass all existential uncertainties in human affairs. In short, some of those acquainted with the truth, applying an objective common-sense standard of vocabulary selection, might be inclined to call them “terrorists” instead of “detainees,” but the more soothing noun was selected to attend to the chore of persuasion, which should rightfully have been left up to the logic.

It’s wrong to torture detainess, we were told, because we’re better than that. Better than that? Really? Better than “waterboarding” some guy who would kill your family along with hundreds of others? Maybe when we’re stoned out of our gourd on pot and potato chips, watching porn and Star Trek re-runs, too lazy to get up to pee, let alone to do that waterboarding.

That’s what people who “are better than that” do?

Those who water-board, to me, look “better” than those who channel-surf. I don’t wish to impose my system of belief upon others, but to me, it seems a worthy question.

Point is, that the answer was not forthcoming, nor was any debate that might lead to it. Waterboarding, like force-feeding someone on a hunger strike, is “torture”; and torture is “beneath us.” In short, our liberals didn’t like those things. That was the extent of the debate. They didn’t like it. They like other things, and they don’t like those.

A similar frustration lay in store for whatever intrepid soul undertook to explore what civil liberties were being lost. Even today, we do have some anecdotes about people being visited by federal agents over their library transactions, but the anecdotes labor under the problematic burden of being not real. What other examples are there? Well, the point really is that the mindset is hostile to the question being asked, not that the substance of the not-exactly-forthcoming answer is lackluster, but I’ll explore the answer anyway:

You can’t do incredibly stupid and asinine things when you’re on a plane. In this case, arguing with security people over your “Suspected Terrorist” pin, can get you ejected from the flight.

I think most of us would agree, having inspected the issue this far, that the substance is lacking. I can’t do stupid crap on a plane now, but before the September 11 attacks, I couldn’t do that either. What civil liberty has been lost here? My point is not that we never found out; my point is, rather, that to tell us the answer, or to demonstrate some diligence in trying to find an answer, was never deemed a worthy exercise. Like the existence of God, or that God is a man, it was an unprovable system of belief, and was always intended to be that and nothing more.

Go right on down the list, and the pattern holds true. We must have a “global test”; really? Why is that? Inspections and sanctions will work; war won’t. Based on what? You like sanctions and you don’t like war, but other than those what have ya got? Nothing. It’s not a baby, it’s a lump of tissue. And your evidence is? Well, it turns out you like to call it a lump of tissue and you don’t like to call it a baby. That’s all. What else…health care is a right, and all Americans deserve a living wage. Okay, I’ve got an open mind, can we explore what “all Americans” do to deserve a living wage? And the answer is — no, we can’t. They just do.

If you were born when I started arguing with liberals on the “innernets,” within the next few weeks you’d be old enough to go to the store and buy me some beer. And those preceding few paragraphs capture the extent of the “arguing” I’ve seen liberals do. They like this thing; they don’t like that other thing.

Now, about the liberal blog. The fellow who appears to have something to do with running the site, had some very kind words for me and offered to do a “link swap,” in which I mention the name of his blog and his blog mentions the name of mine. We point to each other, in other words. I accommodated his request, as you can see in the sidebar where “Empires Fall” is mentioned. Then, I put up a post commenting on how rare it is nowadays, that people can labor under different opinions on the state of affairs as well as about what should be done — and nevertheless find something positive to point out about the other fellow.

Well, I still believe in stopping to notice people who are worthy of that kind of compliment, and I still think “Empires Fall” is worthy. For the next few days or so, I’ll keep their name in the sidebar.

But at this point, I’ve lost most of my interest in figuring out when, oh when, “House of Eratosthenes” will be mentioned over there. His list of blogs is much longer than mine, but it’s neatly alphabetized and I have to assume I would be somewhere under the letter H. It seems to have slipped their minds. Oh well, it really doesn’t matter, this is the blog that nobody reads…if there is a goal, here, it is to make some objective observations about contemporary events and proven matters of fact, and to draw reasonable inferences from those available facts. Becoming a “phenom” in the blogosphere is not really part of the agenda. It never has been.

But just along the issue of people saying they’ll do things and then doing them, had he done it, it would nevertheless have been appreciated.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Must-Tards VI
Saturday, April 29th, 2006

Must-Tards VI

This blog is named after a library administrator who lived in ancient times, who ran around peeking into holes in the ground, and ended up figuring something out that was much bigger than he was. Drawing upon that as a lesson, we remain open to the possible hidden meaning behind seemingly innocuous observations, which may at first blush appear to have no meaning at all.

One of these observations is, that when people start to talk about womens’ body styles and sizes, and/or the clothes that are made available for those women to put on those bodies, the crap that comes tumbling out of their mouths almost never makes any sense.

Another one of these observations is, there is something deeply ingrained in the culture of that place called “Europe,” something that seems to motivate people to form gassy, flashy, bloated opinions about what someone else should or shouldn’t be doing. Here in America, I can find people who form opinions about anything & everything at the drop of a hat — but there’s this unwritten rule that an effort should be made, just as lip-service if nothing else, to define how the controversy you’re trying to create is any of your business. I mean, at least before you get to the part about commanding other people to do things, with authority you don’t really have.

Now, I don’t know what causes these things to be the way they are, or what kind of case I could build to convince someone these things are so, should that audience gaze upon my arguments with a jaundiced eye. And whoever would undertake to objectively assess whether or not I have any business noticing these things, would be hard-pressed to conclude that I do — just as it’s hard to figure out what business a library administrator has, peeking into wells to find the size of the earth, at a time when there were astronomers and well-diggers employed in doing those very things. I’m not a woman; I don’t buy womens’ clothes. I’m not in Europe, and never have been there.

I just find this kind of disturbing, is all.

Stores urged to drop super-skinny mannequins
By KRISTINA PEDERSEN, Daily Mail 08:24am 28th April 2006

Shop window mannequins should have the figures of “real women”, campaigners said yesterday.

They fear the unrealistic proportions of models in shops could be contributing to the rise of eating disorders.

Over the past 50 years, the average dress size has increased from 12 to 16. The average woman’s weight has gone up from eight to 11 stone.

But most high street fashion stores, including Mango, Topshop and Zara, use mannequins that fit a size six to 10. At 5ft 10in, most are also five inches taller than the average woman.

A spokesman for the Eating Disorder Association said: “The reason the stores have these proportions is because the mannequins are normally standing above shoppers, so as they look upwards the dummies look shorter and squatter than they really are.

“But of course this doesn’t change the fact that they still look slim.”

Officials in Andalusia, Spain, have already banned the use of mannequins smaller than the average Spanish woman.

The Spanish government is hoping to implement this across the country. “We would welcome any ruling that puts less pressure on women to get thinner,” said the Eating Disorder Association spokesman.

“They are already inundated with unrealistic images as it is.

“It is down to advertising and what companies think will help sell their clothes.”

A spokesman for Spanish-owned Zara, said: “We use the standard mannequins from our supplier.

“We would be happy to use larger sizes if they became available.”

Gotta love good ol’ Europe. Everything everybody does is everybody else’s business. Should, should, gotta, must, should, gotta, gotta, must, ought, should.

Now, if this were to be published in an American paper, I would expect to see something that would clarify for me what the Eating Disorder Association is, and how it’s any of their beef. That they don’t like the mannequins the way they are, is crystal-clear to me. I would just like to know 1) is it any “skin off their nose” if the mannequins are left unchanged, and if so, how; and 2) since the Eating Disorder Association wants the mannequins changed, what kinds of powers can that august body bring to bear to make it happen?

I need both of these pieces of information, to decide for myself if this is really “news” to begin with. If EDA doesn’t have an actual interest in the decision, and they don’t have any authority to bring their desires about, then the story boils down to this: Someone somewhere has a negative opinion about the way someone else is doing something. Well, shoot. Look around. Everyone’s got an opinion about everything that’s being done by anybody…and very few of those opinions are flattering.

If the EDA, and those who write about them, seek to stimulate a national debate in Great Britain about what is “normal” it seems to me very strange they would want, to use a cliched expression, “to go there.” When you’re fat, and you see a model and/or mannequin that is not fat, it’s not normal to re-define yourself as normal and the model as strange. A desire to expurgate that other ideal from public view, lest someone else see the model and get the idea that the model is “normal,” is likewise not-normal.

If we’re talking about a model and/or mannequin that is so skinny as to appear unhealthy, it’s quite nonsensical to suppose that something chubbier and healthier, only starts to look healthy when the skinny model is whisked away. If the stockier body type looks okay when it stands alone, but may suddenly take on an appearance of being a bit too rotund when compared to something else, I’m really at a loss to see how anyone is helped when the comparisons are changed. What does that do, exactly? It’s kind of like the bunny rabbit closing its eyes when the fox comes looking for him, reasoning that if he can’t see the fox, well then no way can the fox see him!

Oh, I do recognize eating disorders. I understand people, especially women, can get into unhealthy body images and from there, descend into an unhealthy diet. The thing I can’t quite get past, though — and if EDA is thinking about this, it seems they’re not thinking too hard — being fat is unhealthy too. The medical evidence of damage from a thicker body style, is no less solid than the evidence suggesting a proliferation of eating disorders arising from thinner styles, and desires for same. Fat, once it reaches excessive levels, is bad — bad for your heart, bad for your blood, bad for your brain. Fat, once it reaches excessive levels, changes peoples’ appearances. What a wonderful device that is, that so many health risks can be anticipated based on physical appearance.

What an incredible responsibility it is, to figure out who is “inundated with unrealistic images,” ponder worryingly about what might happen to those inundatees with less-stable thinking processes, and prevent such disasters from coming to pass. Is this really the line-of-work EDA wants to do? Is it ready to take responsibility for making sure these unrealistic-body-messages are intercepted everywhere? How about answering to a higher authority, when the interception of those messages doesn’t happen, or comes too late?

No, I don’t see that kind of sunlight in this well. I think the EDA, simply put, approves of chubby women and disapproves of skinny women, because they represent chubby women who don’t like to be reminded they’re chubby. Whether the fashion stores feel compelled to listen to them, or why they do if they do, is a mystery I’ll have to try to unravel some other day.

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

What Is Bias, Anyway?
Saturday, April 29th, 2006

What Is Bias, Anyway?

“It’s not the votes that count, it’s who counts the votes,” a quote famously attributed to Soviet Union dictator Josef Stalin, has been offered up over and over again by Democrats eager to exploit whatever perceived or actual flaws existed in the voting process in Florida/2000 and Ohio/2004. To this, I have a rejoinder. It is oh-so-witty, but I nevertheless oh-so-much wish I didn’t have it.

It isn’t what news channels are biased, it is who gets to say they are biased.

Or more to the point, who gets to say what bias is.

I’m told that Fox News is “biased.” My red-flag of suspicion doesn’t get raised very high, until I’m told the same thing three or four times, and then given some concrete evidence that the people saying that thing, can’t prove it. In the case of Fox News’ bias, those who call it biased, have done this — and then, they’ve gone on to say the same thing again, dozens of times more.

Now, suspicion is not refutation; Fox News may very well be biased. But I’m not in the habit of being alerted to biased news sources, by drones who are obviously being sent out to repeat talking points by other drones.

Well, the current presidential administration disagrees with me there, as this Press Corps transcript shows.

Q Well, they [White House television sets] always seem to be tuned to Fox, and there’s been requests, and these are paid for by taxpayer dollars. And my understanding is that you guys have to watch Fox on Air Force One. Is that true?

MR. McCLELLAN: First time I’ve ever heard of it. First time you’ve brought it to my attention, meaning the first time the press corps has brought it to my attention. In fact, I’ve watched other channels on here.

Q There’s one –

MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on, Jim, come on. I’ve watched other channels on here, so I don’t know where you’re hearing that. But it’s the first time anyone in the press has raised that question with me.

Q You’ve watched other channels other than Fox?

MR. McCLELLAN: On here, yes, sure.

Q I’ve never seen — they’re always turned to Fox, which a lot of people consider a Republican-leaning network.

Q Scott, is it one — on the airplane, is it one for all? I mean, if it’s tuned for Fox here, is it Fox everywhere?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that certain areas may be interconnected, but I’ll have to double-check which.

Q Is yours off, wherever you are?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the conference room, or the senior staff office, the staff office, they’re different TVs, and you can switch to different channels. I’m not sure if some of these in the back are connected to some of the others that are watching right here, right now. It doesn’t look like it to me. I’ve never known anyone that’s raised a complaint about a request from back here to watch a different channel.

Q I’m officially raising it and officially complaining about it.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I’m going to go see if we can change the channel for you. Have you called up?

Q I was the Fox victim, and I was told — the quote was, “No,” when I asked for CNN.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don’t know who you talked to, so — it didn’t come to my attention. You don’t know who you talked to either?

Q Well, the magic people at the other end off the phone.

MR. McCLELLAN: The magic people at the other end of the phone. Well, I’ll see if this cabin is –

Q I was told, “We don’t watch CNN here, you can only watch Fox.”

MR. McCLELLAN: As I said, it’s hard to respond to something when I don’t know who it is you talked to.

Q I used the phone back here.

MR. McCLELLAN: I find this all quite amusing, to tell you the truth. I mean, there are a lot of people on this plane that do watch that channel.

Q I’ve never been told, no. They’re such nice guys up there.

MR. McCLELLAN: First time you brought it to my attention. I’ll go see what we can do on it.

* * * * *

MR. McCLELLAN: We just called up. They’re going to be changing it, at your all’s request, to the channel that you requested, which is CNN — from the press corps.

Q Thanks, Scott.

High time this happened, since Fox is biased after all and everybody knows it, you say? Not so fast. Consider the following cognitions about the bias of Fox News…

1. Fox News is biased in the sense that it allows political commentary into news segments, which is not supposed to be done.
2. Fox News is biased in the sense that it is run by people, who have certain opinions about things, as all people do.
3. Fox News does a professional job of presenting news, but in the editorial segments, the comments are slanted to the right both in quantity and in intensity.
4. Fox News does a respectable job of presenting both sides, but it has a subtle bias in the way it does this, since after all Sean Hannity is more engaging (and sexier looking to those who sway that way) than Alan Colmes.
5. Fox News is designed, and managed, to be a “counterweight” to a media perceived by many to be slanted to the left.
6. Fox News uses unorthodox and politically-loaded nomenclature, such as using “homicide bombers” to describe suicide bombers.
7. #6 is true, but that’s okay, because when you think about it “homicide bombers” is more accurate.
8. #7 is true, but that’s not okay, because their slogan is “We Report, You Decide” and the effort to re-think our vocabulary is not consistent with this mission statement.
9. #7 is true, but that is okay after all, because other news sources do subtle things like calling illegal aliens “undocumented immigrants,” which is not nearly as accurate as “illegal alien,” or, when you think about it some more, “tresspasser whose background cannot be investigated.”
10. Fox News is unbiased, but it looks strange to us because we happen to be accustomed to news that is strongly biased in the opposite direction.
11. Fox News is biased in one direction, conventional news is equally biased in the opposite direction.
12. #11 is true, and because of that, you’re better informed if you get information from Fox News as well as from other sources, keeping an open mind.

Now grab a pencil and circle the cognition that comes closest to reality, in your personal opinion. Ready? Now take this impromptu ballot…and…throw it in the trash! #1 wins! #2 through #12 don’t. Got that? #1 wins, hands down.

Read the transcript, above, one more time. #1 wins. The one that has enjoyed oh, so many opportunities to be concretely proven…and has not been. Ever. Not even once.

Did you circle something else? Tough! The White House Press Corps just overruled you, with the blessing of the White House itself. By what authority did they do this? By the authority of…where is it…ah, here it is: “…Fox, which a lot of people consider a Republican-leaning network.” That’s it! A lot of people.

Who are those people, you say? After all, #1 wasn’t the one I circled…how do I find out who those people are?

You can’t!

Isn’t that great!

The issue is “these [televisions] are paid for by taxpayer dollars.” Your rights as a taxpayer have just been upheld! By nameless, faceless people whose opinion may or may not match yours…

…but hey, that’s all right. Anything for democracy.

Because just as it matters who counts the votes, not who casts them, it matters who decides what’s biased, not what bias is.

I wish we could have a debate about the bias of Fox News, and when you think about it, for an allegation that attracts such heat and passion from so many directions, it is a little weird that we don’t have one. When’s the last time you heard that Fox has political leanings? When’s the last time you got a concrete example? I’ll bet the former of those, is something that revisits you a lot more often than the latter. Why is that? Actually, you know what? I wish we could have a debate about what bias really is.

The difference between subjectivity and objectivity, is sometimes not so clear. And lacking a fairly substantial and sophisticated methodology for making the distinction, with the more complex issues the distinction becomes a matter of opinion in & of itself. I think the issue is sufficiently complicated, that problems arise when the bias of a news channel is left up to unelected, unnacountable hacks in the White House Press Corps.

And you know what, mister nameless-faceless guy? I’ll bet “a lot of people” agree with me about that.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Imitation is the Sincerest Form VIII
Friday, April 28th, 2006

Imitation is the Sincerest Form VIII

Yesterday morning, I had some fairly flattering things to say about some guy who once ran for President of the United States by the name of John Kerry. That would be pleasantly surprising to those who are more sympathetic to the Massachusetts senator’s cause, I think, but what would be even more pleasantly surprising was that my positive comments had to do with skills, gifts and aptitudes that we all know the war hero has worked particularly hard to refine over a great deal of time.

Senator Kerry spent much of the long hot summer of 2004 atoning for his ridiculous utterance, “I actually voted for the $87 billion [in emergency funding for the troops in Iraq] before I voted against it,” opting to use silence as the best salve to cleanse the gaping wound. When he met the President in Coral Gables, his staff switched ointments, and they did it cleverly. It was really a thing of beauty, and I remember admiring him for it. When President Bush brought up the quote, and bloggers on both sides knew that he would, the Senator responded:

Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?

Pow! Right in the kissa! “Kerry fans” — actually, Kerry doesn’t have any fans, they’re just people who hate President Bush — to this day insist the Senator won all three debates, and this is the kind of thing they have in mind. Victory snatched from the jaws of defeat. Lemonade from a lemon.

Wow, the words flow as if they came from Howard “Yeeaaaarrrrggghhhh!!!!” Dean himself.

Hey, I’m not averse to recognizing talent wherever I see it. Kerry is very, very good at thinking on his feet, pretending not to be a flip-flopper when he is one; in general, he’s a genius at salesmanship. Well, you know…he’s a genius at selling something to people who desperately want to be sold the thing, performing considerably worse in front of a crowd that’s a bit more skeptical. And I did go on to knock him for being…what was it I called him? I said he was “a horrible candidate for representative public office.” Well, you have to take the bad with the good, and since you only have to peruse my site for a little while to see I’m generally hostile to John Kerry’s…well, to every single scintilla in that crazy perspective from which he appears to see the world…when you factor that in, I was being generally pretty positive toward him.

Now since I wrote that, I’m not sure what happened. The ensuing timeline is pretty tight and doesn’t allow for much wiggle-room, so I figure sometime between three and five o’clock on the east coast, one of Kerry’s staffers read my blog. He must have e-mailed a link to Kerry’s Blackberry, whereupon maybe one of the Senator’s assistants taught him how to use it. Within the next five or six hours, max, someone well-connected with the Boston ultra-liberal inner-circle, must have made a comment in a conference forum about what was going through the Senator’s mind.

Because, after all, I have no reason to believe Ellen Goodman reads my blog. I would suspect hardly anybody does. But how else do you explain this gem which appeared this morning in The Boston Herald:

Don’t run, John Kerry
Ellen Goodman
April 28, 2006
:
The signs that John Kerry is going to run for president in 2008 are rising faster than the pollen count. There was the requisite New York Times op-ed — How many days late? How many dollars short? — on getting out of Iraq. There was the Globe op-ed that preceded the speech supporting war dissenters at Faneuil Hall to an audience of groupies yelling “Run” and “2008.” There was Ted Kennedy’s remark, “If he runs, I’m supporting him.”
:
I am not an opponent of Senator Kerry. I’m a constituent. I’ve voted for him six different times. On Nov. 2, 2004, I briefly wished that the Constitution let us pick a president by the early exit polls.
:
Democrats are cute when they get pragmatic, but not necessarily successful. This time, the stalwarts were convinced they’d found a moderate who couldn’t be polarized. But he was. They thought they found a decorated veteran — three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star — who couldn’t be trashed. But he was.

Kerry is not the only one who still imagines a thousand belated rejoinders for the swift boat attackers. He’s not the only one who cannot believe he actually said of Iraq war funding, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” [emphasis mine]
:
Kerry had many fine moments. I saw some of them on the trail and in the debates. But as many have said, Kerry is a politician who has more policies than ideas. Ask what he believes in and the answer is a 10-point plan. He ran a cautious campaign against a reckless commander in chief. And while caution is not a moral failing, Kerry’s gut seems to have a surgical bypass through his cranium.
:
John Kerry is a good, honorable, thoughtful man. And a lousy presidential candidate. He couldn’t do “ideas” the first time. He wouldn’t do them the second time. It’s just not in him.
:
John, please. Don’t even think about it.

I’ve been robbed, but I’m not calling the police. I’m quite flattered.

Look, here is why it’s glaringly important to the Democrats to take Goodman at her advice, assuming Senator Kerry fails to.

While this crack about “ask what he believes in and you get a 10-point plan” has some truth to it — it has a lot of truth to it — it is nevertheless patently unfair to advance the notion, or to assume it, that Kerry has a weakness for thinking on his feet or for speaking in public. Yes, he lost; but that’s not the reason why. Look at his victorious opponent, for heaven’s sake. The challenger lost the race because he garbled one line about voting against the $87 billion? I don’t think so. It wasn’t the garbling — it was the betrayal of the flip-floppery that made this devastating. If he talked like Porky freakin’ Pig, but was nevertheless forthcoming about voting against the $87 billion, who knows he could be President right now if he handled it that way.

John Kerry didn’t shoot himself in the foot when he flubbed a line. He shot himself in the foot when he tried to be all things to all people.

And that is why you need to go grab yourself a folding chair and a cup of coffee before you ask Senator Kerry what he thinks about anything. He doesn’t want anyone to say “I was going to vote for him before he said X, and now I’m not going to.” It is his paramount goal, to avoid that. That’s what makes him a bad leader.

Democrats need to put in place, an agenda we’re simply not willing to have. Kerry’s ability to tell you it’s raining outside, in such a way that you’ll swear to God he just told you the sun is shining, and nevertheless when you go out in a tank top and shorts and no headgear and end up soaking wet, but it’s all your fault and none of his — that is exactly the talent the Democrats need. But he isn’t Bill Clinton because amidst all the confusion and obfuscation, he comes across as exactly what he is. You can listen with just half an ear, being halfway awake, and you can tell there’s a reason he’s giving you 5,000 words when fifty words should get the job done. He’s trying to anticipate what might motivate you to do what he doesn’t want you to do, and avoid saying it.

Bill Clinton was much better. He said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky,” and I gotta believe that unless someone knew a great deal about the case being investigated, and President Clinton’s unique — uh — personality…they would never in a million years think to ask “Wait a minute, maybe we should ask him if she had relations with him?”

Put more succinctly, Kerry is a good confuser and obfuscator, but Clinton was all of these things, plus a good illusionist.

That’s what the Democrats need to sell their poo-poo sandwich right about now.

What do they want to get going, after all? Just do whatever you want with the terrorists, give ‘em whatever they want so long as the next day, terrorism is out of the headlines. Get the public riled up and agitated about Social Security cuts that aren’t really coming. Get some debates going about robbing thirty-something apartment rats who are barely making ends meet, to buy free medicine for rich old seniors with Winnebagos and summer homes. Get everyone arguing about socialized medicine. Make people forget about their huge income tax increases, and instead incite them to near-riot status about 75 cent ATM surcharges. Also, get them scared stiff that Donald Wildmon and Jerry Falwell are personally going to knock down bedroom doors, and send to Guantanamo Bay anyone caught having sex in any position other than missionary.

In short, stop asking the unwashed masses what they’re worried about. Tell them what they’re worried about. That’s what leaders are for, in Democrat-land.

And then cram that big ol’ giant toothpaste tube with the mish-mash of liberal baby-killing, soldier-slandering, tax-increasing, mediocrity-promoting, neo-quasi-socialist goodness down everybody’s throat.

Well if you ran that kind of agenda past people in a poll, worded that way — or even tastefully cleaned up, somewhat, with the meaning left intact — we’re just not into that stuff. We really aren’t. We’ll vote for a Democrat over a Republican if a really juicy, all-consuming Republican scandal has been dominating the news. We’ll do that. But we feel incredibly uncomfortable about choosing a leader that way.

That’s just the way it is.

So they need another Clinton, or they can pretty much just forget the whole thing. And it will work that way even if gas goes to fifteen bucks a gallon, the Dow plunges to 2500, and Bush’s approval rating goes to one-stinkin’-percent.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Not Your Grandfather’s Protest
Friday, April 28th, 2006

Not Your Grandfather’s Protest

Quote:

Such a massive turnout could make for the largest protests since the civil rights era of the 1960s, though not all Latinos — nor their leaders — were comfortable with such militancy, fearing a backlash in Middle America.

Subtle, yet effective. On Monday, the March on Washington is going to be recreated. The protests on May 1 represent a reincarnation of the “civil rights era of the 1960s.” It’s not expressly stated here, but it is implied, strongly, in words as well as in pictures.

It will be so implied again. And again and again and again.

If only the corollary really worked. Why, after all, is a backlash feared in Middle America? America cherishes the right to protest, after all. America is not torn down the middle with a rancorous debate about whether the civil rights movement was an improvement or not. Within any culture, some things are just accepted.

The civil rights movement, now, enjoys this acceptance. Some Latinos, and/or their leaders, are worried that next week’s protest does not. Why? Because we haven’t had a chance to be acclimated to it? Perhaps it’s that and nothing more. If that’s the case, it just makes it all the more important to get the protest going, so we can be acclimated to this, too.

But protesters, you had better get out there before you think on this too long, because you might eventually come around to pondering what it is to which you want “Middle America” to be acclimated. You see, there’s an important difference between this and what happened forty years ago.

Protesters in the civil rights era, protested a system of laws that contradicted itself. Quite simply, all persons within the United States enjoyed equal protection under the law and due process — but, at the same time, they didn’t. The protesters did not contradict themselves; the law they sought to change, contradicted itself.

This Monday, the protesters will be breaking some laws, while enjoying the protections afforded by other laws, and simultaneously telling us what yet other laws should be saying. Do they live within the law, or don’t they? The answer seems to depend on which law is under discussion. Are we all beholden to the law and obliged to live under it, or are we not? The answer seems to depend on which class is being subjected to that law.

You know what the Mafia is? It’s not a bunch of families running around in New York during the Cold War. Most people don’t understand, the Mafia has an ancient history and it has remained true to its principles and purpose throughout that history. Quite simply, it is an undocumented, alternative system of “law” and redress of grievances, for those who don’t belong in the “real” law. For whatever reason. The human race hasn’t launched too many endeavors, especially in what could be called “government,” in which defining doctrines are enshrined for two solid millenia. The Mafia has done this, at least within the scraps of documentation about it that somehow survive. It really is an amazing achievement.

Consistency is key. My whole point about the upcoming protests, is one of consistency. When Don Vito Corleone leaves a horse head in my bed, I expect him to have the decency to high-tail it out of my bedroom before the cops show up. If I cross a picket line and a union thug breaks my kneecaps, I expect his organization to fly him out of town and hide him before I give his description to the police. Threaten me with coercion, intimidation, and fear — or with the law. Not both at the same time. And don’t break one law, in favor of another law that makes your other activities “kinda sorta illegal, but not really.” Live within the law or don’t. Are you Martin Luther King, or Robin Hood?

No answer forthcoming to that, the protesters end up protesting that they don’t want to follow laws, while those whose minds they seek to change, are implicitly expected to.

I expect there will be some long faces in May. There are bound to be expectations in the air that Monday’s message will reverberate like the message of forty years ago. Hopefully, amid the ensuing disappointment, there will be some principled epiphanies about why things are working out differently.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… VII
Thursday, April 27th, 2006

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… VII

This morning I was pissing and moaning, in that long-winded, cute way that I have — why say it in five hundred words when you can use fifteen thousand? — certain people among us, who can be described by a certain adjective I’ll not use but that rhymes with “PFFFSSLKXCHTHSIBERAL,” do weird things. Specifically, they tend to substantiate the point they want to make, simply by making a declaration of what they like and what they don’t like. Nothing more than that. And then, sadly, conducting themselves as if they’ve outdone Daniel Webster’s argument to The Devil, or discovered the next known prime number, or designed a working time-travel machine or “Stargate” or something.

Well, how much male-premenstruation can I work up about this, really. It’s just a tad bit irritating, pretending to engage in a meeting of the minds with me and others who disagree with them, and then wasting our time as they do nothing more than collect high-fives and pats-on-the-back from their liberal buddies. Just a minor irritation, nothing more. A tiny little parade of disingenuousness for my enjoyment, only for as long as I choose to watch it and/or partake in it.

They do it for FREE!

And they make NO RULES according to which I’m obligated to live out my existence. (Lord knows, they’d love to, that’s what it’s all about.)

On the other hand, the California State Assembly Democrats would like to make it known, so they can collect high-fives and pats-on-the-back from their liberal buddies, how much they support illegal aliens. By not working like they’re supposed to; going to a protest instead. And collecting the per diem they draw, from doing that work that they’re not going to do. And, by the way, if they did that work, they’d be making the rules by which I’m bound, as a California citizen…the same rules the “innernet” liberals wish they could make.

Not that I get to escape the rules that aren’t made, since they’ll be back the very next day, outlawing pictures of cigarettes in privately-owned garages, or fining businesses for not putting tiny trampolines under trees by their office buildings in case squirrels fall out of them, or …who knows what. They’ll work at it twice as hard the next day, drawing yet another per diem. That’s why they call it per diem after all.

Is this sinking in? People who make rules for a living, not-overwhelmingly-common-sense-rules, and boy howdee us lowly citizens had better follow those rules or else — want to be paid for making those stupid rules, they want to play hooky, and go to a protest to support people who choose not to follow rules. Then, they want to come back, make the stupid rules they missed out on making the day of the protest, for us lowly sheep who are so stupid we choose to follow rules. Then the rule-makers want to get paid both days.

My writing is getting all bloaty as my face gets red and blotchy. I need to learn to keep it under control, like this guy, one of my brothers on Blogger…

Legislative Democrats refuse to work on day of walk out, but still want to collect per-diem.

The California State Assembly regularly holds floor session on Mondays and Thursdays to vote on bills. However, Monday May 1st they will not be meeting, as the Democrats have chosen to participate in the work stoppage supporting illegal immigration which is planned for that day. But instead of canceling session all together, they changed to a check-in session so that they could still collect their per-diem.

Today during closing statements, Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy (R- Monrovia) chastised Assembly Democrats. He asked why they would collect per-diem when everyone else who is taking the day off will not be getting paid at all?

He went on to suggest that Republicans come to the capital on Monday, the day of protest and demand that they be allowed to work in the place of Democrat legislators because they are willing to do the work the Dems are unwilling to do. And they will do it at half the pay!

I LOVE IT!!!!!! Y�ALL COME ON DOWN!!!!!!

I’m going to make a point of checking back on his site. He’s got a link to audio on that site, by the way.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Our Clean Split
Thursday, April 27th, 2006

Our Clean Split

Predictably, Neil Young’s new song about impeaching the President has gotten a lot of tighty-righties and lefty-loosies arguing. Predictably, I have deigned to wade into the fray. Predictably, the lefty-loosies thought very little of my free advice about how to reach perhaps millions of people like me, and bolster their little message that the desire to impeach President Bush is common-sense and bipartisan. Predictably, since so little amicable reception awaited a suggestion that involves so little effort, I’m now casting a jaundiced eye toward that message — show me someone

House of Eratosthenes

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Community Members

Site Admin

I Like This Thing, I Hate That ThingSunday, April 30th, 2006

Must-Tards VISaturday, April 29th, 2006

What Is Bias, Anyway?Saturday, April 29th, 2006

Imitation is the Sincerest Form VIIIFriday, April 28th, 2006

Not Your Grandfather’s ProtestFriday, April 28th, 2006

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… VIIThursday, April 27th, 2006

Our Clean SplitThursday, April 27th, 2006

I Like This Thing, I Hate That Thing
Sunday, April 30th, 2006

Must-Tards VI
Saturday, April 29th, 2006

What Is Bias, Anyway?
Saturday, April 29th, 2006

Imitation is the Sincerest Form VIII
Friday, April 28th, 2006

Not Your Grandfather’s Protest
Friday, April 28th, 2006

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… VII
Thursday, April 27th, 2006

Our Clean Split
Thursday, April 27th, 2006