I have very little idea what these guys are literally saying, but I appreciate the overall message of the video.
As I said to Steven, when he sent me the video, What isn't awesome in this video? That said, its not meant for the eyes of our more sensitive viewers, so please view with discretion.
GORBACHOV: THE MUSIC VIDEO - BIGGER AND RUSSIANER from Tom Stern on Vimeo.
For something of an explanation, go here.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Vote Harvey Dent
I don't know if you live in Gotham City or not, but with the election cycle heating up, its hard to miss the campaign to make Harvey Dent Gotham's newest District Attorney. I've found the ground swell of support for a man with whom I feel I share so many values to be particularly gratifying.
But... despite the campaign and us fellow Dent supporters partaking in a door-to-door grassroots effort, I still feel like I'd better cover my bases.
If you're thinking of voting (and you should!), you can register to vote online, or register to vote. RIGHT NOW.
Here's the link.
It'd be great if you'd vote for Harvey, but what really matters is that you share your voice in this historic election.
But... despite the campaign and us fellow Dent supporters partaking in a door-to-door grassroots effort, I still feel like I'd better cover my bases.
If you're thinking of voting (and you should!), you can register to vote online, or register to vote. RIGHT NOW.
Here's the link.
It'd be great if you'd vote for Harvey, but what really matters is that you share your voice in this historic election.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Wow. Just... wow.
Democrat who won't vote for Obama because he's a Muslim. Go here.
I am not in favor of any kind of written test in order to be allowed to vote. But, c'mon, America... work with me here.
Democrat who won't vote for Obama because he's a Muslim. Go here.
I am not in favor of any kind of written test in order to be allowed to vote. But, c'mon, America... work with me here.
Superman Red/ Superman Blue
Over the weekend, DC Comics revealed that they are planning a mini-series to be released in the weeks leading up to the very real 2008 presidential election. The series will be entitled "DCU: Decisions".
Here for a Newsarama interview with DCU Editor-in-Chief, Dan Didio.
"Decisions" is supposed to define the political leanings of various folks within the DCU. I assume we'll see some folks pop out exactly as previously defined. Green Arrow as the lefty, Green Lantern as his right-swinging pal. Hawkman coming out as a firm GOP'er. Ambush Bug as a registered Democrat.
See..!
A large part of me wonders about the wisdom of bothering to identify the political leanings of characters from whom you're trying to derive a profit. Had this been the months leading up to the highly devisive 2004 election, I would have felt Didio and Co. had lost their marbles altogether.
Politics are almost always only mentioned in some super-villainous light in super-hero comics. In 2000, Lex Luthor took the Oval Office (with Pete Ross, Superman's boyhood chum, as VP). The story seemed a bit forced, but was mostly intended to put Lex not just completely outside of Superman's grasp as a deputized officer of the law, but to give Lex the one thing he'd always wanted: the adoration of the people/ almost unlimited power.
The story didn't really bounce off of devotees of either side of the aisle too badly as Lex ran as a third party candidate, and pretty much tried to act as President as he had as CEO of LuthorCorp.
It's worth noting that real life events, such as 9-11 and the real-life US's entry into Iraq and Afghanistan, are mentioned mostly in allegory in the comics.
Anyway, Lex left office under less than ideal circumstances. Whether he achieved his goals, foreign and doemstic, seems unlikely.
Unlike Nixon, Lex knew how to leave office with a little panache
Unfortunately, I can't shake the notion that the continuity nutty and emotionally stunted fans of super-hero-dom in comics will handle the series with acomplete lack of the perspective that Didio is assuming that reasonable and mature adults are supposed to keep in mind when discussing politics. I've been on the message boards.
In short, I think that with "Decisions", DC is opening the door for a series that's just going to welcome people to abruptly turn on some of their characters when they find out that, say, Cyborg votes Libertarian. And, in the long run, that's going to cause DC some readers/ dollars.
No matter the intention of the series, people come to politics with a boatload of pre-conceived notions about "the other guys". Even today, as Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama continue the drudgery of the 2008 campaign to clinch the Democratic Nomination, the actual policy differences are fairly limited. Most of the discrepancy is in how each candidate wants to achieve the exact same goals. Yet, right now the Democratic party is suffering major upheavals as the schizm causes silly in-fighting so "our guy" can win instead of "your guy".
Apply that to a system with essentially two parties. Each has significant platform differences and where they DO agree, they might choose vastly different paths for achieving the same outcomes. No big deal, but for those of us who didn't snooze their way through 2001-2004 and how unnecessarily uncivilized it became, I'm foreseeing a lot of unhappiness with readership if these real-life political wedges are driven into their super-heroes. Isn't fighting off Despero enough? Ithat a school voucher issue?
The DC Universe is populated with characters who the reader is supposed to like. Even Ollie Queen (Green Arrow) and his nutty liberalism could be embraced by right-wingers, as Ollie can be a caricature of the beatnik with half-baked ideas. It's not too far off from how conservatives caricature liberals to begin with. Especially a limousine liberal like billionaire Ollie Queen. In the end, everyone can find something to like.
However, most of the characters aren't so well defined, and DC has carefully side-stepped getting in too much political discussion over the years. I had assumed that this tac was taken so that anyone could just assume that the hero(es) they've chosen to follow might fall in with their own basic set of beliefs. All are do-gooders, all lend a helping hand to those who need it, just as most folks would like to believe they would. If they had heat-vision.
This isn't necessarily limited to comics. When one considers the characters on TV, how often does one think about the political affiliations of their favorite sitcom characters? The characters may occasionally express some political notions, but the characters are usually portrayed as center of the road quite intentionally, so as to keep the viewership within a large tent and ensure the show reaches all kinds of audiences.
Defining, say, Aquaman, as a member of the Democrats may surprise right-leaning readers who had otherwise not given the matter much thought (I have no idea what party Aquaman would throw in with. He'd be a nut for environmental matters, but as a monarch... well... it just seems that he wouldn't buy much into all this voting business, anyway.). Why give your audience an opportunity to suddenly question their own loyalty to a character? Especially these days, when loyalty is largely what's keeping the DCU afloat.
Further, why take the opportunity to further define and explore the characters away from writers/ editors/ etc... who will handle the character in the future? Writers are not without their own biases. If I, as a writer, believe that all GOPers think Alaska serves no purpose but as a place to drill for oil, and Red Tornado has been cast as a Republican, can I write a story about Reddy fighting off evil corporate merchants hellbent on destroying the Alaskan wilderness for fun and profit?
My hope is that the "Decisions" series will explore the heroes while keeping the discussion open ended and friendly, just as its often fascinating to learn more about your own friends of all different political stripes. Part of why I became a DC fan was that, as I became an adult and found myself in the workplace, I recognized the JLA, the JSA, and the partnership between Batman and Superman for what it was... people putting aside their differences, and even their motivations, to work toward a common cause. Where Marvel's FF had unbreakable family bonds and a cosmic accident which forged their team, the JLA had only their intentions and good-will to pull them together. Where the X-Men were a team of folks banding together to fight a common cause by accident of their birth (which I still see as a great set-up), the JSA pulled together, at least initially, as a domestic front to battle our WWII enemies. That dynamic, which reflected a friendly working relationship was easier for me to identify with than the Steans Clan being bathed in cosmic rays, and JLA became something I could relate to.
If the "Decisions" series is complex enough, if it takes the time to explore and appreciate nuance... then there's a place for this series beyond the shrill point-counterpoint of the cable news networks and their talking heads. Do I think DC can actually pull that off...?
I have my doubts. It a 4-issue series with two writers which Didio has promised have diametrically opposing viewpoints. Part of my wariness may be taste, given the two writers they've listed. Neither of whom I particularly trust.
Right now, I'm also not ready for DC's PR push on this one and the inevitable, attention getting headlines during an election year: "Wonder Woman a LaRouche Democrat?"
Yurgh.
Last year, Marvel's epic "Civil War" painted a picture of government obedience for masked vigilantes. Some have accused the DCU of following suit with a devisive topic, but I never felt that Marvel's "analogy" really worked. After all, it seems unlikely that in any universe that laws would not be passed managing crime-fighting. Or that crime-fighting without a license of some sort wouldn't be looked upon a bit suspiciously by law-enforcement and the citizenry alike. If the analogy was supposed to be about getting on-board because the government says so, they needed something a bit trickier than the story they presented. And it's possible that "Decisions" will be all too concrete and preachy.
Mostly, I worry about defining any of DC's Big 3 (Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman) in any political light. As law-eforcing (and somewhat abiding) do-gooders, one could paint the characters either way. And, in my opinion, part of the attraction of such larger-than-life figures is that all 3 characters have well-developed personalities, given the current writing, and the writers (and fans) would have an idea as to the opinions of the Trinity on any given topic. But rather than discuss those topics, the characters can express their beliefs through their actions, staying above the petty squabbling of political discourse. After all, none of the three ever stopped to ask a politicians to take on crime, social injustice, etc... They've always simply acted where others have not. That's the ideal for the costumed, crime-fighting, super-hero, anyway. Respecting the law while always being forced to live just outside of it in order to do what others cannot.
To complicate matters, many superheroes, especially Batman and Superman, were born out of the issues and circumstances of the Depression, with a huge dose of the idealism that comes with youth (Siegel and Shuster were in their mid-20's when Superman hit the stands for the first time. As were Bob Kane and Bill Finger when Batman first appeared.). Crime was rampant, families still fought poverty, and the world was in a precarious political position. However, in the post WWII years, and thanks to editorial codes, increased marketing, and various other influences, Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman each changed greatly. Just as they would again and again, reflecting the time and place in which they were written.
I have my personal opinions. And occasionally you'll see them in print here at The League. I also see how certain characters are defined by their actions and how they've been written for years. And I'm comfortable with that. I also believe in followong one of the basic rules of writing a narrative: show, don't tell. "DCU Decisions" seems to be doing exactly the opposite of all that.
And, honestly, having my opinions of each character's political leanings hasn't ever taken away my enjoyment of the comics.
I personally don't talk politics here because I believe in a big tent, just like those sit-com producers. But, like the JLA, I also think most folks who come to The League can agree on end results, if not the way we get there. And when we can't agree on those end-results, on what we really, really want.... well, hopefully we can hear each other well enough to agree to disagree and move on. Nothing that can't be smoothed out on with a good sit on the back porch with a drink.
After all, just as Supermans Red and Blue learned... there are two ways to do everything, and when they work together... they end all crime, solve all social injustice, and each get a girl of their dreams.
Leaguers... behold. Two sides, working together: Superman Red/ Superman Blue
Make of that what you will.
Here for a Newsarama interview with DCU Editor-in-Chief, Dan Didio.
"Decisions" is supposed to define the political leanings of various folks within the DCU. I assume we'll see some folks pop out exactly as previously defined. Green Arrow as the lefty, Green Lantern as his right-swinging pal. Hawkman coming out as a firm GOP'er. Ambush Bug as a registered Democrat.
See..!
A large part of me wonders about the wisdom of bothering to identify the political leanings of characters from whom you're trying to derive a profit. Had this been the months leading up to the highly devisive 2004 election, I would have felt Didio and Co. had lost their marbles altogether.
Politics are almost always only mentioned in some super-villainous light in super-hero comics. In 2000, Lex Luthor took the Oval Office (with Pete Ross, Superman's boyhood chum, as VP). The story seemed a bit forced, but was mostly intended to put Lex not just completely outside of Superman's grasp as a deputized officer of the law, but to give Lex the one thing he'd always wanted: the adoration of the people/ almost unlimited power.
The story didn't really bounce off of devotees of either side of the aisle too badly as Lex ran as a third party candidate, and pretty much tried to act as President as he had as CEO of LuthorCorp.
It's worth noting that real life events, such as 9-11 and the real-life US's entry into Iraq and Afghanistan, are mentioned mostly in allegory in the comics.
Anyway, Lex left office under less than ideal circumstances. Whether he achieved his goals, foreign and doemstic, seems unlikely.
Unlike Nixon, Lex knew how to leave office with a little panache
Unfortunately, I can't shake the notion that the continuity nutty and emotionally stunted fans of super-hero-dom in comics will handle the series with acomplete lack of the perspective that Didio is assuming that reasonable and mature adults are supposed to keep in mind when discussing politics. I've been on the message boards.
In short, I think that with "Decisions", DC is opening the door for a series that's just going to welcome people to abruptly turn on some of their characters when they find out that, say, Cyborg votes Libertarian. And, in the long run, that's going to cause DC some readers/ dollars.
No matter the intention of the series, people come to politics with a boatload of pre-conceived notions about "the other guys". Even today, as Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama continue the drudgery of the 2008 campaign to clinch the Democratic Nomination, the actual policy differences are fairly limited. Most of the discrepancy is in how each candidate wants to achieve the exact same goals. Yet, right now the Democratic party is suffering major upheavals as the schizm causes silly in-fighting so "our guy" can win instead of "your guy".
Apply that to a system with essentially two parties. Each has significant platform differences and where they DO agree, they might choose vastly different paths for achieving the same outcomes. No big deal, but for those of us who didn't snooze their way through 2001-2004 and how unnecessarily uncivilized it became, I'm foreseeing a lot of unhappiness with readership if these real-life political wedges are driven into their super-heroes. Isn't fighting off Despero enough? Ithat a school voucher issue?
The DC Universe is populated with characters who the reader is supposed to like. Even Ollie Queen (Green Arrow) and his nutty liberalism could be embraced by right-wingers, as Ollie can be a caricature of the beatnik with half-baked ideas. It's not too far off from how conservatives caricature liberals to begin with. Especially a limousine liberal like billionaire Ollie Queen. In the end, everyone can find something to like.
However, most of the characters aren't so well defined, and DC has carefully side-stepped getting in too much political discussion over the years. I had assumed that this tac was taken so that anyone could just assume that the hero(es) they've chosen to follow might fall in with their own basic set of beliefs. All are do-gooders, all lend a helping hand to those who need it, just as most folks would like to believe they would. If they had heat-vision.
This isn't necessarily limited to comics. When one considers the characters on TV, how often does one think about the political affiliations of their favorite sitcom characters? The characters may occasionally express some political notions, but the characters are usually portrayed as center of the road quite intentionally, so as to keep the viewership within a large tent and ensure the show reaches all kinds of audiences.
Defining, say, Aquaman, as a member of the Democrats may surprise right-leaning readers who had otherwise not given the matter much thought (I have no idea what party Aquaman would throw in with. He'd be a nut for environmental matters, but as a monarch... well... it just seems that he wouldn't buy much into all this voting business, anyway.). Why give your audience an opportunity to suddenly question their own loyalty to a character? Especially these days, when loyalty is largely what's keeping the DCU afloat.
Further, why take the opportunity to further define and explore the characters away from writers/ editors/ etc... who will handle the character in the future? Writers are not without their own biases. If I, as a writer, believe that all GOPers think Alaska serves no purpose but as a place to drill for oil, and Red Tornado has been cast as a Republican, can I write a story about Reddy fighting off evil corporate merchants hellbent on destroying the Alaskan wilderness for fun and profit?
My hope is that the "Decisions" series will explore the heroes while keeping the discussion open ended and friendly, just as its often fascinating to learn more about your own friends of all different political stripes. Part of why I became a DC fan was that, as I became an adult and found myself in the workplace, I recognized the JLA, the JSA, and the partnership between Batman and Superman for what it was... people putting aside their differences, and even their motivations, to work toward a common cause. Where Marvel's FF had unbreakable family bonds and a cosmic accident which forged their team, the JLA had only their intentions and good-will to pull them together. Where the X-Men were a team of folks banding together to fight a common cause by accident of their birth (which I still see as a great set-up), the JSA pulled together, at least initially, as a domestic front to battle our WWII enemies. That dynamic, which reflected a friendly working relationship was easier for me to identify with than the Steans Clan being bathed in cosmic rays, and JLA became something I could relate to.
If the "Decisions" series is complex enough, if it takes the time to explore and appreciate nuance... then there's a place for this series beyond the shrill point-counterpoint of the cable news networks and their talking heads. Do I think DC can actually pull that off...?
I have my doubts. It a 4-issue series with two writers which Didio has promised have diametrically opposing viewpoints. Part of my wariness may be taste, given the two writers they've listed. Neither of whom I particularly trust.
Right now, I'm also not ready for DC's PR push on this one and the inevitable, attention getting headlines during an election year: "Wonder Woman a LaRouche Democrat?"
Yurgh.
Last year, Marvel's epic "Civil War" painted a picture of government obedience for masked vigilantes. Some have accused the DCU of following suit with a devisive topic, but I never felt that Marvel's "analogy" really worked. After all, it seems unlikely that in any universe that laws would not be passed managing crime-fighting. Or that crime-fighting without a license of some sort wouldn't be looked upon a bit suspiciously by law-enforcement and the citizenry alike. If the analogy was supposed to be about getting on-board because the government says so, they needed something a bit trickier than the story they presented. And it's possible that "Decisions" will be all too concrete and preachy.
Mostly, I worry about defining any of DC's Big 3 (Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman) in any political light. As law-eforcing (and somewhat abiding) do-gooders, one could paint the characters either way. And, in my opinion, part of the attraction of such larger-than-life figures is that all 3 characters have well-developed personalities, given the current writing, and the writers (and fans) would have an idea as to the opinions of the Trinity on any given topic. But rather than discuss those topics, the characters can express their beliefs through their actions, staying above the petty squabbling of political discourse. After all, none of the three ever stopped to ask a politicians to take on crime, social injustice, etc... They've always simply acted where others have not. That's the ideal for the costumed, crime-fighting, super-hero, anyway. Respecting the law while always being forced to live just outside of it in order to do what others cannot.
To complicate matters, many superheroes, especially Batman and Superman, were born out of the issues and circumstances of the Depression, with a huge dose of the idealism that comes with youth (Siegel and Shuster were in their mid-20's when Superman hit the stands for the first time. As were Bob Kane and Bill Finger when Batman first appeared.). Crime was rampant, families still fought poverty, and the world was in a precarious political position. However, in the post WWII years, and thanks to editorial codes, increased marketing, and various other influences, Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman each changed greatly. Just as they would again and again, reflecting the time and place in which they were written.
I have my personal opinions. And occasionally you'll see them in print here at The League. I also see how certain characters are defined by their actions and how they've been written for years. And I'm comfortable with that. I also believe in followong one of the basic rules of writing a narrative: show, don't tell. "DCU Decisions" seems to be doing exactly the opposite of all that.
And, honestly, having my opinions of each character's political leanings hasn't ever taken away my enjoyment of the comics.
I personally don't talk politics here because I believe in a big tent, just like those sit-com producers. But, like the JLA, I also think most folks who come to The League can agree on end results, if not the way we get there. And when we can't agree on those end-results, on what we really, really want.... well, hopefully we can hear each other well enough to agree to disagree and move on. Nothing that can't be smoothed out on with a good sit on the back porch with a drink.
After all, just as Supermans Red and Blue learned... there are two ways to do everything, and when they work together... they end all crime, solve all social injustice, and each get a girl of their dreams.
Leaguers... behold. Two sides, working together: Superman Red/ Superman Blue
Make of that what you will.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Voting in Austin
I'm getting geared up to vote for 3 city council seats here in Austin. As skeptical as I might feel about my ability to influence the November elections for President (the Republicans could put up a pelican for Prez, and Texas would still vote GOP), I DO think my vote counts when it comes to local politics.
But local politics are just as complicated as national, in some ways. I have some things I firmly believe will and will not work for Austin today and looking 10, 20, 30, 100 years in the future. So I'm looking for candidates who share my ideals.
And given the nature of the issues, there's a lot of splitting hairs. We all agree that Austin's traffic is a mess, but how do you solve that? We all know Austin will continue to grow, so how do you manage that? We need to protect the environment in Austin, but how do you enforce that or get industry and individuals to play along because they feel its the right thing to do?
Here's one of my challenges: Jennifer Kim made a pretty big PR flub trying to bypass airport security last year, flashing her City Council credentials, and I haven't always loved interviews I've seen on News 8. But I also think, from reading her site, that she's learned a lot. But I also think Randi Shade seems like a right-on kind of candidate. But I'm not sure, exactly how she'll vote, partly because her website seems a bit unclear other than "I think Austin should have a great future".
And then there's a third candidate for place 3, Ken Weiss. And, seriously, I have no idea what this fellow is up to.
For a bit of compare and contrast.
Jennifer Kim's informative, well-managed site. Here.
Randi Shade's well-designed, but somewhat ambiguous site. Here.
Ken Weiss's website based around begging for money. Here.
He sort of makes me wonder how far I could get raising money for a campaign I couldn't possibly win. What are the rules for how you spend that money once the campaign is over with? Can you keep it? Because if you get to keep it...
I'm just sayin'...
Anyhow, I'm not going to run for city council this year. Maybe one day. It seems better than working.
But, really, if any of them would agree to refuse to allow anymore damn skyscraper condos from going up, they'd get my vote. I don't really how crazy the rest of their policies are.
Now, off to read up on the candidates for the other two seats.
Oh, if you have a good reason why I should vote for Jennifer Kim or Randi Shade, let me know.
But local politics are just as complicated as national, in some ways. I have some things I firmly believe will and will not work for Austin today and looking 10, 20, 30, 100 years in the future. So I'm looking for candidates who share my ideals.
And given the nature of the issues, there's a lot of splitting hairs. We all agree that Austin's traffic is a mess, but how do you solve that? We all know Austin will continue to grow, so how do you manage that? We need to protect the environment in Austin, but how do you enforce that or get industry and individuals to play along because they feel its the right thing to do?
Here's one of my challenges: Jennifer Kim made a pretty big PR flub trying to bypass airport security last year, flashing her City Council credentials, and I haven't always loved interviews I've seen on News 8. But I also think, from reading her site, that she's learned a lot. But I also think Randi Shade seems like a right-on kind of candidate. But I'm not sure, exactly how she'll vote, partly because her website seems a bit unclear other than "I think Austin should have a great future".
And then there's a third candidate for place 3, Ken Weiss. And, seriously, I have no idea what this fellow is up to.
For a bit of compare and contrast.
Jennifer Kim's informative, well-managed site. Here.
Randi Shade's well-designed, but somewhat ambiguous site. Here.
Ken Weiss's website based around begging for money. Here.
He sort of makes me wonder how far I could get raising money for a campaign I couldn't possibly win. What are the rules for how you spend that money once the campaign is over with? Can you keep it? Because if you get to keep it...
I'm just sayin'...
Anyhow, I'm not going to run for city council this year. Maybe one day. It seems better than working.
But, really, if any of them would agree to refuse to allow anymore damn skyscraper condos from going up, they'd get my vote. I don't really how crazy the rest of their policies are.
Now, off to read up on the candidates for the other two seats.
Oh, if you have a good reason why I should vote for Jennifer Kim or Randi Shade, let me know.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Stand by your man...?
League pal and houseguest, Nicole and I wound up discussing the Elliot Spitzer debacle in the New York governor's offices over the past two nights or so. Like most, neither of us are surprised that a powerful official was spending inordinate amounts of money on hookers (I am trying to imagine a scenario in which someone would pay $4000 for an evening with The League, and, ya'll... I find myself feeling inadequate).
We've also become familiar with the wife of said scandalized officials coming to the pdoium to stand by their man in their hour of shame. To some extent, we're all familiar with the script.
What Nicole pointed out is that these spouses always/ often dress in a sensible Chanel suit. In some cases, virtually identical Chanel suits.
Above: Ex-New Jersey Governor James E. McGreevey and wife Dina. Below: Eliot Spitzer and Silda Spitzer
A little weird, no?
Husband looking serious in dark, somber suit? Wife in sensible, cheery looking suit like one might wear to a fund raiser, but not necessarily to work. Plus the pearls, as Nicole mentioned. You must have the pearls. Heck, Hillary Clinton's been wearing them out of habit on and off for years.
How many other grown women do you see wearing pearls? Who aren't visiting church from the old folks' home?
I imagine it's part of the script for the political handlers trying to manage the catastrophe.
Step 1) Must obtain suit. Nothing too flashy, but must exude class and confidence. And money. Money is good. But not too much money.
Step 2) Wife should look reserved, and to remind the press the spouse is a mother, have her add pearls.
Step 3) Get the funeral suit out for the deposed politician. He can look stately and somewhat dignified in deep navy jacket and power tie as he fesses up to a weakness for $4000 hookers, young male interns, what have you...
Honestly, I have no evidence to suggest this, but I kind of suspect most people feel the same about the private lives of elected officials as they do about celebrities. The quarterly outing of some politician for sex/drugs/murder/what-have-you and the circus that follows is usually forgotten in a month or two, and business proceeds as usual. It isn't going to affect your taxes, so... really...
Personally, I sort of assume that powerful people with yes-men surrounding them forget that they're doing something they shouldn't when they take a few liberties with their personal lives.
Far more mysterious to me (and to Nicole, in our discussion) are the wives who stand beside their husbands. I suppose there's political pressure to do so from handlers making suggestions when it seems your world is sort of being sucked into a deep, black well. There can be light at the end of the tunnel. Hillary put up with that business all the time, and, hey, look, that turned out pretty well for her...
After all, at some point, you're hitching yourself to someone else's wagon when you fall in with a politician, etc... You're making that conscious decision to go along for the ride, and enjoy the fruits of what sitting in the Governor's mansion might bring you. So perhaps there's the unenviable task of having to also stand by the guy's side when the moron philanderer gets taken down.
These wives can't be completely oblivious to the stereotypes of the politician running around with other women. I suppose you trust your spouse and all, but...
Sometimes I wonder if the strain is coming from shock or if its coming from the many, many times the wives looked the other way and now its all coming out, and nobody ends up looking great.
At least you'll get a sort of Jackie-O looking dress out of it, perhaps purchased by the party (a small price to pay if things go okay, right?).
Perhaps in coming years as more women enter the political arena there's going to be husbands in pearls and a sensible suit from Chanel standing distraught beside their wives as the wives fess up to their "relationship" with some gigolo. Honestly, I can't wait for that day. On that day I'll know that the sexes have found true, disappointing equality.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
why does saying "caucus" make me giggle?
Well, I don't think this will be too shocking to know I voted Democrat in the Texas primary. Which means I also got off my duff and went to my local polling place for the caucus this evening.
We showed up about 6:50ish, and wandered into a fairly crowded room. We were to begin caucusing after the polls officially closed. Not when they closed the doors at 7:00, but after the people running the poll down the hall decided they were done. So from 7:00 until 7:30, the room filled. And filled. And filled.
Apparently the last time they did this, they had around a dozen people show up. I think we had, and this is sort of a guess... but I would guess around 500 people in the room. It was hot and sweaty.
I had the passing thought about leaving. I was pretty sure my vote wasn't going to matter much in the grand scheme of things. But then I thought... Hey, I like me some democracy. I thought about the stories of people in other countries who get shot at on their way to vote, and who die for voting, and, well.. standing in a crowded room next to an annoying girl didn't seem like such a big deal.
So I caucused. Tee hee!
And while I am not sure my political apathy is completely gone, it seems voters in Travis County district 355 are all about the Democracy. And the chance to vote twice. Legally.
Anyway, I will be curious to see the results in the morning, or whenever they shake out. Apparently Texas is still too close to call.
We showed up about 6:50ish, and wandered into a fairly crowded room. We were to begin caucusing after the polls officially closed. Not when they closed the doors at 7:00, but after the people running the poll down the hall decided they were done. So from 7:00 until 7:30, the room filled. And filled. And filled.
Apparently the last time they did this, they had around a dozen people show up. I think we had, and this is sort of a guess... but I would guess around 500 people in the room. It was hot and sweaty.
I had the passing thought about leaving. I was pretty sure my vote wasn't going to matter much in the grand scheme of things. But then I thought... Hey, I like me some democracy. I thought about the stories of people in other countries who get shot at on their way to vote, and who die for voting, and, well.. standing in a crowded room next to an annoying girl didn't seem like such a big deal.
So I caucused. Tee hee!
And while I am not sure my political apathy is completely gone, it seems voters in Travis County district 355 are all about the Democracy. And the chance to vote twice. Legally.
Anyway, I will be curious to see the results in the morning, or whenever they shake out. Apparently Texas is still too close to call.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Clinton/ Obama debate
I watched my first debate of the political season this year, tuning in to the Clinton/ Obama debate.
The debate was in Austin, about a mile from my office, and Jason and Jamie made me watch it instead of watching basketball or something involving Superman.
I haven't read any post-game analysis yet, but a few things are pretty obvious to me. Both front-runners for the Democrats hold very similar viewpoints, and its going to come down to how you think they should go about approaching their goals rather than what goals they're considering in order to make a selection. This means that you're talking a few degrees of separation in policy the two are advocating. Which means a lot is going to come down to a gut or emotional reaction to the two.
Congrats to both candidates for, at no time, attempting an awkward "howdy, ya'll!"
Both agreed on the basics of getting the uninsured insured, border fences (and I wasn't particularly blown away by either candidates' approach on that one), major points on Iraq and that George Bush has dug a hole they believe they're going to have to climb out of.
So, once again, you're left with a gut reaction. While Obama lacks national-stage political experience, its tough to point to Clinton's national-stage political experience without noting on whose coattails she rode to get there. Both have worked on legislation which is appealing to a lefty like myself. Both have voted for some things that leave me unimpressed.
Them's the brakes.
So left to gut feelings about twenty years of Bush/ Clinton rule of the White House, its appealing to want to go to the unknown factor. But I'm not sure Obama has the political experience or clout to move things through, just as I'm not sure that a Clinton in the White House wouldn't re-mobilize the GOP and make sure Clinton was unable to pass a single initiative in four years. No one is sure what would happen with Obama in the White House. He could start dressing as a crazed Admiral and firing cannons from the roof of the White House for all I know.
I'll tell you one thing that drives me berserk about Clinton: The smirk
I'm not sure why nobody has not spoken to Clinton about this, but sitting next to your opponent and smirking while he answers is really... unbecoming. It's kind of like the "heh, heh, heh!" that Bush has become famous for. Or Gore's wandering around the stage during the debates.
Anyhow, I can't tell if she's thinking "I've got this sucker on the ropes", if that's some nervous tick, or if she's remembering last night's episode of Venture Bros. But, seriously... Senator Clinton. I implore you. Stop it.
Now, while waiting for Clinton to finish her thoughts, Obama does this weird "I'm a Vulcan" bit, where he presses his fingers together and tries to look serene. Not annoying, but... I guess it's inappropriate to be texting friends or playing with the cover-flow feature on your iPod when your opponent is speaking. I'm fairly ADD, so I know in either of their places, I'd be making faces or, when the moderator wanted me to respond, I'd say "Wha-...? Can you repeat that whole last thing you just said?" and then go off on a tangent about a jet-pack in every household.
Otherwise, I thought both did a great job, even when I didn't necessarily agree with them.
I didn't hear much on education aside from some perfunctory opening statements.
I guess I'd now be willing to watch McCain and Huckabee debate, but I'm not sure there's a point until McCain is up against his Democratic opponent later this year.
I'd also like to salute them for their basic collegiality. There weren't any low-blows. The one moment where Hilary took a dig at Obama, I sort of felt fell back into karmic balance when she alluded to Bill's indiscretions. I grew to really, really dislike the political process during the past few years, and last night's debate made me feel a wee bit better about the whole thing.
We'll see what happens when it gets down to the GOP/ Dem debates, but I believe McCain is basically sane and decent, even when I disagree with the guy. So I'm not foreseeing anything too ugly. And, hey... I could be convinced. Let's see what McCain's got.
The debate was in Austin, about a mile from my office, and Jason and Jamie made me watch it instead of watching basketball or something involving Superman.
I haven't read any post-game analysis yet, but a few things are pretty obvious to me. Both front-runners for the Democrats hold very similar viewpoints, and its going to come down to how you think they should go about approaching their goals rather than what goals they're considering in order to make a selection. This means that you're talking a few degrees of separation in policy the two are advocating. Which means a lot is going to come down to a gut or emotional reaction to the two.
Congrats to both candidates for, at no time, attempting an awkward "howdy, ya'll!"
Both agreed on the basics of getting the uninsured insured, border fences (and I wasn't particularly blown away by either candidates' approach on that one), major points on Iraq and that George Bush has dug a hole they believe they're going to have to climb out of.
So, once again, you're left with a gut reaction. While Obama lacks national-stage political experience, its tough to point to Clinton's national-stage political experience without noting on whose coattails she rode to get there. Both have worked on legislation which is appealing to a lefty like myself. Both have voted for some things that leave me unimpressed.
Them's the brakes.
So left to gut feelings about twenty years of Bush/ Clinton rule of the White House, its appealing to want to go to the unknown factor. But I'm not sure Obama has the political experience or clout to move things through, just as I'm not sure that a Clinton in the White House wouldn't re-mobilize the GOP and make sure Clinton was unable to pass a single initiative in four years. No one is sure what would happen with Obama in the White House. He could start dressing as a crazed Admiral and firing cannons from the roof of the White House for all I know.
I'll tell you one thing that drives me berserk about Clinton: The smirk
I'm not sure why nobody has not spoken to Clinton about this, but sitting next to your opponent and smirking while he answers is really... unbecoming. It's kind of like the "heh, heh, heh!" that Bush has become famous for. Or Gore's wandering around the stage during the debates.
Anyhow, I can't tell if she's thinking "I've got this sucker on the ropes", if that's some nervous tick, or if she's remembering last night's episode of Venture Bros. But, seriously... Senator Clinton. I implore you. Stop it.
Now, while waiting for Clinton to finish her thoughts, Obama does this weird "I'm a Vulcan" bit, where he presses his fingers together and tries to look serene. Not annoying, but... I guess it's inappropriate to be texting friends or playing with the cover-flow feature on your iPod when your opponent is speaking. I'm fairly ADD, so I know in either of their places, I'd be making faces or, when the moderator wanted me to respond, I'd say "Wha-...? Can you repeat that whole last thing you just said?" and then go off on a tangent about a jet-pack in every household.
Otherwise, I thought both did a great job, even when I didn't necessarily agree with them.
I didn't hear much on education aside from some perfunctory opening statements.
I guess I'd now be willing to watch McCain and Huckabee debate, but I'm not sure there's a point until McCain is up against his Democratic opponent later this year.
I'd also like to salute them for their basic collegiality. There weren't any low-blows. The one moment where Hilary took a dig at Obama, I sort of felt fell back into karmic balance when she alluded to Bill's indiscretions. I grew to really, really dislike the political process during the past few years, and last night's debate made me feel a wee bit better about the whole thing.
We'll see what happens when it gets down to the GOP/ Dem debates, but I believe McCain is basically sane and decent, even when I disagree with the guy. So I'm not foreseeing anything too ugly. And, hey... I could be convinced. Let's see what McCain's got.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Stray thought of the day - 02/11
I still have to pause and remember that Obama is Obama's last name. It still sounds to me like a first name. I think it's the fact that it ends with a long "a" sound, whereas his first name sounds like a last name, ending with a hard consonant.
Apparently in high school, he went by "Barry".
Also, Mike Huckabee is still hilarious. Watching him on the Colbert Report using Texas as a piece in air hockey was somehow deeply satisfying and said more about our process than I think was intended.
Apparently in high school, he went by "Barry".
Also, Mike Huckabee is still hilarious. Watching him on the Colbert Report using Texas as a piece in air hockey was somehow deeply satisfying and said more about our process than I think was intended.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Super Tuesday
Still undecided going into the primaries? How can you make it a SUPER Tuesday?
The League has selected a candidate based on his support of The Man of Steel.
Until McCain, Romney, Paul, Clinton, Huckabee or someone else shows support for the Last Son of Krypton, Obama is our man.
Of course, I can't vote until March, so all the candidates have an opportunity to pick a superhero between now and March.
Who would each of the candidates pick to represent them?
You tell me!
The League has selected a candidate based on his support of The Man of Steel.
Until McCain, Romney, Paul, Clinton, Huckabee or someone else shows support for the Last Son of Krypton, Obama is our man.
Of course, I can't vote until March, so all the candidates have an opportunity to pick a superhero between now and March.
Who would each of the candidates pick to represent them?
You tell me!
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Oh no
The least fortunate part of politicking has now arrived in Texas.
I just saw my first televised campaign ad of the 2008 presidential race. God bless each and every one of you living in states where you've already slogged through a primary.
The ad was a fairly simple ad for Mike Huckabee (I'm going to nail the "out of business" sign on the IRS. Perhaps you've seen it?)
It was on during the first bit of pre-Superbowl broadcast I flipped to this morning, and I am wondering if the campaigns can actually afford Superbowl time. After all, the campigns aren't selling cheap, watery beer or powerful trucks. How much advertising can they afford?
Anyhooo.... so it begins. And will end in November, I suppose.
Hooray for my DVR and my ability to FFWD thru the commercials.
I just saw my first televised campaign ad of the 2008 presidential race. God bless each and every one of you living in states where you've already slogged through a primary.
The ad was a fairly simple ad for Mike Huckabee (I'm going to nail the "out of business" sign on the IRS. Perhaps you've seen it?)
It was on during the first bit of pre-Superbowl broadcast I flipped to this morning, and I am wondering if the campaigns can actually afford Superbowl time. After all, the campigns aren't selling cheap, watery beer or powerful trucks. How much advertising can they afford?
Anyhooo.... so it begins. And will end in November, I suppose.
Hooray for my DVR and my ability to FFWD thru the commercials.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
