I spend a lot of time watching politics on TV. I have always had this innate compulsion to see it first, to see the moment everyone will be talking about. This is what gives me motivation to drag my ass out of bed and watch 'Meet the Press' and the 'Week' every Sunday. Further, it's why I can certainly say I've watched all 20 debates.
However after watching Matt Taibbi on Bill Maher last Friday (yet another show I watch), I realized that all this TV watching is actually making me stupider. Sure I am certainly above average in my working knowledge of the race, and of the candidates core beliefs on key issues. However, I'm falling into the very trap that I despise. The one where I worship the soundbite, rather than the message.
I witnessed this first hand when I found myself on Wikipedia learning about NAFTA. After realizing I could clearly summarize both Barack and Hillary's positions on the trade agreement without actually knowing about the deal itself I saw my personal error. I mean who gives a shit if you know what their stance is, if you don't know the impact? Granted it was even more pathetic I went to Wikipedia for an answer, however at least it was a move towards substance.
Thank You Matt for helping me realize that my mental laziness is my own fault, and I need to find the enjoyment on the homework portion of politics again.
But for now, fuck it, I'm going to watch some more post debate coverage. I'm taping the Idol.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
American Democracy
Recently I watched the movie "Control Room." Which was quite popular in 2004. Better late that never I suppose. Anyway wanted to share what I thought was a very reassuring statement about foreign perception of our democracy.
A group of Iraqi's, just prior to American invasion were sitting and discussing what they thought of the incoming invasion by the Americans. Seriously imagine sitting and talking bout an imminent invasion from the most powerful military on the planet. Amazing the candor and calmness expressed by these locals.
One Iraqi, in perhaps a state of outrage and fear said, "Who will stop the Americans?"
The other responded, "America will stop itself." Further he stated, "I'm so confident in the American Democracy, and the American people, eventually they will not stand for this war. "
Sad that in 2004, we couldn't have changed direction, thank you Ohio! However, now in 2008, America is finally at the point where public opinion is in line with what that enlightened Iraqi pointed out in 2004. Now we just have to find a candidate who can help us bring our foreign policy more in line with this wishes of voters.
To me the statement of that Iraqi, and tide of public opinion in this country show just how functional our democratic system can be. While we're certainly not perfect, and often slow in changing our ways, we are on the road to improvement, and that above all else, is what matters.
A group of Iraqi's, just prior to American invasion were sitting and discussing what they thought of the incoming invasion by the Americans. Seriously imagine sitting and talking bout an imminent invasion from the most powerful military on the planet. Amazing the candor and calmness expressed by these locals.
One Iraqi, in perhaps a state of outrage and fear said, "Who will stop the Americans?"
The other responded, "America will stop itself." Further he stated, "I'm so confident in the American Democracy, and the American people, eventually they will not stand for this war. "
Sad that in 2004, we couldn't have changed direction, thank you Ohio! However, now in 2008, America is finally at the point where public opinion is in line with what that enlightened Iraqi pointed out in 2004. Now we just have to find a candidate who can help us bring our foreign policy more in line with this wishes of voters.
To me the statement of that Iraqi, and tide of public opinion in this country show just how functional our democratic system can be. While we're certainly not perfect, and often slow in changing our ways, we are on the road to improvement, and that above all else, is what matters.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Obama's Argument
One of the appealing points of Obama's platform that is appealing relies upon the notion that it is in fact a campaign of we, not me. He is probably the ony candidate that will admit, a President cannot do it alone.
Obama consistently says that Washington no longer has the 'political will' to face the challenges of our generation. Further, he argues that the only way government can work for people again, is by engaging the very people it attempts to lead. Obama is quietly discussing the impact of a disengaged political electorate.
Any way you measure it, a democracy is more healthy when 'the people' participate - that is one of the founding pillars of self government. Public officials in federal government have power, and if the masses are smoking the opiates of Fox News and Distraction Television, there is a lot going on we cannot hold politicians accountable for. We just don't know what they are doing! Sure some of us know enough to be critical - but we often fail to act on our discontent with government, thus allowing the train to fly further and further off track. Without public engagement, there can be no true accountability, and without that, Government fails to be rule by the many - and turns into rule by the few.
Sure, we can ask a lot of big questions here. Is rule by the few a bad thing? If not, which few should be leading us, and why? To me these are distractions from the larger argument Obama is making, and I agree with. Without an engaged electorate, people will continue to be dissapointed in public policy, and have no recourse for action. Further, Government will have no motivation to change.
If we don't know what our Government is really doing, then elected persons are woefully aware they don't have to act as agents of a representative democracy. The will act as they please, and listen to interests other than their constituents. If that is the case, as Noam Chomsky points out, you will have a growing gap between public opinion, and public policy.
What Obama is trying to do is quite smart, and interesting. He is focused both on articulating a functional public policy, in addition to the need of an engaged electroate in achieving that goal. The success of his argument and premise is already evidenced by the fact that despite his progressive agenda, many on the right aren't attacking him for that (yet). He's got the public on his side, and further he's got the public actually BELIEVING that we can accomplish his lofty agenda.
Somehow Brittany Spears can't run out to the store and get a pregnancy test without the whole world following her into the bathroom, but FEMA can spend millions on beermaking equipment and IPODS without 95% of the electorate having a clue. Well, Obama has made politics cool again, so watch out - even the morons are listening now.
Obama consistently says that Washington no longer has the 'political will' to face the challenges of our generation. Further, he argues that the only way government can work for people again, is by engaging the very people it attempts to lead. Obama is quietly discussing the impact of a disengaged political electorate.
Any way you measure it, a democracy is more healthy when 'the people' participate - that is one of the founding pillars of self government. Public officials in federal government have power, and if the masses are smoking the opiates of Fox News and Distraction Television, there is a lot going on we cannot hold politicians accountable for. We just don't know what they are doing! Sure some of us know enough to be critical - but we often fail to act on our discontent with government, thus allowing the train to fly further and further off track. Without public engagement, there can be no true accountability, and without that, Government fails to be rule by the many - and turns into rule by the few.
Sure, we can ask a lot of big questions here. Is rule by the few a bad thing? If not, which few should be leading us, and why? To me these are distractions from the larger argument Obama is making, and I agree with. Without an engaged electorate, people will continue to be dissapointed in public policy, and have no recourse for action. Further, Government will have no motivation to change.
If we don't know what our Government is really doing, then elected persons are woefully aware they don't have to act as agents of a representative democracy. The will act as they please, and listen to interests other than their constituents. If that is the case, as Noam Chomsky points out, you will have a growing gap between public opinion, and public policy.
What Obama is trying to do is quite smart, and interesting. He is focused both on articulating a functional public policy, in addition to the need of an engaged electroate in achieving that goal. The success of his argument and premise is already evidenced by the fact that despite his progressive agenda, many on the right aren't attacking him for that (yet). He's got the public on his side, and further he's got the public actually BELIEVING that we can accomplish his lofty agenda.
Somehow Brittany Spears can't run out to the store and get a pregnancy test without the whole world following her into the bathroom, but FEMA can spend millions on beermaking equipment and IPODS without 95% of the electorate having a clue. Well, Obama has made politics cool again, so watch out - even the morons are listening now.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Don't Forget about Dean
In 2004, Democrats weren't really ready for a candidate like Howard Dean. He was brutally honest in his feelings about the war, the economy, healthcare, and the damage inflicted bt George Bush. He was a candidate ahead of his time (yes, 4 years ago can be a long time politically). Bill Mahr called him the candidate who gave the democratic party a backbone. Dean appropriatley expressed the anger progressives were feeling in 2004. He had the winning message, people just didn't think it through.
Natrually grassroots Deaniacs were derailed by a party that was seeking an 'electable' establishment democrat. There was simply too much at stake. We had to win - enter John Kerry. Clinton is the John Kerry of 2004. It's the same argument as 2004, just different charecters and a vastly different political climate. For the reason of a changed political reality, I think democrats are ready to make a different decision in 2008. This decision will not be made easily, as the election has shown us how much rank and file democrats are struggling with their vote.
In politics, the outcome an election has should never seriously discussed by narrowing the scope of the argument down to two simplistic words, experience and change. The value of an experienced candidate is not absolute, nor is that of a change candidate. The population isn't always ready for change, just as they are often intolerable of a leader possessing experience in a percieved failed governmental body. Though we chase our own tail trying to figure out what we need to win, we forget to think about the political reality of the present - which in itself is a better indicator of what kind of candidate will win a general election. Much like our politics, the qualities that make a good leader fluctuate over time.
When Dean spoke in 2004, he had a tone that was refreshing to proud progressivea. The 4 years of George Bush left most liberals hiding in the bunkers waiting for the storm to end. Dean spoke against the war, for healthcare, and with an overall distaste for Washington that hit a nerve within the party. This was evidenced by his fundraising, and speeches that drew crows eerily similar to Obama.
The problem with Dean was not his abrasive speeches, or proud progressive rhetoric. The problem was in the fact that America just wasn't as mad as he was yet. The message that made Dean a breath of fresh air to progressives, is what brought Democrats both houses of Congress back in 2006. The frustration Dean tapped into in 2004 has grown significantly more mainstream to date. That is why I believe democrats are ready to make a different decision this time. We understand the values we have traditionally judged our candidates by are not absolute. We know that Clinton, as good a person as she is, will never have that grassroots fire Obama does.
Dean taught us how to stand up. Obama will teach us how to stand together (which is an added bonus, as we're already standing thanks to Dean).
Natrually grassroots Deaniacs were derailed by a party that was seeking an 'electable' establishment democrat. There was simply too much at stake. We had to win - enter John Kerry. Clinton is the John Kerry of 2004. It's the same argument as 2004, just different charecters and a vastly different political climate. For the reason of a changed political reality, I think democrats are ready to make a different decision in 2008. This decision will not be made easily, as the election has shown us how much rank and file democrats are struggling with their vote.
In politics, the outcome an election has should never seriously discussed by narrowing the scope of the argument down to two simplistic words, experience and change. The value of an experienced candidate is not absolute, nor is that of a change candidate. The population isn't always ready for change, just as they are often intolerable of a leader possessing experience in a percieved failed governmental body. Though we chase our own tail trying to figure out what we need to win, we forget to think about the political reality of the present - which in itself is a better indicator of what kind of candidate will win a general election. Much like our politics, the qualities that make a good leader fluctuate over time.
When Dean spoke in 2004, he had a tone that was refreshing to proud progressivea. The 4 years of George Bush left most liberals hiding in the bunkers waiting for the storm to end. Dean spoke against the war, for healthcare, and with an overall distaste for Washington that hit a nerve within the party. This was evidenced by his fundraising, and speeches that drew crows eerily similar to Obama.
The problem with Dean was not his abrasive speeches, or proud progressive rhetoric. The problem was in the fact that America just wasn't as mad as he was yet. The message that made Dean a breath of fresh air to progressives, is what brought Democrats both houses of Congress back in 2006. The frustration Dean tapped into in 2004 has grown significantly more mainstream to date. That is why I believe democrats are ready to make a different decision this time. We understand the values we have traditionally judged our candidates by are not absolute. We know that Clinton, as good a person as she is, will never have that grassroots fire Obama does.
Dean taught us how to stand up. Obama will teach us how to stand together (which is an added bonus, as we're already standing thanks to Dean).
Thursday, February 7, 2008
I'd Drill in Anwar
So the girl I'm dating is a republican, but not exactly by choice. Until she met me, in a political sense, I don't think she ever thought outside the context by which she was raised (vote republican!!!). I don't blame her, but quite frankly I'm glad she's thinking a little more on her own. Politics affects people, and turning someone on to the dialogue is a joy for me.
When people either don't vote, or vote mindlessly, some bad things can happen. Politics to a major extent is about power. Public officials make big decisions, and these decisions impact not only the individual, but also the collective society in which we live. These same officials also understand voting trends, and they know exactly how to win elections. They also know the vast majority of people aren't tuned in, and won't question the fountain of bullshit spewing from their mouths. The consequence of a sedated electorate is policies which are further from the truth than the campaign promises themselves. In the end, no one is listening anyway. Rule by the few, isn't benefiting anyone.
This brings me to Tom Delay. No doubt a smart, powerful little man, who rose to power by duping voters and redrawing election districts in Texas. This little man, today gave an interview on MSNBC in which he bashed the science of global warming, the international court of justice (which has put countless war criminals in jail), and of course gun control. None of this of course is surprising from him.
However, his message must not be forgotten. When you don't vote, or vote without thinking, we end up with men like Tom Delay setting the agenda. We will end up with a guy like Mitt Romney, who when asked what would Ronald Regan say if he were alive answered "I'd Drill in Anwar!"
When people either don't vote, or vote mindlessly, some bad things can happen. Politics to a major extent is about power. Public officials make big decisions, and these decisions impact not only the individual, but also the collective society in which we live. These same officials also understand voting trends, and they know exactly how to win elections. They also know the vast majority of people aren't tuned in, and won't question the fountain of bullshit spewing from their mouths. The consequence of a sedated electorate is policies which are further from the truth than the campaign promises themselves. In the end, no one is listening anyway. Rule by the few, isn't benefiting anyone.
This brings me to Tom Delay. No doubt a smart, powerful little man, who rose to power by duping voters and redrawing election districts in Texas. This little man, today gave an interview on MSNBC in which he bashed the science of global warming, the international court of justice (which has put countless war criminals in jail), and of course gun control. None of this of course is surprising from him.
However, his message must not be forgotten. When you don't vote, or vote without thinking, we end up with men like Tom Delay setting the agenda. We will end up with a guy like Mitt Romney, who when asked what would Ronald Regan say if he were alive answered "I'd Drill in Anwar!"
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Talking Without Listening
I'll never forget the opening ceremony to the Olympics in 2004 in which Matt Lauer and Katy Couric proceeded to talk through the performance of Bjork, choosing to comment on the length of her dress rather than let the viewers watch the performance. She's a singer for god's sake!
I wrote a letter to NBC in frustration, which in my opinion did result in less chatter during the closing ceremonies.
However, the trend of talking without listening seems to spill over to other areas. Such an example might be made of tonight's debate. Wolf was talking incessently with Candy Crowley, even as he sat down to moderate the debate. Even as candidates tried to talk seriously about immigration, Wolf chose to bait Obama into mocking Hillary. Even as Hillary tried to talk about her war vote, Wolf continued to bait her about a 'nieve vote'. Thus causing the audience to 'boo' the moderator, further distracting us from the conversation.
Had he been in the moment, rather than attempting to turn this into a sound-bite, conflict laden debate, (sorry South Carolina will only happen once), he might have noticed a full blown substanative debate was taking place for the benefit of those of us trying to make a rational decision. Just as Matt and Katie fucked us over in Atlanta, so did CNN in Hollywood. Too much talking, too little listening.
This is why CSPAN is far and above the best network. You get to be in the room, a fly on the wall, a judge. As boring and non glamourous as CSPAN might be, it teaches us to watch and listen. Without talking.
I wrote a letter to NBC in frustration, which in my opinion did result in less chatter during the closing ceremonies.
However, the trend of talking without listening seems to spill over to other areas. Such an example might be made of tonight's debate. Wolf was talking incessently with Candy Crowley, even as he sat down to moderate the debate. Even as candidates tried to talk seriously about immigration, Wolf chose to bait Obama into mocking Hillary. Even as Hillary tried to talk about her war vote, Wolf continued to bait her about a 'nieve vote'. Thus causing the audience to 'boo' the moderator, further distracting us from the conversation.
Had he been in the moment, rather than attempting to turn this into a sound-bite, conflict laden debate, (sorry South Carolina will only happen once), he might have noticed a full blown substanative debate was taking place for the benefit of those of us trying to make a rational decision. Just as Matt and Katie fucked us over in Atlanta, so did CNN in Hollywood. Too much talking, too little listening.
This is why CSPAN is far and above the best network. You get to be in the room, a fly on the wall, a judge. As boring and non glamourous as CSPAN might be, it teaches us to watch and listen. Without talking.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Rudy - C'mon....
So I sat and watched Rudy's concession speech tonight. I sincerly hope that whoever came up with the Florida Strategy was either a democrat, or was fired. Either way the fella that embraced the 'politics of fear' has been ousted do to fear over the economy.
In his concession speech, he talked about how he was happy he lead an "Uplifting Campaign." Moment's later he was making the case that we stay on offense in the islamo facist war against us. Yes, constant warefare is truly uplifting. Nothing like uniting under a common enemy to make us feel American huh? Uplifting...
It was also uplifting for him to talk about his ability to deal with Hurricane's better than other candidates. Now C'mon, Chuck Norris could kick the shit out of a hurricane.
If Rudy was to campaign in other states, he'd have to find out what their fears were. Some examples are:
California - earthquakes, single payer healthcare, and oilspills
Idaho - potatoe famine, and boredom
Wyoming - Dick Cheney might move back
Arizona - That's easy. Build the fence to save our society
New Mexico - Same as Above
Kansas - Well they have a democrat governor, they need someone uplifting to distract them.
Nevada - Missed Oppertunity
Well thankfully he promised that his movement won't end. This is the equivalent of those freaks on American Idol that scream into the camera - "YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE LAST OF ME."
Yes we have. (And again to paralell Idol, we're stupider for staying tuned this long)
In his concession speech, he talked about how he was happy he lead an "Uplifting Campaign." Moment's later he was making the case that we stay on offense in the islamo facist war against us. Yes, constant warefare is truly uplifting. Nothing like uniting under a common enemy to make us feel American huh? Uplifting...
It was also uplifting for him to talk about his ability to deal with Hurricane's better than other candidates. Now C'mon, Chuck Norris could kick the shit out of a hurricane.
If Rudy was to campaign in other states, he'd have to find out what their fears were. Some examples are:
California - earthquakes, single payer healthcare, and oilspills
Idaho - potatoe famine, and boredom
Wyoming - Dick Cheney might move back
Arizona - That's easy. Build the fence to save our society
New Mexico - Same as Above
Kansas - Well they have a democrat governor, they need someone uplifting to distract them.
Nevada - Missed Oppertunity
Well thankfully he promised that his movement won't end. This is the equivalent of those freaks on American Idol that scream into the camera - "YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE LAST OF ME."
Yes we have. (And again to paralell Idol, we're stupider for staying tuned this long)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
