Best blog comment on the Obama\Clinton debate comes from Josh Marshall of TPM:
"8:08 PM ... What GOP operative masterminded holding this debate at the Kodak theater with a bunch of movie stars in the audience?"
Seriously. What was the venue decision meeting like?
CNN PRODUCER: "Here's what I'm going to do for you. You tell me where you want to hold the Republican presidential debate, and we'll do it."
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "Anywhere? Wow. Even the Ronald Reagan library?"
CNN PRODUCER: "You got it. What else do you want?"
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "Uh...midway through the debate, could you bring out one of Reagan's diaries, so we can further worship Our Savior and Holy Father?"
CNN PRODUCER: "I'm going to do you one better. Not only will we bring out one of Reagan's diaries, I'll program Anderson Cooper to say "I'm a little too nervous to actually even touch it, but that is Ronald Reagan's original diary."
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "Program?"
CNN PRODUCER: "Yeah. He's a robot. That's why his hair is white. Silicone gets like that in a sun."
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "Wow. Well, thank you. This is so much more than I expected."
CNN PRODUCER: "Whoa, hold on there. We're not done yet. Where do you want to hold the Democratic presidential debate?"
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "Are you being serious?"
CNN PRODUCER: "Yeah. Shoot."
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "Okay. I'll play along. I want you to have the debate...in Hollywood. In the Kodak theater, where they hold the Academy Awards. Oh, and no regular people in the first 10 rows. Just rich, obnoxious Hollywood celebrities whose very countenance will remind middle America of the phrase 'Hollywood liberal.' "
CNN PRODUCER: "As good as done." [yells] "Cooper-Bot, get in here!"
ANDERSON COOPER-BOT: "YES, MASTER."
CNN PRODUCER: "Cooper-Bot, you're going to the Reagan library, Before you go, tell Wolf-Bot he's going to Hollywood. And make sure he's loaded his Obnoxious Goading sub-routine. If he doesn't start a fight between Clinton and Obama, he's scrapped."
ANDERSON COOPER-BOT: "RIGHT AWAY, MASTER."
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "Wow. Robot technology has progressed so far in 30 years."
CNN PRODUCER: "You've seen a robot before?"
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "Hello? Reagan fan here."
January 31, 2008
Well Done, Mr. Toles
Tom Toles gets one last lick in on Rudy Giuliani, the only presidential candidate to use actual 9/11 footage in his campaign videos.
January 30, 2008
January 28, 2008
Martial Arts and Politics
I am going to make a generalization about martial arts. There are two types of martial arts: disciplines that focus on attacking your enemy (e.g. karate), and disciplines that focus on redirecting your opponent's attacks and using them against him (e.g. judo).
Now I am going to make a generalization about politics. Most politicians practice karate. When political commentators remark that one candidate runs a better campaign than the other, they mean that one candidate is better at karate than the other, better at attacking one's opponent and dictating the terms of the fight.
If you are running a positive campaign, especially one emphasizing change, you can't fight back with karate. It runs contrary to your disposition and your message. It doesn't take many days of attacking to make your supporters feel that you're just another politician using the same negative tactics as every other politician.
Yet you have you fight back, and fight back strongly. The best (and only way, I'd argue) to do this is through judo, using your opponent's attacks against him or her.
I'm obviously talking about karate master Hillary Clinton and judo practitioner Barack Obama. Neither style is morally superior to the other. Politicians choose whatever style best suits their talents and message. Yet the judo style of campaigning is more difficult to execute, and up until a few days ago, Obama wasn't doing a good job at doing it.
For much of the past three weeks, Hillary Clinton's campaign was a step ahead of Obama's campaign. She was controlling the debate, controlling the news cycles, and got Obama to engage in karate for the first half of the South Carolina debate against someone he can never beat with this style.
I have no idea how much of this insider politics stuff influences voters, but it made me worry that his campaign didn't have the cleverness or responsiveness needed to win the nomination. And quite frankly, if his campaign couldn't figure out a way to turn Clinton's attacks on herself, then he didn't deserve to win.
It heartened me several days ago when his campaign first aired the idea that Hillary would do anything to win. That was the right Judo response. One of Hillary Clinton's strengths is that she is willing to do anything to win. This is a good thing. It may be off-putting at times, but if she wins the Democratic nomination and you are a Democrat, you want her to do anything to win. It's too "ends justifies the means" for my taste, but if the only alternative is losing, then it's better than losing.
But Obama was able to reframe this strength as a negative and tie it into a message about how he represented a new style of politics and Clinton an old style of politics. His victory speech after he won the South Carolina primary is a masterful example of a judo response, and made me think that he finally got it.
It's also an inspiring speech that has won admiration even from some conservative Republicans. If you don't have time to watch the whole speech, minutes 4:00-9:00 are a good example of what I wrote about.
Now I am going to make a generalization about politics. Most politicians practice karate. When political commentators remark that one candidate runs a better campaign than the other, they mean that one candidate is better at karate than the other, better at attacking one's opponent and dictating the terms of the fight.
If you are running a positive campaign, especially one emphasizing change, you can't fight back with karate. It runs contrary to your disposition and your message. It doesn't take many days of attacking to make your supporters feel that you're just another politician using the same negative tactics as every other politician.
Yet you have you fight back, and fight back strongly. The best (and only way, I'd argue) to do this is through judo, using your opponent's attacks against him or her.
I'm obviously talking about karate master Hillary Clinton and judo practitioner Barack Obama. Neither style is morally superior to the other. Politicians choose whatever style best suits their talents and message. Yet the judo style of campaigning is more difficult to execute, and up until a few days ago, Obama wasn't doing a good job at doing it.
For much of the past three weeks, Hillary Clinton's campaign was a step ahead of Obama's campaign. She was controlling the debate, controlling the news cycles, and got Obama to engage in karate for the first half of the South Carolina debate against someone he can never beat with this style.
I have no idea how much of this insider politics stuff influences voters, but it made me worry that his campaign didn't have the cleverness or responsiveness needed to win the nomination. And quite frankly, if his campaign couldn't figure out a way to turn Clinton's attacks on herself, then he didn't deserve to win.
It heartened me several days ago when his campaign first aired the idea that Hillary would do anything to win. That was the right Judo response. One of Hillary Clinton's strengths is that she is willing to do anything to win. This is a good thing. It may be off-putting at times, but if she wins the Democratic nomination and you are a Democrat, you want her to do anything to win. It's too "ends justifies the means" for my taste, but if the only alternative is losing, then it's better than losing.
But Obama was able to reframe this strength as a negative and tie it into a message about how he represented a new style of politics and Clinton an old style of politics. His victory speech after he won the South Carolina primary is a masterful example of a judo response, and made me think that he finally got it.
It's also an inspiring speech that has won admiration even from some conservative Republicans. If you don't have time to watch the whole speech, minutes 4:00-9:00 are a good example of what I wrote about.
January 21, 2008
Transformers
I finally watched "Transformers", directed by Michael Bay. It is the type of movie that if I don't write about it now, I never will because I already forgot half of it and I just finished it five minutes ago.
Crap. I just spent five minutes after writing the above sentences trying to remember what snide comments I was about to make, and all that's left in my head is "Poosh". If you don't know, poosh is the culminate sound of two hours of car crashes, explosions, missile fire, and blown-up buildings all compressed into one second. Michael Bay made my brain go poosh.
The experience was exactly like watching "Memento", where time was sliced into a dozen pieces and the fragments rearranged out of order, casting doubt on the existence of narrative yet cohesive enough to motivate one to search for it.
Actually, the experience was nothing like watching "Memento." This is a better analogy. My brain felt like an asteroid hitting another asteroid, which then hit a third asteroid, and then somehow the asteroids rearrange their flight paths so they all start spinning in unison and plummet together towards Earth.
That is also the beginning sequence of Transformers, except there is also a melodramatic voice-over about how Earth is in danger from the Decepticons who want the All Spice so they can season Earth with their evil and then, I dunno, buy a time share and summer in Maine.
I was 100% prepared for a fun but brainless movie when I rented Transformers. Where I erred was not checking the running time beforehand. I saw the Netflix sleeve and thought, "Crap, two and a half hours? That's a long time for a bad movie."
When you are watching a movie that turns time into an abyss with no ledges to anchor oneself, 1 hour and 22 minutes is the same as 2.5 hours. except the latter fosters more pee breaks and thoughts like, "Why is the robot talking like Martin Lawrence from 'Bad Boys II'?"
Ooh, I remembered a thought! Michael Bay passed up an amazing opportunity for a joke. This opportunity was so amazing, that in spite of what I wrote, I would have become a Michael Bay fan for life if he had made this joke.
It was the scene where High School Guy Who Looks 25 and High School Girl Who Already Had Plastic Surgery were meeting the Autobots for the first time.
High School Guy asked Optimus Prime how the Autobots know slang. (Let's ignore the ridiculousness of this question, or why his first question wasn't "HOW THE FUCK DID YOU CRAZY TALKING ROBOTS GET HERE?") Optimus Prime said, "We learned it from the Internet."
What a great set-up for a joke. You can draw from one of many areas of Internet linguistic oddness: l33t speak, IM chat, penis enhancement spam, and so on. What does one of the Autobots say to show off his Internet language?
"This looks like a cool place to kick it!" Wow. Move more, Mr. T. "Jazz" of the Autobots is here.
Here's what would have made me a Michael Bay fan for life:
GUY: "Where did you learn English?"
OPTIMUS PRIME: "The World Wide Web."
JAZZ: "I CAN haz cheezburger." (1 2 3)
Crap. I just spent five minutes after writing the above sentences trying to remember what snide comments I was about to make, and all that's left in my head is "Poosh". If you don't know, poosh is the culminate sound of two hours of car crashes, explosions, missile fire, and blown-up buildings all compressed into one second. Michael Bay made my brain go poosh.
The experience was exactly like watching "Memento", where time was sliced into a dozen pieces and the fragments rearranged out of order, casting doubt on the existence of narrative yet cohesive enough to motivate one to search for it.
Actually, the experience was nothing like watching "Memento." This is a better analogy. My brain felt like an asteroid hitting another asteroid, which then hit a third asteroid, and then somehow the asteroids rearrange their flight paths so they all start spinning in unison and plummet together towards Earth.
That is also the beginning sequence of Transformers, except there is also a melodramatic voice-over about how Earth is in danger from the Decepticons who want the All Spice so they can season Earth with their evil and then, I dunno, buy a time share and summer in Maine.
I was 100% prepared for a fun but brainless movie when I rented Transformers. Where I erred was not checking the running time beforehand. I saw the Netflix sleeve and thought, "Crap, two and a half hours? That's a long time for a bad movie."
When you are watching a movie that turns time into an abyss with no ledges to anchor oneself, 1 hour and 22 minutes is the same as 2.5 hours. except the latter fosters more pee breaks and thoughts like, "Why is the robot talking like Martin Lawrence from 'Bad Boys II'?"
Ooh, I remembered a thought! Michael Bay passed up an amazing opportunity for a joke. This opportunity was so amazing, that in spite of what I wrote, I would have become a Michael Bay fan for life if he had made this joke.
It was the scene where High School Guy Who Looks 25 and High School Girl Who Already Had Plastic Surgery were meeting the Autobots for the first time.
High School Guy asked Optimus Prime how the Autobots know slang. (Let's ignore the ridiculousness of this question, or why his first question wasn't "HOW THE FUCK DID YOU CRAZY TALKING ROBOTS GET HERE?") Optimus Prime said, "We learned it from the Internet."
What a great set-up for a joke. You can draw from one of many areas of Internet linguistic oddness: l33t speak, IM chat, penis enhancement spam, and so on. What does one of the Autobots say to show off his Internet language?
"This looks like a cool place to kick it!" Wow. Move more, Mr. T. "Jazz" of the Autobots is here.
Here's what would have made me a Michael Bay fan for life:
GUY: "Where did you learn English?"
OPTIMUS PRIME: "The World Wide Web."
JAZZ: "I CAN haz cheezburger." (1 2 3)
SC Dem. Debate Reaction
I wrote this debate reaction for the comments section of another blog, and it became so long that I figured I might as well post it. Probably not interesting if you didn't watch the debate:
All three candidates had their moments. Edwards positioned himself perfectly in the first half of the debate as being above the squalor when Obama and Hillary were attacking each other relentlessly. He appealed well to African-American voters and sounded more authentic than usual in his rhetoric. He still has a few phrases that he repeats too often, but overall, he had the right tone and it felt like his best debate performance so far.
Obama showed for the first time that he can hit back very hard, but his attractiveness as a candidate is so dependent on positivity, much more so than either Clinton or Edwards, that just having to be in the position of attacking someone harshly may have hurt him overall. He seemed much better in the 2nd half of the debate, like when he connected his positive message to a political strategy better than he has before, and seemed more eloquent than in the first half of the debate (for example, when Clinton brought up his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature in the first half of the debate, I could have explained them better than he did).
Clinton's performance is hard for me to gauge. One of her strengths is policy, and she comes off as more knowledgeable and sharp than Obama and Edwards time and time again. She had a few moments of passion that came off well too. On the downside (or upside, depending on how you look at it), she has wholly adopted the "win at any cost" campaign tactics that Republicans national candidates often favor and have used to great effect. Her comments on Obama's remarks about Reagan and his present votes in the Illinois legislature are just plain willful distortions.
Some people may find it a plus that she is willing to get dirty to win, but for me, every time I started warming up to her, she would make an attack untruthful in spirit, if not in substance, and I would lose whatever admiration I was starting to gain from her. Politicians who are willing to do anything to get into power are willing to do anything to stay in power. The last seven years is as good of an example of that as any. Her character is my biggest reservation about her.
Summary:
Edwards: Did well, may have "won"
Obama: Mixed performance, better in 2nd half of the debate
Clinton: I have no idea. Probably depends on whatever beliefs one already had about her more than anything.
All three candidates had their moments. Edwards positioned himself perfectly in the first half of the debate as being above the squalor when Obama and Hillary were attacking each other relentlessly. He appealed well to African-American voters and sounded more authentic than usual in his rhetoric. He still has a few phrases that he repeats too often, but overall, he had the right tone and it felt like his best debate performance so far.
Obama showed for the first time that he can hit back very hard, but his attractiveness as a candidate is so dependent on positivity, much more so than either Clinton or Edwards, that just having to be in the position of attacking someone harshly may have hurt him overall. He seemed much better in the 2nd half of the debate, like when he connected his positive message to a political strategy better than he has before, and seemed more eloquent than in the first half of the debate (for example, when Clinton brought up his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature in the first half of the debate, I could have explained them better than he did).
Clinton's performance is hard for me to gauge. One of her strengths is policy, and she comes off as more knowledgeable and sharp than Obama and Edwards time and time again. She had a few moments of passion that came off well too. On the downside (or upside, depending on how you look at it), she has wholly adopted the "win at any cost" campaign tactics that Republicans national candidates often favor and have used to great effect. Her comments on Obama's remarks about Reagan and his present votes in the Illinois legislature are just plain willful distortions.
Some people may find it a plus that she is willing to get dirty to win, but for me, every time I started warming up to her, she would make an attack untruthful in spirit, if not in substance, and I would lose whatever admiration I was starting to gain from her. Politicians who are willing to do anything to get into power are willing to do anything to stay in power. The last seven years is as good of an example of that as any. Her character is my biggest reservation about her.
Summary:
Edwards: Did well, may have "won"
Obama: Mixed performance, better in 2nd half of the debate
Clinton: I have no idea. Probably depends on whatever beliefs one already had about her more than anything.
January 17, 2008
January 15, 2008
Debate Comments
I watched the Nevada Democratic debate tonight on MSNBC's web site. As wonderfully moderated as the ABC\Charlie Gibson debate was, this one, moderated by Tim Russert and Brian Williams, was horrible. The questions in the first 1/2 hour were unsubstantial and exclusively focused on insider politics.
At one point, one of the moderators (Williams?) told Obama that he received an email alleging that Obama was a Muslim, swore into office using a Koran, etc., and asked him to respond. Sheesh. Is this the new basement of accusations that is now worthy of a televised response?
Did anyone else watch the debate? Perception plays such a powerful role in how one perceives these debates that I don't feel comfortable declaring any universal truths about this one, like who won or who looked better. I favor Obama, and that colors my view significantly. That aside, this is what caught my eye.
* I've watched all of the debates, and whatever I think about Obama and Clinton's responses, they have been syntactically different each time. The variation in language helps their answers sound fresh, and is done in part because they are adapting their language to a consistently changing campaign, including whatever interest groups they are trying to target in the state where the debate is held.
Edwards, on the another hand, keeps repeating the same phrases with little variation. This is OK if a voter only hears it once, but for me, I found my attention drifting almost every time he talked. The intense focus on message makes him come off to me as unimaginative and somewhat lacking in depth, traits he probably doesn't have in real life. I think the lack of even superficial deviation from one's message is a poor tactic, and he risks being tuned out more than the other candidates.
Next debate, I'm making a Edwards drinking game. One sip everything time he says mill, I'll fight for your interests, corporate greed, lobbyists, or middle class. I am going to get trashed.
* Small thing, but I liked it when Obama said (paraphrasing, hopefully correctly) that one of the biggest ways to head towards energy independence was to focus on efficiency. From what I read, it's true. The biggest way to reduce energy consumption is the most boring: buying fluorescent light bulbs, more energy efficient washers and dryers, and so on.
* Just thought of this. In spite of what I said about Edwards, I wonder if Obama needs to be more on-message, in specific, explaining to people his philosophy of governance.
I'm not sure it comes through enough during the debates. Whether you support him or not, do you feel you understand how he aims to enact and garner support for policy?
My understanding is that it is based on the principles of mediation, inclusiveness, and evaluating the interests of different groups based on science and rationality rather than ideology. In short, the language and politics of cooperation, rather than combativeness (e.g building "good enough" majorities, seeing the other side as the enemy).
This may be naive of me, but I think there is a lot to be gained from acknowledging the view of someone you disagree with, and showing that you understand that person's view. Angry people don't change their minds, whether it's you or the other person who is angry. I believe there are practical benefits to encouraging a civil discussion and reducing the overall level of emotional arguments in political discourse besides the fact that it makes most people feel warm and fuzzy.
At any one time, you can either be in an emotional state or a rational state. You can't be in both. I think better decisions would be made if politicians did less to generate support through emotionally loaded words and speeches, and instead focused on appealing to people's brains.
I remember during the run-up to the Iraq war people on both sides were extremely emotionally invested in the conflict, and we were never able to have a rational, national debate on the decision to go to war. I definitely got emotionally invested at one point and became angry above all else. A good part of that reason was that our leaders were using emotions like fear and anger to fan support for the war, which inspired similar emotions in the other side, and whatever chance we had for a level-headed evaluation of the available information by the public was lost.
It would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, for a President to avoid creating or succumbing to an emotionally charged environment, especially if there were another terrorist attack. But the country would be better off if it could be done, and in my opinion Barack Obama is the best hope for creating a better political environment.
At one point, one of the moderators (Williams?) told Obama that he received an email alleging that Obama was a Muslim, swore into office using a Koran, etc., and asked him to respond. Sheesh. Is this the new basement of accusations that is now worthy of a televised response?
Did anyone else watch the debate? Perception plays such a powerful role in how one perceives these debates that I don't feel comfortable declaring any universal truths about this one, like who won or who looked better. I favor Obama, and that colors my view significantly. That aside, this is what caught my eye.
* I've watched all of the debates, and whatever I think about Obama and Clinton's responses, they have been syntactically different each time. The variation in language helps their answers sound fresh, and is done in part because they are adapting their language to a consistently changing campaign, including whatever interest groups they are trying to target in the state where the debate is held.
Edwards, on the another hand, keeps repeating the same phrases with little variation. This is OK if a voter only hears it once, but for me, I found my attention drifting almost every time he talked. The intense focus on message makes him come off to me as unimaginative and somewhat lacking in depth, traits he probably doesn't have in real life. I think the lack of even superficial deviation from one's message is a poor tactic, and he risks being tuned out more than the other candidates.
Next debate, I'm making a Edwards drinking game. One sip everything time he says mill, I'll fight for your interests, corporate greed, lobbyists, or middle class. I am going to get trashed.
* Small thing, but I liked it when Obama said (paraphrasing, hopefully correctly) that one of the biggest ways to head towards energy independence was to focus on efficiency. From what I read, it's true. The biggest way to reduce energy consumption is the most boring: buying fluorescent light bulbs, more energy efficient washers and dryers, and so on.
* Just thought of this. In spite of what I said about Edwards, I wonder if Obama needs to be more on-message, in specific, explaining to people his philosophy of governance.
I'm not sure it comes through enough during the debates. Whether you support him or not, do you feel you understand how he aims to enact and garner support for policy?
My understanding is that it is based on the principles of mediation, inclusiveness, and evaluating the interests of different groups based on science and rationality rather than ideology. In short, the language and politics of cooperation, rather than combativeness (e.g building "good enough" majorities, seeing the other side as the enemy).
This may be naive of me, but I think there is a lot to be gained from acknowledging the view of someone you disagree with, and showing that you understand that person's view. Angry people don't change their minds, whether it's you or the other person who is angry. I believe there are practical benefits to encouraging a civil discussion and reducing the overall level of emotional arguments in political discourse besides the fact that it makes most people feel warm and fuzzy.
At any one time, you can either be in an emotional state or a rational state. You can't be in both. I think better decisions would be made if politicians did less to generate support through emotionally loaded words and speeches, and instead focused on appealing to people's brains.
I remember during the run-up to the Iraq war people on both sides were extremely emotionally invested in the conflict, and we were never able to have a rational, national debate on the decision to go to war. I definitely got emotionally invested at one point and became angry above all else. A good part of that reason was that our leaders were using emotions like fear and anger to fan support for the war, which inspired similar emotions in the other side, and whatever chance we had for a level-headed evaluation of the available information by the public was lost.
It would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, for a President to avoid creating or succumbing to an emotionally charged environment, especially if there were another terrorist attack. But the country would be better off if it could be done, and in my opinion Barack Obama is the best hope for creating a better political environment.
January 14, 2008
What Is McCain Snorting?
No, he didn't say something stupid. I ask because he's 71, and he says during the campaign season he wakes us at 6:00 A.M., and goes to bed at 1:00 A.M.
I'm 31, and that's a full five hours less than my ideal sleep time. I'm a firm believer in that when creating schedule, there should be one A.M., and one P.M. Two of each means you either aren't getting enough sleep or are narcoleptic.
The presidential campaign does nothing but remind me of how unqualified I am to be President. I can't even fantasize about being President anymore. I envision myself speaking to a crowd and I think: "Ugh, I don't want to shake all these people's hands. I'm going to bed."
I'm suspicious of everyone running for President. The job itself is slightly less worse than the process to get it. It's stressful, insular, and erodes whatever ethics or principles one may have had entering politics. If you do a really good job, 55% of people will like you. If you do a great job, you get assassinated.
There has to be a better way to obtain power. You know those six mysterious bankers that supposedly control the entire world? One of them has to die sometime. Why not aim for being one of them? There has to be a cadre of backup bankers somewhere, waiting to step in when one of the original six dies. That backup banker could be you.
Better yet, get five of your banking friends and hold a press conference declaring that you all are The Six. What are the mysterious bankers going to do, come out of hiding? They're Mysterious. They don't do that. Just issue terse, cryptic statements after events like when oil hit $100 a barrel ("If only the world didn't disappoint us.") and enough people will start believing you have power that you will have power.
Chutzpah goes a long way. I am convinced this is how Paris Hilton became a celebrity. She crashed a ritzy party and everyone was too embarrassed to admit they didn't know who she was. There was one dicey conversation ("I didn't invite her. Did you invite her." "No. I thought you did." "Maybe...Carl invited her?" "I guess.") and then she was home free.
To tie this back to the original subject, I suspect McCain will win the Republican nomination. My astute political reasoning behind my belief is that the other five Republican candidates are douche bags.
To be more specific: jerk, fear mongerer, devoid of integrity, doesn't believe in evolution, and not really a douche bag, but seriously, the gold standard? "FEDERAL RESERVE: The economy needs more money. Quick, get a pick ax!"
The other candidates each have at least one huge flaw, so I think McCain will win. I also think he would make the best President out of the Republican candidates, so that's a good thing, even if it makes the general election more difficult for the Democratic nominee. A lot of good can come from competition, and I would rather have two strong candidates running for President than a strong one and a weak one.
I'm 31, and that's a full five hours less than my ideal sleep time. I'm a firm believer in that when creating schedule, there should be one A.M., and one P.M. Two of each means you either aren't getting enough sleep or are narcoleptic.
The presidential campaign does nothing but remind me of how unqualified I am to be President. I can't even fantasize about being President anymore. I envision myself speaking to a crowd and I think: "Ugh, I don't want to shake all these people's hands. I'm going to bed."
I'm suspicious of everyone running for President. The job itself is slightly less worse than the process to get it. It's stressful, insular, and erodes whatever ethics or principles one may have had entering politics. If you do a really good job, 55% of people will like you. If you do a great job, you get assassinated.
There has to be a better way to obtain power. You know those six mysterious bankers that supposedly control the entire world? One of them has to die sometime. Why not aim for being one of them? There has to be a cadre of backup bankers somewhere, waiting to step in when one of the original six dies. That backup banker could be you.
Better yet, get five of your banking friends and hold a press conference declaring that you all are The Six. What are the mysterious bankers going to do, come out of hiding? They're Mysterious. They don't do that. Just issue terse, cryptic statements after events like when oil hit $100 a barrel ("If only the world didn't disappoint us.") and enough people will start believing you have power that you will have power.
Chutzpah goes a long way. I am convinced this is how Paris Hilton became a celebrity. She crashed a ritzy party and everyone was too embarrassed to admit they didn't know who she was. There was one dicey conversation ("I didn't invite her. Did you invite her." "No. I thought you did." "Maybe...Carl invited her?" "I guess.") and then she was home free.
To tie this back to the original subject, I suspect McCain will win the Republican nomination. My astute political reasoning behind my belief is that the other five Republican candidates are douche bags.
To be more specific: jerk, fear mongerer, devoid of integrity, doesn't believe in evolution, and not really a douche bag, but seriously, the gold standard? "FEDERAL RESERVE: The economy needs more money. Quick, get a pick ax!"
The other candidates each have at least one huge flaw, so I think McCain will win. I also think he would make the best President out of the Republican candidates, so that's a good thing, even if it makes the general election more difficult for the Democratic nominee. A lot of good can come from competition, and I would rather have two strong candidates running for President than a strong one and a weak one.
January 10, 2008
Web Sites I'm Too Lazy To Create
I need a Web 3.0 widget that will let me create Web 2.0 sites with a minimum of effort, which happens to be the maximum amount of effort I am willing to spend on making a web site. Two ideas I thought of last night:
1. "Best 10 Minutes." Almost every town hall meeting or Q&A like the candidates' visits to "the Google" has been uploaded to YouTube. There is a lot of good, in-depth information in these videos that one can't find on traditional outlets like the news, newspaper web sites, or the candidate's web site.
YouTube's system for rating and recommending videos works pretty well, but I think a web site dedicated to just videos of candidates discussing philosophy or policy would make them easier to find, and save people the time of digging through hours of video to find the best parts.
I would (I don't know what verb tense describes 'action that I wish I could take but I never will', so "I would" will have to do) set up a web site that would allow users to nominate 10-minute or less video snippets that best capture what they like about their candidate.
Each candidate would have their own section. I am guessing but don't know that YouTube allows you to embed a clip of a video using time codes, so only a link with relevant time codes would have to be uploaded. People could vote what effect the video had on them (positive, neutral, negative) and clips with the highest combination of votes and positive ratings would be featured under each candidate's section.
Yes, there is potential for abuse in a voting system like this. I'll be sure to install as many safeguards in the voting system when I don't make this web site.
2. "Pork Patrol." I am so disappointed that PorkPatrol.com is already taken. At least it doesn't go to a porn site. It redirects you to Citizens Against Government Waste, or CAGW. Yes, that is much catchier. If you want to remember what Web 0.7 looked like, be sure to pay them a visit.
At his Google talk, Obama says he wants to "Googlefy" government (my word, not his). Make bills fully searchable, attach Congress member names to earmarks, and so on.
If these changes were made, the next step would be to create a web site where people could search bills and mark each item in the bill (e.g. separate earmark, proposal for funding). If someone saw a questionable project, they could flag it, where it would appear in a public area for a certain amount of time. People would then be able to ask questions about the project, share information, and rate the earmark.
Every week, the Congress members with the top 10 negatively voted earmarks (for example) would be contacted by the site and given a chance to respond. There would be a new voting period, and then a determination would be made to publicly shame the creator of the earmark, start a phone campaign, or drop the matter and move to a new issue.
I think limiting the number of earmarks, bill language, and so on that would move on to the next stage is important. A limit would make people more judicious when voting and selecting parts of a bill to complain about. If only x items were highlighted a week, it would encourage people to focus on only the most expensive and egregious waste.
Since many earmarks are added at a last-minute and often without a vote, and a web site like this would actually encourage that practice, perhaps there should be a public comment period of 2 weeks after every significant bill so public watch groups like this site could at least bring a bill's shadier parts to the public's attention.
What makes this idea great in my eyes is that it's not even possible to do yet, so I don't feel guilty about not creating the web site. Also, I barely know anything about the minutia of the legislative process, so I am blissfully aware of whatever huge holes there are in my idea. But if budgets were made fully searchable, accountable, and indexable, a site like this would be the logical next step.
1. "Best 10 Minutes." Almost every town hall meeting or Q&A like the candidates' visits to "the Google" has been uploaded to YouTube. There is a lot of good, in-depth information in these videos that one can't find on traditional outlets like the news, newspaper web sites, or the candidate's web site.
YouTube's system for rating and recommending videos works pretty well, but I think a web site dedicated to just videos of candidates discussing philosophy or policy would make them easier to find, and save people the time of digging through hours of video to find the best parts.
I would (I don't know what verb tense describes 'action that I wish I could take but I never will', so "I would" will have to do) set up a web site that would allow users to nominate 10-minute or less video snippets that best capture what they like about their candidate.
Each candidate would have their own section. I am guessing but don't know that YouTube allows you to embed a clip of a video using time codes, so only a link with relevant time codes would have to be uploaded. People could vote what effect the video had on them (positive, neutral, negative) and clips with the highest combination of votes and positive ratings would be featured under each candidate's section.
Yes, there is potential for abuse in a voting system like this. I'll be sure to install as many safeguards in the voting system when I don't make this web site.
2. "Pork Patrol." I am so disappointed that PorkPatrol.com is already taken. At least it doesn't go to a porn site. It redirects you to Citizens Against Government Waste, or CAGW. Yes, that is much catchier. If you want to remember what Web 0.7 looked like, be sure to pay them a visit.
At his Google talk, Obama says he wants to "Googlefy" government (my word, not his). Make bills fully searchable, attach Congress member names to earmarks, and so on.
If these changes were made, the next step would be to create a web site where people could search bills and mark each item in the bill (e.g. separate earmark, proposal for funding). If someone saw a questionable project, they could flag it, where it would appear in a public area for a certain amount of time. People would then be able to ask questions about the project, share information, and rate the earmark.
Every week, the Congress members with the top 10 negatively voted earmarks (for example) would be contacted by the site and given a chance to respond. There would be a new voting period, and then a determination would be made to publicly shame the creator of the earmark, start a phone campaign, or drop the matter and move to a new issue.
I think limiting the number of earmarks, bill language, and so on that would move on to the next stage is important. A limit would make people more judicious when voting and selecting parts of a bill to complain about. If only x items were highlighted a week, it would encourage people to focus on only the most expensive and egregious waste.
Since many earmarks are added at a last-minute and often without a vote, and a web site like this would actually encourage that practice, perhaps there should be a public comment period of 2 weeks after every significant bill so public watch groups like this site could at least bring a bill's shadier parts to the public's attention.
What makes this idea great in my eyes is that it's not even possible to do yet, so I don't feel guilty about not creating the web site. Also, I barely know anything about the minutia of the legislative process, so I am blissfully aware of whatever huge holes there are in my idea. But if budgets were made fully searchable, accountable, and indexable, a site like this would be the logical next step.
Every Candidate Should Answer Questions At Google
Edit: I should have used Google before writing that title. Other candidates that have appeared at Google.
I linked to a video of Barack Obama answering questions from Google employees in the last post that I have heard of but never watched. I finally watched it, both 25 min. parts.
In the campaign, we hear stump speeches, pundits, and occasionally an informative debate, the best of which might allow each candidate to speak for a few minutes at a time. There is a lot of attention paid to each candidate, but sometimes little information.
Unless you live in Iowa or New Hampshire, you probably aren't going to have the chance to go to a town hall meeting and hear a candidate talk in-depth for an hour or two on policy and philosophy. The video of Obama's Q&A session from a few months ago was interesting for that reason, because it gave him a forum to elaborate on some of his policy interests, governing philosophy, and most important to me, his decision making process. It took place in a laid-back environment away from the mass media and before the primaries, and the talk was as unguarded as one could expect from a politician.
There is no one moment that blew me away, but he said a lot of things that seemed rational and well-reasoned. The cumulative effect made me feel more comfortable about him being elected President.
If you want a good sample, forward to 18:30 in this video and watch the rest (6 minutes).
I was already leaning towards him, so there is some bias there. The clip (and whole video) is worth watching though, and it has the type of information that I think will be difficult to get from any candidate at this point in the campaign.
If you have 10 min. of a video of another candidate to suggest, post it in the comments. I will watch it, whoever it is.
I linked to a video of Barack Obama answering questions from Google employees in the last post that I have heard of but never watched. I finally watched it, both 25 min. parts.
In the campaign, we hear stump speeches, pundits, and occasionally an informative debate, the best of which might allow each candidate to speak for a few minutes at a time. There is a lot of attention paid to each candidate, but sometimes little information.
Unless you live in Iowa or New Hampshire, you probably aren't going to have the chance to go to a town hall meeting and hear a candidate talk in-depth for an hour or two on policy and philosophy. The video of Obama's Q&A session from a few months ago was interesting for that reason, because it gave him a forum to elaborate on some of his policy interests, governing philosophy, and most important to me, his decision making process. It took place in a laid-back environment away from the mass media and before the primaries, and the talk was as unguarded as one could expect from a politician.
There is no one moment that blew me away, but he said a lot of things that seemed rational and well-reasoned. The cumulative effect made me feel more comfortable about him being elected President.
If you want a good sample, forward to 18:30 in this video and watch the rest (6 minutes).
I was already leaning towards him, so there is some bias there. The clip (and whole video) is worth watching though, and it has the type of information that I think will be difficult to get from any candidate at this point in the campaign.
If you have 10 min. of a video of another candidate to suggest, post it in the comments. I will watch it, whoever it is.
January 09, 2008
Search for America: A Presidential Campaign Website Review
I visited the web sites of the top nine Presidential candidates left in the race...
Bill Richardson just dropped out.
Okay. I visited the web sites of the top eight Presidential candidates left in the race to see which of them allowed users to search their sites. First thing I noticed: they all have a blue background. Except John McCain's web site, which has a black background, because he's a maverick.
I resisted the temptation of fully reviewing each candidate's web site. While there is great appeal in spending several hours analyzing each site's layout, color scheme, organization, and pictures of Muslims holding AK-47s (advantage: Rudy!) so I could to create a comprehensive review that would gather, all in one place, a bunch of crap almost no one cares about, I decided to focus on just one aspect.
Does McBama-Hillarudy-Ronbee's web site have a search bar?
Yes, the gold standard achievement in the “I Barely Give a Shit” class. Did they bother to insert an extremely useful function that is on almost every other web page on the Internet? Let's find out.
As a comparison point, I picked a random web page on the Internet: “Pancake City.” Does “Pancake City” have a search bar? Yes, it does. Is it near the top of the page and easy to find? Yes.
Pancake City is the front runner. In response to the site's new status, I have disabled comments and will stop taking questions from the press. I will resume friendly relations with the press once my poll numbers slip, as they have in the past 437 elections when a candidate surged in popularity and became overly cautious and guarded out of fear of screwing it all up.
Democrats
Hillary Clinton: No search bar.
Barack Obama: Dude, you gave a detailed technology speech at Google and then fielded questions from the employees. WHERE IS THE SEARCH BAR?
John Edwards: Search bar, but at the bottom of the page. Clearly labeled. (2nd place)
Republicans
Rudy Giuliani: I would like to point out that I hate writing about Rudy Giuliani, because I can never remember how to spell his name. I end up having to type something like “Giulaniuani” in Google and hope it recognizes who I am searching for. No search bar.
Mitt Romney: Search bar! Top of the page! The only major candidate to have a search bar near the top of his or her web page. This is True Strength for America's Future. (1st place)
John McCain: Search bar at the bottom of the page. A real maverick would have put it sideways. (3rd place)
Mike Huckabee: Mike Hucka-be better putting a search bar on his web page soon. No search bar.
Ron Paul: Ronbots, what happened? The web page is snazzy, attractive, and well-designed. Except no search bar. What am I going to do when I'm drunk and looking for a plan to privatize roads?
I'm leaving Fred Thompson out. That guy is phoning it in more than Leno on most nights. Instead of campaigning 12 hours a day, he's pulling up near prospective voters in his red pickup truck, yelling “Hey, I'm Fred!” and then speeding off to his limo parked around the corner.
Here's the big question: Is the lack of a search bar on these lavishly-funded, professionally-designed web pages an oversight, or were they deliberately left out for some nefarious yet stupid reason, like wanting to control how their visitors access information? Is search too "off message" for most campaigns?
January 05, 2008
Idea for a New Primary System
Larry Sabato argues in his book, "A More Perfect Constitution", that many of the current problems with the American political system are structural and can only be remedied by updating the U.S. Constitution to handle issues the founding fathers were unable to anticipate.
For example, once you get elected to Congress, getting reelected is almost automatic. The reelection rate for House members for the past 40 years has been 85% or higher, and it is often 95% or higher. The Senate is more competitive but not by much.
One reason, among many, is that Congressional districts are gerrymandered, drawn in odd shapes to ensure favorable demographics for the member of Congress. The practice has been brazen recently, such as when former Rep. Tom Delay redrew his district in the shape of a middle finger.
A common-sense solution is to divide states into districts using a grid system with the process managed by a non-partisan group such as a panel of judges. Yet the fact that this would make House races more competitive is precisely why Congress will never pass a law to do this, along with anything related to term limits, reduction of franking privileges and so on. As difficult as it would be to pass a Constitutional amendment implementing this process, it's probably the only way it will ever be done.
It's a great book with many interesting ideas. I highly recommend it. One of his ideas came to mind with the media storm around the Iowa caucus.
With Iowa, New Hampshire, and other states leapfrogging each others' caucus or primary date so they would be one of the first states (and few that are relevant), we are now in a situation where the primary system starts in the beginning of January, yet will likely be over by the beginning of February ("Super Tuesday"). Some talking heads are even suggesting the Democratic nomination will be over by the third state, South Carolina, if Barack Obama can win in N.H. and S.C.
It's the longest election process in the world, gives a disproportionate power to the same, few states every four years to elect a candidate, and thus disfranchises most of the country. In Presidential re-election years, the sitting President is distracted and essentially out of commission for an entire year, 1/4 his or her elected term.
I'm recounting Larry Sabato's idea to fix this by memory so the details will be off, but the spirit is the same. Divide the country into four quadrants: Northeast, South, Midwest, and West. On February 1st, select by random drawing which month each quadrant will be able to hold its primaries: e.g. April, May, June, and July. (Edit: I found his write-up of this idea after posting this. The details are different and more in-depth, but the basic idea is the same.)
There is a large benefit to having two small states hold the first caucus and primary though. Small states give unknown and underfunded candidates a chance to gain traction with with retail politics, face-to-face interaction, and town hall debates, something that would be impossible in a state like California.
That is why, in addition, two out of the 10 smallest states by population will be randomly selected to have the first two primaries in the nation, a week before the first regional month. This retains the benefits of involving a small state early on and gives a state besides Iowa and New Hampshire a chance to be relevant.
I enjoy watching politics and being informed, but the primary season continues to get longer with no limit in site, and practically forces every state to push their date earlier is they want a chance to be relevant. The result is that Iowa + N.H. gets months of attention and input, and the other states, forced to have their primaries on the same day plus early in the calendar, get almost no attention and input.
This year, there are 24 states who are holding their primary on Feb. 5th. That's ridiculous. It's the longest short campaign in American history. Six months for Iowa + N.H., one month for the rest of the country, and nine months of a general election with no good TV to pass the time because of the writer's strike. I'm am going to kidnap Jon Stewart and force him to write comedy at gunpoint.
It would be ideal to fix this without a Constitutional amendment, but this has been a problem for several elections so far and I think if the national parties were able to implement and enforce a plan like this on their own, they would have done so by now.
For example, once you get elected to Congress, getting reelected is almost automatic. The reelection rate for House members for the past 40 years has been 85% or higher, and it is often 95% or higher. The Senate is more competitive but not by much.
One reason, among many, is that Congressional districts are gerrymandered, drawn in odd shapes to ensure favorable demographics for the member of Congress. The practice has been brazen recently, such as when former Rep. Tom Delay redrew his district in the shape of a middle finger.
A common-sense solution is to divide states into districts using a grid system with the process managed by a non-partisan group such as a panel of judges. Yet the fact that this would make House races more competitive is precisely why Congress will never pass a law to do this, along with anything related to term limits, reduction of franking privileges and so on. As difficult as it would be to pass a Constitutional amendment implementing this process, it's probably the only way it will ever be done.
It's a great book with many interesting ideas. I highly recommend it. One of his ideas came to mind with the media storm around the Iowa caucus.
With Iowa, New Hampshire, and other states leapfrogging each others' caucus or primary date so they would be one of the first states (and few that are relevant), we are now in a situation where the primary system starts in the beginning of January, yet will likely be over by the beginning of February ("Super Tuesday"). Some talking heads are even suggesting the Democratic nomination will be over by the third state, South Carolina, if Barack Obama can win in N.H. and S.C.
It's the longest election process in the world, gives a disproportionate power to the same, few states every four years to elect a candidate, and thus disfranchises most of the country. In Presidential re-election years, the sitting President is distracted and essentially out of commission for an entire year, 1/4 his or her elected term.
I'm recounting Larry Sabato's idea to fix this by memory so the details will be off, but the spirit is the same. Divide the country into four quadrants: Northeast, South, Midwest, and West. On February 1st, select by random drawing which month each quadrant will be able to hold its primaries: e.g. April, May, June, and July. (Edit: I found his write-up of this idea after posting this. The details are different and more in-depth, but the basic idea is the same.)
There is a large benefit to having two small states hold the first caucus and primary though. Small states give unknown and underfunded candidates a chance to gain traction with with retail politics, face-to-face interaction, and town hall debates, something that would be impossible in a state like California.
That is why, in addition, two out of the 10 smallest states by population will be randomly selected to have the first two primaries in the nation, a week before the first regional month. This retains the benefits of involving a small state early on and gives a state besides Iowa and New Hampshire a chance to be relevant.
I enjoy watching politics and being informed, but the primary season continues to get longer with no limit in site, and practically forces every state to push their date earlier is they want a chance to be relevant. The result is that Iowa + N.H. gets months of attention and input, and the other states, forced to have their primaries on the same day plus early in the calendar, get almost no attention and input.
This year, there are 24 states who are holding their primary on Feb. 5th. That's ridiculous. It's the longest short campaign in American history. Six months for Iowa + N.H., one month for the rest of the country, and nine months of a general election with no good TV to pass the time because of the writer's strike. I'm am going to kidnap Jon Stewart and force him to write comedy at gunpoint.
It would be ideal to fix this without a Constitutional amendment, but this has been a problem for several elections so far and I think if the national parties were able to implement and enforce a plan like this on their own, they would have done so by now.
January 02, 2008
NFL Picks 2007 Review
With the end of the NFL season last Sunday, now is a good time to review the results of some of professional football's most well-known prognosticators. How accurate were their predictions against the spread?
Starting us off is ESPN's Bill Simmons. According to his Wikipedia entry, Bill has been a writer for ESPN's print magazine and web site for over five years. He is a prolific writer and shares his sports knowledge with readers on a near daily basis. His record after Week 16 is 102-114-9.
Next up is a penny. Pennies are made with copper-plated zinc. Sometimes they are dirty. Sometimes they are pretty and shiny. On the penny is the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. After Week 16, the penny's record is 110-110-4.
The Associated Press is the world's largest news association, and one of the most trusted ones as well. They have over 4,000 employees working in over 240 bureaus around the world. It is unclear how many of the 4,000 employees contribute to its weekly football picks. After Week 16, the AP's record is 110-106-8.
We come to our final prognosticator. A weather vane is a movable device attached to an elevated object such as a roof for showing the direction of the wind. A weather vane can come in many shapes and sizes, like a rooster or an arrow. Do you know which way the wind is blowing? You would if you had a weather vane! After Week 16, the weather vane's record is 104-94-6 (the weather vane was unable to make picks in Week 15 due to excessive rust).
Pancake City will update this summary as more sport columnist picks are found.
Starting us off is ESPN's Bill Simmons. According to his Wikipedia entry, Bill has been a writer for ESPN's print magazine and web site for over five years. He is a prolific writer and shares his sports knowledge with readers on a near daily basis. His record after Week 16 is 102-114-9.
Next up is a penny. Pennies are made with copper-plated zinc. Sometimes they are dirty. Sometimes they are pretty and shiny. On the penny is the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. After Week 16, the penny's record is 110-110-4.
The Associated Press is the world's largest news association, and one of the most trusted ones as well. They have over 4,000 employees working in over 240 bureaus around the world. It is unclear how many of the 4,000 employees contribute to its weekly football picks. After Week 16, the AP's record is 110-106-8.
We come to our final prognosticator. A weather vane is a movable device attached to an elevated object such as a roof for showing the direction of the wind. A weather vane can come in many shapes and sizes, like a rooster or an arrow. Do you know which way the wind is blowing? You would if you had a weather vane! After Week 16, the weather vane's record is 104-94-6 (the weather vane was unable to make picks in Week 15 due to excessive rust).
Pancake City will update this summary as more sport columnist picks are found.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)