The Guardian is great for coverage of the US election. They've got reporters all over the US talking to shop keepers, restaurant patrons, plant managers, etc. And they're willing to talk to the voters rather than just soundbite them and punditize. Here's an example from the great state of Missouri in which a plant manager --in charge of a large ethanol manufacturing plant, so a pretty responsible position -- goes on about Obama not only being Muslim, but also being the AntiChrist as referenced in the Book of Revelations.
I am not kidding. Just click the link to watch the video.
27 October 2008
Spreading the wealth.
What the hell is wrong with spreading the wealth? If you're a functionally illiterate moron with no sense of history, then everything. However, if you have any sort of awareness of your responsibility to this nation and to the world, you might take the trouble to acquaint yourself with the way that the United States government and most governments work.
If you pay taxes of any sort, if you drive on government-paid-for roads, if you enjoy the security of the police and fire departments, like streetlights, enjoy national parks, or go to sports events in any one of a number of new ballparks and stadiums financed by local or state governments, then you are actively involved in the time-worn government strategy of spreading the wealth.
What Obama proposes as a tax plan is hardly revolutionary. It's simply a return to a more progressive tax system than we currently have (we currently have a progressive tax system -- but the Bush tax cuts, with their failed trickle-down ideology, put more of the burden on the middle class).
Progressive tax policy is not socialism. I swear, the older I get the more I lack patience for idiots who throw around big words but have no goddamn clue what they're talking about. If you don't know what the hell socialism is, then shut up. It's as ridiculous as if Obama were to come out tomorrow and label McCain a fascist. It would be ludicrous -- unless of course McCain started taking tips from Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales.
Of course, when you're dealing with the moron mentality -- the type of people who with 8 days to go before the election still believe that Obama isn't an American citizen -- then you've got no chance to expect they actually understand the political system they currently live under, let alone have any sort of knowledge of comparative political systems.
Does that sound elitist? If so, then we need some more elitism in this country. As a culture we need to stop giving credence to every asshole that coughs out a turd on Fox News or squirts into a microphone on talk radio. Rush Limbaugh amazingly still has a large listening audience even though he's been squatting over his microphone since October trying to wring something useful out of the thoroughly discredited Obama birth certificate tin foil alien abduction plot.
We need to stop claiming ignorance as a birthright.
If you pay taxes of any sort, if you drive on government-paid-for roads, if you enjoy the security of the police and fire departments, like streetlights, enjoy national parks, or go to sports events in any one of a number of new ballparks and stadiums financed by local or state governments, then you are actively involved in the time-worn government strategy of spreading the wealth.
What Obama proposes as a tax plan is hardly revolutionary. It's simply a return to a more progressive tax system than we currently have (we currently have a progressive tax system -- but the Bush tax cuts, with their failed trickle-down ideology, put more of the burden on the middle class).
Progressive tax policy is not socialism. I swear, the older I get the more I lack patience for idiots who throw around big words but have no goddamn clue what they're talking about. If you don't know what the hell socialism is, then shut up. It's as ridiculous as if Obama were to come out tomorrow and label McCain a fascist. It would be ludicrous -- unless of course McCain started taking tips from Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales.
Of course, when you're dealing with the moron mentality -- the type of people who with 8 days to go before the election still believe that Obama isn't an American citizen -- then you've got no chance to expect they actually understand the political system they currently live under, let alone have any sort of knowledge of comparative political systems.
Does that sound elitist? If so, then we need some more elitism in this country. As a culture we need to stop giving credence to every asshole that coughs out a turd on Fox News or squirts into a microphone on talk radio. Rush Limbaugh amazingly still has a large listening audience even though he's been squatting over his microphone since October trying to wring something useful out of the thoroughly discredited Obama birth certificate tin foil alien abduction plot.
We need to stop claiming ignorance as a birthright.
26 October 2008
Recap on how I did Saturday.
First, I was correct in the only game that really mattered to me: Penn State beat Ohio State. I expected more offense from both squads -- especially Penn State -- but I was quite satisfied with the result.
As to the greater scope of predictions, I looked at seven other games. I thought Texas would wipe the floor with with Oklahoma State. Texas won, but it came down to defending a hail mary from Oklahoma State, and I'm not sure what that means. Either OK State is a much better team than I thought or Texas is a much worse team than I thought. One thing I discovered was that Texas was a one dimensional team -- now that one dimension is amazingly prolific and harder to stop than most one dimensional teams would be, but I wonder what might happen when they meet a defense that has a good secondary and linebackers to key on the short passes McCoy throws.
I thought Alabama would beat lackluster floundering Tennessee. I made no score predictions there, but really was there any question Phil Fulmer looks lost on Rocky Top?
I thought Oklahoma would beat K-State by a kajillion. It took a while for the Sooners to get started, but once they did, they beat K-State by a kajillion.
I thought USC would beat Arizona because the Cats simply didn't have enough to beat the Trojans. I implied a close game, but I expected more scoring from both sides. Still I got the result right.
LSU will beat Georgia, I said, in a low scoring affair. Uh huh. Well, neither of those things happened; Georgia dominated LSU and the score was close to 100 points total...Oh well.
I said Texas Tech would beat Kansas in a game I couldn't get very excited about -- I mean neither team belongs where they were ranked. Thankfully, Kansas will no longer be a blot on the rankings come this afternoon.
Finally, I said Florida would decimate Kentucky. They did.
So let's recap: I was wrong on a few scores, but only on one result. However that one I was wrong on might have been the most difficult to call (along with the PSU v. OSU game), and I can't really toot my own horn for calling things like the Florida destruction of Kentucky...it's kind of like saying the sun will come out tomorrow...bet my bottom dollar.
I'm sticking by my prediction that Florida will win the SEC.
As to the greater scope of predictions, I looked at seven other games. I thought Texas would wipe the floor with with Oklahoma State. Texas won, but it came down to defending a hail mary from Oklahoma State, and I'm not sure what that means. Either OK State is a much better team than I thought or Texas is a much worse team than I thought. One thing I discovered was that Texas was a one dimensional team -- now that one dimension is amazingly prolific and harder to stop than most one dimensional teams would be, but I wonder what might happen when they meet a defense that has a good secondary and linebackers to key on the short passes McCoy throws.
I thought Alabama would beat lackluster floundering Tennessee. I made no score predictions there, but really was there any question Phil Fulmer looks lost on Rocky Top?
I thought Oklahoma would beat K-State by a kajillion. It took a while for the Sooners to get started, but once they did, they beat K-State by a kajillion.
I thought USC would beat Arizona because the Cats simply didn't have enough to beat the Trojans. I implied a close game, but I expected more scoring from both sides. Still I got the result right.
LSU will beat Georgia, I said, in a low scoring affair. Uh huh. Well, neither of those things happened; Georgia dominated LSU and the score was close to 100 points total...Oh well.
I said Texas Tech would beat Kansas in a game I couldn't get very excited about -- I mean neither team belongs where they were ranked. Thankfully, Kansas will no longer be a blot on the rankings come this afternoon.
Finally, I said Florida would decimate Kentucky. They did.
So let's recap: I was wrong on a few scores, but only on one result. However that one I was wrong on might have been the most difficult to call (along with the PSU v. OSU game), and I can't really toot my own horn for calling things like the Florida destruction of Kentucky...it's kind of like saying the sun will come out tomorrow...bet my bottom dollar.
I'm sticking by my prediction that Florida will win the SEC.
24 October 2008
Weekend predictions.
Wasn't Auburn one of those supposedly high-powered juggernauts from the unbeatable SEC? I thought their only shortcoming was that they turned out not to be as good as other SEC teams...I mean on Mount Olympus only one guy gets to be Zeus...then they go and drop a game to Big East stalwart West Virginia 34-17. It wasn't even close. West Virginia has beaten one team with a winning record: Villanova. Yes, Villanova. They squeaked by 1-6 Syracuse 17-6 and were one touchdown better than 2-5 Rutgers...but they blew the shit out of SEC Auburn.
I feel bad for Auburn, because it's not their fault that the sports pundits have overrated the SEC for the entire 21st Century. Yes, the SEC boasts a few of the best teams in the nation (Florida, Alabama, maybe LSU -- I personally believe Alabama will lose to LSU -- I don't think Bama is as good as their press) this year, but you could say the same for the Big 12, the Big 10 (don't laugh -- PSU and OSU look good, and up until last weekend I would have thought Michigan State was a good team...now I'm not so sure), and to an extent the Big East (I can't believe I just said that), based on Pitt.
Here's a quick runthrough of the weekend:
1. Texas over OK State. Not even close. OK State is hollow.
2. Bama over Tennessee. Phil Fulmer is having a horrible year at Tennessee and I don't see him pulling off the miracle. I'd like to see it; I don't think I will.
3. PSU over OSU. It's time. Even at the Shoe, I think PSU has the defense and for once the offense to overcome the Buckeyes.
4. Oklahoma at K-State. Remember those two or three years in the past 100 that K-State was actually a good football team...yeah, only a memory. Oklahoma by a kajillion.
5. USC at Arizona. Arizona will be the best team that USC plays until their bowl game...and the Cats don't have enough. USC will win.
6. LSU will beat Georgia. Low scoring affair, LSU probably by 10.
7. Texas Tech v. Kansas. Who really cares? It's a toss-up of two currently ranked teams that shouldn't be. I see Texas Tech knocking Kansas out of the rankings.
8. Florida all over Kentucky. Florida will decimate the team that Alabama barely beat.
That's all for the predictions.
I feel bad for Auburn, because it's not their fault that the sports pundits have overrated the SEC for the entire 21st Century. Yes, the SEC boasts a few of the best teams in the nation (Florida, Alabama, maybe LSU -- I personally believe Alabama will lose to LSU -- I don't think Bama is as good as their press) this year, but you could say the same for the Big 12, the Big 10 (don't laugh -- PSU and OSU look good, and up until last weekend I would have thought Michigan State was a good team...now I'm not so sure), and to an extent the Big East (I can't believe I just said that), based on Pitt.
Here's a quick runthrough of the weekend:
1. Texas over OK State. Not even close. OK State is hollow.
2. Bama over Tennessee. Phil Fulmer is having a horrible year at Tennessee and I don't see him pulling off the miracle. I'd like to see it; I don't think I will.
3. PSU over OSU. It's time. Even at the Shoe, I think PSU has the defense and for once the offense to overcome the Buckeyes.
4. Oklahoma at K-State. Remember those two or three years in the past 100 that K-State was actually a good football team...yeah, only a memory. Oklahoma by a kajillion.
5. USC at Arizona. Arizona will be the best team that USC plays until their bowl game...and the Cats don't have enough. USC will win.
6. LSU will beat Georgia. Low scoring affair, LSU probably by 10.
7. Texas Tech v. Kansas. Who really cares? It's a toss-up of two currently ranked teams that shouldn't be. I see Texas Tech knocking Kansas out of the rankings.
8. Florida all over Kentucky. Florida will decimate the team that Alabama barely beat.
That's all for the predictions.
23 October 2008
There is no cultural memory on Facebook or in Second Life.
When I have to explain to a class full of college freshmen (and women) who John Brown is...and who Lenin is...in the context of 1930's revolutionary poetry, I'm in bad shape.
22 October 2008
Archival quality.
I was reading an article in the Guardian about Doris Lessing recently turning over 113 letters to the University of East Anglia and I began thinking about how much of our literary biographies and indeed whole volumes of background material on authors relies upon that antiquated form of communication -- something permanent in its composition, but not mechanically transmitted and therefore not infinitely reproducible should the original be lost.
Very few people write letters today. Love letters, such as Lessing wrote to an RAF officer in her youth, are more likely to be text or instant messages these days. Letter writing as an activity was taken seriously; letters were cherished, stashed into drawers or boxes and saved in many cases long after the love affair or friendship ended; at the opposite extreme, letters were imbued with the emotional wreckage of poorly ended affairs, and their consumption by fire could prove cathartic.
To receive a letter from a friend or a loved one -- or even a publisher -- was a special event that consisted of more than a hello shout out. It brought local news and family updates in an age that didn't have the internet or cable television news and long distance was reserved for very special events. In artists' cases, it often brought news of current projects, artistic theories, attitudes on important social subjects of the day, etc., and that of course is what biographers and other scholars were interested in.
I wonder in our internet age, with communication as cheap as the time it takes to type a few terse sentences, if future generations will have access to the private thoughts of writers and other artists. On the one hand, the medium is ephemeral -- unless you take special steps, no hard copy of the document ever exists. On the other hand, the medium is more permanent than hand-written letters ever could be: on most systems the email is backed up and stored well beyond the individual user's ability to delete it. As more than one criminal has found out, deleting mail from the inbox and emptying the trash is not the equivalent of burning letters on the fire.
So copies exist. But unlike hardcopy handwritten letters, these copies don't fall to anyone upon the death of the author. Our email accounts as a general rule aren't enumerated among our estate's miscellaneous property. In fact, privacy concerns have led some companies to deny families access to the deceased person's email (though I don't know if the company in this particular case changed their position...).
In other words, the wealth of documentation -- as sheer quantity -- is most likely greater now than at any time in literacy's history. More written information is being passed on a daily basis by more people from all walks of life than ever before. IM's about going to the gym or to the grocery store; emails about upcoming weekend activities and chain letter forwarding. Electronically at least we have documented our lives in ways our predecessors never have.
I won't pass judgement on whether the quality of this documentation has increased or decreased. The key question is whether we will be able to get to that information.
Let's leave aside for now the question of identity and verifiability. Will authors begin donating their email archives to universities? Will the ephemera of instant chat sessions, which can of course be captured and saved as text files, fall into the hands of future biographers?
Very few people write letters today. Love letters, such as Lessing wrote to an RAF officer in her youth, are more likely to be text or instant messages these days. Letter writing as an activity was taken seriously; letters were cherished, stashed into drawers or boxes and saved in many cases long after the love affair or friendship ended; at the opposite extreme, letters were imbued with the emotional wreckage of poorly ended affairs, and their consumption by fire could prove cathartic.
To receive a letter from a friend or a loved one -- or even a publisher -- was a special event that consisted of more than a hello shout out. It brought local news and family updates in an age that didn't have the internet or cable television news and long distance was reserved for very special events. In artists' cases, it often brought news of current projects, artistic theories, attitudes on important social subjects of the day, etc., and that of course is what biographers and other scholars were interested in.
I wonder in our internet age, with communication as cheap as the time it takes to type a few terse sentences, if future generations will have access to the private thoughts of writers and other artists. On the one hand, the medium is ephemeral -- unless you take special steps, no hard copy of the document ever exists. On the other hand, the medium is more permanent than hand-written letters ever could be: on most systems the email is backed up and stored well beyond the individual user's ability to delete it. As more than one criminal has found out, deleting mail from the inbox and emptying the trash is not the equivalent of burning letters on the fire.
So copies exist. But unlike hardcopy handwritten letters, these copies don't fall to anyone upon the death of the author. Our email accounts as a general rule aren't enumerated among our estate's miscellaneous property. In fact, privacy concerns have led some companies to deny families access to the deceased person's email (though I don't know if the company in this particular case changed their position...).
In other words, the wealth of documentation -- as sheer quantity -- is most likely greater now than at any time in literacy's history. More written information is being passed on a daily basis by more people from all walks of life than ever before. IM's about going to the gym or to the grocery store; emails about upcoming weekend activities and chain letter forwarding. Electronically at least we have documented our lives in ways our predecessors never have.
I won't pass judgement on whether the quality of this documentation has increased or decreased. The key question is whether we will be able to get to that information.
Let's leave aside for now the question of identity and verifiability. Will authors begin donating their email archives to universities? Will the ephemera of instant chat sessions, which can of course be captured and saved as text files, fall into the hands of future biographers?
McCain is giving me a headache.
I may have to take a break from following the dumb shit John McCain has to say on the campaign trail. It's too heartbreaking listening to that mean-spirited liar rattle the cages with ridiculous assertions.
Look, I'm from western Pennsylvania. John Murtha is right --it is a racist part of the state. Hell, most of Pennsylvania has a higher than expected share of racists given that Pennsylvania was one of the leading abolitionist states. I remember in the 1990's checking out a Multicultural Student's Guide to Colleges that stated that the area around State College (where Penn State University is located) was home to "many white supremacist organizations" -- and you don't have to take a book's word for it if you grew up there. While it's true that the majority of people would never admit it and in fact many of them would never take part in anything specifically racist like a Klan rally, there remains a strong undercurrent of white supremacy and everyday racist attitudes. When the Aryan Nations were kicked out of Idaho, where'd they go? Potter County, Pennsylvania.
When I was getting ready to leave my hometown and begin graduate school in Washington, DC, I remember a co-worker asking me how I was going to handle it down there when "one of those big niggers grabbed hold of me." A friend of mine was in a bar not far from Huntingdon, Pennsylvania. On parting for the evening, a guy he didn't know but had been conversing with during the night flashed him a hand sign -- index fingers pointed up and hands joined at the thumbs, so the hands made the shape of a W. "What's that stand for?" my friend asked. "White Power," came the reply.
Anecdotes, I know. Just anecdotes. Could happen almost anywhere. But it saddens me to see McCain pandering to the basest populist elements when he declares western PA free of racism. I'm not sure I can take seriously a candidate who refuses to acknowledge that we still have deep racial divisions in this country -- obviously not as deep as before, since we have a Black candidate not only running for President from a major party, but also currently winning in the polls.
Actually, I should elaborate on McCain's stance and strategy. McCain may refuse to acknowledge that we have deep racial divisions in this country, but his strategy is to exploit those divisions -- to play on the fear of Obama as Other: the Arab other, the Black other, the Muslim other.
If for no other reason than this racially divisive campaign strategy, John McCain is unfit to be President.
Look, I'm from western Pennsylvania. John Murtha is right --it is a racist part of the state. Hell, most of Pennsylvania has a higher than expected share of racists given that Pennsylvania was one of the leading abolitionist states. I remember in the 1990's checking out a Multicultural Student's Guide to Colleges that stated that the area around State College (where Penn State University is located) was home to "many white supremacist organizations" -- and you don't have to take a book's word for it if you grew up there. While it's true that the majority of people would never admit it and in fact many of them would never take part in anything specifically racist like a Klan rally, there remains a strong undercurrent of white supremacy and everyday racist attitudes. When the Aryan Nations were kicked out of Idaho, where'd they go? Potter County, Pennsylvania.
When I was getting ready to leave my hometown and begin graduate school in Washington, DC, I remember a co-worker asking me how I was going to handle it down there when "one of those big niggers grabbed hold of me." A friend of mine was in a bar not far from Huntingdon, Pennsylvania. On parting for the evening, a guy he didn't know but had been conversing with during the night flashed him a hand sign -- index fingers pointed up and hands joined at the thumbs, so the hands made the shape of a W. "What's that stand for?" my friend asked. "White Power," came the reply.
Anecdotes, I know. Just anecdotes. Could happen almost anywhere. But it saddens me to see McCain pandering to the basest populist elements when he declares western PA free of racism. I'm not sure I can take seriously a candidate who refuses to acknowledge that we still have deep racial divisions in this country -- obviously not as deep as before, since we have a Black candidate not only running for President from a major party, but also currently winning in the polls.
Actually, I should elaborate on McCain's stance and strategy. McCain may refuse to acknowledge that we have deep racial divisions in this country, but his strategy is to exploit those divisions -- to play on the fear of Obama as Other: the Arab other, the Black other, the Muslim other.
If for no other reason than this racially divisive campaign strategy, John McCain is unfit to be President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)