Hey, I haven't made a post in April. Let's do a LOST live blog.
7:56 - Uh, oh. The President is speaking. This may be an abbreviated LOST tonight.
7:59 - Okay, he must've looked at his watch and thought, "Oh, shit. LOST is almost on. I gotta go."
8:00 - I would've loved this show unconditionally if the Obama press conference had been part of the show.
8:03 - Love Jack's period sideburns.
8:04 - COMMERCIAL BREAK - If I had any doubts about "Star Trek" totally sucking, that commercial put them to rest. It's going to TURBO-suck.
8:06 - COMMERCIAL BREAK - Forgot to mention the attendance to night: Me and a squeeky-toy-loving Bron-Bron.
8:07 - Destiny? The kid is a piano genius and doesn't know the meaning of "destiny"?
8:10 - JEREMY DAVIES!!!
8:11 - See, that's a callback to my comment about that moment in the season premiere.
8:12 - "I'm from the future (and suggest you invest in Apple)."
8:14 - COMMERCIAL BREAK - I did a quick scan earlier this week. There are only seven movies I'll probably see on their first day this summer. Seriously, out of 16 weekends I found 7 films worth seeing. And I was being generous.
8:16 - Miles also has 1997 hair.
8:19 - It's Sean Connery's journal from "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade."
8:22 - When the guy who can speak to dead people calls you crazy, you know you're chiquita bananas.
8:23 - COMMERCIAL BREAK - Evening Dog Time!
8:27 - Faraday doesn't seem like the most stable of individuals. He's kinda flaky.
8:29 - Cost matters not to Charles Widmore, fool!
8:32 - Bron disappeared upstairs and it's really quiet. Chances I walk upstairs and find she's pooped - 2:1
8:34 - Gah-ross! She's his girlfriend in the future. Now he's talking to the eight-year-old her. Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!
8:37 - COMMERCIAL BREAK - What's the likelihood you'll get cell phone service in the middle of the woods? Honestly, if I'm some place where I can use my iPhone and I need a compass just leave me.
8:42 - COMMERCIAL BREAK - No dog pile upstairs. I did find a turkey sandwich and a Surly though.
8:45 - Just a flesh wound.
8:47 - Shot by a PHYSICIST?!?! Not a PHYSICIST!!!!
8:49 - Finally some explanation.
8:52 - Okay, I'm on board. I'll do it if it means shit is going to happen.
8:54 - COMMERCIAL BREAK - Bron likes to bark when she needs something. It can mean she needs to use the bathroom or it can mean she wants attention. She's the only high-maintenance female I need really.
8:55 - COMMERCIAL BREAK - OMFHGSWINEFLU!!!!1!1!!! Film at 11.
8:58 - Widmore and Faraday's mom? I guess they were sittin' in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G.
8:59 - You shot me, you dick.
9:00 - Thanks, mom. Happy Mother's Day everyone!
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Monday, December 22, 2008
Oh, Eight Songs
I was combing through the last year in music and I'm going to do something a little different. The thing to do usually is to make a list of the year's best albums. But let's be honest. Not only are you unlikely to go out and buy those albums, most people don't even consume music via the album anymore. It's all about single songs.
So these are eight songs I chose to represent the music which turned me on in the last year. These were bands and/or songs a regular person wouldn't have stumbled into just by listening to the radio. (Sorry Kanye and Coldplay.) At the same time I also wanted to highlight music that most people could enjoy too. (Sorry Battles and TV On The Radio.) Most of all though these were eight songs I listed to often during the year. When I think back on 2008, these songs will be the soundtrack.
And just for added difficulty, let's make them appear in the same slot as they do on the album from which they come (our first song is first on its respective album, the second song comes second on its album, etc.) and do it in under thirty minutes.
1.) Colin Meloy "Devil's Elbow" - When I think of 2008, I will think of being in Chicago. When I think of being in Chicago, I will think of three things. The first one is obvious. The second is the good times. The third will be riding the train. I rode the CTA everywhere and on the nights when I didn't have a companion I was plugged into my MP3 player.
Colin Meloy's live solo album got a lot of spins on my way to work, going to baseball games, going out to shows and most often when I was going home. I will hear this song or any from this album and forever think of the Clark and Division stop, the stretch between Sheridan and Howard and standing at Main in the morning. Add in that it's a great song and "Devil's Elbow" spells 2008.
2.) Vampire Weekend "Oxford Comma" - Have you ever heard a buzz band that everyone seems to love and they really are that great? It's not hype. It's actually music journalism fulfilling its purpose and bringing good music to light. I had a few of those this year.
Vampire Weekend was one of them. Maybe it's because all of my musical taste is calibrated to The Clash but I always love music that isn't familiar. I like weird sounds and sounds that are presented in a different way than I've heard. Being able to do that within a three minute pop song though is a real feat.
There's something that sounds very close to Jamaican reggae about Vampire Weekend's music. Their influences are actually West African and I think that's something Joe Strummer would be way into if he were still alive. I think that because it's stuff I'm way into myself.
3.) Kings of Leon "Sex On Fire" - One of the great quotes I like to pull from my life is by Gregg Allman. He was talking about the term "Southern rock." He said (and I'm paraphrasing) "All rock comes from The South. So saying 'Southern rock' is a little bit like saying 'rock rock'." Normally when we think of music that rocks, we think of the music which followed and drew influence Led Zepplin with shredding guitars, bombastic drums and soaring vocals. Allman is right though. Even the almighty Zepplin sound draws its roots in The South.
That would mean the purest form of rock made today is the "rock rock" being made by bands like My Morning Jacket and Kings of Leon. I mean what's more sex and drugs and rock and roll than a song called "Sex on Fire"? All the more to the point when you dive into the lyrics about the visceral and raw elements of making sweet love. Wrap it all up in a melody and a beat that makes you want to drive very fast down the open road and you'll be wrapping yourself in the American flag in no time.
4.) MGMT "Electric Feel" - MGMT was another buzz band that lived up to their billing. A lot of music played on synthesizers ends up sounding like its been run through a computer and filtered into bleak dystopia. It's just what happened because Bowie and Eno and their ilk were the first guys to get there and start using these new tools and that's the type of music they make.
What makes MGMT so weird and interesting is they make music about a psychedelic world without technology. They present a conundrum when they use a syntesizer to sound like a "4000 year old Peruvian flute" as Andrew VanWyngarden says in the behind the scenes video to this song. For forever the idea of more authentic and earthy music is that which is played on instruments made of wood. (See: any coffee shop this Friday or Saturday) Yet here are these two guys working with The Flaming Lips' producer to make a song about a girl from The Amazon who can create electricity from her hands. It's the type of music which appeals to your head, your heart and of course your ears.
5.) Broken Social Scene "Churches Under The Stairs" - When I think about concerts I saw this last year I'll think of the peak performances. From Pitchfork Music Festival to Lollapalooza to Rocktober to a set of shows on either side of Snelling on University to a few more great shows at First Ave, I saw a lot of really great live music this year.
Broken Social Scene contributed a large part of that great live music. I saw them not once, not twice but three times this year and each time my love for them deepened even further. Each concert was like a date. On the first date at Lollapalooza I got a quick brush-up on their sound and an introduction to some of the songs I didn't know. The second date later that evening at The Metro was confirmation that first blush wasn't a misread on my part. Then by the excellent concert of a third date at First Ave during Rocktober I had made my decision and I was wearing my good underwear. I fell for this band the way you're supposed to; by seeing them in their peak moment and being rewarded as you do.
6.) Flobots "Handlebars" - This song gives me an opportunity to give shoutouts and for wildly different reasons. First I have to shoutout Willibuster, Ghost and Emily Osby. When I was visiting home during August, we were hanging out with one of Will's high school friends and the night devolved into what most parties usually do with all of us sitting around looking up stuff on YouTube. It was even Will himself who pulled up the video for this song and every time I hear this song or watch the video I think of chilling with those three.
The other person I get to shoutout is K10. Eight years younger than me and full of opinions, K10 is more than willing to tell me my musical taste sucks and that I've gone soft in my older age. Which is exactly the thing I love about him. Ever said that if you had the opportunity to talk to yourself at a younger age you'd probably just argue about stuff? I don't have to imagine what that would be like to argue music with my younger self because of this guy. Except my younger self really likes The Flobots. "As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens his friend."
Additional shoutouts for additional and different reasons to Dan, Patrick, Noha, Luke, Pete, Peder, Jim, Abby, Stensby, Christian, Nicky, SayRock Brian, Ed, TK and all the people that were at Doomtree Blowout. Thanks for making "going to shows" the new black in '08. Let's go get them swimming pools in '09.
7.) The Black Kids "I'm Not Gonna Teach Your Boyfriend To Dance With You" - Guess "What?". Yet another buzz band that lived up to their billing was The Black Kids. I got this CD during the month I was subletting in Evanston and it was just a matter of having heard about them a lot on the periphery and finally taking the whole CD plunge. It really is amazing doing that worked out so well for me this year.
Okay, what do The Black Kids sound like? It's like The Cure was brought to the 21st Century and decided to write in the "Just Like Heaven" mode. That mournful quality is still there as are the crazy good synth lines. The difference is Robert Smith is playing with The Revolution and that means really danceable sped-up songs underneath the heartache and loss. It literally is the type of music which can be called 1980s retro and not have that be a derisive term.
8.) The Hold Steady "Stay Positive" - Is there any greater summation of the year of Our Lord two thousand and eight than "You gotta stay positive!"? Yeah, things went into the trash this year. At the same time a new era is dawning. Things are always darkest before the dawn and sometimes things are so bad the only place we have to go is up. In 2008, we all had to stay positive or else we'd lose our minds. But by staying positive we'll see ourselves through.
Now pour that over the type of big anthemic hooks that Springsteen and U2 only stumble upon anymore and you have a song you actually can listen to and come out feeling positive and part of something larger. The song isn't suggesting that we stay positive and then leaving us to figure out how to do that. It is infused with the raw energy and mass needed to sustain and to even see the way through to thriving. It doesn't move you in the usual way of touching your heart. It should swell in you the defiant walking-into-the-wind attitude needed to tough things out. Because, as I said before, this year more than ever you gotta stay positive.
So these are eight songs I chose to represent the music which turned me on in the last year. These were bands and/or songs a regular person wouldn't have stumbled into just by listening to the radio. (Sorry Kanye and Coldplay.) At the same time I also wanted to highlight music that most people could enjoy too. (Sorry Battles and TV On The Radio.) Most of all though these were eight songs I listed to often during the year. When I think back on 2008, these songs will be the soundtrack.
And just for added difficulty, let's make them appear in the same slot as they do on the album from which they come (our first song is first on its respective album, the second song comes second on its album, etc.) and do it in under thirty minutes.
1.) Colin Meloy "Devil's Elbow" - When I think of 2008, I will think of being in Chicago. When I think of being in Chicago, I will think of three things. The first one is obvious. The second is the good times. The third will be riding the train. I rode the CTA everywhere and on the nights when I didn't have a companion I was plugged into my MP3 player.
Colin Meloy's live solo album got a lot of spins on my way to work, going to baseball games, going out to shows and most often when I was going home. I will hear this song or any from this album and forever think of the Clark and Division stop, the stretch between Sheridan and Howard and standing at Main in the morning. Add in that it's a great song and "Devil's Elbow" spells 2008.
2.) Vampire Weekend "Oxford Comma" - Have you ever heard a buzz band that everyone seems to love and they really are that great? It's not hype. It's actually music journalism fulfilling its purpose and bringing good music to light. I had a few of those this year.
Vampire Weekend was one of them. Maybe it's because all of my musical taste is calibrated to The Clash but I always love music that isn't familiar. I like weird sounds and sounds that are presented in a different way than I've heard. Being able to do that within a three minute pop song though is a real feat.
There's something that sounds very close to Jamaican reggae about Vampire Weekend's music. Their influences are actually West African and I think that's something Joe Strummer would be way into if he were still alive. I think that because it's stuff I'm way into myself.
3.) Kings of Leon "Sex On Fire" - One of the great quotes I like to pull from my life is by Gregg Allman. He was talking about the term "Southern rock." He said (and I'm paraphrasing) "All rock comes from The South. So saying 'Southern rock' is a little bit like saying 'rock rock'." Normally when we think of music that rocks, we think of the music which followed and drew influence Led Zepplin with shredding guitars, bombastic drums and soaring vocals. Allman is right though. Even the almighty Zepplin sound draws its roots in The South.
That would mean the purest form of rock made today is the "rock rock" being made by bands like My Morning Jacket and Kings of Leon. I mean what's more sex and drugs and rock and roll than a song called "Sex on Fire"? All the more to the point when you dive into the lyrics about the visceral and raw elements of making sweet love. Wrap it all up in a melody and a beat that makes you want to drive very fast down the open road and you'll be wrapping yourself in the American flag in no time.
4.) MGMT "Electric Feel" - MGMT was another buzz band that lived up to their billing. A lot of music played on synthesizers ends up sounding like its been run through a computer and filtered into bleak dystopia. It's just what happened because Bowie and Eno and their ilk were the first guys to get there and start using these new tools and that's the type of music they make.
What makes MGMT so weird and interesting is they make music about a psychedelic world without technology. They present a conundrum when they use a syntesizer to sound like a "4000 year old Peruvian flute" as Andrew VanWyngarden says in the behind the scenes video to this song. For forever the idea of more authentic and earthy music is that which is played on instruments made of wood. (See: any coffee shop this Friday or Saturday) Yet here are these two guys working with The Flaming Lips' producer to make a song about a girl from The Amazon who can create electricity from her hands. It's the type of music which appeals to your head, your heart and of course your ears.
5.) Broken Social Scene "Churches Under The Stairs" - When I think about concerts I saw this last year I'll think of the peak performances. From Pitchfork Music Festival to Lollapalooza to Rocktober to a set of shows on either side of Snelling on University to a few more great shows at First Ave, I saw a lot of really great live music this year.
Broken Social Scene contributed a large part of that great live music. I saw them not once, not twice but three times this year and each time my love for them deepened even further. Each concert was like a date. On the first date at Lollapalooza I got a quick brush-up on their sound and an introduction to some of the songs I didn't know. The second date later that evening at The Metro was confirmation that first blush wasn't a misread on my part. Then by the excellent concert of a third date at First Ave during Rocktober I had made my decision and I was wearing my good underwear. I fell for this band the way you're supposed to; by seeing them in their peak moment and being rewarded as you do.
6.) Flobots "Handlebars" - This song gives me an opportunity to give shoutouts and for wildly different reasons. First I have to shoutout Willibuster, Ghost and Emily Osby. When I was visiting home during August, we were hanging out with one of Will's high school friends and the night devolved into what most parties usually do with all of us sitting around looking up stuff on YouTube. It was even Will himself who pulled up the video for this song and every time I hear this song or watch the video I think of chilling with those three.
The other person I get to shoutout is K10. Eight years younger than me and full of opinions, K10 is more than willing to tell me my musical taste sucks and that I've gone soft in my older age. Which is exactly the thing I love about him. Ever said that if you had the opportunity to talk to yourself at a younger age you'd probably just argue about stuff? I don't have to imagine what that would be like to argue music with my younger self because of this guy. Except my younger self really likes The Flobots. "As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens his friend."
Additional shoutouts for additional and different reasons to Dan, Patrick, Noha, Luke, Pete, Peder, Jim, Abby, Stensby, Christian, Nicky, SayRock Brian, Ed, TK and all the people that were at Doomtree Blowout. Thanks for making "going to shows" the new black in '08. Let's go get them swimming pools in '09.
7.) The Black Kids "I'm Not Gonna Teach Your Boyfriend To Dance With You" - Guess "What?". Yet another buzz band that lived up to their billing was The Black Kids. I got this CD during the month I was subletting in Evanston and it was just a matter of having heard about them a lot on the periphery and finally taking the whole CD plunge. It really is amazing doing that worked out so well for me this year.
Okay, what do The Black Kids sound like? It's like The Cure was brought to the 21st Century and decided to write in the "Just Like Heaven" mode. That mournful quality is still there as are the crazy good synth lines. The difference is Robert Smith is playing with The Revolution and that means really danceable sped-up songs underneath the heartache and loss. It literally is the type of music which can be called 1980s retro and not have that be a derisive term.
8.) The Hold Steady "Stay Positive" - Is there any greater summation of the year of Our Lord two thousand and eight than "You gotta stay positive!"? Yeah, things went into the trash this year. At the same time a new era is dawning. Things are always darkest before the dawn and sometimes things are so bad the only place we have to go is up. In 2008, we all had to stay positive or else we'd lose our minds. But by staying positive we'll see ourselves through.
Now pour that over the type of big anthemic hooks that Springsteen and U2 only stumble upon anymore and you have a song you actually can listen to and come out feeling positive and part of something larger. The song isn't suggesting that we stay positive and then leaving us to figure out how to do that. It is infused with the raw energy and mass needed to sustain and to even see the way through to thriving. It doesn't move you in the usual way of touching your heart. It should swell in you the defiant walking-into-the-wind attitude needed to tough things out. Because, as I said before, this year more than ever you gotta stay positive.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Going To California - Day 3 - Amarillo To Flagstaff
Departure Amarillo - 47 degrees and clear
Arrival Flagstaff - 55 degrees and clear
Sundown - 5:15 pm
Miles Traveled - 608 miles
States Visited - 3
Major cities - Albuquerque, NM
Average speed - 66 mph
A Sampling of Gas Prices
$1.97 San Jon, NM
$2.15 Santa Rosa, NM
$1.95 Albuquerque, NM
$2.99 Allentown, AZ
$2.69 Flagstaff, AZ
Five Words Young Jeezy Shouts In The Background of "Put On"
Aye
Ha Ha
Hey
Whoooo
Yeah (pron. J-eah)
If it isn't completely obvious and exactly what eveyone else is thinking, I'm sure I could do this "driving across the country" thing all the time. There is something deep in my soul that loves the Kerouac idea of just having the open road in front of you. Going, as Sir Edmund Hillary would say, because it's there.
However I don't think I'd want to do it professionally. Putting on this many miles in a day because you have to is hard. I need to keep driving for that next stop on the map, the next spot where I have a hotel reservation. I probably would've made the same stops as scheduled except I would've done them with a little more generous allowances for stopping and seeing the countryside.
As it is, I'm enjoying watching these United States roll by my windshield. I've seen both purple mountains majesty and amber waves of grain. The amazing thing about our country is people spread out all the way across this diverse continent feel they are all involved in the same great thing going forward. As the man himself said, "There are no red states. There are no blue states. There is only the United States." And what's more American than getting out at seeing this country we love.
Arrival Flagstaff - 55 degrees and clear
Sundown - 5:15 pm
Miles Traveled - 608 miles
States Visited - 3
Major cities - Albuquerque, NM
Average speed - 66 mph
A Sampling of Gas Prices
$1.97 San Jon, NM
$2.15 Santa Rosa, NM
$1.95 Albuquerque, NM
$2.99 Allentown, AZ
$2.69 Flagstaff, AZ
Five Words Young Jeezy Shouts In The Background of "Put On"
Aye
Ha Ha
Hey
Whoooo
Yeah (pron. J-eah)
If it isn't completely obvious and exactly what eveyone else is thinking, I'm sure I could do this "driving across the country" thing all the time. There is something deep in my soul that loves the Kerouac idea of just having the open road in front of you. Going, as Sir Edmund Hillary would say, because it's there.
However I don't think I'd want to do it professionally. Putting on this many miles in a day because you have to is hard. I need to keep driving for that next stop on the map, the next spot where I have a hotel reservation. I probably would've made the same stops as scheduled except I would've done them with a little more generous allowances for stopping and seeing the countryside.
As it is, I'm enjoying watching these United States roll by my windshield. I've seen both purple mountains majesty and amber waves of grain. The amazing thing about our country is people spread out all the way across this diverse continent feel they are all involved in the same great thing going forward. As the man himself said, "There are no red states. There are no blue states. There is only the United States." And what's more American than getting out at seeing this country we love.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Today Was A Good Day
Four years ago, the day after the election, I wrote the following blog post on my old blog Captain Handsome.
Election Results
Today I feel both disappointed and relieved.
I feel disappointed because John Kerry and John Edwards didn't win. It's a little like cheering for your favorite sports team if your favorite sports team directed the economy, the military and the governance of law.
A lot of people like cheering for the Yankees because the Yankees win. If you had to choose your favorite team based on how they played, how they treated their fans, etc., the distribution would be more even. Or people just wouldn't care which is what happens more often in politics.
When John Kerry and John Edwards didn't win, it doesn't mean I won't vote for Democrats two years from now. I'll still be back cheering for the same team because the same things will be important to me then and it will be the same team which will be able to deliver them to me.
As I've expressed elsewhere, this one in particular would've been nice to win.
I'm relieved because it came down to votes. There was no last minute surprise "Hey, we have Osama bin Laden," or "Holy shit, President Bush raped a bear. And that bear was my father!" shit. I think that's the stuff which really turns people off to politics and makes them think their vote doesn't count. This election really was about courting the voters, talking about issues and who is the better man for the job.
There are still votes to be counted and the television networks don't choose the president. It would be great if Bush were ushered out the same way he was ushered in. However, I'm waking up to an America in which George W Bush is the President and I can finally react to that.
The nation selected George W Bush. They elected a foreign policy where the United States actively uses its military might, a domestic policy which supports businesses who are then responsible for supporting their employees and a moral policy which is very conservative. They also selected leaving things as they are over how things could be.
And I'm not sure I fit with that. I don't fit with the Bush Administration's interpretations for sure. Yet a lot of voters looked past the pragmatic and went on the basis of values. While I can relate to those values, they aren't mine.
Atleast I know where I stand. And I can start setting my course from there.
Whether that is me following through on my festering urge to move out of the US or just into a deeper blue state or the exact opposite by going into a red state and helping to bridge the gap, I don't know.
Today is a brand new day. Today my relief is to be starting.
Now it's four years later and I can tell you what happened.
After getting over the initial shock, I decided to commit myself to work and spent the next term floating astray and trying to fit into the corporate world I found odd. For three of those years, I had the support of a wonderful and caring woman and she did more than her part to help me see the cheer in my life and why I should continue on. But the stress of our relationship pushed us apart and this summer things fell apart. I moved home from Chicago and looked around at my options.
There are two realizations I've come to in the last two months. I've found I'm back where I was four years ago and my old burning is coming back. I never really forgot that feeling and anyone who was there will tell you volunteering was the part of my Chicago job I enjoyed the most. It's no coincidence that I'd supported a community organizer for President. Then last night that community organizer won.
Yesterday the nation selected Barack Obama. They elected a foreign policy where the United States uses its military might judiciously, a domestic policy which asks people to make sacrifices for the greater good and a moral policy which is open and liberal. They left behind things as they are and want to see how things could be. And I fit with that. I can relate to those values because they are mine too.
So, with the economy in the tank and the corporate world a suit that fit poorly to begin, I'm going to look into making service my full-time occupation. I don't know if that's going to be foreign service, the Peace Corps, Americorps, some form of government job, some form of non-profit or non-governmental organization, etc. All of that is to be determined. The point is I woke up this morning in an America that needs help and I plan to do my part in helping.
In 2008, Yes We Can!
Election Results
Today I feel both disappointed and relieved.
I feel disappointed because John Kerry and John Edwards didn't win. It's a little like cheering for your favorite sports team if your favorite sports team directed the economy, the military and the governance of law.
A lot of people like cheering for the Yankees because the Yankees win. If you had to choose your favorite team based on how they played, how they treated their fans, etc., the distribution would be more even. Or people just wouldn't care which is what happens more often in politics.
When John Kerry and John Edwards didn't win, it doesn't mean I won't vote for Democrats two years from now. I'll still be back cheering for the same team because the same things will be important to me then and it will be the same team which will be able to deliver them to me.
As I've expressed elsewhere, this one in particular would've been nice to win.
I'm relieved because it came down to votes. There was no last minute surprise "Hey, we have Osama bin Laden," or "Holy shit, President Bush raped a bear. And that bear was my father!" shit. I think that's the stuff which really turns people off to politics and makes them think their vote doesn't count. This election really was about courting the voters, talking about issues and who is the better man for the job.
There are still votes to be counted and the television networks don't choose the president. It would be great if Bush were ushered out the same way he was ushered in. However, I'm waking up to an America in which George W Bush is the President and I can finally react to that.
The nation selected George W Bush. They elected a foreign policy where the United States actively uses its military might, a domestic policy which supports businesses who are then responsible for supporting their employees and a moral policy which is very conservative. They also selected leaving things as they are over how things could be.
And I'm not sure I fit with that. I don't fit with the Bush Administration's interpretations for sure. Yet a lot of voters looked past the pragmatic and went on the basis of values. While I can relate to those values, they aren't mine.
Atleast I know where I stand. And I can start setting my course from there.
Whether that is me following through on my festering urge to move out of the US or just into a deeper blue state or the exact opposite by going into a red state and helping to bridge the gap, I don't know.
Today is a brand new day. Today my relief is to be starting.
Now it's four years later and I can tell you what happened.
After getting over the initial shock, I decided to commit myself to work and spent the next term floating astray and trying to fit into the corporate world I found odd. For three of those years, I had the support of a wonderful and caring woman and she did more than her part to help me see the cheer in my life and why I should continue on. But the stress of our relationship pushed us apart and this summer things fell apart. I moved home from Chicago and looked around at my options.
There are two realizations I've come to in the last two months. I've found I'm back where I was four years ago and my old burning is coming back. I never really forgot that feeling and anyone who was there will tell you volunteering was the part of my Chicago job I enjoyed the most. It's no coincidence that I'd supported a community organizer for President. Then last night that community organizer won.
Yesterday the nation selected Barack Obama. They elected a foreign policy where the United States uses its military might judiciously, a domestic policy which asks people to make sacrifices for the greater good and a moral policy which is open and liberal. They left behind things as they are and want to see how things could be. And I fit with that. I can relate to those values because they are mine too.
So, with the economy in the tank and the corporate world a suit that fit poorly to begin, I'm going to look into making service my full-time occupation. I don't know if that's going to be foreign service, the Peace Corps, Americorps, some form of government job, some form of non-profit or non-governmental organization, etc. All of that is to be determined. The point is I woke up this morning in an America that needs help and I plan to do my part in helping.
In 2008, Yes We Can!
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Thoughts Before A Debate
The general consensus this election cycle is the Obama campaign needs to be careful about not being a bully, especially towards Sarah Palin. Let's set aside general politicking for a minute. I find it more interesting that bullying is considered the natural order of the Obama campaign if not politics in general.
It's odd to me because what one side perceives as bullying is often just criticism by the other side. Since the two-party system works best when the two sides are collaborating (because then it really is the will of the people and not just the ruling party), the necessary first step is to collect the consensus of the other party. Part of this consensus-building is defining and then mediating the differences between your viewpoint and that of your collaborator.
What has changed in America in the last 15 years is things have gotten really tight, really negative and really focused on winning. There is so much at stake in each race because of the former that candidates are willing to do the middle to because they are the latter. More and more candidates are doing it and will continue to do it because it works. People respond to clear, simplified black and white more enthusiastically than muddled greys.
Which flies completely in the face of the necessary first step of collaboration and actually harms American politics. Everything is so amped up and focused on ripping out the other guy's jugular what's lost that governance is really supposed to be about moving the whole country together into prosperity. That comes with making some sacrifices especially in the "always needing to be right" arena.
You need to slow things down, think about the three fingers pointing back when you point one away and use your reasoning to criticise yourself. If you were going to fight to the death, would this be the issue? Is this really something that you really want to be your legacy, the thing people think of when they think of you?
Each of the candidates for President this year are promising change. Obama has been known as a man who focuses on change since he gave the keynote address at the Democratic convention four years ago and John McCain's allure to voters on both sides of the aisle since 2000 springs from his deserved reputation as a bipartisan worker. I hope whomever wins in November stays true to his roots and he knows the way to really create change is through grace.
Our country has endured bullying as the modis operandi of politics for too long, almost a whole generation. It's time to begin collaborating again, not berating the other side into deep-held anger. The necessary first step in collaboration is to collect the consensus of the other party. Our focus should be on how we're the same and how we all can get better and not how we can win by pointing out the other side is wrong.
So that's why I was really saddened by the news this week. For all of the talk of change and maverick reformers by these two men I deeply respect, it's going to be politics as usual in the last month before the election. And that hurts even more than if it had just been another two Ivy League-educated, wealthy white men duking it out.
It's odd to me because what one side perceives as bullying is often just criticism by the other side. Since the two-party system works best when the two sides are collaborating (because then it really is the will of the people and not just the ruling party), the necessary first step is to collect the consensus of the other party. Part of this consensus-building is defining and then mediating the differences between your viewpoint and that of your collaborator.
What has changed in America in the last 15 years is things have gotten really tight, really negative and really focused on winning. There is so much at stake in each race because of the former that candidates are willing to do the middle to because they are the latter. More and more candidates are doing it and will continue to do it because it works. People respond to clear, simplified black and white more enthusiastically than muddled greys.
Which flies completely in the face of the necessary first step of collaboration and actually harms American politics. Everything is so amped up and focused on ripping out the other guy's jugular what's lost that governance is really supposed to be about moving the whole country together into prosperity. That comes with making some sacrifices especially in the "always needing to be right" arena.
You need to slow things down, think about the three fingers pointing back when you point one away and use your reasoning to criticise yourself. If you were going to fight to the death, would this be the issue? Is this really something that you really want to be your legacy, the thing people think of when they think of you?
Each of the candidates for President this year are promising change. Obama has been known as a man who focuses on change since he gave the keynote address at the Democratic convention four years ago and John McCain's allure to voters on both sides of the aisle since 2000 springs from his deserved reputation as a bipartisan worker. I hope whomever wins in November stays true to his roots and he knows the way to really create change is through grace.
Our country has endured bullying as the modis operandi of politics for too long, almost a whole generation. It's time to begin collaborating again, not berating the other side into deep-held anger. The necessary first step in collaboration is to collect the consensus of the other party. Our focus should be on how we're the same and how we all can get better and not how we can win by pointing out the other side is wrong.
So that's why I was really saddened by the news this week. For all of the talk of change and maverick reformers by these two men I deeply respect, it's going to be politics as usual in the last month before the election. And that hurts even more than if it had just been another two Ivy League-educated, wealthy white men duking it out.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Obama-ama-eh-eh-eh
On Tuesday, I changed my status on Facebook to say, "All of the troops would be home from Iraq today if Obama were President" to reflect the date (3/31/08) the Senator's Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 set as a goal to make a full withdrawl. Soon thereafter the debate was joined.
Gerry: Actually, all the troops would be exactly where they are since Obama said that if al Qeada increased violence after the withdrawal of American troops (which they would) he would send troops to stabilize the country. But who knows if he knew what he meant...he's pretty new at this. ;-)
Mike: It seems to me the violence is surging with our troops there now.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23467708-5005961,00.html
If we wait until Al-Qaeda isn't violent, we're going to be in Iraq for a long time and we're going to keep on losing. Time for the troops to come home and time to stop wasting resources on a failed military objective.
Gerry: So you disagree with Obama's position? Since he clearly said that if al Qaeda threatened to destabilize the country after we left that he would send troops.
Also the spikes in violence recently have more to do with Sadr and the Iraqi government than alQ. alQ is in a mess right now in Iraq. Mostly because of the surge and Petraus. Hopefully we will have a government that will continue to destroy our enemies long enough for Sadr and Maliki to get their shit together. Then we can have a nice orderly, responsible shift from American control to Iraqi control. Instead of some neophyte recklessly withdrawing troops only to send them back when all the shit breaks loose.
If you really think a President Obama would have had troops home by now, I only suggest you look at the posturing of the Democrat congress since '06. Any objective person would conclude that they didn't want troops pulled out of Iraq. But if you want to keep your Obama fantasies, hope away.
Mike: You contradict yourself in your own retort. Which is it? Obama would have sent troops back to Iraq because of al-Qaeda or is al-Qaeda in Iraq in disarray? I'm unclear which position you're taking.
The surge was a temporary fix to a longer lasting problem. Like the man himself said, "I'm not against all wars. I'm against this war." He's got the executive perspective to realize the war in Iraq is a fool's errand. Our objectives there are impossible and no amount of resources will win the battle.
Pulling out won't destabilize Iraq. Iraq is destabilized. We're just there trying to fix what's irreparably broken. Our position is like a hand in a bucket of water. There may be a few drops when we pull our hand out and they'll create ripples for a few minutes. After those ripples subside, you'd never know we were there. Iraq will go on being as destabilized as we've made it.
So I actually agree with Obama. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people. It's with al-Qaeda.
P.S. Why would Congressional Dems send a bill to withdraw troops to President Bush? He's not going to sign it and they don't have a 2/3rds majority. So it's penalty-kill time until a Dem is President and then things will change.
Gerry: I did not contradict myself. We messed alQ's shit up with the surge. Leaving would allow them to once again attack the country and the Iraqi government. We have our foot on the throat of the most destabilizing element in Iraq. Leaving would let them get back up kneecap the unprepared Iraqi government. Which is why Obama said that he would send troops in to stop that. Obama's position is amateurish. You're either in to win or out damned of the consequences. His position is hokey-pokey. We need to give the Iraqi people more time. They are not ready to protect themselves and their government.
p.s. Why wouldn't they send a bill to President Bush? That is what they were elected to do, wasn't it?
p.p.s. If you think a democrat president would change how those congressional votes went you are dreaming. "Withdrawing the troops" is a red herring democrats use to get people against the war to vote for them. They wouldn't actually do it because they know if they actually did that the consequences would turn large majorities against them. They would be rightly blamed for the massive widespread carnage and death that would result. We a force for stability in Iraq, like it or not. And we will be there until Iraq is ready for us to leave.
Mike: Less amateurish than "stay the course" though, right? In fact, I'd say that it verges on decision-making instead of simple "well, once this happens and it's politically convenient then we'll do this." You can't look at what's happened in Iraq over the last five years, 4,000 US soldiers dead and $500 billion sucked down the drain and declare that a success. The war in Iraq leaves us weak at home (Hello, Katrina!) and diminishes us abroad (proving our enemies right). To continue in the war at this point of dimishing returns and increasing violence is foolish. In fact, it might take some courage to stop it.
I like that you bring up that a Democratic presidential nominee is weak and waffles on his positions. I suppose if you say things enough times people will actually believe they're true. I'd also like to point out that Republicans are religious nut, crypto-fascists who are intent on stripping regular Americans of their civil liberties and creating a police state.
P.S. Congress's goal is to enact legislation. Why send something to the White House you know is going to be immediately shot down by a President who is more concerned with being right than doing what is right. His obstinance is not the same thing as determined leadership. It's more like childish petulance.
P.P.S. Having the same party in control of both the White House and Congress always leads to that party's agenda being advanced. Do you think Part D of Medicare would be run through private insurance companies if the Democrats had held the either branch in 2003? Do you really think a close margin holds up against a Presidential veto?
P.P.P.S. We destabilized Iraq and we're spreading carnage already. Even worse, we're taking blame just for even being there. So what's our gain for fighting Iraqis instead of al-Qaeda? The Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz policy toward stability in the Middle East has failed categorically.
Gerry: A few things, decision-making can be bad or good. Leaving now and dropping the middle east into chaos I would deem a bad decision. To say, as Obama does, that at that point we would send troops back in to clean up an even bigger mess, doesn't make any sense. I've never claimed the war was a success or even well handled. But that has no bearing on how we move forward. If you think the war weakens us at home and abroad watch what would happen if we let the middle east devolve into chaos and hand alQ a victory. Violence is actually down (aside from the Basra dustup with Sadr that has more to do with Iraqi politics; and since then Sadr has called a cease-fire, since ultimately he wants a table in government.)
I've only talked about what Obama said he would do. If I've mischaracterized it, please point out how. I haven't. A reasonable person wouldn't say that I sink to empty partisan-baiting. Don't accuse me of such.
We destabilized Iraq (if it was justified or in our interest is a different argument). And we completely botched the establishment of a stable government. And we are only now getting over those mistakes. It took a change of strategy and a change of personalities to do it. But there is clearly a path to a stable government if we only have the patience and foresight to give the Iraqi government the time.
You tell me what will happen when we leave Iraq. Because everyone who wants to just bring troops home never talks about it. Do you think everything will just work itself out? Do you think it will be consequence-free? Can you still pretend that we live in a disconnected world; that turning our backs on the world will lead to anything but dissaster?
p.s. retort: I only point out that the dem congress, after 2006 midterms, spent more money and send more troops to Iraq. Troops will not come out of Iraq until the Iraq government is established and ready. Plain and simple. Repub or Dem.
Mike: So a decision based on recognizing the sweeping failures of a previous tactic cross-referenced against the will of the people is NOT something the President should do? I'll have to go back to Civics class on that one.
I'll make a historical connection here and then I can lay off. The domino theory actually happened. When we stopped fighting in 1973 against the North Vietnamese, they took over South Vietnam. Then Cambodia and Laos fell to Communist regimes. Then nothing happened. The Russians and the Chinese crumbled under their own ascetic values and ressentiment and are now playgrounds for the American free market machine. Al-Qaeda will similarly crumble under its own ascetic values and ressentiment if people are drinking Coca-Cola in Saudi Arabia and making fair wages in Indonesia.
My point in my status is this. A little over a year ago Obama introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 to Congress which set the goal of having all American combat troops home by March 31st, 2008. Since that was two days ago, I thought I would point that out. Since President Bush and now Nominee McCain are in favor of extending the war, I think it's pretty clear who supports the position held by the majority of the American people.
Gerry: Too bad Obama isn't as clearly on the side of leaving and letting the chips fall as you. ;-) That position I can respect and understand, even if I have major disagrements with it. (I also know that the nature of politics in America probably won't let that happen.)
Have you read the De-Escalation Act? It had a bunch of benchmarks for leaving (similar to the ones we are using now with the surge), which if not met would suspend the redeployment (with congressional approval of course.) War power issues aside...again, do you really think the democrat congress would bring troops home before we are ready? Or even a dem prez?
Or troops will leave Iraq when Iraq is stable enough for us to leave. Not a day sooner.
Mike: You're right that it's unfortunate Obama is an American politician. He does have to leave some room for compromise instead of simply bullying his opponents a la Putin or Sarkozy. Still I'll trade a little waffling for not having to deal with a right wing police state. (Ha ha!)
I know that the De-Escalation Act had benchmarks. Chances are we wouldn't have met them since they were based on the Iraq Study group's recommendations and we only met half(?) of those. Still Reagan and Weinberger vowed to stay in Lebanon after the 1983 barracks bombing and our boys were home less than six months later. Though that area of the world remains in trumoil (Did they ever get those two Israeli soldiers back?), there are hardly Hezbollah members blowing themselves up on my train in the morning. So, yes, I do think a popular and charasmatic President would've had troops home, even if it meant leaving the Iraqis to their own civil war, regardless of whether or not he's Democratic or Republican.
Gerry: My problem isn't with Obama *saying* he would leave and go back in. My problem is with how shortsighted that policy is. Admitting you'd go back in pretty much says you know you can't let the area degrade past a certain point. The quickest way to ensure it never gets to that point is to stay now, continue providing security until Iraq can handle it, and then leave. It is just common sense. I don't understand someone that would draw this out by advocating leaving too soon, with the full intent of returning as soon as, what pretty much every expert considers the logical result, happens.
Iraq is a much bigger strategic interest than Lebanon. Ask members of the Cedar revolution if they appreciated that we cut and run and left them to Syria's whims for 20 years. It is all interconnected, dispite how hard we try to shove our own heads up our own asses.
Gerry: Actually, all the troops would be exactly where they are since Obama said that if al Qeada increased violence after the withdrawal of American troops (which they would) he would send troops to stabilize the country. But who knows if he knew what he meant...he's pretty new at this. ;-)
Mike: It seems to me the violence is surging with our troops there now.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23467708-5005961,00.html
If we wait until Al-Qaeda isn't violent, we're going to be in Iraq for a long time and we're going to keep on losing. Time for the troops to come home and time to stop wasting resources on a failed military objective.
Gerry: So you disagree with Obama's position? Since he clearly said that if al Qaeda threatened to destabilize the country after we left that he would send troops.
Also the spikes in violence recently have more to do with Sadr and the Iraqi government than alQ. alQ is in a mess right now in Iraq. Mostly because of the surge and Petraus. Hopefully we will have a government that will continue to destroy our enemies long enough for Sadr and Maliki to get their shit together. Then we can have a nice orderly, responsible shift from American control to Iraqi control. Instead of some neophyte recklessly withdrawing troops only to send them back when all the shit breaks loose.
If you really think a President Obama would have had troops home by now, I only suggest you look at the posturing of the Democrat congress since '06. Any objective person would conclude that they didn't want troops pulled out of Iraq. But if you want to keep your Obama fantasies, hope away.
Mike: You contradict yourself in your own retort. Which is it? Obama would have sent troops back to Iraq because of al-Qaeda or is al-Qaeda in Iraq in disarray? I'm unclear which position you're taking.
The surge was a temporary fix to a longer lasting problem. Like the man himself said, "I'm not against all wars. I'm against this war." He's got the executive perspective to realize the war in Iraq is a fool's errand. Our objectives there are impossible and no amount of resources will win the battle.
Pulling out won't destabilize Iraq. Iraq is destabilized. We're just there trying to fix what's irreparably broken. Our position is like a hand in a bucket of water. There may be a few drops when we pull our hand out and they'll create ripples for a few minutes. After those ripples subside, you'd never know we were there. Iraq will go on being as destabilized as we've made it.
So I actually agree with Obama. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people. It's with al-Qaeda.
P.S. Why would Congressional Dems send a bill to withdraw troops to President Bush? He's not going to sign it and they don't have a 2/3rds majority. So it's penalty-kill time until a Dem is President and then things will change.
Gerry: I did not contradict myself. We messed alQ's shit up with the surge. Leaving would allow them to once again attack the country and the Iraqi government. We have our foot on the throat of the most destabilizing element in Iraq. Leaving would let them get back up kneecap the unprepared Iraqi government. Which is why Obama said that he would send troops in to stop that. Obama's position is amateurish. You're either in to win or out damned of the consequences. His position is hokey-pokey. We need to give the Iraqi people more time. They are not ready to protect themselves and their government.
p.s. Why wouldn't they send a bill to President Bush? That is what they were elected to do, wasn't it?
p.p.s. If you think a democrat president would change how those congressional votes went you are dreaming. "Withdrawing the troops" is a red herring democrats use to get people against the war to vote for them. They wouldn't actually do it because they know if they actually did that the consequences would turn large majorities against them. They would be rightly blamed for the massive widespread carnage and death that would result. We a force for stability in Iraq, like it or not. And we will be there until Iraq is ready for us to leave.
Mike: Less amateurish than "stay the course" though, right? In fact, I'd say that it verges on decision-making instead of simple "well, once this happens and it's politically convenient then we'll do this." You can't look at what's happened in Iraq over the last five years, 4,000 US soldiers dead and $500 billion sucked down the drain and declare that a success. The war in Iraq leaves us weak at home (Hello, Katrina!) and diminishes us abroad (proving our enemies right). To continue in the war at this point of dimishing returns and increasing violence is foolish. In fact, it might take some courage to stop it.
I like that you bring up that a Democratic presidential nominee is weak and waffles on his positions. I suppose if you say things enough times people will actually believe they're true. I'd also like to point out that Republicans are religious nut, crypto-fascists who are intent on stripping regular Americans of their civil liberties and creating a police state.
P.S. Congress's goal is to enact legislation. Why send something to the White House you know is going to be immediately shot down by a President who is more concerned with being right than doing what is right. His obstinance is not the same thing as determined leadership. It's more like childish petulance.
P.P.S. Having the same party in control of both the White House and Congress always leads to that party's agenda being advanced. Do you think Part D of Medicare would be run through private insurance companies if the Democrats had held the either branch in 2003? Do you really think a close margin holds up against a Presidential veto?
P.P.P.S. We destabilized Iraq and we're spreading carnage already. Even worse, we're taking blame just for even being there. So what's our gain for fighting Iraqis instead of al-Qaeda? The Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz policy toward stability in the Middle East has failed categorically.
Gerry: A few things, decision-making can be bad or good. Leaving now and dropping the middle east into chaos I would deem a bad decision. To say, as Obama does, that at that point we would send troops back in to clean up an even bigger mess, doesn't make any sense. I've never claimed the war was a success or even well handled. But that has no bearing on how we move forward. If you think the war weakens us at home and abroad watch what would happen if we let the middle east devolve into chaos and hand alQ a victory. Violence is actually down (aside from the Basra dustup with Sadr that has more to do with Iraqi politics; and since then Sadr has called a cease-fire, since ultimately he wants a table in government.)
I've only talked about what Obama said he would do. If I've mischaracterized it, please point out how. I haven't. A reasonable person wouldn't say that I sink to empty partisan-baiting. Don't accuse me of such.
We destabilized Iraq (if it was justified or in our interest is a different argument). And we completely botched the establishment of a stable government. And we are only now getting over those mistakes. It took a change of strategy and a change of personalities to do it. But there is clearly a path to a stable government if we only have the patience and foresight to give the Iraqi government the time.
You tell me what will happen when we leave Iraq. Because everyone who wants to just bring troops home never talks about it. Do you think everything will just work itself out? Do you think it will be consequence-free? Can you still pretend that we live in a disconnected world; that turning our backs on the world will lead to anything but dissaster?
p.s. retort: I only point out that the dem congress, after 2006 midterms, spent more money and send more troops to Iraq. Troops will not come out of Iraq until the Iraq government is established and ready. Plain and simple. Repub or Dem.
Mike: So a decision based on recognizing the sweeping failures of a previous tactic cross-referenced against the will of the people is NOT something the President should do? I'll have to go back to Civics class on that one.
I'll make a historical connection here and then I can lay off. The domino theory actually happened. When we stopped fighting in 1973 against the North Vietnamese, they took over South Vietnam. Then Cambodia and Laos fell to Communist regimes. Then nothing happened. The Russians and the Chinese crumbled under their own ascetic values and ressentiment and are now playgrounds for the American free market machine. Al-Qaeda will similarly crumble under its own ascetic values and ressentiment if people are drinking Coca-Cola in Saudi Arabia and making fair wages in Indonesia.
My point in my status is this. A little over a year ago Obama introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 to Congress which set the goal of having all American combat troops home by March 31st, 2008. Since that was two days ago, I thought I would point that out. Since President Bush and now Nominee McCain are in favor of extending the war, I think it's pretty clear who supports the position held by the majority of the American people.
Gerry: Too bad Obama isn't as clearly on the side of leaving and letting the chips fall as you. ;-) That position I can respect and understand, even if I have major disagrements with it. (I also know that the nature of politics in America probably won't let that happen.)
Have you read the De-Escalation Act? It had a bunch of benchmarks for leaving (similar to the ones we are using now with the surge), which if not met would suspend the redeployment (with congressional approval of course.) War power issues aside...again, do you really think the democrat congress would bring troops home before we are ready? Or even a dem prez?
Or troops will leave Iraq when Iraq is stable enough for us to leave. Not a day sooner.
Mike: You're right that it's unfortunate Obama is an American politician. He does have to leave some room for compromise instead of simply bullying his opponents a la Putin or Sarkozy. Still I'll trade a little waffling for not having to deal with a right wing police state. (Ha ha!)
I know that the De-Escalation Act had benchmarks. Chances are we wouldn't have met them since they were based on the Iraq Study group's recommendations and we only met half(?) of those. Still Reagan and Weinberger vowed to stay in Lebanon after the 1983 barracks bombing and our boys were home less than six months later. Though that area of the world remains in trumoil (Did they ever get those two Israeli soldiers back?), there are hardly Hezbollah members blowing themselves up on my train in the morning. So, yes, I do think a popular and charasmatic President would've had troops home, even if it meant leaving the Iraqis to their own civil war, regardless of whether or not he's Democratic or Republican.
Gerry: My problem isn't with Obama *saying* he would leave and go back in. My problem is with how shortsighted that policy is. Admitting you'd go back in pretty much says you know you can't let the area degrade past a certain point. The quickest way to ensure it never gets to that point is to stay now, continue providing security until Iraq can handle it, and then leave. It is just common sense. I don't understand someone that would draw this out by advocating leaving too soon, with the full intent of returning as soon as, what pretty much every expert considers the logical result, happens.
Iraq is a much bigger strategic interest than Lebanon. Ask members of the Cedar revolution if they appreciated that we cut and run and left them to Syria's whims for 20 years. It is all interconnected, dispite how hard we try to shove our own heads up our own asses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)