Month: October 2007

Categories
Humor Life

Socrates on the Train

Socrates on the LIRR

On the way home today, I sat next to this man who I dubbed “Socrates on the LIRR”.  He got off in Merrick – a thoroughly unphilosophical place.  He was also carrying a cell phone – which seems to undermine any reflection in my experience.  But he held it in his hands constantly instead of putting it in a pocket, which contributed to his other-ness.  But the book he was carrying had no title, gold lining, and was ancient looking.  He was constantly rubbing his beard in thought.

That’s the story of my ride home on the train.

Categories
Election 2008 Iraq Politics Roundup The War on Terrorism

Worth Mulling Over

  • Noam Scheiber over at TNR on how the media controls politics, specifically Huckabee’s campaign.
    His cynical theory which strikes me as highly plausible:

    1.) The beginning of what should have been a Huckabee boomlet in August happened way out in Ames, Iowa, while the beginning of the actual Huckabee boomlet this past weekend took place in Washington, DC, making it a lot easier for journalists, pundits, and bloggers to cover–and, er, create. (Though, in fairness, a lot of journalists trekked to Ames.)

    2.) Perhaps more importantly, the results of Ames weren’t announced until fairly late in the evening–8 o’clock or so if I recall–which was well after most MSM reporters had written their stories for the following day. (Many simply went back and inserted a few lines or a paragraph about Huckabee into stories that trumpeted Romney’s first-place victory, which was easily foreseen.) On the other hand, Huckabee’s speech last Saturday at the Values Voters summit happened around 11, and the result of the event’s straw poll were announced just after 3, leaving reporters with plenty of time to write about the reaction to Huckabee’s speech and his performance in the balloting.

    3.) Finally, because the first event was in Ames, which most reporters promptly departed, and the second was in Washington, where many reporters, pundits, and bloggers either live, work, or both, the media was able to soak in the afterglow of Huckabee’s performance this weekend, to chat about it with others who had witnessed it, and to therefore magnify it in their coverage in subsequent days. That wasn’t the case with the straw poll in August.

  • Andrew Sullivan pointed us to this relevant quote from 1866:

    “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism …” – The Supreme Court, Ex Parte Milligan, 1866.

  • Andrew Sullivan also wrote this great post describing how the decision to torture leads to the decision to invade Iraq, and how people who aren’t evil can end up committing great evils.

    Until they are both gone from office, we are in grave danger – the kind of danger that only torturers and fantasists and a security strategy based on coerced evidence can conjure up. And since they have utter contempt for the role of the Congress in declaring war, we and the world are helpless to stop them. Every day we get through with them in power, I say a silent prayer of thanks that the worst hasn’t happened. Yet. Because we sure know they’re looking in all the wrong places.

Categories
Baseball Election 2008 Giuliani

The Politician’s Achilles Heel: Baseball and Presidential Candidates

It may be trivial, but on the theory that character is an important factor in determining the best president, and that baseball fandom is indicative of character, here’s a round-up of the four candidates who have made news in baseball with excessive flip-flopping and pandering on this very serious subject. I’m expecting a George Will column shortly.

Rudy, the Sox, and the Yankees

According to the Daily News:

Last July, The Providence Journal asked the former mayor this fateful question: If the Devil said you can be President if you become a Red Sox fan, would you do it?

“I’m a Yankee fan,” Giuliani replied then. “I always believe it’s a sign of my being straight with people, about not wanting to fool them, that I was one of the first mayors to be willing to say I was a Yankee fan.”

Of course, what happened next was entirely predictable. Trying to gain an advantage in New Hampshire, the first Republican primary, and in no relation to the rest of this story adjacent to Massachusetts and part of the obnoxiously named “Red Sox Nation”, Giuliani suddenly begins root for the Yankees nemesis. His pitiful excuse: he’s rooting for the American League.

Quite simply: bullshit. Pandering at its most pathetic. Unfortunately, if a pedophile priest, angry New York firefighters attacking his record on 9/11, his own daughter’s endorsement of Barack Obama, his wife (the third one’s) history of killing puppies in order to sell medical supplies, phone calls during televised speeches, his scary team of foreign policy advisers, his liberal positions on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and illegal immigration, his apparent total lack of knowledge of foreign policy and islamist terrorism, his scandalous personal history, his disregard for his family, his championing of Bernard Kerik as police commissioner, as a partner in his firm, and as Secretary of Homeland Security, who just plead guilty to corruption charges, and of course this doozy of a quote resurrected from his time as mayor: “Freedom is about authority.”

So, switching from a Yankees fan to a Yankees fan who also also roots for the #1 Enemy of the Yankees – small potatoes in this litany. One of these days, hopefully something will catch up to this “little man in search of a balcony.” (Quote from Jimmy Breslin.)

Hillary, the Yankees and the Cubs

A Chicago native, Hillary had remarked she had been a lifelong Cubs fan before her Senate run. While running for the Senate in New York, she mentioned she had also been a lifelong Yankees fan. Riiiiiight.

Tim Russert in one of the dozens of Democratic debates quizzed her on a number of issues which ducked until:

…Russert threw her a curveball, asking if she would back the Yankees or Chicago Cubs, her childhood home team, if they met in the World Series. So she waffled.

“Well, I would probably have to alternate sides,” she said.

After both teams are eliminated, Hillary says she is relieved she no longer has to “straddle the bleachers.” I could list the many other issues on which Hillary has opportunistically switched positions on. But I’m exhausted from writing Giuliani’s list. Suffice it to say, that the only candidate likely to match Giuliani in the sheer number of scandals and in the blatancy pf opportunistic pandering, it’s probably Hillary. To be fair though, Hillary seems to pander less and “shift” more.

It is interesting to note that a large part of the strength of both Clinton and Giuliani comes from their stubbornness in sticking with unpopular positions in the face of widespread belief that it would drown their candidacies. Clinton on the Iraq war especially, and Giuliani on abortion. After a long period of ostentatiously sticking to their guns, each has since “shifted” their current position while refusing to acknowledge any change in opinion.

Barack Obama and the White Sox

In a boring addition to this list, Barack Obama has remained steadfastly a White Sox fan, even this year with the Sox out of contention and his other hometown team the Cubs in the playoffs. The reason he’s made some news however is because he has called out Hillary on her shifty position.

Richardson, the Yankees, and the Sox

Governor Bill Richardson made news because of the sheer stupidity of his response. He did not look insincere because he said one thing to one audience and another some years later to a different one. His implosion occurred in a single fateful sitting before an audience of one while discussing his favorite baseball team on Meet the Press:

GOV. RICHARDSON: I, my favorite team has always been the Red Sox.
MR. RUSSERT: You’re a Red Sox fan.
GOV. RICHARDSON: I’m a Red Sox fan.
MR. RUSSERT: End of subject.
GOV. RICHARDSON: End of subject.
MR. RUSSERT: You better get rid of this book.
GOV. RICHARDSON: Oh, no! I’m also a Yankee fan. I also like…
MR. RUSSERT: Oh, now, wait a minute!
GOV. RICHARDSON: You can—Tim…
MR. RUSSERT: I guarantee…
GOV. RICHARDSON: No, I know, I got in trouble…
MR. RUSSERT: …if you go—if you go to Yankee Stadium or Fenway, you cannot be both.
…
MR. RUSSERT: Yankee fans and Red Sox fans?
GOV. RICHARDSON: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: Not a chance.
GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I bet you I can.

I remember watching it on that Sunday morning. It was truly painful.

Conclusions

Politicians seem to like the Yankees. Probably because they win a lot. They also seem loath to alienate anyone, even over something so trivial. I ran for office a few times (college-wide office). I understand the temptation, and I am sure I sometimes succumbed to it. But I think as often, I stated what I thought, even when it was less than politic. Perhaps, that’s why I lost.

My overall conclusion: if baseball monogamy indicates some positive presidential characteristic, vote Obama.

I looked for other items for the other candidates, but this is all I have found so far. Send me more info, or post in comments if you know of anything.

Categories
Election 2008 Foreign Policy Iraq Obama Politics The War on Terrorism

Barack Obama on Iraq

Just impressive. I missed this as I didn’t catch the Petraeus testimony in September, only picking up highlights on the news.

Categories
Election 2008 Roundup

Roundup

  • Andrew Sullivan is still shocked at President Bush’s duplicity on torture;
  • Hillary Clinton adds Matt Drudge to her list of former enemies she has co-opted (Rupert Murdoch, former Senator Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich being the most prominent);
  • A new study has shown that student debt is increasing twice as fast as starting salaries for college graduates; and
  • The wives of the presidential candidates showed up at a forum hosted by Maria Shriver. Not sure what that accomplished.
Categories
Humor Life

The Worst Swearword

The Guardian has a piece worth reading. The story begins:

My eight-year-old son, Joel, comes into my office to ask if there’s a worse swearword than fuck. “No,” I say.
There’s a silence. “You’re lying,” he says.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics

“Judgment we can trust. Barack Obama. President.”

Obama drawing some blood in the Iowa race with this postcard.  Here’s hoping.

Categories
Foreign Policy History Politics

“We didn’t start the fire…”

Big Shot at Mulcahy'sThis past weekend, I was out watching Big Shot, a Billy Joel tribute band, play. They came to one of the classic Billy Joel songs, “We didn’t start the fire…” Listening in the crowded club while drinking a jack and coke, I thought to myself – “This makes me want to write a blog entry. This song is a profound statement about politics. This is about what those on the far left and far right have in common, and about a fundamentally conservative (meaning in this case cautious) view of the world, America’s place in it, and of foreign policy. This is beyond Kissingerian realism, past Wilsonian idealism, deeper than the Clintonian third way.” And then, of course, I drank until such thoughts were drowned.

But, here I am, writing about Billy Joel and his fundamentally sound view of history as presented in a pop-rock song.

Billy Joel’s understanding of history

Billy Joel presents history as a fire, out of control, creating beauty and destruction. Change and destruction, he insists, are not decided from above and implemented, but are spinning out of control as those in power try desperately to have some effect on this chain of events that began before history itself.

We didn’t start the fire.
It’s always been burning
Since the world’s been turning;
We didn’t light it,
But we tried to fight it.

It is easier to try to understand history as determined by the actions and words of prominent individuals, nations, and organizations, as they set agendas and implement them. And perhaps, when events seem out of the control, it is easier to assume that more shadowy forces are at work behind the scenes, implementing the levers of power and economics, manipulating the machine of history to their will. This view of history and current events is facile, if emotionally persuasive.

Contingencies

Our everyday experience demonstrates that individual events are largely the result of forces beyond our understanding, forces acting in the present and forces in the past. For example, if any of these events or decisions had changed, I couldn’t have made it in to work today: a man a hundred years ago decided to establish a railroad going out to Long Island; a butterfly flaps its wings in Tokyo; a motor company, flush with success, built a skyscraper in Manhattan; an engineer maintains a system of pumps that keep water out of the subways; an immigrant decided to leave his home to try a new life in America. Just the fact of my commute each day is contingent upon all these facts of history and all these conditions of the present day. Without thousands of people doing their daily jobs for the past hundred years, I would not have been able to make it into work today. Millions of decisions, tens of millions of people, mixed together with the largest portion of chance – and that is how I come to be here.

How is it that we assume history is so different from our own experiences? If current events are driven by individuals masterminding large-scale events, and we assign responsibility to this or that person in power at a given time, we are asserting a very different kind of reality than that we live with each day. In fact, the events of history and the present are every bit as contingent, as prone to chance, as out of control as the events of our own individual lives. The leaders of our world do not possess some secret which allows them to control events. Rather, the best leaders, move with the events and try to shape them gradually.

The Great Man Theory

Time and again, we see that no individual, no matter the extent of their power, can manipulate the forces of history for long. Those individuals that are most successful are those that have ridden the wave of history and, ever so gently, tried to alter its’ course. A dictator such as Hitler could harness the anger and despair in a post-world war Germany, but as he began to impose his will more forcefully, other entities rose up against Hitler and his Germany and destroyed him and his vision of the future. For a more successful example of a leader, you can look to Abraham Lincoln, who sought to preserve the status quo at every step and only took radical measures after calamity made them seem reasonable. In the end too, the forces that opposed Lincoln murdered him; but his legacy lived on, because he rode the wave of history, guiding it rather than forcing his will upon it.

America clearly has more power than any other nation on earth at this point. Because of this, we bear more responsibility for the state of the world than anyone else. But the lesson to learn from Billy Joel is that we are not responsible for the fire, the change, the destruction. If you combine this acknowledgment of the complexity of the world of Billy Joel’s with the lesson of the current administration, you learn that American power has rather definite limits, as we are unable to impose our will upon two militarily weak countries despite billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

While many on the left are suspicious of American power and see it as responsible for most of the world’s ills; and many on the right believe in the goodness of American power and believe if we were to apply it, we would be able to cure most of the world’s ills, both have in common a single fallacy: that American power is sufficient to change the course of history and the world. It simply is not.

Conclusions

The best and the worst we can do, and the most we should try to do, is affect change at the margins and adopt a modest and patient foreign policy, trying to encourage the trends we see as positive and discourage those we see as negative. We do not have the power to re-make the world in any image, but we do have the power to affect the course of event if we are judicious.

Note: There were two references I wanted to make in this article that I could not find:

  1. a Tom Friedman column from (I think) sometime in the period after 9/11 in which he makes the point that for many in the world, their daily lives are more affected by who wins the American presidency than by who wins their own local elections; and
  2. a Calvin and Hobbes comic strip in which Calvin explains how the sweep of history has led to the pinnacle of all creation: him.

If anyone knows what I’m looking for, please post a link or email me at [email protected]

Categories
Election 2008 Humor Politics

The Sublime Truthiness of Stephen Colbert

Now that Stephen Colbert has thrown his metaphorical hat into the presidential ring, I think it’s time to revisit Colbert’s most famous moment.

No, not inventing the word “truthiness”. I’m talking about his speech in front of the president and press in which he speaks his character’s mind and gets to some truths as only an idiot can. Terry Gross of NPR described it as courageous. I would prefer to call it honest. Despite all the timely jokes, I think this is a speech that will age well over time, as a man, a comedian, brilliantly challenges the president, the press, and the establishment over their hypocrisy and stupidity, and does it to their face.

People called him rude for speaking the ugly truth at this social event. But if one cannot rudely speak the truth when the issue is life and death, you have no business holding any public trust. Perhaps this is why Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are trusted in a way that few others are. They speak the truth, rudely and leavened with humor. Here’s Colbert:

Categories
Domestic issues Election 2008 Politics

McCain’s Health Care Plan

Timothy Noah over at Slate has this piece analyzing the radical aspects of the McCain health care plan.

In essence, I learned, McCain is challenging fee-for-service medicine, though not to the point of mandating that doctors be put on salary. Under the present fee-for-service payment scheme, doctors have an economic incentive to maximize their income by performing as many medical procedures as possible. That drives up costs, overtaxes hospitals, and threatens patients’ lives. McCain deserves congratulations for taking on the fee-for-service problem, even if his proposed solution is short on specifics.

The article does make the point that McCain does not seem all that serious about actually doing this though.  And he has little chance of winning at this point.  I think Noah would also agree that the Democratic plans by Obama, Edwards, and Clinton, while modest, have greater potential down-the-road as people opt into the government plan.