Yesterday's Republican debate on MSNBC had some fireworks between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, but the one man people focused on was Fred Thompson. How would he do in his first debate? Judging from some of the comments I've seen from both sides of the aisle...not so well.
I'll admit Fred's on my short list of Presidential candidates, but after yesterday's performance, he may not be on too many people's short lists. He didn't look or sound as Presidential as he has in the past or as he can sound. He sounded flat, tired, not at all like a leader. To some, this was the sign that Fred didn't have what it takes to run for the President. To others, it was excusable because it was his first real debate.
To me, it was not a good way to get people interested in Fred. With his later entry into the race, Thompson's learning curve is a lot steeper than the others'. Commentators said he had to really impress people out of the gate or else he'd be in trouble. I tend to agree, but there's another part of the situation that isn't getting discussed: that's not Fred's style. He's more laid back than his opponents, and that can, at times, come off as being tired and flat to some.
Having said that, I think Fred needs to punch up his stump speeches and make his personal appearances memorable and enjoyable. When you're having to ask people ot applaud for you, that's a problem, especially if you're a top-tier candidate. It's time for Fred to either put his whole heart into running, or drop out and thank pepole for considering him in the first place. And after he put moderator Chris Matthews in his place, it's safe to say Fred has at least some fire in the belly. So, it's a matter of bringing out that fire to energize Republicans. I hope he does that or else he'll pull down Ron Paul-style numbers and be tossed out of the race.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Monday, October 8, 2007
Did Hillary Clinton Have Her "Dean Moment"?
It was looking like Howard Dean was going to cruise to the Democrat nomination for President in 2004. He had a lot of money in the bank, supporters out the wazoo, and favorable press.
That is, until he came to Iowa right before the caucuses.
One older gentleman, one question, and one video camera, and before you could say "YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" Howard Dean was caught on camera losing his temper and yelling at an old man. And the dreams of Howard Dean and his supporters went the way of "Gigli II."
Now, Hillary Clinton has been involved in a situation that is not unlike the "Dean Moment" described above. Hillary was at an event and took a question from an older gentleman inquring about her vote that, to him, sounded like she gave President Bush the power to attack Iran. After an explanation, Hillary had what could be seen as her "Dean Moment" when she suggested the man might have been a plant or just reading a question someone else had written, as, according to Hillary, she had been asked that same question over the past couple of days.
Regardless of whether he was a plant, Hillary was not at her best in handling the situation. After her initial reaction, she was apologetic, but the damage, such as it was, had already been done. Sean Hannity said it was a "meltdown" and the Hillary camp has tried to downplay it as nothing major, but I'm not convinced either one is right. Hillary didn't go off like Dean, but she didn't exactly keep her cool, either. The truth of the situation is probably somewhere in between.
So, Hillary won't see her campaign support dwindle too much after this, but it's not a good sign for someone who is supposed to be politically savvy as people say Hillary is. A situation like this, like her odd laugh with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, can come back to haunt her. Will it? I don't think so. The only one who could really make hay out of it would be Barack Obama, and he's not desperate enough yet to pull something like this. John Edwards? He's jockeying for a possible spot as Hillary's VP. And the others lack the star power to generate the heat necessary to make it anything more than a blip on the screen.
In short, Hillary dodged a bullet, but she can't keep making dumb mistakes like this or like what her campaign spokesman Terry McAuliffe did when he told two Obama supporters Hillary has Iowa "in the bag." They would do well to remember Howard Dean's fateful trip to Iowa in 2004 and seek to avoid any more "Dean Moments."
That is, until he came to Iowa right before the caucuses.
One older gentleman, one question, and one video camera, and before you could say "YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" Howard Dean was caught on camera losing his temper and yelling at an old man. And the dreams of Howard Dean and his supporters went the way of "Gigli II."
Now, Hillary Clinton has been involved in a situation that is not unlike the "Dean Moment" described above. Hillary was at an event and took a question from an older gentleman inquring about her vote that, to him, sounded like she gave President Bush the power to attack Iran. After an explanation, Hillary had what could be seen as her "Dean Moment" when she suggested the man might have been a plant or just reading a question someone else had written, as, according to Hillary, she had been asked that same question over the past couple of days.
Regardless of whether he was a plant, Hillary was not at her best in handling the situation. After her initial reaction, she was apologetic, but the damage, such as it was, had already been done. Sean Hannity said it was a "meltdown" and the Hillary camp has tried to downplay it as nothing major, but I'm not convinced either one is right. Hillary didn't go off like Dean, but she didn't exactly keep her cool, either. The truth of the situation is probably somewhere in between.
So, Hillary won't see her campaign support dwindle too much after this, but it's not a good sign for someone who is supposed to be politically savvy as people say Hillary is. A situation like this, like her odd laugh with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, can come back to haunt her. Will it? I don't think so. The only one who could really make hay out of it would be Barack Obama, and he's not desperate enough yet to pull something like this. John Edwards? He's jockeying for a possible spot as Hillary's VP. And the others lack the star power to generate the heat necessary to make it anything more than a blip on the screen.
In short, Hillary dodged a bullet, but she can't keep making dumb mistakes like this or like what her campaign spokesman Terry McAuliffe did when he told two Obama supporters Hillary has Iowa "in the bag." They would do well to remember Howard Dean's fateful trip to Iowa in 2004 and seek to avoid any more "Dean Moments."
Sunday, October 7, 2007
The Mastermind Behind Media Matters
With the recent controversies involving Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, the faux liberal group Media Matters has gotten some exposure as the ones responsible for exposing the aforementioned conservative talk show hosts. Their purpose, as stated on their website, is "comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." To some, they're a godsend, but before you jump on their bandwagon (if you're inclined to do so, that is), it's necessary to look at one of the particulars, David Brock.
David Brock is the conservative-turned-liberal who was responsible for two of the most popular and controversial books of the 90s, The Real Anita Hill and The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. Since his conversion, he has written two more books, Blinded By the Right and The Republican Noise Machine. When he came out with the first two books, the faux left attacked Brock as a liar. With the last two books, they praised him without hesitation because, well, they have no sense of intellectual consistency.
Or maybe it's because he was always just like the faux left. I've read almost all of Brock's books, save The Republican Noise Machine, and I came away from the first two wondering why he was praised by conservatives. Certainly, his politics were in question because the "hit pieces" he wrote on Anita Hill and Hillary Clinton were...soft. To me, he was always hedging his bets, saying things that would ensure book sales while at the same time giving himself an out in case he made a decision to jump ship. This bothered me.
At least until I read Blinded By the Right. In that book, Brock not only admits he's a liar, but that the only reason he became a Republican was because he was being contrarian. And while he was a Republican, he would say and do anything to draw attention to himself. Now, he's "seen the light" and switched sides...and still saying and doing anything to draw attention to himself and, now, to Media Matters.
I've had the opportunity to review a few incidents reported on Media Matters involving Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and I would be remiss if I didn't point out how Brock's intellectual dishonesty is rampant throughout the website. Instead of "monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media," they're guilty of creating, analyzing, and dispensing misinformation about conservatives. Most often, they take statements out of context, twist the actual statement so it means something that wasn't stated or intended, and then rail against their twisted interpretation. Some of the things Media Matters has said about Beck alone have been out and out dishonest, considering I actually heard the shows they "quote" and knew what Beck was driving at from the outset.
But Media Matters isn't trying to be accurate. They're trying to be a one-stop-shop for faux liberals who already believe conservative media lie to produce "proof" of their beliefs. But any proof with a heart of dishonesty doesn't help the cause. If Brock honestly chronicled the foibles of conservative media and their moments of misinformation, I would be fine with that. But he doesn't. Instead, he's resorting to the kind of misinformation that he allegedly is trying to beat back with Media Matters.
Then again, that is how Brock rolls.
David Brock is the conservative-turned-liberal who was responsible for two of the most popular and controversial books of the 90s, The Real Anita Hill and The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. Since his conversion, he has written two more books, Blinded By the Right and The Republican Noise Machine. When he came out with the first two books, the faux left attacked Brock as a liar. With the last two books, they praised him without hesitation because, well, they have no sense of intellectual consistency.
Or maybe it's because he was always just like the faux left. I've read almost all of Brock's books, save The Republican Noise Machine, and I came away from the first two wondering why he was praised by conservatives. Certainly, his politics were in question because the "hit pieces" he wrote on Anita Hill and Hillary Clinton were...soft. To me, he was always hedging his bets, saying things that would ensure book sales while at the same time giving himself an out in case he made a decision to jump ship. This bothered me.
At least until I read Blinded By the Right. In that book, Brock not only admits he's a liar, but that the only reason he became a Republican was because he was being contrarian. And while he was a Republican, he would say and do anything to draw attention to himself. Now, he's "seen the light" and switched sides...and still saying and doing anything to draw attention to himself and, now, to Media Matters.
I've had the opportunity to review a few incidents reported on Media Matters involving Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and I would be remiss if I didn't point out how Brock's intellectual dishonesty is rampant throughout the website. Instead of "monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media," they're guilty of creating, analyzing, and dispensing misinformation about conservatives. Most often, they take statements out of context, twist the actual statement so it means something that wasn't stated or intended, and then rail against their twisted interpretation. Some of the things Media Matters has said about Beck alone have been out and out dishonest, considering I actually heard the shows they "quote" and knew what Beck was driving at from the outset.
But Media Matters isn't trying to be accurate. They're trying to be a one-stop-shop for faux liberals who already believe conservative media lie to produce "proof" of their beliefs. But any proof with a heart of dishonesty doesn't help the cause. If Brock honestly chronicled the foibles of conservative media and their moments of misinformation, I would be fine with that. But he doesn't. Instead, he's resorting to the kind of misinformation that he allegedly is trying to beat back with Media Matters.
Then again, that is how Brock rolls.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
A Prescription for Stupidity
President Bush vetoed a bill that would have given children health insurance today. Of course, this got Senate Democrats and some Senate Republicans upset because, well, they wanted to spend money on this. (And considering next year is an election year, there's no way there could be politics involved in this decision, right?)
I can understand why the Democrats want this program, but the Republicans? They've gotten way off the reservation on this one, and it's time for someone to say it. If this is the Republican Party of today, count me out.
Most troubling about this plan is the fact no one seems to have read the Constitution. Nowhere in there does it give the federal government the power to create a federal health insurance program. Not even if you completely twist every Article, every Amendment, and every single word written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. You would have to invent it out of whole cloth for it to be there.
So, why are people, especially Democrats and Republicans, so keen on it? More control over the people...and the people's money. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people willing to give up their responsibility to make their lives a little easier. And what greater responsibility is there for adults than to take care of their children?
That's the heart of the entire push for the government to provide health insurance for children, and it's designed to tug at your heart while someone tugs at your wallet. But the numbers and the emotional appeals are hard to overcome. There are millions of children without health insurance right now. Who wouldn't be moved by that?
Well, me, for one.
The big question nobody's asking whenever this is brought up is "Where are the parents?" It's getting way too easy for parents to pawn off their responsibility to their children and to society on government because they're either too lazy or irresponsible to do it themselves. And when you're dealing with something this big, you can't afford to let Big Brother be Big Babysitter because you don't want to see the bill for their "services." And don't be surprised if they eat everything in your refrigerator to boot, or in the case of William Jefferson, put $90,000 in your freezer.
Some Republicans said Bush vetoing the bill was a big mistake, one that they will "correct" by overriding the veto. Bush said he vetoed the bill because it would give insurance to families making up to $89,000 a year, so the funds would go to people who need it the least. I happen to think Bush was right to veto it, but not for the reason he gave. My reason: government has no business in the insurance game.
Think about it this way. Remember your last trip to the DMV? Imagine turning your local health insurance provider into the DMV. Now, do you get it?
I can understand why the Democrats want this program, but the Republicans? They've gotten way off the reservation on this one, and it's time for someone to say it. If this is the Republican Party of today, count me out.
Most troubling about this plan is the fact no one seems to have read the Constitution. Nowhere in there does it give the federal government the power to create a federal health insurance program. Not even if you completely twist every Article, every Amendment, and every single word written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. You would have to invent it out of whole cloth for it to be there.
So, why are people, especially Democrats and Republicans, so keen on it? More control over the people...and the people's money. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people willing to give up their responsibility to make their lives a little easier. And what greater responsibility is there for adults than to take care of their children?
That's the heart of the entire push for the government to provide health insurance for children, and it's designed to tug at your heart while someone tugs at your wallet. But the numbers and the emotional appeals are hard to overcome. There are millions of children without health insurance right now. Who wouldn't be moved by that?
Well, me, for one.
The big question nobody's asking whenever this is brought up is "Where are the parents?" It's getting way too easy for parents to pawn off their responsibility to their children and to society on government because they're either too lazy or irresponsible to do it themselves. And when you're dealing with something this big, you can't afford to let Big Brother be Big Babysitter because you don't want to see the bill for their "services." And don't be surprised if they eat everything in your refrigerator to boot, or in the case of William Jefferson, put $90,000 in your freezer.
Some Republicans said Bush vetoing the bill was a big mistake, one that they will "correct" by overriding the veto. Bush said he vetoed the bill because it would give insurance to families making up to $89,000 a year, so the funds would go to people who need it the least. I happen to think Bush was right to veto it, but not for the reason he gave. My reason: government has no business in the insurance game.
Think about it this way. Remember your last trip to the DMV? Imagine turning your local health insurance provider into the DMV. Now, do you get it?
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
A Rush to Judgement?
Rush Limbaugh is the king of modern talk radio. That makes him an instant target of both conservative talk radio hosts and the faux left. The former group try to beat him in the ratings, while the latter group can't, so they resort to the next best thing in their eyes: character assassination. For the most part, they've been unsuccessful in making anything stick, which makes the faux left more desperate and angry.
The most recent assault on Limbaugh came after a comment he made on his show last week. During a call, Rush made reference to "phony soldiers" in the following exchange.
CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --
LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
Media Matters, a liberal media watchdog group headed up by David Brock, jumped on "phony soldiers" to make it sound like Limbaugh attacked all soldiers. Rush shot back by saying his comments were taken out of context and that he was referring to anti-war activists claiming to be veterans, such as Jesse MacBeth. That wasn't good enough for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his fellow Senate Democrats, 41 all total who sent a letter to Clear Channel Communications demanding that its president "publicly repudiate these comments that call into question ('antiwar soldiers') service and sacrifice, and ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize for his comments."
I'm going to catch heck for this, but I have to say it. Neither side is completely honest in this situation. Rush tried to do a little after-the-fact spinning to defend himself by adding in the MacBeth reference. Regardless of whether he's right, the fact that he didn't clarify that at the time he made the statement, which opened the door for Media Matters and Harry Reid to jump on his comment and distort them. As someone who has been taken out of context a lot, he should have known better and either clarified his statement at the time he made it or chosen a different turn of a phrase.
Now, before you faux liberals start cheering, you're no better than Limbaugh. What Brock and Media Matters did was nothing short of pure intellectual dishonesty. Then again, it's par for the course for them, since they've made a cottage industry out of taking comments from conservative media figures out of context, twisting what was said, and then bashing the "real" message. That's the essence of a strawman argument, and it reflects an utter weakness in the argument of the person or people making it.
That brings us to Harry Reid. Political opportunism is the least of your "crimes" here, sir. Not only did you perpetuate the Media Matters lie, but you did so in a particularly cowardly way. You didn't go in front of the public to make your case; you stood in the well of the Senate where no one could challenge you. So far, I haven't heard whether you would meet Limbaugh's challenge to repeat your lies to his face, and I doubt we ever will.
As far as the other Senate Democrats who signed the letter condemning Rush, not one of you has a moral leg to stand on. Not only were you in on the lie, but you didn't even have Reid's courage to stand up, even in an echo chamber like the Senate, and voice your disapproval. And considering that it was signed by four Democrats running for President (Clinton, Obama, Dodd, and Biden), this shows me that you are afraid that what you say won't be appreciated by your fellow Americans, who I'm told kinda like talk radio and Rush in particular. Leaders aren't afraid of bad press, but you Democrats wouldn't know about that, considering you have no real leaders in your party.
In short, both sides of the latest Limbaugh controversy aren't being completely truthful. Not that they care, really. The faux left will say and do anything to discredit a conservative, and there are more than a few conservatives who would twist the truth to get one-up on the left. But some of us long for a day when both sides can once again make arguments based on truth and logic, not half-truths and emotional outbursts. Let's hope that day comes soon.
The most recent assault on Limbaugh came after a comment he made on his show last week. During a call, Rush made reference to "phony soldiers" in the following exchange.
CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --
LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
Media Matters, a liberal media watchdog group headed up by David Brock, jumped on "phony soldiers" to make it sound like Limbaugh attacked all soldiers. Rush shot back by saying his comments were taken out of context and that he was referring to anti-war activists claiming to be veterans, such as Jesse MacBeth. That wasn't good enough for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his fellow Senate Democrats, 41 all total who sent a letter to Clear Channel Communications demanding that its president "publicly repudiate these comments that call into question ('antiwar soldiers') service and sacrifice, and ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize for his comments."
I'm going to catch heck for this, but I have to say it. Neither side is completely honest in this situation. Rush tried to do a little after-the-fact spinning to defend himself by adding in the MacBeth reference. Regardless of whether he's right, the fact that he didn't clarify that at the time he made the statement, which opened the door for Media Matters and Harry Reid to jump on his comment and distort them. As someone who has been taken out of context a lot, he should have known better and either clarified his statement at the time he made it or chosen a different turn of a phrase.
Now, before you faux liberals start cheering, you're no better than Limbaugh. What Brock and Media Matters did was nothing short of pure intellectual dishonesty. Then again, it's par for the course for them, since they've made a cottage industry out of taking comments from conservative media figures out of context, twisting what was said, and then bashing the "real" message. That's the essence of a strawman argument, and it reflects an utter weakness in the argument of the person or people making it.
That brings us to Harry Reid. Political opportunism is the least of your "crimes" here, sir. Not only did you perpetuate the Media Matters lie, but you did so in a particularly cowardly way. You didn't go in front of the public to make your case; you stood in the well of the Senate where no one could challenge you. So far, I haven't heard whether you would meet Limbaugh's challenge to repeat your lies to his face, and I doubt we ever will.
As far as the other Senate Democrats who signed the letter condemning Rush, not one of you has a moral leg to stand on. Not only were you in on the lie, but you didn't even have Reid's courage to stand up, even in an echo chamber like the Senate, and voice your disapproval. And considering that it was signed by four Democrats running for President (Clinton, Obama, Dodd, and Biden), this shows me that you are afraid that what you say won't be appreciated by your fellow Americans, who I'm told kinda like talk radio and Rush in particular. Leaders aren't afraid of bad press, but you Democrats wouldn't know about that, considering you have no real leaders in your party.
In short, both sides of the latest Limbaugh controversy aren't being completely truthful. Not that they care, really. The faux left will say and do anything to discredit a conservative, and there are more than a few conservatives who would twist the truth to get one-up on the left. But some of us long for a day when both sides can once again make arguments based on truth and logic, not half-truths and emotional outbursts. Let's hope that day comes soon.
Another Special Guest Blogger
Another friend of mine (yes, I have more than 1) has a few things to say, so I'm giving her space. Enjoy this entry from my friend Stella Rondo.
This morning I was wasting time on my computer. As I often do when I have a few minutes to kill, I played an online game. This particular game consisted of popping a grid of about 130 balloons in such a way as to get rid of them all, and win big prizes as a result. Well ok, only if I popped about 6 quadrillion of them would I get anything resembling a prize, but the carrot was there regardless.
As in many such game rooms, there was a small open chat window in the right hand corner. This window contained a running dialog between the other people who were also sitting on a Saturday morning popping balloons rather than out, say, finding a cure for cancer. The "conversation" went something like this:
LuschusLips: "how old r u?"
Bookie2000: "32. thass old."
ClydeP123: "your only as old as you feel"
Bookie2000: "any hot girls in here?"
LuschusLips: "Im hot and horny, wanna chat?"
Yes, I realize these denizens of the internet would have given Shaw a run for his money. And it didn't get much better than that. I watched it out of the corner of my eye for some time. And then I thought: You're sitting in a chat room on a Saturday morning popping a grid of virtual balloons. Just how hot can you be?
And then I thought further: I now know one of the real consequences of the internet. It's to give the crazy an air of legitimacy they otherwise would not have had.
Consider that premise. In years past, if you were crazy (oh sorry, not PC enough? OK, let's say terminally odd), the only way people knew about it was if they had face to face dealings with you. And, if you were on the odd side, that side would tend to show itself rather quickly. You might exhibit your oddness by staring fixedly at the person to whom you were speaking, or twitching, or darting your eyes furtively at everyone around you, or drooling, or never combing your hair or bathing, or not speaking in complete sentences, or speaking in metaphors so mixed they might have come out of Ronco's Veg-O-Blender.
But on the internet, no one sees any of that. They certainly can't see the drooling or the twitching eyes. They can't smell the considerable body odor. And speaking in incomplete sentences and muddy metaphors seems almost de rigueur. I suspect many of these same people are sitting at the local library computer, chatting with a passionate intensity that would astonish Yeats, without fear of anyone hauling them off and locking them up for being a danger to themselves or society.
So no wonder some people - those who have limited social graces, manners, wit, or coherence - no wonder the internet is so captivating. Where else can you chat with a horny girl without her ever finding out what a real loser you are? Where else can you make dire pronouncements about the impending doom of mankind for a mass audience? Where else can you compare Bush to Hitler and actually have people take you seriously?
In years past, the crazy who were not hospitalized were often found in big city parks or street corners, ranting at no one in particular and shaking their fists at the heavens. On the internet, they can be celebrated, catered to, and like the Wizard of Oz, imagined to be far more important and powerful than they really are. It almost makes you wonder - which comes first? Being crazy and using the internet, or using the internet and making yourself crazy because there's nothing to check your ridiculous impulses?
And let's be honest. If that girl in the chat room was really that hot and horny, why is she sitting in a chat room popping balloons? Are we to believe that she comes in just to pop on-line balloons as a respite from her never ending whirl of parties, photo shoots, and dates with Richard Branson?
I am hoping that any of my good readers who have created on-line personae for themselves that are remarkably unlike who they are in real life, are starting to feel pretty stupid by now. You are? Good. I intended for you too. Now log off and go outside and play.
As for myself, I have about 35 balloons left.
This morning I was wasting time on my computer. As I often do when I have a few minutes to kill, I played an online game. This particular game consisted of popping a grid of about 130 balloons in such a way as to get rid of them all, and win big prizes as a result. Well ok, only if I popped about 6 quadrillion of them would I get anything resembling a prize, but the carrot was there regardless.
As in many such game rooms, there was a small open chat window in the right hand corner. This window contained a running dialog between the other people who were also sitting on a Saturday morning popping balloons rather than out, say, finding a cure for cancer. The "conversation" went something like this:
LuschusLips: "how old r u?"
Bookie2000: "32. thass old."
ClydeP123: "your only as old as you feel"
Bookie2000: "any hot girls in here?"
LuschusLips: "Im hot and horny, wanna chat?"
Yes, I realize these denizens of the internet would have given Shaw a run for his money. And it didn't get much better than that. I watched it out of the corner of my eye for some time. And then I thought: You're sitting in a chat room on a Saturday morning popping a grid of virtual balloons. Just how hot can you be?
And then I thought further: I now know one of the real consequences of the internet. It's to give the crazy an air of legitimacy they otherwise would not have had.
Consider that premise. In years past, if you were crazy (oh sorry, not PC enough? OK, let's say terminally odd), the only way people knew about it was if they had face to face dealings with you. And, if you were on the odd side, that side would tend to show itself rather quickly. You might exhibit your oddness by staring fixedly at the person to whom you were speaking, or twitching, or darting your eyes furtively at everyone around you, or drooling, or never combing your hair or bathing, or not speaking in complete sentences, or speaking in metaphors so mixed they might have come out of Ronco's Veg-O-Blender.
But on the internet, no one sees any of that. They certainly can't see the drooling or the twitching eyes. They can't smell the considerable body odor. And speaking in incomplete sentences and muddy metaphors seems almost de rigueur. I suspect many of these same people are sitting at the local library computer, chatting with a passionate intensity that would astonish Yeats, without fear of anyone hauling them off and locking them up for being a danger to themselves or society.
So no wonder some people - those who have limited social graces, manners, wit, or coherence - no wonder the internet is so captivating. Where else can you chat with a horny girl without her ever finding out what a real loser you are? Where else can you make dire pronouncements about the impending doom of mankind for a mass audience? Where else can you compare Bush to Hitler and actually have people take you seriously?
In years past, the crazy who were not hospitalized were often found in big city parks or street corners, ranting at no one in particular and shaking their fists at the heavens. On the internet, they can be celebrated, catered to, and like the Wizard of Oz, imagined to be far more important and powerful than they really are. It almost makes you wonder - which comes first? Being crazy and using the internet, or using the internet and making yourself crazy because there's nothing to check your ridiculous impulses?
And let's be honest. If that girl in the chat room was really that hot and horny, why is she sitting in a chat room popping balloons? Are we to believe that she comes in just to pop on-line balloons as a respite from her never ending whirl of parties, photo shoots, and dates with Richard Branson?
I am hoping that any of my good readers who have created on-line personae for themselves that are remarkably unlike who they are in real life, are starting to feel pretty stupid by now. You are? Good. I intended for you too. Now log off and go outside and play.
As for myself, I have about 35 balloons left.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Gods and Morons
There are some things in modern politics that simply boggle my mind. One of them is Dennis Kucinich. Another is the "religious right" and the power people think they have over the Republican Party. Recently, a group of well-known religious conservatives floated the idea of supporting a third party candidate if the Democrat and the Republican candidates do not represent their views.
I used to think people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson held a sizable chunk of the Republican vote and could sway an election with their words and deeds. Part of that perception was and still is fueled by one source.
The faux left.
In truth, the "religious right" holds the same political stroke as the pro-abortion side: in volume, not size. This isn't to say religious Republicans and religious conservatives don't have power, but they aren't the ones who are in front of the cameras talking about a third party movement. The religious conservatives I know and respect have one thing in common: deeply held values.
Yet, when we look at some of the so-called leaders of the "religious right," we see...a facade. And this "we'll take our votes and go home" move is proof of it. How do I know? Because they've pulled this crap in the past, and the "religious right" didn't follow through on their threats. And, no, the 2006 election results do not prove that the "religious right" has more stroke than I give them credit for. There were a lot of people who stayed home to protest the GOP going soft, but conspicuous by their absence was...the "religious right." And the reason? Because 2006 was an off-year election, so fewer people would pay attention to them.
Upon hearing the news of the "religious right" thinking of going third party, the faux left cheered, but they really shouldn't. In truth, the people they and the media consider to be the "religious right" don't number that many. The way to look at it is like this. A group of 10 people would have a lot of influence over a larger group of 11-20. But the more people you add to that larger group, the less influence the 10 has.
In essence, the "religious right" that the media identify as such is that group of 10. They can influence smaller elections, but the higher up the political food chain they go, they lose influence because they're not the only ones in the game currying favor. Should the "religious right" make good on their threat (and I have no reason to believe they will), it won't impact the Republicans that much. There's another reason the faux left shouldn't be cheering this, but that's a blog for another time.
Suffice it to say, the "religious right" are not using their heads in this situation if they really do decide to look at a third party candidate. It may not grease the wheels for Hillary to get into the White House, but it will leave them looking extremely foolish and petty, and will leave the religious Republicans and religious conservatives doing what they usually do whenever one of their alleged leaders says or does something stupid.
They disavow them and FAST.
I used to think people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson held a sizable chunk of the Republican vote and could sway an election with their words and deeds. Part of that perception was and still is fueled by one source.
The faux left.
In truth, the "religious right" holds the same political stroke as the pro-abortion side: in volume, not size. This isn't to say religious Republicans and religious conservatives don't have power, but they aren't the ones who are in front of the cameras talking about a third party movement. The religious conservatives I know and respect have one thing in common: deeply held values.
Yet, when we look at some of the so-called leaders of the "religious right," we see...a facade. And this "we'll take our votes and go home" move is proof of it. How do I know? Because they've pulled this crap in the past, and the "religious right" didn't follow through on their threats. And, no, the 2006 election results do not prove that the "religious right" has more stroke than I give them credit for. There were a lot of people who stayed home to protest the GOP going soft, but conspicuous by their absence was...the "religious right." And the reason? Because 2006 was an off-year election, so fewer people would pay attention to them.
Upon hearing the news of the "religious right" thinking of going third party, the faux left cheered, but they really shouldn't. In truth, the people they and the media consider to be the "religious right" don't number that many. The way to look at it is like this. A group of 10 people would have a lot of influence over a larger group of 11-20. But the more people you add to that larger group, the less influence the 10 has.
In essence, the "religious right" that the media identify as such is that group of 10. They can influence smaller elections, but the higher up the political food chain they go, they lose influence because they're not the only ones in the game currying favor. Should the "religious right" make good on their threat (and I have no reason to believe they will), it won't impact the Republicans that much. There's another reason the faux left shouldn't be cheering this, but that's a blog for another time.
Suffice it to say, the "religious right" are not using their heads in this situation if they really do decide to look at a third party candidate. It may not grease the wheels for Hillary to get into the White House, but it will leave them looking extremely foolish and petty, and will leave the religious Republicans and religious conservatives doing what they usually do whenever one of their alleged leaders says or does something stupid.
They disavow them and FAST.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)