Monday, June 13, 2005
Hiatus Break
I was doing my pre-sleep news-roundup when an article by Martin Frost caught my eye, lamenting the Democratic party's recent problems with the Middle Class, as highlighted by The Third Way's recent analysis of the 2004 election. Anyone who is even marginally interested in American politics will likely find this report as fascinating as I did:
http://www.third-way.com/news/Third%20Way%20Middle%20Class%20Report.pdf
This is more than just the typical study showing that rich people vote Republican and poor people vote Democrat. What is so interesting about this report is that it breaks down into detail what "rich" and "poor" mean. Since African-Americans vote Democratic 10-1 regardless of income, this research breaks down the white vote and finds that, to their and my surprise, the white middle class votes identically to the white rich. And they're using the real definition of middle class, too -- not the tv/movie exaggeration of a "middle class" family making six figures. No, middle class as the actual middle -- a family making $30,000-$75,000 total household income a year. That's the middle 50% of the country -- the bottom 25% of familes make less than $30,000 (the "poor"), the top 25% of families make more than $75,000 (the "rich"). By the numbers, white families in the Middle Class ($30-$75) voted for Bush over Kerry by 22 points, and white families in the Upper Class ($75+) voted for Bush over Kerry by 23 points. But here's the kicker:
The findings confirm the largest reason the Democratic party survived at all the last two elections was because of the near-monolithic voting pattern of African-Americans. Hispanics are leaving the Democratic party, and whites have already left. This report tries to look on the bright side but finds little -- essentially, despite a stated and repeated claim to appeal to "middle class values", the middle class is as equally opposed to the Democratic party as the wealthy.
What's funny is that on so many issues, many of these middle class voters actually agree with a lot of Democratic principles. They just don't seem to trust the Democrats themselves, or simply can't vote for a party so out of touch with issues of great personal importance such as gun control, gay marriage, abortion, etc. Kos (dailykos.com) writes one of my favorite liberal blogs and has been trying to work out what Democratic principles actually are, and how the Democrats can do a better job selling these issues to the middle class. I think he's on to something, though still seems a little blinded by the arrogant/self-righteous "but... but... our ideas are better! why aren't we in power!" whining of those on the left these days. Come on -- this study didn't come out of nowhere. These trends have been building for decades.
In a way, the 2000 election is to blame for this coming as a shock, since sooooo many Democrats had convinced themselves that Bush had "stolen" the election, that Gore was the rightful winner all along, and the next election everything would be "fixed." It simply never occurred to them that the country was actually moving away from their ideals (or, perhaps more accurately, that the Democratic party was moving away from the mainstream voter). So for four years, they ignored all trends and polls and studies and picked a guy they didn't even like to be their placeholder, since Bush would just fall on his own cause, well, he's a moron, right? Then Kerry got beaten by 3.5 million votes and there was no "conspiracy" to blame this time. Sure, they initially tried to fault the gay marriage bans and such, but statistically those didn't account for as much as expected, and passed nearly as overwhelmingly in Kerry states as Bush states.
So now they're starting to get it. You see prominent Dems criticizing Howard Dean, urging him to calm down and moderate. 90s ultraleftists are now crawling and scraping to the center (recent speeches of Hillary Clinton wanting to reduce abortions and being "personally pro-life" come to mind). You need to win the center and drag them towards you -- not just write them off. That's why Dean's silly comment about the Republicans being mainly a "white Christian party" infuriated so many people on both sides -- as Jon Stewart said tonight: "uh, it's a white Christian nation!" For the elected leader of the Democratic Party to basically say "hey, if you're a white Christian, vote for them", to cede the vast majority of the nation like that, was one of the most incomprehensibly stupid things to say, ever. (Yes, yes I know that's not what he meant. But is there any doubt that's how it was perceived? If someone said "oh, that organization is pretty much just black people", do you think that would be likely interpretted as "hey, if you're black come with us instead" or "hey, if you're black, go there"?)
The only way the Democratic party can survive into the next decade is to win back the white Christians who have abandoned them so completely (well, at least above household incomes above the poverty line.) What's the alternative strategy -- merely increasing the already maxed out percentage of the black vote and getting a higher percentage of the ultra-poor? Yeah, that'll raise funds.
For better or for worse, I like the two party system. I think government works best when balanced. I think the reason the 90s worked so well was equally due to Clinton as well as the Republican House and Senate. So even though I voted (a bit grudgingly) for Bush and hold some Republican points of view, I'm not "gloating" at the problems with the Dems here. Because I see quite clearly that the further the Democratic party falls, the more arrogant and unbalanced the Republican leadership becomes. Absolute power, and all that. Does anyone really think one-party control -- either party -- is a good idea? No. So, Dems: stop whining, win back whitey, and we'll all benefit.
I was doing my pre-sleep news-roundup when an article by Martin Frost caught my eye, lamenting the Democratic party's recent problems with the Middle Class, as highlighted by The Third Way's recent analysis of the 2004 election. Anyone who is even marginally interested in American politics will likely find this report as fascinating as I did:http://www.third-way.com/news/Third%20Way%20Middle%20Class%20Report.pdf
This is more than just the typical study showing that rich people vote Republican and poor people vote Democrat. What is so interesting about this report is that it breaks down into detail what "rich" and "poor" mean. Since African-Americans vote Democratic 10-1 regardless of income, this research breaks down the white vote and finds that, to their and my surprise, the white middle class votes identically to the white rich. And they're using the real definition of middle class, too -- not the tv/movie exaggeration of a "middle class" family making six figures. No, middle class as the actual middle -- a family making $30,000-$75,000 total household income a year. That's the middle 50% of the country -- the bottom 25% of familes make less than $30,000 (the "poor"), the top 25% of families make more than $75,000 (the "rich"). By the numbers, white families in the Middle Class ($30-$75) voted for Bush over Kerry by 22 points, and white families in the Upper Class ($75+) voted for Bush over Kerry by 23 points. But here's the kicker:
The economic tipping point -- the household income level at which whites were more likely to vote for Republicans than Democrats -- was $23,700.Which, the report points out, is only $5,000 above the poverty line for a family of four.
The findings confirm the largest reason the Democratic party survived at all the last two elections was because of the near-monolithic voting pattern of African-Americans. Hispanics are leaving the Democratic party, and whites have already left. This report tries to look on the bright side but finds little -- essentially, despite a stated and repeated claim to appeal to "middle class values", the middle class is as equally opposed to the Democratic party as the wealthy.
What's funny is that on so many issues, many of these middle class voters actually agree with a lot of Democratic principles. They just don't seem to trust the Democrats themselves, or simply can't vote for a party so out of touch with issues of great personal importance such as gun control, gay marriage, abortion, etc. Kos (dailykos.com) writes one of my favorite liberal blogs and has been trying to work out what Democratic principles actually are, and how the Democrats can do a better job selling these issues to the middle class. I think he's on to something, though still seems a little blinded by the arrogant/self-righteous "but... but... our ideas are better! why aren't we in power!" whining of those on the left these days. Come on -- this study didn't come out of nowhere. These trends have been building for decades.
In a way, the 2000 election is to blame for this coming as a shock, since sooooo many Democrats had convinced themselves that Bush had "stolen" the election, that Gore was the rightful winner all along, and the next election everything would be "fixed." It simply never occurred to them that the country was actually moving away from their ideals (or, perhaps more accurately, that the Democratic party was moving away from the mainstream voter). So for four years, they ignored all trends and polls and studies and picked a guy they didn't even like to be their placeholder, since Bush would just fall on his own cause, well, he's a moron, right? Then Kerry got beaten by 3.5 million votes and there was no "conspiracy" to blame this time. Sure, they initially tried to fault the gay marriage bans and such, but statistically those didn't account for as much as expected, and passed nearly as overwhelmingly in Kerry states as Bush states.
So now they're starting to get it. You see prominent Dems criticizing Howard Dean, urging him to calm down and moderate. 90s ultraleftists are now crawling and scraping to the center (recent speeches of Hillary Clinton wanting to reduce abortions and being "personally pro-life" come to mind). You need to win the center and drag them towards you -- not just write them off. That's why Dean's silly comment about the Republicans being mainly a "white Christian party" infuriated so many people on both sides -- as Jon Stewart said tonight: "uh, it's a white Christian nation!" For the elected leader of the Democratic Party to basically say "hey, if you're a white Christian, vote for them", to cede the vast majority of the nation like that, was one of the most incomprehensibly stupid things to say, ever. (Yes, yes I know that's not what he meant. But is there any doubt that's how it was perceived? If someone said "oh, that organization is pretty much just black people", do you think that would be likely interpretted as "hey, if you're black come with us instead" or "hey, if you're black, go there"?)
The only way the Democratic party can survive into the next decade is to win back the white Christians who have abandoned them so completely (well, at least above household incomes above the poverty line.) What's the alternative strategy -- merely increasing the already maxed out percentage of the black vote and getting a higher percentage of the ultra-poor? Yeah, that'll raise funds.
For better or for worse, I like the two party system. I think government works best when balanced. I think the reason the 90s worked so well was equally due to Clinton as well as the Republican House and Senate. So even though I voted (a bit grudgingly) for Bush and hold some Republican points of view, I'm not "gloating" at the problems with the Dems here. Because I see quite clearly that the further the Democratic party falls, the more arrogant and unbalanced the Republican leadership becomes. Absolute power, and all that. Does anyone really think one-party control -- either party -- is a good idea? No. So, Dems: stop whining, win back whitey, and we'll all benefit.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Are We Over?
In the past 18 months, ludicrosity.com, and her brief sister site defeatjohnjohn.com, have been visited by more than 100,000 unique individuals. In fact, nearly 100 unique IPs still check this site daily, despite more than a month without new postings.
So, are we done?
Truthfully, we don't know. It is equally likely that we'll start posting daily updates next week as it is that we'll turn in for the proverbial night.
We have decided, however, to offer the whole of ludicrosity.com in book form, to be available for purchase by mid-June. This "coffee table book" version of ludicrosity will allow our most loyal fans to reread the past year and a half without the headache-inducing flicker of CRT output. This book will be offered at cost, with more details will follow in upcoming weeks.
If this is the end, we've had a fun and wonderful run, as blogs go. If this is merely a hiatus, then we hope you'll stick around for the potential new stuff.
Sharing our thoughts with you all has been rewarding and sweet in a way difficult to describe without cheese or hyperbole. We hope you'll check back with us in the coming weeks to see what we've decided.
Thanks again,
John Addis
ludicrosity.com
In the past 18 months, ludicrosity.com, and her brief sister site defeatjohnjohn.com, have been visited by more than 100,000 unique individuals. In fact, nearly 100 unique IPs still check this site daily, despite more than a month without new postings. So, are we done?
Truthfully, we don't know. It is equally likely that we'll start posting daily updates next week as it is that we'll turn in for the proverbial night.
We have decided, however, to offer the whole of ludicrosity.com in book form, to be available for purchase by mid-June. This "coffee table book" version of ludicrosity will allow our most loyal fans to reread the past year and a half without the headache-inducing flicker of CRT output. This book will be offered at cost, with more details will follow in upcoming weeks.
If this is the end, we've had a fun and wonderful run, as blogs go. If this is merely a hiatus, then we hope you'll stick around for the potential new stuff.
Sharing our thoughts with you all has been rewarding and sweet in a way difficult to describe without cheese or hyperbole. We hope you'll check back with us in the coming weeks to see what we've decided.
Thanks again,
John Addis
ludicrosity.com
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Second Place--at Last!
It was reported that the United States of Europe has more wealth, more population, more power, more votes in NATO, more vetoes in the United Nations, and just plain more clout in the world then the United States of America. I say, “Thank God Almighty. Free at last.”
It has been too much for one struggling little upstart of a nation to be responsible for the planet these last few decades. Sure, we are young and strong and have broad shoulders. But we do not have the experience, the maturity, nor the resources to solve everyone’s problems all the time.
I, for one, am tired of the whining and begging for help yesterday and the bitter hatred today and the shock that we don’t help more tomorrow and the hindsight criticism of our do-goodery day after tomorrow. Does anyone hate or resent us more then the very ones that use us? Especially if our help comes with strings attached.
NATO was supposed to be an all for one – one for all agreement. “An attack on one is an attack on all.” So where were our NATO buddies after 9/11? Tsk Tsk Tsking on their fat assets gained from refining Saddam’s oil, that’s where. And have you heard the one about the United Nations?
We may have made some bad decisions of late. Kyoto Accord, Land mind treaties, we have missed out on so many opportunities to make the world a better place. Instead of making positive contributions, we negate every idea that we can’t take credit for.
Then again, going it alone, who wouldn’t? Living at the top, alone, with no natural predators would affect anyone. The rest of the world sees us as pompous arrogant fascists.
Some of our own citizens agree.
All of History screams at us. When one person, one government, one religion, one anything thinks that it has superior insight into righteousness there can be no other result. Absolute power (imagined or real) corrupts absolutely.
No one knows what is best for the world. But together, we can figure it out. We need to be part of this strong European alliance. We need to be just one voice added with all the others. We need all ideas and they need ours.
It was reported that the United States of Europe has more wealth, more population, more power, more votes in NATO, more vetoes in the United Nations, and just plain more clout in the world then the United States of America. I say, “Thank God Almighty. Free at last.”It has been too much for one struggling little upstart of a nation to be responsible for the planet these last few decades. Sure, we are young and strong and have broad shoulders. But we do not have the experience, the maturity, nor the resources to solve everyone’s problems all the time.
I, for one, am tired of the whining and begging for help yesterday and the bitter hatred today and the shock that we don’t help more tomorrow and the hindsight criticism of our do-goodery day after tomorrow. Does anyone hate or resent us more then the very ones that use us? Especially if our help comes with strings attached.
NATO was supposed to be an all for one – one for all agreement. “An attack on one is an attack on all.” So where were our NATO buddies after 9/11? Tsk Tsk Tsking on their fat assets gained from refining Saddam’s oil, that’s where. And have you heard the one about the United Nations?
We may have made some bad decisions of late. Kyoto Accord, Land mind treaties, we have missed out on so many opportunities to make the world a better place. Instead of making positive contributions, we negate every idea that we can’t take credit for.
Then again, going it alone, who wouldn’t? Living at the top, alone, with no natural predators would affect anyone. The rest of the world sees us as pompous arrogant fascists.
Some of our own citizens agree.
All of History screams at us. When one person, one government, one religion, one anything thinks that it has superior insight into righteousness there can be no other result. Absolute power (imagined or real) corrupts absolutely.
No one knows what is best for the world. But together, we can figure it out. We need to be part of this strong European alliance. We need to be just one voice added with all the others. We need all ideas and they need ours.
Friday, February 18, 2005
Spelldown
Tomorrow, Saturday, will be the Macomb County Regional Spelling Bee. I will don my tan sweater, dark pants, and comfortable shoes so that I may donate this one day a year to young people that do not have the best hand/eye coordination nor the best depth perception in their schools. This one day each year, I donate to the kids who take the time to listen to the phonics, hear the root words, decipher the language of origin, and spell words. These kids have understood the importance of language. Together, they brave an auditorium half full of parents and teachers who, for the most part, don’t even appreciate nor understand them.
Are the adults just further proof of the caveman mentality that still permeates our civilization? Oowee Grug, may I feel your muscles. Oowee Grug, tell me about the wild boar you brought down with your bare hands. Yeah, yeah Poindexter, very nice round things you invented. Go away, Poindexter, we don’t want to see that stupid fire thing. Oowee, Oowee, look at Grug’s harry chest. In all fairness to the other sex, women are still judged by childbearing qualities (hips and chests) and not by their acuities.
I once knew two young men, Johnny A and Johnny B. Johnny A got a 35 on his ACTs. Johnny B couldn’t quite get a 17 on his ACTs. But Johnny B could play basketball. Guess which Johnny got numerous offers from prestigious west coast, east coast and mid-west universities for full-ride, totally paid even transportation and housing and spending money (!) scholarships? Guess which Johnny was awarded the privilege of borrowing money from the bank at variable interest rates that would have to be paid back or they will destroy his credit forever?
That’s my country. Where Cavemen rule.
Except this one Saturday in Macomb County.
Tomorrow, Saturday, will be the Macomb County Regional Spelling Bee. I will don my tan sweater, dark pants, and comfortable shoes so that I may donate this one day a year to young people that do not have the best hand/eye coordination nor the best depth perception in their schools. This one day each year, I donate to the kids who take the time to listen to the phonics, hear the root words, decipher the language of origin, and spell words. These kids have understood the importance of language. Together, they brave an auditorium half full of parents and teachers who, for the most part, don’t even appreciate nor understand them.Are the adults just further proof of the caveman mentality that still permeates our civilization? Oowee Grug, may I feel your muscles. Oowee Grug, tell me about the wild boar you brought down with your bare hands. Yeah, yeah Poindexter, very nice round things you invented. Go away, Poindexter, we don’t want to see that stupid fire thing. Oowee, Oowee, look at Grug’s harry chest. In all fairness to the other sex, women are still judged by childbearing qualities (hips and chests) and not by their acuities.
I once knew two young men, Johnny A and Johnny B. Johnny A got a 35 on his ACTs. Johnny B couldn’t quite get a 17 on his ACTs. But Johnny B could play basketball. Guess which Johnny got numerous offers from prestigious west coast, east coast and mid-west universities for full-ride, totally paid even transportation and housing and spending money (!) scholarships? Guess which Johnny was awarded the privilege of borrowing money from the bank at variable interest rates that would have to be paid back or they will destroy his credit forever?
That’s my country. Where Cavemen rule.
Except this one Saturday in Macomb County.
Monday, February 14, 2005
My Funny Valentine
Well, it's that time of year again – a day of fun and romance for half the country, and cynical, grumpy depression for the others. Unlike Sweetest Day, which is a modern creation (though not really a "Hallmark holiday" – it was invented in 1922 in Cleveland to bring candy and cheer to orphans and shut-ins), Valentine's Day has a 1,500 year back story which is both bizarre, and kind of sweet.
To the best of our knowledge (a mix of legend and recorded history), Valentine was a third century priest in Rome during the reign of Claudius II. Believing married soldiers performed poorer than single soldiers, Claudius banned marriage for those fighting in his empire. Defiantly, Father Valentine performed marriages in secret to soldiers and their would-be wives. When this was discovered, Claudius had Valentine arrested.
Awaiting his fate in prison, Valentine fell in love with the blind daughter of his jailor, Asterius. According to legend, Valentine's faith helped heal the daughter, returning her sight. Just before his scheduled beheading, he wrote a handwritten goodbye to the girl, signed "from Your Valentine." After his death, he was sainted by the church.
In the fifth century, Romans still engaged in a festival honoring the god Lupercus, in which the names of young women were picked at random, assigned to young men as sexual slaves for a year. In an effort to "Christianize" the holiday (as was done with Christmas being placed on December 25th, formerly the pagan feast of the Son of Isis), the church initially tried to place names of saints into the "hat" instead of women, hoping each man would endeavor to emulate the saint they had chosen. This was a bit too much of a leap from the original holiday, and was undoubtedly unpopular, so the church attempted a compromise: instead of "winning" the women in a lottery, young men could court girls they desired by writing them handwritten notes of love. Pope Gelasius officially declared February 14th "St. Valentine's Day" in 498 A.D., and it's still celebrated all over the world.
Of course, to those without a valentine, the day will go down as "Black Monday". But at least the story of healing blindness out of faith and love is pretty cool.
Well, it's that time of year again – a day of fun and romance for half the country, and cynical, grumpy depression for the others. Unlike Sweetest Day, which is a modern creation (though not really a "Hallmark holiday" – it was invented in 1922 in Cleveland to bring candy and cheer to orphans and shut-ins), Valentine's Day has a 1,500 year back story which is both bizarre, and kind of sweet.To the best of our knowledge (a mix of legend and recorded history), Valentine was a third century priest in Rome during the reign of Claudius II. Believing married soldiers performed poorer than single soldiers, Claudius banned marriage for those fighting in his empire. Defiantly, Father Valentine performed marriages in secret to soldiers and their would-be wives. When this was discovered, Claudius had Valentine arrested.
Awaiting his fate in prison, Valentine fell in love with the blind daughter of his jailor, Asterius. According to legend, Valentine's faith helped heal the daughter, returning her sight. Just before his scheduled beheading, he wrote a handwritten goodbye to the girl, signed "from Your Valentine." After his death, he was sainted by the church.
In the fifth century, Romans still engaged in a festival honoring the god Lupercus, in which the names of young women were picked at random, assigned to young men as sexual slaves for a year. In an effort to "Christianize" the holiday (as was done with Christmas being placed on December 25th, formerly the pagan feast of the Son of Isis), the church initially tried to place names of saints into the "hat" instead of women, hoping each man would endeavor to emulate the saint they had chosen. This was a bit too much of a leap from the original holiday, and was undoubtedly unpopular, so the church attempted a compromise: instead of "winning" the women in a lottery, young men could court girls they desired by writing them handwritten notes of love. Pope Gelasius officially declared February 14th "St. Valentine's Day" in 498 A.D., and it's still celebrated all over the world.
Of course, to those without a valentine, the day will go down as "Black Monday". But at least the story of healing blindness out of faith and love is pretty cool.
Friday, February 04, 2005
If You’re Not Crazy, You’re Not Paying Attention
We all have titles to our lives. This is mine. Sometimes my story is a book with long streams of consciousness. Sometimes my story is a movie with jazz as the soundtrack and I’m driving down I-94 into the City of Detroit. Sometimes it’s a TV show like a docucomedydrama called Remember Mom aired after they safely snuggle me into my silk and downy quilted coffin and all my advice and wisdom and rumblings turned out to be prophetic.
Yet always I am crazy. Have been since I was seven years old. I remember the day, or night actually. I woke up in the middle of a dark night and saw a vision of red ribbon and heard a high-pitched buzz, and then saw myself at seven, and then saw an old lady with jowls. And I have been crazy since. For years, I thought they had switched me to a different planet. Thought they had taken me to an identical (but different) world where every single thing seemed the same, but wasn’t. All colors and sounds and textures and people were similar, but not right. I knew nothing for sure because it wasn’t really my world. Later, I would learn about alternative universes and thought that explained it.
Anyway, TMI, I’m sure.
The point is, I have found a site. It is an alternate universe. There are a woman and her son that run a blog. The son finds humor. The mother tries to. The son is into film making (he is video taping his world for a Canadian Sunday news show). The mother gets more serious. (There are a couple extra sons, too. And one of them has a hard-line political side.) I have the idea that the son is quite a character. And I am sure they are both crazy.
They try to find sanity. They try to understand their world and make sense of what is happening. Sometimes they are very angry. Sometimes they see the ludicrosity of life. Sometimes, they escape from the real horror of their dimension into the thoughts and happenings of common everyday life, but everyday life teaches lessons and lessons take them right back to the horrors-- albeit with twisted irony. They have shown me a great perspective on my world, my country and me. In their struggle to come to terms with their lives, they are teaching me a lot about mine. But their lives are in Bagdad. And I am so addicted to their site. I hope you have a chance to check them out. I am a deep believer in spending time in alternate universes. The mother is Faiza. The son is Khalid Jarrar.
http://secretsinbaghdad.blogspot.com
We all have titles to our lives. This is mine. Sometimes my story is a book with long streams of consciousness. Sometimes my story is a movie with jazz as the soundtrack and I’m driving down I-94 into the City of Detroit. Sometimes it’s a TV show like a docucomedydrama called Remember Mom aired after they safely snuggle me into my silk and downy quilted coffin and all my advice and wisdom and rumblings turned out to be prophetic.
Yet always I am crazy. Have been since I was seven years old. I remember the day, or night actually. I woke up in the middle of a dark night and saw a vision of red ribbon and heard a high-pitched buzz, and then saw myself at seven, and then saw an old lady with jowls. And I have been crazy since. For years, I thought they had switched me to a different planet. Thought they had taken me to an identical (but different) world where every single thing seemed the same, but wasn’t. All colors and sounds and textures and people were similar, but not right. I knew nothing for sure because it wasn’t really my world. Later, I would learn about alternative universes and thought that explained it.
Anyway, TMI, I’m sure.
The point is, I have found a site. It is an alternate universe. There are a woman and her son that run a blog. The son finds humor. The mother tries to. The son is into film making (he is video taping his world for a Canadian Sunday news show). The mother gets more serious. (There are a couple extra sons, too. And one of them has a hard-line political side.) I have the idea that the son is quite a character. And I am sure they are both crazy.
They try to find sanity. They try to understand their world and make sense of what is happening. Sometimes they are very angry. Sometimes they see the ludicrosity of life. Sometimes, they escape from the real horror of their dimension into the thoughts and happenings of common everyday life, but everyday life teaches lessons and lessons take them right back to the horrors-- albeit with twisted irony. They have shown me a great perspective on my world, my country and me. In their struggle to come to terms with their lives, they are teaching me a lot about mine. But their lives are in Bagdad. And I am so addicted to their site. I hope you have a chance to check them out. I am a deep believer in spending time in alternate universes. The mother is Faiza. The son is Khalid Jarrar.
http://secretsinbaghdad.blogspot.com
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
:)
As readers of this blog (and defeatjohnjohn.com) are aware, I haven't always been a particularly active supporter of President Bush. Yeah, I voted for him -- twice -- but more out of a complete lack of intellectual respect for Gore or (shudder) Kerry than any overriding love of "Dubya".
But ya know, I think I've watched every State of the Union since the last couple of Reagan, and I just like Bush. (W., I mean -- never really cared for his father.) I trust him -- hell, at the risk of offending my friends, I even respect him -- at least far, far, far more than I did Clinton. Which is pretty amazing, considering Clinton had distractingly better speechwriters and dramatically greater charisma.
I watched tonight's address on ABC, and I think Cokie Roberts summed my feelings up best with this:
Right before the State of the Union, I was watching a very old episode of The West Wing in which President Bartlet was going on about the need to "cross borders to build sustainable Democracies, that can banish privation and fear," to cheers of a Democratic party audience. How sad, then, that the Democratic party now preaches of isolationism, spewing racist nonsense about Middle Easterners not being "ready" for Democracy and self-government. Revolting.
Yes, I cringed at the whole gay-marriage amendment crap, and rolled my eyes when Bush said "nu-cue-lar" once again. But hey, I'll be a strong, proud Democrat once the party gets some JFK types back in the wings -- until then, the Republican party, "lesser of two evils" though they may be, has my support.
As readers of this blog (and defeatjohnjohn.com) are aware, I haven't always been a particularly active supporter of President Bush. Yeah, I voted for him -- twice -- but more out of a complete lack of intellectual respect for Gore or (shudder) Kerry than any overriding love of "Dubya".
But ya know, I think I've watched every State of the Union since the last couple of Reagan, and I just like Bush. (W., I mean -- never really cared for his father.) I trust him -- hell, at the risk of offending my friends, I even respect him -- at least far, far, far more than I did Clinton. Which is pretty amazing, considering Clinton had distractingly better speechwriters and dramatically greater charisma.
I watched tonight's address on ABC, and I think Cokie Roberts summed my feelings up best with this:
There was a lot in this speech that was not terribly conciliatory, and the Democrats were mainly well-behaved, but I don't think anyone watching this will get past the moment of the Iraqi woman turning around and completely, spontaneously, hugging the mother of the marine. It was such a moment -- and it really, in a lot of ways, spoke to what the President is trying to say: that the Iraqi people want us there, and that we have liberated them. And to have that completely spontaneous hug was something that leaves you with goosebumps, and I think will have more resonance than any words he said.Now, I know, some of you will scream "it wasn't spontaneous! It was theatre!" and, well, who knows if it was or wasn't. But I haven't seen Bush get choked up like that since 9-11, and I don't think I'd ever seen Cheney choke back sobs before tonight, so ya know what- fuck it. Say it was for the "wrong reasons" all you want, say it was an "accident" or "afterthought" or anything else, but that doesn't change that this President did some good in the world. And to be honest, the Democrat party's "response", with the lamest, most historically-ignorant snot-oozing verbal diarrhea "we need a Marshall Plan for the U.S." sludge is exactly why I'm so grateful that the current iteration of the "Democratic" party is not in power.
Right before the State of the Union, I was watching a very old episode of The West Wing in which President Bartlet was going on about the need to "cross borders to build sustainable Democracies, that can banish privation and fear," to cheers of a Democratic party audience. How sad, then, that the Democratic party now preaches of isolationism, spewing racist nonsense about Middle Easterners not being "ready" for Democracy and self-government. Revolting.
Yes, I cringed at the whole gay-marriage amendment crap, and rolled my eyes when Bush said "nu-cue-lar" once again. But hey, I'll be a strong, proud Democrat once the party gets some JFK types back in the wings -- until then, the Republican party, "lesser of two evils" though they may be, has my support.
