clevomon's Blogtag:www.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk/blogs/clevomon//25472008-10-20T17:05:06ZMovable Type Pro 4.21-enPetition to Annex Delawaretag:www.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk/blogs/clevomon//2547.2384562008-10-20T16:38:15Z2008-10-20T17:05:06ZFor all the nice things I'm certain that Sen. Biden has to say about his home state, I am not the first person to state the obvious by saying that Delaware is a pointless state. Literally. Can anyone please come...clevomon
where do they get this stuff?). Delaware has utterly no purpose. ...Except as a bargain basement to Pennsylvania. See, Delaware is a 0% sales tax state, which means that after a quick jet over the border, it's tax-free shopping all the way, baby! ^o~ I sincerely think that this is the only reason that we haven't annexed it yet. But here's the thing - we can still annex it and keep Delaware as a tax-free zone. The only things that need to change are the borders on the map. Not only that, but this could factor as a huge boon for PA. Think about it: all of Delaware's business from Maryland can then be taxed away by other taxes - like gambling, etc. It could give us a huge budgetary boost for a relatively tiny population. In light of these considerations, I submit an open petition to Gov. Rendell to seriously consider trying to bid in order to annex Delaware and, failing that, plan to invade a few years from now. I'm certain that it'll be easier for our troops to guard the Delaware malls than the Iraqi and Afghani streets. ]]>
Petition to Annex Delawaretag:www.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk/blogs/clevomon//2547.2384552008-10-20T16:38:15Z2008-10-20T17:04:54ZFor all the nice things I'm certain that Sen. Biden has to say about his home state, I am not the first person to state the obvious by saying that Delaware is a pointless state. Literally. Can anyone please come...clevomon
where do they get this stuff?). Delaware has utterly no purpose. ...Except as a bargain basement to Pennsylvania. See, Delaware is a 0% sales tax state, which means that after a quick jet over the border, it's tax-free shopping all the way, baby! ^o~ I sincerely think that this is the only reason that we haven't annexed it yet. But here's the thing - we can still annex it and keep Delaware as a tax-free zone. The only things that need to change are the borders on the map. Not only that, but this could factor as a huge boon for PA. Think about it: all of Delaware's business from Maryland can then be taxed away by other taxes - like gambling, etc. It could give us a huge budgetary boost for a relatively tiny population. In light of these considerations, I submit an open petition to Gov. Rendell to seriously consider trying to bid in order to annex Delaware and, failing that, plan to invade a few years from now. I'm certain that it'll be easier for our troops to guard the Delaware malls than the Iraqi and Afghani streets. ]]>
A Tire Swing By Any Other Nametag:www.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk/blogs/clevomon//2547.2379242008-10-17T14:23:12Z2008-10-18T02:51:01ZOkay, so this post is a little out-dated. Sorry. I was busy packing for a trip yesterday. Now, am I the only one who's a little annoyed by all the yells of "Tire Swinging!" by the TPM staff (And yes,...clevomon
...to describe a reporter who has gotten way too cozy with a politician and has had their supposed objectivity affected.
That's fair enough. But over the course of this campaign, I think the term has been flanderized into just being a cry of bias at any point. Not only is this bad for giving the term a true meaning, it also discredits any reasonable complaints one of us may have about a columnist's work. Take, for instance, David Brooks on Charlie Rose a day or two ago. Mr. Kurtz calls this tire-swinging. I agree that his thinking is wrong on this. Mr. Brooks really seems to have a difficult time understanding that people (not just people, but ideas as well) are multifaceted. Upon seeing another side to Sen. McCain that's different from the one he's used to, he has a really difficult time accepting it as real, prefering instead to see it as a political persona. So both Mr. Kurtz and I agree that there is something seriously wrong with Mr. Brooks's argument. However, Mr. Kurtz refers to it as tire-swinging. Really, Mr. Kurtz? Is this problem ultimately because Mr. Brooks is too close to Sen. McCain? Is this a problem he has only when it comes to him? Actually, no. Mr. Brooks has a history of having trouble accepting more than one facet of an individual, or at least writing as if it were so. One of the other people he's apparently struggled with is none other than our own "Dr. Barack and Fast Eddie Obama." What I, for one, find incredible is that a man who has been watching politicians for so long is still surprised by this. I'm a sophomore in college, and I think that I understand the concept of social selves better than Mr. Brooks does. But in any case, it's apparent that this is not simply pro-McCain bias. This is a case of a columnist whose way of understanding the way politicians and politics works is fundamentally flawed. Can we acknowledge that? Yes? Then let's move on to the next step of saying it outright. Just calling it bias just makes the person saying that look blindly partisan to anyone who's not predisposed to agree. State outright the logical problem, and it's easier to get not just other readers, but also, on occasion, certainly the commentators as well. Some, like Bill Kristol, there's no hope for in this regard - if he has no facts to back himself up, he'll make them up. But others, Mr. Brooks among them, seem far more conscientious. Saying, "You're a partisan hack" will make people turn a deaf ear, but making a reasoned argument? Believe it or not, people listen to that. Maybe the lowest common denominator won't, but the people who speak to them will, and that's at least as good. Let me ask you this: Does it help to simply scream "Bias!" and "Tire Swing!" whenever we hear something we don't like, or is it more useful to point out the flaws in the person's thinking specifically? If you need help answering that question, I can redirect you to the McCain-Palin mobs. Why do you think these people are doing such random and disturbing acts? One good hypothesis is that they're angry, but they don't know why. They "know" the press is biased against Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin, but all they don't know how or why. This leads to feeling helpless. After all, as angry as the rhetoric gets in every corner of the blogosphere, I'd hardly think that anyone is anywhere near angry enough to do some of the things these mobs are doing. They have no way to respond, and so they feel helpless and persecuted. The more that we shove together every thinking flaw that favors the Republicans, the more we confuse ourselves and start yelling aimlessly. Let's start pointing out exactly what the problems are, instead of just screaming in outrage.
Oh, PS: Feel free to be just as direct in complaining about this piece. I'm expecting (and hoping for) a lot of criticism. ]]>
David Brooks Needs A Vacationtag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.2112132008-08-29T14:30:51Z2008-08-29T14:30:51ZI normally like reading David Brooks's columns because he normally will make reasoned thoughts and lay out his process sensibly, allowing people to play around with the logic. Today was not one of those days. Maybe poor Mr. Brooks is...clevomon http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/opinion/29brooks.html?hp ]]>
The Problem With the APtag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.2039892008-07-14T19:47:59Z2008-07-14T19:47:59ZI was reading the link on the main page about the reason behind the recent AP slant toward McCain (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11716.html). Yet as I read, a question rang in the back of my mind: Sound familiar? The truth is that I...clevomon
]]>
Obama Rumor Debunking Help?tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.2004972008-06-17T18:48:25Z2008-06-17T18:48:25ZHey, I'm working on disproving a spam Obama-rumor factory that was sent to a friend of mine, and I was wondering if anyone had a link to some background on one of the points I don't have much information about....clevomon "20.) Without Me, There Would Be No
Ethics
Bill - LIAR, you didn't write it,introduce
it, change
it, or create it."
I am right in saying he cosponsored it, if it's referring to what I think it is, right? ]]>
Tax Policy Gaptag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.1999112008-06-12T18:01:36Z2008-06-12T18:01:36ZOkay, was I the only one who noticed a giant gap in CNN's reporting of Obama's and McCain's tax policies? They jumped from $161,000 to $2.9 million! There is a large gap of numbers in there. I'm an Obama supporter...clevomon ]]>
Favortag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.1988352008-06-05T08:19:43Z2008-06-05T08:19:43ZDoes anyone have a link to Obama's entire speech to AIPAC (video please)? If so, would you mind letting me see? I didn't get a chance to yesterday....clevomon
Does anyone have a link to Obama's entire speech to AIPAC (video please)? If so, would you mind letting me see? I didn't get a chance to yesterday. ]]>
Elitists = Jews? Musings of a Confused, Elitist Girltag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.1972652008-05-28T13:12:29Z2008-05-28T13:12:29ZSo with all the natter and questions that pundits have been asking back and forth about whether Obama's an elitist, it's natural that I've been thinking about the idea myself. Furthermore, after Chris Matthews nailing that guy on what appeasement...clevomon
So with all the natter and questions that pundits have been asking back and forth about whether Obama's an elitist, it's natural that I've been thinking about the idea myself. Furthermore, after Chris Matthews nailing that guy on what appeasement is (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/hardball- shoutfest-matthe_n_102020.html), I started wondering to myself what an elitist is. Somehow, I doubted that the definition I would find is "arugula-lover" or "person who is unskilled at bowling," so I wandered onto Dictionary.com to find out (Hey, it's quick). Here's what I got:
1.practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
2.consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group. I figured, "Okay, people can't be upset about the first one because that's what representative democracy is all about, and I know the government could use some fixing, but we can agree that we like the basic idea of a republic, right?" And so the first one was out because whether or not Obama was one shouldn't be a major issue.
As for the second definition, I find it hard not to believe that Obama is proud of being a college graduate, of having made it to the Senate, and now being able to run for president, so I guess he qualifies, but in that case, aren't all of us elitists in that case? I mean, just about everyone has done something really well that helped you join a certain group of people, whether you got good grades, did well at sports, or got a promotion at work, right? And if you do something well, don't you have the right to have pride in it and all consequences of it? So why can't Obama be proud of the position he's in? It doesn't make sense, so that should, in theory, rule out the second definition.
So what, then, are people so worked up about? It's evidently not anything in the dictionary definition, which means that people are referring to something while using the word for something else. This is a problem. Lapses in communication like this will always heat up arguments because there is a fundamental misunderstanding in what the subject matter is, which will lead to secondary misunderstandings in just about everything else discussed.
I was at this point for a while, until I found an peripherally interesting article in Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/138528) today and discussed it with my mom. It was an interview with David Sirota about his new book about a supposed populist uprising against the elites that will take place from both the left and the right. Sirota states that there are actually more than a dozen taking place, and then he lists them, and I quote:
"On the left, it manifests itself as a backlash against the war,
economic inequality, and conservatism. On the right, it's a backlash
against illegal immigration and liberal elites. ...They are different in the specific issues they focus on, but the same in what they are acting against: the establishment and the status quo."
Okay, so these are the things that Sirota says are elitist. The argument sounds to me to be a little odd - I thought most were fighting against failed policy, rather than against any particular group of elites. I know that's the reason I'm upset about a lot of the conservatism that's affected the government. If it worked, I'd be perfectly happy with the status quo. I mentioned the article to my mom and asked her my $100 question: "Who're the 'elites' this guy's after, anyway?"
My mom answered in two words: the Jews, citing two quotes. First, one later in the interview, in which Sirota says in response to a question about whether he was worried the book will scare away elites from reading it, "Not at all, because the book wasn't written for the establishment crowd. It's not a book by Tom Friedman. It's not a book for wealthy people." The second one was a quote by some Hollywood director back in the 90s giving a speech, in which he opened by saying, "Welcome, my fellow cultural elites. Or should I say, welcome, my fellow Jews."
Now two quotes, especially two quotes like these that seem to be more emotion-ridden than fact-ridden, are not the foundation of a good argument. However, the foundation of curiosity? I don't see why not, and the more I look at Sirota's political points about the elites, the more I can see a pattern.
Jews are stereotypically for the Iraq War on the basis of Israel's security, and since many are well-off, they would also be stereotypically in favor of conservative fiscal policy (I know, this doesn't have basis in fact, but generalizations and straw men rarely are). On the conservative end, Jews are stereotypically more socially liberal than the American populace at large and since they would have more job security, would be less bothered by illegal immigration.
But when I try to replace "elitist" with its newfound definition in worries about Barack Obama, I wind up just as stuck as before. I don't think anyone's worried about him being a secret Jew, and so this definition makes no sense. Not only that, but Hillary Clinton, the supposed anti-elitist candidate, tends to attract more Jews than Obama does.
The word, I think, is hopelessly confusing, and should perhaps just be purged from the English language until someone can find a good definition. But now I'm wondering if the stereotype of an elitist stems from stereotypes about Jews and maybe just doesn't directly refer to them today. So, what does everyone else think? Am I onto something, or have I just spent too long trying to parse the word?
]]>
Why Obama Needs Bidentag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.1964652008-05-22T16:25:15Z2008-05-22T16:25:15ZWith all the talk of VP picks, I thought I'd add my two cents. I always hear about Webb, Clinton, Rendell, Bayh... the list goes on, but an under-discussed pick is Delaware Senator Joe Biden.So who is Joe Biden? Well,...clevomon
With all the talk of VP picks, I thought I'd add my two cents. I always hear about Webb, Clinton, Rendell, Bayh... the list goes on, but an under-discussed pick is Delaware Senator Joe Biden. So who is Joe Biden? Well, if you're really interested, go read his Wikipedia article or check out his legislative record. But for those of us who are too lazy, I'll give you the shorthand. Biden was elected to the US Senate in 1973. He tried to run for president in 1988 and this year as well, but didn't make it very far. He's made good use of the interim, though, becoming the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and coming up with one of the most comprehensive and realistic plans for how to handle Iraq.
Joe Biden is a strong counterpoint to every one of Obama's weaknesses. People complain that Obama is too inexperienced. Biden's been in the Senate for three decades! When it comes to time in public service, he can run relatively even with McCain (excluding military service, which is, admittedly, a big exclusion).
This leads to one of his perceived weaknesses - the fact that he's a Washington insider in a campaign against Washington. But Biden does not speak like your stereotypical politician. He gives strong opinions and then backs them up. He has earned a reputation for straight-talk among those who are familiar with him, and his is quite arguably more deserved than McCain's - although it does get him into trouble every so often.
But this is where his record helps him out. When he called Obama the first articulate and clean black candidate (to paraphrase), part of the reason that story itself didn't doom his chances (his lack of media attention did) is because Biden has a long record of supporting civil rights and equal opportunity. People knew that Biden wasn't a racist (just a little clumsy with the mouth) precisely because he has been in the public eye for so long.
He is a guru on matters of foreign policy, and during the debates over the past year, constantly served as a fact-checker against most of the main candidates, keeping them on the straight and narrow. One area where Obama needs cred is foreign policy, and I don't know anyone who could say that Biden couldn't lend him that with a straight face.
Perhaps one of the best things about Biden is that this is a guy who can speak to the Scots-Irish who Obama is having so much trouble with. A lot of time, grabbing someone for help with a region doesn't work too well. However, Biden, coming from Scranton, PA, has just the kind of persona that resonates with the people being classified as the "white working class" that pundits love to go on about.
Part of the reason that Edwards, the sunshine boy (no disrespect intended) didn't help much with the South (and Gore before him) is because they didn't give off the gritty, toussler reputation that is supposedly respected by people in the Appalachia region. Biden, on the other hand, even if it gets him in trouble on occasion, can benefit from his straight-talking persona to give him some cred in the area.
Obama/Biden '08 is the perfect ticket for the next administration. Anyone interested can go to http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Obama-Biden2008 . Thank you for your time. ]]>
Clinton Called On A Toxic Combotag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.1932402008-05-05T19:35:15Z2008-05-05T19:35:15Zhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/spinning-fine-spinning-an_b_100072.htmlThis is well-written, concise, and given to anyone calling Indiana a must-win for Obama....clevomon
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/ spinning-fine-spinning-an_b_100072.html
This is well-written, concise, and given to anyone calling Indiana a must-win for Obama. ]]>
Politics and Anime (Just hear me out...)tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.1928192008-05-03T05:17:13Z2008-05-03T05:17:13ZI like to write about my hobbies. I have two big ones (and really need a life besides them). I love politics and I love anime. The two have relatively little to do with each other. Since anime is written...clevomon One anime that I recently finished (and love to all the characters' deaths) is called Higurashi no Naku Koro ni, or When the Cicadas Cry. Now, before I go on to connect horror anime with politics, I must ask any people who think they might see this anime to please leave the room because it is impossible to say anything about it without spoiling something. I'll give you time.
..................................
Are we good? Great.
Higurashi no Naku Koro ni is divided into small, four-or-so-episode-long stories that detail six characters living in the small town of Hinamizawa. The focus of this anime is on trust and paranoia, and although each story involves the same characters, it is common that most of the characters are killed at the end of each story.
For instance, in the first arc, the main character, Keiichi notices that two of his friends are trying to kill him through a few different means. What start out as thinly-veiled threats ("I'd hate for you to be absent tomorrow.") turn into a needle buried in some food they give him, culminating in them both assaulting him and trying to drug him using a syringe. At this point, Keiichi manages to break away, killing both of them with a baseball bat, and runs away. He later calls the police from a phone booth only to be interrupted in the middle by his own suicide attempt to scratch through his own throat. He dies a day later.
Sounds gruesome, doesn't it? So ultimately, what is the point? Not even Keiichi knows. He asks their corpses before running away, "Why?? What was all of this for??" He dies without getting an answer, but later, we (the audience) do.
Ultimately, the purpose was.... self-fulfilling prophecy, of a sort. His friends were never trying to kill him. Keiichi became afraid because of a murder streak in that village that occured every year on the same day (indeed, the most recent murder had occurred the day before his friends started threatening him), and that fear had spiraled into paranoia, to the point that he hallucinated both the needle (tabasco sauce mixed into the food) and the syringe (really a magic marker) and killed both his friends needlessly, then promptly killing himself, which is a symptom of the paranoia (Hinamizawa syndrome, a fictional disease) he suffered.
So what's the lesson? We create our own bogeymen, and ultimately, the only ones who can claw out our throats are ourselves.
Right now, I'm worried that the entire Democratic party is suffering from a case of Hinamizawa syndrome (The only thing scarier than one person with it is a lot of people with it at once). We are running around chasing each other with metal bats, creating our own conspiracy theories as to who is out to betray us, but here's the thing: We're all nakama! We're all looking to the same thing! We're all in the same boat! If one of those bats hits the boat hard enough, though, it springs a leak, and then we all sink.
No one who isn't in the boat can make it sink. The Republicans can't do that, terrorists can't do that, heck, the Green party can't do that! This is the thing that all Democrats need to remember. You don't need to get rid of your bat. Keep it with you, if you want, for crying out loud, the bigger, the better. Just use it to row instead of beating your comrades.
In the anime, there ultimately was a conspiracy to thwart, but no one was looking in the right direction because they were too busy killing each other. Ultimately, the anime does have a happy ending, once the characters manage to overcome the paranoia, but I'm worried that we'll wind up stuck in one of the bad endings where everyone kills each other.
Democrats have a choice now. We can acknowledge our fears on both sides and overcome them (Neither Obama supporters nor Clinton supporters are conspiring to throw the election to the Republicans). Or we can wander through the dead-end timelines until we ultimately claw out our own throats.
So, what's it gonna be? ]]>
New MoveOn.Org Adtag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.1923182008-05-01T10:17:38Z2008-05-01T10:17:38ZHere's a new ad that MoveOn.org is just releasing.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/30/moveon-launches-mission-a_n_99450.htmlIt's okay. MoveOn is a little heavy-handed most of the time, and I think maybe they were again near the end, but it's a solid ad. Well, except for one problem. The...clevomon
Here's a new ad that MoveOn.org is just releasing.
It's okay. MoveOn is a little heavy-handed most of the time, and I think maybe they were again near the end, but it's a solid ad. Well, except for one problem. The entire ad, I was just staring at the frosting and going "Cake..." Had to remind myself to focus on the message.
As a sidenote, I like cake. ]]>
Democrats, Help Me Outtag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.1918132008-04-29T01:03:57Z2008-04-29T01:03:57ZI want to vote for a Democrat in November. I really do. However, I need to feel like said Democrat is an improvement on something. With that said, I have been listening to depressing foreign policy stuff all day, and...clevomon
I want to vote for a Democrat in November. I really do. However, I need to feel like said Democrat is an improvement on something. With that said, I have been listening to depressing foreign policy stuff all day, and right now am really longing for the good ol' days of Biden. Knowing that my biggest concern is foreign policy (but I will pay attention to other stuff), someone, please convince me that Clinton is at least a tiny bit better than McCain, because at the moment, I don't trust our foreign policy in either of their hands (I did trust Clinton until her brilliant nuclear umbrella idea). So, people know that I'm not uncivil. Please convince me. ]]>
Why Am I Only Hearing About This Now???tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.1917692008-04-28T20:22:20Z2008-04-28T20:22:20Z...First, let me make a side-note that two posts in a day is a rarity for me... even if the first was at 4AM.Now then, without further ado, I present exhibit A: http://www.newsweek.com/id/134317And now, I present my reaction:...You mean that...clevomon Now then, without further ado, I present exhibit A:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/134317
And now, I present my reaction:
...You mean that no one except Fareed Zakaria felt this was important enough to write about???? I love Fareed Zakaria, but here's the thing about him - he's not a journalist; he's an opinion columnist. A hell of a good one, but when I read an Op-Ed, I usually expect to know the facts before I read the piece. The Op-Ed's only job is to show me a way to interpret it. So where was everyone?? Napping?? Taking 3AM phone calls?? And is there any way to get some real research on this? Is anyone familiar with it? ]]>