Escapee from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with stuff on his mind about politics, music, and more.
Archive for January 2008
A year ago today, my wife and I signed the paperwork for our condo in New Hampshire, and made fleeing from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts official. On the same day was the silly Mooninite scandal, where the Adult Swim marketing scheme wreaked havoc over an amused populace.
A year later, I still regret nothing.
Coming soon, a final word (for now) on Obama stuff, and an angry rant about John McCain. Ran out of time for now for those.
* If you ever needed to know why I consider John Kyl one of my favorite Senators, check out his back-and-forth with Larry Kudlow. Kyl’s awesome, and I’m hoping he makes a run for President sometime.
* If John Kyl is one of my favorite Senators, Jeff Flake (also from Arizona) is definitely in my top 5 politicians in Washington. Flake’s been spending a lot of his time railing against the earmark system and entitlements in general, and he’s been trying to get a seat on the Appropriations Committee, but is getting stonewalled from all sides. The most ridiculous note from this yet appears to come from the House, where Kay Granger, who’s a top Republican in the House, would rather the seat go to a Democrat. I mean, really - the perception of corruption via earmarks is one of the reasons the GOP lost Congress in 2006. Either get the message or get out.
* Populists of the world, rejoice, for Ralph Nader is here! You’d think the guy would learn by now…
* Reason’s Hit & Run points us to GovernmentAttic.org, a compilation of Freedom of Information Act documents. I have a feeling this will become a staple of my reading.
* Also from Reason, an article on ESPN.com about the disconnect between the NFL’s position on human growth hormone (HGH) and HGH’s possible benefits in regards to healing from head injuries. A very fascinating read.
I can’t remember the last time I’ve done a post like this. Probably because I haven’t bought much in the way of music lately.
* Kate Nash - Made of Bricks: In a way, Nash completes the trifecta of female British singers that started with Amy Winehouse and Lily Allen. Winehouse’s life choices aside, she’s probably the most talented of the three, and I’m wondering what happens to Allen now that Kate Nash has come along. The disc is really fun - even though it’s very angry and bitter in places, it has a very down-to-earth, conversational tone to it, and the kiss-offs in some songs are much more biting than “Smile” is, in retrospect. “Foundations” is still haunting me, though.
* Robert Plant/Alison Krauss - Raising Sand: I know I raved about this plenty when I did my top CDs of 2007 list, but I’ve gotten more time with it lately and found it to be really endearing in a lot of ways. It has a very subtle existence to it that comes unexpected, and to think of Robert Plant as subtle for any reason is bizarre enough. “Gone, Gone, Gone” is what attracted me to the record, and it turns out that it’s the song that’s most out of place.
* Calvin Harris - I Created Disco: “Acceptable in the 80s” hooked me in, but the rest of the album is just bad electropop that tries to hide its gimmick with equally gimmicky oddball lyrics. Maybe I’m over irony? I dunno. I still like Art Brut…
* Chris Walla - Field Manual: I’ll put it this way - had this album come out a month earlier, I think it may have made a serious run at album of the year for me. It’s equal parts what I know Death Cab for Cutie to be, what I expected DCFC to sound like when I first heard of them, and something completely different. It’s really quite a nice album, and I’m pleasantly surprised by the whole thing. I’ve already listened twice since picking it up yesterday, and I can’t imagine it getting shelved anytime soon.
* Vampire Weekend - s/t: It’s hard to make a snap judgement on them, hearing the single a few times and the album all the way through once. I definitely get the whole “Paul-Simon-doing-Graceland” thing I keep hearing, but it honestly feels more like what you’d expect twentysomethings who love Talking Heads and the Arcade Fire at the same time to put out. I’ve never responded well to world music or world music influences, so it’ll be interesting to see how I feel about this album later, but it’s more interesting than a lot of stuff I’ve heard lately.
* Future of the Left - Curses: McLusky is possibly my favorite “loud” band. They broke up and that made me sad. Future of the Left is McLusky with a new bassist and the purchase of a keyboard that no one knows how to play. It’s harder to take as a result, but it’s an interesting record in the way that it goes from a lot of difficult noise to some pretty awesome melodic passages. I would have never expected this had it been the follow-up to The Difference Between You and Me is That I’m Not on Fire, but being a new album/band…
* From Shawn, quite possibly the best video ever. The Onion does it again.
* California’s version of government health care was soundly rejected this week. Good for them.
* Australia’s left does what even our right couldn’t accomplish, cutting taxes AND spending at the same time. Why can’t we be this smart?
* The big news of the morning? No, not that Rudy lost big and that he’s likely to endorse McCain (more on that later), but that John Edwards has dropped out. Good riddance, and this probably locks up the nomination for Obama.
* Gaming geeks: Check out the new proposed Team Fortress 2 achievements. Via Something Awful’s photoshop contests.
Let’s see how much of this backlog I can sift out. By the way, R.E.M. tour this spring with Modest Mouse, and the Boston date is Friday the 13th of June at the Tweeter Center. On one hand, it’s friggin’ odd because they couldn’t sell out the Tweeter Center last time. On the other hand, that’s essentially a guarantee that I’ll be able to go. I already put in for the day off, hah.
* Big news of the day is the executive order by Bush on earmarks. Two questions: where was this six years ago, and why didn’t he do this last year and possibly save the Republican congress? It’ll be interesting to see how this works out.
* Hey, John McCain, are you for good judges or against good judges? I knew my discomfort came from someplace legitimate - I can’t see how McCain can adequately escape this, but, then again, he might not have to if he ends up with the Republican nomination. Patrick Ruffini reprinted a telling article about McCain last month that’s really worth reading. I can’t believe I was getting suckered in by him.
* The best news out of Massachusetts in ages. Go Jim Go!
* Who didn’t see this coming? Massachusetts health debacle plan is slated to be nearly $250m over the projected budget next year. And to think the guy who signed this monstrousity wants to be President.
* Okay, so let me get this straight: Chris Dodd wants the federal government to buy bad mortgages, thus taking the private risk and instead making it a public one? Huh?
* Interesting set of posts from Cafe Hayek. A question: how many people do you think are making minimum wage or less? If you guessed more than 5%, you’re wrong! I was wrong, too: read more here and the follow up post here.
* I’m about 3/4ths of the way through Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, which is turning out to be a much more important book than I could have ever anticipated. Check out his truncated Daily Show appearance, and cross your fingers that we get to see the original uncut version.
* I’m glad that Alexander Hamilton’s legacy is being questioned in some ways, finally. I personally consider him one of the more embarrassing founders (and that’s before I learned last week that he had to lie to his constituents to get to Philadelphia in the first place - a lone bright spot in an uneven Unruly Americans and the Origin of the Constitution). The sooner we disavow Hamilton, the better off we’ll be.
* Fun nostalgia for me: Mormon PSAs. Growing up Catholic, I always found it odd to see the LDS advertising on all my favorite shows - after all, the Catholics didn’t do that. I know more now, which makes these an interesting trip down the lane for me.
* An interesting view from Commentary regarding the post-1960s legacy of the United States, specifically revolving around our social history.
* The Skeptical Optimist helps slay the savage “stagnant wages” beast. If you’re a conservative and not reading his blog, you should add it to your reader of choice. If you’re a moderate or liberal and not reading his blog, you should give it a shot - his perspectives on debt and growth in particular are eye-opening.
* Somewhat related to the above, is the middle class really being squeezed?
‘Tis all for now.
Okay, a few things because this is a very long election cycle. This will be somewhat disjointed:
1) What’s written here in terms of political opinion are just that - opinion. I do not pretend to have the market cornered on the truth on most issues.
2) Generally speaking, I don’t think you’re an idiot if you believe what you believe and have good, sound reasons as to why you believe what you believe. I may not agree with you, and may be puzzled as to why you’ve reached a certain conclusion, but I have a lot of respect for reasoned, logical opinion.
3) I’m not the same person I was four years ago, and a lot of my philosophies involving politics - and especially tactical voting - have changed considerably since the Kerry campaign.
I’m catching a lot of heat for my Obama entry today. I didn’t expect any, but perhaps that’s my first problem. Let me map this out in detail:
On the Democratic side, there are/were essentially four candidates running with a legitimately viable shot at winning the race: Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Richardson. A very interesting slate of candidates: the highly experienced statesman, the populist lawyer, the known commodity, and the bringer of hope. These archetypes existed largely before the campaign, as all of them were recognizeable long before the campaigns even started. The newest face in the bunch was Obama, and he had been electrifying people since the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
Here’s the rub: Richardson appealed to a very small crowd, unfortunately, probably because of the headliners in the Democratic club ahead of him. Edwards is a world-class populist, and can sling the class war rhetoric better than anyone I’ve been alive to see. Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton - her name comes with both baggage and cache, and having Bill around doesn’t hurt you, either, since there’s at least the perception that you know what you’re getting. Obama’s set himself apart his own way, and it’s through “hope” and “change.” As noted in the last entry, this was all stuff he took onto the national stage four years ago, and to great acclaim. The message has stayed extremely consistent.
Now, for Obama, the question for him (and for me) is whether it’s been too consistent. He’s done nothing to set himself apart in Congress thus far - his two noteworthy legislative victories to this point have been minimal but positive, involving government oversight and accountability. His platform is not entirely different from his opponents in any substantial way. The only thing that sets him apart is his charisma, which he appears to have coming out of every pore.
This is where I get lost, for starters - populism really does nothing for me, and being inspired by a politician isn’t really my idea of a good time politically. But the annoying thing is that it appears that Obama supporters are split between two groups:
a) The inspired.
b) The educated.
Before you start tearing me down for this, there is overlap, for sure - many people excited about Obama know what he’s about, and that feeds into it. This is not where I’m critical, even if I think you’re wrong. My criticism comes where there appears to be a disconnect between the inspired and the educated, where Obama’s support is coming from folks who not only don’t necessarily care about what he’s standing for, but actively don’t know. Anecdotal, yes, and I’m not sure how to test this in a more controlled way, but you’d be shocked at how often I’ve encountered this exact concept.
This is where populism is dangerous. Yes, Obama’s about providing “hope” for America, but to find out why, you’ll have to take a deeper look. But don’t worry about it - he’s an agent for “change!” While the other guys are simply politics as usual, look at me - I’m different, and I’m a good enough speaker where I can inspire you where the guy in charge now isn’t all that good at it, and the other guys don’t get it the way I can.
I don’t understand how people, especially someone who goes out of their way to find out about a candidate’s positions and figure out where they stand, can’t be somewhat insulted by the nature of it. Besides the attempts at taking reign in the “change” department, but (and this is where I think it’s the worst) offering “hope” to those not significantly involved in the political process not through action or details, but through a glossy presentation heavy on emotional platitudes but light on detail. His book was called The Audacity of Hope - that he has the audacity to make emotional appeals in order to curry your favor should be a major warning sign, and you should be doubly offended if you’re a consistent Democrat or liberal. Have we forgotten the 2004 campaign already? Hell, ignore the campaign and go with the post-11 Sept political landscape, where one of the major criticisms of Bush was that he was preying on the fears of the electorate. Is it because “fear” has a negative connotation and “hope” a positive one that we’re suddenly okay with a Presidential candidate pushing emotional buttons? Is it because it’s your guy doing it this time? I don’t know.
A lot of my issue with this is shaded by my own problems in 2008. Even the candidates I supported (Paul, Thompson, Richardson) brought agendas to the table that I could not enthusiastically get behind. It’s one thing to be 2004 and have one proven commodity against someone likely to do worse, it’s entirely another to have a pile of choices that fail to address the problems currently inherent in the system.
I’m also, however, not easily plied by emotional appeals from politicians. While Giuliani, Huckabee, Clinton, etc definitely have supporters who have nebulous and/or inconsequential reasons they’re giving to vote for them, they’re not making those issues the centerpieces of their respective campaigns. And when the emotional appeals set Obama apart from the other candidates, it’s not a demonstration at all of competence or even of simply being Presidential. It’s hardly an effort in favor of him, and often comes across as an effort in the opposite direction, namely that he’s hoping that people ignore his agenda because he’s full of “hope!” and will create “change!”
All of this, of course, is my opinion. You’re free to vote as you wish and support who you wish, just as I’m free to question whether that’s a good idea, or even a smart way of going about it. But the expectation of intelligent voting isn’t a horrible thing, and no method of coming to a conclusion on a candidate is beyond criticism. If anything, I’m more annoyed by Obama than by his supporters, because I think there’s a good chance some of them aren’t aware of what they’re getting into.
Obama’s relative rout is news in itself, but I’m having flashbacks to the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Another speech that everyone is fawning over, and I feel like I’m completely missing the boat.
Yes, Obama is an excellent speaker - especially in contrast to Bush’s lack of skill in this area. But where’s the meat? Is it not chilling to anyone else to see crowds of people going crazy for idealism and generalities?
I don’t know. Melvin Udall had an often brilliant takedown of Obama’s speech last week that, at times, seemed to put into words my discomfort with a lot of Obama’s speeches, namely that he’s able to mask the very specific problems he introduces with amateur populism masked in the always-constant change mantra.
More and more, I find myself begging for a candidate who’ll say “My goal is to leave you alone as much as possible, and to convince Congress to do the same.” This sort of thing? Can’t end well.
EDIT: My reaction in 2004 to the convention speech. Interestingly enough, he was just as nondescriptin 2004 as he is today.
I’m not at all comfortable with M.I.A., the whole Tamil thing and such, but her cover of “Jimmy” is pretty infectious, and Of Montreal’s cover is even better.
Typically, when voting for federal and state-level officials, I have a three leveled litmus test to figure out if a candidate is palatable enough for me to vote for, in order of necessity:
1) Economy - does the candidate/official show a tendency for reasonable spending, a logical tax rate? Is the candidate aware of the role of businesses, big and small, on our economy? Is the candidate aware of the reality of the United States economy, which is not based in manufacturing but rather service, and thus requires a more global view?
2) Constitutional issues - does the candidate/official show a basic understanding of Constitutional principles? Will the candidate, if applicable, support the appointment and/or confirmation of judges who show a firm understanding of those principles?
3) Rights - Does the candidate take a Constitutional approach to rights, typically deferring to the individual when realistically possible.
That’s it. With few exceptions, I can boil down what’s important to me as a voter and how things would work out using this litmus test. Retroactive application has worked in many circumstances as well, and the best part (well, “best” meaning “part that makes it the most failsafe”) is that it’s a decidedly nonpartisan one - while conservative politicians generally meet these issues in a positive way more than liberal ones, it doesn’t always mean that the expected result is what comes up.
In the Presidential election right now, only four candidates really hit these points well enough for me: Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Bill Richardson, and Fred Thompson. In a situation like 2008, pretty much the entire Democratic field save Richardson were eliminated along with McCain and Giuliani on my economic test, I was able to eliminate Huckabee on the second, and Romney on the third (although you could make a case for Romney on the first issue - McCain, for the record, is an abject failure on all three).
The problem, of course, is when you get to a situation like today: Richardson, Thompson, and Tancredo are out (Tancredo had no chance of winning anyway), and my NH primary choice, Ron Paul, isn’t going to win either. Creates a bit of a problem. In 2000, I voted Libertarian, and in 2004, I wrote in Romney (a vote I regret now). Both times I ended up taking that route because Bush and Gore both missed the boat on point 2, and Bush ended up losing out on point 1 by the time 2004 rolled around, and we don’t need to recall the disaster that was/is John Kerry. I didn’t think it could get worse than that, but looking at the 2008 slate…
The problem, I guess, is that the template works. The Manchester Union Leader had a somewhat hysterical op-ed this week about something that relates very close to this litmus test. Shortly before I moved up here, the state government went from Republican to Democratic leadership, including the governor, John Lynch. The op-ed highlights the most obvious concern that anyone could have reasonably predicted: within 2 years, the NH budget increased nearly 18%, we’re running a deficit, and, after hiking various fees, they’re floating an income tax to make up the difference. I mean, seriously. Even discarding the fact that they tried to get a seatbelt law passed, and they somehow succeeded in a minimum wage hike and smoking ban, anyone could have seen this coming on either side, and what has it ultimately benefited? Even with constrained spending, the NH DOT (Department of Transportation) is a money pit, the schools are still achieving by local need rather than any statewide improvement, and our pockets are what’s funding the relative stagnation.
It’s why economy is #1 on my list - rights issues ultimately end up with the proper result over time, the Constitution goes through phases, but it’s very, very hard to repair the damage once costs increase and handouts start happening. All we hear about with Bush is the insane amount of spending - a very legitimate criticism. The spending would have outpaced the tax revenues even if the tax cut and the wars never occurred, which means that this was coming no matter what. At no point are any of the candidates who are likely to be President a year from now talking about doing anything about that, and the Democrats in particular are looking to spend even more money on the same things that Bush has, war excluded (and even then, we all know that’s not going to change short term). If your litmus test was sane economic policy, and you’re supporting the Democrats but think Bush has been bad for the economy and for spending, there’s a disconnect there. Vice-versa if you think Bush has been great but find the Democratic (or Republican for that matter) initiatives to be favorable.
Of course, a lot of people are voting because of the war, or health care, or some other reason, and I’ll address those later as well. But something tells me if we moved away from single-issue situations toward a more reasoned approach to who we’re supporting, the landscape might be different. We might not have to rely on things like gridlock or hope that the Courts fix the problems that the legislators and executives have set up for us. Problems that we really should have seen coming.
Excuse me while I take some time to sift through links I’ve had sitting around for a while.
Over at Betsy’s Page, Newmark highlighted a piece about “Care Bear Politics.” The piece, based off of a blog post by Reason’s Julian Sanchez and an article at Real Clear Politics:
And then there’s the Care Bear vision, which takes as given the perfectability of humankind and correspondingly interprets all problems as fixable, given the right conditions. Care Bearism involves, in Thomas Sowell’s words, “a disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible or motivated by unworthy purposes.” Should the critics prove, after the fact, to have been right, Care Bearists grant themselves absolution because their hearts were in the right place.
Since at least the 1960s, liberalism has provided an ideological wigwam under whose pastel-colored flaps the Caring-American community has gathered to emote and caucus in its therapeutic and sentimental fashion, always looking forward to a better future (in part, because it means they don’t have to look at the wreckage of their past schemes). Some latter-day conservatives began as liberals, until they understood that The Care Bear Stare was no effective defense against problems originating in human nature, which is not infinitely malleable, and in the intractability of evil.
While the conclusions of the piece leave a bit to be desired, the relative concept therein - from Sowell’s words to the examples at the start of the piece (both of which I’ve encountered numerous times) - are not only apparent, but seem to be manifesting itself in this election cycle to new heights.
I went into this election not so much tired of Bush (although there’s more than a little exhaustion) as tired of the brand of politics that have been ushered in - a “do-something” attitude, if you will, that seemed to reach new heights even as Bush branded himself a conservative regardless of his actual resume. With the failure of the Thompson run to gain traction, and knowing full well that Ron Paul is a non-factor, we’re stuck with more of the same, more of this “Care Bear” mentality:
* Barack Obama with his nondescript “change” manifesto.
* Mike Huckabee’s plans for the Constitution.
* John Edwards’s…everything.
* Mitt Romney’s abysmal record in Massachusetts.
* Hillary Clinton’s Santa Claus view of government.
* Rudy Guiliani’s record in NYC.
* John McCain’s record in Congress.
To use a cliche I hate, it’s the same pig dressed in different lipstick, and, perhaps more interestingly, is proof positive that this sudden lurch rightward that is alleged since Bush entered office is completely nonexistent - that the centrist Bush with his “compassionate conservatism” and government-can-do-it attitude introduced into the Republican Party and is apparently embraced by those with national recognition. Sure, the Jim DeMints, Jeff Flakes, and Jon Kyls of the Repubican Party exist, but most people reading this won’t recognize all three of those names for a while.
So what does this mean? It means that, right now, we have seven Care Bears running for President. Sure, some of them have lesser powers than others - as bad as McCain is, for instance, the damage he could do doesn’t come close to Edwards - but we’re still heading down that same road that so many are allegedly tired of. Especially in the age of large deficits, a slowing economy, and financial uncertainty, can we afford it in any context?
We know the answer to this, of course, but none of the folks who’ll be President in a year are actually going to answer it.