two american political figures died this week: george carlin and tim russert. perhaps it is because i watch msnbc, but it seems to me tim russert has been released with great fanfare, while the news of carlin's demise has been somewhat muted.
they both seem like nice men who deserve to be mourned but carlin is a saint. there is a temptation to label carlin as iconoclastic or sharp-witted but these are mere words that do not serve in his case whatsoever.
you had to know his life, follow his work, understand the power of satire and comedy. carlin went into everything on his own terms. he was like lenny bruce, only he survived, thrived even, to grow old for us and refine his act and more importantly, his ideas.
russert hosted the sunday morning political chat show and george carlin challenged us through his comedy.
russert was a nice man and while others have called him a first rate journalist, i will stop short of that. as mainstream journalists go, i found him to be competent and certainly above average. russert wrote books about his relationships with his dad and his son. he extolled the virtues of hard work and sang the praises of the american dream which allowed a working class kid like him to grow up and anchor meet the press.
i can't imagine begrudging tim russert's life in any way, but when companies other than his own broadcast tributes and friends and family refer to russert miracles that occurred in and around the mourning process, while carlin is mentioned almost as a means to bring up the titillating seven words you cannot say on television, i can't help but be dismayed.
george carlin was a john the baptist for our day. he was the voice crying in the wilderness warning us about the numbing effects of marketing and decrying organized religions penchant for playing the naked emperor. carlin was a coarse man who would be unwelcome at a bush family dinner, which is to say he was unimpressed by wealth or place.
the issue with the words is important, too. the media coverage seemed to trivialize the issue as fox news anchors were chuckling as they explained, "you still can't say those words on tv." of course, the point is lost on the obtuse. the point carlin made, (and lenny bruce before him,) was that words are only words while only the ideas they represent should have the power to offend.
perhaps carlin would have asked why does shit have the power to offend while poop seems clean and nearly cute. they are both words and they mean basically the same thing but one is considered derogatory primarily because it has come to popular use as an expletive. this is the basic point of carlin's rant about words-they have only as much power as one gives them. when writing i find i tend to choose the curse word over the milder option because it has power, because it gets attention and often bothers people. to parents i guess carlin might suggest they use the bad words that would come up on television or elsewhere as an opportunity to parent, to explain why a certain word was used and how a mature mind should think about being confronted with that word.
i love that tim russert championed the common man. i enjoyed hearing his son say russert was especially comfortable coming up to his son's college to watch a game and drink beer with him and his friends. it is okay, too, that he was beloved.
on the other hand, maybe it is not okay that carlin is not more beloved. people cannot be blamed for what they are not exposed to but at the same time, it is a sad testament to america that this voice was not more hallowed. for those who do miss carlin and plan on carrying a bit of his hell-raising spirit with them through the rest of their own lives, i know it will serve them and i congratulate them on their thoughtfulness and taste.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
u23d
after seeing the u23d movie, i feel like i have just engaged in a guilty pleasure. i suppose deep down i do not find them as relevant as i once did, though they remain both noble and important. still, i love the music and the spirit in which it is delivered.
relevance is relative and subjective. in some ways, u2 is more relevant than ever as can be seen in the movie when u2 promotes the coexist brand, where letters are symbols of belief (or thought,) systems and the message is tolerance. (hence, the word "coexist," as a directive.) when u2 promotes an idea like this, they are relevant and they do make a difference.
in this movie and in the live concerts the film was culled from, u2 is reaching millions of people around the world with this coexist message and while the people they are reaching may not represent the demographic in power, those who can make change, the millions they reach will be in that demographic someday. this is real change, the kind of change politicians can only aspire to. it takes time, but this is how change happens.
u2, as a brand, is managed especially well.
by producing this movie, u2 satisfied fans who have wanted to see them and simultaneously added to their legend. 3d is not what it used to be. it's better. the technology has evolved and in this movie all the improvement is on display as the viewer, through the lens, hovers over larry's shoulder as he pounds away at the drums, perches just above and behind the front few rows of fans as they dance and cheer and snap photos from their cell phones and wave arms and sing their lungs out, joins the band on-stage to peer out at a sea of humanity, sees the u2 live show experience from every imagineable angle, in all it's joyful, serious, warm glory .
relevance is relative and subjective. in some ways, u2 is more relevant than ever as can be seen in the movie when u2 promotes the coexist brand, where letters are symbols of belief (or thought,) systems and the message is tolerance. (hence, the word "coexist," as a directive.) when u2 promotes an idea like this, they are relevant and they do make a difference.
in this movie and in the live concerts the film was culled from, u2 is reaching millions of people around the world with this coexist message and while the people they are reaching may not represent the demographic in power, those who can make change, the millions they reach will be in that demographic someday. this is real change, the kind of change politicians can only aspire to. it takes time, but this is how change happens.
u2, as a brand, is managed especially well.
by producing this movie, u2 satisfied fans who have wanted to see them and simultaneously added to their legend. 3d is not what it used to be. it's better. the technology has evolved and in this movie all the improvement is on display as the viewer, through the lens, hovers over larry's shoulder as he pounds away at the drums, perches just above and behind the front few rows of fans as they dance and cheer and snap photos from their cell phones and wave arms and sing their lungs out, joins the band on-stage to peer out at a sea of humanity, sees the u2 live show experience from every imagineable angle, in all it's joyful, serious, warm glory .
u2 is a rock band and so they are about sound. they make music and getting to hear that music in a movie theatre trumps your car or your house. getting that level of sound quality and being able to see the edge's facial expressions as he effortlessly moves from song to song is a treat and again, trumps those seats in the 80th row that cost $100 in certain ways.
ultimately, u2 continues to push out at the boundaries that would constrict them as artists. they want to appeal to all of your senses if they can and in u23d, they get your ears and your eyes, while teasing the tactile, as everyone in themovie seems like someone you could just reach out and pat on the back. if a day comes when they can feed you a coexist wafer while vibrating your seat at various time and filling the theatre with odors of snacks, other people, the night air, or ireland, they will.
this film is a tribute to u2 in so much as it exemplifies the spirit of their art to always invest in its own quality, push every boundary imagineable, especially that of technology, and seek relevance through meaning.
personal philosophy
everyone should have a personal philosophy. i think i have been developing my own ever since reading heinlein's job: a comedy of justice, when i was 21, borrowing liberally from the dean.
i can't say i have a reason why anyone other than me might be interested in my personal philosophy. i offer it none the less, like this blog, obsolete by math but filled with heart and soul.
my personal philosophy borrows from eastern thought in promoting virtue and right action. i also think it is important to maintain a macro-oriented, holistic and big picture view of one's life, (which is probably not the norm in our society.)
in youth we should come to recognize the flaws and inconsistencies in our fathers. some of us may rage and some of us may have little reason to rage, the point is to figure out, some time perhaps between 16 and 40, that our fathers are real and human and imperfect. and since they are imperfect it makes sense we would be upset about certain things.
the trick is not be paralyzed by that dissatisfaction. limiting that which renders us unfocused or less effective in our endeavors makes a foundation for taking responsibility for one's life, so we seek to conduct and command a life we can be proud to base our parenting on, so we grok the brotherhood of man in such a way as to feel a part of the massive organism humanity, so we gain meaning through doing and interacting and touching and growing and perpetual learning.
in our primes, (40 to 60?) having acquired balance we should learn to forgive most if not all transgressions of our fathers. as sons we come back to the middle, understanding the complex nature of life, having flaws and inconsistencies of our own.
and yeah, it seems to me life comes at us in 20 year segments. from 0-20 we confront the physical world, learning how to use our bodies and getting a sense life. from 20-40 we enjoy our physical prime but develop interests in headier subjects, climbing maslow's pyramid through love, competition, avocation, work, worship, self-awareness, aesthetic sensibilities, subtlety, taste, interaction, dynamics of every variety, dynamic in every way. youth, mournfully adored in our society is certainly a fun and interesting time of life. this segment represents the physical apex, or adult prime, of life.
as we are mental creatures, the 40-60 segment represents the overall prime of life, the mind being more firmly attached to our essence as well as more enduring. if one has a life's work, it should be accomplished in this period. (and one should have a life's work.)
60-80 should be about coming to grips with our nature, including the temporal aspect. it should also be about sharing wisdom
for me, in the early part of this third, prime segment, being a new father, i am interested in parenting as a life's work. i also feel like i have developed this certain world view, my own credo if you will. it borrows liberally and loosely from any number of traditions but it is in itself akin to a belief system.
- we should always seek to be noble.
- noble, or right, action, begets nobility.
- the absence of nobility is the absence of value by measures.
- humanity is evolving.
- evolution has been utterly positive for humanity.
- anything that pushes forward the envelope of evolution is noble.
- that which detracts from or impedes evolution is ignoble, even if it creates a beautiful and demonstrative reaction.
- right action is its own reward.
- karma is less a law than an inevitable outcome.
- a light heart does sleep well.
- a heart engaged in deceit beats tensely and feeds upon itself.
these are of the main tenets, off the top of my head. it is not as if i am organizing a new religion. rather, i find religion obsolete. still, if all peoples could all agree on a similar set of basic values, i believe we would see the evolution of belief.
at the same time i wonder about people who do not construct and order their beliefs and values. i suppose some take them all from an institution or a book. others may rely on their own conscience to know what is right and wrong. many likely bend these things regularly making convenience the ultimate law.
as for me, i take pride in my morality, which may sound ridiculous but here's the bottom line: if i was in any way uncomfortable with myself in that way whatsoever, i would make a change, (which happens occasionally.) it is important for me to think on the important things in life and the big picture.
i also think it is worth talking about these things.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
skepticism
perhaps this is one of those questions i should leave unanswered. maybe this is an area where labels, in spite of our affinity for them and their usefulness, should be purposely avoided. still, i have been considering the contrast between atheism and agnosticism.
i know this is an odd subject. our society avoids big questions like this. still, if i am to blog i prefer to spend some time blogging about the biggest of issues. if someone read this and was given pause, i could ask for no more.
strictly speaking i am an agnostic. i don't claim to know there is not a god anymore than i claim to know martians do not exist, (or the easter bunny or father time or the tooth fairy for that matter.) rather, i employ inductive reasoning in assuming there is not a god, in the sense most people think of such a being or creature.
i have not seen any evidence of god's existence nor do i know of any in the history of mankind. i have seen the folly of belief. i have the seen the tremendous amount of disagreement on the subject. i have seen the fruit of that disagreement in the form of holy wars and crusades. i understand why confucius would call belief the opium of the masses since the poor seem to harbor far more zeal than the wealthy.
belief is so subjective that if god did exist and was represented by a set of properties, the number of those who had it exactly right would be miniscule. it would probably be like 42 people in the history of mankind.
i know this is an odd subject. our society avoids big questions like this. still, if i am to blog i prefer to spend some time blogging about the biggest of issues. if someone read this and was given pause, i could ask for no more.
strictly speaking i am an agnostic. i don't claim to know there is not a god anymore than i claim to know martians do not exist, (or the easter bunny or father time or the tooth fairy for that matter.) rather, i employ inductive reasoning in assuming there is not a god, in the sense most people think of such a being or creature.
i have not seen any evidence of god's existence nor do i know of any in the history of mankind. i have seen the folly of belief. i have the seen the tremendous amount of disagreement on the subject. i have seen the fruit of that disagreement in the form of holy wars and crusades. i understand why confucius would call belief the opium of the masses since the poor seem to harbor far more zeal than the wealthy.
belief is so subjective that if god did exist and was represented by a set of properties, the number of those who had it exactly right would be miniscule. it would probably be like 42 people in the history of mankind.
still, i can't claim, as a textbook atheist might, that i know there is no god. it is, after all, another unproveable belief. however, i prefer to call myself an atheist over an agnostic anyway. it feels less ambiguous and more honest. the fact is, i think this mass of people around the globe of varying degrees of zealotry, are mislead, deceived, confused, wrong.
the dictionary definition for agnostic:
ag·nos·tic (ag näs′tik)
noun
a person who believes that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause, or anything beyond material phenomena
Etymology: coined (1870) by Thomas Henry Huxley < a- + gnostic
adjective
of or characteristic of an agnostic or agnosticism
huxley was basically saying if it was not tangible, it could not be verified and therefore, could not be accepted as fact, which happens to be a large part of my argument against belief.
the dictionary definition for atheism is:
athe·ism (ā′t̸hē iz′əm)
noun
the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist
godlessness
it is my belief there is no god and i do think of myself as godless so this label works too. however, in believing something i do not and cannot know, i feel just like any other believer. so you see my quandary?
it's just semantics i suppose-i have no faith. still, ask me sometime and see what i say.Monday, June 09, 2008
justice (part 1)
Injustices in society make me angry. Perhaps, angrier than most. I am bothered by things out of tilt, seeing the vulnerable taken advantage of, people who seem out of balance in a karmic respect.
I am easily perturbed by my country's self-perception. As Americans we grow up with this idea that we are the greatest country on earth. We are the white hats of the world and we stand for everything good and honest and wholesome. Whenever I feel the presence of this notion, I feel an anger rise inside of me along with a massive compulsion to dispel such mythology. In fact I love this country but I would prefer we as Americans were honest with ourselves about our past, present and future. In that way I think we can attain some of these ideals we merely profess to embrace.
This anger tends to be perceived as some form of self-hatred, (or anti-Americanism anyway,) instead of being recognized as sheer disappointment at how little of our potential we realize.
I suppose I have been conditioned in ways which define me and make me who I essentially am. My world view came from never having met my Father, from growing up with my Mother incarcerated, from living with grandparents and aunts and uncles, (all on my Mother’s side, of course.) This world view came from the methadone clinic, from oldies but goodies, from going out on Halloween as a “beer belly.”
This world view came from a dearth of familial intimacy, from a detachment from any cultural identity amidst a society so overwrought and overblown and supremely over-interested in their race and ethnicity and color and background that their heads are stuffed with pounds and chunks of self-aggrandizing local color and flavor, which serves to occupy the mind like Cops or American Idol or the TV Land reruns, dulling and stupefying like a bulldozer of mediocrity, pile-driving the shit out of sensibilities, so people are unable to connect with one another, unable to discern truth when it confronts them, unable to feel or empathize with those less fortunate and by less fortunate I do not mean that cute, starving vision of innocence in the pamphlet for your favorite charity, I am talking about the freaking murderer who seems so heinous and evil but who obviously had some crazy stuff happen to him to render him inclined to do the nasty and dark deeds he committed, unable to imagine anything outside one’s own realm, outside borders or economic strata, unable to organize and fight back against naked powers that be, be they simple propaganda or long held fallacies, unable to make a fucking move.
This world view came from speaking in tongues, a late blooming sex life, deprivation of the classics, the jockacracy, Ronald Reagan, "I Found It!", Christian schools, John Hughes, Josh McDowell, beach cruisers, La Puente, Covina, and Cardiff by the Sea, The Six Million Dollar Man, and smog.
This world view came from waking up in a perpetual frat party existence and realizing I neeeded to start reading the great writers. It came from giving up on my faith at 28 followed by 10 charming years. It came from being poor and nurturing the anger of youth. It came from spending a few days in LA County, booked on irresponsibility.
From all this, this life, I offer justice as something to speak on or of. It is what interests me and I think you might find it interesting in the same way.
Justice is like a rare, stolen, underground Picasso to me. It’s like a million bucks or anything perfect. It is nearly intangible, but it does exist and I love it as much as I love life itself. When Andy Dufresne pulls his shirt off in the driving rain after crawling through a tunnel of sewage to his freedom, and the warden blows a hole in his own head at the end of Shawshank Redemption, that’s the kind of justice I crave.
And that’s just the phony stuff. When it is real life, when I. Louis Libby gets convicted of a crime and is disbarred, my heart soars in spite of the knowledge it is not nearly enough justice for Libby. For a moment anyways, I cannot be bothered by the fact Libby will continue to lead a life of financial comfort, never coming close to the measure of justice he should know. (My world view suggests Libby feels the rest of the justice he deserves in an unseen, karmic sort of retribution.)
I rejoice when big corporations get it right in the pocketbook.
I love it when little towns in New England or countries in Europe legislate Donald Rumsfeld's fate to be arrested for war crimes if he ever sets foot in their territories. That is sublime to me, if only a stopgap unit of joy meant to tied my otherwise angry and dissatisfied person over until the next morsel of justice happens along.
I am easily perturbed by my country's self-perception. As Americans we grow up with this idea that we are the greatest country on earth. We are the white hats of the world and we stand for everything good and honest and wholesome. Whenever I feel the presence of this notion, I feel an anger rise inside of me along with a massive compulsion to dispel such mythology. In fact I love this country but I would prefer we as Americans were honest with ourselves about our past, present and future. In that way I think we can attain some of these ideals we merely profess to embrace.
This anger tends to be perceived as some form of self-hatred, (or anti-Americanism anyway,) instead of being recognized as sheer disappointment at how little of our potential we realize.
I suppose I have been conditioned in ways which define me and make me who I essentially am. My world view came from never having met my Father, from growing up with my Mother incarcerated, from living with grandparents and aunts and uncles, (all on my Mother’s side, of course.) This world view came from the methadone clinic, from oldies but goodies, from going out on Halloween as a “beer belly.”
This world view came from a dearth of familial intimacy, from a detachment from any cultural identity amidst a society so overwrought and overblown and supremely over-interested in their race and ethnicity and color and background that their heads are stuffed with pounds and chunks of self-aggrandizing local color and flavor, which serves to occupy the mind like Cops or American Idol or the TV Land reruns, dulling and stupefying like a bulldozer of mediocrity, pile-driving the shit out of sensibilities, so people are unable to connect with one another, unable to discern truth when it confronts them, unable to feel or empathize with those less fortunate and by less fortunate I do not mean that cute, starving vision of innocence in the pamphlet for your favorite charity, I am talking about the freaking murderer who seems so heinous and evil but who obviously had some crazy stuff happen to him to render him inclined to do the nasty and dark deeds he committed, unable to imagine anything outside one’s own realm, outside borders or economic strata, unable to organize and fight back against naked powers that be, be they simple propaganda or long held fallacies, unable to make a fucking move.
This world view came from speaking in tongues, a late blooming sex life, deprivation of the classics, the jockacracy, Ronald Reagan, "I Found It!", Christian schools, John Hughes, Josh McDowell, beach cruisers, La Puente, Covina, and Cardiff by the Sea, The Six Million Dollar Man, and smog.
This world view came from waking up in a perpetual frat party existence and realizing I neeeded to start reading the great writers. It came from giving up on my faith at 28 followed by 10 charming years. It came from being poor and nurturing the anger of youth. It came from spending a few days in LA County, booked on irresponsibility.
From all this, this life, I offer justice as something to speak on or of. It is what interests me and I think you might find it interesting in the same way.
Justice is like a rare, stolen, underground Picasso to me. It’s like a million bucks or anything perfect. It is nearly intangible, but it does exist and I love it as much as I love life itself. When Andy Dufresne pulls his shirt off in the driving rain after crawling through a tunnel of sewage to his freedom, and the warden blows a hole in his own head at the end of Shawshank Redemption, that’s the kind of justice I crave.
And that’s just the phony stuff. When it is real life, when I. Louis Libby gets convicted of a crime and is disbarred, my heart soars in spite of the knowledge it is not nearly enough justice for Libby. For a moment anyways, I cannot be bothered by the fact Libby will continue to lead a life of financial comfort, never coming close to the measure of justice he should know. (My world view suggests Libby feels the rest of the justice he deserves in an unseen, karmic sort of retribution.)
I rejoice when big corporations get it right in the pocketbook.
I love it when little towns in New England or countries in Europe legislate Donald Rumsfeld's fate to be arrested for war crimes if he ever sets foot in their territories. That is sublime to me, if only a stopgap unit of joy meant to tied my otherwise angry and dissatisfied person over until the next morsel of justice happens along.
I see justice in how the puritans who conducted the Salem Witch trials are viewed today. I see justice in Nuremberg. I see justice in Pinochet's legacy, how he will be remembered as the despotic military dictator placed in Santiago by Washington DC who ruthlessly killed his people, villifying him and those who supported him from abroad. I see justice too, in Reagan's legacy. Reagan will be remembered for taking the solar panels off the white house and restoring our dependence on foreign oil, for authorizing the sale of arms to Iran to supply a ruthless regime in Central America, (or two,) for using the bully pulpit against the college kids of People's Park as well as hoses, gas and clubs, for marketing propaganda more effectively than any person in his time with his nine most terrifying words in the English language, ("I'm from the government and I'm here to help,") and his "War on Drugs," for telling the air traffic controllers to go screw themselves because he could and because of the message it sent, for trickle-down clearly not trickling down, and for lying like Nixon.
Justice makes me smile. It sets my mind at ease. I am not referring to the justice that occurs in court rooms, though I am sure that justice plays its role. The justice I adore occurs more organically and is closer to truth.
I am happy to exclaim I see plenty of justice. It seems always at the heels of injustice.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
-Martin Luther King Jr.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
an open letter to keith olbermann
tonight i watched hillary clinton and barack obama give speeches as the tallies rolled in from the final two primaries in montana and south dakota. both showed a great deal of poise and class. i was especially impressed with how they showed appreciation and admiration for one another.
an open letter to keith olbermann:
dear keith olbermann,
for all the good you have done in holding the president accountable for any number of crimes and misdemeanors, your vitriol against hillary clinton has become unbearable. even tonight as chris mathews blathered on as usual during terry mcauliffe's introduction of mrs. clinton, you emerged later to inform us of what mcauliffe had actually said. apparently he introduced her as the next president of the united states. you scoffed as if it was just more dirty pool from the clintons, your perspective spinning off its axis and into utter chaos. so hillary's audience was amassed in a basement that does not allow for cell phone contact. so there were no television monitors in the room. you and your ilk are not so important and i thought you knew that.
i suppose you were too close to all of this to have the vision to see that hillary made a choice back around the time of the texas and ohio primaries to stay in this thing and fight. she had plenty of reason to do so, too. this was a close nomination process. indeed clinton won the majority of states most likely to be won by the democrats in november. (if you would challenge this idea, let's just point out then that she won california big.) the actual vote margins as well as delegate margins across the country were especially tight. so what's a bit of theatre in politics? apparently to you it was some major affront. the point the clinton campaign was making, keith, was that her campaign stayed relevant and vibrant right up to the last day of the primary season. hillary single-handedly invigorated the process even making puerto ricans and the typically irrelevant south dakotans and montanans feel important and involved. (why else would they turn out in such numbers?)
it was not easy for clinton and obama to draw distinctions from one another. it seemed at moments the clinton campaign wanted to bring up the fact that some people in this country are racist and would automatrically dismiss obama from the possibility of receiving their vote. since her campaign had always focused on beating the republicans prior to realizing they would need to shift their focus to the formidable obama, clinton had courted the independent and left-leaning republicans in the key swing states of ohio and florida from day one. hence why she was strongest in those places. however, you were enraged by her every maneuver.
you claim to not vote because you think it is inappropriate given your watchdog position as a journalist and yet, your preferences could not be more transparent.
when clinton depicted herself the more experienced candidate, better suited to answer a late night phone call alerting a president-leader to some unknown but massively dangerous threat in the world, you showed a particularly thin skin. obama responded, (because the media has broadcast his every move throughout the entire season,) and moved on.
the point is, these two great candidates have understood the nature of the endeavor they are engaged in from the beginning. it is obvious already they have not taken the fact that the other campaigned hard and tried to show themselves the better choice for the most high office personally.
within the next two days obama will announce hillary as his choice for vice president. and so, while you may have fallen in love with obama during the primary season as one is wan to do , it will be time to fall in line for the general election.
so quit killing your credibility when you attack president bush for subverting the constitution instead of protecting it, by disparaging the clintons. you do not owe it to this country to serve it, though you do in a capacity. similarly, the clintons have not owed it to the people of this country to serve and yet they have with distinction and for a long time. they have not been perfect by any stretch but they have been a force for positive change.
your voice has been so important these last several years. you are finally beating the propagandist bill o'reilly in the ratings on some nights and you deserve a great deal of credit for this and your work is important. the free pass the present administration was granted in the wake of 9/11 was phenomenal and your voice, (along with only one or two others, really,) has finally started to penetrate the fear and paranoia that permitted that free pass in the first place.
as you might say to president bush, please sir, regain your perspective.
an open letter to keith olbermann:
dear keith olbermann,
for all the good you have done in holding the president accountable for any number of crimes and misdemeanors, your vitriol against hillary clinton has become unbearable. even tonight as chris mathews blathered on as usual during terry mcauliffe's introduction of mrs. clinton, you emerged later to inform us of what mcauliffe had actually said. apparently he introduced her as the next president of the united states. you scoffed as if it was just more dirty pool from the clintons, your perspective spinning off its axis and into utter chaos. so hillary's audience was amassed in a basement that does not allow for cell phone contact. so there were no television monitors in the room. you and your ilk are not so important and i thought you knew that.
i suppose you were too close to all of this to have the vision to see that hillary made a choice back around the time of the texas and ohio primaries to stay in this thing and fight. she had plenty of reason to do so, too. this was a close nomination process. indeed clinton won the majority of states most likely to be won by the democrats in november. (if you would challenge this idea, let's just point out then that she won california big.) the actual vote margins as well as delegate margins across the country were especially tight. so what's a bit of theatre in politics? apparently to you it was some major affront. the point the clinton campaign was making, keith, was that her campaign stayed relevant and vibrant right up to the last day of the primary season. hillary single-handedly invigorated the process even making puerto ricans and the typically irrelevant south dakotans and montanans feel important and involved. (why else would they turn out in such numbers?)
it was not easy for clinton and obama to draw distinctions from one another. it seemed at moments the clinton campaign wanted to bring up the fact that some people in this country are racist and would automatrically dismiss obama from the possibility of receiving their vote. since her campaign had always focused on beating the republicans prior to realizing they would need to shift their focus to the formidable obama, clinton had courted the independent and left-leaning republicans in the key swing states of ohio and florida from day one. hence why she was strongest in those places. however, you were enraged by her every maneuver.
you claim to not vote because you think it is inappropriate given your watchdog position as a journalist and yet, your preferences could not be more transparent.
when clinton depicted herself the more experienced candidate, better suited to answer a late night phone call alerting a president-leader to some unknown but massively dangerous threat in the world, you showed a particularly thin skin. obama responded, (because the media has broadcast his every move throughout the entire season,) and moved on.
the point is, these two great candidates have understood the nature of the endeavor they are engaged in from the beginning. it is obvious already they have not taken the fact that the other campaigned hard and tried to show themselves the better choice for the most high office personally.
within the next two days obama will announce hillary as his choice for vice president. and so, while you may have fallen in love with obama during the primary season as one is wan to do , it will be time to fall in line for the general election.
so quit killing your credibility when you attack president bush for subverting the constitution instead of protecting it, by disparaging the clintons. you do not owe it to this country to serve it, though you do in a capacity. similarly, the clintons have not owed it to the people of this country to serve and yet they have with distinction and for a long time. they have not been perfect by any stretch but they have been a force for positive change.
your voice has been so important these last several years. you are finally beating the propagandist bill o'reilly in the ratings on some nights and you deserve a great deal of credit for this and your work is important. the free pass the present administration was granted in the wake of 9/11 was phenomenal and your voice, (along with only one or two others, really,) has finally started to penetrate the fear and paranoia that permitted that free pass in the first place.
as you might say to president bush, please sir, regain your perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
