Now Serving Football Politics
Hey, football fans. Remember this bum?
Ah, John L. He was the kind of man with the integrity and class to switch schools before his squad's bowl game (he took the MSU job right before Louisville's bowl that year, which they lost without him), blame a kicker for his own shortcomings, and make the occasional slip-up when talking to reporters.
He was known as an aggressive coach, keen on the spread offense and an adventurous, risk-taking attitude - a "cowboy" in many respects. Known for sky-diving and mountain-climbing, he was also quite fit for his age (if not his job). He once started a second half with an onside kick, in a game he was winning. (In stark contrast to most of his time at MSU, he won that one.)
Enter Mark Dantonio. After their horrific experience, MSU figured it was time to bring change to their football program. They hired a man who couldn't have been more different from John L. Smith. Dantonio is known for being a calm coach, who instills caution and discipline in his team. Under his tenure, MSU's strength has become its ground game, and their coach has conducted himself with a class that Spartan fans find refreshing.
Once unable to experience any emotion other than despair, there's now a cautious optimism among Michigan State fans, who while excited, certainly don't think that Dantonio is some kind of football messiah. They're just glad they didn't end up with that coach who's eerily similar to John L. Smith, Rich Rodriguez...
11 November 2008
20 October 2008
You Hypocrite!
Now Serving The Latest Episode Of: When Baldwins Attack
And you thought the Al Smith dinner was edgy.
News is good these days - you might even say hopeful. But it can still be a shocking experience to read through the letters section of any given newspaper these days.
Letters to the editor have a bitter humor about them. It's not that they mean to be funny, it's that they're packed with suspiciously-similar-to-campaign-talking-point opinions, which the author often argues as though he or she came up with them. This is something that we're probably all guilty of to some degree.
It seems especially true with letters for McCain. In their case, the phenomenon has been highlighted by his "lurching" campaign: when it's about celebrity, the letter-writers cry "celebrity;" when it's Bill Ayers, they cry "Bill Ayers;" when it's socialism, they cry "socialism;" when it's about being like Osama bin Laden, they cry nutty things at rallies. If McCain actually had a central message, it wouldn't be so obvious; if Obama's campaign had been as erratic, I regret to admit that his letters would likely have been just as bad.
What makes it so disturbing is the presumed independence of these letters. "I am concerned over what I've seen; I could tell so-and-so was lying during the debate; I don't let the media tell me how to think." Less and less people say things like "as far as I know" or "I am convinced when X campaign says..." We could at least admit that we're repeating talking points.
Another disturbing element to these letters is just how many are still rabidly supporting McCain. It's incredible that a solid 40% of the electorate will always support one side - even ideologically, since we've narrowed ourselves down to two opposed camps. But it shouldn't be such a surprise. One of the most "left-leaning" (read: Democrat-supporting, which isn't quite the same thing) papers in the country helps explain why.
No, Obama Bucks aren't responsible for this perpetual symmetry. Much has already been said about this ridiculousness - including Diane Fedele's flat-out lie that she didn't intend KFC, watermelon, kool-aid and ribs as racist imagery - but what's incredible is the way the LA Times reports it. The second half of the headline is "while Democrats rib Palin." In the second half of the article, they say that "Obama supporters have been getting a bit naughty themselves," as if this is equivalent to essentially rousing a national lynch-mob.
False equivalencies are what keep Republicans from getting smothered by the hordes of poor and middle-class people who vote their way. It's become an unquestionable truth that our parties are symmetrical; that every bad move by the GOP supposedly has an equal by the Democrats. Each party is essentially seen to represent the status quo, which is somewhat true, but they're also both seen to be ideological representatives, which is less true (and directly contradicts the idea that they both represent the status quo). Democrats are absolutely not "liberal" in the sense that Republicans are "conservatives."
We've forgotten what those ideological terms even refer to. We've gotten to a point where we can somehow believe the conceit that "elitists" of the left - not the Democratic party specifically, but the left - are going to raise poor people's taxes. In other words, we somehow believe that the ideological position that by definition opposes the status quo is going to reinforce it.
Some of us only see "liberal" and "conservative" as defined by the differences between Democrats and Republicans - effectively the difference between a hybrid Escalade and a normal one (a difference real enough to be worth voting, but slim enough to be significantly weaker than portrayed). This is reinforced every time a mainstream media outlet uses "on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand" reporting; every time David Frum spews out logical garbage like this. We're letting ourselves think that Obama's subtle jabs at McCain's old age are equal to McCain riling up his base and letting them run amok. Nobody's going to assassinate McCain because they don't like how old he is.
When Michael Moore said that he thinks most Americans are liberal, I don't think it was too hard to understand what he meant. When you listen to a lot of Republican voters, they're not always talking about law and order or fears about subversion. They often complain about the intrusion of government, taxes, gun control, or anti-smoking laws. They're complaining about the Man.
We just don't know who "the Man" really is.
And you thought the Al Smith dinner was edgy.
News is good these days - you might even say hopeful. But it can still be a shocking experience to read through the letters section of any given newspaper these days.
Letters to the editor have a bitter humor about them. It's not that they mean to be funny, it's that they're packed with suspiciously-similar-to-campaign-talking-point opinions, which the author often argues as though he or she came up with them. This is something that we're probably all guilty of to some degree.
It seems especially true with letters for McCain. In their case, the phenomenon has been highlighted by his "lurching" campaign: when it's about celebrity, the letter-writers cry "celebrity;" when it's Bill Ayers, they cry "Bill Ayers;" when it's socialism, they cry "socialism;" when it's about being like Osama bin Laden, they cry nutty things at rallies. If McCain actually had a central message, it wouldn't be so obvious; if Obama's campaign had been as erratic, I regret to admit that his letters would likely have been just as bad.
What makes it so disturbing is the presumed independence of these letters. "I am concerned over what I've seen; I could tell so-and-so was lying during the debate; I don't let the media tell me how to think." Less and less people say things like "as far as I know" or "I am convinced when X campaign says..." We could at least admit that we're repeating talking points.
Another disturbing element to these letters is just how many are still rabidly supporting McCain. It's incredible that a solid 40% of the electorate will always support one side - even ideologically, since we've narrowed ourselves down to two opposed camps. But it shouldn't be such a surprise. One of the most "left-leaning" (read: Democrat-supporting, which isn't quite the same thing) papers in the country helps explain why.
No, Obama Bucks aren't responsible for this perpetual symmetry. Much has already been said about this ridiculousness - including Diane Fedele's flat-out lie that she didn't intend KFC, watermelon, kool-aid and ribs as racist imagery - but what's incredible is the way the LA Times reports it. The second half of the headline is "while Democrats rib Palin." In the second half of the article, they say that "Obama supporters have been getting a bit naughty themselves," as if this is equivalent to essentially rousing a national lynch-mob.
False equivalencies are what keep Republicans from getting smothered by the hordes of poor and middle-class people who vote their way. It's become an unquestionable truth that our parties are symmetrical; that every bad move by the GOP supposedly has an equal by the Democrats. Each party is essentially seen to represent the status quo, which is somewhat true, but they're also both seen to be ideological representatives, which is less true (and directly contradicts the idea that they both represent the status quo). Democrats are absolutely not "liberal" in the sense that Republicans are "conservatives."
We've forgotten what those ideological terms even refer to. We've gotten to a point where we can somehow believe the conceit that "elitists" of the left - not the Democratic party specifically, but the left - are going to raise poor people's taxes. In other words, we somehow believe that the ideological position that by definition opposes the status quo is going to reinforce it.
Some of us only see "liberal" and "conservative" as defined by the differences between Democrats and Republicans - effectively the difference between a hybrid Escalade and a normal one (a difference real enough to be worth voting, but slim enough to be significantly weaker than portrayed). This is reinforced every time a mainstream media outlet uses "on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand" reporting; every time David Frum spews out logical garbage like this. We're letting ourselves think that Obama's subtle jabs at McCain's old age are equal to McCain riling up his base and letting them run amok. Nobody's going to assassinate McCain because they don't like how old he is.
When Michael Moore said that he thinks most Americans are liberal, I don't think it was too hard to understand what he meant. When you listen to a lot of Republican voters, they're not always talking about law and order or fears about subversion. They often complain about the intrusion of government, taxes, gun control, or anti-smoking laws. They're complaining about the Man.
We just don't know who "the Man" really is.
10 October 2008
08 October 2008
"Who's Watching the Watchmen?"
[EDIT: Boy, is it nice to be wrong. I like to think of myself as a political version of a Lions fan - with a 14-point lead and a minute to go, we'd still expect them to lose.]
The people running the McCain campaign are political geniuses. No one knows how America's going to vote better than they do.
Consider what we've seen in the Justice Department recently; consider eight years of dominance by one party over appointed positions.
Now consider this:
"FBI looks into possible Va. voter intimidation"
A little bit about Diebold, whose ATMs I sadly use...
"Voter Caging" (And you thought it was just an innocent slip of the tongue when McCain addressed "my fellow prisoners!")
"Battleground States See Pervasive Effort to Block the Vote"
"Ohio Republicans Use Lawsuit to Fight for State's Crucial Votes"
"Michigan Democrats file lawsuit against Macomb Co. GOP"
So who's ready for posters to pop up in black neighborhoods - from anonymous sources, naturally - providing the wrong date for the election [EDIT: Who called it?], or suggesting that any outstanding fines (such as money owed for traffic tickets) will get you arrested at the polls? Who's ready for a repeat of the shredded registrations debacle from 04? Who's ready for epic, discouraging lines (that remain hours long until the moment the polls close) to vote in poor neighborhoods, while wealthier districts have surplus machines sitting in storage (another 04 story)?
Who's ready for a super-narrow, one-digit-margin victory for President John McCain?
The people running the McCain campaign are political geniuses. No one knows how America's going to vote better than they do.
Consider what we've seen in the Justice Department recently; consider eight years of dominance by one party over appointed positions.
Now consider this:
"FBI looks into possible Va. voter intimidation"
A little bit about Diebold, whose ATMs I sadly use...
"Voter Caging" (And you thought it was just an innocent slip of the tongue when McCain addressed "my fellow prisoners!")
"Battleground States See Pervasive Effort to Block the Vote"
"Ohio Republicans Use Lawsuit to Fight for State's Crucial Votes"
"Michigan Democrats file lawsuit against Macomb Co. GOP"
So who's ready for posters to pop up in black neighborhoods - from anonymous sources, naturally - providing the wrong date for the election [EDIT: Who called it?], or suggesting that any outstanding fines (such as money owed for traffic tickets) will get you arrested at the polls? Who's ready for a repeat of the shredded registrations debacle from 04? Who's ready for epic, discouraging lines (that remain hours long until the moment the polls close) to vote in poor neighborhoods, while wealthier districts have surplus machines sitting in storage (another 04 story)?
Who's ready for a super-narrow, one-digit-margin victory for President John McCain?
30 September 2008
That's the Way the Ball Bounces
To everyone who's called on the American people to make a sacrifice,
to everyone who's bemoaned our decadent and soft lifestyle,
to everyone who's lamented that today's children haven't faced real hardship,
here's what you've been waiting for.
I expect shortly to discover just what I've been taking for granted. It will be a growth experience, I'm sure.
Either that, or it will all have been an embarrassing false alarm. Right? That could still happen, couldn't it?
A Mark Hunter wrote in to the Detroit News, saying "I keep waiting for Orson Welles to appear, explaining that, like the fictitious 1938 'War of the Worlds' radio broadcast, this financial calamity is pure fiction."
I think that's wishful thinking.
to everyone who's bemoaned our decadent and soft lifestyle,
to everyone who's lamented that today's children haven't faced real hardship,
here's what you've been waiting for.
I expect shortly to discover just what I've been taking for granted. It will be a growth experience, I'm sure.
Either that, or it will all have been an embarrassing false alarm. Right? That could still happen, couldn't it?
A Mark Hunter wrote in to the Detroit News, saying "I keep waiting for Orson Welles to appear, explaining that, like the fictitious 1938 'War of the Worlds' radio broadcast, this financial calamity is pure fiction."
I think that's wishful thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
