So, as the election screamed down the rails like Ozzy Osbourne's Crazy Train, not to mention the economy doing an imitation of the Hindenburg, we were all left with a little excess stress. And if you're like me, one way to deal with all of that is to escape into the world of books. Our loyal readers will know I like Sci-Fi, and the last three books I finished were all on the short list for the Hugos and Nebulas this past year. (The Sci-Fi equivalents of the Oscars/Pulitzers/whatever). Despite theoretically sharing a common genre, it'd be hard to find three books that are more different. I thoroughly enjoyed all of them, and wanted to bring you my recommendations...
The Yiddish Policeman's Union by Michael Chabon
This book is the most recent winner of Sci-Fi's highest annual honor, the Hugo Award for Best Novel. Chabon is one of American literature's brightest young turks, and in this book he's created something so unique that one wonders where he possibly could have gotten his ideas from. The most basic description for it is a noir set in an alternate history, though that doesn't quite do it justice. The story is set in the year 2008, in a district of Alaska specially set aside for Jews. The main language is yiddish, and the capital is the burgeoning metropolis of Sitka, with a population in the millions. Apparently there was an actual historical movement to do just this following the end of World War II, as opposed to, say, the creation of Israel, but it was scuttled by a congressman from Alaska. The novel diverges from our history simply by having said congressman get hit by a car.
Our protagonist is a down-on-his-luck detective, determined to investigate the murder of a heroin addict believed by some orthodox jews to have been a potential messiah despite the impending "reversion" of the District of Sitka to the United States (think of the situation with Hong Kong and China). His world is a cold, rainy place, populated by beautifully sketched characters and conspiracies. The real treat in the novel is Chabon's facility with language, which can make a strange kind of poetry out of descriptions of an old man's coat or a warm doughnut. Great stuff.
Calculating God by Robert J. Sawyer
Unless you count Margaret Atwood, whose occasional forays into the genre have resulted in such classics as The Handmaid's Tale, Robert J. Sawyer is probably Canada's most successful Sci-Fi author. He writes hard science fiction, but general comes at things from an anthropological angle rather than one of physics, which makes him harder to categorize. His most famous work is probably his series that began with Hominids, in which scientists make contact with an alternate universe where Neanderthals became the dominant species of humanity.
Calculating God is obviously the work of the same author, though the storyline and the ideas set out are very different. The book begins, comical in its matter-of-factness, with the landing of an alien spaceship outside the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. An spider-like alien gets out, enters the museum, and asks if it could see a paleontologist. That paleontologist is the book's main character, and the book consists mostly of his internal debates and conversations with the alien, who is far more interested in scientific research than in meeting our leaders.
The twist is that the aliens, based on their observations of the universe, have come to the conclusion that science has proven the existence of God. Their observations of Earth only confirm this. The scientist is an atheist, and we discover he is dying of cancer. So the debates between the two, mostly regarding the nature of life and universe, take on an unusual, fascinating tone. The alien makes the scientific case for the existence of God, quoting statistics about the variance of constants, while the scientist makes the emotional, faith-based case against the existence of God. If there is a God who created the laws of physics, why would he create cancer? What possible being could morally justify so much suffering?
Despite the occasional bit of jargon, the book is one of the quickest, easiest reads I've come across in a while. It's hard to put my finger on why. It would have been easy for Sawyer to fall into the usual trap of Hard SF, to be distracted by the science at the expense of our own enjoyment of the story, but he avoids this with strong characterization, and a vivid depiction of the warm friendship that builds between the scientist and the alien. This is that rare specimen, alien who, without just being a human with pointy ears, feels like a real "person". The book isn't perfect, and there's a totally unnecessary subplot involving terrorists targeting fossils, but it was one of my favorite random finds in a long time.
Halting State by Charles Stross
Charles Stross is a British writer who has a way of making made-up technojargon sound like good, smooth writing. How he does this I have no idea, but I think it has something to do with strong characterization and not being afraid to make bold stylistic choices. Halting State is a lot of things, but one thing it's not is simple to read. It jumps among a number of characters, all the while being written in the second person, mixing a strong scottish brogue with internet-speak both real and imagined. How do you write in a scottish brogue? Again, I'm not really sure, but Stross definitely manages it. ("You cannae understand why the prize twat isna answering his IM") This is a story set circa 2020, and centering around the world of virtual reality gaming. Probably the main through-line is provided by a detective who is assigned to investigate a seemingly impossible bank robbery with real-world implications carried out in a sort of next-gen "World of Warcraft" by a band of orcs "with a dragon along for fire support." Science Fiction was slow discovering the internet, but between this book and others like last year's tremendous Hugo winner, Rainbow's End by Vernor Vinge, the the web is building up its own field of SF lit. It's about time.
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Friday, November 7, 2008
We're Back, Baby
So... Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States of America. He won somewhere north of 370 electoral votes, including pretty much every swing state with the exception of Missouri. He won in places like Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, and Colorado. It was an historic moment, one of the greatest I have been a part of in my adult life. People stopped in the street, dancing, singing, and hugging total strangers. I have never seen anything like it. I think it surprised even Obama's biggest supporters, the level of emotional outpouring. It wasn't just history, it was us as a nation standing up and saying, no, this is who we are, we're not going to spiral into oblivion. I have never been prouder to be an American.
Life goes on. Here's a story I haven't seen elsewhere: There has been a major cholera outbreak on the campus of China's Hainan University, and it's resulted in the gradual breakdown of civilization. Though cholera can be treated with a three-day course of treatment and is no longer considered fatal in developing countries, the Chinese government has quarantined the campus. Food is running out, and the military is trying and failing to control the crowds. It's like a dry run for when the big epidemic hits. If the disease doesn't get you, the quarantine will. The media hasn't picked up this story, but one female student on campus has been writing a harrowing blog that is getting some attention on the net. Read about this here.
Life goes on. Here's a story I haven't seen elsewhere: There has been a major cholera outbreak on the campus of China's Hainan University, and it's resulted in the gradual breakdown of civilization. Though cholera can be treated with a three-day course of treatment and is no longer considered fatal in developing countries, the Chinese government has quarantined the campus. Food is running out, and the military is trying and failing to control the crowds. It's like a dry run for when the big epidemic hits. If the disease doesn't get you, the quarantine will. The media hasn't picked up this story, but one female student on campus has been writing a harrowing blog that is getting some attention on the net. Read about this here.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
And Now a Word from Our Sponsor
First of all, I want to apologize to my readers for the recent lack of posts. I have had no time to work on this lately for a mix of personal and work-related reasons. I work in politics, and this is prime time for us. It’s like working as a tax preparer the week leading up to April 15. You probably will not see posts in earnest as before until after this Tuesday.
This is a blog, not a diary, but I just wanted to say a few things. In today’s world, it’s easy to be overwhelmed. I know because I feel overwhelmed much of the time. We’re less than a week from an election that people on both sides seem to feel is of dire importance. I would say that the tension level of the average person is as high as I’ve seen it. We hear every day about people killing each other somewhere in the world, sometimes in our own cities. No matter if you’re candidate’s ten points up or ten points down, sometimes things can just seem hopeless. I received an e-mail today, in 2008, going on at length about how all of our problems in America are caused by “negroes” and arguing that we should send them back to Africa. It urged me to “pass this on to everyone you know!” And, to top it all off, tomorrow’s Halloween, and everyone I know is so busy preparing for the election on Tuesday that I have no plans. For the first time in my life, I don’t have a Halloween costume this year. So all in all, things seem pretty depressing.
What’s difficult to remember in all this is that we are here, on a planet full of dazzling love and beauty. Today when I walked to the bus stop, it was bitingly cold and the grass had all turned white overnight. The sky in the East was laced with lines of pink, a tone poem of color. And, as I walked, I watched flock after flock of birds fly out of the sunrise and over my head. They were huge, dense masses, with hundreds of birds packed tightly together. I’m not sure what species they were… they were very small, and beat their wings hard. And the last flock was the biggest. It stretched all the way across the sky from north to south. I watched it with my mouth open and my neck craned upward, until a car honked at me and I realized that the light had changed and I could cross the street.
And the greatest thing is, you never know when moments like that are going to come. I’ve found that when things look bleakest, the rays of sunshine stand out even more. Pleasant conversations with total strangers that you think about for hours afterward. An engrossing chapter of a book. A compliment from a friend. I think that there’s something in all this. I’m not a messiah or a great philosopher, and couldn’t tell you what, but we have to hold onto that something through everything else.
And, hey, if you’re a Phillies fan, and I know a few, you don’t need any of this. It can be easy to be jealous of someone else’s happiness, but sometimes it’s also good to get swept up in pure jubilation, whatever the source. A grown man running in from left field, jumping for joy like a little boy at accomplishing the dream of his life. We are here in a world where that happens every day, somewhere.
As a dying Rowena Allister might sternly order, “You… flowers.” “Watchers” fans will get that… I think they’re most of our readership, anyway. Anyway, I’ll see you all soon. Happy Halloween!
This is a blog, not a diary, but I just wanted to say a few things. In today’s world, it’s easy to be overwhelmed. I know because I feel overwhelmed much of the time. We’re less than a week from an election that people on both sides seem to feel is of dire importance. I would say that the tension level of the average person is as high as I’ve seen it. We hear every day about people killing each other somewhere in the world, sometimes in our own cities. No matter if you’re candidate’s ten points up or ten points down, sometimes things can just seem hopeless. I received an e-mail today, in 2008, going on at length about how all of our problems in America are caused by “negroes” and arguing that we should send them back to Africa. It urged me to “pass this on to everyone you know!” And, to top it all off, tomorrow’s Halloween, and everyone I know is so busy preparing for the election on Tuesday that I have no plans. For the first time in my life, I don’t have a Halloween costume this year. So all in all, things seem pretty depressing.
What’s difficult to remember in all this is that we are here, on a planet full of dazzling love and beauty. Today when I walked to the bus stop, it was bitingly cold and the grass had all turned white overnight. The sky in the East was laced with lines of pink, a tone poem of color. And, as I walked, I watched flock after flock of birds fly out of the sunrise and over my head. They were huge, dense masses, with hundreds of birds packed tightly together. I’m not sure what species they were… they were very small, and beat their wings hard. And the last flock was the biggest. It stretched all the way across the sky from north to south. I watched it with my mouth open and my neck craned upward, until a car honked at me and I realized that the light had changed and I could cross the street.
And the greatest thing is, you never know when moments like that are going to come. I’ve found that when things look bleakest, the rays of sunshine stand out even more. Pleasant conversations with total strangers that you think about for hours afterward. An engrossing chapter of a book. A compliment from a friend. I think that there’s something in all this. I’m not a messiah or a great philosopher, and couldn’t tell you what, but we have to hold onto that something through everything else.
And, hey, if you’re a Phillies fan, and I know a few, you don’t need any of this. It can be easy to be jealous of someone else’s happiness, but sometimes it’s also good to get swept up in pure jubilation, whatever the source. A grown man running in from left field, jumping for joy like a little boy at accomplishing the dream of his life. We are here in a world where that happens every day, somewhere.
As a dying Rowena Allister might sternly order, “You… flowers.” “Watchers” fans will get that… I think they’re most of our readership, anyway. Anyway, I’ll see you all soon. Happy Halloween!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Is Voter Fraud "Undermining the Fabric of our Democracy?"
In the last debate, Sen. John McCain's answer appears to have been yes. Republicans are up in arms over what they say is the potential for widespread "voter fraud," most evidenced by the activities of ACORN. The ACORN acronym has been thrown around in this election nearly as much as the name of Bill Ayers, but I doubt most Americans have taken the time to really find out what's going on. In truth, voter fraud is extremely rare in this country these days. What ACORN committed was voter registration fraud, which sounds the same but is extremely different in degree.
When Republicans say "voter fraud," they seem to be referring to some of the old-style techniques commonly thought to have been employed by the old political machines. Tammany Hall, the rulers of 1800s New York, used to take drunks off the street, dress them up nicely, and take them around from polling place to polling place, gradually changing their appearance as they went. This was before photo ID. You'll also often hear that President Kennedy beat Richard Nixon in 1960 because the Daley machine in Chicago counted votes from dead people. This is probably false, though it seems to have permanently entered American political lore (when Republicans accuse Obama of being a "Chicago politician," people are supposed to remember this). The key in both of these scenarios is that they involve people actually voting when they aren't supposed to.
ACORN stands for the American Community Organizations for Reform Now (Yes, Rudy, community organizers). It was founded in 1970 and since then has been an advocate and lobbying group for poor Americans. One of its many objectives is to register as many of the poor as possible to vote. In this particular election, what has come to light is that ACORN tried to accomplish two things at once by paying low-income individuals to register other low-income individuals. Unfortunately, in order to meet their quotas, some of these workers seem to have simply made up names and filled out the forms for those imaginary people. Some of these were extremely obvious frauds, such as "Batman" or "Tony Romo".
Now, this is of course illegal. ACORN immediately admitted that they had no good way of filtering out all of the fakes, since they're not the government, but also refused to simply throw out all the applications. So some fakes probably slipped through the cracks and actually ended up registered. But here's the thing: for this fraud to even start having an effect on the election, the fake people have to actually show up and vote. They have to show ID. Now, you can certainly fake an ID (just ask any 19-year-old college student), but for such a fraud to be widespread and organized, as the Republicans seem to suggest, there would have to be legions of people with valid fake IDs in the same identities that were registered. Since the fake names were blatantly made up by independent workers, this is not going to happen. A conspiracy in this manner would just not be practical.
In other words, in order for Batman being registered to really be a problem, Batman would have to actually show up and try to vote. One incident that happened in Illinois has gotten a lot of play in the media, where registration info was mailed to a dead pet goldfish. Illinois Republicans immediately claimed fraud. Not only would the fish have to actually appear and vote for this to be an issue, it wasn't registered in the first place... it was only sent information on how to register.
So really, Republican claims of fraud in this instance are just that... a fraud. They are an attempt to a) link Barack Obama to something that sounds like corruption, in the absence of actual corruption to link him to, and b) lay the groundwork for a possible challenge to the electoral results if necessary. Now, at the moment Obama seems to have a big lead in the polls, but if that tightens by election day, and I have little doubt that it will, we may see a long, drawn-out fight that Republicans have been preparing for some time now.
When Republicans say "voter fraud," they seem to be referring to some of the old-style techniques commonly thought to have been employed by the old political machines. Tammany Hall, the rulers of 1800s New York, used to take drunks off the street, dress them up nicely, and take them around from polling place to polling place, gradually changing their appearance as they went. This was before photo ID. You'll also often hear that President Kennedy beat Richard Nixon in 1960 because the Daley machine in Chicago counted votes from dead people. This is probably false, though it seems to have permanently entered American political lore (when Republicans accuse Obama of being a "Chicago politician," people are supposed to remember this). The key in both of these scenarios is that they involve people actually voting when they aren't supposed to.
ACORN stands for the American Community Organizations for Reform Now (Yes, Rudy, community organizers). It was founded in 1970 and since then has been an advocate and lobbying group for poor Americans. One of its many objectives is to register as many of the poor as possible to vote. In this particular election, what has come to light is that ACORN tried to accomplish two things at once by paying low-income individuals to register other low-income individuals. Unfortunately, in order to meet their quotas, some of these workers seem to have simply made up names and filled out the forms for those imaginary people. Some of these were extremely obvious frauds, such as "Batman" or "Tony Romo".
Now, this is of course illegal. ACORN immediately admitted that they had no good way of filtering out all of the fakes, since they're not the government, but also refused to simply throw out all the applications. So some fakes probably slipped through the cracks and actually ended up registered. But here's the thing: for this fraud to even start having an effect on the election, the fake people have to actually show up and vote. They have to show ID. Now, you can certainly fake an ID (just ask any 19-year-old college student), but for such a fraud to be widespread and organized, as the Republicans seem to suggest, there would have to be legions of people with valid fake IDs in the same identities that were registered. Since the fake names were blatantly made up by independent workers, this is not going to happen. A conspiracy in this manner would just not be practical.
In other words, in order for Batman being registered to really be a problem, Batman would have to actually show up and try to vote. One incident that happened in Illinois has gotten a lot of play in the media, where registration info was mailed to a dead pet goldfish. Illinois Republicans immediately claimed fraud. Not only would the fish have to actually appear and vote for this to be an issue, it wasn't registered in the first place... it was only sent information on how to register.
So really, Republican claims of fraud in this instance are just that... a fraud. They are an attempt to a) link Barack Obama to something that sounds like corruption, in the absence of actual corruption to link him to, and b) lay the groundwork for a possible challenge to the electoral results if necessary. Now, at the moment Obama seems to have a big lead in the polls, but if that tightens by election day, and I have little doubt that it will, we may see a long, drawn-out fight that Republicans have been preparing for some time now.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Bits: Wildflower Decapitation Edition
Awesome.-A video from a random episode of the old Batman series has been making the rounds of the YouTubes because it appears to offer commentary on the 2008 election... 40 years in advance. There are several parallels that can be seen in this clip alone, which features Batman and the Penguin engaging in a debate prior to an election for Mayor of Gotham City. Of course, this campaign has become such a caricature of itself that it's no wonder it reminds people of a campy 60s TV series.
-Unsettlingly, anecdotal evidence increasingly suggests that early voting sites across the country are being targeted by angry protestors, specifically anti-Obama protestors. This article describes an incident in North Carolina, and features video. So... you're protesting voting? Why not protest Obama by going into the early voting place and voting against him? And I especially like the comment that "Sundays are for church, not for voting"... by the person who's spending her Sunday protesting instead of in church.
-All over the news today... the discovery on the Arizona/Utah border (within Vermillion Cliffs National Monument) of what is being termed a "Dinosaur Dance Floor." How did it get this name? To quote Newswise.com:
“Get out there and try stepping in their footsteps, and you feel like you areThe find apparently includes thousands of dinosaur tracks in a very small area, in some places a dozen per square yard. There are least four different species represented. The scientists are theorizing that the tracks were formed at an oasis in what that time was a huge area of sand dunes, larger than today's Sahara. I have to throw in one more quote here:
playing the game ‘Dance Dance Revolution’ that teenagers dance on,” says
Marjorie Chan, professor and chair of geology and geophysics at the University
of Utah. “This kind of reminded me of that – a dinosaur dance floor – because
there are so many tracks and a variety of different tracks.”
Seiler envisions the dinosaurs were “happy to be at this place, having wanderedAh, yes, poetical scientists.
up and down many a sand dune, exhausted from the heat and the blowing sand,
relieved and happy to come to a place where there was water.”
-Rather interesting news from Switzerland today, a nation always on the cutting edge when it comes to government. A new law bans the humiliation of plants. Recently, the Swiss Parliament asked a special committee of philosophers, lawyers, geneticists, and theologians to determine the meaning of dignity as it pertains to plants. They have issued their report, which says that it is morally wrong to participate in "the decapitation of wildflowers at the roadside without rational reason", and it appears that parliament is acting on those guidelines. However, one wonders what the actual extent and/or enforceability of such a law would be. More here.
-Free TV On the Internet: Check out this past week's new Family Guy episode, "The Road to Germany". It's already infamous because it has Nazis wearing McCain/Palin buttons, which seems like an unlikely thing to have fixated upon in an episode that revolves around a port-a-potty time machine (which I suppose makes as much sense as a phone box) and a baby dressing up as Hitler.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Presidential Smackdown III: The Final Battle
The third Presidential Debate just finished at Hofstra University on Long Island. It was the most combative and personal of the debates, and I think certainly the best debate and the one most useful to the voter. Someone with a moderate level of skepticism and/or media literacy could gain from this debate a basic grasp of the contrast between the two candidates on a variety of issues, including energy policy, tax policy, trade policy, health care... the real substantive issues. There was also a long exchange about "negative campaigning," in which the debate moderator, CBS anchor Bob Schieffer, asked them if either of them would make the accusations they'd been making on the trail to each other's faces, something that has bothered me throughout and earned Schieffer my biggest cheer of the night.
The candidate story seemed to be that McCain was either "combative" or "feisty," depending on your point of view, and Obama was mostly playing defense, with a few very clear explanations on issues I hadn't heard from him on that I enjoyed but I'm not sure will go over soundbyte-conscious pundits. McCain's supporters have been asking him to really take it to Obama, and he did. (ACORN is fundamentally undermining American democracy? Really? But that's another post...) However, I think it might be a mistake for McCain to dial up the anger. He's been falling farther and farther behind the more angry he seems. He doesn't wear it well. So he's placed in the bad position of having to attack to make up ground but not coming off well when he attacks. Obama was cool and collected, and McCain was attacking and sometimes not very coherent.
Even MSNBC thinks McCain may have "won on points," and it's entirely possible he had good arguments. You'll notice here I'm talking about his presentation. It got to the point sometimes that I didn't know what he was getting at. He brought up "Joe the Plumber" at least 20 times (CNN was counting), and I'm not sure what he was getting at. We'll see if that resonated with people who, y'know, aren't me. But I want to go back to the presentation, because I think the policy speaks for itself and you can make your own decisions. More than pretty much any other debate I've ever seen, this debate was in split-screen. McCain seemed angry when Obama criticized him. Obama smiled and shook his head when McCain criticized him. That is a big difference.
People will remember the section on "negative campaigning." McCain spent a long time harping on Rep. John Lewis' recent comments, basically demanding an apology from Obama which he didn't get. Obama actually brought up the McCain supporters literally calling for his head, which surprised me, and McCain's response was basically, as far as I could tell, that some of his supporters were veterans. I think McCain didn't do himself favors in this section, despite the extremely vocal demands of his supporters.
So this is the last debate. If you're still undecided... who are you? Are you living under a rock? Or maybe you're like my dad, who spends weeks shopping around for the simplest items. The vote's in 19 days.
The candidate story seemed to be that McCain was either "combative" or "feisty," depending on your point of view, and Obama was mostly playing defense, with a few very clear explanations on issues I hadn't heard from him on that I enjoyed but I'm not sure will go over soundbyte-conscious pundits. McCain's supporters have been asking him to really take it to Obama, and he did. (ACORN is fundamentally undermining American democracy? Really? But that's another post...) However, I think it might be a mistake for McCain to dial up the anger. He's been falling farther and farther behind the more angry he seems. He doesn't wear it well. So he's placed in the bad position of having to attack to make up ground but not coming off well when he attacks. Obama was cool and collected, and McCain was attacking and sometimes not very coherent.
Even MSNBC thinks McCain may have "won on points," and it's entirely possible he had good arguments. You'll notice here I'm talking about his presentation. It got to the point sometimes that I didn't know what he was getting at. He brought up "Joe the Plumber" at least 20 times (CNN was counting), and I'm not sure what he was getting at. We'll see if that resonated with people who, y'know, aren't me. But I want to go back to the presentation, because I think the policy speaks for itself and you can make your own decisions. More than pretty much any other debate I've ever seen, this debate was in split-screen. McCain seemed angry when Obama criticized him. Obama smiled and shook his head when McCain criticized him. That is a big difference.
People will remember the section on "negative campaigning." McCain spent a long time harping on Rep. John Lewis' recent comments, basically demanding an apology from Obama which he didn't get. Obama actually brought up the McCain supporters literally calling for his head, which surprised me, and McCain's response was basically, as far as I could tell, that some of his supporters were veterans. I think McCain didn't do himself favors in this section, despite the extremely vocal demands of his supporters.
So this is the last debate. If you're still undecided... who are you? Are you living under a rock? Or maybe you're like my dad, who spends weeks shopping around for the simplest items. The vote's in 19 days.
You Missed Election Day
...In Canada. Yes, the Canadians held an election yesterday, and it seems that not even they cared. It was the lowest recorded voter turnout in Canadian history, at 59% or so. It was an election without many major issues. Polls put the economy at number one, but the worst of the global crisis has mostly passed over Canada, due to tight regulations already in place for the nation's financial industry. In the end, the Conservative Party gained seats but not enough for a clean majority, with a total of 143 Stephen Harper, extremely popular in Canada, will remain the nation's Prime Minister. The once-mighty Liberal Party lost substantially once again, being reduced to only 76 seats. There are also two other major parties, the separatist Bloc Quebecois, which stayed about the same with 50 seats, and the ultra-liberal New Democrats, who continued to gain strength and now have 38 seats.
The Liberal Party governed for 12 consecutive years (1993-2006), mostly under Jean Chretien, but in recent years have been hit by the so-called "Sponsorship Scandal", revolving around corruption and political favors among party members in Quebec. Also, during the 90s, the Canadian Right was split following the near-total collapse of the "Progressive Conservatives" in 1993, when that party went from the majority to having only 2 seats, and the far-right "Reform Party" emerged but was mainly limited to the western part of the country. The Reform Party was extremely controversial in Canada for its advocacy of positions associated with the modern American Republican party. It was openly Christian, anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, and also wanted to end the Canadian policy of bilingualism. Following a few unsucessful attempts at reunification, the Reform Party, "Conservative Alliance," and the vestiges of the Progressive Conservatives merged in 2003 under the more-moderate Harper and in 2006 gained a plurality.
This was an election, as stated earlier, that really failed to get going. Stephane Dion, the Liberal leader, was painted, seemingly succesfully, by Conservatives as a weak leader, a sort of Canadian Dan Quayle, and it seems he will soon be replaced. Many criticized Conservative policies, such as a $45 million dollar arts funding cut (can you imagine how low that would be on an American election agenda?), as well as Harper's seeming to take a "wait-and-see" approach to the economy. There was also a business about them trying to bribe a dying independent with life insurance that never really caught on. Other parties, especially the Bloc and NDP, were quick to declare victory at the end of the night because the Conservatives didn't have the majority they wanted, while some criticized the election itself as a wase of money.
Other interesting bits surroundng the Canadian election:
-The Green Party made waves, increasing its national vote totals substantially to around 6%, but failed to win a single seat. By contrast, the Bloc Quebecois had 10% of the national vote, but will have 50 seats. Green Party leader Elizabeth May was seen by many as having had the strongest showing in the debates, but lost to Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay in her own Nova Scotia riding. Many felt the Green Party helped take seats away from the Liberals in this election, in addition to the usual NDP cut.
-One issue that cropped up was a 2003 speech by then-Opposition Leader Harper, in which he called for Canada to send troops to Iraq. It was recently revealed to have been directly plagiarized from a speech by Australian Prime Minister Howard that was delivered only two days earlier. The staffer who supposedly wrote the speech ended up having to resign. It's interesting to point out that, though Harper is in power, he has thought better of sending a Canadian contingent to Iraq, as such as move would certainly be wildly unpopular in Canada.
-Chris Reid, a Conservative candidate in a Toronto district, dropped out of the election after statements on his blog gained media attention. The statements? That he wanted to legalize concealed carrying of handguns. In Canada, that's apparently so far outside the mainstream as to end Reid's political career. Here in Ohio, by the way, "Conceal/Carry" is legal, with a permit. A lack of success in Toronto, where Conservatives hold zero seats out of 22, ended up being a major piece in that party's failure to win a majority.
-Then there's the case of NDP candidate Andrew McKeever from Durham, Ontario. I'll just quote Wikipedia:
-More NDP... Julian West, the party's candidate in Saanich, BC, dropped off the ballot after details surfaced regarding his conduct at an "environmental event" 12 years ago, where he went skinny-dipping and then asked two teenagers to bodypaint him. This may be the first bodypainting scandal I have heard of in world politics.
-Independent candidate David Popsecu, running in Sudbury, was invesitgated for "hate speech" after he responded to a debate question about gay rights with "homosexuals should be executed."
The Liberal Party governed for 12 consecutive years (1993-2006), mostly under Jean Chretien, but in recent years have been hit by the so-called "Sponsorship Scandal", revolving around corruption and political favors among party members in Quebec. Also, during the 90s, the Canadian Right was split following the near-total collapse of the "Progressive Conservatives" in 1993, when that party went from the majority to having only 2 seats, and the far-right "Reform Party" emerged but was mainly limited to the western part of the country. The Reform Party was extremely controversial in Canada for its advocacy of positions associated with the modern American Republican party. It was openly Christian, anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, and also wanted to end the Canadian policy of bilingualism. Following a few unsucessful attempts at reunification, the Reform Party, "Conservative Alliance," and the vestiges of the Progressive Conservatives merged in 2003 under the more-moderate Harper and in 2006 gained a plurality.
This was an election, as stated earlier, that really failed to get going. Stephane Dion, the Liberal leader, was painted, seemingly succesfully, by Conservatives as a weak leader, a sort of Canadian Dan Quayle, and it seems he will soon be replaced. Many criticized Conservative policies, such as a $45 million dollar arts funding cut (can you imagine how low that would be on an American election agenda?), as well as Harper's seeming to take a "wait-and-see" approach to the economy. There was also a business about them trying to bribe a dying independent with life insurance that never really caught on. Other parties, especially the Bloc and NDP, were quick to declare victory at the end of the night because the Conservatives didn't have the majority they wanted, while some criticized the election itself as a wase of money.
Other interesting bits surroundng the Canadian election:
-The Green Party made waves, increasing its national vote totals substantially to around 6%, but failed to win a single seat. By contrast, the Bloc Quebecois had 10% of the national vote, but will have 50 seats. Green Party leader Elizabeth May was seen by many as having had the strongest showing in the debates, but lost to Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay in her own Nova Scotia riding. Many felt the Green Party helped take seats away from the Liberals in this election, in addition to the usual NDP cut.
-One issue that cropped up was a 2003 speech by then-Opposition Leader Harper, in which he called for Canada to send troops to Iraq. It was recently revealed to have been directly plagiarized from a speech by Australian Prime Minister Howard that was delivered only two days earlier. The staffer who supposedly wrote the speech ended up having to resign. It's interesting to point out that, though Harper is in power, he has thought better of sending a Canadian contingent to Iraq, as such as move would certainly be wildly unpopular in Canada.
-Chris Reid, a Conservative candidate in a Toronto district, dropped out of the election after statements on his blog gained media attention. The statements? That he wanted to legalize concealed carrying of handguns. In Canada, that's apparently so far outside the mainstream as to end Reid's political career. Here in Ohio, by the way, "Conceal/Carry" is legal, with a permit. A lack of success in Toronto, where Conservatives hold zero seats out of 22, ended up being a major piece in that party's failure to win a majority.
-Then there's the case of NDP candidate Andrew McKeever from Durham, Ontario. I'll just quote Wikipedia:
announced on October 3 that he would resign from the election campaign after it
was revealed that he had posted comments on Facebook in which he called one
war activist a “fascist bitch” and threatened to beat up another person. Mr.
McKeever wrote comments peppered with expletives and calling the operators of a
war resister website “Nazis.” McKeever was also quoted as saying “I like the
part in Schindler’s List when the guard starts waxing the prisoners.” McKeever’s
decision to drop out of the race came with just over a week left in the
campaign, meaning his name would remain on the ballot. One week before the
publication of McKeever's resignation, NDP leader Jack Layton defended McKeever
and refused to make him step down.
-More NDP... Julian West, the party's candidate in Saanich, BC, dropped off the ballot after details surfaced regarding his conduct at an "environmental event" 12 years ago, where he went skinny-dipping and then asked two teenagers to bodypaint him. This may be the first bodypainting scandal I have heard of in world politics.
-Independent candidate David Popsecu, running in Sudbury, was invesitgated for "hate speech" after he responded to a debate question about gay rights with "homosexuals should be executed."
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Movie Reviews for People Who Go to the Dollar Movies After Work: Swing Vote
I went to the discount theatre today with the vague intention of seeing Brendan Fraser's Journey to the Center of the Earth, but when I got there I decided to go with my gut and saw Swing Vote. This isn't a bad movie, necessarily. It's an okay movie stuck with Kevin Costner as its star, and that just brings down the whole proceeding. Costner has had good movies before, but even in them he was the stoic rock around which the action moved. Here he's just a dumbass, and the movie seems to think we like dumbasses because we're dumbasses, too.
Costner plays Ernest "Bud" Johnson, a drunk and a nobody. He's a single dad to a fifth-grade-or-so daughter who's much smarter than he deserves ("What do you want to be when you grow up?" "I go back and forth between veterinarian and chairman of the Fed."), making me seriously wonder how his sperm produced this bright little girl, especially when we later see her mother is even worse. Bud is the sort of guy who responds to his daughter telling him she registered him to vote through the mail with "That's just great. I could get jury duty now!" He seems to love her, but then forgets about her repeatedly. I hate Bud. Even when Bud is theoretically redeemed at the end, mostly by admitting that he's a dumbass, I still hated him.
Through some arbitrary plot mechanics that the movie knows better than to dwell on, an entire presidential election comes down to Bud's vote. The state of New Mexico is tied, and due to a voting machine malfunction that caused Bud's "vote" to not count (I'm gonna skip over a whole part here made more complicated than it needs to be, involving how Bud didn't really try to vote), he gets to re-vote ten days later. The global news media (Aaron Brown, Chris Matthews, Arianna Huffington, etc. all have extended cameos) descends upon Bud's tiny hometown of Texico, New Mexico, as do both candidates.
This is where the movie finds itself as much as it does. The candidates include the republican President Boone (Kelsey Grammer), and a democrat from Vermont named Donald Greenleaf (Dennis Hopper). Neither of these men is given much of personality, though Greenleaf, probably unintentionally, reminds viewers of John McCain. A lot. Maybe it was just me, I dunno. Anyway, both of them sycophantically try to please Bud in whatever way that they can, which Bud buys hook, line, and sinker but his daughter Molly immediately sees through. We also spend time with the candidate's advisors, with Stanley Tucci as the President's ruthless Rovian operative and Nathan Lane (perhaps the most restrained I've ever seen him) as an idealist democrat who is just so sick of losing it hurts.
The best parts of the movie come when the candidates fall all over each other in an attempt to conform to Bud's every whim, with the Republican coming out in favor of gay marriage and the Democrat denouncing abortion rights based on off-hand remarks. The campaign commercials in which they do so are absolutely hysterical. We also see each of the candidates questioning, in his own way, whether any of this is right, and how far he's willing to go. Though a bit earnest, all of that works. There's also a fairly worthless side plot involving a pretty hispanic reporter and her boss (George Lopez, who is totally pointless but at least doesn't have time to ruin the movie), but it's also fairly inoffensive.
Where the movie runs into trouble is in the relationship between Bud and his daughter, and the fact that it's front and center more than we really want it to be. Normally, I appreciate character development, but it just doesn't work. There's also a truly bizarre shaky-cam drama detour at the top of the third act that definitely didn't need to be there... it's as if the film-makers think it's the key incident in the film, but the audience just wants it to go away. In the end, Bud gives a long, vaguely poetic speech on national television that is Costner's best moment in the movie by far, but it doesn't feel earned and I was left wondering if we were supposed to think his daughter wrote it for him.
This is a movie with some thought behind it, that manages to comment on our system without seeming like a polemic for one side or the other. However, it runs into trouble trying to make those ideas into a movie. We're left with a comedy with many funny moments, but also moments like that when the Secretary of State and Attorney General of New Mexico show up at Bud's trailer to tell him about the situation. He assumes they're social services and pleads with them not to take his daughter away. I was left not sure whether this scene was supposed to be funny or not. And that's why this is definitely a dollar movie.
Costner plays Ernest "Bud" Johnson, a drunk and a nobody. He's a single dad to a fifth-grade-or-so daughter who's much smarter than he deserves ("What do you want to be when you grow up?" "I go back and forth between veterinarian and chairman of the Fed."), making me seriously wonder how his sperm produced this bright little girl, especially when we later see her mother is even worse. Bud is the sort of guy who responds to his daughter telling him she registered him to vote through the mail with "That's just great. I could get jury duty now!" He seems to love her, but then forgets about her repeatedly. I hate Bud. Even when Bud is theoretically redeemed at the end, mostly by admitting that he's a dumbass, I still hated him.
Through some arbitrary plot mechanics that the movie knows better than to dwell on, an entire presidential election comes down to Bud's vote. The state of New Mexico is tied, and due to a voting machine malfunction that caused Bud's "vote" to not count (I'm gonna skip over a whole part here made more complicated than it needs to be, involving how Bud didn't really try to vote), he gets to re-vote ten days later. The global news media (Aaron Brown, Chris Matthews, Arianna Huffington, etc. all have extended cameos) descends upon Bud's tiny hometown of Texico, New Mexico, as do both candidates.
This is where the movie finds itself as much as it does. The candidates include the republican President Boone (Kelsey Grammer), and a democrat from Vermont named Donald Greenleaf (Dennis Hopper). Neither of these men is given much of personality, though Greenleaf, probably unintentionally, reminds viewers of John McCain. A lot. Maybe it was just me, I dunno. Anyway, both of them sycophantically try to please Bud in whatever way that they can, which Bud buys hook, line, and sinker but his daughter Molly immediately sees through. We also spend time with the candidate's advisors, with Stanley Tucci as the President's ruthless Rovian operative and Nathan Lane (perhaps the most restrained I've ever seen him) as an idealist democrat who is just so sick of losing it hurts.
The best parts of the movie come when the candidates fall all over each other in an attempt to conform to Bud's every whim, with the Republican coming out in favor of gay marriage and the Democrat denouncing abortion rights based on off-hand remarks. The campaign commercials in which they do so are absolutely hysterical. We also see each of the candidates questioning, in his own way, whether any of this is right, and how far he's willing to go. Though a bit earnest, all of that works. There's also a fairly worthless side plot involving a pretty hispanic reporter and her boss (George Lopez, who is totally pointless but at least doesn't have time to ruin the movie), but it's also fairly inoffensive.
Where the movie runs into trouble is in the relationship between Bud and his daughter, and the fact that it's front and center more than we really want it to be. Normally, I appreciate character development, but it just doesn't work. There's also a truly bizarre shaky-cam drama detour at the top of the third act that definitely didn't need to be there... it's as if the film-makers think it's the key incident in the film, but the audience just wants it to go away. In the end, Bud gives a long, vaguely poetic speech on national television that is Costner's best moment in the movie by far, but it doesn't feel earned and I was left wondering if we were supposed to think his daughter wrote it for him.
This is a movie with some thought behind it, that manages to comment on our system without seeming like a polemic for one side or the other. However, it runs into trouble trying to make those ideas into a movie. We're left with a comedy with many funny moments, but also moments like that when the Secretary of State and Attorney General of New Mexico show up at Bud's trailer to tell him about the situation. He assumes they're social services and pleads with them not to take his daughter away. I was left not sure whether this scene was supposed to be funny or not. And that's why this is definitely a dollar movie.
MemeWatch: Republican Rage
Nearly every news outlet (except, of course, for FoxNews, which seems to be pre-occupied with the fact that Sarah Palin's face is too wrinkly on the latest cover of Newsweek) has run a story in the past few days about the rising level of anger at McCain campaign rallies. The McCain campaign has always had him asking things like "Who is the real Barack Obama?" but lately when the Senators pulls out that line he's been met with angry screams of "traitor," "terrorist," and even "kill him!" When he takes questions from the audience, as he often does, they have mostly turned into supporter after supporter begging him to "take it to" Obama. With Obama pulling away in the polls, the raw nerves of the Republican base are exposed, and they're showing up on primetime network news.
So, is all this overblown? And where is it coming from? Well, the answer to the first question is both "yes" and "no." Helpful, huh? The McCain campaign has no control over the fact that they're going to attract some crazies (just as Obama has no control over the far left's support). This is a situation that some on the right thought would never occur again, that they had built a permanent majority, so there's a level of anger. And it's true that Obama's a true liberal, something that hasn't been successful on the national stage since JFK, (I would argue that we've had several true conservatives) so that has led to the usual (in my opinion outdated) charges of "socialism." And that's fair game. If they want to talk about how "liberal," Obama is, as they did with Gore and Kerry, that's fine. And this is, of course, nothing new. Republicans did their best to imply that John Kerry was French because he liked windsurfing. I can't make something like that up.
The problem is two-fold. The tone with Kerry and Gore was more mocking (chants of "flip-flop, flip-flop"), but now it seems more like an angry mob, who if pointed in the right direction would be ready with a rope and tree branch. That may sound extreme, but I didn't make it up. It's being implied and outright stated across the left two thirds of the media spectrum, from Chris Matthews to David Gergen. And because Obama is Black, it adds a racial tinge to some of this stuff. The other issue is that people weren't seeing McCain and/or Palin doing anything about it. When you hear one of your supporters yell "kill him," about your opponent, something needs to be done about that. McCain started to do that a little yesterday, assuring a woman in his crowd that there was no need to be scared of the idea of Obama as president (after she said "I hear he's an arab."), but it should have been reflexive, and it obviously wasn't.
There is the perception that at least some of this has come from the official mouthpieces of the McCain campaign, which is interesting because it's a new twist (Bush denied all links to "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth"). They're running official ads about Bill Ayers, the Chicago politician, and Palin actually said in Florida this week that Obama "thinks this country is so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists." McCain's campaign has openly said that they're going negative in response to falling poll numbers. So it's a difference of source from previous years.
Here's a question that may or may not be relevant... will it work? I doubt it, and I'm normally a believer in the power of negative advertising. The Bill Ayers business doesn't hold up under any sort of scrutiny, and all it takes is a one sentence explanation ("So... you're blaming me for something that an acquaintance I hadn't met yet did when I was eight?") to make the Republicans look like they're making something out of nothing (which, of course, they are). Perhaps more importantly, the economy is such an overwhelming issue at this point that it's hard to take anything else seriously. And, as someone said on MSNBC's Hardball yesterday, "Most Americans today think the Weather Underground was a rock band fronted by Lou Reed."
I don't mean this as a partisan screed. McCain has tried to calm things down a little in the past few days, though it's mostly resulted in him appearing to be at odds with his base. Lately he's spending a lot of time looking surprised at how bad things have gotten. And this meme only hurts his campaign, no matter what they did to cause it. In any case, don't take my word for it. Here are articles from the past day or so from CNN, Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/10/obama-called-traitor-agai_n_133613.html), Talking Points Memo (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/bomb_obama.php), New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/politics/11campaign.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin) Yahoo! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_42;_ylt=Ak4Do42TCidwdG1eix_J5IJh24cA), and Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?last_story=/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/10/11/current_mccainsdishonest/).
Enjoy.
So, is all this overblown? And where is it coming from? Well, the answer to the first question is both "yes" and "no." Helpful, huh? The McCain campaign has no control over the fact that they're going to attract some crazies (just as Obama has no control over the far left's support). This is a situation that some on the right thought would never occur again, that they had built a permanent majority, so there's a level of anger. And it's true that Obama's a true liberal, something that hasn't been successful on the national stage since JFK, (I would argue that we've had several true conservatives) so that has led to the usual (in my opinion outdated) charges of "socialism." And that's fair game. If they want to talk about how "liberal," Obama is, as they did with Gore and Kerry, that's fine. And this is, of course, nothing new. Republicans did their best to imply that John Kerry was French because he liked windsurfing. I can't make something like that up.
The problem is two-fold. The tone with Kerry and Gore was more mocking (chants of "flip-flop, flip-flop"), but now it seems more like an angry mob, who if pointed in the right direction would be ready with a rope and tree branch. That may sound extreme, but I didn't make it up. It's being implied and outright stated across the left two thirds of the media spectrum, from Chris Matthews to David Gergen. And because Obama is Black, it adds a racial tinge to some of this stuff. The other issue is that people weren't seeing McCain and/or Palin doing anything about it. When you hear one of your supporters yell "kill him," about your opponent, something needs to be done about that. McCain started to do that a little yesterday, assuring a woman in his crowd that there was no need to be scared of the idea of Obama as president (after she said "I hear he's an arab."), but it should have been reflexive, and it obviously wasn't.
There is the perception that at least some of this has come from the official mouthpieces of the McCain campaign, which is interesting because it's a new twist (Bush denied all links to "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth"). They're running official ads about Bill Ayers, the Chicago politician, and Palin actually said in Florida this week that Obama "thinks this country is so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists." McCain's campaign has openly said that they're going negative in response to falling poll numbers. So it's a difference of source from previous years.
Here's a question that may or may not be relevant... will it work? I doubt it, and I'm normally a believer in the power of negative advertising. The Bill Ayers business doesn't hold up under any sort of scrutiny, and all it takes is a one sentence explanation ("So... you're blaming me for something that an acquaintance I hadn't met yet did when I was eight?") to make the Republicans look like they're making something out of nothing (which, of course, they are). Perhaps more importantly, the economy is such an overwhelming issue at this point that it's hard to take anything else seriously. And, as someone said on MSNBC's Hardball yesterday, "Most Americans today think the Weather Underground was a rock band fronted by Lou Reed."
I don't mean this as a partisan screed. McCain has tried to calm things down a little in the past few days, though it's mostly resulted in him appearing to be at odds with his base. Lately he's spending a lot of time looking surprised at how bad things have gotten. And this meme only hurts his campaign, no matter what they did to cause it. In any case, don't take my word for it. Here are articles from the past day or so from CNN, Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/10/obama-called-traitor-agai_n_133613.html), Talking Points Memo (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/bomb_obama.php), New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/politics/11campaign.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin) Yahoo! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_42;_ylt=Ak4Do42TCidwdG1eix_J5IJh24cA), and Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?last_story=/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/10/11/current_mccainsdishonest/).
Enjoy.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
MemeWatch: The Second Great Depression
Wherever we are in the world, the economy is obviously in rough shape. In America, polls of likely voters have 60% saying the economy is the most important issue when it comes to deciding who to vote for. In the 1992 election (where the private motto of Bill Clinton's victorious campaign was famously "It's the economy, stupid"), that number never rose above the low forties. With all that attention, the media is sitting up and taking notice. Everyone suddenly wants to hear what previously-boring people like Ben Bernanke and Warren Buffett think of the crisis. And the one question that always seems to be asked is: "Are we on the verge of another Great Depression?"
As I've talked about in previous posts, no matter how bad the current crisis gets, it will be very different from what we call the "Great Depression." Banks failed left and right, and since this was pre-FDIC, the money in those banks effectively ceased to exist. A third of America's wealth disappeared essentially overnight, which led to hardships not just here but across what was at that time a fledgling global economy. It's estimated that about 25% of the country was out of work. And the thing is, though there are specific benchmarks for a "recession," there aren't for a "Depression." It's simply defined as a "very severe recession."
I have very little feel for how it was viewed elsewhere, but the Depression is still seen as an extremely important period of American history. Many of our greatest literary classics date from this time. It changed the face of the country, permanently putting a fork in the rural society in favor of the urban and leading to a sustained phase of western migration. It was the depression, not motion pictures, that really made Los Angeles what it is today. Old institutions collapsed and new ones sprung up. Medicare, Social Security, and the SEC were all direct results of the Depression. The legacy of the Depression was the defining issue in this country, in one way or another, for decades (in my opinion this was followed by the Vietnam-era cultural split, of which this election may serve as the death knell).
So you see that the question of whether that time is back isn't picked out of thin air. Mostly those in power have been reticent to say we're heading towards "another Great Depression." More common is the idea that what we're experiencing is the worst crisis since the Great Depression, which is probably safer. That language has been used (independently, but the whole idea of memes is that it's not really independently) by both President Bush and Sen. Obama, Bush in a prime-time televised address to the nation. But what does that mean?
For the everyday citizen, the best way to look at this (since, as I said, we're not about to lose our savings like they did in 1929) is in terms of unemployment, and how hard it is to get a loan. We're not close to that 25% figure yet, but it's not as far away as we might believe. The official unemployment rate here in Ohio is currently 7.4%. But that doesn't mean that 93% of the population has a job. The unemployment rate only takes into account those who are physically able and currently looking for work. It also doesn't take into account the "underemployed." A year ago, I was making minimum wage working 8 hours a week. I would not have been considered unemployed, though you obviously can't make a living long term doing that. So estimates indicate that the "real" unemployment in this state is much closer to 15%. It's also becoming extremely difficult to get a loan. One example: auto sales (where most customers need loans) are down as much as 75% in the Cleveland area.
So here's the thing: the question isn't out of line, but I'm not sure it's helpful to our understanding of this issue. This is Earth 2.0, and conditions are so different from 1929 that it's comparing apples and oranges. Could you end up reasonably saying this is "as bad as" the Great Depression? Maybe, though it would just be your opinion. But one way I think the two may compare is in their far-reaching effects. What will be the Social Security-like structural change in our country that comes out of this crisis? That will be how its legacy is measured in the end.
As I've talked about in previous posts, no matter how bad the current crisis gets, it will be very different from what we call the "Great Depression." Banks failed left and right, and since this was pre-FDIC, the money in those banks effectively ceased to exist. A third of America's wealth disappeared essentially overnight, which led to hardships not just here but across what was at that time a fledgling global economy. It's estimated that about 25% of the country was out of work. And the thing is, though there are specific benchmarks for a "recession," there aren't for a "Depression." It's simply defined as a "very severe recession."
I have very little feel for how it was viewed elsewhere, but the Depression is still seen as an extremely important period of American history. Many of our greatest literary classics date from this time. It changed the face of the country, permanently putting a fork in the rural society in favor of the urban and leading to a sustained phase of western migration. It was the depression, not motion pictures, that really made Los Angeles what it is today. Old institutions collapsed and new ones sprung up. Medicare, Social Security, and the SEC were all direct results of the Depression. The legacy of the Depression was the defining issue in this country, in one way or another, for decades (in my opinion this was followed by the Vietnam-era cultural split, of which this election may serve as the death knell).
So you see that the question of whether that time is back isn't picked out of thin air. Mostly those in power have been reticent to say we're heading towards "another Great Depression." More common is the idea that what we're experiencing is the worst crisis since the Great Depression, which is probably safer. That language has been used (independently, but the whole idea of memes is that it's not really independently) by both President Bush and Sen. Obama, Bush in a prime-time televised address to the nation. But what does that mean?
For the everyday citizen, the best way to look at this (since, as I said, we're not about to lose our savings like they did in 1929) is in terms of unemployment, and how hard it is to get a loan. We're not close to that 25% figure yet, but it's not as far away as we might believe. The official unemployment rate here in Ohio is currently 7.4%. But that doesn't mean that 93% of the population has a job. The unemployment rate only takes into account those who are physically able and currently looking for work. It also doesn't take into account the "underemployed." A year ago, I was making minimum wage working 8 hours a week. I would not have been considered unemployed, though you obviously can't make a living long term doing that. So estimates indicate that the "real" unemployment in this state is much closer to 15%. It's also becoming extremely difficult to get a loan. One example: auto sales (where most customers need loans) are down as much as 75% in the Cleveland area.
So here's the thing: the question isn't out of line, but I'm not sure it's helpful to our understanding of this issue. This is Earth 2.0, and conditions are so different from 1929 that it's comparing apples and oranges. Could you end up reasonably saying this is "as bad as" the Great Depression? Maybe, though it would just be your opinion. But one way I think the two may compare is in their far-reaching effects. What will be the Social Security-like structural change in our country that comes out of this crisis? That will be how its legacy is measured in the end.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Presidential Smackdown II: Return of the Awkward Q & A
Some initial reactions on my part to the second Presidential debate, which just finished in Nashville, Tennessee. It wasn't real spectacular in any respect. After the two nationwide campaigns threatened to reach levels of animosity unprecedented in a mass media-era election this week, the debate was relatively free of that, on the surface, anyway. They clearly don't like each other, which is interesting on one level, I suppose. What we got, actually, was something approaching an actual, substantive debate.
These candidates have big differences on a lot of issues (which, after the looong primaries, is a bit refreshing), and they, for the most part, did their best to elucidate them. But there wasn't much new for those of us who've been paying attention, with the possible exception of McCain's poorly explained proposal about the government buying mortgages. Overall, things were just very stilted. Part of that was the format and rules, part of it was Brokaw's somewhat weird follow-up questions (which came off more as what one particular old guy was interested in than what the country wanted to hear) and part of it was the candidate's determination to stay relentlessly on-message. So, though we ask for substantive debates, we got one here and it was pretty boring.
The general media consensus is probably going to be that it was basically a tie, and a tie goes to Obama because he's ahead. I can't really dispute that in any way. I find it hypocritical that they can yell at each other day-in-day-out, and then show up and smile at each other. It's one of the things that drives me nuts about my day job, probably the biggest thing, because that's the fundamental disonnect in politics, and it bothers the crap out of me.
I feel like I'm not saying much, but neither did the candidates.
These candidates have big differences on a lot of issues (which, after the looong primaries, is a bit refreshing), and they, for the most part, did their best to elucidate them. But there wasn't much new for those of us who've been paying attention, with the possible exception of McCain's poorly explained proposal about the government buying mortgages. Overall, things were just very stilted. Part of that was the format and rules, part of it was Brokaw's somewhat weird follow-up questions (which came off more as what one particular old guy was interested in than what the country wanted to hear) and part of it was the candidate's determination to stay relentlessly on-message. So, though we ask for substantive debates, we got one here and it was pretty boring.
The general media consensus is probably going to be that it was basically a tie, and a tie goes to Obama because he's ahead. I can't really dispute that in any way. I find it hypocritical that they can yell at each other day-in-day-out, and then show up and smile at each other. It's one of the things that drives me nuts about my day job, probably the biggest thing, because that's the fundamental disonnect in politics, and it bothers the crap out of me.
I feel like I'm not saying much, but neither did the candidates.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Bits: Everything Sucks Edition
-The bailout approved by Congress last week appears to have done little in the short term to stop the current worldwide financial spiral, though expecting it to have done so may have been unreasonable. Stock markets around the world went sharply downhill Monday. In the US, the Dow Jones dropped below 10000 for the first time in years. In Iceland, the currency was down 7% and the economy appears to be on the verge of collapse. The Frankfurt markets hit the skids after the German government had to perform its own bailout of real estate firms. Russian stock indexes lost over 15% of their value. And so on.
-Here you can find an easy step-by-step process to construct your own "Egg of Time." "Look into its time vortex, and see all that was, and all that will be." Yes.
-Time has a list of words the dictionary is trying to get rid of to make room for 2,000 new words. I am a word geek, and had not heard of any of these.
-New polls from various sources have shown Sen. Barack Obama up in pretty much every swing state, including Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, and New Mexico. However, it's still a month until the election, and we have discussed the accuracy of polls on here before.
-Meanwhile, Cracked.com has come up with a list of 5 presidential elections that were dumber than this one (somehow). It's actually a really good read. I particularly like the caption under the pic of John Quincy Adams: "I'll kill your wife. I don't even care."
-In response to what it says is widespread piracy, Warner Bros. is trying a new tack in Korea... it's going to start releasing its movies online before they hit DVD. How that will help, I'm not totally sure, but it makes sense in other ways.
-The Tampa Bay Rays are in baseball's final four. Hell has told us that it will take more than this for it to freeze over. Hell is just stubborn that way. In other sports news, the Ferocious Walruses fantasy football team remains undefeated. Because I know you've been hanging on every play.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
John McCain Throws a Hail Mary
So, we find out John McCain is desperate. I didn't make this blog to be a political polemic, that wasn't really the point. But really, this is pretty much unheard of. Today he announced that he is suspending his campaign for President until the economic crisis is resolved. He wants to cancel the Presidential debate on Friday unless the proposed "bailout plan" (which I was originally planning on posting about) is passed, an eventuality that's looking increasingly unlikely (despite the White House's claims that it would be "unthinkable") since Congress has developed an inconvenient ability the past few days to think for itself. Obama's response?: "I think that one of the president's jobs will be to focus on more than one thing at once."
I don't really have a sense of what public reaction to this is going to be. The Debate Commission (theoretically unbiased, though notorious for excluding even vaguely-viable third-party candidates) says Friday's debate in Oxford, Mississippi (and why there, exactly?) will go on as scheduled. The McCain camp says it will not show up. President Bush went on TV a few minutes ago to say our "entire economy is at risk" because of this Wall Street business (the causes of that, as I mentioned, are probably another post). The proposed bailout (which both campaigns said tonight in a joint statement is "flawed") involves the Treasury Department and the only quasi-governmental Federal Reserve 700 Billion taxpayer dollars to such companies as AIG, Goldman Sachs, etc. in order to keep them remotely solvent. Some members of Congress (seemingly on both sides of the aisle) have balked at this for a variety of reasons, ranging from free-marketers who say government intervention in the economy is how we got into this mess (who are sort of right... if you look at it in a skewed way) to populists who believe that this would only "reward bad behavior" for overpaid CEOs, who would suffer no punishment for their gross mismanagement. And most prominently, $700 Billion is quite simply money we don't have when we're already grossly in debt.
I will try and post further updates on this situation as it develops. I personally believe this is McCain trying to manufacture what's known as an "October surprise" out of thin air, or thick air, anyway. The latest polls, for what they are, show Obama with a big lead in some key states and surprisingly pretty much tied in a few others that Republicans win most of the time, not to mention a lead nationally that is nearing double digit percentage points. In a third millenium election, that's a massive blowout. And the polls don't even take into account much of one of Obama's most solid voting blocks, voters under 26, because they only poll those with landlines. (i.e. if you only have a cell phone, presidential polls act like you don't exist).
McCain knows this. He's trying to change the game. I don't know if it'll work or not. It's probably worth a shot on his part, at any rate. Bush & Co. are trying the same fear-mongering tactics they used in the run-up to Iraq. Again, I'm not sure if it'll work... and the only reason I can even see for them to want to is because they're in deep with the Wall Street CEOs... but surely they're not that corrupt, are they? Oh, wait...
p.s. Not all our readers are (hopefully) American, so I thought I should explain the title... a Hail Mary's a play in American Football (the most complex strategy-based sport in the world, for my money, which is why I love it). More on THAT here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail_Mary_pass
I don't really have a sense of what public reaction to this is going to be. The Debate Commission (theoretically unbiased, though notorious for excluding even vaguely-viable third-party candidates) says Friday's debate in Oxford, Mississippi (and why there, exactly?) will go on as scheduled. The McCain camp says it will not show up. President Bush went on TV a few minutes ago to say our "entire economy is at risk" because of this Wall Street business (the causes of that, as I mentioned, are probably another post). The proposed bailout (which both campaigns said tonight in a joint statement is "flawed") involves the Treasury Department and the only quasi-governmental Federal Reserve 700 Billion taxpayer dollars to such companies as AIG, Goldman Sachs, etc. in order to keep them remotely solvent. Some members of Congress (seemingly on both sides of the aisle) have balked at this for a variety of reasons, ranging from free-marketers who say government intervention in the economy is how we got into this mess (who are sort of right... if you look at it in a skewed way) to populists who believe that this would only "reward bad behavior" for overpaid CEOs, who would suffer no punishment for their gross mismanagement. And most prominently, $700 Billion is quite simply money we don't have when we're already grossly in debt.
I will try and post further updates on this situation as it develops. I personally believe this is McCain trying to manufacture what's known as an "October surprise" out of thin air, or thick air, anyway. The latest polls, for what they are, show Obama with a big lead in some key states and surprisingly pretty much tied in a few others that Republicans win most of the time, not to mention a lead nationally that is nearing double digit percentage points. In a third millenium election, that's a massive blowout. And the polls don't even take into account much of one of Obama's most solid voting blocks, voters under 26, because they only poll those with landlines. (i.e. if you only have a cell phone, presidential polls act like you don't exist).
McCain knows this. He's trying to change the game. I don't know if it'll work or not. It's probably worth a shot on his part, at any rate. Bush & Co. are trying the same fear-mongering tactics they used in the run-up to Iraq. Again, I'm not sure if it'll work... and the only reason I can even see for them to want to is because they're in deep with the Wall Street CEOs... but surely they're not that corrupt, are they? Oh, wait...
p.s. Not all our readers are (hopefully) American, so I thought I should explain the title... a Hail Mary's a play in American Football (the most complex strategy-based sport in the world, for my money, which is why I love it). More on THAT here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail_Mary_pass
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
