http://www.seekingrelevance.typepad.com/
At the very least, the discussion needs to be held. I agree with a lot of the ideas above, especially for their aims. I have a couple of ideas that I will throw out in the coming days as well.
The temptation is to engage in a dissection of each idea, assessing their feasibility. I caution against that. As a country we are a extremely large focus group, and one that is directly impacted by the conclusions we make.
When I have led focus groups in the past, I have instructed the people in them to tell me what they want a piece of software or technological product to do. Do not worry about whether it is possible, assessment is another step in the process. It is usually the experts who end up telling others what is possible and impossible -- and they almost always err on the side of caution. I have never had a programmer look at a proposal that came out of a focus group and as a first instinct tell me that the task is doable. They do, however, in the end almost always get the task done.
Idealistic, unrealistic and naive ideas should be the goal. For they are our best and only antidote to the cynicism with which we are currently ruled.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Sullivan and Palin
Andrew Sullivan really had the right take on the Palin thing. It was an absurd choice, not worthy of being taken seriously. And this is where some journalists got it wrong, they insisted on looking it as a real choice. You could sense that most of them didn't believe it, but are so afraid of being outed as liberals, that they couldn't bring themselves to confront what was plainly evident. And even when they criticized her, they had to offer platitudes about how charming and charismatic she was.
What struck me initially was the arrogance with which she displayed her ignorance. Not a definition of charm in my dictionary. (If I don't see air quote ever again, it will be too soon) While Bush has displayed enough of this in the last eight years, he at least seems to know to keep his arrogance somewhat hidden. He only seems proud of his ignorance, rather then arrogant (that's as charitable as I can be). While he vastly overestimates himself, I think he has been around so many smart people, he may recognize that he is not quite there.
The rise of Bush seemed to come from the misguided notion that he would be fun to have a beer with. Sadly, I think the choice of Palin had more to do with feelings on parts of Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry that I would rather not discuss.
What struck me initially was the arrogance with which she displayed her ignorance. Not a definition of charm in my dictionary. (If I don't see air quote ever again, it will be too soon) While Bush has displayed enough of this in the last eight years, he at least seems to know to keep his arrogance somewhat hidden. He only seems proud of his ignorance, rather then arrogant (that's as charitable as I can be). While he vastly overestimates himself, I think he has been around so many smart people, he may recognize that he is not quite there.
The rise of Bush seemed to come from the misguided notion that he would be fun to have a beer with. Sadly, I think the choice of Palin had more to do with feelings on parts of Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry that I would rather not discuss.
Gladwell
Malcolm Gladwell is coming out with a new book, Outliers: the story of success.
I recently heard a talk of his about America's obsession with precociousness, not knowing that it was connected to a book. Now it makes sense that he would spend an hour and half talking about the subject. The talk -- as all of his are -- is enlightening. It breaks down myths that many of us have believed about prodigies like Mozart. If we think that he was writing beautiful music at five years old, we think that there is a way to teach others to do the same. Realizing that the original premise may be flawed, hopefully can alleviate some of the pressure that is applied on early success.
I recently heard a talk of his about America's obsession with precociousness, not knowing that it was connected to a book. Now it makes sense that he would spend an hour and half talking about the subject. The talk -- as all of his are -- is enlightening. It breaks down myths that many of us have believed about prodigies like Mozart. If we think that he was writing beautiful music at five years old, we think that there is a way to teach others to do the same. Realizing that the original premise may be flawed, hopefully can alleviate some of the pressure that is applied on early success.
Jeopardy anyone?
Who did not know that Africa was a continent?
Answer revealed in these links:
Sullivan I
Sullivan II
Now I do take these with a grain of salt, McCain staffers are going to see just how far they can stick the blade into her back. I am sure there will be exaggerated stories, but it is kinda fun to see some of this reported on FOX. Though they will probably get some of the best of this kind of thing because their sources with the McCain campaign are quite good.
Answer revealed in these links:
Sullivan I
Sullivan II
Now I do take these with a grain of salt, McCain staffers are going to see just how far they can stick the blade into her back. I am sure there will be exaggerated stories, but it is kinda fun to see some of this reported on FOX. Though they will probably get some of the best of this kind of thing because their sources with the McCain campaign are quite good.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Brown County Redux
Overheard at MSNBC (I'll never reveal my sources)
David G: I'm tempted to call Brown County for McCain
Chuck T: I don't know, the urban centers, Nashville and Helmsberg are always late with their numbers -- let's wait.
All I can say is, these guys are really on top of things.
David G: I'm tempted to call Brown County for McCain
Chuck T: I don't know, the urban centers, Nashville and Helmsberg are always late with their numbers -- let's wait.
All I can say is, these guys are really on top of things.
Brown County
For those most concerned about a certain county in southern Indiana --
Update: McCain up 2644 to 2615 67% reporting
Update: McCain is up 1512 to 1420 for Obama with 42% reporting.
Obama is up 1160 to 1087 with 33% counted.
A breakdown below for the politically inclined:
Bear Wallow: 3 McCain 2 Obama
Pike's Peak: 0 McCain 0 Obama
Gnaw Bone: 17 McCain 14.5 Obama
Oh No! Fruitdale in -- big for McCain 23 to 12 Obama
Update: McCain up 2644 to 2615 67% reporting
Update: McCain is up 1512 to 1420 for Obama with 42% reporting.
Obama is up 1160 to 1087 with 33% counted.
A breakdown below for the politically inclined:
Bear Wallow: 3 McCain 2 Obama
Pike's Peak: 0 McCain 0 Obama
Gnaw Bone: 17 McCain 14.5 Obama
Oh No! Fruitdale in -- big for McCain 23 to 12 Obama
Phillies
I listen to this podcast often when I go on my walks -- it is a sports show, that gets very good guests for something that is not broadcast anywhere. I subscribe via itunes.
This recent podcast from On the DL is a celebration of the Phillies victory in the World Series. I have never heard so much enthusiasm for a winning team. The host, Dan Levy keeps talking about how he has been crying every time he says the word parade, talking about how it is a privilege for a city to have a parade.
Most of the show is made up of him getting the reactions of various Phillie fans, most of whom are somewhat well known (Buzz Bissinger makes an appearance - without profanity). Some talk to Dan, others leave messages about what a Phillie victory means to them. I have never really heard anything quite like it. I'm a big sports fan, especially a Red Sox fan, but I am not sure I could work up a tear over their victories, unless some infield dirt hit me in the eye.
I am not making fun of this -- hey I listened for the whole hour and a half. I wouldn't necessarily recommend this podcast as an introduction to the show, though I do recommend it overall. It is very good, especially if you have an interest in sports media or sports blogging. Here is a link to the site.
This recent podcast from On the DL is a celebration of the Phillies victory in the World Series. I have never heard so much enthusiasm for a winning team. The host, Dan Levy keeps talking about how he has been crying every time he says the word parade, talking about how it is a privilege for a city to have a parade.
Most of the show is made up of him getting the reactions of various Phillie fans, most of whom are somewhat well known (Buzz Bissinger makes an appearance - without profanity). Some talk to Dan, others leave messages about what a Phillie victory means to them. I have never really heard anything quite like it. I'm a big sports fan, especially a Red Sox fan, but I am not sure I could work up a tear over their victories, unless some infield dirt hit me in the eye.
I am not making fun of this -- hey I listened for the whole hour and a half. I wouldn't necessarily recommend this podcast as an introduction to the show, though I do recommend it overall. It is very good, especially if you have an interest in sports media or sports blogging. Here is a link to the site.
Ebb and Flow
Karl Rove and Tom Delay wanted to transform this country into a "permanent republican majority," at least that is what they stated. Political power does not work that way.
Assume that in the 2004 election that they had won the presidency and every senate and house seat in Congress. Even if the Democratic party ceased to exist as a viable alternative, opposition would form within the Republican party, resulting in an opposition party.
By attempting to achieve such dominance, they did the nation the favor of ensuring their own demise. They telegraphed their intentions, revealing that they intended to rely on tactics that served the interest of their political party first. They spent their intellectual capital on pr and manipulation. While I realize that a tenant of their philosophy is that government essentially does not work, proving that point while one is in charge of that government is not a way to attain that "permanent majority."
I am thinking about this today because I think it is important to remember that just because you vote for someone, you do not have to be loyal to him or his party. You may like him or her, root for them, and be inspired by them, but be careful not to serve them or the parties that are a product of. I write this to remind myself to not fall into the trap that I think many supporters of Bush have fallen into to in the past eight years. They have played a game of twister to maintain that Bush and company are adherents to a conservative philosophy, letting him define their ideology -- in essence redefining the term ideology.
The parties ebb and flow, that is politics. If one party gets too powerful, it is by definition covering too much ground and bringing together too many coalitions. It is inevitable that those coalitions will break apart, redefining themselves in a different constituency, possibly within the opposition party. The best example I can think of is the Democratic party in the early sixties. It held both the biggest proponents of Civil Rights, as well as the most stalwart opponents. The evolution of that divergence is a much longer, more boring post, that I hopefully will never make. But it did lead to the redefinition of the party's that has largely held until today (maybe literally today, we'll see).
Assume that in the 2004 election that they had won the presidency and every senate and house seat in Congress. Even if the Democratic party ceased to exist as a viable alternative, opposition would form within the Republican party, resulting in an opposition party.
By attempting to achieve such dominance, they did the nation the favor of ensuring their own demise. They telegraphed their intentions, revealing that they intended to rely on tactics that served the interest of their political party first. They spent their intellectual capital on pr and manipulation. While I realize that a tenant of their philosophy is that government essentially does not work, proving that point while one is in charge of that government is not a way to attain that "permanent majority."
I am thinking about this today because I think it is important to remember that just because you vote for someone, you do not have to be loyal to him or his party. You may like him or her, root for them, and be inspired by them, but be careful not to serve them or the parties that are a product of. I write this to remind myself to not fall into the trap that I think many supporters of Bush have fallen into to in the past eight years. They have played a game of twister to maintain that Bush and company are adherents to a conservative philosophy, letting him define their ideology -- in essence redefining the term ideology.
The parties ebb and flow, that is politics. If one party gets too powerful, it is by definition covering too much ground and bringing together too many coalitions. It is inevitable that those coalitions will break apart, redefining themselves in a different constituency, possibly within the opposition party. The best example I can think of is the Democratic party in the early sixties. It held both the biggest proponents of Civil Rights, as well as the most stalwart opponents. The evolution of that divergence is a much longer, more boring post, that I hopefully will never make. But it did lead to the redefinition of the party's that has largely held until today (maybe literally today, we'll see).
Monday, November 3, 2008
Fear
I am so tired of fear. I am so tired of those who manipulate through fear.
My biggest gripe right now is that those who pose as the protectors against terrorism and terrorists actually sound like the most fearful people in the world. These are threats that we need to take seriously, but I can think of no less serious response then for those who aspire to power to play on a nations worst fears. Seriousness does not equal fear and fear does not equal seriousness.
This is perhaps the best point that Michael Moore makes in Bowling for Columbine, it is illustrated in this cartoon.
My biggest gripe right now is that those who pose as the protectors against terrorism and terrorists actually sound like the most fearful people in the world. These are threats that we need to take seriously, but I can think of no less serious response then for those who aspire to power to play on a nations worst fears. Seriousness does not equal fear and fear does not equal seriousness.
This is perhaps the best point that Michael Moore makes in Bowling for Columbine, it is illustrated in this cartoon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)