On a non-political note (ok, quick aside, I have to say, for the first time, I'm actually proud that I went to American University: Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama took place there (luckily, they've since re-named the pace, it's no longer the Adnan Koshoggi center), I suppose in part because JFK gave a somewhat famous speech there.)
But I digress . . .
I was reading the NYTimes yesterday (overpaid liberal that I am) and was reading an article written by Lenny Kravitz in which he wrote about his favorite new music artists and it hit me - again, the fundamental question is: how to choose?
We are living in a world of ubiquity. The constraints of the past have mainly been narrowed down to one: can you pay for it? If you have the money, you can get almost anything you want. Now comes the question: what do you want?
You can't google for it: that just helps you find things that already exist. You have to have it recommended to you. But who should you listen to?
I had a debate the other week with Lola's former bosses (used to run a jury consulting firm, now write the ethics column for Money magazine and who- in their spare time - review movies for the local paper) about the value of "experts". Does one require an expert to find something of value? What does an "expert" know about wine or art or food, really? Doesn't it depend on us as to whether or not we'll like it? I mean, sure, I liked "3:10 to Yuma" (ok, I loved it), but I also watch "The Last Dragon" whenever I get the chance. Is there anyone in the world who can tell me that they both have the same intrinsic value? It's more that they both have an appeal to me.
Would I recommend "3:10 to Yuma" to everyone? I don't know. What I loved about it was the underlying premise that (and here I quote another movie that I saw on the airplane) "the only force more powerful than a son's need to be adored by his father, is a father's need to be adored by his son." That's a message for me. Would a 20 year old get that? Doubtful. Does that make the movie better or worse? The movie is a vehicle of value only in that it connects with its audience. So, for me the value was there. The 20 year old may just have enjoyed the shooting. It's about the viewer not about the view.
So, what's my point?
My point is this: watch the web. It's coming (I'm sure some would say with Last.FM, Pandora, Yelp and even Delver (yes, there are dozens more) that it's here.) But the thing is this: right now, the democratization of reviews allows for a greater "wisdom of the crowds" view - which in theory gives a more balanced view of the product. But it's all still focused on the product, as if a restaurant were a stable thing. Will I like the restaurant is a better question, but still only part of it. Will I like this restaurant if I take a date there after a scary movie when it's raining outside? Now that's a question that I'd like the answer to.
(Of course the date would be Lola.)
But now we get into the question of identity (identities) on the web and in the world. Which is more than I can spend time on right now, as I'm supposed to be studying.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Elections and economy
Quick note on the democrats and then on to the republicans. If you haven't read them, you should look at the comments on the last post. I think Cindy has some very relevant points. However:
(1) in my viewing of the debates, I saw Barack being provoked and rising to the bait (note: Clinton's campaign even said that they though that Bill was was taking Barack "off message").
(2) I did not find Obama's wife's email compelling. I saw it being mentioned on the news in snippets and thought it would be informative for people to see the whole thing.
(3) I don't believe that Hillary stayed in the Senate because she made a commitment to the people of New York. I believe that she saw an unassailable lead by George Bush and decided to wait until the water was warmer (knowing that Chaney wouldn't be a contender for President.)
(4) The criticism of Barack's absenteeism is fair, but New York is falling apart as well (it's a national problem at this stage) and they've been left with one Senator as well.
As for Conor's comment. Will an idealist get eaten up by Washington? Actually, if he wins, I think it will send shockwaves through the Congress. If Hillary wins, it tells them that the voters can be convinced by means that they're familiar with. If Obama wins, it will scare the bejesus out of them, because 1 there are more people voting and 2 they're not voting out of fear or for name recognition.
Finally, I want to say this: one of the president's toughest jobs will be to restore America's place in the world. The mere election of Obama will go a long way to shaking some fundamentally held assumptions about America in the world. (And no, the election of Hillary will not.) It will fight the idea of a racist, fearful, inward people. The election of a woman is fairly well precedented event. The election of a minority is less so.
Now I've kind of been ignoring the republicans, because I am hoping they're unelectable. However, I just want to say: I find it funny that Romney is touting his economic knowledge after he told the people of Michigan that their automotive jobs will come back if he's president. If that's true, I guess we'll be moving back to Europe sooner than we thought.
I did want to go back to talking about something other than the elections, but that I think will have to wait for the next post.
(1) in my viewing of the debates, I saw Barack being provoked and rising to the bait (note: Clinton's campaign even said that they though that Bill was was taking Barack "off message").
(2) I did not find Obama's wife's email compelling. I saw it being mentioned on the news in snippets and thought it would be informative for people to see the whole thing.
(3) I don't believe that Hillary stayed in the Senate because she made a commitment to the people of New York. I believe that she saw an unassailable lead by George Bush and decided to wait until the water was warmer (knowing that Chaney wouldn't be a contender for President.)
(4) The criticism of Barack's absenteeism is fair, but New York is falling apart as well (it's a national problem at this stage) and they've been left with one Senator as well.
As for Conor's comment. Will an idealist get eaten up by Washington? Actually, if he wins, I think it will send shockwaves through the Congress. If Hillary wins, it tells them that the voters can be convinced by means that they're familiar with. If Obama wins, it will scare the bejesus out of them, because 1 there are more people voting and 2 they're not voting out of fear or for name recognition.
Finally, I want to say this: one of the president's toughest jobs will be to restore America's place in the world. The mere election of Obama will go a long way to shaking some fundamentally held assumptions about America in the world. (And no, the election of Hillary will not.) It will fight the idea of a racist, fearful, inward people. The election of a woman is fairly well precedented event. The election of a minority is less so.
Now I've kind of been ignoring the republicans, because I am hoping they're unelectable. However, I just want to say: I find it funny that Romney is touting his economic knowledge after he told the people of Michigan that their automotive jobs will come back if he's president. If that's true, I guess we'll be moving back to Europe sooner than we thought.
I did want to go back to talking about something other than the elections, but that I think will have to wait for the next post.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Who needs enemies?
So, a short word about the current state of the presidential campaign. I have to say that the Republican hate machine against Hillary put me in her corner a while back (though I have to admit the t-shirt with the eye, the heart, the picture of Hillary, the tree and the trebel cleff ("I love country music") was crude by clever) . I mean, you can tell something about the people who hate them.
But the last few weeks have really turned me off her. As you may or may not know, I was a Joe Biden supporter. I like Joe's understanding of International affairs and his view on the economy. But that's no longer a choice. So, as I look at the options before me, I consider: Obama, Clinton, Edwards (even Kucinic has left the stage, taking his hot wife away in his UFO).
Let's start with Edwards. As much as I liked his performance at the last debate ("How do these personal attacks help children or people without insurance?") and admire his passion - I have concerns about his ability to get anything done. He seems to have the impression that being "right" is enough. But - anarchist that I am - know enough to know that having the masses on your side may get you elected, but won't get laws passed.
Obama has risen in my estimation. He has shown intellect and passion and a desire (if not quite yet the proven ability - see next) to unite people. If people honestly believe that the country is in a hole after Bush's eight years of foreign and fiscal policy, do they think that we can get out of it through incremental measures? Can we get out the way we got in? Not to buy into the "Change" crap, but honestly, the world is different than 1992. The economy is different. International relationships are different. Interpersonal relationships are different. But politics isn't.
Except that I think Obama has the desire to tackle things differently. Not in a man of la mancha way, but in a profound and pragmatic way. Obama has the ability (which I think Edwards lacks) to convince everyone that his policies are winners. Since Americans love and follow a winner, I think he has the ability to change the way laws get made and to change the relationship between the government and the governed.
Except that now there's Hillary. Dragging down anyone who dares to get in her way. Where was she four years ago? If she's got 35 years of experience and Bush is so awful, why did she wait until 2008 to run? Now she's baiting Obama, forcing him down the path of politics as usual.
And maybe that's gonna happen anyway. Maybe when he got to be president, the overwhelming ugliness of bi-partisan behavior would kill all the dreams of better. Maybe Bill and Hillary think that they're saving us from ourselves. They certainly got creamed by the Republicans for the first two years of Bill's presidency.
But if you kill the dreams, you never have a chance of being better.
So, no. I can't support Hillary. The ugliness of her reaction when she lost Iowa. The arrogance of her tears (crying for the stupidity of people who didn't vote for her, couldn't they just see what was best for them). The ugliness of her lust for power. The pure Karl Rove-edness of South Carolina. (I'm putting Michelle Obama's letter below for those who haven't seen it.) You can't fix America's problems by being a liberal Bush. You've got to find a new way.
If she wins the nomination, I'm not sure that I could vote in November.
Or maybe I'll vote for Ralph Nader. Maybe it'll be time for a write in.
End Post
----------------------------
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: What we didn't expect
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:53:07 -0500
From: Michelle Obama
Reply-To: info@barackobama.com
To: Lola
Lola --
This Campaign Relies on You
We knew getting into this race that Barack would be competing with Senator Clinton and President Clinton at the same time.
We expected that Bill Clinton would tout his record from the nineties and talk about Hillary's role in his past success. That's a fair approach and a challenge we are prepared to face.
What we didn't expect, at least not from our fellow Democrats, are the win-at-all-costs tactics we've seen recently. We didn't expect misleading accusations that willfully distort Barack's record.
Barack Obama isn't relying on a former President of the United States to campaign for him.
He's relying on us -- you, me, and hundreds of thousands of people like us who are giving whatever they can afford to support this movement.
Please stand up in the face of these new attacks. Make your first online donation of $50 today and own a piece of this campaign:
*https://donate.barackobama.com/relyingonyou*
Barack's unwavering opposition to the war in Iraq, his outspoken support of women's rights, and his call for leadership that will transform our party and our country have all been mischaracterized in the past two weeks.
We've seen disingenuous attacks and smear tactics turn people off from the political process for too long, and enough is enough.
It's time for a change. It's time for a new kind of leadership and a new kind of politics in our party and in our country.
And while Senator Clinton has a former president in her corner, I'll put my faith in a movement of a whole lot of people who are ready for change.
South Carolina votes in 48 hours, and more than 20 states will make their voices heard in less than two weeks on February 5th. Now is the time for all of us to step up and take personal responsibility for making change happen.
Please make your first online donation of $50 now:
*https://donate.barackobama.com/relyingonyou*
Thank you,
Michelle
Donate
Paid for by Obama for America
But the last few weeks have really turned me off her. As you may or may not know, I was a Joe Biden supporter. I like Joe's understanding of International affairs and his view on the economy. But that's no longer a choice. So, as I look at the options before me, I consider: Obama, Clinton, Edwards (even Kucinic has left the stage, taking his hot wife away in his UFO).
Let's start with Edwards. As much as I liked his performance at the last debate ("How do these personal attacks help children or people without insurance?") and admire his passion - I have concerns about his ability to get anything done. He seems to have the impression that being "right" is enough. But - anarchist that I am - know enough to know that having the masses on your side may get you elected, but won't get laws passed.
Obama has risen in my estimation. He has shown intellect and passion and a desire (if not quite yet the proven ability - see next) to unite people. If people honestly believe that the country is in a hole after Bush's eight years of foreign and fiscal policy, do they think that we can get out of it through incremental measures? Can we get out the way we got in? Not to buy into the "Change" crap, but honestly, the world is different than 1992. The economy is different. International relationships are different. Interpersonal relationships are different. But politics isn't.
Except that I think Obama has the desire to tackle things differently. Not in a man of la mancha way, but in a profound and pragmatic way. Obama has the ability (which I think Edwards lacks) to convince everyone that his policies are winners. Since Americans love and follow a winner, I think he has the ability to change the way laws get made and to change the relationship between the government and the governed.
Except that now there's Hillary. Dragging down anyone who dares to get in her way. Where was she four years ago? If she's got 35 years of experience and Bush is so awful, why did she wait until 2008 to run? Now she's baiting Obama, forcing him down the path of politics as usual.
And maybe that's gonna happen anyway. Maybe when he got to be president, the overwhelming ugliness of bi-partisan behavior would kill all the dreams of better. Maybe Bill and Hillary think that they're saving us from ourselves. They certainly got creamed by the Republicans for the first two years of Bill's presidency.
But if you kill the dreams, you never have a chance of being better.
So, no. I can't support Hillary. The ugliness of her reaction when she lost Iowa. The arrogance of her tears (crying for the stupidity of people who didn't vote for her, couldn't they just see what was best for them). The ugliness of her lust for power. The pure Karl Rove-edness of South Carolina. (I'm putting Michelle Obama's letter below for those who haven't seen it.) You can't fix America's problems by being a liberal Bush. You've got to find a new way.
If she wins the nomination, I'm not sure that I could vote in November.
Or maybe I'll vote for Ralph Nader. Maybe it'll be time for a write in.
End Post
----------------------------
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: What we didn't expect
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:53:07 -0500
From: Michelle Obama
Reply-To: info@barackobama.com
To: Lola
Lola --
This Campaign Relies on You
We knew getting into this race that Barack would be competing with Senator Clinton and President Clinton at the same time.
We expected that Bill Clinton would tout his record from the nineties and talk about Hillary's role in his past success. That's a fair approach and a challenge we are prepared to face.
What we didn't expect, at least not from our fellow Democrats, are the win-at-all-costs tactics we've seen recently. We didn't expect misleading accusations that willfully distort Barack's record.
Barack Obama isn't relying on a former President of the United States to campaign for him.
He's relying on us -- you, me, and hundreds of thousands of people like us who are giving whatever they can afford to support this movement.
Please stand up in the face of these new attacks. Make your first online donation of $50 today and own a piece of this campaign:
*https://donate.barackobama.com/relyingonyou*
Barack's unwavering opposition to the war in Iraq, his outspoken support of women's rights, and his call for leadership that will transform our party and our country have all been mischaracterized in the past two weeks.
We've seen disingenuous attacks and smear tactics turn people off from the political process for too long, and enough is enough.
It's time for a change. It's time for a new kind of leadership and a new kind of politics in our party and in our country.
And while Senator Clinton has a former president in her corner, I'll put my faith in a movement of a whole lot of people who are ready for change.
South Carolina votes in 48 hours, and more than 20 states will make their voices heard in less than two weeks on February 5th. Now is the time for all of us to step up and take personal responsibility for making change happen.
Please make your first online donation of $50 now:
*https://donate.barackobama.com/relyingonyou*
Thank you,
Michelle
Donate
Paid for by Obama for America
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)