Today's Musical Selection: "A Little Less Conversation, A Little More Action" by Elvis Presley
Howdy, folks! I hope no one was unduly concerned about my absence on Friday. I tried to post something, but technical difficulties prevented me from accessing Blogger. (Surprise, surprise, right?) And yesterday I was busy getting my tail kicked by Papa Shaft at baseball. So today I offer you the musings I missed putting up on Friday. I'm sure you didn't miss them.
Let's start with a couple very intriguing tidbits posted by my man Frinklin. First up is his dissection of the prospective Barack Obama/Alan Keyes Senate race in Illinois. Frinklin's looking forward to the debate:
What does excite me is the idea that we could have a race between two
well-spoken, intelligent, rational men who occupy the polar opposites on most
issues. This possibility, the chance for reasonable and interesting political
discussion, especially during a Presidential campaign where it will be severely
lacking, is something this country would benefit from.
I agree with Frinklin on this, with a caveat. I agree that Keyes is intelligent and well-spoken, and seeing the very liberal Obama and the very conservative Keyes in debate should be worth box-seat prices to see. My only reservation about Keyes is that he's been known to be a little, well, flaky. Anyone remember the hunger strike he pulled to try to get in the debates during the '96 presidential primaries? Anyone remember the graphic abortion videos he used at his campaign stops, so graphic that even anti-abortion types were horrified? I was actually impressed by Keyes when I heard him speak: he made his points forcefully, thoughtfully and eloquently. But all the sideshow elements of his campaign eroded my respect for him. Now, if a demagogue like Al Sharpton can redeem his public perception by running a clean campaign once, then surely Keyes can do the same. But I'll always feel a bit uncomfortable about Keyes, just as I'll always feel uncomfortable about Sharpton.
About the carpetbagger element: Frinklin doesn't like it, and neither do I. I don't like that big names from other states can breeze in and stand for an available race. I didn't like it when Hillary did it (it felt like she was determined to get a Senate seat, and she was shopping for the best opportunity), and I don't like Keyes doing it. But it is permitted by the Constitution, and there's not much we can do about that. I do think it would be worth looking into an amendment.
Also via Frinklin, I learned of this petition, which I enthusiastically support. In fact, I think that anyone who refuses to sign this petition ought to be deported. It is that vital to the mission of our country. Sign it now! (It is not, incidentally, a tribute to the late Rick James. The petition was started before Mr. James' untimely demise. Also, the song referenced within it is by Parliament.)
Some random notes I've collected over the past few days:
- I watched both Kerry and Bush speak before the Unity minority journalists conference, and both of them were better than they have at times been. Kerry in particular is a lot better speaker than he has been previously. He's learning how to be warmer and more personal, being forceful without sounding arrogant. Granted, he was speaking before a reasonably sympathetic audience, but his previous style had a way of straining the sympathy of even sympathetic audiences. Now, he looks less stiff and more like he wants to be there. Very nice.
My only complaint is with his hand motions. He appears to have decided that whenever his lips are moving, his hands have to be too. Now, the motions themselves are fine: rounded and inclusive when appropriate, and strong when appropriate. But the constant gestures border on self-parody. It's as if he was mocking an advisor who told him to use his hands more. "Here, this enough for you?" Other than that, Kerry acquitted himself well.
Bush, too, I found less grating than I have in the past. The difference, I think, is that Bush knew the room wasn't with him, and he did a very poor job concealing his irritation with that fact. Ray Suarez asked Bush a question about Iraq, and the crowd applauded the question before Bush could even speak, which he hated. Suarez asked Bush for a specific timetable on leaving Iraq, a question which Bush was not likely to answer. He didn't, but before he didn't he launched into a lengthy complaint against journalists who badgered him for a date, then pummeled him when the date was not met. It was not an invalid complaint, but it sounded particularly soreheaded up there on the dais. And once he failed to provide a date, he turned to Suarez and smirked, "Nice try, Ray," which was just obnoxious. The great thing about being Bush, apparently, is that your base is so put out with journalists that you can taunt and sneer at them and not suffer any repercussions.
There was also the following sentence, which beggars belief:
We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be the struggle against
ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use
terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world.
This is an actual quote. I double-checked it here. He proceeded to explain that the difference between America and the terroists is that we have a conscience and they don't. Which might be true, but it doesn't explain why people of conscience in the Muslim world might feel at least a bit of fellow-feeling with the terrorists, and it doesn't explain where incidents like Abu Ghraib fit in our conception of conscience. (Remember Abu Ghraib?)
Another journalist named Roland Martin asked Bush whether he supported affirmative action. Bush replied as follows:
I support colleges affirmatively taking action to get more minorities in their
school.
Remind me again why Kerry is the one with the reputation for giving long-winded answers to simple questions.
- I also give Kerry credit for hitting Bush's foreign policy for lacking discipline and maturity. I like this line of attack, because it matches Bush strength for strength, and adds wisdom to strength. This appeal blunts the force of Bush's machismo, and makes it harder for Bush to pit this as a contest of strong vs. weak. He can still try, but he runs the risk of looking irresponsible.
- I was watching the History Channel the other day, and I saw a program on the history of gas stations in America. I was amazed by how much better gas stations used to be. Full service, free maps, certified clean restrooms, and beautiful architecture. (Seriously. Famous designers like Frank Lloyd Wright and Raymond Loewy were called on to design gas stations back in the day.) The difference is that, back then, gas stations felt they could attract customers by offering a better experience and better service. Now, of course, they compete strictly on price. And I think, as a country, we're poorer for it. Oddly enough, the richer we've become, the more obsessed with money we are.
I shared these thoughts with Papa Shaft, and he suggested something I hadn't thought of. He pointed out that all that fancy service doesn't just cost money, it also takes time. "When I've got places to go, I don't want to waste valuable minutes hanging out at the gas station," he said. He's got an excellent point. We've fetishized time efficiency as much as saving money. And inevitably, efficiency and economy crowd out beauty and service. I, for one, am entirely sick of it.
- I saw a commercial for a Toyota pickup truck. Perhaps you've seen this series of commercials, in which Toyota pickups compete against human athletes in events like the long jump and the 100-meter dash. In this particular commercial, the Toyota pickup was playing baseball. The two teams were from El Camino and San Pedro, both of which are cities in California. The pickup in question was leading off first base for San Pedro. I was all set to change the channel when I saw the name of El Camino's pitcher, Matt Whisenant. Matt Whisenant?! Do they mean this Matt Whisenant? Ay caramba.
At any rate, enough rambling. See you... uh... tomorrow!
Posted by Fred at August 8, 2004 05:46 PM