Tag Archives: america

state of the union: the game

Posted by —

0

Tonight is the State of the Union address, broadcast live on various channels at 9PM EST (#SOTU on twitter). I’m sure there are lots of serious ways to approach this hallowed speech, but I gotta admit, I loved John Parkinson’s “10 Things to Watch for in the State of the Union address” on ABC.com.

In case the speech itself isn’t enough fun for you, I thought I’d set out the rules to The State of the Union: The Game. It’s a game my brothers and I played last year. It’s easy, fun, and vegan-friendly.

Each person makes a list of 8 words he or she thinks the President is likely to use in the speech. You can pick phrases or single words, but you can’t pick words like “the” or “or.” Real words, people!

Each person compares their list with the other players’ lists. Similar to Scattegories, if more than one person has chosen a particular word or phrase, neither party gets credit for it. So if two people put “economy” on their list, neither of them get points for it, regardless of how many times Obama uses that word. (Also, if you picked questionable words–like “the” or “and”—the other players can decide you must eliminate those words from your list, and you don’t get to replace them.)

Then you watch the speech. Mark down every time a word or phrase on your list is spoken by the President in the text of the speech. At the end, the most points win. In the case of a tie, winners are determined by thumb wrestling.

This year, my words are:

(oh, wait, I won’t reveal that till later.)

not just anotherday in america

Posted by —

1

Here is an excerpt from the email I just got from Fight For the Future (one of the leading protesters against SOPA and PIPA) :

Hi everyone!

A big hurrah to you!!!!! We’ve won for now — SOPA and PIPA were dropped by Congress today — the votes we’ve been scrambling to mobilize against have been cancelled.

The largest online protest in history has fundamentally changed the game.  You were heard.

On January 18th, 13 million of us took the time to tell Congress to protect free speech rights on the internet… See the amazing numbers here…

The MPAA (the lobby for big movie studios which created these terrible bills) was shocked and seemingly humbled.  “‘This was a whole new different game all of a sudden,’ MPAA Chairman and former Senator Chris Dodd told the New York Times. ‘[PIPA and SOPA were] considered by many to be a slam dunk.’”

“’This is altogether a new effect,’ Mr. Dodd said, comparing the online movement to the Arab Spring. He could not remember seeing ‘an effort that was moving with this degree of support change this dramatically’ in the last four decades, he added.”

Tweet with us, shout on the internet with us, let’s celebrate: Round of applause to the 13 million people who stood up  - #PIPA and #SOPA are tabled 4 now. #13millionapplause

13 million strong,

Tiffiniy, Holmes, Joshua, Phil, CJ, Donny, Douglas, Nicholas, Dean, David S. and Moore… Fight for the Future!

P.S.  China’s internet censorship system reminds us why the fight for democratic principles is so important:

In the New Yorker:  “…After Chinese Web users got over the strangeness of hearing Americans debate the merits of screening the Web for objectionable content, they marvelled at the American response. Commentator Liu Qingyan wrote: ‘We should learn something from the way these American Internet companies protested against SOPA and PIPA. A free and democratic society depends on every one of us caring about politics and fighting for our rights. We will not achieve it by avoiding talk about politics.’”

I found another quote from the New York Times article (linked above) particularly striking. It is in regards to lobbyists:

By Mr. Dodd’s account, no Washington player can safely assume that a well-wired, heavily financed legislative program is safe from a sudden burst of Web-driven populism.

In my book, that is another huge win for the American people.

What can I say, Congress? We weren’t born in 1776 for nuthin. #booyah

a more fundamental equality

Posted by —

2

edit: the post below is what i wrote the other day and posted today (and then quickly took down–although if you subscribe, it probably made it to your email). then i saw Brooks’s article in the NYTimes today, and I thought maybe that would be an interesting tangent to my post. It might explain why I see in/equality the way I do. Take a look; it’s short, but incredibly thought-provoking—particularly if you have any interest in or fascination with the Occupy protests. Brooks, “The Wrong Inequality.”

Let it be known that I’m barely awake. I woke up this morning, and I was stumbling around, skimming the New York Times, when I came across Charles M. Blow’s article “America’s Exploding Pipe Dream.” Blow makes the claim that:

We have allowed a revolting level of income inequality to develop. We have watched as millions of our fellow countrymen have fallen into poverty.

I have to say—I have huge objections to this. I’m getting sick of all this talk about how the income inequality is some kind of betrayal of the American Dream, whether it’s in Blow’s article or the Occupy Wall Street chants, posters, and internet postings. And I object to the idea that this some kind of new phenomena; the implication that America was at one time on some  kind of path towards economic homogeneity.

There is nothing in American history that indicates income equality was ever a reality. It certainly wasn’t the situation during the time of the founding fathers. There was gross economic inequality at the time of the founding fathers—ridiculous in scale, actually. There were “free people” living as indentured servants, scrappy farmers in the middle colonies, and does the name John Hancock not ring a bell? Have you seen Monticello? Many of the founding fathers were hugely wealthy, and there was an enormous percent of the population who lived in abject poverty. Income equality, economic equality, was not the sort of liberty and equality the founding fathers were pursuing.

In fact, their vision was much, much higher. It was the idea that, despite all the difference in class and wealth (differences that the laws of England had made insurmountable; cf. primogeniture, entailed estates, etc.), there was a more fundamental equality among men. It was the idea that money was not what made us equal or unequal. Money was not was gave us the right to live and be governed freely. Money was the chain from which the founding fathers sought to sever the idea of liberty. A poor farmer had as much right to liberty as a wealthy merchant. Liberty was not something to be tied to economic status; it was something more inherent in man’s being. It was a created and inalienable right.

Certainly the new nation was formed with the idea that no man need be shackled to his father’s status; hard work and enterprise (and later education) were seen as opportunities men could seize to better themselves and their positions. The colonies were settled by opportunists and refugees; there is no doubt that the majority of people came expecting a better life in some way—and considering our capitalist start, it’s fair to assume that money played a big role in how they saw their betterment. However, what the new country promised wasn’t equal footing at the bank; it was the guarantee that the law would not prevent a man from being free, no matter what his income or position.*

The founding fathers had no intention of leveling the income/economic playing field in order to attain equality (most of them were part of the currently-so-hated 1%, as a matter of fact; I am willing to bet that they saw economic inequality as a fact of life).  Today’s view of things, particularly in Blow’s article, are a sad detraction from their vision and a discredit to the ideals that founded this nation.

*This post admittedly ignores, without condoning at all, the way that women, slaves, and minorities were viewed at the time. Obviously social equality had a long (long, LONG) way to go.

“What Happened to Obama’s Passion?”

Posted by —

2

This post is in response to a fascinating, thought-provoking, and (in many respects) spot-on op-ed in the nytimes.com: “What Happened to Obama’s Passion?” by Drew Westen (Aug. 6. 2011). Let me insert this disclaimer: this isn’t a personal rant against Obama. I’m a moderate Republican, but when Obama was elected, I had high hopes for him. I really hoped he could accomplish all that he said he would, and if he had done so, I would have been happy. I’m an American before I’m a Republican, and I try to keep a balanced approach when making up my mind about things. So this isn’t a witchhunt or an “I told you so” post — it’s merely a follow-up to an intelligent op-ed that caught my eye. The article raised some questions in my mind, and also echoed some questions that were already present.

Dr. Westen begins by explaining something that I’ve long believed but struggled to actually define. It was a nebulous feeling I had that I couldn’t quite describe, and I’m thrilled that other people have noticed too: that there is something wrong with Obama’s storytelling. The link between American politics and storytelling is utterly fascinating to me — I don’t know if such a link is present in all politics or just in ours, seeing as we are so clearly a nation of idealistic dreamers (even the most cynical among us, arguably, are steeped in disappointment at what they see in real life versus the stories of America we were told as schoolchildren). Anyway, I firmly believe in the good of storytelling, and even its necessity in politics and society. To quote Westen:

The stories our leaders tell us matter, probably almost as much as the stories our parents tell us as children, because they orient us to what is, what could be, and what should be; to the worldviews they hold and to the values they hold sacred.

The nebulous idea I’ve struggled to pinpoint, however, is Obama’s lack of storytelling. In Westen’s words:

When Barack Obama rose to the lectern on Inauguration Day, the nation was in tatters…In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and suffering, and that he would restore order and safety…But there was no story — and there has been none since…In contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that decision to the public — a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind it.

Yes. Exactly.

It seems that  Obama (and everyone else in government) doesn’t ever explain why the government is doing what it’s doing. I consider myself a moderately-educated person (college degree; literate; i try to keep up with the news and current events, etc.), and I can recall specific moments where I wished someone would explain the rationale of decisions made in Washington to me. I don’t believe in complete direct democracy (anymore than I believe in mayhem and panic) as an effective form of government, so I recognize the responsibility of my leaders to be “experts” in the field of governing (as it were), to make decisions with a finesse I don’t really have the time to develop. However, in this age of information some kind of balance must be struck. With data as wide-spread as it is, we form opinions about everything. And in the absence of reasonable, articulated explanations from the leaders themselves, we end up taking the scraps of sense that the media tosses down. And you know how much I trust, like, and respect the media.

(TANGENT: I’m reminded of a quote from The West Wing (I don’t have the actual citation; I’m sorry). C.J., the press secretary, is talking to Charlie, the president’s assistant.

C.J. Cregg: Everybody’s stupid in an election year, Charlie.
Charlie Young: No, everybody gets treated stupid in an election year, C.J.

Even not in election years, it seems. It seems that Washington doesn’t believe we deserve or need to be told the reasoning behind their decisions; that miscalculation is part of the reason that extremists like the Tea Party can rise to such heights. Fueled with more passion than reason now, and with no central story to guide them, Americans are left to steer off into the narrative that suits them best.)

Westen goes on to discuss why the president has left the nation in such a state:

The real conundrum is why the president seems so compelled to take both sides of every issue, encouraging voters to project whatever they want on him, and hoping they won’t realize which hand is holding the rabbit. That a large section of the country views him as a socialist while many in his own party are concluding that he does not share their values speaks volumes — but not the volumes his advisers are selling: that if you make both the right and left mad, you must be doing something right…The most charitable explanation is that he and his advisers have succumbed to a view of electoral success to which many Democrats succumb — that “centrist” voters like “centrist” politicians. Unfortunately, reality is more complicated. Centrist voters prefer honest politicians who help them solve their problems. A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history. Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted “present” (instead of “yea” or “nay”) 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.

I don’t often endorse an op-ed that is so biased towards the Democrat’s party, but I think Westen raises some points that are critical to our going-forward in American politics. Westen lays a lot of blame for the national woes at the GOP’s door, and I definitely don’t share the intensity of that view (in fact, on some points, I vehemently disagree with him). However, in light of Westen’s statements about the president’s failure to narrate properly, the role of narration in our politics, and the chaos this failure has caused, I highly recommend you read this piece. It may be that we need to re-address what we look for when we choose our leaders and what we expect them to recognize in us.

road trip(s?)

Posted by —

2

i used to have this Dream of road-tripping all across america, covering most of the states, stopping along the way at small towns and getting the inside scoop on the real america. something like a lewis and clark expedition, but with people as the focus. stopping in little cafes and diners, ice cream shops and grocery stores, parks and beaches, just to see who all i could meet. but lately i’ve started wondering if maybe one big trip isn’t the best way to go about it… like maybe it would be better to do a lot of mini-trips. then i can target specific areas and spend a little more time where i want to be. like iowa. during the caucus. i really, really want to be in iowa for the caucus next year. and i’d love to see charleston, sc for more than a day. gettysburg, montana, nashville, the blue ridge, the everglades, mount rushmore, and so on. so maybe smaller trips would be better… but they aren’t quite as dynamic… so then i thought, we ll, maybe i need two sepearate endeavors. one for the length and breadth of the experience: a train ride across america (i know i’ve talked about this before), with calcuated stops so it’s not just one long passive experience. and then a lot of little mini-trips to different parts of the country i’ve always wanted to see. long weekends and the like in new places. thoughts?

 

osama bin laden is dead

Posted by —

0

ok so i totally DO NOT appreciate the rest of tobin’s article, but here is one quote i DID really like (serves me right for quoting liberals, i know, i know ;)

Americans are united this morning by a sense that justice has finally been served. The killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan is not the end of America’s conflict with Islamist terrorism. But it proves that those who thought they could murder Americans with impunity they were wrong. Dead wrong. This was not the first time in our history that evildoers have made that mistake, but this long-awaited retribution illustrates that American resolve is alive and well. It is not just the idea that the man who plotted the 9/11 atrocities was hunted down yesterday that Americans are cheering. The chants of “USA! USA!” that are resounded at the White House and elsewhere—and repeated in homes throughout the country as the news spread—is a reaffirmation of our collective will to survive as a free nation. Those who hate that freedom did their worst and Americans not only survived, they triumphed. – Jeffrey S. Tobin, Commentary Magazine

i agree with that more than i can express. last night, in the flurry of tweets and facebook status updates, i found so many heartfelt thanks to our service men and women, sentiments of a unified nation, and blessings and gratefulness. i also found a few snarky comments about the GOP losing it, and Obama setting his political stage. i resent that. i think in that hour, regardless of who got the credit, it was a moment of triumph for Americans. why sully the accomplishment of those who completed this job–and of all those who tirelessly (and at so much cost to themselves) worked towards it for the past decade–with political barbs and snide comments? it was a moment to celebrate the resilience, determination, and strength of the american character–not a time to deride our future with political rhetoric. that time will, i know, come later. no need to rush it. really.

talking + listening

Posted by —

5

i read an article this morning in the nytimes (“Don’t Call Me, I Won’t Call You“) that discusses how most (many?) people today view the telephone. It made the point that, while we all have phones, one thing we don’t use them for as much is talking. We use them for data and the like for ourselves, and email and texting when we want to communicate. The article gives a rough overview of telephone history: that they were initially considered quite rude, and that now we seem to have come full-circle back to that belief. We email before we call, or at least text. I know I definitely do that; I have this fear that my call will be intrusive or interrupting something. And, actually, I know better than to call unless I have something super important or super quick (well not SUPER quick. Texting is for super quick things. Phone is for just-slightly-too-long-to-text-but-quick-enough-that-it-won’t-take-up-very-much-of-your-time-I-promise).

I also read an article (ok, well, I read the title and abstract) the other day that said blog usage was at an all-time high, that having a blog was a pretty standard M.O. for the average American (or something to that effect. Again, I read the title and abstract only). This fact makes me think that, as a culture, we have things we want to say. Why else would we all have blogs? There are things that interest us, that matter to us, things that we want to talk about, to throw out into the world.

So it seems that we want to talk… but we don’t want to force people to listen. And we want to listen to people when it’s convenient for us. As a society, have we forgotten the importance of talking and listening (in tandem; in a conversation)? We take the time to blog–and to read blogs. We chat, browse through facebook or flickr or whatever other sites you prefer. That indicates that we want to hear what other people are saying, just as we have things we want people to hear. Maybe we just stopped thinking they were important enough to ask someone to listen to. Life is legitimately busy–family, work, home, and all the extracurricular obligations are necessary, even priorities. Because we know how busy we are, we realize how busy other people also are. But I wonder if also, as a general trend, we’re so encased in our priorities that, for whatever reason, we forgot to include our voice as one of them.

I know how you’re doing based on your tweets or your status on facebook or something you wrote in your blog; even though I tell people we’re friends, I’ve neither seen nor spoken to you in years. If interrogated, I don’t know if I could actually tell someone how you were doing. “Keeping in touch” has become more of an itinerary checklist. I know where you live, your relationship status, I know where you are (thanks foursquare), and… you seem happy, yeah. Yup, we’re good friends.

I have this funny idea that maybe high society in the 1800s had the right idea. A few hours in the afternoon were dedicated to visiting. You just went around visiting people, calling on them in their homes. Everyone knew that that’s what happened during those hours; they were expecting visitors or they were out visiting themselves. So it wasn’t an intrusion. And you didn’t visit at other hours unless there was something urgent, important, or you were particularly close/family. It was a social structure that committed people to communicating with one another. And though the times have changed, and we have all kinds of things to help us communicate differently now (though no less legitimately; believe me. I LOVE technology. this is not a rant), maybe we need to remind ourselves to communicate–to talk and listen in real time–with other people. Just throwing the words out and waiting for someone to pick them, and picking up others’ words at our own leisure may not be enough. We may be robbing ourselves of one of our most fundamental abilities and needs–understanding and being understood.

[EDIT: I hope this post doesn't offend anyone. It really wasn't a criticism of any persons. It was more of a reflection on society as a whole, and I was using myself as my prime example. Plus, as usual, I really don't know what I'm talking about and shouldn't be taken too seriously. Ever.]