Diatribune - Diatribe - Comments

Less than rosy discussion of

epppie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:37:03 -0600

Less than rosy discussion of pre-Gustav evacuation in New Orleans and lingering affects of Katrina on New Orleans:

http://www.zmag.org/zvideo/2821

Thank goodness for photoshop

epppie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:25:59 -0600

Thank goodness for photoshop - it made possible a picture that probably wouldn't have been possible any other way, I suspect.
There's something about the way the focus works there that is perfect, and I think what you are talking about, Angelides being slightly out of focus, but in focus too (sharpened by you) is part of what is so magically perfect about that picture!

As for beaming, it makes me beam - a really special work of art always does that to me!

I totally appreciate all

Jacob Freeze — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:18:51 -0600

I totally appreciate all your kind words. I'm beaming at the screen!

The depth of field looks greater than it really is, because the autofocus locked on the background, and Phil Angelides was slightly out of focus. I sharpened him up a little in Photoshop, and there wasn't a lot of detail to get lost... just a profile and a very basic dark suit.

The line in Palin's speech

epppie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:41:40 -0600

The line in Palin's speech that I found really chilling was the one where she said, her voice dripping with scorn, that Liberals want us to 'read rights to terrorists'.

So much for the Constitution...has it been officially repealed yet? They might as well, since they've now shredded two thirds of it.

Separation of Church and State
Three branches of government.
Warrants.
Free speech.
Free press.
No cruel and unusual punishment.
Habeas corpus.
Right to assemble.

...all are dead letters now.

Remember how scornfully Scalia talks about the theory of the "living constitution"? Well now we see why. For right wingers, the only good Constitution is a dead one.

What I find fascinating is

epppie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:36:16 -0600

What I find fascinating is the way the GOP has turned on a dime from mocking Kerry's war experience to building a campaign around McCain's.

Well, that and her speech

epppie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:28:17 -0600

Well, that and her speech was vile. In my opinion, anyway. America right or wrong stuff. But what I'm saying is that I suspect pollers aren't asking people whether they think Sarah Palin is well qualifed for the Oval Office, you know? It sounds like they are asking a very high school level question and getting a very high school level answer.

You may be right, I haven't

kerry — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:20:13 -0600

You may be right, I haven't been polled in a while. But, there has been a tremendous amount of press about her since her selection. Most of it did not paint a flattering picture of her with respect to her public service. I just don't understand how, with all of the information that is out there about her, she could have such a high favorability rating, regardless of how the question is framed.

I mean, I think polling is

epppie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:59:30 -0600

I mean, I think polling is done in a way that doesn't make sense. The ways questions are phrased routinely prejudice the answers. Or they are asked in a way that doesn't allow for meaningful answers. And look at the fact that they won't even poll on impeachment!

I think the Reagan

epppie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:57:45 -0600

I think the Reagan comparison is a good one. That's what I thought of too. As I understand it, she has a background in sports television, and with the underdog status the media handed her on a silver platter, and an adoring convention crowd, it was all too easy.

And I don't think it means anything. What I think is amazing is that McCain and Obama are viewed favorably, after months of scrutiny, by such a high percentage of the voters. But then again, what are supposed to say to such poll questions. "Grrr, no, I can't stand POWs!!!" "Grrr, no, I hate nice, young, well behaved black men!" "Grrr, no, I hate hockey moms!"

I wonder sometimes what the heck is wrong with polling these days.

Actually, I think no one in

epppie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:45:07 -0600

Actually, I think no one in the race has more demonstrated ability to build a national following and to build a movement than Nader. The whole consumer power movement has, to some extent, grown from his activities and organizational efforts. Let's not forget who this guy is - a pillar of the progressive movement, someone who would be remembered as a great reformer even if he'd never run for President. He has a resume no one else can touch.

That said, I have been puzzled by Nader's seeming unwillingness to build movement, in connection with his Presidential runs. And I agree with you that third party runs founder and falter when they are built strictly around a personality. On the other hand, there may be method in Nader's madness. Maybe, slowly but surely, he is inspiring a movement, a movement that doesn't need him n order to persist and to continue to evolve, precisely because while he is persuasive and even entertaining, in my opinion, he doesn't energize a crowd in the way we expect politicians to. See, in my opinion, that kind of crowd-rousing is sort of cheap, sort of cheerleader, pep-rally stuff. Palin's speech was the epitomy of that approach to oratory, but I see Kucinich's oratory as being along the same lines, only with more correct ideology and factology.

All the same, there is some justice to your points, as I understand it. I would put it this way; Nader needs to figure out a way to get himself over the ten percent threshold in the polls and do it soon. This is his third campaign. If he hasn't figured out a few ideas about how to do it by now, it's time for him to stop running and concentrate on movement building.

He has not in anyway

kerry — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:25:40 -0600

He has not in anyway demonstrated that he can build a national following. He has had ten years. He does not generate much enthusiasm or energy when he speaks and that matters. Did you see the speech Kucinich gave at the convention? I think he would have real appeal to the working class. But he would have to be committed to building a party rather than running for president. The reason third parties don't last in this country is that they are generally built around a person; T. Roosevelt, G. Wallace, R. Perot instead of a grassroots movement based on ideology. For a third party to be built and sustained it needs to be built from the ground up by organizing the working class with the sole intent of building a party not running for president. I just think that Kucinich is a better representative both in terms of ideology and delivery to do that if he was willing to seek something greater than himself.

I take your point about MLK,

epppie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:23:00 -0600

I take your point about MLK, but I do think he showed a lot more a lot earlier than Obama, and on top of that, I think Obama is 'evolving' in the WRONG direction. Of course, if we held every candidate to the MLK standard, we couldn't elect anybody, right?!
But the reason that it's fair to hold Obama to that standard, in my opinion, is that oratory is his claim to fame. And I just don't think he's got the chops. But, of course, it's a judgement that has a lot of subjectivity to it. On the other hand, I think it's quite possible to go through Obama's speeches and virtually diagram the oratorical techniques he uses, none of which (in my opinion) rise above pedestrian.

Honestly, I think the Paris Hilton comparison is valid. What has she got? A different look, right? A sort of Twiggy meets 90210 thing. In today's celebrity-driven world, that's often all that's needed to vault to the forefront. Do you remember the band Fine Young Cannibals? Do you remember their lead singer, who was of mixed race? There was a Rolling Stone cover with a picture of him and a headline stating that he represented the future - no doubt a true statement. I think that's what Obama's got. A different look and sound - it's not just that he's of mixed race, but it's also the way he blends cultures (not in a very authentic way, in my opinion, but that too is a judgement with a lot of subjectivity to it). He looks and sounds like the future. And that's fine.
But to have true impact, I think he'd have to find his own voice, so to speak, and I don't think he's done that.

And that's the point about oratory, as I look at it. You speak about the 'political realities' of who can be elected and who cannot. Well, I can't deny the strength of your point there. But political realities can change, and nothing does that like truly eloquent rhetoric, it seems to me. There is no better example than Lincoln. Obama likes to compare himself with Lincoln, but I don't think he's there yet. Perhaps he has Lincoln-esque potential.

Both are/were ambitious men. Both had/have a different look and sound. Lincoln - he was all frontier, in look and sound, but at the same time, he demonstrated tremendous depth of learning and originality of expression. This unexpected combination shook the nation.

The difference? As I see it, the difference is that Lincoln gave up on his ambition BEFORE he entered the most ambitous part of his career. He left politics and (apparently) only came back to hit because of his passion over the issue of slavery, and because events had brought the issue to a critical point.

If Obama does have Lincoln-esque potential, then it is so clouded by his Lincolnesque ambition that he cannot find his true voice, even though our times are surely as critical as the times Lincoln faced. My guess is that if Obama does have great potential, he'd have been better off taking a few hard defeats along the way, enough to set him back, to the point where he would have to figure out his real passion - an experience that arguably has done Gore some good.

Personally I don't think Obama has that kind of potential. But I'd love to be proven wrong.

Nader - he gives me hope. I think he speaks articulately and knowledgeably about the issues and has a strong grasp on at least some of the critical choices facing us today. Several years ago, I thought he was terribly vain and egotistical, but now I think he is straighforward and humble, though sure of himself. I wish he was more eloquent, but he DOES have higher than average eloquence, I think, and considering the dissatisfaction that polls seem to show in the people with both parties, he may have a real chance this year. In most years, things are kindof settled by now. But I think this year may be different.

I've been thinking that I'd

epppie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:57:45 -0600

I've been thinking that I'd like to see Kucinich get behind Nader. I think it would be consistent with his positions and could really help energize the Nader campaign. As I see it, the problem with Kucinich is that he's too comfortable as a Dem Party gadfly. Sooner or later both he and Ron Paul, if they are serious about the things they say, are just going to have to jump on the third party bandwagon, it seems to me.

What troubles you about Nader?

To me, what's especially

epppie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:52:55 -0600

To me, what's especially signifigant about the diversion of the Mount Whitney to Poti is that it deliberately creates a potential flashpoint. In the Cuba Missile Crisis, for example, the blockade of Cuba was a flashpoint; a scenario which forces potential conflict unless someone backs down. In the Cuban Missile crisis, the Soviets backed down and didn't attempt to cross the blockade. Blockading Iran would create a flashpoint.

The flashpoint here is that the Mount Whitney will be offloading cargo into a harbor controlled by Russia and the US has instructed Russian NOT to inspect that cargo. Russia can either back down or it can inspect the cargo, which will presumably lead to a conflict and an opportunity for an armed clash to break out.

There are different kinds of escalation. Sending warships is a huge escalation in one way, but not, in that Russia can choose to basically ignore the warships. Creating a flashpoint can be a less serious confrontation in a different way; in an immediate sense it's just some cargo, some trucks, and some soldiers. But in another sense, it is a far more serious escalation.

My guess is that Russia will let the cargo through and complain to the UN about the treaty violation. So I think they will sidestep the confrontation. But it remains signifigant that the administration has deliberately set up a flashpoint.

I appreciate the thoughtful

lyubansky — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:33:38 -0600

I appreciate the thoughtful comments, epppie. You make a number of good points, that Obama is no MLK among them. Of course, it took some time for King to grow into his status. Obama may yet do the same. I don't remember feeling that way about any other candidate. I agree that he has been gradually inching toward the Right, but I see that progression as arising out of political necessity. In the current zeitgeist, it doesn't seem like a true liberal candidate is electable. I don't see Obama ever joining the GOP, though, and I must confess that I find that blend of Black Preacher and Ivy League remarkably appealing.

I like Nader's politics, always have. If he had a legitimate chance at winning, I'd seriously considering voting for him. But he (unfortunately) does not, and this election, more than likely, is going to wind up being just as close as the last two. It would be very disappointing to me if we wind up with another Republican administration. It would be heartbreaking if that happened because a significant chunk of liberal voters decided to support a third candidate. But I also understand that real change doesn't happen on its own and admire you for following your vision.