OK, I’m back. Had a lot of stuff to deal with. Pretty sure no one's still out there, but just in case, lets start off easy. I've put some previous vacation pictures up on flickr. These include photos from the last three New Orleans Jazz Festivals, and from my Montreal and San Diego trips from last year. I've labelled some, and will try as best I can to get to the others. As we go along, I'll try to put up even more pictures.
Now for tonight's madness.
Apparently you have to throw down on the Tyra Banks show if you want to be the first minority President of the United States.
No, really. While I was eating barbecue at lunch the other day, for some reason they had the "Tyra" show on, and Barack Obama was hawking his new book. At the end, Tyra announced that she wanted to see whether Obama “had game,” and made him start shooting baskets in a court set up in the studio. I could hardly believe it; it was like some sort of Dave Chappelle show version of a Tyra show. I and the other guy standing there watching laughed and said “that’s not a stereotype.” No kidding. I mean, why stop there? She could have Rudi Giuliani make pizza or arrange a mob hit. Hillary could bake cookies. Mitt Romney could have two or three weddings.
How did it come to this?
Americans want mutually exclusive things from their leaders. We want more government programs, but lower taxes. Less government intrusion into our own lives, but more government intrusion into other people's lives in the name of "safety." So its not surprising that we look for mutually exclusive qualities in our leaders. We ping-pong back and forth between a “man of the people” and a “great leader.” Ike was dull and safe, JFK was the Prince of Camelot. Ford/Carter (dull Ned Flanders types who couldn’t lead a camel to water) to Reagan (who definitely had the “vision thing”) to Bush (aristocratic holder of the longest government resume of all time) to Clinton (who felt our pain, as well as a host of chicks wearing too much Mary Kay and Spandex) to Bush 43.
This really begs the more important question of exactly how low do you have to sink to obtain the job that by definition makes you the most important person in the world? George Washington basically had to be talked into becoming President. Somewhere around the Andrew Jackson election the Era of Good Feelings ended, ushering in the Era of guys with cigars in back rooms picking the candidates. Back then, it really didn’t matter how personable or boring you were. All that mattered was whether the boys in the back room thought you’d play ball. Actual votes didn’t really matter. All you really had to do was get the county chairmen lined up behind you, and the vote count would always turn out right. That meant talentless moribund hacks could get elected, but so could true statesmen that may have lacked personality. This relatively efficient, if somewhat undemocratic, system lasted til around the Civil Rights era, when people actually started thinking their votes ought to count for something. More importantly, til Eugene McCarthy took a major bite out of LBJ in New Hampshire. The parties had to actually pay attention to voters.
Unfortunately, this also occurred right around the time TV began to take over the national conscience. Instead of just issuing some press statement that got summarized in the one or two local papers the next day (kids, a “newspaper” is, oh, never mind), people started expecting to see these people on TV. Its one thing to read something someone says, its entirely another thing to watch him (or, now, her) saying it. Just like any other type of communication, people pay just as much if not more attention to personality, body language, style, and appearance as to the actual message being communicated. So you get the spectre of Nixon winning the debate on radio, but Kennedy winning on TV (and of course having his dad and Mayor Daley buy the Illinois election, after having first bought the West Virginia primary to get rid of Humphrey). Candidates had to try to go beyond just having sound policies, and had to “connect” with voters on a personal level, although for the most part they wound up coming off like your Uncle Morty.
But even during the first 25 years or so of the TV era, the emphasis largely remained on policies. The candidates wore blue suits and red ties and worked hard not to sweat on camera, but by and large remained the same stiffs they’d always been. Some of that probably was due to the Cold War and Vietnam. When an election has life and death issues and the winner literally “has his fingers on the button,” its kind of hard to get worked up over whether he wears boxers or briefs.
Then came Reagan. No one had ever run such a slick, polished, media savvy operation before, or made such a great personal impression. Reagan persuaded not only with words, but symbols and style. Don’t just give a speech-give it in front of the Statue of Liberty. Don’t just have a press conference, have a press conference while you’re clearing brush from your ranch like a real man. There were real ideas there (a topic for another post), but there was a show too. He rode it to two landslide victories.
Unfortunately, that gave others the wrong impression. Candidates gradually began to stop talking policies and instead tried to show what a humble “man of the people” he (now she) is. Policy, if discussed at all, was raised in nauseatingly microscopic doses with a spoonful of sugar on top. Candidates began to sell their biography and their ability to “feel your pain”, rather than working to derive and articulate policies. We were treated to guys playing sax, guys riding around in tanks, guys jogging, guys going to NASCAR races ("Heroes of NasCAR"), guys (and Hillary) going to ball games, and guys going to pancake breakfast and barbecues. No one played golf anymore. Meticulously checking every poll with moistened finger permanently held aloft, everyone wound up sounding the same, mouthing some basic permutation of “I will provide good jobs, low taxes, lots of cool government programs that don’t cost anything, and protect the country.” Look at MSNBC’s “issues matrix” for this campaign. All the Democrat candidates want universal health insurance coverage, increased emissions and fuel standards, and “tougher border controls" while letting more illegal aliens become citizens. All the Republicans favor the present Iraq policy (one guy even wants to drop an H-Bomb on Mecca, presumably to advance the cause of Middle East democracy for the survivors), oppose government sponsored health care, oppose incrased amnesty for illegal aliens, etc. Basically the differences come down to who has the nicer tie/suit combo (and let’s not forget hair, John Kerry). The real emphasis shifted to how the candidate looked, the tone they projected, and their ability to emphathize. Kind of like training your pet collie.
True, if you wanted you could find out more specifics, but that raises the other issue (and gets us back to the initial point). People just sort of lost interest in actual policies. Without a military draft or the possibility of a Soviet first strike or 20% inflation and unemployment to worry about, the question of who’s going to exercise tighter fiscal restraint just didn’t quite carry the same zing. I know, Iraq is still an issue, polls show stopping terrorism still rates as more important. “Moral issues” comprised the most significant factor for voters in the last election, and that’s just another way of saying “whether we liked the guy.” Besides, that policy stuff is boring. Much more fun to watch your candidate play sax, or go grocery shopping, or take questions from the audience or balance a ball on his nose. Campaigns are turning into reality shows, designed to showcase personalities. Literally.
So what? Do we really have worse Presidents (and Senators and Congressmen and so forth) now than 50 years ago? I say yes. As Hunter S. Thompson once put it, Nixon was playing in a league in which Clinton could never be anything but a ball boy. Truman dropped the A-Bomb twice, went into Korea, dealt with massive labor unrest, created the “Truman Doctrine,” and had the gumption to fire an authentic (if ultimately undeserving) American Hero. Bush 41 put together an “international coalition” and was cowered into raising taxes. Wilson won World War I, founded the League of Nations, was President of Princeton University, created the Federal Reserve and initiated the income tax. Carter presided over stagflation for which he blamed Americans, and was chased by a killer rabbit. Yeah, I’ll take the guys from the smoke-filled rooms.
Apparently you have to throw down on the Tyra Banks show if you want to be the first minority President of the United States.
No, really. While I was eating barbecue at lunch the other day, for some reason they had the "Tyra" show on, and Barack Obama was hawking his new book. At the end, Tyra announced that she wanted to see whether Obama “had game,” and made him start shooting baskets in a court set up in the studio. I could hardly believe it; it was like some sort of Dave Chappelle show version of a Tyra show. I and the other guy standing there watching laughed and said “that’s not a stereotype.” No kidding. I mean, why stop there? She could have Rudi Giuliani make pizza or arrange a mob hit. Hillary could bake cookies. Mitt Romney could have two or three weddings.
How did it come to this?
Americans want mutually exclusive things from their leaders. We want more government programs, but lower taxes. Less government intrusion into our own lives, but more government intrusion into other people's lives in the name of "safety." So its not surprising that we look for mutually exclusive qualities in our leaders. We ping-pong back and forth between a “man of the people” and a “great leader.” Ike was dull and safe, JFK was the Prince of Camelot. Ford/Carter (dull Ned Flanders types who couldn’t lead a camel to water) to Reagan (who definitely had the “vision thing”) to Bush (aristocratic holder of the longest government resume of all time) to Clinton (who felt our pain, as well as a host of chicks wearing too much Mary Kay and Spandex) to Bush 43.
This really begs the more important question of exactly how low do you have to sink to obtain the job that by definition makes you the most important person in the world? George Washington basically had to be talked into becoming President. Somewhere around the Andrew Jackson election the Era of Good Feelings ended, ushering in the Era of guys with cigars in back rooms picking the candidates. Back then, it really didn’t matter how personable or boring you were. All that mattered was whether the boys in the back room thought you’d play ball. Actual votes didn’t really matter. All you really had to do was get the county chairmen lined up behind you, and the vote count would always turn out right. That meant talentless moribund hacks could get elected, but so could true statesmen that may have lacked personality. This relatively efficient, if somewhat undemocratic, system lasted til around the Civil Rights era, when people actually started thinking their votes ought to count for something. More importantly, til Eugene McCarthy took a major bite out of LBJ in New Hampshire. The parties had to actually pay attention to voters.
Unfortunately, this also occurred right around the time TV began to take over the national conscience. Instead of just issuing some press statement that got summarized in the one or two local papers the next day (kids, a “newspaper” is, oh, never mind), people started expecting to see these people on TV. Its one thing to read something someone says, its entirely another thing to watch him (or, now, her) saying it. Just like any other type of communication, people pay just as much if not more attention to personality, body language, style, and appearance as to the actual message being communicated. So you get the spectre of Nixon winning the debate on radio, but Kennedy winning on TV (and of course having his dad and Mayor Daley buy the Illinois election, after having first bought the West Virginia primary to get rid of Humphrey). Candidates had to try to go beyond just having sound policies, and had to “connect” with voters on a personal level, although for the most part they wound up coming off like your Uncle Morty.
But even during the first 25 years or so of the TV era, the emphasis largely remained on policies. The candidates wore blue suits and red ties and worked hard not to sweat on camera, but by and large remained the same stiffs they’d always been. Some of that probably was due to the Cold War and Vietnam. When an election has life and death issues and the winner literally “has his fingers on the button,” its kind of hard to get worked up over whether he wears boxers or briefs.
Then came Reagan. No one had ever run such a slick, polished, media savvy operation before, or made such a great personal impression. Reagan persuaded not only with words, but symbols and style. Don’t just give a speech-give it in front of the Statue of Liberty. Don’t just have a press conference, have a press conference while you’re clearing brush from your ranch like a real man. There were real ideas there (a topic for another post), but there was a show too. He rode it to two landslide victories.
Unfortunately, that gave others the wrong impression. Candidates gradually began to stop talking policies and instead tried to show what a humble “man of the people” he (now she) is. Policy, if discussed at all, was raised in nauseatingly microscopic doses with a spoonful of sugar on top. Candidates began to sell their biography and their ability to “feel your pain”, rather than working to derive and articulate policies. We were treated to guys playing sax, guys riding around in tanks, guys jogging, guys going to NASCAR races ("Heroes of NasCAR"), guys (and Hillary) going to ball games, and guys going to pancake breakfast and barbecues. No one played golf anymore. Meticulously checking every poll with moistened finger permanently held aloft, everyone wound up sounding the same, mouthing some basic permutation of “I will provide good jobs, low taxes, lots of cool government programs that don’t cost anything, and protect the country.” Look at MSNBC’s “issues matrix” for this campaign. All the Democrat candidates want universal health insurance coverage, increased emissions and fuel standards, and “tougher border controls" while letting more illegal aliens become citizens. All the Republicans favor the present Iraq policy (one guy even wants to drop an H-Bomb on Mecca, presumably to advance the cause of Middle East democracy for the survivors), oppose government sponsored health care, oppose incrased amnesty for illegal aliens, etc. Basically the differences come down to who has the nicer tie/suit combo (and let’s not forget hair, John Kerry). The real emphasis shifted to how the candidate looked, the tone they projected, and their ability to emphathize. Kind of like training your pet collie.
True, if you wanted you could find out more specifics, but that raises the other issue (and gets us back to the initial point). People just sort of lost interest in actual policies. Without a military draft or the possibility of a Soviet first strike or 20% inflation and unemployment to worry about, the question of who’s going to exercise tighter fiscal restraint just didn’t quite carry the same zing. I know, Iraq is still an issue, polls show stopping terrorism still rates as more important. “Moral issues” comprised the most significant factor for voters in the last election, and that’s just another way of saying “whether we liked the guy.” Besides, that policy stuff is boring. Much more fun to watch your candidate play sax, or go grocery shopping, or take questions from the audience or balance a ball on his nose. Campaigns are turning into reality shows, designed to showcase personalities. Literally.
So what? Do we really have worse Presidents (and Senators and Congressmen and so forth) now than 50 years ago? I say yes. As Hunter S. Thompson once put it, Nixon was playing in a league in which Clinton could never be anything but a ball boy. Truman dropped the A-Bomb twice, went into Korea, dealt with massive labor unrest, created the “Truman Doctrine,” and had the gumption to fire an authentic (if ultimately undeserving) American Hero. Bush 41 put together an “international coalition” and was cowered into raising taxes. Wilson won World War I, founded the League of Nations, was President of Princeton University, created the Federal Reserve and initiated the income tax. Carter presided over stagflation for which he blamed Americans, and was chased by a killer rabbit. Yeah, I’ll take the guys from the smoke-filled rooms.
1 comment:
Did Obama make his shots? oh, here we go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLpDSLRBoVI
Post a Comment