The continuation of a pissing match I got into with Sorn. Start here.
The shame here is that while I understand and mostly agree with your point, your initial setup is fallacious. You did, in fact, equate leftist rhetoric with rightist rhetoric. You did, in fact, create a strawman of "the left," and tried to use that strawman, unnecessarily, to prove a point. You are, in fact, engaging in high hypocrisy when you lecture people about the dangers of "moral superiority" while standing on a pedestal and being morally superior. Many political decisions have a moral component. Standing outside protesting tax cuts for millionaires is fine, until you realize that most of these protesters are the same people who got downright indignant when people protested the war in Iraq. So the same people who once said that it's unpatriotic to criticize the President, no matter the circumstance, now want to "Teabag Obama." It wasn't too long ago when the same people said that protesting the war emboldened the terrorists, and the protesters were traitors. Now, show me anybody on the left who says that the teabaggers are traitors, or the teabag protests are ruining the economy. Aside from some random DailyKos blogger, you probably won't find too many.
While you did not say "the left is no better than the right in terms of crazy rhetoric," you did say "The teabagging thing is outrageous, but then again so were the comparisons on the left of Bush to Hitler." If you're not shooting for equivalence, then why even go there? When you say "A did X, but B did Y," the automatic inference is that A = B, and X = Y. That's not me reading into it, or me misreading it. That's what it says.
Certainly, the same tendencies exist, but one group of people is far more affected by those tendencies than the other. One group of people has the crazy rhetoric as it's main platform, and has the crazy rhetoricians as it's main spokespeople. I'm not saying that liberals, leftists, and progressives are immune to such forces, but I would say that we're far less affeted, both on a per person basis and as a movement.
Take your example of Ann Coulter. What is her evidence of liberals being driven by Satan? What is her evidence of constant liberal lies? There is none, except to those who are already more than willing to believe crazy bullshit because that crazy bullshit confirms their pre-existing worldview. Who on the left serves as an analog to Coulter? Who spits out anywhere near as much venom or as many outright falsehoods? Ann didn't start out as some moderate and then go crazy. She started out crazy and never moderated. Her books include "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," "Guilty," and "Treason." All with some subtitle about the liberal threat to America. Again, find me someone just as nutty, influential, and respected on the left. If Ann was some exception, that would be one thing. But she's not. And it would take us all day to name all the batshit crazy "conservative" philosophers.
When I say the the GOP is the party of "xenophobic, homophobic, racist, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-intellectual, white, Christians," I have at least 30 years of actions committed by the GOP and its adherents to bolster my claim. It's not made up shit to satisfy my own confirmation bias, the record speaks for itself. Unlike Ms Coulter, I don't have to rely on quote mines or make things up out of whole cloth. Say what you will, that makes me morally superior. But you already knew that, as you yourself say "I don't vote Republican any more because of the degree to which the GOP has embraced what I consider to be crazy-talk." That's a moral position. One I consider to be superior. Obviously, you do as well, or you wouldn't care about the crazy-talk, and you would keep voting for policies that don't match the rhetoric.
Bigotry, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. I'm all for the concept of moral relativism, but my personal moral code is not relative. Selling people into slavery is wrong, as is molesting children, or killing indiscriminately. So I am bigoted against slavers, molesters, pirates, and serial killers. Does not wanting to "understand the the causal forces that generated such ideas" make me a nut-job?
Besides, I already know the causal forces which generate the ideas of today's "conservatism." And even though I understand, I still don't agree, and I still believe their position on many matters is morally wrong, and mostly because those positions aren't conservative. The information which would change their positions is out there, but they choose to ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist, or it's some sort of conspiracy against them.
In the 8 years where Bush sped up America's decline by a few generations, the activist left got it's shit together, the political left acquiesced to Bush's agenda, and those of who were left of center, but apolitical, began to make our voices heard.
In the 3 months which Obama's been President, the activist right has lost their damn minds, the political right has lost their damn minds, and the people who are right of center are being poorly served by elected and de facto leadership that has lost its damn mind.
You could "argue that feeling morally superior is the first step down the road that ends in nut-jobery," but I would argue that feeling morally superior and being morally superior are two wholly separate states. I'm sure BushCo felt morally superior when they were fashioning a noble lie to get us into Iraq. I'm sure Klansmen felt morally superior when they were protecting the virtues of white women. I'm sure the Irish Catholics felt morally superior to the Irish Protestants, and vice-versa. I'm sure many people from the beginning of human history felt morally superior to the people they were being immoral towards. But that doesn't mean that they actually were. I understand the distinction. The nut-jobbery comes when one doesn't understand said distinction, or when one has been right about so many things that they can't imagine an instance in which they'd be wrong.
When I say that the GOP is the party of xenophobic, homophobic, racist, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-intellectual, white, Christians, it's not about demonizing or denigrating the "Other." It's an opinion based on where the party is right now, and the course they've taken over the span of my life (though now moreso than ever), backed up by facts. They may not have been that way 50 years ago, and they may not be that way 50 years hence. If a few years from now the GOP has actually changed it's positions, and I'm still singing the same tune, feel free to call me a nut-job. Until then, I leave it to you to tell me why they aren't who I say they are, and if you can't, why my position is not morally superior.
4.14.2009
12.19.2008
Progressive Strategery
It's been awhile since I've written anything. I guess I've been too busy basking in the afterglow of the Obama victory. Usually, I only write when I see something that I find to be outrageous. The whole "Blame Black People for Prop 8" was close, but as a black man, I'm used to being a scapegoat. The new "Obama's Not Really Black" isn't really so new, so I didn't find it outrageous enough. Even the mainstream media's attempts to tie Obama to Blagojevich didn't do it for me.
Obama won, handily. So what could possibly kill my mood?
Rick Warren.
If you're unfamiliar with Rick Warren, stop being lazy and get your google on. Mr Warren is one of the biggest evangelical ministers, if not the biggest, in America. Among other things, he helped the forces of evil get Prop 8 passed. He's a pro-life, socially conservative, right wing ideologue. And Obama has chosen him to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.
Well, I'm just here to tell you that I don't give a fuck. I don't care. I'm not bothered by it, and I'm certainly not outraged by it. What bothers and outrages me is the response by so-called progressives.
Listen. Progressives, at least 43% of the country did not vote for Obama, and don't share your progressive ideals. Unfortunately, you need a large chunk of those people behind you before you can move any sort of real progressive agenda forward. Republican politicians aren't like punk-ass Democratic pols who roll over like dogs when they're told. Cooperating with them by making it less politically dangerous for GOP pols to support progressive ideas is the only way we can get America out of this mess.
Listen. GLBT people, over 50% of Californians, for whatever reason, voted against you having the right to get married. And that's liberal California. Imagine the rest of the country. It's not right, it's not fair, and I'm shocked that it's legal. But that's the way it is. For now, you're going to have to get over it and focus your energies into winning the next battle.
You can complain, cry, and get hysterical if you want. The reality is that America is still a very divided nation. Obama told us for 2 years what his vision of change was. He said something to the effect of our politics being to small for our problems. And he was right. And him picking Rick Warren, as much as some of us may dislike him, is right.
For at least the last 16 years, but far more during the last 8, American politics has consisted of two people in a room screaming at each other. In the last 8 years we've fallen hard because we had a government that pandered to one side of the room.
We all know that, yet some progressives are arguing that Obama should do exactly the same thing, even though we've already seen how far it's gotten us.
So progressives, get out of the echo chamber, and start having actual conversations with people who don't agree with you. Rick Warren represents many mainstream Americans. More Americans than you'd like to admit. Warren, by accepting Obama's invitation, legitimatizes Obama in a way that not even winning the election could.
Progressives, the election of Obama was us winning a huge battle, but the war never ends. So stop being assholes and start fighting your actual enemies, rather than your general. Cheney admitted to war crimes this week. Maybe you could start there.
Obama won, handily. So what could possibly kill my mood?
Rick Warren.
If you're unfamiliar with Rick Warren, stop being lazy and get your google on. Mr Warren is one of the biggest evangelical ministers, if not the biggest, in America. Among other things, he helped the forces of evil get Prop 8 passed. He's a pro-life, socially conservative, right wing ideologue. And Obama has chosen him to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.
Well, I'm just here to tell you that I don't give a fuck. I don't care. I'm not bothered by it, and I'm certainly not outraged by it. What bothers and outrages me is the response by so-called progressives.
Listen. Progressives, at least 43% of the country did not vote for Obama, and don't share your progressive ideals. Unfortunately, you need a large chunk of those people behind you before you can move any sort of real progressive agenda forward. Republican politicians aren't like punk-ass Democratic pols who roll over like dogs when they're told. Cooperating with them by making it less politically dangerous for GOP pols to support progressive ideas is the only way we can get America out of this mess.
Listen. GLBT people, over 50% of Californians, for whatever reason, voted against you having the right to get married. And that's liberal California. Imagine the rest of the country. It's not right, it's not fair, and I'm shocked that it's legal. But that's the way it is. For now, you're going to have to get over it and focus your energies into winning the next battle.
You can complain, cry, and get hysterical if you want. The reality is that America is still a very divided nation. Obama told us for 2 years what his vision of change was. He said something to the effect of our politics being to small for our problems. And he was right. And him picking Rick Warren, as much as some of us may dislike him, is right.
For at least the last 16 years, but far more during the last 8, American politics has consisted of two people in a room screaming at each other. In the last 8 years we've fallen hard because we had a government that pandered to one side of the room.
We all know that, yet some progressives are arguing that Obama should do exactly the same thing, even though we've already seen how far it's gotten us.
So progressives, get out of the echo chamber, and start having actual conversations with people who don't agree with you. Rick Warren represents many mainstream Americans. More Americans than you'd like to admit. Warren, by accepting Obama's invitation, legitimatizes Obama in a way that not even winning the election could.
Progressives, the election of Obama was us winning a huge battle, but the war never ends. So stop being assholes and start fighting your actual enemies, rather than your general. Cheney admitted to war crimes this week. Maybe you could start there.
9.10.2008
Mystery Babylon...
...aka Sarah Palin
I'll admit it. Sarah Palin terrifies me. Well, it's not actually her that terrifies me, and it's not the cynical mindset that has produced the Governor and her mythology, it's the consequences of that mindset that terrifies me.
I was born in 1976, so I came to geo-political awareness in the '80's. The biggest pictures I have in my mind from those days are Ethiopia and HIV/AIDS. Those years, 1980-1992, represented famine and plague, so Reagan and Poppy Bush were the horsemen. The Bush/Cheney years are consumed by war and terror, so W is the third horseman. The fourth and final horseman is death, and you are forgiven for thinking that Old Man McCain is the horseman of Death. McCain is not Death, but he is Death's horse. Sarah Palin is Death.
I don't mean to get all religilous on you, as it's not really my intent. For a little while now, we've seen the Religious Right compare Obama to Hitler and the anti-Christ. We've heard the Greedy Old Plutocrats (and a great number of Hillary supporters) mock him as the "Messiah." So what do we do when so many so called conservatives are literally referring to Sarah Palin as "Saint Sarah" and "Sister Sarah?" Literally. They're calling her a gift from God, while missing the complete irony that they said the same thing about W, and we all know how well that's been going.
Pakistan's getting testy. Russia grows bold. China is ascendant. The Bush Administration has played the worst game of chess in all of political history. Cheney is the most powerful VP ever. McCain is a sickly, doddering old man. In this time of crisis, do we really want an incurious, Dominionist Christian, noob anywhere near the nuclear trigger?
Her supporters say yes. All the experience she needs is evidenced by the fact that she can see Russia from land in Alaska. This is why Sarah Palin is death. Ignorance and ambition is a powerful combination. Unfortunately, it's not a good powerful.
People who know better are trying to tell us that since most Americans don't know what the Bush Doctrine is, it's not important for Sarah Palin to know it. Other people have said it, so I'll echo the sentiment: I want my President to be demonstrably better than me. Someone who had the wisdom, judgement, and/or guidance to avoid life's many pitfalls. It's not OK for the President or VP to have a pregnant, unmarried teen daughter just because that's a situation many Americans deal with. It speaks to her leadership. If her own daughter doesn't respect the values that her mother teaches her, how can we expect a foreign leader to.
I've seen the diaries and blogs from Democrats that say that we shouldn't attack Sarah Palin, as Obama's not running against her. I say that people who follow that thought process are either naive or fools. Obama should not attack her. We should take every opportunity to spread the truth about her, her policies, and record.
I've also seen the blogs and diaries from Democrats saying that we shouldn't attack Palin, because the Freepers will get mad at the Netroots. Listen, the conservatives are going to attack DailyKos, HuffPo, etc. no matter what you do. Stop being cowards. You cave to extremists, and they haven't yet stopped beating you up. If you're going to go down, go down fighting.
There are certain people who don't want to debate you, they want to argue. There are people who don't want to fight you, they want to kill you. That's what Progressives just don't get. You do what they want, no matter how much you disagree, and they still call you godless traitors that deserve to be killed. Stop it. Man up, or woman up, or transgender up. Whatever you need to do to get some steel in your spine, you should do. We're in trouble, America is in trouble, and cowering everytime Sean Hannity raises his voice is not helping.
Sarah Palin brings the Irrationalists back to the party. She gives them open license to spit hate and spew venom. The lull in the culture wars is over, and if our side doesn't win this particular battle, then everything is lost. The only hope that John McCain has of winning this election is Sarah Palin. She is his sword and his aegis. Ignore her at your peril.
I'll admit it. Sarah Palin terrifies me. Well, it's not actually her that terrifies me, and it's not the cynical mindset that has produced the Governor and her mythology, it's the consequences of that mindset that terrifies me.
I was born in 1976, so I came to geo-political awareness in the '80's. The biggest pictures I have in my mind from those days are Ethiopia and HIV/AIDS. Those years, 1980-1992, represented famine and plague, so Reagan and Poppy Bush were the horsemen. The Bush/Cheney years are consumed by war and terror, so W is the third horseman. The fourth and final horseman is death, and you are forgiven for thinking that Old Man McCain is the horseman of Death. McCain is not Death, but he is Death's horse. Sarah Palin is Death.
I don't mean to get all religilous on you, as it's not really my intent. For a little while now, we've seen the Religious Right compare Obama to Hitler and the anti-Christ. We've heard the Greedy Old Plutocrats (and a great number of Hillary supporters) mock him as the "Messiah." So what do we do when so many so called conservatives are literally referring to Sarah Palin as "Saint Sarah" and "Sister Sarah?" Literally. They're calling her a gift from God, while missing the complete irony that they said the same thing about W, and we all know how well that's been going.
Pakistan's getting testy. Russia grows bold. China is ascendant. The Bush Administration has played the worst game of chess in all of political history. Cheney is the most powerful VP ever. McCain is a sickly, doddering old man. In this time of crisis, do we really want an incurious, Dominionist Christian, noob anywhere near the nuclear trigger?
Her supporters say yes. All the experience she needs is evidenced by the fact that she can see Russia from land in Alaska. This is why Sarah Palin is death. Ignorance and ambition is a powerful combination. Unfortunately, it's not a good powerful.
People who know better are trying to tell us that since most Americans don't know what the Bush Doctrine is, it's not important for Sarah Palin to know it. Other people have said it, so I'll echo the sentiment: I want my President to be demonstrably better than me. Someone who had the wisdom, judgement, and/or guidance to avoid life's many pitfalls. It's not OK for the President or VP to have a pregnant, unmarried teen daughter just because that's a situation many Americans deal with. It speaks to her leadership. If her own daughter doesn't respect the values that her mother teaches her, how can we expect a foreign leader to.
I've seen the diaries and blogs from Democrats that say that we shouldn't attack Sarah Palin, as Obama's not running against her. I say that people who follow that thought process are either naive or fools. Obama should not attack her. We should take every opportunity to spread the truth about her, her policies, and record.
I've also seen the blogs and diaries from Democrats saying that we shouldn't attack Palin, because the Freepers will get mad at the Netroots. Listen, the conservatives are going to attack DailyKos, HuffPo, etc. no matter what you do. Stop being cowards. You cave to extremists, and they haven't yet stopped beating you up. If you're going to go down, go down fighting.
There are certain people who don't want to debate you, they want to argue. There are people who don't want to fight you, they want to kill you. That's what Progressives just don't get. You do what they want, no matter how much you disagree, and they still call you godless traitors that deserve to be killed. Stop it. Man up, or woman up, or transgender up. Whatever you need to do to get some steel in your spine, you should do. We're in trouble, America is in trouble, and cowering everytime Sean Hannity raises his voice is not helping.
Sarah Palin brings the Irrationalists back to the party. She gives them open license to spit hate and spew venom. The lull in the culture wars is over, and if our side doesn't win this particular battle, then everything is lost. The only hope that John McCain has of winning this election is Sarah Palin. She is his sword and his aegis. Ignore her at your peril.
9.04.2008
Hillary v3.0
You must give credit where credit is due: Hillary v3.0 came out and did what her masters programmed her to do. Namely, make baseless hit and run attacks against Obama, and then hide behind the concrete walls of the sexism card and the blame the media card. Watching Sarah Palin tonight finally allowed me to figure out the whole of McCain's strategery.
First, they tried to cast her as Hillary v2.0, to try and pull in independent women and Hillary dead-enders. That strategy was quickly abandoned after Palin was booed for trying to conjure up a Hillary glamour. Sarah Palin was then broken down and reconstructed into Hillary v3.0 in order to capitalize on Obama's perceived weakness against a white woman.
McCain can't match rhetoric or wits with Obama, so he needs a surrogate, and who better than Hillary. Unfortunately for McCain, Hillary wouldn't go for it, and neither would the GOP faithful, no matter how much they like to invoke her name these days. So now you may ask, why Hillary?
During the Democratic primaries, Hillary and her supporters released a litany of accusations against Obama, filled with venom and bile. Obama did not return too many of her hits for a variety of reasons, but mostly because he knew what it was: a trap.
Hillary tried, and succeeded at some level, to restart the dreaded Culture Wars. What better way than to show America an angry black man belittling a white woman? Now you may be thinking that America isn't like that anymore, but you would be thinking wrong. America hates angry black men even more than it hates black men. You think I'm wrong? Try comparing Rev Wright's sermons to Hagee's, then, look at the coverage. When you're done with that, compare Wright's sermons to Parsley's, Falwell's, and Pat Robertson's. Better yet, go look at Fred Phelps'. White people treat Farrakhan as if he is Satan himself, but people only complain about Fred Phelps...well, pretty much never, even though I've never seen Farrakhan or Wright protesting at a soldier's funeral. And neither of the two ever had to be bribed to not protest at a funeral for murdered Amish girls. But I digress.
McCain did indeed watch Hillary and learned, but he didn't pay attention to the end of the lecture. Hillary didn't lose because she re-ignited the Culture Wars a little to late. In McCain's view, she lost because she didn't go far enough. So McCain, being an old soldier, decided to do what old soldiers do best: escalate the war.
He sent his Hillary v3.0 onto the field for a test exercise. She hit her targets well. However, it remains to be seen as to how well she'll do in a less controlled situation. She has shown that she can give a good scripted punch, but will she be able to do it off the cuff? More importantly, can she take a hit? I'm sure that over the following days, we'll see the Democrats coming out in force, but I wonder how effective they'll be? I'm not too concerned about Team Obama, as I'm sure that they've already come up with a counter strategy.
It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out over the next few weeks. I eagerly await her first serious interview.
First, they tried to cast her as Hillary v2.0, to try and pull in independent women and Hillary dead-enders. That strategy was quickly abandoned after Palin was booed for trying to conjure up a Hillary glamour. Sarah Palin was then broken down and reconstructed into Hillary v3.0 in order to capitalize on Obama's perceived weakness against a white woman.
McCain can't match rhetoric or wits with Obama, so he needs a surrogate, and who better than Hillary. Unfortunately for McCain, Hillary wouldn't go for it, and neither would the GOP faithful, no matter how much they like to invoke her name these days. So now you may ask, why Hillary?
During the Democratic primaries, Hillary and her supporters released a litany of accusations against Obama, filled with venom and bile. Obama did not return too many of her hits for a variety of reasons, but mostly because he knew what it was: a trap.
Hillary tried, and succeeded at some level, to restart the dreaded Culture Wars. What better way than to show America an angry black man belittling a white woman? Now you may be thinking that America isn't like that anymore, but you would be thinking wrong. America hates angry black men even more than it hates black men. You think I'm wrong? Try comparing Rev Wright's sermons to Hagee's, then, look at the coverage. When you're done with that, compare Wright's sermons to Parsley's, Falwell's, and Pat Robertson's. Better yet, go look at Fred Phelps'. White people treat Farrakhan as if he is Satan himself, but people only complain about Fred Phelps...well, pretty much never, even though I've never seen Farrakhan or Wright protesting at a soldier's funeral. And neither of the two ever had to be bribed to not protest at a funeral for murdered Amish girls. But I digress.
McCain did indeed watch Hillary and learned, but he didn't pay attention to the end of the lecture. Hillary didn't lose because she re-ignited the Culture Wars a little to late. In McCain's view, she lost because she didn't go far enough. So McCain, being an old soldier, decided to do what old soldiers do best: escalate the war.
He sent his Hillary v3.0 onto the field for a test exercise. She hit her targets well. However, it remains to be seen as to how well she'll do in a less controlled situation. She has shown that she can give a good scripted punch, but will she be able to do it off the cuff? More importantly, can she take a hit? I'm sure that over the following days, we'll see the Democrats coming out in force, but I wonder how effective they'll be? I'm not too concerned about Team Obama, as I'm sure that they've already come up with a counter strategy.
It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out over the next few weeks. I eagerly await her first serious interview.
9.01.2008
"Conservative" Pretzel Logic
In the last few days, I've been lurking around some of the "conservative" sites. I do this often, because I like to know what the other side is thinking. Almost universally, the "conservatives" LOVE Sarah Palin. They love her so much, they've managed to create their own logic. It goes like this:
1. Palin has more experience than Obama because she has "Executive" experience.
The first problem with this logic is that if we use executive experience as the metric, then she is the most qualified person on the field, as neither Obama or Biden have executive experience. Then again, neither does McCain. So, why isn't she on top of the ticket?
Let's talk about executive experience. Let's talk about a black guy who has gone from some random senator the first black man in the US to secure a major party's nomination. Along the way, he beat one of the biggest names in US politics. In order to do that, he had to build an organization which in two years raised a record amount of money and made Barack Obama into a household name. You can't do that if you don't hire the right people. That's a big function of being an executive.
The executive position is a position of leadership. Obama convinced 2 million people to donate to his cause. On his way to the nomination, he secured 18 million votes. Palin got 114,697 votes in her gubernatorial bid. Who's the better leader? Who's the better executive? Even better, who would you want to run your campaign?
2. Palin has more foreign policy experience because Alaska is close to Russia.
I don't know much about the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug region of Russia, but I doubt that it's a major Russian military staging platform. I do know that in case of a national emergency, the POTUS is the CIC of the National Guard. I don't know if Gov. Palin has ever dealt directly with any leader from any other nation, but I'm quite confident that she's never had a conversation with Vladimir Putin.
It's real simple, people. The Alaska-Russia foreign policy shtick only works for the intellectually dishonest, low information, and/or low interest voters. It doesn't hold water. Obama went to the Middle East and Europe, and he had almost twice as many people come to a speech in Berlin than she had people come out to vote for her in Alaska.
If the metric of Palin's foreign policy experience is the distance between Alaska and Russia, let's step it up. The capital of Alaska is Juneau. Juneau is 2,578 miles away from Ottawa, the capital of Canada, and 4,550 miles away from Moscow, the capital of Russia. On the other hand, Moscow is 4,998 miles from Chicago, but Ottawa is 645 miles away from Chicago, leaving us with a difference of 1,485 in the distances between the capitals. Advantage, Obama.
I live in Philadelphia, PA, only 340 miles from Toronto. Thus, I must have foreign policy experience.
The metric is ridiculous on it's face, as is anyone who would use distance as a metric for who has more foreign policy experience.
3. I like that person, so it's OK.
I'm no moral absolutist, and I have no interest in beating up on a teenaged girl in a tough spot. Who I do want to beat up on are the hypocrites who say that teenaged girls having out of wedlock children is OK, but only for the people they like. The same people who went nuts over whether or not People magazine was glorifying Jamie Lynn Spears' "immoral behavior" and then blamed People magazine for the 17 girl high school pregnancy pact are the same people willing to give the Palin family a pass. I'm not just talking about the conservatives, either.
Similarly, Bill Clinton getting a blowjob is bad. John Edwards having and affair is bad. But John McCain? He was a POW! How DARE you! There were extenuating circumstances. Hey Sean Hannity, what's more important: country or family?
4. Playing the Cards
"Woe is me, woe is me," cried the Republican mouthpieces, "Obama played the race card." How about "He's an affirmative action candidate!" What Obama said:
Yet, when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's VP selection, it was obvious that the selection had more to do with gender than anything else. Today, we had Laura Bush talking about the sexism that the Democrats need to avoid. We've got all of the Republican Stepford Pundits talking about misogyny in every criticism of Palin. The same Palin, who not so long ago, called Hillary a whiner. It's difficult to say as to whether or not Palin will be a whiner, as her first major interview is a softball from People magazine. There's no word on when they'll allow her out of her undisclosed location.
I can't help but wonder though: If she's so ready, and so experienced, why not let the media size her up? Why wasn't she on Meet the Press, or any of the other Sunday talk shows? We all know why, but if anyone says it, then they're sexists.
These people fuck me up. Twisting themselves into every position possible to make their case for how unfit Obama is to be president. Then twisting themselves into every other position to make the case for how prepared Palin is, even as both possibilites can't both be true at the same time.
Let's be honest, compared to McCain's resume, Obama's is razor thin. But that's why he's getting my vote. It's not Palin's lack of experience that worries me. Everybody has to start somewhere. As recently as December 2007, I thought Obama was joking. By February 5, I was a believer. Sarah Palin won't get the chance to really prove herself in that way. Not just to me, or Progressives in general, but to a lot of Americans, regardless of political ideology. And in the end, isn't America what it's really all about?
1. Palin has more experience than Obama because she has "Executive" experience.
The first problem with this logic is that if we use executive experience as the metric, then she is the most qualified person on the field, as neither Obama or Biden have executive experience. Then again, neither does McCain. So, why isn't she on top of the ticket?
Let's talk about executive experience. Let's talk about a black guy who has gone from some random senator the first black man in the US to secure a major party's nomination. Along the way, he beat one of the biggest names in US politics. In order to do that, he had to build an organization which in two years raised a record amount of money and made Barack Obama into a household name. You can't do that if you don't hire the right people. That's a big function of being an executive.
The executive position is a position of leadership. Obama convinced 2 million people to donate to his cause. On his way to the nomination, he secured 18 million votes. Palin got 114,697 votes in her gubernatorial bid. Who's the better leader? Who's the better executive? Even better, who would you want to run your campaign?
2. Palin has more foreign policy experience because Alaska is close to Russia.
I don't know much about the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug region of Russia, but I doubt that it's a major Russian military staging platform. I do know that in case of a national emergency, the POTUS is the CIC of the National Guard. I don't know if Gov. Palin has ever dealt directly with any leader from any other nation, but I'm quite confident that she's never had a conversation with Vladimir Putin.
It's real simple, people. The Alaska-Russia foreign policy shtick only works for the intellectually dishonest, low information, and/or low interest voters. It doesn't hold water. Obama went to the Middle East and Europe, and he had almost twice as many people come to a speech in Berlin than she had people come out to vote for her in Alaska.
If the metric of Palin's foreign policy experience is the distance between Alaska and Russia, let's step it up. The capital of Alaska is Juneau. Juneau is 2,578 miles away from Ottawa, the capital of Canada, and 4,550 miles away from Moscow, the capital of Russia. On the other hand, Moscow is 4,998 miles from Chicago, but Ottawa is 645 miles away from Chicago, leaving us with a difference of 1,485 in the distances between the capitals. Advantage, Obama.
I live in Philadelphia, PA, only 340 miles from Toronto. Thus, I must have foreign policy experience.
The metric is ridiculous on it's face, as is anyone who would use distance as a metric for who has more foreign policy experience.
3. I like that person, so it's OK.
I'm no moral absolutist, and I have no interest in beating up on a teenaged girl in a tough spot. Who I do want to beat up on are the hypocrites who say that teenaged girls having out of wedlock children is OK, but only for the people they like. The same people who went nuts over whether or not People magazine was glorifying Jamie Lynn Spears' "immoral behavior" and then blamed People magazine for the 17 girl high school pregnancy pact are the same people willing to give the Palin family a pass. I'm not just talking about the conservatives, either.
Similarly, Bill Clinton getting a blowjob is bad. John Edwards having and affair is bad. But John McCain? He was a POW! How DARE you! There were extenuating circumstances. Hey Sean Hannity, what's more important: country or family?
4. Playing the Cards
"Woe is me, woe is me," cried the Republican mouthpieces, "Obama played the race card." How about "He's an affirmative action candidate!" What Obama said:
"We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black? He’s got a feisty wife.”Did Obama play the dreaded race card? Or was he telling the truth? I guess it depends on your position. When I see this, this, this, and this, I think we can all lean towards truth. It's not all conservatives, and certainly not everybody who won't vote for Obama, but there is enough outright racism for him to make that assertion. And that doesn't even account for all of the "subtle" stuff.
Yet, when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's VP selection, it was obvious that the selection had more to do with gender than anything else. Today, we had Laura Bush talking about the sexism that the Democrats need to avoid. We've got all of the Republican Stepford Pundits talking about misogyny in every criticism of Palin. The same Palin, who not so long ago, called Hillary a whiner. It's difficult to say as to whether or not Palin will be a whiner, as her first major interview is a softball from People magazine. There's no word on when they'll allow her out of her undisclosed location.
I can't help but wonder though: If she's so ready, and so experienced, why not let the media size her up? Why wasn't she on Meet the Press, or any of the other Sunday talk shows? We all know why, but if anyone says it, then they're sexists.
These people fuck me up. Twisting themselves into every position possible to make their case for how unfit Obama is to be president. Then twisting themselves into every other position to make the case for how prepared Palin is, even as both possibilites can't both be true at the same time.
Let's be honest, compared to McCain's resume, Obama's is razor thin. But that's why he's getting my vote. It's not Palin's lack of experience that worries me. Everybody has to start somewhere. As recently as December 2007, I thought Obama was joking. By February 5, I was a believer. Sarah Palin won't get the chance to really prove herself in that way. Not just to me, or Progressives in general, but to a lot of Americans, regardless of political ideology. And in the end, isn't America what it's really all about?
8.30.2008
Speaking of Strategery...
By now, you've seen or heard about McPander's VP selection. I won't go into great detail about Sarah Palin, as there are many other places that you can go to get all of the pertinent information. What I will say is that this is strategery at it's finest.
Strategery is not synonymous with failure, so don't ever get that idea in your head. Strategery leads to long term failure, as it favors a short term gain. The best example of strategery I can present to you is the man who inspired the term: George W Bush.
I was sure that McCain was going to get the nod in 2000. When W came on the scene, I thought it was a joke. Well, it was a joke, and the joke was on us. We, we being me and many who had similar thoughts, broke rule #6: Don't underestimate your opponents.
W was a lightweight who only was even considered because of his name. It was an emotional appeal for those who hated Clintonism. I didn't think that anyone was that gullible. Yet, look who's been President for the last eight years.
So, don't underestimate strategery. Don't underestimate Sarah Palin. Don't underestimate disaffected Hillary deadenders. Don't underestimate America's penchant for shooting off its own foot.
Certainly Mrs Palin comes with her own set of issues. Certainly, she's a cipher. Certainly she turns the prospect of a McCain win from a disaster into the fucking Apocalypse. But don't count on Americans to realize it. Don't make the W mistake.
Instead, spread the truth.
Tell people that McCain has spent the last 3 months questioning Obama's experience. "He's the world's biggest celebrity, but is he ready to lead." At least he's a celebrity, who the hell is she?
She's an unknown governor from the 47th least populous state who used to be the mayor of a town of less than 10,000, and John McCain would put her a step away from the Presidency. If something were to happen to McCain, do you really think that either party would respect the rules of succession?
In many ways, she's the anti-Obama. A white female of the same generation. A woman with a colorful life story. Photogenic, made for our media obsessed age. Someone from a middle class background who was unknown only a few years ago. At the same time, unlike Obama, she's a highly partisan religious extremist. Unlike Obama, she won't have time to become familiar with the national stage, and all the media scrutiny that comes with it.
On Monday, the media will be uprooting her entire life. By Monday night, the tabloids will be digging through her trash.
Over the next week, every unemployed papparazzo will be taking pictures of her children.
In a little over a month, she'll have to goe toe to toe against Joe Biden in what will probably be the most watched Vice Presidential debate ever.
She may turn out like Katherine Harris, but then again, she may rise to the challenge. So I say to you, don't underestimate Sarah Palin. Remember George W Bush.
McAilin'/Phalin' '08
Strategery is not synonymous with failure, so don't ever get that idea in your head. Strategery leads to long term failure, as it favors a short term gain. The best example of strategery I can present to you is the man who inspired the term: George W Bush.
I was sure that McCain was going to get the nod in 2000. When W came on the scene, I thought it was a joke. Well, it was a joke, and the joke was on us. We, we being me and many who had similar thoughts, broke rule #6: Don't underestimate your opponents.
W was a lightweight who only was even considered because of his name. It was an emotional appeal for those who hated Clintonism. I didn't think that anyone was that gullible. Yet, look who's been President for the last eight years.
So, don't underestimate strategery. Don't underestimate Sarah Palin. Don't underestimate disaffected Hillary deadenders. Don't underestimate America's penchant for shooting off its own foot.
Certainly Mrs Palin comes with her own set of issues. Certainly, she's a cipher. Certainly she turns the prospect of a McCain win from a disaster into the fucking Apocalypse. But don't count on Americans to realize it. Don't make the W mistake.
Instead, spread the truth.
Tell people that McCain has spent the last 3 months questioning Obama's experience. "He's the world's biggest celebrity, but is he ready to lead." At least he's a celebrity, who the hell is she?
She's an unknown governor from the 47th least populous state who used to be the mayor of a town of less than 10,000, and John McCain would put her a step away from the Presidency. If something were to happen to McCain, do you really think that either party would respect the rules of succession?
In many ways, she's the anti-Obama. A white female of the same generation. A woman with a colorful life story. Photogenic, made for our media obsessed age. Someone from a middle class background who was unknown only a few years ago. At the same time, unlike Obama, she's a highly partisan religious extremist. Unlike Obama, she won't have time to become familiar with the national stage, and all the media scrutiny that comes with it.
On Monday, the media will be uprooting her entire life. By Monday night, the tabloids will be digging through her trash.
Over the next week, every unemployed papparazzo will be taking pictures of her children.
In a little over a month, she'll have to goe toe to toe against Joe Biden in what will probably be the most watched Vice Presidential debate ever.
She may turn out like Katherine Harris, but then again, she may rise to the challenge. So I say to you, don't underestimate Sarah Palin. Remember George W Bush.
McAilin'/Phalin' '08
8.29.2008
Strategery...
...boxing, Bush, Barack, and Big Brother.
Have you ever been in a fistfight? As an adult? Not one of those "I got drunk and had a tiff with my friend that our friends broke up after a few shoves" fight. I'm talking about a fight where you honestly felt that your life may have been in jeopardy. I'm talking about a fight where teeth are lost and bones are broken. I'm talking about a serious life or death street fight.
How about boxing? How about martial arts? While not as serious as a street fight (or a bar fight) as far as life or death goes, there's still the possibility of your demise.
A fist fight, be it in the street or in the ring, is the ultimate test of strategy. Every wrong move made is countered instantly with pain. Every correct move is a reward, because you cause pain to your opponent. In a physical confrontation, you get instant feedback. It may sound barbaric to some of you, but it's life.
No matter what kind of fight you're in, there are rules:
Each fight has it's own strategy. Obviously, the more familiar you are with your opponent, the better shape you're in. Watch what he does. Learn his tendencies. Know his weaknesses. When there is no familiarity, stand back for a minute. Deflect blows. Avoid bad positions. Keep your balance. Take mental notes. Obviously, strategy means nothing in a fight if you don't have the skills to test your strategy.
There are all sorts of strategy games, but my favorite test of strategy is US Electoral Politics.
Presidential politics is a street fight. It's a life or death situation. When was the last time you saw Walter Mondale? Michael Dukakis? Ross Perot? Bob Dole? Losing the fight doesn't always mean political death, but it always brings about a profound change. Al Gore, for instance. In the past, it was easier to come back and run again, but these days, it's a little different.
Understand, the election is a referendum on ideology. The candidate, for good and for ill, is the personification of his ideology. In these Rovian days, if you can make the election about a candidate, then all of his or her perceived personal failings become tied to that candidate's ideology. The more you concentrate on the candidate, then the election becomes referendum on the candidate rather than the ideology. This has a dual effect of destroying the candidate while simultaneously dismissing the ideology. An example:
See how easy that was? Want me to do it again?
Obviously, it's a bit more complex than that. It takes a lot of money and a lot of liars to make black into white. It takes endless repetitions that start as secretive whispers and eventually become "conventional wisdom." It takes bullying, and needs those who are being bullied to be frightened. Most of all, it requires a lie so incredible that people can't help but to believe it.
During the Democratic Primaries, Barack Obama was in a fight with Hillary Clinton. To many people, Hillary was beating up on Obama, and he was too weak to fight back. Hillary threw the kitchen sink at him. His response, at best, was perceived as tepid. This is because more Americans watch "Big Brother" than play chess.
I never learned how to play chess, but I understand the game. Like any test of strategy, you have to understand the goal(s) while staying 3 or more steps ahead of your opponent. Hillary may have won the battle of personal rhetoric, but she lost the war.
While she was throwing the kitchen sink, she never really thought about where it would land, regardless of whether or not it hit her target. In terms of a street fight, she ran into it, both arms flailing wildly, hoping for a lucky hit. That's not strategy, although many people think that it is. The Kitchen Sink "strategy" is actually "strategery."
Reality shows are lessons in expert strategery. I don't watch TV, except when I visit my family on Sundays. There is always a reality show on. Lately, they've all been addicted to "Big Brother," a game where people routinely fuck up their winning strategies over some personal bullshit. When called on that personal bullshit by a former ally, the accused often falls into the refrain of "It's not personal, it strategy. This is a game, and I'm trying to win," or some such nonsense. It's not strategy, it's strategery.
He beat Hillary by letting her make the election about him. At the start of the primary season, she was inevitable. When she saw there was competition, she panicked. Ideologically, there's not much daylight between the two. They were rivals, not opponents. She treated him like an opponent, and tarnished herself in the process. Had he treated her like she treated him, he would have faced a wide backlash. He understood this. He also understood that she was trying to bait him. He didn't fall for it. He understands strategy.
Fast forward to August. Obama has won his fight against Hillary, Bill, the GOP, the BBQ media, the PUMA's, and many of his own nervous supporters. Now, he must fight all the same people again, except you can exchange Hillary and Bill for John McCain.
John McCain's campaign claims to have watched the Obama/Hillary fight and learned how to beat Obama from Hillary's mistakes. It's interesting that they use the same strategy. First, they try to make the election about him, and not his ideas. Then, the Kitchen Sink.
Much like Hillary before him, McCain comes in arms flailing, hoping to get a lucky shot. Obama dodges when he can, and takes hits when he can't. When it's prudent, he gives a quick jab. For many of his supporters, that isn't good enough. Nevermind that it's August, and the general population isn't really paying attention. Nevermind that every McCain attack is more ridiculous than the last. Never mind that McCain is spending $10 million more than he's bringing in. Nevermind that the last thing America wants to see is an angry, indignant black man yelling at an old white man. Nevermind all that, let's panic instead.
While McCain has been telegraphing every move, Obama has been watching, waiting to strike when he could cause the most damage to his opponent while causing as little collateral damage as possible. McCain's been putting himself out on a limb, throwing punches that don't connect, while opening himself up to counter punches. Obama could play gotcha games, but what would be the point? Instead of gotcha's, we watch McCain dig himself deeper into a hole, thinking that he's safe. He's free to contradict himself, change positions, and lie about it. While he's doing that, all of this is going into the record.
Obama's strategy is simple. It starts with a single idea: People don't know the real John McCain. Let him put himself on the record. Let him define himself. You might think that's dangerous, and in many cases, I would agree. John McCain is a special case. John McCain is not the same as he was when he faced off against Bush in 2000. At least then, he had some core principles. Over the last 8 years, he's kissed the rings and asses of the people he used to despise.
McCain was never a maverick. He was a guy who wasn't an extremist, but made some questionable calls, all while spinning himself as a moderate. He is a guy who, while still not an extremist, is more than willing to spout extremist rhetoric, and still try to spin himself as a moderate. The extremist rhetoric scares the moderates, and the moderate rhetoric angers the extremists.
Obama is smart enough to know that there are people who would never vote for him. The challenge is to get the votes of the people who can vote either way. So, he let McCain tie himself closer to extremist right-wing ideology. He let McCain sing a the praises of BushCo.
Then, on August 28, 2008, Barack Obama fired his first salvo. He didn't cause a fatal wound, but he seriously damaged the right-wing ideology, and by implication, John McCain. This is a reversal of the Rove doctrine on a level that will fly above the heads of most observers. An example:
"He just doesn't know."
"He just doesn't get it."
Now that we've seen Obama throw some excellent punches without putting himself at risk, I hope we'll see less of the concern trolling recently put out by weak kneed, weak willed progressives. I hope they can now begin to understand that strategy is better than strategery. I hope we all spend a little less time watching "Big Brother," and more time learning how to play chess.
I know I will.
Have you ever been in a fistfight? As an adult? Not one of those "I got drunk and had a tiff with my friend that our friends broke up after a few shoves" fight. I'm talking about a fight where you honestly felt that your life may have been in jeopardy. I'm talking about a fight where teeth are lost and bones are broken. I'm talking about a serious life or death street fight.
How about boxing? How about martial arts? While not as serious as a street fight (or a bar fight) as far as life or death goes, there's still the possibility of your demise.
A fist fight, be it in the street or in the ring, is the ultimate test of strategy. Every wrong move made is countered instantly with pain. Every correct move is a reward, because you cause pain to your opponent. In a physical confrontation, you get instant feedback. It may sound barbaric to some of you, but it's life.
No matter what kind of fight you're in, there are rules:
1. Don't fight if you don't have to.
2. Don't fight someone you know you cannot beat.
3. If you find yourself in a fight you cannot win, cheat.
4. If you're fighting someone below your skill level, end the fight as quickly as possible.
5. If you have advance knowledge of your opponent, study him.
6. If you don't know your opponent, don't underestimate him. Take it slowly, and stay focused.
7. Never, ever, ever overestimate yourself.
Each fight has it's own strategy. Obviously, the more familiar you are with your opponent, the better shape you're in. Watch what he does. Learn his tendencies. Know his weaknesses. When there is no familiarity, stand back for a minute. Deflect blows. Avoid bad positions. Keep your balance. Take mental notes. Obviously, strategy means nothing in a fight if you don't have the skills to test your strategy.
There are all sorts of strategy games, but my favorite test of strategy is US Electoral Politics.
Presidential politics is a street fight. It's a life or death situation. When was the last time you saw Walter Mondale? Michael Dukakis? Ross Perot? Bob Dole? Losing the fight doesn't always mean political death, but it always brings about a profound change. Al Gore, for instance. In the past, it was easier to come back and run again, but these days, it's a little different.
Understand, the election is a referendum on ideology. The candidate, for good and for ill, is the personification of his ideology. In these Rovian days, if you can make the election about a candidate, then all of his or her perceived personal failings become tied to that candidate's ideology. The more you concentrate on the candidate, then the election becomes referendum on the candidate rather than the ideology. This has a dual effect of destroying the candidate while simultaneously dismissing the ideology. An example:
Al Gore invented the internet. He's lying. He's a liar. Al Gore believes in global warming. Al Gore's a liar. Global warming is a lie. Al Gore is a Liberal. Liberals are liars.
See how easy that was? Want me to do it again?
John Kerry was in Vietnam. He hated the things he did in Vietnam. America sent him to Vietnam. He hates the things America asked him to do in Vietnam. John Kerry hates America. John Kerry is a Liberal. Liberals hate America.
Obviously, it's a bit more complex than that. It takes a lot of money and a lot of liars to make black into white. It takes endless repetitions that start as secretive whispers and eventually become "conventional wisdom." It takes bullying, and needs those who are being bullied to be frightened. Most of all, it requires a lie so incredible that people can't help but to believe it.
During the Democratic Primaries, Barack Obama was in a fight with Hillary Clinton. To many people, Hillary was beating up on Obama, and he was too weak to fight back. Hillary threw the kitchen sink at him. His response, at best, was perceived as tepid. This is because more Americans watch "Big Brother" than play chess.
I never learned how to play chess, but I understand the game. Like any test of strategy, you have to understand the goal(s) while staying 3 or more steps ahead of your opponent. Hillary may have won the battle of personal rhetoric, but she lost the war.
While she was throwing the kitchen sink, she never really thought about where it would land, regardless of whether or not it hit her target. In terms of a street fight, she ran into it, both arms flailing wildly, hoping for a lucky hit. That's not strategy, although many people think that it is. The Kitchen Sink "strategy" is actually "strategery."
Reality shows are lessons in expert strategery. I don't watch TV, except when I visit my family on Sundays. There is always a reality show on. Lately, they've all been addicted to "Big Brother," a game where people routinely fuck up their winning strategies over some personal bullshit. When called on that personal bullshit by a former ally, the accused often falls into the refrain of "It's not personal, it strategy. This is a game, and I'm trying to win," or some such nonsense. It's not strategy, it's strategery.
He beat Hillary by letting her make the election about him. At the start of the primary season, she was inevitable. When she saw there was competition, she panicked. Ideologically, there's not much daylight between the two. They were rivals, not opponents. She treated him like an opponent, and tarnished herself in the process. Had he treated her like she treated him, he would have faced a wide backlash. He understood this. He also understood that she was trying to bait him. He didn't fall for it. He understands strategy.
Fast forward to August. Obama has won his fight against Hillary, Bill, the GOP, the BBQ media, the PUMA's, and many of his own nervous supporters. Now, he must fight all the same people again, except you can exchange Hillary and Bill for John McCain.
John McCain's campaign claims to have watched the Obama/Hillary fight and learned how to beat Obama from Hillary's mistakes. It's interesting that they use the same strategy. First, they try to make the election about him, and not his ideas. Then, the Kitchen Sink.
Much like Hillary before him, McCain comes in arms flailing, hoping to get a lucky shot. Obama dodges when he can, and takes hits when he can't. When it's prudent, he gives a quick jab. For many of his supporters, that isn't good enough. Nevermind that it's August, and the general population isn't really paying attention. Nevermind that every McCain attack is more ridiculous than the last. Never mind that McCain is spending $10 million more than he's bringing in. Nevermind that the last thing America wants to see is an angry, indignant black man yelling at an old white man. Nevermind all that, let's panic instead.
While McCain has been telegraphing every move, Obama has been watching, waiting to strike when he could cause the most damage to his opponent while causing as little collateral damage as possible. McCain's been putting himself out on a limb, throwing punches that don't connect, while opening himself up to counter punches. Obama could play gotcha games, but what would be the point? Instead of gotcha's, we watch McCain dig himself deeper into a hole, thinking that he's safe. He's free to contradict himself, change positions, and lie about it. While he's doing that, all of this is going into the record.
Obama's strategy is simple. It starts with a single idea: People don't know the real John McCain. Let him put himself on the record. Let him define himself. You might think that's dangerous, and in many cases, I would agree. John McCain is a special case. John McCain is not the same as he was when he faced off against Bush in 2000. At least then, he had some core principles. Over the last 8 years, he's kissed the rings and asses of the people he used to despise.
McCain was never a maverick. He was a guy who wasn't an extremist, but made some questionable calls, all while spinning himself as a moderate. He is a guy who, while still not an extremist, is more than willing to spout extremist rhetoric, and still try to spin himself as a moderate. The extremist rhetoric scares the moderates, and the moderate rhetoric angers the extremists.
Obama is smart enough to know that there are people who would never vote for him. The challenge is to get the votes of the people who can vote either way. So, he let McCain tie himself closer to extremist right-wing ideology. He let McCain sing a the praises of BushCo.
Then, on August 28, 2008, Barack Obama fired his first salvo. He didn't cause a fatal wound, but he seriously damaged the right-wing ideology, and by implication, John McCain. This is a reversal of the Rove doctrine on a level that will fly above the heads of most observers. An example:
Modern conservatism is wrong. John McCain is an honorable man. John McCain is a modern conservative. John McCain is an honorable man, but he's wrong.See the difference? He doesn't make McCain out to be something other than an honorable American patriot who loves his country, but is doing the wrong thing for the right reason.
"He just doesn't know."
"He just doesn't get it."
Now that we've seen Obama throw some excellent punches without putting himself at risk, I hope we'll see less of the concern trolling recently put out by weak kneed, weak willed progressives. I hope they can now begin to understand that strategy is better than strategery. I hope we all spend a little less time watching "Big Brother," and more time learning how to play chess.
I know I will.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)