Archives for November 2007

You may disagree, and you’re welcome to point me to other sources (there’s only about a half-dozen political blogs I read with any regularity), but I think my approach to Paul’s candidacy, at least in my mind, has been somewhat unique (up to now). I’ve made no predictions on his chances, and still I remain skeptical about them. The two most common approaches I see from other enthusiasts is the positive-thinking approach ("we’re going to win!") and the approach that concedes that Paul is gaining the power to have an important and positive impact on the other candidates (make them "more honest," I guess; whatever that means). The first approach is fine; nothing wrong with cheer leading. The second approach is worthless and dumb. There is absolutely nothing any of the other candidates can do to appeal to anyone who supports Paul and knows why. To those who know why, really and seriously, conventional politics will never, ever fool them again.

They have become atheists to the religion of political personality and sweet sweet lies. They have been cured from the zombie-ism that inflicts all democrats and republicans who give any stock at all to their favorite liar. Here’s my assessment, in a nutshell: There is a big difference between liars and honest, non-compromising men of integrity; differences between liars, whether ‘D’ or ‘R,’ are superficial and superfluous. Once you know the real deal, the manner, scale, cleverness or even appeal of liars is forever lost on you. Perhaps good men still labor in the lies of politics because they have believed that honesty and integrity is impossible. So far, Paul is the single exception that disproves the "rule," so maybe hopeless despair isn’t absolute, after all. Just maybe. Do we have cause and reason to welcome just a glimmer of hope, here?

…

Read More

There; I said it.

Indicative of my level of frustration, I guess. Yesterday, I endured — for a short time — being lied to by the wives of the presidential candidates on some Oprah-Doprah teevee program. It was such utterly contemptible, pandering and rotten bullshit that it always makes me wonder what world I live in, when I know there are millions on millions just lapping it up like it’s the first time in the world they’ve heard it. Obama’s wife was clearly the stupidest (I’m saying nothing). She prattled on endlessly, naming things that require the time and values of people to create, assemble, and manage; yet the whole point in brining up these things is to admonish "getting the money out of them." In other words: do them devoid of the principle means by which things get done. I guess they’ll happen somehow. Fucking moron.

But he’s sure a good speaker. Yep; I said that when I heard him at the democrat convention last go-round (ignoring content, of course). I remembered I said that when James Ostrowski granted it: "A great speaker though, give him that." I sensed I’d not be hearing the last of him. We’re such suckers for practiced dynamism and charisma; i.e., we’re a shallow bunch of dummies. But:

His talk about how his brand of "leadership" will "bring the country together" is particularly annoying. How does the failed liberal bag of tricks promise to bring us together when at least half of the country is sick to death of such nonsense? Those ideas and policies have been failing for about one hundred years now. This guy is stuck in the 1960’s, the blind and naive faith of the Great Society years. He is not the voice of the future but the voice of the failed past that we want to move beyond.

Not only that, but all the socialist "bringing together" since WWII, from both sides, have done more to divide people than anyone has seen since the Civil War. There was a time I’d have never even considered a title as appears, above. Now, I just don’t give a shit. I don’t care what anyone thinks about it and they can just fuck right off, and that’s just how I honestly assess it.

But as backward as Obama’s politics seems to me or anyone else paying honest attention from an historical perspective, it’s not like that’s going to stop anyone. From what I’m seeing, all the fools are still just as foolish, perfectly happy to be fooled again. I’ve said it before: every four to eight years we dump the bad King and elect a "good" King. Repeat endlessly.

But Jesus; if I can get through the monotonous, replayed banality and bullshit without my head exploding, it’ll be a miracle. James had a previous post about Obama that’s worth a look. I think he’s a bit bright eyed as concerns Paul, but whatever. It’s not going to make a difference soon anyway. The importance of Paul is the young people in America (and internationally) still young enough to be able to care about being lied to and lapping up lies, if they want to care. Maybe that amounts to something in the decades to come.

For the first time ever, Mick, Keith, Ian and Charlie made a buck off me.  I went ahead and bought the 1971 Sticky Fingers album on iTunes which is probably their album with the most tracks I like. Here’s my favorite, Can’t You Hear Me Knocking. The guitar work sounds pretty simple to me (for those who know what they’re doing, of course), but I like whatever effect he’s using, the seeming kinda discord, and timing. It just sounds cool to me and I’ve always liked that song.

For a nice & slow number it’s hard to beat Wild Horses.

So there you have it. I went and saw Beowulf this afternoon and liked it (Whereas, No Country for Old Men last night was 4/5ths good: the ending sucked rotten, stinky shit and I felt like a big sucker). My favorite line from the former was when the protagonist, Beowulf, was describing the spreading religion of the Romans and cursed it by judging that men must live "in fear and shame." That’s just a perfect and complete two-concept description of ne of the worst things men ever invented to dominate other men. Least I’m not that much of a sucker, anymore.

Later: just got back from seeing Hitman, with Timothy Olyphant as an interesting choice in that role. If you like that sort of thing (lots of reasonably righteous killing and mayhem), this is a fun one, I’d say.

First, the bafflement. You can file this under the "nobody could have predicted," category.

"Everyone — the staffers in the other campaigns, the bigwig political observers in the state — is scratching their heads. They don’t know what to make of this Ron Paul phenomenon," Smith said.

Next, the irony.

These "experts" were lopsided: on the occasions when they were right, they attributed it to their depth of understanding and expertise; when wrong, it was either the situation that was to blame, since it was unusual, or, worse, they did not recognize that they were wrong and spun stories around it. They found it difficult to accept that their grasp was a little short. But this attribute is universal to all our activities: there is something in us designed to protect our self-esteem.

We humans are the victims of an asymmetry in the perception of random events. We attribute our success to our skills, and our failures to external events outside our control., namely to randomness. We feel responsible for the good stuff, but not for the bad.

— Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable

…

Read More