Previous month:
May 2008
Next month:
July 2008

The only thing Obama has to fear, is... Liberals

Looking at the presidential race as of today, it's clearly Obama's to lose.

The one thing that might go wrong? The haughty liberals sensing the victory, and gloating too early. They think that because Obama is doing well in the polls it proves to them that most people agree with them.

They are just wrong.

Consider this video. You really only have to watch the first 15 seconds to get the (lame) joke (which then repeats over and over, getting less funny each time), and to understand how the liberals could shoot themselves in the foot.

I get it that they don't like to shop at Wal-Mart, but if they are not among the 84 percent of Americans who have shopped at Wal-Mart in the last year.

Somehow these bozos think they can win an election with the 16 percent of people who are just like them.

The medium is the... oh look, a free MP3!

I found an excellent article about how the 'net is changing the way we think, and devoured every word of it while sitting in my library chair.

Yeah, right.

Library-chair Truth is I found a link to it on a blog, and pretty much got his point after a few paragraphs. I then sent it on to a couple of friends because it tied into something that was a meme for them, and would have never finished but for one point.

His thesis is that the instant access to information is actually rewiring our brains. Here's the nut graf:

As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.

I pretty much grokked his point after that nut graf and stopped reading, which either proves his point or makes a different one that I don't know if the writer wants to admit: In this environment there is a brutal Darwinism of ideas going on. If an idea isn't significantly new and also compelling, you are going to lose people after a few paragraphs.

The reason I went back and read the whole story was to make sure he didn't make that point. Indeed, he writes about Nietzsche, Turing, Frederick Winslow Taylor, Plato, Gutenberg, and even "Italian humanist Hieronimo Squarciafico" but no Darwin to be found.

The demise of the book is well known. I still love books, but I find time for fewer of them, but maybe that's OK. The books I do find, and enjoy, have survived the thinning of the herd.

Best recent book, by the way: The Principled Politician: The Ralph Carr Story.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Realtors®

So, we were talking to a Realtor® about a house, and we asked if the owners would consider selling with a contingent contract, that is, we wouldn't buy that house unless our house sold.

The Realtor® asked about our home, and how confident we were that it would sell. We told him that we'd talked to three Realtors®, and all of them said given the quality of the home, and the fantastic location location location, that it would sell quickly.

So, the Realtor® said, "You know, a lot of Realtors® are really hurting for business, so they will tell you that just to get you to list with them."


"Are you saying," I said in my head, but not out loud to this poor chump, "that Realtors® will LIE just to make money in violation of Article 12 of the Realtors® Code of Ethics?!? If that's true, then you might be telling a lie right now. You might be, or you might not be. My whole real estate world was based on a foundation that Realtors® are as honest as the day is long!"

Anyway, now we are selling our house. If you, or someone you know, is interested, please direct them to this Great Wash Park Home.

We are, you may be shocked to learn, selling it ourselves.

Never negotiate with terrorists, or crazy people

I've been told emphatically by close readers of this blog that I need to lay off associating Hillary with her plots to gain the presidency by, ummm, eliminating, the competition.

So, let us turn the page:

Much has been made about how Obama has said he is willing to sit down and negotiate with, among others, the Iranian leader, whatshisname... the one who thinks there are no gays in Iran. 

What our next president, and the country, really need to do is win over the hearts and minds of the Iranian people. We need to convince them that there is a brighter future for themselves if only they can ease out the nutjob. The problem is that within the country, they don't have the option of being critical of their own president, and they also probably basically agree with him about a lot of stuff. That's why our next president can't go around demonizing him because he needs all of those who support that nutjob now to nudge him in the direction of sanity. If he won't budge, then his own people will change to a leader who is more flexible.

OK, I can't resist, I have to bring Hillary back in to this.

I think Obama may be best suited to doing this job of dealing with the followers of an insane, narcissistic, power-at-any-cost leader because he has some on-the-job experience. I know Hillary is not a brutal dictator, but any rational analysis is that she shares an uncomfortable number of characteristics with other women leaders of countries who came to power because of their husbands, Evita Peron and Immelda Marcos come to mind.

Obama has been going out of his way not to demonize Hillary. I myself couldn't resist taking some jabs at her. (Obviously.) That's why I could never be a good politician, and that's why Obama is a good one: He has a good long-term strategy, and is keeping his eye on the larger prize. That's a winning strategy for an election, and for dealing with Iran.