I was going to write about the Patriots and their surprise success story at QB. Then, I got this email from the guy who sends me tons of joke/junk mail everyday (we all know at least one):
A possible new President
What a fantastic idea. You know what would really P**S OFF the Democrats...
Bush should resign now.
Then Dick Cheney becomes President (that would really P**S OFF the libs)!!!
Then he appoints Condoleeza Rice as VP.
Then Cheney resigns two weeks later and Condoleeza Rice, a Republican, becomes the first BLACK - WOMAN President!!!
What's scarier than the obvious partisan driven ignorance and spite is the fact that there are people out there laughing at this, many of whom are doing so not completely in jest...
Bald, yes. Bold, definitely. Bright, maybe not so much.
FBI raided Boston City Councilman Chuck Turner's office this morning, arresting him and charging him with bribery, and the situation looks grim by the looks of the picture floating around (eerily reminiscent of the undercover footage that got fellow Boston politico and Massachusetts State Senator Dianne Wilkerson busted earlier this month for the same thing).
Oh, Chuck. This isn't like the time you refused to shovel your sidewalk - you're in a much bigger heap of trouble this time around. Now I think it becomes a contest to see who can sing louder, Turner or Wilkerson. Only the coming weeks will tell.
Gerry Callahan and John Dennis, hosts of the sports radio show I listen to in the morning and ranted about 3 days ago for ignoring actual sports topics, apparently crossed a line this morning. At one point they told their listeners the election was postponed until Wednesday and at another they reported that only Republicans are voting today and Democrats should vote tomorrow. What they never considered (rather, one of the many things) is that some people may have actually believed them.
What seems to many of us like an obvious attempt at humor, albeit a poor one, did not register as such with all the listeners. For example, one listener "said his father-in-law believed the elections were postponed, and called him because he was so upset." Way to go guys.
Incidentally, this morning's buffoonery didn't go unnoticed by the State. Brian McNiff, a spokesman for the MA Secretary of State William Galvin, sent an email to both hosts and their station, WEEI, instructing them to "knock it off", stating that they were "doing a disservice to voters". He also made sure to mention the fact that there were laws specifically put into place to prevent any kind of tampering or interfering with elections.
As a result of that email, the broadcast on my ride home today was sprinkled periodically with not-so-subtle messages to listeners about how the election is today, not tomorrow.
It should be an interesting show in the morning, to say the least. It'll be all the more interesting considering how these results are coming in :)
I was originally going to try to write a parody poem, but quickly realized it was going to be much more time consuming than it'd be worth. So I found a funny picture of McCain instead:
According to all the polls, if John McCain gets what he's wishing for tomorrow, it seems as though most of the country will be as surprised as he'll be.
Sports Radio. It's probably my #1 preference as far as what I listen to when I'm driving (TLM can attest to that). However, Now that I have more time to listen thanks to a lengthier commute to work in the morning, it seems to have all but disappeared. In lieu of listening to discussion about whether Matt Cassel is getting better or if the Celtics look poised to win another Championship, I'm instead barraged with political rhetoric and moronic condemnation from and of both callers and politicos.
I want my Sports Radio back.
I know the election is right around the corner, and I know that lots of people like to talk politics. My complaint is simply that there are other stations for that. It's like buying a newspaper, turning to the sports section and getting nothing but op-eds about everything except that in which you are interested. Enough already.
To make matters worse, the stuff I'm listening to is typical of the times: aggressively close-minded hosts who think they know best arguing with equally know-it-all callers. Is this entertainment? No, it's fuel for the [ratings] fire, and the fact that people like me who tune in to get their sports fix and end up reluctantly listening to these buffoons is testament to why it's currently allowed (and probably encouraged) by those in charge.
I'll give it a few more days. I suppose there will be a lot of airtime spent after the election filled with either intense gloat or warning of impending doom, but I'm holding out hope that all will be right by Friday.
Boston.com ran a piece today called "The Meanies of Life: TV and film bullies we love to hate". It included some all-time names like Biff Tannen from Back to the Future ("McFlyyyy") and Gunnery Sergeant Hartman from Full Metal Jacket (um, too many good quotes to list). There were other, actually nefarious characters on the list to be sure, but I found one that actually made me cringe: Ann Coulter.
Yes, she has "blonde hair, intemperate venom" and her "Weapon of Choice" is well encapsulated in the phrase "[the] Politics of outrage", but it's the description of why she was put on the list that put it in perspective for me:
Who to choose among the conservative blovation spectrum? No contest: Limbaugh may be louder, O'Reilly more self-righteous, but no one delivers a verbal rope-burn with more thuggish glee than Coulter. The meanest Mean Girl of them all, she'd doubtless take that as a compliment.
And there it was. "Bloviation". I had to look it up to get a better idea of what it was. One definition was the following:
To bloviate means "to speak pompously and excessively." A colloquial verb coined in the United States, it is commonly used with contempt to describe the behavior of politicians, academics, pundits, or media "experts," sometimes called bloviators, who hold forth on subjects in an arrogant, tiresome way.
I realized I had finally found the word to encapsulate all that I loathe about politics today. People bloviate too much. How can one have a conversation with this type of person? You can't. You don't even get to agree or disagree. You're choices are to either listen or leave; talking means nothing to these people. It's their way or...well, their way.
The irony is that they feel they have to educate, to get out the truth (or what they think it is, anyway), when in reality the means through which they try to do so has the exact opposite effect - no one wants to listen to imperious babble from an overbearing, self-important blowhard.
I was reminded recently of one of my favorite books, How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie, a staple in any business school's required readings and a must-read for anyone who works with people. Its usefulness extends to anyone, however, and though nothing in the book is necessarily new information, it is presented in a way that comes across clearly and insightfully.
Some might say it's a compendium in basic human psychology, while others might see it as manipulation 101 (the inclusion of the word "Influence" in the title is certainly suggestive). I look at it much more innocently and take it for what it is: one man's advice on how to interact with others. Without a doubt, I recommend reading it, no matter who you are.
The book is broken down into four major sections, and in each one Carnegie presents ideas that seem old-hat, then hammers them home with tons of examples that firm up the real power behind them. At the end of each section he lists off those ideas in a summary he calls "In a Nutshell", meant for easy review. I've been meaning to list these off somewhere for a while now, just so I have somewhere a little more convenient than the book itself to look them over again. So, here are Dale Carnegie's "In a Nutshell" summaries as listed in his book:
Fundamental Techniques in Handling People
Don't criticize, condemn or complain.
Give honest and sincere appreciation.
Arouse in the other person an eager want.
Six ways to make people like you
Become genuinely interested in other people.
Smile.
Remember that a person's name is to that person the sweetest and most important sound in any language.
Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves.
Talk in terms of the other person's interests.
Make the other person feel important - and do it sincerely.
Win people to your way of thinking
The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never say, "You're wrong."
If you are wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
Begin in a friendly way.
Get the other person saying "yes, yes" immediately.
Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.
Let the other person feel that the idea is his or hers.
Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view.
Be sympathetic with the other person's ideas and desires.
Appeal to the nobler motives.
Dramatize your ideas.
Throw down a challenge.
Be a Leader: How to Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment
A leader's job often includes changing your people's attitudes and behavior. Some suggestions to accomplish this:
Begin with praise and honest appreciation.
Call attention to people's mistakes indirectly.
Talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other person.
Ask questions instead of giving direct orders.
Let the other person save face.
Praise the slightest improvement and praise every improvement. Be "hearty in your approbation and lavish in your praise."
Give the other person a fine reputation to live up to.
Use encouragement. Make the fault seem easy to correct.
Make the other person happy about doing the thing you suggest.
How is it that right now, at 9:20pm Tuesday night, I'm listening to John McCain give a victory speech and sites are already giving him New Hampshire with only 35% of the precincts reporting? Where is the math to back this up? Might not the other 65% of the state vote differently?
There's always been something sort of familiar about Mike Huckabee since his big win in Iowa...something I could never quite put my finger on. While watching the debates last night, though, it hit me. Good ol' Huck bears a striking resemblance to the misguided fictional President Charles Logan from 24 (played by Gregory Itzin...and I'm not the onlyonewhothinksso.
Of all of the questions, the ones that gained the most publicity (by far) were the questions asking students what they'd settle for in return for their right to vote (forever). I'm not sure if this was multiple choice format, but many headlines read something along the lines of "Students at NYU hapy to give up their right to vote for an iPod".
This is, of course, an oversimplification, but reading the article made me think about my own right to vote. I'd always been taught that voting was perhaps the most important thing I could do as a citizen of this country (right up there with jury duty!), and for all intents and purposes this teaching stuck; I make sure I go out just about every November and cast my ballot. However, I can remember some heavy discussions about recent elections (see election, presidential, 2000), many of which brought the actual value of my singular vote into question as well.
How much is my vote really worth? For the moment, forget monetary value...that is, does my vote really matter for anything? I'd like to believe the answer is "yes", but can anyone be so sure anymore? If, then, one's vote is worth nothing, why not take a million bucks or free tuition?
The answer is simple, to me at least. I believe that the right to vote is priceless, and is one of the reasons, nay, freedoms for which people want to come live in this country. Even if my one vote doesn't sway an election, I treasure the fact that I have the ability to choose who our leaders will be and how our laws will evolve...
I found this comic on BoingBoing, and I think it's an interesting take on today's holiday, it's history, terrorism, and let's throw in illegal immigration (why not).
Boy, that was quick. All it took was one more home run, and the novelty has already worn off for me. I'm officially back on the "Barry Bonds is a cheater" bandwagon, and am very interested in what will come of the George Mitchell report, which may be coming soon, and with some bad news for Barry if I'm reading Bud Selig correctly.
I saw the related cartoon below in the Boston Globe today, and thought it was post-worthy. (cartoon by Dan Wasserman)
It just so happens that on this date in 2003, a certain US President (out of office in just 722 days) said:
"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." -President George W. Bush
There is an enormity of "Bushisms" to be laughed at (unfortunately), and you can find lists all over the internet. PoliticalHumor.about.com has a funny one, updated frequently (again, unfortunately).
Well, the Deval Patrick victory as Governer of Massachusetts ("It's Patrick in a Romp" -Boston Globe) just goes to show that overly negative smear campaigns like those we are used to seeing from the GOP don't always work. The recent Republican tactic of taking an opponent's strength and making it seem like a weakness (see Kerry/swift boats and McCain/POW time) won't fool voters anymore.
This is a good thing. Now all we have to do is get voters to see past those cleverly conceived short phrases the GOP comes up with like "cut and run" and "stay the course". These phrases are chalk full of implications that people can't deny at face value; of course we want to "support our troops". The intended manipulation is of course to conveniently associate these phrases with political issues to which people would otherwise have to give actual thought.
Imagine that...politicians trying to make people believe something instead of understanding it.
In light of an article Boston.com ran today (titled "Online Sites are the New Line of Political Attacks") as well as the fact that today is jaz's b-day, here are 2 of my favorite politically mudslinging sites:
Now, don't get me wrong, when I was coming up on 16, I was all about being soon able to drive. Now, years later, I most certainly have a new opinion. I agree whole-heartedly with those on Capitol Hill, and think that these days "childhood" is something that lasts a lot longer, and the responsibility one must have to drive is NOT something the majority of children is ready to take on at 16 1/2.
One of the weaker arguments presented for keeping the current driving age is that it is "a rite of passage that can usher teenagers into adulthood by teaching them responsibility and providing the freedom to get around without relying on their parents". Look, if you want to usher your kids into adulthood, make them get a job and earn their own money instead of charging them with a responsibility that puts their and other drivers' lives in danger.
Forget 17 1/2. I say push the age to 18. Furthermore, let's make it a requirement to pass a driving test EVERY time you renew your license. Oh, and for all you drunk drivers out there, how about this: one strike, you're out...no more license for life. Handing a vehicle is no joke and is something that should not be treated lightly, and we need to make and enforce legislation that emphasizes it as such.
"...but, I think we can all agree that he [Bush] is a lovable president who doesn't mean any harm."
Though they jest, imagine how crippling a truth it would be if this is the primary reason he was re-elected into office. Pay attention to policy people!
My co-workers first words to me this morning about the President's State of the Union address last night were his opinion that he thought Bush was "trying to sound like a liberal". Interesting observation....I wonder if others thought the same thing.
I read over the transcript at the White House's site, and was not surprised to read that "the state of our Union is strong", yet again. Well, if you say so, prez...
It looks as if last night's speech was the same old "stay tough, the union" speech we've heard at least 3 years in a row now. One of the scary things is, I've actually heard people who take this mentality to heart, saying things like "yeah, we'll take them (Iran) over, then we'll move onto the next country", and "Let them (Korea) try to fuck with us, we'll kick their ass too". At what point, exactly, did I become a citizen of The United Bullies of the World, anyway? It seems as though none of these zealots will stop complaining and threatening until the world is under US control, and even then, I'm sure they'll still have the itch to pick a fight.
It is said that...our government failed to connect the dots of the [9/11] conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack...I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America.
Couldn't connect the dots? What was the title of that report, Ms. Rice?
I also love how he implies, without saying so exactly, that 9/11 happened because we couldn't wiretap people, and worse, that it will happen again if he's not allowed to do what he wants.
If the whole "Tough Guy" tactic isn't enough for you, there is another classic strategy of control: Fear. I thnk I first learned about it when I was studying the propaganda of Nazi Germany.
Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued slavery. Martin Luther King could have stopped at Birmingham or at Selma, and achieved only half a victory over segregation. The United States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe, and been complicit in the oppression of others. Today, having come far in our own historical journey, we must decide: Will we turn back, or finish well?
Wow! Lincoln? MLK? As another friend of mine so sarcastically put, "He [Bush] is clearly the next Martin Luther King".
So, next time you want to move others to your way of thinking, remember this cue form Bush. All you have to do is start talking about famous and revered figures in our history, throw in a lame attempt at tying in something you did recently that is loosely related to the argument, at best, then present a dichotomous choice (and sometimes ultimatum) like this one here: "turn back" (clearly negative, you wussy) or "finish well" (clearly positive, as opposed to finishing poorly or not at all..."stay the course").
Why do I THINK at all when my government is so ready to do it for me? I had no idea that every decision the President needed to make was so easy and clear cut...what an easy job! And the bonus is (according to some heavy pushers of the Republican agenda / religion), the President is never wrong...
Content found on The Neoteric is of no particular genre, topic, or focus, other than it was all at some point, in some way, interesting enough to me to write about.
