![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Deep Thought
Jul. 3rd, 2009 07:46 pmIn an act of Christian charity, Sarah Palin has resigned on Mark Sanford's behalf.
Talking Points Memo has a feature they've been doing for a while using videos, called "The Day in 100 Seconds." It's usually a pretty good executive summary of the political events of the day.
Today's, though, rises above that, as it shows edited versions of Mr. Obama's speech, and Mr. Cheney's.
Not unlike seeing breakdowns of Mr. Obama's body language and Mr. McCain's during the campaign, seeing Mr. Cheney this way is highly revealing. I'd say even he doesn't appear to believe himself.
*^*^*
Today's, though, rises above that, as it shows edited versions of Mr. Obama's speech, and Mr. Cheney's.
Not unlike seeing breakdowns of Mr. Obama's body language and Mr. McCain's during the campaign, seeing Mr. Cheney this way is highly revealing. I'd say even he doesn't appear to believe himself.
*^*^*
Robert Heinlein once wrote the following definition of a gentleman: Someone who would rather be a dead lion than a live jackal. He had a character, Lazarus Long (who may have been modeled on Heinlein's friend, L. R0n Hubbard), say that he'd rather be a live lion, so he didn't qualify.
It's with that in mind that I read this piece in the New York Times, and this piece by E.J. Dionne, all about how there's a wing in the Republican party that's in a lather about the idea of Florida governor Charlie Crist running for Mel Martinez' soon-to-be-vacated seat.
Crist, who supported John McCain loudly and vigorously during the presidential campaign, is condemned by some for having the temerity to act in the best interests of his state and country by supporting Obama and the stimulus plan. You'd almost think there was a reason he'd support a candidate who spoke so often at a podium that read, "Country First." (Even if that candidate never did publicly acknowledge that every time he did so, he was supporting his opponent over himself. But it's the thought that counts.)
So they're supremely worried that someone who puts policy, morality, legality, and ethics ahead of the in-group out-group tribal dynamics of today's Republican party might... might... win an election, or something equally offensive to their delicate sensibilities.
So, now we finally have a label for these faux "conservatives," who wish to conserve nothing, and are far more radical than anything else:
The Dead Jackals.
Because that's clearly their stand: A candidate should value conformity to the tribal consensus above all else, even if that means losing elections, even if that means doing their worst for the country as a whole. Want to act to save business? Not if you're a Dead Jackal. Want to act with Christian charity and humility? Not if you're a Dead Jackal. Want to acknowledge that torture is overwhelmingly counter-productive, and serves no purpose other than to vent sadism? Not if you're a Dead Jackal.
Why? Because the tribe says so, that's why.
And so it goes...
It's with that in mind that I read this piece in the New York Times, and this piece by E.J. Dionne, all about how there's a wing in the Republican party that's in a lather about the idea of Florida governor Charlie Crist running for Mel Martinez' soon-to-be-vacated seat.
Crist, who supported John McCain loudly and vigorously during the presidential campaign, is condemned by some for having the temerity to act in the best interests of his state and country by supporting Obama and the stimulus plan. You'd almost think there was a reason he'd support a candidate who spoke so often at a podium that read, "Country First." (Even if that candidate never did publicly acknowledge that every time he did so, he was supporting his opponent over himself. But it's the thought that counts.)
So they're supremely worried that someone who puts policy, morality, legality, and ethics ahead of the in-group out-group tribal dynamics of today's Republican party might... might... win an election, or something equally offensive to their delicate sensibilities.
So, now we finally have a label for these faux "conservatives," who wish to conserve nothing, and are far more radical than anything else:
The Dead Jackals.
Because that's clearly their stand: A candidate should value conformity to the tribal consensus above all else, even if that means losing elections, even if that means doing their worst for the country as a whole. Want to act to save business? Not if you're a Dead Jackal. Want to act with Christian charity and humility? Not if you're a Dead Jackal. Want to acknowledge that torture is overwhelmingly counter-productive, and serves no purpose other than to vent sadism? Not if you're a Dead Jackal.
Why? Because the tribe says so, that's why.
And so it goes...
This blog supports Ross Hunter
May. 1st, 2009 04:59 pmUnexpected piece of news I found out today:
"Rep. Ross Hunter joins race for King County executive," according to the Seattle Times. Ron Sims, the former King County executive, has moved on to Deputy Secretary at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Ross Hunter has long had my admiration, as readers may remember:
He really is One of Us, geek-wise. When I gave him Bruce's book, I explained who Bruce was, as a security expert and the author of Applied Cryptography. "I know. I already have a copy."
This blog fully supports Ross in his candidacy.
"Rep. Ross Hunter joins race for King County executive," according to the Seattle Times. Ron Sims, the former King County executive, has moved on to Deputy Secretary at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Ross Hunter has long had my admiration, as readers may remember:
"Ross Hunter was an ex-Microsoft employee who had, among other bills, a "sense of the state" kind of thing calling attention to the dangers of the infringements of civil liberties in the Federal PATRIOT Act. I took along a signed copy of Bruce Schneier's Beyond Fear, and was able to give it to him. We've spoken once or twice since -- great guy."
He really is One of Us, geek-wise. When I gave him Bruce's book, I explained who Bruce was, as a security expert and the author of Applied Cryptography. "I know. I already have a copy."
This blog fully supports Ross in his candidacy.
Various updatery
Feb. 26th, 2009 09:28 am* Just back from the gym, my fourth time in two weeks. The earlier three times, I'd always used the elliptical trainers. I could usually last 2, 2-and-a-half minutes, and my heart rate would zoom to just shy of 130. This worried me.
This time I tried a recumbent bike, and that felt much better. 10 minute session, heart rate hovering at around 100. Didn't feel as worn out once stopped, even though 4-5 times as long. Given my general decrepitude, I suspect a workout that's longer and less stressing will be more useful.
* Comcast is now completely out of the house. The internet is now Qwest DSL. The VoIP is now Vonage. Local phone calls are a good chunk of the Anglophone world (US, Canada, UK, ANZ) plus Sweden and many others. No cable TV, but that was our status quo ante for 20 years -- I don't think we'll miss it. (Hello, Netflix! Patient, aren'cha?)
* Nothing of note on the job front.
* Obama gave his almost but not quite State of the Union. The thing that struck me, yet again, was how modest Obama can be:
"As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by Presidents Day... And tonight I am grateful that this Congress delivered and pleased to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is now law."
He asked the Congress to do something, and he's grateful they delivered.
Which, really, are the way relations between the President and Congress should be. The President executes the laws, and Congress writes them. If the President thinks there should be a new law, he should ask, and then Congress either agrees with him or not.
How much does it say about the last few years that our government working the way it's supposed to is a breath of fresh air?
But the other remarkable thing continues to be how opponents to Mr. Obama stick sarcastic labels on him -- "The Messiah," "The One," etc. -- while his own words, actions, and demeanor are very humble.
This time I tried a recumbent bike, and that felt much better. 10 minute session, heart rate hovering at around 100. Didn't feel as worn out once stopped, even though 4-5 times as long. Given my general decrepitude, I suspect a workout that's longer and less stressing will be more useful.
* Comcast is now completely out of the house. The internet is now Qwest DSL. The VoIP is now Vonage. Local phone calls are a good chunk of the Anglophone world (US, Canada, UK, ANZ) plus Sweden and many others. No cable TV, but that was our status quo ante for 20 years -- I don't think we'll miss it. (Hello, Netflix! Patient, aren'cha?)
* Nothing of note on the job front.
* Obama gave his almost but not quite State of the Union. The thing that struck me, yet again, was how modest Obama can be:
"As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by Presidents Day... And tonight I am grateful that this Congress delivered and pleased to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is now law."
He asked the Congress to do something, and he's grateful they delivered.
Which, really, are the way relations between the President and Congress should be. The President executes the laws, and Congress writes them. If the President thinks there should be a new law, he should ask, and then Congress either agrees with him or not.
How much does it say about the last few years that our government working the way it's supposed to is a breath of fresh air?
But the other remarkable thing continues to be how opponents to Mr. Obama stick sarcastic labels on him -- "The Messiah," "The One," etc. -- while his own words, actions, and demeanor are very humble.
I was once told, soon after Sept. 11, 2001, that I kept acting like the greatest dangers to the US came not from overseas, but from within.
I agreed completely.
I have always thought that we are so powerful we have nothing to genuinely fear. That the US attitude toward foreign threats should be, "Though we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, we will fear no evil because we're the baddest sons of bitches in the valley."
One of the most remarkable things about the Republican attitude toward foreign affairs has been how in the name of "strength," they've promoted fear. I still believe that if oppression comes to the US, it will come because of that fear, and of trying to overcompensate for it.
As usual, someone said this better, and this time it's Abraham Lincoln.
"We find ourselves in the peaceful possession of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us. We, when remounting the stage of existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings. We toiled not in the acquirement or the establishment of them; they are a legacy bequeathed to us by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed race of ancestors.
Theirs was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves us, of this goodly land, and to rear upon its hills and valleys a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; 'tis ours only to transmit these,—the former unprofaned by the foot of the invader; the latter undecayed by lapse of time. This, our duty to ourselves and to our posterity, and love for our species in general, imperatively require us to perform.
How, then, shall we perform it? At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step across the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reaches us, it must spring up among us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
There is even now something of ill omen among us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts; and the worse than savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth and an insult to our intelligence to deny.
I know the American people are much attached to their government. I know they would suffer much for its sake. I know they would endure evils long and patiently before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affection for the government is the natural consequence, and to that sooner or later it must come.
Here, then, is one point at which danger may be expected. The question recurs, how shall we fortify against it? The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country, and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and the Laws let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honour; let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap. Let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges. Let it be written in primers, spelling-books, and in almanacs. Let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation."
I agreed completely.
I have always thought that we are so powerful we have nothing to genuinely fear. That the US attitude toward foreign threats should be, "Though we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, we will fear no evil because we're the baddest sons of bitches in the valley."
One of the most remarkable things about the Republican attitude toward foreign affairs has been how in the name of "strength," they've promoted fear. I still believe that if oppression comes to the US, it will come because of that fear, and of trying to overcompensate for it.
As usual, someone said this better, and this time it's Abraham Lincoln.
"We find ourselves in the peaceful possession of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us. We, when remounting the stage of existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings. We toiled not in the acquirement or the establishment of them; they are a legacy bequeathed to us by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed race of ancestors.
Theirs was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves us, of this goodly land, and to rear upon its hills and valleys a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; 'tis ours only to transmit these,—the former unprofaned by the foot of the invader; the latter undecayed by lapse of time. This, our duty to ourselves and to our posterity, and love for our species in general, imperatively require us to perform.
How, then, shall we perform it? At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step across the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reaches us, it must spring up among us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
There is even now something of ill omen among us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts; and the worse than savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth and an insult to our intelligence to deny.
I know the American people are much attached to their government. I know they would suffer much for its sake. I know they would endure evils long and patiently before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affection for the government is the natural consequence, and to that sooner or later it must come.
Here, then, is one point at which danger may be expected. The question recurs, how shall we fortify against it? The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country, and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and the Laws let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honour; let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap. Let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges. Let it be written in primers, spelling-books, and in almanacs. Let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation."
Where you are
Nov. 9th, 2008 09:17 pmNicholas Kristof has a piece in the New York Times titled, "Obama and the War on Brains." Lead paragraph:
"Barack Obama’s election is a milestone in more than his pigmentation. The second most remarkable thing about his election is that American voters have just picked a president who is an open, out-of-the-closet, practicing intellectual."
This was particularly clear a few cycles ago, when Democrats rejected Bill Bradley because he was too smart, followed by a large national suspicion of Al Gore for being too smart.
But it reminded me of a different aspect of Obama that's not getting much play.
He's the first president in a loooooooong time who goes "home" to a big city -- Chicago. Consider the list:
Bush 43 -- Crawford, TX
Clinton -- Little Rock, AR
Bush 41 -- Kennebunkport, ME
Reagan -- "Rancho del Cielo" in the Santa Ynez mountains NW of Santa Barbara, CA
Carter -- Plains, GA
Ford -- Grand Rapids, MI and Rancho Mirage, CA
Nixon -- either San Clemente, CA, or Key Biscayne, FL
LBJ -- Johnson City, TX
JFK -- Hyannisport, MA
Eisenhower -- Gettysburg, PA
Truman -- Independence, MO
FDR -- Hyde Park, NY
...etc, etc.
"Barack Obama’s election is a milestone in more than his pigmentation. The second most remarkable thing about his election is that American voters have just picked a president who is an open, out-of-the-closet, practicing intellectual."
This was particularly clear a few cycles ago, when Democrats rejected Bill Bradley because he was too smart, followed by a large national suspicion of Al Gore for being too smart.
But it reminded me of a different aspect of Obama that's not getting much play.
He's the first president in a loooooooong time who goes "home" to a big city -- Chicago. Consider the list:
Bush 43 -- Crawford, TX
Clinton -- Little Rock, AR
Bush 41 -- Kennebunkport, ME
Reagan -- "Rancho del Cielo" in the Santa Ynez mountains NW of Santa Barbara, CA
Carter -- Plains, GA
Ford -- Grand Rapids, MI and Rancho Mirage, CA
Nixon -- either San Clemente, CA, or Key Biscayne, FL
LBJ -- Johnson City, TX
JFK -- Hyannisport, MA
Eisenhower -- Gettysburg, PA
Truman -- Independence, MO
FDR -- Hyde Park, NY
...etc, etc.
538 prediction vs actual
Nov. 6th, 2008 09:56 pmThe map comparing Nate Silver's predicted Electoral College map (bottom), vs the actual results (top).
http://www.FiveThirtyEight.com/ has clearly been a big winner this cycle. Here's his only variances:
* Indiana went Democratic
* Missouri was a "toss up" -- it looks like it'll go Republican
* Nebraska's Electoral College votes are split by congressional district. They're still counting, and the possibility remains that the district with Omaha will go for Obama.
Given Nate was predicting 55 individual races -- 50 states, 3 districts in Nebraska, 2 in Maine -- that's a pretty good batting average.
http://www.FiveThirtyEight.com/ has clearly been a big winner this cycle. Here's his only variances:
* Indiana went Democratic
* Missouri was a "toss up" -- it looks like it'll go Republican
* Nebraska's Electoral College votes are split by congressional district. They're still counting, and the possibility remains that the district with Omaha will go for Obama.
Given Nate was predicting 55 individual races -- 50 states, 3 districts in Nebraska, 2 in Maine -- that's a pretty good batting average.
And that's a wrap (presidential wise)...
Nov. 4th, 2008 06:51 pmSo, John King of CNN just walked through a scenario. Since CNN has called Ohio for Obama, the question was, Can John McCain get to 270 from here?
He gave McCain every remaining state except the Pacific Coast, and Hawaii.
266.
{blink}
That's it. It's all over except for the counting and the recriminations and blame on the Republican side.
Also, local races and issues. If you're on the West Coast, and you haven't voted yet, PLEASE do so... There are many highly important issues still contested.
But if Red Auerbach was Obama's coach, it would be time to light the cigar.
He gave McCain every remaining state except the Pacific Coast, and Hawaii.
266.
{blink}
That's it. It's all over except for the counting and the recriminations and blame on the Republican side.
Also, local races and issues. If you're on the West Coast, and you haven't voted yet, PLEASE do so... There are many highly important issues still contested.
But if Red Auerbach was Obama's coach, it would be time to light the cigar.
Very soon now...
Nov. 4th, 2008 02:37 pmAccording to Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com, all five of the most likely scenarios where McCain wins need him to win Indiana. Four out of five of them involve winning Virginia.
Indiana polls close at the top of the hour (about 20 mins from this writing). Virginia, an hour after that.
So, one suspects, the narrative is going to take shape very early.
Indiana polls close at the top of the hour (about 20 mins from this writing). Virginia, an hour after that.
So, one suspects, the narrative is going to take shape very early.
obama -- mr october
Nov. 3rd, 2008 01:42 pmBy Steve Brodner. His caption:
"It's funny how ideas come to you. Last Wednesday I was writing #44 under a picture of Obama (for another illustration) and the brain made the connection between the 44th president and Reggie Jackson! Out of the whole campaign October was by far Obama's best month. MR. OCTOBER! On deck!! New Yorker this week."
I love how the slouchiness conveys Obama's fundamental coolness under pressure.
Original here
"It's funny how ideas come to you. Last Wednesday I was writing #44 under a picture of Obama (for another illustration) and the brain made the connection between the 44th president and Reggie Jackson! Out of the whole campaign October was by far Obama's best month. MR. OCTOBER! On deck!! New Yorker this week."
I love how the slouchiness conveys Obama's fundamental coolness under pressure.
Original here
Here's a roundup of items I've noticed recently that I think illustrate the character of Barack Obama.
*^*^*
From the New York Times, a few days ago ("Barack Obama, Forever Sizing Up," by Jodi Kantor):
Anyone who's read Thirteen Days should recognize this style -- and the value of getting everyone's input when the crunch comes.
*^*^*
Also from the Times, comes this write-up of Obama's break in campaigning to visit his ill grandmother ("For Obama, a Melancholy Biography Tour," by Jeff Zeleny).
*^*^*
From Dirck Halstead's The Digital Journalist comes this portfolio of images by Callie Shell of Time magazine.
The images are great -- one semi-famous one of Obama's worn-through shoes -- but I wanted to call out some of the captions (you'll have to click on the link "Show More Images" -- multiple times -- at the bottom of the page to get these to display):
That, ladies and gentlemen, is an X'er. Aways cleaning up messes.
It's also worth seeing the images of Obama and his family.
*^*^*
Bruce Schneier had a post titled, "Barack Obama Discusses Security Trade-Offs." It's a tough one to pull out quotes from. But it's extraordinary in showing Obama's thought processes about security, and how each layer of management has to consider all the resources at their disposal, and weigh the benefits from using or putting aside each one, all the way up the chain (with larger pools at each link) culminating with the president overseeing the trade-offs for the entire country. Quoth Bruce, "Security is a trade-off, and that trade-off has to be made by someone with responsibility over all aspects of that trade-off. I don't think I've ever heard a politician make this point so explicitly."
*^*^*
I end with a rhetorical question: Who was the most recent public figure of whom you could say, The more you learned about them, the more impressed you were?
*^*^*
From the New York Times, a few days ago ("Barack Obama, Forever Sizing Up," by Jodi Kantor):
From his days leading The Harvard Law Review to his presidential campaign, Barack Obama has always run meetings by a particular set of rules.
Everyone contributes; silent lurkers will be interrogated. (He wants to “suck the room of every idea,” said Valerie Jarrett, a close adviser.) Mention a theory and Mr. Obama asks how it translates on the ground. He orchestrates debate, playing participants off each other — and then highlights their areas of agreement. He constantly restates others’ contributions in his own invariably more eloquent words. But when the session ends, his view can remain a mystery, and his ultimate call is sometimes a surprise to everyone who was present.
Anyone who's read Thirteen Days should recognize this style -- and the value of getting everyone's input when the crunch comes.
*^*^*
Also from the Times, comes this write-up of Obama's break in campaigning to visit his ill grandmother ("For Obama, a Melancholy Biography Tour," by Jeff Zeleny).
“She can’t travel,” Mr. Obama said of his grandmother during the flight to Kansas in late January. “She has a bad back. She has pretty severe osteoporosis, but she’s glued to CNN.” A smile washed over his face as he spoke about the woman he calls “Toot,” his own shorthand for grandparent, which in Hawaii is Tutu.
*^*^*
From Dirck Halstead's The Digital Journalist comes this portfolio of images by Callie Shell of Time magazine.
The images are great -- one semi-famous one of Obama's worn-through shoes -- but I wanted to call out some of the captions (you'll have to click on the link "Show More Images" -- multiple times -- at the bottom of the page to get these to display):
Waiting: Obama listens from a back stairwell as he is introduced in Muscatine, Iowa. It was his second or third speech of the day. Unlike many of the politicians I have photographed in the past, I find it is easy to get a photograph of Obama alone. He lets his staff do their jobs and not fuss over him. Nov. 7, 2007.
..
I loved that he cleaned up after himself before leaving an ice cream shop in Wapello, Iowa. He didn't have to. The event was over and the press had left. He is used to taking care of things himself and I think this is one of the qualities that makes Obama different from so many other political candidates I've encountered. Nov. 7, 2007.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is an X'er. Aways cleaning up messes.
It's also worth seeing the images of Obama and his family.
*^*^*
Bruce Schneier had a post titled, "Barack Obama Discusses Security Trade-Offs." It's a tough one to pull out quotes from. But it's extraordinary in showing Obama's thought processes about security, and how each layer of management has to consider all the resources at their disposal, and weigh the benefits from using or putting aside each one, all the way up the chain (with larger pools at each link) culminating with the president overseeing the trade-offs for the entire country. Quoth Bruce, "Security is a trade-off, and that trade-off has to be made by someone with responsibility over all aspects of that trade-off. I don't think I've ever heard a politician make this point so explicitly."
*^*^*
I end with a rhetorical question: Who was the most recent public figure of whom you could say, The more you learned about them, the more impressed you were?
Ratings are in...
Oct. 30th, 2008 09:33 amFrom a blog run by The Hollywood Reporter, some preliminary numbers:
*^*^*
"OCTOBER 30, 2008
Obama ad boosts network ratings
UPDATED: If Barack Obama fails to win the election, perhaps the networks should hire him to entertain viewers on Wednesday nights.
On average, Obama's 30-minute primetime infomercial managed to outperform the usual broadcast programming in the 8 p.m. time period.
The Obama special was seen by 26.3 million viewers across broadcasters CBS, NBC and Fox, according to preliminary Nielsen ratings.
Now the tricky question is: What do you compare Obama's ad to? After all, such a national pre-election special hasn’t been attempted in 16 years.
The entertainment programming that usually runs in the slot on those three networks has averaged a cumulative 23.1 million viewers each week since the start of the season -- 12% lower than the Obama ad total. Put another way, the time period averages about 7.7 million viewers and a 2.4 adults 18-49 rating per network. In the preliminary ratings, the ad pulled an average of 9.2 million viewers and a 2.7 average rating per network -- boosting the advertiser-friendly adult demo by 13%.
But the usual shows are comedies and dramas. Can one realistically compare "Knight Rider" to a political ad? That would normally seem unfair -- to the politician. Obama improved NBC's rating by 43% and CBS by 10% compared with last week. And keep in mind Obama was competing against himself.
The lowest-rated of the three presidential debates received a 52.4 million viewers -- but that was carried by more networks and was, after all, a debate.
The Ross Perot specials in 1992 averaged 11.6 million viewers, but those were 15 separate specials that ran on different nights.
NBC was the most-viewed and highest-rated network for its presentation of Obama's ad, pulling 9.8 million viewers and a 3.0 rating. CBS had 8.6 million (2.3) and Fox had 7.9 million (2.8).
And keep in mind, the Obama ad aired on more networks than just those three broadcasters. MSNBC, Univision, BET and TV One also carried the ad. Nielsen will release a total viewership number that includes other telecasts later today. The measurement company has released a cume metered market household rating for the ad -- 21.7.
As for ABC's underdog "Pushing Daisies," airing on the only major broadcaster not to carry the ad, the counterprogramming still came in fourth place in the adults 18-49 demo. "Daisies" (6.8 million, 2.2) was up by 16% from last week, which isn't as big of a boost as the network had likely hoped for."
*^*^*
"OCTOBER 30, 2008
Obama ad boosts network ratings
UPDATED: If Barack Obama fails to win the election, perhaps the networks should hire him to entertain viewers on Wednesday nights.
On average, Obama's 30-minute primetime infomercial managed to outperform the usual broadcast programming in the 8 p.m. time period.
The Obama special was seen by 26.3 million viewers across broadcasters CBS, NBC and Fox, according to preliminary Nielsen ratings.
Now the tricky question is: What do you compare Obama's ad to? After all, such a national pre-election special hasn’t been attempted in 16 years.
The entertainment programming that usually runs in the slot on those three networks has averaged a cumulative 23.1 million viewers each week since the start of the season -- 12% lower than the Obama ad total. Put another way, the time period averages about 7.7 million viewers and a 2.4 adults 18-49 rating per network. In the preliminary ratings, the ad pulled an average of 9.2 million viewers and a 2.7 average rating per network -- boosting the advertiser-friendly adult demo by 13%.
But the usual shows are comedies and dramas. Can one realistically compare "Knight Rider" to a political ad? That would normally seem unfair -- to the politician. Obama improved NBC's rating by 43% and CBS by 10% compared with last week. And keep in mind Obama was competing against himself.
The lowest-rated of the three presidential debates received a 52.4 million viewers -- but that was carried by more networks and was, after all, a debate.
The Ross Perot specials in 1992 averaged 11.6 million viewers, but those were 15 separate specials that ran on different nights.
NBC was the most-viewed and highest-rated network for its presentation of Obama's ad, pulling 9.8 million viewers and a 3.0 rating. CBS had 8.6 million (2.3) and Fox had 7.9 million (2.8).
And keep in mind, the Obama ad aired on more networks than just those three broadcasters. MSNBC, Univision, BET and TV One also carried the ad. Nielsen will release a total viewership number that includes other telecasts later today. The measurement company has released a cume metered market household rating for the ad -- 21.7.
As for ABC's underdog "Pushing Daisies," airing on the only major broadcaster not to carry the ad, the counterprogramming still came in fourth place in the adults 18-49 demo. "Daisies" (6.8 million, 2.2) was up by 16% from last week, which isn't as big of a boost as the network had likely hoped for."
"American Stories, American Solutions"
Oct. 29th, 2008 11:51 pmFor those who may have missed it, but are interested, here's the 27 min film that Barack Obama broadcast earlier tonight. Having now gone through it, the reason it's 27 mins and not the full half hour is that it drops off before the live speech given at the end, from Florida.
I call it a "film" and not an "ad" because... it really feels at that level of production quality.
I think it lays out a positive, optimistic agenda. Here's an interesting thought experiment: If John McCain had made this, I find it hard to believe it would have been so consistently, "Here's why I need your help," instead of, "Don't vote for the other guy. He's scary."
Another piece of skepticism: If it had been McCain, I don't think it would have been about other people as much, I don't think it would have had so many other speakers, and I don't think he'd have been off-camera so often. Yet again, for someone accused so often of being full of himself, this is a remarkably restrained work (or as restrained as a half-hour promoting oneself can be :)
I've said this before, and I may well have cause to say it again: Obama gives fearful people hope. Right now, just like in 1932, that may be the most important message of all.
*^*^*
*^*^*
UPDATED TO ADD: ...and here's the segment that was broadcast at the end, live from Orlanda, Florida.
I call it a "film" and not an "ad" because... it really feels at that level of production quality.
I think it lays out a positive, optimistic agenda. Here's an interesting thought experiment: If John McCain had made this, I find it hard to believe it would have been so consistently, "Here's why I need your help," instead of, "Don't vote for the other guy. He's scary."
Another piece of skepticism: If it had been McCain, I don't think it would have been about other people as much, I don't think it would have had so many other speakers, and I don't think he'd have been off-camera so often. Yet again, for someone accused so often of being full of himself, this is a remarkably restrained work (or as restrained as a half-hour promoting oneself can be :)
I've said this before, and I may well have cause to say it again: Obama gives fearful people hope. Right now, just like in 1932, that may be the most important message of all.
*^*^*
*^*^*
UPDATED TO ADD: ...and here's the segment that was broadcast at the end, live from Orlanda, Florida.
Election prediction round-up
Oct. 28th, 2008 04:17 pmWith one week to go before the event, here's the state of play in the election as of today, according to simulators and markets. Comparisons are to my previous roundup, on October 8th:
Princeton Election Consortium: Obama 363 electoral votes, McCain 175 (Formerly Obama 353 electoral votes, McCain 185, so Obama +10)
FiveThirtyEight.com: Obama 348 electoral votes, McCain 190 (Formerly Obama 347 electoral votes, McCain 191, so Obama +1)
Electoral-Vote.com: Obama 364 electoral votes, McCain 157, Ties 17 (Formerly Obama 349 electoral votes, McCain 174, Ties 15, so Obama +15)
Iowa Electronic Markets: Dem .86, Rep .14 (Formerly Dem .81, Rep .19, so Obama +.05) (one way to think of that is as percentages, but it represents the price of contracts out of a $1.00)
Intrade does both:
* Obama 364 electoral votes, McCain 174 (Formerly Obama 338, McCain 200, so Obama +26)
* Obama .88, McCain .12 in the contracts (Formerly Obama .71, McCain .29, so Obama +.17)
*^*^*
At this point, the changes are flat enough the question becomes, Are the polls accurate? (The one exception has been Intrade going from being a laggard to joining the consensus.)
Everyone else has noticed this, too:
Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, today: "Stop me if you've heard this one before."
Sam Wang of Princeton on 22 October:"In which I write of paint continuing to dry. There's just so many posts like this a guy can write. Today, Obama is still crushing McCain. Still. Crushing. McCain."
Perhaps the greatest irony: The numbers stopped drifting after the second debate, in McCain's much favored Town Hall format. The electorate saw him in that format, found him wanting, and haven't seen anything to persuade them otherwise since.
Thus, be careful what you ask for.
Princeton Election Consortium: Obama 363 electoral votes, McCain 175 (Formerly Obama 353 electoral votes, McCain 185, so Obama +10)
FiveThirtyEight.com: Obama 348 electoral votes, McCain 190 (Formerly Obama 347 electoral votes, McCain 191, so Obama +1)
Electoral-Vote.com: Obama 364 electoral votes, McCain 157, Ties 17 (Formerly Obama 349 electoral votes, McCain 174, Ties 15, so Obama +15)
Iowa Electronic Markets: Dem .86, Rep .14 (Formerly Dem .81, Rep .19, so Obama +.05) (one way to think of that is as percentages, but it represents the price of contracts out of a $1.00)
Intrade does both:
* Obama 364 electoral votes, McCain 174 (Formerly Obama 338, McCain 200, so Obama +26)
* Obama .88, McCain .12 in the contracts (Formerly Obama .71, McCain .29, so Obama +.17)
*^*^*
At this point, the changes are flat enough the question becomes, Are the polls accurate? (The one exception has been Intrade going from being a laggard to joining the consensus.)
Everyone else has noticed this, too:
Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, today: "Stop me if you've heard this one before."
Sam Wang of Princeton on 22 October:"In which I write of paint continuing to dry. There's just so many posts like this a guy can write. Today, Obama is still crushing McCain. Still. Crushing. McCain."
Perhaps the greatest irony: The numbers stopped drifting after the second debate, in McCain's much favored Town Hall format. The electorate saw him in that format, found him wanting, and haven't seen anything to persuade them otherwise since.
Thus, be careful what you ask for.
Steady on the tiller
Oct. 22nd, 2008 12:55 amI've said this before -- every time John McCain speaks at a podium labeled "Country First," he campaigns for Obama. Every time he talks about a "steady hand at the tiller," he campaigns for Obama. Just like, before McCain, every time Hillary Clinton ran that "3AM" ad, it was a net pickup for Obama. In each case, Obama better suits what's ostensibly being sought than the opposing candidate who thinks it plays to their strengths.
James Fallows has a good post on Obama's steadiness these past few weeks, as everyone else on the national scene has been running around like Chicken Little.
"(W)hat struck me most, in reviewing Barack Obama's oratorical and debate performance since the first cattle-call, Gravel-equipped televised primary debate early last year, was his unchanging nature. He got better as he went along, but as an improving version of the same thing. I said I couldn't be sure whether Obama's consistency arose from deliberate strategic choice, flawlessly executed over a very long time, or whether it simply reflects the way he is. Odds favor the latter."
But, here's an interesting point Fallows makes about Obama's competitors' opinions of him:
"(A)s a subject for a later day, I remember how often, how vehemently, and with what certainty Obama's detractors during the Democratic primaries said that he could not, possibly, in any way, in any real world, withstand the onslaught of GOP negative campaigning once it geared up against him. That he's been seriously underestimated twice -- by the Hillary Clinton camp, and now by McCain -- doesn't prove his potential in office but is interesting."
James Fallows has a good post on Obama's steadiness these past few weeks, as everyone else on the national scene has been running around like Chicken Little.
"(W)hat struck me most, in reviewing Barack Obama's oratorical and debate performance since the first cattle-call, Gravel-equipped televised primary debate early last year, was his unchanging nature. He got better as he went along, but as an improving version of the same thing. I said I couldn't be sure whether Obama's consistency arose from deliberate strategic choice, flawlessly executed over a very long time, or whether it simply reflects the way he is. Odds favor the latter."
But, here's an interesting point Fallows makes about Obama's competitors' opinions of him:
"(A)s a subject for a later day, I remember how often, how vehemently, and with what certainty Obama's detractors during the Democratic primaries said that he could not, possibly, in any way, in any real world, withstand the onslaught of GOP negative campaigning once it geared up against him. That he's been seriously underestimated twice -- by the Hillary Clinton camp, and now by McCain -- doesn't prove his potential in office but is interesting."
Link salad, seasoned with politics
Oct. 22nd, 2008 12:48 amEl Tinklenberg
Donation page
El is running for Congress against Republican neo-McCarthyite Michele Bachmann. A great chance to to not just flip a seat, but, leaving ideology aside, remove someone who doesn't understand that her attacks about "anti-American" figures are far more anti-American than anything her targets could do or believe. Like the line about Pat Buchanan a number of years back -- she seems afraid that America might be taken over... by Americans!
*^*^*
Darcy Burner
Donation page
Darcy is whip smart, and easily able to handle the technology of the 21st Century. And I'm not just saying that because she's been known to lurk here and send me email. :) She's running locally in suburban Seattle for Congress against incumbent ne'er-do-well Dave Reichert, who seems to regard being in Congress as a way to take an 18 month vacation each term, and then spend 6 months convincing the electorate they should send him on another 18 month vacation. This wouldn't be so bad if he was a small-L libertarian, and campaigned on the platform that better he should be warming his seat and not doing a damned thing than putting it in the hands of someone who'd be well-meaning but a bit of a buttinsky... But, no, he generally tends to make the Carswell defense if pressed on this. Reichert became famous by running the investigation for the Green River Killer, but according to this report, "(Frank) Atchley, another supervisor (in the King County Sheriff's office), said Reichert "actually was more of an impediment to the investigation (of the Green River killer)."
*^*^*
Barack Obama
Donation page
Our last, best chance to maintain a constitutional republic in this country.
Donation page
El is running for Congress against Republican neo-McCarthyite Michele Bachmann. A great chance to to not just flip a seat, but, leaving ideology aside, remove someone who doesn't understand that her attacks about "anti-American" figures are far more anti-American than anything her targets could do or believe. Like the line about Pat Buchanan a number of years back -- she seems afraid that America might be taken over... by Americans!
*^*^*
Darcy Burner
Donation page
Darcy is whip smart, and easily able to handle the technology of the 21st Century. And I'm not just saying that because she's been known to lurk here and send me email. :) She's running locally in suburban Seattle for Congress against incumbent ne'er-do-well Dave Reichert, who seems to regard being in Congress as a way to take an 18 month vacation each term, and then spend 6 months convincing the electorate they should send him on another 18 month vacation. This wouldn't be so bad if he was a small-L libertarian, and campaigned on the platform that better he should be warming his seat and not doing a damned thing than putting it in the hands of someone who'd be well-meaning but a bit of a buttinsky... But, no, he generally tends to make the Carswell defense if pressed on this. Reichert became famous by running the investigation for the Green River Killer, but according to this report, "(Frank) Atchley, another supervisor (in the King County Sheriff's office), said Reichert "actually was more of an impediment to the investigation (of the Green River killer)."
*^*^*
Barack Obama
Donation page
Our last, best chance to maintain a constitutional republic in this country.
The 1932nd Psalm
Oct. 16th, 2008 09:53 pm![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
pecunium posted this, but as a .JPG image. Me, I'd rather have it searchable. :)Hoover is my Shepherd, I am in want, He maketh me to lie down on park benches, He leadeth me by still factories, He restoreth my doubt in the Republican Party. He guided me in the path of the Unemployed for his party's sake, Yea, though I walk through the alley of soup kitchens, I am hungry. I do not fear evil, for thou art against me; Thy Cabinet and thy Senate, they do discomfort me; Thou didst prepare a reduction in my wages; In the presence of my creditors thou anointed my income with taxes, So my expense overruneth my income. Surely poverty and hard times will follow me All the days of the Republican administration. And I shall dwell in a rented house forever. Amen.
E. J. Sullivan, "The 1932nd Psalm,"
Seamen's Journal, 1932
Zinger of the day
Oct. 16th, 2008 09:35 am"How low does a presidential candidate have to go on Intrade before they get de-listed?"
-- Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo
*^*^*
Today's quotes at Intrade: Obama .86, McCain .14 in the contracts. (On Sept. 30, it was Obama .64, McCain .36 Last night's close was 82.6/17.6, so today's 3 point slide is a direct response to the debate.)
-- Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo
*^*^*
Today's quotes at Intrade: Obama .86, McCain .14 in the contracts. (On Sept. 30, it was Obama .64, McCain .36 Last night's close was 82.6/17.6, so today's 3 point slide is a direct response to the debate.)
