Confessions of an Errant Mind

I'm not a total fan of piling on our president's malapropisms, but this one (pointed out on Daily Kos) struck me as particularly funny. Obviously, the dead don't usually wonder too much about tomorrow.

Laura and I want to wish everybody a happy Mother's Day. It's just a special day to give thanks to our Moms; appreciate the hard work that Moms do. And I understand that for some, however, Mother's Day is a sad day for those who lost their lives in Oklahoma and Missouri and Georgia because of the tornadoes, are wondering whether or not tomorrow will be a bright and hopeful day.

I see many such statements in my life as a composition instructor. This semester, one student wrote how he had a friend attacked by a band of "armed rubbers." They don't quite tickle me as they used to, but it's one thing I'll miss as I move to greener pastures.

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

With school finishing up, all my emotional energy has been going into grading and writing (and preparing for the changes soon to come). But here's a video post I found rather uplifting. This race has gotten quite tedious of late, but there's some fresh energy here.

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 02:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

but apparently these folks do:

This ad is courtesy of my friend David, whose sister Beth produced it. Nicely done.

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 07:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is a little too biased for me, but it definitely captures the core of my reasons for not supporting Hillary. All politicians play this game, but it seems like she does it more than most. I'm not sure what I'd do in a general election, yet. McCain doesn't inspire me either, especially economically. In any case, enjoy:

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 12:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Barack Obama released his previous six years tax returns today. Aside from the shock of seeing a familiar form with such big numbers on it (net income of a million or more), it was interesting to see his charitable contributions listed. Only $5,000 to his church, but $25,000 for the Illinois Reading Council. Guess he's not a 10% rule kind of guy. Of course, it's silly to judge such things, but I can't help but notice. It's not often we get a peak inside someone else's offering basket!

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 01:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hillary. See the below commercial, which strikes me as something that could be recycled for a lifetime achievement award at the Oscars...

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 02:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hillary's new ad targeting youth. It's clever in a self-conscious "my mom's trying to relate to my generation" kind of way.

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Funny take on Obama's "Yes, We Can" music video with McCain as the subject. Enjoy...

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 11:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

You know, I was against the impeachment saga back when it was happening. I genuinely liked Bill and saw it as just a Republican ploy to attack his political legitimacy. And I don't think that's wholly wrong. But when I read articles like this, it makes me think. Commenting on his much cited criticsms of Obama, the former president says:

"I think the mistake that I made is to think that I was a spouse like any other spouse who could defend his candidate."

Um, Bill? Reality check here. You're a former president. Claiming the rights of "any other spouse" doesn't fly. By saying stuff like this, though, the Clintons can claim the "victim" mantle that served them so well in the 90s. Poor Bill. Furthermore, he comments that while everything he said was "factually accurate," reporting was "factually inaccurate." That's mostly true--he didn't really lie. Jesse Jackson did in fact win South Caroline in 1988. But why bring that up in reference to Obama? It's an obvious reference to race, and while there's some truth to it (look at the margins among black voters), it's certainly also attempt to make Obama into the "black" candidate.

One last quote: "I think whenever I defend her, I, A, risk being misquoted, and, B, risk being the story. I don't want to be the story." Bill Clinton doesn't want the limelight? Note that he's making this statement in a context that is all about his story--him talking about his role in the campaign. There's a certain irony there.

In any case, I'm glad that things have gotten toned down a bit in the last couple of weeks. I've actually warmed to Hillary a bit. I certainly appreciate the expertise she would bring to the office. At the same time, the political drama that would accompany the Clintons' return simply outweighs those positives.

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 03:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm taking a research methods class this semester and found this graph of polling data for tomorrow interesting.

There's a lot here--you easily see the condition of the race in multiple states, and the shaded dots give you the sense of motion. It's relatively easy to interpret as well. Cool.

Credit: Pollster

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 04:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Found this on the Daily Kos--doesn't do anything to answer those who think Obama's campaign is just rhetoric, but I think it captures the power of those words well:

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 03:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This NH paper highlights Hillary's pledge to not participate in Michigan or Florida's primaries. While she kept mostly silent in Michigan, she's campaigning actively in Florida. In addition, she's actively trying to get delegates from both primaries recognized, even though she was basically the only option for voters in both states and other candidates actually stood by their word. I never took Republican objections to the Clinton's integrity all that seriously in the 90s. But this election has not demonstrated the better angels of their nature. For them, it's win at any price. It may be politics, but it ain't pretty.

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

No, I'm not writing about Bob the Builder. It was a surprisingly lopsided victory tonight for Barack Obama. While Hillary still has the upper hand, this gives me some hope. I think criticisms of Obama being policy lite are off mark--he can talk policy fairly well, though it's not particularly inspiring. He really needs to work on his debating skills. But the man can give a speech! A couple of favorite lines from tonight's victory oratory:

We're up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner. It's the kind of partisanship where you're not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea, even if it's one you never agreed with.

Take that, Billary!

Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can seize our future. And as we leave this great state with a new wind at our backs and we take this journey across this great country, a country we love, with the message we carry from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire, from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast, the same message we had when we were up and when we were down, that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we will hope.

Despite the talk about race, the hope of the Obama campaign is it's message of unity. I told Sarah that the difference between these two is that Hillary talks about what she can do, but Obama talks about what we can do. Their policies may not differ significantly, but to me, Obama has the potential to create the kind of grassroots empowerment that spurs more significant reform. Government programs alone won't do it. The state ain't the church, but Barack has me believing nonetheless. Politics doesn't have to be the toxic power struggle of the last fifteen years. We can focus more on problems that partisanship. Sure, I'll be disillusioned someday, but a little bit of hope never hurt anyone.

Image source

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 09:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

That's the way I felt last night watching the Democratic debate. Obama, Edwards, and Clinton in that order. I managed to watch about 75% of it, sparks and all. I have to say, despite my support for him, I don't think debating is Obama's forte. He's a measured, thoughtful speaker, and he too often comes across as flat, equivocating, and long-winded to me. Especially when someone like John Edwards, who was seemingly made to debate, is standing next to him, it's hard for Obama to shine.

That said, I have to say I felt some pleasure at the audible boos for Hillary a couple of times during the debate. While I've never been a supporter of her, the blatant disinformation and politicking by her and Bill have really made me question if I'd even vote for her in the general election. It's clear they'll use every tool in their arsenal to get power. Maybe that's just the reality of politics, which is arguably all about power in the end anyway. But following a story like Obama's correct but not well timed statements on Reagan and the Republicans makes it clear how Hillary twists the facts to suit her purposes. The recent debates on race seem to say that her campaign has effectively written off the African-American vote for the sake of whites and Hispanics. And Bill's just angry. Eugene Robinson's recent editorial gets at some of the animus behind the Clintons' anger, and it's really not very pretty.

Leading in both California and New York, the safe bet seems to be it's Hillary's race to lose. Edwards may still have a chance to play kingmaker

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 02:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's rare that I agree with George Will on anything, but his column today does a good job of stating my reservations with John Edwards. His performance in last night's debate was strong, but there's something about his populism that doesn't sit right with me. You can read Will's whole column here, but here's the closing line that I think articulates the point well, though the main point is about Obama:

Barack Obama, who might be mercifully closing the Clinton parenthesis in presidential history, is refreshingly cerebral amid this recrudescence of the paranoid style in American politics. He is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee -- an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country.

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 09:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

It's been awhile since I've backed a winning candidate. It sure feels good. Obama had a convincing victory tonight. It wasn't very pronounced, but I heard a little of MLK at the beginning of his victory speech--the intonation as much of the words. I still have problems with some of his policies--it's not simply cutting tax cuts for multinationals that's the real problem here--but the overall vision is still compelling. A more engaged relationship with the world and a politics of hope rather than fear. It's rhetoric, sure, but that's what the presidency is about to some extent.

Obama is an interesting contrast with Huckabee. He lacks the folksiness and approachability--he uses humor much less and is a much more dignified figure. But to me, that's part of what makes him inspirational--his gravitas offsets his lack of experience. Say what you will about his lack of experience, I haven't heard Obama come across as uninformed (or even bumbling) in the same way that Huckabee has in the last week. On Huckabee, I'm of two minds. I differ with some basic assumptions: he maintains that conservative vision of individual self-determination that honestly just doesn't match reality for me. We don't live and make choices in isolation. Yet I'm glad that he represents that changing face of American Evangelicalism, one increasingly concerned with poverty and the environment as well as with social issues. I wouldn't be upset with a Huckabee-Obama matchup (though I think Obama is clearly the more capable candidate at this point). I'd probably put my chips on McCain on the Republican side at this point (I'd be severely disappointed with either Romney or Guiliani). That would be the toughest race for the Democrats to win.

With the coming months not holding much promise on the sports front (the Bears are done and the Bulls don't merit much attention), this will be an interesting horse-race to follow.

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 10:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's been awhile since posting, but I'm breaking the silence with the much awaited endorsement for the Democratic primary. I'm siding with Oprah--Obama's my man. I have concerns with his experience. I know that for all his lofty rhetoric, he is, after all, a politician. Yet the reading I've done has convinced me that he actually believes what he says about setting a new tone. And on policy, he seems nuanced (perhaps too much so) in a way that the current administration lacks. That is, he views policy as more than a one liner for a political campaign. He needs seasoning as a campaigner (his flubbing of a recent debate question on immigration is inexcusable), but there's time for that--a full year before the election. In terms of economics and foreign policy, I probably differ with him in some significant ways, but that's true for most of the candidates. At worst, he's the next Carter. At best, a Lincoln. Probably somewhere in between. An article from today's NY Times backs me up.

As for Hillary and Edwards, both have failed to impress. While Hillary certainly has experience, her paranoia when it comes to the media and the checkered ethical history of her husband's administration give me pause. Edwards has good ideals, but is too much of a demagogue for my tastes. So, at least for now, I'm hoping for Obama in '08.

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 12:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ran across this interesting op-ed from the Washington Post today courtesy of the God's Politics Blog. Michael Gerson is a former White House speechwriter, and in this piece he posits a fork in the road for conservatives. On one side (I'll resist right and left for obvious reasons) is the no-nonsense market driven view of things. The only good thing government can do is get out of the way (or at least keep everything else besides market transactions out of the way). The other is the Catholic styled view of limited government, but a concern for the pursuit of the common good, particularly protection for the poor and marginalized. He favors the latter, to his credit, but fears that few Republicans these days share his view.

I have my doubts about this--particularly whether a "free" market can ever create the kind of justice Gerson describes. I'm not sure exactly what he's calling for, perhaps a marketized version of current welfare programs? But even then, one might question whether the market will solve welfare or just find more efficient ways to keep people poor and concentrate capital with the rich.

Still, it's a noteworthy call. The lack of such a community based vision is the primary reason I'm not giving the GOP the time of day at the moment. What's good for the market isn't good for my community, and that's been the case for awhile. Let's hope more conservatives like Gerson have a voice in shaping the direction of their party.

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 12:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

That's the slogan on several items of merchandise to be found at Barack Obama's online store. Selling t-shirts and bumper stickers is nothing new for a political campaign, of course. However, Obama's are distinctive because his campaign is handling such sales directly as a form of fund raising. Apparently, they feel that Obama's brand is strong enough to make the time and money required for such an endeavor worth the attention. Of all the candidates thus far, it certainly seems like Obama's is by far the most iconic. (I can't imagine wanting to wear Guiliani's face, or even Romney's.) The question still remains whether that will end up being a hinderance or strength--it's easier to love an abstraction than a nuts and bolts politician, but at some point people will want some reassurance that Obama can actually, you know, govern.

In any case, I do have to say that the apparel section here is catchy, even for someone still undecided on his choice of candidate.

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 04:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The fundraising totals are now in, and it looks like more or less a tie among the top two Democractic presidential candidates. Hillary announced earlier this week that she had $26 million in the coffers. Now Obama's campaign today says he has $25 million. More notably, Obama's number of contributors doubles Clintons--100,000 to 50,000. One piece I read yesterday (which I can't find now) suggested that's a better predictor of long term fund-raising success.

Obama's certainly got some momentum, even though he's consistently lagging behind in the polls. I still have a bad feeling about the lack of specifics his campaign has given about policy plans. It's nice rhetoric, but he'll need to take a stand for something at some point. There's things I like about Edwards, though he can be a bit of a demagogue at times. I'm sure there will be plenty of news to follow on what looks to be a very long campaign.

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One of my favorite radio shows, Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me..., recently had a short item about Barack Obama. For those unfamiliar with the show, it's a weekly news quiz that has a fair amount of humor thrown in. Kind of like a cross between the Daily Show and Jeopardy. In any case, the item was about Obama's still recent trip to New Hampshire and the reception he received there. It was so enthusiastic, the references to Jesus were easy to make--he "healed a few lepers in between rallies." At the end of the segment, they played a few bars from Andrew Lloyd Weber's Jesus Christ Superstar.

Now I'm more or less an Obama supporter. I like his rhetoric and the way he uses faith to supplement (but not ordain) his political views. I think he's an intelligent guy with a lot of charisma and visionary power. But it is interesting how the country has taken to him in the last few months. He's drawn hugely enthusiastic crowds in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and this is for someone who's said he's just thinking about running. It puts me in mind of a phrase from the Gospels, how the people were like "sheep without a shepherd." People are clearly hungry for a savior.

The problem is that at some point, we'll all realize that Barack Obama is in fact a human being, not divine. He'll have to come up with actual policies, not just bipartisan rhetoric. Given his record so far, I'm not sure those will be anything worth writing home about--his real achievements have been in tone and style, not in policy. Whether or not he runs, the real phenomena here, I think, is not Obama himself, but the reaction to him. People definitely are hungry for what they believe Obama to be, a leader who can heal divides and provide a certain and hopeful future.

Unfortunately, I don't have a whole lot of faith in any political leader's ability to deliver such a vision. Jesus certainly didn't run for office. I can't imagine him putting up with the beauracracy. But I'm not sure what to make of the hunger for this person--is it a hopeful sign that people want something better than what we currently have? Or just an indicator that people hope for a leader who can do what they are unwilling or unable to do amongst themselves? I lean pessimistically toward the latter option--we put a lot of trust in the image of celebrities, in sports, entertainment, or politics. In the end, though, I believe more and more that any change we make must come from the grassroots, from the community around us. It's a much more difficult and confusing task, but the only one that can make a real change.

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 08:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The NY Times has an article today on Bob Woodward's new book, State of Denial. Two years ago, I would have said that while I disagreed with much of Bush's politics, he at least got some of his agenda accomplished--tax cuts, homeland security, the war. But the more I read, the more I begin to think that the administration really doesn't know what it's doing. That it operates primarily from a simple, non-evidence based view of the world. They lack the nuanced thinking and vision to foresee the consequences of their actions, and tend to prefer only that information that fits their pre-conceived objectives. Case in point:

The book says President Bush’s top advisers were often at odds among themselves, and sometimes were barely on speaking terms, but shared a tendency to dismiss as too pessimistic assessments from American commanders and others about the situation in Iraq.

Or this point:

Two members of Mr. Bush’s inner circle, Mr. Powell and the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, are described as ambivalent about the decision to invade Iraq. When Mr. Powell assented, reluctantly, in January 2003, Mr. Bush told him in an Oval Office meeting that it was “time to put your war uniform on,” a reference to his many years in the Army.

Donald Rumsfeld also seems to come off badly--not surprising, since his prediction of a quick war easily won has failed to materialize. I probably won't read this, but it doesn't sound like an encouraging note for the next two years.

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 09:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish highlighted this Today segment:

Sullivan's take on it is here:
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/09/youtube_of_the__8.html

I'm not sure I read as cynically as him, but it is clear from this that the president believes that aggresive interrogation techniques are essential. His repeated insistance that getting information is justified because these people want to kill "you and your family" shows that. Of course, I would hope that the government is using all means possible to do that. But it does seem like the administration takes that too far--if what happened at Abu Gharib (and apparently other prisons) is any indication. Probably the most disturbing element of this issue is how much happens without any kind of legal recourse--prisoners without rights of legal appeal or due process. If someone's a bad guy--with knowledge and means--and the threat is imminent, then we can talk about what needs to happen. But there's no assurance of that, and techniques are being used that are the very best questionable.

I don't know if I've ever seen Bush this upset--his body language is quite aggressive.

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Well, it certainly didn't take long. After hearing his first case this week, Justice Alito (and Justice Roberts) have to be aware of the stir their appointments are causing in places like South Dakota. This week, legislators there passed a ban on virtually all abortions. Pro-life supporters have clearly stated that the law is designed as a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

I have mixed feelings about this. I have been, and still am, generally pro-life. But a couple of things trouble me about the political agenda of this movement. First, my sense of the Biblical support for this position isn't as strong as it once was. In one corner, there's texts like Jeremiah 1 and Psalm 139, which clearly talk about the unborn child as having personhood (though when and where that begins is certainly not completely clear). But Exodus 21:22 also treats the unborn child as possibly less than a person, saying that an act which causes the death of a fetus can be remedied with a cash payment. Certainly, Scripture leans toward a pro-life view of unborn children, but I'm not sure it's black and white.

Secondly, I'm concerned by the means the pro-life movement is using: primarily legislation and the judicial system. If you believe abortion is murder, any means of stopping it may be acceptable. But to me, this approach grows out of a conservative frame of mind, where any act is no more or less than an individual moral decision. If we pass a law, than those who have abortion will then be punished appropriately. It's all stick, no carrot. The more liberal pro-life approach has seen it as an individual decision shaped and influenced by social factors. That is to say, an argument can be made that with a society that treated mothers and children more kindly, especially single mothers and/or those in poverty, abortions would naturally fall. Or that the various economic and political factors that make marriage difficult (again, most notably for poor people) could be addressed in this effort as well. In short, we don't address the real reasons why women get abortions, only say that they shouldn't do so--that they're being naughty. In essence, this seems like a response that is very UN-Christlike, since it shows little compassion for the difficulties that many women face. (I'm not forgetting the children here, but there are two people involved--both sides seem to forget one of that pair). Do all churches do this? No. But that's what concerns me most about that law.

What I wouldn't give for a more holistic, non-partisan response to this issue. But that's difficult to find these days.

Posted by Jerry Shannon at 01:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)