Full Swing

The fall election season is now officially in full swing. I urge all of you to click on the icon to the left (electoral.vote.com) and check out Andy's site. It is chock full o' great data and info. He will be updating it pretty much every day from now through November.

His algorithm has the Dems keeping the House but being more in danger of losing the Senate which is interesting. He bases this on the fact that 94 percent of House district's don't have any polls out. So how does Chris Matthews know that the House is "gone?" Good question. Also interesting is that Andy has pointed out that three seats (DE-AL, HI-1, and LA-2) are nearly certain to go blue. That would mean that the GOP needs 42 out of the others to flip.

If the House does go GOP, Andy's got an interesting take on what could happen.

Also worth considering is the difference between 218 seats in the House and a working majority. A number of new representatives are probably going to be tea partiers who are running on a platform of cutting the federal deficit. If the first thing a new Republican-controlled House does is bring up a bill to cut taxes--without cutting spending, which is always difficult to do because every line in the federal budget has supporters--then passing this bill would increase the deficit. Some of the people who ran on cutting the deficit may not be too keen on increasing it as their first official act. So in practice, to actually get anything done, the Republicans may have to pick up 45 to 50 seats, a much more difficult task than getting 39 because it requires winning some of the "landslider" seats, which the Democrats-who have more money than the Republicans--will fiercely defend.

While I don't want the GOP to take over the House, it would be interesting to see what might happen if this were to occur. The old school GOPers aren't going to cut spending....even though they say they are going to..which puts them in a fight with the new TP backed folks. These folks may end up voting with the Dems on bills but for opposite reasons.

Something else to look at is this article from the Times today.

Republicans are within reach of gaining control of eight or more chambers in state legislatures this fall, according to interviews with Republicans, Democrats and independent political analysts. That would give Republicans the power to draw more Congressional districts in their favor, since the expected gains come just as many legislatures will play a major role in the once-a-decade process of redrawing the boundaries of those districts.

As the saying goes, all politics are local. This is the real story of the Election 2010. With the census being done this year, new CDs are going to be drawn for 2012 that will have sweeping consequences. Pay attention to how these local state houses turn out and if many stay blue, the GOP taking the House back for two years might not be the end of the world for Democrats.

Ah, the burning of books...again....

I'm having a hard time figuring out how Terry Jones, pastor of the ironically named Dove World Outreach Center in Florida, justifies a Koran burning ceremony on September 11th. The entire proceeding plays right into the hands of the hirabis...giving them yet another propaganda tool for recruitment. Thankfully, General Patraeus agrees.

Images of the burning of a Koran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan -- and around the world -- to inflame public opinion and incite violence ," Gen. David Petraeus said. "Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult."

That doesn't matter to Jones, though, The burning will go ahead as promised. So much for religious tolerance.

And we're back to book burning....again? Sheesh....

Score Card

Ah, I see. Apparently, there were NOT any headless bodies in the Arizona desert.

So, let's see now...no headless bodies....illegal immigration down....arrests by the Obama administration up...and violent crime down in Arizona.

By my count, that makes FOUR things the GOP have wrong about regarding the immigration issue.

Wow

"The House is gone."

----Susan Page, USA Today, commenting on the Chris Matthews show, 3 Sept 2010

I know it's cold outside here in MN (55 degrees) but my calender says Sept 3, not November 3rd.

Never in my life have I seen so many people, including Democrats, conceding defeat for an election so far off. Perhaps there is some truth to the jibes of lily livered, spineless and weak.

What a bunch of fucking pussies....

Why Sarah Does So Well

A couple of days ago, I put up that quote from Saul Alinksy regarding his warning, in 1972, that the middle class of this country would be driven to conservatism. Go to any conservative rally today and you will hear from Beck, Limbaugh etc.. screaming about "taking our country back." Alinsky saw this perfectly when he saw quite clearly that the white middle class was living in frustration and despair, worried about their future, and ripe for a turn to radical social change, to become politically-active citizens. This is exactly what has happened since the election of Barack Obama and quite ironic considering that Alinksy is now required reading for FreedomWorks people.

This is also why Sarah Palin is doing as well she is right now.

Arianna Huffington has a wonderful piece called Sarah Palin, Mama Grizzlies, Carl Jung, and the Power of Archetypes. In it, she details the appeal of Sarah Palin and why she is so effective.

We are awash in crises right now -- crises that require smart and creative policy fixes. So why is somebody who so rarely deals in policy fixes so popular? It's because Palin's message operates on a level deeper than policy statements about the economy or financial reform or health care or the war in Afghanistan.

Clearly, this is true. Look at her supporters.

It's not Palin's positions people respond to -- it's her use of symbols. Mama grizzlies rearing up to protect their young? That's straight out of Jung's "collective unconscious" -- the term Jung used to describe the part of the unconscious mind that, unlike the personal unconscious, is shared by all human beings, made up of archetypes, or, in Jung's words, "universal images that have existed since the remotest times." Unlike personal experiences, these archetypes are inherited, not acquired. They are "inborn forms... of perception and apprehension," the "deposits of the constantly repeated experiences of humanity."

Alinksy spoke of this archetype as well and not only correctly predicted the coming of Ronald Reagan but the shift of large swaths of the the middle class to conservatism. In fact, Palin's use of the grizzly bear is not unlike Reagan's use of it in the 1984 campaign when he alluded to a frightened Walter Mondale not standing up to bear known as the Soviet Union.

I've heard many people say that voters in this country have now "seen the light," are becoming more conservative, and will take their country back. With the advent of the Tea Party, they are convinced that voters have now adopted their ideology and will send many packing come November 2nd. I contend that it's more that the movement's leaders (Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Gingrich) know very well how to use symbols to tap into the collective unconscious and manipulate those inborn forms of perception and apprehension. How can they do this?

Alinsky...

The middle class actually feels more defeated and lost today on a wide range of issues than the poor do. And this creates a situation that's supercharged with both opportunity and danger. There's a second revolution seething beneath the surface of middle-class America -- the revolution of a bewildered, frightened and as-yet-inarticulate group of desperate people groping for alternatives -- for hope.

Their fears and their frustrations over their impotence can turn into political paranoia and demonize them, driving them to the right, making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday. The right would give them scapegoats for their misery -- blacks, hippies, Communists -- and if it wins, this country will become the first totalitarian state with a national anthem celebrating "the land of the free and the home of the brave."

Sadly, he died in the same year that he gave this interview and his stated goal, which follows, was never realized.

But we're not going to abandon the field to them without a long, hard fight -- a fight I think we're going to win. Because we'll show the middle class their real enemies: the corporate power elite that runs and ruins the country -- the true beneficiaries of Nixon's so-called economic reforms.

Never in a million years would Alinksy imagine how fulfilled his prophecy would be regarding corporate power and how it became a stark reality with the 2007-2008 economic crisis. It's not that people are shifting to conservatism, it's that they are frustrated by their economic situation which was brought on largely by this corporate power elite.

But they don't see this because the people that stand to benefit the most from maintaining this power are extremely adept at channeling Jung and swaying them, as Alinsky predicted, to their views. In essence, they are supporting the people who fucked them over in the first place. How ironic it will be when they see that most, if not all, of the "taking this God Damned country back" will, more than likely, result in their situations becoming worse.

And the Democrats, whose policies aren't perfect but at least they are attempting to steer things back in the right direction, are completely terrible at using images and archetypes.

Maybe it's because they are too busy trying solutions that have practical application in reality.

Take a look at this video that was sent to me a while back.



So, let's see if I have this right...Detroit sucks because it's run by leftists and entitlements. And Mr. Crowder would like to know how that is working out?

Apparently, better than he wants to say in this video.

Jobs are growing. Factory workers are anticipating their first healthy profit-sharing checks in years. Sales are rebounding, with the Commerce Department reporting Friday that automobiles were a bright spot in July’s mostly disappointing retail sales.

What? Really?

The improving mood here reflects real changes in how Detroit is doing business — and a growing sense that the changes are turning the Big Three around, according to industry executives and analysts tracking the recovery.

Certainly they have a long way to go. But here are the facts.

Ford made more money in the first six months of this year than in the previous five years combined. G.M. is profitable and preparing for one of the biggest public stock offerings in American history Even Chrysler, the automaker thought least likely to survive the recession, is hiring new workers.

GM? Don't you mean "Government Motors?" It was my understanding from my colleagues on the right that this was destined to fail. And yet we have this news.

GM said Thursday that it made $1.3 billion from April through June, its second straight quarter in the black and a complete reversal from last year, when it was forced into bankruptcy and the U.S. government took a majority stake.

The federal government got a 61 percent stake in GM in exchange for $43 billion in aid to keep it alive. It could sell some or all of that when GM makes its public stock offering perhaps as early as November.

The proof is emerging in dealer showrooms, where customers are buying more of Detroit’s cars and paying higher prices. In July, G.M., Ford and Chrysler sold their vehicles at an average price of $30,400 — $1,350 more than a year ago and higher than an overall industry gain of $1,100, according to the auto research Web site Edmunds.com.

But why is all this happening?

Many of the excesses of the past — overproduction, bloated vehicle lineups, expensive rebates — are gone. All three carmakers have shed workers, plants and brands. And a new breed of top management — the three chief executives are outsiders to Detroit, as is the newly named G.M. chief executive — says it is determined to keep the Big Three lean, agile and focused on building better cars that earn a profit.

And this was all done at the behest of the government...a supposedly socialist one who is now poised to sell back their shares and let the big three continue on their merry capitalist way.

Of course, the image isn't completely rosy and they do have a long way to go but it certainly is working out much better than Crowder's heavily biased and over generalized piece makes it out to be. Just as FDR told GM to turn out a plane an hour, President Obama told them to restructure their companies to be more profitable.

It's like I've been saying all along. He's not a socialist...he's trying to save capitalism.

Whither Alinksy

Usually around once or twice a week, I'll get an email or comment that ties the teachings of Saul Alinsky to Barack Obama. Certainly, Alinsky was an influence on President Obama in terms of his philosophy on community organizing. The intimation, though, was that it was much more than that. By tying Obama to the "known radical" Alinsky this proves how "radical" our current president is in his viewpoints.

So, imagine my surprise when I read this article on the Tea Party in the New York Times and saw this line.

New employees receive a required-reading list that includes “Rules for Radicals,” by Saul Alinsky, the father of modern community organizing,

Huh. That's interesting. The entire article is very illuminating regarding this "grass roots" movement.

Even more interesting is that Alinksy, in one of his final interviews before his death in 1972, worried that the middle class (Nixon and Agnew's "Silent Majority) would be driven to the right "making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday" whose stated motive would be "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."

Eight years later his prophecy proved all too true. And if you listen to the Koch Foundation sponsored FreedomWorks, they are saying the same thing.

So are Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.

Again...so what?

There's a lot of liberal outrage out there after the big rally in DC yesterday. I still don't get it. Don't people on the left understand that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin choose their words to provoke anger? And this anger leads to a strengthening of their fan base and positions which ultimately means more power?

Take, for example, this quote.

You have the same spine and moral courage of Washington and Lincoln and Martin Luther King.

Why are people outraged by this? It's a compliment. and should be lauded. And if Ms. Palin and her followers want to embrace the philosophy espoused by Dr. King, that's fantastic! They can start with an economic bill of rights and social justice.

So What?

I think I may be the only person left of center that isn't outraged or upset about Glenn Beck speaking today in DC. First of all, he hadn't even said anything yet and people already hated it. All this does is fuel his supporters more. In fact, one could argue that the reason why he is so popular is that at least a third or more his audience hates him. As long as people (especially the one that hate him) keep paying attention to Glenn Beck, he's going to be around for quite some time.

Second, and more important, if he is genuinely trying to bring civil rights issues to larger crowds, isn't that a victory? His speech talked about God coming back into people's lives much in the same way that MLK talked about it all those many years ago. Certainly the two would be polar opposites when it comes to the role of government in our lives and social justice but this event was largely non-political.

I'm no fan of Glenn Beck and think he sounds more and more like the Reverends Baker and Swaggert every day but holding a "counter rally" is just silly, Al Sharpton. The question the left needs to ask themselves is this:

If Glenn Beck and others like him have no enemies, how will they be relevant?

Back To School (Part Four)

Mastiff's concluding comment.

Finally for now, and I think I have mentioned this before, but students are never given truly long-term projects to work on. Because of the disjointed structure of the school-year curriculum, students often leave college having never in their lives worked on any single project for longer than two months—or, more realistically, three weeks (given last-minute cramming). This serves them poorly in the real world.

It has been said that American education is a mile wide and an inch deep. This is true. In fact, I would put it as a chief reason why students are not doing as well as they should be doing. The simple fact is that they have no in depth knowledge of key concepts. A long term project...such as power point presentation that is worked on over a period of three months....would give them this depth. Sadly, the standards of many states are written in such a way that a massive amount of information needs to be covered.

The problem here is that administrators and standards writers are focused on the lower levels of Bloom's Taxonomy (Knowledge and Comprehension) when they should be focused on the higher levels (Synthesis and Evaluation). If a student had a three month project to work on, they could start with the basic facts of a concept and develop a truly enduring understanding that would serve them in the real world.

Of course, a long term project is always best if done in a subject in which a student has interest. If a student could choose the subject matter, I wonder if the LTP (long term project) could be introduced as a mandatory assessment method. Perhaps it could be tailored to be similar to a Master's thesis or dissertation...appropriate, of course for age group. I could see students in 11th grade and 12th grade being required to do this. What a fantastic idea!

Thanks, Mastiff, for your comments. They certainly sparked a great deal of reflection and I really enjoyed writing this series!

Back To School (Part Three)

Continuing with Mastiff's points.

Schools group by age, when they should be grouping by ability and maturity. This is especially so given the Lord-of-the-Flies aspect of school, in which those students who excel are persecuted for it. More generally, for all that schools see their task as teaching character, they forget that children in school learn most of all from each other. Usually, the tone of a class is set by the worst among them.

Grouping can be tricky. I once observed a class that grouped by ability. The higher level readers were called "The Speader Readers" and the lower level group were called "The Wild Things." Clearly, this was poor pedagogy. Yet this same school (as does my children's school) engages in constant pull outs and shifts according to ability and maturity which allows the students that excel to be in the same group as others who do as well.

This comment also touches on the subject of bullying which has gotten worse over the years. Picking on kids that are smarter happens all the time. This usually has an element of anti-gay bias to it which makes bad situations far worse. Somewhere along the line we decided that children should be allowed more leeway regarding discipline. I run a pretty tight ship with my kids and my students. If they want to fuck around, they are going to have a 400 pound gorilla on their head in less than a second. While I am believer in student centered learning, when it comes to being respectful of others, I run a dictatorship not a democracy.

This also leads to wasted resources and talent. Teachers are forced to aim for around the second-lowest quintile among their students. This leaves the most desperate cases to struggle anyway, and the exceptional students to languish. If you don't think this has a measurable cost, just go to Slashdot and read the comments the next time an article dealing with education shows up.

This comment relates to one of the biggest challenges in education today. We pay a lot of attention to the challenged learners but not enough to the gifted ones. As a result, the gifted kids get bored and do just as poorly as the challenged ones more often than not. My answer for this is varying instructional strategies and more parent volunteers to help with the challenged kids. This is sorely needed at the grade school level. Of course, when parents are working two jobs, it's hard to find volunteers.

And this would be why I have no problem with home school. Resources of the human and financial variety are stretched thin. The more the parents want to be involved, the better. In the final analysis, the real solutions all come from more human involvement. And that means more time (not money) invested.

Back To School (Part Two)

Moving on to Mastiff's next comment.

Most schools tend to beat the love of learning out of students. For full arguments, refer to John Taylor Gatto, who makes the point at length. Suffice to say that students seem to break into four classes: those who would be voracious learners no matter what obstacles are placed in their path; those who would not care regardless; those who would otherwise love learning, except for the deadening, soul-crushing format of the Prussian-style school system (of whom there are far too many); and the rare, blessed few who would have spent their lives in darkness, were it not for the intervention of a single, providential teacher who somehow kindled a spark.

Absolutely true. Of all the comments that Mastiff made, this one resonated with me the most. The fact of the matter is that many schools are terribly oppressive places and crush the souls of many young people. Combine this with several teachers who refuse to adjust their pedagogy to include multiple instructional strategies and you have several sparks that are left without that spark.

My mother and I were talking about this "single, providential teacher" of which Mastiff speaks right around the time he put this in comments so it really hit home. All it takes is one adult and a small amount of attention to complexity and you can have a roaring fire in a student. It's important to note that there are so many students whose parents are just fucking checked out. They don't give a shit about their kids and are extraordinarily self centered.

This results in many students that are searching for that one adult who will engage them and possibly change their life forever. This should be the central goal of every educator. Sadly (and because I am a functionalist), the system's impersonality and drive for uniformity, at times, inhibits this interaction.

Back To School (Part One)

As the news school year approaches, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at American Education today. As a framework for this, I'm going to be using comments from a poster over at TSM that goes by the handle of Mastiff. He made a list of what perceives as the problems with public education today.

Mastiff's points hit home with me in a number of ways. They really weren't deserving of a simple few comments over there so they will be included in a series of posts that I plan to do throughout the week. Let's get started with the first one!

* Many students are in college who should not be in college. A large fraction of these are simply unprepared, a sizable chunk of whom would have been ill-suited for college in any event; of the rest, those who are able to handle college, their particular aptitude would be better served elsewhere. As it is, we seem to have made it a rite of passage to sacrifice four years of your life, and tens of thousands of dollars, for the sake of a piece of paper.

My views on this have become more radical since I entered graduate school, and truly understood that my college career was little more than an extension of high-school. My understanding of political science (my major) was not much more developed after undergrad as it was when I started. Worse, my experiences as a TA have been horrifying. Very, very few students at my mid-tier state university know how to write well. Many don't know how to spell, even when using word processors! And the classes we offer them are the worst sort of watered-down treacle. It amounts to academic fraud, in some points.

The typical rebuttal to this argument is that college is not a vocational school, and is meant to broaden the mind. My response to this is that first, this judgment is made without concern for the cost of such broadening, versus its actual effectiveness; and second, the students' minds would already be plenty broad except that—

We'll just have to wait until tomorrow to see where this goes but for now, let's comment on his overall point.

It is true that some students simply aren't cut out for college. Not everyone should be given a green light to go. Certainly, there are a variety of different types of colleges to choose from so when one says "college" there are a whole host of definitions. Defining which one to go to, if any, should be done more effectively at the high school level and it is not.

Instructors need to figure out what intrinsically motivates students. As Mastiff astutely points out, their particular aptitude would be better suited elsewhere. If they can find out what they enjoying doing simply for the sake of doing it and not a paycheck, this is usually the start of a better higher education path. Someone who enjoys cars, for example, should go to a vocational school and not be forced into going to college to learn business. Too often in our culture the focus is on what's "better" (which usually means more money) and not doing what you love.

Of course, that's tough to find in a culture that defines success as material gains and that includes Mastiff's thousands of dollars valued piece of paper. College is meant to broaden the mind but the amount of time and money wasted on students who would be better served at other types of schools, if it all, is too great to ignore.

It all comes back to teachers engaging students at higher levels and putting in more effort to direct them down more appropriate career paths. Sadly, we are not seeing this now and, instead, are seeing half hearted thinking (and effort) at best.

Wooderson, R.I.P.

On the last day of school every year, I dig out the film Dazed and Confused, a wonderful story set on the last day of school in 1976 in Austin, Texas and let its warm rays cascade over me. The music, the images, the theme and the style all mix up in a beautiful melange...so much so that at various points throughout the 103 minutes of this absolute gem, I well up and, by the end, I'm usually crying.

It's not from laughter nor is it from bong smoke getting in my eyes. It's from a deep sadness so compelling that more often than not it is overwhelming. I find myself getting up from in front of the television and going outside to breathe the clean, crisp summer air...sucking it deeply into my lungs...hoping that my mind, body, and soul will be soothed. And I will remember that time clearly...and feel like I am there again.

Most of the time it is not soothed and I find myself left with a deep yearning that goes unfulfilled nearly every day of my life.The simple reason for all of this is the titanic melancholy I feel at peaking back into a world that is long gone and has been dead for way too many years...just like all those endless, youthful summers that were eternally magical...always...

The film was released in 1993 and did bring about a brief waved of 70s nostalgia but that was soon lost to new trends, ideas and really fucking awful lifestyle choices. And that nostalgia was mostly filled with pretense although some bands like Oasis and Paul Weller sought to make a point of injecting Bowie, Zeppelin, and T Rex dripped style into their music and largely succeeded. Every year that goes by puts more and more distance between us and that wonderful world that Richard Linklater, the film's director and writer, showed us. What is this world like?

It's a simple place filled with people and laughter. The women are gorgeous in their hip hugging jeans and long beautiful hair. The men are extremely cool in their muscle cars, t shirts, jeans and chucks. There is no Facebook, no texting on cell phones, no iPods, nor DVD players. There's hanging out and actually having a live conversation while driving in a car and listening to an 8 track player as opposed to sitting in front of a computer. There are drive in movies and drive in burger joints. There's pot smoking in the bedroom and quick sprays of air freshener as the parents unexpectedly knock on the door.

Most of all, there is a lot of fun.

This fun reveals itself in a myriad of ways...a primary focus of which is to party with beer and pot. Looking at that the partying that goes in the film through the lens of 2010, the melancholy bubbles up and overwhelms me. In today's culture, this sort of behavior is either insanely surpassed by a whole host of unhealthy drugs like Chrystal Meth or is massively derided by narrow minded people who view any sort of drug taking as being The End. In some ways, the latter group is right. People smoke pot and drink these days for all the wrong fucking reasons. This is likely due to the fact that people are so much more stupid now than they were 35 years ago....Mike Judge's Idiocracy nearly complete and 500 years early:)

The dichotomy between today and 1976 is presented quite eloquently in the character of Wooderson (below, left), the first major role for Matthew McConaughey. It is my view that he is Linklater's answer to Joseph Campbell's mono mythical hero. Wooderson conveys universal truths about his place in history and transcends his own role in his culture while building new meaning regarding the relationship between the two. He is a Campbell archetype and he fits this role perfectly.

Stylistically, this is eloquently conveyed when he walks into the Rec Center with Randy and Mitch. The Tarrentino slo-mo backed with the choice track, "Hurricane" by Bob Dylan drives the meaning of this world home. The Rec Center was THE place to be back then.....even up to the summer before my senior year (1984). Every town had one filled with pool tables, Foosball and later Tron and Missile Command. Sadly, these are all gone now as people just stay home in their little cyberpunk pods of entertainment. There is no face to face conversation or checking out girls or boys in person. Instead, we have match.com and instant messaging via Twitter. Oh boy...

Every time I watch this film...every single time...my mind drifts back to my friends older brothers and sisters who lived through this age. As a 9 year old in 1976, they were the coolest people (next to my dad and John Lennon) I had ever seen. But it wasn't just them. Even my mom, age 30 at that time, would not stop playing Dreamboat Annie by Heart and Rumours by Fleetwood Mac. Those records are also mixed up in my 70s dreamwarp Monet haze. When I listen to them, I think of Dazed and Confused and when I watch the film, I think of those records even though there were songs from either album in the film. They are inexorably tied together.

All of the characters in the film exemplify this haze but none more so than Wooderson. He's in his 20s but he still hangs out with teenagers. This would never be allowed to happen today (in our hyper fearful and giant leap of paranoia culture) as he would immediately be considered "weird" and possibly a pedophile. He parties quite a bit...getting his "third wind" for another round of drinking and pot smoking at 4am on the 50 yard line of the high school football field. Again, if this happened today he would essentially be considered a gun running drug dealer who wants to destroy us all. In short, Wooderson would be labeled a loser by the narrow minded ass hats who sadly define our socio-cultural context today...his actions...deplorable.

But he does all these things, though, throughout the course of the film while working for the city and contemplating a return to college....just like most of the people I knew back in the day. As he speaks of himself earlier in the film, one gets the sense that he generally has a handle on his life...he parties hard but works hard as well. Unlike the youth of today, he doesn't feel like he is entitled to anything.
Sadly, the youth of today imagine themselves as Vinnie Chase (Entourage) or a cast member of The Jersey Shore and their idea of partying and fun is done within the framework of these images. It's empty...hollow...monumentally selfish...devoid of any real passion...completely lacking in the important elements of deep soul...music..and love. In short, it is nothing like the world of Dazed and Confused where people got ripped but it meant something. Ironic that the youth of today are far more "dazed and confused," than the youth of 1976 who honestly weren't either at all.

We see wisps of the World of Wooderson here and there. A great example of this would be the voice of Kelly Jones and his music with Stereophonics. The Subways and the Stone Temple Pilots are two other bands that seem to have shining hints of this forgotten world. For the most part, however, it's gone. Our society has moved on and that wonderful culture that truly meant so much to me and many others is effectively dead and buried.

For the most part people just don't live, love and party like they did in the film Dazed and Confused...like they did in the 70s. Either they are too square, too uptight, too boring or the exact opposite...too wild, too crazy, and far too out of control. Far too infrequently, I see a ray of hope.

On this rare occasion here and there, I'll sit with some friends...a few of the them women in hip hugging jeans...have a conversation that's actually in person...listen to some great music (playing actual vinyl!)...and remember...if only for a few, fleeting moments....that wonderful world. If I'm lucky, I might actually feel like I'm back there. Most times, though, someone will pull out a cell phone and look at their texts.

Rest in Peace, Wooderson. At least I will always remember you.

My Heroes

I was just about to put up a post about the Muslim Center and some recent thoughts when Peter King, Jerold Nadler, and Ali Mohammed (a street vendor) beat me to it. I will let their words express what I was thinking and feeling.

"Newt Gingrich is talking about Nazis and whatever, I mean, that means nothing," said Rep. Peter King, a Republican who has led the local opposition to Park51, a 13-story Islamic center that would include a prayer space with an imam, a 500-seat auditorium, a pool, senior center and meeting rooms. King, a plainspoken Long Islander, argues that the center would be insensitive to the families of Sept. 11 survivors, but noted that some of the most prominent national opponents to the project had taken their rhetoric too far, and until very recently, didn't seem interested in New York at all.

"First of all, this is real America," said King, sarcastically using Palin's phrase for the homeland. "The people who detached themselves from New York are all of a sudden embracing New York."

No shit. Well said, dude. And I don't even support your view on the center but boy oh boy did you perfectly convey their hypocritical bullshit.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the city's most outspoken supporter of the Muslim congregation's right to build the center, couldn't agree more. "It's disgusting," he said of the remarks by Gingrich and other Republicans who rarely expressed support for the city. "It is an attempt to exploit for purely political motives a sensitive issue. And to exploit people they obviously don't really care about."

Sometimes there is bipartisanship...cool!

Mohammed, like many other New Yorkers, has reached his saturation point. "They got nothing to do with New York and they don't care about New York," said the 56-year-old from Brooklyn, igniting a Marlboro Light. "They are trying to create propaganda."

Yes, they are. Perhaps it's possible...just possible...that New Yorkers, in their disagreement over whether or not this should be built, may have found some common ground. I applaud it!

Yet Another Reason

So, here is the other reason why I have changed the theme of my posts: 18 percent of this country think that Barack Obama is a Muslim. That number is up 7 percent from a year and a half ago.

No amount of snark, name calling, or bating will ever change these people's minds. Their frustration with their lives (more than likely due to their economic situation) have clearly overcome them. This would be a reason why we see such an outrage over the Islamic Center two blocks from Ground Zero. Historically, this makes sense. When times are tough, a certain group or demographic gets the blame for problems. Native Americans, the Irish, the Chinese, African Americans etc have all experienced this phenomenon. Now it's the Muslim's turn.

Over 60 percent of this 18 percent got this information from the media which I think is pretty sad. Wouldn't I be just like this "media" if I resort to telling jokes like this?

Teaching Math in 1950:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

Teaching Math in 1960:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

Teaching Math in 1970:
A logger exchanges a set "L" of lumber for a set "M" of money.
The cardinality of set "M" is 100. Each element is worth one dollar.
Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set "M."
The set "C", the cost of production contains 20 fewer points than set "M."
Represent the set "C" as a subset of set "M" and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set "P" of profits?

Teaching Math in 1980:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment:
Underline the number 20.

Teaching Math in 1990:
By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20.
What do you think of this way of making a living?
Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the forest birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down the trees?
(There are no wrong answers.)

Teaching Math in 2000:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $120.
How does Arthur Andersen determine that his profit margin is $60?
How many documents were shredded to achieve this number?

Teaching Math in 2010:
Un hachero vende una carretada de madera por $100.
El costo de la producciones es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?

Teaching Math in 2040:
ومسجل تبيع حمولة شاحنة من الخشب من أجل 100 دولا
تكلفة الإنتاج هو صاحب 5/4 من الثمن. ما هو الربح له ؟


Answer: Yes.

Early Look at The Senate Races 2010

The Senate races this year are certainly going to be interesting. While it's fairly certain the Democrats are going to lose a few seats, it's highly unlikely that the GOP will take back the Senate. The New York Times has a great overview of the Senate Race along with some seriously cool features. Here's my take.

Right now the Dems have 59 seats in the Senate. They can say goodbye to North Dakota, Indiana, Arkansas, Ohio, and Missouri. That puts them at 54. The GOP will hold on to New Hampshire and Louisiana despite the latter being held by David "Ladies of the Evening" Vitter. Sex scandals and seeing prostitutes just don't have the bite that they used to...no pun intended. So, at 54-46, what about the rest?

The GOP really blew it in Florida and my money's on Charlie Crist. The state went 60 percent Dem in the 2006 election and Crist has the name recognition and experience. Add in the fact that he is now and independent and will likely caucus with the Dems which means Kendrick Meek is SOL. So is Rubio for that matter. This is one of four examples of how the GOP moved farther to the right and why it will, in all likelihood, cost them.

The other three are Kentucky, Colorado, and Nevada. Nominating Rand Paul was a huge mistake. Kidnapping a woman and forcing her to smoke pot? That will not go over well. And look at the numbers in Kentucky. That's a large turnout for the Dems in the primary. In addition, look at the votes from the last three cycles. 47 percent in the blue column? That's much more than I would've expected in a solid red state. If Conway plays his cards right and plays to centrist issues, he could pull it off.

In Colorado, the GOP have a Rand like problem with Ken Buck. Mr. High Heels and Birthers are Crazy is going to be a real turnoff for large swaths of voters. I think Bennett hangs on here.

Then we have Harry Reid. The best thing that could've happened to him was Sharon Engle. Reid was, for all intents and purposes, done this year. Now he is in a dead heat with Engle who has ruminated on second amendment solutions for our country as well as dismantling entitlements like Social Security. Reid and the Dems must be salivating at the prospect of debates which will surely favor Reid and his calm (see: glass of warm milk at a reading of the Dewey Decimal System) manner. Add in the fact that Reid and Wayne LaPierre are good friends and I say Reid holds on.

I can't see Delaware, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin, California or Washington going red. I know there are a lot of wishful thinkers out there but if you look closely at how the Dems are organized in these states, it just won't happen. Add in the fact the Feingold in Wisconsin, for example, wins in districts that have never voted for a blue presidential candidate in their history. Anomalies certainly abound.

So, I'm sticking with my prediction of 5 losses in the Senate. If Crist and Conway win, that's only 3 net losses but I am only human. I'll allow myself two mistakes in my other predictions.

Early Look at The House Races 2010

There has been quite a bit of talk in comments regarding the Dems getting their ass kicked on November 2nd. In looking at two separate analyses of the electoral map, I'm wondering how that is possible.

First up, we have the Cook Political Report which puts 214 House seats are Solid, Likely or Lean Democratic, while 181 seats are Solid, Likely or Lean Republican, and 40 seats are in the Toss Up column. No doubt, things are going to shift between now and the fall but I don't really see how the GOP is going to win 39 of 40 seats if we are operating in Cook's framework. This is especially true considering the fact that the Democrats have more money right now than the GOP.

The New York Times has a more realistic (and extremely cool!) map which I think illustrates the fluidity of the situation more accurately. They have 168-Solid Dem, 55-Leaning Dem, 31-Tossup, 18-Leaning GOP, and 163-Solid GOP. That basically puts 104 seats into play. The question is, if you are the GOP, where do you put your money? You would need to get all 18 of the leaning GOP (likely) which will put you at 181. Then you would need all 31 of the Tossups (doable) which would put you at 212. Now you need 6 of the leaning Dem (somewhat tough). Are these final 6 where you really spend your money? Again, I don't see an ass kicking here...just a possible eeking out of a victory or falling short. Of course, this could change but after looking at these numbers, I am revising my prediction for the House to 25 flips...which would put us at 230-Dem and 202-GOP.

As John Boehner said at a recent Monitor lunch, it will be an uphill climb. For once, I agree with him. When you look at the numbers this way, I guess I don't see the ass kicking.

Tomorrow: An early look at the Senate Races 2010.

Rhetorical Overreach

Joe Gandleman has a niece piece on the upcoming fall elections. The quote that stood out for me was this one.

I’ve long predicted that much will depend on GOP rhetorical overreach: if it gets to the point where Democrats rush to the polls due to polemics and the results are far less than the GOP expected on election day than Michael Steel and other party establishment bigwigs will be on the defensive.

If the GOP wants to see major gains and possibly take back the House in the fall, they will need to stop saying things like this.

“Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington,” Mr. Gingrich said on the Fox News program “Fox and Friends.” “We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.”

While this certainly fires up the base of the GOP, this kind of language (in addition to being filled with flaws), alienates independent voters. It also fires up the soft vote that Michael Moore talked about in the clip I put up last week. Certainly, it demonstrates an intolerance that could turn off a wide variety of demographics.

Let's take a look at some key facts:

1. The Planned Site is NOT on Ground Zero but is two blocks away. Two blocks away is not sacred or hallowed ground. Again, not the attack site but an ordinary block in lower Manhattan. I guess my question would be...how many blocks away is respectful?

2. It is not simply a Mosque. It is a community center with meeting rooms and a pool that offers more privacy to conform to religious restrictions. There is also going to be an auditorium for lectures.

3. Our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and private property. If you vociferously defend the Constitution, as many in the GOP do every day, than you must defend the right for them to build their center there. To be against this Mosque would be incongruous if one claimed to be a defender of the Constitution.

As most of you know, I have a horrible prejudice against Muslim men. But the outrage over this is ridiculous. If anything, we need to show the world how tolerant we are and embrace them. This would demonstrate a clear separation between those who believe in the basic principles of freedom and tolerance (us) and those who do not (Hirabis).

And it is a stark example of Gandelman's rhetorical overreach. If I were a GOP strategist, I would tell them to get back to talking about the economy and jobs. That's where their greatest hope for victory lies.

A Loss For Words

"It's right on the inside of his skin"
"What is?"
"The number."
"What number? The number of Satan? Is that what you said?" I asked, trying desperately to understand.
"Yep. It's inside the skin flap on his arm...the number 666...imprinted on Barack Obama's arm."

I was at a complete loss for words. Making matters worse, he said all of this in front of my ten year old daughter who, sadly, is best friends with his ten year old daughter. We were at National Night out and all of our neighbors were gathered in the street around our house which is in the middle of the block. Jeff was my neighbor who informed me of the return of the anti-Christ.

Luckily, I didn't have to stay long as I had to coach tennis that evening. When I got home, my daughter was very upset as was my son. Jeff's daughter had been telling them all night that the government was going to take over everyone and send them to a re-education camp. My son told me that he liked his school and didn't want to leave at which my wife chuckled.

After a few minutes of explanation, I sat and reflected about Jeff and how much he reminded me of others in my life. In this reflection and the period of time since then, I have reached a conclusion: I will no longer be referring to the GOP as the "Cult" any longer. In addition, I'm going to make every effort to analyze what they say without being derisive. This, of course, does not mean I won't be critical or wonder where their reasons and facts are for a particular argument. It does mean that I am done personally attacking or labeling people that are on the right. I will also be relying more heavily on what they say as opposed to my interpretation of it. If they wish to continue to do that with me, it will be ignored and I will respond with impersonal comments. This will also hold true for any comments I have on TSM as well, although I think the transition will be more difficult over there.

Why the change?

As I listened to Paul, I realized that he was really just an unhappy soul. His outrage, much like we see across the country, is based on anomie....or a feeling of normlessness of not being able to function within our culture. Paul works as a mechanic on the rides at Valley Fair, a local amusement park, as well as several odd jobs during the winter. He feels that he deserves more and blames not himself but President Obama and Nancy Pelosi for his problems. Like many people, Paul has not achieved the material success in his life expected of someone his age (40s). This goal of monetary achievement is one of the cornerstones of our culture and, in the eyes of our society, Paul has fallen short and so it's really no surprise that he feels the way he does.

I said earlier that he reminded me of others in my life. My uncle Bill and my friend Pete from back in Wisconsin have the same views that he does. Neither are employed and both are staunchly right wing. They, too, blame Democrats for their lot in life and are angry...frustrated...that things have not worked out the way they want them too. Rather than examine their own faults, they blame the policies of the last 18 months as reason number one for their failure to be upwardly mobile. Their proclamations (my uncle: "That bitch in the House" Pete: "Our country is like the Soviet Union now with President Obama") have always made me sad and frustrated over the last two years.

But it was really Paul's recent declaration that Barack Obama was the anti-Christ that drained all of the snark, bitchiness, and downright obnoxious behavior right out of me. The enormity of it was too much to handle. It was a slow drain over the last two weeks and I have nothing left in me. I'm not perfect so I may slip from time to time but I just don't think my heart is in writing this blog the way I have been. These people need help not chastisement. They need an educator or, failing that, to simply be accepted...somehow....for what they believe.