The Democratic National Convention: Strength, service, toughness for the future, and our children, and diversity. Two Americas! And shove it!

I suppose I ought to write a little something about the Democratic National Convention, since I've been watching it on-and-off these past three days.  So far, nothing has impressed me aside from Barack Obama's electrifying speech on Tuesday night.  That kid's going to be a star if the Democrats ever get in the habit of running their bright young faces for President instead of their wonky old men. 

But dear Lord, what was the deal with Robert Kennedy, Jr's speech on Wednesday afternoon?  It sounded like he was trying to shoehorn a half-hour speech into a ten minute timeslot, pauses and nuances be damned.  Was his speaking time trimmed at the last minute?  Or did he seriously think that this was going to play well on TV?  Hell, I don't think it even played well in front of the party faithful.  He violated the first rule of convention speaking:  give your minions plenty of chances to cheer and applaud your ostensibly acidic barbs.

Anyway, I don't know what inspired Kennedy's oratorical trainwreck, but when you take a gloomy enviro-doom message and infuse it with a hurried pace, fumbled words, and an increasingly hoarse voice, it's going to scan as the ramblings of a deranged nutcase.  Democratic officials may be vetting the texts of these speeches, but there's not a whole lot they can do to control the manner in which the texts are delivered.  If that wasn't apparent on Monday after Barbara Mikulski's squawking had mercifully ceased, it should be now.

To a lesser extent, this also applies to Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich, who rounded out Wednesday's trilogy of nutjobs.  I've been following the convention on C-SPAN, and they do no favors for these jokers by running ads for C-SPAN 2's rebroadcast of John F. Kennedy's 1960 acceptance speech.  Kennedy understood that if you're going to shout your speech, you've got to make it sound like you're not yelling at the audience.  Sharpton doesn't.  But hey, it's nice to see the medallion-wearing black man and elfin peacenik wings of the Democratic Party represented in such a prominent fashion. That's true diversity.

Also, there's a Canadian speaker, Jennifer Granholm.  Not a bad-looking bird.  Has a funny way of saying the phrase "good jobs" as though she were complimenting her dog on a well-executed fetching.  "Good dog, good boy...good jobs...now roll over..sit!  Sit, jobs, sit!  Good jobs!"  I don't remember much else about her speech, though.  It was pretty dull.

"How great was Teresa Heinz-Kerry last night?"  That was the question posed by John Edwards in his VP acceptance speech Wednesday night.  Not that great, I'd have to say.  Andrew Sullivan dissects her speech here with his usual precision.  I don't have much to add, except that casting "Shove it!" as a feminist call-to-arms typfies what is wrong with feminism: the celebration of bitchiness as a virtue.

Edwards rebounded from that opening flub and delivered a smooth speech that wasn't the home-run I thought it was going to be, but still a solid stand-up double.  The talk of dependency on our demilitarized foreign allies unnerves me, though.  I wonder if the Democratic Party is in denial of the fact that, no matter how many or few of our emaciated friends are on board for future wars, America is going to be doing the heavy lifting.  Do we want foreigners to like us or do we want to get the job done with a minimum of bickering over which European femme-ocracies (Britain notwithstanding) are going to send us 50 troops?  Bush, I think, knows the right answer, even if he doesn't understand that Republicans are supposed to be fiscally conservative.  He still doesn't have my vote, but he's light years closer to it than that terminal cipher Kerry.

-Dave O'Connell 

 

Free speech

No, the title is not a sarcastic response to some newly proposed Patriot Act provision that will slightly inconvenience about .000000001 percent of the population as George W. Hitler continues his American civil liberties "holycaust".   It's literally about free speech, as in speech that costs nothing to obtain. 

I'm referring to the wealth of free political print publications (liberal, conservative, libertarian, progressive) that can be found on the Internet.  Some of them are no strings attached trial issues, others are subscription offers that allow you to cancel after a certain number of issues without any financial obligations.  Below you will find part 1 of a list I'm putting together of the various titles you may sample.  (These will eventually be posted on my yet-to-be created website.)  I've omitted magazines that require upfront payment but offer full refunds:  they still have your money for a certain period of time, so it isn't truly free.   None of the offers cited require the entry of credit card numbers, either.  Just ask them to bill you instead.  All offers current as of June/July 2004.  So let us begin:  
 
National Journal
 
Described by conservative columnist George F. Will as "non-partisan", this weekly magazine has been cited in many recent articles for its ranking of John Kerry as the most liberal member of the Senate.  (His impeccably coiffed love interest, John Edwards, came in fourth.)  I'd go along with the "non-partisan" description if the magazine largely consisted of primary sources (speeches, hearings, statements, etc.), but it has feature stories and opinion pieces, so the label doesn't quite fit.  It does cover Congressional news closer than most publications, and doesn't appear to have a significant bias towards either side, so it's recommended for political afficionados on both the left and the right. 
 
If nothing else, why not try it out for the sheer novelty value?  The National Journal is not available on newsstands,  back issues are $24.95 each, and the yearly "basic standing order subscription rate" is $1,699(!).  Realistically speaking, it's virtually unobtainable.  The trial lasts for 4 issues, and does not require you to mess around with invoices.  It is likely, however, that they will phone you to see if you have received your complimentary issues and/or have any questions.  (While this is an uncommon practice among givers of trial subscriptions, I should note that the customer service representative was nice and the phone call brief.)  You may request another free trial six months after the completion of your first, and then another six months after that, and another, and so on.  Yes, this is the gift that keeps on giving.
 
The Nation

The Nation is a far-left weekly (bi-weekly in late summer) that has been serving up "unconvential wisdom since 1865". (Their phrase, not mine.) Like the National Journal, the trial subscription lasts four issues, but you will be invoiced. The regular subscription rate is 24 (4 free plus 20 not-free) issues for $18 or 47 (4 free plus 43 un-free) issues for $29.97.
 
National Review
 
Founded by one of the fathers of the modern conservative movement (William F. Buckley), the National Review is a solidly conservative bi-weekly publication featuring some of the best conservative writers around (Buckley, Mark Steyn, Jay Nordlinger, David Frum, Victor Davis Hanson, etc.)  You get 4 free isssues, and if you don't write cancel on the invoice and send it back, you're in the hole for almost a year's worth of issues and $29.50. 
 
In These Times
 
Whomever coined the phrase "the loony left" might have had this publication in mind.  Nevertheless, it's a free isssue with no strings attached (no invoices or anything), and it doesn't get any easier than that. 
 
Conservative Chronicle 
 
Conservative Chronicle is a weekly, 32-page newspaper that reprints an average of 40 opinion columns and political cartoons from American syndication services.  Contributors include George F. Will, Ann Coulter, William F. Buckley, Pat Buchanan, Cal Thomas, and others.  (There is also a liberal equivalent, Liberal Opinion Week, but I haven't received my sample issue yet, so I'll refrain from commenting further.)  As with In These Times, it's one sample issue, no strings attached.  Of the freebies I have received thus far, this one arrived the fastest, in just under a week. 

The Navigator

I came across this via a list of libertarian links, so using my awesome powers of deduction, I'm going to assume that it has "libertarian appeal". The Navigator is a publication of The Objectivist Center, an organization dedicated to furthering the principles expressed in the works of author Ayn Rand. It's a slim little publication, and you only get one freebie, but hey, you don't have to subscribe, so I can't OBJECT to that!!!  HAR!  HAR!  HAR!

I'm such a hack.

Anyway, those are the six that I have received thus far.  Actually, the number is seven, but The Economist's trial subscription offer came in the form of a pop-up ad, and I haven't been able to find another source for it.  (You can look around The Economist's website if you want, but I don't see it there.)  Part 2 of this will be posted when my other freebies arrive, hopefully sooner than later. 

-Dave O'Connell

A story about Polish robots

Wjosjwexna's Polish Robot Adventure!
by David O'Connell  With additional material from Kurt Cobain's diaries
Foreword by Salt (but not Pepa) Afterword by Emmitt Smith
 

Chapter 1  
There once lived a robot named Wjosjwexna.  She was Polish, and being a robot, knew many things about advanced circuitry, but nothing about adventure.  She had never climbed the foothills of Grwjxcblna Park, never fought the One-Eyed Dragon of Xcxcwbgjktgs, or exposed her genitals during the icy winters experienced in the Cghxswuxcpb regions of Pscxjxajbcsa City(jbcaxcb).  She wasn't even technically female, as robots had not evolved to the point where they had their own genders.
 
This puzzled her neighbors.  "Who is she trying to fool?" thought Jcwjba and Paluchowska, the human couple who lived just across the street.
 
At any rate, Wjosjwexna had not experienced adventure, nor had she experienced adventure's gay cousin, derring-do.
 
But then one day Fate called upon her to scale the mighty Tower of Krakawski and retrieve some sort of object that was very precious to someone for some reason.
 
And so she did, and everyone cheered, except her fellow robots, who spit fiery nails of steel up into the air to celebrate, for that has always been the robot way.
 
Wjosjwexna lived a happy life after that, at least up until four hours later, when she was dismantled by a Polish mechanic and her parts used to soup up his sporty 1997 Kielbasa, which after the adjustments, could now go from 0 to 60 in less than zero seconds, thus making it a time machine of sorts.
 
Jcwjba and Paluchowska were also turned into time machines of sorts later that day.  There was a lot of that going on back then. 


The End 

Doing our terror level best...

I wasn’t sure whether to start this blog off on a political note, but Newsweek has put that question to rest for me.  Thank you, Newsweek.  Even though I seldom read you, you will always get at least a few minutes of my time every two weeks from that George F. Will column you run.  And a special biweekly place in my heart for you there will ever be, my mass-circulation, doctor’s office-dwelling sweetheart.  Anyway, Newsweek is reporting that Tom Ridge and other Homeland Security officials are reviewing a proposal that would allow for the November general election to be postponed in the event of a terrorist attack.

Not too surprisingly, some liberals have jumped to the 'conspiracy theory' conclusion.  They don’t think the idea is Ridge-tastic, or even Ridge-arrific.  Salon has a roundup of such reactions here, and offers this little bit of justification for the skepticism:

Add to this mix problems with Florida felon rolls, electronic voting procedures in Florida and elsewhere and reports on Diebold's CEO blatantly discussing "helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president," and you see where paranoia about 2004 being another 2000 -- and then some -- finds fertile ground to flourish.

So it’s disenfranchised voters they’re worried about.  Fair enough.  I worry about them too, the way they run about with scissors and stick their oppressed lever-pulling fingers into electrical sockets.  But let's think about where a major terrorist attack might take place.  The first one that comes to mind, of course, is the 9/11-ravaged New York City.  Here's how they voted in the 2000 general election:

BUSH/CHENEY: 400,922
GORE/LIEBERMAN: 1,662,911

 Source: 2000 General Election City of New York's Statement and the Return of the Votes For The Office of President and Vice President of the United States (2/21/01)

(Statewide, Gore took New York 4,107,697 to 2,403,374.)

As you can see, Democrats took the city by a 4 to 1 margin.  Now let's check out the second worst-hit city in the 9/11 attacks: Washington, D.C.

GORE 171,923
BUSH  18,073

A 9:1 margin in favor of Democrats.  Now let's go through the results of the states surrounding Washington, D.C.

MARYLAND
GORE  1,145,782
BUSH  813797

VIRGINIA
BUSH  1,437,490
GORE   1,217,290
 
Source for State and D.C Results:  http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Perhaps the terrorists might think of hitting other big cities, like Los Angeles...

GORE  692,273  (71.52 percent)
BUSH     231,348  (23.90)

Source: County of Los Angeles Dept. of Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk

...or Philadelphia...

GORE  441,834
BUSH  99,234

Source:  http://seventy.org/stats

(Gore carried PA in 2000, but it is still considered a "battleground state".  And it’s true.  We do kick each others asses a lot.  Especially in Philadelphia, where everyone's pissed off all the time because their hometown teams can't win sports championships.)

Anyway, I could go on and on, but the point is this: major terrorist attacks are probably going to happen in large cities, and large cities tend to overwhelmingly vote Democratic.  And in the four major cities listed above, the surrounding areas combined are solidly Democratic.  So a terrorist attack is likely going to directly disenfranchise far more Democrats than it does Republicans.

So then, if you're a liberal, what do you do?  Do you come out in favor of delaying the elections and risk the Republicans regaining momentum?  Or is it business as usual, knowing that some Democratic voters will be disenfranchised, but the end result will put Kerry in the White House?  (And I think it would: if a terrorist attack can't tip the scales in favor of Kerry, nothing can.)  Given the rather hysterical state of liberalism these days, something tells me that most liberals would go with the latter option, even though they've spent the last four years complaining about Florida's disenfranchised voters.   But I would love for them to prove me wrong. 

-Dave O'Connell

Mein Blogf

Hi! I now have a weblog, or "blog", as the kids like to call it. Personally, I prefer the abbreviation "ebl", but it doesn't seem to catching on. Anyway, welcome.

The name of this, uh, ebl, derives from the title of a 20th century book of political essays by George F. Will, a popular bowtie-wearer of the day. His spirit lives on to this very day in Tucker Carlson, himself a politically-minded afficianado of bow-shaped neckwear. At least it would if George were dead, which he isn't. But someday he will be dead, and if he doesn't take Carlson with him in a bizarre murder-suicide, Carlson will inherit Will's mantle. At any rate, that's where the name of this waste of time comes from. So now you know. And knowing is half the battle.

Or is it?









Yes it is.

-Dave OConnell