Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not politics, I am as clanging brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophesy, and understand all mysteries, and have all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could move mountains, and have not politics? I am nothing. And though I bestow all my own goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not politics? It actually changes nothing. Politics is patient, and is helpful; politics is not personal, is something professionals know not to take too personally, not to have grudges over; rejoices not in ideological purity, but rejoices in practical solutions; supports all things, believes in the people, hopes for a better world, endures anything. Politics never fails: but whether there be prophesies, they will fail; whether there shall be spin, they shall run out of things to say; whether there be trivia, it shall fail. For we prophesy unsuccessfully, and we spin to an audience that knows our tricks by now, but when that which actually solves problems and gets things done shows up, trivial distractions pass away. For trivia is trivial, and prophesies get even the most elementary things wrong, but when the rubber hits the road, trivia and prophesies are done away with. When I was a child, I ranted like a child, I understood no more of how the world actually works than a child does, and I had a childish faith in ideology: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see the world as through a dirty window, but in the future, we'll see the evidence face to face; now we know a little, but then we'll know every bit as much about the actors as they know about us. And now abideth economics, history, and politics, these three: but the greatest of these is politics.
No, really, that's more or less how I think. OK, what's really going on above is that I was thinking about something way out of character for me, namely the fact that I am actually falling asleep at my desk while trying to watch the evening's political news coverage, night after night, for almost two weeks, to the point where it's randomizing my sleep schedule. And that's very, very weird for me, because there are three lenses that I use to look at almost the entire world: history, economics, and politics. That's how the parody of First Corinthians chapter 13, above, began, with the realization for me there "abides three things, economics, history, and politics, but the greatest of these is politics," and having put it that way, I couldn't resist completing the parallelism. But no, really, in truth three things are fundamental to my self-image, and fundamental to how I approach and understand and interact with the world. So do you realize how hard it is to bore me with political news?
But the fact of it is this: nothing has changed in months. George Bush and John McCain still intend us to be bogged down in two or more land wars in Asia for at least an entire generation, thinking that's the best tool for protecting us from tiny and largely irrelevant criminal gangs, and nothing's changed that. Congress is too afraid of having something go wrong if they stop these stupid wars, and too willing to keep signing Bush's loan paperwork and too willing to let several young Americans die per day in order to not have to deal with this until they have a Democratic president who won't blame a Democratic congress if things go wrong. Barack Obama is still going to actually win the whole campaign, Hillary Clinton will still say or do anything however sleazy to try to persuade delegates to steal it for her, but she can't so today's particular accusations are neither likely to be true nor at all interesting. And no, we won't know until November if despite John McCain's intention to wreck the country with disastrous unnecessary wars and even more disastrous deficit spending, people will vote for this senile and clearly increasingly deranged old man who only has two virtues: he used to have an honest reputation, and he's neither black nor female. And Hillary's still a woman, and Obama is still black. We've known all of these things since February, at the very least.
It has been at least that long since anything actually changed, so I'm having an increasingly hard time justifying to myself why it's still on the news every night. I mean, I used to have two problems with the Monica Lewinsky story. First of all, it was trivial garbage, something that took at most a couple of nights' reporting to know everything that mattered about it and for any reasonably well informed and honest person to see it as what it was, a right-wing partisan witch-hunt, an attempt to win in Congress what they'd lost at the polls in November of '92 and '96. But my even bigger problem with it was that even on nights in which there was no actual news on the Monica Lewinsky story, it was still the top headline. No, really, I watch the news to hear something new, at least some new detail in an ongoing story; recapping the previous several months' worth of story without adding any new details night after night after expletive-deleted boring night, eventually ticks me off. And that's how I feel about this increasingly pointless and stupid Democratic nominating contest. I just want the damned thing to be over, and if I can't have that, I want the journalists I watch to wake up and realize that even if it's not over, it's not news, or at least not the top news story of the day every day, any more.
P.S. That being said, one thing did wake me up last night while watching the news, briefly: Keith Olbermann was in rare form, at his snarkiest best in a way he hasn't been in months. Check it out. (YouTube copy found via
obama_2008.)
No, really, that's more or less how I think. OK, what's really going on above is that I was thinking about something way out of character for me, namely the fact that I am actually falling asleep at my desk while trying to watch the evening's political news coverage, night after night, for almost two weeks, to the point where it's randomizing my sleep schedule. And that's very, very weird for me, because there are three lenses that I use to look at almost the entire world: history, economics, and politics. That's how the parody of First Corinthians chapter 13, above, began, with the realization for me there "abides three things, economics, history, and politics, but the greatest of these is politics," and having put it that way, I couldn't resist completing the parallelism. But no, really, in truth three things are fundamental to my self-image, and fundamental to how I approach and understand and interact with the world. So do you realize how hard it is to bore me with political news?
But the fact of it is this: nothing has changed in months. George Bush and John McCain still intend us to be bogged down in two or more land wars in Asia for at least an entire generation, thinking that's the best tool for protecting us from tiny and largely irrelevant criminal gangs, and nothing's changed that. Congress is too afraid of having something go wrong if they stop these stupid wars, and too willing to keep signing Bush's loan paperwork and too willing to let several young Americans die per day in order to not have to deal with this until they have a Democratic president who won't blame a Democratic congress if things go wrong. Barack Obama is still going to actually win the whole campaign, Hillary Clinton will still say or do anything however sleazy to try to persuade delegates to steal it for her, but she can't so today's particular accusations are neither likely to be true nor at all interesting. And no, we won't know until November if despite John McCain's intention to wreck the country with disastrous unnecessary wars and even more disastrous deficit spending, people will vote for this senile and clearly increasingly deranged old man who only has two virtues: he used to have an honest reputation, and he's neither black nor female. And Hillary's still a woman, and Obama is still black. We've known all of these things since February, at the very least.
It has been at least that long since anything actually changed, so I'm having an increasingly hard time justifying to myself why it's still on the news every night. I mean, I used to have two problems with the Monica Lewinsky story. First of all, it was trivial garbage, something that took at most a couple of nights' reporting to know everything that mattered about it and for any reasonably well informed and honest person to see it as what it was, a right-wing partisan witch-hunt, an attempt to win in Congress what they'd lost at the polls in November of '92 and '96. But my even bigger problem with it was that even on nights in which there was no actual news on the Monica Lewinsky story, it was still the top headline. No, really, I watch the news to hear something new, at least some new detail in an ongoing story; recapping the previous several months' worth of story without adding any new details night after night after expletive-deleted boring night, eventually ticks me off. And that's how I feel about this increasingly pointless and stupid Democratic nominating contest. I just want the damned thing to be over, and if I can't have that, I want the journalists I watch to wake up and realize that even if it's not over, it's not news, or at least not the top news story of the day every day, any more.
P.S. That being said, one thing did wake me up last night while watching the news, briefly: Keith Olbermann was in rare form, at his snarkiest best in a way he hasn't been in months. Check it out. (YouTube copy found via
- Mood:
exhausted


Comments
Well, I'd say part of your problem is that you're watching the evening's political news coverage. With few exceptions television news in this country has been all but dead for years. Even the usual exceptions (eg. Nightline, NewsHour) have been through so many recent changes it's debatable whether or not they still matter.
Another part of the problem is that national politics tends to move slowly, so of course there's little news on that front. I'd say the gas tax stupidity would count as news there, but there's not much you can legitimately report on it apart from: here are the three candiates' positions on it, here are some reputable economists explaining why it's a dumb idea, here are some broke drivers explaining why it's attractive anyway.
Local politics is where most of the interesting political news generally is, and you're not likely to find it on a national forum like MSNBC, no matter how good or bad they are.
No, the biggest news of the last few months is that the Democrats are faced with splitting the party (i.e. a Clinton nod), or nominating the weakest candidate since Michael Dukakis, or, arguably, George McGovern.
It's an exciting new cycle.
Goodness, and *I* catch flack for being rude.
So, I could go on about current polls showing Obama in deep trouble in both Ohio and Florida... and his failure to make inroads into any bit of the Deep South or Texas or Appalachia (or the West outside of Colorado). That's about 200-220 electoral votes plus change...
I could do that... but then I question the ability to restrain myself... so, since you're being rude, I don't think I'll reply to any future comment at all.
Do you mean '92 and '96 here?
Also, you're not the only one wishing they'd actually report new news. I know there must be news out there, but the mainstream outlets don't seem to believe it.
I'm ineffably reminded of Suck.com's Ambrose Beers saying something similar at the time:
We're not precisely sure of its exact location, but we're prepared to assert - vigorously, with a steak knife clenched in our white-knuckled hands - that there must have been a point, somewhere, at which the entire metastasizing hell of Ken Starr's "investigation" could have been ended, instantly, if it just hadn't been mentioned in the news for a few hours.
Foregone conclusion, is it? This is something you know, or something you "know"? I know it's the meme the media is trying to push, because they hate Clinton with irrational fury, but is it actually true? I think not.
Me: Not the part about Clinton's actions, I think.
obama against mccain = obama wins
mccain's a soft push from the republican side; he's not an especially strong candidate, and he doesn't have the religous fervor that bush had powering him from the religious right. hillary against him would be the catalyst that motivates people to vote -- not for Mccain, but against clinton. Clinton's biggest positive is that her supporters are very passionate. Her downside is that she inspires passionate hatred in the right. Obama is well-liked and at least as strong a candidate as clinton, if not stronger.
But just in terms of the Democratic nominating campaign? There is at this point no statistical way, period, that she can go into the convention with more delegates than him. Can't be done. She'd have to suddenly and inexplicably start winning by margins of at least 3 to 1, wider margins than she's ever gotten even in the most white racist of states. Not only will her other metrics that Keith so aptly lampooned not fly at the convention, (Obama and Dean hold a 2/3rds majority on the credentials committee) even by her own ever-shifting metrics she's going to lose, too; he will have won more states, more states that Democrats do well in, and more of the popular vote, and he's going to go into the convention with higher general poll numbers and higher poll numbers versus McCain.
She has one and only one argument left to make, and it's the same one she's been hammering almost daily since the Reverend Wright "controversy" broke: this argument that none of the people voting for Barack Obama in the states where he won actually realized they were voting for a black guy, that now that the voters have started paying attention to the fact that Barack Obama is a black man, he's surely unelectable. This argument can not possibly work for her.
IMO, that seems like a mighty leap of faith. Obama, Clinton and McCain are all establishmentarians, and any one of them could lock the candidacy down through fraud and subterfuge.
Namaste.
Oh, and your Corinthians parody was a thing of beauty.
Thanks!