THE SATURDAY AFTERNOON POST
in which i get, and respond to, some reader
email.
For such a short and sweet version of the Friday
Notes, yesterday's installment received an awful lot of
sweet and sour responses. Some of them aren't worth reproducing and, truth be
told, were barely worth responding to at all. But many of them were, and are,
and so will be here.
First up is an email from a regular reader and linker -- we'll call him Professor S. -- who think[s] it's a bit strange to criticize [Obama] on substantive grounds as you often do and then criticize him for not being able to "put away" his opponent.
A fair enough question, even if I don't believe my criticism -- or, more accurately, my observation -- was even the least bit strange. It was, I thought, a simple, empirical observation. Though the events of the past few weeks have (finally) shifted the winds a bit, Senator Obama received months and months -- yoiu could even, dating back to his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech, say years and years -- of a free pass from the mainstream media. More to the point, he benefited from the mainstream media's often relentless cheerleading. He’s raised a lot more money. He’s spent a lot more money. By those standards alone, this race should be over. Long over.
Perhaps this is what he means by a new kind of politics — that, despite having every advantage that traditionally puts a candidate over the top, he’s not there yet. Even against a candidate that many people — including many media pundits — make no secret of hating.
It is interesting, to say the least. Especially since so many people have praised him for running such a great campaign. To the extent that he has been taken seriously as an African-American candidate, and as a relative neophyte of a national candidate, that is certainly true. To the extent that he’s been unable to take full advantage of all those advantages and close the deal, well... either the campaign isn’t as good as everyone thinks, or a hell of a lot of people still have a hell of a lot of reservations about him. (There is, of course, also the third possibility that the foolish and fractured nature of the Democratic delegate apportionment has hamstrung him too. And yet it has equally hamstrung Hillary, who has, to date, won the big states that would have given her a heaping pile of delegates.)
Which leads me, quite naturally but still tangentially, to something I've been meaning to write for a long time but have not yet found the time or the energy: if I hear one more person suggest that Hillary Clinton is tearing the Democratic Party apart, my head will explode. Right now, the only thing that threatens to tear the Democratic Party apart is its own, stupid, restrictive, pedantic system of apportioning delegates. And don't even get me started on the Super Delegates -- who, the whining of the Obamas not withstanding -- are, by definition, supposed to vote their own conscience, not the will of their state's voters. If Hillary Clinton should, somehow, tear the Democratic Party apart -- perhaps she and Bill will descend a really big ideological axe upon it, or perhaps its seams are by now so weakened by call-girl-and-intern-inspired semen emissions that it will rend on its own -- she will, if her supporters and vote totals are any indication, tear it almost in half.
It would be just as accurate to say that Senator Obama is tearing the party apart. And far more accurate to say that, yet again, the Democrats' inability to get out of the way of their own self-righteous twittering, is keeping their already torn party about as frayed as its been this decade.
Now. On the flip side of that email came a rare (but always appreciated) bit of agreement with one of my Obama criticisms. This one from regular reader and co-conspirator Mr. T.:
I am still trying to figure out what a "typical" white person is (frankly, I didn't know there was such a thing), and how this differs from a "typical" black person. In his "landmark" speech he clearly and purposefully led us to believe that his grandmother unfairly stereotyped blacks. In this interview, he says his grandmother is a "typical" white person. The only fair conclusion, based on his own public statements about his grandmother, is that white people unfairly stereotype blacks. That is neither a stretch nor is it unfair; it's the only reasonable interpretation of his own words, right?
Uh... right.
And, finally, a reader emailed to suggest that I was unfairly critical of Dan Rooney's "we need to remain competitive" defense for hiking ticket prices:
Mr. Rooney & the Steelers compete not only on the field, but in business... I think you can only complain if you believe this move will lead to less profit.
I complained -- or, more accurately, criticized -- because I thought Mr. Rooney was being deliberately coy and perhaps even deceptive. He couched that comment in the language of the playing field, not of the board room or the bottom line.
(I would also note that, had they merely hiked ticket prices to improve their bottom line, then they're operating like the City of Pittsburgh and every other wasteful, irresponsible government in America. Budget getting tight? Don't worry about cuts or savings or inefficiencies. Don't try to do more with less. Just raise taxes! And ticket prices! But I digress...)
Now. That said...
...you'll remember that I said I don't begrudge the Steelers the price hike. In fact, I have no problem with it at all. They could easily double or triple the ticket price, still be right in line with top-tier NFL ticket prices, and have no problem selling out season tickets or individual seats for every game every year. In the world of high-demand, high-profile professional sports, Steelers' tickets, even with these hikes, are quite reasonably priced.
If I were running the Steelers, I'd double them. At least. But I'd do so with a clear and simple and above-board explanation. Not a line or two that attempts to couch or obscure or obfuscate what I'm doing.
When you're the head of a professional football franchise, and you say "we have to remain competitive" when you raise ticket prices, you know your audience will not hear it from a business perspective. They hear "competitive," and they think "on the football field." They don't think balance sheets; they think Super Bowls. It's really that simple.
In short, my problem with that statement was its rank hypocrisy. Something often in great supply over on the North Side -- casino complaints anyone? -- for quite some time. And especially this week.
First up is an email from a regular reader and linker -- we'll call him Professor S. -- who think[s] it's a bit strange to criticize [Obama] on substantive grounds as you often do and then criticize him for not being able to "put away" his opponent.
A fair enough question, even if I don't believe my criticism -- or, more accurately, my observation -- was even the least bit strange. It was, I thought, a simple, empirical observation. Though the events of the past few weeks have (finally) shifted the winds a bit, Senator Obama received months and months -- yoiu could even, dating back to his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech, say years and years -- of a free pass from the mainstream media. More to the point, he benefited from the mainstream media's often relentless cheerleading. He’s raised a lot more money. He’s spent a lot more money. By those standards alone, this race should be over. Long over.
Perhaps this is what he means by a new kind of politics — that, despite having every advantage that traditionally puts a candidate over the top, he’s not there yet. Even against a candidate that many people — including many media pundits — make no secret of hating.
It is interesting, to say the least. Especially since so many people have praised him for running such a great campaign. To the extent that he has been taken seriously as an African-American candidate, and as a relative neophyte of a national candidate, that is certainly true. To the extent that he’s been unable to take full advantage of all those advantages and close the deal, well... either the campaign isn’t as good as everyone thinks, or a hell of a lot of people still have a hell of a lot of reservations about him. (There is, of course, also the third possibility that the foolish and fractured nature of the Democratic delegate apportionment has hamstrung him too. And yet it has equally hamstrung Hillary, who has, to date, won the big states that would have given her a heaping pile of delegates.)
Which leads me, quite naturally but still tangentially, to something I've been meaning to write for a long time but have not yet found the time or the energy: if I hear one more person suggest that Hillary Clinton is tearing the Democratic Party apart, my head will explode. Right now, the only thing that threatens to tear the Democratic Party apart is its own, stupid, restrictive, pedantic system of apportioning delegates. And don't even get me started on the Super Delegates -- who, the whining of the Obamas not withstanding -- are, by definition, supposed to vote their own conscience, not the will of their state's voters. If Hillary Clinton should, somehow, tear the Democratic Party apart -- perhaps she and Bill will descend a really big ideological axe upon it, or perhaps its seams are by now so weakened by call-girl-and-intern-inspired semen emissions that it will rend on its own -- she will, if her supporters and vote totals are any indication, tear it almost in half.
It would be just as accurate to say that Senator Obama is tearing the party apart. And far more accurate to say that, yet again, the Democrats' inability to get out of the way of their own self-righteous twittering, is keeping their already torn party about as frayed as its been this decade.
Now. On the flip side of that email came a rare (but always appreciated) bit of agreement with one of my Obama criticisms. This one from regular reader and co-conspirator Mr. T.:
I am still trying to figure out what a "typical" white person is (frankly, I didn't know there was such a thing), and how this differs from a "typical" black person. In his "landmark" speech he clearly and purposefully led us to believe that his grandmother unfairly stereotyped blacks. In this interview, he says his grandmother is a "typical" white person. The only fair conclusion, based on his own public statements about his grandmother, is that white people unfairly stereotype blacks. That is neither a stretch nor is it unfair; it's the only reasonable interpretation of his own words, right?
Uh... right.
And, finally, a reader emailed to suggest that I was unfairly critical of Dan Rooney's "we need to remain competitive" defense for hiking ticket prices:
Mr. Rooney & the Steelers compete not only on the field, but in business... I think you can only complain if you believe this move will lead to less profit.
I complained -- or, more accurately, criticized -- because I thought Mr. Rooney was being deliberately coy and perhaps even deceptive. He couched that comment in the language of the playing field, not of the board room or the bottom line.
(I would also note that, had they merely hiked ticket prices to improve their bottom line, then they're operating like the City of Pittsburgh and every other wasteful, irresponsible government in America. Budget getting tight? Don't worry about cuts or savings or inefficiencies. Don't try to do more with less. Just raise taxes! And ticket prices! But I digress...)
Now. That said...
...you'll remember that I said I don't begrudge the Steelers the price hike. In fact, I have no problem with it at all. They could easily double or triple the ticket price, still be right in line with top-tier NFL ticket prices, and have no problem selling out season tickets or individual seats for every game every year. In the world of high-demand, high-profile professional sports, Steelers' tickets, even with these hikes, are quite reasonably priced.
If I were running the Steelers, I'd double them. At least. But I'd do so with a clear and simple and above-board explanation. Not a line or two that attempts to couch or obscure or obfuscate what I'm doing.
When you're the head of a professional football franchise, and you say "we have to remain competitive" when you raise ticket prices, you know your audience will not hear it from a business perspective. They hear "competitive," and they think "on the football field." They don't think balance sheets; they think Super Bowls. It's really that simple.
In short, my problem with that statement was its rank hypocrisy. Something often in great supply over on the North Side -- casino complaints anyone? -- for quite some time. And especially this week.
Posted: Sat - March 22, 2008 at 03:14 PM
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
Terror Alert
Brilliant Satire
Required Reading
Traffic Count
Official Muse
Syndication
Carbolic Wear
Y Chromosomes
Some Perspective
On Tour
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 16, 2009 04:50 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 16, 2009 04:50 PM