Thu - August 28, 2008
I'M DONE
with this.
The rest is
silence.
[Update, 2/1/09:]
To read what I'm doing now, head over to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and read
[Update, 2/1/09:]
To read what I'm doing now, head over to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and read
Posted at 10:25 PM
THE CREED
and the curse.
So this is what it's come
to.
We've long known that I can not possibly write ill of Senator Messiah without his disciples firing off outraged emails accusing me of being a racist (you know, because he's black) or a closet Republican (you know, because he's a Democrat) or a traitor to my area of expertise (you know, because he's a good communicator) or just a bad human being (you know, because he's a good human being). But now we learn, courtesy of an email from a longtime reader who should just stop reading this fucking blog, that to refrain from criticizing Senator Chosen One is not enough. In fact, even to lightly compliment Senator Breath of Fresh Air is not enough. I'm guessing that anything short of uncritical praise and undying adoration, or maybe just promising to get down on my knees and fellate the good Senator, will not be enough. It'll never, ever be enough.
This morning, I wrote a short, not terribly complicated post to make a point about Hillary Clinton and the hatred that many of the chattering-class political pundits have for her. I noted that, had she done what Senator Obama did last night -- appearing and grabbing the microphone just after her running mate spoke, stepping in to share her own thoughts and treading, however lightly, on what was billed as her running mate's moment in the convention spotlight -- we would have been hearing about it for weeks. For all the talking heads, it would have been one more example of her unbound ego, of her relentless need to make everything all about herself, even when it shouldn't be.
To make -- and indeed to lament -- that point, of course, I would have to think the criticism would be unfounded. That it would be unfair. That it would not be justified. And I did. Because it would have been. And because it wouldn't have been.
That means, of course, that I would have to think that Senator Obama should not be criticized for doing the same thing. (He shouldn't be.) And that it would be unfair to do so. (It would be.) And that it would therefore be unjustified to do so. (Indeed, it would be.)
I declared -- in the first fucking sentence -- that I didn't think there was anything wrong with it. And then -- in the second fucking sentence -- I declared that it was an effective theatrical flourish.
So, just to recap: 1) Shouldn't be criticized. 2) Nothing wrong with it. 3) Effective theatrical flourish.
But that's not enough. Oh, no. Not for people who think only in superlatives and speak only in multiple orgasms about their (and God's) favorite candidate; for them, even mere mentions must roll in huzzahs and hosannas, in gushes and swoons and great, wet cummings.
Now that I truly understand the ways of Barack, and now that I have been duly humbled and chastened in the needs of his humble but demanding flock, let me send one out to them, so that they might have mercy on my soul and bring me home to the warm, yet always demanding, embrace of the promised land.
First, a warm-up, in breadth of language and depth of thought they'll be sure to understand:
Change! Hope! Love! . . . Can we do it? . . . Yes, we can!
Now. Here's one for the zealots:
Barack Obama coming out on stage after Joe Biden's speech last night was the single greatest gesture any politician -- nay, any human being -- has ever made in the history of political conventions or ever, anywhere, since the dawn of time. It revealed to us all, who should have known it already, that Barack Obama is The Man, The Myth, The Legend, The One. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten (and then elected), not made, being of one substance with the Father, by Whom all things were made, and by Whom he has been chosen and anointed, and Who could not possibly have been any better or more righteous than Barack was last night, even if He'd pulled that old Jesus trick and come again. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic candidate, and I acknowledge one Democrat for the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the dead, and the most kick-ass speeches and administrations in history for the life of the world, or at least the week, to come. Amen.
There. I suspect that will make some people feel better. If history is any indicator, I'll be hearing from the rest within the hour.
No doubt to complain that I forgot to mention what a nice tie Barack had on last night. And to bemoan that fact that I devoted almost as much text to God as I did to Obama.
We've long known that I can not possibly write ill of Senator Messiah without his disciples firing off outraged emails accusing me of being a racist (you know, because he's black) or a closet Republican (you know, because he's a Democrat) or a traitor to my area of expertise (you know, because he's a good communicator) or just a bad human being (you know, because he's a good human being). But now we learn, courtesy of an email from a longtime reader who should just stop reading this fucking blog, that to refrain from criticizing Senator Chosen One is not enough. In fact, even to lightly compliment Senator Breath of Fresh Air is not enough. I'm guessing that anything short of uncritical praise and undying adoration, or maybe just promising to get down on my knees and fellate the good Senator, will not be enough. It'll never, ever be enough.
This morning, I wrote a short, not terribly complicated post to make a point about Hillary Clinton and the hatred that many of the chattering-class political pundits have for her. I noted that, had she done what Senator Obama did last night -- appearing and grabbing the microphone just after her running mate spoke, stepping in to share her own thoughts and treading, however lightly, on what was billed as her running mate's moment in the convention spotlight -- we would have been hearing about it for weeks. For all the talking heads, it would have been one more example of her unbound ego, of her relentless need to make everything all about herself, even when it shouldn't be.
To make -- and indeed to lament -- that point, of course, I would have to think the criticism would be unfounded. That it would be unfair. That it would not be justified. And I did. Because it would have been. And because it wouldn't have been.
That means, of course, that I would have to think that Senator Obama should not be criticized for doing the same thing. (He shouldn't be.) And that it would be unfair to do so. (It would be.) And that it would therefore be unjustified to do so. (Indeed, it would be.)
I declared -- in the first fucking sentence -- that I didn't think there was anything wrong with it. And then -- in the second fucking sentence -- I declared that it was an effective theatrical flourish.
So, just to recap: 1) Shouldn't be criticized. 2) Nothing wrong with it. 3) Effective theatrical flourish.
But that's not enough. Oh, no. Not for people who think only in superlatives and speak only in multiple orgasms about their (and God's) favorite candidate; for them, even mere mentions must roll in huzzahs and hosannas, in gushes and swoons and great, wet cummings.
Now that I truly understand the ways of Barack, and now that I have been duly humbled and chastened in the needs of his humble but demanding flock, let me send one out to them, so that they might have mercy on my soul and bring me home to the warm, yet always demanding, embrace of the promised land.
First, a warm-up, in breadth of language and depth of thought they'll be sure to understand:
Change! Hope! Love! . . . Can we do it? . . . Yes, we can!
Now. Here's one for the zealots:
Barack Obama coming out on stage after Joe Biden's speech last night was the single greatest gesture any politician -- nay, any human being -- has ever made in the history of political conventions or ever, anywhere, since the dawn of time. It revealed to us all, who should have known it already, that Barack Obama is The Man, The Myth, The Legend, The One. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten (and then elected), not made, being of one substance with the Father, by Whom all things were made, and by Whom he has been chosen and anointed, and Who could not possibly have been any better or more righteous than Barack was last night, even if He'd pulled that old Jesus trick and come again. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic candidate, and I acknowledge one Democrat for the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the dead, and the most kick-ass speeches and administrations in history for the life of the world, or at least the week, to come. Amen.
There. I suspect that will make some people feel better. If history is any indicator, I'll be hearing from the rest within the hour.
No doubt to complain that I forgot to mention what a nice tie Barack had on last night. And to bemoan that fact that I devoted almost as much text to God as I did to Obama.
Posted at 04:10 PM
ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST
with more reader mail.
Another great piece of reader email popped up in
the inbox last night, and I just had to share. TWM Best Man and Co-Conspirator
Jim
Pascoe, a Western Pennsylvania native doing his thing and living his
dreams now on the West Coast, wrote to
note:
You can tell that I spend too much time reading your site, because when I saw this headline on yahoo’s homepage:
Western nations warn Russia to 'change course' on Georgia.
I really thought it said:
Western PA warns Russia to ‘change course’ on Georgia.
And I thought, watch out, Russia. Because when all of Western PA is against you, you better back the fuck down.
And that, as they say, is (most likely catholic) church.
You can tell that I spend too much time reading your site, because when I saw this headline on yahoo’s homepage:
Western nations warn Russia to 'change course' on Georgia.
I really thought it said:
Western PA warns Russia to ‘change course’ on Georgia.
And I thought, watch out, Russia. Because when all of Western PA is against you, you better back the fuck down.
And that, as they say, is (most likely catholic) church.
Posted at 01:12 PM
A FEW THOUGHTS LINGERING FROM LAST NIGHT
and still nagging this morning.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. And
I'm not saying it wasn't an effective theatrical flourish, because it was. But
I am wondering what the reaction in the media would have been, had Hillary
Clinton been this year's Democratic nominee for president, and had she, less
than two minutes after her running mate had stopped speaking and was still
basking in what was supposed to be his moment, come bounding out onstage
and bogarted the mic and begun speaking to the crowd about what she
thought about what she had seen and heard the past two
nights.
Okay. I'm not really wondering at all. I know what the reaction would have been. And so do you.
And we'd have been hearing about it for weeks.
Okay. I'm not really wondering at all. I know what the reaction would have been. And so do you.
And we'd have been hearing about it for weeks.
Posted at 08:26 AM
Wed - August 27, 2008
THE COURAGE TO SPEAK THIS RATIONAL TRUTH
and the wisdom to know the
difference.
One of TWM's most favorite readers and writers and
thinkers -- we'll call him The Blizz -- emailed in response to this morning's
Moderate Proposal post. His thoughts, I
thought, were worth repeating here:
I couldn’t agree more on your assessment of Mark Warner’s speech. It was not a stirring speech, and it certainly wasn’t the kind of speech that will win him any of the rabid irrationalists -- folks who would waste several days of their lives to attend one of these increasingly anachronistic conventions -- but the lines you quoted were the lines that caught my attention this morning when I saw snippets of it.
I've been thinking about the differences between running a company well and running a government well -- and there are definitely some important differences -- but the two points I thought were true in both cases were:
#1 You need good/competent people (Exhibit A as to how not to have that… see the current administration), and
#2 You need people with differences of opinion who are willing to work together to find solutions.
That’s not to say that there always has to be agreement, because I would be the first to argue that some of the worst solutions are compromise solutions in which the worst of all approaches is cobbled together. We need people who can work together to figure out a way to make one idea/proposal better. And it doesn’t matter, as Mark Warner says, whose idea it is, or whose idea for improving the original idea it is. I think we would be a lot better off if the best-conservative-based/best-liberal-based/best-moderate-based idea that was made the best by opposing voices from left/center/right were tried, rather than what we have now -- either gridlock, or an amalgam of what-is-acceptable, which usually means what-won’t-work-but-is-politically-expedient.
Sadly Mark Warner seems to be one of the few people with the courage to speak this rational truth to a group who, despite their candidate’s campaign theme to the contrary, wants the same old red meat and stale idea/name-calling that has us in this place. For that alone, Mark Warner deserves all of our respect -- if not our votes one day.
Too bad that one day isn't sixty-nine from now.
I couldn’t agree more on your assessment of Mark Warner’s speech. It was not a stirring speech, and it certainly wasn’t the kind of speech that will win him any of the rabid irrationalists -- folks who would waste several days of their lives to attend one of these increasingly anachronistic conventions -- but the lines you quoted were the lines that caught my attention this morning when I saw snippets of it.
I've been thinking about the differences between running a company well and running a government well -- and there are definitely some important differences -- but the two points I thought were true in both cases were:
#1 You need good/competent people (Exhibit A as to how not to have that… see the current administration), and
#2 You need people with differences of opinion who are willing to work together to find solutions.
That’s not to say that there always has to be agreement, because I would be the first to argue that some of the worst solutions are compromise solutions in which the worst of all approaches is cobbled together. We need people who can work together to figure out a way to make one idea/proposal better. And it doesn’t matter, as Mark Warner says, whose idea it is, or whose idea for improving the original idea it is. I think we would be a lot better off if the best-conservative-based/best-liberal-based/best-moderate-based idea that was made the best by opposing voices from left/center/right were tried, rather than what we have now -- either gridlock, or an amalgam of what-is-acceptable, which usually means what-won’t-work-but-is-politically-expedient.
Sadly Mark Warner seems to be one of the few people with the courage to speak this rational truth to a group who, despite their candidate’s campaign theme to the contrary, wants the same old red meat and stale idea/name-calling that has us in this place. For that alone, Mark Warner deserves all of our respect -- if not our votes one day.
Too bad that one day isn't sixty-nine from now.
Posted at 12:58 PM
A MODERATE PROPOSAL
and a partisan disdain.
A little more than two years ago, I declared my (qualified) endorsement of former
Virginia Governor (and now, likely soon-to-be Virginia Senator) Mark Warner for
the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party. A few months later, he
announced that he would not seek it. I was disappointed then, and have remained
disappointed since. His speech last night, while not exactly barn-burning or
stem-winding, reminded why I did, why I was, and why I still should be.
You can read it here.
And then, perhaps, you can consider how much better off this election, and indeed this country, would be if we had fewer people who just want to score points for themselves and their party, and more people who just want everyone to win:
You know, I spent 20 years in business. If you ran a company whose only strategy was to tear down the competition, it wouldn't last long. So why is this wisdom so hard to find in Washington? I know we're at the Democratic Convention, but if an idea works, it really doesn't matter if it has an "R" or "D" next to it. Because this election isn't about liberal versus conservative. It's not about left versus right. It's about the future versus the past.
That paragraph, as rational and sensible and positive and productive a message as has ever been delivered at a Democratic or a Republican National Convention, received tepid applause, a few cheers, and a smattering of boos. It would have received the same -- or perhaps worse -- next week in Minneapolis. Because all too often, from the heads to the back-ends of both parties, common ground for the country is less important than red meat for the party.
If that thought doesn't depress -- and I mean deep-down, not-just-paying-lip-service depress -- the hell out of you, then I don't know what to say to you. Except that you probably should have stopped reading this site a long time ago.
You can read it here.
And then, perhaps, you can consider how much better off this election, and indeed this country, would be if we had fewer people who just want to score points for themselves and their party, and more people who just want everyone to win:
You know, I spent 20 years in business. If you ran a company whose only strategy was to tear down the competition, it wouldn't last long. So why is this wisdom so hard to find in Washington? I know we're at the Democratic Convention, but if an idea works, it really doesn't matter if it has an "R" or "D" next to it. Because this election isn't about liberal versus conservative. It's not about left versus right. It's about the future versus the past.
That paragraph, as rational and sensible and positive and productive a message as has ever been delivered at a Democratic or a Republican National Convention, received tepid applause, a few cheers, and a smattering of boos. It would have received the same -- or perhaps worse -- next week in Minneapolis. Because all too often, from the heads to the back-ends of both parties, common ground for the country is less important than red meat for the party.
If that thought doesn't depress -- and I mean deep-down, not-just-paying-lip-service depress -- the hell out of you, then I don't know what to say to you. Except that you probably should have stopped reading this site a long time ago.
Posted at 10:13 AM
KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE ROAD, YOUR HANDS UPON THE WHEEL
please.
TWM National Correspondent Dennis Roddy files this
report:
So I'm driving down the interstate between Longview, Washington and Portland, Oregon, when this SUV passes me, and I notice a bumper sticker no one in his right mind could possibly desire.
All I could think was, "Used to be I only had to worry if the other guy was distracted by his cell phone. Now I have to wonder if he's ... oh, dear God, just let me get to Portland."
So I'm driving down the interstate between Longview, Washington and Portland, Oregon, when this SUV passes me, and I notice a bumper sticker no one in his right mind could possibly desire.
All I could think was, "Used to be I only had to worry if the other guy was distracted by his cell phone. Now I have to wonder if he's ... oh, dear God, just let me get to Portland."
Posted at 08:44 AM
Tue - August 26, 2008
MALICE AFORETHOUGHTS ON A TUESDAY AFTERNOON
for dissemblers on both sides.
What's worse: benefiting from, and so not
renouncing, a sleazy ad that suggests your opponent has
nefarious ties to a former domestic terrorist when you know damned well he
doesn't, or hoping to benefit from, and so ultimately approving, a
sleazy ad that suggests your opponent ran the first sleazy ad when you
know damned well he didn't?
I can't decide. But I do know that, like both of those ads, both of these candidates, both of their campaigns, and many of their most ardent supporters are making me sick.
I can't decide. But I do know that, like both of those ads, both of these candidates, both of their campaigns, and many of their most ardent supporters are making me sick.
Posted at 03:17 PM
SECOND THOUGHTS ON A TUESDAY MORNING
for all the people sending that hate
mail.
Can you imagine any other scenario in which the
addition of an old, gray-haired white guy to the already wildly successful cause
of a young, dynamic black man would be considered a great boost of credibility
and not one more sorry example of racial and cultural (and intellectual)
condescension?
I can't.
I can't.
Posted at 08:41 AM
FIRST THOUGHTS ON A TUESDAY MORNING
from a guy who, a few points aside, has never
liked barack obama.
This morning's Rob Rogers cartoon is very funny, somewhat
surprising, and, truth be told, more than a little unfair. I suspect his inbox
is already full of hate mail. At least a quarter of which will contend he's a
racist.
Posted at 08:25 AM
Mon - August 25, 2008
WHY SHE'S PRO-JOE
and why i've always been too.
The best, most straightforward and economical
explanation of why Joe Biden is a fine Veep pick appears here, courtesy of Slate's Melinda Henneberger.
In a mere two paragraphs, she nails the nub of the gist of Senator Biden's best
(and worst) qualities. The best sentence, and one that describes exactly how I
always felt too, appears just past halfway point of the first
paragraph:
In fact, watching the Democratic debates during the primary season, I always thought that a viewer who came to the exercise cold would have assumed Biden was the front-runner.
Or at least the most presidential.
For that, and for many other reasons, it's a shame that neither voters nor media members paid much attention to him until that damned pandering text message.
In fact, watching the Democratic debates during the primary season, I always thought that a viewer who came to the exercise cold would have assumed Biden was the front-runner.
Or at least the most presidential.
For that, and for many other reasons, it's a shame that neither voters nor media members paid much attention to him until that damned pandering text message.
Posted at 03:59 PM
COME ON UP
for the campaign of death.
Word on the street and in the Post is that TWM idol-and-inspiration Bruce
Springsteen will perform at the Democratic National Convention this week. If
that's true -- and if it is, please spare me the emails; we've already been through this -- then at least the
convention delegates will have had the good fortune to witness a performance by
someone who lived up to, and then far exceeded, the towering hype heaped upon
him early in his career. They can tap their feet and cross their fingers and
hope it proves to be a good omen.
If Bruce does play the gig, I hope he will, at some point, pull Senator Breath of Fresh Air aside and suggest that he pay a little more attention to the lyrics of the songs he's using for his campaign events. Though it's not nearly as egregious as Ronald Reagan thinking Born in the USA would make a great campaign ditty -- Born down in a dead man's town indeed -- the Obama campaign's recent insistence on playing The Rising, as it did for Joe Biden's introduction on Saturday, is as creepy and macabre as it is stunningly wrong-headed.
The swelling, anthemic chorus sounds great and stirring and very up-with-the-people, of course...
Come on up for the rising
Come on up, lay your hands in mine
Come on up for the rising
Come on up for the rising tonight
...until you actually listen to the verses and understand that the rising is, both literally and metaphorically, a firefighter's ascension to heaven after dying in the fiery hell of the Twin Towers on September 11th...
Spirits above and behind me
Faces gone, black eyes burnin' bright
May their precious blood bind me
Lord as I stand before your fiery light.
...or hear the poor man's dying memories of his family...
I see you Mary in the garden
In the garden of a thousand sighs
There's holy pictures of our children
Dancin' in a sky filled with light
...or feel the pain and foreboding in his description of that final mixture of earth and heavenly sky...
Sky of blackness and sorrow
Sky of love, sky of tears
Sky of glory and sadness
Sky of mercy, sky of fear.
I'm not sure what campaign theme they're trying to evoke here -- Yes We Can Die in a Terrorist Attack, or Pain and Suffering You Can Believe In, or maybe A New Kind of Tragedy -- but just about every possibility stretches both the credulity and the credibility of the campaign's usually sophisticated poetics. The only possible symbolic redemption I can imagine here is if the campaign wants to figure Senator Obama as a kind of selfless, noble, heroic martyr-in-waiting who, in all his eloquent grace and beauty, may be able to save us all and rise to meet the face of God. But that would be silly.
Wouldn't it?
If Bruce does play the gig, I hope he will, at some point, pull Senator Breath of Fresh Air aside and suggest that he pay a little more attention to the lyrics of the songs he's using for his campaign events. Though it's not nearly as egregious as Ronald Reagan thinking Born in the USA would make a great campaign ditty -- Born down in a dead man's town indeed -- the Obama campaign's recent insistence on playing The Rising, as it did for Joe Biden's introduction on Saturday, is as creepy and macabre as it is stunningly wrong-headed.
The swelling, anthemic chorus sounds great and stirring and very up-with-the-people, of course...
Come on up for the rising
Come on up, lay your hands in mine
Come on up for the rising
Come on up for the rising tonight
...until you actually listen to the verses and understand that the rising is, both literally and metaphorically, a firefighter's ascension to heaven after dying in the fiery hell of the Twin Towers on September 11th...
Spirits above and behind me
Faces gone, black eyes burnin' bright
May their precious blood bind me
Lord as I stand before your fiery light.
...or hear the poor man's dying memories of his family...
I see you Mary in the garden
In the garden of a thousand sighs
There's holy pictures of our children
Dancin' in a sky filled with light
...or feel the pain and foreboding in his description of that final mixture of earth and heavenly sky...
Sky of blackness and sorrow
Sky of love, sky of tears
Sky of glory and sadness
Sky of mercy, sky of fear.
I'm not sure what campaign theme they're trying to evoke here -- Yes We Can Die in a Terrorist Attack, or Pain and Suffering You Can Believe In, or maybe A New Kind of Tragedy -- but just about every possibility stretches both the credulity and the credibility of the campaign's usually sophisticated poetics. The only possible symbolic redemption I can imagine here is if the campaign wants to figure Senator Obama as a kind of selfless, noble, heroic martyr-in-waiting who, in all his eloquent grace and beauty, may be able to save us all and rise to meet the face of God. But that would be silly.
Wouldn't it?
Posted at 10:24 AM
Sun - August 24, 2008
MAYBE THE McCAIN CAMP READS TWM
in which i take (the dubious) credit for that
(silly) "celebrity" ad.
While rifling through the TWM archives to find a
link for yesterday's notes, I happened upon an
old post from November 18th, 2006, that concluded with these two
sentences:
It's one thing to support a statesman; it's quite another to sell a celebrity. In the age of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, when success is measured by notoriety and credibility is inseparable from popularity, maybe Barack Obama is the perfect Presidential candidate after all.
I was happy to see that the whole post holds up well. (It is, after all, as true today as it was when I wrote it almost two years ago.) But reading those last two sentences gave me pause. And a bit of jolt. And made me wonder whether someone (or ones) in the McCain camp has been reading TWM. Because there, in all its thematic glory, lies the heart of that now-infamous Celebrity attack ad.
I don't know whether to be pleased or frightened. I should probably just be pissed. But either way, I may as well claim some sort of credit for that ad. Sure, it was sad, silly, desperate, and incompetent, but I prophesied it -- and maybe even inspired it -- twenty months in advance. That's gotta be worth something, right?
Like, say, a couple of hundred bucks. Or an all-expense-pad trip to Minneapolis. Or maybe one of those extra houses he doesn't remember anyway.
It's one thing to support a statesman; it's quite another to sell a celebrity. In the age of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, when success is measured by notoriety and credibility is inseparable from popularity, maybe Barack Obama is the perfect Presidential candidate after all.
I was happy to see that the whole post holds up well. (It is, after all, as true today as it was when I wrote it almost two years ago.) But reading those last two sentences gave me pause. And a bit of jolt. And made me wonder whether someone (or ones) in the McCain camp has been reading TWM. Because there, in all its thematic glory, lies the heart of that now-infamous Celebrity attack ad.
I don't know whether to be pleased or frightened. I should probably just be pissed. But either way, I may as well claim some sort of credit for that ad. Sure, it was sad, silly, desperate, and incompetent, but I prophesied it -- and maybe even inspired it -- twenty months in advance. That's gotta be worth something, right?
Like, say, a couple of hundred bucks. Or an all-expense-pad trip to Minneapolis. Or maybe one of those extra houses he doesn't remember anyway.
Posted at 12:09 PM
Sat - August 23, 2008
(POST-PAINTING) NOTES FROM A SATURDAY AFTERNOON
delaying the flights of my
mind.
For your consideration: another curious collection
of thoughts, reactions, and observations that didn't make it into a full-length
post this week. Or a notes post yesterday. So they're sort of like those
people you can always count on to show up on time, except,
well...
• Yesterday afternoon, CNN reported that Senator Breath of Fresh Air had released his fifth negative spot in the past few days. That is, of course, five more than he promised to release. Five more than a new kind of politics would seem able to support.. And so five more examples of his consistent, and still stunning, hypocrisy.
• The Senator explains himself here. (As Ken Kesey once wrote: It's the truth, even if it didn't happen.)
• And Jonathan Alter, blogging forObamaNewsweek, absolves him here. You know, because McCain has gone
negative -- indeed he has, and stupidly so -- and Obama hasn't been as negative
as McCain, and so, you know, it's all good. Funny that Alter fails to mention,
much less to be troubled by, the simple fact that Senator Obama is a candidate
who had on many, many occasions decried negative politics, bemoaned that
political campaigns have become far too nasty and divisive, and promised a that
much vaunted, rarely seen new kind of politics. And yet here is, yet
again resorting to the same old thing. As, it should be noted, I predicted he
would.
• Though, to be fair, even I was not cynical enough to predict the resounding silence -- followed, on the partisan-left blogs, by desperate rationalization -- with which these tactics would be greeted.
• Our body politic is in even worse shape than I feared, my friends. And it ain't gettin' any better.
• That said, I think it's safe to assume that no matter which man wins the presidency, our next Secretary of State is bound to better than our current one. The latest in a long list of reasons why comes straight out of Condoleezza Rice's mouth: Russia is a state that is unfortunately using this one tool it has always used... when it wishes to deliver a message, and that's its military power. That not the way to deal in the 21st Century.
• Pot. Kettle. Black. Condi.
• A new Archives of Surgery survey found that 57% of Americans believe prayer can reverse a terminal medical prognosis. Something tells me that 89% of that 57% was the 50.7% who voted for George W. Bush in 2004.
• Do you suppose that same 57% believes people like Randy Pausch and John Challis just didn't pray hard enough?
• An ESPN photo of the six Women's Beach Volleyball Medalists -- I know it's still hard to consider that an Olympic sport, but I'll be damned if Kerri Walsh and Misty May-Treanor weren't two of the most impressive and dominating athletes I saw these past two weeks -- featured an unfurled Terrible Towel in the upper-right-hand corner. I thought that was kind of cool. So did PittGirl. But then the comment thread boasting and chest-beating started and just ruined the whole damned thing. Sample observation: This is why the rest of the country hates Steeler Nation. Maybe. Or maybe they hate you because you're so fucking smug about it.
• Apropos of nothing, FoxSports.com this week listed the NFL's Top 10 Fan Bases. Listed at #1, the Philadelphia Eagles: The most passionate fans in all of sports are without question Philadelphia Eagles fans. They're cold-blooded and probably give KC a run for their money as being the loudest. They are by far the most knowledgeable fans in the league..." You'll forgive me, of course, if I find no flaw in that assessment.
• The Steelers? They were slotted at #6. And described very annoying. Which is kind of funny, given what unfolded two notes ago. And yet you have to question any commentary that, though rightfully acknowledging the greatness of Sidney Crosby, seems to have no knowledge of Mario Lemieux. Or Willie Stargell. Or Roberto Clemente. Or...
• I damned near choked on a cookie a few nights ago when I saw Joan Allen in a commercial for that abominable new Death Race movie. She can't need the money that badly, can she? My God. How embarrassing for her.
• Roger Ebert, whose job compelled him to watch the movie, felt the same way: Yes, that ethereal beauty, that sublime actress, that limitless talent, reduced to standing in an observation post and ordering her underlings to "activate weapons"... She plays her scenes with an icy venom, which I imagine she is rehearsing to use in a chat with her agent.
• And, finally, one more bit of follow-up on that creepy M&M baby: My buddy Badger emailed to say that he'd shown Thursday's post to his wife and to his brother, and that all three of them were so freaked out by it they were afraid to go to sleep. He was convinced that he would have nightmares about that little bastard, and he was afraid that it might come and suck out his soul while he slept. I must confess I felt the same way. And was, in fact, simply glad to wake up with no (obvious) wounds or bite marks. The more I think about that ad, the more I'm starting to fear that I may never be able to eat M&Ms again...
• Yesterday afternoon, CNN reported that Senator Breath of Fresh Air had released his fifth negative spot in the past few days. That is, of course, five more than he promised to release. Five more than a new kind of politics would seem able to support.. And so five more examples of his consistent, and still stunning, hypocrisy.
• The Senator explains himself here. (As Ken Kesey once wrote: It's the truth, even if it didn't happen.)
• And Jonathan Alter, blogging for
• Though, to be fair, even I was not cynical enough to predict the resounding silence -- followed, on the partisan-left blogs, by desperate rationalization -- with which these tactics would be greeted.
• Our body politic is in even worse shape than I feared, my friends. And it ain't gettin' any better.
• That said, I think it's safe to assume that no matter which man wins the presidency, our next Secretary of State is bound to better than our current one. The latest in a long list of reasons why comes straight out of Condoleezza Rice's mouth: Russia is a state that is unfortunately using this one tool it has always used... when it wishes to deliver a message, and that's its military power. That not the way to deal in the 21st Century.
• Pot. Kettle. Black. Condi.
• A new Archives of Surgery survey found that 57% of Americans believe prayer can reverse a terminal medical prognosis. Something tells me that 89% of that 57% was the 50.7% who voted for George W. Bush in 2004.
• Do you suppose that same 57% believes people like Randy Pausch and John Challis just didn't pray hard enough?
• An ESPN photo of the six Women's Beach Volleyball Medalists -- I know it's still hard to consider that an Olympic sport, but I'll be damned if Kerri Walsh and Misty May-Treanor weren't two of the most impressive and dominating athletes I saw these past two weeks -- featured an unfurled Terrible Towel in the upper-right-hand corner. I thought that was kind of cool. So did PittGirl. But then the comment thread boasting and chest-beating started and just ruined the whole damned thing. Sample observation: This is why the rest of the country hates Steeler Nation. Maybe. Or maybe they hate you because you're so fucking smug about it.
• Apropos of nothing, FoxSports.com this week listed the NFL's Top 10 Fan Bases. Listed at #1, the Philadelphia Eagles: The most passionate fans in all of sports are without question Philadelphia Eagles fans. They're cold-blooded and probably give KC a run for their money as being the loudest. They are by far the most knowledgeable fans in the league..." You'll forgive me, of course, if I find no flaw in that assessment.
• The Steelers? They were slotted at #6. And described very annoying. Which is kind of funny, given what unfolded two notes ago. And yet you have to question any commentary that, though rightfully acknowledging the greatness of Sidney Crosby, seems to have no knowledge of Mario Lemieux. Or Willie Stargell. Or Roberto Clemente. Or...
• I damned near choked on a cookie a few nights ago when I saw Joan Allen in a commercial for that abominable new Death Race movie. She can't need the money that badly, can she? My God. How embarrassing for her.
• Roger Ebert, whose job compelled him to watch the movie, felt the same way: Yes, that ethereal beauty, that sublime actress, that limitless talent, reduced to standing in an observation post and ordering her underlings to "activate weapons"... She plays her scenes with an icy venom, which I imagine she is rehearsing to use in a chat with her agent.
• And, finally, one more bit of follow-up on that creepy M&M baby: My buddy Badger emailed to say that he'd shown Thursday's post to his wife and to his brother, and that all three of them were so freaked out by it they were afraid to go to sleep. He was convinced that he would have nightmares about that little bastard, and he was afraid that it might come and suck out his soul while he slept. I must confess I felt the same way. And was, in fact, simply glad to wake up with no (obvious) wounds or bite marks. The more I think about that ad, the more I'm starting to fear that I may never be able to eat M&Ms again...
Posted at 05:43 PM
FIRST THOUGHT ON A SATURDAY MORNING
from a guy who, a few points aside, has always
liked joe biden.
Nothing quite says change or breath of
fresh air or new kind of politics like a guy who's been serving in
the Senate for thirty-six years.
Posted at 08:04 AM
Fri - August 22, 2008
(NO) NOTES FROM A FRIDAY AFTERNOON
or a friday night.
Sorry, folks. The busiest day of a busy, and kind
of crazy, week.
Stay tuned until tomorrow afternoon, when the notes return in full bloom...
Stay tuned until tomorrow afternoon, when the notes return in full bloom...
Posted at 10:30 PM
THE WALL (8/14/08 - 8/20/08)
they gave the last full measure of
devotion.
Private Janelle F.
King.
Private 1st Class Daniel A.C. McGuire.
Lance Corporal Travis M. Stottlemyer.
George Stanciel.
Private 1st Class Daniel A.C. McGuire.
Lance Corporal Travis M. Stottlemyer.
George Stanciel.
Posted at 07:46 AM
Thu - August 21, 2008
THESE DOLLS ARE NOT TOYS
they're cries for help.
This could be the creepiest thing I've ever
seen:
The ad showed up in my mailbox about a week ago, and it's still freaking me out. The vacant, soulless eyes. The weird little I Melt for No One hat and outfit. The big, disembodied hand dangling that rosy-cheeked little mutant over the colorful bowl of M&Ms. I don't know whether to fear it -- I have a sneaking suspicion that fangs lurk behind those puckered lips, and that it won't be long before the little creature grows up and joins The Brood -- or feel sorry for it. And, worse still, I don't know whether I'm supposed to play with it or eat it.
The fine print in the lower left clears up that last point -- These dolls are not toys; they are fine collectibles to be enjoyed by adult collectors. -- and then creeps me out all the more. Because somehow the thought of people buying and eating these things isn't nearly as disturbing as the thought of people buying and curating and displaying and admiring them.
Secretly feeding your inner cannibal is one thing; openly indulging your inner pedophile is quite another.
[Update, 4:32pm: Three inquiries later, I figure I should note that yes, this ad IS real, and no, I'm NOT making it up. I swear.]
The ad showed up in my mailbox about a week ago, and it's still freaking me out. The vacant, soulless eyes. The weird little I Melt for No One hat and outfit. The big, disembodied hand dangling that rosy-cheeked little mutant over the colorful bowl of M&Ms. I don't know whether to fear it -- I have a sneaking suspicion that fangs lurk behind those puckered lips, and that it won't be long before the little creature grows up and joins The Brood -- or feel sorry for it. And, worse still, I don't know whether I'm supposed to play with it or eat it.
The fine print in the lower left clears up that last point -- These dolls are not toys; they are fine collectibles to be enjoyed by adult collectors. -- and then creeps me out all the more. Because somehow the thought of people buying and eating these things isn't nearly as disturbing as the thought of people buying and curating and displaying and admiring them.
Secretly feeding your inner cannibal is one thing; openly indulging your inner pedophile is quite another.
[Update, 4:32pm: Three inquiries later, I figure I should note that yes, this ad IS real, and no, I'm NOT making it up. I swear.]
Posted at 08:40 AM
Wed - August 20, 2008
SAME OLD SONG
and dance.
Ah, the manufactured drama, the political and
metaphysical sturm und drang, of waiting for the announcement of the
running mate! The endless speculation! The short-list stakeouts! The
breathless updates about Joe Biden's living arrangements and Evan Bayh's wife's
hair!
And all for nothing. Because over at Carbolic Smoke Ball, we broke the news about Senator Obama's choice months ago.
With a hot new single on the charts, and with the full support of Senator Obama's daughters behind him, well... it's looking more and more like we were right all along.
And all for nothing. Because over at Carbolic Smoke Ball, we broke the news about Senator Obama's choice months ago.
With a hot new single on the charts, and with the full support of Senator Obama's daughters behind him, well... it's looking more and more like we were right all along.
Posted at 08:18 AM
Tue - August 19, 2008
AND NOW WE HEAR FROM THE PEDESTRIANS
or, when the feet turn to the
hands.
And now, as they say, another country is heard
from. This time, a couple of delegates from the sovereign state of Pedestria,
write to weigh in on the great Bike-Car Cold War of August
2008.
First up is a regular reader from my home corner of the state -- we'll call him RK -- who both introduces walkers to the mix and informs us that the same epic battle of riders and rhetoric also rages in Philly:
Here's the thing. Many cyclists, when they are on the road with cars, believe that traffic should yield to them and that cars should just slow down to match their speed until it's safe to pass. And I can kind of see their point. Clearly, they can be very seriously injured if they are stuck by a car, which is far heavier and moves far quicker than they do. So they worry about it, as is only logical for someone in their position.
And yet, when these same cyclists get on a path which does not contain cars, but instead contains slower pedestrians, the same logic no longer seems to apply. Instead, they complain about those fucking joggers and walkers who get in their way, slow them down, and force them to reduce their speed until it's safe to pass.
As further proof of his claims, RK submits this Philadelphia Inquirer article that, appearing in yesterday's editions, tells of chaos and carnage on the Kelly Drive Bike Path at (the always fabulous) Boathouse Row.
Next up is one of TWM's favorite readers and writers -- we'll call her Big N -- who combines a somewhat revolutionary spirit with a fierce resistance to mincing her words:
I hate bikes. Without hesitation or apology.
If you want to be taken seriously on the road, you have to obey the rules handed to you.
I have yet to see the biker who goes with the flow of traffic and actually stops when it's red. Instead of pausing and then darting out across a crowded intersection.
Or the cyclist who, fed up with the road space he fought for, takes the sidewalk, shouting things at you like "Left!" as though you're supposed to know whether that means "Hey, I'm on your left" or "Hey, move to the left". The difference can spell dire consequences for the average pedestrian. Unless you're part of a militia or renegade organization. Both of which probably have the sense to realize no one would take you seriously on a bicycle.
Even Che had a motorcycle.
Not to mention a jaunty hat to which neither car nor bike nor poor, beleaguered pedestrian could have possibly done justice.
First up is a regular reader from my home corner of the state -- we'll call him RK -- who both introduces walkers to the mix and informs us that the same epic battle of riders and rhetoric also rages in Philly:
Here's the thing. Many cyclists, when they are on the road with cars, believe that traffic should yield to them and that cars should just slow down to match their speed until it's safe to pass. And I can kind of see their point. Clearly, they can be very seriously injured if they are stuck by a car, which is far heavier and moves far quicker than they do. So they worry about it, as is only logical for someone in their position.
And yet, when these same cyclists get on a path which does not contain cars, but instead contains slower pedestrians, the same logic no longer seems to apply. Instead, they complain about those fucking joggers and walkers who get in their way, slow them down, and force them to reduce their speed until it's safe to pass.
As further proof of his claims, RK submits this Philadelphia Inquirer article that, appearing in yesterday's editions, tells of chaos and carnage on the Kelly Drive Bike Path at (the always fabulous) Boathouse Row.
Next up is one of TWM's favorite readers and writers -- we'll call her Big N -- who combines a somewhat revolutionary spirit with a fierce resistance to mincing her words:
I hate bikes. Without hesitation or apology.
If you want to be taken seriously on the road, you have to obey the rules handed to you.
I have yet to see the biker who goes with the flow of traffic and actually stops when it's red. Instead of pausing and then darting out across a crowded intersection.
Or the cyclist who, fed up with the road space he fought for, takes the sidewalk, shouting things at you like "Left!" as though you're supposed to know whether that means "Hey, I'm on your left" or "Hey, move to the left". The difference can spell dire consequences for the average pedestrian. Unless you're part of a militia or renegade organization. Both of which probably have the sense to realize no one would take you seriously on a bicycle.
Even Che had a motorcycle.
Not to mention a jaunty hat to which neither car nor bike nor poor, beleaguered pedestrian could have possibly done justice.
Posted at 11:36 AM
I HATE TO SAY I TOLD YOU SO
but.
Remember when I told you that, while scandals of WVU magnitude
are mercifully rare, you should not kid yourselves into thinking that those
sorts of things -- the sad and sordid bartering of both influence and
favoritism, the willful and capricious disregarding of both merit and process --
do not happen all the time in higher
education?
Along comes the Carnegie Mellon University H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management and Cumbersome Names and Suspect Graduate Degrees to bolster my claim.
At least CMU, no doubt taking a cue from WVU's ethical and professional implosions, acted swiftly and decisively to resolve the matter. Their integrity restored (for now), the university and its administrators can get back to the business of welcoming their incoming classes. And no doubt longing for the days when the media seemed to care only about their terminally ill professors.
Along comes the Carnegie Mellon University H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management and Cumbersome Names and Suspect Graduate Degrees to bolster my claim.
At least CMU, no doubt taking a cue from WVU's ethical and professional implosions, acted swiftly and decisively to resolve the matter. Their integrity restored (for now), the university and its administrators can get back to the business of welcoming their incoming classes. And no doubt longing for the days when the media seemed to care only about their terminally ill professors.
Posted at 10:57 AM
Mon - August 18, 2008
OH, DEERE
john.
I told you the whole bike-car-scofflaw debate
would not end anytime soon. Two more letters to the editor yesterday, an op-ed piece today, a bunch of email exchanges
over the weekend, and a front-page article this morning -- well-written
and nicely balanced, as usual, by Rich Lord -- in which I learned, thanks to
Bike Pittsburgh Executive Director Scott Bricker, that Isaac Newton may be to
blame for many cyclists' refusal to obey the rules of the road to which they are legally
bound:
"There's a physics argument on why some bikers don't stop at stop signs," Mr. Bricker said. It takes a lot of energy to get a bicycle from zero to cruising speed, he noted, so if the coast is clear, some cyclists roll on.
I always thought that cyclists were a pretty hearty lot -- I mean, they're riding on city streets, and look at all the exercise they're getting -- but Mr. Bricker seems to have far less confidence in them than I. In part because he makes getting a bike moving again seem tatamount to poor Sisyphus pushing that rock, or maybe a PAT bus, up the hill.
Now. I don't want to muddy the waters -- or is that crowd the roads? -- any more, but an email I received this morning compels me to introduce yet another factor -- or is that farm implement? -- to the great vehicular debate of August 2008. One of TWM's regular readers and favorite comic kibitzers -- we'll call him Mr. Smith -- wrote to share an experience that he and another driver had with a whole other vehicular breed:
I had an interesting one on Friday heading in to work. Not involving a bike though...
Heading down 119S there was one car ahead of me in the left lane. We start down a little straight stretch of the road, and up ahead, a big old John Deere farm tractor, hauling one of its huge field mowers, started to drive ACROSS 119 North, through the median, and then across 119S. Either his Deere didn't have the get-up-and-go it used to, or he underestimated the speed of the car coming at it, because he didn't quite get off the road before we caught up to him.
The driver of the car ahead of me had to swerve into the median, two wheels sending grass and debris flying at my car. He then honked and waved angrily at the man driving the tractor, who proceeded to flick off the car driving legally on, not perpendicular to, the road.
Not even a quarter mile up the road -- an intersection, with a Tractor Crossing sign. But who needs to follow the rules of the road? Certainly not the unlicensed, unregistered vehicles out there.
Not as long as they're beholden to the laws of physics, Mr. Smith. Call it the conservation of energy. And momentum.
And courtesy. And responsibility.
____
[Note to the zealots: I have been remarkably (and at times even pedantically) consistent, over the now-almost-four-year life of this blog, in my bitter condemnations of drivers who resist courtesy and ignore responsibility and do all sorts of silly, stupid, dangerous things. Applying that same scorn, these last few days, to equally discourteous cyclists and the often silly justifications for them does not make me anti-bike any more than those first four years made me anti-car. It just reaffirms that I'm anti-asshole, anti-idiot, and anti-bullshit. No matter the mode of transportation.]
"There's a physics argument on why some bikers don't stop at stop signs," Mr. Bricker said. It takes a lot of energy to get a bicycle from zero to cruising speed, he noted, so if the coast is clear, some cyclists roll on.
I always thought that cyclists were a pretty hearty lot -- I mean, they're riding on city streets, and look at all the exercise they're getting -- but Mr. Bricker seems to have far less confidence in them than I. In part because he makes getting a bike moving again seem tatamount to poor Sisyphus pushing that rock, or maybe a PAT bus, up the hill.
Now. I don't want to muddy the waters -- or is that crowd the roads? -- any more, but an email I received this morning compels me to introduce yet another factor -- or is that farm implement? -- to the great vehicular debate of August 2008. One of TWM's regular readers and favorite comic kibitzers -- we'll call him Mr. Smith -- wrote to share an experience that he and another driver had with a whole other vehicular breed:
I had an interesting one on Friday heading in to work. Not involving a bike though...
Heading down 119S there was one car ahead of me in the left lane. We start down a little straight stretch of the road, and up ahead, a big old John Deere farm tractor, hauling one of its huge field mowers, started to drive ACROSS 119 North, through the median, and then across 119S. Either his Deere didn't have the get-up-and-go it used to, or he underestimated the speed of the car coming at it, because he didn't quite get off the road before we caught up to him.
The driver of the car ahead of me had to swerve into the median, two wheels sending grass and debris flying at my car. He then honked and waved angrily at the man driving the tractor, who proceeded to flick off the car driving legally on, not perpendicular to, the road.
Not even a quarter mile up the road -- an intersection, with a Tractor Crossing sign. But who needs to follow the rules of the road? Certainly not the unlicensed, unregistered vehicles out there.
Not as long as they're beholden to the laws of physics, Mr. Smith. Call it the conservation of energy. And momentum.
And courtesy. And responsibility.
____
[Note to the zealots: I have been remarkably (and at times even pedantically) consistent, over the now-almost-four-year life of this blog, in my bitter condemnations of drivers who resist courtesy and ignore responsibility and do all sorts of silly, stupid, dangerous things. Applying that same scorn, these last few days, to equally discourteous cyclists and the often silly justifications for them does not make me anti-bike any more than those first four years made me anti-car. It just reaffirms that I'm anti-asshole, anti-idiot, and anti-bullshit. No matter the mode of transportation.]
Posted at 10:32 AM
Sun - August 17, 2008
MORE FUN WITH TAG CLOUDS
abortion academics adultery.
A couple of months ago we had some fun with nonsensical Tag Cloud phrases
at Slate.com (Wright Jesus Joe Biden; caucus Iran Javier
Bardem; Chuck Norris conference; Huckabee ice cream). So I
thought it might be fun, even if none of them quite rise to our former levels of
absurdity, to share a few new ones that tickled my fancy today:
Bill Clinton birth control
extramarital sex family
feminism foreign policy
Obama opting out parenting
primary fatigue prostitution
Giuliani sex sex discrimination sex
torture Vicki Iseman.
Which doesn't sound like such a good idea. Unless, of course, Vicki Iseman is responsible for Tag Clouds. Then, these minor amusements aside, I'd be all for it.
Bill Clinton birth control
extramarital sex family
feminism foreign policy
Obama opting out parenting
primary fatigue prostitution
Giuliani sex sex discrimination sex
torture Vicki Iseman.
Which doesn't sound like such a good idea. Unless, of course, Vicki Iseman is responsible for Tag Clouds. Then, these minor amusements aside, I'd be all for it.
Posted at 03:41 PM
FROM SLE WITH LOVE
to her mom. and for all of us.
While poking around the Google a couple of nights
ago, I happened upon a raw and honest and especially moving comment over at The
Burgh Blog. It appeared in a comment thread that unfolded in the wake of
PittGirl's note on the passing of Professor Randy Pausch. At the end of a
discussion that saw one commenter refer to me as a self-righteous asshole
and another wish that I had died instead -- you can see how truly moved and
inspired that fucking idiot was by Professor Pausch's call to embrace and value
life; I must have missed the part of the Last Lecture that urged us to will pain
and suffering upon people with whom we disagree -- came a reaction that
articulated, with far more emotional resonance than I could muster on the
subject, some of what I've been saying and feeling all
along.
It's from a commenter named Sle, and it deserves a far wider and more thoughtful reading than it no doubt received at the bottom of that nearly concluded thread. I reproduce it here, unaltered and unedited, for your consideration:
My mother died after fighting Pancreatic Cancer for 5 1/2 months nine years ago.
I am frankly offended by: “I realize there are those that say that Randy Pausch is no different than anyone else that dies of pancreatic cancer, but I disagree. He didn’t go quietly into the night. He spoke out about it and the need for research. He fought it publicly. He tried to leave lessons not only for his young children, but also for us.”
Dr. Pauch also had a worldwide network. He also had the talent and access to international technology.
My mother wrote us letters. She participated in research trials. She planned on beating the cancer and going on speaking tours.
My mom was a single parent who raised her two daughters -- one born just two weeks after my father died -- on her own at a time when single parents were looked down. She worked odd jobs to be home with her kids. She put two girls to college. She had just started back to college herself and had started dating again for the first time in 21 years when she turned yellow.
If she had the ability, she would have done what Dr. Pauch did. At least as much. Nine years ago.
I am greatful for what he was able to do, but don’t for one minute think my mom wouldn’t have done the same.
I don't think that at all, Sle. Not for one second. (Failing to do so, you will note, has earned me insults and death wishes; I hope you were spared the same.)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. They contained a host of beauty and sadness, and a great big dose of gut-wrenching perspective from which an awful lot of people could, but probably will not, benefit.
It's from a commenter named Sle, and it deserves a far wider and more thoughtful reading than it no doubt received at the bottom of that nearly concluded thread. I reproduce it here, unaltered and unedited, for your consideration:
My mother died after fighting Pancreatic Cancer for 5 1/2 months nine years ago.
I am frankly offended by: “I realize there are those that say that Randy Pausch is no different than anyone else that dies of pancreatic cancer, but I disagree. He didn’t go quietly into the night. He spoke out about it and the need for research. He fought it publicly. He tried to leave lessons not only for his young children, but also for us.”
Dr. Pauch also had a worldwide network. He also had the talent and access to international technology.
My mother wrote us letters. She participated in research trials. She planned on beating the cancer and going on speaking tours.
My mom was a single parent who raised her two daughters -- one born just two weeks after my father died -- on her own at a time when single parents were looked down. She worked odd jobs to be home with her kids. She put two girls to college. She had just started back to college herself and had started dating again for the first time in 21 years when she turned yellow.
If she had the ability, she would have done what Dr. Pauch did. At least as much. Nine years ago.
I am greatful for what he was able to do, but don’t for one minute think my mom wouldn’t have done the same.
I don't think that at all, Sle. Not for one second. (Failing to do so, you will note, has earned me insults and death wishes; I hope you were spared the same.)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. They contained a host of beauty and sadness, and a great big dose of gut-wrenching perspective from which an awful lot of people could, but probably will not, benefit.
Posted at 10:02 AM
Sat - August 16, 2008
ANOTHER LIVE-MIKE MOMENT
and more reader mail.
One more piece of reader email to share, this one
from a regular reader and former student -- we'll call her Ms. G. -- who shares
my increasing disgust and withering disdain for NBC's once-great, now often
embarrassing morning show:
I don't know if you caught this, but [on yesterday's Today Show] Matt Lauer interviewed Ryan Lochte, who, despite his suit filling up with water when he began the 200m backstroke, broke a world record and captured the gold for the event. Thirty minutes later Lochte went head-to-head with his friend and colleague Michael Phelps in the 200m individual medley and took home the bronze. When he interviewed him, the very briliant Matt asked Lochte, "Knowing that Michael was trying to break the 6-for-6 record last night, how would you have felt if you had won the gold in the individual medley and destroyed his dream?"
First, what kind of fucked up, assanine, insulting question is that? The guy just won a gold and thirty minutes later took a bronze, and you have the nerve and audacity to ask such a ridiculous question. You could see the confusion and utter "Did you just really ask me that?" look on Lochte's face. Aaaargh!
As a former competitive swimmer myself, I look at Michael in awe and am just amazed at his abilities. He is literally superhuman in his form, focus, and talent, but so was Michael Jordan, Carl Lewis, and Tiger Woods. There are a number of very elite and talented athletes out there that make people just drool in their presence but that doesn't negate the thousand of others that put in the same amount of work if not more to maintain their own talent. I mean Michael Phelps is great and all, but he's not God...
...To ask every single person that comes to be "interviewed" on the Today Show after winning a medal what they think of this one person is not only insulting to those medalists but also to the hundreds of atheletes that, whether they bring home a medal or not, have put in the insane amount of work, and had the talent and good fortune, it took to make it to the Olympics at all.
Now that track and field events are about to start, I'm waiting for Matt Lauer or Bob Costas to start asking the track and field stars whether their medals are worth anything because their name isn't Michael Phelps.
Ms. G. makes, of course, an excellent point. There's no denying Michael Phelps' brilliance -- at least once he shaved off that horrible 'stache -- but to make his story a key part of every other aquatic Olympian's story at these games does a terrible disservice to a collection of men and women who are pretty damned brilliant themselves. And who therefore, in those rare and well-earned moments of nationally televised fame, deserve to shine on their own without being forced to comment, much less admit subservience to, the glow from Michael Phelps' star.
I don't know if you caught this, but [on yesterday's Today Show] Matt Lauer interviewed Ryan Lochte, who, despite his suit filling up with water when he began the 200m backstroke, broke a world record and captured the gold for the event. Thirty minutes later Lochte went head-to-head with his friend and colleague Michael Phelps in the 200m individual medley and took home the bronze. When he interviewed him, the very briliant Matt asked Lochte, "Knowing that Michael was trying to break the 6-for-6 record last night, how would you have felt if you had won the gold in the individual medley and destroyed his dream?"
First, what kind of fucked up, assanine, insulting question is that? The guy just won a gold and thirty minutes later took a bronze, and you have the nerve and audacity to ask such a ridiculous question. You could see the confusion and utter "Did you just really ask me that?" look on Lochte's face. Aaaargh!
As a former competitive swimmer myself, I look at Michael in awe and am just amazed at his abilities. He is literally superhuman in his form, focus, and talent, but so was Michael Jordan, Carl Lewis, and Tiger Woods. There are a number of very elite and talented athletes out there that make people just drool in their presence but that doesn't negate the thousand of others that put in the same amount of work if not more to maintain their own talent. I mean Michael Phelps is great and all, but he's not God...
...To ask every single person that comes to be "interviewed" on the Today Show after winning a medal what they think of this one person is not only insulting to those medalists but also to the hundreds of atheletes that, whether they bring home a medal or not, have put in the insane amount of work, and had the talent and good fortune, it took to make it to the Olympics at all.
Now that track and field events are about to start, I'm waiting for Matt Lauer or Bob Costas to start asking the track and field stars whether their medals are worth anything because their name isn't Michael Phelps.
Ms. G. makes, of course, an excellent point. There's no denying Michael Phelps' brilliance -- at least once he shaved off that horrible 'stache -- but to make his story a key part of every other aquatic Olympian's story at these games does a terrible disservice to a collection of men and women who are pretty damned brilliant themselves. And who therefore, in those rare and well-earned moments of nationally televised fame, deserve to shine on their own without being forced to comment, much less admit subservience to, the glow from Michael Phelps' star.
Posted at 01:34 PM
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:
Published On: Jun 30, 2009 08:40 AM
Published On: Jun 30, 2009 08:40 AM