Pandering to the lowest common denominator

The recent events surrounding the New Yorker magazine cover highlighted to me what Democrats wanting to win in November need to remember. The rest of the electorate is stupid. I know, I know. You're thinking this is another one of my innumerable rants about Republicans, but it's not.

Let's go through this demonstration. The New Yorker prints a very unsubtle piece of satire on it's cover. Many college educated people would understand it as such and might even laugh -- albeit a bit uneasily (more on that later). However, there is a large percentage of folks who actually see the cover, believe it and see that it reinforces their distorted view of Obama created by the Republican attack machine, a machine which is laser tuned to this demographic (the Republicans have this totally figured out). These poor folks don't actually read New Yorker -- or any other magazine which is not mostly pictures for that matter. They're too lazy or borderline illiterate to do so. They barely graduated from high school. To them, the immediate howls of protest from the Obama campaign -- which might be puzzling to those who find the satire obvious and funny -- makes perfect sense. The campaign needs to show that Obama denies it, repudiates it and criticizes it. The fact that the New Yorker prints such a thing is worrying to those of us who understand its potential unintended misinterpretations and reinforcing of fears of Mr. Obama. Satire -- even something so obvious as this -- is really too deep for this class of folks. (Ok, fine. Call me an elitist then.)

But anyway going back to a comment I made some time ago on this blog, for the general election, the Democrats really need to shore up the lowest common denominator pandering. Obama has locked up the most of the intellectuals, or in any case these folks are smart enough to have already made up their minds to a large degree. So, going forward, no more of this subtle approach is needed. Everything needs to be simple and straight-forward and come down like a hammer. It means no satire nor sarcasm nor irony nor subtle humor. Only dumbed down sound bites. Unfortunately, this does not lead to nuanced positions which intellectuals within the Obama campaign may wish to hold forth on.

This is instead an opportunity for apt analogies and simple story-telling. Does this mean Obama needs to become like a, er, Bill Clinton? Maybe...

Iraq: a retrospective

So Bush did the right thing with the surge? He decided to try to salvage a very bad situation by doubling down. Would another commander in chief do the same thing with a huge mistake he'd already invested a huge amount of his country's money and his own reputation -- not to mention the lives -- on? Probably. Bush, least of all, would understand the fallacy of sunk costs.

People, mostly Democrats, had suggested withdrawal, unless political progress was made towards reconciliation. And finally Malliki is making that progress, after the American electorate seemed ready to leave him holding the bag. Meanwhile Bush being obstinate, refused timetables. Without the pressure of the American people, Malliki would have taken even more time than he has in making that small progress. But even with these f--k ups, finally it seems possible for the American military to make a withdrawal from Iraq.

Let's take a Machievellian, er, practical, look at this result:
On the negative side:
(1) Bush, Republicans, and America's reputation stained by false data, fundamentally flawed process, leading to unnecessary war against a non-threatening country far away
(2) $1.2+ trillion spent on aforementioned unnecessary war using borrowed money, leading to weakened US dollar
(3) Enemy Iran strengthened by elimination of hostile neighbor
(4) Taliban and Al Qaeda extremists still not eliminated, both stronger than if the US hadn't gone into Iraq, Afghanistan still unstable
(5) Political uncertainty in the middle east raises oil prices and makes US electorate unhappy
(6) High oil prices strengthen enemies and authoritarian regimes such as Venezuela, Iran, Russia.
On the plus side:
(1) Small but potentially lucrative oil contracts made with companies from western countries, though not all companies are American, despite huge US investment in Iraq.
Seems like a raw deal for Americans handed us by Bush. If the surge hadn't worked, things would have been even worse.

More how to tell if your husband is gay, or, straight rather

From the response to my previous post, there seems to be interest in this topic, so let me suggest another couple helpful methods, but in reverse: i.e. how to tell if your husband is straight. Here are some dead giveaways:

1. He doesn't care so much or at all about his appearance or dress, or he has long hair or had it when you met him and before you convinced him otherwise, although the only exception might be longish curly hair.
   
   
2. He's below 30 years old, born in the US, and not out or known as gay to his close friends and lives in a big city in California or other liberal place.
   
   
3. He does not glance in an attractive guy's direction even for the smallest instant briefly in passing -- even if otherwise obviously preoccupied with, say, talking to you. It could be generalized, that a guy who doesn't check out other reasonably good looking guys is straight. A reason why I think this is a good one is: I know that I've passed women -- with their smaller figures, long hair and lighter footfalls or heels -- without glancing up for a moment. I.e. you can tell someone's sex from far away and if a guy's not interested in a closer look -- it is after all just looking -- he won't bother if he's straight and a guy is approaching, just as I don't when a woman is approaching.
   

This last one reminds me of a funny story. I was walking down a hallway with a friend. We passed two people. My friend asked me if I noticed what the woman was wearing -- it was something suggestive. I hadn't. This was because I was too occupied with checking out the guy -- who was obviously straight because he didn't look up for a second from his female friend. Later, we were walking back and passed this couple again. This time I checked out the guy (again!) -- to myself: 'oh, it's the same guy' -- and then and only then did I remember to look at the girl who had attracted the interest of my definitely straight friend. Finally I was able to respond to his question about what the woman was wearing. (It's a little too bad, but we couldn't share meaningful notes on this one. I.e. whether she was showing too much or not. I couldn't be less of an expert there.)

Of course, I'm out, and so I have dropped any pretense of attempting to mask who gets my 'closer glance' preference. My guess is some closet cases may have developed the counter to this, which is basically to check out every youngish woman he passes and purposely not the guys, at least when he's with his wife. But god, wouldn't that just take any remaining joy out of life? It's just so sickeningly soul crushing to even think about...

Paying Clinton to leave? Really?

I don't think it's right: the suggestion that Obama money should go to Clinton to encourage her to leave (and perhaps fight against him with this money 4 years later). If Clinton leaves, it should be of her own accord. Since she loaned money to her own campaign, that's her own decision. She shouldn't count on Obama to make her whole again. Obama will need that money to fight McCain, and how badly would that reflect on Clinton and Obama, if the Republican machine was able to outspend Obama because of the money he might fork out on a request like this from Clinton's campaign. Again, it was Clinton's choice to continue on despite the poor outlook from Super Tuesday, sapping her own funds as well as Obama's. With $109 million and many more millions coming from Bill, she can afford it, even if she never gets paid back. Anyway, I hope Clinton says this idea is pure hogwash.

On a related topic, Clinton's campaign has said she is ahead on popular vote, but Al Gore didn't win even though he won the popular vote. Sure, elections -- including nomination bids -- are a game, but the candidate needs to know how to play that game and win to beat the Republicans.

Actually, I think I do support Clinton staying in up to a point. But I don't think she should go negative at all. She should win based on the merits and by a good and obvious margin. It should not be: scrabble a few delegates here and a few delegates there and my wildest dream best case scenario, then I've won. At some point it should be clear, without a reasonable doubt even on generous but fair Florida and Michigan delegate accounting (remember Obama wasn't even on the ballot), that Obama has won. Perhaps that has already happened today. In this hypothetical scenario, having avoided ugly negative campaigning, bowing out would be a grace note and an honorable thing for Clinton to do. We would all think very highly of her.

But the path she has chosen has been far different, divisive and ugly.

No more go arounds for Hillary Clinton

Graceful exit, waiting your turn => McCain's second chance
Divisive and negative prolonged exit => Voter fatigue and negative associations

From Clinton's perspective, it seems like a losing battle with little reason to continue, except to decimate chances for next time, if it turns too ugly. Now people say that it's better for Obama to face a battle against Clinton and survive -- following the theory of whatever doesn't 'kill' you, makes you stronger -- than to face McCain and the ruthless Republican machine. Perhaps there is some truth to that.

I don't see McCain's machine being as cynically political and dirty as W's, but you never know with the Republicans.

It is, of course, an unfair comparison of the Republican battle of Bush/McCain versus Obama/Clinton, because the Republican primaries are mostly winner takes all. Second place candidates can't survive long that way.

Boycott Olympics?

Wouldn't it be a shame if after all that trouble China went to hold the Olympics in 2008 no one went? It's unlikely the athletes would boycott. But how about the tourists. They've probably all paid for their tickets, eh? Well, it would be a nice idea in principle.

SU: Meyer Library Demolition

[FarmReport] I was surprised and happy to read about the plan to demolish Meyer Library on the Stanford campus. I was always partial to Green even when it was partly closed down after the earthquake. The late 1960's built Meyer was unsightly, smelly and decrepit, and even though it got periodic and expensive face-lifts, it never really seemed to improve. Even the renovated and nearly century old original (now Bing) wing of Green is classy by comparison. The newer wing of Green (1980) is stately, modern, and quiet with super comfy chairs, perfect for napping.

Son of W. Buckley writes defending McCain

This Christopher Buckley guy makes it sound like it was all a joke. Like how the conservatives thought it would be funny if they could buy a party and win elections and take over the government and f**k it up. And in a way I kind of believe it. With money to burn, why not? It's like a big joke among the wealthy white folks. But it's funny that he says he's pretty much given up hope of Republicans winning in '06 and '08. [NYT] [Wash. Monthly]

Bin Laden purposely let go!

Here I am repeating a conspiracy theory, but I just finished reading a book about the incredibly cynical thought processes of movement conservatism and the Bush presidency. It just popped into my mind a now seemingly very likely scenario. They purposely let Osama Bin Laden go! I mean what would have happened to the war on terror if they'd caught, captured, and/or killed the guy, there would be no more bogeyman to go after to justify "cheap, quick, and painless" wars in Iraq and Iran. All that seems much less compelling after we have the guy. And how could Bush get re-elected in 2004 without him starting a war. So we purposely let him go. I'm convinced of it. Sad.

# # #

Another possibility is that have killed the guy, but say we didn't. It's a little better, in that we are trying to undermine Al Qaeda through deception, but it still serves the deceitful purpose of justifying the Iraq war.

How to tell if your husband is gay

Checklist republished by gawker (from a Fox 5 New York posting) of how to tell if your husband is gay. Actually, I consider that it's a pretty good list, though probably if I thought harder about it, I could come up with some more interesting suggestions like:

1. He seems interested in sports, but only knows the rules superficially and only mirrors your interest in them, or
   
   
2. He likes to keep strict limits on the interactions between different areas of his life, like work, old high school friends, college friends, and home (at some point, someone knows his true sexual identity), or
   
   
3. He's actually much prettier than you. when you got married, even your girlfriends said you 'scored' and pumped their fists!
   
   
4. He often doesn't shave, and says he thinks he looks better when he doesn't, or
   
   
5. He watches a lot of television, especially when it might be a good time to have sex. You have a television in the bedroom and it was his idea.
   

Related posts:

More how to tell if your husband is gay, or straight rather: some tip-offs that he's definitely straight

Little indications: gaydar: more insights into gay versus straight

NY Mag: double life: an article about closeted gay husbands

When the Beard is too painful to remove: some commentary from me and a link to the NYTimes piece of the same title.

What's up with callboys outing politicians and evangelists: NYTimes on how discreet callboys might be a thing of the past, the gay generation gap.

Revenge

Everything I've learned says that revenge isn't a proper motivation for anything. But anyway, just for fun, here's some twisted reasoning to justify hoping that Clinton wins. The Republicans hate Hillary Clinton. Dems hated W and deservedly so (He was an idiot. He took this country and poured American money and lives down the drain. He trashed our civil liberties. He trashed our environment. I'm not even getting warmed up here...) It will be hard for Hillary to be elected in spite of all those Republicans and "independents" who will vote for McCain, but if she does, it'll just bug the hell out of all those people who hate her. It's a perfect indirect revenge. I mean if I can get over the f**king hell of George Bush, I'm sure they can get over having Hillary Clinton as President.

Winds blowing for Obama ( I'll whistle along )

From what limited conversations I've had with folks lately, it seems to me that Obama is gaining momentum in California. After seeing some more of him, I think I'm getting more comfortable with him as a good choice, despite what I think is his lack of on screen charisma. My reasoning on the matter:

Being right on Iraq probably means having a prescient sense of the possibility of outright lies coming out of the Bush administration -- lies which few others thought possible until it was too late. This is not something any of the other serious contenders to President can claim. And it does show actually a sense of judgment which is necessary as President. Of course, that stance could have been pure luck as even he says as justification for his stance at the time that we should have been concentrating on winning in Afghanistan. But you know what they say about generals: "he's good, but is he lucky?"

There is also something to the idea of newcomer funded by the people who is not beholden to special interests.

And at the risk of taking a chauvinistic stance on the details versus big picture (women are usually more detail oriented), I think big picture is probably better suited for a President.

Why some people are conservatives?

Link Economist article reports on a Thornhill and Fincher study which showed that kids with difficult childhoods end up as liberals. Those with sheltered ones end up conservatives. It's clear this matches with the stereotype. The kids of wealthy parents who have been to the country clubs, have the fancy BMW and trust fund are probably conservatives.

It has been hypothesized in a recent New York Times article (link) that wisdom comes from setbacks early in life. Perhaps the type of setbacks which go along with 'difficult childhood' mentioned above. So,

liberal = difficult childhood
difficult childhood = wisdom

by associativity

liberal = wisdom

And since its literally true that liberals are wiser than conservatives, it all makes sense. Notice wisdom != intelligence, but I'd say it's on a similar axis.

# # #

(12/29/07) A recent NYTimes piece says that binge drinkers -- even if they haven't done so in years -- tend "to poor decision-making. [As a binge drinker] one can easily fail to recognize the ultimate consequences of one’s actions." In a study done on rats made to binge drink and later kept sober for equivalent rat years, there was "a tendency to stay the course, a diminished capacity for relearning and maladaptive decision-making." Doesn't that sound like George W. Bush?

So is that possibly the correct explanation for it all: that ex-frat boy binge drinkers are conservatives because of the science of their self-inflicted brain damage? And this is the cause of our country's last 7 years of pain and suffering. We should think twice about hiring one of those assholes for the job next time.

# # #

(05/20/07) NYTimes runs a piece on how two conservatives fell this week. Falwell and Wolfowitz. The author goes on to say that the conservatives seem so far undeterred by the recent Wolfowitz setback. He makes a comparison between McNamara and Wolfowitz, but says history somewhat forgives McNamara because wasn't an ideologue.

Bill Clinton negative on Obama on Charlie Rose

Towleroad Boy does Bill know how to walk that fine line. Just seeing that he had spoken negatively about Obama sort of turned me off. Still, after listening to the talk, I was slightly swayed, but still skeptical. Interesting thing is that I read Obama's statement on repeal of don't ask, don't tell and it seems much stronger than Hillary's. Time to switch horses?

Someone mention stagflation?

Reuters It was reported that Greenspan mentioned the word. While I didn't say stagflation in September, I mentioned something else in a post which was housing and credit collapse causing significant reversal in economy.

Queerty: Straight acting gays

Queerty The guys at Queerty are naturally annoyed at the common gay personals attribute of either the postee liking and/or being "straight-acting". Their post is a little confusing, but the first comment clears up the confusion nicely. I.e. there is a good dose of self-hatred implied if one truly believes this is the right sort of attribute to look for. Sure, discretion might be the better part of valor in a gay-bashing world, but most self-accepting gays know the value of honesty in this regard. It just simplies life so much more not having a boyfriend be still in the closet.

Riff off of Brangolina: Churches refuse marriage licenses for straights

Advocate It's not quite as dramatic as it originally sounds, but some liberal metropolitan churches are now not providing the marriage license to any couples straight or gay. Of course, the straight couples are later free to go to a justice of the peace to get a civil marriage license whereas the gay couples generally cannot. Still it is a fine demonstration of solidarity, and on the side a booster to the idea of separation of church and state.

Movies stumble at end of Republican administrations (but music does okay)

Something that comes to mind is that artists tend to be overwhelmingly liberal. I was looking today at the list of Golden Globe nominees, and while actually I haven't seen any of the movies, I was wondering why it seems to be such a bad year for movies of substance that I am interested in seeing.

I also know that I hardly know of any good movies from the Reagan years.

Putting these random pieces of data together: poof, my new theorem is that the movies tend to suck in Republican administrations especially towards the end.

The reason is that the liberal artists are so frustrated and angry with the government that they get distracted and go to protests and spend time helping the Dems get elected that the movies suffer.

On the other hand, I think music tends to still be pretty good in Republican years. I think it's because music is a better medium for protest, and doesn't require such a huge undertaking as a movie does.

HRC Consumer Guide for 2008

PDF (2MB) Seems to be constantly updating, yet some things stay the same. Don't buy gas from Exxon or Mobil, they got a big '0' from Equality survey in treatment of their LGBT employees. Instead go to Chevron or BP. Better to use UPS instead of Fedex. Also, Target instead of Walmart or ToysRUs, Best Buy instead of Circuit City, Staples instead of Office Depot, Whirlpool/Maytag instead of GE, AT&T instead of T-mobile, and Toyota, Ford, GM, Chryser, Suburu, Volkswagon instead of Nissan.

Breaking my Walmart habit will be tough, and I'm sort of locked into T-mobile at the moment.

For men, prospective female mates can't be too smart

NYT More than 10 years ago, I heard that an ex-employee in my department had once commented that he wanted to marry a girl that was dumber than him and shorter than him -- this despite the fact that he was pretty short and people also questioned his mental faculties. He be waiting a long time, people snidely remarked. However, this lends credence to data cited by Dowd in this piece (from an earlier article in the Times) that men just like to marry someone not quite as smart or ambitious as them. They just generally don't go around saying it.

I wonder though for me that if I were to wait for someone smarter than me, I would be waiting a long time. :)

On the other hand, why should I discriminate? Gays have be trading the need for submission or dominance for versatility for a long time.