A 20 year late review of the television show “Quantum Leap”
A 20 year late review of the television show “Quantum Leap”
Growing up with this show, I have a memory of it that it almost without any historical context, and without any philosophical grounding. I would watch this show as an almost blank slate, unaware at the historical references but also unaware at the not-so-subtle messages it was trying to convey.
The show [
here on Hulu], starring Scott Bakula and Dean Stockwell, jumps through the last 50 years of the 20th century ‘setting right what once went wrong’ and gives an interesting look at various parts of American history.
What occurs to me, many years after the original viewing, is how it becomes the collective societal grief counseling for the horrors of history. It serves as a release valve to the drastic social changes of the 60s and 70s. But in so doing, perhaps saddled with the unbelievably poor and shallow television writing, it lacks any complexity. The story is always simply that of the good and the bad, the wrongs and the right, the entire world is told in black and white.
It seems too simple to argue that the show should have portrayed these moments with a bit more complexity, or with the complications of a world torn between principles that were not necessarily right and wrong, but irreconcilable. The first few years of Law and Order were a brief expression of this idea, and a way of those primarily left-wing writers to treat their philosophical opponents with some grace and humility. Performance art without self-reflection, introspection and humility quickly becomes shameless propaganda, and heavy-handed moralizing. Watching Quantum Leap, despite it being enjoyable for the performances, situations and its embrace of the beauty of history, is still stained by its moralizing.
Even in an episode ostensibly about a sister about to marry a man quite unfit to be a good husband, the sister becomes a Peacecorps devotee, a lover of John Kennedy, rather than a normal girl. It wasn’t enough for her to simply be a good girl deserving of a good man, she had to be a darling of the left. And her jilted fiancée at the end of the episode, obviously beaten and broken, is simply left in the dust as a relatively shallow, disposable character. There is no love for one’s enemies, no compassion towards those who are the ‘bad’ in the show, and no complexity to the situation. Perhaps in a moment where moral clarity was easier, the show could thrive, but today these episodes just seem trite and thoughtless.
It seems as though there are two ways for left-wing people to deal with history, most of which becomes inconvenient to their worldview, either lying about it or ignoring it. While today they prefer the latter, simply to ignore or render it irrelevant, it seems as though, broadly speaking in such a way as to be quite ostentatious, that in the late 80s and early 90s it was more of the former, to lie, to change the ‘interpretations’ of events in order to fit the narrative. It becomes difficult, after all, to simply ignore what Chesterton called the “democracy of the dead” for so long as their voices speak increasingly louder as they are ignored, a haunting of the political establishment solved only through reading and reflection.
If the show were ever remade, one would hope that it would deal more honestly with the complexities of history, one that gave a bit more of both sides. I won’t go so far as to say that all aspects of the vaunted “critical theory” are bad, but at its core any discussion of history ought rightly be a celebration of American history, and not so down and dour as we have become accustomed. Friends reading this are likely expecting a long diatribe here about memorials and public memorials and how all the new ones are tragic, how the old ones were triumphant, and how utterly inappropriate the World War II memorial is, but I’ll spare you while still pointing out its relevance here.
Bill Clinton once said that nothing that’s wrong with America can’t be fixed by that which is right about America. And while I’m sure we differ on the specifics beyond that cliché, I think he’s right. And there are so many good, powerful and wonderful stories worth telling, viewpoints worth capturing and retelling that any remake would hopefully include and leave out the stereotypical divisive moments that have been so ridiculously overplayed already.
This would be to say, of course, that it should be the anti-Howard Zinn. American history doesn’t need to be seen solely through the prism of a left-wing agenda, and the culture of sorrow, shame and guilt is unduly burdensome, and inappropriate. A show that deviates from that aspect of the original, that showed the wonderful and proud moments of American history, would go a long way to reconciling what Pat Buchanan has recently begun describing as the fragmentation of American identity.
The time is ripe for a remake of this series, and one that bridges the divisions rather than exacerbate them, and treats those complexities of history with the respect they deserve.
Labels: history, media, media bias, theory
Booklists, Battles and the budding western mind
The National Association of Scholars is
compiling a list of political tracts that are widely assigned. I emailed them to note that those academic clowns Eric Schlosser and Jared Diamond were notably missing from their list. One thing this brings to mind, though, is that conservatives have this silly academic notion of being tourists at the zoo, where they peer in on the academy and remark at how many stripes the zebra has or how ugly the monkeys, but they never leap over the cage and start attacking the bears in order to dominate the cage and demonstrate who is boss. They never engage, the battles always take place exterior to what is the central place, the central aspect of college: the classroom. I suppose you could secondarily claim that it's the co-ed dorms, but let's focus on that classroom. The books assigned are trash and almost all, these days, polemic tracts firmly embued with Marcuse's notion of intolerance to anything from the right. If some right-wing book is assigned, it's something mindless from Hannity or some fluff piece of trash, or something mislabeled as 'conservative' such as that awful woman Alyssa Rosenbaum's "Atlas Shrugged" - no, students are never to get what is a cogent analysis of true conservative thought. They read about the enlightenment without de Maistre, they get the revolution (so rarely even then!) without the anti-Federalists. They get wartime dissent from communists and never isolationists, critiques of capitalism from Marx and never from Catholicism and Chesterton. These are the academic battles worth fighting, not rearguard actions of an army in defeat, but standing straight up defending against the onslaught. One is reminded of Soviet General Zhukov's advance towards Berlin in April of 1945, and Himmler had what remained of the German army as the Army Group Vistula to protect Berlin from Zhukov's advance and, instead of actually engaging the oncoming hordes, the Army sat idly aside as Zhukov, wisely, avoided the army altogether and advanced towards Berlin. There was no defense, in the face of a mortal enemy there was nothing but impotence, and millions of Germans and Eastern Europeans died brutal deaths as a result. In the face of the intellectual onslaught of campuses, our 'conservative movement' is as mindless, reckless and impotent as Himmler's defense. They stand idly by and don't fight, they don't even try. The great western battles of Salamis and Thermopylae, Tours, Lepanto, Clavijo, or Trafalgar or Waterloo, our inheritance from that greatness is to stand by as our minds are corrupted from within.
Labels: academia, campuses, college, conservativism, theory
Secret Histories of America, and other tall tales by Oliver Stone
Oliver Stone is planning to come out with a major production of the secret history of America. And one thing that really bothers me about Stone is how he plays off both ends of this argument or has done so in the past. On one hand he says he's not a historian, he claims that he's just a filmmaker, just an entertainer. And in that regard, sure, obviously, he's right and his films are all very entertaining, if amazingly misleading about their factual history.
But here, all the sudden Stone becomes a historian. He wants both things without the responsibility of either, especially as a serious historian. He wants to tell interesting tales that people tune into because they are so desperate for truth, for clarity about their cultural identity, and then Stone maliciously lies and maligns historical figures because of his twisted ideology. I write ideology and I don't even know that he seriously has one, or if his ideology is just a manner of saying that he enjoys filming lies. I don't think he's "liberal" as much as he's "completely unconcerned with truth" and likes to tell a big tale. He's somewhat infantile in that regard, and many of the things in his personal life suggest a certain childishness that comes through. He's the victim of sexual abuse by his mother, so he claims, and I've read elsewhere that such people often stop their emotional and psychological development at the point when that happens. So, taking that unfortunate fact into account, you can start to see Stone as the prepubescent boy who loves lying so that people listen to his tall tales, the kid who always has an amazing yarn to spin. He's always wanted and desired because he can capture and enthrall people. We're all supporting actors in this 50 year old tragedy of mommy molesting oliver.
And I love Stone's movies, they're all masterful. They're incredibly engaging, they provide and provoke hours of discussion. The man is dangerous and ought to be imprisoned for life, however, and anyone with even a passing interest in either history or films ought to seriously consider if they ought to intellectually consume our modern Gnostic priest of recent American history.
Labels: cinema, history, movies, Oliver Stone, theory
The race against space
Obama bureaucrats have now misdirected space flight in a recent committee decision, pushing it to deep space, 'rendezvous' instead of landings, and aspects of meaningless scientific interest. It was always going to be a true test of the intentions of the environmentalists whether their earthly insanity about 'protecting' the environment would extend even to other planets, and surely, this represents, the beginning of that travesty. Whereas human potential is limitless when given the resources available in our solar system and beyond, now we will contracept, abort and 'control' and 'plan' our way into biological irrelevance. This ought to be a moment of glory for our race, for our people. We can explore the stars, colonize new worlds, extend our people and our culture to heights that previous generations could not have dreamed of... and instead we will be limiting ourselves forever, enslaved to a world simply through our irrational values that elevate a tree above a baby, the wind over history and literal dirt over glory. We have an international space station doing stupid research instead of a moon base collecting tritium to make cold fusion. We have mapping probes instead of a strategy to terraform Mars and Venus. We have cute little rovers instead of intergalactic property rights that would provide the greatest gold rush of all time. Where we need leadership, we have weakness.
Labels: politics, space, theory
Groups with a field presence
From what little time and exposure I've had to DC, it was always striking to me how few organizations had a true field program. The political science nerd in me would note that this perhaps represents an 'inside' strategy versus an 'outside' strategy, but what ought to be added to the various lobbying strategies is that even an inside/access strategy is dependent on one's clout in the real world, in the outside the political circle world. You can focus on a specific niche or a specific type of person, but that niche/group really has to have a disproportionate impact on the rest of society. This is why I think college organizing is wise because it takes the 50% of people who go to college and starts to narrow the field. Not that there's any difference in the inherent dignity of a person, let me ward off the uber-Catholic friends of mine who will email tirades, but that there has to be some recognition that certain people in society are more influential than others. If one had a choice between converting a pastor or a retiree, one should focus on the pastor simply because of the greater number of people they have access to, and wider array of people they're exposed to.
Politically, it seems, few groups do this kind of 'outreach' or perhaps call it 'organizing' or what have you. And though it's related to communication and marketing, it's not quite the same. The easiest path is, of course, inviting people out to lunch and discussion, but it's not a professional lunch eating course either -- it's the personal connection with an ability to make change in an area, activate and train a motivated individual, and enable them to reach their full political potential.
Most groups, however, if they have a field program at all, seem to limit it to odd objectives. The Leadership Institute has had a strong field program for several years, and they set up center-right campus groups across the country, an admittedly good thing, but many of those groups end up being very transitory and very short-lived. It's not hard to understand why, because they are almost completely disconnected from a national movement. Instead of being a part of something larger, they are the entire political universe for their given topic. While at LI, I suggested taking the largest groups in the conservative 'movement' and then trying to start campus groups that would be affiliated with that separate organization, and then letting them handle the follow-up. You'd essentially be creating a youth movement for others. This fell on deaf ears, probably for a variety of reasons, but I think its essential truth still holds: that it's pointless to organize for its own sake, and that connection and access to a wider, larger movement is also essential for longer-term success.
As another example, most state parties have a field program, and certainly every serious campaign does as well - but to what end? After the election that momentum dies, their cause folds and they lay in wait for another day. Obama's answer to this after his campaign was to start an organization that would simply continue his campaign, Organizing for America, that would essentially lobby to enact his agenda. And that's smart, but I think, a bit greedy and incomplete. The wiser course of action would have embraced a degree of subsidiarity that is perhaps unconscionable to the center-left, and tossed those activists, groups and momentum off to their wide array of interest groups to strengthen them.
There is, I think, on some basic level a disconnect with entrepreneurialism that precludes some of this from their movement, but certainly the growth of recent groups proves that statement to be, at best, half-true. The center-left has grown their activist base, has done a great deal of organizing work, and has done a splendid job tying those people into the whole. Not only is the right unable to compete, but they are unaware of the immensity of the movement against them, and can only muster victories when the challenge should not have been competitive in the first place, and when the conditions are completely stacked against the other side.
The problems with center-right field organizing, then, are really only a minor problem in the grander crisis of a collapsing center-right movement.
Labels: organizing, politics, theory
The Aristocrat Arrogance over Residency Requirements
The disgust with this isn't confined solely to Baldwin's shallow politics and ideology, but that the political elites regard geographic disparity as a mere inconvenience in their desire to rule us. Hillary moves to New York, Alan Keyes to Illinois, Bobby Kennedy to New York,
Baldwin to wherever is convenient. These people aren't some local politician redistricted out of their seat due to petty politics who has to move his home a few blocks in order to be eligible, these are the landed estates, the aristocrats and 'global citizens' who are posing as our neighbor with a name on a mailbox in order to rule us from Washington. It's repulsive and disgusting.
Labels: government, politics, theory
Field Offices and campus organizing
I've written a few plans and considered good locations for campus organizing, and while there are always a variety of issues to consider, in an ideal world
1. Austin, TX
2. Berkeley, CA
3. Athens, GA
4. Ann Arbor, MI
5. Boston, MA
6. Madison, WI
A few other thoughts: you need someone to manage a small team in these areas, perhaps in their mid-20s, and then the best situation would be to hire 2-3 people straight out of college. The rationale for this is that you don't want these solo operations because it then either becomes a race to promote one's self above everything else, or it leads to a special brand of crazy. For me, it seems, mainly the latter. You would want to target two general types of places: those that are absolute leftist strongholds, and also cities/college towns in swing areas. This is why Austin outranks Boston, and why Madison might be better moved up the list. You want to reach people in these areas to help counteract the effect of a constant indoctrination in the classroom.
There are also some salient issues you could always organize around, issues like culture/heritage/identity, values/family/life/abortion, war/state/bureaucracy that are powerful wherever you go. It's always entertaining to see certain forced agenda topics try and take root in college, and are usually transitory. I recall one while I was an undergrad, where there was a push to be anti-gun. Well, in case you hadn't noticed, there isn't much gun crime in college and, as well, most colleges ban guns anyway. So, it's a loser of an issue. These natural, 'salient' topics, however, should prove organizable in any situation or area.
Labels: campuses, college, organizing, theory
The progression of Pro-Life disaffection
Having sat through a very mendacious speech about pro-life battles a few months ago, that was all heavy on how pregnancy centers were the only ways in which to save babies in the pro-life movement, a statement that is either woefully ignorant considering Dr. New's wonderful research on the effectiveness of legal restrictions or intentionally deceptive which I believe to be the case, it occurred to me that there must be a generally standard set of steps followed by individuals who become fervently pro-life.
I would write this out in a longer article, but I don't really have the time and don't really think I have the credibility and, pragmatically, the audience, regardless:
1- direct action
2- education
3- legal issues/lawsuits
4- legislation
5- culture
6- pregnancy centers
7- local area, the most micro, solving it one by one level
8- disaffection, burn out, apathy
From what little I can tell, and what I can tell about my own personal experience, that seems to be the steps that happen most often, in that order. People float into one and then slowly float into the next and move along the path until they reach burn out or apathy. The challenge would be to figure out how to contain this, slow it, or ideally stop it among pro-life activists so that they don't burn out and stay active.
I suspect that the best answer would be to highlight their individual successes in a constant, routine basis. The Gerard Foundation's "Life Prizes" which I lightly criticized previously, might be a part of that answer, as is the development of alternative media outlets among other solutions.
Labels: organizing, pro-life movement, theory
Naomi Wolf, activism and right and wrong
I watched
these awful comments by
Naomi Wolf about activism and "fake" activism. It always intrigues me to hear people talk about activism, because they usually only mean the most rudimentary political action. "Activism" is present tense, more than just the method of taking action and yet most of these people mean one simple thing, with one trite and cute simple idea. In Wolf's case she wants "massive protests" but it betrays her sheltered life to show that her idea of progress in politics is not much more than mass displays of humanity. The March for Life, as I noted below, has a mass display of humanity and yet it is almost wholly disconnected from directly ending abortion. It's tough to watch Wolf and not read too much into her mannerisms and ways of her speech: seeming so stilted and full of herself. It reminds me of people arguing in student government: the overgeneralizations, the vague indictments, the reflexive reactionary solutions that are without nuance, skill, thought or planning. Not to mention that she's just so plainly wrong. Wolf's entire premise is that the "system" has evolved higher and higher opportunity costs to political action in order to keep "the people" from ruling. Would that it were so it would validate her ideas about a conspiracy by "the man" to keep "the people" metaphorically "down." But anyone who spends 5 minutes in applied politics, who deals with these bureaucrats, realizes that more often than not these rules evolve out of well-meaning bureaucrats who try to prevent a specific special interest from abusing the system to take advantage of a loophole. Wolf cites the rules against false voter registrations, but when her preferred candidate loses by a slim margin with thousands of questionable voter reg. filings the day before the deadline, she'll be saying death is too good for whomever denied her the opportunity. We have no patience for problems, no tolerance for mistakes, and we contribute to this awful bureaucratic system and its inane rules. We rail against bureaucrats and then fail to consider how often we tell others that "we'd like to help, but..." and then use some arcane rule to justify our inaction. I question the sincerity of her commitment to true openness, to true competition. Many states have silly laws that hurt political action, removing those laws would be a good thing. I doubt that Wolf will carry forward on this and not just write another book about feminism or retreat back into New York City. Incidentally, I also tend to confuse this Naomi with
Naomi Klein, who is, as well, almost equally as feminist, socialist and wrong.
Labels: activism, election, politics, theory
March for Life improvements
Ed Burke of the Logos Institute, which I had never heard of until today or at least do not recall,
wrote a critique of the March for Life that a friend sent to me recently. I found his observations to be very perfunctory and pedestrian. The March doesn't need a reinvention as much as it needs an evolution. I wrote and sketched out, at a previous pro-life position, an outline as to what that could be, if anyone was so curious I would be happy to share it if you want to email me for it. Of note, the friend who forwarded it claimed that some were trying to change and update the March, and others have made similar efforts in the past. Personally I have a difficult time attending only because it all seems like so much wasted opportunity.
Here's the bulk of the email:
The inherent idea behind the march can be put into question, but any teenager attending probably has the same thoughts. No, the real question is how to take this momentum that has at least 150k each year coming to the march, and more effectively use it.
Burke hits on part of that by mentioning the past use of lobbying to influence the legislators. However, any PoliSci 301 course can tell you that the difference between access-based and controversial-confrontational lobbying means that the latter won't work with issues that are 'divisive' - it's the grassroots, the candidate recruitment, the actual muscle behind the movement that has to make these clowns feel the heat so they'll find the light.
And sadly that heat is left to be brought by NRLC affiliates who are aged, tired, worn and too often complacent in old methods, tactics and history. Nellie Gray, God bless her, is who I had in mind when I wrote that sentence even though she's not NRLC.
Ways in which you could grab the march and use it for grassroots purposes:
1. training (already done by a few other groups) - too often the training is too academic though. People lose sight of the ways in which they can save a life, the actual way in which individual people make a difference. I find a lot of the NRLC crowd (I feel like I'm writing in way way way too big overgeneralizations here) who have this attitude of "we can do it, trust us, if only everyone did there'd be no abortion" and not tolerating alternative methods. We need a pro-life big tent, dare I say it, we need unity though perhaps not a unity flag.
The training ought to be: "here's how to make yourself useful for a CPC; here's how to run for office from scratch; here's how to convert anyone; here's how to shut down a clinic" and related topics -- make people believe they can make a real difference and jettison all the feel good stuff like pro-life t-shirts and the billion methods that don't save any lives.
2. activation/radicalization: set goals for people who attend, encourage results and not thinking the right thoughts
3. capturing the data: Rod Martin tried doing this with LifeHQ, with Sean O'Hare. God bless them both, that's something the March should have done in an organized fashion for the past decade at least. I heard they both got threatened by the March organizers. They should collect this data, work to measure and turn out more and more people each year with reliable numbers and not just the WAG's that they typically use, and then share that data with any and all groups within the respective state where the person is from.
Labels: organizing, politics, pro-life, pro-life movement, theory
The fundamental breakdown in conservatism
Since the election, a variety of people have weighed in about what needs to be done. No one reads this blog, but I wanted to collect my thoughts on the matter. I came up with 14 major reforms:
1. Accurately assess blame - it wasn't "conservatism" that lost in the abstract or something as simple as McCain's poorly run campaign, or his moronic decision to abide by the campaign finance laws. No one thing caused this defeat and abstract ideas didn't win or lose either. Obama had more activists who were better trained who were using better technology. When Napoleon lost at Waterloo people didn't say he just had a bad day or that the stars divined it to be so or that the other side played with "heart" - no, a combination of tactics, strategy and technology made the difference between victory and defeat.
2. Retool our movement publications - some people need to be fired. My nominations:
a. National Review - Rich Lowry - Lowry has made the movement standard bearer into the most irrelevant publication possible. The greatest intellectual minds of National Review have gone from Whittaker Chambers and Bill Buckley in the past to Mona Charen and Jonah Goldberg today. It's a disgrace.
b. The American Conservative - Scott McConnell - Contrarian to be contrarian has a special spot in my heart, but the American Conservative, run by a self-described "New York Review of Books liberal" has become intellectually dishonest in how it approaches movement issues. Where it once held a banner of anti-war and immigration to a stupid GOP listening to idiots like Hannity, it has since become a perpetual nonsensical critique of conservatism that simply seeks to validate liberalism in mind and act. I can't remember the last time I read an article of theirs and didn't feel as though they purposefully twisted words and history to suit their desire to critique. Laughably lately, they claim Carter was a real conservative. If I want idiocy I'll read the Nation, thank you.
c. Human Events - Jed Babbin - The commercialism of Human Events emails has become either comical, pathetic or both. Advertising for Extenze and Viagra is likely right around the corner. Babbin writes the most obvious articles with the most underwhelming analysis. The most obvious articles from the most unknown writers, Human Events has become a repository for old news without any interesting angles. Their good talent, namely Amanda Carpenter, left for greener pastures and I frequent their site only to read Buchanan and Novak when he was in better health. Other than that, with contributors as poor as "AWR" Hawkins, I question the publishing proclivities of what should be the best conservative outlet out there.
3. Start using clear metrics - most of our nonprofits have a mailing list and not much else. They need clear metrics measuring results and not activity. They ought to all have some sort of serious field work and focus on outside the beltway strategies rather than all be soundbite factories scurrying to get on Hannity or in print.
4. Develop the youth - serious youth outreach, I could write for weeks on this subject.
5. Test our messages
a. Education
b. Isolationism
c. Streamlining/anti-bureaucracy
d. Family
6. Figure out electronically how to win - I don't want to go into too much detail here, but in 2004 the movement claimed the world would change due to blogs. And then it was social networking. The world hasn't changed, it's just that some things are a bit easier. We need to stop the fascination with pointless technology, i.e. Twitter, and start thinking about how to actually use this technology to convert more people, to take more effective action and to win more elections. Technology is not an end in itself, even though it seems whenever I hear or read people like Saul Anuzius talk about it, that's how it comes across. People don't talk about twitter as a way to test messaging or coordinate a field team; they don't talk about tangible ways to do the basic tasks necessary in order to actually win - it's as though no one has a big picture anymore of how to get back to victory. And those victories will start happening in a specific order:
a. Local
b. State
c. National
And the local places, our first step in this journey, don't have the time or resources for big complicated systems. They need to be able to easily do their current operations and do them better and cheaper. Let's find a way to use technology to win.
7. Develop the donor class
8. Punish our insincere elected officials - let's make a few human sacrifices to keep the base sane. My first nomination? Senator Specter. My second nomination? Senator Hatch. My third nomination? John "Crybaby" Boehner
9. Write out the neocons from the movement and end the fratricide - neocons are leftists, who are we kidding.
10. Develop and start alternative media outlets
11. Focus locally
12. Get serious about training - we are losers who need to learn how to win
13. Means-test our pundits - if you have never done anything with your life, and yes I'm looking at you Sean Hannity, then you don't deserve to have an opinion. I don't like the politics and past employers of people like Patrick Ruffini, but he gets to have an opinion and I'll take it seriously because, well, he's done something. Sean Hannity? barf. Michael Johns? barf. Mona Charen? barf. Being an "author" or an "analyst" or a "speechwriter", by the way, doesn't mean anything. Running a successful competitive election? Yes. Accomplishing real tangible goals against real opposition? Yes. Sucking a paycheck to do what's always been done and lose? No.
14. Focus our efforts on the places the left is weakest
a. Unions
b. Affirmative Action
c. Taxes
d. Life
e. Bureaucracy/Regulations
f. Universities
Labels: conservativism, ideas, movement, theory
What do people want to see in video clips?
1. Humor
2. DIY and how-to
3. Ways to save/economic/things of financial use
4. Sex
5. Skills training
6. General entertainment
7. Topical humor
Labels: theory, video
Cutting government: state salaries
The average state bureaucrat salary is $54,309. If you took double the educational rate of $43,664, which is $87,328 and cut all those salaries by 25%, you'd lower that 87k salary down to $65,496, still comfortably above the average. I don't know how much money this would save, but if the state refuses to lay off state bureaucrats, the least they could do would be to cut the salaries to make them feel the same pinch the rest of us are feeling.
Another thought: every dollar for a state employee past the average salary in the state ought to be considered a 'bonus' and if they receive more than that, it's conditional on budget surpluses. No surplus, no bonus.
Labels: budget, policy, taxes, theory
newspapers: mandatory subscriptions
While I was writing the last post, it occurred to me how they could 'save' the newspapers now that we're entering full-fledged socialism: mandatory newspaper subscriptions. Everyone who lives in an area will get taxed the subscription fee for the designated major paper, the tax will get collected, and then given to the newspaper of choice. It'll be done someway in which "government doesn't have control over the paper"... at first, but then morph into the local paper being the functionary arm of the state within a short period. I can already see my liberal relatives rejoicing at the paper being 'saved' and 'jobs' created, and also how great it will be that everyone in their area receives the paper! Colleges already do this, setting up huge distribution bins and taxing everyone for three copies of crappy papers no one reads. Welcome to the revolution, comrades!
Labels: journalism, obama, Pelosi, policy, politics, theory
Borat's ruinous legacy for journalists
Sascha Cohen makes a living by making fun of others. In the various comedic cousins, such as Trigger Happy TV, Jackass, Candid Camera, Michael Moore and others, none makes jokes as abrasively as does Cohen. Personally I can't even stand watching his material. And to add even more to the critique, it now comes out that
he uses front companies and elaborate ruses to dupe people into doing interviews and talking to him. Now, I understand the need to build confidence in a subject so they feel at ease, but going to this extreme makes it different than others. You can dupe someone by not directly lying to them, but many will allow their suspicious detector to key them off and refuse the interview. And though it may seem like a small distinction, it gives the subject the opportunity to say, "well, I should have known better" in the sense that they should have done their homework better. Here, by setting up these groups and fake fronts, even having done their homework most would be duped. And so when people see this, when they read it, it means they won't want to give any interviews or ever talk to the media. And while that's my most common advice to friends and organizations when it comes to unfamiliar media, it's a bad overall precedent and will lead to a walled-off section of society unwilling to be a part of the local and national discussion ostensibly happening through mass media.
Nancy Pelosi wants to bailout big media that makes all sorts of bad business decisions, but no one thinks to enforce existing laws against Cohen who is truly and irreversibly harming journalism in order to make crass unfunny jokes to line his own pockets.
Labels: comedy, journalism, theory
Two great groups
It may seem, assuming anyone reads this with any regularity or consistency, that I am overly critical of nonprofits and conservative groups. There are two great groups I want to mention, though, the
Alliance Defense Fund and
Americans United for Life. And the work that the
American Civil Rights Initiative does, working to overturn state race codes one by one, is great as well.
Labels: activism, conservativism, movement, pro-life movement, theory
Pro-life injustices, and its opportunity for outreach
Walter Hoye has been jailed in California for standing on a sidewalk with an unpopular message. His 'crime' was talking to people,
even the San Francisco Chronicle can't cover up the obvious in their story. Because of the content of his speech, because of what he was saying and what his personal principles are, he was jailed. This all leads one to the question of: does this offer an opportunity for group and activist development in churches. And I would have to say, probably not. Hoye's actions seem outside the range of normal church activities. Few churches, and virtually no Catholic churches, evangelize anymore or are used to such actions and activities. Using this as a catalyst seems stuck because our people are so unused to the tactic of taking any action outside simple prayer. They forget that prayer ought to rightfully lead to action. Prayer sanctifies as it leads one to move. That connection seems lost, so perhaps this incident can help us reach out to a different set of people: for example the "spiritual" moderates who would be offended by a pastor being jailed but are perhaps not of a particular denomination. I don't know, perhaps I'm overthinking this.
Labels: activism, organizing, pro-life, pro-life movement, theory
me as Debbie Downer: red envelopes
I hate seeming cynical or that I'm tearing ideas down, but it is damn frustrating to watch people get worked up over the
'red envelope' campaign. I know people have the best of intentions, but the return email I got for an announcement of the campaign was from Lindsay@republicanprofessionals.net - and so it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that this is a truly 'grassroots' enterprise as
claimed here.
In fact, reviewing the FAQ, listen to this paragraph:
This movement is a true grass roots phenomenon. There is no entity behind this project other than the thousands of men, women and children that have volunteered their time, money, and effort to be involved. The Red Envelope Project has spread largely through emails and word of mouth. I believe that many have been moved by the Holy Spirit to do this. It has crossed all denominational lines, and has brought together the efforts of Roman Catholics and Protestants in our common value for life and the blood of Christ. Churches, schools, CCD classes, youth groups, religious communities, and small groups have joined in this effort.
This is ridiculous. Of course some group is behind it, otherwise it wouldn't be as organized. I don't mind that a group is behind it, I just don't want to be lied to about what's going on about it. AUL did a great FOCA campaign, there are several Students for Life of America projects that they occasionally announce - they're all good things, but claiming that it's spontaneous generation just irks me for some reason. Not the least of which is that I suspect this very very very passive activity, mailing an envelope, will ultimately be thrown away by the White House and will just build some mailing list for a pro-life group. And, as one working for a pro-life group, I understand the need for these kind of things, I just wish they'd be tied to
effective action rather than
ineffective action.
Labels: activism, pro-life, pro-life movement, theory
Everyone loves stupid 'contests'
Throw away money? Fine if you're a non-profit.
There are a spattering of groups offering "contests" for videos, and then are shocked when they receive crap. Who would put an investment into a good video if there's a raffle's chance of being chosen? It's stupid. These contests want to have their cake and eat it too, they want 10 $5000 videos for a paltry $500 prize. It's shameful, really. Any organization that offers "prizes" ought to immediately be suspect and seen for what they are: bureaucrats without imaginations; stooges who can raise money but can't think of how to spend it!
Labels: non-profits, theory
Catholic Action
This article is wholly inadequate to what is appropriate, but it at least focuses on a long-running discussion I've had with several: the necessity of Catholic action vs. faith sustaining one's self alone.
Labels: activism, Catholicism, religion, theory
Newsweek on Ogilvy: the original mad man
Newsweek recently wrote about an author whom I have recommended across the country, David Ogilvy. Unfortunately this interview is quite sub-par and relatively nothing within can't be learnt by reading "
Ogilvy on Advertising"
Labels: art, books, tactics, theory, training
Democrats, post-election and "bi-partisanship"
The Democrats are so brilliant at making small little digestible projects for their activists. Now that they've essentially routed the Republicans, what's their latest charge? Well,
going after consultants who work with Republicans, of course. This is a brilliant move to help cripple any future opposition, but it's shortsighted in the sense that once the ruling class determines the leftist activists are not critical to their power-base, they'll get taken advantage of regularly. But, this is a moment for "change" and not for "reason" and therefore these groups will neuter their perceived opponents before the revolution, like all revolutions, eventually turns in on itself.
Labels: politics, theory
A Communist I need to read: Antonio Gramsci
link
to his writingsHis
wikipedia linkLabels: theory
11 thoughts on the election
1. This race was always winnable
2. The media is evil and should always be opposed
3. Moderate Republicans are entirely worthless
4. Bush has been a total failure
5. Certain people need to be written out of the movement
Tom DeLay
Newt
John McCain
6. Our donors need to get excited again
7. We need to prepare for an insurgency until we retake the control of government
8. No more playing nice or acting like bipartisanship is anything other than us getting screwed
9. No compromise, no surrender
10. Use this time to recruit and train, and also attack their support networks
11. Our people need to savage the other side when they misstep and overreach
Labels: election, policy, politics, theory
A great Pivot-Point Example
Many of you have suffered for years to my rough explanation of this great messaging technique employed by leftists (best by that witch Katrina Vanden Heuvel) on what's called "pivot-point" - and the general thesis is in responding to tough questions:
1. You can't just ignore, or not clash, with what was asked, or else you're off-topic
2. You don't really want to say anything about the topic, because you're wrong on the issue.
So, presto, you use pivot-point!
You pivot off of one word in the question, giving the appearance of clash, and then point to whatever you want to talk about.
Obama on Biden's Initial Opposition to AIG Bailout: "Joe Should Have Waited"
September 23, 2008 9:41 AM
"What has been clear during this entire past ten days is John McCain has not had clarity and a grasp on the situation," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told NBC's Matt Lauer in an interview that ran this morning.
Lauer was talking about how Obama hit Sen. McCain for flip-flopping on the AIG bailout -- saying he opposed it one day then announce he supported it the next day.
But, as Lauer pointed out, scarcely three minutes after McCain said he opposed the AIG bailout last week, "in an interview with Meredith Vieira, Joe Biden, your running mate was asked the exact same question, 'should the federal government bailout AIG?' And he said, 'No, the federal government should not bailout AIG.'" (As we noted at the time.) "And I think that in that situation," Obama said, "I think Joe should have waited as well."
"But it's the kind of thing that drives people crazy about politics," Lauer said. "It sounds like you were trying to score some political points against John McCain using his words, when your own running mate had used very similar words."
"No, hold on a second Matt," Obama said. "I think what drives people crazy about politics is the fact that somebody like John McCain who for 26 years has been an advocate for deregulation, for 26 years has said the market is king and then starts going out there suggesting somehow that he's a populist who's been railing against Wall Street and regulation -- that's what drives people crazy about politics."
So, Obama was asked:
You appear hypocritical, that you held McCain to this standard when your own Vice Presidential candidate said the same thing.
Obama responds:
McCain sucks
or said another way:
Obama asked:
You appear hypocritical, that you held McCain to this standard when your own Vice Presidential candidate said the same thing.
Obama responds:
What's really hypocritical is how John McCain once supported deregulation when it was fashionable, and now when it's politically convenient he says something else. We can't believe what John McCain says because he might change it next week.
See how he uses that one phrase to completely avoid talking about the subject, and then simply goes onto his talking point? He pivots off of "what drives people nuts about politics", restates it in his answer to make it sound like he's actually clashing when he's not, and then moves on to his soundbite.
Labels: media, messaging, politics, theory
Good feedback and criticism on my "Logical Procession"
So, several friends had good thoughts on my "
Logical Progression into Christianity"
-Amanda suggested to avoid Deism, change some terms to be more accurate, and that it only leads to general belief, not in a necessarily Christian God.
-Steve pointed out that C.S. Lewis has already done great work here to consider.
-Jon pointed out that including a chart perhaps listing the evidence would be more persuasive.
All good advice, and advice I intend to follow.
Labels: God, religion, theory
Tabling Part 2
So I went tabling at the request of the adviser to the pro-life group at Assumption College. It went fabulous. I printed out some great sign-up sheets I made, had a nice ten-reasons to be involved with the pro-life group collateral, and worked the table straight out of the Morton Blackwell playbook. It was fun to put those techniques and tactics to work, and also provoke some more thoughts leading to a
revision of my previous basic tabling article. In about an hour, I ended up with over 50 new contacts for the group, including at least a half-dozen pro-choicers who agreed that women deserve real choices, and wanted to help out at the local Pregnancy center. What a great day.
Labels: campuses, college, tactics, theory
Back to Tabling
So I went out and actually did some tabling for the first time in a long time. It was tough, and what's interesting is that the entire "tough-ness" of it is simply psychological. After I worked up the means to ask the first ten people, the next hundred came quite easily. I walked onto a local campus, with nothing more than a notepad and pen, commandeered a table (in this case an abandoned LGBTA table which I pushed the materials off of) and just started recruiting for a new right-of-center group on the campus. What was quite validating is that, as is typical, almost every other group sat behind their table and refused to engage those walking by. I used the experience as motivation to
type up my thoughts on the basics of effective tabling.
Labels: campuses, tactics, theory
CMedia Article: Video Sniper Teams
I recently wrote this up for my countermedia project. I like it, and am happy at finally putting in writing this concept I've been batting around for a while. I'd love to know what you think about it-- email me and let me know or leave a comment.
Labels: countermedia, tactics, theory
Article: Stages of Radicalization
I've written
an article about my thoughts in radicalizing individual leaders and activists. This is part of my CounterMedia project, which has been slow-going for some time.
Labels: activism, leadership, movement, organizing, strategy, theory
Silly self-hating paleocons
Certain elements of the intellectual right, feeling marginalized, have recently been a constant drumbeat of whining at their irrelevance. Fine authors from
Dan McCarthy to
Dan Flynn to the entirely new
TakiMag relentlessly pursue the topic of "what is conservatism?" to the point of exhaustion.
Liberals, of course,
love the topic. Yet, the differences they identify are minor and marginal compared to the opposition, and the whiners often offer few if any solutions. Austin Bramwell whines about the conservative movement in "
Is the Conservative Movement Worth Conserving" without ever considering that perhaps there are problems of basic leadership and basic skills within the movement: that the skill-set required in terms of fundraising, organization, strategy, marketing and programs are not naturally found within society. Rather, Bramwell would indict the entire movement as an organism and suggest, with no shame at his sweeping generalizations, that it is all dysfunctional. And this is the common theme. We need new leaders, we need more effective leaders, and we need to get serious about specific victories.
Labels: conservativism, politics, theory
A simple strategy for winning elections that most state parties fail to follow
1. Find a candidate, or if you are the candidate, find a core group of hardcore supporters
2. Train self and supporters on how to win, take advice from people who have won competitive elections before
3. Mount an insurgent candidacy against an incumbent, run repeatedly
4. Build momentum, even if it takes several elections, unseat the establishment/incumbent
5. Work like crazy while in office to firm up foundation, win over coalitions
6. Coast on inertia of incumbency, work behind the scenes to get victories, let the activists consider you a sellout as you systemically deconstruct the state from within.
Most state parties write off anything but a sure bet, which has two consequences:
1. They never prevail when they never even fight
2. They lose the opportunity for activists and candidates to learn what it really takes to win.
Any previous election under 55% is what most state parties are interested in, and then they bowl over anyone else but aren't really interested. I'm not saying that resources should be diverted to long shots, but we should play like champions and treat every race as though it's a golden opportunity to send a statist packing. I once wrote out a plan with a friend on taking 10 longer-than-normal-shot state house races and running serious campaigns for them, utilizing economies of scale to cut costs on mail, web, phones, etc.-- still a decent idea if I could figure out how to finance the bulk of it.
Labels: campaigns, conservativism, politics, theory
The natural coalitions on the right
It occurred to me that even though I knew and understood Grover Norquist's central thesis of the center-right coalition, defining that coalition gets a little hairy. It's tough to know what's worthy of its own identifier, and what's just a subset of another, but alas, here goes:
Here's what I consider it to be:
Pro-life
Pro-marriage/family
Guns
Culture
Ideas/Intellectuals
Campuses/Campus Activism
Churches
Economics/Taxes
Homeschoolers
School Reform
Labels: coalitions, conservativism, theory
