...because I'm tired of pissing into the wind. I'm tired of being lectured to by some rich kid about "personal responsibility" and "partisanship." I'm tired of hearing about the "streets of Chicago." The area of Hyde Park around the University is NOT downtown Gary. Sorry. "Single mother" my grannie's left tit. When I went to prep school I had lots of friends who were children of "single mothers" who lived on Park Avenue. My mother's still married to my father but I was embarrassed to invite my friends of "single mothers" on Park Avenue down to my parents' apartment because it sucked donkey dicks compared to theirs. And Obama in Kansas? His "single mother" had more dough than the Park Avenue kids I knew growing up with!
So, enough already. Street cred, Obama? In Spanish, we say "no hay."
Why do I go on about this? Because THAT'S how he answered Campbell Brown's final question about the "toughest personal test each has faced."
But no, I'm going to stay out of the intra-tribal arguments, except to say that if you look at the "just words," they have a lot more in common with -- say -- Shelby Steele than they do with Martin Luther King, Jr., who incidentally was a doctor of divinity and a leader of a movement. Not an ambitious rich kid.
Credit where credit is due, though. I never thought Obama's answer in an earlier debate about "talking with enemies" was such a bad answer. It was one of the few specifics he has offered in this campaign. Last night in the Texas debate, he was challenged on it again, and while he had finessed it a bit with some palaver about necessary "preparations," and Clinton had finessed it a bit by placing herself in opposition to the Bush Administration policy, Obama' s answer about ex-ante "demands placing the USA" in an Imperial position, was excellent.
This answer placed him in the tradition of Nixon, Reagan and Bill Clinton. It's a foreign policy improvement over Bush and to a lesser extent Senator Clinton. Still, it's clear to me that he favors the market-based solutions for social ills but a strong government/church hand on personal issues, whereas she's more of a "liberal" in that she favors more of a government hand to cure social ills and a lighter government/church had on personal issues.
There's a good rule of thumb to use with press coverage of these two. It's a corollary of some real bright dude's view of the public opinions of financial analysts. "STRONG BUY"= BUY-VERY-CHEAP-CALL-OPTION, "BUY"= HOLD, "HOLD"= SELL, "SELL"= SHORT, "SHORT"= SHORT-FOR-YOUR-LUNGS or FADE-THE-HYPE-AND-BUY-FOR-YOUR-LUNGS or PLAY-FOR-VOL-AND-TV-IDIOCY-AND-BUY-STRADDLE. But I wouldn't know because nobody ever says "short" anymore on the TV.
Finally the analogy: If the press calls it a "DRAW," Clinton won easy. If the press calls it an Obama "WIN," it was a draw. And so on...
Tonight: Chiriqui v Herrera at Rod Carew Stadium to open the season. [Whoops, violation of the 6p's: proper-planning-prevents-piss-poor-performance. Herrera away to Chiriqui. Que lastima!]
Kelso's Nuts love you
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
kelso,
I'm not the only person interested in the academics of Michelle Obama:
Obama thesis obtained by Politico
By: Jeffrey Ressner
Feb 22, 2008 04:20 PM EST
Michelle Obama's senior thesis at Princeton University shows young woman grappling with race and society.
Michelle Obama's senior year thesis at Princeton University, obtained exclusively from the campaign by Politico, shows a document written by a young woman grappling with a society in which a black Princeton alumnus might only be allowed to remain "on the periphery." To read the entire thesis, click here.
"My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'blackness' than ever before," the future Mrs. Obama wrote in her thesis introduction. "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."
The thesis, titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community" and written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson, in 1985, has been the subject of much conjecture on the blogosphere and elsewhere in recent weeks, as it has been "temporarily withdrawn" from Princeton's library until after this year's presidential election in November. Some of the material has been written about previously, however, including a story last year in the Newark Star Ledger.
Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would likely lead to her "further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant."
During a presidential contest in which the term "transparency" has been frequently bandied about, candidates have buried a number of potentially revealing documents and papers.
In Hillary Rodham Clinton's case, there's been a clamoring for tax records, White House memos and other material the candidate's team has chosen to keep from release. The 96-page Princeton thesis, restricted from release by the school's Mudd Library, has also been the subject of recent scrutiny.
Earlier this week, commentator Jonah Goldberg remarked on National Review Online, "A reader in the know informs me that Michelle Obama's thesis ... is unavailable until Nov. 5, 2008, at the Princeton library. I wonder why."
"Why a restricted thesis?" asked blogger-pastor Louis Lapides on his site Thinking Outside the Blog. "Is the concern based on what's in the thesis? Will Michelle Obama appear to be too black for white America or not black enough for black America?"
No_slappz: It all sounds very reasonable and consistent with what I've been writing about them. I don't personally find anything objectionable about anything you quote Lapides as quoting about Michelle Obama's thesis. Her views don't sound abnormal and the thesis should be public. So, should Clinton's tax records and all of the financial records of Obama and Rezko.
I've never written that Clinton is a saint. I would go so far as to say that given probability theory, there is a suggestion that she -- or "Red" Bone with or without her knowledge -- was commingling, re-allocating, committing securities and tax-fraud in the "Cattle trades" episode. Clinton, though, has not run as a saint. Obama has and it's time the press treated him for the human being (who does HUMAN things like all of us) that he is.
But speaking of commingling of assets, Jonah Goldberg? You mean the son of Lucianne Goldberg who was, I believe, a guest of the United States Of America for that very infraction? The Jonah Goldberg, graduate of the Baltimore College For Women, and supposed self-hating closet-case extraordinaire? PUH-LEEZE!
I'm no fan of Barack Obama, but Jonah Goldberg's not fit to shine Obama's shoes! Ni verga de mucho menos!
I'm very curious about HRC's "...I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored." It seemed so out of place at the debate.
kelso,
The article I posted included comments from Goldberg. I did not compose the post. It's copied.
As for Hillary's commodities action, it's obvious the $100,000 "profit" she claimed to have earned was a gift from Don Tyson. He told her to front-run Tyson's purchase of chicken futures, and she made an easy $100k.
As for Michelle's thesis, it made a point. She recently claimed that she was proud of the US for the first time in her adult life. I believe her. I believe her because her college thesis is consistent with her current statement.
Her point of view does not offend me, even though it is absurd for a black women who attended Princeton and Harvard to believe what she believes.
But, as I've said, if she wants to be first lady, she'd better shape up and learn there's a wrong way to campaign. She's not good with extemporaneous comments.
I'm also curious about her SAT scores. I'll bet they're not up to the usual Princeton standards, though I believe Bill Bradley proved the school will make exceptions to its generally high standards.
Her thesis tackled a series of questions that boil down to Does Attending Princeton Transform Blacks Into People Who Subsequently Care More About Black Issues and Blacks Or Does It Lead To Less Of That?
She stated that she expected to find that black Princeton grads had heightened concerns for other less fortunate blacks. However, based on responses to the questionaires she circulated, she was disappointed to learn that black Princeton grads were not overly concerned with the plight of other blacks.
She seemed distressed to learn that blacks attending a largely white Princeton embraced many aspects of white culture and were less enamored of many aspects of black culture.
Her views may be the reason you feel you'd like her a on a personal level. I'd enjoy socializing with her. But she's a campaign liability at this point. However, she could turn that around if she expands on her troublesome comment with the right touch.
Meanwhile, if McCain and Obama are nominated, I predict Americans will see the following bumper sticker:
McCain. Not Hussein.
No_slappz: Would you like to be held to comments or writings of your COLLEGE years?
College by its very nature is a time for experimentation with different ideas, for polemics, etc.
I dare you to find me a college student who never does, says or writes anything silly.
I wonder why you are so eager to give Michelle Obama advice anyway. I thought you were for McCain. If you think that she's such a liability for him, you should be jumping over the moon.
The number of silly things McCain has said as an ADULT far outweigh the silly things both Obamas have said as adults.
I'm no fan of Barack Obama's as you well know, but John McCain is a pure, stone-cold, fucking asshole. About the only thing about him that's preferable to Obama (either or both) is that he has a sense of humor, twisted as it is. Sure, I expect an ugly campaign. I'm going to enjoy it. I'm going to enjoy watching Obama try to deal with someone way nastier than Clinton while having the press abandoning the Junior Senator from Illinois. I'll enjoy watching and hearing McCain's campaign go way racial and below the belt, so I can switch gears and root for Obama to put McCain away for good.
The look of absolute sickness on the faces of White American Men if Obama wins will be worth it all. As will the look of absolute sickness on the faces of Black America if McCain wins it all.
Just theater for me at this point.
Obama's somewhat against my issues and McCain is really super double-plus against my issues. Obama's kind of a hypocrite. McCain's picture is next to the dictionary definition.
This campaign ought to be more fun than a box of Cracker Jacks.
HM:
I think that having gotten the best of Obama yet again, Clinton wanted to show her "warm" side. That's all. She really put a hard beating on him no matter what the press said. The "Xerox" remark was not only funny, it was very much on point. And the answers to the final question were so disparate in quality that it was just a joke. I wouldn't read any more into Clinton's olive branch than that.
I think he's got it wrapped though. Still and all, anyone who counts either Clinton out at any time is crazy.
Why is it that when a privileged, educated Jewish man explores his ethnicity and where he fits into the Gentile society where he has succeeded, he wins an Oscar or Nobel Prize, whereas it is verboten for a Black to do the same? I for one am very interested in what Michelle O has to say.
As for the debate, I hated both of them but marginally found HRC more distasteful. By the way, Hillary and Bill's business associates are the lowest of the low. They definitely do not want to go down that street in this campaign.
I am now hoping the GOP sweeps all three houses, although that is of course impossible. The reason is that the long term health of Social Security would benefit greatly from getting it into stocks in the near future and reduce the US Treasuries at these yields, and that can only happen if GOP has a clean sweep. This is more important than all the rest of the bullshit in my view.
Gary'sBoner: If I agreed with the premise, I'd say because of the power politics involved in keeping the black electorate together. The polemic between the "talented tenth" and the "five-percent nation" catch an awful lot of people in the middle. A baroque example of this happens in Colombia every day between the Paramilitares on one extreme and the FARC on the other.
I don't, however, buy the premise although it would make a hell of an interesting story. I'm bloody sick and tired of being stuck with Michael Douglas and Ryan Gosling playing Jewish anti-heroes, Joe Mantegna and Robert DeNiro also playing Jewish anti-heroes, while we never get the romantic lead or the Denzel Washington of firm grip and steely resolve.
I like Michelle Obama, too. In the debate, Obama gave one good answer with regard that "talking to the enemy" palaver. Otherwise, she dominated. I, least of all, think that the Clintons friends and associates are angels. LF used to race horses at Keystone when Lasater was the leading owner there. I know all the stories. Clinton never claimed to be a saint. Obama has.
I don't want McCain nor full Republican rule because it was hard enough doing this. I really, really don't want to have to become Jose Perez Gonzalez, citizen of Ecuador!
Oh, G'sB;
At some point we ought to have a serious discussion of privatization of social security in the US because although in the long run equities go up because the productivity to the units of capital and labor go up, I wouldn't want to be there as a bunch of people turn 65 in the middle of a bear market. It is a worthy argument to have on a serious basis, not on the bullshit terms the pundits throw around.
I just so don't want any US shit in my neck of the woods and I know McCain is itching. It must kill him that Negroponte, Reich, and Abrama "lost" Latin America. I don't particularly like that the DoJ is holding back evidence from the prosecution and defense of Noriega in France.
It portends no good for anyone.
kelso,
Though the discussion of privatizing social security always leads to the performance of stocks, I think that is the opposite direction in which the vast river of retirement cash would flow.
I believe the bulk of Americans would put the dough in Treasuries.
The fact that trillions of dollars are still deposited in banks and other venues offering painfully low rates BUT guaranteed safety tells me this.
kelso, with respect to Michelle's undergraduate work, there's not a thing wrong with it and no reason it should embarrass her, at least with respect to its stand-alone merits.
It's only problematic because she's the wife of a presidential hopeful.
Heck, Hillary was once a Young Republican.
Meanwhile, I have not encountered any emotional ill-tempered opposition to Obama and his candidacy. There's more of an amused air here. Sort of "see, anyone can run for the presidency here, and this guy is proof."
Interestingly, the only extreme view on his candidacy came from that old bat Doris Lessing, who, from her vantage point in South Africa, has claimed someone will assassinate Obama if he's elected.
If nominated -- it's still too soon to count Hillary out -- he'll lose the election on merit. Not race. Of course in the post mortems of the election year, a number of writers will claim he was defeated by racism.
N-s:
Do you mean the author of THE GOLDEN NOTEBOOK and winner of the Nobel Prize for literature?
AS the old song goes, "Mr. Singer he made a sewing maching/Mr. Remington he made a gun/Tell me No_slappz, you chump/whachu've done?"
The market makes the Democrat a substantial favorite over the Republican. You feel the opposite way. Me? I throw it in the middle. More or less a toss-up between either C or O v Manos De Piedra.
kelso, that someone is considered a great writer of fiction does not imbue that person with powers of foresight into political/racial issues occurring in distant nations decades after said writer passed her prime.
The list of embarrassments suffered by famous writers jabbering about issues beyond their realms is worthy of a study.
Would that have applied to Saul Bellow in his dotage as well? How about Bernard "It sickens me that you and I have a little extra DNA in common" Goldberg?
But, Slappzie, old boy, is there a topic on which you are NOT an expert?
How are you on bird-watching? Grade I, I presume. Numismatics? The same. Boxing? Why should I even ask? Deptiction of Madonna & Child from early to late Renaissance? Silly of me to think you can't do that in your sleep! How about the corner blitz against a team with an immobile passer but fast receivers? Need I bother?
The percentages of Frankish versus Germanic words in American English versus English English? A mere bagatelle!
Once again, an old song: "if you're so smart/why aren't you rich?"
kelso,
Bellow? I'm not aware of Bellow making statements about what lies ahead in Russian politics after Putin. If he mentioned this topic, I missed it.
On the other hand, it was hard to miss Gabriel Garcia Marquez expressing his love for communist dictators, especially the nearly dead Fidel. Marquez wasn't old enough to be called an old fool when he buddied up with Fidel. He is just a fool. Then there's Michael Moore and Oliver Stone. But they are part of a different class. Two people who know how to mine a rich vein of ore.
Too many famous writers have shown an affection for communistic economic plans. For people who, by most measures, are thought to be smart, this is a glaring shortcoming. A stunning contradiction.
Bernard Goldberg? Compared with Lessing and Bellow, he's a young guy. Has an interesting point of view. What of it?
The blog world is an appealing place. Opinions are everywhere. That's what it's all about. Some are well founded, well expressed, some even factual, and some are just the wild thoughts of the madman at the keyboard. What of it?
What's a novel but the author's view of the world? A shapely presentation of opinions, often as wacky as possible. Or on a serious plane. Lessing, for instance, in the Golden Notebook examines women's lives. Something about which she's knowledgeable and insightful.
Frankly, I would be interested in Lessings thoughts on Hillary Clinton. Lessing, with her lifelong study of women and two divorces behind her, seems like the right person from whom to seek opinions on that topic. But predicting assassinations of potential American presidents? No.
It's interesting that some bloggers are touchy about on-line exchanges. As though the debate is personal, that one's true self is on the line when viewpoints are kicked around.
To me it's always more interesting when someone attempts to kick the crap out of someone else's ideas or opinions. Those efforts do more to show the strength or weakness of someone's point of view. Getting hammered is a good test and a good way to learn about the issue on the table.
Then there's the ad hominem game. A few ad hominems are comical. But most are lame and have no effect except to derail a debate.
You've presented yourself as a student of human behavior, so you know all that. Seems that's the chief component in odds-making.
Then there's the fallacy of composition, which is replayed every day. And various other logical errors like proof by assertion and proof by authority.
I always enjoyed the quote by that New Yorker film critic -- sudden name blank -- who, when speaking of the 1972 presidential election said "I don't know how he won. Nobody I know voted for him."
Anyway, you closed you post with an If-Then statement linking intelligence to wealth.
Does it mean that smart people are, by possessing intelligence, rich? Which, because you posed the question, suggests that you have concluded I am not rich, hence I am not smart?
But this conclusion contradicts your earlier statements in which you said I was not an idiot. Thus, do you mean that it is illogical if a smart person is not rich?
Meanwhile, you have imputed your beliefs into your assessment of me. But, as you acknowledged, you would have lost a lot of money had you bet one of your beliefs.
From my perspective, much of the fun of the internet comes from the free exchange of points of view -- unburdened by too many details about the people spewing their ideas.
Love 'em, or hate 'em, it's the ideas. Not the credentials of the gasbag.
Kelso: I think it's a bit strong to say Obama is running as a saint. He uses some religious language, but so does HRC "My faith and my good fortune led me into politics so I can blahblah..."
Why do you pick on no slappz? He's a good writer and expresses a pretty interesting pov? Since you mentioned bird-watching, what are my odds, when I cross the street to the park today, of spotting a robin redbreast or a finch?
PS I have a good slogan for McCain's campaign: "There Will be Blood."
Gary'sBoner:
I am one of No_slappz's biggest supporters! You should see the shit he takes elsewhere.
I think he writes well and thinks well and he can be rather profound sometimes. For example, I very much liked his above comment although I disagree with him vehemently on Marquez. And I suggest he read AUTUMN OF THE PATRIARCH if he needs a refresher course on Marquez's belief in a capitalist, democratic-republican system of government. I have no idea whether he has backed Gaviria or Uribe or neither or both, but it hardly matters. Slappzie would see Gaviria as a communist. I see him as a center-leftist.
Slappzie should, however, have his own blog. I'm not sure why he doesn't.
I don't agree with his views but I like them on my blog. And he's become a very good sport about giving it and taking it.
Both the robin red-breast and (please specify) the finch are pretty long-prices right now. Your favorites in order are pigeon, starling and mourning dove.
No_slappz:
The song lyric was just ball-busting. I don't equate intelligence with money.
I am not a STUDENT OF ANYTHING. AND MOREOVER I AM DUMB AND HAVE THE LOW IQ SCORE TO PROVE IT. My blog isn't to solve social ills. It's so I can vent and have a few laughs. And kick a few ideas around.
Pricing random variables is what I do for a living. And I'm going to get beat up pretty bad with Clinton the way things look. You, however, had a chance to skin me and you didn't take it. So, who's the fool?
I don't worry about the individual wins and losses; I want to impose about 4-6% worth of order on a few chaotic systems. That's all.
Bellow, Lessing and Garcia Marquez are (were) brilliant novelists. Goldberg's a dildo with a paranoid point of view. No comparison. OK, compare him to Al Franken who's another dildo with a paranoid point of view.
No_slappz: before you correct my error, be aware it was only a keypunch error: it should read "Garcia Marquez," or even Garcia for that matter.
kelso,
Like I've said, it's the ideas and sparring that make all this internet business interesting.
Betting on political outcomes does not interest me. Getting into a win/lose binary situation changes everything. It's no longer interesting. After betting, it's business.
After betting the need and desire to be right overtakes everything else. And as one who is not motivated to hedge political wagers, I'm stuck with a position that may collapse well before the deciding event occurs.
In this case, it was my view that Hillary would become the first female presidential nominee. But now it looks as thought she won't get that far. I hope the battle continues until the Dem convention and it takes a couple of votes to choose the no inee. But that's not too likely either.
But any way you slice it, US politics look good these days.
A black, a woman and a senior citizen are running for the presidency. The dropouts include a religious nut, an ambulance-chasing lawyer, a hound-dog actor, an ex-mayor with transvestite tendencies, a purported hispanic, and a candidate who reprises his role every election to run as a spoiler.
If they had all met as children someone would have created a film series around them and called it Our Gang.
kelso,
Regarding GGMarquez and Autumn, it's been on my reading list for a long time. Haven't gotten to it, however. He's a wonderful writer, but his readers have been shortchanged at times.
His translator for One Hundred Years was Gregory Rabassa. But the job went to someone else a while ago. I read Love in the Time of Cholera and found it to be a collection of cliched phrases, a problem I attribute to the translator. However, I don't know who translated Autumn.
A couple of months ago there was a gathering organized by the Housing Works Used Book Store on Crosby just south of Houston. A group of translators had been invited to speak. I went because Rabassa was one of the guest speakers.
But I think dropping his name was a ruse. He wasn't there and the emcee claimed he was too ill to travel. Most likely he was invited and declined, giving Housing Works the opening to identify him as one of the invited speakers. His name got me in the door.
That aside, GGM, Bellow, Lessing et al are fiction writers, which means we pay them to deceive us.
When they deceive readers, do they succeed because they deliver the Larger Truth? Naa. Try reading some Social Protest literature. Reading Native Son today is likely to cause cringing.
Waiting for Lefty. Ouch.
No_slappz: You are an erudite son of a gun, you know that? I give you credit.
Belive me, as someone whose read most of the well-known South American authors in English and Spanish, I could not agree with you more that Gregory Rabassa is in a class by himself. I really can't read South American stuff in English that he didn't translate. It's worth the extra time to plow through in Spanish because I know the translator's really fucking it up. If I caught three cases of Rabassa phoning in a phrase over maybe eight novels that's a lot.
Rabassa translated Autumn Of The Patriarch and it's a magnficent job but while a straight-ahead work like No One Writes To The Colonel was pretty easy for me to read in Spanish, Garcia Marquez's works from Autumn Of The Patriarch on are very tough for me in Spanish. Rabassa's translations of Vargas Llosa I know are good because while Llosa has a weird style of structuring dialogue, his narratives are easy to follow and the dialogue itself is straightforward.
Agree with you about Love In The Time Of Cholera. It did not have the bite of the other three I mentioned.
Bellow and Lessing stand up pretty well and I agree that if you like left-wing agit-prop theater, Ibsen, Brecht and O'Neill read better than Odets. John Turturro is brilliant as the Odets character by the way in the movie Barton Fink. He captures the earnestness and innocence perfectly.
I haven't read Native Son in 25 years so I have no opinion to offer. But I have read Ellison, et. al.'s White counterpart, Nelson Algren, fairly recently and I think his shit stands up great. I guess if it didn't that Da Bears, Da Bulls joke on SNL couldn't have been as popular as it was.
Don't worry. I'll keep your literary sophistication our secret. Your AIPAC and Crown Heights buddies will NEVAH know the truth. But, shit, man, any time you want to write about books, do it here.
Post a Comment