Antipodes.
Podcast.
The Bowery Boys.
Five Corners.
Pentagon.
I can think of something clever that has five sides, but is not a Pentagon.
Can you guess what it is?
A steak dinner with mashed potatoes, baked potatoes, cole slaw, green beans, and carrots.
Were you thinking of a complicated war?
I'm interested in if you make it!
-St. Riddicker C. Ambodextrial (h ark t he t olling b ell u pon h is p romised a rrival)
Tarnation!
Tar Nation.
Tar Heel Nation.
North Carolina.
Gigantic Chairs.
I can think of a clever Gigantic Chair that you do not sit on.
Can you guess what it is?
The Chair of the National Obese Person's Foundation.
Were you thinking of Chairman Mao?
I think you can do it!
-St. Riddicker C. Ambodextrial (f ollow h is w ord t o t he e nd o f t he w et g rass)
Oh what a day.
What a day-oh.
O-dell.
Deli.
Sandwich.
I can think of a clever thing that sandwich reminds me of that isn't a food item.
Can you guess what it is?
Sandwich-board advertising.
Were you thinking the Earl of Sandwich?
I love you.
-St. Riddicker C. Ambodextrial (w hisper h is n ame o n a c old m orning)
A pretty apt summation from John Heilemann in New York Magazine:
"If you find yourself drawn to the Clinton candidacy, you likely believe that politics is politics, that partisanship isn't transmutable, that Republicans are for the most part irredeemable. You suspect that talk of transcendence amounts to humming "Kumbabya" past the graveyard. You believe that progress comes only with a fight, and that Clinton is better equipped than Obama (or maybe anyone) to succeed in the poisonous, fractious environment that Washington is now and ever shall be. You ponder the image of Bill as First Laddie and find yourself smiling, not sighing or shrieking.
If you find youself swept up in Obamamania, on the other hand, you regard this assessment as sad, defeatist, as a kind of capitulation. You're perfectly aware that politics is often a dirty business. But you believe it could be a bit cleaner, a bit nobler, a bit more sustaining. You think that paradigm shifts can happen, that the system can be rebooted. Most of all, an attraction to Obama indicates you are, on some level, a romantic. You never had your JFK, your MLK, and you desperately crave one: What you want is to fall in love."
What I especially like about these descriptions is that Clinton supporters can recognize some of the Obama attributes in themselves, no doubt, and vice versa. It portrays the ideology of both camps in a (somewhat) positive light, and makes the argument that both have the best interest of the country at heart. And underlying it all is a desperate plea to to the faithful of the losing candidate, whoever that may be: don't forget that you're a liberal, a democrat, and that our country needs one of these two people as president. We need it badly. So when the loss comes, mourn the memory for a day if you need to, then shed it like an old coat and support your party.
If you're not into politics, this will be a very boring post. Consider yourself warned.
With Super Tuesday over and nothing decided on the democrat side, I felt the need to write something about my choice, if only to get my thoughts on paper. I don't expect to sway anyone or anything like that, but the more I've seen, the more strongly I feel that Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the democratic nomination.
On the most basic issue, policy, almost everyone concedes that their views are "almost indistinguishable." (New Yorker) That being said, Hillary is, in general, very slightly further to the left than Obama, with the biggest difference being her support for Universal Health Care. But both support immigration reform and both vow to pull troops out of Iraq in a short time, so it's not like we're talking about a huge gap. What the decision comes down to, then, is the old "experience versus change" argument. But what real "change" would Obama bring that Hillary wouldn't?
Which brings me to my next point. I would be happy and proud to have Obama as president, but his rhetoric of change and the support he's gaining is starting to resemble a personality cult. I'm not saying he actively avoids discussing issues; I think he started the campaign with that strategy, but jettisoned it quickly when Hillary jumped to her early lead. What I am saying is that when he gets into what I'll call "preacher" mode, policy issues disappear and it becomes all oratorial flash.
Everyone who sees Obama speak in public says how magnetic he is, and it's certainly apparent on television as well. There's a genuine inspirational quality about him. But let's not forget, Ronald Reagan had that too. Charisma doesn't always translate into great leadership, or great ideas. He's managed to galvanize the youth population, but I think there's something a little worrisome about that.
And before I continue, let me add this caveat: a few weeks ago, I was on the Obama train. My thought was that the raw force the man exuded was exactly what the country needed. But after reading and studying more, it's apparent to me that there's an act of seduction going on that can be construed as slightly disingeuous, on his behalf, and slightly credulous on the part of youth. The more I speak with Obama supporters, and let me again clarify that I was just as guilty recently, the more I realize that they don't have a command of the issues, but that they've simply fallen under the sway of his charm. And there's something to be said for a personality of that nature, especially in a position of leadership like the presidency, but for so many people to choose based on that alone is scary.
Enough, for now, about Obama. Let's get into the positives about Hillary.
*Toughness - Hillary has been vilified from day one, and for no better reason, at least originally, than being a First Lady with the audacity to pursue policy. She's always been a strong personality, and people bridled at that. When she introduced Universal Health Care reform in '94, it was defeated by the Republicans in what amounted to petty, partisan politics. Something that could have greatly helped the uninsured in the country failed merely because of conservatives hating Hillary. When the Lewinsky scandal reached its apex, Hillary was, astoundingly, vilified again. Some wanted her to leave her husband, and railed against her for "setting the cause of feminism back fifty years," and many accused her of staying with Bill for personal gain only. Never has a woman trying to hold a family together under impossible circumstances been so excoriated. Then, when she ran for Senator in New York, she was vilified again for having the gall to run for office and possibly harbor presidential ambitions. Rick Lazio, her opponent, even approached her aggressively during one of the debates. And now, finally, she's running for president and is vilified by both parties.
And throughout it all, what's happened? She's stayed strong, and she keeps winning. Show me anyone else who could have gone through that kind of hell, with unfiltered hating pouring in from all sides, and still maintained their character, grown as a politican, and grown as a person.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, is tougher than Hillary.
*Experience- some are trying to frame this as the "experience versus change" decision. But again, what change, really, will Obama bring? Their policies are virtually the same, and what the "change" comes down to is the perceived notion that Obama's personality will somehow bridge gaps between Republicans and Democrats and set our country on a new, united path.
Dream on. I'm all for idealism, but if people truly think a black liberal from Chicago is going to win the hearts and minds of neocons and red staters, and if they think the Republican political machine, built for twenty years on the premise of dirty politics, wil lie down and die when faced with such a uniter, they need to wake up. There's a rift in America, and if the rift can ever be healed, it will be done with policy, not rhetoric. And when it comes to policy, Hillary's bringing the same exact change.
So if we put that idea aside, we're left with experience. When discussing their policies, although the general framework is the same, Hillary approaches with more pragmatism. She goes into details, some of which are boring because they're intricate and well thought-out. Obama speaks in generalities, focusing instead on the idea of a catalyzing change that will erase the gaps among Americans. Forced to choose between those two alternatives, I fall on the side of pragmatism. Hillary is a policy wonk, and I truly believe her when she says she'll be ready, on day one, to take over. She's thought everything through, certainly more than Obama (as I'll show later), and has real plans on every single aspect of governance.
To me, that's everything.
*Hard work - just as nobody's tougher than Hillary, nobody works harder. Even her detractors concede the point that, throughout her career as First Lady, advocate, Senator, and presidential hopeful, she's a dedicated, and at times obsessive, leader. A quick example is her newly-learned expertise on defense policy since taking her place on the Senate Armed Services Committee. There are a thousand more. Meanwhile, since becoming chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's subcommittee on foreign affairs, Obama hasn't held a single substantive hearing. A lot of that owes to time spent on the campaign trail, but it's certainly worth noting. In the end, we really don't know how hard he'll work, or how prepared he'll be for either the Republican attack machine or the presidency itself. Is that a chance we can afford to take? What do we really know about this guy?
And though Hillary takes a ton of flack for her so-called "ambition," (which, let's be honest, exists; nobody runs for president without ambition), it's Obama who strikes me as the more nakedly opportunistic. He's basically rode a tide of rhetorical flair to the nomination process at an incredibly young age, and without his qualities as a speaker, he'd be nowhere near his current position. He's certainly more calculating than Hillary. Which leads me to....
*Caring - this is an out-and-out personal call, but from watching Hillary speak, and hearing anecdotes about her more private moments, I'm convinced that she legitimately cares about people. She's spent a career advocating for the lower middle class and those below the poverty line. Her focus on education, health care, and immigration reform confirms the idea. If she plays dirty politics, or is accused by pundits of being cutthroat, I genuinely believe it's because she thinks she can help the most people, and desperately wants her vision instituted for America's benefit.
I don't mean to imply that Obama doesn't care. I'm just not convinced his desire for the presidency is 100% about caring. I think there's more personal ambition involved than in Hillary's case.
*Electability - This is the biggest knock on Hillary. The talking point among her opponents is that she won't be able to reach out to undecided voters, or to hold the middle ground, while Obama's charisma has a greater chance to make up the gap. I find that attitude to be completely flawed. Kerry was nominated on this premise in '04, and he got destroyed by the Republican attack machine. Keep in mind, the guy was a Vietnam hero and was running against the worst president in recent memory. And he still lost! It proves that the Republicans can and will go after anyone, no matter how unimpeachable their character seems. They'll go after Obama with the same fervor. Hillary, on the other hand, is tough as nails. People call her unlikeable, but watching her speak and watching her newly adopted tone of positivity and focus on policy, I can't see it. I think her character shines through, and I think her strength will become evident to more and more people. And she's already proven she can withstand the conversative attack. I envision a general election where she gains more and more support as people start to realize her true character, especially against a rigid guy like McCain. On the other hand, I can easily see Obama's rhetoric being exposed as a vapid defense mechanism for lack of experience.
And as a final, practical point, let's not forget that Hispanic voters have shown zero willingness, historically, to vote for a black candidate. That held true last night, which seems to indicate that it won't change in the near future. That could be a gigantic problem in swing states with large Hispanic populations, particularly Florida.
What it comes down to, in the end, is that I find Hillary to be a more pragmatic, prepared candidate. I think she's better equipped to lead the country, has more thoroughly researched solutions for the myriad problems caused by the Bush administration, and is overall more legitimate. The results of Super Tuesday seem to hold that up; she scored a huge victory among those in need, such as the working class, the elderly, and Hispanic minorities. Obama's main voters can all be attributed to his personality and "realm of influence," which includes black voters, youth, and undecided voters hoping to feel excited. It seems to lend credence to a very controversial, but perhaps valid, quote from a Clinton staffer:
"If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend, and you're young, and you have no social needs, then he's cool."
Personally, I'm going with substance over style.
Note: Crossword challenge didn't go off. At my new place, the newspaper kept getting stolen. At work, ditto. I threatened the careless apes at the New York Times without pause, but finally I had to concede and cancel the paper.
On to business. Back in the sixties, hippies used to say "let's blow this joint." They meant, "let's smoke this marijuana." Somehow, over time, the phrase evolved to mean "let's get out of here."
(Please note that I'm not 100% sure any of that is true. "Joint" is also an older term meaning "place," so it's very possible that "blow this joint" pre-dates the hippies. I could look this up, but I prefer to operate on conjecture and guesswork.
edit: I was completely wrong)
Anyway, at some point it became cool for just about everyone to say "let's blow this joint." It was appropriated by the mainstream, losing the connotations of a licentious, pot-smoking lifestlye.
There is a new phrase undergoing this process of incorporation.
"Blow one's load (early)."
Back in 1981, young people who were judged popular would say "he blew his load" to mean that some contemporary or other had orgasmed. It became common in the argot of youth.
Over time, the phrase evolved to mean committing too much of any resource too early in a given process, thereby precluding later success.
Example: McEnroe came out with a lot of energy, but he really blew his load in the first two sets. By the fourth, Borg was running him all over the court.
Now, the phrase doesn't even elicit a giggle when used in that context. It hasn't made its way to television or mainstream print yet, but its presence in ordinary conversation means that the shift can't be far off.
But we will know its origin.
On Friday, I'll have a piece on McSweeney's. It's about football and authors. Keep an eye out.
I recently packed my belongings and tramped eastward into New Bushwick. I phoned the New York Times in an appropriate manner, but they failed to forward Monday's paper. Or, perhaps, it was stolen. In either case, I didn't take lunch Monday and forgot to buy a paper, and yesterday found me out of sorts due to Spirits imbibed on the 31st. By the time I remembered anything about a Crossword, the paper had again been appropriated by the private sector.
Judging by today's smooth delivery, the Times and I are back on similar wavelengths, and the challenge is on for next week.
There Will Be Blood is an excellent movie.
The New York Times Crossword, according to legions of cruciverbalists, is the creme de la creme of American puzzles. Since watching the documentary "Wordplay" in the spring of 2006, I've been haunting the nether regions of the weekday Arts Section, scribbling away at the various acrostics. Looking back, the beginning was shameful- the puzzle increases in difficulty as the week progresses, and those first Mondays and Tuesdays were mildly difficult, Wednesdays were a challenge, and Thursdays and Fridays were impossible.
ALL THIS HAS CHANGED.
My skill has improved gradually, and I'm at a point where a missed box Monday through Wednesday is an anomaly, Thursday success rate is at or near 80%, and Friday hovers around 50%. From where the sun now stands, a perfect week is distinctly possible. I may have already achieved this phenomenon, or perhaps not; I haven't kept track.
But starting next week, the GREAT NEW YEAR CROSSWORD CHALLENGE is on:
**Complete all five puzzles in one business week, Monday through Friday, to perfection, with no missed letters and without reference to secondary materials**
I'll update each afternoon, except for Tuesday, which is January 1st and doesn't require me to work. I'll update Tuesday's puzzle on Wednesday morning.
The stakes: If I fail, I have to clean the doorstep of every man in town for two moon cycles. If I succeed, I choose my first wife from the eligible women of the village.
Also, "Wordplay" is a fun documentary to see if you haven't already. It's like watching the spelling bee, except the contestants are older nerds, with the pain of life well-etched on their faces. The filmmakers follow some of the best puzzlers around in the weeks and months leading up to the climax, when all in question converge on a Connecticut hotel for the annual crossword championship. The finish is dramatic. There are also cameos from famous crossword puzzlers like Bill Clinton and Jon Stewart.
See you on Monday.
Today I taught a life lesson to a woman on g-mail chat. We can call her Emily.
me: let me tell you something emily
a life lesson
if you were nice
like me
you'd have over 100 dollars in gift certificates
to various dunkin donuts and barnes & noble type places
all from bosses at work, mind you
emstrachan: yeah im getting nothin for xmas
me: instead, you're at home with nothing to your name but a frown and some vague ideas
emstrachan: grinch
way to rub it in
me: people love me
that's the point i'm trying to make
emstrachan: i get it ok!
me: i ask around here about you
nobody knows you
i show them pictures of you
they don't really say much at all
they just give me a look that says "i don't know what to say to this"
emstrachan is offline.
