Launch Delay
I had planned to do a couple of posts yesterday. Unfortunately a friend called and needed help putting up some 4' x 8' soffit board. Well the six sheets that would only take a couple of hours turned out to be about sixteen (a little fuzzy math) and the couple of hours turned into a full day. So Malcolm's much deserved blasting will have to wait another day or so until I can get some time.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Saturday, July 28, 2007
We Shall Overcome
Not surprisingly a thread on Slugger went off topic fairly quickly. Surprisingly the off topic discussion was (for the most part) fairly engaging and interesting, at least more so than the original post.
In the absence of anything resembling movement that might indicate new life for the SDLP the persistent FF/SDLP merger came up and was kicked around. Most admitted this was a non-starter for multiple reasons. But I think it's at least worth looking at (for entertainment reasons at least).
The first and most glaring reason for not merging is the fact that FF are a party of power, not principal. They were able encompass the working class, small farmer vote and then move on to become comfortably middle-class while retaining their core constituency (and lets face it, breakfast roll man still came through for them this last time out). The SDLP never were working class. One of their few enclaves was well and truly lost when Fitt decided to jump in bed with Thatcher over the hunger strikes. I'm sorry, I don't care what your roots are (and Fitt's were impeccable) but when you refuse accept the political root of the the Troubles and join the House of Lords then you can't expect the working class to take the "L" in SDLP seriously. Though to be honest I don't really think the SDLP ever did either.
As for the FF franchise moving north, I just don't see it happening. After the elections in the ROI, Malcolm and I were reflecting on what happened and he noted how the tri-colour motif run by SF doesn't really fly in Dublin Central (which we all have to acknowledge now). Conversely I don't believe that the slogan "The Republican Party" would cut it in Ballymurphy, Bogside or Tyrone. Indeed any hope a Northern FF have would be in the rural border counties. So considering that SF saw off the Gerry McGeough in Fermanagh & South Tyrone, Sharon Haughey and Davy Hyland in Newry Armagh and all three SDLP candidates in West Tyrone I would be curious at who the Soldiers of Destiny would have man the frontier? Foyle, while having the largest "dissident" vote (if you can really call the combined forces of Peggy O' Hara and Eamon McCann that) still returned its quota of Shinners and Stoops. Though I would like to see Attwood try that slogan in the Falls, just once.
(Update: Slugger is down right now so bear with me on paraphrases instead of quotes)
Though almost all agreed that a merger was a non-starter they also agreed that a reorganization towards a more "professional" SDLP was a welcomed stance. I feel this is an erroneous assessment. If anything the SDLP need to become more amateurish in their approach to politics (think GAA vs. David Beckham). I'm sorry but hiring consulting firms (as Durkan did in his last bid for Foyle) is pathetic. Yes he won the seat, and evening convincingly so but it shows that the voters are simply a product. I don't question the conviction of certain activists, but as noted in other places, I do question their common sense. Too often have I purused Slugger and P.ie and watched as Stoops blasted PSF for being SDLP lite or SDLP 2.0. Then when the election results came in they were shocked that such campaigning failed to win back the electorate. They consoled themselves that the electorate had opted for tribal politics, conveniently forgetting their own affiliations. Wait, in fairness I must confess that the SDLP, in a valiant attempt to break down the sectarian boundaries campaigned in the Shankhill and Waterside during certain elections. But considering that their slogan was, "vote SDLP to stick it to SF" the votes they were loaned can hardly make up for the votes lost within the nationalist community. Putting aside the bullshit for just moment, SF have the people on the ground to make a difference on the constituency level. The SDLP don't and didn't have until the SF brand appeared on the market.
Oddly enough as I was putting this together Splintered Sunrise posted a piece about Neil Blaney and IFF. His final thoughts on the Blaney machine are worth repeating and are applicable to our course of thought.
Not surprisingly a thread on Slugger went off topic fairly quickly. Surprisingly the off topic discussion was (for the most part) fairly engaging and interesting, at least more so than the original post.In the absence of anything resembling movement that might indicate new life for the SDLP the persistent FF/SDLP merger came up and was kicked around. Most admitted this was a non-starter for multiple reasons. But I think it's at least worth looking at (for entertainment reasons at least).
The first and most glaring reason for not merging is the fact that FF are a party of power, not principal. They were able encompass the working class, small farmer vote and then move on to become comfortably middle-class while retaining their core constituency (and lets face it, breakfast roll man still came through for them this last time out). The SDLP never were working class. One of their few enclaves was well and truly lost when Fitt decided to jump in bed with Thatcher over the hunger strikes. I'm sorry, I don't care what your roots are (and Fitt's were impeccable) but when you refuse accept the political root of the the Troubles and join the House of Lords then you can't expect the working class to take the "L" in SDLP seriously. Though to be honest I don't really think the SDLP ever did either.
As for the FF franchise moving north, I just don't see it happening. After the elections in the ROI, Malcolm and I were reflecting on what happened and he noted how the tri-colour motif run by SF doesn't really fly in Dublin Central (which we all have to acknowledge now). Conversely I don't believe that the slogan "The Republican Party" would cut it in Ballymurphy, Bogside or Tyrone. Indeed any hope a Northern FF have would be in the rural border counties. So considering that SF saw off the Gerry McGeough in Fermanagh & South Tyrone, Sharon Haughey and Davy Hyland in Newry Armagh and all three SDLP candidates in West Tyrone I would be curious at who the Soldiers of Destiny would have man the frontier? Foyle, while having the largest "dissident" vote (if you can really call the combined forces of Peggy O' Hara and Eamon McCann that) still returned its quota of Shinners and Stoops. Though I would like to see Attwood try that slogan in the Falls, just once.
(Update: Slugger is down right now so bear with me on paraphrases instead of quotes)
Though almost all agreed that a merger was a non-starter they also agreed that a reorganization towards a more "professional" SDLP was a welcomed stance. I feel this is an erroneous assessment. If anything the SDLP need to become more amateurish in their approach to politics (think GAA vs. David Beckham). I'm sorry but hiring consulting firms (as Durkan did in his last bid for Foyle) is pathetic. Yes he won the seat, and evening convincingly so but it shows that the voters are simply a product. I don't question the conviction of certain activists, but as noted in other places, I do question their common sense. Too often have I purused Slugger and P.ie and watched as Stoops blasted PSF for being SDLP lite or SDLP 2.0. Then when the election results came in they were shocked that such campaigning failed to win back the electorate. They consoled themselves that the electorate had opted for tribal politics, conveniently forgetting their own affiliations. Wait, in fairness I must confess that the SDLP, in a valiant attempt to break down the sectarian boundaries campaigned in the Shankhill and Waterside during certain elections. But considering that their slogan was, "vote SDLP to stick it to SF" the votes they were loaned can hardly make up for the votes lost within the nationalist community. Putting aside the bullshit for just moment, SF have the people on the ground to make a difference on the constituency level. The SDLP don't and didn't have until the SF brand appeared on the market.
Oddly enough as I was putting this together Splintered Sunrise posted a piece about Neil Blaney and IFF. His final thoughts on the Blaney machine are worth repeating and are applicable to our course of thought.
This is the battle that the SDLP lost, not the ballot box versus the armalite.At root, though, the secret of the Blaney machine lay not in Neil’s technical proficiency as a politician, great though that was, but in the political spirit animating his soldiers. For the Blaneyites, who would take part in elections in Derry as easily as in Donegal, politics never ceased to be a national crusade. And there’s a lesson here – political parties are voluntary organisations, and no matter how draconian the regime the worst penalty you can inflict on someone is to tell them they can’t come to meetings or pay dues any more. A really effective machine comes into being where the men and women at the grass roots are inspired to follow a great political cause. People who think that electoral success is an end in itself can’t really comprehend the mindset that sees it as a mere by-product of a bigger struggle.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Success!
Despite the fact that in the past month I've gone head to head with the Catholic church on: Genesis, Lilith, abortion, contraception, the evils of co-habitation, pre-marital sex, over-population, and nuclear energy (don't even ask), the evils of pornography, homosexuality, Humana Vitea, and the credibility of one Janet Smith, PhD. They have seen fit to grant a certificate of completion for Marriage Preperation classes to myself and my fiance. I have a feeling that it was in spite of me that we were awarded the certificate, but who am I to complain? Though I must admit I am lucky that unlike marriage, wedding prep. classes do not require a sober state of mind for them to acknowledged by the holy mother church. Also, unbeknownst to me there were bets on whether or not I would complete the classes (FYI the majority bet that I would not finish the classes). This is an important lesson, never underestimate the power of spite.
Next chapter: Natural Family Planning, shudder.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Weighing in at a flabby 175 pounds and throwing a combo replete with typos and wrong tenses I made my debut at "the world-famous Slugger O'Toole's Pugilistics Parlour and Flyting Academy". I wish I could look at my counter to see if I've gotten a boost from it but I still can't figure it out and so will have to simply hope that if some people came over from Slugger that they might stick around awhile. Thanks for coming in.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
What Is Truth?
The trouble with getting to the truth is the fact that no one can agree on it. Or what can be agreed on is lacking on anything that might give the events any meaning in forming a cogent narrative. And to be honest that's what people are looking for. Not just a narrative that says, "the (insert proper group here) is (insert value judgement here)" but one around which people can come to some kind of understanding (not agreement, understanding) on just what did happen over the last thirty years in Northern Ireland. I personally don't think this will ever happen, not now, not in a hundred years. Certainly scholars will write narratives and maybe even a "definitive" text or two but there will never be an agreed upon narrative for what happened on the fringes of Europe in the latter part of the twentieth century.
That is why posts such as the ones posted by Pete Baker commenting on Fintan O'Toole's piece seem odd and out of place. I have no doubt that Pete believes what he writes. He has the zeal of a true believer, though what he believes in is beyond me. Though I digress, it is the issues I want to tackle, not the author. Or in Slugger vernacular I would like to make an honest attempt to play the ball and not the man.
As mentioned in the first paragraph I take issue with the idea that the truth is something that exists outside of people/society and is simply being hidden by the powers that be for the sake of expediency. The truth of what happened is really quite simple. On numerous occasions one group of people inflicted harm upon another group of people. This continued on for some time until it stopped (for the most part). There you go, no need for expensive inquiries, H.E.T.s or the republishing of the Stalker report. We can even deal with specific incidents that have longed plagued the peace process.
March 6,
People with no guns were killed by people with guns.
March 16,
People with no guns were killed by a man with guns.
March 19,
People with guns were killed by people with guns.
There you are, nothing to see here, move along. Nothing I have have typed is untrue but to say that I've written the truth would be somewhat disingenuous, because the truth should have a little more substance than that. Truth, like life must be made of more than the sum of its parts. What gives human life value beyond our heart and lungs is indeed the intangible, or for the spiritually/religiously inclined "the soul". I feel it must also be for the truth and that is where we run into problems. For anything beyond what I've written we must necessarily subscribe some sort of value judgement, even (and especially) if the judgement is one of all around condemnation and a sense dark night of the soul which seems to especially affect journalists.
One of the issues I take with Fintan's argument is that narrative can be confused with physical monuments to the dead. He mentions multiple monuments as examples of successful and unsuccessful ways of dealing with the past. I feel that this misses the point. the success or failure of the monuments had little to do with the monuments themselves but to the extent to which the society in which the monument resided had agreed upon a common narrative. He is right in noting that the Valle de los Caidos is little more than a monument to Franco's victory and an indictment of the Catholic Church's involvement in the Iberian peninsula (though the last part is just my opinion). An interesting article appeared in the WSJ sometime ago dealing with the fact that the Spanish Civil War is still being fought (not the right article but one dealing with the same issue) in the obituaries as the descendants still strive to make sense of what happened from 1936-39.
Three years of turmoil and now sixty plus years later we are subjected to obituaries stating that a devout Catholic (who in actuality may have also been an avid fascist) was murdered by godless heathens. Conversely we faced with obits that may state that a freedom loving, gentlemanly Republican who may have been an FAI member was murdered by bloodthirsty fascists. Both can be correct without being true or vice versa. The issue isn't so much truth but an agreed upon collective narrative. Think about it, America was founded upon the idea of liberty and justice for all based upon genocide of the indigenous population and the subjugation of black slaves, immigrant labor, and women. Though since we have an agreed upon narrative we can view those actions as an aberration rather than the norm from the establishment.
For Northern Ireland it's not quite as simple. Fintan's point that the security services were responsible for, "A little over one-tenth of the victims" is a red herring in this case. Throughout the entire struggle British government kept up the line that, "there can be no political justification for murder or any other crime"(Thatcher). Ie the law is sacrosanct and must be respected by all parties. But what happens when the law is changed to suit the needs of government or is blurred in the name of "national security"? Many of the reports and inquiries have found, stated or at least hinted at the idea that some of the worst manifestations of the Troubles have at least been given a wink and nod from security forces. This has been reinforced from investigations the government itself carried out. What is undermined is not the truth but narratives set up by one party in the conflict. This is the same reason why the killing of Robert McCartney was so devastating to SF. Certainly SF/PIRA had killed/murdered non-combatatents before but not in a way that was so damning to their narrative.
What we see every time a new report on collusion comes out or the IRA admits to killing a civilian is not "the truth" but simply another thread of the tapestry of the Troubles. I think that this is where people go wrong. They think that, "the truth will set them free" or at least give them, some sort of meaning. But what if the truth is that many people died for the wrong reason or no reason at all?
Do we as humanity have the courage to face up to that truth?
The trouble with getting to the truth is the fact that no one can agree on it. Or what can be agreed on is lacking on anything that might give the events any meaning in forming a cogent narrative. And to be honest that's what people are looking for. Not just a narrative that says, "the (insert proper group here) is (insert value judgement here)" but one around which people can come to some kind of understanding (not agreement, understanding) on just what did happen over the last thirty years in Northern Ireland. I personally don't think this will ever happen, not now, not in a hundred years. Certainly scholars will write narratives and maybe even a "definitive" text or two but there will never be an agreed upon narrative for what happened on the fringes of Europe in the latter part of the twentieth century.
That is why posts such as the ones posted by Pete Baker commenting on Fintan O'Toole's piece seem odd and out of place. I have no doubt that Pete believes what he writes. He has the zeal of a true believer, though what he believes in is beyond me. Though I digress, it is the issues I want to tackle, not the author. Or in Slugger vernacular I would like to make an honest attempt to play the ball and not the man.
As mentioned in the first paragraph I take issue with the idea that the truth is something that exists outside of people/society and is simply being hidden by the powers that be for the sake of expediency. The truth of what happened is really quite simple. On numerous occasions one group of people inflicted harm upon another group of people. This continued on for some time until it stopped (for the most part). There you go, no need for expensive inquiries, H.E.T.s or the republishing of the Stalker report. We can even deal with specific incidents that have longed plagued the peace process.
March 6,
People with no guns were killed by people with guns.
March 16,
People with no guns were killed by a man with guns.
March 19,
People with guns were killed by people with guns.
There you are, nothing to see here, move along. Nothing I have have typed is untrue but to say that I've written the truth would be somewhat disingenuous, because the truth should have a little more substance than that. Truth, like life must be made of more than the sum of its parts. What gives human life value beyond our heart and lungs is indeed the intangible, or for the spiritually/religiously inclined "the soul". I feel it must also be for the truth and that is where we run into problems. For anything beyond what I've written we must necessarily subscribe some sort of value judgement, even (and especially) if the judgement is one of all around condemnation and a sense dark night of the soul which seems to especially affect journalists.
One of the issues I take with Fintan's argument is that narrative can be confused with physical monuments to the dead. He mentions multiple monuments as examples of successful and unsuccessful ways of dealing with the past. I feel that this misses the point. the success or failure of the monuments had little to do with the monuments themselves but to the extent to which the society in which the monument resided had agreed upon a common narrative. He is right in noting that the Valle de los Caidos is little more than a monument to Franco's victory and an indictment of the Catholic Church's involvement in the Iberian peninsula (though the last part is just my opinion). An interesting article appeared in the WSJ sometime ago dealing with the fact that the Spanish Civil War is still being fought (not the right article but one dealing with the same issue) in the obituaries as the descendants still strive to make sense of what happened from 1936-39.
Three years of turmoil and now sixty plus years later we are subjected to obituaries stating that a devout Catholic (who in actuality may have also been an avid fascist) was murdered by godless heathens. Conversely we faced with obits that may state that a freedom loving, gentlemanly Republican who may have been an FAI member was murdered by bloodthirsty fascists. Both can be correct without being true or vice versa. The issue isn't so much truth but an agreed upon collective narrative. Think about it, America was founded upon the idea of liberty and justice for all based upon genocide of the indigenous population and the subjugation of black slaves, immigrant labor, and women. Though since we have an agreed upon narrative we can view those actions as an aberration rather than the norm from the establishment.
For Northern Ireland it's not quite as simple. Fintan's point that the security services were responsible for, "A little over one-tenth of the victims" is a red herring in this case. Throughout the entire struggle British government kept up the line that, "there can be no political justification for murder or any other crime"(Thatcher). Ie the law is sacrosanct and must be respected by all parties. But what happens when the law is changed to suit the needs of government or is blurred in the name of "national security"? Many of the reports and inquiries have found, stated or at least hinted at the idea that some of the worst manifestations of the Troubles have at least been given a wink and nod from security forces. This has been reinforced from investigations the government itself carried out. What is undermined is not the truth but narratives set up by one party in the conflict. This is the same reason why the killing of Robert McCartney was so devastating to SF. Certainly SF/PIRA had killed/murdered non-combatatents before but not in a way that was so damning to their narrative.
What we see every time a new report on collusion comes out or the IRA admits to killing a civilian is not "the truth" but simply another thread of the tapestry of the Troubles. I think that this is where people go wrong. They think that, "the truth will set them free" or at least give them, some sort of meaning. But what if the truth is that many people died for the wrong reason or no reason at all?
Do we as humanity have the courage to face up to that truth?
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Come on the Hoops!
Look lets face it Beckham is a premadonna and his wife wants to be Madonna, but that won't "save" the MLS on it owns. The fact that he makes more than of the other All-Star (and I use that term loosely) players put together. Which is maybe why MLS is hoping that the bhoys will be able help pick things up. I on the the other hand am not so optimistic. For me it's not simply a matter of getting a "big star" like Beckham to trot out at halftime to wave to the crowds, but in trying to make soccer into an American game. To me this is something which can't happen, football, hockey, baseball (the All-American past-time) and basketball are already competing for that spot with Rugby, Lacrosse, and arena football all trying to pick up the scraps. On the east coast the baseball/basketball dynasties command something comprable to what soccer does in Europe (well not quite so many riots but still). Though here out west this is strictly speaking "Bronco's country". We bleed orange and cite the orange sunset as proof that God is indeed, a Bronco's fan.
Being that I'm a child of the Orange it might surprise some that I was estatic to see Celtic come here and play. I mean for fuck sake Celtic played in my town. Now admittedly they lost, to Americans of all people but it was still kind of cool to have them here.
Look lets face it Beckham is a premadonna and his wife wants to be Madonna, but that won't "save" the MLS on it owns. The fact that he makes more than of the other All-Star (and I use that term loosely) players put together. Which is maybe why MLS is hoping that the bhoys will be able help pick things up. I on the the other hand am not so optimistic. For me it's not simply a matter of getting a "big star" like Beckham to trot out at halftime to wave to the crowds, but in trying to make soccer into an American game. To me this is something which can't happen, football, hockey, baseball (the All-American past-time) and basketball are already competing for that spot with Rugby, Lacrosse, and arena football all trying to pick up the scraps. On the east coast the baseball/basketball dynasties command something comprable to what soccer does in Europe (well not quite so many riots but still). Though here out west this is strictly speaking "Bronco's country". We bleed orange and cite the orange sunset as proof that God is indeed, a Bronco's fan.
Being that I'm a child of the Orange it might surprise some that I was estatic to see Celtic come here and play. I mean for fuck sake Celtic played in my town. Now admittedly they lost, to Americans of all people but it was still kind of cool to have them here.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Saturday, July 14, 2007
More Bang for Your Buck
(Pun intended)
An interesting story popped up on the beeb awhile ago noting that the MLAs in Stormont have already topped £720,000 in claimed expenses. Oddly enough, no one in the Irish blogosphere thought it worth commenting on. Since I was bored and my curiosity piqued at such a high amount being spent in such short time I crunched the numbers and figured out party averages.
So topping the list is the UUP with £8861 being claimed on average. Roy Beggs topped the UUP with £12,419 being claimed. Not one UUP MLA claimed under £6,000 in expenses with Billy Armstrong coming closest with just £6,284 being claimed. Sir Reg claimed £8,922. A word of advice to the UUP. When your leader gets elected in the third count, with the other member of the executive in the tenth you might want to try a little frugality in governance and personal exependitures. Remember, the money you spend today will be a reflection on the NI Conservatives when they take your place after you lose your MP next time around and finally throw in the towell.
So coming in second (becoming sort of a theme for them) is the SDLP with an average claim of £8,635 pounds per MLA. Mary Bradley (let her know how you appreciate her spending your hard earned money) topped the entire assembly by spending £18,757 which included remodelling her office. North Antrim's Declan O'Loan came in at the bottom with a mere £2,914 in expenditures. Party Leader Mark Durkan came in at a "respectable" £7,784 claimed.
Being that too many of the analysis out there disregards any other parties other than the "big 4" I thought it be only fair to include Alliance in this piece. So, what is there to say about Alliance? They cost on £7,863 per MLA and are soooo self righteous that even the fact that Anna Lo got elected can't make me really like them that much. David Ford for all of his huffing and puffing about blow in carpet baggers in South Antrim sucked £7,462 off of the public teat (the blow in carpet bagger claimed £3,962 by the way, but we'll get to them shortly).
Now for the fact that I'm uncomfortable with a political party being tied up with a church it looks like some the evangelical sense of frugality rubbed off on the DUP. Their 36 MLAs only cost £7,552 per member. Though the DUP can claim the lowest cost per MLA in the unionist family the Big Man himself claimed the most for any party leader with £9,828 in costs. Allan Bresland broke the mold entirely by not claiming any expenses at (fairplay to him).
And finally, in reference to the title and picture we come to Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein MLAs cost the taxpayer £2,241 per member at Stormont. 4 of them have claimed no expenses (Paul Butler, Daithi McKay, Caral Ni Chuilin, and Claire McGill). Not one MLA claimed over £6,000 with Raymond McCartney coming the closest with £5,539. Grizzly Adams claimed £881 in expenses thereby putting him at the bottom of the list for party leaders with ODFM Martin McGuinness beating that claiming only £650. Oddly there were seven MLAs with exactly the same amount spent (£1965.32). Kind of creepy if you ask me.
As far the unionist camp goes I don't think how much money was spent is an issue. The UUP need a reason to exist not curb expenses. Though "Decent people" who are "Simply British" probably wouldn't mind a their MLAs thinking twice before ringing up an expense.
For nationalists it should give pause. While the SDLP like to wind up the Shinners during elections about their recent reversals in regards to law and order and talk about how Bertie, Enda and McDowell think they're great people it doesn't really cut it when you crunch the numbers. Let me give a small example. Mary Bradley spent more money in two months than I made for all of last year. Admittedly I took a temporary pay cut to work for my current contractor but the point still stands. If the SDLP want to stop their electoral decline they need to get their heads out of their asses and realize a few things. One, don't run more candidates than you have quotas. Two, goofy picture stunts don't really convince people of your anti-
establishment credentials when they have the this place in their constituency.
It only serves to alienate in places where a very small "n" nationalism will suffice. Three, don't piss away other people's money like it's your own (see the rest of this post).
Saturday, July 07, 2007
While Slugger is currently at a 100+ comments right now on this one and the BBC ran it as a headline I thought I would look into this report and report back to my faithful/non-existent readership. Though before we get to0 deep into his it might help to look at the paragraph that started it all:"Martin van Creveld has said that the British Army is unique in Northern Ireland in its success against an irregular force. It should be noted that the Army did not 'win' in any recognizable way; rather it achieved it's desired end-state, which allowed a political process to be established without unacceptable levels of intimidation. Security force operations suppressed the level of violence to a level which the RUC and later the PSNI could could cope. The violence was reduced to an extent that made it clear to PIRA that they could not win through violence. This is a major achievement, and one with which the security forces from all three Services, with the Army in the lead should be entirely satisfied. It took a long time but, as van Crefeld said, 'that success is unique'"
This is hardly the sensational wording the BBC was hinting at especially when the report states in two other places that PIRA was defeated. But this too is full of inconsistency in itself. Now if I were a more educated man I would employ some form of Bahktinian analysis to this text but alas since I am not, I will spare us all from that fate and simply note some of the interesting things that the report said.
Although on an interesting side note I would mention that Bahktin did destroy his dissertation during the second world war to make cigarettes. This alone endears him to me because he realized that all of the collected thoughts a man can have in his life do not add up to the simple pleasure guaranteed by a smoke.
Let us start with the quote itself that states that success is defined by the supremacy of the political process. Yet earlier in the report (Chapter 2, para 242) it states that,
"The British government's main objective in the 1980s was the destruction of PIRA."
So then we are faced with the Security Services declaring victory after moving the goal posts I see. This is hardly convincing when it comes to the security services claiming victory. There are also issues surrounding shoot-to-kill and Loughall in particular in which they note,
"The strength of public condemnation with which nationalist media reported such operations indicated the serious effect they had on PIRA".
IE PIRA had some sort of control mechanism on the nationalist media? Come on, that's as weak an argument as I've seen trotted out even on ATW. This is followed shortly thereafter with,
"PIRA have been brought to believe that there was no answer to Army covert operations, and that they would not win through violence. That was probably a key factor [to the political settlement]".
So there you go, it was the shoot-to-kill policy that won the war. Move along, nothing to see here. Though here we go again, just a few pages later the report admits,
"Despite attrition as the 1970s and 1980s moved on, PIRA was able to keep its numbers up".
Now to be honest the report calls "attrition" the arrest of IRA members and is not specifically in reference to shoot-to-kill operation. Though I feel that the use of the word in terms members sent to prison is misleading because it indicates that they are taken out of action and that the total strength of the IRA was depleted as a whole when members were imprisoned and I would say that this was not necessarily the case (re the whole Sandhurst of terror thing).
I would call these throw away fuck ups, because while these lines undermine what the report is trying to say they are not reiterated time and time again as main themes. Although before I get into the meat of this post I would like to point out a nice fuck right off of the bat that should reassure everyone about the intelligence of your military leadership. In the foreword General Sir Mike Jackson states quite frankly,
"The campaign is...one of the very few waged on British soil"
Fine except that the report points out,
"It is...not...accurate to refer to Northern Ireland as 'British'"
And though these seem like relatively minor writing mistakes they betray a laziness of mind that a comp. 150 teacher would have a shit fit over. It might also reassure any Irish reading this to know that most Englishmen find you to a variant on a Briton, not a foreigner (for what it's worth).
While wer'e splitting linguistic hairs I thought would look at how the report refers to PIRA alternately as terrorists and insurgents. It notes the shift took place around '72 as a shift in tactics not as some shift of who they were (ie they did the same things and were the same people). This is what interests me to be truthful. The use of language in the conflict and its consequences for we stand today. As a matter of interest let us look at the difference between an insurgent and a terrorist.
ter-ror-ism, n 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the the state of fear and submission produced produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting government.
[note I typed the definition of terrorism instead of terrorist due to the fact that the definition of terrorist came up as "someone who engages in terrorism"]
in-sur-gent, n 1 a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.
Let us then turn to our trusty thesaurus to see what we come upwith in terms of word association.
terrorist: alarmist, destroyer, violent person, revolutionist.
compare with,
insurgent: rebel, rebellious
So while the army cites the linguistic shift as a matter of tactics alone the identifying tags associated with the words is significant due to the fact that there is no shared narrative for "the Troubles" and the protagonists involved. The army recognizes the importance of language it is one of the recurring themes throughout the report.
The idea of "Information Operations" and perceptions of dissatisfations feeding the insurgency (or was it a terrorist threat?) is a continual theme brought up in at least seven different spots (by my count). For example,
"The events of Bloody Sunday were immediately exploited by a republican information operation".
So all of the outrage caused by Bloddy Sunday and the boost the IRA received afterwords was due to the fact that,
"insurgency feeds off dissatisfaction, and dissatisfaction is a sentiment based on perception"
While there is a good deal of legitimacy to this argument of perception being a key ingredient to the formation of opinion it could be that the perception is reality. I mean people are right to be pissed when 13 innocent people are killed and the unit responsible is decorated by the Queen.
So no this is not the great admission that Republican supporters will be looking for to show that they are still undefeated. Supporters of the state should take little comfort from this badly written sophmoric attempt at a debriefing which deals with as much conjecture as fact. I will be coming back to this report as a lauching point for some of the issues that the report raises (albeit inadvertently)
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Sink With Kalifornia
Inevitably every about this time of year two things happen. First is that I try really hard to keep of my pets inside, much to their chagrin and my annoyance. Second is that I end up listening to all of the old punk songs that I grew up with in order to try to convince myself that I haven't turned into a total tool by settling down in the suburbs and having pets and planning to get married and have kids etc. etc. This actually is the story of my life so to speak. I go along with the status quo until someone explicitly tells me I'm supposed to and then I go ape shit. Oh well I suppose that the story of humanity as a whole is one of contradiction and hypocrisy. Thanks for coming in.
PS
I still can't get a counter to work for the life of me
Monday, June 25, 2007
Soylent Green
A little while before I actually started this blog up again I received a boost from Malcolm Redfellow by way of an email exchange we had after he took too long to post. Being appreciative as I was at the time I let slide a technical error in his posting. Though now that I want to revisit the subject that prompted my first response I feel I must set the record straight. In his introduction he stated the exchange started after I made a stupid dig at his hypothetical loyalty to the SDLP in the seventies. While we have exchanged numerous messages and I've left too many comments on the matters pertaining to the politics of the "occupied six counties and all that" (to quote JCskinner) the post that started it all was about politics that are a little closer to home. Indeed the post and comment that started it all was this one. To be honest it was simply an off the cuff comment that I left in passing which I expected to be ignored like so many of the other things I say online and in real life. Such was not my luck and so it began.
So we come to the point of this post the 2008 Presidential elections. Wednesday's Irish politics blog had the following story posted. If this were found to be true it would the biggest thing to happen to the presidential race since...eight years ago. To be honest I did vote for Nader in 2000 and almost did so again in '04 because I would rather be consistently wrong than flaky. Though in the end I refrained from voting for that office at all because I don't want to be responsible for any of it.
Wednesday informs us that this ticket would be better than,
A little while before I actually started this blog up again I received a boost from Malcolm Redfellow by way of an email exchange we had after he took too long to post. Being appreciative as I was at the time I let slide a technical error in his posting. Though now that I want to revisit the subject that prompted my first response I feel I must set the record straight. In his introduction he stated the exchange started after I made a stupid dig at his hypothetical loyalty to the SDLP in the seventies. While we have exchanged numerous messages and I've left too many comments on the matters pertaining to the politics of the "occupied six counties and all that" (to quote JCskinner) the post that started it all was about politics that are a little closer to home. Indeed the post and comment that started it all was this one. To be honest it was simply an off the cuff comment that I left in passing which I expected to be ignored like so many of the other things I say online and in real life. Such was not my luck and so it began.
So we come to the point of this post the 2008 Presidential elections. Wednesday's Irish politics blog had the following story posted. If this were found to be true it would the biggest thing to happen to the presidential race since...eight years ago. To be honest I did vote for Nader in 2000 and almost did so again in '04 because I would rather be consistently wrong than flaky. Though in the end I refrained from voting for that office at all because I don't want to be responsible for any of it.
Wednesday informs us that this ticket would be better than,
"Having to hold my nose and vote for the lesser evil, or for some Peace and Freedom Party no-hoper you've never heard of."
So the no-hoper that you know is better than the no-hoper that you don't then. What frustrates me about the Greens is that they continually go for the showbiz style candidates while not going for the obvious showbiz candidateback in 2000, Jello Biafra. No, honestly what ensured that I would never vote green again (aside from the Faustian pacts in Germany and Ireland) is the fact that they would rather be glorious losers than do the ground work to become a viable third party here in the US.
I travelled in some of the same circles as some of the more radical Greens during the election and I will admit that they had as much talent, drive, and vision as the most ardent Republicrats out there. They also had some nifty posters (which I wish I still had) with a donkey and elephant doing it and proclaiming, "what's the f*cking difference?". Classic. What they did not have was the vision and discipline to do something with the 2.74% percent of the popular vote that they took home and fell to infighting and cringing from the wrath of the Democrats who blamed them (quite rightly I might add) for losing the election in 2000.
I mean come on. Any good organizer could tell you that that kind of loss is the thing that organizations are built on. Greens had already (especially in California) gotten city councillors elected. It's not really that hard to turn a good councillor into a runner for the State House of Reps. Trust me, the people there are certainly not the best and brightest any political party has to offer, it's simply a vetting ground to see who can be groomed out for bigger and better things. It's also a place where real changes can be made that positively affect the lives of people in a state. That should have been the goal, but no, it was too much to ask for a little realism from the only progressive party active in America today.
That being the case I feel that unfortunately Malcolm may be right. She can, and will do it after all. She may even bring Obama with her if he agrees thereby ensuring that we continue to break new barriers while not changing a damn thing at all. Fuckers.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Dear God, How Do People Find Time For These Things?
These last two post each took a Sunday each and were/are full of grammatical errors, inconsistencies, missing words and any cogent sense of writing style. This doesn't even take into account any sense of visual elements which can be important to a blog's success. I'm also going to acknowledge that there are many positions taken that have rhetorical holes so large that you could drive a truck through them. This is not because I don't recognize them but because I run short on time and patience in regards to addressing them (hey I admitted that I was an undisciplined writer when I started this thing).
This being the case I would invite any reader of this blog to inform me as to how they find the time to blog and how they approach the different issues that can come up when blogging (yes I'm being purposefully vague in the hopes of eliciting responses).
Update: Wow, I guess my misanthropic tendencies have been reciprocated. Maybe I should add more pictures.
These last two post each took a Sunday each and were/are full of grammatical errors, inconsistencies, missing words and any cogent sense of writing style. This doesn't even take into account any sense of visual elements which can be important to a blog's success. I'm also going to acknowledge that there are many positions taken that have rhetorical holes so large that you could drive a truck through them. This is not because I don't recognize them but because I run short on time and patience in regards to addressing them (hey I admitted that I was an undisciplined writer when I started this thing).
This being the case I would invite any reader of this blog to inform me as to how they find the time to blog and how they approach the different issues that can come up when blogging (yes I'm being purposefully vague in the hopes of eliciting responses).
Update: Wow, I guess my misanthropic tendencies have been reciprocated. Maybe I should add more pictures.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
We Hold These Truths... (part II)
Now some might wonder why a news junkie like myself is all of a sudden considered the rhetorical nuances of the American Civil War? To be honest before I gave two shits about what was happening to the world today I was much more concerned with what had happened to the world prior to my time here. The Civil War especially held a special interest for me as a child.
Last summer during the Israeli/Lebanon fighting I happened to pick a Wall Street Journal to read an article. It soon became a habit until the day I got yelled at for taking (unbeknownst to me at the time) the governor's paper. So my fiance got me a subscription. Now I know that any self respecting liberal is supposed to read the Economist, but I've never been very good at doing what I was supposed to. Besides, what fun is reading editorials and opinion columns that you agree with?
So ever since the WMDs failed to materialize there has been a concerted effort to reframe the rhetoric of the Iraqi war as a one of freedom versus tyranny with Saddam Hussein as our very convenient tyrant. Because apparently this tyrant was just too hard to catch. So here we go. Some of the first references to the Civil War era actually came as criticism directed at black members of Bush's cabinet. Actually this almost makes up for his behavior in regards to Hugo Chavez. Though to be fair he's not the only failed liberal traitor to be buddying with the Venezuelan demagogue. But I digress.
Powell was never really able to vehemently defend the decision to invade Iraq because I believe that for all his shortcomings he was and remains a man of integrity (which ensured that he was out of a job in '04). Condaleeza Rice on the other hand no such qualms and further more has no problem using her background as launching board for propaganda purposes for her current boss. Also the original interview can be found here.
So here we go. Rice is making a connection between modern Democrats who oppose the war in Iraq (once it became unpopular) and a grouping democrats known as "Copperheads" during the Civil War. A nice little dig but one which does not stand up to any kind of even half assed analysis (the only kind I can muster up).
For starters the Civil War was about the very dismemberment of the continental United States. And though I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, the last time I checked Iraq was not part of the continental United States. Secondly is the smug implication of the reference that it is the Democrat's nature to be treasonous and afraid to fight then and now. What is not taken into account is history. Jeremiah S. Black, Edwin M. Stanton, Joseph Holt, and John Adams Dix, members (and Democrats)of Buchanan's cabinet set the tone for Lincoln to follow not vice versa by declaring succession illegal. Though the "Copperheads" were an issue of note should also be that there were "War Democrats" that even helped Lincoln run for reelection in 1864 (Maybe Lieberman will accompany Guiliani on a run in '08)
Let us also revisit my last post and remember that Lincoln's primary concern was the Union and that he even postponed the Emancipation proclamation for fear of losing the Border States.
Though I will give Condi credit when she noted that,
"I'm sure that there were people who thought that the Declaration of Independence was a mistake".
That's right there were, they were called Loyalists and many went to Canada where they treated the indigenous population much better, continued to squabble with the French and eventually set a system of socialized medicine (those freedom loving bastards).
So moving on to the next column by Newt Gingrich. Newt being Newt is quick to label the Democrats defeatists at best while hinting at historical likenesses (see above). He states that we must be prepared for a rising and total World War III in which we cannot,
"accommodate, understand or negotiate with them[enemies of the US]".
This is exactly the problem, and why Lincoln's 90-day summons of troops was also a complete failure. Lincoln was so focussed on the "Slaveocracy" that he was not prepared for "Plain Folk of the Old South" who made up the vast bulk of the Conferdate Army.
This quote also discounts the fact that after the war Lincoln took a moderate line on Reconstruction because he realized that military successes are meaningless without political success to secure the victory. Indeed many have credited the moderation of the initial reconstruction with ensuring that there was no organized guerilla warfare after Appomattox. These are two lessons that Newt Gingrich and all others in the Bush administration would do well to remember. We're the situation we're in Iraq precisely because Republicans and Democrats in their rush to have a Splendid little war neglected reality in favor ideological hubris. Two, Newt is wrong in that we must understand our enemies and there may be times when we accomodate them. You don't beat an insurgency by rolling tanks down Mainstreet. You do it by making politics work something that so far we've been unable to do either here or abroad.
I also take issue with the fact that Newt wants an "metrics-based performance...system". As a God fearing American I take issue any system developed by the French and demand the institution of standard (feet and inches) based system and call this notion a dangerous attempt to undermine the very liberty we seek to protect abroad, namely by bombing people.
To be honest what I take issue with is people rabble rousing and thinking that platitudes are adequate substitutes for actual analysis. It reminds me of the commercials from GTA. In one a man promises a get rich quick scheme and a seminar. A woman stands up and says,
"I can't feed my kids and..." where she is promptly cut off by his reply of,
"Whoa! Hold on bitch, what do you mean the USA isn't the greatest country in the world?".
"Come folks say it, 'USA', 'USA'"
This is the new rhetorical framework for the Iraq war. The second issues are raised then we're asked, "why do you hate freedom?"
If Newt is proposing all out war such as Lincoln imposed he must then supporting a reinstitution of the draft and rationing. Garrison Keillor touched on it in his column and noted correctly that if that was the case then the "Current Occupant" would ahve ratings in the low teens. I would be curious to know if come '08 and a democrat is in the White House if Newt will still be supporting greater executive power?
Even the prime Minister of Iraq has gotten in on the action with a guest column in WSJ and states,
"It took a Civil War for America to become a beacon of liberty. Nobody should expect it to be easy in Iraq"
The problem with this version of using the American Civil War analogy is that it fundamentally skews the issues and undermines itself in the process. Maliki informs us,
"As your country was fighting that great contest over its unity and future, Iraq was a province of an Ottoman empire steeped in backwardness and ignorance. A half a century later, the British began an occupation of Iraq and drew the borders of contemporary Iraq as we know them today"
In those two sentences he dooms his analogy and here's why. Iraq, unlike America was not "conceived and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal". It was conceived of imperial ignorance, first by the Turks and then by the British.
For all of the rhetoric over the future of Iraq as either a Unitary or Federalized state this is not fueling the insurgency or to be more accurate the insurgencies.
It is a far more complicated situation than any one of the commentariat listed here have spoken of when they blithely decided to pull a sentimental cord to recall a time when a total 5% of the American population died in a four year period so that this nation would not perish from the earth. It it only right and fitting that we discuss the American Civil War, and even in context of current events, but let us be honest in our remembrance of things past and honest in our view of things present so that we may be well and truly ready for whatever the future may bring.
P.S.
A note on reliance of Wikipedia in these last two posts. I would like to state emphatically that Wikipedia is only being used for convenience and should not be viewed as a totally reliable source (obviously) but due to the fact that all of my old books now reside in my parents house I was unable to reach them for reference and found this much more expedient.
Now some might wonder why a news junkie like myself is all of a sudden considered the rhetorical nuances of the American Civil War? To be honest before I gave two shits about what was happening to the world today I was much more concerned with what had happened to the world prior to my time here. The Civil War especially held a special interest for me as a child.
Last summer during the Israeli/Lebanon fighting I happened to pick a Wall Street Journal to read an article. It soon became a habit until the day I got yelled at for taking (unbeknownst to me at the time) the governor's paper. So my fiance got me a subscription. Now I know that any self respecting liberal is supposed to read the Economist, but I've never been very good at doing what I was supposed to. Besides, what fun is reading editorials and opinion columns that you agree with?
So ever since the WMDs failed to materialize there has been a concerted effort to reframe the rhetoric of the Iraqi war as a one of freedom versus tyranny with Saddam Hussein as our very convenient tyrant. Because apparently this tyrant was just too hard to catch. So here we go. Some of the first references to the Civil War era actually came as criticism directed at black members of Bush's cabinet. Actually this almost makes up for his behavior in regards to Hugo Chavez. Though to be fair he's not the only failed liberal traitor to be buddying with the Venezuelan demagogue. But I digress.
Powell was never really able to vehemently defend the decision to invade Iraq because I believe that for all his shortcomings he was and remains a man of integrity (which ensured that he was out of a job in '04). Condaleeza Rice on the other hand no such qualms and further more has no problem using her background as launching board for propaganda purposes for her current boss. Also the original interview can be found here.
So here we go. Rice is making a connection between modern Democrats who oppose the war in Iraq (once it became unpopular) and a grouping democrats known as "Copperheads" during the Civil War. A nice little dig but one which does not stand up to any kind of even half assed analysis (the only kind I can muster up).
For starters the Civil War was about the very dismemberment of the continental United States. And though I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, the last time I checked Iraq was not part of the continental United States. Secondly is the smug implication of the reference that it is the Democrat's nature to be treasonous and afraid to fight then and now. What is not taken into account is history. Jeremiah S. Black, Edwin M. Stanton, Joseph Holt, and John Adams Dix, members (and Democrats)of Buchanan's cabinet set the tone for Lincoln to follow not vice versa by declaring succession illegal. Though the "Copperheads" were an issue of note should also be that there were "War Democrats" that even helped Lincoln run for reelection in 1864 (Maybe Lieberman will accompany Guiliani on a run in '08)
Let us also revisit my last post and remember that Lincoln's primary concern was the Union and that he even postponed the Emancipation proclamation for fear of losing the Border States.
Though I will give Condi credit when she noted that,
"I'm sure that there were people who thought that the Declaration of Independence was a mistake".
That's right there were, they were called Loyalists and many went to Canada where they treated the indigenous population much better, continued to squabble with the French and eventually set a system of socialized medicine (those freedom loving bastards).
So moving on to the next column by Newt Gingrich. Newt being Newt is quick to label the Democrats defeatists at best while hinting at historical likenesses (see above). He states that we must be prepared for a rising and total World War III in which we cannot,
"accommodate, understand or negotiate with them[enemies of the US]".
This is exactly the problem, and why Lincoln's 90-day summons of troops was also a complete failure. Lincoln was so focussed on the "Slaveocracy" that he was not prepared for "Plain Folk of the Old South" who made up the vast bulk of the Conferdate Army.
This quote also discounts the fact that after the war Lincoln took a moderate line on Reconstruction because he realized that military successes are meaningless without political success to secure the victory. Indeed many have credited the moderation of the initial reconstruction with ensuring that there was no organized guerilla warfare after Appomattox. These are two lessons that Newt Gingrich and all others in the Bush administration would do well to remember. We're the situation we're in Iraq precisely because Republicans and Democrats in their rush to have a Splendid little war neglected reality in favor ideological hubris. Two, Newt is wrong in that we must understand our enemies and there may be times when we accomodate them. You don't beat an insurgency by rolling tanks down Mainstreet. You do it by making politics work something that so far we've been unable to do either here or abroad.
I also take issue with the fact that Newt wants an "metrics-based performance...system". As a God fearing American I take issue any system developed by the French and demand the institution of standard (feet and inches) based system and call this notion a dangerous attempt to undermine the very liberty we seek to protect abroad, namely by bombing people.
To be honest what I take issue with is people rabble rousing and thinking that platitudes are adequate substitutes for actual analysis. It reminds me of the commercials from GTA. In one a man promises a get rich quick scheme and a seminar. A woman stands up and says,
"I can't feed my kids and..." where she is promptly cut off by his reply of,
"Whoa! Hold on bitch, what do you mean the USA isn't the greatest country in the world?".
"Come folks say it, 'USA', 'USA'"
This is the new rhetorical framework for the Iraq war. The second issues are raised then we're asked, "why do you hate freedom?"
If Newt is proposing all out war such as Lincoln imposed he must then supporting a reinstitution of the draft and rationing. Garrison Keillor touched on it in his column and noted correctly that if that was the case then the "Current Occupant" would ahve ratings in the low teens. I would be curious to know if come '08 and a democrat is in the White House if Newt will still be supporting greater executive power?
Even the prime Minister of Iraq has gotten in on the action with a guest column in WSJ and states,
"It took a Civil War for America to become a beacon of liberty. Nobody should expect it to be easy in Iraq"
The problem with this version of using the American Civil War analogy is that it fundamentally skews the issues and undermines itself in the process. Maliki informs us,
"As your country was fighting that great contest over its unity and future, Iraq was a province of an Ottoman empire steeped in backwardness and ignorance. A half a century later, the British began an occupation of Iraq and drew the borders of contemporary Iraq as we know them today"
In those two sentences he dooms his analogy and here's why. Iraq, unlike America was not "conceived and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal". It was conceived of imperial ignorance, first by the Turks and then by the British.
For all of the rhetoric over the future of Iraq as either a Unitary or Federalized state this is not fueling the insurgency or to be more accurate the insurgencies.
It is a far more complicated situation than any one of the commentariat listed here have spoken of when they blithely decided to pull a sentimental cord to recall a time when a total 5% of the American population died in a four year period so that this nation would not perish from the earth. It it only right and fitting that we discuss the American Civil War, and even in context of current events, but let us be honest in our remembrance of things past and honest in our view of things present so that we may be well and truly ready for whatever the future may bring.
P.S.
A note on reliance of Wikipedia in these last two posts. I would like to state emphatically that Wikipedia is only being used for convenience and should not be viewed as a totally reliable source (obviously) but due to the fact that all of my old books now reside in my parents house I was unable to reach them for reference and found this much more expedient.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
We Hold These Truths...(part I)
Around Memorial Day I read an opinion column by the ever entertaining Garrison Keillor. A small footnote here if anyone wants to get a real picture of America I would suggest they get a hold of anything by Mr. Keillor and while I normally loathe books on CD he is a definite exception. There was a line in there which stuck with, indeed it stuck with so much that I almost changed my header. Keillor made the point that, "dishonesty makes for poor rhetoric". That's not to say that individuals are outright lying, because as we often see, lies make the best rhetoric. In his column Keillor notes
"The Current Occupant drove over the bridge to Arlington and spoke at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, a site of powerful reverence, and his speechwriter, in a hurry to finish and enjoy his weekend, gave him 'From their deaths must come a world where the cruel dreams of tyrants and terrorists are frustrated and foiled - where our nation is more secure from attack, and where the gift of liberty is secured for millions who have never known it,' a line cobbled together from scrap lumber. Shades of 'the last full measure of devotion' and 'we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain' but made from different cloth. The reputation of the Gettysburg Address remains secure.
Dishonesty makes for poor rhetoric and that’s what has gutted this beautiful holiday. The ideas it celebrates - that our young men and women did their duty and died in defense of their country - are simply not true. Vietnam was lost and it didn’t matter to the security of the United States. Saigon fell and life in the States went on without a blink. And since the end of selective service, these honored dead are somebody else’s sons and daughters, not ours - one good reason why there is so little protest of this war: If the Army was conscripting our children to go to Baghdad, the Occupant’s approval rating would be in the low teens".
First a little background might help. Even though the US was over a hundred years old at the time of the Civil War it had still not flushed out its identity and quite what it stood for (beyond rhetoric of course). The Lockean nature of the declaration of independence and the fact that the new country was made up of an amalgamation of states made it somewhat unique. The idea being of course that every state voluntary chooses union in order to make something greater than the sum of the individual parts. Certainly this situation was a unique test for the idea of Republicanism, which had previously gorged on itself in France and given credence to the Leviathanian vision of humanity.
The start of the war and its reasons are well documented else where (or wiki it if your too lazy to find a book). As it's rhetoric not so much history that we're interested in. First, on a throwaway basis is the fact that many Southerners even today (and this includes members of my own family) call it the war of "Northern Aggression". Odd considering that the first official shots were fired by secessionists at Fort Sumter. Now obviously if we look at subtexts it could and has been argued that the South felt either slavery must grow or die and the fact that the Republican party had opposed the expansion of slavery into new territories was seen as a hostile action that would destroy the southern economy and their entire way of life. Whether that way of life was worth preserving is another question all together. An interesting look at how the South dealt with the legacy can be found here.
The semantics of the secessionists is another issue of interest as they referred to themselves as "confederates" this of course being an allusion to the Articles of Confederation which gave stronger credence to State's and individual rights. The fact that this was being forwarded to preserve a system of slavery is only part of it. Many who filled the ranks of the Confederate army did not own land, let alone slaves, and the President of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis did not mention slavery at all in his inauguration speech but used the emphasis of State's rights as his rational. Indeed it would be interesting to see if some poor grad student has yet to do a Lockean analysis on the C.S.A. and how the Federalist stance in some places directly contradicted the Lockean social contract which was so heavily alluded to in the Declaration of Indepence.
It is worth recalling at this juncture that the North itself was not the land of milk and honey of tolerance for blacks and immigrants. Also of note is Frederick Douglass's autobiography in which he recounts almost being beaten to death by a mob a northern shipyard. Indeed Haymarket Martyr Albert Parons fought for the confederacy, though later felt that the cause of succession could not be separated from slavery and regretted it.
And Lincoln, who more than any other American came to symbolize the Union and the cause of freedom. I would not seek to diminish the man for whom I must admit I hold a grudging respect (as much as I will cede any politician) but we must be honest and critical in our view of his words and actions. In a debate in 1858 Lincoln stated that,
"[he was]"not in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races".
He also supported the Corwin Constitutional Amendment which is remarkably similar to a provision in the Confederate Constitution which banned international slave trade in the C.S.A. yet allowed it remain locally. In 1862 he outlined his position as thus,
"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be 'the Union as it was.' ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that".
Though he later said that signing the proclamation was one of the best things he had ever done it also remains that he did as a tactic to raise the fear of a two front war rather than a principled point which it later became.
Which brings us back of course to the Gettysburg Address. This address marked a turning point in the rhetorical war the same in which the battle itself was a turning point in the military war (it was the last real Southern offensive). It is a piece of political writing that remains as one of the highest levels of political discourse in this country's history and I feel could go toe to toe with some of the best political speeches internationally. This is due in large part to the fact that Lincoln (unlike most politicians and myself) understood that at times, less is more and that there is a time to simply shut the fuck up.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth
It is from this work that the rhetorical war shifted from the preservation of the union to the idea of liberty and freedom as sacrosanct. That is not to say that the preservation of the Union diminished but that it took a rhetorical backseat as the military campaign progressed. Let us be realistic, liberty and freedom don't motivate militarism the way an impending army does, Lincoln suited his rhetoric accordingly. As the military threat to the union receded Lincoln elaborated his language accordingly or as much as his newly acquired artistic license would allow him. The shift in emphais is also apparant in the address itself. As in the beginning Lincoln notes that the dead gave their lives for "the nation" as a body (ie the Union itself). To the end in which liberty and freedom and the primary motives (which are conviently embodied by the government).
Okay this is going to have to be a two part post as I've gone on for too long on the prologue and have yet touch on the reason I started on this course. Give me a bit to get the second part done and it will make more sense.
P.S. As today is Father's Day let them know you care and appreciate what they do
Around Memorial Day I read an opinion column by the ever entertaining Garrison Keillor. A small footnote here if anyone wants to get a real picture of America I would suggest they get a hold of anything by Mr. Keillor and while I normally loathe books on CD he is a definite exception. There was a line in there which stuck with, indeed it stuck with so much that I almost changed my header. Keillor made the point that, "dishonesty makes for poor rhetoric". That's not to say that individuals are outright lying, because as we often see, lies make the best rhetoric. In his column Keillor notes
"The Current Occupant drove over the bridge to Arlington and spoke at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, a site of powerful reverence, and his speechwriter, in a hurry to finish and enjoy his weekend, gave him 'From their deaths must come a world where the cruel dreams of tyrants and terrorists are frustrated and foiled - where our nation is more secure from attack, and where the gift of liberty is secured for millions who have never known it,' a line cobbled together from scrap lumber. Shades of 'the last full measure of devotion' and 'we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain' but made from different cloth. The reputation of the Gettysburg Address remains secure.
Dishonesty makes for poor rhetoric and that’s what has gutted this beautiful holiday. The ideas it celebrates - that our young men and women did their duty and died in defense of their country - are simply not true. Vietnam was lost and it didn’t matter to the security of the United States. Saigon fell and life in the States went on without a blink. And since the end of selective service, these honored dead are somebody else’s sons and daughters, not ours - one good reason why there is so little protest of this war: If the Army was conscripting our children to go to Baghdad, the Occupant’s approval rating would be in the low teens".
First a little background might help. Even though the US was over a hundred years old at the time of the Civil War it had still not flushed out its identity and quite what it stood for (beyond rhetoric of course). The Lockean nature of the declaration of independence and the fact that the new country was made up of an amalgamation of states made it somewhat unique. The idea being of course that every state voluntary chooses union in order to make something greater than the sum of the individual parts. Certainly this situation was a unique test for the idea of Republicanism, which had previously gorged on itself in France and given credence to the Leviathanian vision of humanity.
The start of the war and its reasons are well documented else where (or wiki it if your too lazy to find a book). As it's rhetoric not so much history that we're interested in. First, on a throwaway basis is the fact that many Southerners even today (and this includes members of my own family) call it the war of "Northern Aggression". Odd considering that the first official shots were fired by secessionists at Fort Sumter. Now obviously if we look at subtexts it could and has been argued that the South felt either slavery must grow or die and the fact that the Republican party had opposed the expansion of slavery into new territories was seen as a hostile action that would destroy the southern economy and their entire way of life. Whether that way of life was worth preserving is another question all together. An interesting look at how the South dealt with the legacy can be found here.
The semantics of the secessionists is another issue of interest as they referred to themselves as "confederates" this of course being an allusion to the Articles of Confederation which gave stronger credence to State's and individual rights. The fact that this was being forwarded to preserve a system of slavery is only part of it. Many who filled the ranks of the Confederate army did not own land, let alone slaves, and the President of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis did not mention slavery at all in his inauguration speech but used the emphasis of State's rights as his rational. Indeed it would be interesting to see if some poor grad student has yet to do a Lockean analysis on the C.S.A. and how the Federalist stance in some places directly contradicted the Lockean social contract which was so heavily alluded to in the Declaration of Indepence.
It is worth recalling at this juncture that the North itself was not the land of milk and honey of tolerance for blacks and immigrants. Also of note is Frederick Douglass's autobiography in which he recounts almost being beaten to death by a mob a northern shipyard. Indeed Haymarket Martyr Albert Parons fought for the confederacy, though later felt that the cause of succession could not be separated from slavery and regretted it.
And Lincoln, who more than any other American came to symbolize the Union and the cause of freedom. I would not seek to diminish the man for whom I must admit I hold a grudging respect (as much as I will cede any politician) but we must be honest and critical in our view of his words and actions. In a debate in 1858 Lincoln stated that,
"[he was]"not in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races".
He also supported the Corwin Constitutional Amendment which is remarkably similar to a provision in the Confederate Constitution which banned international slave trade in the C.S.A. yet allowed it remain locally. In 1862 he outlined his position as thus,
"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be 'the Union as it was.' ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that".
Though he later said that signing the proclamation was one of the best things he had ever done it also remains that he did as a tactic to raise the fear of a two front war rather than a principled point which it later became.
Which brings us back of course to the Gettysburg Address. This address marked a turning point in the rhetorical war the same in which the battle itself was a turning point in the military war (it was the last real Southern offensive). It is a piece of political writing that remains as one of the highest levels of political discourse in this country's history and I feel could go toe to toe with some of the best political speeches internationally. This is due in large part to the fact that Lincoln (unlike most politicians and myself) understood that at times, less is more and that there is a time to simply shut the fuck up.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth
It is from this work that the rhetorical war shifted from the preservation of the union to the idea of liberty and freedom as sacrosanct. That is not to say that the preservation of the Union diminished but that it took a rhetorical backseat as the military campaign progressed. Let us be realistic, liberty and freedom don't motivate militarism the way an impending army does, Lincoln suited his rhetoric accordingly. As the military threat to the union receded Lincoln elaborated his language accordingly or as much as his newly acquired artistic license would allow him. The shift in emphais is also apparant in the address itself. As in the beginning Lincoln notes that the dead gave their lives for "the nation" as a body (ie the Union itself). To the end in which liberty and freedom and the primary motives (which are conviently embodied by the government).
Okay this is going to have to be a two part post as I've gone on for too long on the prologue and have yet touch on the reason I started on this course. Give me a bit to get the second part done and it will make more sense.
P.S. As today is Father's Day let them know you care and appreciate what they do
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
We're all off to Dublin in the Green
I have a union meeting tonight so it'll be the weekend at least until I get a good chance to think and discuss the proposed government between FF and the Greens. But while thinking about it this morning a thought came into my head. A FF/Green government is alot like your female activist friend who goes on and on about the attributes a man must have before she'll go with him (and wonders why she's still single). Then inexplicably one day she starts dating a chronic womanizer. Sure she talks about how he really cares about her and is going to change, but she's already said it's okay if see's his old girlfriend (shudder) and he can have a thing with a random chick or two. Yeah that'll change him.
Update: Not sure if this is getting posted to main site so I'm reposting (ie if you see it twice then my bad)
I have a union meeting tonight so it'll be the weekend at least until I get a good chance to think and discuss the proposed government between FF and the Greens. But while thinking about it this morning a thought came into my head. A FF/Green government is alot like your female activist friend who goes on and on about the attributes a man must have before she'll go with him (and wonders why she's still single). Then inexplicably one day she starts dating a chronic womanizer. Sure she talks about how he really cares about her and is going to change, but she's already said it's okay if see's his old girlfriend (shudder) and he can have a thing with a random chick or two. Yeah that'll change him.
Update: Not sure if this is getting posted to main site so I'm reposting (ie if you see it twice then my bad)
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Misanthropy Abroad: Alaska
Wow, well that was fun. Well not so much, but it was different. Having done a whirlwind tour of Alaska I have a couple of things to say.
- The whole midnight sun thing, kind of weird. You get a predawn light at about 2am but that's as good as it gets for night.
- The lack of sales tax means that things are incredibly expensive. Over three hundred dollars for a two day car rental (a Ford Focus for Christ's sake).
- Brides really can do just about whatever they want. This includes coming into your room at 3am, falling on top of you while you sleep saying how much she loves you (thankfully the woman sharing my bed is the understanding type).
- Also a very important lesson. Get your wedding commissioner to sign the marriage certificate before you feed him copious amounts of Budweiser. Failure to do so will result in:
- 1. Signing his name in the wrong spot (though to be fair he did ask the Bride where to sign).
- 2. Writing his title in the wrong spot (see excuse number one).
- 3. Signing his title alternately as "marriage commissar", "marriage commissionar" and finally "marriage commissioner".
- 4. Spilling a whole bottle of Budweiser on two out of the three marriage forms, including the legal one.
- If you think about refraining from taking camouflaged hunting clothing for fear of being seen as white trash, don't. You will be the only person without it on.
- If you are ever stuck at the Seattle airport from 3-6am don't try to sleep near a water fountain as they think it is cute to have loud drinking noises play over a speaker every time some one takes a drink.
That's about it. The two books I read on the way up and back gave me some interesting material which struck me as I listened to the Strawb's "The Hangman and the Papist". But that will have to wait until later this week.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Bertie
Vs
Beardy
While it is clear that on their home turf the "Soldiers of Destiny" gave SF a beating there is no doubt that they could learn a thing or to from SF in regards to electoral discipline. Had they managed votes better there's no doubt that they could brought more of their partners with them. For example, Willie O'Dea who we all know as brilliant local politician was re-elected with 2 quotas. I'm sure his running partner Mr. Noreen could have used a few of those. Bertie was also well over quota with around 5,800 votes to spare. Had those five thousand votes gone to Mary Fitzpatrick she would have been over quota. Now I'm aware that there has been some controversy in regards to Dublin Central and transfers there but really even then you have to wonder WTF? Gerry had under two thousand extra votes thereby delivering a coup unmatched by any other party in Ireland.
Now I'm not trying to diminish the fact that Sinn Fein took a good beating but the brash hubris shown by FF really is something else all together. If I wasn't in the second term of the Bush administration I'd pass comment on the typical Irish voter, but things being what they are I must be content to pass comment on politicians themselves.
This may sound like knitpicking but lets face it six seats are a lot easier to fill than eight (and there could be more but I'm too lazy to do every constituency). P.ie is certainly the place to look for the post election gossip about the numbers. Hard to see how the PDs and Greens could get along, even with some Indies thrown in. And as Cochrane noted, it's not just about crunching the numbers but about a creating a stable government over the next five years. There can be no doubt that the PDs were FF's whipping boy in this election. Could it be on the cards that FF want the Greens to take the fall when the Tiger is tamed?
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Okay so I'm back after a long weekend (yea Memorial day). And though I doubt any foreign readership would be upset by my celebrating a day of mourning and reflection on the men and women who have served and died while serving my country remember this. I am a Union Carpenter (1068 and Kansas City can kiss my ass). That means that my union was essential in fighting for the eight hour day and the establishment of MayDay. Now the very country that invented the day does not recognise it. Unless of course you're a Wobbly (which I was for almost a decade). To top this off it was the founder of my union Peter J. McGuire that founded Labor Day as we Americans know it.
On Friday on the way to help a friend move I received a call from my union political rep (a union lobbyist). He asked me if I would go and do canvassing for a candidate that I had previously canvassed for. I informed him that I would not be able to due to prior commitments. In due course we discussed politics of the day. I related my shock at the loss of Crowe's seat in the day's elections and then patiently explained to this self professed Irishman about who Sean Crowe was etc (and people wonder why I hate plastic paddies) . I then asked him what the next steps were in regards to our political outreach. He informed that we would attempting to influence the caucuses for the upcoming presidential election. We discussed the various candidates and he told me his preferred candidate was Obama. He said that he liked his background and how he had worked his way through Harvard Law. And that was where I lost it. I duly informed him that this week I would be tying 19, 28ft long caisson cages and he wants me to commiserate with difficulties faced by a Harvard law student, not fucking likely.
I mean lets think about this for a minute Obama is the best the dems can hash up (at least in the way of meaningful change of the status-quo) and he still doesn't have a clue.
On Friday on the way to help a friend move I received a call from my union political rep (a union lobbyist). He asked me if I would go and do canvassing for a candidate that I had previously canvassed for. I informed him that I would not be able to due to prior commitments. In due course we discussed politics of the day. I related my shock at the loss of Crowe's seat in the day's elections and then patiently explained to this self professed Irishman about who Sean Crowe was etc (and people wonder why I hate plastic paddies) . I then asked him what the next steps were in regards to our political outreach. He informed that we would attempting to influence the caucuses for the upcoming presidential election. We discussed the various candidates and he told me his preferred candidate was Obama. He said that he liked his background and how he had worked his way through Harvard Law. And that was where I lost it. I duly informed him that this week I would be tying 19, 28ft long caisson cages and he wants me to commiserate with difficulties faced by a Harvard law student, not fucking likely.
I mean lets think about this for a minute Obama is the best the dems can hash up (at least in the way of meaningful change of the status-quo) and he still doesn't have a clue.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Aloha Friday II
Wow, aloha Friday indeed. I have to admit that I was truly shocked at two things. One was that Crowe lost his seat, and two that Malcolm is going on about airports on tally day. Possibly this is due to the fact that he lives in London or that he's British Labour and doesn't generally give a fuck (maybe). For me I did end up having my hapless fiance texting me results all day but didn't really figure out what was going on until I got home. Wow, just wow. The PD's we saw coming, Joe Higgins kind of a shock as well as the independent casualties. And Sinn Fein, well what to say that they kind of hit a glass ceiling is an understatement. To say that they got clotheslined and are lying the ground bleeding is at least closer to the truth. Now if I'm not mistaken Nicky Kehoe got within 78 votes and Mary Lou was off by more than that so we actually (if my math is right) have a drop from 2002. Update: According to P.ie the SF vote went down in 10 of the 12 Dublin constituencies.
I know I've talked to Malcolm about this and I think I touched on it in WBS's comments that Southen SF doesn't have a cohesive "national" identity to get behind. They were and remain a constituency based organization. I know that Mary Lou with being in Europe and being surgically attached to Gerry took her away from that constituency work (if she ever did any at all). It shows and people remember things like that. I mean think about it, Martin Ferris has been a TD since 2002 and he still gets out and confronts travellers about tools stolen from his constituents. Now admittedly in the national press that doesn't play too well but voters do remember things like that. Also the drinking and driving episode probably helped him out. He was drinking socially not getting hammered (and driving down the wrong side of a road). Rural constituencies like tradition and privacy so big, bad Gardai saying you have three drinks over the course of an evening and we'll nail you doesn't really fly. But that's why Ferris got in not why the others got kept out or lost out in Crowe's case.
It might not be the wisest thing for me to start pontificating about elections right now since I got pie all over my face yesterday. So we'll have to leave for now because I'm off to the mountains for the day with the family.
Though on a quick personal note I would like to clarify myself in regards to a comment I made to WBS. I stated that I loathe politicians ( I do indeed) and that even potential politicians annoy. The obvious exception to that is our good friend Malcolm Redfellow. I like to think of Malcolm as one of us, a political junkie who had a lapse or two in judgement which we will not begrudge him because how does the saying go? There but for the grace of God...
Also is bad of me to admit that I like Mary Lou now more than ever because she got mud kicked in her face? I mean I like politicians who lose better than those who win because they don't have that shit eating grin on their face. So hopefully she'll learn to actually do work in her local area and get that hairy growth of a party president removed from her shoulder.
Okay, this weekend I will do a comprehensive blog on the election (just every other person out ther) except of course Malcolm who is being extremely productive for some reason on a shitload (and I do mean that one literally) of topics.
Wow, aloha Friday indeed. I have to admit that I was truly shocked at two things. One was that Crowe lost his seat, and two that Malcolm is going on about airports on tally day. Possibly this is due to the fact that he lives in London or that he's British Labour and doesn't generally give a fuck (maybe). For me I did end up having my hapless fiance texting me results all day but didn't really figure out what was going on until I got home. Wow, just wow. The PD's we saw coming, Joe Higgins kind of a shock as well as the independent casualties. And Sinn Fein, well what to say that they kind of hit a glass ceiling is an understatement. To say that they got clotheslined and are lying the ground bleeding is at least closer to the truth. Now if I'm not mistaken Nicky Kehoe got within 78 votes and Mary Lou was off by more than that so we actually (if my math is right) have a drop from 2002. Update: According to P.ie the SF vote went down in 10 of the 12 Dublin constituencies.
I know I've talked to Malcolm about this and I think I touched on it in WBS's comments that Southen SF doesn't have a cohesive "national" identity to get behind. They were and remain a constituency based organization. I know that Mary Lou with being in Europe and being surgically attached to Gerry took her away from that constituency work (if she ever did any at all). It shows and people remember things like that. I mean think about it, Martin Ferris has been a TD since 2002 and he still gets out and confronts travellers about tools stolen from his constituents. Now admittedly in the national press that doesn't play too well but voters do remember things like that. Also the drinking and driving episode probably helped him out. He was drinking socially not getting hammered (and driving down the wrong side of a road). Rural constituencies like tradition and privacy so big, bad Gardai saying you have three drinks over the course of an evening and we'll nail you doesn't really fly. But that's why Ferris got in not why the others got kept out or lost out in Crowe's case.
It might not be the wisest thing for me to start pontificating about elections right now since I got pie all over my face yesterday. So we'll have to leave for now because I'm off to the mountains for the day with the family.
Though on a quick personal note I would like to clarify myself in regards to a comment I made to WBS. I stated that I loathe politicians ( I do indeed) and that even potential politicians annoy. The obvious exception to that is our good friend Malcolm Redfellow. I like to think of Malcolm as one of us, a political junkie who had a lapse or two in judgement which we will not begrudge him because how does the saying go? There but for the grace of God...
Also is bad of me to admit that I like Mary Lou now more than ever because she got mud kicked in her face? I mean I like politicians who lose better than those who win because they don't have that shit eating grin on their face. So hopefully she'll learn to actually do work in her local area and get that hairy growth of a party president removed from her shoulder.
Okay, this weekend I will do a comprehensive blog on the election (just every other person out ther) except of course Malcolm who is being extremely productive for some reason on a shitload (and I do mean that one literally) of topics.
Aloha Friday
Okay a reall quick post before I go to work (Oh yeah it's Hawaiin shirt Friday). I'm calling between 8-10 seats for SF (including MLM). The pundits can call the rest of them but I think the constituency specific approach by SF will mean that until everything is said and done they will be under rated. I hope I'm not sticking my neck out too far here.
Okay a reall quick post before I go to work (Oh yeah it's Hawaiin shirt Friday). I'm calling between 8-10 seats for SF (including MLM). The pundits can call the rest of them but I think the constituency specific approach by SF will mean that until everything is said and done they will be under rated. I hope I'm not sticking my neck out too far here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)