Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The only thing I will post about the debate
Since every channel in the hotel had the debate except the ESPN's. So, in the interest of staying current, I had the tv tuned to the debate and occasionally listened when I wasn't in the bathroom trying to wash off the crap that was coming through the tv. Anyway.... one thing about Barck Obama really struck me. It was his voice. The pitch, the cadence, the inflictions, they all reminded me of someone. The Rock. Seriously. Listen to the Rock when he's not speed talking during his promo's and it's very similar. All of this got me thinking. How awesome would it be if Barack started using some of those catchphrases. Really, what would the reaction have been if he finished the debate going "Do you smell what Barack is cooking?" Even better, if he just started referring to McCain and Palin as "those two jabroni's". I know he'd catch flak for doing that but there is no way anyone could focus on McCain if he Obama went that route.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Thought on a chilly night during election season
As I'm sure most people are aware, I am not much of a fan of politicians in general and really despise the parties. I have recently rediscovered the writings of someone else who does not like the parties. In his own words:
Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
The answer to the question I am sure you are asking is that the writer is George Washington. This is just a small section of his farewell address. It is scary to me that those words were written over 200 years ago and that: a) he was so right, b) very few people knew he said those words , and c) even fewer people recognize how right we was. Here is a link to the full address: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
The answer to the question I am sure you are asking is that the writer is George Washington. This is just a small section of his farewell address. It is scary to me that those words were written over 200 years ago and that: a) he was so right, b) very few people knew he said those words , and c) even fewer people recognize how right we was. Here is a link to the full address: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)