Updates are for the weak!
I'm knee deep in my dissertation, writing and trying to slug out the theory on my middle chapter. It's even less fun than it sounds like (self-doubt sucks). But, it's also really great. I know the stuff I'm throwing down every day is bad and will need reworking. But it's unabashedly *mine.* I love it. LoveloveloveLOVE it.
I've switched from Microsoft Office to TeXShop. I also love that. Any other LaTeX fans out there?
One final thing: So, I'm sure people have heard about the rumblings of changes in the Democratic primary process. The basic gist is that a bunch of larger states looking to move up their primary, to challenge Iowa and New Hampshire as the "first out of the gate" in the process. I know a lot of progressives have a problem with the current primary system - arguing that New Hampshire and Iowa are small, non-representative states and they exhibit a disproportionate influence on the system. That's all true.
That said, I really LIKE Iowa and New Hampshire being the front load. First, they are both *small* states with relatively inexpensive media markets. Second, the people in these states take these elections really, *really* seriously. They attend events, follow the news, talk to their neighbors, and so on. Both of these factors together mean that winning in these places is as much (if not more) about things like *time,* stamina, ideas, and personality. And these are the characteristics that win elections. (Money is sort of overemphasized in a lot of analysis. Yeah, yeah - it does matter. But there's sort of a "critical mass" point, beyond which additional money doesn't just get you any more attention or votes. Elections are won on more than money.) Basically, an election is a vetting process - culling people from the herd, separating the wheat from the chaff, or whatever the fuck. I think the folks in these states are uniquely qualified to do just that, given a history of having done it for decades, and the nature of their state creates a pretty fucking level playing field for a dark horse to actually have a shot.
As an aside, I just want to note that I'm not sure how big of an impact moving the first primaries to more "representative" state would even have. Most people don't vote - even fewer of them vote in primaries. People who vote at all are already outside the statistical average for the country; primary voters I'm guessing even more so. Do we think that moving the first primary New York is going to bring out a bunch of poor working class minorities? Really?
Final note: I know it's early to be picking horses in this race, but I'm behind Obama all the way. Maybe I'm a starry eyed idealist, but I think things like "vision" really matter. And I think he has one for the country. As evidence that "vision" matters: I think Clinton did as well; as does Bush. I think he has the kind of charisma and youth that could really mark a change in the direction of the country. He's a figure for a new century - a new fucking *millennium.* Sure, he's young. But he's no dummy. And his youth would stand in stark contrast to McCain and Giuliani (the inevitable Republican nominees) - I mean, who believes these cock-knockers will lead us anymore but where we've already been?
The rest of them ...? .... Clinton ... why do people even like her? She personifies the poll reading, always shifting, power hungry politician. I'm not sure she even knows why she wants to be president. She's scripted and boring. Edwards is just the happier version of her. I'm interested in Richards too. We'll see what he has to offer. Biden and Dodd? Snore.
OK, OK, real final note (give me a break, I've been gone for a while): I'm tired of people who confuse "sophistication" with "cynicism." That's so 1998. It's 2007. Get with the program, or at least stop pretending to be smart.
I'm knee deep in my dissertation, writing and trying to slug out the theory on my middle chapter. It's even less fun than it sounds like (self-doubt sucks). But, it's also really great. I know the stuff I'm throwing down every day is bad and will need reworking. But it's unabashedly *mine.* I love it. LoveloveloveLOVE it.
I've switched from Microsoft Office to TeXShop. I also love that. Any other LaTeX fans out there?
One final thing: So, I'm sure people have heard about the rumblings of changes in the Democratic primary process. The basic gist is that a bunch of larger states looking to move up their primary, to challenge Iowa and New Hampshire as the "first out of the gate" in the process. I know a lot of progressives have a problem with the current primary system - arguing that New Hampshire and Iowa are small, non-representative states and they exhibit a disproportionate influence on the system. That's all true.
That said, I really LIKE Iowa and New Hampshire being the front load. First, they are both *small* states with relatively inexpensive media markets. Second, the people in these states take these elections really, *really* seriously. They attend events, follow the news, talk to their neighbors, and so on. Both of these factors together mean that winning in these places is as much (if not more) about things like *time,* stamina, ideas, and personality. And these are the characteristics that win elections. (Money is sort of overemphasized in a lot of analysis. Yeah, yeah - it does matter. But there's sort of a "critical mass" point, beyond which additional money doesn't just get you any more attention or votes. Elections are won on more than money.) Basically, an election is a vetting process - culling people from the herd, separating the wheat from the chaff, or whatever the fuck. I think the folks in these states are uniquely qualified to do just that, given a history of having done it for decades, and the nature of their state creates a pretty fucking level playing field for a dark horse to actually have a shot.
As an aside, I just want to note that I'm not sure how big of an impact moving the first primaries to more "representative" state would even have. Most people don't vote - even fewer of them vote in primaries. People who vote at all are already outside the statistical average for the country; primary voters I'm guessing even more so. Do we think that moving the first primary New York is going to bring out a bunch of poor working class minorities? Really?
Final note: I know it's early to be picking horses in this race, but I'm behind Obama all the way. Maybe I'm a starry eyed idealist, but I think things like "vision" really matter. And I think he has one for the country. As evidence that "vision" matters: I think Clinton did as well; as does Bush. I think he has the kind of charisma and youth that could really mark a change in the direction of the country. He's a figure for a new century - a new fucking *millennium.* Sure, he's young. But he's no dummy. And his youth would stand in stark contrast to McCain and Giuliani (the inevitable Republican nominees) - I mean, who believes these cock-knockers will lead us anymore but where we've already been?
The rest of them ...? .... Clinton ... why do people even like her? She personifies the poll reading, always shifting, power hungry politician. I'm not sure she even knows why she wants to be president. She's scripted and boring. Edwards is just the happier version of her. I'm interested in Richards too. We'll see what he has to offer. Biden and Dodd? Snore.
OK, OK, real final note (give me a break, I've been gone for a while): I'm tired of people who confuse "sophistication" with "cynicism." That's so 1998. It's 2007. Get with the program, or at least stop pretending to be smart.
VIEW 5 of 5 COMMENTS
I like Richards a lot. I like what Obama has to say but, frankly, it's not just his inexperience that bothers me, it's that I haven't seen him do much with the experience he *does* have *but* talk. Wake me up when he pulls for some major legislation or something (unless I just missed it, in which case mea culpa).
Anyway, on the diss: GO!