Deadlock- Political Blog #2

Just off the bat I have to say that I am not a huge fan of the formats of Presidential debates. I feel that the candidates do not have enough time to thoroughly explain their stances on issues and are forced to use too many media friendly sound byte cliches like "Trying to save Wall Street to help Main Street" instead of offering a cogent analysis on how they really feel on a political issue or how they would confront a situation as President.

I believe Markos Moulitsas' post "My reaction" on his website Daily Kos is pretty much in line with how I feel the debate went. Kos writes:

"And given where McCain is in the polls (lagging and getting worse), this wasn't what he needed tonight.
And given that the status quo probably remains, in a debate that was supposed to focus more on McCain's "strength" (national security), Obama wins."

I do not believe McCain's poll position is quite as dire as Moulitsas is making it out to be, but I think his point about Obama winning because McCain should have done better in a debate over foreign affairs is a solid one. I do not think either candidate really made any huge errors or anything to establish a clear victor. Performance wise I would grade them about the same, but give Obama a slight victory just because foreign policy is supposedly McCain's strongest area and Obama was able to hang right with him. I think McCain tried to attack Obama's personal traits a few too many times instead of trying to clarify his own positions.

I was actually pretty surprised how close McCain and Obama are politically on a number of issues. Their disagreements over Iraq notwithstanding, they both agreed with the buyout plan. They both agreed we should eliminate our dependency on foreign oil. They both do not want to increase taxes for people making less then 250,000$. They both distrust Vladimir Putin and Russia. They both don't think the President should meet with Iran's leaders without pre-conditions. Of course, they both tried to make it sound like they had disagreements on those issues, but fundamentally their opinions weren't that far apart from each other. I think this just goes to show that both candidates are closer to the center then the media make them out to be.

Obama's victory aside, I do not feel that the debate really did anything to sway people's opinions really will not make a huge difference to one side or another. Most people choose who they will be voting for some point on October. Right now they are just getting to know the candidates and I can't imagine there was anything significant enough in the first debate to make an undecided voter lean in one direction or another. Debate performance tends to be overrated in terms of impact on a race. Most people would agree that Al Gore and John Kerry out-performed President Bush in the 2000 and 2004 debates, however Bush was able to overcome his debate performances and win his elections thanks to an otherwise strong campaign. I think the Vice-Presidential debate will be important for introducing Sarah Palin to a national audience. It will be fun to watch, but probably not too important because most people vote for the top of the ticket. Vice-Presidents are important, but they aren't calling all the shots.

This is election is going to be a close battle. Debate performances notwithstanding, I feel that the eventual winner will be whoever is able to generate the most excitement and buzz about their campaign in early November. Whichever candidate is able to establish the most late momentum will become the next president.

Papyrus leads to change we can believe in

Along the course of human history there have been many inventions and developments that have changed civilization for the better and have led to a betterment of society and have allowed positive evolutions to take place. The use of papyrus for writing is one of these developments. The concept of using papyrus as a host for written ideas was seminal development in the process of creating the highly literate culture that we have today. Like most examples on new technology, papyrus led to a better way of life, more convenience, and an easier spread of knowledge.

Prior to papyrus all written communication was completed through impractical means such as stone engravings or messages carved into clay. Papyrus created a written portability with communication that had never been seen before. Now people could have the written materials come to them, instead of having to travel to the location where the text was previously carved into stone or clay. The easiness of mobility with text written on papyrus benefited the Egyptians in many areas. In the economic sector long distance business became easier because theoretically now a merchant in Cairo could hire a scribe to write a letter for him to a potential buyer somewhere down the Nile, whereas before the only way the merchant could talk to faraway buyers was through a messenger, who could be unreliable or by traveling a long distance himself to conduct business, which could be dangerous and too costly. A portable writing surface allowed texts to be spread amongst the common people for the first time, and eventually led to more and more becoming literate. The impetus to learn to read and write was much stronger due to the writings themselves now being out amongst the people, whereas before residents had to take the initiative themselves and travel to wherever the stone blocks with text on them were located.

According to Harold Innis in Communication in History writing on papyrus also changed the way letters themselves were written. Gone were the days of taking hours to carve even the simplest of messages into a rock, now using ink and papyrus, a scribe could produce a message in far less time. According to Innis:"Writing on stone was characterized by straightness or circularity of line, rectangularity of form, and an upright position, whereas writing on papyrus permitted cursive forms suited to rapid writing."
The new quickness of writing led to more shapes and characters used, and got away from the plodding style of pictography that had been previously carved into the stone. On papyrus it was easier to write down what was truly on one's mind. This led to the development of new alphabets and ways to write. Now thoughts that had previously been chained to the mind could now be transcribed to paper for all to see. Previously unknown ways of thinking developed. New ideas spread faster and led to changes in all areas of life.


The use of papyrus as a host for written text was an important development for literacy. In his article: "The End of Literacy? Don't Stop Reading." Howard Gardner argues that literacy and written language is always changing and evolving. The argument can be made that papyrus was a major stepping stone to the literacy we today enjoy via computers or reading. Papyrus set the concept in motion of writing down on sheets of paper. That concept eventually evolved into books. Papyrus also changed the way text was written, much the way computers and cell phones today have changed the format we read texts. Papyrus as a new host for written materials created a debate that closely mirrors the one Gardner brings up in his discussion of how new communication mediums have shaken up the culture:

"In the past 150 years, each new medium of communication -- telegraph, telephone, movies, radio, television, the digital computer, the World Wide Web -- has introduced its own peculiar mix of written, spoken and graphic languages and evoked a chaotic chorus of criticism and celebration. "

Forget 150 years; papyrus caused this debate 4500 years ago when it was first used. Papyrus' detractors could point to many arguments as to why civilization should have stuck to using stone carvings as the premier material for hosting written texts
They could have easily said: "papyrus is very thin and is not durable at all. It can be torn easily and unlike rock carvings, damaged if left out in the elements. It will disintegrate if touched by water and would burn quickly in the event of a fire. Papyrus was a tremendous material for writing down day to day transactions and other notes for the short term, but a unreliable instrument for writing down a civilization's history. A long narrative describing the mummification process would be far more likely to survive to the present day, if it had been carved into stone as opposed to written on papyrus. Papyrus played an important role in advancing society, but not in preserving society."

The detractors were probably proven right many times since papyrus does have a propensity for being destroyed, however the positive changes it had for society, as well as its role in improving literacy have shown that the use of papyrus was indeed a good move and a positive development for human society.


Sources:

Howard Gardner, “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502898.html

Harold Innis, Communication in History. Pp 23-29.

Issue of similarities between Bush and McCain being overblown

Before I dive into an issue, I’d like to let you know that I have decided to change the political blog I am going to follow from Ben Allen’s Politco blog to Daily Kos. Allen’s blog is informative; however all of the posts are way too short and basically just news pieces without any substantive opinions. Even though I agree with very few of the things on Daily Kos, at least the blog has issues to comment on, unlike Allen’s where the only comments I would have been able to make would be about the issues he brings up, but I wouldn’t be able to have any arguments about the content on the blog itself. So, for better or worse, it will be the Daily Kos for the rest of the semester.

A recent issue about the 2008 Presidential election that has been bothering me is the insistence by Democratic leaders, talking heads, and candidates that John McCain is somehow the second coming of George W. Bush. I believe this characterization is deceiving and is completely overblown.

The following post from Daily Kos that really does a good job of expressing the extreme left’s view that McCain is Bush, is the following entry taken from the post “Liveblogging at the Convention” by a writer named “MissLaura”. She writes:

“Hey, I believe in recycling, but that's ridiculous. With John McCain's support, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have led our nation into one calamity after another because of their indifference to fact; their readiness to sacrifice the long term to the short term, subordinate the general good to the benefit of the few and short-circuit the rule of law.

If you like the Bush-Cheney approach, John McCain's your man. If you want change, then vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.”

This point was also expressed several times during Barack Obama’s acceptance speech in Denver.

“But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time. Sen. McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than 90 percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a 10 percent chance on change.

The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives -- on health care and education and the economy -- Sen. McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this president. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisers -- the man who wrote his economic plan -- was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."

Ever since he was selected as the Republican nominee Democrats have tried to portray McCain as being politically to the right of Strom Thrumond in an attempt to tie him to the hip of many of the failed policies of the Bush administration. In reality, over the past eight years, McCain has broken away from his party more than almost any other Republican Congressman and has been a constant independent thinking thorn in the side of the Bush White House political machine. McCain has formed alliances with the likes of Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold and has differed with the party on many issues from illegal immigration to tax cuts. Dan Nowicki in the Arizona Republic does a strong job of chronicling many of the issues that McCain differed with the administration on. Some of his examples include: the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which conservatives hate. McCain’s criticisms over the Bush Administration’s policies on climate change, as well as how McCain was one of only two Republicans to vote against Bush’s 1 trillion dollar tax cut in 2001. (Nowicki)

If John McCain was really a Bush clone, does it seem logical that in 2004 then Democratic Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle would have flown to Arizona in an effort to recruit McCain to the Democratic Party? (Cusack). Obviously Daschle saw something there that convinced him there was a chance of being able to McCain into a Democrat. He wouldn't have tried that with just any Republican Senator. That conversation would have never happened with Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Tom Tancredo or any of the other Republicans who sought the Republican nomination back in the winter. John McCain was also seriously considered by John Kerry as a potential running mate in 2004, before selecting John Edwards. (Bumiller) Once again I am pretty sure that McCain was the only Republican that Kerry would have ever thought about selecting, due to McCain's oftten independent thinking.

The dirty truth that Democrat talking heads and candidates don't want you to here is that McCain has based his Congressional career on his willingness to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats. The campaign rhetoric about change is nice; however the next President is going to have to deal with a severely divided Congress in terms of trying to pass any meaningful legislation. The Democrats will likely retain the majority in both houses, but realistically the margins will be so close that the Republicans will have be able to filibuster and block many of the things Democrats try to pass, much like Democrats themselves did to Republicans the first six years of Bush's administration. The only way things will actually get done in Congress is if the President is willing to compromise. John McCain's record has proven time and time again that he will. Up to this point in his legislative career Barack Obama hasn't really proven anything at all to preview whether he will be willing to compromise at all. Unless the President is willing to swallow his ego and accept some of the things the other side is willing to offer nothing meaningful will get done in the next four or eight years. The Maverick John McCain is the real thing, not the Bush following conservative monster that people are trying to make him out to be. His record reveals the real truth, not the capaign rhetoric.

References:

Bumiller, Elizabeth. "McCain asked about Kerry's VP Offer."

The New York Times. 7 March 2008. 12 September 2008.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/mccain-asked-about-kerrys-vp-offer/

Cusack, Bob. "Democrats say McCain nearly abandoned GOP."

The Hill. 28 March 2007. 11 September 2008.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html

Nowicki, Dan. "The 'Maverick' and President Bush."

The Arizona Central. 1 March 2007. 14 September 2008.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter11.html