Journal

DITD has a New Home

Greg Hollingsworth — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:44:43 +0000

For those of you unfamiliar with this blog (which is a lot of you) I have been running on WP since the very beginning (which is only a few years ago) and was always happy with the functionality and flexibility it provided me.

However, when my buddy Dan Patterson (who has had the good grace to host my personal podium) said we were changing hosts, I was more than willing to come a long for the ride. So, Devil in the Details is now hosted by the wonderful folks at Sqaurespace. There have obviously been some changes, but I am doing my best to make the new site much better than the old, and the tools provided by SS are making it pretty easy.

I'm going to do my best to post more regularly now that I've got this great new home. I want to thank the guys from SqaureSpace (Dan tells me that you're wonderful guys, and I tend to have faith in his character judgment skills) and thanks to Dan for providing hosting of my rants for over three years now.

The site will be growing as I have the time to do a little more with it, but all the content is here.

City of Nashville rejects English-only law

Greg Hollingsworth — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:24:37 +0000

I don't think I ever thought that I would say this, but way to go Nashville.

Voters in Nashville on Thursday rejected a proposal that would have made the country music capital the largest U.S. city to make English the official language of local government. Returns showed the proposition lost by 41,752 votes to 32,144, local media reported. via City of Nashville rejects English-only law | U.S. | Reuters.

Personally I find english-only laws to be completely anti-thetical to the principles that this country was founded on. This country was built on the backs of immigrants and the mixing of cultures in this country enhances all of our lives. Nothing positive can come from English only laws, these laws can only bring back the discrimination and segregation that we have spent the past half-century to move beyond, so I'm proud of the people of Nashville, or at least of the voters that turned out to make sure that cultural freedom is alive and well, even in the deep south.

President-Elect Obama is Smokin'

Greg Hollingsworth — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 03:25:54 +0000

"It is still okay to discriminate against one group of Americans. This discrimination is not only legal, it is encouraged. You see members of this oppressed minority huddled outside in rain and snow, forbidden to seek refuge. No one feels sorry for them. And yet we may have just elected one of these pariahs as president" Michael Kinsley - Michael Kinsley on Obama the Likely Smoker - washingtonpost.com.

The above words from the pen of Michael Kinsley have started quite the debate on a site I frequent about whether or not it really is okay for our new President, a man who ran a campaign based on hope and change, to be a smoker. Well, I for one say yes, many others disagree, but I guess it is subjective, or is it? Smoking is not illegal in this country, although as a smoker I sometimes feel like it is rapidly approaching that status, as we smokers are sent outdoors in every possible attempt to prevent non-smokers from encountering one of us dirty sinners. Nonetheless, try as they might, the anti-smoking contingent have not yet managed to make smoking illegal, and for all of our sakes I hope they never do. Now, those of you who do not smoke are probably asking how keeping smioking legal could possibly be of benefit to you, well, it's simple really. As long as smoking is legal in this country, it's simply one more freedom that the government has been able to infringe upon. After all, after smoking becomes illegal, the crusade will move on to the next social evil, who knows what that will be? They've tried to ban alcohol before, and I think we all know how that turned out. A lot of people talk about Barack Obama having a responsibility as a role model, and how his smoking would make the children of this country think that it's okay to smoke. Well, I highly doubt that, but to tell you the truth,I would rather that my children smoke than turn into the oversexed, drug addled, drunken buffoons that grace the walls of many tween bedrooms. In fact, I find it terribly amusing that as the daughters of this country become sexualized to a degree never before seen that we are so concerned about one of the oldest forms of rebellion this nation's teens have. I guess that this truly is a subjective argument, those of us who smoke could generally care less whether anyone else smokes or doesn't. Some non-smokers don't really care so long as those of us who do are respectful in the performance of our habit, and the militant anti-smokers, well, they just want smoking completely eliminated, as long as they can keep their booze. In the end, this is a silly argument, it's hard for me to believe that someone would be that upset to find out that the man they elected president is a smoker. Somehow I doubt that the GOP is focusing their efforts for 2010 on the fact that Barack Obama likes a Camel light before bed. I guess what I'm saying is that if President-Elect Obama needs a smoke, he can bum one from me anytime.

A President's Regret

Greg Hollingsworth — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:47:29 +0000

"I regret saying some things I shouldn't have said," Bush told CNN's Heidi Collins when asked to reflect on his regrets over his two terms as president. "Like 'dead or alive' and 'bring 'em on.' My wife reminded me that, hey, as president of the United States, be careful what you say." With the end of his presidency in sight, President George W. Bush is now voicing the thoughts his critics have been making public for years. Many of the statements President Bush regrets represent the boldest and often most controversial aspects of his presidency, and in many ways, these regrets are something of an indictment of many of his administrations policies. We alll remember watching President Bush give a speech on board an aircraft carrier parked just out of sight of San Francisco under a "Mission Accomplished" banner, well, he regrets that appearance. But does he regret the statement, or the policies that have led to the last fice years of the continuing occupation of Iraq and the presence of our military forces in Afghanistan? I wonder about his regrets becayse on the surface he appears to regret a few statements, not the arrogant policy decisions made by himself and members of his cabinet that put our military in these situations. The President regrets calling for the delivery of Osama bin Laden "alive or deead", but does he regret the failure to capture the mastermind of the attacks of September 11, 2001? This administration has had over seven years to track this man down, and while they have managed to kill many of his highest ranking affiliates, bin Laden continues to be just out of his grasp. Does he regret pulling troops out of Afghanistan to invade Iraq, a move that hindered the forces in Afghanistan and is most likely part of the reason that bin Laden managed to slip out of Tora Bora. The President told CNN's Heidi Collins in an interview that he was reminded recently by the First Lady that "hey, as president of the United States, be careful what you say." I agree whole heatedly, although it's obviously advice that President Bush could have used six to seven years ago, before challenging Al Qaeda and all of America's enemies to "bring it on." Perhaps President Bush is trying to do some damage control as he prepares to leave office as the least popular President in U.S. history, or perhaps he is genuinely regretful, I can't honestly say. My hope is for the latter, but I suspect, that like all politicians, his legacy has become the foremost concern of the 43rd president of the United States.

Has the US become Post-Racial?

Greg Hollingsworth — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 17:26:52 +0000

The election of Barack Obama to the office of the presidency has many people talking about the end of racism in the United States, Dave Hill (a writer for the Britsh newspaper The Guardian doesn't think so, and I am forced to agree:

Hopes that Barack Obama's win means defeat for racism are both legitimate and naïve. Their legitimacy derives from the most basic observation of history: no "brown-eyed handsome man" of the type Chuck Berry described could have occupied the White House in the age when he wrote that piece of rock 'n' roll code. Their naivety lies in the exaggerated significance invested in stars - of politics or anything else – and assigned to the slow rise of a black middle class. Dave Hill: Obama and post-racial society | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.

I think the most glaring example of this is the fact that Senator Obama's ascension to the presidency is not being hailed as the election of a Democrat, or as the election of a progressive, but as the election of a black man, and that is the single largest landmark event of the election. If we had moved into a post-race state of mind we would not have a laser-focus on the fact that the President-elect is a black man. I'm not attempting to imply that this is not an event of historic proportion, it is most definitely the most historic election we have had in a very long time, but it does not equal out to the end of racism in this country. There are other signals as well, the defeat of a constitutional amendment in Colorado that would have outlawed Affirmative Action programs in the state. A post-racial society would not need these programs, because there wouldn't be any consideration of an individuals race in any situation. The continuation of systems that seek to level the playing field between the races spotlight the inherent status that race has in our society.

There is only one venue in our society that has become post-racial, where, on average, minorities are on equal footing with whites, and that my friends is sports. Minority athletes are the only group that earn at the same (if not an accelerated) pace as their white counterparts. I haven't checked,, but last I knew, the three highest paid players in the NBA, MLB and the NFL were all minorities (2 African-American and one Latino). In the NBA, there isn't a single white player in the top 10 highest paid players. While the election of Barack Obama certainly signals a watershed change in the relationship between blacks and whites in the US, it doesn't mean that anything has changed among the older generations of Americans who grew up in a segregated society. Senator Obama's election signals that racism is less prevalent amongst the younger generations in America, and that racism doesn't seem to be filtering down to the same degree as in the past, but it is certianly not gone, and as President-Elect Obama has said over and over again, the climb will be steep.

Sending a "Signal" to Washington

Greg Hollingsworth — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 16:45:49 +0000

Isaac Moorehouse has made his intentions known, he is voting for Bob Barr:

I’m voting for Bob Barr. Not because I agree with all of his positions, not because I think he’s a great guy, not because I think he has a chance to win, and not because I think he would even make a good president. I’m voting for Barr to do what economists call “signaling”. That is, rather than allowing my vote to be swallowed up in a sea of votes for major party candidates, and to add myself to the numbers who are basically giving sanction to the anti-liberty positions of both major candidates, I want it to at least send a signal to those who analyze elections that there are some who value liberty and limited government. Western Standard -- Morehouse: I'm voting for Bob Barr.

The question for the rest of us stuck in the middle is whether we can live with another four to 8 years of the "lesser of two evils". I have long taken issue with both the Dems and the GOP, as neither aligns very well with my personal socio-political outlook, unfortunately, neither does the Libertarian party. Independent voters have a serious stake in this election and with most independents leaning towards Senator Obama, the signal has unfortunately become filled with static. Senator Obama has run his campaign on a platform of Hope and Change (although his traditionally Democratic views certainly signal little if nay change from that parties line), the question I am left with is what kind of change will we see if he is elected (and more importantly if the Dems. increase their congresisonal majority). I can't say that I am particularly confident that the change an Obama administration will bring will put this country back on the right path, however, I am convinced that a McCain administration would keep us moving down the wrong path we are already on. So what is a voter like myself to do? DO I swallow my discontent with the political system and cast a vote for Obama that is less about support for him and more about contempt for the current administration (and it's party) or do I cast a "signal" vote and hope that enough others join me that the political flare is actually seen? Unfortunately, the questions I have about the two major candidates cannot be answered during a campaign, only through an honest assessment of how they govern. Thus I am left with my conscience which tells me not to vote for the poltiical machine (Dem or GOP) that has gotten us to where we are and the knowledge that my single vote means next to nothing in the grand scheme of an election, and they wonder why there's so much voter apathy in this country.

Daily Kos: Hypocrisy comes in all colors

Greg Hollingsworth — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:18:39 +0000

I don't normally read the Daily Kos, there's nothing particularly wrong with the DK, I just tend to prefer to get my media from less biased sources (and no, that doesn't mean Fox News.) Today, while adding Newsmakers to my follow list on social|median (which is a great social news site for those of you who haven't tried it out yet) I came across a link to a DK article written by an Obama supporter who had stumbled upon a McCain/Palin meetup in a Tampa Bay-area Starbucks. I don't really want to get into the article itself in this post, as to be honest, it had nothing to do with why I'm writing this. No, it was the poll at the bottom of the page that got my blood a boilin'. I've brought it here, in all it's glory (as well as it's dubiousness). [caption id="attachment_747" align="aligncenter" width="329" caption="Daily Kos Political Poll"][/caption] I'm honestly not sure if should be offended by the options I am presented with, or the fact that anyone would vote on such a ridiculous, useless survey that simply reinforces negative stereotypes. This poll is shameful, I don't know if I can put it any other way without devolving into obscenities that I try to keep out of my posts. As I have tried to make it clear in my recent posts, I do not support either McCain or Obama (nor Barr, McKinney or anyone else at this point for that matter). I am not writing this article because it amkes McCain/Palin supporters look bad (which the Dail Kos article certainly does), nor to make Obama supporters look elitist and condescending (which the poll does without any help from me). The poll bothered me because it validates in Daily Kos readers all the qualities that the articles purports to display negatively on McCain supporters. This poll shows simply that DK readers (or at least a vast majority of them) are judgemental, ignorant, and very easy to sway. I know many, many intelligent, confident, assured, accepting individuals who support McCain (my father for one) and to assume that this small group from Tampa is representative of the larger makeup of McCain/Palin supporters is narrow-minded and honestly, naive. I am not sure who comes up with th polls that run on the Daily Kos, but as someone who takes this election and the issues our country faces very seriously, I am appalled by the utter hypocrisy and lack of responsibility that a poll like this shows. The odds on me reading the Daily Kos in the future, have suddely become very, very small.

And out come the wolves...

Greg Hollingsworth — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:56:20 +0000

When Fareed Zakaria, Kathleen Parker and George Will say it's time to go, it's probably time to go:

Zakaria: "I greatly admire John McCain, a man of intelligence, honor and enormous personal and political courage. However, for him to choose Sara Palin to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. He did not put the country first with this decision." Zakaria: McCain's VP decision is 'fundamentally irresponsible' - CNN.com. Parker: "Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League." Palin Problem: Kathleen Parker on National Review Online Will: "By picking Palin, McCain got the country's attention. That is a perishable thing and before it dissipates, he should show the country his veto pen." George Will::Townhall.com::The Palin Bubble

To be honest, I thought this was a strange selection from the get go, figuring McCain would play it safe and pick someone that he felt he could trust, or at least would add significant credentials to his campaign. Palin is most assuredly trustworthy (at least in that she is locked into McCain's message) but she doesn't add anything to his campaign, aside from the evangelical vote (but Mike Huckabee would have helped there as well). What I find interesting is that there is a possibility that both tickets could change before election day. With rumours circulating about Joe Biden stepping down after the debate on 10/3 and pressure being put on McCain to drop Palin, could we still see an Obama/Clinton vs. McCain/Huckabee ro Romney or Giuliani ticket? I'm actually looking forward to the VP debate, if for no other reason than to see what kind of ammo Biden and Palin give to the SNL writers.

The real problem with American Politics

Greg Hollingsworth — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:52:41 +0000

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="169" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]

In a word, Congress. Congress is the biggest problem in our political system at present. Congress's average approval rating since January of this year is 28% (44% is the highest and 13% is the lowest). In contrast, President Bush's approval rating over the same period averaged 30% (with a high of 36% and a low of 19%). Now I know what you're thinking, these numbers look pretty similar, and you're right they do. However, we must remember that in the 2006 midterm election the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress on a platform of change (which has become a strong theme for both Presidential candidates). The 2006 election was an historic election (complete Congressional control has only changed 3 other times since we began directly electing Senators in the early 20th century). The people of the United States voted strongly to end the "Republican Revolution", and what has it gotten us? Well, aside from a minimum wage hike, nothing. The incumbency re-election rate for the House of Representatives (since 1962) is 92.86%, the Senate (since 1964) is 81.54%. In the historic 2006 election, 94% of incumbents we re-elected to the House, along with 79% of their colleagues in the Senate. Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of President Bush, I can certianly be counted among the 64% of Americans who do not approve of the job he is doing (or has done) as President. However, the problem is far more systemic than the inhabitant of 1600 Pensylvania Ave. The problem with Washington is systemic, add to that the Presidential candidates manage to convince the voters every 4-8 years that things will change, they never really do. We are going to have a new president, that is certain, but what no one is paying attention to are the Senators and Representatives who serve us is Congress. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't even recall seeing a political ad for the Congressional elections in my district, everything is Obama/McCain. The Congress is probably the most important branch in our government, and yet has the lowest turnover rate (hell some Supreme Court Justices, who are appointed for life serve shorter terms than some Senators/Representatives.) This election has centered around the theme of "Change". Obama claimed it, McCain has taken it over as of late and come November 5th, only one thing will most likely have changed. Either Senator McCain or Senator Obama will cease to be a Senator and will become President-Elect, while the loser will return to the Senate and prepare for his inevitable re-election in 2010. The real question is what the American people plan to do about this? Unfortunately the answer to that question is nothing. Voter turnout hasn't been over 60% since 1988, and while I think we will see over 60% turnout in 2008, my guess is that a healthy majority of those voters are under-informed and will vote straight-party tickets or vote based solely on their emotional reactions to specific candidates. We need to take back the political system in this country, and we need to do that by sending a message to Washington at the ballot box, by sending incumbents home and making sure that politicis ceases to be a career and returns to being a service. Personally, I have decided to not vote for any candidate that has served more than two full terms, regardless of party affiliation (hell, neither party represents me anyways, and independent/third-party candidates have no chance at being elected in our system). Who's with me?

House to vote on energy bill, drilling

Push Polling Makes a Comeback

Greg Hollingsworth — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:27:49 +0000

This report from Politico.com may be the first true "push-polling" i've heard about during this election cycle.

Jewish voters are complaining of a poll that, after confirming their religion, asks a series of questions that appear aimed at alarming Jewish voters, including linking Barack Obama to Palestinian terrorist groups. The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn, who took notes, and lists the negative messages:

Obama has had a decade long relationship with pro-Palestinian leaders in Chicago

The leader of Hamas, Ahmed Yousef, expressed support for Obama and his hope for Obama's victory

The church Barack Obama has attended is known for its anti-Israel and anti-American remarks

Jimmy Carter's anti-Israel national security advisor is one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors

Barack Obama was the member of a board (sic) that funded a pro-Palestinian chartiable organization

Barack Obama called for holding a summit of Muslim nations exlcuding Israel if elected president

Ben Smith's Blog: Jewish voters complain of anti-Obama poll - Politico.com.

Those who have received these calls claim that they are being conducted by "Research Strategies". The McCain campaign will obviously disavow any knowledge of these polls, even if the first result in a google search for "research strategies polling" is:

Wilson Research Strategies| Home

Opinion research firm serving Republican candidates, conservative organizations, public affairs campaigns, and major corporations. www.w-r-s.com/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Perhaps that's all a little too convenient, but it doesn't bode well. I would have hoped that this distasteful method of campaigning would not have been seen in an election featuring the man it has most prominently been used against, John McCain. I honestly hope for McCain's sake that this is being done by some rogue 529, but given the way this campaign has been going, it seems like both sides are more than willing to pull out the stops, go negative and play fast and loose with the facts to get to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. as a temporary resident.

Journal

DITD has a New Home

City of Nashville rejects English-only law

President-Elect Obama is Smokin'

Related articles by Zemanta

A President's Regret

Related articles by Zemanta

Has the US become Post-Racial?

Sending a "Signal" to Washington

Related articles by Zemanta

Daily Kos: Hypocrisy comes in all colors

And out come the wolves...

Related articles by Zemanta

The real problem with American Politics

Related articles by Zemanta

Push Polling Makes a Comeback

Wilson Research Strategies| Home

Related articles by Zemanta