Is it just me (and P6 and Ms. Lauren) or is this story just strange?
And as everyone seems to be blogging about, considering that "Under God" wasn't even there until 1954, what the hell is the big deal? It flows just as well without it. Plus hello, seperation of church and state, goddamit! It was option in my elementary school. About 2nd grade, you had to stand up, but putting your hand on your heart was up to you. By sixth grade, you didn't even have to stand. Natch, the precedent set by removing the under God would probably have major effects: no more "In God We Trust" and the like, but hey, I don't think I'll be especially broken up about.
One of the most annoying ads currently have to be from them. "You thought if there was no more smoking at the job, you'd stop going. But, you're still working, eh?!" Whatever it says. I don't feel like quoting them directly since it all boils down to "we told you so! Suck up some smoke-free air!" I'm not even a real smoker, but they can go fuck themselves. Makes me want to buy those $5 Newports at the train station out of spite. Woo hoo! Smoke-Free NY and a lot bars with suffering business! When the nightlife industry is crippled, we can be smoke-free with nowhere to go. Isn't there a rise in quality of life offenses because of the smokers all outside causing a ruckus? I was talking with someone the other week who I agreed with that said if the city is financially suffering so much, they ought to let people just about do whatever to make some money. City-sponsored cigarette machines in city licensed to smoke bars. Hell, even if they levied a tax on club owners for that, people would be back in droves again, so they'd be making more money. Interesting thought.
An interesting dispatch I found in my email box:
The Emerging Democratic Majority is ours--but we have the power to blow it by convincing future generations of Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and others that their growing numbers are not of interest to us and they have nothing to gain by participating. The right is quite justifiably following a smart strategy which is the only way they can win. They have even succeeded in getting most Democrats to follow a strategy which is the only way they can lose.The last insurgent populist campaign the Democrats dispensed with was Jesse Jackson's, and his math is still sound. Consider this equation from his 1984 convention speech (still a great read-isn't it amazing what you can find online?):
If Blacks vote in great numbers, progressive Whites win. It's the only way progressive Whites win. If Blacks vote in great numbers, Hispanics win. When Blacks, Hispanics, and progressive Whites vote, women win. When women win, children win. When women and children win, workers win. We must all come up together. We must come up together.
Those who think that campaign never set off alarm bells in the halls of power need only remember the Newsweek cover four years later, when Jackson managed to break 50% in the Michigan primary by mobilizing tens of thousands of African American youths to vote in their first electoral experience. Somebody found a fairly scary close-up of Jackson in the throes of an intense speech, face contorted and sweaty in a way reminiscent of Hitler or Sun Yung Moon. The one-word caption, in large-type yellow letters, served as headline, heads-up, and horrified call-to-arms: Jesse?! It was apparently the moment when the establishment, although still dismissive, actually considered that he might win, and began to contemplate what it might mean.
The math, stripped of its eloquence, looks something like this: If minority constituencies could be inspired to vote in proportionate numbers and in line with their historical preferences, a populist candidate would need less than 40% of the white vote to constitute a majority. In other words, in a 100 million vote election, 12% Black at 90%, 12 Latino at 65%, Asian at 60%, White Women at 53%...leads to only 25% of white men needed…. Before you get out your calculators, remember this is only a rough sketch. The theory is that by truly energizing the progressive base, we can further effect this shift to the left.
But, back to less political things, this site is pretty cool. [via Gawker]
Posted by Candicissima at October 15, 2003 11:57 AM