Ethanator's Random Ramblings

It's obvious that one of Clinton's selling points is nostalgia for the good ol' days of the 1990's under her husband. At the rally I went to last week, Bill actually said something like, "Do you remember the prosperity of the 1990's? How would you like to go back to that?"

Obama, while touted as the fresh voice of the future and all, is obviously working with a fair bit of nostalgia of his own from a few more decades back: the 1960's. Just listen to him speak and try NOT to see him as some kind of hybrid of JFK and Martin Luther King. He has a similar message of hope that if we are all inspired by a great leader to pull together, we can change the world.

What's funny about this is that the over-60 demographic, who actually remember JFK and MLK, have tended to vote for Clinton, while younger people have tended to vote for Obama. I'm not sure what to make of this, but I thought it was interesting.

Has anyone else ever been watching Obama speak and thought to themselves, "Thank God he's using his powers for good"? Seriously, he'd be a great cult leader or dictator.

Or should I think like this? Most Americans seem to vote on whether they like somebody or "with the gut" (a la Stephen Colbert's truthiness). Obama appeals to the gut. Therefore, Obama appeals to voters and can win the election and move everyone forward through the mysterious power of inspiration. Is this a good argument? Are the premises true? Do they support the conclusion?

Another thought: Being an empiricist-leaning philosopher in the tradition of Hume and Quine, I like to be able to see and touch things before I claim to know them. Clinton offers small seeable, touchable changes. Obama offers some mysterious ineffable thing called "inspiration," which may be more in line with philosophical views of rationalism, wherein knowledge ultimately comes from firm ideas, or even in line with some kind of vitalism or Nietzschean will to power or Heideggerian authentic historicality. Are my epistemological views deciding who I vote for?

This is the problem with being a philosopher during election season.

I had an interesting discussion with my sister last night about Obama and Clinton. She's an Obama supporter. Out of that, and an article posted by 👁 Image
mar1nka, I came up with the following thoughts (based on an email to my sister).

I think this quote sums up what I see as the main difference between Clinton and Obama, and why, while the decision was really, really close and difficult for me (and continues to keep me thinking), I think I will go with Clinton. I'm not trying to change your mind, but trying to offer this as a good way to understand where our differences lie. ( Read more...Collapse )

In the last few days I have seen Bill Clinton (Thurs. on campus), Barack Obama (very briefly before a bigger rally on Fri. I couldn't get into due to overcrowding) and Hillary Clinton (at a rally tonight at Highland High - and since Mike Judge grew up in Albuquerque, this is probably THE Highland High of Beavis and Butthead. Awesome.). I saw Chelsea tonight too, so I feel all friendly with the Clinton family this week. I guess everyone was holding off on coming to NM until Richardson dropped out. Bill Clinton is coming back tomorrow to watch the Super Bowl with Bill Richardson, which I find amusing.

Check out this website. It's really interesting to have someone actually check the facts of all the candidates. Nobody is innocent. It's fun.
http://www.factcheck.org/

After putting it off, I've really been debating the last several days who to vote for on Tuesday. ( Read more...Collapse )

It was interesting to watch the Iowa coverage last night, but I've always felt really disconnected from the caucus/primary thing. It feels like the least democratic part of the process, since by the time the majority have any say whatsoever, a few states, the party big whigs, and the media have already pretty much decided the candidate. I did caucus four years ago in Minnesota, but Kerry was already the de facto candidate, so I voted for Kucinich to make a point and because I like him even though his chances of ever winning the nomination are only slightly better than mine. In the meantime, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. I haven't really even bothered to look at the candidates much yet. I might vote in the New Mexico primary, but it won't really matter by then. I'll just wait to vote for the democratic nominee in November. They all seem decent enough and could probably beat a Republican. Any democrat would be better than Dubya (hell, even most of the Republicans would be better than Dubya). Oh well, maybe I'm just in a cynical mood.

Since the department puts our email addresses on the website, we get some interesting spam. I'm not entirely sure what this is about, but it involves mathematical equations that have something to do with how you're going to hell:

http://www.frankhatchiii.com/

I wish I were one of those linguists that knows 25 languages fluently. If I were, I might know all of these:
( Read more...Collapse )

Has anyone else seen the Game Show Network show, Without Prejudice? It's a bit hard to explain, but basically a panel of people decides which of several contestants gets $25,000 solely based on who they are. The first contestant is voted off based only on their five-second introduction and the rest are voted off based on answers to various questions.

I'm not sure whether it's a facinating look at sociological and psychological functions of prejudice and the concept of who deserves what or a good case study in poor reasoning and basic cable sensationalism. Probably some of both.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0870980/

Apparently this is actually happening. I just watched the original "The Producers." I was searching imdb to see if there were any other Mel Brooks movies I haven't seen and this came up. I love Spaceballs! My sister and I watched it constantly when it first came out and still watch it together every year or two. I wonder if the show will be any good.