politics

I wrote something on this blog that was reckless and ethically questionable and I want to respond in a straightforward, considered manner. I’ve spent a good portion of my weekend thinking this over and writing a few rough drafts, conversing with friends who say I should respond and friends who say I need not. But the bottom line is that I made a mistake and that needs a response. I think I have finally come up with some words that I hope will address my faults.

First, I was hypocritical. I wrote “This is not the time to be a cynical asshole” and then demonstrated that it was OK for me to be a righteous asshole, which was a pretty asshole thing of me to do.

Second, I abused my position of power. The commenters who take issue with my words because they are coming from the mouthpiece of the Eugene Weekly are right to be concerned. I took 30 minutes to compose my blog and hit the “Create” button without taking more than a few seconds to consider the consequences. This was shitty journalism practice. In the heat of the moment, I let fly some foul words. They made me look like a jerk. For posting such filth, I am a jerk.

Third, calling someone “fuckwad,” “Jaded Rich White Boy,” “cynical asshole” and “cynical prick” was unwise, unfair, immature and just plain stupid of me. It demonstrated my weakness for cheap shots. I expect better of myself. You should expect better of me.

Fourth, I wrote in anger. I’m not usually one to get angry or make knee-jerk speculations. But on this occasion, I simply failed. I failed readers who were eager to hear my opinion on the election and readers who just wanted a fair and balanced opinion on a show.

Fifth, my ideas were half-baked. I should not have been angry at a musician for speaking his mind. I had every reason to feel overjoyed at the prospect of myself breaking free from the grip of cynical thinking. I could’ve put a positive spin on the entire experience, but instead I chose to go the ugly, dirty, mud-slinging route. That was a poor decision of mine. And, judging from your comments, you would agree.

My blog post has made some people lose their respect for me as a writer. I can accept that. But if I didn’t learn anything from all 50+ comments on my blog, I would be making a huge mistake.

So here is what I’ve learned. I’ve learned that making personal attacks might be a way to get people’s attention, but it is not a way to clearly articulate a point or bring about any necessary change. I’ve learned that boundaries are important to have when given an position of influence in the community. I’ve learned I can’t defend my faults; a fault is a fault. I’ve learned that people are committed to reading high-quality, intelligent writing in their local alternative weekly (and its associated blogs). I’ve learned that people will call me out on my mistakes, and for that I am thankful.

I appreciate the experience I had going to see a show and the intense emotions it sparked in me. Judging by the more than 50 comments this particular blog has generated, and the issues and emotions it has brought up, this process hasn’t been a big waste of time for me. Maybe it was for you … I can’t say. For me, writing fills in the blanks on the cerebral experience of life. This is why the Weekly continues to receive letters to the editor and comments on our blog. This is why I continue to write.

Just as I cannot regret getting swept up in Election Night euphoria, I cannot regret what I wrote. There were real feelings behind those words that I won’t pretend don’t exist. But I do regret being a reckless writer. (I really wish I wrote something like this. Damn!) From now on, I will strive to be more precise, mature, considerate and mindful of what I write. I demand competence from others; the least I can do is be competent myself.

I end this post with some words of wisdom courtesy of one of the commenters: "If you really want the world to change, start with yourself." Roger, that.

George W. Bush stole the presidency around the time I graduated high school. Sept. 11, 2001 was around the time I started college. I was supposed to graduate in 2005 but then, while I was sitting alone in my house on Election Night 2004 watching the unthinkable happen, I decided it’d be a good idea to stick in school longer and get a 2nd degree (one that ultimately led to my current staff position at EW). Needless to say, W.’s re-election did not cause anarchy (as Anarchists for Bush were all so happy to encourage). But it did cause a whole lot of jadedness, cynicism, depression, recession and attitudes along the lines of “I could give a shit.”

That attitude was best represented by one-man-band Mount Eerie (pictured) last night at the Wandering Goat. The energy at the Goat was mostly polite throughout the night. As people began receiving text messages on Obama’s victory, some ran outside the Goat to scream into their phones. But the attendees were patient as openers Anna Cordis and Testface each played an hour-long set in a packed and hot Wandering Goat.

When Mount Eerie took the stage, he ran through two or three meandering noise rock songs with his gentle, droning vocals before acknowledging “Thanks for coming out. Is everyone excited for the election tomorrow?” People laughed. Then the dude unenthusiastically acknowledged Obama’s victory and said, “The world is going to end a little bit slower now.”

He was promptly scolded by a few fans up front, who were not having any of it. The rest of the crowd was in shocked silence. What. The. Fuck. Dude!!! Most of the crowd has spent their entire adult lives living under the Dubya Era, we’ve finally fucking broken free of the mediocrity, the incompetence, the hubris, the hate, the jingoistic tendencies, the rape & pillage of our national forests. True, some of this stuff will inevitably still happen under an Obama presidency, but shit, we’ve finally got someone in the White House who feels like he’s on our side. On the side of justice, peace, diplomacy, a thriving homeland. To be cynical after last night is to be a backwards-looking prick.

At one point in his show, Mount Eerie seemed to be lecturing us like we were little kids. “It’s best you learn this now,” he said, after mentioning that the world will keep on fucking itself over. I spent last night with the most cynical friend I know. Someone who refused to watch TV last night. Someone who wanted to go see a show because every inch of her body refused to believe that Obama could be elected. Someone who takes great pains to point out the most depressing details (but all in a snide, sarcastic manner). And you know what, Mr. Mount Eerie Fuckwad, she was absolutely ecstatic, overjoyed, woozy with goodness. Her cynicism melted away in one fell swoop. We both wanted to call our moms. (I called mine.) This was not the time to be a cynical asshole.

Give Obama at least a year to reverse the Bush Doctrine and we’ll see whether cynicism will be back in style. Until then, Jaded Rich White Boy: Fuck off!

***

UPDATE: Fifty comments and a few days later, and I have a new outlook.

I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time the New York Times has noted Republican Senator Gordon Smith's cozying up to the Dems for votes, with Smith stopping just short of endorsing his own Democratic rival, Jeff Merkley, but what's interesting is the timing of the piece, and its placement on the front page (!) of the NYT website. Also, the article points out something I didn't know: "David Brownlow of the conservative Constitution Party, has registered in the high single digits in some recent polls ... [which is] likely to hurt Mr. Smith the most." Go Brownlow!!!

If you're sick of Smith's charade, donate here.

Presented without comment, because, well, I think this pretty well speaks for itself:

Has anyone made a video of Obama misspeaking? Could it even faintly compare? I'm betting not.

I am a 25 year old voter. In the 7 years I've been eligible to vote, I've never talked to a pollster, been surveyed for my political opinion or been exit-polled (mainly because we vote by mail in Oregon). Pollsters don't call cell phones, only land-lines. I'm hard-pressed to think of anybody I know who has a land-line. (And if they do have one, like my parents, they certainly won't talk to pollsters, who are about as annoying as phone solicitors.) The only people I knew who answered these types of phone calls were my grandparents (all since deceased). The Pew Research Center conducted a study that concluded that "National Polls Not Undermined by Growing Cell-Only Population." Of course, the Pew's entire enterprise is conducting land-line phone surveys.

So today the big non-headline is "Clinton takes lead over Obama in Gallup poll". Um, Hillary's been trading the "top" spot with Obama off and on the past month. It's a dead heat, people. Obama will be back on top next week and that will be the new headline. And, add in the cell phone only generation (estimated to be between 10-14 percent of the voting public) and you can kind of see where I'm going with this.

Also, there's this: "Can GOP Voters Spoil the Dem Race?" Answer: In such a narrow margin for victory, of course they can! Apparently Republicans are bored with their own geriactric nominee and want to join in on the Democratic primary-partay.

Is it a big surprise that I'm 25 and voting for Obama? Probably not.
The thing is, I don't know a soul who is voting for Hillary.

See you Friday, sir.

Shortish because paper goes to press today. But packed with info!

1. Stealin' our postal service? The Nation sends out an alert about yet another corporate conspiracy. (Occurs to me that this might affect every small newspaper as well. Hmmmmm.)

2. If you bike occasionally and you live in PDX, The Oregonian might call you a timid biker. And you might get followed in a study, too. Fun!

3. Think the Mafia is all fun and games? Think again.

4. The Gay in sports: Books, websites and HOTT photos of rugby players kissing.

5. More rats leaving the ship: Little Denny Hastert gets out of Congress. (At least $2 million richer than he went in, of course.)

6. Time to make the oceans work for us, baby. Harnessing the power of the waves ... and not just to surf.

7. The world is going to hell in a handbasket. Museums now encourage cellphone use inside. (Me, personally? I approve. But it will be a cold day in that handbasket before any area art museums get on the ball.)

8. Poisoning our kids, part II. This time, it's AMERICAN companies to blame.

9. Another blow against the Boy Scouts of America: Them Native Amurrican spiritualities don't count in Scouting. (Yet.)

10. The Stranger's Erica Barnett writes for other places? Yes, about carsharing, and with a PDX photo in there to boot!

BONUS: Best British headline in U.S. newspaper Award goes to the L.A. Times for "Have consumers gone wobbly?" (As long as they don't fall down ... )

Last night, I watched (for the first time since high school) Sir Laurence Olivier's Henry V.

It's a 1944 movie that actually made me tear up about WWII and the Battle of Britain a couple of times, all the while thinking about the much more anti-war overlay of Kenneth Branagh's Henry V of 1989.

One thinks about war, leadership and the differences between those who have courage and those who do not when watching Henry V. In the scene in Act IV in which King Henry walks through the camp, disguised in Sir Thomas Erpingham's cloak, I was much struck by the words of one of the soldiers, who's telling the king (without knowing it's the king) his views on the responsibilities of the king towards his men who die in battle.

WILLIAMS
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath
a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and
arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join
together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at
such a place;' some swearing, some crying for a
surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind
them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their
children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die
well that die in a battle.

So. Is the cause good? Is it just?