The Manic Hashtagger

The Manic Hashtagger - 'Went to a #restaurant and #ate #steak! #organics #food #health #farmtotable #sustainability #peakoil #p2 #hcr #obesity #meat #vegetarian #tlot #tcot', Nuff said.

Four Types of Annoying Twitter Users

Now that I’ve been on Twitter for all of four weeks, I think I’m qualified to start engaging in a little amateur Twitter anthropology (Twithropology?). There are a bunch of different Twitter types out there and boy its sure fun to name them. I post this not in judgment, but in observation, I’m no Twitter Saint either. Still, who doesn’t love a good navel gazing list, so here we go with the first batch of four:

The Krugelhorn The name comes from a mixture of Paul Krugman and the Flugelhorn. Basically, a Krugelhorn posts links to the most obvious main stream of columnists without the benefit of any analysis or perspective. You wake up on Monday and you read a tweet that says “Paul Krugman of the New York Times on Health Care Reform”. Really? There is a columnist named Paul Krugman? And he publishes a column on Monday’s and Friday’s? Plus he has something to say about health care reform? I did not know that. That guy ought to win the Nobel Prize or something.

Krugelhorns can also be found tweeting, Ezra Klein, TMZ, the DailyKos, pretty much any mega-site that dominates an area of content is going to generate its share Klugelhornian posts. This isn’t to say you shouldn’t tweet these sites, I can be a little bit of a Krugelhorn myself at times, but at least try to read the column first and pull out a juicy part.

The Pugilist – The Pugilist comes out of nowhere and picks an aggressive, in your face “@” fight probably with the intent of increasing their ranking on Twitalyzer or Klout. You’re happily tweeting away, you post something, then all of a sudden you get a tweet saying ‘@Yourname Well of course you realize this reflects your centrist conventionality.’ Or better yet ‘@Yourname This is all a plot to place the head Bristol Meyers Squibb as Secretary of Health and Human Services’ or ‘@Yourname, You know we alll have the responsibility for social justice.’

You get the drift. You’re just sitting there and someone starts messing with you. Weirdly, if you respond the person gets nicer, then they start following you, then they list you in their #FollowFriday and they start acting like your best friends. It’s a weird way to build a network to me, but I guess it must work for some people.

The Freedom Flamer – Usually these Tweets are in all caps or include the word ‘Obamacare’. I’m not saying all conservative tweeters are idiots, and in fact I’ve had nice interactions with a few, but really what kind of audience is there for the 4,000th iteration of ‘READ THE BILL. READ THE DAMN BILL.’ Or ‘OBAMACARE, NO THANKS, I’LL TAKE NOBAMACARE’ (Noticed I combined the all caps and the Obamacare in that one). Are there people out there reading the Tea Party twitter feed thinking to themselves ‘Allright! That FistOfLiberty2012 really has a point there. I need to remember to use the word NOBAMACARE at my next regularly scheduled book burning.’? I have to hope not.

The Flirty Girly – Have you seen this post ‘I’m so sore, you know, down there, from all that … fun, wink, I had last night.’ The profile picture is of a pouty 17 year old using the hand held cell phone to take a down the cleavage shot. The weblink is to a porn site or something. Yes, I know these are mostly spam but some are not. These are really barely over 18 girls trying to make a buck using their cell phone cams and Twitter. I think there was a time back in the Genesis days of the internet when all these posts were exactly what you think they should be, namely some Russian Mafioso spamming twitter to generate traffic to his porn site of beautiful Latvian girls. Now, I sort of believe them and I think at least at times, this sleazy Flirty Girly thing has become a revenue model for real people. It’s not that I’m sex negative, and there are plenty of actual porn starlets (Belladonna, Lexi Belle, etc) who write engaging, humane, intelligent tweets about their lives. What’s sad about this low rent version is the desperation or the laziness involved. I mean you’re selling your ass on Twitter? I’m assuming hitting it big here means making $20,000 a year.

If it's wrong, I don't want to be right

If embedding YouTube performances in your blog is wrong, then I don't want to be right. From the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Show, Bono, Mick, and Fergie, Gimme Shelter . . .

Comfort Without Interrogation

Yesterday’s Atlantic piece about Chris Mathew’s “I forgot he was black tonight for an hour” gaffe had me adding Ta-Nehisi Coates to my blog roll and sent me tweeting all day long. I admit, as someone who is neither black nor much of a cable news watcher, I initially thought the controversy was something of a tempest in a tea pot. I had chalked it up to the usual outrage machine that rules much of cable TV and the blogosphere. For emotion junkies, righteous indignation is the cheapest high you can get.

But Coates’ piece is simply brilliant and shows exactly why the Mathew’s gaffe is both important and worthy of discussion. A great column can take an individual incident and reveal the layers of culture that combined to create it. I’ll quote a bit of the piece here, but you really need to go read the whole thing. And even better one makes you see that situation in an entirely new light. Coates’ piece did both. I’ll quote a bit here, but you really need to go read the whole thing.

I think it's worth noting that Chris Matthews wasn't trying to take a shot at anybody. I also think it's worth noting that he was attempting to compliment Obama and say something positive about what he's done for race relations.

[snip]

Ditto for Chris Matthews. The "I forgot Obama was black" sentiment allows the speaker the comfort of accepting, even lauding, a black person without interrogating their invented truth. It allows the speaker a luxurious ignorance--you get to name people (this is what black is) even when you don't know people. In fact, Chris Matthews didn't forget Barack Obama was black. Chris Matthews forgot that Chris Matthews was white.

[snip]
This is why Obama will never be postracial--he can't make white people face the lie of their ignorance, anymore than Jimmy Baldwin could make black people face the lie of our homophobia. It's white people's responsibility to make themselves postracial, not the president's. Whatever my disagreements with him, the fact is that he is brilliant. That he is black and brilliant is pleasant but unsurprising to me. I've known very brilliant, very black people all my life.

"Will", it Has a Power

Knowing the effort and study that goes into these speeches, I wouldn't be surprised if this were intentional. Intentional or not, its a good sign. Before last night the Democratic party was fraying at the edges with is divisions obvious and growing. We on the left side were looking for some backbone, some force or direction . . . ahhh screw it, why not let the picture speak for itself.

Published by the Boston Globe, I present the 'wordle' of Obama's State of the Union Address. Words that appear more frequently are displayed the largest. (h/t: Daily Kos Abbreviated Pundit Roundup)

It Aint Easy Being President

If there is one thing you can count on Barack Obama for, it’s to give a good speech. Last night was no exception as Obama delivered his State of the Union Address with grace, humor, and fight. In his speeches Obama has always shown the ability to connect with his audience without resorting to pandering or gimmicks. Obama never embarrasses his supporters when he speaks. His speeches serve to remind the listener of his best qualities and to inspire the listener to look for these qualities in themselves.

It is perhaps within the ground laid by Obama’s aspiration speeches that the seeds of his problems the last year have been sown. Contrasted against such moving exhortations, the ugly machinations of everyday Washington appear grotesque. Why does a man who seems so engaged and understanding on the stump often come off as remote and out of touch in between speeches? Why does a man who speeches commit him to transformational change in the service of ordinary people so often tactically first turn to business interests when there are problems to be solved?

It’s a puzzle, and the present answers to that puzzle have been mostly unsatisfying. Obama’s most vocal supporters have argued that the President simply plays the game of politics on a higher level than most of us can understand. His biggest detractors on the left describe Obama as a ‘corporatist’, left-wing slang for a sell-out, and argue that his actions simply match his intentions.

There are merits to both these arguments, Obama’s strategic thinking can be dazzling while the results of his strategies so often benefit corporations, I think the answer to the Obama puzzle is simpler. It’s just not easy to be the President of the United States, especially in times like these.

If Obama’s speech last night reminded me of anything it was that its hard to be the President. A president needs to master a huge range of substantive details, build and balance coalitions around each issue, feed an increasingly fickle, undereducated, and irresponsible press corps, and finally find ways to break through the constant chatter of our society to communicate with citizens who often don’t have the time to hear information but are perfectly willing to form and voice their opinions anyway. Anyone who has ever tried to accomplish a single task of modest scope and complexity can understand the difficulty any President must face.

Not surprisingly, like most President’s in my life, Obama had a rocky first year. History shows that most President’s approval falls in their first year in office as they tackle the difficult problems they’ve inherited from the last administration at the same time they and their staff’s learn how to do the job.

Given the vital importance to both the country and the progressive left of a successful Obama Presidency, I am inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and wait and see what his second year will bring. His State of the Union Speech hit the right notes, he confronted the Blue Dogs directly, he gave the marching orders to get healthcare done, he committed to improve jobs and welfare of the working classes and to eliminate of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and (perhaps most importantly) he seems aware of and ready to deal with the potentially civilization destroying problem of peak oil (although he of course couldn’t use those words). Obama might not have had a perfect first year, but right now he’s the best chance we’ve got. I’d suggest the left double down on him for his second year.

Democrats: The Dry Powder Party

I am not a Washington insider and I have no privileged access to information. When the spirit moves me, I can be a close reader and I can draw the obvious conclusions. Today's New York Times article 'Democrats in Congress Say the Pressure's Off on Passing a Health Care Bill Soon' offers a few interesting quotations for consideration.

Take first, the statement of Senator Evan Bayh regarding the use of reconciliation to make minor fixes to the Senate Bill passed just weeks ago by 60 seated members of the Senate:

Mr. Bayh said, “It would destroy the opportunity, if there is one, for any bipartisan cooperation the rest of this year on anything else.”

The same article goes on to quote Republican Leader Mitch McConnell as saying:

“This a clear sign that the administration has not gotten the message, that it’s become too attached to its own pet goals, that it’s stuck in neutral when the American people are asking it to change direction.” He said Mr. Obama should “put the 2,700-page Democrat health care plan on the shelf” and “move toward the kind of step-by-step approach Americans really want.”

Now, while I am not a mind reader, I am able to put two and two together. Any semi-sentient person should conclude that a guy who uses a fully formed statement of opposition, in which every single word has been focus group tested to ensure maximum negative impact (2,700-page, Democrat health plan, step-by-step approach, etc) is not a guy who is going to be interested in forging a bipartisan consensus. But don't take my word for it, the New York Times itself concludes their article with the statement:

Republicans, however, have not come forward with any new proposals, and Mr. McConnell has said he hopes the health care bill is now dead.

So case closed right? Its obvious, or at least it should be, that the Republicans are simply looking to kill the health care bill. That should not be a controversial statement and I think most thinking people on both sides of the aisle would agree candidly with that assessment.

Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. The Republicans are an opposition power. It is, to a large extent, their obligation to the people who elected them to use what power they have to impede the progress of the other team. Just like no one should expect the Colts to act in cooperation with the Saints in the Superbowl, no one should expect the Republicans to work with the Democrats on health care reform. If they were interested in health care reform, they would have tried to pass it themselves. In fact in Medicare Part D, the Republicans did in fact pass exactly the type of health care reform they were interested in passing. We can analyze that bill to see what that tells us another time.

The obvious implication is that if the Democrats want anything they are going to have to fight for it. Again, this shouldn't be surprising or controversial, its just simple reality. If a team wants to win the Superbowl, they better be prepared to come out and tackle, right?

Obviously, thedemocrats need to fight to translate their principles into legislation and if they won't fight for the principle of health care reform, what will they fight for? The question then is will they. While it is important to wait for Obama's speech tonight to hear the details of our plan moving forward, the murmurs I hear from Congress are not encouraging. From the same Times article we have Diane Feinstein.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said Democrats were assessing their options on health care. “It’s a timeout,” she said. “The leadership is re-evaluating. They asked us to keep our powder dry.”

One has to ask when has our powder ever been wet? I will wait hopefully for tonight to see, and I would like to stay optimistic. I would hate to see the Democrats become simply the Party of Dry Power. Let's hope they chose a more vigorous approach.

Battered Spouse

My wife says I have battered spouse syndrome with regards to Obama and the Democratic party.