The other day, while working on a project, I came across an old campaign ad by Jimmy Carter. In it, he promised “Change you can believe in” and returning the government to the people. While his ads were low-key by today’s standards, the message is almost identical to the mantra constantly hyped by Barack Obama: “Change”.
Change can be defined several ways. First there is the obvious monetary definition. Then there is this: change is the process of becoming different, a metamorphosis. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "change is so pervasive in our lives that it almost defeats description and analysis." The entry goes on to say that we can think of it in a very general way as an alteration, but then that raises problems. One of the problems is the consistency of change. “How can one thing have incompatible properties and yet remain the same thing?” Some philosophers consider change a constant process proven by the existence of time. There are others who think the only way to make sense of “change is as an inconsistency”.
Metamorphosis is a term usually associated with transcendent change, going from one creature into another. It is primarily associated with insects. Interestingly, metamorphosis can also be associated with illusion.
Illusion perfectly describes the “change” Barack Obama is promoting with the vigor of an old style carnival barker. Some have described his style as that of the traditional African-American churches, but he’s a medicine show act; the traveling preacher promoting his special blend of snake oil, smoke, and mirrors. Barack Obama has been in the US Senate for only four – count ‘em – F–O–U–R years. He served in the Illinois Legislature from 1996 until his election to the US Senate. Unfortunately, all this rhetoric has caused the American voter to want “change” to the point where it has become an unavoidable litany. He is using it as a weapon against John McCain, implying that as a Washington insider, he is part of the problem and not the solution.
A good military mind knows how to adapt and take the enemy’s weapons and use them against the very one who invented the weapon. No one has ever disputed John McCain’s military background. He has taken the idea of change and is shooting it right back at Barack Obama. There is change, then there is John McCain’s kind of change. He told reporters, "…The message is change. It's real change. I think it's clear I have a record of working across the aisle. Senator Obama does not. I think it's my record of reform and efforts to change the way we do business in Washington. He has the most liberal voting record of any senator in the U.S. Senate..."
Article comments
1 - Dr Dreadful
Not to quibble, but the Phoenix that just reached Mars is a plain old lander, not one of them fancy new rovers. It won't be going anywhere... ever.
And while we're on the subject, who chose the name of the Dallas basketball franchise? Isn't a team of Mavericks rather a contradiction in terms?
2 - SJ Reidhead
Dear Dr. Dreadful;
Mea culpa on the lander.
I know know nothing about any sport but baseball.
SJR
3 - Clavos
"It won't be going anywhere... ever."
Well, it is going to burrow below the surface for about 20 inches.
4 - Dr Dreadful
Well, it is going to burrow below the surface for about 20 inches.
A bit like Lumpy exploring the subtleties of international politics, then?
Actually, Phoenix might not even have to do that to accomplish one of the mission objectives. Scientists are trying to figure out whether the stuff that got exposed by the lander's retro rockets when they blasted the overlying soil away is the water ice they went to Mars to find.
Yes, the photo ain't all that exciting by itself, but once you get your head round the fact that this scene is on Mars, it's pretty darn thrilling.
I reckon even John McCain would agree...!
5 - Dr Dreadful
Back to the topic at hand (as pleasant a diversion onto the topic of Martian exploration as this was... somebody write a piece on Phoenix in Sci/Tech already!): John McCain and his supposed maverick credentials.
Back in the 80s, the predominantly right-wing print media in Britain coined a term for those Conservative MPs who were more centrist than the official party line: "wets". Their dissent was typically put down ruthlessly by Mrs Thatcher and her very own Karl Rove - Norman Tebbit.
"Wet" wasn't a very nice thing to be called, and "maverick" might put a more positive spin on it, but McCain has for the past eight years been in largely the same position. He's been "Tebbited" several times by the White House that I can recall.
Still, he's now in an unusual position in that he will actually be leading his party into the election. Although the "wets" eventually succeeded in bringing down Thatcher, it was still Maggie's man, John Major, who replaced her.
Major's "more of the same" got the Tories (Conservatives) kicked out of office so badly in 1997 that they've only just recovered - by drastically centrizing - to the point where they can effectively contest a general election. If McCain is serious about change, he'd better not become "Bush III" if he wins or January 2013 could be the last time in a fair while that the White House sees a Republican incumbent.
6 - Cindy D
LOL Dr.D,
That reminds me of when I attended Los Angeles Valley College, I befriended a libertarian fellow whom I met when he was promoting his organization which he called "The Individualists Association".
As far as I know he never did get any members other than himself.
7 - Baronius
Dread, here in the states, they're sometimes called Even Republicans... as in "even Republicans have voiced criticism of the President". That's what irks a lot of conservatives. McCain sought out opportunities to be on TV as the maverick Republican senator. He seems to relish the role of maverick. And it's not in service of some clearly articulated ideology, such as drives conservatives or libertarians or progressives to veer from the party line. It feels like he's a maverick just for the attention. Like the kid in the class picture who makes a funny face.
8 - Dr Dreadful
That may be so, Baronius, but the hard numbers show that he appealed to many more of the rank-and-file Republicans than any of his primary rivals. Despite the RINO accusations from some quarters and the hysterical screechings of treachery from others, he clearly enjoys broad support among GOP voters.
9 - Baronius
Dread, I'm not disputing the hard numbers. I was addressing the article. The article, and your last comment, seem to depict the right-wingers as crazies who came up with the term "maverick" as a libel against a thoughtful, well-meaning gent.
In fact, McCain has cultivated the image of a maverick. He rarely leads, never follows, and refuses to get out of the way. McCain is driven by temperment, not by ideology. And his temperment alienates everyone around him. Can McCain be an agent of change? Sure, but the changes will probably be whims, or based on past perceived slights.
10 - Clavos
@#6:
Kind of a contradiction; to form an organization of individualists...
11 - Cindy D
haha, really Clav. it was hilarious. what individualist would want to join?
I was replying to Dr.D's comment about a "team of mavericks" in #1. I forgot to quote him.
12 - bliffle
IMO, these are McCains shortcomings:
1-he's too old. For gods sake, he's my age, and I'll attest that at this age (no matter how much you exercise, no matter how much you study, no matter what...) you are diminished. I hate to admit it, but it's true. Your endurance is reduced, even tho you may be as strong. In a long meeting you no longer can maintain the desire to endure and see things through. Your memory starts to forget things, things you never thought you'd forget. At this age you have to substitute intelligence and strategy for power and strength.
2-he has no real military prowess. He was a mere Jet Jockey, for crying out loud. Everybody who's served knows that pilots are just chauffeurs, not Generals. Pilots know nothing about strategy and precious little about tactics. Good thing, too, or they wouldn't be able to do their jobs.
3-He's not 'heroic', he's just a stoic. He can put up with a lot of discomfort, even torture. Heroism requires boldness and intelligence. Lloyd Bucher was a hero because he devised a clever and brave plan that communicated something important and gave people something to cheer about in captivity.
McCain is such a stoic that he allowed Bush to emasculate him in full view of the nation on the Larry King program.
4-McCain has confessed he's not an expert on international affairs, and his quotes prove that is right.
5-McCain has confessed he's not an expert on economics. Apparently, all he has to guide him is a childish belief in certain old fashioned bromides and homilies about things that he hopes will happen if he leaves some things all alone.
I don't think he can cut it, if elected. He'll become the tool of the bullies that will surround him. He has no real core principles that have lead him to inform himself and no real plan besides 'persevere'.
Enduring more torture is not what we need. we've been tortured enough by this damn war and this collapsing economy. Stoicism will not see us through. Unless, of course, we all marry hyper-rich spouses, which seems to be the McCain solution.
One good thing about McCain: he seems to be an appropriately hypocritical religion faker, i..e., a sectarian or agnostic, or something (or nothing).
13 - El Bicho
Clavos, they probably take Steve Martin's non-conformist oath.
Everyone, repeat after me. I promise to be different. I promise to be unique. I promise not to repeat things other people say.
14 - Clavos
LOL! No doubt, EB.
15 - David
Perhaps if John McCain would stop slamming Change and categorizing it as a democratic word than some independents or such would vote for him? Maybe not?