12/03: Coffee Is For Closers Only
These are the new leads. These are the Glengarry leads. And to you they're gold, but you don't get them. Why? Because to give them to you would be throwing them away. They're for closers.
David Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross remains one of the greatest triumphs of the American stage. A theatrical success, the play was later immortalized on the big screen in 1992. The film showcased outstanding performances by some of the greatest actors of their generation: Al Pacino (as Ricky Roma), Kevin Spacey, Ed Harris, Jack Lemmon (as Shelley "The Machine" Levene), Alan Arka, and Jonathan Pryce. But perhaps the most memorable performance was offered by Alec Baldwin, whose character travels "from Downtown" to the regional sales office of Mitch & Murray on a "mission of mercy" to announce a new sales contest:
We're adding a little something to this month's sales contest. As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anybody want to see second prize? [Holds up prize] Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is . . . you're fired.
If you have never seen it, you can watch this unforgettable scene here.
David Mamet, the genius behind these words, spent most of his life immersed in the trendy subculture of "the Arts." By default, he took the liberal view of politics, of life, and of human nature for many decades. But he has recently recanted:
"As a child of the '60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart. These cherished precepts had, over the years, become ingrained as increasingly impracticable prejudices. This is, to me, the synthesis of this worldview with which I now found myself disenchanted: that everything is always wrong."
"But in my life, a brief review revealed, everything was not always wrong, and neither was nor is always wrong in the community in which I live, or in my country. Further, it was not always wrong in previous communities in which I lived, and among the various and mobile classes of which I was at various times a part."
"And, I wondered, how could I have spent decades thinking that I thought everything was always wrong at the same time that I thought that people were basically good at heart? Which was it? I began to question what I actually thought and found that I do not think that people are basically good at heart; indeed, that view of human nature has both prompted and informed my writing for the last 40 years. I think that people, in circumstances of stress, can behave like swine, and that this, indeed, is not only a fit subject, but the only subject, of drama."
Mamet also has some very sensible things to say about the Constitution, which "rather than suggesting that all behave in a godlike manner, recognizes that, to the contrary, people are swine and will take any opportunity to subvert any agreement in order to pursue what they consider to be their proper interests."
I can't wait to see how his new-found philosophy influences his future work.
Welcome home, David Mamet.
David Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross remains one of the greatest triumphs of the American stage. A theatrical success, the play was later immortalized on the big screen in 1992. The film showcased outstanding performances by some of the greatest actors of their generation: Al Pacino (as Ricky Roma), Kevin Spacey, Ed Harris, Jack Lemmon (as Shelley "The Machine" Levene), Alan Arka, and Jonathan Pryce. But perhaps the most memorable performance was offered by Alec Baldwin, whose character travels "from Downtown" to the regional sales office of Mitch & Murray on a "mission of mercy" to announce a new sales contest:
We're adding a little something to this month's sales contest. As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anybody want to see second prize? [Holds up prize] Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is . . . you're fired.
If you have never seen it, you can watch this unforgettable scene here.
David Mamet, the genius behind these words, spent most of his life immersed in the trendy subculture of "the Arts." By default, he took the liberal view of politics, of life, and of human nature for many decades. But he has recently recanted:
"As a child of the '60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart. These cherished precepts had, over the years, become ingrained as increasingly impracticable prejudices. This is, to me, the synthesis of this worldview with which I now found myself disenchanted: that everything is always wrong."
"But in my life, a brief review revealed, everything was not always wrong, and neither was nor is always wrong in the community in which I live, or in my country. Further, it was not always wrong in previous communities in which I lived, and among the various and mobile classes of which I was at various times a part."
"And, I wondered, how could I have spent decades thinking that I thought everything was always wrong at the same time that I thought that people were basically good at heart? Which was it? I began to question what I actually thought and found that I do not think that people are basically good at heart; indeed, that view of human nature has both prompted and informed my writing for the last 40 years. I think that people, in circumstances of stress, can behave like swine, and that this, indeed, is not only a fit subject, but the only subject, of drama."
Mamet also has some very sensible things to say about the Constitution, which "rather than suggesting that all behave in a godlike manner, recognizes that, to the contrary, people are swine and will take any opportunity to subvert any agreement in order to pursue what they consider to be their proper interests."
I can't wait to see how his new-found philosophy influences his future work.
Welcome home, David Mamet.
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.
What a vulgar thing to say. The incontestable fact that the thoroughly repugnant statement is manifestly true seems entirely beside the point.
There is mendacity in this house.
UPDATE: a hearty Texas welcome to Instapundit readers. For more on Obama and race: The Fire Next Time and 21st Century Race Man.
Geraldine Ferraro
What a vulgar thing to say. The incontestable fact that the thoroughly repugnant statement is manifestly true seems entirely beside the point.
There is mendacity in this house.
UPDATE: a hearty Texas welcome to Instapundit readers. For more on Obama and race: The Fire Next Time and 21st Century Race Man.
Category: Something Personal
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I am back--but what an extraordinary forty-eight hours in the life of a sappy, flag-waving American.
Over the weekend, I visited the nation's capital for the first time.
Scheduled to fly into Reagan National after my last class on Thursday, I made a seemingly inauspicious start, snowed in and stranded at DFW for the evening.
The Upside: I had time to purchase and finally read Jan Crawford Greenburg's marvelous monograph from last year, Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court. The volume came highly recommended by Tocqueville, and he was absolutely right; it is a must read. More on that book in a later post.
I was lucky and fell into the very last stand-by seat on the first DC-bound flight on Friday morning; I finally arrived around noon. A bit inconvenienced but undaunted, I caught up with my wife, and we set out to explore the nation's capital.
Staying in a hotel on 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue (and considering my loyalties, interests, and preferred methodology), you might think our first stop would be the White House. But we decided to visit the branches in constitutional order: Article I first.
The Capital Police informed me that it was no longer possible to walk up the Capitol steps and walk into the front door of the People's House.
May the Terrorists burn in Hell.
Following a helpful suggestion from the officer, we contacted our congressman's office, located in the Rayburn Building (Texas Proud!), where we met his director of constituent services, who led us on a spectacular hour-and-one-half tour of the Capitol (more on that later).
After a night of fine dining at the Capital Grille (you only live once), and an in-room movie (since we were in Washington, Charlie Wilson's War seemed appropriate--and it exceeded my expectations), we set out on Saturday to celebrate Article II.
The White House. It is a commentary on my penchant to conflate pop culture with history, but as we approached the Executive Mansion I could not get Paul Simon out of my head: I'm going to Graceland, Graceland...
Seeing the White House is not an easy task. More high security and no tours without reservations.
May the Terrorists burn in Hell.
Although we walked all the way around the residence, it is only at the front, on the closed-to-automobile-traffic Pennsylvania Avenue side (across from Lafayette Square Park), that one feels even somewhat connected to the historic property.
Not surprisingly, this is where we saw a single CODEPINK anti-war protester. No one paid much attention to him (including the Capital Police officers). Although I cannot say with certainty that some unknown agents of the government did not come eventually to secretly cart him off with the intention of denying him habeas corpus, the pink-clad man seemed fairly content and unmolested in his misery.
After the WH we made our way to the Washington Monument, which is easy to find. Fittingly, the Monument to the indispensable man of American history fills the center of every frame of every picture from nearly every angle of the National Mall.
From the Monument, we walked along the reflecting pool to the Lincoln Memorial. At some point en route to the Temple of Lincoln things got quiet. I fought back the emotion as I ascended the marble steps.
Things Lincoln often reduce me to tears.
I once heard a Lincoln scholar say that Lincoln quite consciously wrote for the ear, and to fully appreciate the majesty of his writing one must read him aloud, so I read quietly and deliberately--but nevertheless audibly--the words of the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural.
As a people, we can never be dedicated enough to the great task remaining for which this man gave his last full measure of devotion.
After Lincoln, we crossed the Potomac River and the Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway to visit the honored dead at Arlington National Cemetery. From Robert E. Lee's lost front porch, one has an awesome view of the Federal City. On the way up we passed the eternal flame of JFK as well as the simple and isolated RFK resting place. The experience was well worth the hike.
Back down the hill and across the Potomac: the Korean War Memorial, FDR, and Jefferson--all awesome in their own way.
Later on we ate at the Old Ebbitt Grill and rode the Metro to Union Station.
The next morning: a long ride to Dulles and a flight back to Texas during which I read from the print edition of the Washington Post and Newsweek.
My sappy, flag-waving parting thought:
"While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer. "
God Bless America
An UPDATE: Tocqueville notices that I neglected Article III and offers this virtual tour.
Over the weekend, I visited the nation's capital for the first time.
Scheduled to fly into Reagan National after my last class on Thursday, I made a seemingly inauspicious start, snowed in and stranded at DFW for the evening.
The Upside: I had time to purchase and finally read Jan Crawford Greenburg's marvelous monograph from last year, Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court. The volume came highly recommended by Tocqueville, and he was absolutely right; it is a must read. More on that book in a later post.
I was lucky and fell into the very last stand-by seat on the first DC-bound flight on Friday morning; I finally arrived around noon. A bit inconvenienced but undaunted, I caught up with my wife, and we set out to explore the nation's capital.
Staying in a hotel on 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue (and considering my loyalties, interests, and preferred methodology), you might think our first stop would be the White House. But we decided to visit the branches in constitutional order: Article I first.
The Capital Police informed me that it was no longer possible to walk up the Capitol steps and walk into the front door of the People's House.
May the Terrorists burn in Hell.
Following a helpful suggestion from the officer, we contacted our congressman's office, located in the Rayburn Building (Texas Proud!), where we met his director of constituent services, who led us on a spectacular hour-and-one-half tour of the Capitol (more on that later).
After a night of fine dining at the Capital Grille (you only live once), and an in-room movie (since we were in Washington, Charlie Wilson's War seemed appropriate--and it exceeded my expectations), we set out on Saturday to celebrate Article II.
The White House. It is a commentary on my penchant to conflate pop culture with history, but as we approached the Executive Mansion I could not get Paul Simon out of my head: I'm going to Graceland, Graceland...
Seeing the White House is not an easy task. More high security and no tours without reservations.
May the Terrorists burn in Hell.
Although we walked all the way around the residence, it is only at the front, on the closed-to-automobile-traffic Pennsylvania Avenue side (across from Lafayette Square Park), that one feels even somewhat connected to the historic property.
Not surprisingly, this is where we saw a single CODEPINK anti-war protester. No one paid much attention to him (including the Capital Police officers). Although I cannot say with certainty that some unknown agents of the government did not come eventually to secretly cart him off with the intention of denying him habeas corpus, the pink-clad man seemed fairly content and unmolested in his misery.
After the WH we made our way to the Washington Monument, which is easy to find. Fittingly, the Monument to the indispensable man of American history fills the center of every frame of every picture from nearly every angle of the National Mall.
From the Monument, we walked along the reflecting pool to the Lincoln Memorial. At some point en route to the Temple of Lincoln things got quiet. I fought back the emotion as I ascended the marble steps.
Things Lincoln often reduce me to tears.
I once heard a Lincoln scholar say that Lincoln quite consciously wrote for the ear, and to fully appreciate the majesty of his writing one must read him aloud, so I read quietly and deliberately--but nevertheless audibly--the words of the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural.
As a people, we can never be dedicated enough to the great task remaining for which this man gave his last full measure of devotion.
After Lincoln, we crossed the Potomac River and the Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway to visit the honored dead at Arlington National Cemetery. From Robert E. Lee's lost front porch, one has an awesome view of the Federal City. On the way up we passed the eternal flame of JFK as well as the simple and isolated RFK resting place. The experience was well worth the hike.
Back down the hill and across the Potomac: the Korean War Memorial, FDR, and Jefferson--all awesome in their own way.
Later on we ate at the Old Ebbitt Grill and rode the Metro to Union Station.
The next morning: a long ride to Dulles and a flight back to Texas during which I read from the print edition of the Washington Post and Newsweek.
My sappy, flag-waving parting thought:
"While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer. "
God Bless America
An UPDATE: Tocqueville notices that I neglected Article III and offers this virtual tour.
First Things remains one of my favorite journals of scholarship and opinion. I have been a subscriber for the past 12 years. To my delight, the latest issue highlights the intersection of two points of interest to readers of this Blog: Religious Faith and the Presidency.
Was the Sage of Monticello an avowed agnostic? Was he a full-fledged Deist? Or were his religious views much more nuanced and complex than we have been led to believe? Steven Waldman argues that our 3rd President was on a personal spiritual journey that took him outside the mainstream.
Also, Andrew Ferguson scrutinizes the endless attempts of historians and politicians to claim Lincoln for some spiritual or religious cause. But, as Ferguson insists, "We will never know for sure whether Lincoln held orthodox Christian beliefs, whether he believed in the Trinity, the divinity of Christ or his resurrection, the life everlasting, the forgiveness of sins, the inerrant word of God as revealed in the Old Testament or the New."
Was the Sage of Monticello an avowed agnostic? Was he a full-fledged Deist? Or were his religious views much more nuanced and complex than we have been led to believe? Steven Waldman argues that our 3rd President was on a personal spiritual journey that took him outside the mainstream.
Also, Andrew Ferguson scrutinizes the endless attempts of historians and politicians to claim Lincoln for some spiritual or religious cause. But, as Ferguson insists, "We will never know for sure whether Lincoln held orthodox Christian beliefs, whether he believed in the Trinity, the divinity of Christ or his resurrection, the life everlasting, the forgiveness of sins, the inerrant word of God as revealed in the Old Testament or the New."
10/03: A Culture in Decline
A recent report reveals a disturbing trend. Apparently, many U.S. parents are now outsourcing their children's daycare overseas. Watch the full story here.
10/03: Insanity?
Category: Courts
Posted by: Tocqueville
What a perverse and strange world our courts and our lawyers have created--a world in which the best and the brightest in America clamor to offer free legal services and consolation to international terrorists who would murder our families, steal our freedom, and end our great country by violence. Everything Cully Stimson said was true.
The greatest law firms in America and the law faculty at leading law schools are directly aiding and abetting the enemy with the money of their corporate clients and with tax dollars. Folly and more folly.
The greatest law firms in America and the law faculty at leading law schools are directly aiding and abetting the enemy with the money of their corporate clients and with tax dollars. Folly and more folly.
10/03: Feddie Is Back!
Category: General
Posted by: Tocqueville
One of my favorite blogs, Southern Appeal, is back up and running.
06/03: Housekeeping...
A Waco Farmer will be away from the Bosque for a few days. I have asked Tocqueville to keep us entertained and stimulated over the weekend. I leave us in good hands.
UPDATE: Tocqueville is having some technical difficulties obtaining access to the Blog, so stay tuned. . . .
UPDATE: Tocqueville is having some technical difficulties obtaining access to the Blog, so stay tuned. . . .
Two weeks ago (Feb. 16), before the gloom of talking-head certainty set in, I wrote:
The nomination is coming down to the super delegates. If they voted today, they would vote for Obama because he seems unstoppable. The good news for Clinton: they are not voting today. She has time to punch a hole in his balloon.
How?
It will be very tough, but Clinton must sweep the upcoming final big three states (very difficult but not impossible). For all that has gone sour in her campaign, Hillary has consistently excelled in these upscale high-stakes contests. Then, most importantly, she must somehow break the "spell" of Obama by casting doubt on him in some way between now and the day of decision.
I have always seen Obama as a big gamble: he could prevail in a huge way ("painting the map blue" as he says). Or we could wake up from our trance midway through the coming fall election season and suddenly look at this guy and say: "what in the hell are we doing?"
Between now and this summer, I can certainly envision a moment in which strategically minded Democratic Party bigwigs entertain grave doubts about Obama's electability. In that scenario, three for the price of one (Obama as VP) may emerge as a much safer bet.
Today:
Texas and Ohio: mission accomplished.
Now what?
It seems impossible now that a candidate will finish the primary season with enough "pledged delegates" to win the nomination. We can also assume, even under the rosiest Hillary scenario, that Barack Obama will finish with a slim lead in pledged delegates.
Inconceivably, after tens of millions of Democrats have cast their votes, 795 super delegates ultimately will decide this nomination.
Both sides will make persuasive cases before this political "college of cardinals."
Obama will argue that his plurality of delegates entitles him to the nomination.
What will Hillary say to that?
1. Why are we not counting the delegates I won in Michigan and Florida? Are we not the party that believes in enfranchisement and counting all the votes?
2. My wins have been more meaningful. I have won the most important Democratic Party stronghold general election states (CA, NY, MA, OH, etc.). Barack Obama keeps winning Southern states and Mountain states where we know the Republicans will prevail in November.
Important Caveat: She needs to keep winning. This discussion is purely academic, if she does not capitalize on this moment of new life. Specifically, her case is much stronger if she is able to move ahead in the popular vote (again this adds to her democracy-centric line of argument).
Most importantly, however, she must create the impression among party insiders (obviously ultra-strategic thinkers) that she is a better bet in the fall. She must continue to create doubts concerning Obama's readiness. She must have a compelling "moral" argument for the nomination--but, much more importantly, she must convince the princes of the Democratic Party that she is the one who can deliver when it counts.
Why now? We are suddenly aware that Obama is not infallible or unstoppable.
The Bottom Line: If the super delegates believe that Hillary equals victory, they will find a suitable rationale for giving her the nod.
One more important component, Mrs. Clinton must deftly insinuate into this campaign the notion that Obama is a better candidate for VP than the top of the ticket. She began that process today.
Why do I continue to believe we will eventually end up with a unity ticket with Mrs. Clinton on top?
Simple Answer: it is the smartest and most logical use of talent in the Democratic Party field.
"Ready on Day One" plus a "Change We Can Believe In" equals a tremendously explosive combination.
Picking Obama and shutting out the Clintons leaves too much talent on the table. Love them or hate them, the Clintons are hall-of-fame caliber politicos. Why bet your whole bankroll on the rookie? Especially when such gratuitous recklessness is not necessary. A unity ticket allows Democrats to spread the risk. Consolidation offers an opportunity to capture three top performers for the price of one.
An Aside: frankly, nothing less than a Clinton-Obama ticket can unite the party, if Hillary finds a way to slip in and "steal" this nomination with the clock winding down.
As I have said before, a Hillary-Barack ticket with Bill, Chelsea, and Michelle added into the mix is the most powerful combination of charismatic personalities since the Kennedys combined with the Johnsons.
In short, it is only common sense.
The nomination is coming down to the super delegates. If they voted today, they would vote for Obama because he seems unstoppable. The good news for Clinton: they are not voting today. She has time to punch a hole in his balloon.
How?
It will be very tough, but Clinton must sweep the upcoming final big three states (very difficult but not impossible). For all that has gone sour in her campaign, Hillary has consistently excelled in these upscale high-stakes contests. Then, most importantly, she must somehow break the "spell" of Obama by casting doubt on him in some way between now and the day of decision.
I have always seen Obama as a big gamble: he could prevail in a huge way ("painting the map blue" as he says). Or we could wake up from our trance midway through the coming fall election season and suddenly look at this guy and say: "what in the hell are we doing?"
Between now and this summer, I can certainly envision a moment in which strategically minded Democratic Party bigwigs entertain grave doubts about Obama's electability. In that scenario, three for the price of one (Obama as VP) may emerge as a much safer bet.
Today:
Texas and Ohio: mission accomplished.
Now what?
It seems impossible now that a candidate will finish the primary season with enough "pledged delegates" to win the nomination. We can also assume, even under the rosiest Hillary scenario, that Barack Obama will finish with a slim lead in pledged delegates.
Inconceivably, after tens of millions of Democrats have cast their votes, 795 super delegates ultimately will decide this nomination.
Both sides will make persuasive cases before this political "college of cardinals."
Obama will argue that his plurality of delegates entitles him to the nomination.
What will Hillary say to that?
1. Why are we not counting the delegates I won in Michigan and Florida? Are we not the party that believes in enfranchisement and counting all the votes?
2. My wins have been more meaningful. I have won the most important Democratic Party stronghold general election states (CA, NY, MA, OH, etc.). Barack Obama keeps winning Southern states and Mountain states where we know the Republicans will prevail in November.
Important Caveat: She needs to keep winning. This discussion is purely academic, if she does not capitalize on this moment of new life. Specifically, her case is much stronger if she is able to move ahead in the popular vote (again this adds to her democracy-centric line of argument).
Most importantly, however, she must create the impression among party insiders (obviously ultra-strategic thinkers) that she is a better bet in the fall. She must continue to create doubts concerning Obama's readiness. She must have a compelling "moral" argument for the nomination--but, much more importantly, she must convince the princes of the Democratic Party that she is the one who can deliver when it counts.
Why now? We are suddenly aware that Obama is not infallible or unstoppable.
The Bottom Line: If the super delegates believe that Hillary equals victory, they will find a suitable rationale for giving her the nod.
One more important component, Mrs. Clinton must deftly insinuate into this campaign the notion that Obama is a better candidate for VP than the top of the ticket. She began that process today.
Why do I continue to believe we will eventually end up with a unity ticket with Mrs. Clinton on top?
Simple Answer: it is the smartest and most logical use of talent in the Democratic Party field.
"Ready on Day One" plus a "Change We Can Believe In" equals a tremendously explosive combination.
Picking Obama and shutting out the Clintons leaves too much talent on the table. Love them or hate them, the Clintons are hall-of-fame caliber politicos. Why bet your whole bankroll on the rookie? Especially when such gratuitous recklessness is not necessary. A unity ticket allows Democrats to spread the risk. Consolidation offers an opportunity to capture three top performers for the price of one.
An Aside: frankly, nothing less than a Clinton-Obama ticket can unite the party, if Hillary finds a way to slip in and "steal" this nomination with the clock winding down.
As I have said before, a Hillary-Barack ticket with Bill, Chelsea, and Michelle added into the mix is the most powerful combination of charismatic personalities since the Kennedys combined with the Johnsons.
In short, it is only common sense.
05/03: The Rock of Cuyahoga County
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
"For everyone here in Ohio and across America who's ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out, and for everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, and for everyone who works hard and never gives up, this one is for you."
Very Briefly: I have been predicting that Hillary would become the next president of the United States for a long time. I came to that conclusion based on her superior organization (which included her access to the best talent), her ability to out-raise and, therefore, out-spend any potential opponent, and her lock on the Democratic Party establishment.
Well, I was wrong about almost everything (maybe everything--only time will tell). But I was certainly wrong about all those insurmountable advantages. As she faces perhaps the most enthralling candidate for president in the last one hundred years, she is losing the money race, she has lost the party bigwigs, and it turns out that her staff were mere mortals. But there she stands, like a stone wall, in the face of withering opposition.
She does it on guts.
She is Hillary Clinton, and she does not give an inch.
Love her or hate her, but admit that she is one tough S.O.B.
Old "Blood and Guts" Hillary Clinton
Very Briefly: I have been predicting that Hillary would become the next president of the United States for a long time. I came to that conclusion based on her superior organization (which included her access to the best talent), her ability to out-raise and, therefore, out-spend any potential opponent, and her lock on the Democratic Party establishment.
Well, I was wrong about almost everything (maybe everything--only time will tell). But I was certainly wrong about all those insurmountable advantages. As she faces perhaps the most enthralling candidate for president in the last one hundred years, she is losing the money race, she has lost the party bigwigs, and it turns out that her staff were mere mortals. But there she stands, like a stone wall, in the face of withering opposition.
She does it on guts.
She is Hillary Clinton, and she does not give an inch.
Love her or hate her, but admit that she is one tough S.O.B.
