The problem with enormity in marketing is that it doesn't work. Enormity should pull at our heartstrings, but it usually shuts us down.
Show us too many sick kids, unfair imprisonments or burned bodies and you won't get a bigger donation, you'll just get averted eyes.
If you've got a small, fixable problem, people will rush to help, because people like to be on the winning side, take credit and do something that worked. If you've got a generational problem, something that is going to take herculean effort and even then probably won't pan out, we're going to move on in search of something smaller.
Not fair, but true.
As someone who spends a who lot of time on a kind of political marketing -- advocating for certain policies or legislation or ideas -- this strikes me as extremely true.
It's much easier -- and probably more effective -- to, say, advocate for funds to expand domestic freight track and get freight off the highway than it is to pass a bill that will reduce all carbon emissions in the country to a given level by a certain date. But if you string together 50 freight-track-like bills, you may reach the same place...
It's true. Kim got a job offer we couldn't turn down -- it included benefits and job security, something my patchwork of contract jobs couldn't offer the family.
We've already bought a house and moved into it, the family is there now. I'm back in Missoula for the rest of the month to wrap up things here, and then I'm off to join them.
A couple of things:
First, sorry about the dead air last week. I drove across country with two four-year-olds and vastly overestimated how much time and energy I'd have to check in and write posts. Actually I learned a lot about four-year-olds, I-90, and myself during the trip. For one, there should be a website that tells parents where the kid-friendly places are along a given route. How cool would that be? KOAs with swimming pools are definitely kid-friendly, as are any rock formations a four-year-old can scramble up. I also learned that, while DVD players offer you and your navigator up to two hours of quiet time at a stretch, they also make your kids squirrelly and whingey. Better to let them pass out from boredom, if you can. At least that way they'll be well rested.
Second, I'm going to keep blogging through the general election. I started this, I'm going to finish it, by golly. So don't mourn or celebrate my absence yet.
And last, believe me, Kim and I are ambivalent about this move. We do not like leaving Montana. Subsequently we've kept our house here (renting it out) as an emergency exit in case Pennsylvania is dreadful. (Although the kids love it already. Go figure.) Montana truly is a special place. If you don't know that already, try moving somewhere. You all have an opportunity to do things right here. Don't fail me.
I don't know about you, but I was pretty disappointed that the New York Giants beat the Pack this weekend at Lambeau field. They ruined the dream matchup! Packers v Patriots, good and evil, The Gunslinger against the Evil Empire!
Now, it's New York v Boston. Zzz-zz-zzz. Now, it's another Manning quarterback. Don't we see these guys often enough in commercials? The media's doing their darndest, of course, to hype the game. Brady's got a hurtfoot! Brady's hurt foot is a ruse! Folks are trying to make the Giants into the GoodGuys, even profiling the Giant's "good-luck charm," a double amputee Iraq vet. But I don't see it. Who's rooting for the Giants and Baby Manning over a perfect season? I don't buy it. It'll probably be another 25 years before we'll see a similar shot at greatness again.
And frankly, while the Giants are winning on the road, against the odds, looking decent, not making too many mistakes, they're going to have to do better than just avoid losing. They have to beat the Patriots. Okay, so they played 'em tough in week 17, but the score was much more lopsided than the eventual 3-point margin of victory. The Giants played their best...and still couldn't do it. Who thinks the Patriots aren't the favorites in the biggest game of the year with two weeks to prepare, and their historical legacy on the line? The Patriots aren't a team that overestimates its opponents, takes days off, sleepwalks through practice, takes anything for granted. They have better game plans than anybody, they adjust better than anybody.
That's what Vegas thinks, anyway. Vegas kicked things off this week by giving the Giants 14 points, which apparently went down to as low as 11.5 after early money went to New York. Eleven and a half points are a lot. I think it'll be closer, but I think New England wins.
Whatever. I'll be watching the game and pulling for the Patsies. I like their chances.
Oh, what's that I hear? The weather's all screwy? You got a global warming problem? Boo-fucking-hoo! I was telling you morons to turn off your lights and unplug all your shit at night to conserve energy in 19-fuckin'-75, for chrissake. Gee, I wonder what woulda happened if we'd all switched to solar power like I fucking did back when we had a fucking chance to do something about it. Think we'd still be sucking Saudi Arabia's dick like a five-dollar whore?
Pete T. already commented on Chelsi Moy's article on the damage Missoula's reputation does for local candidates' statewide ambitions, but naturally I'd thought I'd pitch in.
Pete wisely notes:
I have two points to make. First, we are the center of the universe. Second, if you want to be the Democratic nominee, you have to win Missoula.
That's definitely true. What's also true is that Missoula politicians do have a chance to win the state, IMHO, if they run on a strong economic populist message emphasizing local and state solutions to national problems, like energy and education.
Missoula is a liberal haven, that's true. And certainly a lot of our pet social issues don't necessarily resonate with the entire state. (Although you'd be surprised what floats with the state - medicinal marijuana? Check.) But I'd argue that issues of corporate control of the government, preserving open space and access to our wildlands, trade, livable wages, alternative energy, budegetary responsibility, Iraq, and health care gibe with a majority of the state.
Solutions progressive Missoulians embrace are often local. Sustainable agriculture? Build a couple of community farms inside city limits. Alternative energy? Build "green" homes, create co-operative urban development organizations. Republicans used to talk a lot about states' rights -- until that rhetoric got a little awkward when compared with their actual policy-making decisions.
Do Missoula candidates have a reputation to hurdle? Definitely. It's a reputation that bears little resemblance to reality, one that's been nurtured by the right to nullify the city's political potential influence in state politics. And for good reason. A Missoula-influenced future would push the Republican party to the side.
And there's reason to believe that the perception of Missoula will change naturally. As Moy writes in a tossed-in afterthought:
Missoula is changing. Its borders are expanding. People everywhere are more environmentally conscious. Out-of-state residents are moving in, and bringing with them a wide variety of personalities and attitudes.
Missoula is already the second-largest city in the state, and some predict it'll soon be the largest.
With most of Montana's voters increasingly concentrated in western Montana, the rural Montana vote will hold less weight, [UM professor James] Lopach said.
Running as a candidate from Missoula may not be "the handicap it maybe once was," he said.
The state is changing, and probably aligning more towards the Garden City than it is towards traditional ranching communities. A couple of decades from now, we might be remembering Missoula's "reputation" with nostalgia.
Whoo-wheee! That was some Christmas. I'm exhausted. We spent about two solid days wrapping, packaging, cleaning, decorating, and cooking, all of which the twins dismantled in about four hours yesterday. We're still hauling the rubble out of the house.
For those of you following the health and well-being of the SantaMyth in my home, rest assured that Old St. Nick made it unscathed through the holiday. There are some fights that are bigger than any one family, and this is one. So, yes, the kids asked again about Santa, and I lied, sort of. Instead of telling the truth when asked, which didn't sit well with the kids and the slew of empirical data surrounding them - Santa books! Santa movies! Santa at the mall! - I now answer, "what do you think?" (Hat tip to my sister.) The kids love that answer. That's all it takes, folks.
In return for this little "lie," I got to watch Mr. Proud open his presents - his fleece stegosaurus-themed footie pajamas, say -- and exclaim, "wow! It's just what I needed! Santa really knows me!" Indeed.
After mauling the gifts, we went over to the Missoula Carousel, which runs free on Christmas day. Riding the Carousel on Christmas is evolving into a family tradition. Ms. Marvelous was a sight, with her brand-new fairy wings and glitter shirt, riding Cherished Angel. I'm not sure how it happened, but somehow we ended up with a full-on one-hundred percent girly girl in our family who loves tutus, pink, ballet dancing, ponies, and mermaids. Odd, given that we owned not a single pink item between us (the wife prefers black), until Ms. Marvelous showed up on the scene.
After the Carousel was a dinner party at some friends.
In short, we had a lot of fun, and now the parents are pretty much wiped out. I hope your holiday was as fun, whether you celebrated the solstice, your family's traditions, or the birth of Christ. All things political have been thankfully slow and unimportant, and I've enjoyed the quiet and the time off, as I hope you have.
But now that we're recharged, it's back to business...
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, not so fast! Hugh Hewitt, Michael Goldfarb, Michelle Malkin twist their panties in histrionics over...well...I'm not really sure...that Beauchamp set one anecdote at the wrong base? That the behavior Beauchamp describes is grim?
...the idea that soldiers do mean things in wars is hardly news. Military history is full of the banal cruelty of war. Even under the best of circumstances, putting young men together under stress is likely to have coarse consequences. Just go to a rugby practice or cowboy bar. Give 20-year-olds superior firepower, and most anything could happen. That is no slur on soldiers, unless it is a slur to say that soldiers are human beings.
Bingo again.
Why righties are performing mental gymnastics to continue to rake Beauchamp over the coals is beyond me. They wanted war, they got it. Yes, it's icky, isn't it? But remember, it's these same conservatives that have been calling for more ruthless and savage action from the U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
Hello, warbloggers. War is hell. (Didn't someone famous say that already?) And this particular hell you helped create. And this particular hell you continue to support. The atrocities Beauchamp describes are your atrocities, too. (Unfortunately they belong to us all, even those that opposed the war from the beginning.) No wonder you want to cut yourself loose from him. But I say make up your mind: do you want a war, or not?
