« So, I Guess John Kerry Said Something Stupid | Main | Real Men Of Genius »
An Explanation for Mitch Berg
By Jeff Fecke | November 1, 2006
Mitch Berg thinks he’s got me in a box:
But 48% of you did [care about Kerry's opinions] - some of you still think he won the election.
So which is it?
Mitch, let me explain something here. It’s a bit of a tricky concept, but hopefully you can understand.
We live in a four-dimensional universe. Three of those dimensions are spatial–the x, y, and z axes. The fourth dimension is called “time.”
Now here’s where things get tricky. You can move any direction in space, but time moves only in one direction–from “the past” to “the future,” and always at the same rate (one second per second). Things that happen “in the past” are not, in fact, “happening now.” They “happened then.”
John Kerry is not the Democratic presidential candidate. He was, in 2004, in the past. He ran a pretty lackluster campaign typified by his inability to explain himself clearly–much like his botched joke of Monday, in fact.
In 2006, he is not running for any political office. He’s the junior Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and because of his past run, he’s got a bit more standing in the Democratic party than, say, Mark Dayton or Herb Kohl.
But he’s not the President of the United States. He actually lost in 2004. And while I still would vote for him, believing that it’s better to have a president who says dumb things than a president who does dumb things, he’s no more a spokesman for all Democrats than Bob Dole is for all Republicans.
Topics: Blog Navel-Gazing, Election 2006 | 5 Comments »
November 1st, 2006 at 5:06 pm
A lesson in context for Mr. Berg:
Because republicans seem to enjoy engaging in outrageous claims based on simple oratory blunders:
“I would guess, I would surmise that some of the more spectacular bombings are done by al Qaeda suiciders.”
-George W. Bush, on violence in Iraq, Washington, D.C., Aug. 21, 2006
Do I think President Bush endorses these bombings? Of course not. Why? Because I am a logical person that uses all information I have to give quotes context. On the flip side, let’s take a look at this one:
“This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting, one of the two.”
- Rush Limbaugh on Michael J Fox’ Parkinson’s disease
Again looking at all information I have about Rush Limbaugh I am accurately able to give this quote the context which it deserves.
Do republicans really want to play this game? George W Bush (the president, not John Kerry)says something every week that people could be outraged about and demand an apology if they don’t think about it and come to their own intelligent conclusions.
November 2nd, 2006 at 6:51 am
C,
Pedantic AND dumb. You’ve achieved the leftyblog commenter bifecta!
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:57 pm
A note to anybody who has donated money towards Mitch’s laptop:
Because of Mr Berg’s adversion to any sort of compensation for blogging, I hope you reconsider your donation. Mr. Berg does not need your charity and would be offended by the notion that because you bought his laptop which he blogs from, you now control the content of his blog.
I hope you post that on your site Mitch. Hipocrisy, shamlessness, and ignorance…congrats on the righty blogger trifecta.
November 4th, 2006 at 8:13 am
Oh, C Raz. Dear, simple C Raz.
I have no problem with people being compensated for blogging. I wouldn’t mind someone tipping me out $1,500 a month for something I’ve been doing for free for almost five years!
But what’s the problem with making sure people know it?
Especially in the cases of people who, say, call John Hinderaker and Mike Brodkorb “Hacks”?
An informed readership is a happy readership.
November 5th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
As one of my students who is considering joining the Army said to me: “Ms. C: They’ve lowered the passing score on the ASVAB to a 31. I got a 67. I’m not too sure I want to get shot by my own guys!”
He does have a point.