Frogs and Ravens

Note to Self

Do not shave dry legs.  Ever.  Even if you think it will work this time.  It won't.

*scratch scratch scratch*

The "F-Word"

Last night, in a rather silly (but fun) comments thread/battle, David of Scrivenings and I had a western historian's moment, in the course of which I expressed doubts about the work of one of the Big Names of the field, Patty Limerick.  David wanted to know more about these doubts, so I promised a more elaborate answer later (given the limits of comment thread space).  jo(e) and Phantom Scribbler also expressed interest.  So here goes.

(Note:  it has now been several years since I've actively thought about this, and my notes turned out to be crappier than I'd assumed -- does one ever take truly good notes on things one believes one knows cold? -- and my copy of the book is in storage, so I'm apologizing in advance for any less-than-stellar explanations.  Hopefully David can step in when I falter.)

Most of you will probably need some background first.  For a long time, the history of the American West has been dominated by what has since come to be known as "the frontier thesis."  It was first laid out by Frederick Jackson Turner in an 1893 address at one of the World's Fairs (Chicago?) in response to a US Census report that declared, due to population spread and growth in the West, the frontier was now "closed."  Turner, in his talk, articulated a theory in which he claimed that the uniqueness of American society and culture rested in large part on its repeated encounters with the outer edge of civilization, that is, the frontier.  The crucial mechanism, he argued, was that over time, successive waves of migrants recapitulated the rise from savagery to civilization, starting in a primitive wilderness environment that they built up from scratch time and time again.  Moreover, he claimed, this frontier had played an important role for the more unsettled members of society, by providing a safety valve of sorts.  His stance at the time of his presentation was one of both optimism and misgivings about the "closing" of the frontier; his "frontier thesis," as it came to be known, was an attempt to make sense of the larger implications. 

The frontier thesis came to dominate a considerable degree of American historical thought in subsequent years.  If, as a kid, you read stories about waves of bold pioneers marching westward into unsettled lands and driving the Indians before them, you were reading history influenced by Turner. However, it turns out that there are numerous problems with this thesis, problems that received particular scrutiny in the wake of the transformations wrought on the historical profession in the 1960s and 1970s.  (Short story:  a new generation of historians, who'd grown up in a time of social turmoil, brought their politicized sensitivities to racial, class and sexual discrimination into the academy -- sensitivities that combined with a growing interest in the "social sciences.")  Among the larger problems:  ethnic insensitivity (especially with regard to Indians),  an absence of a discussion of the role of women, a blindness to environmental factors, and above all, an air of perceived triumphalism (which, honestly, I don't think was predominant in the original text).  So a new group, touting the New Western History, set about challenging Turner and his thesis, and writing a new narrative.  One of these was Patricia Nelson Limerick, who wrote The Legacy of Conquest in the 1980s.

(There are other aspects of Turner's thesis that don't work, particularly the notion of steady waves of rebuilding migrants -- the settlement in the West actually occurred leapfrog fashion, with early cities providing a framework for later immigration -- but I do think Turner got one thing right:  the importance of the Western environment in the process.  More on this later, perhaps.)

Anyway, as I recall, Limerick's central argument was that the West should not be viewed from the perspective of the supplanting waves of migrants, but in terms of those who were already in the West.  That is, we should not lose track of the Native American and Hispanic cultures who were displaced and marginalized.  This, she argues, means that the West is not defined by civilization building, but by colonization, by successive waves of conquest and re-conquest.  She includes the environment among the "victims" -- a move that I have particular issues with, as I'll explain in a moment.  (People who really want to grasp my upcoming points may wish to track down her book.  It's a pretty quick and friendly read -- one thing that Limerick does admirably is insist that history books be readable and interesting to the general public.)

I have three main beefs with Limerick's argument, even though I appreciate its role in reframing Western history.

The first is that her understanding of "environment" is profoundly naive and anthropocentric.  As an environmental historian, it grates when people blithely talk about "Nature" as if it were an active agent that can "suffer," "strike back," etc.  One thing that I appreciated about Turner was that he saw the environment of the West as having transformative capabilities, but in his case it was because people had to adapt and re-adapt to it, not because the environment itself was actively changing them.  Limerick's framing is useful rhetorically; analytically it is primitive and overly simplistic.

The second is that for all her emphasis on changing the viewer's perspective from East looking at conquered West, to West looking at conquering East, she's still oddly focused on the East.  She tends to talk about the West predominantly in terms of its relationship with the East (which makes some sense, given the profound effects of that relationship), and to see change as something that is imposed from without rather than also developing from within.  You get, weirdly, an impression of static cultures being bowled over by a wave of change/conquest, and then changing as they struggle to survive and adapt.  Since I know from my own work that change does not occur only in the instance of cultural conflict, that cultures develop and evolve according to internal dynamics as well as external pressures, I (again) find her explanation somewhat simplistic.

The final beef is more of a quibble, really.  It's this:  for all that Limerick (and other members of the New Western History) purport to be about challenging and overturning Turner, they are so preoccupied with doing so that they tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater in a number of instances; simultaneously, they continue to allow their work to be defined by his thesis, even as they challenge it.  There are waves of settlement in Limerick's book, there is a sense of "frontier" still, there is a belief (shared by Turner -- and also myself) that the West played a profound role in the development of the country (i.e., the West "matters"), and so on.

Okay, David, your turn now!

Stuck

Blast.  I was beginning to think that my strategy of laying low so as not to be tagged for the book meme was going to succeed, and then PZ has to go and hand me the "stick."  Grumble, grumble.  I suck at these things!  (As would you, if you read -- and forget -- as many books as I do, and in as omnivorous a fashion.)  Given, too, that I tend to pick crap off the shelves to take home even when it looks awful, I don't know how far this will get anyone who's looking for good things to read.

Oh well, here we go.  With lots of whining.

You're stuck inside Fahrenheit 451, which book do you want to be?

Gah!  How the hell do I pick one book!?  I'll do something by Shel Silverstein.  At least it'll be easy to memorize.  Or Dr. Seuss.  Something with meter and easy rhythm.

Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?

No.  At least as far as I can remember.  I've wanted to live in a number of book worlds, though.

The last book you bought is:

How the hell am I supposed to remember this?  Especially since I'm at work and can't see what's still sitting out.  The second book by the dude who wrote Bridge of Birds -- The Sound of the Stone or Something.  How to Spin Silk (if pamphlets count).  Japanese for Busy People.  The Smart Girl's Guide to Shacking Up (or something like that).  Tried to buy Rodney Yee's 8 Weeks of Yoga, but it was out. 

What are you currently reading?

Elizabeth Zimmerman's Knitting Without Tears.  Jared Diamond's Collapse.  One of the four books by Dianne Wynn Jones (I think that's how her name goes) that I checked out on a whim last week. 

Five books you would take to a deserted island:

A book on wilderness medicine.  A book on knots and other survival techniques.  A book on the edible plants and local wildlife of the region.  A book on regional meterology.  A blank book.

Yes, I have thought about this particular question before.  I still think it's a stupid one.

Who are you going to pass this stick to (3 persons)? And Why?

Heather Armstrong

Manolo

flea

Because most of my blog buddies are already taken care of, and if I pick bloggers who are likely to ignore me, maybe the meme will die.  If not, I'll get to read something entertaining as these people join in the whining.

Friday Random Ten

Well, I finally got my CDs loaded into iTunes, so I am now able to participate in this meme.

An t-Oileán Úr -- Altan
Rio Clarifies -- Ray Lynch
Ayatolah -- Siniestro Total
A Bhean Udaí Thall -- Altan
Mashamba Nzou -- Balafón Marimba Ensemble
Sidi Brahim -- John Renbourne Group
Vivimos siempre juntos -- Nacho Cano
Lady Sarah's Fancy -- Al Petteway
Balas de tranquilidad -- Comité Cisne
Green Is Here -- Ray Lynch

Can you see why I've had doubts about doing this, though?

Bzzzzzzz

My goodness, what a long post that was.  That's what you get when I'm hopped on caffiene and loratadine and not enough breakfast.  I swear, this whole damn day I've been feeling like a phone set on vibrate, or a washing machine with a slightly unbalanced load.  (Insert joke here.)  I love (not) how I can always tell the instant a medicine kicks in -- one moment I have a headache, then the next I do not.  One moment I have cramps, the next I don't.  One moment I have clogged sinuses, then the next they're clear but I'm buzzing like one of those ultrasonic cleaners.  And it's often a jolting transition, which is not a great thing when you're dealing with a stimulant; within 20 minutes of the jolt I had to fend off an incipient panic attack and weather a related bout of palpitations.  Whee!

I'm fine now.  A little twitchy, but not too bad, which is good because I'm currently at the peak of the dosage cycle.  And my sinuses are nicely empty.  I think, though, that this will have to do me for the next few days.  I can't handle it on a daily basis.  I wish they sold these things in a 5mg dosage.  Well, heck, while I'm wishing, I wish I didn't over-respond to stimulants, and that I wasn't allergic to whatever-it-is in the first place. 

Bzzzzzz....

Trying Again

Updated to add: If you're coming straight to this post, you might also want to read a related earlier post here.

I'm feeling frustrated.  With the Democrats, with the people trying to give them advice, with myself.  Mostly at this point with myself, because it seems that I can't express myself clearly enough with regards to why I think there are problems with the trends emerging relative to the desire to see the Democrats back in power.  So, like a good little idiot, I'm going to try beating my head against this wall again.  One caveat, first.  I honestly don't give a flying fig about the Democrats as Democrats.  I'm not doing this because I want a Democrat in the White House, or a Democratic majority in Congress.  I'm doing this because this is a matter that is larger than party -- or at least it should be.  If the Purple Moonbats Party can make it work for them, more power to them.

Okay, disclaimer over.  Bear with me now, because I'm going to be going all "Apprentice" on you.  Much like I know a lot about alcohol without being a drinker, I've been watching marketing and advertising and the dynamics of making effective arguments and learning about what seems to work and what doesn't, even though I have some personal issues with the whole consumerist outlook.  Still, this seems to be a language that a lot of people speak these days, so maybe my message will be clearer if I use it.

The successful marketing, sale and distribution of a product hinges on the correct handling of several key factors:

• The product
• The marketing campaign
• The competitors
• The market

In brief, the most successful producer will offer a superior product, use marketing that reinforces the product's superiority in the minds of the target audience, will undercut one's competitors, and will both address an existing market and seek to expand into other markets.  My basic thesis is that Democrats are currently engaged in trying to undercut their competitors (but doing so ineffectively, for reasons I will expand on) and trying to expand -- but the problem with this is that they have neglected to focus on establishing a solid foundation beforehand.

Okay, on to specifics.

The product

Ideally, one wants to be marketing a product that is desirable on its own merits, one which appeals even in the absence of effective marketing.  I would argue that progressives (a term I'm using deliberately, for reasons I will explain later) have such a product.  The progressive product, as I understand it, includes civil rights, equal opportunity under the law, environmental health, humanitarianism at home and abroad, transparency in government, assistance for those in need, a fair wage for a fair day's work, employment, affordable healthcare for all, respect for different beliefs, a sound energy policy, and security from crime (whether corporate, terrorist, or domestic).  These are all things that are easy to sell to people, because most people want these things already.

Let me repeat that last line.  This is a product that people already want.  Do not doubt this.  Ever.  If you lack confidence in your own product, particularly when it is an obviously desirable product, you will never ever succeed.  Part of the reason for the Democrats' failure is that, as a party, they themselves do not believe that their product is desirable. 

The progressive product is a superior product.  It is our job to ensure that this fact is never obscured.

The marketing campaign

The goal of a marketing campaign is three-fold:  to ensure that

• the target audience knows about the existence of the product
• the target audience understands what makes the product desirable
• one's competition does not succeed in coopting one's market share

In terms of the current political situation, Democrats have been lazy about the first, waffly on the second (because they themselves doubt that the product is desirable), and have failed with regards to the last.  Note that these goals are in order of priority; thus focusing on reclaiming one's market share in the absence of confidence about one's product is putting the cart before the horse.

A successful marketing campaign, moreover, draws from the following six strategies:

• reinforce the desirable aspects of the product in the mind of the target audience
• enhance the image of the product overall
• distract the target audience from the less desirable aspects of the product
• distort the image of an undesirable product to make it more desirable
• transform the product in order to create new target audiences
• undermine the competitor's product in order to redirect target audiences toward your own product

Ideally, you want to spend your time on reinforcement and enhancement, because these are, in essence, descriptive and rest on the strength of one's product.  This is why a good product can be said to "sell itself."  Think about ads for Target.  The store's products are inexpensive yet well-made and stylish.  The primary market for its products were already seeing them in this way, as evidenced by the humorous pronunciation of Target as "Tar-zhay."  So their current ad campaign, focused on style and functionality at the same time, serves to reinforce that image.

Distraction and distortion come into it only when the product is inferior in some way; distraction is for small order problems, distortion is for large order ones.  For example, if you have an amazing washing machine, but you can only get it made in rather ugly colors, you play up things like its capacity, its effectiveness at cleaning dishes, its quietness, etc.  That's using distraction.  Since the product is functionally superior, you don't need the distortion.  Here's another example of distraction at work, and also distortion:  snack foods and bottled water.  Bottled water is pretty much the same, regardless of its source, so you can't really distinguish yourself from the competition by reinforcing its watery qualities.  Instead, you present it as a healthy alternative to things like diet soda ("0 calories!") or you jump on an existing marketing trend ("No carbs!")  Distraction and distortion only work so long as your target audience doesn't get wise to you and begin to wonder what you're hiding.  Moreover, they can actively work against you if your competitor is selling a product that doesn't need this kind of treatment; your product begins to look like a pale imitation at best, or worse, a cheap rip-off, or, worse, a scam (as when Lo-Carb potato chips loaded with fats and artificial flavoring are presented as "healthy").

Transformation can be a fruitful strategy, but it can also be a risky one.  This is because transformation works best when you don't profoundly change your product but instead enhance it.  Think about when Coca-Cola launched "New Coke."  The reaction was immediately negative, not because New Coke was a bad product, but because it didn't taste like Coke, it tasted more like Pepsi -- an existing product.  This is a case of failed transformation.  If Coca-Cola had persisted in making New Coke be "the" Coke, they would have lost ground to their competitors.  Instead, they realized that customer loyalty to the original product was essential to their success, and re-packaged their original recipe as "Coke Classic" -- a case of successful transformation.  Another case of successful transformation is Disney's Little Princesses line, or Victoria's Secret's Pink, or Hello Kitty.  In all three cases, the original product (animated films, women's lingerie, a cartoon cat) has been expanded to the level of lifestyle, encompassing things as diverse as pajamas, computers, vibrators and tableware, all without diluting the value of the original product.  The trick is to know what kinds of products can be transformed and which can't, and to ensure that even as you expand, you remain true to your core product.  Moreover, undertaking transformation in the absence of a solid, established product identity is foolhardy.  (Which is what too many Democrats seem to have been attempting -- with predictable results.)

Undermining one's competitors falls in a somewhat different category than the preceding strategies, in that it's not focused on one's own product per se.  There are at least three primary approaches to undermining one's competitors:

• produce and market a superior product
• market an inferior or equivalent product as if it were superior
• co-opt their market identity

Now, it's pretty obvious that what the Republicans have been using are the latter two approaches.  In their case, it makes perfect sense.  If you have an inferior product, you can't run it on its merits, at least not openly.  So you have to pretend that it's better than it is; if you can get yourself to believe this, moreover, that's even better.  The Republicans have been very, very good at this!  However, the response is not to do the same in return, at least not if your own product is in fact superior.  What you do is focus on reinforcement and enhancement, as noted above. 

Now, on the matter of co-opting your competitor's market identity, it should be noted that this is a profoundly risky strategy.  The first problem is that to do so, you must be better at being your competition than they are at being themselves.  Not easy to do!  The second problem is that you run the risk of becoming a second-rate version of your competition, instead of a first-rate version of yourself.  The only "good" reason to do this is when your own identity is so flawed and unappealing that you can't actually use it to market your product, and that there is no way to fix it.

So while it makes perfect sense for Republicans running on a tax-the-poor-to-pay-the-rich platform to co-opt their opponents' identity as being "for average Americans" it does not follow that the converse is true.  Ditto with things like "Healthy Forests" or "Clear Skies."  If you are selling a product that is genuinely good (reduced emissions, for example) you do not try to sell it as something worse (like corporate subsidies for polluters). 

The other reason for being wary of this strategy is the importance of not diluting your product's identity, which brings us to the question of tactics.

If your competitor undermining your product identity is a bad thing, doing the same thing yourself is even worse.  Corporations take other corporations to court when they infringe on patents and product identities; there's a reason Mattell is such a hard-ass when it comes to controlling the image of Barbie, why Disney is so aggressive at protecting their copyrights.  They don't want someone taking their hard-earned image and distorting it.

So it's pretty obvious that you don't want to do the same thing to your own product if you can help it.  Disney is not going to market Nemo using Eminem.  The Jolly Green Giant is not going to shill anti-depressant medicine.  There's a reason why Mr. Peanut and the Pillsbury Dough Boy have managers who vet all ad campaigns to make sure that everything is consistent with their "personalities."

This also why, as I've said elsewhere, you don't market feminism using sexist language.  At the best, it is confusing and at the worst, it is hypocritical.  Neither is a good way to persuade people to trust you when you say that your product is what you say it is, and that you believe in your product.  (Remember, there's a reason why that Hair Club For Men guy tells you that he's "also a member.")

So.

The problem as I see it is that Democrats have lost faith in their product, which is liberal values.  The "brand" name has been tainted, perhaps irrevocably due to the actions of the Republicans, who have successfully co-opted the liberal marketing slogans for their own, inferior product, while simultaneously casting liberalism as the inferior product and its marketers as the shady hucksters.  Pretty slick! 

Under those circumstances, it is understandable that Democratic activists are resentful and want to smack the Republicans around.  They've been outgamed, out-thought, and out-marketed.  By schmoes with an inferior product.

The problem, though, is that their "solution" to this situation is (a) limited in imagination and (b) tactically and strategically unsound.  I am not going to get into "a" here, because it entails reconfiguring society from the ground up so such marketing games are not necessary.  Good for the long term, worth doing (probably essential) but not an immediate solution.

Liberals need to become confident in their product again, reclaim their brand identity, expose the shoddiness of the Republican product, and reassert their presence in the marketplace of politics.

The way to do this is NOT to do as the Republicans do, however tempting it may be.  The reasons:

Republicans are distracting and distorting in order to obscure the inferiority of their own product.  Liberals have a superior product that is popular with the public and thus do not need to do this.

Republicans are co-opting liberal language to hide the truth of their right-wing corporatist policies because they know liberalism sells; co-opting Republican language to hide a superior liberal product makes no sense.

Republicans are trying (rather successfully) to expand beyond their core base to infiltrate liberal markets.  However, they made sure that the core base is sound and that they don't transform themselves so much that they lose that faithful market.  Democrats, sad to say, have been neglecting their primary market for so long that they are vulnerable to these sorts of incursions.  Under such circumstances, they should shore up the base before attempting to compete with the Republicans for the markets which are currently up for grabs.

Republican tactics such as courting corporations, waving the stars and bars, strutting about in military uniform, calling feminists "feminazis," turning media outlets into partisan shills, placing plants in the press corps, playing the God card, and so on work for them because they do not dilute the Republican brand identity for a large segment of their primary market. 

Unfortunately, such tactics DO dilute the liberal brand. This is why they are unacceptable.

You do not build up a brand name and establish brand loyalty by running ad campaigns that undermine your brand. 

You do not seek to expand your market share when your primary market is drifting away.  You certainly don't aggravate this situation by treating your primary market as a secondary, inferior market.

You do not let your competitors co-opt your brand name to sell an inferior, competing product.

You do not co-opt their brand in order to sell your own superior product.

You do not merge with them in the hopes that this will make your product more popular.

You do listen to your primary market.

You do have and promote confidence in your product.

You do respond assertively when your brand identity is challenged -- in court, if necessary.

You do develop ad campaigns that sell the product in ways that are consistent with your brand identity.

You do keep up media saturation of your product so that it remains in the public eye.

And so on.  My beef with these folks giving advice to Democrats is that they too lack confidence in the product and their ability to sell it on its own merits, they are more interested in the secondary markets than the primary, they are too worried about their competitors' success while not keeping their own house in order, they are trying to become their competitors instead of replacing them, and so on.

My advice is this:  get your own house in order first.  Then go on the offensive.

And in the meantime, yeah, we're going to lose some elections.  We are.  But so did the Republicans, and look where they are now.

Think about it.

(When I have strength, I'll try to add a bit about the market.  Simplest summary, though:  Americans do want what liberals are selling (remember, after all, that liberals are Americans too -- again, it's to the Republicans' credit that it's easy to forget this).  They are just unsure as to who is actually selling the product, due to Republicans' distortion and co-option of the liberal brand name.  Don't go looking for a new market.  Go reclaim the one we already have.)

All Talk

Bourbon Congratulations! You're 127 proof, with specific scores in beer (40) , wine (116), and liquor (104).

Screw all that namby-pamby chick stuff, you're going straight for the bottle and a shot glass! It'll take more than a few shots of Wild Turkey or 99 Bananas before you start seeing pink elephants. You know how to handle your alcohol, and yourself at parties.

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 50% on proof You scored higher than 88% on beer index You scored higher than 91% on wine index You scored higher than 96% on liquor index

Link: The Alcohol Knowledge Test written by hoppersplit on Ok Cupid

c/o  Michelle at Mom with Attitude.

This cracks me up.  Not only am I foofy drink girl when I do drink, most of the time I won't even touch the stuff.  Me plus alcohol equals bad.

All Dolled Up

Ah, another enormous time-waster.  Still, I rather enjoyed this one. My hair isn't purple, but it does often look like this.  And I covet the clothes and shoes this "doll" has.

c/o Lauren, who also has a link to a male variant.

Politics as Popularity Contest

I'm feeling tired and lopsided (due to this one lower sinus acting up).  So I don't know if I have the energy to post with the vigor I'd like.  I have a rant all stored up related to my frustration with a lot of talk related to the strategy and tactics of the Democratic Party, but I'm also rather sick of the whole topic.  The gist of my disdain is that so many of these commenters seem to be obsessed with mimicking the style of the right wing in order to win votes away from them -- and yet they claim that they are not "Republican-lite."  The tortured reasoning seems to be that if you use tactics that reinforce rightwing values to defend liberal principles you'll magically pull voters to you from all sides.  So you get the bizarre spectacle of people who claim to support feminism declaring that Democrats need to "grow some balls" and that future candidates must be impecably testostoronic to withstand the cries of "liberal wimp" from the right. 

Okaaay.

I've focused on the gendered aspect of this because it is the most overt, but it's of a piece with a larger pattern.  If it's not using sexism to defend feminism,* it's using religion to defend secularism,* or militarism to defend global cooperation, or media manipulation to defend free speech, or cozing up to coporations to fight corporate corruption. 

The overwhelming impression I get is not of principled individuals struggling to find effective ways to defend and advance their system of values, but a bunch of popularity-obsessed nitwits desperately trying to be part of the cool kids' clique by picking on their fellow nerds.  This is profoundly stupid, because, these individuals' naive beliefs to the contrary, such tactics do not serve as an effective counter to rightwing propaganda.  In fact, they reinforce it, particularly the part where rightwingers claim that liberals (or, more accurately, Democrats) are sell-outs without values who aren't interested in anything beyond getting elected.

It's also stupid because it takes rightwing propaganda as fact -- notably, the notions that the left wing is a small, irrelevant segment of the American public, that it consists solely of wild-eyed Naderites and anarchistic tree-huggers, that the largest target for political mobilization is the current Republican base of fundamentalists and neo-cons, that liberal ideas lack appeal or currency with the average American.

So not only do these people see Republican tactics as the key to being "cool," they accept the right's definition of "cool."  Simultaneously, they lack confidence in their own purported values, and thus consider those who actually believe in and live by them to be weirdos.

It's pathetic, really. 

So I've been alternately irritated and puzzled by this.  Irritation has obvious causes; it's aggravating to hear people who claim to have my interests in mind making it insultingly clear that they think that those interests are silly or incapable of being made "popular."  (Again, remember that for these folks, "popular" in essence equals "approved by the right.") 

The puzzlement stems from a question:  just what do these people think they are doing?  Do they not see how their tactics undermine the liberal agenda they purport to be advancing?  Why are they so defensive about this, when called on it?  Why is their inevitable reaction to lash out angrily and accuse challengers of being "naive"?

What I am coming to suspect is that most of them are not really liberals at all.  Or if they are liberals, it's in a weak, intellectual way, rather than a gut-level, lived experience way.  So they have little experience with being ridiculed and attacked and threatened for being liberals.  They're like the kids who were popular in high school who then go on to college and discover that they're no longer anyone special.  While those of us who were picked on and ignored were forming our own support networks and learning how to define ourselves in ways that didn't depend on the dubious good will of the popular kids, they were coasting along, unthinkingly basking in their own assumed superiority.  So us hard-core lefties, well, we're used to being "uncool" and have learned that getting things done is far more important than social approval, especially when that approval is defined by our political and ideological opponents.  The "soft" liberals, on the other hand, are still reeling with shock that they are no longer the big fish in the pond, and they're scrabbling around trying to figure out what behaviors will ingratiate them with the new crop of cool kids.  What they haven't figured out, it seems, is that we, the political nerds and outcasts, have a lot of practical skills and experience to offer them, not to mention a new perspective on what it really means to be "cool."  (Hint, it's not about obsessing about what one self-important clique thinks of you.)  They also haven't figured out that there are always a lot more outcasts and nerds than "cool kids."

Yes, elections are important.  Yes, getting one's message out is important.  Yes, calling out the right on its egregious behavior is important.

But you know what's even more important?  Learning to stop apologizing for one's beliefs.  Learning that the goal is not media approval but a better society.  Learning to get on with your life and stop obsessing about what other people think of you.  Learning to do what is right because it is right, not because it is popular.  This is as true for political parties as it is for individuals.

We need a paradigm shift, not another popularity contest. 

*Neither of these bloggers espouses such views.  The posts I've linked to discuss the phenomenon, and some of its action is revealed in the comments.

Update: For those of you coming straight to this post, I follow up on these thoughts here.

Stupid Sinuses

I'm dealing with a slightly stuffy, slightly sore sinus right now.  Aggravating. 

I've been battling a stuffy nose/sneezing/clogged sinuses for several months now, and I'm so tired of it.  I may have to take a loratadine tablet this weekend to give myself a break.  I don't like this medicine, because, like all antihistamines it seems, it has annoying interactions with my metabolism.  In this case, it sometimes makes me feel dopey, and sometimes it makes me edgy and thus triggers panic attacks.  Neither is predictable.  Neither is pleasant.

Of course, dealing with a cloggy sinus isn't either.

I should probably make an appointment with a doctor at some point.  I think this is an allergy (no other symptoms, mucous is clear), but it'd be good to know for sure.  I'm somewhat afraid of (a) it being expensive, and (b) leading to me being prescribed more antihistamines with dubious effects. 

I wish sometimes that I responded to that class of drugs like normal people.  I hate trying to explain to doctors that, yes, really, these things act like stimulants to me, and in rather unpleasant ways.  (If it's not panic attacks, it's edginess and bouts of paranoia.)

I wish I knew why my sinuses are doing this.