As Promised (Eventually)
All subpages (the links above) are now up and running. The "Our Goal" section is perhaps the most intensive, and a worthy read for those new to this blog. Enjoy!
Friday, August 06, 2004
Merchandising! Merchandising!
"Merchandising! Merchandising! Where the real money from the movie is made. Spaceballs the T-shirt. Spaceballs the lunchbox. Spaceballs the coloring book. Spaceballs... the flame thrower! Kids love it." -- "Yogurt" (Mel Brooks), Spaceballs
Yes, we've jumped on the merchandising bandwagon as well, offering a wide variety of DEFEATJOHNJOHN t-shirts, mugs, mousepads, clocks, teddy bears, hats, bumper stickers, pins, and more. And since this is a not-for-profit website, nearly everything is available either at cost, or less than a dollar over. Some items have the website address, but many do not, so don't feel like you're paying to help advertise for us. :) (Although, if someone happens to notice and like one of the items you buy, you can certainly tell them about us.)
"To browse the DEFEATJOHNJOHN store, click on the "MERCHANDISE" link above, or click here to go directly to the available items.
In only two short weeks, we're already averaging 170 visitors per day, which is pretty good for a 100% word-of-mouth creation (no advertising, at least not yet -- in fact, the only place we've mentioned our existence is off of the ludicrosity.com blog, which averages 90-100 visitors per day, but wins in weekly totals.) If you like the site, tell a friend or two, and let's get that daily average over 200 by next week!
Thanks again, everyone!
Yes, we've jumped on the merchandising bandwagon as well, offering a wide variety of DEFEATJOHNJOHN t-shirts, mugs, mousepads, clocks, teddy bears, hats, bumper stickers, pins, and more. And since this is a not-for-profit website, nearly everything is available either at cost, or less than a dollar over. Some items have the website address, but many do not, so don't feel like you're paying to help advertise for us. :) (Although, if someone happens to notice and like one of the items you buy, you can certainly tell them about us.) "To browse the DEFEATJOHNJOHN store, click on the "MERCHANDISE" link above, or click here to go directly to the available items.
In only two short weeks, we're already averaging 170 visitors per day, which is pretty good for a 100% word-of-mouth creation (no advertising, at least not yet -- in fact, the only place we've mentioned our existence is off of the ludicrosity.com blog, which averages 90-100 visitors per day, but wins in weekly totals.) If you like the site, tell a friend or two, and let's get that daily average over 200 by next week!
Thanks again, everyone!
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Son of a Millworker
Senator Edwards is the son of a millworker. I know this because every time he gives a speech, he mentions that he was the son of a millworker. Every time anyone else gives a speech about him, it's highlighted that he was the son of a millworker. Every time an article is written about him, it's underscored that he was the son of a millworker. Well, that's not entirely fair. Sometimes they shake things up and say "mill worker".
Of course, it's a touch more accurate to say he was the son of a "mill production manager", and the little shack they show in the commercials isn't really where he was raised, but perhaps that's just nitpicking. I suppose if I felt my "humble origins" would help me win public office, I could show a picture of my parents' old trailer, even though I only lived there until I was three.
The whole point is kinda moot, since before any of us knew his name, Edwards became a multi-gazillionaire. To hear him talk, you'd think he was still living in that small house in Seneca, and not the 4-million dollar mansion in which he presently resides. (Then again, to hear Kerry talk you'd think he just got through with his last Vietnam assignment a few months ago, but that's for a different article.)
In a way, Edwards' insistence that it's amazing a "son of a millworker" can compete for higher office is a bit, well, duh. Many of our greatest presidents, from Jackson to Lincoln to Eisenhower to Reagan, grew up not only poor, but in poverty. The point behind what Edwards really means is a valid one: in America, we don't have a caste system. Some of our richest and most powerful people, in politics, entertainment, and business, came from extremely humble origins. Unlike, say, Great Britain, in which every article ever written about J. K. Rowling can't resist references to her "public assistance" days since it's such a unfathomable rarity, most of our millionaires were self-made -- especially in the entertainment and technology arenas. In speeches, Edwards uses the millworker example as a way of underscoring why this country is such a neato place (though he seems to forget he's not the first one to notice that.)
Ironic, then, that the other thing Edwards can't make a speech without mentioning is his theory of the "two Americas." It's generally worded like this: "In this country there are two Americas: one for the privileged who get everything they want, and one for everyone else who struggle for the things they need." Sounds reasonable, but wasn't his whole point about America being great because the "son of a millworker" could run for President completely contradictory to the "two Americas" philosophy? It seems a little silly to simultaneously decry a division between rich and poor while bragging that part of our greatness is that no such line exists. (It'd be like making your fortune from suing doctors and hospitals and health care providers for hundreds of millions of dollars, and then giving speeches all over the country about the need for lower health care costs. Oh, wait.)
Yes, the media and entertainment industry and politicians all love oversimplifying our nation into two huge groups of individuals, "the rich" and "the poor", with a great chasm between them that only the exceptional (like Edwards) can cross. But in actuality, the range of incomes in the U.S. is a pretty smooth curve. Though we may not have quite the egalitarian distribution of income as certain bank protesters might advocate, and although the upper 1% controls an enormous disproportion of the nation's wealth, the idea that there are "two Americas" ignores the 90% of us on some point on the slope in the middle.
I don't mean to be too hard on Edwards. Unlike most politicians, Edwards' passion for "fighting for the little guy" seems genuine and heartfelt. But the tired, divisive "us vs. them" rhetoric used by so many Democrats seems equally tiring when delivered by someone who's an example to the contrary. Rather than continuing to make the nation's poor feel like it isn't their fault, that their place in life is hopeless unless the Democrats come and save them, that the rich don't deserve their riches and in an equitable world an uneducated single mother would make more than a multi-degreed executive, rather than dividing us into "two Americas", why not use your own life experiences to help defy that myth? Why not spend more time on the fact that you were the first in your family to go to college, that you worked your ass off to pay your way through law school (even though it meant buying Elizabeth an $11 wedding ring,) that you achieved your wealth not out of some unfair, undeserved "luck" but by trying harder than others. Show by example that the American dream is open to anyone and everyone, and that even though success to some may come faster than to others, the Democratic party stands for everyone's chance to try.
After all, I hear you were the son of a millworker.
Of course, it's a touch more accurate to say he was the son of a "mill production manager", and the little shack they show in the commercials isn't really where he was raised, but perhaps that's just nitpicking. I suppose if I felt my "humble origins" would help me win public office, I could show a picture of my parents' old trailer, even though I only lived there until I was three.
The whole point is kinda moot, since before any of us knew his name, Edwards became a multi-gazillionaire. To hear him talk, you'd think he was still living in that small house in Seneca, and not the 4-million dollar mansion in which he presently resides. (Then again, to hear Kerry talk you'd think he just got through with his last Vietnam assignment a few months ago, but that's for a different article.)
In a way, Edwards' insistence that it's amazing a "son of a millworker" can compete for higher office is a bit, well, duh. Many of our greatest presidents, from Jackson to Lincoln to Eisenhower to Reagan, grew up not only poor, but in poverty. The point behind what Edwards really means is a valid one: in America, we don't have a caste system. Some of our richest and most powerful people, in politics, entertainment, and business, came from extremely humble origins. Unlike, say, Great Britain, in which every article ever written about J. K. Rowling can't resist references to her "public assistance" days since it's such a unfathomable rarity, most of our millionaires were self-made -- especially in the entertainment and technology arenas. In speeches, Edwards uses the millworker example as a way of underscoring why this country is such a neato place (though he seems to forget he's not the first one to notice that.)
Ironic, then, that the other thing Edwards can't make a speech without mentioning is his theory of the "two Americas." It's generally worded like this: "In this country there are two Americas: one for the privileged who get everything they want, and one for everyone else who struggle for the things they need." Sounds reasonable, but wasn't his whole point about America being great because the "son of a millworker" could run for President completely contradictory to the "two Americas" philosophy? It seems a little silly to simultaneously decry a division between rich and poor while bragging that part of our greatness is that no such line exists. (It'd be like making your fortune from suing doctors and hospitals and health care providers for hundreds of millions of dollars, and then giving speeches all over the country about the need for lower health care costs. Oh, wait.)
Yes, the media and entertainment industry and politicians all love oversimplifying our nation into two huge groups of individuals, "the rich" and "the poor", with a great chasm between them that only the exceptional (like Edwards) can cross. But in actuality, the range of incomes in the U.S. is a pretty smooth curve. Though we may not have quite the egalitarian distribution of income as certain bank protesters might advocate, and although the upper 1% controls an enormous disproportion of the nation's wealth, the idea that there are "two Americas" ignores the 90% of us on some point on the slope in the middle.
I don't mean to be too hard on Edwards. Unlike most politicians, Edwards' passion for "fighting for the little guy" seems genuine and heartfelt. But the tired, divisive "us vs. them" rhetoric used by so many Democrats seems equally tiring when delivered by someone who's an example to the contrary. Rather than continuing to make the nation's poor feel like it isn't their fault, that their place in life is hopeless unless the Democrats come and save them, that the rich don't deserve their riches and in an equitable world an uneducated single mother would make more than a multi-degreed executive, rather than dividing us into "two Americas", why not use your own life experiences to help defy that myth? Why not spend more time on the fact that you were the first in your family to go to college, that you worked your ass off to pay your way through law school (even though it meant buying Elizabeth an $11 wedding ring,) that you achieved your wealth not out of some unfair, undeserved "luck" but by trying harder than others. Show by example that the American dream is open to anyone and everyone, and that even though success to some may come faster than to others, the Democratic party stands for everyone's chance to try.
After all, I hear you were the son of a millworker.
Sunday, August 01, 2004
The Anti-Bounce
For weeks, political pundits have been trying to guess the size of Kerry's expected post-convention poll "bounce". Would it be as large as Clinton's in 1992, with a 30-point bounce? Or closer to Gore's 19-point bounce in 2000? Or smaller, like Reagan's 13-point bounce in 1980? Indeed, even the Republicans were predicting at least a 15-point bounce and were prepared for it, though some political observers suspected that they were just saying "15 points" so that when Kerry got his expected 10- or 12-point bounce instead, they could spin it as a negative.
But no such luck. In fact, Kerry has become the first presidential candidate since McGovern in 1972 NOT to get a post-convention bounce. In fact, in some polls, he even went down, which is almost unheard of. (See the convention bounces since 1968 here.)
According to the recent CNN/Gallup Poll, directly before the convention, it was Bush 46%, Kerry 47%. After the convention, it's Bush 50%, Kerry 46%. (A similar Newsweek poll was a little more optimistic, giving Kerry a 4-point convention bounce -- not a step down, but still the smallest post-convention bounce of any candidate in Newsweek's recorded history.)
And, no winning candidate in more than 50 years has ever won the presidency without significantly leading after his convention.
Of course, all polls still have Bush and Kerry essentially tied within the margins of error, so none of this means much just yet. But consider that the Republican convention is coming up in a month or so, closer to the election, giving Bush the huge advantage to get a bounce that could carry him home. The Kerry camp at that point will have to rely on the early October debates to help, but considering that Bush got a huge poll boost after the debates with Gore (after most people expected Gore to kick his ass), and the fact that it's difficult to imagine the rather uncuddly Kerry doing well in a televised debate setting, my money might be on Bush to win this year after all.
But no such luck. In fact, Kerry has become the first presidential candidate since McGovern in 1972 NOT to get a post-convention bounce. In fact, in some polls, he even went down, which is almost unheard of. (See the convention bounces since 1968 here.)
According to the recent CNN/Gallup Poll, directly before the convention, it was Bush 46%, Kerry 47%. After the convention, it's Bush 50%, Kerry 46%. (A similar Newsweek poll was a little more optimistic, giving Kerry a 4-point convention bounce -- not a step down, but still the smallest post-convention bounce of any candidate in Newsweek's recorded history.)
And, no winning candidate in more than 50 years has ever won the presidency without significantly leading after his convention.
Of course, all polls still have Bush and Kerry essentially tied within the margins of error, so none of this means much just yet. But consider that the Republican convention is coming up in a month or so, closer to the election, giving Bush the huge advantage to get a bounce that could carry him home. The Kerry camp at that point will have to rely on the early October debates to help, but considering that Bush got a huge poll boost after the debates with Gore (after most people expected Gore to kick his ass), and the fact that it's difficult to imagine the rather uncuddly Kerry doing well in a televised debate setting, my money might be on Bush to win this year after all.
