Monday, September 13, 2004

Why Not Both?

Virginia Postrel has an Exchange with a Democratic Friend at her site. It caught my eye because my main interest in the campaigns is watching how the arguments are carried out. I'm trying to figure out the rules by which both sides are playing. For this election cycle, the rules seem to have less coherence than those for Calvinball.

Anyway, back to Virginia's dialogue, she mentions, regarding the T.A.N.G. "memo":

I think the memos are big fakes. I also think that Bush got special treatment, probably without anyone having to ask for it. Given his family's connections and the way Texas operates like a small town, people would have looked out for him.

To which the unnamed Democratic staffer friend replied:

I think you're right on - the memos are Big Fakes AND Bush is a Child of Privilege. We have such a hard time accepting the Certsian Philosophy. Yes, it's a breath mint, and yes, it's a candy mint. It's two, two, two mints in one. Much of life is Certsian, but we so love our fights that we'll gin them up if we have to. It's a candy mint, damnit!

I am composing this post at 12:40 in the morning, so I have cut myself some slack for thinking, "I've never heard of a philosopher by the name of Certs." I do, however, vaguely recall those commercials, but even then never understood that there was an argument going on. Applied to politics, I can see the view being that refutation of one point of information for a conclusion does not automatically mean that the conclusion is false. I doubt anyone can challenge the idea that George W.'s life was much better for being George W. than if he wasn't. Much like John Kerry's life is probably better with Teresa than without, at least financially.

Nowadays it seems that the only background one should not be able to rise above and become president is to be born affluent and to have parents who can go above and beyond what most people can do for their children. Then again, Marion Barry got to be mayor of Washington DC again, so what say a little of that forgiveness gets passed to the other side of the aisle?

P.S. Could anyone tell me why the word "two" was said three times in that Certs commercial? I just finished reading The Da Vinci Code and my mind has been doing symbolic cartwheels since. Or it could just be that a mind with insomnia is a terrible thing to let blog.

2 comments:

Randall Newton said...

I found your blog using a Google search on "Certs commercial candy breath" because I'm about to write a commentary using "Certsian" analysis (great word! You should run over to Wikipedia and start writing about it). Anyway, to answer your question at the end, the "two, two, two mints in one" line is there for the rhythm of it. It isn't meant to be read, it's meant to be HEARD. It is Certs' equivalent of a jingle.
Nice blog! I've got three on blogger: ogw.blogspot.com, a9watch.blogspot.com, loomisboy.blogspot.com. The last has not been updated in a LONG time.

Winston Wade (Gamer) said...

Not that I can take credit for it. I even said that I was confused briefly, but maybe I will put that up on Wikipedia.

BTW, yours is the first I have heard regarding a hit via Google. Cool.