Frivolous Frenzies of a Fatuous Fanatic

Obama's Pattern of Pandering, or What I Get for Second-Guessing a Nobel Laureate

2009-11-10T12:08:00.002-05:00

During the 2008 Democratic primary battle between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton (and Dennis Kucinich, if we really want to be accurate here), I had a deep, dense feeling of disenchantment. Not with my candidate of choice, Barack Obama (though in my heart I knew Kucinich was right), but with my favorite economist and political pundit, Paul Krugman of the New York Times. I was in the process of developing the various ideologies and mildly polarizing viewpoints that would govern my voting patterns,[1] and there were few commentators that I had more respect, more near-religious idolatry for, than Paul Krugman.

The disillusionment, then, came from Krugman’s bizarre resistance to Obama. Following the Potomac Primaries, it was quite clear from my “Obamamania” viewpoint that Hilary Clinton was the spawn of Lucifer, the kind of political gremlin who would stop at no level of slime-drenched bile and slander to win the election. And indeed, Clinton did utilize some fairly shady strategies, such as equating Obama with Whitewater-investigator Kenneth Starr, darkening Obama’s image in TV ads that ran in the racially turbulent sections of Ohio, and her inconceivable fabrications regarding her voyage to Bosnia as First Lady. Yet, Paul Krugman, my progressive hero, wrote column after column that was ceaselessly critical of every facet of Obama’s candidacy, not Clinton’s. It was a frustrating, mind-boggling process, how a man who was so right so much of the time could be, ostensibly, so wrong.

Well, that’s I get for second-guessing a Nobel laureate. The main thrust of Krugman’s criticisms was that Obama’s pragmatism, his tendency to forgo the honest and altogether correct policy for the sake of public agreement, would tarnish any of his proposed reforms. To Krugman, the kind of crisis our country was experiencing did not need a Dwight D. Eisenhower, an all-round likable figure who, despite his conservatism and genuine dislike for anything resembling progress (such as equal rights for African Americans), did not attempt to tear down the very fabric of society. It needed a Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a traitor to his class who, regardless of campaign contributions and powerful lobbyists, charged ahead with their agenda and transformed the country for the better.

And now that Candidate Obama has become President Obama, all the campaign-season cries for gimmicky bipartisanship and weak-kneed reconciliations that created such nausea with hard-lined progressives such as myself have evolved into the very governing process for our country.

Propose sweeping financial reforms, including the creation of a Consumer Protection Agency, but legalize Too Big to Fail banks and specifically legislate that roughly 80 percent of the risky derivatives and credit default swaps that destroyed the American economy be permanently left off the banks’ balance sheets, all the while shoveling tens of trillions of dollars into the banks' reserves but remaining ignorant of how they use the funds; propose universal health care reform, but secretly guarantee to Pharma that the government will not, under any circumstances, negotiate drug prices for Medicare; guarantee a public option in the aforementioned health care legislation, but water it down to such a degree that private health insurance is the only viable option; ban all uses of torture, but maintain extraordinary rendition, preemptive detention, and expand the use of “State’s Secrets” privileges to such an extent that Alberto Gonzalez would weep with jealousy; claim a change in US foreign policy, but appoint one of the key proponents of torture as the leading general in Afghanistan; claim to support an independent Palestinian state, but gush over Israel for temporarily halting illegal settlements on Palestinian territories; claim that nobody is above the law, but refuse to investigate war crimes committed by the past administration.

I think we see a fairly devastating pattern here. I could go on, but the central narrative to this dialect of disgrace is painfully clear: Krugman was right. Instead of the right man for the job, the kind of leader with the, well, audacity to deliver a unilateral "F-YOU" to the Washington establishment, we have a tepid, overtly-conciliatory sellout who will sacrifice everything for claims of bipartisanship—even the welfare of the country that elected him.

So, Paul? You were right.

[1] An undertaking that becomes more warped with each passing day—or whenever we learn a new tidbit about Tim Geithner

Review of 'Pirates of the Caribbean 3'—Awful, bloody awful!

2009-05-26T00:21:00.002-04:00

[I was searching for an old academic paper I wrote a couple years back and stumbled upon this review I wrote immediately after seeing 'Pirates 3.' I may be partial, but I think I properly summarize the film's many awful qualities ;). ]

This is a terrible movie; however, sad as it is, the majority of consumers are not going to see it that way.

Like "The Simpsons Movie," "At World's End" (AWE for short--but trust me, I was in no such state) is an example of previous success blinding objectivity. In the case of the Simpsons, the show's previous and unprecedented success was a nice big distraction to the film's lame, half-baked execution.

And with AWE, we get an entire series born off of one performance--that being Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow in the first film--that so charmed audiences that they'll sit through whatever sludge director Gore Verbinski chooses to drag them through, just as long as they see Depp. However, like "Simpsons," AWE is a terrible movie.

Where to start, though? For a movie this flawed, it's a challenge. Verbinski direction is lazy. Showing absolutely no control over the film, he let's the plot spiral out into the horizon, aimlessly moving around with no end in sight. Yes, I have already been told by shameful supporters of this film that "it's just a complex plot, and you need to pay attention!" Wanna see a complex plot that works? watch "Memento." Want to see the plot of a director and writers who find themselves far more clever then they truly are? watch AWE. Honestly, if one more character swapped allegiances throughout the course of this trainwreck, I would have wept.

And, as a side-note, watch how the film builds up the ridiculous 'Calypso' storyline, only to completely abandon it without a moments hesitation. People, this is bad film making--please take notice.

Which brings me to the script, which is equally bad. Bearing more holes than Swiss Cheese, the awfulness of the script makes you slightly hold off on Verbinski, seeing that nobody short of Orson Welles could direct a script this geriatric and unnecessarily convoluted. And plot aside, the dialogue is also terrible, made worse by the film's downright terrible performances.

I said it with "Dead Man's Chest" and I'll say it again, Depp is bored with this character. His Jack Sparrow of AWE is a shadow of the fun it was in the first film, and I didn't even enjoy him THAT much altogether in "Curse of the Black Pearl." What he's become is a caricature of himself, and he'll ride that cliché into the sunset, as long as executives keep paying and brain dead consumers keep watching. In all fairness (and you won't find any in this review), Orlando Bloom should not be an actor. Nothing more than a product of the "Lord of the Rings" mega-trilogy, he's riding on the bank ability of himself, except unlike Depp, he can't act to save his life. Watch this film, and watch of the LOTR films...they are the EXACT same character. Oh yeah, there is a difference--their NAMES.

And then there is Keira Knightly, who has proven herself a capable actress elsewhere--but here, under Verbinski, she suffers just the same. But there was one particular moment of this movie that was revelatory, and I can thank Ms. Knightly for providing me with the moment.

There a part in the film where Knightly's Elizabeth Swan gives a 'rousing' speech to her crew, rallying them up to fight the forces of evil. Watching that, I realized that the entire "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise is nothing more than a poor-man's "Master and Commander." Possessing not even a quarter of MaC's intelligence, craftsmanship, or wit, the PotC franchise is Diet MaC.

Yet it still works and brings in the greenbacks, which I suppose is a testament to Depp's performance in the first film, and which also acts as a great inspiration to aspiring film makers around the world. If you want to find success, do not, by any means, make a great film; instead, make a film that is structurally flawed, but one that features an original, white-hot lead character with a charming actor and by golly, you will be on your way!

All in all, that's NOT a pirate's life for me!

The Happiest Places on Earth (Hint: the US isn't one of 'em)

2009-05-10T08:57:00.003-04:00

This post will be short and sweet: it's great to live in Scandinavia.

A study recently completed by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, a Paris-based group of 30 countries that analyzes the various stats and data of democratic governments, ranked the 10 happiest countries in the world, and found an absolutely shocking (*sarcasm) discovery: all the countries, with the exception of Canada, were in Northern Europe, and to be even more precise, Scandinavia (oh yeah, the US didn't even crack the top 10).

Indeed, Scandinavia boasted four of the 10 countries, including THREE in the top five (Sweden at no. 4, Finland at no. 2, and Denmark at no. 1).

This is a bittersweet experience. On one hand, there's a certain jouissance to reading these stats, especially considering how the countries of Scandinavia all have the evil government enterprises of universal health care, free education through the college level, and other various social safety nets that have stymied the worst of the current Mini-Depression (Denmark, for example, currently has a jaw-dropping 2% unemployment rating, with an hourly wage for manufacturing jobs at $47 dollars).

Then again, it could be a complete coincidence that the world's countries with the most progressive taxation, strongest social programs, and most active public sector (in other words, the most SOCIALIST) dominated this list. Complete coincidence, I know.

On the other hand, though, lists such as this are infuriating, especially in today's political climate of $10 billion a month to Iraq, millions to Israel, a health care system that leaves 47 million uninsured, a humiliating public education system, a college system akin to blood sucking leeches, and, of course, right-wing crazies at the local and federal level who want to cut taxes and spending amidst this superlative economic climate.

When will we Americans stop being so stoopid?

The in-depth study can be found here.

More Compelling Evidene Against Torture

2009-04-25T15:54:00.003-04:00

In my post last night, I neglected to mention yet another compelling counterpoint to the effectiveness of torture: while used as a key recruiting tactic for Al-Qaeda scouts, the most successful interrogations with Al-Qaeda operatives and other insurgents came when, to the surprise of the captive, the U.S. did not torture them, as previously suspected. They cooperated and helped when we didn't torture.

Former senior military interrogator Matthew Alexander further explains:

"As a senior interrogator in Iraq, I conducted more than three hundred interrogations and monitored more than one thousand. I heard numerous foreign fighters state that the reason they came to Iraq to fight was because of the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. Our policy of torture and abuse is Al-Qaeda’s number one recruiting tool. These same insurgents have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of our troops in Iraq, not to mention Iraqi civilians. Torture and abuse are counterproductive in the long term and, ultimately, cost us more lives than they save."

Bob Baer on 'Real Time'

2009-04-25T12:25:00.003-04:00

Former CIA agent Bob Baer appeared "Real Time with Bill Maher" last night. While Maher is an adequate interviewer at best, Baer succinctly explains why torture doesn't work. Also, Baer reminds us of the most perturbing info of all: the CIA destroyed 92 interrogation tapes, acts of tampering that were considered necessary because they were so overwhelmingly brutal. Even with all we know, the worst is yet to come.

The United States DOES Torture

2009-04-24T20:30:00.003-04:00

"WE DO NOT TORTURE."
—George W. Bush, November 7 2005

In what has become an administration of corruption par excellence, an assortment of criminals and hypocrites so devoid of legitimacy and so infected with power that Nixon's rotting bone marrow blushes, we still, unbelievable as it seems, sink further into the heart of darkness as more lies are exposed and more truths, horrific as they may be, surface.

It should come as no surprise that a presidency that lied about a faulty terrorist connection, lied about the justifications of war, lied about the unwarranted spying on its own citizens, lied about the firing of U.S. attorneys, lied about the politicizing of the Justice Department, and lied about the nuclear programs of Iran (and that's just a rudimentary run-through) would lie about its torture of detainees.

These past two weeks have been a flurry of affirmations, verifications of information any American with a conscience was already certain of: the United States did torture via waterboarding and other torture methods, did know what it was doing, and did gain absolutely nothing in the process.

The difficulty in assessing the Bush legacy is choosing what event will best epitomize these eight years of fear, embarrassment, and terror, but the four torture memos released by President Obama last week (an act of transparency and political bravery unmatched in modern times), along with the Senate Armed Services Committee, may just be the symbol we were looking for, detailing in shocking specificity different torture procedures, such as "Walling," which amounted to slamming a detainee's head into a wall, exact times and procedures for detainee sleep deprivation and cold storage, and, the piece de resistance of Bush administration war crimes, waterboarding, including specific times to waterboard detainees.

Further details are even more disturbing: as expected, the signing off on torture runs as high as Vice President Dick Cheney, with Donald Rumsfeld personally approving 15 tactics for Abu Ghraib and Condoleezza Rice signing off on waterboarding in 2002. The administration, though warned by previous memorandums that waterboarding was indeed torture, approved the interrogation measure in mid-2002, prior to the apprehension of Abu Zubaida and Kalik Sheikh Mohammad (and phone calls as early as December of 2001 strongly suggest conversation of torture then). And, most damning of all, the possibility that waterboarding and other "advanced interrogation methods" were used simply to provide faulty information for an illegal invasion of Iraq, and additionally, the Yoo/Bibby memos (the four released last week) as after-the-fact documents that desperately tried to legitimize the patently illegal practices of torture.

The facts are enormous and the evidence insurmountable: the United States tortured. But even beyond what we know, there are still ambiguities, such as the 100 or so detainees who died while in U.S. custody and the 30 or more who were tortured to death.

I should make one point, though: waterboarding is torture. Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the international standard on detainee treatment, says so. The Red Cross, who investigated U.S. treatment of detainees and is, per the Geneva Conventions, the official authority on what constitutes as torture, says it is torture. Bush officials, writing pre-Yoo/Bibby memos, says it is torture. Waterboarding is not "advanced interrogation," as Fox News euphemistically dubs it. It's torture. There is no debate.

And, in closing, torture does not work. A common defense of torture is the supposed "ticking time bomb" situation, that we must resort to illegal measure in the face of daunting catastrophe. Kalik Sheik Mohammad was waterboarded 183 times in one month. That's six times a day. Abu Zubaida was waterboarded a mere 83 times in one month. The widespread use of the treatment denies any such emergency usage. Furthermore, the very information derived from the torture—information Dick Cheney still claims saved American lives—was garbage. Zubaida, for example, told the CIA everything he knew—prior to being waterboarded 83 times. Then, in the face of excruciating suffering and near death (including urinary dysfunctions he still suffers from today), Zubaida said ANYTHING to stop the pain, resulting in misleads and faulty information that cost millions of dollars.

Interrogators during World War II, in legendary sessions with Nazi soldiers, learned of invaluable information regarding Axis plots and saved thousands of lives in their efforts. How did they do this? How did they wrestle such key information from their subjects? German-speaking U.S. interrogators played chess with the Nazi soldiers.

Torture is morally reprehensible. Torture is wrong. Torture does. not. work.

I am ashamed.

The Overwhelming Stoopidity of the Republican Anti-Tax Tea Party

2009-04-13T20:48:00.007-04:00

Oh the stoopidity. Leave it to the radical right-wing fringe of the Republican party to concoct a publicity stunt so ludicrous, so contradictory, and so grounded in ignorance that it gains national media attention.

April 15th, for the majority of Americans—e.g. the sane—is Tax Day, a time where we fulfill our inconvenient-yet-essential role of citizenship by supporting our government and paying our taxes. For a the lunatic fringe of the GOP, though, the day serves as the "Anti-Tax Tea Party," a national protest allegedly taking place in 115 cities where Americans (mostly white and paranoid) gather at seaside to cast packets of tea into the water, a move reminiscent of the famed Boston Tea Party (more on that later).

Since being spearheaded by Rick Santelli—the CNBC clown whose rant on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade made Jim Cramer look like Gandhi—the event has been hyped by Fox News, particularly Glenn Beck, as a call to arms, a vicious protest of populist rage at the unfair tax-and-spend policies of President Obama! The outrage! Michelle Malkin, the idiot pit bull of movement conservatism, has written that "Revolution is brewing."

The ignorance and stoopidity of the "Anti-tax Tea Party" is so pervasive and extreme that it challenges me to know where to begin, but I'll consolidate the fatuous event into three simple points:

1. Don't know much about...the Founding Fathers!

The funniest thing about this ridiculous event is that it incorrectly assesses the very historical event it seeks to imitate. The Boston Tea Party, the famed colonial protest in which colonists, some in Native American garb, slashed and dumped the tea of the British East India Company into the Boston Harbor, was a protest against CORPORATE EXEMPTION. It was protesting a TAX HOLIDAY. In an act of severe self interest, Great Britain's Parliament passed a Tea Act that revoked the 25% tax rate that formerly applied to all East India Company tea sold in the colonies. The colonists, with the Tea Party, were protecting LOCAL BUSINESSES, the Mom & Pop shops whose businesses would be jeopardized by the tax-exempt products of the Company. The British East India Company, therefore, was the colonial equivalent of Wal-Mart.

Now, notice the insane hypocrisy here: the "Anti-Tax Tea Party," for one, is resisting supposed tax hikes (more on that in a moment), so the very essence of the protest is Topsy Turvy, but more importantly, it is funded by prominent right-wing think tanks (such as the idiotic Institute for Liberty), who are, of course, funded by right-wing, sweat-shop-utilizing corporations. An anti-corporate protest morphs into a corporate funded protest. Sweetness.

2. Don't know much about...Politics!

This obvious contradiction, though, would easily slip by the intellects of the people participating in the "Anti-Tax Tea Party," as these are namely the same groups of people who flocked to McCain/Palin rallies in October of 2008 with banners proclaiming Obama's socialism, his ties to Ché Guevara, Fidel Castro, and Muslim extremists, and other racist, inflammatory messages directly provoked by the McCain campaign. These are troubled, insecure people, puppets to the Mainstream Demented Media and willing to ignore any facts that challenge their deluded worldview.

The most prominent misconception regards taxes. The tax rates, aside from what you hear on Fox, have not risen for 16 years. The last time taxes were raised was when Bill Clinton raised the top tax to 39%. So currently, President Obama is functioning with tax rates directly organized by President George W. Bush, a man totally devoid of protest from this lunatic fringe regarding his own deficits and spending sprees. Even better, the top tax rate is still 10% LOWER than when Ronald Reagan, idiot actor and horrific president and idol to conservatives, was in charge. And what has Obama proposed to do to the top tax rate? Raise it an astonishing 4%.

Beyond taxes, though, the accusations that Obama is a socialist are childish at best. Medicare and Social Security, two of the more prominent social programs in the U.S., are not only products of past administrations, but they are overwhelmingly popular, effective programs. Furthermore, the very concept of modern socialism—the use of taxpayer funds to provide services to citizens—extends to our socialist police departments, our socialist fire departments, our socialist schools, our socialist libraries, our socialist roads, our socialist Food and Drug Administration, and so on and so forth. Clearly, we all engage in and benefit from some form of "socialism," yet the president who seeks to increase funding for these programs, to increase their effectiveness and harness a better America, is suddenly a socialist? Obama has not had a perfect 100 days (his issues with the banking crisis and Bush-era secrecy will be addressed in a future essay), but the arguments surrounding his supposed socialism is absurd on its face.

3. Don't know much about...GOP Propaganda!

This may be the most embarrassing point of all—the "Anti-Tax Tea Party" is nothing more than a propaganda campaign started by Rick Santelli and spread by GOP leaders and Fox News. It is no secret that the current incarnation of the Republican Party is in a bit of a crisis. Running on the heels of the most unpopular president in modern times and playing adversary to one of the more popular, the GOP is a party without a leader and without a message. John Boehner and Eric Cantor have both, by objective standards, been fairly horrendous party leaders, parading around the podiums with bizarre fabrications and humiliating anecdotes (Cantor, for example, missed a key Obama press conference (something he had criticized the week before) to attend...a Britney Spears concert). No coincidence, then, that Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey, the heads of the Republican Party during its "Republican Revolution" in the 90s, have both implicitly backed the "Anti-Tax Tea Party."

This is not a grassroots campaign of protest. This is a carefully calculated propaganda campaign started by Rick Santelli (in a speech that was pre-determined, mind you) and seized by Fox News and Glenn Beck.

The saddest thing about this protest, though, are the groups of people suckered in to its ranks.
Ronald Reagan was labeled "The Great Communicator" for good reason: he effectively convinced scores of lower middle-to-working class Americans that despite all evidence to the contrary, his policies were making their lives better. Despite the fact that union membership was plummeting and wages becoming stagnant, despite the fact that an easing of tariff rates was beginning to transfer jobs from the U.S. to China (a process that would cripple our world-renowned manufacturing base and result in economies of fabricated wealth like today), and despite the fact, most notably, that Reagan was effectively transferring wealth from the poor to the rich by slashing taxes on the rich and easing regulations on their businesses while drastically raising income taxes on the lower class and payroll taxes—which only account for the first $90 thousand or so dollars of incomes—to account for the massive deficits his tax cuts created. Oh, and, on the advice from Alan Greenspan, Reagan also began taking money from the social security fund. How much wealth did Reagan transfer in this fashion? At least $3 trillion.

So Reagan, in a sense, was the most socialist president we ever had, though his brand of socialism directly aided the very groups of people socialism is supposed to combat. Reagan was able to convince the masses to the contrary; it seems they have still not gotten the message.

I Remember (and Don't Remember)

2009-04-09T09:34:00.004-04:00

I remember...the experience of having genuine excitement about a profession, in my case as a four-year-old with civil engineering, or, as I called it, "a builder."

I remember...being ecstatic at the arrival of a new building book in the mail.

I don't remember...the supposed dinner routine of my sister and I at our old house in Franklin Park, Illinois. Apparently we would dance in the family room every night to Billy Joel's "52nd Street."

I don't remember...my Uncle Bud, who, this tiny anecdote will reveal, was a man of great compassion and insight: My father and his two brothers were attending the wedding of a distant cousin (probably for the food), and each one took notice of the unusually long hair the groom flaunted on the outskirts of his ill-fitting tuxedo. As the brothers strolled out of the cathedral, their Uncle Bud sneaked behind them and said, draping his arms around their shoulders, "Boys, if you ever grow your hair that long, I'll cut your balls off."

I don't remember...ever feeling economic despair while the middle class evaporated from American life.

Some Thoughts on the Essay

2009-04-07T10:41:00.003-04:00

A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself
at least four questions, thus: What am I trying to say? What words will
express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image
fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two
more: Could I put it more shortly? Have I said anything that is
avoidably ugly?

---George Orwell

I chuckled as I read meditation on writing because it succinctly described my own thought process as a writer, beyond the personal essay I wrote for class last week. While my convictions are clear and senses sharp, I am frequently burdened by the realization that words are nothing more than the best available option to communicate our thoughts. George Carlin summed it up best when he said:

I love words. I thank you for hearing my words. I want to tell you something about words that I uh, I think is important. I love..as I say, they're my work, they're my play, they're my passion. Words are all we have really.
We have thoughts, but thoughts are fluid. You know, [humming]. And, then we assign a word to a thought, [clicks tongue]. And we're stuck with that word for that thought. So be careful with words.

I had this experience when writing a short story/memoir about a trivia game my family plays every Thanksgiving. Playing the game for years, each one different and better than the last, and I need to rely on mere words to explain my emotions? It feels inadequate, and inevitably so.

Next, I wonder about the "image or idiom" of the finished work. I'm a self-conscious guy, and from the comment I leave on a Facebook page to which Ralph Lauren polo shirt I'll wear with what shorts, I always devote proper thought. Writing, though, is particularly important to me, as it has become not only a professional choice but a lifestyle.

Even with a Facebook comment, then, I want to be eloquent, I want to be witty, I want to say something of value that goes beyond "LOL!" This commitment to wit, or, some would say, superciliousness (and the very use of that word is yet another example of this complicated tendency), had landed me in some intellectual war zones with former peers of mine, but I have neither the time nor platform to address those memories at this time. Beyond external conflict, though, this devotion creates considerable internal conflict as well. I constantly question the effect of the piece and whether it can be communicated in a more concise manner. Can wit and bluntness go together? There is no truer dread than that of insignificance, and writing has the unfortunate tendency of welcoming such barracks with open, golden sunned arms.

I Remember Part Deux

2009-04-07T09:14:00.005-04:00

I remember...writing the first essay for this class and wondering if the witty, self-conscious tone would instead come across as precocious.

I remember...writing that essay, and being amazed at the fact that I had never told my parents about any of the events I was writing about.

I remember...thinking, with quiet desperation, if there is any value to my essay, my major, my future profession as a journalist.

I remember...being naturally ambidextrous as a kindergartner. I would write with my dominant left hand, and upon that hand losing vigor, would switch to my right hand.

I remember...my kindergarten teacher forcing me to write with one hand. "Which hand do you write with?" she asked, her tone accusatory. "I write with both!" I exclaimed, plucky like my childhood hero, Thomas the Tank Engine. "No!" she exclaimed. "You must choose!" I chose left. That explains a lot.

I remember...having a growing hatred for the phrase "a lot" starting my sophomore year in college.

I remember...that same kindergarten teacher, Mrs. Lion, and her odd, angular walking style, the result of a damaged leg from childhood polio.

I remember...my mother attending the first Parent/Teacher night for Mrs. Lion, an event where Lion demonstrated her "clapping" strategy to control the students—she would violently clap her hands, and the students stopped, instantaneously, in their spots. Lion beamed. My mom was horrified. Visions of totalitarian fascist sugar plums danced in her head.

I remember...loving my first grade teacher, Mrs. Berna, and as a fifth grader, taking part in a video we sent to her to commemorate her retirement. I began the video with, "Hi Mrs. Berna, I'm not sure if you remember me, but..." All the other students taking part mimicked this memory theme in their own addresses to the camera.

I remember...my utter obsession with Godzilla and dinosaurs as a second grader. My interest was so keen that at the first Parent/Teacher conference of that grade, the teacher, Mrs. Cain (who was a doll), specifically requested my mom to "tell Peter to write about something other than dinosaurs."

I remember...drawing a huge, four-foot-tall picture of Godzilla and giving it to Mrs. Cain as a present on the last day of school. Whenever I would meet students of Mrs. Cain's the following years as grade school student, they would always connect my name with the huge monster drawing proudly on display in the classroom.

I remember...the perfection that was the sixth grade. The inconsistent nature of the U.S. education system accomplishes, if anything, strong connections to great teachers, and my sixth grade teacher, Ms. Flaherty, was an academic dynamo. We had entire units devoted to Egypt, various Asian countries, medieval times (during which we constructed an entire castle from cardboard, labeling each individual section of the castle), astrophysics (we built rockets from two-liter pop bottles and launched them with compressed hair; the bottles housed eggs (our passengers)), and even a segment on acting where we wrote and acted our own one-scene plays. If only all levels of learning could be this riveting...

I would remember to send Dave the URL to my blog, except I already did so!

I remember...

2009-04-02T10:34:00.004-04:00

I remember...running in the grass, the front yard of my house, wearing a tan jacket with brown lining that my mother affectionately called "the Indiana Jones" jacket. I fell, and grass stained the jacket. It burned.

I remember...Christmas eve. A cold, bitterly windy Chicago evening. A man dressed as Santa Claus entered the house, emitting faulty "Ho Ho Hos" like a coal plant emits greenhouse gases. The man was my Uncle Bob. "It's Uncle Bob! It's Uncle Bob!" I screamed with jubilation, proud of my ability to decipher the falsity of the fake Santa Claus, the impostor. I didn't look like this.

I remember...watching "The Godfather" for the first time with my father on the Fourth of July. We were sitting in our claustrophobic family room, along with my mother and brother and maybe sister (I have the odd feeling she lacked the interest to watch the film), the lights turned low, the screen on the television bright and bold, and the images of blood, loyalty, and finally, family drowning out of the picture in the brilliant and muted cinematography of Gordon Willis.

I remember...arguing with one of my more ignorant uncles on the merits of the Conflict in Iraq (I refuse to label it a war). After watching he and a fellow uncle spar on the validity of WMDs in the region, in which ignorant uncle argued against evidence suggesting WMDs were a fabrication of movement conservative imagination, I sprang into the conversation, mentioning how Iraq bore an uncomfortable resemblance to Vietnam. "No, it has no connection," the ignorant one violently exclaimed. "In Vietnam, we didn't know what we were doing." The inevitable response was that we did not know what we were doing in Iraq, but I was too stunned by the forcefulness of his attack to say anything. I often find myself speechless at the passion of men so wrong.

I remember...the funeral of my Uncle Don and Aunt Marlene. The overcast day at the graveyard. The stone, blank faces of the various family members in attendance, the crying outpourings of emotion from the others. I wanted to cry. I wanted to show emotion. In some ways, I desperately wanted to cry, to show that I cared for this man, so show that the death of him and his wife affected me. The tears did not come. After the caskets were buried, and I walked back to the car, I started crying. Uncontrollably. Strong. Unfiltered. Unexplainable.

I remember...only one conversation with Uncle Don. I had recently begun playing trumpet, and and he asked me how the experience was going. "I know someone who plays trumpet," he said, a twinkle in his eye, a glisten of his salt-and-pepper beard. "Well," I responded, "I know someone who plays trombone!" Uncle Don was a professional trombone player, alternating between gigs with a big band and an interesting tenure as a limo driver.

I remember...ripping the carpet out of the flooding basement of my Uncle Ed and Aunt Amanda. It was in this house that I had the one conversation with Uncle Don. The water rushed into the basement in a fast and furious manner, like Vin Diesel driving a Toyota Celica. My dad and I ripped carpeting out of the ground, exposing a rather hideous stone flooring the carpet had been covering. At the time, I thought it looked cool. "Hey Amanda," my dad said, "I think you should leave the carpet and use this floor." "Yeah, maybe I should," she responded. I couldn't understand their tongue-in-cheek tone.

I remember...New Years Eve at my Grandma's house, taking place in a ridiculous sideshow my sister and cousins would direct of song and dance and moments we blush at when parents tirelessly replay the events from the old dusty VHS tapes of the family camcorder. The tape shows me walking into the room, a pair of drum sticks in my hand, size 48 shorts that hung around my buttocks, and Hawaiian flowers draped around my neck. I began furiously kicking my legs in the air, imitating a dance move I recently saw in "The Mask," and I threw the flowers at the camera lens. I was trying to let the flowers launch off of my wrist like a rocket. Instead, I threw them like a mushy baseball.

I remember...my brother imitating "The Mask" when my mother's brother came to visit. He thought the brother was crazy.

Graphic Novels

2009-03-06T18:50:00.001-05:00

(Originally published in the Ohio University Post, March 5)

"Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face."

So begins Watchmen, the 1986 graphic novel by writer Alan Moore and artist David Gibbons that was a landmark publication for the comic book industry.

Along with Maus, a graphic novel by Art Spiegelman that also came out in '86, Watchmen was the first comic to launch comic books into the mainstream literary dialogue, said Kevin Haworth, visiting professor of English at Ohio University who teaches a course about graphic novels.

"(Maus and Watchmen are) not really aesthetically connected," Haworth said, "but I think we would not be where we are now without both of them simultaneously."

Tomorrow, a film version of Watchmen, directed by Zack Snyder (300), opens nationwide, and the film's premiere coincides with increased academic uses of the graphic novel at OU.

Graphic novels combine the fundamentals of a comic - images, bubble dialogue, gridlock space - with the ambitious length and sprawl of a novel. Watchmen is an example of this dichotomy, Haworth said.

"The reason Watchmen was so interesting when it came out was because it was a graphic novel that was also a comic," he said. "It used the characters and trappings of a comic: the superheroes, the flat, bright colors, all the sorts of things you associate with the kind of semi-disposable comic. But it used all these things to create a work of scale and ambition that asked people to think about what comics were really about."

Some industry experts credit A Contract with God by Will Eisner as the first graphic novel, because he was one of the first who imagined selling comics like books, meaning in bookstores on shelves as opposed to comic book shops in cardboard boxes. Eisner, who also wrote The Spirit, has been credited for coining the term "graphic novel," Haworth said.

Graphic novels in academia

Haley Duschinski and Loren Lybarger, professors of anthropology and religion at OU, respectively, both use graphic novels in their courses.

Duschinski uses Maus, which focuses on the Holocaust, and Palestine, a 1996 graphic novel by journalist Joe Sacco about his experiences in the West Bank, for her Anthropology of Violence and Peace course. She said the graphic novel format helps her students better understand the cultures they study.

"They give the reader a different kind of entry point into the cultural context," Duschinski said. "It gives you a different kind of way of identifying with people who are living in situations of violence or people who are victims of violence."

Stefan Barber, a senior studying political science, is a student in Duschinski's class. Barber said the use of Palestine offered a new perspective on the region with its use of images.

"You actually get to witness (Sacco's) experience," Barber said, "rather than through a text-based piece where you just get to hear about it, where the story is told to you."

Lybarger uses Persepolis, a graphic novel about the Iranian revolution, in his Intro to Islam course. Lybarger said it helps him humanize Muslims and the Islamic faith.

"Those of us who ... teach Islam in the post-9/11 context, our fundamental objective is to humanize Muslims," Lybarger said. "The overwhelming starting point, at least in the popular media discourse, is that Muslims are a threat."

"Anything that will convey to my students that Muslims are human beings ... is for me grist for my mill. I will use it," Lybarger said.

In addition to Persepolis, Lybarger said he has considered using Palestine for future courses. Lybarger met the book's author while living in Gaza and makes a cameo appearance in the graphic novel as the character Larry.

From page to screen

Persepolis was originally published in 2000, and the 2007 film adaptation won the Jury Prize at the Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature.

Though the Persepolis film experienced rapid production and acclaim, the literary accomplishments of Watchmen did not translate to immediate celluloid success. Broiled in development problems for almost 20 years, the graphic novel's filming came after a long line of producers, actors and directors dropped out of past projects. Celebrities like Terry Gilliam, Darren Aronofsky, Paul Greengrass, Jude Law and Daniel Craig had been mentioned in past Watchmen proposals.

Despite the film's long-awaited completion, though, some fans still remain skeptical.

Kevin Brown, a senior studying electrical engineering, is an employee at Universe of Superheroes, a comic book store in Athens. Brown said he is hesitant about the Watchmen film.

"Generally, the movies are not as good as the comic book," Brown said. "A comic book like Watchmen I couldn't see being put in a movie well."

Haworth said he is skeptical of how the themes in Watchmen will translate on the big screen.

"I think it's reasonable to ask, 'What's the point other than making a lot of money?'" Haworth said, referencing writer Alan Moore's disdain for the film.

"Part of the reason why Watchmen is important is because it uses the medium that it's critiquing. It's critiquing the superhero comic in the form of a comic. Critiquing the superhero comic in the form of a movie is ... much less intellectually significant."

Obama's shocking speech

2009-02-24T23:43:00.000-05:00

Excuse me, while I cry tears of shocked joy.

I was born at an unfortunate time, a period of a New Gilded Age in the 90s and extreme political incompetence in the new millennium. To become politically active meant to learn to hate government and its excesses and corruption, and to anguish as soldiers died, the elderly lost healthcare coverage, and poverty exploded.

Imagine my shock, then, from the moment Obama began speaking. And he began making sense.

I sat up in my chair. I moved closer to the television screen. I listened intently. A joyful, euphoric thought crossed my mind: "Holy shit. We have a serious president."

We have a president, ladies and gentlemen! Radical expansion of health care. Withdrawal from Iraq. Reinvestment in schools and infrastructure. An actual commitment to alternate energy. If someone had predicted these pronouncements to come from a U.S. president a couple years ago, I would have asked for the maker of their medication.

Even now, I still can't shake the levity of the situation, the notion that we can have faith in a brilliant, motivated, driven leader who speaks to us like we're ADULTS who are ready to improve the country.

As an e-mailing wrote to Andrew Sullivan: "After eight years of being talked to like a child (or an idiot), my president is speaking to me like I am an intelligent adult. This is going to take some getting used to."

Passionate and urgent as Bobby Jindal's rebuttal was dull and out of touch, our moment has arrived.

The revolution is before our eyes, people. Let us embrace it!

Slumdog Millionaire: worst best picture ever?

2009-02-24T23:41:00.000-05:00

I thought "The Departed" was safe. I thought "The Departed" was sound. I thought "The Departed" would remain, irrevocably, absolutely, the worst best picture winner of modern times, as the cartoonish, embarrassing, over-the-top mess of a film seems beyond reproach. WRONG!

"Slumdog Millionaire," the dull, obsequious, overall perfunctory winner of the 2009 Best Picture, may just steal that title! Then again, the success of the film is, admittedly, entirely understandable, as the Academy has a tendency to reward sentimentality on an international scale.

Call it "The International Effect," the propensity to bestow heaps of unwarranted praise on a work of "art" simply because it uses as its setting a foreign country.

Danny Boyle, the director of "Slumdog" (who also netted best directing honors), self-consciously exploited this effect with his film, translating the same style of film he repeatedly made in the 90s to a Bollywood setting. While a first view of the movie reveals Boyle to be hardly a visionary (his camerawork, especially, is dull incarnate), his very choice of transmitting his working-class theme to Bollywood is cliche at best. We all know Bollywood, it's tendencies, it's excesses; yet, it's international, and even more, it's India, so while Boyle is doing something of little originality, you'll still have the few critics/Academy members who will herald the "vision."

Beyond Boyle's lack of creativity, though, is a truly resentful, manipulative approach to film making. Plucking a collection of unknown actors from obscurity, Boyle's movie reeks of precociousness, the conscious choosing of non-stars to create the appearance of a novel approach to making films. Even worse than this exploitative measure, though, is his cartoonish representation of Mumbai and India. Boyle wants to make a modern film of Mumbai, so naturally, he casts a British actor in the lead part; Boyle wants to make a modern film of Mumbai, so naturally, he'll pepper the remaining parts with some of the more offensive Indian caricatures this side of "40 Year Old Virgin" (note: "40" is a comedy, so in that event, the caricatures work); and finally, Boyle wants to make a modern film of Mumbai, so he'll have all the characters speak English.

India is a fascinating, multi-faceted country, one ripe with poverty, rapid industrialization, a modern Caste system its culture resists yet embraces, and a horribly violent religious conflict with Muslim Pakistan. All of these issues would make an interesting film, just don't go to "Slumdog Millionaire" to experience this.

P.S. The best film of 2008 was, without a shadow of a doubt, "Wall-E."

Rod Blagojevich—Heir of Nixon, Corrupt to the Bone

2008-12-09T11:20:00.003-05:00

"Blagojevich and aide allegedly conspired to sell U.S. Senate appointment, engaged in
“pay-to-play” schemes and threatened to withhold state assistance to Tribune Company
for Wrigley Field to induce purge of newspaper editorial writers."

That's the summary of the official complaint from the U.S. Department of Justice, filed today in the arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. The breadth and scope of these charges is simply staggering.

I can't say I've ever had a man-crush on Blago, but I can remember supporting the man as an ignorant eighth grader for one key reason: Ryan was corrupt, Ryan was a Republican, and therefore the GOP brand of Illinois politics had to make way for a Democrat Governor. How ironic, really, that the man who ran on a platform of "reform" is arguably MORE corrupt? I'll be thinking about this phrase constantly over the impending days—only in Illinois politics.

As far as the charges are concerned: it was a well-known allegation that Blago has been involved in "pay-to-play" schemes involving government appointments, and that he had rock-solid ties with convicted lobbyist Tony Rezko. In fact, during the Rezko circus trial, Ali Ata, an ex-aide to Blago, plead guilty to his own corruption charges, alleging that Blago offered him a government position in exchange for thousands in campaign contributions. Even more incendiary was Ata's testimony, which placed him, Blago, and Rezko in the same room weeks after Blago's first election, brainstorming fund raising strategies for a potential PRESIDENTIAL campaign.

As despicable as these charges are, we have to be honest and admit they are in the vein of "Chicago politics." The other two charges though are entirely unique to Blago's corruption process.

The first of the two charges alleges that Blago withheld state assistance to Tribune Company during their attempted sale of Wrigley Field. The reason for this? Blago was fumed over negative editorials that had been published in the Tribune regarding his governorship. SO HE WITHHELD STATE AID SO THE EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS WHO DISLIKED HIM WOULD BE FIRED. Nixonian to the bone, a modern incarnation of Wilsonian fascism.

The second, though, is the allegation that will forever define Blago's failed time as governor. In a move of stunning corruption and dishonesty, the Department's report alleges that President-elect Barack Obama's open Senate seat was, and I'll quote here, "conspiring to sell or trade Illinois’ U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama for financial and other personal benefits for himself and his wife." The report lists some of these benefits as:

< A substantial salary for himself at a either a non-profit foundation or an
organization affiliated with labor unions;
< Placing his wife on paid corporate boards where he speculated she might
garner as much as $150,000 a year;
< Promises of campaign funds – including cash up front; and
< A cabinet post or ambassadorship for himself.

The entire complaint, in PDF format, can be found on the Chicago Sun-Times website (http://www.suntimes.com/index.html#).

What more needs to be said? This man was a walking bulls eye for corruption from the opening days of his administration, and I as well as many other Illinoisans are not surprised that he is finally being arrested. What IS surprising—flabbergasting, in fact—is the scope and decay of the charges, premises that, if true, will set a new low for Illinois politics.

My fellow Illinoisans: follow this story! and be enraged at what you find!

Scary Santa

2008-12-08T23:01:00.000-05:00

Every year for the holiday season, my family engages in a rigorous act of extreme home makeover, transforming our comfortable house in Bartlett, Ill.,into a haven of Christmas decorations and good cheer. During this process, my absolute favorite decoration surfaces: a photo album chronicling our annual trip to Chicago's Marshal Field's (now Macy's), specifically our visit with the Marshal Field's Santa. While the photographs of latter years are collections of joy, the earlier snapshots-where my siblings and I are in our toddler years-are personifications of agony, despair and fear.

The psychological fears of Santa - the fact that he can see us when we're sleeping, knows when we are awake, has carte blanche to determine whether we are good or not - was subject of several low-budget horror films entitled Silent Night, Deadly Night, where Santa kills naughty children, but that was not the source of our fear, at least not early on. While I like to consider my siblings and I as a modern day incarnation of Salinger's Glass family, it is very unlikely that as diaper-boasting tots we were aware of the implicit stalker status of the jolly head elf.

What did scare us, though, was the man's image. Our faces would twist and turn at the sight, becoming puffy with tears and red with stress as a freakish old man beckoned us to sit on his lap. Seemingly proud of the destruction he was causing, he would laugh maniacally at our terrorized glances. He hides his face behind a bushy white beard and gazes at us with beady old eyes. He is dressed in daunting black boots that thunder on the ground, an extravagant belt buckle that glistens like fool's gold in the light, and his trademark red suit, a horrific exercise in mass weight loss that appears to have sprung out of the seventh ring of hell.

Whatever the rationale, Santa is a seriously scary dude, and my family is not the only one to have experienced his frightening demeanor. Deck the halls with this hearty collection of petrified youths (my personal favorite is number five): http://www.sun-sentinel.com/entertainment/holiday/sfl-scaredofsanta-ugc,0,7181908.ugcphotogallery.

A clarification on GOP voters and McCain's latest strategy

2008-10-12T01:41:00.002-04:00

I mentioned, in my last note on McCain's luck, how democratic voters are less prejudiced than republican voters. Before republicans lose their head over the remark, let me offer an elaboration, one to clarify AND to further develop why McCain's campaign is so despicable.

First, the clarification:

Movement conservatism, the radical fringe of the GOP that has dominated the party's policy for the last 30 years, is a movement grounded in racism (1).

While it is a strange idea for modern democrats like myself to consider, the south used to be a reliably democratic region. The logic was simple: FDR's New Deal offered showers of public aid to the impoverished regions of the South, areas that remained devastated from the evaporating manufacturing markets from the Civil War. While the area was still ripe with prejudice, it was short on ignorance, as southern voters were smart enough to vote for the hand that so generously fed them.

This continued until 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was passed. LBJ knew what he was doing. By supporting African-Americans in an unprecedented legislative effort, he was single-handedly offering the South to the GOP. And boy, did they exploit it.

Crazy as he was, Richard Nixon was a brilliant manager of campaigns. He knew what the people wanted to hear, but even more was his ability to run on raw emotion. Along with scare-tactics of communism, Nixon ran on racism, gathering strong southern support by matching their ugly ideology. It didn't matter that Nixon essentially governed as a liberal, raising taxes and pushing for universal healthcare. He ran on pure emotion, and that strategy left a strong impression on budding movement conservatives(2), who would use the campaigning excessively.

To be fair, I cannot credit the success of movement conservatism to racism alone. The movement was heavily financed by rich corporations that despised the high taxes of the New Deal, and the movement ran in equal hatred of such counter-culture themes as drugs, homosexuality, and promiscuous sex (I recommend finding a speech Ronald Reagan gave during his campaign for governorship of California, where he described "vile orgies" and a student dance that had descended into an orgy!).

The fruits of these early campaigns have flourished, as the GOP has held a thorough stranglehold over the South for a solid 30 years. Most recently, George W. Bush and Karl Rove composed a campaign of such cultural misogyny that Nixon would have wept a tear in pride. In 2000, they famously leaked a rumor that John McCain had an illegitimate black child--and during the South Carolina Primary, of all times (and I did mention the baby was black, right?). And during his 2004 re-election, Bush ran on constitutionally banning gay marriage.

These are two of the more egregious examples, but you get the point. Republicans have played on prejudice and raw emotion to win elections.

Now, the elaboration on why McCain is such a scumbag:

John McCain has, essentially, nothing to run on as president. His record as a maverick is laughable upon further inspection. His recent activities, from confusing Sunni and Shia tribes to making so many gaffes on the campaign trail that a campaign manager announced he did not speak for his own campaign, have raised more than eyebrows. And his latest flip flops, on key issues like taxes and immigration, make him progressive politics' worst nightmare.

It is not surprising, then, that McCain would demolish his alleged integrity and run on fear; after all, he is running against a black man with a frightening name. These actions alone are scumbag-worthy, as anybody with a stable internet connection can deduce that Barack Obama is not raising taxes on the middle class, is not a freedom fighter from the middle east, and is not good buddies with Bill Ayers. But again, McCain is a movement conservative candidate, so this was expected.

What I never anticipated, though, was McCain of the swastika. Watching the McCain rallies last week was like being transported to a Nuremberg rally. McCain practically bated the audience, asking rhetorical questions like "Who is Barack Obama?" just begging the crowd to should out words like "A Terrorist!" Sarah Palin was just the same, questioning the crowd at her rally on why a presidential candidate would buddy-up with former terrorists? prompting a crowd member to bellow "KILL HIM!"

This is unacceptable. In an unstable time, where a member of one of the most discriminated minorities in human history is running to shatter the ultimate glass ceiling, your campaign is whipping the uneducated, prejudice base you call "supporters" into a drunken, hate-filled frenzy.

Maybe they'll get lucky and someone will finally shoot Obama.

Despicable. Manipulative. Low. This is the dirtiest political campaign I have ever seen, and I can only hope that Obama wins in a route on November 4 and McCain is forever known as the solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, short man whose grisly politics cost him the election.

1. Indeed: William Buckley, the creator of the movement, defended the Southern States rights to prohibit African-Americans, or, lesser humans, from voting.

2. And Fox News CEO Roger Ailes, the fattest piece of journalistic excrement ever spat upon this earth. And yeah, he did graduate from Ohio University...

A time when Rod Stewart was cool

2008-10-11T18:51:00.000-04:00

Rod Stewart has become a whipping post among rock music circles today, and for good reason. As if his disco-inspired heyday in the 80s were not bad enough, with his spiked hair, leather pants, and leopard-skin jackets, Rod has made a comeback recently by killing American standards like “It Had To Be You” and “Blue Skies.” And yes, even in his ripe old age of 63, he’s still trying to be sexy.

Imagine the shock, then, that the man once fronted a serious and vital rock n’ roll band. And he was cool while doing it.

Faces, a group that also included Ronnie Wood of Rolling Stones fame and Ronnie Lane, rocked a hard, boozy rock that grooved like a motha and stung like a bee. Think of a bar-band type sound, one that is so aggressive, so sloppy, and so darn fun that it could internally combust at any moment.

The group released a number of strong albums during their brief time together (“Long Player” and “A Smile is a Good as a Wink” are the ones to look into), but to fully appreciate the group’s rockin’ talents and their (gulp) diversity, the true purchase must be “Five Guys Walk into a Bar,” a four-disc box set that is simply one of the finest box set releases in the history of rock n’ roll.
There have been better bands than Faces, but as far as the purpose of a box set is concerned—to provide an ultimate showcase of a group while offering music for beginners and music for diehards—“Five Guys…” exceeds on a gargantuan scale. Assembled by group keyboardist Ian McLagan, the set features a whopping 31 unreleased tracks, which include many wild live performances. While I was aware of the hard rock side of Faces when I purchased the set, it was the featured ballads that left me stunned. Yes, ballads! While a bar-band is not the typical benchmark for emotional songs of love and loss, Faces performs a striking series of ballads that all but defy their hard rock roots.

With beautiful melodies and glistening harmonies, songs like “Debris,” “Glad and Sorry,” and especially “If I’m on the Late Side” are as fine as rock balladry gets, offering a wonderful icy cool to the heated rock numbers. This is due in no small part to Lane’s influence, a wonderful and underappreciated songwriter.

A final note is worth being made about the musicianship. Fans of the Rolling Stones will recognize Wood, but his playing throughout the set is still a revelation. Aggressively hoisting his slide guitar to the front of the group, Wood harkens back to the blues with his rendition of “Around the Plynth,” and grooves like the devil in the white city during a live recording of “You’re my Girl.” And then there’s Rod Stewart.

I began this post with Stewart, so I might as well end it with him for the sake of bookends. Stewart is great on these numbers, almost making you forget of his recent dreck. He yelps and hollers with glee during the rock numbers, but sings with feeling and sensitivity during the ballads. He adds a potent charisma to each number, displaying that he had the goods to be a great rock n’ roll vocalist; and during the early part of the 70s, he was. It’s just a crying shame that he had to sell out.

Bottom line, Faces is a band well worth investigating, as they offer harder rock than the Rolling Stones while the sensitive balladry of any folk group. Give ‘em a chance, as I am sure you’ll be pleasantly surprised!

McCain want's somebody...to hold his hand

2008-10-10T22:20:00.002-04:00

Poor John McCain. He had so much going for him! Aside from the fact that his campaign reeks of movement conservative politics, aside from his repeated gaffes on policy, aside from selling his soul to the radical lunatic fringe of the GOP, and aside from making the most irresponsible VP choice in modern political times, John has been hanging in there(1).

I find it exceedingly difficult, however, to imagine how his campaign can survive what has transpired the last 24 hours.

1. The stock market finished a horrendous week, dropping over 18% of its value. How bad is this? It's the worst week in the history of the stock exchange (yeah, worse than 1933). Any bad economic news is bad news for the McCain campaign, as the kind of policies he supports have directly influenced this melt down.

2. Earlier today, McCain defended the honor of Barack Obama, answering angry cries of Obama's religion and character at a Minnesota rally. After McCain made the statement, which was a basic declaration of what a decent family man Obama is, his supporters booed him for the gesture.

3. The bipartisan investigation into Sarah Palin's troopergate scandal was made public today, and it overwhelmingly concludes that Palin DID abuse her power as governor by firing Commissioner Walter Monegan, allegedly because Monegan would not fire Tim Wooten, a state trooper who was embroiled in a bitter custody battle with Palin's sister.

These developments are quite catastrophic, and they are the last thing McCain needed at this point in the campaign. His credibility slipping, his consistency nonexistence, and his integrity all but a mirage, McCain has nothing to run on. By deciding to avoid the issues, and purely run on the "controversies" and "scandals" of Barack Obama's character, McCain was playing on thin ice. These were the same strategies that Hillary Clinton employed during her own campaign battle with Obama, and obviously, Clinton lost that battle. By nature, however, democrats are less prejudiced voters than republicans, and by campaigning in such a fashion, McCain unleashed an electoral monster that he could have NEVER hoped to control, one united in racism and bound by their absolute hatred of variety. What did he expect to happen? Now that McCain has backed off on this approach, he has angered these supporters, and with them the powerful right-wing talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Idiots they are, but powerful they are as well, and their wrath will be swift.

The Palin is self-explanatory: the kind of scandal and abuse of power that we have come to expect as protocol during the Bush years. And she managed this during her first year as governor. Not only does it undermine the entire argument for her nomination--that Washington needs a new, fresh kind of politician--but it is the most blatant example of Palin's prevarication, as she was a staunch opponent to the investigation from the start, refusing to answer to subpoenas and hiding behind the McCain campaign's clout to crush the investigation. She failed, and the information is now out.

As I finish writing this, I'm listening to Otis Redding's rendition of "A Woman, a Lover, a Friend," and in the song, Otis sings:

"I want me somebody, to hold my hand. Somebody to love me, and understand."

Oh John, how Otis feels your pain.

1. With a practical tongue-bath by the press, mind you.

Leave it to Hustler: A Sarah Palin Porn Flick

2008-10-04T15:16:00.002-04:00

How could I make this up?

Larry Flint's Hustler has made a Sarah Palin-themed porno film, and copies of the script have been leaked to the press.

I'll admit--it sure seems folksy!

P.S. While some have disagreed on the outcomes, we can all admit that this has been the zaniest, most unpredictable, and flat out wild presidential election in recent memory. Though I am still making up my mind on whether that's a good thing or not...

A Wink is better than a Nod...to a Horny Conservative

2008-10-04T10:52:00.002-04:00

Richy Lowry has always been somewhat of a toad. Aside from editing the National Review, the biggest piece of garbage to every be printed on glossy paper, Lowry has also penned a book entitled "Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years," where he sticks every crisis of the George W. Bush presidency on Clinton while attributing all of Clinton's success to Reagan's reign.

His latest jaw-dropper, though, exceeds my wildest expectations for what idiotic conservatives are capable of. Get a load of this, his column following the Vice Presidential debate that was posted on the National Review website (emphasis mine):

"A very wise TV executive once told me that the key to TV is projecting through the screen. It's one of the keys to the success of, say, a Bill O'Reilly, who comes through the screen and grabs you by the throat. Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it."

Have you ever read anything so creepy? so fundamentally...icky? Rich Lowry gets his juices flowing by watching stunt doubles from "Fargo" mangle the English language. Aim...fire!

The VP Debate--Hyper Corkiness and Foreign Policy Smackdowns

2008-10-02T23:35:00.002-04:00

Reflections

The only Vice Presidential debate has come and gone, and I have several observations regarding the content and substance of the evening (hint: it's not complimentary to Palin).

The game plan tonight for Palin was obvious: increase her folksy charm to hyperventilating levels, bypassing substance all together and blatantly ignoring the prompts by the moderator. On more than one occasion, Palin completely ignored the topic in discussion, answering with "yes" or "no" questions and then barreling into something unrelated, or, on one occasion earlier in the debate, literally telling the moderator she was not going to focus on her question.

Why would she avoid these questions? because her note cards did not provide answers. There is no bias involved in charging that Palin did considerable cramming for this debate, as her focus on international affairs, both economically and politically, was slim to none while Governor of Alaska. Her interviews the last two weeks display this in spades. In cramming for this debate, however, she pigeon-holed her performance. She was so reliant on the note cards and on her pre-set answers that any maneuvering--such as when she tried to explain the tax and health care policies of McCain, or when she was asked to differentiate McCain and Dubya--and her answers came off as awkward as a result. And for the record, she never once gave a substantive answer on how McCain is different from Bush.

Consider, for instance, the most moving part of the debate, where Biden made reference to the horrific car accident that took the lives of his first wife and infant daughter. Biden was noticeably chocked up over mentioning the incident, and it tied in quite well with his argument. Palin's response? Talking points, and cliche ones at that. As Chris Matthew said following the debate in regards to her scripted responses, "I felt like I was listening to a spelling bee."

She didn't burn the barn down, so in that respect, she succeeded. But did she provide any substance? any indicator that she has the capacity to be the most powerful person in the world? NO.

Biden, however, was more sluggish in the opening. It seemed he was caught off guard by the pit-bull methods of Palin, and he struggled through the first half of the debate to find a clear voice. That all changed, though, once foreign policy was introduced, a topic that has always remained the piece-de-resistance of Biden's platform. Mr. Foreign Policy, as he is called, Biden plowed over questions regarding Israel, Iran, and Pakistan, where Palin, surprise surprise, lacked serious substance, even getting facts such as the commanding general of the Afghanistan regime wrong, calling him "McClellan."

After the foreign policy segment ended, Biden charged ahead, clearly feeling more comfortable with his forceful stance against Palin. I felt that he tried to play it down the center when the debate started, over-relying on facts and tone and letting Palin win on personality. Once international affairs became the topic, however, and the true Biden came out to play, he seemed remarkably cozy in attacking the platforms of McCain and Palin.

The News

Every debate, in one form or another, creates news, and for tonight's sparing it was Palin's jaw-dropping, outrageous comment that as Vice President, she would seek to constitutionally increase the power of her position.

WHAT?!?

This is clearly an issue that Palin will be clarifying in the coming weeks. The last eight years, we have been subjected to the most blatant assault on constitutional rights in United States history, and who was the man in the center of all this? DICK CHENEY. Here is a man who increased his own power and influence to unspeakable levels as vice president, leading the nation into an unnecessary war while dominating the president's ear on particulars. For Palin to suggest, after eight years of blatant fascism, that she would attempt to bring MORE power to the VP slot is maddening. Check that: it's inexcusable, and it proves my point that she is useless without her talking points note cards.

Press Conference--NOW

Which brings me to the most important issue now, for me at least: Palin in an unrehearsed press conference. The debate tonight appealed to her strengths. It was fast, it was frantic, and it allotted Biden limited time to question her lies on health care, taxes, and her record as Governor; additionally, it removed any time for follow ups by the moderator, as Palin's biggest lie of the night, that she supports rights for gay couples, went all but unchallenged by moderator Gwen Ifill. In a real press conference, with multiple journalists asking a multitude of questions, Palin will have to stand up for these sort of things. Maybe that's why she discouraged the idea of meeting with any more "mainstream media" reporters at the closing of tonight's debate...

P.S. Independent voter reactions are overwhelmingly in Biden's favor. We won't know the full impact of this debate until late Saturday/early Sunday, as those poll results will be post-debate, but the early news seems promising for Biden.

A Couple of Critical Clarifications on McCain's Iraq Platform

2008-09-27T01:43:00.000-04:00

During the debate tonight, John McCain continued to pedal a couple of misguided, highly irritating stances regarding Iraq that I feel require critical clarification.

1. The Surge

McCain continues to applaud his support of the surge, boasting about how well the surge has worked, how he supported it, and how Barack Obama didn't. There a a few rather important points underlying this idea that McCain does not mention (and wisely so--it cripples his entire argument).

First, the surge has not "worked," insomuch as what the Bush administration itself said was the intention of the surge. Violence was never the goal of the surge. The point was to decrease insurgent conflict in order to further political reconciliation among the Iraqi government. Currently, we've gone full-circle, as the government is still nowhere near complete, universal agreement.

Second, a distinction must be made on the decreasing violence. While pouring more troops into a war zone will obviously lead to a reduction in violence, there are two non-related developments in Iraq that contributed more to the decrease in violence than the surge itself. First is the Sunni Awakening, an event where Sunni tribes agreed to aid the mostly Shia Iraqis government in fighting insurgents.* Second is bribery, as the US has literally paid off many insurgents to stop their assaults, while Muqtada al-Sadr, the powerful Shia cleric, has ordered a cease-fire for his troops.

So, McCain can wax faux-poetry all he wants on the success of the surge, but we should keep in mind that there is far more than meets the eye regarding the topic.

2. The Future in Iraq

McCain has wisely decided to ignore his support for the invasion of Iraq and instead focus on the future of the country, emphasizing the long-term goals of our occupation of the country and demanding that we do not leave until we can "leave with honor." A nice slogan, but absolute bullshit if you understand a tiny portion of what makes that region tick.

Leaving Iraq with honor is impossible. The circumstances surrounding our illegal invasion of the country and our embarrassing war-time decisions will haunt this country for the next half-century, and no matter how honorable our discharge, the first thought on America's mind regarding Iraq will still be WMDs and post-invasion blunders.

And beyond pre-war planning, we need to remind ourselves of how damaging Iraq has been on an international scale. Invading Iraq has effectively empowered Iran and dealt damaging blows to American credibility involving foreign countries, agency intelligence, and executive judgment. Based on what McCain is suggesting, it is not possible to leave Iraq with enough honor to replace the international pessimism the invasion has brewed.

Finally, one last note on the Iraqis: they want us OUT of their country. A point that Obama should have made in the debate was that Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq's Prime Minister, publicly endorsed Obama's plan for a phased withdrawal of US troops! And beyond that, a recent poll of Iraqi citizens found that over 80% support an immediate withdrawal.

To conclude, John McCain is using his alleged expertise in foreign affairs to sell a highly misleading and potentially devastating foreign policy to American voters, and it is critical that we pay more attention to his statements and scrutinize the true facts behind his claims, because as I have demonstrated, something smells.

*This bottom-up approach to ending the sectarian violence was suggested by Barack Obama--two years ago. The Bush administration finally administers the strategy, and guess what? It exceeded beyond our wildest dreams. And Obama is supposed to be the one lacking foreign policy judgment?

The First Debate

2008-09-27T00:00:00.000-04:00

Obama's most forceful debate yet, this affirmed the idea that he can tackle foreign policy "experts" like McCain with the vigor and aggressiveness that has been missing from Democratic candidates for the last eight years.

Several pundits are exclaiming that McCain won this debate, but I completely disagree. First, let's look at image.

History has shown us how pivotal image is in these televised debates. The first ever televised debate, between Kennedy and Nixon, proved this. Radio listeners, who focused on substance, thought that Nixon won the debate. Television viewers, who saw Nixon's sickly scragginess to Kennedy's perfect, clean shaven pretty boy, approved Kennedy overwhelmingly. In short: image matters, and McCain did not seem to get the memo.

All throughout the debate, McCain was hunched over, squinting, and grumpy. In fact, he never even looked at Obama during the debate, as the ever-uncomplimentary split screens showed. Throughout the evening, McCain repeatedly insisted that Obama was "naive," and that he didn't understand complex foreign affairs. At one point, he stated that Obama did not know the difference between a "tactic" and a "strategy."

On the flip-side, Obama was gracious in comparison, complimenting several of McCain's ideas while deconstructing his arguments with facts and reasoning. In this respect, Obama in a knock-out.

Now, lets move on to substance. From Obama's perspective, this debate could not have gone better. He appears fluent, confident, and aggressive with foreign affairs, forcefully challenging McCain on such heavyweight issues as Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and the financial crisis. If you doubted Obama's command of foreign issues before this debate, his bold charges of McCain's wrongfulness regarding Iraq, his idiotic opposition to communication with enemies (in which he brilliantly invoked Kissinger's support of the plan--who is a big-time adviser for McCain), and his undying support for the surge.

The worst thing that could have happened would have been uncertainty by Obama and cocky assurance by McCain. Instead, we had Obama defending his ideologies, and using facts and logic to debunk the claims of McCain. With McCain, we had showings of insecurity and a lack of planning (due in no small part to his ridiculous stunt to help with the bail out), and it all added up to a generally underwhelming performance from the next incarnate of movement conservatism.

In short: Obama big time, and I hope more people saw who the real president was on stage tonight.

What to Look for in the Debate tonight

2008-09-26T15:45:00.002-04:00

The first of three presidential debates will occur tonight, and there are two major issues to look for between the two candidates.

1. McStunt: McCain made a horribly calculating, horribly STUPID move earlier this week when he "suspended" his campaign to "help" in negotiations for the bailout plans of Wall Street. I write "suspended" because the campaign did not stop, as ads continued to run and offices remained open. I write "help" because McCain's participation in the plan equaled an absolute destruction of everything Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and others had assembled the prior three days. I heard on NPR this morning that the executive meeting McCain was involved in went so poorly that Hank Paulson got on one knee and begged his fellow republicans to help pass the measure. As of today, no proposal is even close to being passed.

That was bad enough, but McCain went for the coup de grace in political mockery by asking for the suspension of tonight's debate, so, you guessed it, he could "save America" and work on the bailout proposal.

What McCain has done with all this posturing is raise expectations for his performance tonight. By going for the gauntlet of "looking presidential," he came off as lame, opportunistic, and shallow, lacking any of the substance that we expect from our commander in chief. McCain has never been much of a debater, but I think tonight will prove critical if his performance reflects the shady, scatter shot behavior we've seen this week.

2. Lock 'n Load: Obama MUST do well tonight, as this is the first time that all Americans--both democrats and republicans--will see him in a substantive policy debate. And on foreign policy, nonetheless, a topic McCain is still seen to have an advantage in (no matter how misguided that view may be). Thus far, Obama has been a fine, if irregular, debater. While his speaking abilities are beyond reproach, he is a tad more inconsistent when speaking impromptu, with his debate speeches and explanations lacking the flair and humility of his stump speeches. The effect? he comes across as too professorial for "bitter" voters whom he needs to win this election.

During the primary season, there was one debate where Obama was noticeably better than Clinton, that being the Ohio debate. In that presentation, he was charming, eloquent, and concise, never over talking his points while calmly asserting his presidential prowess. That's what he needs to do tonight, to make voters feel comfortable voting for a 47-year old black man. For many of us, that was never a factor, but for some it still is, and their fears MUST be squashed for Obama to win in November.

Why Paulson's Plan is Bullshit

2008-09-24T17:12:00.006-04:00

I’ll be upfront: I have never liked Hank Paulson. Maybe it’s the glasses. Maybe it’s his perfunctory baldness. Or maybe it’s his spot-on imitation of Skeletor.(1) Whatever the reason, something always struck me as queer about the guy, and his hair-on-fire response to the financial crisis does not help his image one bit.

I am not discrediting the credit crisis in any way, as it has the potential to be the Great Depression Part Deux. Institutions are not only failing left and right, but the sheer magnitude of those institutions is enough to get any economist's blood boiling. AIG, for example, (the latest bank to go running for big daddy government) held over $1 trillion in total assets. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two government-backed loan enterprises that imploded and were subsequently inhaled by the government, held over $5 trillion in mortgage-backed securities. We are talking about a huge amount of money here, and therefore government interaction is necessary.
The Paulson Plan, however, is wrong on so many levels it is startling. Here are some of the bigger points:

1. LOTS of dough...for Wall Street: We all see the magic number--$700 billion of our tax payer dollars to buy garbage mortgage backed securities(2), possibly at inflated prices. The total could balloon to the $1 trillion mark. Yet, nowhere does Paulson's Plan contribute any money to Main Street. No money for home foreclosures. No stimulus relief funds. Nothing. All the money would back the same, predatory Wall Street barracudas that launched this catastrophe. And once this lending is over, nothing is asked in return of the institutions. No further deregulation measures. No limits to CEO compensation. No higher taxes on future trading. Not even a measure that guarantees rewards for taxpayers should these securities increase in value after the governmental takeover. NOTHING.

2. Arrogance: As Paul Krugman said on "Countdown" the other night, there is a stunning arrogance to Paulson's Plan and his gung-ho of support for the measure. Since the plan's introduction, Paulson has not provided a single shred of argument on why his plan will even work. Appearing on “Meet the Press” this last Sunday, Paulson achieved a grand balancing act of fiercely endorsing his plan of unlimited buyouts while cautiously dodging any substantive questions from moderator Tom Brokaw. So we were treated with the familiar mantra of "this is a crisis, we need to act now, we need to act fast, more recession could follow," while there has been no substantive argument from the man on why we should even put our trust in this plan. A $700 billion proposal and the man provides no JUSTIFICATION on why it would work? INSANITY.

And all the while, Senator Chris Dodd, head of the Senate Banking Committee, has constructed a plan that is much more feasible and well-thought-out than Paulson's, though Dodd is a mere Senator compared to the “expertise” of former Goldman Sachs CEO/Harvard-educated Paulson.(3)

3. Fascism: This is the biggie, as Paulson's Plan is horrifyingly similar to the Iraq War Resolution that gave President Bush the authority to invade Iraq. And no, I'm not making that up. I quote Section 8 of the plan:

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

In other words, Paulson has carte blanche, a free hand to use our money any way he pleases with absolutely no constraints. The man can literally lock himself in his office until December and not issue a single report on his actions. And then, when he emerges with worthless securities on his hands and plunges the country into a deeper recession, he will have no legal accountability for his actions. Newsweek had it right with their headline on the mess: "King Henry."

And once again: this is exactly like Iraq.

The language, the bravado, the eagerness. It's all the same. Paulson continues to press the idea that immediate action is needed. Act now. Act fast. TRUST ME. Haven't we fallen for this before? Are we ready to fall for it again? Considering that we are knee-deep in the failures of the worst administration in United States history, the last thing we should be doing is awarding that same administration with this kind of power. Our congressmen owe us that much.

1. Seriously: if this bid as Treasury Secretary doesn’t work out, Hank could be a shoo-in for the next season of “America’s Got Talent.”
2. So me economists are dubbing Paulson’s plan “Cash for Trash”.
3. And one more thing on that: Paulson is the same guy who, just one week ago, decided to stop government bailouts and let the institutions fail...until the walls started caving in the next day. So far, he has been a guy effectively out of his element with no idea on what to do and no premise to work with. As historians, is there any reason to put our faith in him now?

Herbie Hancock's "Speak Like a Child"

2008-09-22T15:43:00.005-04:00

As somebody with over 14,500 songs on their iPod, there are several songs and artists that have had a profound, emotional, resonating impact on me. The examples are obvious to anyone who knows me well--Nick Drake, Joy Division, Van Morrison, Sly & the Family Stone, Miles Davis. When considering individual songs of profound impact, however, I constantly return to “Speak Like a Child,” a jazz composition written and performed by Herbie Hancock.

This beautiful, gorgeous song strikes me in a strange, alluring fashion, and it is difficult to put into words.

While the song has no lyrics, the title has a breathtaking, poetic quality, and is the first of the many mesmerizing aspects of the song. It is so simple, yet as the only words associated with the track, so meaningful.

And it perfectly complements the music of the track. One of the more interesting aspects of "Speak Like a Child" is the unusual instrumentation Hancock employs to support his piano. Casting aside the rudimentary Jazz language of the piano/trumpet/saxophone combo, Hancock instead uses flugelhorn, bass trombone, and alto flute, and rather than using the instruments for extended soloing, he uses them for mood and shading behind his own soloing on piano. The effect is a highly unorthodox but undeniably beautiful sound scape.

And then he plays, in such a light, delicate fashion. In other words, he speaks like a child. Hancock has always possessed a prodigious technique, capable of creating whirlwinds of sixteenths and thirty-seconds that confound traditionalists and amaze postmodernists. On this track, though, he forgoes all that jazz. Instead of power, we have lyricism. Instead of confrontation, we have sweetness. Along with experience, we have innocence, the innocence of childhood.

Listening to the song, to Hancock’s precious playing, and to his arrangements, I am flooded with memories of my youth. Not exactly one specific memory, but an entire cascade, an endless slide show of bits and pieces that all have one thing in common—the essence of childhood, and the innocence and adventure and carelessness that the time is defined by.

As I age, and more responsibility gradually crashes into my life, I can’t help but yearn for the simplicity of my youth. Listening to Hancock's music, I am saddened, thinking back to such simple times and wishing, so bad, that I could reclaim that joy for just another moment. Yet, Hancock’s light arpeggios fade off into the distance, and the song comes to a close. Great art is like our childhood; an evanescence, slowly melting away into the past.

I have never met the man, so I cannot be certain of this specific emotional response as what Hancock intended. What I do know, however, is that Hancock is as much a philosopher as he is a musician, and his composes his music with the specific goal to thrill, challenge, and above all else, move his audience. "Speak Like a Child," the title track off his 1968 release, it a sublime example.

We should be ENRAGED about Palin!

2008-09-22T14:55:00.003-04:00

Andrew Sullivan puts it in a way that deems all other rants on the Palin pick inconsequential.

But I will say this: the Palin pick is unprecedented in its cynicism, its arrogance, and the underlying stupidity it reinforces regarding the American public.

Journalists were very critical of Obama when the Palin pick emerged, as he seemed sluggish in delivering a rebuttal to her choosing. What they saw as procrastination, however, I saw as shock, a genuine flabbergast that the American public could be this stupid and support a politician like Palin.

Now, Palin's numbers have gone down, and dramatically so; yet, McCain is still keeping it close with Obama, boasting an average poll total of 45% to Obama's 50%. I called McCain's bluff the moment the pick was announced, and my initial reaction to Palin was annoyance. Now, three weeks in and the poll remaining steady, the only plausible reaction to such an s ignorance and indifference is, well, outrage.

Outrage for the cynicism of the pick, outrage at the morals of a political party that would nominate such a conniving politician, and outrage as a public too stupid to figure it all out.

Palin Protesters! And a note on Personality

2008-09-14T19:15:00.003-04:00

Sarah Palin's return to Alaska was welcomed with open arms--by thousands (I repeat, THOUSANDS) of protesters, all angrily holding signs in opposition to the psychopath's hard-right platform.

Here's the video of the Anchorage pit-stop. Anchors away!

And, as promised, a note on the alarming role personality is playing in the presidential election.

The strategy of the McCain campaign is simple: above all else, keep conversation away from the issues. Campaign chair Rick Davis put it best in a recent Washington Post interview when he said, "This election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

Admittedly, McCain's campaign has done a remarkable job avoiding the issues and focusing on personality. Consider the VP choice of Sarah Palin.

When the pick was announced, I saw through McCain's initial justification for the selection, how he has chosen Palin for her record as a "reformer." It was a blatant and shameful play for PUMA voters (Party Unity My Ass voters, who supported Clinton and are refusing to support Obama) and the supposed "Reagan Democrats," democrats who are too stupid to vote in their own self-interest. And, Palin represented the kind of scientifically ignorant, cronyism infested charlatan that the GOP adores.

What I did not count on, though, was how distracting Palin would be. In that respect, I'll give McCain some credit. He chose a VP who was so ridiculous, so overwhelmingly dishonest, that the media and mainstream voters alike would be mesmerized by her presence, putting an absolute stand-still on the long-awaited scrutiny of McCain's platform.

The distraction has worked in spades, however. Currently, McCain LEADS Obama in national poll averages (which may be bullshit, as they neglect younger voters), and the once comfortable lead Obama enjoyed in the election market polls (think Vegas-style politics) is all but disintegrated.

This may be a mirage. The media may finally wake-up to Palin's lies and voters may FINALLY discover that McCain is George W. Bush with a turkey girdle.

Realistically, we'll have to wait until the debates, as that will present a venue where McCain will be forced to answer for his dreadful record on economics, foreign policy, energy, healthcare, and lobbyists.

But, even with debates, this epiphany did not happen in 2000; and it did not happen in 2004, either, so I approach these coming weeks with a skeptic's eye and a cynic's worldview.

HAHAHA!!! THE PALIN INTERVIEW!!!!!!!

2008-09-12T22:05:00.002-04:00

The Sarah Palin interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson is a blogger's wet dream.

It really is rare for a single event to offer so much to mock, so much to laugh at, so much to RIDICULE.

But I'll keep it short and sweet: the Palin interview, in all its ignorance and stupidity, makes me jump up and down like a little schoolboy during music hour in Sunday School for her debate with Joe Biden.

While I'll be crossing my fingers for a discussion on nuclear proliferation (just to hear her Fargo accent mangle the poor, destructive word), I'm hoping for the really meaty topics of foreign policy to surface. Like renegotiation of NAFTA. Or trade relations with China. Or the Iraq withdrawal plan--which Iraq President Nouri al-Maliki supports but John McCain and Palin oppose--or, as we learned today that she still believes, Saddam's connections with 9/11!

It is bound to be a festive day

"Botero" drug creates sensation

2008-09-08T16:35:00.003-04:00

New weight-gain drug has spear-headed a social revolution

“Chunky Mommas” leader Big Momma Ray rallies her troops at a Chunky Momma Convention.

Botero, the radical new innovation in the field of medicine that “plumps up women,” as drug creator Alfred B. Goodness said, has launched a new revolution of public image, creating a body of “Chunky Momma” women that, as Goodness explained, sends them “back to our natural predecessors.”

“The point of the drug is to bring women back to their roots,” Goodness said. “Forever women have been pressured to ‘tighten’ their figures and meet social standards. I am simply trying to bring us back to our natural predecessors.”

The drug works by slowing down the mitochondria of the body’s cells. The mitochondria, often called the “powerhouse” of the cell, generates a great deal of what is called adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, which is used as a source of chemical energy.

“I slow the mitochondria down, therefore slowing down the various processes involved in the body, such as weight loss,” Goodness said.

While the science community was originally skeptical of Goodness’ findings, repeated studies of the drug have shown that Botero only targets the specific function of the mitochondria involving weight loss. All other processes, such as cell growth and death, are left to perform fine.

“It’s an amazing achievement,” said Dr. Ralph Spellman, a biologist who teaches at the University of Michigan. “Goodness has achieved something that we biologists only dream of: the opportunity to play God and re-work his most precious creation, the cell; and, in the process, produce a thriving breed of healthy, juicy young women.”

And while the scientific merits of the drug have never been in doubt, the social impact was questioned during the first few months of the drug’s existence. Now, however, the drug has created a new breed of women who proudly declare themselves “The Chunky Mommas.”

“We ARE ‘The Chunky Mommas!’” declared group leader and self-described Botero junky Big Momma Ray at the latest Chunky Momma Convention in McCormick Place, Chicago.

“This was me five months ago,” Ray said, as she showed the 1,000 plus women in the convention a picture. “Look at that!” Ray said, “I only weighed 120 pounds! I was thin, frail, and constantly under pressure to trim my figure.”

“But NOW” Ray continued, as she walked from her podium to the face the crowd, “I am over 300 pounds of woman, and I am hard…to…handle!”

The crowd went wild, as Ray’s charismatic leadership has driven group membership in the hundreds of thousands.

“I suspect we’ll be at a million members by the end of the year,” Ray said. “This an all-out social revolution, and I want history to remember ‘The Chunky Mommas’ for what they were: bold, healthy, and very, very, juicy.

Note: this news piece is a total joke. I put it together for my graphics communication class. IT IS NOT REAL!!! :)

"Psycho" Revisited

2008-09-07T20:05:00.005-04:00

Alone, and semi-bored, I found myself flipping channels Sunday afternoon on the old, semi-obsolete Philips television set I brought with me here to Ohio. I'm not much of a channel flipper, as the interminable exercise normally gives little benefit; today, however, was an exception.

I found the Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece "Psycho" playing on Turner Classic Movies, and while this is certainly not the first time I've seen the film--indeed, it is forever enshrined in my top 20 films--watching it again, in my current disposition and with all the knowledge I possess on Hitchcock and the film, was an immensely satisfying experience.

But first: the film.

What immediately struck me about "Psycho" this time around was Anthony Perkins. Perkins was a hot, rising actor in the late 50s, and he was even hailed by many as the next James Dean, due in no small part to the innocent sexuality he effortlessly exuded in his roles that drove the ladies oh so crazy. It was this characteristic, however, that would make him so appealing to Alfred Hitchcock, who wanted to cast an actor of Perkins' exact stature for the role of Norman Bates.

Though Perkins did accept the role, he was haunted by the decision, fearing that it would forever tarnish his career and lead to the ever-dreaded typecast. And it did, as Perkins was never able again to shake the image of the tormented, psychotic Bates.

But what performance to lose your career over! Perkins is flat-out riveting in this movie, creating an uneasy yet driving mood that pulses each scene he's in with the same horrified, caged fear of the stuffed birds that adorn Bates' office. While Hitchcock famously hated method actors, Perkins has an undeniable method to the madness of this performance, as his hollow eyes gaze longingly for passion, his face ticks with nervousness and shyness, and all the subtleties of his face--laughs, smiles, chuckles--just add to the coiled tension.

It's a brilliant performance, and while Hitchcock's direction has claimed legendary status, Perkins work deserves equal praise.

Not that the praise for the direction is misguided, mind you, as this film alone could establish Hitchcock as one of the greatest directors in the history of celluloid. Upon receiving the script for his next project, Hitchcock would immediately draw storyboards for each and every scene, and "Psycho" reflects this obsession with detail. Every scene features perfect framing, as Hitchcock is capable of placing the camera in choreographed places that progress the story AND enforce the subtle themes he is known for.

Consider, for example, the scene between Perkins and Janet Leigh, where she eats a sandwich Perkins has prepared for her. Beyond the weird, alluring chemistry between the two leads, Hitchcock shoots the scene with such consistency, allowing the actors their space while still examining the stuffed birds that adorn Norman Bates' office.

Not the whole film is straight-forward, though, as Hitchcock still uses virtuoso technique in several scenes, such as the thrilling crane shot through the Bates' house, which stops above the second-floor staircase as Bates carries his mother down the steps, or the twisting shot that examines Bates' paranoid face as he is questioned by a private investigator about Marion Crane's disappearance, giving him the appearance of a bird; or, the brilliant usage of lighting throughout the film, how Bates' face is constantly shown in a half-light/half-dark dichotomy, or the BRILLIANT lighting in the final, shocking climax where we discover the truth about Bates, as the swinging light bulb in the fruit cellar swings to and fro while the camera focuses intently on Momma Bates.

With Hitchcock's film, we get beautiful settings, excellent performances, and tightly controlled plots, but what films like "Psycho" display is that there will always be little, precise subtleties that will keep us watching these films into the future, and I look forward to the times of this future where I can enjoy films in the same way I enjoyed watching "Psycho" yesterday.

What to Look for in the next 60 days

2008-09-07T12:54:00.003-04:00

We made it. The conventions are over, and the general election campaign has begun. While I never thought this day would come (remember: campaigning for the primaries began in February--of 2007), it is finally time for us to focus on the issues of the campaign and decide who we will ultimately support in the November 4 election. As there was any doubt, but you get my point.

Here are some of the top stories to focus on in the coming weeks:

Palin and the Sunday Talking Heads

Considering that nobody knew who Sarah Palin was two weeks ago, her meteoric rise in the GOP/Fundamentalist/Psycho Killer faction of the Republican Party has been phenomenal to watch, but what adds an extra layer of fascinating to Palin is the flurry of scandals and controversies that have exploded on the national scene at an equal rate. It is patently obvious that McCain's campaign did little to no vetting prior to selecting Palin, and it took the press a whopping 48 hours to tally more suspicious stories on Palin than Bill Clinton holds mistresses (consult this blog entry for further information).

Since these stories broke, though, Palin has offered no public comment regarding any of them, even going the extra mile and refusing to speak to the press or appear on ANY of the popular Sunday news programs (a la This Week and Meet the Press). John McCain supports this decision, and why shouldn't he? A idiotic response by Palin to any of these scandals would be catastrophic to his chances for the White House.

But, this will not continue, as Palin WILL eventually appear on one of the Sunday morning talk shows. Though there is already a substantive amount of hype surrounding Palin's past, these relatively small rumblings will become all-out earthquakes when election day approaches, and Palin MUST address these questions on a nationally-televised program.

Plus, it would be great theater.

The Debates

The election season is currently embroiled in its most annoying phase, one I like to call the "Schoolyard Phase." One candidate says one thing about the other candidate. The other candidate hears about what the first candidate said and responds with his own little witticism. Evening news programs report on the repartee, and the process rinses, dries, and repeats the next days.

In other words, endless banter continues for an endless amount of time. That is, until the debates occur.

I've always had a love for debate, watching two minds square off in a pure, mano a mano fashion. It cuts through the bullshit of campaigning and allows us to see the candidates in all their eloquence, complexity, and, most importantly, stupidity. This debate between George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton is a perfect example.

But beyond the theory of it all, the debates will be worth watching because of the issues, as the candidates will finally have a chance to call each other out on any inconsistencies or contradictions that have risen on the campaign trail. In particular, look for a very interesting debate on Foreign Policy between McCain and Obama.*

Polls

I know polls are polls are polls are polls are polls, and they are unreliable. What I think we should look for, however, is John McCain's numbers, as they represent a glaring contradiction in the voting public.

John McCain has voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time. He has changed his positions on tax cuts, torture, homosexuality, and abortion to mimic Dubya's hard-right, Jesusfied platform.

So let's look at this logically:

George W. Bush has a platform that has low approval ratings.
John McCain has a platform that perfectly copies Bush's platform.
Therefore, John McCain should have low approval ratings.

Except that is not the case! Though the similarities are undeniable, McCain's current average in polls is around 42-44%, which is MUCH higher than the Bush ratings, which have dipped past the 25% mark.

The only reasonable explanation for this is stoopidity. Republican voters, simply, have not looked deeply at McCain's proposals and seen the similarities, nor payed attention to the countless journalists and pundits who pointed these mirror images long before I have.

So while I am asking a good deal here (as far as I can tell, there is still no cure for stoopidity), we should still watch the poll numbers and see what develops.

*I would mention how much I'm looking forward to the Biden/Palin debate, but we should wait and see what happens with Palin before assuming she'll debate Biden in October.

McCain's Speech

2008-09-05T21:08:00.002-04:00

I apologize for the tardiness of this post. I've been busy the last 48 hours moving into my dorm at Ohio University, and writing has unfortunately taken a back seat to the proceedings of driving for nine hours (!) and then fashioning the room with all the bells and whistles of the ideal metropolitan journalism major.

As for the speech, I'll state what everyone probably knows already: I didn't like it.

But of course, I will elaborate on that.

The beginning of the speech was dreadful. While I did not see the frightening neon-green background that supported Johnny's speech (I was driving to Ohio and heard it on the radio), I actually felt that listening to McCain as opposed to watching him helped him in the long-run, as I was deprived of the man's Uncle Munster appeal and ancient charm.

The first third of the speech, though, truly was dreadful. A basic, meandering beginning, and more irritating falsehoods about Obama's platform.

Then, things got more interesting. First, McCain offered a fairly shocking bitchslap of the current government, chastising it for it's ineffectiveness and blaming it for the way the country is now. More on that later. But then, he turned his attentions elsewhere.

McCain has long been a candidate slammed for his misunderstanding of the economy. He famously admitted during an interview that he knew very little on the subject, and last night's speech was a clear attempt by the "maverick" to rid himself of this negative image and show that he really does have a grasp on the single-most important issue to voters in this election.

Launching on a long, winding road of policies and theories, McCain outlined specific economic proposals that he (and his advisers) seem to think will dig us out of our current recession.

But oh, how wrong he is.

While I applaud the effort, McCain was undermined by one glaring contradiction: Reaganomics! The single dumbest idea in the history of economics, Reaganomics--the brilliant idea that cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans while raising government spending (namely military build-up) will somehow balance the budget, all the while decreasing government regulation on corporations and encouraging unlawful behavior--has never worked. It didn't work for Reagan, it didn't work for Bush I, and it surely has not worked for Bush II, as the current condition of the economy blatantly shows. So, with this kind of track record, what does John McCain propose we do to get out of the current recession? CONTINUE THE IDEALS OF REAGANOMICS!!! It was embarrassing.

The speech then turned to McCain's bread and butter: his time as POW in Vietnam. Now, I am not poking fun at what McCain endured as a prisoner. The tale, one of hardship, perseverance, and ultimate sacrifice, makes a beautiful, touching story, and I was genuinely moved last night when he recounted his experiences in the prison. Though it does not provide any prerequisite for the presidency--remember, Grant was arguably the greatest American General ever in the Civil War, and he SUCKED as a president--it does make for beautiful storytelling.

As the speech ended, McCain showed surprising energy, closing out the speech on a rare tone of "change," pleading for his supporters to fight with him to save our country.

Moving, but hollow, and I'll return to his criticisms of government to explain why.

I cannot possibly fault the actual message of McCain's speech. Washington is broken, party lines have become the most splintered since the 1920s, and our society is the most unequal since the Gilded Age. Clearly, the current style of politics is not working and a legitimate change must be made for any progress to occur. However, this will never happen with a McCain presidency.

It's all in the details. Going past the economy, many of the proposals McCain offered were Bush pt. Deux. Foreign Policy involving Iraq, Iran, Georgia, and Russia was straight out of the Dubya playbook, as was McCain's announcements on energy independence and, wait for it, OFFSHORE DRILLING, the dumbest idea of this campaign next to the gas-tax holiday. There is nothing new, nothing radical, nothing "maverick" about the specific policies that McCain offered in his speech last night.

So remind me, why is he the maverick? how is he going to change Washington? It's a mystery, and the speech last night, despite the beautiful POW passage, left me more frustrated and confused than motivated.

An Exercise in Annoyance--Palin's Acceptance Speech

2008-09-03T23:40:00.004-04:00

I didn't exactly have high hopes for her acceptance speech--one I watched out of sheer curiosity, I might add--but Palin still managed to annoy the hell out of me.

Yeah, I knew we could expect the same soft-pedaled patriotic crap about how Republicans are there for all Americans, how they want to give government back to the people, and how John McCain is more patriotic than you.

What I didn't see coming was the sarcastic and condescending tone towards Barack Obama. While there was plenty of disagreement regarding John McCain's atrocious platform during the DNC, there was also plenty of respect for the man. Joe Biden even called the man a "dear friend."

Flash-forward to the RNC, and we get jabs at Obama's "elitism," a painful, faux-clever stab at how Palin's stint as mayor was different from Obama's as a community organizer because her job "had responsibilities," and, most annoying of all, a rekindling of Obama's woefully misunderstood "bitter" comments!

While these cheap and misleading attacks had me pulling my hair out, the key weakness of Palin's speech was its hypocrisy. Along with the aforementioned attacks, Palin followed the cliche GOP platform of attacking Obama's skillz as a speaker and demanding more substance from the man. Strange, though, how Obama's acceptance speech was dominated by substance and razor-sharp policy, while Palin's resorted to the same hollow pronouncements of how McCain is "the candidate for you!" while lacking ANY of the substance Obama allegedly needs.

So all in all, a cheap, flimsy, annoying evening, all from the modern-day Tracy Flick of politics. Hooray!

Palin fit de Battle ob Jericho

2008-09-02T14:47:00.004-04:00

AND THE WALLS CAME TUMBLING DOWN!!!

Really, one has to sit back, admire the surge of bad press for Sarah Palin in the last 24 hours, and smile. A smile of triumph. A smile of self-assurance. A smile that with this, the most disastrous choice of a Vice President in modern times, John McCain has given the country a glimpse of his laughable executive skill and burned his bridge to nowhere, er, the presidency.

Here is a little snapshot, if you will, of the various scandals and controversies that have surfaced in the last 24 HOURS:

1. Secessiongate: Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party in the 90s, a radical political group that has been pushing for a legal vote since the 70s over Alaska's right to secede from the United States. Naturally, the McCain campaign denies Palin's involvement.

2. Babygate: Palin admitted earlier today that her 17-year old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. This is something that does not concern ME; as Obama correctly pointed out today, families should be off-limits to political charades, but this will not play well with the pure, wholesome, idiotic conservatives that McCain was trying to snag with his choice of Palin.

3. Recallgate: All the poetry that GOP mouthpieces waxed about Palin's time as the Mayor of Wasilla, news broke yesterday that Palin was nearly recalled in 1997 for the unjust firing of the Library Director and Police Chief if Wasilla. Why did she fire them? because they did not support her 1996 campaign for office, or, as Palin put it, they did "not fully supporting her efforts to govern."

4. Bridgegate: Palin's supposed opposition to the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" is no opposition at all. Not only did she really SUPPORT the bridge, but she financed a road to the bridge! Call the "Road to Nowhere."

5. Troopergate: As Governor, Palin used her influence to order the firing of her brother-in-law, a state trooper, after he divorced her sister. When Commissioner of Public Safety Walter Monegan refused to honor her request, she fired HIM! It should be noted that since the story broke, Palin has seeked legal counsel regarding the scandal.

6. Churchgate: Just breaking today, it has been discovered that Palin formerly attending the Wasilla Assembly of God, a Pentecostal Church in the town that has some very questionable beliefs and seems to have had a divine influence on the policies of Mrs. Palin.

In speeches before the church, Palin not only spoke of the messianic task of the Iraq War, but she also prayed that God would give cutbacks to her people of Alaska and authorize a $30 billion pipeline for the state. See for yourself:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

And:

"I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.

And about the beliefs of the church? The senior pastor of the church, Ed Kalnins, preaches that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell (good news for me!), people who voted for John Kerry in 2004 may not be accepted into heaven, and, my personal favorite, that 9/11 and the Iraq War were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."

While we'll never fully know how indebted Palin's views are with this nuthouse, her support for the church and it's preaching is unabashed. Consider this speech Palin delivered to the church in June: "Having grown up here, and having little kids grow up here also, this is such a special, special place," Palin said. "What comes from this church I think has great destiny."

FOUR MORE YEARS

Of these scandals and controversies, Palin's abuse of power as Mayor/Governor and her nutty church are the biggest areas of concern.

The abuses of power are obvious: a little, spiteful woman drunk her own power. Like Dick Cheney with a uterus. If we are to compare this to Dubya's administration, Palin's actions go hand-in-hand with Brownie and FEMA, the US attorneys firing scandal, and the hiring practices of the Department of Justice. Palin IS Dick Cheney.

And while these developments are catastrophic of Palin's image as a leader, they are even more incriminating of John McCain's own judgment. George W. Bush's presidency was forever squandered when he chose Dick Cheney as his Vice President, and the short-sightedness of that selection seemed, at its time, to have no equal...until now. We all knew what McCain was trying to pull when he announced Palin as his VP, but what we didn't realize was just how arrogant and egotistical he had been in this selection, how he met the woman only once, how he didn't even send a SINGLE team of legal experts to vet Palin's past and dig up chestnuts like troopergate. If this costs McCain the presidency, good, because it is a clear snapshot of his horrific and arrogant decision-making.

The church-related scandal is, again, a direct correlation to the hell we've visited with Jesus-freak Dubya as our president, a confused and disillusioned style of leadership where it is more important to pray for success than get down to the brass tacks and research that create intelligent, fully-rounded leaders.

Not only does Palin's association and support of the church inspire this kind of leader, but it presents very, VERY troubling information regarding her view of Islam. Whether or not Christians like it, Islam is a religion on the rise as it adds new members by the minute and country's that preach the religion gain international clout by the day. Without question, the next president is going to have to be a leader who respects the influence of Islam on the world and approaches the leaders and politicians of Islamic faith with humility.

Can a woman who calls the war in Iraq--an effort to effectively topple an Islamic regime and replace it with good, clean, Christian democracy--"God's task" really be capable of such understanding?

In a word: NO.

A Bug's Life

2008-09-01T12:06:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, I enjoyed the last Lou Malnati's pizza I will have until Christmas break, and while I was enshrined in deep dish heaven, my brother and I revisited A Bug's Life, which revealed itself to be an underrated enry in the Pixar universe.

While it is not on the same level as Wall-E or the Toy Story films, A Bug's Life does have several notable qualities.

Animation

It should come as no surprise that the animation in a Pixar film is stellar, but the 3-d world of this film brings the bug universe to our television sets, a world where grass towers over our character's heads and simple raindrops are the most damaging of natural disasters. This is the kind of world that Robert Frost would have loved.

Humor

Again, this is no surprise, but the humor of A Bug's Life is wickedly clever to the insect world. For example, one of the lead characters is a MALE LADYBUG named FRANCIS, brilliantly voiced by Denis Leary. Maybe I'm just a sucker for clever inconsistencies like this that move beyond the paradigm, but that's one of the funniest Pixar jokes I've ever seen! Also, there are hilarious segments involving Bug Zappers, Flies, and other in-jokes that any Entomologist will adore.

Kevin Spacey

I have always been a fan of Spacey, as his versatility and talent has ensured that he'll be one of the more consistent and memorable actors of our time. Pixar excels at casting unexpected actors for their voice parts, and Spacey's casting as the evil villain of the film, Hopper the grasshopper, is the standout role is a uniformly excellent.

Spacey is deliciously evil, here, growling his lines in an intimidating timber of a voice that sounds nothing like the weak, pathetic sale manager from Glengarry Glen Ross or the loser suburban dad of American Beauty. Conniving, deadly, and disgusting as a parasite, Spacey is excellent.

Sarah Palin DOES have foreign policy experience--Just ask Cindy!

2008-09-01T12:02:00.001-04:00

I already had zero respect for Cindy McCain.

Aside from the fact that she has become a big, dumb blond spokesperson for the more hurtful propaganda of her husband's campaign (see: her response to questions about Michelle Obama's supposed lack of pride for her country; get a vomit bag), she is one annoying character, one born into supreme wealth who lies about the existence of her step-sister on the campaign stump, making herself out to be some lonely only child and gain voter's sympathies.

But this takes the cake.

In her appearance on "This Week George Stephanopoulos" yesterday, Steph asked her about Palin's supposed lack of foreign policy experience, and Cindy replied--and I'm not making this shit up--that "You know, the experience that she comes from is, what she has done in government -- and remember that Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia."

Here in America, we become accustomed to being in the presence of idiots. We have a retarded president, voters who are more likely to recognize Darth Vader over Dick Cheney, and schoolchildren who cannot locate China on a world map. Yet THIS--from a woman who allegedly holds a Masters in Special Education from USC--is one of the dumbest things I have EVER HEARD!

See for yourself...and get a vomit bag.

The GOP and Science, pt. II: Global Warming

2008-08-30T23:41:00.002-04:00

Continuing in the GOP and Religion theme, pt. II of this series will focus on the Republican party's ignorant resistance to global warming.

Global Warming

"A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made."

John McCain VP and conservative queen Sarah Palin had that to say during an interview with Newsmax. While I cannot single-out Palin--this uninformed view on global warming is shared by an alarming number of GOP politicians--her jaw-dropping statement kindled my feelings on global warming.

Global warming is, undoubtedly, one of the more urgent challenges the human race has ever faced. Before I go into the politics of the crises, though, we should look at some key facts of the movement.

1. Global warming IS happening: Since 1880, average temperatures around the world have risen 1.4 degrees, with the most drastic rate of this rise occurring in recent decades. The last two decades, in fact, are the hottest decades in the last 400 years, with some data suggesting them the hottest of the millennium; and, the last 11 of 12 years have been the hottest since 1850.

2. Greenhouse gases, man: So what's causing this huge swing in temperatures? A little thing called the greenhouse effect.

Global warming, at its most basic root, results from an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the most popular of these gases, accounting for half of the greenhouse gases. Together, the different greenhouse gases produce what is known as “The Greenhouse Effect,” a process where solar radiation from the sun is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, thus re-radiating heat in multiple directions and back towards the earth.

Now, the Earth requires the greenhouse effect to retain solar radiation and hospitalize its inhabitants; however, too much of these gases have a negative affect. Though all gases have witnessed a rise, carbon dioxide output in particular has increased, and what the increase in greenhouse gases does is maintain a greater percentage of solar radiation, leading to--you guessed it--more heat exposure to the earth's surface and a rise in temperatures.

3. Save the Polar Bears!: While the entire earth will be affected by global warming, the arctic regions are the serious panic zones. Areas such as Alaska (where Palin IS governor), western Canada, and eastern Russia have seen average temperatures rise at twice the global average, creating serious obstacles to wildlife. Polar bears, in fact, are one step away from the endangered species list, as the rapidly melting ice in the arctic regions are drowning the poor polar bears.

And here's a comforting thought: by 2040, arctic regions could be ice-free. This leaves us with two possibilities. The first and obvious effect is rising sea levels, which would be a dream for areas on the coast. The second and more frightening scenario involves the sun. Currently, the icy arctic regions act as a giant piece of tanning aluminum for the earth, reflecting the sun's more harmful rays back to the solar system. Once this ice melts, however, scientists predict that we could essentially bake under the unchecked, unreflected power of the sun. Let's put another shrimp on the barbie!

It IS our fault

Now for the politics. Most if not all of global warming has been a result of modern human stupidity. Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases beyond the amount of plants and oceans we have to absorb the gases. Alarmingly, we are so ahead of these plants/oceans that even if we became a carbon-free society overnight, the earth would STILL continue to warm, as several years will be needed for the atmosphere to stabilize. Clearly, Palin is dead-wrong on this issue and she is now two for two as far as idiocy goes with science.

Yet, even with this avalanche of evidence, we are stuck with a leader who has refused to listen to warnings of climate change and even censored scientists who dared speak out of the potential results (*cough* Katrina *cough*).

See: Dr. James Hansen, a NASA scientist and expert on climate change who has been studying global warming for over 30 years. Basically, throughout 2005 and 2006, Hansen was pressured by NASA officials per the orders of Dick Cheney and possibly Dubya to censor his material on climate change and soft pedal what he saw as the reasons for the change.

"In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public," Hansen said. And the censorship didn't stop there. Those same NASA officials were given clearance to scour Hansen's lectures, articles, journal entries, and even BLOG POSTINGS for potentially incriminating charges.

This is an obvious and infuriating assault on free speech, and its implications add more negative baggage to the GOP's stance on science.

Preponderance preshmonderance

Let's look at this as scientists, shall we? Skepticism is a scientist's best friend. As I described the scientific process in my first entry on science regarding creationism, recent discoveries and hypotheses are welcomed with skepticism and doubt, as fellow members of the science community attempt to disprove their comrade's findings and, in the process, strengthen the hypotheses and develop a more full contribution to science on a whole.

That is the formula UNTIL a certain word pops up in correlation with certain ideas: preponderance of evidence. Once there is a preponderance, or, overwhelming supply of evidence, to support an idea, it becomes more trusted by the scientific community and there is generally less skepticism.

Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Cell theory is supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Global warming is supported by a preponderance of evidence!

So why does the Bush administration censor documents, bully scientists, and hide data from congress to avoid potentially game-changing legislation? Oil and, of course, religion!

The oil angle is self-explanatory: carbon emissions are propelled by oil-driven cars, and some of Bush's more ardent supporters have come from citizens of Big Oil. I'm not one to cry conspiracy theory, but the non-action and laziness of the Bush administration regarding global warming is shocking--even by his standards.

The religion angle is what happens when a stupid man becomes a Jesus freak.

Dubya is, without a doubt, the most jesusfied president in the history of our country. Of course, some of our early leaders were devout worshipers of the deity, but they had one intense difference in mind when they drafted the constitution: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!! Despite being god-fearing men, early pioneers like Adams were vigilant in their opposition to theocracies, and this was a civics lesson that George W. Bush obviously skipped out on during his days at Yale (my guess is he was busy snorting coke and/or drinking beer).

The Bush White House is like a Sunday School retreat, with the building honey-combed in numerous areas with bible study-sessions and prayers and passages abound. The reason this is so dangerous with someone like Dubya is, as previously mentioned, the man's rather limited mental abilities.

If George Bush is perfectly content thinking that a celestial being rules over the universe like a holy Kim Jong-il, fine, but it should stop there. I hate to break to you, Mr. President, but God is not going to stop Hurricane Gustav, just like he was unable to stop Hurricane Katrina. Once again, I'm sorry to have to admit this, Mr. President, but God is not going to calm the Iraqi insurgents and create magical peace between the Sunni and Shia factions of the Islam faith. I hate to be blunt, Mr. President, but God is not going to do your job for you!!!

The last seven-plus years have been an exercise in religious doctrine, an uncomfortable combination of governing and dogma where prayer and faith are a more reasonable way to lead than policy and expertise. This simplistic view of the world has been a disastrous pigeon-hole to the American scientific community, and this ignorance is something I'll explore with more depth in my next note on stem-cell research.

The GOP and Science, pt. I: Palin and Creationism

2008-08-30T13:00:00.007-04:00

Great: ANOTHER Republican who doesn't know shit about science

Solidification

I knew from the beginning that I was going to dislike Sarah Palin. For one, she's a Republican, and the only Republican that I can publicly admit to supporting is Lincoln Chafee (a former Republican-now-Independent who, among other things, opposed the invasion of Iraq, supports Stem Cell Research, supports gay marriage, and opposed Bush's tax cuts. Did I mention he was a Republican?!?). Then, I found out that she is a die hard supporter of the NRA, one of the most useless and infuriating "non-profit" groups in existence. And then, I read about her positions on science...and was effectively horrified; and not just at her exceeding ignorance of the subject, but how it is yet another blow to the self-proclaimed "maverick" image John McCain boasts.

Palin opposes stem-cell research, supports teaching creationism in public schools, AND she does not believe global warming is a man-made disaster.

Obviously, Palin is the perfect beauty queen for the GOP vice-presidency--she doesn't know shit about science. This is something that infuriates me about the Republican party and its general concession to religious doctrine, and with this first reflection I'll zone in on the embarrassing evolution/creationism debate.

Dumb as we wanna be

With where we stand as a nation, both in terms of wealth and technology, there should be absolutely no doubt on the validity of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Before I go into why it is such a sound theory, however, I should make the very important point about the very word "theory." To be a "theory" in science is like having your own theorem in math, or having your own grammatical rule in english, or having your own tempo in music theory. In other words, something being a "theory" in science is a big fucking deal, as the entire landscape of the subject is changed based on what theories are accepted by the scientific community.

But how does something become a theory? From years upon years upon years of tests and re-tests. Have you ever noticed the generally small number of scientific theories we have? Let's just rattle off a few, from the tops of our heads: theory of evolution; theory of gravity; theory of relativity; cell theory. The relatively small number of theories is demonstrative of just how difficult it is for a HYPOTHESIS (which is what creationism is) to become a THEORY.

Here is how science works: scientists conduct experiments with a hypothesis in mind. From this experiment, they draw conclusions, and then publish their work in various scientific journals for peer-review from the scientific community. Science and Nature are among the more influential journals in publication. Upon publication, these results are torn to shreds, as hundreds of scientists conduct their own tests of the original scientist's findings, desperately trying to find flaws and misconceptions.

Scientists love to prove each other wrong, but there is a purpose to this process. After the original findings are ripped to pieces, that original scientist goes back to his lab and begins MORE tests in attempts to refine and perfect his hypothesis.

When do these findings become official theories? When there is absolutely no doubt that the findings of the experiments will prove incorrect.
When there is absolutely no doubt that cells are are the basic unit of structure in all living things, the cell theory enters the scientific canon.
When there is absolutely no doubt that physical laws dictate gravitational attraction between bodies with mass, Newton's law of universal gravitation (and later Einstein's theory of general relativity) enter science textbooks.
WHEN THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT ORGANISMS EVOLVE BY INHERITING TRAITS IN POPULATIONS FROM ONE GENERATION TO ANOTHER, EVOLUTION BECOMES A THEORY!

Pale(in)s in comparison

So, to put it in cave-man terms--there is no question amongst true members of the scientific community on the validity of evolution, cells, or any other idea that carries "theory" status. So now you know how amazingly stoopid people sound when they insist evolution is "just a theory."

Let's see what Palin had to say on the subject of evolution/creationism:

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

Palin has one valid point in this ridiculous statement--that healthy debate should be encouraged in schools. If the topic were political ideologies, the true meaning of The Great Gatsby, or how history will judge the presidency of George Walker Bush, then hell yes, let the kids debate! but it is in the field of science where this argument becomes mute and Palin's ignorance is allowed to shine.

Before I make any further argument against this stance, I should be clear that creationism is not science. Why? because it is not TESTABLE. When I described the process of peer-review, notice how I explicitly pointed out the process that testing plays in science, how a scientist concluded his experiment through TESTING, how his peers double-checked his results through TESTING, and how his returned to his lab after publishing his results and commenced with more...TESTING. Testing is arguably the single-most important component to the scientific process, and the statement of creationism--that some heavenly figure (NOT GOD)* descended upon the earth, went POOF, and instantly created the 20,000 different kinds of grasshoppers we have on earth--provides us with a mechanism that cannot possibly be tested. Couple that with the truth that there is no evidence whatsoever for creationism, and you have a fairly terrible scientific idea on your hands.

Creationism is not science, so logically, the next step would be to keep it out of the science classroom.
Just like we keep run-on sentences from our children's english papers, we keep creationism out of the science classroom.
Just like we prohibit the false lessons that Columbus brought great prosperity to the native tribes of the indies, we keep creationism out of the science classrooms.

Get it? teaching creationism in a science class equals teaching your child unfounded, illogical bullshit, and we owe it to ourselves as human beings to give the subject of science more respect.

*This is an ever-evolving joke over the whole creationism scandal. Whether it is called creationism or intelligent design, the over-arching goal of the movement is to get religion taught in schools.

Sarah F***ing Palin?!? McCain's VP choice is a strange one

2008-08-29T11:25:00.003-04:00

Strange, but it makes sense--this is a blatant appeal to the Clinton Democrats, a group of misguided women who have decided they will vote for McCain because Obama, not Hillary, is the nominee (despite the fact that McCain's platform is a 180 degree difference from these voter's ideology).

What doesn't make sense--and what I'm dying to hear McCain explain--is how he can justify picking a VP who is younger than Obama with LESS experience!!! What has the single biggest attack been about Obama from the GOP? His experience! He's a first-term senator! He hasn't visited Iraq as many times as I have! He lacks judgment!

Now, Palin has a surprisingly strong record on energy/global warming, at least if we compare her to the GOP base. BUT, she is a first-term governor from Alaska and has absolutely ZERO experience in the foreign policy sector, which is, coincidentally, the second biggest attack we've seen from McCain towards Obama!

So, once again, I cannot wait to see McCain justify this blatant appeal to young, change-oriented voters. Call the act of a desperate man, but this VP choice smacks of hypocrisy.

The Speech

2008-08-29T00:03:00.003-04:00

A perfect, beautiful moment that defined a momentous movement, all sugar-coated by the most awe-inspiring surroundings this side of the Beijing games.

Before I get to the speech, I beg of you to scrutinize the picture I have included as well as the hundreds of other photos being uploaded on the internet as I type. Having watched three Olympic games, the Super Bowl, the World Series, and countless other events involving crazy fans and charismatic leaders, I can honestly say that the power and unity that was on display at Mile High tonight was unlike anything I have witnessed. The image of over 80,000 people sharing the same vision and same passion, flashing their digital cameras, screaming themselves horse, frantically waving their signs proudly proclaiming "Change." These are the kinds of images our grandchildren will see in history books.

And this is the kind of speech our great-grandchildren will be reading about in those same textbooks. Substantive, eloquent, and above all forceful, Obama hit this one out of the park. It's not easy giving a speech on the heels of such heavy-hitters as Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Tim Kaine, and Al Gore, yet Obama's speech managed to neatly summarize every theme of the convention while offering every new ingredient liberals like myself had desired.

Basically, this speech was a challenge, a call to arms for Americans to rid themselves of the failed policies of movement conservatism and embrace new and enlightening change for Washington. As Obama boldly proclaimed to his audience: "ENOUGH" of the Bush policies. Literally, there was not a single issue that Obama missed--his supposed "elitism," his supposed "weakness," his supposed "inexperience," his supposedly "weak economic plan," and, most importantly, his supposed "soaring rhetoric." All were scorched by a speech that trail blazed the stadium and roasted John McCain like the swine he has become, using the simple mechanism of truth to burn through an entire summer of lies and lying liars who misuse them.

It is difficult for me to summarize all of the points that were made, so I'll leave at Obama tore McCain's platform and ideology to pieces, offering detailed yet accessible analysis of the crumbling America we now have and the surging America we can still experience.

Anybody who sits and absorbs the full 50 minutes of this speech and still claims to oppose Obama because he lives on the same block as Bill Ayers should forfeit their American citizenship. This is unquestionably the most talented and brilliant public servant of our generation, and we owe it to our legacy as a country to embrace this precious talent and vote him into office. We are being given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. America better not fuck it up.

This was a moment that was beautiful, motivational, and otherworldly.

This is history in the making, and I thank my luckiest stars that I was alive to witness it.

Reflections on Beijing, Part III: the 2012 games and China's world domination

2008-08-28T09:48:00.000-04:00

Disappointment

I would not want to be in London's shoes right now.

After concluding the 2008 games with a stunning closing ceremony, China capped off what was one of the most successful Olympic games in modern times. The venues were large, polished, and cutting-edge works of art that were edgy, classy, and competitive. The skies were clear and blue. And the festivities were grand.

So successful were the Beijing games, actually, that China has effectively set up a major letdown when London unveils their opening ceremony in 2012. To be blunt, there is no conceivable way that London will match what China accomplished in these games.

Overall, the 2008 games cost a whopping $43 billion. Those blue skies? the result of a massive campaign by the Chinese government to eliminate the toxic smog that coats Beijing the other 346 days of the year, involving the temporary shutdown of major factories and government order that certain citizens not drive their cars on certain days. The opening ceremony alone cost over $100 million and featured 15,000 VOLUNTEERS, all who trained 8+ hours a day for over 3 months leading up to the ceremony.*

London has no chance.

The kind of mobilization, nationalism, and control that was exuded with these games is only possible in a country like China, a place of unlimited money, unlimited labor, and unlimited power for the leaders that be. Again, London simply has no chance to match what was accomplished in these games.

Would you ever expect an image like this to come out of London?!?

World Domination

The 2008 games behaved as a coming-out-party of sorts, opening the doors for a colorful myriad of brilliant athletes to capture our hearts and seize our admiration. While there were several athletes in particular who captured my attention (Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, Shawn Johnson, May/Walsh), the obvious standout of the games were the Chinese athletes, who signaled a new era of Chinese dominance on the Olympic turf.

Once again, this is a level of dominance that is only possible in a country like China. Obsessed with international recognition, the Chinese governmentn scours its landscapes, searching for children who are both young and talented. Once found, they are taken from their homes and trained mercilessly, working towards the ultimate goal of winning a gold medal for their motherland China.

Though this scenario is heartbreaking, props must be given to how clever China has been in assembling these athletes.

In the 1988 games, China won five gold medals. In the 2008 games, they won 51. The dramatic turnaround is the result of this cleverness. Self-conscious of the medal count, China specifically picks athletes whose talents lie in sports that produce the most medals. This way, they stack the most medal-plentiful sports with superior athletes, running up the scores and sweeping the golds. This was evident in sports such as men's gymnastics and diving, where China accomplished a near sweep of the gold medals. But that is not all.

Not only does China place emphasis on the sports with the most medals, but they also focus on the sports with the least amount of attention, further increasing their propability to sweep the golds. Obscure sports like weightlifting and shooting become medal goldmines, producing for China eight and five golds, respectively.

And this is where China will prove to be unstoppable, and why the United States has no chance to counter.

The Chinese sporting environment is built around the Olympics. Nowhere is the love of organized sports similar to the United States, where the worlds of baseball, basketball, and football are billion dollar enterprises. Consider this: The US basketball team, a team composed of some of the most talented athletes to ever grace this earth, produced only ONE gold medal for the US' medal count. Olympic baseball? similar dilemma. Football? Forget about it! Compare that with the 12 gold medals China earned in weightlifting and shooting and you have a culture clash of epic proportions and one that will be impossible to control and impossible to counter. So I would recommend that we enjoy the US' lead in total medals for this Olympics, because it may very well be the last time we experience such a privilege.

*Also, the director of the ceremony, Zhang Yimou--the same guy behind "Hero" and "House of Flying Daggers"--was told by the Chinese government that he would have an unlimited budget to create the greatest opening ceremony in Olympic history. Yeah, I know, the artist's wet-dream!

Hillary's speech

2008-08-26T23:17:00.002-04:00

Easily the best speech I've seen Clinton give. While I will always take what she says with a grain of salt and a tablespoon of pessimism, this is the most convincing evidence yet of her support for Obama.

The speech itself was rich with one-liners and inspirational anecdotes, and while it still dragged from a mid-section of broad policy statements, the allusions to the first Democratic convention and especially Harriet Tubman were effective.

I'm interested to see how the psycho-fans I mentioned hours ago react to such a bold declaration of support for Obama, but now that Clinton has enrolled in the major prerequisite of party unity, I think it's time that she get some better clothes! Let's hope Michelle can take her down the Magnificent Mile for an afternoon on the town...

Memo to Hillary supporters: Sit down and shut up!

2008-08-26T20:54:00.005-04:00

There are three things that irritate me in this world: Chicago White Sox fans, ketchup on hot dogs, and die hard supporters of Hillary Clinton.

For the sake of appropriateness, I will focus on the final selection.

Hillary supporters, I will keep this short and sweet: sit down, shut up, and get over your own disillusioned dreams of rebellion. All you are doing is hurting the democratic party and embarrassing yourselves in the process.

This is the part of the blog where I am supposed to slightly contradict myself, giving Hillary credit for running a, *cough*, great campaign, and how she has now opened the door for myriads of bitchy women to run for the presidency. Well, at least the latter is true!

Look, the core constituents of Hillary's fan base--old people who remember the prominence of the 90s, racist southerners who don't want a black man president, and crusty women who support her out of necessity--can support her until Iran bombs the US. It's their freedom as American citizens. What they should STOP doing, effective immediately, is proclaiming that their support for Mrs. Clinton is because A) she was a fantastic candidate, B) the party is being unfair to her, and C) once again, she DID run a fantastic campaign!

Let's take this one step at a time. Hillary was nothing special as a candidate. Despite a senatorial career that has been less-than exceptional, Hillary's presidency began with more fireworks than the opening ceremony to the 2008 Olympic games. Why? because she was the first viable female candidate in US history. Hillary's candidacy was nothing more than a careful construction of polling-influenced decisions, all pieced together to create a candidate that n-sync with the liberal majority of this country while not too liberal for the conservative crowd that loved the prominence of the 90s. In other words, be Bill, not Dennis Kucinich.

This brings me to her campaign, one of the most foulest, most arrogant campaigns in recent memory. Basically, Hillary ran a campaign of inevitability. She was a Clinton. The name spoke for itself. While her campaigning in Iowa featured PLENTY of Clintonesque flip-flopping (such as her famous statement that she never really voted for the Iraq war resolution), Clinton's campaign was lazy. While Obama was running a grassroots campaign of town-meetings, chain-emails, and door-to-door stops, Clinton sat on her thrown, testing the wind and enjoying her substantive lead in polling and financing. She WAS the Democratic nominee. This WAS her time. Oh, what a surprise she had!

We all know what happened next--Obama won the Iowa caucus. Though Hillary scored a surprise victory in New Hampshire (overplaying it as her "comeback"), the air of inevitability continued to South Carolina, where Obama and his supporters gave her a supreme bitch slap of grassroots organization. Yet the arrogance still continued, right up until Super Tuesday, where Clinton and her asshole strategist, Mark Penn, were convinced that her name power and nostalgia for the 90s would squash the brass young candidate from Chicago. Again, so arrogant and SO WRONG!

If we're to view this from Clinton's perspective, she got her clock cleaned on Super Tuesday. Failing to win even a majority of the delegates, Clinton's campaign was left in shambles following the demonic day of voting. Why? BECAUSE HER CAMPAIGN HAD NO STRATEGY BEYOND SUPER TUESDAY. Obama exploded off of his surprise showing, racking up 11 straight victories in the following weeks and creating a lead in delegates that proved to be insurmountable.

Following this route of contests, Clinton's campaign deconstructed to what political-junkies like myself always knew it was--Karl Rove with a bad hairdo. The many instances have already been chronicled, like the campaign's darkening of Obama's skin in commercials to make him appear more "black," her comment that Obama was not a Muslim "as far as" she "knew," her RIDICULOUS pandering to Michigan and Florida voters to have their delegates seated, and the horrid sell-out to Indiana voters over the gas tax (officially the dumbest fucking idea since "they hate us for our freedom"). Roveian to the inch.

So, Hillary's campaign for president can be called a wealth of adjectives, but "good" and any synonym of it is not one of them.

Finally, I am so tired of hearing about how unfair Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have been to Hillary, and how she "deserves" more respect from the party leaders.

Hillary should have dropped out of the race in March, when Obama's delegate lead was unmatchable. Her constant campaigning in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina has developed exactly what pundits said it would: a schism in the party that no speeches of unity and hollow calls for action can mend.

How do I know this? because there are STILL Hillary supporters organizing during the DNC, talking about how they want their voices heard and Hillary respected! Some have even made the outlandish statement that Clinton will walk away from the convention the party's nominee.

And are Bill and Hillary doing anything to stop this? Until tonight, not really. We still get reports of tension between the Clinton and Obama supervisors, right down to Bill's bitching over what the topic of his speech will be at Obama's DNC.

Pretty much, nothing good came of Clinton's never ending campaign. Standing on the DNC floor today, she has less respect, A LOT less money, and a small group of psychopath devotees. Whatever this group does, the cause of this ugly effect is crystal clear, and Hillary is undoubtedly to blame.

So, fans of the Hillary cult, PLEASE sit down and PLEASE shut up. You only hurt the party and abuse our intellects.

Reflections on Beijing, Part II: Phelps IS the Greatest Olympian Ever

2008-08-25T17:48:00.004-04:00

There is a debate raging across the sports world on where Michael Phelps stands among the all-time great Olympic athletes, and while I am always interested in a healthy dispute, I rarely waste my time with one as simple as this: Phelps is, without a doubt, the greatest Olympian of modern times.

Not to say that he has no competition for the honor. Carl Lewis was a nine-time gold medalist and long-jump specialist, winning the latter event four times. Jim Thorpe, who only competed in one Olympics, still boasted the unbelievable achievement of gold in the pentathlon AND decathlon. Paavo Nurmi, a Finish runner, won nine golds in the 1920s, doing the amazing feat of running the 1500 and 5000 meter races within 2 hours of each other.

We cannot, and should not, discredit these achievements, as each one is demonstrative of incredible human potential.

Yet, Phelps' achievements stand alone: eight gold medals and seven world records in the Beijing games, which is the single greatest sporting achievement we are ever likely to see; fourteen gold medals across two games, including two bronze, giving Phelps an astounding sixteen career medals. He has won more gold medals than any Olympic athlete. In fact, he won more GOLD medals in the Beijing games than over 50 competing nation's TOTAL medals!

Now, there are several arguments circulating on why Phelps is not the greatest Olympian, the most prominent stemming from the fact that he is a swimmer. Apparently, a swimmer would have an easier time winning 14 gold medals.

This is, obviously, a ludicrous argument, as several key facts show.

First off, there is the top 20 list of top Olympic medal earners, a list where Phelps is one of only three swimmers. Gymnasts dominate the list, for the most part. But that makes me wonder...if we approach this logically, wouldn't swimming, a sport with an allegedly low difficulty, boast more athletes on this list? If it's easier for the athlete to win more medals, why are there not more of them? That little tidbit crumbles the entire argument.

Beyond the list, though, the Phelps' versatility in these games demands extra attention. Throughout the course of the games, Phelps succeeded at three different distances--the 100, 200, and 400. If we were to compare to, say, track, that's the equivalent of a single runner winning gold in the 200, 400, and 800 triple. No swimmer ever accomplished this; in fact, it has never been attempted.

And, another fact to consider--Phelps won three golds in three different strokes, and when he competed in these matches, he was facing masters of each craft who trained for that one, INDIVIDUAL race. This all-encompassing, 360 degree mastery places him in a league of his own. Oh, and did I mention that he competed in 17 races in eight days?!?

I can cite facts till the cows come home and write as extravagantly as I want to prove, once and for all, that Phelps is the greatest Olympian of all time, but I feel that such efforts, whether they are mine of proving or other bloggers disproving, are all in vain. Why? because Phelps will vanquish any dissenters come 2012.

Phelps WILL be at those games, most likely competing in 5-6 events as opposed to the 8 event blowout of the 2004/2008 games, and doing so in other distances with different swims (such as the 200 meter backstroke). What can we count on? Another 4-5 gold medals, another 4-5 world records, and the complete silence of any critics that he is, without a doubt, the greatest Olympian in modern times.

Reflections on Beijing, Part I: Why I Love the Images of Defeat

2008-08-25T17:26:00.007-04:00

With the 2008 Olympics officially coming to a close last night, I felt overwhelmed by a rush of emotions, creating a strange whirlwind of euphoria that was a potent mixture of happiness, sadness, anguish, and excitement.

While it always requires the completion of the Olympics for me to realize how much I enjoy them, I felt more so that these games in China fully affirmed why, specifically, it is that I love the games as much as I do.

With my first note on the games, I'm going to focus on the competition of the Olympic games, a pure, fully-embodied level of commitment that no sporting event, in my opinion, can match. Is it that many of the athletes will never be compensated for their efforts? that many of them work full-time jobs or go to school full-time on top of their athletic schedules? or the simple fact that they spend roughly 25-40 hours a week training for one night out of four years for their shot at Olympic gold.

Whatever the reason, the raw emotion on display during Olympic competition is something that never fails to move me. And when I write that, I do not solely refer to the moments of triumph.

Of course, I feel myself welling up with pride watching Michael Phelps' ecstasy after Jason Lezak's historic comeback in the 4 x 100 m freestyle relay, or the May/Walsh repeat of sand volleyball gold, or Shawn Johnson's brilliant smile after finally winning gold on balance beam; yet, while the flip-side of the games, the moments of failure, give me an immediate sensation of misery, it was these games in Beijing where I realized the strange and indescribable love I had for those times of disappointment.

I love the aftermath of the woman's 100 meter hurdles, seeing gold medal favorite Lolo Jones hit the ninth hurdle, finish seventh, and spend the next five minutes burying her face in her hands, kneeling on the track as if in prayer, and looking blanklessly into the sky wondering what went wrong? In that same freestyle relay, I love seeing the expression of shock on the French team's faces, how their dreams of ruining Michael Phelps' perfect Olympic games will never occur and how they will forever be remembered for blowing their lead to Jason Lezak. And with that same gymnast, I love seeing the eruption of emotion on Shawn Johnson's face after a brilliant floor routine in the All-Around final, knowing that despite her best efforts, despite a full year and countless of hours of practice, her world-champion status will be no more.

Just look at the images:

Phelps and co. rejoice after Lezak's sensational comeback in the 4 X 100 relay.

Shawn Johnson beaming after her masterful beam routine earned her the gold medal.

Lolo Jones, after her trip on the ninth hurdle cost her a gold medal. She finished seventh.

The stunned French relay team, whose goal of smashing Phelp's gold medal dream failed to materialize after Lezak's comeback.

Shawn, after a hard-fought night of stiff competition and very questionable judging gave her a second-place finish and stripping of her world champion status.

I should make a clear distinction--I do not prefer the sad moments of the games to the happy moments. I think it's the fact that I am moved by such unbridled, uncompromising focus on a particular goal, and I can empathize with the feeling of falling short of that ultimate, surreal feeling of complete accomplishment. That is why I love those moments of loss.

Despite the cameras, despite the crowds, despite the bubblegum princess sideline reporters from NBC, these athletes give us insight to pure, unadulterated human emotion. And they move me so.

And maybe it is because of the direction our culture is taking that such naked emotion affects me like it does. As our country becomes more advanced, we become more isolated. Greater communication, as the great irony demonstrates, draws us further apart. I am surely not the first person to point out this dichotomy, as many an artist and commentator have already observed how our increasing reliance on technology and machinery strip us of our inner cores and bring us closer to the metal, hollow creations that serve us unceasingly (think "Wall-E"). Maybe, when I see the emotions of the games, I'm reminded that such emotions still exist.

Why Biden is a good--and slighty alarming--choice for VP

2008-08-23T20:32:00.002-04:00

Obama's choice of Biden as Vice President makes perfect sense, though the Senator from Delaware does carry some baggage.

The task of choosing a vice president is never an easy one. I'm glad that I've never had the opportunity to embark on such a crusade.

In choosing a running-mate, several criteria must be met: 1. The mate must be 99.9% n-sync with your views, in order for that person to fully campaign on your ideologies and help your chances at being elected; 2. The mate must appeal to some kind of demographic that you yourself have had trouble with reaching; 3. The mate must offer some kind of X-factor that brings an extra layer of intelligence, sophistication, and grit to your campaign.

This list is obviously basic, but you get the point--choosing running mate is hard goddamn business, and it is no surprise that Obama assembled a committee for his choice and waited until the week before the Democratic Convention to name his selection. Now, let's see how Biden stacks up with the criteria.

N-Sync: Biden is a fairly moderate liberal, which follows well with the image that Obama has been projecting. He is pro-choice, pro-gun control, opposes oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuse, opposes capital punishment, supports government action against global warming, and he supports comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship. So, he hits every major base as far as the big issues are concerned with no serious gaffes (and this was definitely an important factor for Obama, as the previous front-runner for the VP slot, Tim Kaine, was undoubtedly rejected because of his pro-life position).

Voting: This is an important factor in choosing Biden, albeit not as important as the final factor (in my ever-so-subtle opinion). Biden comes from Irish working-class roots, a self-made man who could appeal to the "bitter" voters who felt alienated/intimidated by the Harvard-educated, orange-juice-drinking, jogging Obama. Also, Biden has been a senator for a whopping 35 years, and that experience will look quite enticing to any voters still foolish enough to prefer Senator McBush's judgment to Obama's.

The X Factor: Biden is Mr. Foreign Policy, and while Obama has already demonstrated far greater judgment than McCain regarding foreign affairs, the addition of Biden to his team will cement the advantage on foreign policy. How influential is Biden on an international scale? As chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden recently made an important visit to Georgia following their devastating war with Russia. The kicker? Georgian leaders personally invited Biden. Now THAT is muscle. Add to it Biden's strong stance on China's rise to power and you have a tailor-made ambassador of foreign chops.

A second x-factor that Biden brings to the dinner table is aggression, something Obama has tinkered with but not fully committed to. Biden famously remarked during the primaries that Rudy Giuliani's sentences were composed of "a noun, and a verb and 9/11," in response to the constant fear-mongering that Giuliani and similarly-wacko neocons were divulging. Imagine the witty one-liners in store about McCain's houses, or his generally forgetful nature! Biden adds an obvious spark to a well-intentioned if passive campaign that tried to focus its message on unity and positivity in an age of fear-politics and smearing. Nice try, but aggression wins modern elections, and Biden is the right guy to have unloading his guns for your side.

The Negatives: Unfortunately, Joe Biden is human, and he brings with him several controversies and some access baggage that the McCain will no doubt use against the Obama/Biden campaign. Aside from the obvious targets--Biden's supposed plagiarism, an incident of resume inflation, his...hair plugs---Biden has had the tendency to shoot from the hip, occasionally making comments that irritate democrats and enrage republicans. Now, I'm always up for fiery, controversial politics, but with a voting bloc as white-bread and lame as the current American demographic, the characteristics that win elections are steady, consistent, and above all else, NORMAL, and while Biden should be given carte-blanche to attack McCain, we should also sincerely hope that he doesn't get too carried away.

Not that he would ever approach the level of, oh...Dick Cheney!

So while Biden is not flawless, he's easily the strongest VP pick Obama had at his disposal, and should Obama win the general election come November, Biden will no doubt make a strong, eloquent Vice President.

Kingdumb come: Ben Stein makes a movie

2008-08-23T20:24:00.002-04:00

Ben Stein—known for his immortal mantra of “Bueller…Bueller…” in the 1986 film “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”—is a smart guy.

An undergraduate of Columbia University in New York, Stein was Valedictorian of his graduating class at Yale Law School, where he was a classmate of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Following graduation, Stein served as a speechwriter for President Nixon (where he was rumored to have been the famed “Deep Throat” informant to Bob Woodward) and President Ford, a trial lawyer for the Federal Commission and a professor of economics and political science at Pepperdine University and the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Clearly, Stein is a smart guy, so I wondered why he would take part in a film as seemingly ignorant, shameful and perfunctory as “Expelled: No Intelligent Allowed.”
The documentary, which opened in wide-release April 18, boldly declares that Stein “blows the horn on Suppression! Science and Education has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom. What they forgot is that every generation has its rebel…”

In this case, the “smart new ideas” of today’s scientific world mean Intelligent Design, aka, creationism in a cheap tuxedo—the argument that our world, in all its complexities, had an intelligent creator behind its design (meaning, a Judeo-Christian God) and is not the product of Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection.

When I originally heard of the prospects for this film back in 2007, two thoughts crossed my mind: one, that challenging Darwinian Evolution, a scientific theory of insurmountable evidence, is simply intellectual suicide, and two, that a man as accomplished and presumably intelligent as Stein would know better.

So I saw the movie…and was amazed as what I saw. But to better demonstrate why it is so misguided, I presented members of the ECC faculty with some of the more powerful claims that Stein and his company of propagandists make about evolution. Taking part were David Zacker, a Professor of Humanities with a PhD in the Philosophy of Science, and Marc Healy, an Instructor of Anthropology who teaches a course in Human Evolution at ECC.

Claim #1: The Theory of Evolution has failed. Darwin could not comprehend the complexity of life and his rudimentary ideas reflect this.

Stein’s first major argument of the film boldly professes that evolution, as a theory, has failed. While no explanation or hard data is ever provided to suggest how this has occurred, and what led to the falsification of the theory, an argument that is presented is that Darwin, in the late 1800s, could not account for the complexity of the cell or life as we know it today.
Therefore, his theory cannot account for these complexities, and the theory is flawed. As Zacker puts it, Stein & co. are going about it the wrong way.

“That’s not the way to complain about it,” Zacker said. “You don’t criticize the theory because you don’t like the person or the person didn’t understand something else. We just call that an ‘ad hominem,’ you’re attacking the person, not the theory.”

Furthermore, as Healy explained, the statement that evolution cannot account for the complexity of life is also flawed.

“The reason Darwinism has become the central organizing theory of modern biology is precisely because the theory is extremely successful at explaining relationships and phenomena,” Healy stated. “The nearly universal acceptance of the modern synthesis of evolution within biology is not based upon some cult of personality or ancestor worship- it's based upon the continued success of the theory to generate answers.”

Claim #2: Scientists know of these flaws, but they suppress anyone who questions the theory because they are afraid of dissent.

This becomes the bread and butter of Stein’s film—that “smart new ideas” are being kept out of the classroom by a greedy, paranoid and totalitarian majority that supports Darwinian Evolution; unfortunately, this is also flawed.

Firstly, there is nothing “new” about the idea of Intelligent Design.

“Intelligent Design is not really a new idea- it was first put forth before Darwin as the ‘watchmaker’s hypothesis,’” Healy stated.

By “watchmaker’s hypothesis,” Healy is alluding to the “watchmaker analogy” that was used by 18th century philosophy William Paley, who argued that in viewing a watch, we understand that the watch, in all is intricacies, had a creator, just as our universe.

Secondly, the film seems to be misunderstanding the process of science and the nature of scientific theories.

“All theories have flaws in them,” Zacker said. “Every theory does. You go to any scientific theory, [and] there is something that is unanswered.”

“If I say to you,” Zacker continued, “‘Ok, my theory has some flaws in it [and] there are some things that it can’t explain, or that I can’t explain yet,’ and you don’t understand that that is…part of the way that science works, you might think that that means that your theory is bad, when it doesn’t mean that, it just means that you have more work to do with the theory.”
So, Stein & co. misunderstand what it means for something to be a “theory,” which is to say, a scientific explanation backed by years of research and mountains of supporting evidence. Scientists have absolute faith in their theories, and to claim any have major flaws is to undermine the years upon years of data and effort that supports a theory’s claims.
And finally, the film’s supposition that scientists do not question evolution is entirely flawed.
Healy stated, “Evolutionary scientists question evolution all the time- there are great debates that rage about different aspects of the theory. The basic tenets of the theory, however, are no longer seriously questioned.”

Claim #3: By suppressing Intelligent Design, scientists are breaching academic freedoms and our basic freedom of thought.

Expanding on Stein’s second claim of totalitarianism, this third statement proclaims that freedom and liberty—characteristics that are what America stands for—are being violated by the monopoly that evolution holds in science classrooms.

Once again, this attitude comes from a misunderstanding of science.

As Healy stated, “ID [Intelligent Design] isn’t really being ‘suppressed.’ Rather, it’s being rejected, just as astronomers reject astrology, and historians reject holocaust deniers.”
Zacker also spoke on this idea, saying, “It [ID] is probably suppressed in the same way that a Geologist argues that the earth is flat gets suppressed. There’s just no evidence for creationism.”
And so is the film’s misunderstanding of how science works. Evolution has built the reputation it holds because of the preponderance of evidence that support its claims in a WIDE variety of disciplines, such as geology, paleontology, biogeography, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, genetics and embryology, to name a few.

Zacker said, “If there is evidence, or somebody can find the evidence [for ID], scientists will listen to them seriously, but until you start finding the evidence and start showing the evidence…and it’s gotta be a body of evidence, [but when] you start showing that, it will start coming around.”

Problem is, the evidence is not there.

Claim #4: Evolution makes you doubt religion and embrace atheism.

With this claim, the film slowly and subtly begins making a case for organized religion, stating that bad, secular atheism draws people away from good, holy creationism.

“This is a mere canard,” Healy stated. “People who put forth this argument deign to speak for all people of faith. Darwin eventually became an agnostic, and indeed his theory is entirely secular, but it does not negate the existence of God. At best it is entirely silent on the matter.”

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to think that an embracement of scientific truths—based on evidence and reason, mind you—would make someone abandon all sense of righteousness and morality.

Healy stated, “Few would take seriously the idea that geologists who claim the world is 4.6 billion years old, or physicists who claim the universe began with a big bang some 14 billion years ago, or the tens of thousands of educators who teach these ideas, are leading people down the dark passages of heresy towards the sinful gates of apostasy. This is easily recognizable as falsehood.”

Interestingly, what is often presented in the religion/science debate is people of a certain religion imposing their viewpoints on science, as opposed to accepting the evidence and views that science provides.

“It seems to me that they’re going the opposite route,” Zacker said, in speaking of theists who criticize evolution. “They’re trying to find a theory that rationalizes their view as opposed to finding a theory that makes sense and then using that to inform their view.”

Claim #5: Evolution de-privileges humans, and our society is decaying as it embraces its ideals.

Once again, the film makes broader strokes with its claims, this time increasing its scope to our current society and claiming that many of the problems that currently exist are due to our embracing of bad, secular evolution. This is simplistic beyond measure.

“That would be such a simplistic view of the way that society works that I couldn’t imagine that actually being the case,” Zacker said. “You can track the rise of Christianity and the fall of Rome. Does that mean that Christianity leads to the fall of Rome? I don’t think so. Is there a connection? Maybe, but it’s much more complex than just Christianity.”

Also, while the fifth claim of the film may have a certain emotional resonance with certain viewers, in reality it does little to counter the claims of evolution, which was supposedly Stein’s intent on making the film.

“What makes evolution right or wrong is that there is evidence for or against it based on testing,” Zacker said. “So, again, that’s rationalizing, looking at the world [and saying] ‘I don’t like the results, therefore, evolution must be wrong.’”

Claim #6: Evolution is the blame for the holocaust, as its world view of "survival of the fittest" heavily inspired Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime.

Stein goes for the ultimate emotional appeal with this whopper of a statement, suggesting that Darwin could possibly be to blame for the largest systematic slaughter of human beings on record. Sadly, in making this statement, he makes one of the most common—and embarrassing—faux pas anyone can make regarding evolutionary theory.

“‘Survival of the Fittest’ is a term coined by Herbert Spencer, not Charles Darwin,” Healy stated. “It's a very popular misconception and not a very accurate summation of natural selection either, which is based upon reproductive success, not survival.”

So, not only does the film put words in Darwin’s mouth, but it totally misunderstands what Darwin originally argued with Natural Selection, which simply states that, A) variations will exist in species, B) a variation that affects a proportion of that population positively or negatively will increase or decrease that proportions reproductive success, and C) this variation will eventually result in new species. In other words, the theory states nothing about “survival of the fittest.”

Beyond the film’s chronic misunderstanding, however, is its failure to recognize that a statement of this magnitude is really a two-way street.

Zacker said, “If you take evolution, and you say, ‘Ok, here is somebody who believed in it, and they did really bad things based on their understanding of the view,’ and then you condemn evolution as a result, if you’re gonna be consistent, you’d have to virtually condemn every religion that’s out there, because everybody’s misrepresented a religion.”

Claim #7: Intelligent Design is a valid science and deserves to be taught alongside evolution in modern science classes.

This statement is incorrect because of one key point—Intelligent Design is NOT a science.
“ID can't be said to be science for a number of reasons,” Healy stated. “First of all, science seeks explanations rooted in natural processes, not supernatural occurrences. God may very well enact miracles, but if so they are outside the realm of empirical, naturalistic phenomenon that can be studied scientifically.

“The biggest difference between ID and a scientific perspective is that ID presupposes a conclusion and then seeks evidence to support it, which is entirely unscientific.”

These statements echoed exactly what Zacker said, that Intelligent Design is not a science because it is not testable.

“It’s either not testable or when the tests are conducted, we find that the evidence is against creation science,” Zacker said. “Being a good scientist, you’d have to reject the theory.”

The Thrill is gone: How China has tarnished the Olympic games

2008-08-17T16:42:00.001-04:00

I've seen the most pure example of athletic accomplishment destroyed by madness and corruption, decomposing from the inside-out due to rampant nationalism and pure dishonesty.

Or, the Chinese are lying, cheating bastards. Either way you put it, something is rotten in the state of Beijing (which, I learned the other day, is pronounced with a "J" as in "juice," not "G" as in "gigli.")

I am referring to the female Gymnastics scandal, a little rumble of a story that is now gaining more exposure by the day. And that is good, as the more pressure mounts, the more incentive the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has to further investigate the affair.

Not that they will discover any newly incriminating evidence, though, as the proof is already in the chocolate pudding of descent that China has lied and cheated to claim Olympic gold in female gymnastics.

He Kexin, a brilliant young gymnast whose performance on the uneven bars was a major contributor to the Chinese team's victory in the team all around, is 14 years old, a full two years younger than the new standard for Olympic gymnasts. How do I know such shocking information? Why, the Chinese government! See for yourself:

In case you can't make it out, the second red-lined box clearly states that Kexin is 14. The source? A China Daily article from May, 2008 on Kexin (remember, the government controls the media in China).

Here is a clearer image.

Now, let us fast-forward to the present day. The China Daily archives all of their articles on the internet, and the aforementioned article, "Uneven queen the new star in town," is available. Except something is different this time around...see for yourself:

Again, consult the second red box. This time, Kexin's age has mysteriously changed from 14 to 16...

But wait, there's more! Here is a 2007 article from the GOVERNMENT-RUN news agency Xinhua that writes of some 13 year old gymnast named He Kexin:

Translation: The thirteen-year-old He Kexin, from Wuhan, met opponent Yang Yilin, who is on the National Team. Amid cheers from her hometown audience, the young girl excellently executed the full set of moves in the finals, and just beat out Yang Yilin, who already had high scores. Lu Shanzhen, the General Coach of the National Gymastic team, also applauded her performance.

But wait, there's MORE! This is an official roster for City Games, a sporting competition in which Kexin competed. This was published January 27, 2006, and again, it was from a government source, this time the Chengdu government. Look at what the roster lists as Kexin's birthday:

A clearer copy.

I could go on, as there are even more examples of the schizophrenic age of the ever-enigmatic He Kexin.* But, I think you get the point. The Chinese government has blatantly, bald-faced lied about Kexin's age, falsifying her passports in the process (which were, conveniently, manufactured in February of this year). While the immediate repercussions of this disaster are obvious--a stripping of the gold medal from China and an awarding to the silver-place United States team--this sad event represents the increasingly dangerous nationalism that seems to be taking place with China and the Olympics games.

Look, I understand that the Olympics are never the kind of event that inspires countries to hold hands and sing "We are the World." The Olympics are fast, frenetic bouts of athleticism, where the most dazzling of athletes compete for the most prestigious of awards: gold, silver, and shiny bronze medals and an added level of international respect for that country.

Even with this obscene level of competition, though, there is still a level of respect among the countries, a mutual disregard for petty political differences and a focus on good, CLEAN sportsmanship. China has proven itself below this standard.

And this is something that worries me, that the extreme nationalism that has come to define China is rearing its ugly head in the supposed purity of the Olympics.

In preparation for the games, Chinese authorities scour the countryside, personally choosing athletes of impeccable talent to star in the future Olympic games. If athletes are "lucky" enough to be chosen, that is effectively the end of their lives as they know it, as the athletes are then taken from their homes and train full-time under government supervision.

And the program has worked. At this moment, China is second only to the United States on total medal count, boasting a whopping 35 gold medals. At this moment, we are seeing the new rivalry of this era mature to sporting events. USA v China for global dominance.

Yet it's a shame at how it's being done, that a country's leaders can be so power-hungry that they would destroy, abduct, and lie to succeed. Enjoy the Olympics while they last, ladies and germs, but beware the gilded tint.

*And Kexin, I should point out, is not the first underage gymnast that China has used. Yang Yun, a Chinese gymnast who won bronze in the uneven bars routine of the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, later admitted in a television interview that she was only 14 at the time. And guess what? Her passport that was issued for the games said she was 16!

Obama got Rick Roll'd!

2008-08-17T16:36:00.002-04:00

Probably the most clever example of the increasingly irritating "Rick Roll" phenomenon.

Enjoy!

Phelps' athelticism is astounding, but his music needs some work!

2008-08-16T23:36:00.004-04:00

First, the obvious: Michael Phelps is the greatest Olympian in the modern history of the games. Tonight's victory in the 4 x 100m team medley brought his Beijing-games medal total to an astounding EIGHT gold medals, a feat that eclipses Mark Spitz's justifiably impressible performance of seven gold in the '72 games. This, totaled with Phelps' six gold from the Athens games, gives him an [insert adjective] 14 gold medals with two bronze. Add to this the 32 world records he holds (along with 26 individual) and you have, bar none, the most amazing athlete of our generation. It's been a duty and an honor to watch the man.

Better than Tiger at golf. Even better than Michael at basketball. Now THAT is good.

Beyond his athleticism, though, Phelps is class-act and class-A cool, always confident and collected. Watching him tonight, he seemed not the least bit rattled by the fact that he was attempting an UNPRECEDENTED FEAT of Olympic performance. And after his victories and world-records, his interviews with Bob Costas are polite, proper, and entirely courteous (just now, he's thanking his teammates for their help in winning his last gold--why can't all sports have superstars like this?)

Second, the more mysterious: Phelps' rather suspect taste in music. Now, it's been a very surprising practice of mine to find that many famous people have excellent tastes in the arts. Barack Obama's iPod features, among other artists, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Sam Cooke, and Public Enemy, while his favorite films include Godfather Part II. Bill Clinton is a die hard fan of jazz, as is Woody Allen. Hell, even Scarlett Johansson is Tom Waits fan, and Christina Aguilera listens to Etta James.

So, famous people, no matter how high their suck-o-meter, can still manage some decent taste in places other than their taste buds. So imagine my shock when I discovered the contents of Michael Phelps' iPod, someone who is obviously high on the awesome-scale: Lil' Wayne. Young Jeezy. Jay-Z. Twista. USHER.

Michael, I forgive the Jay-Z if it is early, pre-sell out Jay-Z, but TWISTA? YOUNG JEEZY? Seriously, Michael. Usher?

Michael, I had such fucking hopes for us! Let's start with some fusion-era Miles Davis. That was an instrumental component to the formation of hip hop music, so you should find the transition to that style easy enough. But we'll go slow--we wouldn't want to overwhelm you.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?!? As Phelps' swimming skillz improved to superhuman standards between the Athens and Beijing games, I can hope the same for his tastes in music between the Beijing and London games. So, c'mon Michael, let the good times roll!

Remind me: WHY is it such a big deal that John Edwards had an affair?

2008-08-08T19:29:00.004-04:00

The big breaking news today is that John Edwards has admitted to having an affair with Rielle Hunter, launching off a firestorm of criticism and speculation on the former presidential candidate's political future. While pundits and housewives around scream at Edwards and ponder why he would do such a thing, I'll ask a more direct question--why should WE even care?

Here are just a couple of the stories that have developed in the last 24 hours:

1) Georgia (the COUNTRY), after invading the breakaway province of South Ossetia, has inspired reactions of invasion and bombing by neighboring Russia, a country that strongly supported Ossetia's independence from Georgia. Why should WE care about THIS? Georgia is a staunch ally of the US and the modern western world, offering not only troops to the war on "terror" in Iraq but also a country that features, wait for it, a pipeline of oil through its lands (it's always about oil, isn't it?). A continuation of this conflict between Georgia and Russia would unquestionably result in the annihilation of the former country.

Yet what gets all the attention? John Edwards and his increased libido.

2) John McCain continues his downward spiral from independent maverick to GOP neanderthal with what is possibly his most dishonest attack-ad yet against Barack Obama.

See for yourself.

The dishonesty of the ad is shocking. The vote that the ad alludes to was an Obama vote for a recent budget resolution that proposed raising the lowest level tax-rate from 25% to 28%. What the ad does not mention is that it was a fricking BUDGET RESOLUTION! Not only is there considerable baggage to complicated measures like resolutions, but they are the complete opposite of BILLS, which the McCain campaign seem to equate with resolutions. Bills are precise, resolutions are broad, and as the vote stands, taxes may have been raised with the resolution, which, I should point out, revolved around the discontinuing of Bush's tax cuts for the super-rich!!!

And, once again, we have the irritating practicing of McCain not-so-subtly stating that Obama is an elitist who will raise taxes on the poor and drive away in his Ferrari.

Do I really need to address this? McCain grew up in a family of admirals, received a top-notch education at the Naval Academy (which he boasts to have thrown away), and left his first wife for a cozy engagement with the heiress to the multimillion dollar corporation ANHEUSER-BUSCH!!! McCain owns six houses on my last count, including one in Phoenix worth almost $5 MILLION. Oh, and he wears a pair of loafers that cost a whopping $520.

Now let's compare this to Obama--born to a single white mother, raised on food stamps, graduated from Columbia, worked for $20,000 a year as a community organizer, and then graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. Which of these seems opportunist and privileged, and which one seems the product of hard work?

Those are the first stories two that popped into my head, but further excavation yields a wealth of similarly news-worthy material: the first ever conviction of a Guantanamo prisoner for...being Bin Laden's driver; the information that the Justice Department, under Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, hired lawyers based on political affiliation, a shockingly partisan development from the supposedly un-partisan branch of the government; the revelation that the White House, with specific direction by Vice President Dick Cheney and Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith, forged a document linking Saddam Hussein to Al-Queda. This final story is so severe that it should unquestionably involve the impeachment of Cheney.

But what gets the attention? John Edwards and his affair.

Now, I am in no way discrediting the severity of the situation. John Edwards had an affair, he has admitted to it, and there will be a long, arduous process of rebuild with his wife and kids; however, this is a private matter, one that we should have the courtesy and honor to leave to the Edwards family to resolve.

The public madhouse over the Clinton sex scandal was ridiculous in its own right, and the firestorm over Edwards' infidelity proves we have not gotten any more sensible. Instead of focusing on the real issues facing our country now, we labor over the personal problems of our celebrities and idols, from Brangelina's twins to the latest fuck-up by Lindsay Lohan. Don't we have better, more valuable things to do with our limited time?

And I'm not alone in this sentiment. Here is a direct quote of an Elizabeth Edwards blog that appeared on The Daily Kos earlier today: "I ask that the public, who expressed concern about the harm John’s conduct has done to us, think also about the real harm that the present voyeurism does and give me and my family the privacy we need at this time."

Can't we honor her wish?

Weezer

2008-08-01T00:40:00.006-04:00

I was never much of a Weezer fan. Sure, I bobbed my head and hummed along to 'Hash Pipe' or 'Keep Fishin'' when they would float across the radio streams, but I never felt motivated to investigate the band any further. Well, following some recommendations from a couple of semi-reliable sources and a new-found curiosity for alternative music, I gave the band a shot.

And boy, what a trip.

Weezer's musical odyssey has been kind of like a match--a brilliant explosion of light, followed by small flickers of faintness, followed by insignificant darkness.

BLUE ALBUM: Weezer's self-titled debut is considered a classic of 90s pop, and it deserves every inch of praise. To paraphrase rock music critic Jim DeRogatis, while Howard Hawkes remarked that a great film was composed of three great scenes and no bad ones, "Weezer" provides an album with 7 great songs and no bad ones.

The album kicks into high gear immediately with 'My Name is Jonas,' followed by the wonderful 'No One Else,' then the classic deep-cut 'The World Has Turned and Left Me Here,' and then the hits start coming, with the 90s classic 'Buddy Holly' in all its retro-pop glory and then 'Undone,' which we all know as 'The Sweater Song.'

Basically, from start to finish this is great fun, with rollicking pop melodies played over crunching guitar that sounds like its about to short the amps. Beyond the music, though, is front man Rivers Cuomo, whose self-conscious lyrics of nerdy exclusion and excellent vocals bring a grand humility to the proceedings. Add to it all the closing number, 'Only in Dreams,' which is one of the great epic closing numbers in current Rock n Roll memory, and you have yourself a classic.

PINKERTON: Ah, here's where the bacon really gets cookin'. With "Pinkerton," Cuomo gets serious, shattering his adorable little image of the sensitive nerd into pieces with knee-jerk confessionals that make any emo record seem even MORE false and artificial.

While the Cuomo of "Weezer" was content to laugh at his own loneliness, our little hero of "Pinkerton" is simply tired, tired of being laughed at, tired of feeling no human connection, and tired of...sex.

While the lyrical content of the album is certainly a step into darker territory, the band has only gotten stronger, cranking up the amps to 11 and blasting into the stratosphere. Basically, "Pinkerton" is the work of a live band, with all of the feedback, distortion, and reckless abandon we can expect from a REAL live experience. From the wailing feedback that introduces "No Other One" to the raging guitars that scream into the melody of "Getchoo," the Weezer of "Surf Wax America" and "Say it Ain't So" is a thing of the past. Instead, we have honesty, depression, and legitimate anger, the kind of stuff we college kids can empathize with (Cuomo composed most of the "Pinkerton" material while a student at Harvard--yeah, he's a smart guy).

A classic, and quickly approaching a spot on my desert isle reserves.

EVERYTHING ELSE: This is where your Weezer collection should effectively end, as everything following "Pinkerton" is not worth the plastic it is digitally compressed to. When "Pinkerton" was released, fans and critics alike were outraged over the drastic change in tone from the first album to the second. Sales were terrible, radio play suffered, and major publications wiped the floor with poor Rivers (Rolling Stone famously called the album the "Worst Album of 1996"). Cuomo's reaction to all this was perfectly understandable. After sweating through the slings and arrows of the sophomore slump and emerging with an album as honest and confessional as any album of the 1990s, his beloved fan base wouldn't piss on the record to put out a fire.

So, he disappeared. Completely. And for five years, nobody heard a single note of new material from Weezer. Until 2001, when "Weezer," or, "The Green Album" was released. And trust me--it's a piece of shit. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why Cuomo would record the album. His fan base in shambles, he needed to deliver a fun, commercial album to reclaim his sales and dignity. That's all fine. The problem is that "Weezer" is simply a terrible album.

It all just sounds so lazy, like they weren't even trying. Cuomo's vocals sound bored and disinterested. His writing, musically and especially lyrically, is stilted and uninspired. The rest of the band, from the guitars to the bass and drums, sound muted. Even the guitar solos are a complete step back from the fiery playing displayed on "Pinkerton."

Yet, it still sold, prompting us to a fast-forward to today, where Weezer hasn't missed a step, releasing one album after another of commercial-inspired dreck that lacks any of the shocking originality of the band's first two records.

Aside from the band's descent into irrelevance--which is, really, annoying as all hell--there is the highly irritating Weezer fan base, a two-faced crowd if there ever was one that pisses the living shit out of me. In the present day, with Weezer a full-blown commercial outfit with no inspiration, the same people who panned "Pinkerton" now crave for the band to return to their rock/pop roots and once again produce an album along those lines--fun, catchy, rockin', and honest. Sorry, homeys, those days are long gone, are you are to blame. God damn you, you half Japanese girls!

Raymond Chandler and Philip Marlow

2008-07-30T22:42:00.004-04:00

[Notice: This is my first message in 15 days, and while such tardiness can be excused as procrastination, I have a perfectly feasible explanation--honeysuckle.)

Film noir is one of those art forms that everybody--regardless of their background--seems to like. And who could blame them? The striking visuals, the delicious cynicism, and the wonderful, hard-boiled writing bring something for everyone on the platter. So it was always a mystery, really, that I had not invested more effort into film noir and classic crime fiction.

That all changed this summer, though. Upon the recommendation of seemingly every TV-viewer I knew, I began heavily watching the HBO series "The Wire." Two things: yes, it is as good as you have heard, and yes, I'll elaborate on that statement at a later date. Back to the big picture: my immersion in crime fiction, though, kick started my long subdued appetite for more of the genre, and I figured that there was no better place to start than the very king OF the genre itself, Raymond Chandler.

I should make one thing clear, though--Chandler did not create film noir or the detective crime thriller. While it is difficult to credit one single source for the creation of any art, film noir and its most defining characteristics had two major starting points in Dashiell Hammett's 1930 novel The Maltese Falcon and James M. Cain's 1934 novel The Postman Always Rings Twice. It's all there--the hard-boiled, cynical leading man, the smoldering femme-fatale, and the post-modernist ending of gloom, doom, and inevitability.

So, Chandler did not create the very genre in which he laid. He merely offered a superior example.

Chandler fused the noir of Cain with the detective of Hammett, offering his debut novel, The Big Sleep, in 1939, and introducing his lead character and film noir idol Philip Marlowe.

Reading Chandler, the first thing that struck me about his writing was just how literate the guy was. When we think noir, we think of the more modern neo-noir examples of the genre, such as Sin City, the novels of James Ellroy (more on those at a later date) and any imitator of those trend-setters. And, we know of that style--fragmented, choppy and scant on adjectives. Chandler, though, writes with none of these characteristics.

Written from the first-person perspective of Marlowe, Chandler's prose is crisp, sharp and written with laser-like precision. Meticulous details are exuded on surroundings, rooms, articles of clothing, the physical features of pivotal (and not-so pivotal) characters, and nature, the latter of which occurs as a frequent symbolism in Chandler's work. Granted, the prose is still tough and the vocab hard-boiled, but it is damn well constructed.

After Chandler's prose, the next feature that hit me in the face like a glass of cold water was his dialogue, which is among the sharpest I have ever read. Cutting like a knife, the repartee between Marlowe and his various clients/suspects/villains leaps off the page, hitting you with an immediacy that is both shocking in its frankness and startling in its construction. Consider, for example, this passage of dialogue from The Big Sleep:

She took the photo out and stood looking at it, just inside the door. "She has a beautiful little body, hasn't she?"
"Uh-huh."
She leaned a little towards me. "You ought to see mine," she said gravely.
"Can it be arranged?"
She laughed suddenly and sharply and went halfway through the door, then turned her head to say coolly: "You're as cold-blooded a beast as I ever met, Marlowe. Or can I call you Phil?"
"Sure."
"You can call me Vivian."
"Thanks, Mrs. Regan."
"Oh, go to hell, Marlowe." She went on out and didn't look back.

Sharp, precise, and very, very good.

I mentioned symbolism earlier, and that aspect of Chandler's writing has been, for me as least, its most remarkable aspect. Crime fiction is not your typical genre where, for example, the rain plays an overarching role of symbolism, such as it does in The Big Sleep. Or, to cite another one of Chandler's books, the fantastic Lady in the Lake, water once again plays a important role, along with the dark wilderness and mysterious lake of a northern lake house resort.

And while these fantastical elements of Chandler's novels justify their masterpiece standing, the one lasting impression that his works leave is that of true film noir, that of the road not taken. Film noir, true film noir, takes us through a merry-go-round of human nature, exposing the dark underbelly of our race and reducing our actions to nothing more than animals in a cage, owned by a bleak and sadistic creator. Chandler write unblinkingly of these truths, making us sadder, wiser, and more nuanced readers as a final result. And can we really ask any more of literature?

Why offshore drilling is utter bullshit

2008-07-15T11:04:00.001-04:00

Offshore drilling has become the latest GOP talking point, with Dubya lifting the executive ban on the process, urging Congress to do the same, and parading in press conferences that the government has responded to the gas crises by "removing the bans on offshore drilling!" These statements are so engulfed in bullshit that it can be difficult to summarize why they are so, but I think I can boil it down to three reasons:

1. Supply and demand. Instead of researching alternate sources of energy--which will be the only realistic way to lower gas prices and prohibit global warming--our leaders beg Saudi Arabia to increase their supply of oil, hoping the increase in supply will quench the unquenchable demand now running rampant in the global market. Offshore drilling, allegedly, will add to this supply, therefore lowering prices. What GOP mouthpieces fail to mention, however, are the GLOBAL numbers that dictate oil prices. There are roughly 86 millions barrels of oil being produced around the world. 86 million! Even with the rosiest projections for offshore drilling--let's say, 3 million barrels are excavated--the supply, in relation to the global markets, will be so minute that American gas prices will hardly budge, if at all.

2. Oil companies. I'm going to let you in on a little secret--when demand is high, you keep supply low, especially if you are selling a product with insurmountable demand that is likely to continue into the unforeseeable future. Nintendo does it with the Wii. Apple does it with the iPhone. Oil companies do it with their oil supplies. Something that Dubya never says about offshore drilling is that oil companies already claim substantive resources in several offshore areas; yet, in those reserves, only 21% of the potential oil has been tapped by oil companies. That's right--79% of that oil is just sitting there, waiting to be processed. Why are the companies waiting? TO KEEP SUPPLY LOW AND DEMAND HIGH! Exxon Mobile, this last quarter, posted the highest profits of any corporation EVER. I'm talking billions. In profits. The last thing we need is more oil in the hands of profit-hungry corporations, but the best thing they need is more leases from the Dubya Fascist Regime.

3. Time. This is probably the most ludicrous reality of the entire offshore drilling phenomenon. Dubya and his GOP cronies crow about how lifting the ban on offshore drilling will effectively answer calls to end the gas crises. There is a little, irritating caveat to this idea--any action by the government to stall gas prices needs to go into effect NOW. Offshore drilling is such a complicated, costly exercise that, I shit you not, oil reserves from those offshore sites could not surface until 2030. 2030! 22 years and millions of dollars to answer a problem that needs drastic action NOW.

And that, really, is the crowning jewel of irony in this whole thing. Global demand, mainly coming out of India and China, will never stop. The population of potential car-buyers in those rapidly industrializing nations is simply too big to assume demand will decrease any time soon, meaning, gas prices will continue to rise.* We will have $5 a gallon gas. Maybe even $6. And the only REAL answer to these problems, ideas that REAL leaders will front, will involve alternate energy and a decrease in dependence on foreign oil.

*Footnote: the only feasible way that prices will lower in the future is by strengthening the dollar. A weak dollar buys less in the global market, so naturally a weak dollar will go far less of a distance with a resource as valuable as oil; still, this is short term, as exchange rates are not the long-term answer to gas prices nor climate change.

FISA and Obama--a disappointing calamity

2008-07-10T23:39:00.000-04:00

The FISA "compromise," which passed in the Senate with an overwhelming majority yesterday, is an unabashed assault on the American constitution, a heinous disregard for personal rights, and a shameful free-pass to criminal activity--and it was all supported by our presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party.

The new FISA regulations effectively give the government free reign to scoop up and analyze any "intelligence" they see as beneficial to the War on Terror, meaning, any phone calls, emails, text messages, etc. that you may make. Say that a terrorist suspect arises whose name is coincidentally "Peter Ricci." All of my various methods of communication can be spied on at will with NO REPERCUSSIONS FOR THE WARRANT-LESS SEARCH (even this petty, meaningless ramble). With the Senate ruling yesterday and the president's signing today, the Fourth Amendment took an unprecedented blow, one that basically flushes our civil liberties down the toilet. So enjoy those freedoms while you still can, because the government now has access to each and every one of them.

To better understand how disgraceful this is, consider this historical analogy--Richard Nixon and Watergate. Prior to the current administration, Nixon and his Watergate spy scandal served as the precedent for abuse of presidential power, a shocking and demeaning exercise in paranoia and fascism. Nixon wiretapped the DNC and the homes of Woodward and Bernstein. Bush has wiretapped the entire country.

Except with Watergate, Nixon and his co-conspirators faced serious criminal allegations, with Nixon resigning and his numerous cronies receiving jail time. What the new FISA ruling details is an EXPANSION of surveillance power and a RE-WRITE of the rules governing those powers! So the president can now spy with more gluttony than before, and the rules have been changed to exempt the president, his cronies, and the telecoms corporations who cooperated with the criminal acts from any such allegations. It's beyond belief.

And then there is Barack Obama, who, with his support of the bill, offered his first fully disappointing decision of the primary season. Obama's stances on these issues has been patently obvious. A constitutional expert who lectured on the artifact at the University of Chicago, Obama clearly understands the rights entailed by the Fourth Amendment and the outright abuse the new FISA bill enacts on those rights. A believer in civil rights and justice, Obama has also promised to filibuster any bill that included telecoms immunity, which, um, this bill did.

No filibuster, no grand speech on the abuse of the Fourth Amendment. Just, "I don't like the bill but I must support it because we need to have a FISA legislation intact."

I understand that Senator Obama is under considerable pressure as the presumptive nominee, not only as the undeniable front runner in the race but also as the first viable black candidate in United States history, a glass ceiling of epic proportions. Nobody can put themselves in his shoes.

However, the proof is in the pudding. This new FISA bill is nothing short of fascism, or, corporatism if we're going to honor Mussolini. Look at it this way: the rights of the corporations exceed the rights of the citizens, and our government will go to great lengths to protect those certain inalienable rights of the CORPORATIONS, protecting them from criminal scandal at the sake of the very citizens that put them into power. Founding fathers, I can feel you rolling in your graves.

And these are fairly obvious transgressions of the bill. No hidden language, no tricks. Hell, the GOP has been practically boasting on how unconstitutional this bill is. So where in the bloody hell is Barack Obama?

I'll admit, I fell under the guy's spell. Politics is a dark, dreary game, and it can be especially maddening for anyone who attempts to follow it with any level of zeal. The hypocrisy, the back-scratching, the cronyism, it seems out of control and shameful while homeless Iraq War veterans starve under bridges, Ohio residents lose industrial jobs to China, and lower-class families see their tax rates rise while high income families see their tax rates fall.

He's charming, he's eloquent, and he's one helluva candidate. But, as John Elder correctly pointed out to me last weekend, he's "still a politician," one who will cut corners and sell-out stances to gain points in electability. It's just with this case, with this politician, it seems to hurt that much more.

Wall-E!

2008-07-09T12:24:00.000-04:00

The one word review for Zachary:

Superb.

The extended review for everyone else:

Pixar continues its unbelievable winning-streak with "Wall-E," a film that is the studio's most daring, audacious project yet and one of the most flat-out entertaining films I have seen in quite some time.

The plot is simple: Wall-E, or, the last remaining Waste Allocation Load Lifter-Earth-Class on Earth, bides his time by compressing garbage into neat cubes and collecting the more valuable trinkets he comes across in a little museum he maintains outside of the city. This process is thrown out-of-whack by Eve, a sentry-robot sent to Earth to study its filthy environment and see if the planet is fertile to support life. I won't spoil any of the following plot points for those who have yet to see the film (and to those people: shame on you!).

The most remarkable aspect of "Wall-E," among the many remarkable aspects there are, is the almost-complete absence of dialogue from the film. The Wall-E character has no dialogue, as does Eve. All Pixar uses to advance the characters and plot is sound effects, actions, and subtle facial expressions from the robots. In fact, excluding the insertion of human characters 2/3 the way into the film, that's all there is. Beeps, groans, and physical comedy, yet that's the genius of Pixar--we can still feel for these rusty old machines like human characters, even if they haven't spoken a single word of English!

The animation, as expected, is flawless, but not perfect. Like the grimy, fuzzy visuals that "Finding Nemo" utilized for its water environments, "Wall-E" displays a dusty, garbage-infested earth, one piled sky high with trash and prone to violent sand storms. And the Wall-E character itself shows the same kind of detail, and the aged, slightly rusted exterior of his metal is juxtaposed by the shiny, sleek visual of the Eve design (for an example, just gaze at the picture I included at the top of this review, how Wall-E's fingers show such a subtle hint of dust and age, and how the edges of his body-frame show the beginning stages of rust).

One final note on the animation: Pixar continues to have the most sophisticated lighting seen in animated films today. The same gorgeous characteristics that struck me in "Rat." continue in "Wall-E," specifically in the scenes involving the museum of trash Wall-E lives in, where the source of lighting comes from strewn Christmas lights. The shot of the museum as the lights flicker on is among the prettiest images I've seen in a movie this year.

Just as Pixar is a studio of artists, it is also a haven of historians, like a Smithsonian of film history. Each Pixar film draws upon a wide range of films for inspiration, and "Wall-E" is no exception, using as its muse classic silent films from the golden era of Hollywood; as in, Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, and even Jacques Tati. Basically, the Wall-E character IS Chaplin's Tramp. Dirty, mangy, yet with a heart like gold and an unquenchable spirit that holds universal appeal. Also, it is no coincidence that Wall-E, like the tramp, never speaks.

Pixar's Chaplin-influence also extends to the film making. Never one to overwhelm his audience with technological gimmickry, Chaplin shot his films in two styles--far away for comedy, and close up for tragedy. Far away angles would perfectly capture the tramp's zany, unpredictable physical comedy, and close up would record every nuance and emotion of the film's conclusion. "Wall-E" follows this like an honors student, watching Wall-E's escapades with careful, far away detachment and letting the chaos develop into sublime comedy, while allowing the intimate scenes between Wall-E and Eve mature in close, compassionate quarters. Brilliance, I tell ya!

(Spoiler Alert! The following segment refers to plot developments discovered later in the film, so if you haven't seen it, close yer bloody browser!)

There is a specific reason that I love Pixar films to such a degree, and for Zach's honor, I have one word that describes it perfectly: complexity. Yes, complexity. Pixar films offer me an astonishingly large assortment of angles to analyze, from the animation, to the references, to the perfectly executed plot, to the perfectly developed characters. Yet below even all these levels is the true rhetoric of the picture, the underlying themes that Pixar subtly states. With "Wall-E," they take on consumerism.

In the film, Wall-E encounters a space-age Royal Caribbean cruise, a getaway for humans that has become permanent due to the overwhelming filth on earth. Yet on these cruises, humans have finally succumbed to machines, allowing them to do EVERYTHING. Mature adults sit on lounge chairs like large babies, with fat bulging out of every part of their body, with their appendages nothing more than inoperable blogs of mass, their fingers fat little sausages, and their necks turducken size platters. In the universe of "Wall-E," we've become our own worst nightmare--fat, lazy, and complacent. We have no ambition, no drive, and we are content with it...as long as the robots keep doing their jobs. And, we left earth because of a preponderance of trash, meaning we didn't care to change our ways and stop the accumulation!

In addition to this uncomfortable bulls-eye, the entire space colony in which these cruises preside is run by autopilots under the control of the "Buy 'n Large" mega corporation, a store whose overwhelming influence has given them control of the government. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. Buy 'n Large is Walmart, and their takeover of the government is the kind of Corporate Fascism that liberal "loonies" like myself have been rallying against ever since the Reagan administration.

Now, this is painfully relevant satire, and it is important that these points be made; yet, "Wall-E" still works without this kind of examination. If you enter the film simply wanting to experience a flawlessly made animated film with big laughs, big heart, and memorable characters, "Wall-E" will suffice on an unlimited supply of levels. And that is Pixar's genius--films that offer something for everyone of every walk of life.

A clarification on 'This Land,' the PROTEST song

2008-07-05T00:37:00.000-04:00

In light of today being the 4th of July, I feel that a special and important clarification should be made about the popular American Folk song "This Land is Your Land."

First, the obvious: "This Land is Your Land" by Woody Guthrie is, without a doubt, one of the greatest songs of 20th century popular music. A chief influence on the musical evolution of Bob Dylan, Guthrie brought a realism and sophistication to folk lyrics that had been all but absent from the art form.

Now the disappointing: "This Land is Your Land" by Woody Guthrie is, without a doubt, one of the most criminally misunderstood songs in the history of 20th century popular music.

It's a depressing, vile example of commercialism that must have Guthrie rolling in his tomb. "This Land." was originally written by Guthrie in 1940 as a protest song. Disillusioned with the Great Depression and the seemingly apathetic response from government and big business alike, Guthrie wrote the song as a protest of the powers that be. The song, therefore, is a declaration, a bold reassurance of the working-class Guthrie grew up in that this land, from California to the New York Island, was made for you and me, not Herbert Hoover and J.P. Morgan.

Additionally, "This Land." is a bitter satire, a savage parody of Irving Berlin's "God Bless America." Guthrie's original title to "This Land." was "God Blessed America for You and Me," as he saw such a hokey, unrealistic declaration as the one provided in Berlin's song as an insult. Why, Guthrie proposes, should we pay homage to a God for help to a Depression he apparently led us into? or, that he refused to help us avoid?

Yet, despite the clear indication of Guthrie's intentions, the song still prospers as an anthem of American Patriotism. CDs abound with disgraceful renditions of the number, all with happy melodies and sing-song, gee-whiz harmonies. What these popular versions cleverly do, however, is remove the more incendiary passages of Guthrie's original song.

Guthrie was a folk musician in the truest sense, and as such, he would frequently improvise his material on stage, resulting in dozens of different versions of his most popular songs. "This Land." is no exception, but based on original studio recordings and Guthrie's own writing, a definitive version of "This Land." has been assembled, one of six verses, two of which are bastard children of the popular, gut-wrenching popular versions.

And I can't blame them. Here are those two verses:

In the squares of the city, In the shadow of a steeple;; By the relief office, I'd seen my people.; As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking,; Is this land made for you and me?
: There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;; Sign was painted, it said private property;; But on the back side it didn't say nothing;; That side was made for you and me.

The context and tone is unmistakable. This is a protest song, one with anger and frustration on its mind and social change as its goal. And it's a disgrace to Guthrie's legacy, really, that it has become what it has.

A few (clean) words on George Carlin

2008-06-24T10:46:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, the comedy world lost a titan. Well, the shadow of a titan, at the very least.

George Carlin passed away at 71 from heart failure, enrapturing his poor, pessimistic soul to the "heavenly CNN" he sought to view when he died. What saddens me about Carlin's death, however, is a matter of aesthetics.

Granted, I'm not surprised the guy died, just that it took this long. Forever a child of reckless endangerment, Carlin passed through drug addiction and debt like clothing, effortlessly moving from high-paid Vegas entertainer to $4 million in debt tax payer, and, my personal fave, from cocaine addiction (his daughter asked him on one of their vacations together to stop snorting) to sobriety. See? The guy had a 'truth and dare' session with death, and it's a mystery that guys like Carlin, Keith Richards, and Robert Plant can still get out of bed every morning, Father's ashes 'n all.

But what saddens me about the Carlin today is what a shadow he was of his previous self. The Carlin of today was just angry. Brilliant, but one-dimensional, angry in the old man, grumpy kind of way (for proof, consult his one of his last HBO specials, "Life is Worth Wasting").

Now, I understand the brilliance of old Carlin was all but impossible to sustain. Simultaneously intelligent and daring, Carlin could pull off skits musing on the appropriateness of the word "shit" (famously remarking that he was fired for saying "shit" in a place where the game of choice is "craps"), the many eccentricities and contradictions of the Catholic faith, and, of course, the seven dirt words that would "curve your spine and stop the allies from winning the war."*

The old Carlin observed the society around him and commented on his surroundings, talking with his audience in a perverse form of discussion. You laughed at your own faults that Carlin fearlessly pointed out, but you walked away from the act a sadder, wiser man. Contradict this with the many stand-up "comedians" of today, where shouting and obnoxious screaming creates an act, and you see how far down stand-up comedy has fallen on the pedestal (yes, I'm talking to you Dane Cook).

I guess what Carlin really represented was how hard stand-up comedy is. A famous actor--the name changes based on who you ask--remarked "Dying is easy. Comedy is hard." And from the number of eulogies that are springing up around the web, from Richard Belzer to Jerry Seinfeld, we can see that Carlin--old Carlin--had it down.

*My personal favorite is still his skit on Muhammad Ali, where Carlin remarked that Ali's profession, beating people up, was forbidden because he would not accept the government's new occupation for him: killing people. "(Ali) said, 'Nah, I'll beat them up but I don't wanna kill them. And they said, 'Well, if you won't kill them we won't let you beat them up! HA HA HA!'"

How do you spell "ratatouille?"

2008-06-21T23:40:00.000-04:00

Just finished watching "Ratatouille" with the family, one in a long line of presumably excellent film that I have yet to see--and as the pattern goes, the film was wonderful.

What makes the case of "Rat." (you understand the necessity of abbreviations here) so confusing is my general love for Pixar films. Both "Toy Story" films are forever enshrined in my top 20 films, while "Monsters Inc." and "The Incredibles" are both in their own right fantastically produced animated films. And though "Rat." cannot quite capture my imagination by the throat like the original "Toy Story" did, I still must admit that I found myself mesmerized by what I like to call the "Pixar Touch"--a brilliant and seamless combination of laughs, cries, and suspense, all linked by some of the most gorgeous animations that the motion picture will ever produce. And all the while, this seemingly impossible hodgepodge of genres is pulled off with absolute lack of effort.

We all know the plot of "Rat." A rat who can cook, a human who can't, and the unlikely bond that develops between the two couple of misfits. The comedy of the film has an undeniable influence of Lubitsch and the famous "Lubitsch Touch," that light, effortless sophistication that coats every frame. The comedy of "Rat." never tries too hard for our laughs. Instead, the characters interact with each other and the environment, creating humor that is both physical and verbal. And, like Lubitsch, it is just plain sweet. Add to it

But anyway, this is a Pixar film, and the visuals are the key. The rat's fur, human's hair, facial expressions, the simmer of sauces in the kitchen--these are undoubtedly some of the more gorgeous snapshots that has ever been seen in FILM, not strictly the animated genre. And not just the typical beauty, but some very subtle attentions to detail that director Brad Bird is smart enough to exploit, such as the many brilliant uses of pictorial lighting in the film.

Like this shot. While not exactly pictorial, as the lighting is not exaggerated enough to be unrealistic, look at the absolute attention to detail--how the light wraps around the body of Remy, with a heavier concentration on his belly and a lesser amount on his sides. Or how the lighter pigments of Remy's ears create a brighter light than the darker pigments of his fur. This is top notch artistry, people, recognize it for what it is!

And, a note on actors: "Rat." features, among other actors, Ian Holm, Peter O'Toole, Brad Garrett, and Janeane Garofalo. Suffice to say, these are not the first actors which immediately come to mind when thinking of casting for an animated feature. And that is a very, very good thing!

We prosper in an "Aladdin"-inspired universe. Robin Williams' rendition of the Genie was so off-the-wall, so unpredictable, and so ROBIN WILLIAMS that it has inspired an entire generation of films where the biggest stars with the biggest name recognition are chosen for a voice acting part. Not because they necessarily fit into the role in which they are cast, but merely because they are movie stars, and movie stars sell movie tickets.

Pixar seems to be the only animated studio today that sees the problem with this, casting actual ACTORS, not STARS in their animated roles, realizing that the right actor is out there for the right animated role, just like in real-life movies. Just as Francis Ford Coppola knew that Al Pacino was the perfect Michael Corleone, John Lasseter knew that Tim Allen was the perfect Buzz Lightyear. Again, not the first actors that come to mind, yet they were perfect for their roles and the films gained an enormous advantage because of it.

The importance of unity in the 2008 election

2008-06-13T23:52:00.000-04:00

George W. Bush is, objectively, one of the worst presidents of all time, and possibly pound for pound the worst president in the history of our great democracy. In terms of sheer volume and magnitude, no president will ever eclipse the failure of James Buchanan to effectively end the threat of Southern recession and prevent the Civil War. But when each individual category is addressed, from the economy, to education, to foreign policy, to environmental issues, no president even approaches the catastrophic collapse of “Dubya.”

And the effect these failures are having on the citizens of the United States is equally calamitous. Ever since Bush’s unspeakable reelection, there has been a growing air of discontent among American voters, manifesting itself in the most perturbing of circumstances. Matt Taibbi, a brilliant journalist for Rolling Stone magazine, surveyed a couple of these disillusionments in his 2008 book 'The Great Derangement,' where he went undercover (among other things) to Pastor John Hagee’s Christian Zionist church in Texas and infiltrated the 9/11 Truth movement.

Hagee’s church preaches, among other things, that the U.S. government is involved in a conspiracy to promote abortions and systematically lower the U.S. population total, extreme exorcisms, and, most horrifying, the apocalyptic vision that upon invading Jerusalem, Russian and Arab forces will be destroyed by God, which will then lead to a battle between China and the West, with leadership of this conflict being the Antichrist as head of the European Union. Jesus will then return, and, of course, win (Hagee also preaches Catholicism as "the great whore" in modern religion, and firmly believes that the Catholic Church united with Nazism to destroy the Jews during WWII*).

Yet, Hagee preaches to a massive congregation of over 17,000, and Taibbi witnessed himself the fanatical following that many members of the church had for Hagee and his "preaching."

The 9/11 Truth movement believes, among other things, that the attacks on the Twin Towers were masterminded by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and others to start a war with Iraq, in which crude oil was the main goal. Planes were not flown into the Twin Towers, however. Controlled explosions destroyed the buildings, and holograms were used to convince the public that it was indeed planes that caused the destruction. Also, a plane did not hit the Pentagon. A missile, fired by Cheney & co., caused that explosion, and airplane parts were then scattered to give the impression that a plane caused that destruction. Also, the plane that was hijacked and caused that explosion? It was re-directed to a remote airstrip, where the passengers were killed and distressing phone calls to family members and spouses were faked.

Again, ridiculous, yet a 2006 poll conducted by Scripps Howard/Ohio University found that over a THIRD of American believe that federal agents participated in and/or lacked action with the atrocities of 9/11.

These seem to be fringe groups, yet the criminal actions of our current administration have driven these small minorities to dangerous levels of population. That is why it is so important to elect Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States and address these disillusionments.

Obama represents “change” in the truest sense of the word, beyond the cliché mantras heard from Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton. Multi-racial and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii, Obama’s past of rags to Harvard riches is the kind of story that keeps the American Dream alive. His face, dark and handsome as it is, gives a new presentation to the United States, as a country finally able to rid itself of the horrible legacy of slavery. His policies, while moderate-liberal on paper, offer a clear divergence from the horrid movement conservative policies of George W. Bush. And his very own sense of unity, his ability to bridge gaps across races, genders, and party lines, make him the real candidate of our 21st century and a once in generation leader. So elect Barack Obama!

*Ok, he may have a point there.

My first foray into the Mac Universe

2008-06-11T15:26:00.000-04:00

I type this entry as a new man. A changed man. A MAC man.

Yes, with all the hype, word-of-mouth praise, and Warren Cheswick commercials, I finally gave-in to the latest minority fad and purchased a Macbook. And a Macbook PRO at that.

My journey to the center of the Mac Universe has been long and storied, from many friends and reliable tech-experts ranting and raving on the evils of PC and the glories of going Mac. With such overwhelming positivity (or negativity...depending on which side of the fence you're on), I fully expected to be underwhelmed, even with the newest revelation fresh on my mind, a glowing endorsement of the pro model from Dr. Bob Stewart, the Associate Director of the journalism program I'll be attending in fall.

Yet, I can't help but be impressed by the stunning power and aesthetics of the unit. First off, it looks great. The 15.4 inch screen is brilliant, as photos, video, and even this basic, droll-white blog shine with glossy brilliance. The silver aluminum casing is wicked cool, and the keyboard--the no. 1 issue I've always had with laptops--is full sized and fluid. Even the touchpad--the no. 2 issue I've always had with laptops--is large and responsive, though I've already ordered a bluetooth mouse.

The performance of this powerhouse, though, is the true jewel of going mac. Sure, other laptops, such as the HP Pavilion, have their own power merits, but as a lifelong PC owner, I already know that the Macbook Pro has awarded me a greater level of multi-tasking than I previously thought possible.

This was patently apparent from the first night I had with it. See, I'm a music junkie, a fact that many people are aware of. At this point in my musical voyage, I have roughly 14,200 songs on my iPod. Naturally, I wanted to transfer every single one of those songs to my new Mac, which would prove NO problem whatsoever. And I'm not even exaggerating. As I transferred a good 14,400 music files from one computer to another (a long, convoluted process that is not worth repeating), the Mac did not slow down one bit. I was free to surf the web, download various programs, and watch as much internet porn as my juices craved.

In short, this silver beaut is a technological powerhouse, and as I type this message with the Al Green masterpiece "I'm Glad Your Mine" droning in the background, my Mac seems to be communicating with me: "I know I'll never let you down!"

The primary season is over...so now what?

2008-06-08T00:23:00.000-04:00

There is a strange, inherit disappointment when a long primary battle finally ends. I'll admit, during this most recent case of political jousting and rhetorical gymnastics, I frequently tossed and turned in bed and pulled my hair out, wondering what other fatuous articles of Obama's "dark past" Sean Hannity's interns would uncover, how Hillary would exploit it, and how the Mainstream Media would run around in circles over the story while the more important issues of the campaign were left in the rain.

Now, the fact that Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers gained more media attention than global warming and education was maddening, to say the least, but I'd be fooling myself to deny that it was great entertainment. As Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post had mused, the Primary battle of Hillary v Obama was political American Idol, complete with judges, audience voting, underdogs, and knockout performances, and also, we as political junkies consumed the shit like it was crack cocaine...and I may start suffering withdrawals in short time.

When the Primary season really got rolling in mid-January (I refuse to pay the slightest bit of attention prior to the Iowa Caucus), I had a strict regiment: I would arrive home from school and, on Mondays and Wednesdays, listen to NPR's Talk of the Nation for the latest political updates (Tues/Thur saw an immediate jump to the next step of...), then, I'd scour the various internet sources for reliable tidbits and breakout stories, from Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish to The New Republic website to my personal favorite, The Huffington Post, which offers up-to-the-second news AND some of the most insightful blogging on the World Wide Web. Then, I'd review the entire day's stories at 7 pm watching Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and THEN re-rinsing and drying the entire process with more Internet scrounging.

It was a constant, never ending process, one of information-overload, victorious fact-checking, the glory of understanding a mere portion of the American political system. So don't get me wrong, it was exhausting--at numerous times, I questioned the costs of being a well-informed member of democracy--but now that it is over, I have a strange, undeniable sensation over all the free time I seem to have, which is certainly a good thing. I still have plenty of episodes of Oz and The Wire to watch, and a DAMN good number of books to read.

The irony behind all this, of course, is that when the official Conventions occur in late August/early September, this entire process will start over again and I will be more entrenched then ever in the wonderful world of politics. Check please!

'Once'

2008-06-07T23:50:00.000-04:00

I just finished watching Once with my parents and brother and, in short, I absolutely loved it.

As I was being delighted by the film's 85 minutes, however, I asked myself a question--why in the hell did it take me so long to watch this?!?

The film is concerned with a guy, played by Irish musician Glen Hansard, and his week-long friendship with a Czech immigrant (girl), played by fellow musician and current Hansard girlfriend Markéta Inglová. The two meet on the street (Hansard plays a busker), and what follows is a journey into the character's pasts, passions, and futures--all culminating in one of the more happy, satisfying endings I've seen in sometime.

With Once, it's all about the simplicity. The camera-movements, the long-takes, the lovely, natural lighting, this is a film where all the pieces fell into place. As non-actors, the casual gestures and mannerisms of Hansard and Inglová are perfect for the sweet, authentic tone of the film. Had the film's original star--actor Cillian Murphy--stayed in this project, it would not have had half the heart and soul it does, which is do in no small part to the AMAZING music.

Entering this film, I had no idea who Hansard or his band "The Frames" were, and in watching Once, I was completely mesmerized by the emotionally wrenching, incredibly personal songs Hansard plays, alternating between a folk blues shout in his solo numbers and more contained duets with Inglová.

I kid you not, I felt a lump in my throat during their performance of "Falling Slowly," the film that won the 2008 Academy Award for Best Original Song. It is moments like that performance that separate this film from any of the multi-zillion dollar, emotionless musicals of the current day, from Chicago to Dreamgirls. It doesn't matter that Once was shot with a $135,000 budget in 17 days (try seeing Hollywood pull that off)--what matters is its authenticity, its heart, its genuine concern for its characters and its respect for their feelings. Once makes any American film seem hollow by comparison.

I've gotten to the main core of the film, but along with the emotional resonance, see the film simply for the music, as it celebrates the universal communication music gives us all. In one beautiful sequence, Hansard is riding in a bus with Inglová, and the topic develops of Hansard's ex-girlfriend, a source of inspiration for many of Hansard's songs. Though originally skeptical of Inglová's questioning, Hansard does indeed tell her what happened...through song. Notice, now, what a beautiful observation this is by Director John Carney! We all have emotions, we all have interpretations, but sometimes, just certain times, the only way we can express those emotions is through our art, whether it be film, or painting, or, in this case, music.

So...see the fucking film!

Oh Dinah!

2008-06-05T15:21:00.000-04:00

Last month, a strange thing happened--I finally became sick of instrumental Jazz. Don't get me wrong, the brilliance and eloquence of a Miles Davis or Kenny Burrell or a Cannonball Adderley still shines as bright as the Sunday mornin' sun, but I couldn't help but feel bogged down by the total lack of VOICE in the music. See, I started consciously listening to and critiquing Jazz my junior year in high school. From the start, instrumental was my sole ax. From Miles to Coltrane to Monk, it was the heavy hitters of INSTRUMENTS that I focused on, and while I still read and respected Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holiday, and Sarah Vaughn, I just didn't invest in Jazz Vocal recordings. I was inspired to do so, however, and from the most unlikely source.

I was watching my favorite television program, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, when this commercial came on.

The infectious voice of that commercial? Dinah Washington, a woman among women. Married eight times, Washington was every bit as forceful in person as her music would suggest, and it did not take long for me to become transfixed with her charismatic personality as a Jazz performer.

And what a voice! While the Double Tree commercial uses the selection "Relax Max" from her "Swinging with Miss 'D,'" an album of catchy swing tunes arranged by Quincy Jones, Washington was at home with the blues, an area where her Gospel roots were allowed to shine. Washington is smooth, but her music never straddles past the jazz/blues genres. Her authenticity and phrasing forever keeps her material listen-able (though she would turn to the dark side with her '63 release What a Diff'rence a Day Makes!), and for examples of both her impeccable Jazz phrasing and smoldering blues, I highly recommend two released: Dinah, an album that finds her supported by a large Jazz ensemble and singing both standards and obscure blues, and After Hours with Miss D, a true Jazz/Blues masterpiece that finds Washington stretching out with such experts as Clark Terry and Junior Mance.

Are American Voters Stoopid?

2008-06-05T14:24:00.000-04:00

The American voting bloc has always left me astounded. Along with the embarrassing number of voters--a mere 50% of the population, compared to over 85% in France--American voters show an uncanny ability to vote against their common interests. As long as a candidate is deeply Christian, smooth on television, and appeals to certain emotional issues such as abortion and gay marriage, we'll vote for that candidate in droves. This is the only logical explanation, as far as I can tell, on how an idiot like George W. Bush was elected TWICE.

Growing up, we are encouraged to make mistakes. "Mistakes are good," one of my grade school teachers would always insist. "Because you learn from your mistakes!" Yet, when it comes to voting, Americans seem incapable of learning from their mistaken votes, no matter what kind of destruction ensues.

I'm blabbering about our idiotic electorate because an interesting evolution is occurring in the Hillary Clinton fan base, now that she has definitively dropped out of contention. See, throughout the primary season, I was as perplexed as anyone on why white/blue-collar workers, whose real incomes decreased as an effect of NAFTA, would openly and fanatically support a candidate who considered NAFTA one of her administrations "great achievements." This was continued "stoopid voterdom," but following the Potomac Primaries, everyone and their dog knew that Obama had the nomination sealed. It was only a matter of time until he was the party's nominee and the Democratic coalition mobilized behind his efforts.

Yet, this stoopid behavior has been built upon now that Obama is our nominee. As a CBS poll from yesterday demonstrated, 22% of Clinton's fan base will support John McCain in November. On NPR's Talk of the Nation today, caller after caller praised McCain for his "experience," and his "maverick" tendencies, and proudly proclaimed that they will support McCain OVER Obama, now that Clinton has bowed out.

See, this confuses me for a number of reasons, but first and foremost it is the topic of issues. These voters are, allegedly, people who supported Hillary Clinton during the primary season. Among the issues on Hillary's platform were a reconstruction of NAFTA, universal health care, withdrawal from Iraq, and a revision of No Child Left Behind, among other liberal, left-leaning stances.* These are Democratic issues, and people who support them are, well, DEMOCRATS. Each issue is something Barack Obama also supports. So if voters felt strongly on these issues, and voted for Hill because they thought she could accomplish the goals of each issue, why would they jump ship to a candidate who openly opposes each and every one of them?

And that's the biggest issue of confusion for me, is how contradictory John McCain is to each of these 22%. John McCain now supports Bush's horrible, idiotic tax cuts, something he boldly opposed in 2001. Not only that, but his tax plan seeks to cut Corporate tax rates by 10%, offering a reduction in government spending to compensate for the cuts--of course, he intends on cuttings funds to Medicare, Medicaid, and education, not defense spending. He supports Iraq and the surge, proclaiming that American forces could be in Iraq for 100 years. He openly lobbied for endorsements from Pastor John Hagee and Rod Parsley, men who have called Catholicism "the great whore" and who claim that Christianity has had an everlasting duty to destroy Islam, respectively (remember when McCain called men like this "agents of intolerance" in 2000? yeah, neither do I). His health care legislation does nothing to stop insurance company fraudulence and refuses coverage to cancer victims LIKE HIMSELF.

John McCain is neither a maverick nor a candidate who represents any Democratic ideals. He WAS a maverick, but now he is nothing more than a slut to the most extreme faction of the GOP that just happened to have won Congress and the White House amid a decade and a half of Washington dominance. So why would allegedly Democratic voters support such a guy? I couldn't tell ya. I guess they're stoopid.

*Bear in mind that all of these issues were nothing more than pandering--the bitch would have been more conservative had the electorate demanded it, but bear with me here.

What last night meant...and why I. HATE. HILLARY.

2008-06-04T10:00:00.000-04:00

First, what tonight meant, the first time in American history that the Democratic Party has nominated an African American as its candidate for President. While this is a monumental time for America, African-Americans, and the American political system, I like to think that it has an even greater importance beyond American soil and abroad.

Lately, our politics has become a wild joke to the rest of the world. With our bumbling crusader of a President at the forefront, American politics has acquired the reputation of being mean, pity, and devoid of any true substance and accomplishment. And can we really, honestly resist this title? The worst war in American history. Two economic recession in eight years, including one that neared Great Depression levels. Hurricane Katrina and a demolished city. Illegal wiretaps. Treasonous outing of a CIA agent. Religious fundamentalism and an assault on science and reason.

See? The failures of the Bush administration literally go on forever, and we've taken our first step to rectifying these mistakes by nominating Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States. Just imagine the impact of having Obama's face representing our country, and the world seeing an African-American representing the land of slavery? This is historic, and I feel so honored to have lived to see such a moment.

But now onto more spiteful territory--the Grand Old Bitch of the Democratic Party, or, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Last night was her last chance for class. The last chance in a campaign of cheap shots and dirty tricks to emerge, phoenix-like, from the ashes of Karl Rove and embrace the nominee the Democratic PARTY has chosen; in other words, the last chance to act like an adult.

Yet we saw none of it, nothing more than self-indulgence and self-denial, all wrapped in a present of delusion and pretty pink bows of IMAGINATION. Number one Clinton hater Andrew Sullivan summed it up best: "Her narcissism requires that she deprive her opponent of a night, or a second, of gratification or attention." And that is what really, REALLY pisses me off about the bitch's speech. She can parade around with her unremarkable platforms, conspicuous claim of 18 million votes, and still support the idea that she won Michigan and Florida, but at least give Obama some credit--something she's never done, as least not with sincerity. Obama beat her, pure and simple. He out-organized, out-raised, and out-campaigned the most potent political machine of the late 20th century, and, like Sullivan notes, her narcissism was beyond an congratulatory effort. She lost, and her dreadful speech reveals what a baby she truly is.

Scott Free?

2008-06-03T15:18:00.001-04:00

It's been a full week now since the Scott McClellan bombshell hit with his part payback/part confessional book What Happened, and I've noticed a few interesting developments that poor Scotty's ploy have exposed:

With us or Against us
The publishing of Scotty's book is yet another entry in the Bush Administration's hopelessly simple "with us or against us," "good vs evil" philosophy that has dominated some of the more disastrous policies in our nation's history. Amidst all the "puzzlement" that seems to be rampant among Bush loyalists who are, well, "puzzled" at McClellan's betrayal is the black and white simplicity behind our, well, simple government (and when I say simple, I mean the simple oaf from Alabama who spends his days stroking a piece of velvet).

Finally!
While Scotty's book could have come a few years earlier--imagine the Valerie Plame revelation before Joe Wilson was obliterated--What Happened still gives reinforcement to many of the claims that those of us on the left have been making for some time now. The White House misled the nation into an endless and unnecessary conflict in Iraq. Bush is a simple-minded, ignorant fool who lacks inquisitiveness and refuses to accept contradictory views. Bush himself authorized the CIA intelligence leak that led to the public disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity. Hurricane Katrina was an act of incompetence, not misjudgment. While these were all facts that any well-read American should have known about already, Scotty gives the best validation a former Bush loyalist possibly could.

Humanity?
I briefly mentioned the "betrayal" that McClellan is being branded with earlier in this post, but the true irony in this whole affair is the lack of humanity in our political scene--the inability of the public, press, and politicians to put a human face on the proceedings.

For example, the number one charge that is being leveled at McClellan is timeliness. If he was so perturbed by what he observed as Press Secretary, why did he not step out and speak his mind at a more appropriate time?

Well, there was a little thing called "midlife crisis" involved.

Again, we refuse to admit humanity in this discussion. McClellan is a Bush loyalist to the extreme--a dear friend of Dubya from the good ol' Texas days, Scotty rode this loyalty all the way to the White House, and he was given the positions of Assistant and then true Press Secretary.

In other words, Scotty owes his entire fucking career to Bush. Beyond the material, however, McClellan was a true believer. While it can be argued that he was sucking on the Washington tit, I solemnly think that McClellan came to the capital believing in Bush and his message of bipartisan, compassionate conservatism. Yeah, like such a thing even exists, but back to the point, Scotty's entire ideology for following Dubya to the White House was turned on it's head by deception, illegal wiretaps, and other treasonous activities.

So can we be surprised, really, that he would feel hesitation at scorching such a friend in such a manner?

On Hillary's hint of Obama assassination today

2008-05-24T01:08:00.000-04:00

Everyday, it seems, the Clinton campaign gets dirtier, more vile, and more despicable. Today continued this immaculate trend of filth, with Clinton summoning the horrible assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968 as the reason she should stay in the race.

Get it? She should stay in the race because, just as Bobby in '68, Obama could be assassinated in June.

Read it if you don't believe me:

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

When this primary race began in...January of 2007, I really, really tried to give Senator Clinton a chance. While a tad reptilian, she had always struck me as a brave, fiercely intelligent woman, and despite the numerous scandals and controversies that I knew of (Filegate anyone?), I made a conscientious effort to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt. What a stoopid decision.

And honestly, can we except this latest gaffe on Bobby as an innocent mistake? Just like Mark Penn's repeated comments on Obama's cocaine usage as a teenager was a mistake? Just like the campaign's constant murmur of Barack HUSSEIN Obama, or its equating of Obama to Kenneth Starr, or the leaked photo or Obama in Somalian garb was a mistake? Or, and this is my favorite, the inclusion of Osama bin Laden in a fear-mongering ad before the Pennsylvania primary was just a harmless, honest political point. Give. me. a. break.

This is one of the shrewdest, most cunning, and most heartless politicians of our time. Don't take ANYTHING for granted.

Oz

2008-05-21T23:41:00.000-04:00

My latest obsession. Stunning.

(In case you're in the blue, 'Oz' was a HBO series that aired from 1997 to 2003. One of the best damn television series ever created.)

The irony of modern journalism

2008-05-21T23:18:00.001-04:00

Modern journalism has become somewhat of a glorious, golden chestnut of irony. Journalism schools around the country, including the top-tier one I will be attending in the fall, stress the ethics and objectivity that should be present in good reporting. And they're absolutely right. As reporters, our job is to report. Pure and simple. Columnist interpret and editorialize, we consume and spit it back out, unharmed and unaffected.

But what I wonder is when this evolution occurred in the journalism world. The very existence of schools of journalism is due to one Joseph Pulitzer, the publishing magnet and number one rival of William Randolph Hearst. Pulitzer originally envisioned a school of journalism at Columbia College in New York, proclaiming in 1902, "My idea is to recognize that journalism is one of the great and intellectual professions; to encourage, elevate and educate in a practical way the present and, still more, future members of that profession." The school turned Pulitzer down flat, only to accept the money, a $2 million sum, in 1912, a condition of Pulitzer's will. How sweet of them (a note should be made: by that point, Missouri had established the first school of journalism in the world in 1908).

What is so interesting about this quote, however, is who it is coming from. Pulitzer, along with Hearst, was a first-class propagandist, a yellow journalist if there ever was one who brilliantly (and sadistically) blew up the truth and bended details to sell papers. Basically, those two were the Rupert Mudochs of their time, and it's no stretch to say that the Spanish American War was a direct product of their sensationalism.

With honest, reliable war time "documents" like this, who could think otherwise?

Yet the Columbia School of Journalism has an elegant statue of Pulitzer at its entrance, and each year, Columbia issues the famed Pulitzer Prizes to the finest examples of modern journalism. Even better, at the college level we compete yearly for the Hearst Journalism Awards Program, a competition that is often labeled the "Pulitzer" of college journalism. So, when did this great development occur?

But it is ironic, isn't it?

The curious beginnings of movement conservatism

2008-05-21T17:20:00.000-04:00

Movement conservatism is a potent political force. As the chief political ideologies of Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, George H.W. Bush, and his baby boy Dubya, it has acted as the leading beacon of policy for the Republican party since the late 70s.

As a hard-left leaning liberal and passionate progressive, naturally I have been in complete disagreement with the various policies of the movement, namely, extreme tax cuts on the rich, ballooning budget deficits, high military build-up during peace-times, and a conscious effort to destruct the welfare state FDR worked so hard to construct.

But beyond the policy (which, obviously, sucks for about 99.9% of the American population), there is the true beginnings of the movement, which should trouble any self-respectful member of democracy and abolish any notions that George W. Bush is not a "true conservative."

Take, for example, William F. Buckley, the ostentatious and elitist founder of the movement. The creator of the conservative excrement The National Review, Buckley praised, among other things, Francisco Franco and his brutal takeover of Spain (in which he took over a democratically elected government), the right of white southerners to suppress blacks, or, inferior citizens, from voting, and, in the 80s when the AIDS epidemic broke out, Buckley supported tattooing homosexuals with the disease on both their arms and behind to "warn" others of the disease.

Add to that the movement's poster child, Barry Goldwater, who was an ardent anti-unionist and blatant supporter of McCarthyism, and you have the makings of the Bush administration: racist, homophobic, secretive, anti-democratic, anti-union, and shamelessly fear-mongering.

No wonder the politics of the movement have always sucked.

Sunset

2008-05-21T15:30:00.000-04:00

The sun setting in Bartlett, IL, around 8 pm on a May evening. Sunsets do look nice, don't they?

Iron Man

2008-05-21T15:17:00.001-04:00

Last week Saturday, I finally saw "Iron Man," a movie that has received a fair share of exclamation's in nearly every review I've skimmed of the film (remember, I refuse to read reviews of films I haven't seen).

So, does it meet the hype? Perhaps. I'll put it this way: instead of reinventing the super-hero film genre, director Jon Favreau merely offers a superior example of it.

Downey is, as can be expected, superb in the lead role as Tony Stark, but thankfully, we are spared what has become the "typical" Downey role of the smart, wise-cracking eccentric that everyone just LOVES. Ok, maybe that is Tony Stark, but the execution feels different this time around. The humor of the film, largely derived from Downey, is a breath of fresh air in the now suffocating seriousness of the super-hero films. From the soap-opera confessions in the "Spider-Man" films to the ultra-serious homosexual overtones of the "X-Men" features, directors seem to be forgetting that these films are based on comic books. No, I am not suggesting for a moment that comic books are incapable of confronting real world, but above all else, they are fantasies, and the movies themselves should, at least, preserve this sense of fantasy. It was a relief to see that "Iron Man" succeeded.

One final note on the special effects, which are the best I have seen in any modern day film. As opposed to recent CGI blow-outs--"Matrix Revolutions" and "Spider-Man 3" come to mind--"Iron Man" is appropriate and, more importantly, convincing. Favreau's achievements on this front alone justify a look at the film.

So, to conclude, does it match the hype? Yes, so go see it, if you haven't already.

What am I supposed to write, again?

2008-05-21T15:03:00.000-04:00

Before I launch into the first of the many masturbatory excursions this hapless blog will nurse to a pulp, I should give a brief, brief, brief expository on why exactly I am starting this little wonder of technology.

It's a Wednesday afternoon, the sun is shining radiantly, and there is a gentle breeze blowing through my window, casting a faint air of humanity in my stuffy lair of technology, books, and iPods. Officially, I have been on summer break for a full week now, and while it has been one of the fucking greatest weeks of my life--more on that at later posts--I can't shake this irreconcilable feeling, this overwhelming sense of dread that this is one of the last, true summer vacations of my human existence. Think of it this way. I'm a college student. These are the years of my life where I am supposed to focus, buck down, and really concentrate on the small, sweaty details that compose middle-class American life, one of hard work, minimal vacation, and diminishing marginal returns. In other words, this is the second summer vacation of my college career, but after it concludes, I will only have two left. And then one. And then...well, you get the point. So I suppose I should grin, face the sunlight and make the most of it. Is this blog part of that? Perhaps...