Gag reel from the latest movie

Enjoy:

A Message for the Christmas Shopper

Excerpted from Leonard Pitts at the Miami Herald:

Last week, a 34-year-old man was trampled to death by a mob rushing into a Wal-Mart to buy stuff. Jdimytai Damour was a seasonal worker manning the door of a store in Valley Stream, N.Y., as shoppers eager for so-called ''Black Friday'' bargains massed outside. The store was scheduled to open at 5 a.m., but that was not early enough for the 2,000 would-be shoppers. At five minutes before the hour, they were banging their fists and pressing their weight against the glass doors, which bowed and then broke in a shower of glass. The mob stormed in.

Four people, including a pregnant woman, were injured. And Damour was killed as people stomped over him, looking for good prices on DVDs, winter coats and PlayStations. Nor was the mob sobered by his death. As authorities sought to clear the store, some defiantly kept shopping; others complained that they had been on line since the night before.

Indeed, it is hard to imagine a starker illustration of our true priorities. Oh, we pay lip service to other things. We say children are a priority, but when did people ever press against the door for Parents' Night at school? We say education is a priority, but when did people ever bang against the windows of the library? We say faith is a priority, but when did people ever surge into a temple of worship as eagerly as they do a temple of commerce?

No, sale prices on iPods, that's our true priority. Jdimytai Damour died because too many of us have bought, heart and soul, into the great lie of American consumerism: acquiring stuff will make you whole. ''You, Happier,'' is how a sign at my local Best Buy puts it. As if owning a Jonas Brothers CD, an Iron Man DVD, a Sony HDTV, will elevate you to a level of joy otherwise impossible to attain. Hey, you may be a total loser, may not have a friend, may not have an education, may not have a job, may not have a clue, but it will all be OK as soon as you get that new Canon digital camera, especially if you get it for 50 percent off.

It would be nice to think -- I will not hold my breath -- that Damour's death would lead at least some of us to finally see that for the obscene lie it is, to realize that seeking wholeness in consumer goods is an act of emptiness, not joy.

You, Happier? No.

Just you, with more stuff.

The End of Genre?

Excerpted from Bob Proehl for Popmatters in response to the Country Music Association Awards (acronymically known as the CMAs, not to be confused with the Academy of Country Music's ACMs):

You might not have caught it in Carrie Underwood’s quick introduction, but that sure enough was the remains of the Wailers backing up Kenny Chesney on a medley of “Everybody Wants to Go to Heaven” and Bob Marley’s hit “Three Little Birds”. Which would have won the best mash-up of the evening hands-down if it hadn’t been for Kid Rock’s “All Summer Long”, a surprisingly poignant hybrid of Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “Sweet Home Alabama” and Warren Zevon’s “Werewolves of London” (although the live version leaned heavily toward the former) which has become Rock’s first hit on the country charts, performed with rapper Lil Wayne possibly playing guitar alongside a gentleman who looked oddly like AC/DC’s Brian Johnson in a “Joe the Strummer” T-shirt.

Kid Rock’s performance was a wild clash of symbols, with Detroit-born Rock’s unabashedly white trash appropriation of urban style grafting onto Skynyrd’s oft-misunderstood call not just for Southern pride but a reevaluation of the stereotypes of Southern culture. With his oversized Titans jersey, Lil Wayne at his side, and huge American flags projected behind him, Rock seemed ecstatic to be part of country music, and the audience seemed thrilled to have him there.

In an age where every possible type of music is instantly available to new audiences, where American Idol prioritizes vocal prowess while tossing soul, R&B, pop, and country into the massive blender of Celebrity, and the number of listeners who staunchly self-identify as fans of one particular genre dwindle without new devotees to replace them, the country-music industry seems to have made an astute decision. When more kids are following MySpace phenom Taylor Swift to Country Music Television than are looking to CMT for their next Taylor Swift, it might simply be that the first genre to unify in order to protect and encourage its own financial interests back in 1958 is, 50 years later, the first to embrace the death of genre as a concept.

Kid Rock and Lil Wayne


Kenny & the Wailers

History Lessons

(for the college football fan)
The preseason USA Today/Coaches Poll, coupled with their current records:

1. Georgia (9-3)
2. USC (10-1)
3. Ohio State (10-2)
4. Oklahoma (11-1)
5. Florida (11-1)
6. LSU (7-5)
7. Missouri (9-3)
8. West Virginia (7-4)
9. Clemson (7-5)
10. Texas (11-1)
11. Auburn (5-7)
12. Wisconsin (7-5)
13. Kansas (7-5)
14. Texas Tech (11-1)
15. Virginia Tech (8-4)
16. Arizona St. (5-6)
17. BYU (10-2)
18. Tennessee (5-7)
19. Illinois (5-7)
20. Oregon (9-3)
21. USF (7-4)
22. Penn St. (11-1)
23. Wake Forest (7-5)
24. Michigan (3-9)
25. Fresno St. (7-5)

Not only are 5 of these teams not even bowl eligible this year, nearly half of them have at least 5 losses and more than half are unranked today. Make of it what you will

Free Dr. Pepper! and related musings.

From AP:

Dr Pepper is making good on its promise of free soda now that the release of Guns N' Roses' "Chinese Democracy" is a reality.
The soft-drink maker said in March that it would give a free soda to everyone in America if the album dropped in 2008. "Chinese Democracy," infamously delayed since recording began in 1994, goes on sale Sunday.
"We never thought this day would come," Tony Jacobs, Dr Pepper's vice president of marketing, said in a statement. "But now that it's here, all we can say is: The Dr Pepper's on us."
Beginning Sunday at 12:01 a.m., coupons for a free 20-ounce soda will be available for 24 hours on Dr Pepper's Web site. They'll be honored until Feb. 28.

This is just great news for Dr. Pepper on the heels of a terrible 3rd quarter earnings report:

On Thursday, the company said net earnings in the third quarter dropped 31.2%, to $106.0 million, or 41 cents a share, from $154.0 million, or 61 cents a share, in the same period a year ago. Sales fell 2.0%, to $1.51 billion, from $1.54 billion a year ago and were just below the $1.52 billion expected by analysts.
The company now expects sales growth of 1.0% and adjusted earnings between $1.83 and $1.86 a share. Analysts have been projecting annual earnings of $1.95 a share.

Way to go, Dr. Pepper. That Texas-sized ego of yours just made a bad situation worse. Not only are you in fiscal freefall, but now you've got to give away millions of gallons of product FOR FREE because you decided to shoot off your mouth about something that has nothing to do with the beverage business. That's just the kind of stuff that's gotten Texas booted out of Washington leadership for the first time in...forever:

When President Bush turns the Oval Office over to Barack Obama, he might as well dump the Lone Star of Texas into the bed of his pickup and haul it off with him. The 28th state has loomed large over Washington for much of the past century — think the president, his father, Lyndon Johnson, Sam Rayburn, John Tower, Dick Armey and Tom DeLay.
But at noon on Jan. 20, Texas becomes — please don't throw things — just another state. Currently, only two Texas Democrats chair committees in the House — Silvestre Reyes (Intelligence) and Gene Green (Ethics) — and neither of them is standing.
Without a Texan in the White House or in a top-level leadership spot, members from the state may have to work across the aisle if they hope to bring home the bacon like they did in days of yore.

Seems we're on our way to saying, "So long, Texas!" Say hi to Alaska out there in the land of Obscurity. Coincidentally, the Texas-Alaska connection was established last week, in another Dr. Pepper related story. Quoth one Sarah Palin:

I never asked for anything more than a Diet Dr. Pepper once in a while.

Now, we can blame guilt by association with those pesky Alaskans, or chalk it up to a general Texan malaise, but I know the truth. The real reason for the demise of Dr. Pepper? Unleashing this unpardonable monstrosity on an inexplicably trusting public:

How do you expect the American people to respect you after you do something like that to them?

Pirates!

So I was intending to write a post in praise of pirate movies and I still might, although it was turning into more of a post in praise of Michael Curtiz, anyway, and while a worthwhile venture, that post would require more work than I care to put in right now. Besides, real pirates suddenly started cropping up in the news like crazy so I turned the post in that general direction.

For those who haven't caught it in the news, and it's entirely possible you missed it, given the round-the-clock "Will he or won't he offer the Sec of State to Hillary" and "California is on fire again!!!!" noise, Somali pirates have been terrorizing the Gulf of Aden off Africa's east coast.

In their most audacious attack yet, Saturday they hijacked the MV Sirius Star, one of the world's largest oil tankers, laden with more than 2 million barrels of crude oil. The assault took place nearly 450 miles off the coast of the Horn of Africa.
Source: Forbes

Now, I know what you're thinking, "2 things: 1) Who cares about pirates in Africa? and 2) There are still freaking pirates? In 2008?!?"

On the 2nd question, yes, there are still pirates. The thing is, just like everybody else, pirates have adapted with the times.
This is our typical image of a pirate:


This is a modern day Somali pirate:


As you can see, not only have pirates updated their wardrobe (frankly, taking a step backward) and gone multi-culti (hurray, diversity!), they have 20th century technology like walkie-talkies and water-resistant quartz wrist-watches. Also gone are the requisite peg leg, parrot, and treasure map.

Piracy is actually growing in popularity among the desperately poor Somali youth:

The main lure is money. Most of the hijacked ships have brought ransoms of at least $10,000, and sometimes much more. Many pirates, particularly in the northern Puntland region, have quickly become local celebrities, flaunting their newfound cash by building palatial beachside villas, marrying extra wives or roaring around its dusty towns in flashy cars. And that has attracted many young men desperate for work in one of the poorest countries on the planet.
"Back in 2005, there were just five Somali pirate gangs, with fewer than 100 gunmen," Andrew Mwangura, head of the East African Seafarers' Assistance Programme, said, "Now that youths who used to work as bodyguards for warlords or militia for the government see the rewards available at sea, our estimate is that there are between 1,100 and 1,200 pirates."

I know it's illegal and would require I live in Somalia and amongst pirates, but I'd gladly sign up for a palatial beachside villa. Even one in Somalia.

Now, back to the first question, why you should care:
1. Oil!
From the aforementioned Forbes article:

Roughly 11% of the world's seaborne petroleum passes through the Gulf of Aden. If the incidents continue unabated, shipping vessels may opt to avoid the Gulf of Aden by taking the longer route to Europe and North America round South Africa's Cape of Good Hope, which would almost certainly drive up commodities prices.

2. Pirates could ruin Christmas
From 1up:

While Somali pirates have plagued the Horn of Africa for years, what's of particular concern now is that they've been encroaching into the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, imperiling access to the Suez Canal -- a major shipping route that connects Europe to the Middle East and Asia. It's used by firms to transport oil, gas, coal, toys, and yes, videogames, but the attacks have gotten so frequent that firms are considering diverting shipments around Africa to the south, through the Cape of Good Hope instead. Doing so, according to PC World, could increase transit times by up to three weeks.
"Despite all the publicity over piracy it will really hit home when consumers in the West find they haven't got their Nintendo gifts this Christmas," said Sam Dawson, of the International Transport Workers' Federation, to Reuters. "If there isn't a let up and active intervention by navies in the region, the impact on trade will come within weeks or months because we've gone from one attack every couple of weeks to four in a single day."

3. It provides a new option for veterans/soldiers looking to go Blackwater
Just in case they're looking for something to do now that the Iraq shakedown is winding down:
Read:

The Moyock, N.C., company has a ship in Hampton Roads ready to begin patrolling the Gulf of Aden to protect merchant vessels against pirates. The company has spoken to about 10 shipping firms but as yet has no takers, said Bill Mathews, Blackwater Worldwide executive vice president.
"There's definitely a need and a desire," Mathews said during a tour of the 183-foot vessel, named McArthur, on Friday. It's moored at a commercial pier at Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base. Mathews said the crew and guards are qualified to provide maritime security, noting that the security teams would consist of former Navy SEALs. The force is highly trained in handling vehicle boardings and anti-terrorism missions.

The use of private companies to protect merchant ships has a long history, said Claude Berube, a former congressional staffer and professor who has written on the topic. The East India Co. employed private convoys about a century ago along the coast of Africa, he said.
Even today, the area remains at risk. As piracy threats have grown near the Horn of Africa, insurance premiums on ships have risen ten-fold, Berube said. The U.S. Navy and its allies cannot cover all the seas, and a private force could help fill the security gap, he said. "It would be feasible," he said. "I think we have to be open to all options."

4. There is that whole international terrorism thing
According to the State Dept.

Al-Shabaab is a violent and brutal extremist group with a number of individuals affiliated with al-Qaida. Many of its senior leaders are believed to have trained and fought with al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

So, there's the skinny on pirates. I have no idea what we should do to stop Somali piracy (short of simply blowing up pirate ships). I just kept seeing this pirate stuff on the news and figured I'd look into it. This is what I found and now you know. I resist the temptation to compare these folks to the Barbary pirates, because they are nowhere close to that level of naval prowess, but they are a real problem just the same. Someone should do something, but like most international problems dealing with Islamic terrorists, no one is sure just what.

Requisite College Football Prognostication

We are at that time of year when it becomes necessary to dust off the ol college football crystal ball and guess who's going to end up with the crystal ball at the end of the season.


So, let's look at the lay of the land as it stands today:
Alabama - They've got a couple SEC cupcakes ahead of an SEC Championship matchup with Florida. I think Alabama runs through it and gets to the title game easily. They've got a smart QB, a solid running back, a thus-far impenetrable defense, and maybe the best coach in the college game.

Texas Tech - I don't trust this team. Never have. Even with the super-human achievements of Graham Harrell every week and the #1 receiver in the country in Crabtree, I still don't trust this team. I think they get by OU next week, but blow it against Mizzou in the Big 12 title game, just like Mizzou last year.

Florida - The Gators control their own fate, same as 'bama, because they meet in the SEC title game. Before that, though, they play Spurrier's South Carolina and the ol rival Florida State. Should be 2 push-overs, but I'd love to see them lose to Florida State, even though I've hated the Seminoles since the Charlie Ward era.

Oklahoma - I think they're a great team, but I think Texas Tech will beat them, thus ending their chance at the title. If they beat Tech, they'll jump up to #2 and Texas fans will gripe about being ranked behind them despite beating them by 10 on a neutral field. Speaking of which...

Texas - I think they've got a path to the title game. OU loses to TTU, TTU loses to Mizzou, Florida loses big to Alabama. Boom. Title game.

USC - The Trojans still need Oregon St. to lose for them to win the Pac-10. Of course, losing the Pac-10 might not be so bad, as they've played 4 straight Rose Bowls and a trip to the Sugar Bowl or Fiesta Bowl could be fun for the program. Oregon St. will probably lose, though, as they play their toughest stretch of schedule here in the last month with Cal, Arizona, and the Civil War against Oregon. They might lose all 3.


The sad thing is, whoever limps out of the woeful ACC and Big East will both play in BCS bowls while at least 1 of the elite 3 Big XII teams will be out as the rules dictate that no conference can have 2 at-large teams in the BCS and if my prediction of Mizzou as Big 12 champ and Texas as BCS #2 come true, we'd have both Texas Tech and Oklahoma on the outs while North Carolina or Cincinnati or Pitt play the big money games.

So, here's how it shakes out:
BCS title game: Alabama v. Texas
Rose Bowl: USC v. Penn St.
Sugar Bowl: Florida v. Boise
Orange Bowl: North Carolina v. Pitt
Fiesta Bowl: Mizzou v. Utah

The other way it could shake out, if Oregon St and TTU hold out:
BCS title game: Alabama v. TTU
Rose Bowl: Oregon St. v. Ohio St. (with Penn St. losing to Michigan St)
Sugar Bowl: Florida v. USC (would do a bigger number than the title game)
Fiesta Bowl: Pitt v. Texas (ho-hum)
Orange Bowl: North Carolina v. Utah (really? This is a BCS game?)

I like my 2nd set better, but I think the first set are more likely. What say you?

A "Legend"-ary Blunder

So, after giving John Legend a few more listens through the week, I'm certain I was a bit over the top in my criticism of the album. It's better than I gave it credit for. I still think it's the weakest of his three albums, but not so far off the mark. Just givin the man his proper due. The album is solid.

For Veteran's Day

In case you didn't know, Veteran's Day was originally called Armistice Day, celebrating the signing of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WW1. Here, in memoriam is an address from General Omar Bradley from 1948. Bradley was the last man designate a 5-star general and was the first Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by Harry Truman.

An Armistice Day Address

By General Omar N. Bradley
Boston, Massachusetts
November 10, 1948

TOMORROW is our day of conscience. For although it is a monument to victory, it is also a symbol of failure. Just as it honors the dead, so must it humble the living.

Armistice Day is a constant reminder that we won a war and lost a peace.

It is both a tribute and an indictment: A tribute to the men who died that their neighbors might live without fear of aggression. An indictment of those who lived and forfeited their chance for peace.

Therefore, while Armistice Day is a day for pride, it is for pride in the achievements of others—humility in our own.

Neither remorse nor logic can hide the fact that our armistice ended in failure. Not until the armistice myth exploded in the blast of a Stuka bomb did we learn that the winning of wars does not in itself make peace. And not until Pearl Harbor did we learn that non-involvement in peace means certain involvement in war.


We paid grievously for those faults of the past in deaths, disaster, and dollars.

It was a penalty we knowingly chose to risk. We made the choice when we defaulted on our task in creating and safeguarding a peace.

It is no longer possible to shield ourselves with arms alone against the ordeal of attack. For modern war visits destruction on the victor and the vanquished alike. Our only complete assurance of surviving World War III is to halt it before it starts.

For that reason we clearly have no choice but to face the challenge of these strained times. To ignore the danger of aggression is simply to invite it. It must never again be said of the American people: Once more we won a war; once more we lost a peace. If we do we shall doom our children to a struggle that may take their lives.

ARMED forces can wage wars but they cannot make peace. For there is a wide chasm between war and peace—a chasm that can only be bridged by good will, discussion, compromise, and agreement. In 1945 while still bleeding from the wounds of aggression, the nations of this world met in San Francisco to build that span from war to peace. For three years—first hopefully, then guardedly, now fearfully—free nations have labored to complete that bridge. Yet again and again they have been obstructed by a nation whose ambitions thrive best on tension, whose leaders are scornful of peace except on their own impossible terms.

The unity with which we started that structure has been riddled by fear and suspicion. In place of agreement we are wrangling dangerously over the body of that very nation whose aggression had caused us to seek each other as allies and friends.

Only three years after our soldiers first clasped hands over the Elbe, this great wartime ally has spurned friendship with recrimination, it has clenched its fists and skulked in conspiracy behind it secretive borders.

As a result today we are neither at peace nor war. Instead we are engaged in this contest of tension, seeking agreement with those who disdain it, rearming, and struggling for peace.

Time can be for or against us.

It can be for us if diligence in our search for agreement equals the vigilance with which we prepare for a storm.

It can be against us if disillusionment weakens our faith in discussion—or if our vigilance corrodes while we wait.

Disillusionment is always the enemy of peace. And today—as after World War I —disillusionment can come from expecting too much, too easily, too soon. In our impatience we must never forget that fundamental differences have divided this world; they allow no swift, no cheap, no easy solutions.

While as a prudent people we must prepare ourselves to encounter what we may be unable to prevent, we nevertheless must never surrender ourselves to the certainty of that encounter.

For if we say there is no good in arguing with what must inevitably come, then we shall be left with no choice but to create a garrison state and empty our wealth into arms. The burden of long-term total preparedness for some indefinite but inevitable war could not help but crush the freedom we prize. It would leave the American people soft victims for bloodless aggression.

BOTH the East and the West today deprecate war. Yet because of its threatening gestures, its espousal of chaos, its secretive tactics, and its habits of force—one nation has caused the rest of the world to fear that it might recklessly resort to force rather that be blocked in its greater ambitions.

The American people have said both in their aid to Greece and in the reconstruction of Europe that any threat to freedom is a threat to our own lives. For we know that unless free peoples stand boldly and united against the forces of aggression, they may fall wretchedly, one by one, into the web of oppression.

It is fear of the brutal unprincipled use of force by reckless nations that might ignore the vast reserves of our defensive strength that has caused the American people to enlarge their air, naval, and ground arms.

Reluctant as we are to muster this costly strength, we must leave no chance for miscalculation in the mind of any aggressor.

Because in the United States it is the people who are sovereign, the Government is theirs to speak their voice and to voice their will, truthfully and without distortion.

We, the American people, can stand cleanly before the entire world and say plainly to any state:

“This Government will not assail you.

“You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressor.”

Since the origin of the American people, their chief trait has been the hatred of war. And yet these American people are ready to take up their arms against aggression and destroy if need be by their might any nation which would violate the peace of the world.

There can be no compromise with aggression anywhere in the world. For aggression multiplies—in rapid succession—disregard for the rights of man. Freedom when threatened anywhere is at once threatened everywhere.

NO MORE convincing an avowal of their peaceful intentions could have been made by the American people than by their offer to submit to United Nations the secret of the atom bomb. Our willingness to surrender this trump advantage that atomic energy might be used for the peaceful welfare of mankind splintered the contentions of those word-warmakers that our atom had been teamed with the dollar for imperialistic gain.

Yet because we asked adequate guarantees and freedom of world-wide inspection by the community of nations itself, our offer was declined and the atom has been recruited into this present contest of nerves. To those people who contend that secrecy and medieval sovereignty are more precious than a system of atomic control, I can only reply that it is a cheap price to pay for peace.

The atom bomb is far more than a military weapon. It may—as Bernard Baruch once said—contain the choice between the quick and the dead. We dare not forget that the advantage in atomic warfare lies with aggression and surprise. If we become engaged in an atom bomb race, we may simply lull ourselves to sleep behind an atomic stockpile. The way to win an atomic war is to make certain it never starts.

WITH the monstrous weapons man already has, humanity is in danger of being trapped in this world by its moral adolescents. Our knowledge of science has clearly outstripped our capacity to control it. We have many men of science; too few men of God. We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount. Man is stumbling blindly through a spiritual darkness while toying with the precarious secrets of life and death. The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living.

This is our twentieth century’s claim to distinction and to progress.

IN OUR concentration on the tactics of strength and resourcefulness which have been used in the contest for blockaded Berlin, we must not forget that we are also engaged in a long-range conflict of ideas. Democracy can withstand ideological attacks if democracy will provide earnestly and liberally for the welfare of its people. To defend democracy against attack, men must value freedom. And to value freedom they must benefit by it in happier and more secure lives for their wives and their children.

Throughout this period of tension in which we live, the American people must demonstrate conclusively to all other peoples of the world that democracy not only guarantees man’s human freedom but that it guarantees his economic dignity and progress as well. To practice freedom and make it work, we must cherish the individual; we must provide him the opportunities for reward and impress upon him the responsibilities a free man bears to the society in which he lives.

Listen Up

Politics and such aside, it's time to talk music.

John Legend - Evolver
Haven't listened to it enough to give it a fair hearing, but I can say I was not particularly enthusiastic about it, the middle of the album was a muddle of mid-tempo fluff and guest artists (Kanye, Estelle, Brandy) all sounding like will.I.am re-hash. Even the songwriting seems off compared to Legend's previous efforts. He leaves the signature grand piano at home for the most part, favoring synths and strings and drum machines. I never thought 'generic' would be a word that would apply to a John Legend album. It's not bad, mind you. There are some solid songs and Andre 3000 offers an entertaining rap verse on Green Light (which I understand was the first single, so if you listen to the radio or watch music videos, you've no doubt already heard it).
Quickly feat. Brandy



Robin Thicke - Something Else
Robin Thicke shows John Legend how to make 3rd album. Not content to simply replicate the soft-spoken manner of his breakout hit, "Lost Without U" (which, incidentally, I thought was one of the weaker tracks on his last album, but I digress) for 12-13 tracks, he dug deep and pulled out, well, something else. A throwback 70s funk/soul sound made fresh. Unlike the current (mostly) Mark Ronson-produced or imitating British retro-R&B which is digging up every Motown riff and drum beat from the 60s, Thicke looks to the 70s for inspiration and finds it in spades. And then he doesn't stop there; he drops a little Lou Reed meets Curtis Mayfield gem on us called Shadow of Doubt that stands out simply by being different from the rest of the album, and yet completely at home with the rest of the songs. It just works. And he makes room for his rap buddy Lil Wayne to take the lead on the album closer while Thicke just sings the chorus. That takes confidence that you know what you're doing. And he does. An excellent effort.
Sidestep


Leigh Jones - Music in My Soul
The first find and project from Kerry Gordy, son of Motown founder Berry Gordy. Carrying dad's endorsement, Kerry gives us Leigh Jones, a jazz-soul-pop-blues chanteuse, filling the gap between Alice Smith and Chrisette Michele. The first time I listened to her album I was more impressed by the songwriting/production (which are both top-notch) than by her as a singer. Then, I kept listening because the songs are so good and it just kinda grew on me. And then I realized why...it's fun. Sure, it's mostly jazzy ballads, but she knows how to sing the songs incredibly well, even though she's not the best singer, so they come alive. And when the bluesy I'm Leaving You comes on, I defy you to not sway along with that familiar groove.
Have It Your Way


One Flew South
One Flew South is basically a pop vocal harmony trio who play country music. Imagine The Eagles/CSNY singing Rascal Flatts (if the thought don't cause you to go into convulsions). The guys are older than most new artists coming out, but that only serves to make the songs sharper/better-written and the harmonies tighter. I know country is a divisive genre for some reason, but this should be tolerable to anyone who appreciates a good vocal. Having grown up on a steady diet of Beach Boys and Boyz 2 Men, I'm something of a sucker for a harmony group.
Life


Willie Nelson & Wynton Marsalis - Two Men With the Blues [Live]
Willie. Wynton. 'nuff said.
That's All


That's all. For now.

Community Organizer in Chief?

Excerpted from Mary Sanchez:
It was a mistake for the McCain camp to dismiss Obama’s days as a community organizer as a bunch of airy-fairy nonsense. Obama has clearly learned how to motivate people, even if his style seems overly naive. At the top of his Web site is this quote from Obama: “I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington … I’m asking you to believe in yours.”

OK, that sounds puffy nice, so easy to mock. Except that most people gravitate to goodwill if approached right. We’re a nation that put the “Chicken Soup for the Soul” series on best-seller lists, for goodness sake. What most people tend not to have readily available, however, are the political connections and savvy to change things they dislike about their neighborhoods, city governments and workplaces. Community organizing gives them that.

The Obama campaign has drawn a lot of people into the fold who had never been involved in politics. People found themselves in leadership roles, planning strategy, with access to voter rolls online — and they found themselves being held accountable for what they accomplished. That’s a far different concept than giving someone a sign to stand on street corner with on Election Day.

Community organizing believes that government should be of the people, by the people and for the people. You can’t get much more patriotic or democratic than that.

And I think we'll make that the last word on the 2008 presidential election. Onward.

Reflection on the Election

I'll bet you can guess who delivered this speech without my telling you:

Excerpted:
I know it's really hard when we think of the tragic midnight of injustice and oppression that we've had to live under so many years, but let us not become bitter. Let us never indulge in hate campaigns, for we can't solve the problem like that. Somebody must have sense in this world. And to hate for hate does nothing but intensify the existence of hate in the universe. We must not use violence. Maybe sometimes we will have to be the victims of violence but never let us be the perpetrators of violence. For if we succumb to the temptation of using violence in our struggle, unborn generations would be the recipients of a long and desolate night of bitterness and our chief legacy to the future would be an endless rain of meaningless chaos. We must not use violence. Oh, sometimes as we struggle it will be necessary to boycott. But let us remember as we boycott that a boycott is never an end. A boycott is merely means to awaken within the oppressor the sense of shame and to let him know that we don't like how we are being treated; but the end my friends is reconciliation, the end is redemption.

Oh, no matter how much we are mistreated there is still a voice crying through the vistas of time saying, "Love your enemy." "Bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you. And then, and only then, can you matriculate into the university of eternal life. We must get a hold of this simple principle of love and let it be our guiding principle throughout our struggle.

This means that through this period we will need leaders on every hand and at every scene who will stress this...Oh, this is a period for leaders. Leaders not in love with publicity, but in love with humanity. Leaders not in love with money, but in love with justice. Leaders who can subject their particular egos to the greatness of the cause.

Oh,
God give us leaders.
A time like this demands great leaders. 

Leaders whom the lust of office cannot kill;

Leaders whom the spoils of life cannot buy;

Leaders who possess opinions and will;

Leaders who will not lie;

Leaders who can stand before a demagogue and damn his 
treacherous flatteries without winking. 

Tall leaders, sun-crowned, who live above the fog 
in public duty and in private thinking.

And this is the need my friends of the hour. This is the need all over the nation. In every community there is a dire need for leaders who will lead the people, who stand today amid the wilderness toward the promise land of freedom and justice. God grant that ministers, and lay leaders, and civic leaders, and businessmen, and professional people all over the nation will rise up and use the talent and the finances that God has given them, and lead the people on toward the Promised Land of freedom with rational, calm, nonviolent means. This is the great challenge of the hour.

And if we will do this my friends we will be able to speed up the coming of this new order, which is destined to come. This new world in which men will be able to live together as brothers. This new world in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of all human personality. This new world in which men will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Yes, this new world in which men will no longer take necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classes. This new world in which men will learn the old principle of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They will hear once more the voice of Jesus crying out through the generations saying, "Love everybody." This is that world. Then right here in America we will be able to sing with new meaning:
My country 'tis of thee,

Sweet land of liberty,

Of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died,

Land of the Pilgrims pride,

From every mountain side,

Let freedom ring.

As I heard a powerful orator say not long ago that must become literally true. Freedom must ring from every mountain side. Let us go out this evening with that determination. Yes, let it ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado. Let it ring from the prodigious hill tops of New Hampshire. Let it ring from the mighty Alleghanies of Pennsylvania. Let it ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that. From every mountain side let freedom ring. Yes, let us go out and be determined that freedom will ring from every mole hill in Mississippi. Let it ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let it ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Let it ring from every mountain and hill of Alabama. From every mountain side let freedom ring. And when that happens we will be able to go out and sing a new song: "Free at last, free at last, great God almighty I'm free at last."

There are still Black Panthers? In 2008?

This nonsense is just as bad as that embarrassing Ashley Todd hoax. Come on, America. Do better.

Endorsements '08

The election is just around the corner and since I've been MIA for a while I haven't gotten around to offering any kind of official endorsement on this thing yet so I figured I better slip it in just before the election.

That said, the presidential election is gonna be a rout and everyone is jumping on the Barack Bandwagon in the waning days of the campaign, even Joe Lieberman is making nice (especially since his pal John McCain found a new Joe to exploit).

Since there's no point in endorsing this late in the game, especially when the outcome is not in doubt, we've got to endorse elsewhere.

Therefore, after much consideration (well, much might be a bit much), this blog is pleased to endorse in the 2008 election:


CNN's Campbell Brown as Best New Pundit of the Election Season

Why?










The transition from "hard news" White House correspondent to armchair analyst never looked so easy.

We are also endorsing:
Michelle Obama for First Lady
and
Meghan McCain for First Daughter
and
Darius Rucker for First Pop-Rocker turned R&B/Soul Man turned Pop-Country Crooner:

Mind Your Own Business, Alaska

Maybe Todd Palin was on to something. The "Alaska First, Alaska Always" slogan of his former party might just be exactly what the doctor ordered for Alaskan politicians. Though I might proffer an additional clause: "Alaska Only".

You see, over the last year or so we've had a close-up look at Alaska's political elite and, plainly, it's not a pretty sight. If I may paraphrase Diane Court in Say Anything, "I've glimpsed our future with Alaskan politicians leading our country and all I can say is...go back." Please. Please, go back to your dog-sled races, moose burgers, and ice fishing. The combined effect of the loony Democratic primary candidacy of Mike Gravel, the through the looking-glass vice presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin, and that freshly-minted stain on the Senate courtesy of Ted Stevens create an unequivocal impression of unfitness for inclusion at the grown up table. And these are the folks you picked out the general population to lead you?

The travails of Gov. Palin are well known to all by now and need no rehash so, oh what the heck, here's Andrew Sullivan on a rant:


If you'll recall, we met Mike Gravel back in the Democratic primary. The crazy guy at the end of the stage who never got a question. You remember him, the one who made Dennis Kucinich appear reasonable by contrast. The one who gave this unforgettable ad:


The only thing more bizarre than this ad, is the former far-left Democratic senator's broad-minded support of Gov. Palin as a VP nominee...

Sarah has literally come to the national scene without owing anything to any party or corporate interest––not even McCain––he needs her more than she needs him. Imagine a person a heart beat away not owned by the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, corporate America or AIPAC. WOW! Can this last? Probably not. But she does have an uncanny sense of political direction and the ability to capitalize on change like putting the public interest above Republican Party interests.

...before taking a pot-shot at her running mate...

In the interest of full disclosure: I have no intention of voting for McCain. He is too steeped in the use of military power to solve problems and American imperialism—and the wars it creates. At times McCain has been a maverick, but, unfortunately, never that consistently. There are too many temptations in Washington, even for a man born on third base.

...before falling back into derangement...

Sarah: keep up the practice of having Todd hang out with you in your official capacities. Insist that he be given a clearance equal to yours, so that you are not excluded from the full depth of his counsel. If push comes to shove, he is the only one you can trust. He must study, read and grow in your office as quickly as you. What you face is more than one person can handle.

So, on behalf of everyone here in the Lower 48, go away. Leave us alone. You come down out of your crazy Alaskan/Aleutian time zone and offer naught but bewilderment. It's been a diverting reminder to all of us that you exist, but it's really time to go back where you belong: somewhere in the recesses of our collective consciousness. Let the Lower 48 handle it. We're fine, we're good, really. In the words of your own governor, "thanks, but no thanks" for your participation in national affairs. As we say (or rather sing) down here in contiguous states, "It's one (Gravel), two (Palin), three (Stevens) strikes you're out at the old ball game". Don't act like you don't know the song, I know you play baseball up there in the land of the midnight sun:

The Narratives of the Candidates

Out of retirement with this highly recommended piece by David Bordwell about Obama and McCain and the narratives they've constructed for themselves (through their memoirs and the campaign). I don't think I can do it justice in capsule review, so just read it.

Excerpted:

If McCain’s book is an adventure tale, Obama’s is a detective story. The through-line, as screenwriters might say, is Obama’s search for his identity as a African American. If McCain’s plot is driven by honor and duty, Obama’s depends on race and social responsibility. McCain steers by a fixed star, and is shamed when he goes off course. Obama is scanning the heavens for some stable pole that will give him a sense of who he is.

Obama’s tale is more complex than McCain’s, but each one reflects the image of the protagonist. McCain lives in a world of clear-cut demands, called the Code, and so any problem comes from failing to meet the obligations of duty. Obama’s world is hazy and uncertain; there is no Code. How should a man like him, with his heritage, find a way to live with dignity?

...we can say that stories create curiosity about past events, suspense about future events, and surprise by means of unexpected events. Whatever other emotions a narrative evokes, we need to feel at least one of these three states. We can distinguish the two Presidential campaigns’ “master narratives,” along these dimensions.

In the ongoing electioneering, Obama’s campaign is now driven almost completely by suspense. He’s not asking us to find out more about what led to the war in Iraq or the economic collapse or the crumbling infrastructure; it’s assumed that we know enough backstory. Everything is about what comes next...The very image of suspense.

McCain, by contrast, is running a campaign driven by curiosity and surprise. Many of his talking points dwell on the past. Who is Barack Obama, really? What did he have to do with Ayers, Rezko, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives? Why did he sit in Jeremiah Wright’s church? And so on. These questions ask us to feel curiosity in the form of suspicion about McCain’s rival. The fact that most in his audience haven’t taken up the hint has driven the campaign to try to invoke another emotion: surprise. The pick of Sarah Palin is the most obvious instance, but several others have followed: suspending the campaign, promising to buy people’s mortgages, yanking Joe the Plumber out of obscurity as an emblem of small business, even the “not ready yet” tagline of a recent ad. There may be more surprises to come, as gloomy Democrats fear (which only increases their feeling of suspense). At this point, the act of winning would be the ultimate McCain surprise.

So the campaigns may teach us something of interest about narratives: You can’t have a gripping narrative without some suspense. You can do without curiosity or surprise, but a story lacking suspense won’t keep us turning enough pages to be curious or surprised. Maybe that’s why the McCain campaign never had a “compelling narrative.” It didn’t build up enough of a sense of how it would win or how, after the election, the future would be different.

Indiana Jones 4 Sneak Peak

Behind the scenes of Indiana Jones 4:

Clinton Global Initiative

For whatever reason, Bill Clinton's Global Initiative Summit didn't seem to get much press coverage this year, so for those who missed out or, for that matter, anyone who asks "where is the good news?" or "how can I make a difference?" just take a look at some of the highlights of the wonderful, philanthropic and forward-looking endeavors and commitments put forth over the last week:

From the official organization website:
"I'm ecstatic about the work that's been done here over the past three days. We have seen firsthand that one commitment of action inspires a myriad of others," President Bill Clinton said. "The quality and level of commitments that we have seen this year are a testament to the positive impact our CGI members and initiatives are having around the world."

Examples of the impact this year's commitments will potentially have around the world, include:

8.5 million out-of-school children will be enabled to enroll in school for the first time.
50 million people will have access to treatment of neglected tropical diseases.
170,031,331 acres of forest will be protected or restored.
11.2 million people will be empowered with increased access to sustainable incomes

In addition to the long list of new commitments made at this year's meeting, hundreds of commitments were made by more than 40,000 people who visited the newly launched MyCommitment.org. Through this online tool, nearly 200,000 hours of volunteer time and close to $130,000 were committed.

To help further cultivate a new generation of philanthropists and citizen-servants, President Clinton announced that CGI is launching CGI-U, an effort to expand CGI to college campuses.

"I believe the world has never needed a community of givers more than it does today. CGI-U will serve as a catalyst for commitments of action by young people around the country to make a difference in their world," Clinton said.

Several celebrites got involved:
"Actor Brad Pitt is expanding his commitment to New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward with his Make it Right project to create a community of 150 affordable and sustainable homes in one of the areas hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina. Pitt and his partner Steve Bing are challenging members of the Clinton Global Initiative to join them in rebuilding the Lower Ninth Ward by each pledging to match $5 million in contributions to the Make it Right project, for a total of $10 million.

"The heart and soul of New Orleans, specifically the people of the Lower 9th Ward, are paramount to this project," said Pitt. "The words of one elderly man who is determined to return to New Orleans led to the name of our organization: he asked us, directly simply and profoundly, to help make it right. So that's what we're doing. We're going to help to make it right with 150 sustainable, affordable houses - houses that stand out for their design both aesthetically and structurally, so that these people can live in beautiful safe structures that respect their spirit and provide a good quality of life."

Jessica Biel and her father Jon Biel founded the Make the Difference Network to allow everyone to be a "grassroots philanthropist" by creating a social networking site that brings thousands of small- to medium-sized non-profits together with millions of potential donors. Users will be able to search a list of specific "wishes" posted by non-profits and then fund those wishes. After the first year, $30 million will be donated to 5,000 non-profits at an average of $500 per month. The second year should see those numbers rise to 10,000 non-profits and $60 million donated, with a two-year total of $90 million.

"Shakira, known for her provocative outfits and sex-infused songs, looked downright prim and proper as she shook former President Bill Clinton’s hand--a gesture which brought Clinton out from behind the podium--as he announced her organization's $40 million commitment to help relieve the effects of natural disasters in Peru and Nicaragua through investment in education, sanitation and water systems."


Other commitments include:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Wal-Mart commits to reducing the water, plastic and cardboard used in laundry detergents, both by committing to stock only concentrated detergents, and by creating conditions that encourage other retailers to follow. By May, Wal-Mart will sell only concentrated detergent in all of its US stores. The impact of this effort will save more than 400 million gallons of water, 95 million pounds of plastic resin and 125 million pounds of cardboard.

Starbucks Coffee Co.
To aid the emerging African coffee industry, Starbucks will increase its regional coffee imports, and set up an on-site Farmer Support Center to provide technical assistance and credit access to aspiring coffee growers. Over this two year commitment, Starbucks will double the amount of coffee it purchases from East Africa and provide $1 million of credit to farmers.

H.J. Heinz Company Foundation & Helen Keller International (HKI): Sprinkles® for Rural India
HKI and the H.J. Heinz Company Foundation are making a $300,000 commitment to distribute Sprinkles, a vitamin and mineral supplement to 6.5 million children in India, providing the necessary iron, iodine and vitamin A for a healthy diet.

Mexican Reforestation by Coca-Cola Company
The $6.2 million Mexican program will plant 30 million trees to restore 25,000 hectares of important natural habitat with native species, helping to reduce greenhouse gases and remove more than 350,000 tons of CO2 over five years. Coca-Cola has also made a reforestation commitment in Brazil.

Princeton-Brown-Dillard Partnership
This commitment is the first example of a high-level partnership formed between relatively wealthy educational institutions and a relatively poor one. Brown University, in partnership with Princeton University, will give much needed academic, administrative, technical and consulting assistance to support Dillard University in New Orleans. Dillard University, a historically black institution, was devastated by Hurricane Katrina. This commitment will directly impact Dillard's 100 person faculty, as well as the more than 1,100 students currently enrolled.

Room to Read: Scaling Success: 10,000 bi-lingual libraries by 2010
By 2010, Room to Read aims to extend its geographic reach to 15 countries, including a launch in Latin America. As part of this $25 million commitment, Room to Read will expand its flagship Reading Room program to open 5,000 additional libraries, bringing the total to 10,000 libraries and self-publish more than 3.5 million children's books in local languages across three continents.

Harnessing Geothermal Energy in Africa
This $150m funded by the Geothermal Power Company of Iceland will help countries in the African Rift Valley to develop their geothermal energy resources helping them to develop sustainably. The project will invest in comprehensive research into the geothermal potential of Djibouti and if successful will build a large power plant driven on geothermal power.

Maternal and Infant Health Initiative
Maureen Mwanawasa, the First Lady of Zambia, made a 5 year, $2 million commitment with a number of partners to strengthen Zambia's maternal and infant healthcare system and improve the country's health statistics. The commitment will benefit more than 50,000 expectant mothers living in Zambia's Central Province annually.

Fighting Malaria with Bed Nets
The United Methodist Church commits to donating at least 150,000 insecticide-treated bed nets in the areas of the Côte d'Ivoire that are most affected by malaria. Because The United Methodist Church of Côte d'Ivoire is spread throughout the country, it has a "ready made" system for providing education and for distributing nets. In addition, members of the Texas Annual Conference and other US church leaders will help distribute the nets throughout the country. This action will affect the lives of 600,000 people.

Vehicle Leasing Program
The Skoll Foundation will provide credit support of $15.9 million to purchase 224 vehicles (motorcycles, double-cab pick-ups and ambulances) which will be leased to the Gambian Department of State for Health. These vehicles will be put into the established Riders for Health fleet management system in Gambia, allowing Riders to help Gambia to occupy a unique position as the first African country to have total health coverage for its entire population-every man, woman and child.

Micro-Land Ownership in India: Providing Economic and Social Opportunity for the Poorest
In this commitment that totals nearly $8 million, the Rural Development Institute together with nine partners will assist rural Indian families securing land rights for small plots of land. This will provide them not only with a place to live but an opportunity to produce food on their land from which they can make an income.

The Video Speaks For Itself

Bill O'Reilly does it again:

No, No, No, Laws Are For Criminals, Not Me

While everyone with a TV camera and a week's worth of 24-hour news cycles to fill was down in Jena last week covering protests and asking Al Sharpton his opinion on things, a tiny hamlet up in New Hampshire was also being plagued by a high school legal scandal of it's own.

It appears that at the end of last semester a group of up to dozens of students conspired to cheat on their finals to ensure good grades, and in the process broke into the school one night to steal the exams. Well, after an investigation the authorities decided to press misdemeanor charges against several students, dubbed "The Notorious Nine", with the threat of having them bumped up to felony charges if the parents insist on taking the case to trial.

Here, as in Jena, no is arguing what happened, the students and parents admit and accept that they unlawfully broke into the school to steal the tests and beat a kid unconscious, respectively, and in both cases, the supporters of the students feel the charges, any charges, are too severe for the offense; outrageous that their children are being treated as though they were criminals for a "schoolyard fight" or pulling a stupid prank. What is it with these so-called "pranks" recently, anyway? Breaking into school? Just a prank. Hanging nooses? What's not funny about that?. Robbing a bank? Haha, it was a joke.

Thankfully, there are people in the town that get why this was serious and inexcusable:
"The parents need to be reasonable," she said. "This is technically a Class B felony offense. How can you reduce that to a violation-level offense - which is for something like spitting on the sidewalk? Although you don't want to hammer them, you want them to know this is serious."

"We have never called the police for a cheating incident. But there is never a time when we would not call the police when someone breaks into our building," said Wayne Gersen, superintendent that oversees Hanover High School.

"They're cheating. They're breaking into the school. They deserve what they got," said Hannah Stone, a freshman.

There is talk that because this city is home to Dartmouth, the students feel added pressure to perform academically that led these students to commit these otherwise inexplicable crimes (one might argue there can't be too much pressure otherwise they'd have been well-prepared to take their tests already instead of cheating). I wonder how many of these parents and pundits pushing this excuse would allow for the same defense for crimes committed by kids from urban areas, that environmental pressures excuse illegal activity.

Is it just men, or does there seem to be a real push toward getting knee-jerk public revenge, a kind of politically correct mob justice, instead of finding the facts and applying the relevant law, even if it doesn't immediately right itself with our internal sense of the due punishment for the offender. Michael Vick got caught in dogfighting (technically, interstate gambling) and the animal rights folks want him locked away forever. Of course, according to typical sentencing, first-time offenders for his offense don't even go to jail, but don't tell that to PETA, they'll call you a soulless dog-hater and flood your e-mail inbox with pictures of mutilated dogs. The law doesn't serve their bloodlust and they clamored loud enough and so now Vick is more than likely going to prison for 12-18 months. Public pressure affecting the justice system in this way goes against the founding principles of our nation, designed to protect the few from the tyranny of the masses. (Not to mention, one might take a gander at the 14th amendment, time permitting)

Moreover, we are told the Jena case is about race relations, but what is anyone doing in Jena to foster the desired racial reconciliation by calling the town a haven for racist behavior? If anything, wouldn't that drive the wedge deeper? In Hanover, NH, is anyone actually working to round out the lives of students so academic pressure doesn't lead to further anti-social behavior? Or will we just point fingers and assign blame on somebody else, anybody else.

*******************

In other news, the First Amendment Center released their annual "State of the First Amendment Survey" results last week -
This year’s survey, being released to mark both annual Constitution Day (Sept. 17) activities and the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, found:

** Just 56% believe that the freedom to worship as one chooses extends to all religious groups, regardless of how extreme — down 16 points from 72% in 2000.

**58% of Americans would prevent protests during a funeral procession, even on public streets and sidewalks; and 74% would prevent public school students from wearing a T-shirt with a slogan that might offend others.

**34% (lowest since the survey first was done in 1997) think the press “has too much freedom,” but 60% of Americans disagree with the statement that the press tries to report the news without bias, and 62% believe the making up of stories is a widespread problem in the news media — down only slightly from 2006.

**25% said “the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees,” well below the 49% recorded in the 2002 survey that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, but up from 18% in 2006.

“Americans clearly have mixed views of what First Amendment freedoms are and to whom they should fully apply,” said Gene Policinski, vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center. “To me the results of this year’s survey endorse the idea of more and better education for young people — our nation’s future leaders — about our basic freedoms.”

The right to practice one’s own religion was deemed “essential” or “important” by nearly all Americans (97%); as was the right to “speak freely about whatever you want” (98%) and to “assemble, march, protest or petition the government (94%),” Policinski said. “Still, Americans are hard pressed to name the five freedoms included in the First Amendment,” he said. Speech is the only one named by a majority of respondents (64%), followed by religion (19%), press and assembly (each 16%) and petition (3%).

Kant & Petraeus & Bush & Escher

For anyone who has been living under a rock this week, the Commanding General of the Multinational Force Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus testified before Congress this past week. In the course of the various lengthy hearings, Sen. John Warner (R-VA) asked Petraeus if the current course of action in Iraq is "making America safer". The General responded that he believed the current course is the best way to achieve our objectives in Iraq. The senator asked again, but it is making us safer. Petraeus responded, "Sir, I don't know, actually. I haven't sat down and thought it through..." Many jumped on him for this, Joe Biden calling it "unconscionable", but ol 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant had his back....

Excerpted from Immanuel Kant's "What is Enlightenment':
"The enlightenment requires nothing but freedom: freedom to make public use of one's own reason in all matters....On the other hand, the private use of reason may frequently be narrowly restricted without especially hindering the progress of enlightenment. By 'public use of reason' I mean that use which man, as a scholar, makes of it before the reading public . I call 'private use' that use which a man makes of his reason in a civic post that has been entrusted to him...and where arguing is not permitted: one must obey....Thus it would be very unfortunate if an officer on duty and under orders from his superiors should want to criticize the appropriateness or utility of his orders. He must obey....This is nothing that could burden his conscience. He speaks as one who is employed to speak in the name and under the orders of another."

In other news, unfortunately, it looks as though I may have been more correct than I cared to be about 2 months back when I wrote a post entitled "We Are Not Leaving Iraq", in which I laid out why I thought we are probably stuck there for the long haul, no matter how much grandstanding and fervor comes out of the left, ending with the prediction, "We aren't leaving Iraq. Not today. Not 6 months from now. Not January 20, 2009. Maybe not ever."

Then the president addressed the nation last night with just such a proposal for perpetual presence :
"This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops."

So we stay there "until the job is done" or we stay there because the job is done? Looks like M.C. Escher somehow saw this coming too:


Back to Kant, Mr. President:
The state of peace among men living side by side is not the natural state; the natural state is one of war. This does not always mean open hostilities, but at least an unceasing threat of war. A state of peace, therefore, must be established, for in order to be secured against hostility it is not sufficient that hostilities simply be not committed; and, unless this security is pledged to each by his neighbor (a thing that can occur only in a civil state), each may treat his neighbor, from whom he demands this security, as an enemy.

Bloomberg Is At It Again

After eliminating trans-fats and banning the N Word already this year, Lil Mikey B. is at it again in the Big Apple.

Excerpted from Newsweek:
Paying kids for good grades is a popular (if questionable) parenting tactic. But when school starts next week, New York City will try to use the same enticement to get parents in low-income neighborhoods more involved in their children's education and overall health. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has raised more than $40 million (much of it from his own money and the Rockefeller Foundation) to pay families a modest amount for small tasks—$50 for getting a library card or $100 to take a child to the dentist—that could make a big difference.

The experimental program, called Opportunity NYC, is modeled on a 10-year-old Mexican program called Oportunidades, which has been so successful in reducing poverty in rural areas that it has been adopted by more than 20 countries, including Argentina and Turkey. International studies have found that these programs raise school enrollment and vaccination rates and lower the number of sick days students take. Bringing this idea to Harlem and the South Bronx may not make a radical difference, concedes Linda Gibbs, the deputy mayor for Health and Human Services. But, she adds, "It makes these activities matter in a new way...A mother might demand an early-intervention evaluation [to look for developmental or learning disabilities] for a child" to get the $150 payment, Gibbs says. "If she can't find a doctor to do it, the cash incentive might make Mom more likely to ask why those services aren't available in her community."

The idea behind Opportunity NYC is called conditional cash transfer, and the program is the first of its kind in this country. It's also the exact opposite of traditional social services for the poor, which hand out money without demanding much in return. In order to find out whether this reversal works, the city is enlisting 5,000 families to take part in the social experiment. They are being chosen randomly from lists of people getting housing assistance from the city. Half will receive the incentive money and the other half won't but will function as a control group, similar to clinical trials where some patients get a drug and others get a placebo.

"At first blush, this offends every sensibility I have," says James Oddo, the Republican minority leader of the New York City Council. "But then the fiscal conservative in me takes over and I think maybe it will cost me less as a taxpayer to pay a little on the front end." At this point, taxpayers aren't being asked to pay anything. Bloomberg decided to roll out Opportunity NYC with private funds in order to evaluate the program for two years without having to endure what could have been a bruising political battle.

But if it can help families who live in the city's poorest neighborhoods, it may be a risk worth taking. Some of the Opportunity NYC participants will come from East New York, a predominantly black and Hispanic corner of Brooklyn where half of the residents live below the poverty level and only half of all adults are high-school graduates. The local high school was shut down in June after years of abysmal academic performance and a graduation rate hovering around 29 percent. "The lack of education and of significant wage earners are the biggest challenges," says Bill Wilkens, coordinator of East New York's Local Development Corporation. "This is the last frontier."

Kanye vs. 50 vs. Kenny...Who Ya Got?!?

From Entertainment Weekly:
"Whose new CD will sell more when they both drop on Sept. 11, 50 Cent or Kanye West? While those two rappers continue to busy themselves trading verbal jabs over that question, a third contender is now staking his claim to that week's hotly contested sales crown: country superstar Kenny Chesney.

''It's funny how with every record that comes out, we're aware of the urban [competition], and none of those acts acknowledge that I exist,'' Chesney tells EW via email. ''Until I have that No. 1 debut on the Top 200.''

Just Who I Am: Poets and Pirates, Chesney's 11th studio album, goes on sale the same Tuesday morning as 50 Cent's Curtis and Kanye West's Graduation. Chesney's last four studio efforts have opened atop Billboard's albums chart — including his most recent effort, The Road and the Radio, which beat the original soundtrack to 50 Cent's film Get Rich or Die Tryin' when both debuted in November 2005.
50 Cent has said that he will retire from his recording career if West outsells him."


I think the odds on favorite has to be Kenny, he is the most popular artist of the decade thus far by record sales and concert sales, (as I reminded us last November), he's still on top of the country world right now and that's a large fanbase that almost certainly won't have any interest in either Kanye or 50 who will split each other's sales, but Kanye's been pushing himself out there early this week, bashing MTV again and again about having Britney open @ the VMA's instead of him, so maybe that'll help him out. Either way, as long as we can all agree that 50 Cent must lose this competition and thereby retire.

If their respective most recent videos (to my knowledge) are any indication of the quality of album, I think Kanye wins, although Kenny puts up decent competition with a tug at the heartstrings).


VS.



Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure 50 will outsell Kanye and we'll be stuck with this mumbling gibberish for years to come.

Summer Movie Season '07 Recap

August is over, and as a result so is summer movie season. Kids are back in school, football is back, and so on, so summer movie season is therefore over as well, at least as far as I'm concerned. There are still a few summer titles in theaters, but in my opinion September starts the weak, but brief 6-7 week fall movie season before the "prestige pictures" of Oscar season start to roll out in late October/early November. Ok? Great, on to the movies!

By my count and recollection I saw 20 films in theaters this summer and for the most part they were fairly enjoyable, (only Transformers was a real waste of time) which I think says at least 1 of 3 things: 1) I try pretty hard to find the good in everything, 2) I only watch movies I know I'm going to like, or 3) This was a good summer for movies.

I think they rank out fairly well. So here we go:

The Elite:
1. Stardust - Best movie of the summer. An sweeping adventure movie experience that reminded me of the first time I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark or The Princess Bride (though not quite on the level of those two), the way fantasy used to be made before it was hijacked and serialized by LOTR and Harry Potter. How this movie is not an absolute hit is beyond me.
2. Ratatouille: Best Pixar offering since their first (Toy Story). I had it pegged as the best of the summer, until I saw Stardust last week.

The Very Good:
3. Hot Fuzz
4. Hairspray
5. The Host
6. Waitress

The Good:
7. You Kill Me
8. The Simpsons Movie
9. Knocked Up
10. Superbad
11. Sicko
12. Mr. Bean's Holiday
13. Sunshine

The Respectable:
14. Becoming Jane
15. Oceans 13
16. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
17. I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry

The Forgettable:
18. Resurrecting the Champ
19. Spiderman 3
20. Transformers

WIth the 1st Pick in the 2008 United States Military Draft the Army Selects.....

Excerpted from a Newsweek.com editorial by a marine calling for the reinstatement of the draft:
The real failure of this war, the mistake that has led to all the malaise of Operation Iraqi Freedom, was the failure to not reinstitute the draft on Sept. 12, 2001—something I certainly believed would happen after running down 61 flights of the South Tower, dodging the carnage as I made my way to the Hudson River [I worked at the World Trade Center as an investment adviser for Morgan Stanley at the time]. But President Bush was determined to keep the lives of nonuniformed America—the wealthiest Americans, like himself—uninterrupted by the war. Consequently, we have a severe talent deficiency in the military, which the draft would remedy immediately. While America’s bravest are in the military, America’s brightest are not. Allow me to build a squad of the five brightest students from MIT and Caltech and promise them patrols on the highways connecting Baghdad and Fallujah, and I’ll bet that in six months they could render IED’s about as effective as a “Just Say No” campaign at a Grateful Dead show.

On a macro level, we are logistically weakened by the lack of a draft. It takes six to seven soldiers to support one infantryman in combat. So, you are basically asking 30,000 or so “grunts” to secure a nation of 26 million. I assure you, no matter who wins the 2008 election, we are staying in Iraq. But with the Marine Corps and the Army severely stressed after 3.5 years of desert and urban combat in Iraq—equipment needs replacing, recruitment efforts are coming up short—you tell me how we're going to sustain the current force structure without the draft? The president’s new war czar, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, essentially said as much earlier this month, when he announced that considering the draft “makes sense.”

Of course, the outcry was swift and predictable. America has rejected selective service before, though always in the guise of antiwar movements. But they should really be viewed as antidraft movements, and they existed, en masse, when the wealthy could buy their way out of serving—as Teddy Roosevelt’s father and his ilk did during the Civil War, or as countless college kids did during the deferment-ridden Vietnam conflict. Not every draftee has to be a front-line Marine or soldier, but history shows us that most entrepreneurial young men, faced with a fair draft, almost always chose the front. A deferment draft, however, is a different story, and ultimately counterproductive because of the acrimony it breeds. By allowing the fortunate and, often, most talented to stay home, those who are drafted feel less important than what they are asked to die for. At the end of the day, it was this bitterness that helped fuel the massive antiwar movement that pushed Nixon to end the draft in ‘73.

I don’t favor a Vietnam-style draft, where men like the current vice president could get five deferments. I am talking about a World War II draft, with the brothers and sons of future and former presidents answering the call (and, unfortunately, dying, as a Roosevelt and a Kennedy once did) on the front line. That is when the war effort is maximized. Quite simply, the military cannot be a faceless horde to those pulling the purse strings of our great economy.

That last point is most interesting to me because I recall a few weeks back a reporter on one of these cable news shows or maybe Meet the Press said he had been talking, a few years back, to Korean War veterans who were still serving in Congress and asked them if they thought the coming generations of politicians who would never serve in the military would be more gun-shy about rolling out the Army. Almost to a man, he reported, they felt the exact opposite; that those who had never experienced combat and didn't really understand the military would be infinitely more willing to put troops into combat, thinking the military is simply a blunt instrument that can solve any and all problems around the world; unfortunately, to dare say there may be situations and problems the American military is incapable of solving is tantamount to treason in the eyes of many today.

So, is a draft the answer? Maybe, maybe not, but the calls for it are certainly getting louder, and as they do, so will the calls for us to simply end the current conflict instead.

Unnecessary Piling On

Sen. Larry Craig did (or at least pleaded guilty to) a misdemeanor crime of a dubious nature. The whole incident from all accounts is at the very least bizarre and his present claims to having done nothing wrong seem to directly contradict his guilty plea. I would almost be willing to chalk this up to misunderstanding and police over-reach if it were not for that guilty plea. And his claim that the officer solicited him. According to the tape as I heard it, he tells the officer "you solicited me", but then the way he tells the story, there was no solicitation of any kind. He was simply reaching down to pick up a paper when he saw a police badge. It doesn't add up. At all. Go home, Sen. Craig, you are finished.

That said, there is no need for the incessant cries of "hypocrisy" and so on from the left, declaring incongruous the conservative stand for "traditional values" against a backdrop of never-ending corruption and moral morass (pun intended) from their end of the political spectrum. The problem is, when you set out as the champion of traditionally held beliefs and transgress them it is easier to be called a "hypocrite" than to call out someone who believes things need to change who then toes the conservative line. Conservatives are just happy you are "doing the right thing" on that particular issue. I think there should be less pointing fingers on moral issues, in a general sense, and more introspection (as an aside, I don't know how the Congress got tied up in making policy on "moral" issues in the first place. Where in article 1 of the constitution does it mention socio-cultural policy? [well, other than saying slavery could not be outlawed until at least 1808, which even then, I believe they'd argue had more to do with commerce than moral virtue]). There are no saints in Washington, and just because you don't (or can't) always live up to the ideal standard you believe in does not make you a hypocrite, does not make you a liar or a cheat or a criminal. It makes you human. But you have to try to do better or you are unforgivable and make fools of those who would forgive you. To quote Ben Franklin, "To err is human, to repent divine, to persist devilish".

That said, the conservatives need to realize that the sort of forgiveness they are advocating for Sen. Craig does not (or at the very least should not) only be extended to fellow conservatives. When are the Tom DeLay's of the world going to start advocating forgiveness for Michael Vick or Bill Clinton? No, forgiveness does not extend across the aisle, or out of the hallowed halls of Congress (unless it's for a fellow GOPer). Who cares if the other side piles on your guy when he falls, you should be the bigger pers...who am I kidding, these are politicians we're talking about; Bury the other side! Kill! Kill! Kill! Vote for me, because while I may not have anything to offer, look at those other guys, they're scum! Larry Craig was entrapped! Heckuva job, Brownie!

In other piling on related news:
Picking on kids is never the right thing to do, but nobody's perfect and this was too good to pass up (forgiveness please).

Remembering/Looking Forward to the Good ol Days

We are a nation nostalgic for high school. The two big entertainment phenomena from the second half of this month were High School Musical 2, the Friday night premiere became the most watched event in the history of basic cable and the 2nd most watched program ever by the Disney target demographic 9-14 age group, and SuperBad, a hilarious raunchy, R-rated comedy about that one unforgettable night at the end of high school that should be instantly enjoyable to anyone who has ever been a 17-year old boy scored back-to-back #1 weekends at the box office despite the existence of the 2nd wave of threequels from Bourne and Rush Hour.
In both films, high school is idealized as the apex of acceptable irresponsibility and social freedom.

What I find interesting is that neither of these movies about the high school experience is really targeted toward high school kids (although I imagine high school boys will probably flock to see Superbad, they aren't technically supposed to be allowed in without an adult...but tell that to the group of unchaperoned 8th graders that were in the same showing of 300 that I attended). "Tweens" (a ridiculous designation if ever there were one) watch HSM 2 and are excited over the prospects of their coming high school year being filled with dancing, singing, and everyone gets along in the end tales. The out of high-school viewer of Superbad remembers the good ol days of high school and reminisces about the crazy adventures they had or wild schemes they concocted back in their own adolescene.

Now to the films themselves:
High School Musical 2
High School Musical 2 suffers from the worst fate that can befall a musical: the story doesn't 'sing'. Musical writers the years over stress the importance of telling a story that creates situations wherein the characters can't help but break out into song and HSM2 only has 1 such moment and its the first scene of the film. It is the last 2-3 minutes of the school year and when the bell finally rings and summer is here the characters break into song and dance in a number that compares favorably with a similar scene from Disney's mostly overlooked mid-90's stroke of genius that is A Goofy Movie.


Beyond that scene, which borrows heavily from the original High School Musical, right down to the dancing with basketballs, it descends into an extended episode of Saved by the Bell from the summer they spent at the Malibu Sands Beach Club, which isn't altogether bad, but there are several songs that are added in for the sake of having songs that aren't any good, feel needlessly tacked on, or go on too long, especially at the end of the movie. The only other song in the film that comes close to justifying its existence is I Don't Dance, a humorous number during a baseball game (once again, drawing heavily from the first movie).

The first film was carried by great musical numbers which made the meager acting/dialogue between tolerable and the sometimes surrealistic visuals of East High more acceptable, but this time around the bad songs only underscore the bad acting and lazy directing (other than in the scene with Sharpay's big number which is, at least visually, a great homage to the classic, lavish musical choreography of Busby Berkley).

I suppose this one is worth seeing if you loved the first one, but it really is forgettable by comparison. Probably better to just watch the first one yet again. Or better yet, introduce the youngsters (and face it, most likely yourself as well) to the dance-floor wizardry of Fred Astaire & Ginger Rogers in Swing Time or Shall We Dance.





Superbad
Superbad has that same winning formula of the other two comedies Judd Apatow has a hand in since switching over to movies (40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up after failing to find an audience with critically acclaimed television shows Freaks & Geeks and Undeclared) in that the characters spout off pop-culture rich, profanity-laden dialogue for 2 hours, but while the dialogue is full of raunch the movie is really fairly staid in terms of what actually takes place on screen. The characters tend to make the "right" choices when faced with moral dilemmas and there is a strong theme across all three films of male camaraderie and how the "loser" (the titular 40-year-old virgin, the unemployed illegal immigrant in Knocked Up, and the chunky kid and awkward kids in this movie) can ultimately be "the man" in the end, continuing the cultural oscillations on the definition of masculinity.

Though set in the present day, the movie features a great soundtrack of 70s music and new 70s-sounding music recorded for the movie which serves to underscore the sort of goofy tone the same way it did in Undercover Brother.

The thing that sets it apart from most high-school movies is the rejection of traditional high school archetypes/stereotypes in the characters. For the most part, there are no clearly defined "cool kids" or "nerds", although the Fresno Bee's high school movie reviewer perfectly describes the one truly nerdy character in the film as a cross between Urkel and Harry Potter.

Seth, Evan and the rest of the high school seems to be one big group of kids who've more or less known each other since forever, but have separated themselves out over the years for the sake of appearances, conveniences, whatever. There is no impenetrable social hierarchy that the characters feel they are fighting against. Jules says she is having a party and invites Seth to come. No strings attached, no qualifications, she just invites him. Perhaps as a joke, perhaps because she doesn't expect him to come anyway, but there's no evidence of that. She seems to genuinely think he's an okay guy. This sort of subversion of genre makes the film worth the ticket price. That and the first 10-20 minutes of this are as good as anything that's been out this year in terms of comedy. The jokes are vulgar, but come on, that's how it is with 17/18 year old boys and what else would you expect from a film called Superbad.

Recommended Reading: If you enjoy Superbad, you'll probably also enjoy I Love You, Beth Cooper, a highly amusing novel about, you guessed it, that one infamous night at the end of high school in the life of unpopular class president Dennis Cooverman (picture a male version of Diane Court in the high school classic Say Anything) and his buddy as he tries to hook up with the head cheerleader while being chased by her just-back-from-Iraq, slightly psycho boyfriend and his army buddies.

Up next: The War on....Gangs?

A professed gang member was quoted in today's Fresno Bee saying, "None of my boys are changing. Maybe one out of 20 wants to get out. A lot of them are locked up, but they get out and do the same things - get faded and rob some fools."

Stanley Crouch of the NY Daily News offered up the following information in a recent op-ed:
Addressing a dilemma tantamount to terrorism, a few months ago Ben Stein wrote in the conservative American Spectator that, "In the five and a half years since Sept. 11, 2001, there have been roughly 40,000 killings by gangs and gang members in this United States of America, mostly in the African-American and Hispanic sections of large cities." ...Besides all of the human costs of these murders, the burden is estimated by the World Health Organization to cost an annual $300 billion. That amounts to about 150 weeks in Iraq, or three years.
This would seem a good subject for presidential debates, right? Wrong, apparently.

Given that there have presumably been nearly 10x as many Americans killed as a result of domestic gang violence as opposed to foreign radical terrorism in the half decade since we began our "War on Terror", it would seem to me that we have either a distorted set of national priorities or an unsettling lack of compassion for our fellow member of the body politic.

To those who are, in fact, concerned, the question remains what can we do about it? Local authorities have been trying, mostly in vain, to curb gang violence for decades. The problem continues to be that most gang members, seem to be impervious to reform, just recall that quote I started this post with. The only real solution to this is probably the very unspecific concept of prevention. Keeping kids involved, strong parents, focus on education and opportunities and so on. But these are the same notions and aspirations we have been telling ourselves are the cure for poverty and social disaffection for generations, and still we have the problems. We know "poverty" is a relative term and that the lifestyle maintained by some considered in poverty in America today would not have had such a distinction a century ago or in certain other countries; nevertheless, such comparisons are, perhaps, beside the point as the statistics fail to account for those today who either can't reliably be counted (i.e the homeless) or don't want to be counted (i.e. illegal immigrants) and their relative conditions would undoubtedly skew the statistics downward. Oh, the successes of the War on Poverty!

To Mr. Crouch's last point there, that the issue is not even on the general national radar, is an interesting one. I think the issue tends to be concentrated in certain areas (most notably California and Florida) so most of the country, at least geographically, isn't directly affected by gangs. I don't know if the FBI should be involved in ridding us of gangs, but I do know local level authorities have been struggling with it for decades, with decidedly mixed (if not downright disappointing) results. In England the answer the national government devised was a ban on handgun ownership, even to the point where the police do not carry guns (one of many facets of English life hilariously skewered in the unmissable Hot Fuzz, now on DVD), but the result was not what they expected):
In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every day.
(More on the Brown/Blair adminstrations recent fudging of these stats here).

One commentator opined that much of this youthful aggression was abetted in previous generations through mandatory national service of some sort and maybe that is the case (a case Charlie Rangel has advocated bringing back and presidential candidate Chris Dodd advocates sans the mandatory-ness).

Ultimately, though, perhaps this is simply a sad fact of life that we will have to abide, and there is no real way to rid ourselves of gangs and other unprovoked acts of violent crime; there will always be young, out of the mainstream, frustrated individuals who will feel slighted/disrespected by "the system", don't want to change their ways and don't even necessarily even want to be broadly accepted, will likely act out in rash and often violent ways as a means of gaining some respect (read: fear) or status in the public eye. If that sounds like a form of domestic terrorism maybe that distinction is not too far off (see the death toll at the top of this post once again for a reminder of the devastation), although if you thought there was a ruckus about calling Katrina victims refugees, just imagine the maelstrom that would ensue from classifying fellow citizens as terrorists.

Laws Apply Even To Those We Don't Like

From Leonard Pitts Jr at the Miami Herald:
Meet Jack McClellan. You might want to shower afterward. Nobody in the greater Los Angeles area will have to ask what I mean. In the last month or so, McClellan has roiled Southern California by saying in effect: I'm a pedophile, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The hell of it is, he's right. You cannot, or in any event, should not, be arrested for what you are, only for what you've done. McClellan has done nothing. Or at least, nothing for which he should be prosecuted, there being no law against making people nauseous.

The story goes as follows. In late July, McClellan was confronted by police. They had been summoned by a woman who saw him loitering around the children's section of a library in Santa Monica. McClellan, who, according to news reports, lives mostly out of his car, was cooperative even to the point of allowing officers to take his picture. He was also candid and unapologetic about his sexual attraction to little girls. But McClellan, 45, evidently has no arrest record or warrants anywhere in the country, so police had no choice but to let him go.

The bizarre encounter quickly catapulted McClellan onto the local news and talk show circuit, where people learned that he had a website (since taken down) featuring photos taken of little girls in public places and ranking the best places for pedophiles to see children. It was also said that McClellan was thinking of moving to the city of Santa Clarita.

Two Santa Clarita lawyers were sufficiently alarmed to seek a restraining order requiring McClellan to stay away from the city's children. A judge was sufficiently alarmed to give them even more: an order prohibiting McClellan from coming within 30 feet of any child in the state. In effect, the judge imposed house arrest on a man who had committed no crime.

Predictably, McClellan was twice arrested last week for violating an order it would be almost impossible to obey. Just as predictably, legal experts are now saying the obvious: The order is unconstitutional.

Yes, Jack McClellan is a reprehensible freak. And that opinion holds, by the way, even if, as some suspect, he turns out to be merely some kind of bizarre prankster. But for our purposes today, take him at his word that he really is a man with a sexual fetish toward children. The urge to imprison such a creature for the rest of its days is more than understandable.

The problem is, there is no legal rationale for doing so. The law is a broadsword and it is being used here to peel an apple. It can't be done. You only destroy the apple and smear the sword.

There are limits to what the law can do -- and sometimes you find yourself stranded beyond those limits, faced with behavior that is clearly wrong and yet, just as clearly, legal. To respond to that behavior with acts that please the crowd but stain the law is to cross the line that separates the citizenry from the mob.

Californians should publicize McClellan's face and fetish until every child in the state knows to run, screaming, on sight. Put up fliers, organize online. But they ought not prosecute him for what he has only said.

Yes, fliers and such are unsatisfactory options. But any option -- the restraining order included -- that did not involve closing a fist on McClellan's windpipe would be unsatisfactory. At least those don't require us to sell out fundamental values for the fool's gold of security.

Even Jack McClellan enjoys the privileges of the First Amendment. He is free to say he's a child molester. He's free to say he's a Satanist. He's free to say he's a racist.

You think it's terrible that a man can say such things? I agree. Indeed the only thing more terrible would be if we lived in a country where he could not.

In Defense of the Long-Shot Candidate

As I mentioned earlier, I've been working on this movie all week so I just got around to watching the Democratic debate from Iowa this past Sunday. About 30 minutes into the forum Dennis Kucinich called out moderator George Stephanopolous for creating artificial divisions and drama between the two front-runners and attempting to marginalize the rest of the candidates. About 20 minutes later when George asked a question about belief in the power of prayer to each of the candidates, Kucinich replied, "I've been up here praying that you'd ask me a question for the last 45 minutes"

Bravo, Congressman Kucinich. Take every chance you get to call out the nonsense of the process as it stands at these forums, as there's no real point in delivering the message of your candidacy or your policy ideas (curtailing free trade, creating a state-run, not-for-profit health care system, expanded civil rights for homosexuals, repealing the Bush tax cuts, etc), because they aren't going to recount your ideas/arguments on any news programs later in the day or throughout the week, so only the few thousand viewers and the few dozen in the audience will ever hear it. Which is not to say you don't deserve to be heard, quite contrary, I think every candidate deserves an equal and fair hearing, instead of incessant coverage of whether Michelle Obama is taking veiled shots at Hillary Clinton, questions about Obama's "blackness", or the never-ending "Just testing the waters" drama of the Fred Thompson non-campaign, but if you're not going to get a real shot to lay out your message for the people, then at least attempt to open people up to the idea that the process itself is something that must be fixed, regardless of who becomes president.

Ruben Navarette of the San Diego Union-Tribune wrote about the long shot candidates today.
Excerpted:
Long-shot presidential hopefuls may not get elected, but they do tend to grow on you – especially when they're being marginalized, insulted and picked on by everyone else. With the first primaries about 150 days away, the front-running candidates and the media elite no doubt prefer to simplify things by getting rid of those who are given no chance to win.

And I thought the job of thinning out the crop of candidates went to voters, not to the powerful and the power-brokers.

Try telling that to George Stephanopoulos. In a recent interview with Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas, the host of ABC's “This Week” asked the candidate for his definition of success. Paul predictably responded that it was to win. “That's not going to happen,” Stephanopoulos informed him. The candidate then asked the host if he was willing to bet “every cent in your pocket” that Paul couldn't win. Without hesitating, Stephanopoulos said, “Yes.” Ouch.

Then it was Mike Gravel's turn for a reality check. In an interview, Stephanopoulos asked the former senator which Democrat he intended to ultimately support. “I'm going to vote for myself,” Gravel responded. “But you're not going to be president,” Stephanopoulos told him. Double ouch.

Apparently, not even John Edwards needs to apply, despite the fact that he usually comes in third in polls behind Clinton and Obama. In fact, in an extra dose of humiliation, Stephanopoulos introduced the candidates with their standing among Iowa voters in a recent ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Obama had 27 percent, while Clinton and Edwards each had 26 percent – statistically a dead heat. Several weeks ago an open microphone caught him whispering to Clinton that “we should try to have a more serious and a smaller group.” Now, poetically, some folks in the media aren't taking Edwards seriously.

This will all sort itself out. But what's the rush? The field will be winnowed down soon enough. So why speed up the process? It's not fair to the candidates, and it's not healthy for our democracy. That's the message we hear over and over again from the long shots. And by spreading it, they're making a valuable contribution. Campaign 2008 would be much duller without them.

Where I've Been

I apologize for the lengthy sabbatical from posting here, but for the last week I've been working like a mad man on a little short film and as a result, I had no free time or energy to give to anything else. As of 2 hours ago that project is officially complete (I say complete, but perhaps its more accurate to quote Leonardo da Vinci, "A work of art is never finished, only abandoned") so I'll be back to the blog tomorrow as lots has happened in the last week or so that I wish I'd had time to get to here. So, be on the lookout for that.

Ron Paul's Guerilla Tactics

This is the third time I've seen stuff like this around town this summer, so I figured I should document it as something new in the political culture around here, a veritable guerilla marketing tactic for a national candidate, probably without any prompting from the candidate himself or his official "people":


The Ron Paul Revolution soldiers on...

More on Dr. No
ronpaul2008.com

(Not) Keepin' It Real

Back in February, I wrote the following in regards to the phony righteous indignation I saw regarding the judge in the custody hearing for Anna Nicole Smith's child:
Well, here's my question. How would those, who now claim moral authority over this judge, know how he was handling the case unless they were watching? Don't tell me they have an overriding interest in family law or that Court TV is required viewing in their households; they were watching for voyeuristic entertainment value. They and virtually all media figures around the country were complicit in the exploitation of the Smith family and those around them over the past 2-3 weeks, gossiping about these lives for their own entertainment or profits. These are the same people who created Judge Judy, People's Court, and all of those other showcases for judge personalities that turned our judicial system into an attempt at entertainment. But none of them claim or take any responsibility, and now want to express indignation about this judge who might be trying to fit into their system.

Well it appears the phenomenon has reared its ugly head again and many notable folks are once again feigning outrage (to say nothing of the ridiculous self-imposed "bans" on Paris Hilton coverage back in June when she got of prison after the 'round the clock play-by-play leading up to her imprisonment):

Many of the candidates running for president have taken their pot-shots at Barack Obama for saying he would act on actionable intelligence if he knew where bin Laden was and the leaders of the harboring nation would not or could not act. The outcry from Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Chris Dodd and so on has been phony because they have all advanced similar ideas in the past and would do exactly the same thing in the situation outlined by Senator Obama, but they attack for the sake of political posturing, calling him naive for saying out loud what they might say in private. We all know they would do the same, so there is no practical sense in them pretending we don't know and pretending to be shocked B.O. would say so publicly. Joe Biden concurred with Mr. Obama, saying of course the U.S. would move in that situation, but no one has said anything about Biden's naivete. Perhaps it's because he's not a "front-runner" and the position is a good and honest one. Or maybe its just that no one heard him; the crowd at that candidate forum was pretty rowdy, so they could've just missed it.

In a press conference today, President Bush called out the Congress for holding too many politically-motivated hearings and not passing "meaningful legislation the American people require of them". Of course, this is phony indignation too because anyone who pays attention knows the president threatens to veto everything this barely Democratic-controlled Congress does manage to pass. And they wouldn't need to hold so many hearings if everything were on the up and up in his administration, the legislative branch wouldn't have to spend so much time doing oversight. But of course, it's easier to block any possibility of real progress and call them out for failing, calling it political expeditionism, as if that isn't exactly what he and his White House have been doing.

And then there's this, excerpted from Fresno Bee columnist Bill McEwen on Barry Bonds and the home run record:
Everybody who's mad about Barry Bonds, everybody who wants an asterisk next to his home-run record because they think he uses steroids, step forward. Raise a hand and repeat after me: "I'm sick of cheaters, and I'm not going to watch another baseball game, much less any movies starring actors with surgically enhanced noses, lips and breasts -- or 4-inch lifts in their shoes." Hey, where did you all go?

Bonds' home-run record is fine with me -- because professional sports is entertainment, and has been since Babe Ruth started making more money than the president...Fans and media covering these games desperately want to believe there's a big difference between the World Series and the movies. Or the Super Bowl and rock concerts. But there isn't. Professional sports and Hollywood are fantasy worlds constructed on a business transaction. Fans pay to see stars perform.

But the business interests behind professional sports go to great lengths to convince us that games matter, records matter and that athletes compete on level playing fields. Film is fake, but we have a great time anyway and have no problem supporting actors with more modified body parts than a customized '32 Ford roadster. Baseball? We want it "pure," whatever that means, and we want to believe it's possible to compare Ruth to Henry Aaron to Bonds.

Good luck.

Ruth played when blacks were banned from baseball. Aaron played a good part of his career at a time when pitchers dominated the game. Bonds is part of an era known for small ballparks, intense weight-training and voodoo elixirs that build biceps bigger than bikini-movie beach balls.

You might as well argue whether Kate Hepburn has a leg up on Meryl Streep or Humphrey Bogart is better than Jack Nicholson. Some people are born with special gifts. Others enhance pedestrian talents with hard work. Or surgical tinkering. Think Morgan Fairchild. Dylan Thomas drank himself to death and wrote raw, lyrical poetry. No one is demanding an asterisk next to "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night."

But Bonds hits 756 home runs, controversy erupts and it's much ado about nothing. He's an adult, and if he has pumped up his body with magic potions -- running the risk of early death along the way -- that's his business. He will have done what entertainers do. The sports leagues are free to make rules in their futile effort to maintain the cover story that sports is much more than entertainment.

All I ask is that if baseball wipes out Bonds' record, it happily return the ticket money to millions of fans who've watched, cheered and booed him during his nearly 3,000 big-league games. Ineligible for refunds: anyone tummy-tucked, chin-lifted, Lasiked or holding a prescription for certain wildly popular and heavily advertised male-enhancement drugs.

I say, rage on oh occasional defender of what you perceive to be right. Defend, every now and then, integrity and truth and honesty. From time to time stand up against all that is wrong with the world. Speak out against every 3rd evil that befalls mankind. The rest of us need your reliable moral vacillation to guide us through this truly trying, semi-charmed kind of life. I'm hoping for a famous person or two to screw up soon so you can let them pass by unscathed, because I know the next person after them is soooooo gonna get it and I can hardly wait for that.

756 and Other Semi-Related Musings

Congratulations to Barry Bonds on attaining the most hallowed record in American sports (though on a personal note, I am still more amazed by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's 38,000+ career points and Cy Young's 511 career wins...and there is still the legend that Josh Gibson hit up to 920 HR in the Negro League).

And with that, I have fulfilled my baseball-related posting quota of 1 for the season. Let's move on, shall we?

Or so it seems to go in the sports media. I can understand the news media's quick shuffling off of this story, it's just sports and it's not like baseball means to the country today what it meant in say 1961 when Maris broke Babe Ruth's single-season HR record, heck it's even less relevant today than it was 5 years ago when Bonds broke McGwire's single-season HR record. The fact is, we live in a cynical culture in which we, as the axiom goes, know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Why else would we go straight away to the possible financial value of the Bonds ball? I understand the desire to become an instant millionaire (by the by, to whom is this ball worth $5,000,000 exactly, if everyone is interested in it only to sell it off for large sums?) Gone are the days when kids would hit the ballpark and try to get autographs and collect baseball cards and know the stats for all the players. It's much easier in a SportsCenter culture to catch the home runs, strikeouts and diving catches once a day on ESPN than to watch the games at all. The only people who do know the stats are the fantasy geeks and they have no allegiances to teams, only the individual players; they don't even care about the outcome of the games their various players are in (unless they have a pitcher in the mix and need him to get a win with at least 6 IP, 4 strikeouts and no more than 2 walks and 3 runs given up to lock up the top seed in his/her league playoffs).

This reminds me of the way the passing of two master of the cinema, Ingmar Bergman and Michaelangelo Antonioni, last week, passed without much of a blip. People don't know who they are, nor do they care. The films remain, but folks today don't seem particularly interested in seeking them (or much of anything else) out. If it's not readily available, it's not worth my time to seek out seems to be the mantra of today. Youtube has become the preferred source of entertainment for a generation. How much longer can we see pet tricks and people running into poles or falling down in painful ways, 1:06 at a time, before we realize how low our standards have gone? Is this really the future of entertainment? And don't even get me started on what passes for entertainment on TV these days.

There's been an interesting running discussion across the web about who/what in our entertainment will stand the test of time the way The Beatles, Babe Ruth, Alfred Hitchcock (at least in name), or Shakespeare (to go a little further back) and the like have. I saw a great argument that we no longer live in a "must-see" world. The ability for any event/song/movie/show/speech to affect the culture widely and immediately no longer exists here. There is no longer the shared experience that creates a cohesive culture. What it means to be an American, culturally, is constantly expanding (or eroding, depending how you look at it). Whether this is a good thing remains to be seen, but it certainly represents a shift that I think is worth taking note of, no?