"Don't let us get sick Don't let us get old Don't let us get stupid, all right? Just make us be brave And make us play nice And let us be together tonight."---Warren Zevon
I've recently heard a lot of people complaining that the President's stimulus plan hasn't done anything or helped anyone. Which made me feel the need to relay this story:
It's the story of a married couple. A 62 year old man and his 54 year old wife. Last fall this man lost his job when the construction company he worked for went under. This happened at a time when his wife had recently been declared disabled and was petitioning for disability benefits from the government. The woman suffers from fibromyalgia, diabetes, and a bum ticker. The man has a third world disease (likely contracted as a marine in Vietnam) that causes his esophagus to narrow, and a heart problem as well.
So you can imagine the avalanche of worries that were raining down on their heads. From how do we take care of our sick dog?, to what will we eat?, to how are we going to keep the house?, and please don't let us get sick.
The man had some severance and knew he would qualify for unemployment but that wouldn't cover everything. So he began to look for work. This 62 year old man registered with every temp service, circled every want ad, and networked with everyone he knew. No job came. So they worried.
Thankfully, being a military veteran, the man was able to get free health care from the Veterans Administration in Ann Arbor. A long drive for sure, but well worth it. Some more good news followed. The woman was approved for disability benefits and would receive a check (with back pay) the following month. She also found out that in a few months she would qualify for medicare. The man also knew that if they could make it a few more months, he would turn 63 and qualify for social security. If they could just make it until then.
Then something else happened. President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on February 17, 2009. This act, (also known as the "stimulus bill") included tax cuts, works projects, and an extension of unemployment benefits.
That extension carried the man and the woman until he qualified for social security benefits and she for Medicare. Things certainly aren't perfect for them. They are still learning to live with less and the man's job search continues (although prospects are improving). But these social safety nets, (social security, disability, veterans hospital, medicare, unemployment) are keeping them afloat and now the man only needs to find a part-time job to make ends meet.
So the next time you or someone you know engages in conversation about the "failed" stimulus bill that hasn't helped anyone, you'll have at least this one story to tell. A story about a man and a woman who's whole way of life was saved by this admittedly imperfect President and his stimulus package.
A man and a woman that I commonly call mom and dad. So there. Now you know.
Sumo-Pop
July 29, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Sea Lions Barking At Waves
"But you know people get all emotional and sometimes, man, they just don't act rational, they think they're just on TV"--Lou Reed
I've never considered myself to be much of a conspiracy buff. In fact, I can only think of one conspiracy theory that I've ever attached much merit. I've never been able to buy the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. My disbelief in that notion has less to do with any one particular theory, but more to do with the fact that Oswald was considered to be a poor rifleman by the US military. The idea that a guy who was a shitty shot could be so accurate from a considerable distance with a crap rifle just strains credibility. However, if I were presented with empirical data that would prove otherwise, I would accept the fact and move on. Which brings me to "Birthers."
Birthers are people who believe---in the face of all contrary evidence---that Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and therefore is not the legitimate president of our country.
I first became aware of birthers during the presidential campaign last year, but I, like most sane people, never took them seriously. However, after seeing how Delaware Republican house member Mike Castle was treated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V1nmn2zRMc&feature=player_embedded) at a recent speaking engagement, I've begun to think otherwise. Castle, a noted sensible moderate, was discussing the issues of the day when he began to take questions from the audience. He then called on a particularly hysterical woman, who began shouting about Obama being a "citizen of Kenya" and lacking a genuine birth certificate. When Castle replied back that he believed the President to be a genuine American citizen, all hell broke loose. You would have thought he advocated the dismemberment of rowdy children, or the drowning of puppies. He was shouted down by his own constituency to such a degree that he couldn't be heard over the din despite his microphone. That's when I realized that these people aren't just stupid, they're dangerous.
This is how people get assassinated. You question their legitimacy often enough and you create the very real danger that some nut job, filled with a sense of righteousness, decides to take things into his own hands.
Even worse are the people of status in this country who would lend credence to this nonsense. I'm not just talking about media types like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh (although that's bad enough), but even worse are the elected officials who state that they aren't sure about Obama's birthright. These ass clowns include Republican congressman John Campbell of California, Republican US Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and Dick Cheney's daughter, Liz.
While they won't come right out and say that Obama's citizenship is illegitimate, they will intimate uncertainty. They do this not because they don't know better (they do), but because they want to keep the issue going. They somehow think that keeping alive the torch and pitchfork crowd's lunacy is beneficial to their party. To be fair, there are prominent Republican politicians and media members who are willing to call bullshit, well, bullshit. John McCain has repudiated the very suggestion of illegitimate citizenship and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough (former Republican house member of Florida) said this about Birthers-"They would rather be like sea lions barking at waves," he said. "Instead of trying to figure out what's happening to their country ... they embrace conspiracy theories, and they make themselves look like cartoon characters."
During the campaign last year, many on the radical right put forth the idea that Obama was a "Manchurian Candidate." If you're not familiar with that term then I'll explain. The Manchurian Candidate is a classic piece of paranoid cinema from 1962 starring Frank Sinatra (later remade to lesser effect with Denzel Washington in the lead circa 2004). The basic plot is that of a politician who, as an American soldier serving in the Korean war, was captured by communists, tortured by the Chinese, and brainwashed into becoming a political assassin. Here's the funny thing, there was a candidate for president who was captured by communists and tortured by Asians in the 2008 election. His name is John McCain. In fact, there was even a candidate for president who wasn't born in the United States. Also John McCain. McCain was born in the Panama Canal on a military base in 1936. Do I or any other rational human being think that John McCain was an illegitimate contender for the presidency or worse? Of course not.
One has to wonder how this nonsensical theory can persist. Well, I think I have an idea. There is a large, vocal minority in this country who think that time is passing them by. They tend to be middle aged and older, white, and reside in rural areas. They have great difficulty accepting that a man of color with a funny name and "socialist" ideas could be supported at the ballot box by 53% of the country. In other words, racists. Now, I'm not saying that all rural white people of a certain age are racists, but if you're a Birther, then you're probably in that demographic. And you're definitely a racist, or at least a fricking loon.
Sumo-Pop
July 25, 2009
Not that it will matter to some, but here's a link to Obama's birth certificate. Please note that Hawaii was then, and still is, a state. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg
I've never considered myself to be much of a conspiracy buff. In fact, I can only think of one conspiracy theory that I've ever attached much merit. I've never been able to buy the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. My disbelief in that notion has less to do with any one particular theory, but more to do with the fact that Oswald was considered to be a poor rifleman by the US military. The idea that a guy who was a shitty shot could be so accurate from a considerable distance with a crap rifle just strains credibility. However, if I were presented with empirical data that would prove otherwise, I would accept the fact and move on. Which brings me to "Birthers."
Birthers are people who believe---in the face of all contrary evidence---that Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and therefore is not the legitimate president of our country.
I first became aware of birthers during the presidential campaign last year, but I, like most sane people, never took them seriously. However, after seeing how Delaware Republican house member Mike Castle was treated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V1nmn2zRMc&feature=player_embedded) at a recent speaking engagement, I've begun to think otherwise. Castle, a noted sensible moderate, was discussing the issues of the day when he began to take questions from the audience. He then called on a particularly hysterical woman, who began shouting about Obama being a "citizen of Kenya" and lacking a genuine birth certificate. When Castle replied back that he believed the President to be a genuine American citizen, all hell broke loose. You would have thought he advocated the dismemberment of rowdy children, or the drowning of puppies. He was shouted down by his own constituency to such a degree that he couldn't be heard over the din despite his microphone. That's when I realized that these people aren't just stupid, they're dangerous.
This is how people get assassinated. You question their legitimacy often enough and you create the very real danger that some nut job, filled with a sense of righteousness, decides to take things into his own hands.
Even worse are the people of status in this country who would lend credence to this nonsense. I'm not just talking about media types like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh (although that's bad enough), but even worse are the elected officials who state that they aren't sure about Obama's birthright. These ass clowns include Republican congressman John Campbell of California, Republican US Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and Dick Cheney's daughter, Liz.
While they won't come right out and say that Obama's citizenship is illegitimate, they will intimate uncertainty. They do this not because they don't know better (they do), but because they want to keep the issue going. They somehow think that keeping alive the torch and pitchfork crowd's lunacy is beneficial to their party. To be fair, there are prominent Republican politicians and media members who are willing to call bullshit, well, bullshit. John McCain has repudiated the very suggestion of illegitimate citizenship and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough (former Republican house member of Florida) said this about Birthers-"They would rather be like sea lions barking at waves," he said. "Instead of trying to figure out what's happening to their country ... they embrace conspiracy theories, and they make themselves look like cartoon characters."
During the campaign last year, many on the radical right put forth the idea that Obama was a "Manchurian Candidate." If you're not familiar with that term then I'll explain. The Manchurian Candidate is a classic piece of paranoid cinema from 1962 starring Frank Sinatra (later remade to lesser effect with Denzel Washington in the lead circa 2004). The basic plot is that of a politician who, as an American soldier serving in the Korean war, was captured by communists, tortured by the Chinese, and brainwashed into becoming a political assassin. Here's the funny thing, there was a candidate for president who was captured by communists and tortured by Asians in the 2008 election. His name is John McCain. In fact, there was even a candidate for president who wasn't born in the United States. Also John McCain. McCain was born in the Panama Canal on a military base in 1936. Do I or any other rational human being think that John McCain was an illegitimate contender for the presidency or worse? Of course not.
One has to wonder how this nonsensical theory can persist. Well, I think I have an idea. There is a large, vocal minority in this country who think that time is passing them by. They tend to be middle aged and older, white, and reside in rural areas. They have great difficulty accepting that a man of color with a funny name and "socialist" ideas could be supported at the ballot box by 53% of the country. In other words, racists. Now, I'm not saying that all rural white people of a certain age are racists, but if you're a Birther, then you're probably in that demographic. And you're definitely a racist, or at least a fricking loon.
Sumo-Pop
July 25, 2009
Not that it will matter to some, but here's a link to Obama's birth certificate. Please note that Hawaii was then, and still is, a state. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Loving The Knucklehead
Have you ever loved someone that you knew was bad for you? Someone who couldn't get out of their own way? Who would do wrong even if right were easier? I'm sure the answer for most of us is yes. We all have had, at one time or another, a friend or family member who forced us into fits of head shaking and hand wringing. But I'm not talking about that kind of love. No, I'm referring to a love that is considerably less significant and altogether unreasonable. In other words, I love Allen Iverson. There. I said it.
You might ask how I could love someone with an aversion to practice ("we talkin' 'bout practice"), who listens to gangsta rap, wears cornrows, is covered head to toe in tats, and has even been in trouble with the law, someone who I have little to nothing in common with? Well, love knows no reason or rationale, but I'll try to explain.
It seems to me, that to love someone requires only one thing in common. Well, Allen and I have two. First, I love basketball. Of course, I hate Kobe Bryant so that alone doesn't cut it. But secondly, I love the Philadelphia 76ers. Starting from the days of Dr. J and his militant afro soaring to the hoop, to the squandered Charles Barkley years, to the Iverson/Larry Brown resurgence of 2001, to the bland mediocrity of now, they're my team. So when the Sixers made Iverson the number one pick out of Georgetown in 1996, I was already predisposed.
Beyond that, however, I have never seen anything like him before or since. From the moment he stepped on the court, he was electrifying. Has there ever been anyone quicker or faster? Watching him run the court is like staring at an optical illusion. There are times when I swear he teleports from one spot on the floor to another. You see where he started and where he ends up but somehow, not the space in between. And how about toughness? Here's a guy who might be 5 foot 11, who weighs about 150 pounds, yet has no fear of driving to the hoop, going up amongst the giants, and landing on his ass in an effort to score the ball. But what happens after being knocked to his backside is even more remarkable. He does it again. And again. And again.
I remember on one occasion, when playing against the Milwaukee Bucks in the 2001 conference finals, Iverson drove to the lane only to encounter wannabe thug Scott Williams, who elbowed him in the face and drove him to the ground. After picking himself up off the court, he went to the bench to get looked at. The team doctor discovered that the elbow had caused a laceration to the inside of his cheek. Mindful of the NBA rule that does not allow a bleeding player to go back in the game until said bleeding is stopped, Iverson went back anyway. Asked by a reporter afterward, how he managed to keep the bleeding away from the eyes of the referees. He replied, "I swallowed it." How tough is that?
He's also unusually candid and quotable for a modern athlete. He almost always says what he feels, even when it hurts him (see the anti-practice diatribe). But he can also be disarming and generous. He is almost unfailingly complimentary of other players and he can be very funny. In fact, he uttered one of my favorite all time quotes from the world of athletics. During the Sixers magical playoff run of 2001, that ended with a finals loss to the detestable Lakers, Iverson was asked if he was worried about fatigue setting in on the eve of game one of the finals. He replied, "fatigue? fatigues is army clothes."
That Sixers team of 2001, filled with cast off role players surrounding one all-time great talent, is my favorite sports team ever. I don't care that they lost to Shaq and Kobe (grrr...) or that they never came close again after that. These lovable losers who were carried on the back of a midget (in basketball terms anyway), and by the mind of hoops genius Larry Brown, captured my imagination better than even the teams I loved as a kid. They had moxie. He had moxie. And moxie goes a long way.
Hell, he even converted my future wife. I recall watching a Sixers game with her in her mom and dad's basement. I said "watch this guy." After maybe three seconds my wife made an ooh sound as "little" Allen (as she would come to call him) surged to the hoop with one of his liquid quick moves and kissed the ball off the board into the basket. She would later refer to him as being "cute." Did I mention that I married this wonderful woman? I'm not saying that's why I married her but...
Unfortunately, since that 2001 peak, things have not gone nearly as well for Iverson. The subsequent Sixers teams ranged from mediocre to pretty good, but never got close to competing for a title again. In the midst of the awful 2006 season, Iverson was suspended by the team for a variety of issues, and then traded to the Denver Nuggets. In Denver, Iverson had a productive year and a half before being traded to the Detroit Pistons last year. It was there, in the motor city, where Iverson hit bottom. Surrounded by a team that was in decline, with a rookie coach who had difficulty managing egos, Iverson suffered through his least productive season. A season that he didn't even complete due to what many believe was a phantom back injury.
So now, he is a man without a team. The rumors are that he may end up with the Memphis Grizzlies or the Los Angeles Clippers. Two woebegone franchises who would only be signing him to sell tickets. I would love to see him get one more shot with a contender. To get the chance to fulfill the promise of that 2001 season in Philly. But I know that's unlikely. For one, with a contender, he'd probably have to take less money and come off the bench. Something his admittedly massive ego probably won't allow. And for two, one basketball executive has referred to him as the hoops version of Barry Bonds. A guy who can play but probably won't make your team better. That seems to be the unfortunate consensus in the NBA among those who might otherwise be willing to sign him.
So how does the story of this mercurial talent end? Probably badly and sadly to be honest. A once great player scoring baskets for a team on the outskirts of respectability until the losing overcomes his better nature and he makes a scene. A scene that will quite likely lead to an unceremonious exit from the league. I hope for something different but I know the odds are stacked against him.
But hope I do. Because love knows no reason or rationale. And I love Allen Iverson.
Sumo-Pop
July 21. 2009
You might ask how I could love someone with an aversion to practice ("we talkin' 'bout practice"), who listens to gangsta rap, wears cornrows, is covered head to toe in tats, and has even been in trouble with the law, someone who I have little to nothing in common with? Well, love knows no reason or rationale, but I'll try to explain.
It seems to me, that to love someone requires only one thing in common. Well, Allen and I have two. First, I love basketball. Of course, I hate Kobe Bryant so that alone doesn't cut it. But secondly, I love the Philadelphia 76ers. Starting from the days of Dr. J and his militant afro soaring to the hoop, to the squandered Charles Barkley years, to the Iverson/Larry Brown resurgence of 2001, to the bland mediocrity of now, they're my team. So when the Sixers made Iverson the number one pick out of Georgetown in 1996, I was already predisposed.
Beyond that, however, I have never seen anything like him before or since. From the moment he stepped on the court, he was electrifying. Has there ever been anyone quicker or faster? Watching him run the court is like staring at an optical illusion. There are times when I swear he teleports from one spot on the floor to another. You see where he started and where he ends up but somehow, not the space in between. And how about toughness? Here's a guy who might be 5 foot 11, who weighs about 150 pounds, yet has no fear of driving to the hoop, going up amongst the giants, and landing on his ass in an effort to score the ball. But what happens after being knocked to his backside is even more remarkable. He does it again. And again. And again.
I remember on one occasion, when playing against the Milwaukee Bucks in the 2001 conference finals, Iverson drove to the lane only to encounter wannabe thug Scott Williams, who elbowed him in the face and drove him to the ground. After picking himself up off the court, he went to the bench to get looked at. The team doctor discovered that the elbow had caused a laceration to the inside of his cheek. Mindful of the NBA rule that does not allow a bleeding player to go back in the game until said bleeding is stopped, Iverson went back anyway. Asked by a reporter afterward, how he managed to keep the bleeding away from the eyes of the referees. He replied, "I swallowed it." How tough is that?
He's also unusually candid and quotable for a modern athlete. He almost always says what he feels, even when it hurts him (see the anti-practice diatribe). But he can also be disarming and generous. He is almost unfailingly complimentary of other players and he can be very funny. In fact, he uttered one of my favorite all time quotes from the world of athletics. During the Sixers magical playoff run of 2001, that ended with a finals loss to the detestable Lakers, Iverson was asked if he was worried about fatigue setting in on the eve of game one of the finals. He replied, "fatigue? fatigues is army clothes."
That Sixers team of 2001, filled with cast off role players surrounding one all-time great talent, is my favorite sports team ever. I don't care that they lost to Shaq and Kobe (grrr...) or that they never came close again after that. These lovable losers who were carried on the back of a midget (in basketball terms anyway), and by the mind of hoops genius Larry Brown, captured my imagination better than even the teams I loved as a kid. They had moxie. He had moxie. And moxie goes a long way.
Hell, he even converted my future wife. I recall watching a Sixers game with her in her mom and dad's basement. I said "watch this guy." After maybe three seconds my wife made an ooh sound as "little" Allen (as she would come to call him) surged to the hoop with one of his liquid quick moves and kissed the ball off the board into the basket. She would later refer to him as being "cute." Did I mention that I married this wonderful woman? I'm not saying that's why I married her but...
Unfortunately, since that 2001 peak, things have not gone nearly as well for Iverson. The subsequent Sixers teams ranged from mediocre to pretty good, but never got close to competing for a title again. In the midst of the awful 2006 season, Iverson was suspended by the team for a variety of issues, and then traded to the Denver Nuggets. In Denver, Iverson had a productive year and a half before being traded to the Detroit Pistons last year. It was there, in the motor city, where Iverson hit bottom. Surrounded by a team that was in decline, with a rookie coach who had difficulty managing egos, Iverson suffered through his least productive season. A season that he didn't even complete due to what many believe was a phantom back injury.
So now, he is a man without a team. The rumors are that he may end up with the Memphis Grizzlies or the Los Angeles Clippers. Two woebegone franchises who would only be signing him to sell tickets. I would love to see him get one more shot with a contender. To get the chance to fulfill the promise of that 2001 season in Philly. But I know that's unlikely. For one, with a contender, he'd probably have to take less money and come off the bench. Something his admittedly massive ego probably won't allow. And for two, one basketball executive has referred to him as the hoops version of Barry Bonds. A guy who can play but probably won't make your team better. That seems to be the unfortunate consensus in the NBA among those who might otherwise be willing to sign him.
So how does the story of this mercurial talent end? Probably badly and sadly to be honest. A once great player scoring baskets for a team on the outskirts of respectability until the losing overcomes his better nature and he makes a scene. A scene that will quite likely lead to an unceremonious exit from the league. I hope for something different but I know the odds are stacked against him.
But hope I do. Because love knows no reason or rationale. And I love Allen Iverson.
Sumo-Pop
July 21. 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Shan't
Every time I hear one of our congressional leaders (be it republican Newt Gingrich in the old days or democrat Mr. Rogers er, Harry Reid currently) promise to get things done for the American people, it brings to mind an old favorite M*A*S*H* episode of mine. Major Winchester, upon learning that Colonel Potter has put him in charge while the Colonel goes on leave, informs Potter that "I shan't let you down." To which Potter replies "I know you shan't lad, because I don't expect nothin' of ya."
So when President Obama started twisting arms in congress this week to further health care reform, I thought, it's about damn time. But let's make it clear, the arms he's twisting for the most part aren't the republicans. No, it's the democrats. Specifically those republicans in jackass clothing. Democrats like Max Baucus of Montana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and our very own Evan Bayh of Indiana.
See, I understand the republicans. They are revelling in being the party of "no" and are betting on the failure of President Obama's initiatives, thereby leading them to the retaking of the white house as well as the congress. Now while this may be foolish, childish, and several other ishes, it does on some level make sense. I mean, hey, it worked for the democrats last year didn't it?
Which brings me to the democrats. Those weak-kneed, lily-livered, yellow-bellied democrats. Many of whom rolled over and played dead during the first Bush term. They went along with "no child left behind," they authorized the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, tax cuts for the wealthy and pretty much anything else the Bush administration forced on them. It took them six years of being in the minority to stand up to President Bush. But before we give them too much credit, let's remember what had to happen first. The botching of the Iraq war, the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, and the implosion of our financial system. Only when Bush's approval ratings started to take a slide did the democrats toughen up. This found "courage" resulted in the retaking of both houses of congress in 2006 and the election of Barack Obama in 2008.
Now, with the historic opportunity to reform our health care system, President Obama has found that the enemy isn't really the marginalized republican party but the empowered democrats. There are few greater issues in our society that need tending to. Our health care system is in a terrible, broken state. "How broke is it" you might ask? Well, let me tell ya.
The United States spends 15.2% of it's GDP on health care. That's greater than any other country in the United Nations save the Marshall Islands. I don't know about you, but I've never even heard of the Marshall Islands, but I'm betting they pale in size and scope to the US of A. And what do we get for all this money that we pour into the system? Well, I suppose we can lead chants of "we're number 37." Which is where we rank against all the other countries in the world according to the World Health Organization. We are behind such noted powerhouses as Singapore, Iceland, Cyprus, Chile and Morocco. However, we can proudly say we rank two spots ahead of Cuba. Cuba. A tiny island with few resources led by a dying communist dictator. "We're number 37." Say it loud, say it proud.
Of course, you'll find plenty of people who will argue against socialized medicine. Those that believe that we'll end up like Canada, England or God forbid, The French. You want to know where those guys rank? Canada is #30, England #18 and what of the French? Well they're number one. It's not because they're smarter than us or have better medical schools. No, it's that they have learned something that we have failed to accept. That health care is a fundamental right of the people. That a "for profit" health care system like ours leaves too many people out in the cold. That the reason to become a doctor is to heal. Not to own multiple houses and cars.
Now I know that many people fear the word "socialism" in this country. But the truth is, our government system has always been a hybrid of socialism and capitalism. Here are some examples of socialism in the USA. The police, firemen, the educational system, the post office, state unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, et cetera, et cetera. Last I checked, this country was still upright in spite of all this "socialism."
And really, why shouldn't health care be included with those services? Is there anything more essential to a healthy society than well, health? Shouldn't the access to a doctor and medicine be a right?
Republicans tell us that including a government option will put insurance providers out of business as people will opt out of their workplace provided plan and into the government plan. Why is this such a bad thing? Can you think of a more nefarious organization than the average health care provider? They take loads of your money and deny essential claims? If you don't believe that happens then I urge you to see "Sicko." I know, I know, it's a Michael Moore film. However, even many republicans found the movie stirring and truthful.
So I take great issue when someone says that the current administration is in too big a hurry. Remember, the last time we had a bite at this apple was in 1992 during the Clinton administration. So who knows when there will be political will to take this issue up again. In short, if not now, when?
Which brings me back to these centrist democrats. These "middle of the road" few who have the power to stall this legislation. I'm sure Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, and Evan Bayh are nice people. Hell, I've met Evan Bayh and can attest to it. But can anyone think of his great legislative accomplishments? It seems that what he's most known for is winning multiple elections in a red state. Perhaps that's what he fears, getting health care but losing an election. Which is the whole problem for me. Far too many of our elected officials would rather be re-elected than be remembered.
Sumo-Pop
July 16, 2009
So when President Obama started twisting arms in congress this week to further health care reform, I thought, it's about damn time. But let's make it clear, the arms he's twisting for the most part aren't the republicans. No, it's the democrats. Specifically those republicans in jackass clothing. Democrats like Max Baucus of Montana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and our very own Evan Bayh of Indiana.
See, I understand the republicans. They are revelling in being the party of "no" and are betting on the failure of President Obama's initiatives, thereby leading them to the retaking of the white house as well as the congress. Now while this may be foolish, childish, and several other ishes, it does on some level make sense. I mean, hey, it worked for the democrats last year didn't it?
Which brings me to the democrats. Those weak-kneed, lily-livered, yellow-bellied democrats. Many of whom rolled over and played dead during the first Bush term. They went along with "no child left behind," they authorized the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, tax cuts for the wealthy and pretty much anything else the Bush administration forced on them. It took them six years of being in the minority to stand up to President Bush. But before we give them too much credit, let's remember what had to happen first. The botching of the Iraq war, the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, and the implosion of our financial system. Only when Bush's approval ratings started to take a slide did the democrats toughen up. This found "courage" resulted in the retaking of both houses of congress in 2006 and the election of Barack Obama in 2008.
Now, with the historic opportunity to reform our health care system, President Obama has found that the enemy isn't really the marginalized republican party but the empowered democrats. There are few greater issues in our society that need tending to. Our health care system is in a terrible, broken state. "How broke is it" you might ask? Well, let me tell ya.
The United States spends 15.2% of it's GDP on health care. That's greater than any other country in the United Nations save the Marshall Islands. I don't know about you, but I've never even heard of the Marshall Islands, but I'm betting they pale in size and scope to the US of A. And what do we get for all this money that we pour into the system? Well, I suppose we can lead chants of "we're number 37." Which is where we rank against all the other countries in the world according to the World Health Organization. We are behind such noted powerhouses as Singapore, Iceland, Cyprus, Chile and Morocco. However, we can proudly say we rank two spots ahead of Cuba. Cuba. A tiny island with few resources led by a dying communist dictator. "We're number 37." Say it loud, say it proud.
Of course, you'll find plenty of people who will argue against socialized medicine. Those that believe that we'll end up like Canada, England or God forbid, The French. You want to know where those guys rank? Canada is #30, England #18 and what of the French? Well they're number one. It's not because they're smarter than us or have better medical schools. No, it's that they have learned something that we have failed to accept. That health care is a fundamental right of the people. That a "for profit" health care system like ours leaves too many people out in the cold. That the reason to become a doctor is to heal. Not to own multiple houses and cars.
Now I know that many people fear the word "socialism" in this country. But the truth is, our government system has always been a hybrid of socialism and capitalism. Here are some examples of socialism in the USA. The police, firemen, the educational system, the post office, state unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, et cetera, et cetera. Last I checked, this country was still upright in spite of all this "socialism."
And really, why shouldn't health care be included with those services? Is there anything more essential to a healthy society than well, health? Shouldn't the access to a doctor and medicine be a right?
Republicans tell us that including a government option will put insurance providers out of business as people will opt out of their workplace provided plan and into the government plan. Why is this such a bad thing? Can you think of a more nefarious organization than the average health care provider? They take loads of your money and deny essential claims? If you don't believe that happens then I urge you to see "Sicko." I know, I know, it's a Michael Moore film. However, even many republicans found the movie stirring and truthful.
So I take great issue when someone says that the current administration is in too big a hurry. Remember, the last time we had a bite at this apple was in 1992 during the Clinton administration. So who knows when there will be political will to take this issue up again. In short, if not now, when?
Which brings me back to these centrist democrats. These "middle of the road" few who have the power to stall this legislation. I'm sure Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, and Evan Bayh are nice people. Hell, I've met Evan Bayh and can attest to it. But can anyone think of his great legislative accomplishments? It seems that what he's most known for is winning multiple elections in a red state. Perhaps that's what he fears, getting health care but losing an election. Which is the whole problem for me. Far too many of our elected officials would rather be re-elected than be remembered.
Sumo-Pop
July 16, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
Bull 1, Moron 0
On July 5, 2009 Daniel Jimeno Romero became the 15th person to be killed in the famous "running of the bulls" event in Pamplona, Spain. And I couldn't be happier. Whether it's the rodeo, bullfighting, or this stupid ass tradition, I will always root for the bull. Why? Aside from the basic dumbassedness of all three events, I would submit that each is guilty (in spades) of animal cruelty.
Now you might think that the "running of the bulls" doesn't equate to cruelty. But just imagine, if you will, a bunch of animals packed in tightly and then released on the streets to the sounds of a bunch of hooligans shouting in front of them. Great fun for the bull. I will give the organizers of the event some credit though. They used to have a terrible time with the bulls slipping and falling due to having trouble making the sharp turn at Estafeta Street. To combat this, they have laid down a new anti-slip surfacing. While this does help the bulls to keep from losing their balance, it has made the event more dangerous as the bulls are able to maintain a faster pace. Which is the part I like. Any way that more of these idiots can end up with a bullhorn up there ass is fine by me. So what reward do the terrified bulls receive at the end of the run? Well, the six bulls involved are then led to an arena for an afternoon of bullfighting. More like bull murdering but I suppose that's semantics.
The "sport" of bullfighting can actually be traced back to prehistoric times of bull worship and sacrifice. Which makes a hell of a lot of sense when you think about it. I mean, wouldn't something this cruel, barbaric, and stupid have started with the knuckle draggers and cave dwellers? Of course, the fact that this bloodsport still takes place is a great argument against Darwin's theory of evolution.
Here's how a bullfight works:
After the matador and his six assistants enter the ring, a trumpet is sounded to herald the arrival of the bull. After the bull enters the ring he is then tested by the matador for ferocity by the use of a red and gold cape. Of course, the bull is colorblind so the colorful cape is really for the nimrods in the stands, but I digress.
Next, in the first of three stages, the matador confronts the bull while one of his assistants rides in on horseback with a lance to stab the bull on a mound of muscle located on the back of the bull's neck. This weakens the bull and forces its head lower making it less dangerous to the matador. It also pisses the bull off. The bull will then typically charge the horse and rider in a (usually) vain attempt for revenge. However, prior to 1930, many horses were disemboweled by the bull which lead to the invention of a mattress-like covering called a peto. So in Spain, horse good, bull bad.
In the next stage, the matador will attempt to stab the bull's flanks with two razor sharp sticks called banderilleros. This further weakens the bull through extensive blood loss.
Lastly, the matador will attempt to bait the bull with his fancy red cape (once again, the bull is colorblind, the nimrods not) so that it will get close enough to stab him between the shoulder blades and pierce the bull's aorta. Now on occasion, much like the Romans in the coliseum (ah, the good old days) the crowd will decide to spare the bull in the final stage if they deem him brave enough. If the bull gets the thumbs up, he can then go back to the ranch. Provided of course, that he doesn't bleed to death from his wounds. Unfortunately (for the bull that is), after having the tendons in his neck severed he will probably never be able to lift his head again.
So, to sum this practice up, the bull is slowly tortured by some guy dressed up like a dandy until death or disability. Sounds like fun for the whole family.
Now before you think me xenophobic or call me an"ugly american," let me be clear, we have our own torture sport for bulls. It's called the rodeo. A place for hicks, hillbillies, and hayseeds* to gather to watch bulls and horses being ridden, calfs being roped, and goats tied for their amusement. At a rodeo, the bull is led into a tight stall where a rider is lowered onto his back. He is then either smacked with a "bucking strap" or struck with a cattle prod just before the gate is raised to incite bucking. The PRCA (Professional Rodeo Comedy, er Cowboy Association) say that this does not harm the animal due to its thick hide. Of course, no one asks the animal what he thinks since he's too busy bucking like a mad man who just got tasered in the ass. And if you think that this is distasteful, you ought to see how they treat the donkeys used for practice. In practice sessions the burrows are roped and tied over and over again resulting in disfigurement and injury. There are now a number of donkey rescue groups in the USA that take in these badly scarred and hobbled donkeys.
I always find it interesting that the defenders of these activities refer to these events as "sport." I tend to think of sports as something that involves willing participants. I mean, can anyone imagine a bull minding his own business, thinking to himself, "you know what I'd really like to do today is wander into a crowded arena where six guys help a garishly dressed man stab me to death." Probably not.
However, every now and then, the bull gets a piece of "The Man's" ass. Sometimes (although rare) the bull gores the matador to death, or maims a rodeo cowboy, or just like last Friday in Pamplona, sticks it to the runner. So now I celebrate. For last week was high times for the bull. High times indeed.
Sumo-Pop
July 11, 2009
*Full disclosure: I was born in Kentucky and I've earned the right to say hick, hillbilly, and hayseed as often as I like. After all, they're my peeps.
Now you might think that the "running of the bulls" doesn't equate to cruelty. But just imagine, if you will, a bunch of animals packed in tightly and then released on the streets to the sounds of a bunch of hooligans shouting in front of them. Great fun for the bull. I will give the organizers of the event some credit though. They used to have a terrible time with the bulls slipping and falling due to having trouble making the sharp turn at Estafeta Street. To combat this, they have laid down a new anti-slip surfacing. While this does help the bulls to keep from losing their balance, it has made the event more dangerous as the bulls are able to maintain a faster pace. Which is the part I like. Any way that more of these idiots can end up with a bullhorn up there ass is fine by me. So what reward do the terrified bulls receive at the end of the run? Well, the six bulls involved are then led to an arena for an afternoon of bullfighting. More like bull murdering but I suppose that's semantics.
The "sport" of bullfighting can actually be traced back to prehistoric times of bull worship and sacrifice. Which makes a hell of a lot of sense when you think about it. I mean, wouldn't something this cruel, barbaric, and stupid have started with the knuckle draggers and cave dwellers? Of course, the fact that this bloodsport still takes place is a great argument against Darwin's theory of evolution.
Here's how a bullfight works:
After the matador and his six assistants enter the ring, a trumpet is sounded to herald the arrival of the bull. After the bull enters the ring he is then tested by the matador for ferocity by the use of a red and gold cape. Of course, the bull is colorblind so the colorful cape is really for the nimrods in the stands, but I digress.
Next, in the first of three stages, the matador confronts the bull while one of his assistants rides in on horseback with a lance to stab the bull on a mound of muscle located on the back of the bull's neck. This weakens the bull and forces its head lower making it less dangerous to the matador. It also pisses the bull off. The bull will then typically charge the horse and rider in a (usually) vain attempt for revenge. However, prior to 1930, many horses were disemboweled by the bull which lead to the invention of a mattress-like covering called a peto. So in Spain, horse good, bull bad.
In the next stage, the matador will attempt to stab the bull's flanks with two razor sharp sticks called banderilleros. This further weakens the bull through extensive blood loss.
Lastly, the matador will attempt to bait the bull with his fancy red cape (once again, the bull is colorblind, the nimrods not) so that it will get close enough to stab him between the shoulder blades and pierce the bull's aorta. Now on occasion, much like the Romans in the coliseum (ah, the good old days) the crowd will decide to spare the bull in the final stage if they deem him brave enough. If the bull gets the thumbs up, he can then go back to the ranch. Provided of course, that he doesn't bleed to death from his wounds. Unfortunately (for the bull that is), after having the tendons in his neck severed he will probably never be able to lift his head again.
So, to sum this practice up, the bull is slowly tortured by some guy dressed up like a dandy until death or disability. Sounds like fun for the whole family.
Now before you think me xenophobic or call me an"ugly american," let me be clear, we have our own torture sport for bulls. It's called the rodeo. A place for hicks, hillbillies, and hayseeds* to gather to watch bulls and horses being ridden, calfs being roped, and goats tied for their amusement. At a rodeo, the bull is led into a tight stall where a rider is lowered onto his back. He is then either smacked with a "bucking strap" or struck with a cattle prod just before the gate is raised to incite bucking. The PRCA (Professional Rodeo Comedy, er Cowboy Association) say that this does not harm the animal due to its thick hide. Of course, no one asks the animal what he thinks since he's too busy bucking like a mad man who just got tasered in the ass. And if you think that this is distasteful, you ought to see how they treat the donkeys used for practice. In practice sessions the burrows are roped and tied over and over again resulting in disfigurement and injury. There are now a number of donkey rescue groups in the USA that take in these badly scarred and hobbled donkeys.
I always find it interesting that the defenders of these activities refer to these events as "sport." I tend to think of sports as something that involves willing participants. I mean, can anyone imagine a bull minding his own business, thinking to himself, "you know what I'd really like to do today is wander into a crowded arena where six guys help a garishly dressed man stab me to death." Probably not.
However, every now and then, the bull gets a piece of "The Man's" ass. Sometimes (although rare) the bull gores the matador to death, or maims a rodeo cowboy, or just like last Friday in Pamplona, sticks it to the runner. So now I celebrate. For last week was high times for the bull. High times indeed.
Sumo-Pop
July 11, 2009
*Full disclosure: I was born in Kentucky and I've earned the right to say hick, hillbilly, and hayseed as often as I like. After all, they're my peeps.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
---For my mom and dad, Barry, and Sheila Fullmer (wherever you are).
It all started with the death of his father last August. For the next month or so Joey was able to immerse himself in his work until late September when the season ended. Then came the off season. With no distractions and no place he had to be every day, Joey fell into a deep depression. A depression that tormented him through the fall-winter and on into spring when he returned to work. For awhile, he was able to throw himself back into his job and keep those horrible feelings at bay. Then in May, he got sick. Just a simple upper respiratory and inner ear infection, but enough to keep him off the job. After the recovery from his physical illness, Joey tried to return to work. He found he couldn't make it through a single shift. He began feeling dizzy and short of breath. He was terrified. One night in San Diego, he thought he was dying and called 911. Finally, he asked for help.
This is the story of an athlete named Joey Votto. The very accomplished first baseman of the Cincinnati Reds. But it's not just his story, it's the story of a lot of people who suffer from anxiety and depression. You think your fine, then some event in your life turns you upside down and there you are. Fighting for your life.
I have some experience with this. Once in my early 20s, things got so bad for me that I ended up in the hospital. It's an awful feeling to wake up every day trembling, to lose your appetite, and maybe even your desire to go on. To know that you're weak and barely able to get through a day or go to work. Brutal that. So when Joey Votto went public with his struggle, it was nothing short of heroic.
You see, men aren't supposed to cry or show weakness. We're supposed to hold up our end and look good doing it. As bad as the stigma of depression is for the average Joe, what must it be like for someone in the macho world of professional athletics? To know that you are letting down your teammates and the ownership of your organization because you can't handle your feelings? Unacceptable on many levels. But Votto did it. He asked for the help and understanding of his team and just as importantly, faced the media and told the truth. In doing so, Votto has helped reduce the stigma of anxiety and depression. I don't think it's any accident that the starting shortstop of the Saint Louis Cardinals, Khalil Greene admitted to his own struggles shortly after Votto did.
There were some who questioned Votto's commitment prior to his revealing press conference. They wondered how the guy who came in second for the rookie of the year in 2008, who was off to an even better start in 2009, and was simply put, "paid to play baseball" could be derailed by emotional issues. This type of "old school" thinking is really "no school" thinking. There's a famous quote that states that "most men live lives of quiet desperation." There's a lot of truth in that statement. All that 50s style, strong silent type, John Wayne bullshit didn't leave any room for sensitivity in the "old" days. But I believe there's more room now because of people like Joey and others who, in their normal lives, confess their frailties.
So what happens to Joey now? That story is yet to be lived. I hope he finds a counselor as good as mine, I hope that his family is as supportive as my mom and dad were, I hope that he has a friend as good as the one who lived two doors down from me. A friend who did little things that weren't so little at all. Like making sure I ate, taking me to class, and getting me out of the house in general. I hope that he can continue to excel at his profession (full disclosure--I'm a big Reds fan). But mostly I hope he learns to deal with the loss of his dad and that he will continue to ask for help and not feel shame. I hear that even though he has a long way to go, that he's off to a good start. I know I'll be rooting for him. On the field and off.
Sumo-Pop
July 7, 2009
It all started with the death of his father last August. For the next month or so Joey was able to immerse himself in his work until late September when the season ended. Then came the off season. With no distractions and no place he had to be every day, Joey fell into a deep depression. A depression that tormented him through the fall-winter and on into spring when he returned to work. For awhile, he was able to throw himself back into his job and keep those horrible feelings at bay. Then in May, he got sick. Just a simple upper respiratory and inner ear infection, but enough to keep him off the job. After the recovery from his physical illness, Joey tried to return to work. He found he couldn't make it through a single shift. He began feeling dizzy and short of breath. He was terrified. One night in San Diego, he thought he was dying and called 911. Finally, he asked for help.
This is the story of an athlete named Joey Votto. The very accomplished first baseman of the Cincinnati Reds. But it's not just his story, it's the story of a lot of people who suffer from anxiety and depression. You think your fine, then some event in your life turns you upside down and there you are. Fighting for your life.
I have some experience with this. Once in my early 20s, things got so bad for me that I ended up in the hospital. It's an awful feeling to wake up every day trembling, to lose your appetite, and maybe even your desire to go on. To know that you're weak and barely able to get through a day or go to work. Brutal that. So when Joey Votto went public with his struggle, it was nothing short of heroic.
You see, men aren't supposed to cry or show weakness. We're supposed to hold up our end and look good doing it. As bad as the stigma of depression is for the average Joe, what must it be like for someone in the macho world of professional athletics? To know that you are letting down your teammates and the ownership of your organization because you can't handle your feelings? Unacceptable on many levels. But Votto did it. He asked for the help and understanding of his team and just as importantly, faced the media and told the truth. In doing so, Votto has helped reduce the stigma of anxiety and depression. I don't think it's any accident that the starting shortstop of the Saint Louis Cardinals, Khalil Greene admitted to his own struggles shortly after Votto did.
There were some who questioned Votto's commitment prior to his revealing press conference. They wondered how the guy who came in second for the rookie of the year in 2008, who was off to an even better start in 2009, and was simply put, "paid to play baseball" could be derailed by emotional issues. This type of "old school" thinking is really "no school" thinking. There's a famous quote that states that "most men live lives of quiet desperation." There's a lot of truth in that statement. All that 50s style, strong silent type, John Wayne bullshit didn't leave any room for sensitivity in the "old" days. But I believe there's more room now because of people like Joey and others who, in their normal lives, confess their frailties.
So what happens to Joey now? That story is yet to be lived. I hope he finds a counselor as good as mine, I hope that his family is as supportive as my mom and dad were, I hope that he has a friend as good as the one who lived two doors down from me. A friend who did little things that weren't so little at all. Like making sure I ate, taking me to class, and getting me out of the house in general. I hope that he can continue to excel at his profession (full disclosure--I'm a big Reds fan). But mostly I hope he learns to deal with the loss of his dad and that he will continue to ask for help and not feel shame. I hear that even though he has a long way to go, that he's off to a good start. I know I'll be rooting for him. On the field and off.
Sumo-Pop
July 7, 2009
Friday, July 3, 2009
Can't Anybody Here Play This Game?
"Does anybody need yet another politician caught with his pants down and money sticking in his hole?"---Lou Reed
With today's news that Sarah Palin will be resigning as Governor of Alaska at the end of the month, coupled with South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's admission of infidelity and bizarre ongoing behavior since, there is a question that must be asked. What in the hell is going on in the party of "family values?"
Both Palin and Sanford were considered to be major contenders for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012, but that's next to impossible now.
In the case of Palin's forthcoming resignation, one has to be wondering what she must be thinking? Popular governors don't typically resign in their first term unless there's a scandal of some sort. There are rumors flying around that a criminal investigation is in the offing in Alaska. But for now, those are just rumors. For a politician who so clearly has/had ambitions of reaching higher office, it's difficult to see how quitting on your state is helpful. One of the main criticisms of Palin during her run for Vice President last year was that as a governor who had not completed one term, she lacked the necessary experience to be a heartbeat away from assuming the presidency. So to then decide not to even complete that term is an absolutely stunning decision. Watching her strange, rambling press conference today (she didn't even use the word resignation), I was reminded of New York Jets coach Rich Kotite, who after a disastrous 1-15 season in 1996 infamously said "I wasn't fired and I didn't quit." Here is a woman who withstood the unfortunate interview with Katie Couric, the teen pregnancy of daughter Bristol, the withering imitations of Tina Fey, and the constant post-election criticism from the McCain campaign to still be a top republican on the national scene. Now, you can stick a fork in her.
Of course, Palin's announcement today is good news for Governor Sanford. Not because it improves his chances of supplanting her as the top christian conservative candidate in 2012, but because it gets his increasingly erratic behavior off the front page of the newspaper. Here's a rising star in the republican party, the head of the Republican Governor's Association, who disappeared for 4 days last month to go see his mistress in Argentina! And when I say disappeared, I mean disappeared. His wife and kids didn't know where he was, his staff said he was hiking the Appalachian trail, and the Lieutenant Governor was clueless, as well, to his whereabouts. This means that for the better part of a week, no one was running the state of South Carolina. Unlike Palin, however, Sanford has not resigned and says he will not even consider it. Instead, he has given a series of peculiar statements referring to his supposedly former mistress as his "soul mate" and noting previous liaisons with women where he may have gotten to second base "but I didn't cross the sex line." When former President Clinton was caught with Monica Lewinsky, then house member Sanford said that Clinton should resign. Well, the difference between Clinton and Sanford is that Clinton, in his Machiavellian way, was still able to compartmentalize the situation and do his job while Sanford seems to be coming apart at the seams. Daily.
Speaking of sex scandals, how is it that the "family values" party got so good at them? Aside from Sanford, there's Rudy Giuliani, who moved his mistress into the mayor's residence in New York before his divorce was final. There's Newt Gingrich, who like Sanford called for Clinton's resignation while himself carrying on an affair. There's former Florida house member Mark Foley, who in 2006 sent salacious text messages to male pages in congress. There's Louisiana Senator David Vitter, who in 2007 was caught up in the DC Madame prostitution ring as a "John." There's Idaho Senator Larry Craig who was found guilty of soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom in Minneapolis. And just three weeks ago there was Nevada Senator John Ensign (who had presidential aspirations as well) who stepped down from his republican leadership post after admitting to an extramarital affair.
To be fair, democrats have certainly had there share of sex scandals as well. New York Governor Eliot Spitzer carrying on with a prostitute and presidential candidate John Edwards cavorting with a woman hired to shoot footage of his campaign while his wife was (and still is) suffering from cancer are two recent examples that come to mind. But democrats don't shove morality down your throat the way republicans do.
Starting with Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, republicans did a masterful job of using social "wedge" issues to grow their party. Whether it's abortion, gay marriage, abstinence-only-sex education in schools, the right wing of the party (headed by the christian coalition) had great electoral success from 1980-2006. It took George Bush's incompetence with Iraq, Katrina, and the economy to swing things back to the left.
So where does this leave the Republican Party and their quest for the white house in 2012? Well, I'm sure that somewhere Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are smiling. Former Arkansas Governor Huckabee may be symbolic of the GOP's problems (pale, male, and stale), but when he's not making jokes about Barack Obama getting shot he seems like a decent enough guy. And former Massachusetts Governor Romney may be Mormon (a real issue for some christian conservatives) and a flip-flopper (abortion, gay rights, gun control) but he does seem devoted to his wife in a strange, sexagenarian Ken doll sort of way. But here's the real problem for republicans: The politician who seems most devoted to his wife and kids, who is the very portrait of "family values" isn't even a republican. He's the very popular President of the United States. Good luck running against that.
Sumo-Pop July 3, 2009
With today's news that Sarah Palin will be resigning as Governor of Alaska at the end of the month, coupled with South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's admission of infidelity and bizarre ongoing behavior since, there is a question that must be asked. What in the hell is going on in the party of "family values?"
Both Palin and Sanford were considered to be major contenders for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012, but that's next to impossible now.
In the case of Palin's forthcoming resignation, one has to be wondering what she must be thinking? Popular governors don't typically resign in their first term unless there's a scandal of some sort. There are rumors flying around that a criminal investigation is in the offing in Alaska. But for now, those are just rumors. For a politician who so clearly has/had ambitions of reaching higher office, it's difficult to see how quitting on your state is helpful. One of the main criticisms of Palin during her run for Vice President last year was that as a governor who had not completed one term, she lacked the necessary experience to be a heartbeat away from assuming the presidency. So to then decide not to even complete that term is an absolutely stunning decision. Watching her strange, rambling press conference today (she didn't even use the word resignation), I was reminded of New York Jets coach Rich Kotite, who after a disastrous 1-15 season in 1996 infamously said "I wasn't fired and I didn't quit." Here is a woman who withstood the unfortunate interview with Katie Couric, the teen pregnancy of daughter Bristol, the withering imitations of Tina Fey, and the constant post-election criticism from the McCain campaign to still be a top republican on the national scene. Now, you can stick a fork in her.
Of course, Palin's announcement today is good news for Governor Sanford. Not because it improves his chances of supplanting her as the top christian conservative candidate in 2012, but because it gets his increasingly erratic behavior off the front page of the newspaper. Here's a rising star in the republican party, the head of the Republican Governor's Association, who disappeared for 4 days last month to go see his mistress in Argentina! And when I say disappeared, I mean disappeared. His wife and kids didn't know where he was, his staff said he was hiking the Appalachian trail, and the Lieutenant Governor was clueless, as well, to his whereabouts. This means that for the better part of a week, no one was running the state of South Carolina. Unlike Palin, however, Sanford has not resigned and says he will not even consider it. Instead, he has given a series of peculiar statements referring to his supposedly former mistress as his "soul mate" and noting previous liaisons with women where he may have gotten to second base "but I didn't cross the sex line." When former President Clinton was caught with Monica Lewinsky, then house member Sanford said that Clinton should resign. Well, the difference between Clinton and Sanford is that Clinton, in his Machiavellian way, was still able to compartmentalize the situation and do his job while Sanford seems to be coming apart at the seams. Daily.
Speaking of sex scandals, how is it that the "family values" party got so good at them? Aside from Sanford, there's Rudy Giuliani, who moved his mistress into the mayor's residence in New York before his divorce was final. There's Newt Gingrich, who like Sanford called for Clinton's resignation while himself carrying on an affair. There's former Florida house member Mark Foley, who in 2006 sent salacious text messages to male pages in congress. There's Louisiana Senator David Vitter, who in 2007 was caught up in the DC Madame prostitution ring as a "John." There's Idaho Senator Larry Craig who was found guilty of soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom in Minneapolis. And just three weeks ago there was Nevada Senator John Ensign (who had presidential aspirations as well) who stepped down from his republican leadership post after admitting to an extramarital affair.
To be fair, democrats have certainly had there share of sex scandals as well. New York Governor Eliot Spitzer carrying on with a prostitute and presidential candidate John Edwards cavorting with a woman hired to shoot footage of his campaign while his wife was (and still is) suffering from cancer are two recent examples that come to mind. But democrats don't shove morality down your throat the way republicans do.
Starting with Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, republicans did a masterful job of using social "wedge" issues to grow their party. Whether it's abortion, gay marriage, abstinence-only-sex education in schools, the right wing of the party (headed by the christian coalition) had great electoral success from 1980-2006. It took George Bush's incompetence with Iraq, Katrina, and the economy to swing things back to the left.
So where does this leave the Republican Party and their quest for the white house in 2012? Well, I'm sure that somewhere Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are smiling. Former Arkansas Governor Huckabee may be symbolic of the GOP's problems (pale, male, and stale), but when he's not making jokes about Barack Obama getting shot he seems like a decent enough guy. And former Massachusetts Governor Romney may be Mormon (a real issue for some christian conservatives) and a flip-flopper (abortion, gay rights, gun control) but he does seem devoted to his wife in a strange, sexagenarian Ken doll sort of way. But here's the real problem for republicans: The politician who seems most devoted to his wife and kids, who is the very portrait of "family values" isn't even a republican. He's the very popular President of the United States. Good luck running against that.
Sumo-Pop July 3, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Public Enemies
I just got home from seeing Public Enemies and let me say this: if it doesn't end up being the best movie I see all year then it's going to be one hell of a great year at the moviehouse. Here is a film that is both thoughtful and thrilling. A film that uses technology and action to serve the story. A film where the actors inhabit their characters as if their lives depend on it. It is a film for adults. In short, it is everything that Transformers is not.
Set in the mid 1930s, Public Enemies tells the story of noted bank robber John Dillinger and Mlevin Purvis, the G-Man assigned to bring Dillinger in dead or alive. Both actors are terrific. Depp, who I occasionally find too precious (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Pirates 2 and 3), finds just the right balance of colorful and authentic. I've read some reviews that describe his performance as too "iconic" and that he doesn't get under Dillinger's skin. Complete nonsense. At first, Depp's portrayal does lean on his natural charisma heavily. But as the film goes on and his relationship with Billie Frechette (played luminously by french actress Marion Cotillard) deepens so does his performance. The chemistry between the two is instant and electric. Dillinger's breakneck courtship of coat check girl Frechette could only be pulled off if you believe in the two performances. And you do. Dillinger's character has no time to waste and Frechette is tired of wasting time. So when he pulls her from behind the coat check counter and says come with me, you can see how she only allows herself a passing second thought.
Bale's assignment playing Purvis is trickier. It's an old adage in movies that playing the villain is more fun than playing the hero. That's true here as well. Depp realizes that as the villain you have no boundaries whereas Bale has to be constricted by his character's observance of the law. Still Bale shines. All subtlety on the surface but seething with righteousnous underneath, Bale finds the rigidity in his character but also hints at the humanity that lies behind Purvis' eyes. Follow his face closely as he carries a woman who has been beaten by one of his officers to the bathroom to clean up. Note the effort on his face to withhold any expression of horror. This is high class acting at it's finest.
To that point, how many actors are as generous as Bale? Here's a guy who can clearly go broad and charismatic when he wants to (American Psycho, The Prestige, Rescue Dawn), but more often than not he is content to let other actors shine while he holds the film steady. Look at the Dark Knight and Heath Ledger or 3:10 To Yuma and Russell Crowe. Never do you feel that Bale is competing with them. Instead you find that he is providing them the space they need to stretch as far as they want and therefore provide the film the necessary balance.
Now some critics have decried the fact that the film doesn't explore Dillinger's backstory. As if a ponderous three hour connect-the-dots style biopic would serve the subject. No, instead what director Michael Mann (Heat, The Insider, Collateral) does is focus on the most dramatic portion of Dillinger's life. And doesn't that make sense? In one short bit of dialogue Dillinger tells Frechette about the early death of his mother and his violent upbringing by his father. He then proceeds to tell her all the things he likes in life ending with "...fast cars and you, what else do you need to know." And we, like Billie, are along for the ride. As Dillinger says "it doesn't matter where you've been, it only matters where you're going." Words the film takes to heart.
Now I could go on about the great period costumes and art direction, the gorgeous digital cinematography, the tasteful but impactful use of music, and the electrifying set pieces in the film (all true by the way), but what you really need to know is this---If you don't want your multiplex to be dominated by the latest Dreamworks animation or big budget action film blowup fest then please go see Public Enemies. Because if it does well enough, hollywood might still occasionally make films for people who like to think, who enjoy a good story and good acting. You know, grown ups.
Sumo-Pop
July 1, 2009
Set in the mid 1930s, Public Enemies tells the story of noted bank robber John Dillinger and Mlevin Purvis, the G-Man assigned to bring Dillinger in dead or alive. Both actors are terrific. Depp, who I occasionally find too precious (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Pirates 2 and 3), finds just the right balance of colorful and authentic. I've read some reviews that describe his performance as too "iconic" and that he doesn't get under Dillinger's skin. Complete nonsense. At first, Depp's portrayal does lean on his natural charisma heavily. But as the film goes on and his relationship with Billie Frechette (played luminously by french actress Marion Cotillard) deepens so does his performance. The chemistry between the two is instant and electric. Dillinger's breakneck courtship of coat check girl Frechette could only be pulled off if you believe in the two performances. And you do. Dillinger's character has no time to waste and Frechette is tired of wasting time. So when he pulls her from behind the coat check counter and says come with me, you can see how she only allows herself a passing second thought.
Bale's assignment playing Purvis is trickier. It's an old adage in movies that playing the villain is more fun than playing the hero. That's true here as well. Depp realizes that as the villain you have no boundaries whereas Bale has to be constricted by his character's observance of the law. Still Bale shines. All subtlety on the surface but seething with righteousnous underneath, Bale finds the rigidity in his character but also hints at the humanity that lies behind Purvis' eyes. Follow his face closely as he carries a woman who has been beaten by one of his officers to the bathroom to clean up. Note the effort on his face to withhold any expression of horror. This is high class acting at it's finest.
To that point, how many actors are as generous as Bale? Here's a guy who can clearly go broad and charismatic when he wants to (American Psycho, The Prestige, Rescue Dawn), but more often than not he is content to let other actors shine while he holds the film steady. Look at the Dark Knight and Heath Ledger or 3:10 To Yuma and Russell Crowe. Never do you feel that Bale is competing with them. Instead you find that he is providing them the space they need to stretch as far as they want and therefore provide the film the necessary balance.
Now some critics have decried the fact that the film doesn't explore Dillinger's backstory. As if a ponderous three hour connect-the-dots style biopic would serve the subject. No, instead what director Michael Mann (Heat, The Insider, Collateral) does is focus on the most dramatic portion of Dillinger's life. And doesn't that make sense? In one short bit of dialogue Dillinger tells Frechette about the early death of his mother and his violent upbringing by his father. He then proceeds to tell her all the things he likes in life ending with "...fast cars and you, what else do you need to know." And we, like Billie, are along for the ride. As Dillinger says "it doesn't matter where you've been, it only matters where you're going." Words the film takes to heart.
Now I could go on about the great period costumes and art direction, the gorgeous digital cinematography, the tasteful but impactful use of music, and the electrifying set pieces in the film (all true by the way), but what you really need to know is this---If you don't want your multiplex to be dominated by the latest Dreamworks animation or big budget action film blowup fest then please go see Public Enemies. Because if it does well enough, hollywood might still occasionally make films for people who like to think, who enjoy a good story and good acting. You know, grown ups.
Sumo-Pop
July 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)