With Charlie Crist's announcement Thursday, that he would be running as an independent for the vacant Florida Senate seat in this year's mid-term election, I believe we can make it official, there is a purge goin' on in the Republican Party. No moderates need apply.
This stunning decision by Crist is just the latest in a line of moderate Republicans who have been forced out of their party for not being conservative enough.
The first was Arlen Specter, the long tenured Senator from Pennsylvania. Facing a primary challenge from the Club For Growth (more on them later) who supported candidate Pat Toomey, Specter made the decision to switch his part affiliation to Democrat shortly after he took a beating in conservative circles for supporting the President's stimulus plan. To be clear, Specter's decision is as much about saving his ass as it is about ideology, but still, it's not often a candidate with 44 years of service to one party switches teams.
Next came the debacle in New York's special election for the house seat in the 23rd congressional district. Dede Scozzafava--a true moderate on issues ranging from labor unions to abortion rights--was selected as the Republican candidate for the open seat. Because of her down the middle views, she took a pasting from right wing Republicans like Sarah Palin, and conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh. Both of whom line up behind the so called conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman. A man who rivaled Palin in his inability to answer a substantive question. Facing certain defeat, Scozzafava dropped out of the race leaving Hoffman and Democrat Bill Owens in a head to head match up. Despite Hoffman having the backing of the right wing, the Tea Party, and the Club For Growth (that name again), and the fact that no Democrat had held that seat since the 1850's, Hoffman lost.
Still, this setback has not stopped the push for purity on the part of the ultra-conservative wing of the party.
Even the most recent Republican standard bearer, John McCain is in the fight of his life against conservative talk show host, JD Hayworth. The challenge from Hayworth has forced McCain to go so far right in his positions, that he even supports a clearly unconstitutional immigration law that was signed by Republican Governor Jan Brewer just last week. A law that requires local police officers to ask for proof of citizenship from anyone they "suspect" of being in the country illegally. That slippery slope has McCain backtracking on his previously held position that creates a path to citizenship for illegals.
Hell, Senator Bob Bennett from Utah--a true conservative (see his views on abortion, taxes, and health care)--is unlikely to make it out of his state primary after 18 years of service due to a Tea Party candidate!
Now, we have the saga of Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio. By most accounts, Crist has been a pretty damn good Governor for the state of Florida. He has looked out for his state's environment while maintaining a good record on energy, law enforcement, and has been pro-active in attacking the recession. It's not like he's unpopular with the people of his state either. His current approval rating stands at 56%. However, Crist--like many cash strapped Governors--supported the Obama stimulus plan. For the right wing Republican base, this was seen as a betrayal. Enter: Marco Rubio. The articulate, handsome, and very conservative Florida Speaker of the House. Rubio railed against the stimulus, health care reform, and all things Obama.
With low statewide name recognition and little money, Rubio's chances against the popular sitting Governor seemed dim. It was only 2008 when Crist was considered a finalist for the Vice Presidential slot on the Republican ticket with John McCain. Unfortunately for Crist, he took the dynamic Rubio for granted. He assumed--like many--there was no way he could lose. Crist simply didn't see two things coming: The Tea Party movement and the escalating powers of the Club For Growth.
Rubio was quickly adopted by the Tea Party and the Club For Growth as a poster boy for their anti-Obama revolution. Most people have a pretty good sense of the Tea Party by now. They are typically made up of older whites who feel that Obama is somehow stealing the country from them and overtaxing them. They either don't know or don't care that Obama was elected democratically and that taxes are at there lowest rate in over 50 years. Many of them can't even be convinced of his religion or birthright despite all the available evidence. Basically, if you're against Obama, that's good enough. Well, Rubio is against Obama and Crist supported the President's stimulus bill and--horror of horrors!--actually embraced Obama in public. Nevermind that in a faltering economy the state of Florida was looking at massive lay-offs of teachers, police officers, and many others without the influx of stimulus funds, anything that comes from the Kenyan Muslim President must be bad. That was the moment when Crist started to lose the far right base.
Less well known, but perhaps even more influential is the Club For Growth. Founded in 1999, the Club For Growth is a fiscally conservative political organization dedicated to promoting the nomination of "true" conservative candidates. They actually coined the term "R.I.N.O." (Republican in name only), and created a "watch list" to track who was a true conservative and who was a well, R.I.N.O. They even have a "Comrade of the Month" award that they give to the politician who does not reflect their views. Real mature. I imagine they should just rename it the "Barack Obama Award" at this point. You know, with him being a socialist and all. The current Club For Growth President, former Indiana Representative, Chris Chocola (whom my wife met once and thought was a complete ass--and my wife is one of the nicest people I have ever met) has harnessed this right wing surge in support of the Club's goals. And what are their goals? Well, they are simply to purify the party and leave only the most conservative members standing.
Which of course, is their absolute right. But you have to question the long term feasibility of this strategy. There is a perception of the Republican party as the "pale, male, and stale" party. While that's not entirely true (see Palin and Rubio), it is largely accurate. Minorities and people under the age of 34 voted for Obama by 2-1 margins. As this racially diverse population ages and the older population dies off, what will be the long term effect on the Republican party? I'm here to tell you, it ain't good.
Sure, Republicans are going to make short term gains in the 2010 mid-terms. Due to a poor economy, an angry electorate, and the cyclical nature of mid-term elections, the Democrats can expect to lose seats in November. Maybe even a lot of seats. However, take a longer look down the road, and the viability of the Republican party going forward is at serious risk. They already have no appeal to blacks. Women are much more likely to be Democrats (and they now outnumber men in the U.S.), I've already covered young people. But what about the fastest growing minority in the United States? What about the Hispanic/Latino population?
In the 2004 and 2008 Presidential elections, George W. Bush--with his Texas Roots, moderate views on immigration, and ability to speak Spanish--was able to pull over 40% of the Hispanic/Latino vote. Many Hispanic/Latinos are culturally conservative and very religious, making them ripe for the picking for forward thinking Republicans. However, Obama was able to reverse this trend in 2008 by a 67% to 31% margin over John McCain.
But if you think that was bad, wait about 10 years. Over the next decade, Arizona and Texas will likely become majority minority states. And if Republicans want to keep on the road of unconstitutional enforcement of new immigration laws, well, it doesn't take a genius to see that they could piss away the Hispanic/Latino vote for years to come.
The idea of trading long term gains for short term results is hardly new. Our country has been kicking the can down the road on such hot button issues as entitlement reform, the environment, alternative energy, and infrastructure repair as well as immigration for years now (just to name a few). That's why Health Care Reform was so historic--when was the last time before this that we got anything major done? We avoid these things because they are tough, emotional issues. But isn't that why we vote? To have people in places of power who are willing and capable of making the most necessary decisions of the day?
Now, let me say, I'm no moderate. I am a liberal. How liberal? Well, I'm probably left of Jesse Jackson. Hell, I'm still pissed that the slaves never got their 40 acres and a mule (not kidding). Having said that, I'm also pragmatic. I realize that to get things done you need the two sides to work together, and this requires moderates of both stripes to find areas of compromise. Unfortunately, the Republican party has decided that there are no rooms available at the Inn for people of such persuasion. So, enjoy your gains in November my Republican friends, it may have to last you a long time.
Sumo-Pop
April 29, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
The Dirty Girl Gets Clean (At Least For Now)
Guilty as charged. I am a sucker for the underdog, the self destructive and foolish. Whether its Allen Iverson and Ricky Williams in sports, or Oliver Stone and Mickey Rourke in movies, my heart just beats a little faster for talented types who seem to have difficulty getting out of their own way. If I were a saint (don't laugh--ok, do), I would be the patron of lost causes. Which brings me to Courtney Love and her appearance on Late Night With David Letterman on Tuesday.
Has there ever been a more polarizing artist? You will find camps in equal measure that will argue that she is completely authentic or an absolute poser. There are those who think she's a brilliant artist, and there are those who think she's been propped up on the shoulders of a wildly talented suicidal husband. While I fall in the former group, I certainly understand those that disagree.
For Courtney Love is a train wreck. She is a colossal drug abuser, an unfit wife and mother, a grandstanding, self-promoting starf***er, who has produced more cringe-worthy moments than anyone this side of Britney Spears over the last decade. Still, I cling to the idea that one day she might be able to get her shit together.
Why? well, because I consider her back to back releases Live Through This and Celebrity Skin, with her band Hole to be stone cold classics. Yes, I know Kurt had a lot to do with the former and Billy Corgan with the latter, but neither of them sang for her or wrote her lyrics. That scorched earth, take no prisoners sound in her voice is as good as it gets when it comes to rock vocalists--man or woman. And her darkly confessional (and often quite funny) lyrics could only spring from one source.
I also find her pretty sympathetic. Raised in a broken home, Love's parents split when she was three years old. Her mother got full custody of her by claiming that Courtney's father had given her LSD. While there was never any proof to this allegation, it gives you an idea of the animosity and dysfunction that Love grew up around. Hell, years later Love's own father implied that she may have had something to do with Cobain's death. Dad of the year, he is not.
Love left home at a young age (can you blame her?) and bounced around in communes, enrolled and then dropped out of Portland State University and supported herself by stripping in seedy night clubs before starting a band. Hole was eventually signed to the indie label, Caroline which released their debut, Pretty On The Inside in 1991. Love met Cobain in 1990, and after several false starts, they became an item. The two misfits bonded over their shared love of music and similarly difficult backgrounds. They were married on February 24, 1992.
If ever there was a more star crossed romance, its hard to think of one. Whitney and Bobby? Please. Britney and Justin? No way. Sid and Nancy? Now we're getting warm. Kurt was an incredibly sensitive soul who lacked the ambition for the fame and adulation that was thrust upon him after Nirvana's seminal release, Nevermind in 1991. Ill-equipped for the scrutiny that comes with being "the voice of a generation," Kurt began to implode. He followed up Nevermind with the willfully uncommercial (but still great) In Utero in 1993. Soon after, Kurt's drug abuse started to take over his life. There were canceled shows, at least one overdose, and continued reports of erratic behavior. Finally, the broken boy took his own life with a shotgun in April of 1994.
Of course, Love was probably not the best person to be with if you were a suicidally depressed drug addict. Prone to wild moods swings and having a taste for narcotics herself, I'm sure Love was quite the enabler. She didn't help her reputation much after Kurt's death when she would play out her anger at him during Hole concerts the following year. I was at one of those shows when Love started railing against Cobain, calling him an "asshole" for leaving her and such. And I can tell you the hostility that came from certain segments of the crowd was palpable. However, while I do believe there was more than a little manipulation going on here, It was also quite riveting. You had the sense while watching her that she might just crumple to the ground in a heap. It was just as likely as the odds of her giving a great performance. High drama it was, and Love is nothing if not a drama queen.
Despite her grief and drug addictions (cocaine was her fav), Love managed to pull herself together for a three year stretch from 1996 to 1999. She gave a brilliant performance as Larry Flynt's wife, Althea in one of my all time favorite movies, The People Vs. Larry Flynt. One of the great travesties in Oscar history was her lack of a nomination. I suppose they felt that playing a drug addicted stripper was no stretch for Love, but that isn't fair. She was electrifying onscreen and created a wholly original performance. Whatever, good is good.
Love followed up this triumph with Hole's great album, Celebrity Skin in 1998. Slicker, and more radio friendly than Live Through This, Skin was still packed with great tunes. And for my money is actually the better album.
Unfortunately, this brief period of physical and mental health was followed by one of the most harrowing public slides into the abyss that I've ever seen. First she broke up her band. She then started hitting the drugs at a frightening rate. Which lead to new displays of public instability. Her weight fluctuated between slightly overweight to skeletal, and she eventually lost custody of the daughter she had with Cobain, Frances.
During the twelve years between Celebrity Skin and this week's Nobody's Daughter, Love only managed to put out a single solo album. The much derided (unfairly, I think), America's Sweetheart. She was clearly spinning off the rails.
So, when I heard that she was forming a new version of Hole and would be releasing a new album, my expectations were dubious at best. Still, due to my unwavering loyalty to the mad woman, I picked up Nobody's Daughter the day it came out and gave it a good quality listen while appropriately managing my standards. And you know what? Its pretty damn good. While certainly not on the level of Live Through This or Celebrity Skin, there are several songs that echo those past glories. "Skinny Little Bitch" snarls and rocks just like you would expect it to with a title like that. And "Pacific Coast Highway" brings to mind the lovely "Malibu" from Skin.
Despite the solid nature of the record, I approached her appearance on David Letterman's show last Tuesday with more than a little trepidation. Would she flake out? Would Dave be nice? How would they sound live? The answers--to my pleasant surprise--were no, yes, and quite solid.
She came off about as normal as I've seen her since her salad days of 1996-1999. She was witty and charming while answering Dave's polite entreaties regarding her "lost" years. Her new band was strong as was her voice. Of course, this could all come crashing down at any moment. She is a mentally unstable drug addict after all. Even she admits that "it takes a village" to keep her straight.
But for now, straight she is. Clean and sober with a fine new record to promote. Sure, the years of abuse and too much plastic surgery have ravaged her body and her mind. I certainly doubt her ability to ever be "classic" Courtney Love ever again. But maybe that's just as well. Maybe this new, more modest version can lead a relatively healthy life. As the patron whatever of lost causes, I definitely hope so. For now though, I will simply take pleasure in the fact that nobody's daughter has managed to live through this while keeping her celebrity skin. Good for you, sister.
Sumo-Pop
April 29, 2010
Has there ever been a more polarizing artist? You will find camps in equal measure that will argue that she is completely authentic or an absolute poser. There are those who think she's a brilliant artist, and there are those who think she's been propped up on the shoulders of a wildly talented suicidal husband. While I fall in the former group, I certainly understand those that disagree.
For Courtney Love is a train wreck. She is a colossal drug abuser, an unfit wife and mother, a grandstanding, self-promoting starf***er, who has produced more cringe-worthy moments than anyone this side of Britney Spears over the last decade. Still, I cling to the idea that one day she might be able to get her shit together.
Why? well, because I consider her back to back releases Live Through This and Celebrity Skin, with her band Hole to be stone cold classics. Yes, I know Kurt had a lot to do with the former and Billy Corgan with the latter, but neither of them sang for her or wrote her lyrics. That scorched earth, take no prisoners sound in her voice is as good as it gets when it comes to rock vocalists--man or woman. And her darkly confessional (and often quite funny) lyrics could only spring from one source.
I also find her pretty sympathetic. Raised in a broken home, Love's parents split when she was three years old. Her mother got full custody of her by claiming that Courtney's father had given her LSD. While there was never any proof to this allegation, it gives you an idea of the animosity and dysfunction that Love grew up around. Hell, years later Love's own father implied that she may have had something to do with Cobain's death. Dad of the year, he is not.
Love left home at a young age (can you blame her?) and bounced around in communes, enrolled and then dropped out of Portland State University and supported herself by stripping in seedy night clubs before starting a band. Hole was eventually signed to the indie label, Caroline which released their debut, Pretty On The Inside in 1991. Love met Cobain in 1990, and after several false starts, they became an item. The two misfits bonded over their shared love of music and similarly difficult backgrounds. They were married on February 24, 1992.
If ever there was a more star crossed romance, its hard to think of one. Whitney and Bobby? Please. Britney and Justin? No way. Sid and Nancy? Now we're getting warm. Kurt was an incredibly sensitive soul who lacked the ambition for the fame and adulation that was thrust upon him after Nirvana's seminal release, Nevermind in 1991. Ill-equipped for the scrutiny that comes with being "the voice of a generation," Kurt began to implode. He followed up Nevermind with the willfully uncommercial (but still great) In Utero in 1993. Soon after, Kurt's drug abuse started to take over his life. There were canceled shows, at least one overdose, and continued reports of erratic behavior. Finally, the broken boy took his own life with a shotgun in April of 1994.
Of course, Love was probably not the best person to be with if you were a suicidally depressed drug addict. Prone to wild moods swings and having a taste for narcotics herself, I'm sure Love was quite the enabler. She didn't help her reputation much after Kurt's death when she would play out her anger at him during Hole concerts the following year. I was at one of those shows when Love started railing against Cobain, calling him an "asshole" for leaving her and such. And I can tell you the hostility that came from certain segments of the crowd was palpable. However, while I do believe there was more than a little manipulation going on here, It was also quite riveting. You had the sense while watching her that she might just crumple to the ground in a heap. It was just as likely as the odds of her giving a great performance. High drama it was, and Love is nothing if not a drama queen.
Despite her grief and drug addictions (cocaine was her fav), Love managed to pull herself together for a three year stretch from 1996 to 1999. She gave a brilliant performance as Larry Flynt's wife, Althea in one of my all time favorite movies, The People Vs. Larry Flynt. One of the great travesties in Oscar history was her lack of a nomination. I suppose they felt that playing a drug addicted stripper was no stretch for Love, but that isn't fair. She was electrifying onscreen and created a wholly original performance. Whatever, good is good.
Love followed up this triumph with Hole's great album, Celebrity Skin in 1998. Slicker, and more radio friendly than Live Through This, Skin was still packed with great tunes. And for my money is actually the better album.
Unfortunately, this brief period of physical and mental health was followed by one of the most harrowing public slides into the abyss that I've ever seen. First she broke up her band. She then started hitting the drugs at a frightening rate. Which lead to new displays of public instability. Her weight fluctuated between slightly overweight to skeletal, and she eventually lost custody of the daughter she had with Cobain, Frances.
During the twelve years between Celebrity Skin and this week's Nobody's Daughter, Love only managed to put out a single solo album. The much derided (unfairly, I think), America's Sweetheart. She was clearly spinning off the rails.
So, when I heard that she was forming a new version of Hole and would be releasing a new album, my expectations were dubious at best. Still, due to my unwavering loyalty to the mad woman, I picked up Nobody's Daughter the day it came out and gave it a good quality listen while appropriately managing my standards. And you know what? Its pretty damn good. While certainly not on the level of Live Through This or Celebrity Skin, there are several songs that echo those past glories. "Skinny Little Bitch" snarls and rocks just like you would expect it to with a title like that. And "Pacific Coast Highway" brings to mind the lovely "Malibu" from Skin.
Despite the solid nature of the record, I approached her appearance on David Letterman's show last Tuesday with more than a little trepidation. Would she flake out? Would Dave be nice? How would they sound live? The answers--to my pleasant surprise--were no, yes, and quite solid.
She came off about as normal as I've seen her since her salad days of 1996-1999. She was witty and charming while answering Dave's polite entreaties regarding her "lost" years. Her new band was strong as was her voice. Of course, this could all come crashing down at any moment. She is a mentally unstable drug addict after all. Even she admits that "it takes a village" to keep her straight.
But for now, straight she is. Clean and sober with a fine new record to promote. Sure, the years of abuse and too much plastic surgery have ravaged her body and her mind. I certainly doubt her ability to ever be "classic" Courtney Love ever again. But maybe that's just as well. Maybe this new, more modest version can lead a relatively healthy life. As the patron whatever of lost causes, I definitely hope so. For now though, I will simply take pleasure in the fact that nobody's daughter has managed to live through this while keeping her celebrity skin. Good for you, sister.
Sumo-Pop
April 29, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Who Are You And What In The Hell Have You Done With John McCain?
"I never considered myself a maverick." --John McCain, April 5, 2010
Say what? John McCain is no maverick? Interesting. Especially considering the fact that his campaign jet was called "The Maverick," that he and Sarah Palin threw the word around like nobody's business during his failed presidential bid. He even co-wrote a book titled: Worth The Fighting For: The Education Of An American Maverick in 2002.
So what happened? Well, the Tea Party happened. Now, due to that grass roots movement, McCain is facing a serious challenge in the Republican primary for his Senate seat from former House Representative and current conservative talk radio host, J.D. Hayworth. Being a "Maverick" in the Republican Party is no longer an asset in 2010. By the way, have you seen this Hayworth guy? With his sneering mug, pointy eyebrows, and permanent smirk, this is a guy that McCain should wipe the floor with. Throw in Hayworth's connections to disgraced and imprisoned lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, and in any other year this would be a no-contest. However, in 2010 you have to be far, far right to make it out of your primary if you're a member of the GOP (see Charlie Crist). Current polling data has Hayworth within 5 points of McCain, and even worse McCain's support is under 50%.
McCain's response to this insurgent candidate has been to leave behind everything that made him John McCain.
There was a time--not so long ago--when John McCain was the hottest thing going in politics. In 2000, McCain challenged George Bush for the Republican nomination to become President of the United States. Bush was considered the favorite early on, but after McCain won the New Hampshire primary, there was a brief window where it looked like McCain just might pull the upset. Then, Karl Rove stepped up the attacks on McCain. Even going so far as to float a rumor that McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter, Bridget, was sired out of wedlock with a black woman (oh, the horror). Which besides from being completely untrue, wasn't even racially accurate. I guess from Rove's perspective all brown people look alike.
That nasty bit of business damaged McCain as they headed into the South Carolina primary. This is when McCain showed his first moments of moral flexibility when it came to campaigning. The thing that many--including myself--liked about the 2000 McCain was his willingness to cross the aisle and work with the other side. He seemed to have real convictions, and wasn't afraid to ruffle his party if it was a matter of principle. However, just prior to the Palmetto State primary, the issue of the Confederate flag raised its ugly head. In 2000, the "Southern Cross" was still flying above the capital building in Columbia, SC. McCain had been on record saying that he believed the flag symbolized tyranny and should be taken down. Unfortunately, when faced with a pivotal primary, McCain did an "about face" and said the issue was one of state's rights. Whether you agree with that point or not is immaterial. McCain had turned his back on what he professed to believe, and it wouldn't be the last time. Of course, McCain was thrashed by Bush in South Carolina. When faced with the option of a guy who sounded like he was from the south and a guy trying to sound like he was from dixie, the voters of South Carolina went with the accent.
Still, McCain seemed to learn from the incident and has often referred to it as a mistake. Fair enough. And when you throw in the honorable and extraordinary service that McCain has given this country, most of us were willing to cut him some slack. Not many people can say that they literally bled for their country, but as a Vietnam P.O.W., McCain can.
So, when McCain was making his second run for President in 2008, he was both the candidate that scared Democrats the most, but also the one who they most respected. As the campaign wore on and McCain staged a relatively dramatic comeback to win his party's nomination, he looked genuinely formidable running against Barack Obama, thanks to his sway with independents. Sure, he had compromised his position on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy--he had at one time said they "offended" him--but these things happen in a campaign. Nixon once said something to the effect of, during the primary you cater to your base and during the general election you run to the center. However, when it came time to turn to the Presidential election, McCain was struggling with a disenchanted base that was demoralized by the incompetence of the Bush years. In addition, cultural conservatives have always had mixed feelings about McCain due in part to his "Maverick" nature and his support of campaign finance reform. This lead the McCain campaign to a decision that can only be described as the hailiest of hail mary's, Sarah Palin.
When the McCain team was readying a choice for a Vice Presidential nominee, the Independent Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman was McCain's first choice. The former Democrat had campaigned hard for McCain, and the Senator from Arizona liked the idea of a bi-partisan ticket. McCain's advisers saw things differently. They were concerned with Lieberman's pro-choice position on abortion, and simply didn't see how the reedy voiced, Mr. Rogers-esque Senator would add any juice to their campaign (let's face it, he didn't do much for Al Gore in 2000). So, they talked McCain into choosing Sarah Palin. A half-term Governor of Alaska who he had only met briefly on one occasion at a conference. McCain followed up with what has been referred to as a 15 minute phone call with the Governor before making his decision.
For about three weeks, it looked like a stroke of genius. Palin delivered a divisive barn burner of a speech at the Republican convention, and fired up the conservative base like nobody's business. The polls began to swing back McCain's way, and for almost a month, he was the front runner. Then, Sarah Palin was interviewed by Katie Couric, and the worst fears of the McCain team came to fruition. The former beauty queen from Wasilla could scarcely answer a question without tying herself into verbal knots. Questions from "What past Supreme Court judgements do you disagree with?" to simply "What do you read?" were beyond her grasp. Now, stuck with a running mate whose deepest thoughts on foreign policy were "I can see Russia from my house," (or was that Tina Fey--does it even matter?) McCain was forced to double down on his base as the middle started to creep back towards Barack Obama. He turned Palin loose at rallies where she encouraged the belief that Obama was "palling around with terrorists," and was a "socialist." It wasn't until a town hall meeting where an elderly lady referred to Obama as a "Muslim" (as if that in itself would be a bad thing), that the old McCain re-emerged. McCain gently took the microphone away from the woman and corrected her politely. Too damn late. The crowd in attendance actually booed their own candidate down as he referred to Obama as "...a good family man."
The catastrophic addition of Palin to the ticket along with his erratic behavior during the financial melt down and his surly demeanor in the three presidential debates cast the die on his presidential aspirations. On election day, he was walloped in an electoral landslide by the Senator from Illinois.
Many had hopes that the old McCain would be back in full force after the campaign. His concession speech was indeed one of the most gracious moments of the whole campaign...on either side.
Then came the Tea Party movement and the challenge by J.D. Hayworth. And McCain has leapt the rails. Here are just three examples:
--For the first time ever, he voted against a Supreme Court nominee (Sonia Sotomayor) after publicly implying that he would vote for a mainstream candidate. By most reasonable people's estimation, Sotomayor is certainly that. Even Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and seven other Republicans joined the Democrats in confirming her.
--He had at one time said that he would consider supporting the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" as long as the military brass would do so as well. By and large, they now do, but that's no longer good enough for McCain.
--He now supports a new law in Arizona that would require local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are in the country illegally. Forget the fact that it's racial profiling. That would be bad enough. But there is no way it's even constitutional! Who is the law made for? I'm guessing, just maybe, the Hispanic population. Does anyone expect police officers to stop whitey and ask them for their credentials? It's a plainly racist bill that singles out a minority group for harassment. What's next, the return of Jim Crow? Not to mention, this is a complete and utter betrayal of McCain's former position on immigration.
Once upon a time, he partnered with Teddy Kennedy to produce a humane, forward thinking immigration bill that dealt with illegals in a sensible way. He and Kennedy wanted to create a path to citizenship for those already here while shoring up the borders at the same time. After taking a beating from the right, McCain walked away from his own proposal, going as far to say that he wouldn't even vote for it if it came to the Senate floor. Which is pretty astounding when you think about it. But now, he wants police to have the right to walk up to any suspicious (read: brown) citizen and lock 'em up if they don't have their driver's license on them. Horrible. Of course, this new bill doesn't even deal with the real source of illegal immigration: Those that knowingly hire them for shit wages. There isn't a single sentence in this new bill that deals with those who create a market for illegal immigration. Why? Because those people vote and this is a chicken shit bill created to win elections, not to solve problems.
Which used to be the thing that John McCain stood against. I probably wouldn't have voted for McCain over Gore in 2000--- were that the choice---but I would have thought about it. And I certainly wouldn't have taken a long walk off a short pier had McCain gotten past Bush and Gore and became President.
However, this new John McCain is a whole other story. His positions have changed so much, that he rivals BullMitt Romney when it comes to consistency of political position. He's even more or less declared himself to be on strike. After the passage of the final health care bill, McCain declared there would be "no more cooperation for the rest of the year!" To which, I have two questions. First, does that mean you aren't going to do any more work? Because if that's so, why not just retire and live off your wife's money? And secondly, what cooperation are you talking about? Right now he carries the flag for obstructionism and has done so ever since the Obama inauguration. Talk about an empty threat. Can you take away something you never gave?
Now, McCain has been reduced to groveling for votes by taking positions that are hard to believe he would ever stand for under any other circumstance. It was painful to watch him call upon Sarah Palin to campaign for him against Hayworth. This prematurely retired Governor who he plucked from obscurity and gave a national platform to. Watching his wife, Cindy grimace through her introduction of "Miss Alaska" was brutal. And then to see McCain stand behind her with a plastered, fake-ass grin on his face as she made jokes about his age? Truly awful. As much as I disagree with him on various points, I believe he deserves a better ending.
Or, at least I used to. The sad fact is, I actually half-agree with McCain when he says he is no "Maverick." Hell, he's not even John McCain anymore. That guy died almost two years ago. May he, along with his former dignity, rest in peace.
Sumo-Pop
April 23, 2010
Say what? John McCain is no maverick? Interesting. Especially considering the fact that his campaign jet was called "The Maverick," that he and Sarah Palin threw the word around like nobody's business during his failed presidential bid. He even co-wrote a book titled: Worth The Fighting For: The Education Of An American Maverick in 2002.
So what happened? Well, the Tea Party happened. Now, due to that grass roots movement, McCain is facing a serious challenge in the Republican primary for his Senate seat from former House Representative and current conservative talk radio host, J.D. Hayworth. Being a "Maverick" in the Republican Party is no longer an asset in 2010. By the way, have you seen this Hayworth guy? With his sneering mug, pointy eyebrows, and permanent smirk, this is a guy that McCain should wipe the floor with. Throw in Hayworth's connections to disgraced and imprisoned lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, and in any other year this would be a no-contest. However, in 2010 you have to be far, far right to make it out of your primary if you're a member of the GOP (see Charlie Crist). Current polling data has Hayworth within 5 points of McCain, and even worse McCain's support is under 50%.
McCain's response to this insurgent candidate has been to leave behind everything that made him John McCain.
There was a time--not so long ago--when John McCain was the hottest thing going in politics. In 2000, McCain challenged George Bush for the Republican nomination to become President of the United States. Bush was considered the favorite early on, but after McCain won the New Hampshire primary, there was a brief window where it looked like McCain just might pull the upset. Then, Karl Rove stepped up the attacks on McCain. Even going so far as to float a rumor that McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter, Bridget, was sired out of wedlock with a black woman (oh, the horror). Which besides from being completely untrue, wasn't even racially accurate. I guess from Rove's perspective all brown people look alike.
That nasty bit of business damaged McCain as they headed into the South Carolina primary. This is when McCain showed his first moments of moral flexibility when it came to campaigning. The thing that many--including myself--liked about the 2000 McCain was his willingness to cross the aisle and work with the other side. He seemed to have real convictions, and wasn't afraid to ruffle his party if it was a matter of principle. However, just prior to the Palmetto State primary, the issue of the Confederate flag raised its ugly head. In 2000, the "Southern Cross" was still flying above the capital building in Columbia, SC. McCain had been on record saying that he believed the flag symbolized tyranny and should be taken down. Unfortunately, when faced with a pivotal primary, McCain did an "about face" and said the issue was one of state's rights. Whether you agree with that point or not is immaterial. McCain had turned his back on what he professed to believe, and it wouldn't be the last time. Of course, McCain was thrashed by Bush in South Carolina. When faced with the option of a guy who sounded like he was from the south and a guy trying to sound like he was from dixie, the voters of South Carolina went with the accent.
Still, McCain seemed to learn from the incident and has often referred to it as a mistake. Fair enough. And when you throw in the honorable and extraordinary service that McCain has given this country, most of us were willing to cut him some slack. Not many people can say that they literally bled for their country, but as a Vietnam P.O.W., McCain can.
So, when McCain was making his second run for President in 2008, he was both the candidate that scared Democrats the most, but also the one who they most respected. As the campaign wore on and McCain staged a relatively dramatic comeback to win his party's nomination, he looked genuinely formidable running against Barack Obama, thanks to his sway with independents. Sure, he had compromised his position on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy--he had at one time said they "offended" him--but these things happen in a campaign. Nixon once said something to the effect of, during the primary you cater to your base and during the general election you run to the center. However, when it came time to turn to the Presidential election, McCain was struggling with a disenchanted base that was demoralized by the incompetence of the Bush years. In addition, cultural conservatives have always had mixed feelings about McCain due in part to his "Maverick" nature and his support of campaign finance reform. This lead the McCain campaign to a decision that can only be described as the hailiest of hail mary's, Sarah Palin.
When the McCain team was readying a choice for a Vice Presidential nominee, the Independent Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman was McCain's first choice. The former Democrat had campaigned hard for McCain, and the Senator from Arizona liked the idea of a bi-partisan ticket. McCain's advisers saw things differently. They were concerned with Lieberman's pro-choice position on abortion, and simply didn't see how the reedy voiced, Mr. Rogers-esque Senator would add any juice to their campaign (let's face it, he didn't do much for Al Gore in 2000). So, they talked McCain into choosing Sarah Palin. A half-term Governor of Alaska who he had only met briefly on one occasion at a conference. McCain followed up with what has been referred to as a 15 minute phone call with the Governor before making his decision.
For about three weeks, it looked like a stroke of genius. Palin delivered a divisive barn burner of a speech at the Republican convention, and fired up the conservative base like nobody's business. The polls began to swing back McCain's way, and for almost a month, he was the front runner. Then, Sarah Palin was interviewed by Katie Couric, and the worst fears of the McCain team came to fruition. The former beauty queen from Wasilla could scarcely answer a question without tying herself into verbal knots. Questions from "What past Supreme Court judgements do you disagree with?" to simply "What do you read?" were beyond her grasp. Now, stuck with a running mate whose deepest thoughts on foreign policy were "I can see Russia from my house," (or was that Tina Fey--does it even matter?) McCain was forced to double down on his base as the middle started to creep back towards Barack Obama. He turned Palin loose at rallies where she encouraged the belief that Obama was "palling around with terrorists," and was a "socialist." It wasn't until a town hall meeting where an elderly lady referred to Obama as a "Muslim" (as if that in itself would be a bad thing), that the old McCain re-emerged. McCain gently took the microphone away from the woman and corrected her politely. Too damn late. The crowd in attendance actually booed their own candidate down as he referred to Obama as "...a good family man."
The catastrophic addition of Palin to the ticket along with his erratic behavior during the financial melt down and his surly demeanor in the three presidential debates cast the die on his presidential aspirations. On election day, he was walloped in an electoral landslide by the Senator from Illinois.
Many had hopes that the old McCain would be back in full force after the campaign. His concession speech was indeed one of the most gracious moments of the whole campaign...on either side.
Then came the Tea Party movement and the challenge by J.D. Hayworth. And McCain has leapt the rails. Here are just three examples:
--For the first time ever, he voted against a Supreme Court nominee (Sonia Sotomayor) after publicly implying that he would vote for a mainstream candidate. By most reasonable people's estimation, Sotomayor is certainly that. Even Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and seven other Republicans joined the Democrats in confirming her.
--He had at one time said that he would consider supporting the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" as long as the military brass would do so as well. By and large, they now do, but that's no longer good enough for McCain.
--He now supports a new law in Arizona that would require local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are in the country illegally. Forget the fact that it's racial profiling. That would be bad enough. But there is no way it's even constitutional! Who is the law made for? I'm guessing, just maybe, the Hispanic population. Does anyone expect police officers to stop whitey and ask them for their credentials? It's a plainly racist bill that singles out a minority group for harassment. What's next, the return of Jim Crow? Not to mention, this is a complete and utter betrayal of McCain's former position on immigration.
Once upon a time, he partnered with Teddy Kennedy to produce a humane, forward thinking immigration bill that dealt with illegals in a sensible way. He and Kennedy wanted to create a path to citizenship for those already here while shoring up the borders at the same time. After taking a beating from the right, McCain walked away from his own proposal, going as far to say that he wouldn't even vote for it if it came to the Senate floor. Which is pretty astounding when you think about it. But now, he wants police to have the right to walk up to any suspicious (read: brown) citizen and lock 'em up if they don't have their driver's license on them. Horrible. Of course, this new bill doesn't even deal with the real source of illegal immigration: Those that knowingly hire them for shit wages. There isn't a single sentence in this new bill that deals with those who create a market for illegal immigration. Why? Because those people vote and this is a chicken shit bill created to win elections, not to solve problems.
Which used to be the thing that John McCain stood against. I probably wouldn't have voted for McCain over Gore in 2000--- were that the choice---but I would have thought about it. And I certainly wouldn't have taken a long walk off a short pier had McCain gotten past Bush and Gore and became President.
However, this new John McCain is a whole other story. His positions have changed so much, that he rivals BullMitt Romney when it comes to consistency of political position. He's even more or less declared himself to be on strike. After the passage of the final health care bill, McCain declared there would be "no more cooperation for the rest of the year!" To which, I have two questions. First, does that mean you aren't going to do any more work? Because if that's so, why not just retire and live off your wife's money? And secondly, what cooperation are you talking about? Right now he carries the flag for obstructionism and has done so ever since the Obama inauguration. Talk about an empty threat. Can you take away something you never gave?
Now, McCain has been reduced to groveling for votes by taking positions that are hard to believe he would ever stand for under any other circumstance. It was painful to watch him call upon Sarah Palin to campaign for him against Hayworth. This prematurely retired Governor who he plucked from obscurity and gave a national platform to. Watching his wife, Cindy grimace through her introduction of "Miss Alaska" was brutal. And then to see McCain stand behind her with a plastered, fake-ass grin on his face as she made jokes about his age? Truly awful. As much as I disagree with him on various points, I believe he deserves a better ending.
Or, at least I used to. The sad fact is, I actually half-agree with McCain when he says he is no "Maverick." Hell, he's not even John McCain anymore. That guy died almost two years ago. May he, along with his former dignity, rest in peace.
Sumo-Pop
April 23, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
At Any Frequency
I have to admit, I thought he was crazy. Several years ago my friend, Tim Williams, told me he was opening a record store in Monticello, Illinois. An independently owned and operated record store? In this environment? I gave him six months.
After years of neglect by the major labels who put all of their promotional muscle into big box stores (Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, etc.) the fate of the indy store was left in a desperate state. Add in the downloading revolution and the deal was pretty much sealed: over the last decade, privately owned record stores have been closing at alarming rates. The slow decline of the physical disc and the mounting recession have imposed a high burden on the indy store. How do you continue when the very thing you sell is literally disappearing?
In 2008--as the big box stores have continued to reduce their footprint for music releases--the record labels began to support a new retail holiday created by an employee of Bull Moose records located in New Hampshire and Maine. The employee, Chris Brown, helped organize all of the independently owned stores for a combined celebration on April 19, 2008. Thus, Record Store Day was born. The holiday was invented as a promotional tool to bring together mom and pop stores and musicians to champion the cause of the indy store. The major labels actually invested in the holiday by creating special vinyl and cd releases that were not available to the big box stores. What a great idea!
And this Saturday, I took part in my first Record Store Day at Tim's store, Any Frequency (cool name, huh?).
Tim and I met in 1994 when I was managing Nightwind's Music and Video in Benton Harbor, Mi. We struck up a fast friendship based on a love of music and similarly esoteric taste. Tim--a terrific DJ--turned me on to dance music, while I like to believe that I fortified his knowledge of alternative rock.
After graduating from college, I left the indy store for the corporate world of Barnes and Noble. About a year later, Tim and his longtime companion, Tina, left Benton Harbor for a career opportunity in the Champagne, Illinois area. Tina, being a gifted veterinarian, was offered a position with the ASPCA that was too good to refuse.
While Tim's DJ career was flourishing in Champagne, he still missed the dusty bins of a record store. He found a small building in Monticello that would work as a start up for his new venture he dubbed, Any Frequency. Starting your own store is a true labor of love. Tim did it all on his own dime, and has gone years without paying himself as he has built his business. Like I said, it's a labor of love.
Despite the distance between South Bend and Monticello, Tim and I have remained good friends. He performed the dual tasks of groomsman and DJ at my wedding. And I don't mind telling you I had the best DJ anyone could ask for, and I got him cheap. Our consistency of contact has been sporadic on occasion, but eventually we always come back around.
In 2006, after my ill-fated (if honorable) run at working in music retail came to an end with my employer, Musicland going out of business, I reached out to Tim so he could buy our fixtures at the low rate that liquidation brings.
On Saturday, I saw those fixtures again, and it made me glad. It was my first visit to Tim's store and before I entered, Tim paused and said "It's a work in progress." Of course, any sole proprietorship is a work in progress. Just ask an owner of one.
Tim has been in his new location only since September of 2009. At a time when most record stores were shuttering their business, Tim chose to move his store to a larger space where he could add a staging area and a digital studio. Because as Tim said, "If the store is going to be successful, it needs to become a destination point."
On Record Store Day, Any Frequency was indeed a destination point. Through clever persistence, Tim secured in-store performances from blues queen, Shannon Curfman, and New York trip-hop duo, Phantogram. Both of whom have charted in Billboard magazine.
Curfman's own career in some ways echoes that of the indy store. She started out as a teen aged blues guitar wunderkind on a major label (Arista) in 1999, but now pursues her profession on a self started indy label called Purdy. As the major labels continue to shrink their rosters, talented artists like Curfman have been left out as the companies chase the next big thing and move away from niche artists.
Curfman certainly hasn't lost a thing. Her fierce five song set--replete with scorching guitar licks--lured in passers by and increased traffic in the store. After her set, Curfman hung around for photos and autographs with fans new and old.
In some ways, Phantogram provided a distinct counter point to Curfman's roots based five piece band. The duo supported by one guitar, a keyboard, and pre-recorded drum loops and effects, proved you could make a vibrant impression with minimal accompaniment. Clever beats, sharp guitar work, and moody synths provided the backdrop for the haunting voice of Keyboardist, Sarah Barthel and the earthier tones of guitarist, Josh Carter. Mixing shoe-gazer vocals with danceable grooves, Phantogram had the crowd of younger folk dancing and bobbing their heads as strobe lights and filmed background sequences added to the flavor of their performance. Signed to Barsuk Records out of Seattle (Death Cab For Cutie's original label), Phantogram is a group that we can expect great things from in the future. Remember, you heard it here first.
Tim had to leave shortly after the Phantogram set to DJ a private party. He had to have been cheered by the day his store had enjoyed. As one of Tim's very knowledgeable employees said, "We made serious bank today." Overhearing this put a smile on my face. Of course, Tim knows he'll need more days like this. Everyday isn't Record Store Day after all. But he has a plan, and it's a good one. Expansion of his vinyl business is going well, and the event space, as well as the possibility of a digital studio hold great promise.
Believe me, running a record store in this day and age takes courage, and more than a little crazy. Two qualities which Tim has in full supply. Long may you run, my friend. Long may you run.
Sumo-Pop
April 19, 2010
After years of neglect by the major labels who put all of their promotional muscle into big box stores (Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, etc.) the fate of the indy store was left in a desperate state. Add in the downloading revolution and the deal was pretty much sealed: over the last decade, privately owned record stores have been closing at alarming rates. The slow decline of the physical disc and the mounting recession have imposed a high burden on the indy store. How do you continue when the very thing you sell is literally disappearing?
In 2008--as the big box stores have continued to reduce their footprint for music releases--the record labels began to support a new retail holiday created by an employee of Bull Moose records located in New Hampshire and Maine. The employee, Chris Brown, helped organize all of the independently owned stores for a combined celebration on April 19, 2008. Thus, Record Store Day was born. The holiday was invented as a promotional tool to bring together mom and pop stores and musicians to champion the cause of the indy store. The major labels actually invested in the holiday by creating special vinyl and cd releases that were not available to the big box stores. What a great idea!
And this Saturday, I took part in my first Record Store Day at Tim's store, Any Frequency (cool name, huh?).
Tim and I met in 1994 when I was managing Nightwind's Music and Video in Benton Harbor, Mi. We struck up a fast friendship based on a love of music and similarly esoteric taste. Tim--a terrific DJ--turned me on to dance music, while I like to believe that I fortified his knowledge of alternative rock.
After graduating from college, I left the indy store for the corporate world of Barnes and Noble. About a year later, Tim and his longtime companion, Tina, left Benton Harbor for a career opportunity in the Champagne, Illinois area. Tina, being a gifted veterinarian, was offered a position with the ASPCA that was too good to refuse.
While Tim's DJ career was flourishing in Champagne, he still missed the dusty bins of a record store. He found a small building in Monticello that would work as a start up for his new venture he dubbed, Any Frequency. Starting your own store is a true labor of love. Tim did it all on his own dime, and has gone years without paying himself as he has built his business. Like I said, it's a labor of love.
Despite the distance between South Bend and Monticello, Tim and I have remained good friends. He performed the dual tasks of groomsman and DJ at my wedding. And I don't mind telling you I had the best DJ anyone could ask for, and I got him cheap. Our consistency of contact has been sporadic on occasion, but eventually we always come back around.
In 2006, after my ill-fated (if honorable) run at working in music retail came to an end with my employer, Musicland going out of business, I reached out to Tim so he could buy our fixtures at the low rate that liquidation brings.
On Saturday, I saw those fixtures again, and it made me glad. It was my first visit to Tim's store and before I entered, Tim paused and said "It's a work in progress." Of course, any sole proprietorship is a work in progress. Just ask an owner of one.
Tim has been in his new location only since September of 2009. At a time when most record stores were shuttering their business, Tim chose to move his store to a larger space where he could add a staging area and a digital studio. Because as Tim said, "If the store is going to be successful, it needs to become a destination point."
On Record Store Day, Any Frequency was indeed a destination point. Through clever persistence, Tim secured in-store performances from blues queen, Shannon Curfman, and New York trip-hop duo, Phantogram. Both of whom have charted in Billboard magazine.
Curfman's own career in some ways echoes that of the indy store. She started out as a teen aged blues guitar wunderkind on a major label (Arista) in 1999, but now pursues her profession on a self started indy label called Purdy. As the major labels continue to shrink their rosters, talented artists like Curfman have been left out as the companies chase the next big thing and move away from niche artists.
Curfman certainly hasn't lost a thing. Her fierce five song set--replete with scorching guitar licks--lured in passers by and increased traffic in the store. After her set, Curfman hung around for photos and autographs with fans new and old.
In some ways, Phantogram provided a distinct counter point to Curfman's roots based five piece band. The duo supported by one guitar, a keyboard, and pre-recorded drum loops and effects, proved you could make a vibrant impression with minimal accompaniment. Clever beats, sharp guitar work, and moody synths provided the backdrop for the haunting voice of Keyboardist, Sarah Barthel and the earthier tones of guitarist, Josh Carter. Mixing shoe-gazer vocals with danceable grooves, Phantogram had the crowd of younger folk dancing and bobbing their heads as strobe lights and filmed background sequences added to the flavor of their performance. Signed to Barsuk Records out of Seattle (Death Cab For Cutie's original label), Phantogram is a group that we can expect great things from in the future. Remember, you heard it here first.
Tim had to leave shortly after the Phantogram set to DJ a private party. He had to have been cheered by the day his store had enjoyed. As one of Tim's very knowledgeable employees said, "We made serious bank today." Overhearing this put a smile on my face. Of course, Tim knows he'll need more days like this. Everyday isn't Record Store Day after all. But he has a plan, and it's a good one. Expansion of his vinyl business is going well, and the event space, as well as the possibility of a digital studio hold great promise.
Believe me, running a record store in this day and age takes courage, and more than a little crazy. Two qualities which Tim has in full supply. Long may you run, my friend. Long may you run.
Sumo-Pop
April 19, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
The 'L' Word
In response this week to my column on the benefits of legalizing marijuana, one of my friends good heartedly hurled an insult at me in response. His intent was in no way malicious, and was meant merely as a poke and not a stab. Because I was unable to ascertain his tone in his message, I overreacted and became very defensive--which I regret. So what did he call me? He called me a "Liberal!"
I didn't take offense because it's untrue (it's certainly not), I took offense because the word has become a reflexive pejorative. Nowadays, being called a liberal is only a baby step below racist or pedophile.
And why is that?
Well, for one, conservative talk show hosts and media types have done a fantastic job of demonizing the term since the Clinton Administration. Folks like Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck, and the rest of FOX News have brilliantly pigeon holed liberals--and even moderates--as god hating, gay loving, anti-American, buffoons who swing naked from the chandelier as soon as you turn your back on them. Eventually, as this perception began to take hold with a large--and rather vocal--minority, even conservative politicians have waded in with a similar opinion. John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Dick Cheney have no issues marginalizing or demonizing those on the left. Cries of "Armageddon," "You Lie!," and "Baby killer" have all been directed at Democrats/Liberals from the floor of congress. I'm just waiting for the bumper sticker that says "The only good liberal is a dead liberal."
Now, I'm not saying that those on the left in the media don't do the same to those on the right. However, either the left isn't as good at it, or they just don't do it as much. Because if they did, Republicans would run from the term "conservative" the way Democrats scurry away from the word "liberal." No! Not that! Anything but that! In fact, it's gone so far that left-leaning Democrats now call themselves "progressives." Because who doesn't like progress?
One of the things I find most frustrating with this semantic fear, is that history is filled with those who could be called "liberal" and have made a great, positive impact on society. People like Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Who as President of these United States led us safely through a depression and the eventual defeat of Hitler's Nazi Germany. He created the "New Deal" and Social Security. Not bad. Or how about Martin Luther King Jr. who changed this country's ideas about race and equality through the Civil Rights movement of the 60's? I'll take him. Or even recently, from another country altogether---Nelson Mandela. Who was jailed as a radical and a left wing terrorist by the heinous Apartheid regime of South Africa. A man who when finally released from prison over 27 years later, not only won an election to become President of his country, but found a way to heal his broken land through a process of reconciliation that allowed the oppressed and the oppressors to find a path to healing. He just might be the greatest person of the 20th century. And he--like Roosevelt and King--were/are liberals.
Of course, I've obviously cherry picked the best of the best to suit my reasoning. And I know that there are numerous examples of liberals that are far less forgiving. Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, and Louis Farrakhan come to mind. But what I would say, is that there has been more than one occasion when people like me have been on the right side of history. Whether it's Civil Rights or the Women's Suffragette movement. We're responsible (not solely, of course) for some pretty significant, healthy and democratic change in this country and in others. Not that you would always know it.
I suppose many think that with Barack Obama winning the presidency in 08, that we should be satisfied with our new "liberal" President. And I do like Obama very much. But let me say this: He's not particularly liberal. I know some may gasp at this statement, but let me explain. While I do think Obama has the heart of a liberal, he has the actions of a pragmatist. Which I think is fine. Too often politicians dig into their positions so deeply that they let "great" be the enemy of the "good." To give some specific examples of why I don't think the 44th President is all that wild-eyed, let me offer these:
--As part of the Stimulus Bill, he lowered taxes for 98% of Americans.
--He doubled down on Afghanistan.
--He opened up oil exploration along our coasts.
--Health Care Reform had no public option in it, and in fact, mirrored the bill created in Massachusetts by that noted socialist, Mitt Romney.
--He signed an executive order that guaranteed that the Hyde Amendment would be strictly applied to the new Health Care Reform bill, disallowing government funding of abortions.
--He has three Republicans in his cabinet, and would have a fourth if Judd Gregg hadn't reneged on his acceptance of the Commerce Secretary post.
--He does not favor gay marriage.
--He accepted a compromise on the FISA bill that continues to allow warrantless wire tapping of our citizens as well as granting immunity to telecoms that allowed our government to illegaly listen in on their customers.
--And lastly, he hasn't pushed for a single prosecution of those that committed or ordered illegal torturing of suspected terrorists.
Now, if I were to take Obama's name off of that list and just say candidate 'X' holds these positions, would you still think him liberal? Hell, I am a liberal and I don't agree with 2/3 of this list. And if it takes one to know one, then I'm here to tell ya, he ain't one.
Of course, many will disagree with me and find some liberal views of his that support their argument. However, all the items listed above are facts. And facts can be stubborn things. They can be covered up, but they never really go away.
Yeah, I still like my left leaning President very much even though I may not hold all the same positions as he does, or I may not like a particular policy that he has instituted. But as a true liberal, I do recognize that he's about the best that I could hope for. He doesn't seem to think the word "liberal" is a bad thing, he's certainly not insulting to my kind, and sometimes, he even listens to us. So, I'll take that.
Unfortunately, believing in a liberal ideology isn't often all that well accepted. But just so I'm clear, here are some things that I believe:
--No one should die or go broke because they can't afford health care.
--Global warming is real. And even if it isn't, shouldn't a cleaner, healthier world be a goal? Not to mention using new technologies to get ourselves off of foreign energy sources?
--The death penalty should be abolished.
--I am no fan of abortion, but I never want to see us go back to the days of coat hangers and back alleys.
--That if you want people in urban areas to say "no" to drugs, then you must give them something to say "yes" to.
--Although we have come a long way in terms of race relations, we still have far to go. Which makes affirmative action a necessity.
--A corporation is not a person and should not have the rights of one.
--The sins of slavery, internment camps, and the near total destruction of the American Indian must never be forgotten.
--That there is no good legal reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry.
--A strong defense is a must, but so is diplomacy.
--What happens in other countries matters.
--That an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of punishment.
--That marijuana should be legal. Not because I like it, but because it is no worse than alcohol.
--Fox News is unfair and unbalanced.
--That church and state should remain separate. The co-mingling of the two hasn't done much for the reputation of either.
--That unfettered capitalism is a bad thing.
--That calling someone a socialist or a Nazi when you don't understand the word is not only stupid but dangerous.
--That we should be above torture. Because in the end, its not about them its about us, and who we want to be.
--Habeas Corpus must be restored.
--We can try suspected terrorists in criminal courts without fear. They aren't super heroes, they're thugs.
--It should not have taken us 3 days to get to New Orleans after Katrina, and the President should not have been on vacation when the storm hit.
--If you want someone to respect your religion, you can start by respecting theirs.
--Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are war criminals.
--Banks and health insurance companies are the devil.
--The stimulus saved lives and Health Care Reform will too.
--Ignorance is bad, but being willfully uninformed is irresponsible.
--You can disagree without being disagreeable (although I fail at this more than I would like to admit).
--Animal cruelty should be a felony, and Michael Vick should still be in jail.
--And U2 is the greatest band of all time.
I don't believe any of this makes me a bad person. In fact, overall I think I'm a pretty good egg. And liberal or not, you might actually miss me if I weren't around. However, the next time someone calls me a "Liberal" with the intent of perjuring my reputation as a decent human being, I will not take it well. Friend or foe, you have been warned.
Sumo-Pop
April 16, 2010
I didn't take offense because it's untrue (it's certainly not), I took offense because the word has become a reflexive pejorative. Nowadays, being called a liberal is only a baby step below racist or pedophile.
And why is that?
Well, for one, conservative talk show hosts and media types have done a fantastic job of demonizing the term since the Clinton Administration. Folks like Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck, and the rest of FOX News have brilliantly pigeon holed liberals--and even moderates--as god hating, gay loving, anti-American, buffoons who swing naked from the chandelier as soon as you turn your back on them. Eventually, as this perception began to take hold with a large--and rather vocal--minority, even conservative politicians have waded in with a similar opinion. John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Dick Cheney have no issues marginalizing or demonizing those on the left. Cries of "Armageddon," "You Lie!," and "Baby killer" have all been directed at Democrats/Liberals from the floor of congress. I'm just waiting for the bumper sticker that says "The only good liberal is a dead liberal."
Now, I'm not saying that those on the left in the media don't do the same to those on the right. However, either the left isn't as good at it, or they just don't do it as much. Because if they did, Republicans would run from the term "conservative" the way Democrats scurry away from the word "liberal." No! Not that! Anything but that! In fact, it's gone so far that left-leaning Democrats now call themselves "progressives." Because who doesn't like progress?
One of the things I find most frustrating with this semantic fear, is that history is filled with those who could be called "liberal" and have made a great, positive impact on society. People like Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Who as President of these United States led us safely through a depression and the eventual defeat of Hitler's Nazi Germany. He created the "New Deal" and Social Security. Not bad. Or how about Martin Luther King Jr. who changed this country's ideas about race and equality through the Civil Rights movement of the 60's? I'll take him. Or even recently, from another country altogether---Nelson Mandela. Who was jailed as a radical and a left wing terrorist by the heinous Apartheid regime of South Africa. A man who when finally released from prison over 27 years later, not only won an election to become President of his country, but found a way to heal his broken land through a process of reconciliation that allowed the oppressed and the oppressors to find a path to healing. He just might be the greatest person of the 20th century. And he--like Roosevelt and King--were/are liberals.
Of course, I've obviously cherry picked the best of the best to suit my reasoning. And I know that there are numerous examples of liberals that are far less forgiving. Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, and Louis Farrakhan come to mind. But what I would say, is that there has been more than one occasion when people like me have been on the right side of history. Whether it's Civil Rights or the Women's Suffragette movement. We're responsible (not solely, of course) for some pretty significant, healthy and democratic change in this country and in others. Not that you would always know it.
I suppose many think that with Barack Obama winning the presidency in 08, that we should be satisfied with our new "liberal" President. And I do like Obama very much. But let me say this: He's not particularly liberal. I know some may gasp at this statement, but let me explain. While I do think Obama has the heart of a liberal, he has the actions of a pragmatist. Which I think is fine. Too often politicians dig into their positions so deeply that they let "great" be the enemy of the "good." To give some specific examples of why I don't think the 44th President is all that wild-eyed, let me offer these:
--As part of the Stimulus Bill, he lowered taxes for 98% of Americans.
--He doubled down on Afghanistan.
--He opened up oil exploration along our coasts.
--Health Care Reform had no public option in it, and in fact, mirrored the bill created in Massachusetts by that noted socialist, Mitt Romney.
--He signed an executive order that guaranteed that the Hyde Amendment would be strictly applied to the new Health Care Reform bill, disallowing government funding of abortions.
--He has three Republicans in his cabinet, and would have a fourth if Judd Gregg hadn't reneged on his acceptance of the Commerce Secretary post.
--He does not favor gay marriage.
--He accepted a compromise on the FISA bill that continues to allow warrantless wire tapping of our citizens as well as granting immunity to telecoms that allowed our government to illegaly listen in on their customers.
--And lastly, he hasn't pushed for a single prosecution of those that committed or ordered illegal torturing of suspected terrorists.
Now, if I were to take Obama's name off of that list and just say candidate 'X' holds these positions, would you still think him liberal? Hell, I am a liberal and I don't agree with 2/3 of this list. And if it takes one to know one, then I'm here to tell ya, he ain't one.
Of course, many will disagree with me and find some liberal views of his that support their argument. However, all the items listed above are facts. And facts can be stubborn things. They can be covered up, but they never really go away.
Yeah, I still like my left leaning President very much even though I may not hold all the same positions as he does, or I may not like a particular policy that he has instituted. But as a true liberal, I do recognize that he's about the best that I could hope for. He doesn't seem to think the word "liberal" is a bad thing, he's certainly not insulting to my kind, and sometimes, he even listens to us. So, I'll take that.
Unfortunately, believing in a liberal ideology isn't often all that well accepted. But just so I'm clear, here are some things that I believe:
--No one should die or go broke because they can't afford health care.
--Global warming is real. And even if it isn't, shouldn't a cleaner, healthier world be a goal? Not to mention using new technologies to get ourselves off of foreign energy sources?
--The death penalty should be abolished.
--I am no fan of abortion, but I never want to see us go back to the days of coat hangers and back alleys.
--That if you want people in urban areas to say "no" to drugs, then you must give them something to say "yes" to.
--Although we have come a long way in terms of race relations, we still have far to go. Which makes affirmative action a necessity.
--A corporation is not a person and should not have the rights of one.
--The sins of slavery, internment camps, and the near total destruction of the American Indian must never be forgotten.
--That there is no good legal reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry.
--A strong defense is a must, but so is diplomacy.
--What happens in other countries matters.
--That an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of punishment.
--That marijuana should be legal. Not because I like it, but because it is no worse than alcohol.
--Fox News is unfair and unbalanced.
--That church and state should remain separate. The co-mingling of the two hasn't done much for the reputation of either.
--That unfettered capitalism is a bad thing.
--That calling someone a socialist or a Nazi when you don't understand the word is not only stupid but dangerous.
--That we should be above torture. Because in the end, its not about them its about us, and who we want to be.
--Habeas Corpus must be restored.
--We can try suspected terrorists in criminal courts without fear. They aren't super heroes, they're thugs.
--It should not have taken us 3 days to get to New Orleans after Katrina, and the President should not have been on vacation when the storm hit.
--If you want someone to respect your religion, you can start by respecting theirs.
--Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are war criminals.
--Banks and health insurance companies are the devil.
--The stimulus saved lives and Health Care Reform will too.
--Ignorance is bad, but being willfully uninformed is irresponsible.
--You can disagree without being disagreeable (although I fail at this more than I would like to admit).
--Animal cruelty should be a felony, and Michael Vick should still be in jail.
--And U2 is the greatest band of all time.
I don't believe any of this makes me a bad person. In fact, overall I think I'm a pretty good egg. And liberal or not, you might actually miss me if I weren't around. However, the next time someone calls me a "Liberal" with the intent of perjuring my reputation as a decent human being, I will not take it well. Friend or foe, you have been warned.
Sumo-Pop
April 16, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Legalize it!
"Prohibition has two effects: on one hand it raises supplier costs, disrupts market functioning and prevents open promotion of the product; on the other, it sacrifices the authorities’ ability to tax transactions and regulate operation of the market, product characteristics and promotional activity of suppliers."---Stephen Pudney, Director of the Institute for Social and Economic Research
This fall's November mid-term elections won't just be fascinating due to the influx of the Tea Party and the reaction by voters to Health Care Reform. So far, most of the media's attention has been focusing on whether the Democrats will be able to hold either house of congress. Obviously, the sturm und drang of the Health Care Reform protests by the Tea Party has taken up most of the coverage with the volume (both kinds) of their dissent. But don't sleep on the California ballot initiative that would fully decriminalize marijuana in the golden state. The result of the measure could be the most fascinating--and significant--outcome.
The argument for ending the prohibition of marijuana has been gathering steam for a few years now. Pot is already legal in 14 states for medicinal use, and the Department of Justice has decided not to aggressively pursue enforcement or convictions based 0n possession. Both of which make a lot of sense. The question that is now before the citizens of California will be: Do they take it one step further?
Well, I hope that they do. The benefits far outweigh the cons. In fact, I would argue that there are very few negatives beyond the psychological, "Oh, we're all going to hell in a hand basket" if we make dope legal. Because here's the thing: Americans love their weed, and you're not going to stop them from hitting the bong. In 2007, it was estimated that between 143-190 million U.S. citizens smoked weed on at least an occasional basis. That's pretty widespread, and the best argument I can think of against prohibition. Why? Because it simply doesn't work. We tried that once with alcohol and how did that work out?
Now, at this point I should probably make it clear: I am no pot head. I have tried it on occasion, but not once in nearly 15 years. I was never particularly good at it in the first place. I never learned how to inhale properly, so I typically just ended up with a dry throat, red eyes, and a sore chest for my efforts. There was one instance where I ate two hash cookies and felt like I was hanging by my toes from a malfunctioning Ferris Wheel for about four hours. Needless to say, I never did that again. So, I'm not suggesting that anyone should use marijuana. Besides not being particularly healthy, as Sam Jackson put it to Bridget Fonda in Quentin Tarantino's Jackie Brown: "That shit's gonna rob you of your ambition." To which she replied: "Not if your ambition is to get high and watch T.V."
In other words, I stand by the idea that getting high is a bad thing. I know some subscribe to the "Gateway Theory" that states that marijuana leads to harder drugs. However, the results of major studies vary from inconclusive to outright opposition to the theory. As far as how damaging it is to your brain, the Clinical EEG Journal (published by the EEG Clinical Neuroscience Society) found that alcohol is far more harmful to your grey matter than weed. So, its time to see marijuana for what it is: A recreational vice on a lower tier than alcohol. And if alcohol is legal, well you can see where I'm going with this.
There are also real economic, legal, and medical benefits to legalization too.
An analysis done by the California NORML group found that a one dollar excise tax on a half gram joint would raise one billion dollars in revenue. Retail taxes could generate $250-400 million more, and the industrial hemp business could grow to rival the $3.4 billion cotton industry. Of course, NORML is in favor of legalizing the cheeba, so their numbers may represent a best case scenario. However, there is no doubt that if they are close with their digits that legalization would create a multi-billion dollar industry that would be a boon to state coffers as well as create many new jobs.
Also, the increased trade with pot producing countries would help stabilize third world economies and curb illegal immigration by creating a new business sector in poor countries. Think of what it would do for Mexico.
As well, it's probably safe to say that the "War On Drugs" has been largely ineffective and poorly administered. In 2008, 49.8% of all drug related arrests were due to marijuana related crimes. Of the 840,000 incarcerations, 750,000 were for simple possession without the intent to sell. Many of these end users have fallen prey to the "Three Strikes" law which requires long mandatory prison sentences for a conviction of a three time felon. This has resulted in a 2:1 ratio of non-violent vs. violent offenders in our prisons. Most of these non-violent criminals are drug users, not dealers. That means we have twice as many addicts/users as murderers, rapists, and kidnappers combined in our already overcrowded penal system. Does this make sense to anyone?
Legalization would also reduce the burdens on our judicial system and police force. Currently, we spend $156 million a year enforcing marijuana possession and distribution laws. We plug up our courts and have cops chasing after stoners. It seems to me their time would be better served tracking down the worst of the worst.
Even more mystifying is the resistance by 36 states to marijuana for medical use. Mary Jane is one of the most effective pain relievers available. It has yielded good results for patients who suffer from migraines, chemotherapy, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, tourette's, as well as the terminally ill. Can anyone tell me with a straight face that marijuana is worse than xanax or paxil? Or, how about valium or vicodin? Not bloody likely. Who in the world would deny a marijuana prescription for the terminally ill? It's not only ridiculous, but inhumane.
Going back to the discussion of alcohol vs. pot, I have some real life experience with this. I spent nine years of my adolescence with an alcoholic. And let me tell you, I would have much rather come home to a burnt out stoner-couch potato, licking his cheeto stained fingers in his boxers than that of a mean drunk. Hands down.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that we make alcohol illegal again. Far from it. As I said before, it doesn't work. But if you want to compare which drug is more destructive, I don't think it's even close. Besides, isn't it time to give up on a strategy that hasn't worked and shows no signs of ever doing so? Isn't it time to give up on failure? Shouldn't we go ahead and do what the late, great reggae artist Peter Tosh advocated in the 70's and "Legalize it!" Then, maybe we could move on to more important stuff. Of which, there is no short supply.
Sumo-Pop
April 11, 2010
This fall's November mid-term elections won't just be fascinating due to the influx of the Tea Party and the reaction by voters to Health Care Reform. So far, most of the media's attention has been focusing on whether the Democrats will be able to hold either house of congress. Obviously, the sturm und drang of the Health Care Reform protests by the Tea Party has taken up most of the coverage with the volume (both kinds) of their dissent. But don't sleep on the California ballot initiative that would fully decriminalize marijuana in the golden state. The result of the measure could be the most fascinating--and significant--outcome.
The argument for ending the prohibition of marijuana has been gathering steam for a few years now. Pot is already legal in 14 states for medicinal use, and the Department of Justice has decided not to aggressively pursue enforcement or convictions based 0n possession. Both of which make a lot of sense. The question that is now before the citizens of California will be: Do they take it one step further?
Well, I hope that they do. The benefits far outweigh the cons. In fact, I would argue that there are very few negatives beyond the psychological, "Oh, we're all going to hell in a hand basket" if we make dope legal. Because here's the thing: Americans love their weed, and you're not going to stop them from hitting the bong. In 2007, it was estimated that between 143-190 million U.S. citizens smoked weed on at least an occasional basis. That's pretty widespread, and the best argument I can think of against prohibition. Why? Because it simply doesn't work. We tried that once with alcohol and how did that work out?
Now, at this point I should probably make it clear: I am no pot head. I have tried it on occasion, but not once in nearly 15 years. I was never particularly good at it in the first place. I never learned how to inhale properly, so I typically just ended up with a dry throat, red eyes, and a sore chest for my efforts. There was one instance where I ate two hash cookies and felt like I was hanging by my toes from a malfunctioning Ferris Wheel for about four hours. Needless to say, I never did that again. So, I'm not suggesting that anyone should use marijuana. Besides not being particularly healthy, as Sam Jackson put it to Bridget Fonda in Quentin Tarantino's Jackie Brown: "That shit's gonna rob you of your ambition." To which she replied: "Not if your ambition is to get high and watch T.V."
In other words, I stand by the idea that getting high is a bad thing. I know some subscribe to the "Gateway Theory" that states that marijuana leads to harder drugs. However, the results of major studies vary from inconclusive to outright opposition to the theory. As far as how damaging it is to your brain, the Clinical EEG Journal (published by the EEG Clinical Neuroscience Society) found that alcohol is far more harmful to your grey matter than weed. So, its time to see marijuana for what it is: A recreational vice on a lower tier than alcohol. And if alcohol is legal, well you can see where I'm going with this.
There are also real economic, legal, and medical benefits to legalization too.
An analysis done by the California NORML group found that a one dollar excise tax on a half gram joint would raise one billion dollars in revenue. Retail taxes could generate $250-400 million more, and the industrial hemp business could grow to rival the $3.4 billion cotton industry. Of course, NORML is in favor of legalizing the cheeba, so their numbers may represent a best case scenario. However, there is no doubt that if they are close with their digits that legalization would create a multi-billion dollar industry that would be a boon to state coffers as well as create many new jobs.
Also, the increased trade with pot producing countries would help stabilize third world economies and curb illegal immigration by creating a new business sector in poor countries. Think of what it would do for Mexico.
As well, it's probably safe to say that the "War On Drugs" has been largely ineffective and poorly administered. In 2008, 49.8% of all drug related arrests were due to marijuana related crimes. Of the 840,000 incarcerations, 750,000 were for simple possession without the intent to sell. Many of these end users have fallen prey to the "Three Strikes" law which requires long mandatory prison sentences for a conviction of a three time felon. This has resulted in a 2:1 ratio of non-violent vs. violent offenders in our prisons. Most of these non-violent criminals are drug users, not dealers. That means we have twice as many addicts/users as murderers, rapists, and kidnappers combined in our already overcrowded penal system. Does this make sense to anyone?
Legalization would also reduce the burdens on our judicial system and police force. Currently, we spend $156 million a year enforcing marijuana possession and distribution laws. We plug up our courts and have cops chasing after stoners. It seems to me their time would be better served tracking down the worst of the worst.
Even more mystifying is the resistance by 36 states to marijuana for medical use. Mary Jane is one of the most effective pain relievers available. It has yielded good results for patients who suffer from migraines, chemotherapy, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, tourette's, as well as the terminally ill. Can anyone tell me with a straight face that marijuana is worse than xanax or paxil? Or, how about valium or vicodin? Not bloody likely. Who in the world would deny a marijuana prescription for the terminally ill? It's not only ridiculous, but inhumane.
Going back to the discussion of alcohol vs. pot, I have some real life experience with this. I spent nine years of my adolescence with an alcoholic. And let me tell you, I would have much rather come home to a burnt out stoner-couch potato, licking his cheeto stained fingers in his boxers than that of a mean drunk. Hands down.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that we make alcohol illegal again. Far from it. As I said before, it doesn't work. But if you want to compare which drug is more destructive, I don't think it's even close. Besides, isn't it time to give up on a strategy that hasn't worked and shows no signs of ever doing so? Isn't it time to give up on failure? Shouldn't we go ahead and do what the late, great reggae artist Peter Tosh advocated in the 70's and "Legalize it!" Then, maybe we could move on to more important stuff. Of which, there is no short supply.
Sumo-Pop
April 11, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Thumbs Down, Finger Up
Well, isn't that just great. After doing everything they could to destroy the venerable At The Movies franchise, Disney announced on March 24th the cancellation of the long running show that launched the television careers of Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert.
The program started way back in 1986, and paired the two critics from competing Chicago newspapers (Siskel--Chicago Tribune, Ebert--Chicago Sun Times), often against one another in a discussion of the week's new movies. They were an odd pair, the balding, lean Siskel and the rumpled, hefty Ebert, and in the early days they didn't get along very well at all. However, despite their lack of TV ready good looks, the often caustic back and forth between the two made for great television. Their terse disagreements over everything from David Lynch's Blue Velvet (Siskel was for, Ebert against) to the otherwise forgettable Burt Reynolds starrer, Cop And A Half (Ebert for--astonishingly, Siskel against), masked the fact that most of the time their thumbs were pointed in the same direction.
Still, they had some great--and frankly hilarious dust ups. Here is a small sample:
[reviewing "Clifford"] Roger Ebert: [surprised] You took... kids to see this? This is the kind of movie where after kids see this, they should see "The Good Son" to cheer themselves up!
Gene Siskel: [criticising Roger's thumbs up for "Gorilla's in the Mist"] You're only saying you like the film because apes and a woman are there, and they look pretty.
Siskel: [responding to Ebert's statement "I enjoyed myself thoroughly"] "I'm sure you did enjoy yourself, it's the movie I'm talking about."
All that stuff is great, but what I will most remember them for is championing movies that, well, needed a champion. Films like Once Upon A Time In America, Do The Right Thing, Vagabond, and Salvador. Perhaps the most memorable recommendation they ever made for me was regarding Cameron Crowe's 1989 classic, Say Anything. During the show, Siskel had stated that earlier in the day he had sat through the awful Tony Danza flick (yes there was a time when Tony Danza could top line a movie and get it a theatrical release), She's Out Of Control. A movie so bad, that he seriously considered quitting his job. Then, as he put it, "I saw Say Anything (later the same day) and all was right with the world." Ebert concurred, and so did I after I saw it later that week.
They were equally entertaining when they brought out the knives to skewer some truly terrible movies. To wit:
Gene Siskel: [reviewing "Stargate"] Do you know that the budget, supposedly, of this picture was fifty-five million dollars? Roger Ebert: Boy, they must've had some great lunches.
Roger Ebert: [reviewing "Poltergeist III"] You always wonder how the tennis committee likes it where the building they own--- a condo--- is trashed in a movie like this. I hope they got free tickets. Gene Siskel: I hope they didn't.
Gene Siskel: [reviewing "Highlander 2: The Quickening"] I read about this picture and do you know that it cost 34 million dollars to make? Roger Ebert: You're kidding me! Gene Siskel: Shot in Argentina... where did the money go? Roger Ebert: 34 million, they must have had a limousine every time they went to the john.
Over the years, the two adversaries became great friends. And when tragedy struck in the form of a brain tumor that eventually took the life of Gene, Ebert penned a lovely goodbye note (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/02/i_remember_gene.html). The show carried on for a year (1999-2000) with a rotating group of guest critics before Ebert settled on fellow Sun Times columnist, Richard Roeper in 2001. While Roeper was not up to the standards of Gene Siskel, the union did have it's moments. For example:
Roger Ebert: You know, I'm giving this one a marginal thumbs-up... Richard Roeper: Who are you, and what have you done with Roger Ebert?
Richard Roeper: At least the thugs from "3000 Miles to Graceland" look like grown-up tough guys, unlike the teeny-bopper idols in "American Outlaws" who couldn't punch their way out of a casting call for a Gap commercial.
Roger Ebert: I have a theoretical question for you, Richard: How far down can a thumb go?
Their union lasted six years (2001-2007) before cancer reared its ugly head again. This time, it would be Roger who was stricken by thyroid cancer. After multiple surgeries robbed Ebert of the ability to speak, the show attempted to move on--respectfully--without him. While still calling the show "Ebert & Roeper At The Movies," Roger's spot in the balcony was taken by a series of rotating guest critics, much like the first post-Siskel year. Eventually, in a bitter contract dispute, Roeper left the show and Ebert took the famous "thumbs up, thumbs down" with him as his own intellectual property.
In a brazen and foolish effort to young the show up, Disney chose Turner Classic television host, Ben Mankiewicz and E Entertainment (for real) correspondent, Ben Lyons as replacements. Of the two Ben's, Mankiewicz clearly knew his stuff and was improving on a weekly basis. However, he was no match for the witless, grinning village idiot that was Ben Lyons. Lyons, the son of noted (if terribly mediocre) film critic Jeffrey Lyons, proved to be both a master of the obvious and a king of overstatement. His critiques of the films on the show were positively Palin-esque. To no wit:
"And it seems like this is going to be the one film we’re gonna see of this franchise." It wasn’t like Zack Snyder was trying to setup the sequel. I really appreciate that.” From the guy who said he was on his second reading of Alan Moore’s Watchmen and thus should have known that it was a self-contained entity with no sequel or spin off.
“It’s really important to tell people to go out and see W. so they can talk about it and have an opinion about it and this freedom of speech of course that allows us to go and talk about a film about a current sitting president.”
“You know what hurts a movie like Max Payne is the success of the Batman franchise. That obviously is about story and character so they think for all films of the genre it’s gotta be about story and character and this whole back story of him losing his wife. I don’t care about that. I wanna see Max Payne shoot people. That’s all I want from a movie like this.”
"I love how this film establishes that it takes place in the real world. It opens in London but then, of course, goes to the world of Hogwarts and Wizards.”
Lyons also called I Am Legend "one of the greatest movies ever made." And once attended the Sundance Film Festival where he stated that he saw a grand total of 5 films, and "some of them were pretty good."
I can only imagine what it was like for Mankiewicz to sit across from this bumbling nincompoop week after week. Finally, after so much damage was done to the At The Movies brand, Disney mercifully fired both Bens after less than one year as hosts in 2009. While Mankiewicz deserved better, I'm sure he was glad to be put out of his misery.
In their first decent move in awhile, Disney replaced the two Bens with Chicago Tribune film critic, Michael Phillips and New York Times Film critic, A.O. Scott. Finally, order was restored. While Scott and Phillips couldn't quite bring back the glory years of Siskel and Ebert, they did mark a notable return to thoughtful, erudite, on camera film criticism. Although they were more respectful and polite than the show's founders, they did have good chemistry and were both clever in a low key way. Plus, they both know movies. Which may seem obvious, but after the reign of non-sensical terror perpetrated by Ben Lyons, it's worth mentioning.
Unfortunately, this return to smart, knowledgeable criticism has not been enough to overcome the unfortunate recent past of the show. Phillips and Scott have not been able to return the show's ratings to an acceptable level for Disney, and will therefore air their last show some time in August of this year. And that will be that for quality televised film criticism. Film critics as a whole are slowly going the way of the buffalo. Major newspapers and magazines all over the country have been firing their film critics in cost cutting moves due to the fiscal pains that print journalism is suffering from.
And that's a damn shame. I know standing up for critics is almost like defending politicians, but I like a thoughtful, intelligent discussion on the art of film. This may sound silly, but Siskel and Ebert are the reason why I started college as a journalism major. Hell, I wanted their jobs. In fact, if I'm really honest with myself, they are a big reason why I write this blog (now you know who to blame). They inspired me as much as Paul Auster or Walter Mosley. Maybe that makes me decidedly middle-brow, but I can't imagine doing this if I had never been exposed to them.
But now, it's all over. Another nail in the coffin of thoughtful journalism. And the disease is spreading. If you look at all print and televised journalism, it seems sensationalism and loud voices rule the day while fact-checking and quality writing come well after. Maybe it's a stretch to pair the end of At The Movies with the decline of quality news journalism, but I don't think so. Today we value quick and pithy over deep and thoughtful. Few seem to want to read past the headlines or give a discerning opinion a second look.
Unfortunately, Disney agrees. So they are canceling At The Movies. A decision I give a thumbs down and a finger up to. I'm sure you can guess which digit is pointing skyward.
Sumo-Pop
April 4, 2010
The program started way back in 1986, and paired the two critics from competing Chicago newspapers (Siskel--Chicago Tribune, Ebert--Chicago Sun Times), often against one another in a discussion of the week's new movies. They were an odd pair, the balding, lean Siskel and the rumpled, hefty Ebert, and in the early days they didn't get along very well at all. However, despite their lack of TV ready good looks, the often caustic back and forth between the two made for great television. Their terse disagreements over everything from David Lynch's Blue Velvet (Siskel was for, Ebert against) to the otherwise forgettable Burt Reynolds starrer, Cop And A Half (Ebert for--astonishingly, Siskel against), masked the fact that most of the time their thumbs were pointed in the same direction.
Still, they had some great--and frankly hilarious dust ups. Here is a small sample:
[reviewing "Clifford"] Roger Ebert: [surprised] You took... kids to see this? This is the kind of movie where after kids see this, they should see "The Good Son" to cheer themselves up!
Gene Siskel: [criticising Roger's thumbs up for "Gorilla's in the Mist"] You're only saying you like the film because apes and a woman are there, and they look pretty.
Siskel: [responding to Ebert's statement "I enjoyed myself thoroughly"] "I'm sure you did enjoy yourself, it's the movie I'm talking about."
All that stuff is great, but what I will most remember them for is championing movies that, well, needed a champion. Films like Once Upon A Time In America, Do The Right Thing, Vagabond, and Salvador. Perhaps the most memorable recommendation they ever made for me was regarding Cameron Crowe's 1989 classic, Say Anything. During the show, Siskel had stated that earlier in the day he had sat through the awful Tony Danza flick (yes there was a time when Tony Danza could top line a movie and get it a theatrical release), She's Out Of Control. A movie so bad, that he seriously considered quitting his job. Then, as he put it, "I saw Say Anything (later the same day) and all was right with the world." Ebert concurred, and so did I after I saw it later that week.
They were equally entertaining when they brought out the knives to skewer some truly terrible movies. To wit:
Gene Siskel: [reviewing "Stargate"] Do you know that the budget, supposedly, of this picture was fifty-five million dollars? Roger Ebert: Boy, they must've had some great lunches.
Roger Ebert: [reviewing "Poltergeist III"] You always wonder how the tennis committee likes it where the building they own--- a condo--- is trashed in a movie like this. I hope they got free tickets. Gene Siskel: I hope they didn't.
Gene Siskel: [reviewing "Highlander 2: The Quickening"] I read about this picture and do you know that it cost 34 million dollars to make? Roger Ebert: You're kidding me! Gene Siskel: Shot in Argentina... where did the money go? Roger Ebert: 34 million, they must have had a limousine every time they went to the john.
Over the years, the two adversaries became great friends. And when tragedy struck in the form of a brain tumor that eventually took the life of Gene, Ebert penned a lovely goodbye note (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/02/i_remember_gene.html). The show carried on for a year (1999-2000) with a rotating group of guest critics before Ebert settled on fellow Sun Times columnist, Richard Roeper in 2001. While Roeper was not up to the standards of Gene Siskel, the union did have it's moments. For example:
Roger Ebert: You know, I'm giving this one a marginal thumbs-up... Richard Roeper: Who are you, and what have you done with Roger Ebert?
Richard Roeper: At least the thugs from "3000 Miles to Graceland" look like grown-up tough guys, unlike the teeny-bopper idols in "American Outlaws" who couldn't punch their way out of a casting call for a Gap commercial.
Roger Ebert: I have a theoretical question for you, Richard: How far down can a thumb go?
Their union lasted six years (2001-2007) before cancer reared its ugly head again. This time, it would be Roger who was stricken by thyroid cancer. After multiple surgeries robbed Ebert of the ability to speak, the show attempted to move on--respectfully--without him. While still calling the show "Ebert & Roeper At The Movies," Roger's spot in the balcony was taken by a series of rotating guest critics, much like the first post-Siskel year. Eventually, in a bitter contract dispute, Roeper left the show and Ebert took the famous "thumbs up, thumbs down" with him as his own intellectual property.
In a brazen and foolish effort to young the show up, Disney chose Turner Classic television host, Ben Mankiewicz and E Entertainment (for real) correspondent, Ben Lyons as replacements. Of the two Ben's, Mankiewicz clearly knew his stuff and was improving on a weekly basis. However, he was no match for the witless, grinning village idiot that was Ben Lyons. Lyons, the son of noted (if terribly mediocre) film critic Jeffrey Lyons, proved to be both a master of the obvious and a king of overstatement. His critiques of the films on the show were positively Palin-esque. To no wit:
"And it seems like this is going to be the one film we’re gonna see of this franchise." It wasn’t like Zack Snyder was trying to setup the sequel. I really appreciate that.” From the guy who said he was on his second reading of Alan Moore’s Watchmen and thus should have known that it was a self-contained entity with no sequel or spin off.
“It’s really important to tell people to go out and see W. so they can talk about it and have an opinion about it and this freedom of speech of course that allows us to go and talk about a film about a current sitting president.”
“You know what hurts a movie like Max Payne is the success of the Batman franchise. That obviously is about story and character so they think for all films of the genre it’s gotta be about story and character and this whole back story of him losing his wife. I don’t care about that. I wanna see Max Payne shoot people. That’s all I want from a movie like this.”
"I love how this film establishes that it takes place in the real world. It opens in London but then, of course, goes to the world of Hogwarts and Wizards.”
Lyons also called I Am Legend "one of the greatest movies ever made." And once attended the Sundance Film Festival where he stated that he saw a grand total of 5 films, and "some of them were pretty good."
I can only imagine what it was like for Mankiewicz to sit across from this bumbling nincompoop week after week. Finally, after so much damage was done to the At The Movies brand, Disney mercifully fired both Bens after less than one year as hosts in 2009. While Mankiewicz deserved better, I'm sure he was glad to be put out of his misery.
In their first decent move in awhile, Disney replaced the two Bens with Chicago Tribune film critic, Michael Phillips and New York Times Film critic, A.O. Scott. Finally, order was restored. While Scott and Phillips couldn't quite bring back the glory years of Siskel and Ebert, they did mark a notable return to thoughtful, erudite, on camera film criticism. Although they were more respectful and polite than the show's founders, they did have good chemistry and were both clever in a low key way. Plus, they both know movies. Which may seem obvious, but after the reign of non-sensical terror perpetrated by Ben Lyons, it's worth mentioning.
Unfortunately, this return to smart, knowledgeable criticism has not been enough to overcome the unfortunate recent past of the show. Phillips and Scott have not been able to return the show's ratings to an acceptable level for Disney, and will therefore air their last show some time in August of this year. And that will be that for quality televised film criticism. Film critics as a whole are slowly going the way of the buffalo. Major newspapers and magazines all over the country have been firing their film critics in cost cutting moves due to the fiscal pains that print journalism is suffering from.
And that's a damn shame. I know standing up for critics is almost like defending politicians, but I like a thoughtful, intelligent discussion on the art of film. This may sound silly, but Siskel and Ebert are the reason why I started college as a journalism major. Hell, I wanted their jobs. In fact, if I'm really honest with myself, they are a big reason why I write this blog (now you know who to blame). They inspired me as much as Paul Auster or Walter Mosley. Maybe that makes me decidedly middle-brow, but I can't imagine doing this if I had never been exposed to them.
But now, it's all over. Another nail in the coffin of thoughtful journalism. And the disease is spreading. If you look at all print and televised journalism, it seems sensationalism and loud voices rule the day while fact-checking and quality writing come well after. Maybe it's a stretch to pair the end of At The Movies with the decline of quality news journalism, but I don't think so. Today we value quick and pithy over deep and thoughtful. Few seem to want to read past the headlines or give a discerning opinion a second look.
Unfortunately, Disney agrees. So they are canceling At The Movies. A decision I give a thumbs down and a finger up to. I'm sure you can guess which digit is pointing skyward.
Sumo-Pop
April 4, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Crude
Well, I guess it had to happen sooner or later. It will come as no surprise to anyone who knows me that I have been an avid supporter of our current President. During the 2008 campaign, I attended rallies, gave money, and walked unfamiliar streets and knocked on the doors of strangers in an effort to bring his election to fruition. While I haven't always agreed with the President on everything, he has never truly disappointed me. Until now.
President Obama's decision yesterday to open up off-shore drilling along a variety of state coastlines is not only wrong, but counter productive. The argument that the President offered in favor of additional oil exploration simply doesn't hold up. His hypothesis that digging for "black gold" (Texas tea...) will reduce our reliance on foreign oil while being minimally invasive to the environment is completely flawed, if not disingenuous.
I know most people will choose energy independence over environmental conservation, but this move will not accomplish either.
Environmentally speaking, there are the risk of oil spills, and the further degradation of our coastlines. Why should we care about this? Well, anyone who remembers the Exxon Valdez crisis knows why an oil spill is a bad thing. The risk to wild life and ocean quality is argued to be minimal by the companies that intend to do the drilling. They will tell you the risk of a spill is almost non-existent. However, there have been 12 major U.S. related oil spills in the last decade. The cost to marine life and to tax payers (for the clean up) is massive. Not to mention the continual deterioration of our coast lines.
Probably the worst example of the negative impact from off-shore oil exploration revolves around the state of Louisiana. The loss of wetlands off the gulf coast greatly contributed to the disastrous impact that Hurricane Katrina had on the city of New Orleans. Wetlands create a barrier between tropical storms and the main land. Due in large part to off-shore drilling, the wetlands off the gulf coast have continually decreased in width and breadth. I know the media likes to talk about the porous levees that failed during the storm (and they certainly should), but they often failed to appropriately report the effect that the weakened coast line played in the magnitude of the disaster.
Ok, fine. Maybe you don't give two shits about the environment or marine life. Maybe all you care about is getting off of foreign oil and reducing gas prices. Which is certainly a worthy goal. Unfortunately, more drilling ain't gonna make that happen. You might ask why not? Wouldn't drilling and refining more of our own oil reduce our dependence on foreign suppliers while also reducing pain at the pump? Nope.
And here's why: First off, all this oil that we will be pulling out of the ocean is not simply going to stay in the United States. While the U.S. Government will buy a certain number of barrels for our oil reserves, by far, most of it will hit the open market, where it will simply be added to world consumption. Current estimates say that this decision will result in 14 billion new barrels of oil. Which sounds like a lot right? Well, it's not. Yearly worldwide oil consumption is 30 billion barrels a year. So, when all this "additional" oil hits the market, it will be swallowed up pretty damn quickly. Of course, other countries will still be producing oil, and therefore our new oil won't disappear in 6 months. But you can see that adding even 14 billion barrels isn't going to make a huge difference. And wait until you see what happens as the Chinese start buying more cars. China's economy is one of the fastest growing in the world, but right now they have only one car per 100 citizens. That will change greatly as the purchasing power of the populous increases. In fact, the only way that this oil exploration will reduce our foreign dependence is if we nationalize the oil industry and keep it for ourselves. Now, I know people like to refer to Obama as a socialist, but even he wouldn't consider that as a viable option.
As far as gas prices go, even if you throw out everything I said in the last paragraph, we won't see any of this oil for 10 years at minimum. It will take that long to set up, locate, drill, and refine all this new crude. And refining is a huge issue in this country. There hasn't been a single new refinery built in this USA since 1976, and many of the ones that do exist have merged together resulting in more refineries being operated by fewer companies and reducing competition. Which in turn reduces output. Most estimates state that at best, in ten plus years gas prices will come down a few measly cents. Hell, even John "drill, baby drill" McCain himself said that the benefits of off-shore drilling would be largely psychological. Psychological. I don't know about you, but I think we need real solutions not imaginary ones.
Real Solutions, like alternative energy. Fuel cells, ethanol, bio-diesel, hybrids, increasing fuel standards, whatever, is the answer, not this.
It's not that I don't think the President knows this either. During the 2008 campaign, Obama stated as much. Although, to be fair, he did hedge his bets by saying that he could find additional off-shore drilling acceptable as a part of a comprehensive energy bill that would focus primarily on alternative energy. But here's the thing, how's he going to get this comprehensive bill passed now that he's already given away a bargaining chip? Does he really think that Republicans are going to go along with any plan that he advances? There were over 200 Republican authored amendments in the health care bill, and he couldn't get one sorry vote out of either house of congress. They have already poo-poo'd this announcement by saying that he didn't go far enough. They aren't happy that he is still enforcing protections along certain coastlines (particularly the west coast). Hell, if Obama put on a hard hat and drilled straight through a baby seal resulting in a geyser of oil spouting from the ocean, they would still find a way to throw stink on it.
All this leaves me at a loss. The only reason why I can logically see why the President would make this decision is purely a political one. It may move independents and conservative democrats in the polls. It probably helps the "Blue Dog" Democrats in purple states too. And I suppose it takes away a Republican talking point in the mid-terms as well as the 2012 presidential election. Maybe the President will prove me wrong. Maybe he will be able to move some Republicans over to his side for a more forward thinking energy bill. I don't think so, but this President has surprised me before with his resilience and ability to make lemonade. So, I'm left with nothing but the hope that I will be proven wrong. Thankfully, it's happened before (ask my wife, or look at my NCAA bracket--once you piece it back together), and I'm hoping it will happen this time as well. I just wish I could see how.
Sumo-Pop
April 1, 2010
President Obama's decision yesterday to open up off-shore drilling along a variety of state coastlines is not only wrong, but counter productive. The argument that the President offered in favor of additional oil exploration simply doesn't hold up. His hypothesis that digging for "black gold" (Texas tea...) will reduce our reliance on foreign oil while being minimally invasive to the environment is completely flawed, if not disingenuous.
I know most people will choose energy independence over environmental conservation, but this move will not accomplish either.
Environmentally speaking, there are the risk of oil spills, and the further degradation of our coastlines. Why should we care about this? Well, anyone who remembers the Exxon Valdez crisis knows why an oil spill is a bad thing. The risk to wild life and ocean quality is argued to be minimal by the companies that intend to do the drilling. They will tell you the risk of a spill is almost non-existent. However, there have been 12 major U.S. related oil spills in the last decade. The cost to marine life and to tax payers (for the clean up) is massive. Not to mention the continual deterioration of our coast lines.
Probably the worst example of the negative impact from off-shore oil exploration revolves around the state of Louisiana. The loss of wetlands off the gulf coast greatly contributed to the disastrous impact that Hurricane Katrina had on the city of New Orleans. Wetlands create a barrier between tropical storms and the main land. Due in large part to off-shore drilling, the wetlands off the gulf coast have continually decreased in width and breadth. I know the media likes to talk about the porous levees that failed during the storm (and they certainly should), but they often failed to appropriately report the effect that the weakened coast line played in the magnitude of the disaster.
Ok, fine. Maybe you don't give two shits about the environment or marine life. Maybe all you care about is getting off of foreign oil and reducing gas prices. Which is certainly a worthy goal. Unfortunately, more drilling ain't gonna make that happen. You might ask why not? Wouldn't drilling and refining more of our own oil reduce our dependence on foreign suppliers while also reducing pain at the pump? Nope.
And here's why: First off, all this oil that we will be pulling out of the ocean is not simply going to stay in the United States. While the U.S. Government will buy a certain number of barrels for our oil reserves, by far, most of it will hit the open market, where it will simply be added to world consumption. Current estimates say that this decision will result in 14 billion new barrels of oil. Which sounds like a lot right? Well, it's not. Yearly worldwide oil consumption is 30 billion barrels a year. So, when all this "additional" oil hits the market, it will be swallowed up pretty damn quickly. Of course, other countries will still be producing oil, and therefore our new oil won't disappear in 6 months. But you can see that adding even 14 billion barrels isn't going to make a huge difference. And wait until you see what happens as the Chinese start buying more cars. China's economy is one of the fastest growing in the world, but right now they have only one car per 100 citizens. That will change greatly as the purchasing power of the populous increases. In fact, the only way that this oil exploration will reduce our foreign dependence is if we nationalize the oil industry and keep it for ourselves. Now, I know people like to refer to Obama as a socialist, but even he wouldn't consider that as a viable option.
As far as gas prices go, even if you throw out everything I said in the last paragraph, we won't see any of this oil for 10 years at minimum. It will take that long to set up, locate, drill, and refine all this new crude. And refining is a huge issue in this country. There hasn't been a single new refinery built in this USA since 1976, and many of the ones that do exist have merged together resulting in more refineries being operated by fewer companies and reducing competition. Which in turn reduces output. Most estimates state that at best, in ten plus years gas prices will come down a few measly cents. Hell, even John "drill, baby drill" McCain himself said that the benefits of off-shore drilling would be largely psychological. Psychological. I don't know about you, but I think we need real solutions not imaginary ones.
Real Solutions, like alternative energy. Fuel cells, ethanol, bio-diesel, hybrids, increasing fuel standards, whatever, is the answer, not this.
It's not that I don't think the President knows this either. During the 2008 campaign, Obama stated as much. Although, to be fair, he did hedge his bets by saying that he could find additional off-shore drilling acceptable as a part of a comprehensive energy bill that would focus primarily on alternative energy. But here's the thing, how's he going to get this comprehensive bill passed now that he's already given away a bargaining chip? Does he really think that Republicans are going to go along with any plan that he advances? There were over 200 Republican authored amendments in the health care bill, and he couldn't get one sorry vote out of either house of congress. They have already poo-poo'd this announcement by saying that he didn't go far enough. They aren't happy that he is still enforcing protections along certain coastlines (particularly the west coast). Hell, if Obama put on a hard hat and drilled straight through a baby seal resulting in a geyser of oil spouting from the ocean, they would still find a way to throw stink on it.
All this leaves me at a loss. The only reason why I can logically see why the President would make this decision is purely a political one. It may move independents and conservative democrats in the polls. It probably helps the "Blue Dog" Democrats in purple states too. And I suppose it takes away a Republican talking point in the mid-terms as well as the 2012 presidential election. Maybe the President will prove me wrong. Maybe he will be able to move some Republicans over to his side for a more forward thinking energy bill. I don't think so, but this President has surprised me before with his resilience and ability to make lemonade. So, I'm left with nothing but the hope that I will be proven wrong. Thankfully, it's happened before (ask my wife, or look at my NCAA bracket--once you piece it back together), and I'm hoping it will happen this time as well. I just wish I could see how.
Sumo-Pop
April 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)