When Oasis broke up last year due to the ongoing irreconcilable differences between the brothers Gallagher, few were shocked. If you are a fan of Oasis, it was even less of a surprise. Noel--the main songwriter and guitarist--along with sibling (and lead singer), Liam, have been threatening to perform fratricide on each other for at least the 15 years that Oasis have been a band. I think it's fair to say, that not since the Kink's and the brothers' Davies has their been so many reports of rock star siblings taking swipes at each other.
So, Noel embarks on a solo career and Liam has decided to continue on with the remaining members of Oasis (whoever those guys are) under the new name, Beady Eye (oh, dear).
However, they do so after leaving us a decade and a half of hooliganism and deathless singles. The two brothers have been thrown out of so many English bars that they probably had to open their own just to get served a pint. These guys were not the well-mannered, introverted English citizens that we are so used to seeing jump over the pond. No, these were foul-mouthed, drunken, stammering, brawling thugs whose lineage dated back to Ireland (probably explains a few things). Boy, were they a lot of fun.
So in recognition of these two nutters and the fabulous 2 disc best of, Time Flies, that came out last week, I give you my album by album break down of the recording history of the legendary Brit band, Oasis. Here we go:
*All reviews based on the Rolling Stone 5 star system.
Definitely Maybe (1994) *****:
Extraordinary. As if busting out of the womb fully formed, this debut disc wastes no time announcing their presence with authority.
The first cut, Rock 'N' Roll Star, is not presented as a hope or a desire, but as a statement of fact. Rollicking, snotty, and with an air of entitlement, Star presents us with the classic Oasis sound. Beatlesque harmonies, roaring guitars, and Liam's nasally whine stretching vowels to degrees not heretofore known by man, this album dropped like an England sized anvil on the States.
I still remember sitting up watching 120 Minutes on MTV when their first single, Supersonic burst through the screen. The lyrics were nonsense (I know a girl called Elsa/She's into alka seltzer), the singer's voice was abrasive, and the guitars were big and kinda dumb. It was...glorious. Coming out of the "grunge" era--where no one wanted to be a rock star (see Cobain, Vedder, etc.)--this was the clear antithesis to the self-serious, naval gazing, poorly dressed rock 'n' roll star that was all the rage at the time. Don't get me wrong, I like Nirvana and Pearl Jam, I just wouldn't often call it "fun." This however, was fun. But not just.
While a song like Shakermaker would cheekily rob its sound from the "I'd like to buy the world a coke" commercial and then subvert it into submission, the album's skyscraping hit single, Live Forever, showed they had a sensitive and deeply melodic side. This was classic songwriting of the first order. Sure, they borrowed liberally from the Beatles (even quoting from their lyrics in multiple songs), but the edge and nastiness, along with a working class viewpoint made them something altogether unique.
Early on in their tour for Definitely Maybe, I saw Oasis in Chicago at the Metro. After the show, I turned to my friend and said "that's the future of rock and roll." It wouldn't be long before they proved me right, if only for a little while.
(What's The Story) Morning Glory (1995)*****:
A stone cold masterpiece. Pretty much everything you ever liked about rock and roll loaded into one disc. From defiant glam rockin' opener Hello to the gorgeous, epic 7 and a half minute closer Champagne Supernova, Morning Glory has nary a mis-step.
They broke through to pop radio with the insta-classic, shuffling ballad, Wonderwall, that wore their Beatles influence on their collective sleeves while still managing to sound like it could have come from nowhere else. As great as that song is, it's not even the best on the record. Hell, the best track isn't even sung by Liam, but rather by brother Noel.
I'm talking about the massively chorused (yeah, I don't even know if that's a word) Don't Look Back In Anger. I can imagine every half schlossed, degenerate, alcoholic pub dweller in England throwing their arms around each other when Noel finishes that first verse and hits the "And soooooo Sally can't waaaaaiiittt...." line. I bet it turns every bar into a stadium at a Manchester United football match, or at least a Rickey Hatton fight. Break out the vuvuzelas and the chanting, because it's ON.
Morning Glory turned Oasis into the biggest band in the world for about two to three years. And even though troubled times were on the way, the one-two punch of their debut and sophomore releases bested any two Beatles albums ever. Yes, you heard that right. If only for a moment, Oasis was bigger and better than The Beatles. Go ahead and put it on my tombstone, I won't mind at all.
Be Here Now (1997)****:
Overstuffed, pretentious, and uneven, here's where the quality level began to slip. The band took 3 years between albums and the extra time led to diminished results. Some songs, like All Around The World were too derivative of The Beatles. It's not that it's a bad tune, it just sounds like it was the last song to be cut from Sergeant Pepper. Which as I said, isn't so much a bad thing, as it is not a good enough one. As well, Don't Go Away sounds like a rewrite of Don't Look Back In Anger, and is there any reason why the opening stomper D'You Know What I Mean? needs to stretch out to nearly 8 minutes in length? Not that I can see.
So why in the world am I giving it 4 stars? Well, because it still sounds great. And because the melodies get stuck in your head like a piece of chewing gum on a shih tzu. Still, there were reasons to be worried, and those reasons came to fruition on their very next proper record.
The Masterplan (1998)****
A stellar collection of b-sides released to sate the appetite of their rabid fan base between proper records. At the time, Oasis were so prolific that even a full disc of non-album tracks left killer cuts out (Whatever and Step Out in particular). That's no knock on this collection of odds and sods though. Every cut here is a keeper. Aquiesce, Fade Away, and Stay Young are superior to many of the rockers on Be Here Now, and Talk Tonight and the title track remind you of what a lovely solo album big brother Noel might be capable of.
In short, for an album that's not really an album, it's one helluva an album.
Standing On The Shoulder Of Giants (2000)**:
Ouch. It all starts out well enough with the barnstorming instrumental, Fuckin' In The Bushes, and the next two cuts (first single) Go Let It Out and Who Feels Love, but swiftly deteriorates after that. Put Yer Money Where Your Mouth Is is about as original as it's title. And the first Liam scribed tune, Little James, is far too slight to hang even 4 minutes and 15 seconds on. And, well, why go on? It's simply too depressing.
Suffice it to say that the years of excessive drug use and infighting had resulted in an album that stopped their career momentum cold. Sure, they would make more good records, and sell out stadiums all over the world, but the zeitgeist period of Oasis was over. And Standing On The Shoulder Of Giants is the culprit. It really says something about this record that the b-side collection that preceded it is so far and away superior.
And another thing, what the hell is with the album title? Can you really stand on the shoulder of giants? There's some kind of singular/plural issue going on here that annoys me almost as much as the music contained within. Let's move on...
Familiar To Millions (2001)*****:
Quite simply, one of the greatest live albums ever. And yes, I do mean ever. Recorded over multiple dates at Wembley Stadium, this record almost washes out the bad taste brought on by Shoulder. Almost.
Essentially, a live greatest hits album, the band cherry picks the best stuff from each album along with some choice b-sides (Step Out, Acquiesce) and a surprisingly terrific Oasisified cover Of Neil Young's, Hey Hey, My My to create an essential tour document. Even the tracks from Shoulder sound great. Whatever issues that may have been stewing and brewing in the recording studio are nowhere in evidence here. Smashing.
Heathen Chemistry (2002)***1/2:
A partial return to form. Sure, the best tracks (Stop Crying Your Heart Out, Little By Little, and The Hindu Times) might remind you of better songs by the band, but if this is the 'B' list, well it's a pretty good list. The rockers have real snarl, the ballads have epic sweep, and Songbird might just might be the prettiest song they ever recorded.
There's some filler here, but after Shoulder, Heathen proved that the lads weren't dead just yet.
Don't Believe The Truth (2005)****1/2:
Now we're cookin' with gas! After years of being disparaged as a loud, brutish, Beatles knock off, the boys show they can expand their sound to incorporate other influences. One can pick up traces of The Kinks, The Stones, mod era Who, and even a little Bob Dylan on this near complete return to form. Supposedly, the band had ditched the hard drugs and cut back on the sauce before hitting the studio, and the clarity shows.
The stomping first single, Lyla was their best lead off single in years. Better still are Love Like A Bomb, Mucky Fingers, The Importance Of Being Idle, and the go-jus closer Let There Be Love, which finds the brothers trading vocals over one of their finest melodies.
There is a patience on this album that even their best records lacked. The arrogance is replaced (well not entirely) by a renewed sense of confidence and dare I say it? Peace. Whatever the case, no one had a right to expect this great of a record from these guys, but here it is. Do indeed Believe The Truth.
Dig Out Your Soul (2008)****:
Strong follow up to reputation fixer, Don't Believe The Truth. Dig embraces the psychedelic undercurrents they occasionally hinted at on previous records (The Hindu Times, All Around The World) more fully. However, it does so in a heavier, thicker way that results in a barely contained chaos.
While Dig may not be as immediately accessible as it's predecessor, it rewards repeated listens in a fashion that Truth may not have.
Oasis has always known how to start an album. The opening cut from any Oasis record can be referred to as their "We mean business" track. Typically fiery and anthemic, the band has always known how to jump off. While Dig's Bag It Up is certainly no exception, it's grinding blues underbelly is something new(ish) for the band.
First single, The Shock Of Lightning is positively propulsive. Oasis has seldom struggled for a hot guitar riff, and the barrelling, incendiary, Shock contains one of their best. The sound of a more mature Liam Gallagher being pushed by Noel's roaring axe in an effort to be heard is exhilarating. By the end of the song, it's clear that little brother is up to the challenge.
As well, Dig finds Liam coming into his own as a songwriter. His ballad I'm Outta Time would have been a hit in a perfect world (or at least 1995). For the first time, one of Liam's songs is among the best on the album. It's no surprise that Time makes it onto the new best of cd. It certainly belongs.
And then, the break up.
It's fair to say, that it would have been fascinating to see what the band would have came up with next. The line up behind the Gallaghers had stabilized. They were not only playing with a true sense of purpose, but also with a new found curiosity that brought unusual shades to their sound and words. Most bands dry up and start repeating themselves after 15 years together. However, Oasis sounded like they were just getting (re)started.
Maybe this split will result in twice as many good records. I've always thought that Noel had a great, swoony, ballad heavy record in him. And maybe Liam and the leftovers can build upon Liam's burgeoning strengths as a songwriter. Can the younger sib' fill a whole album without Noel? I guess we'll see.
One thing's for certain though, it sure as hell won't be the same. These guys were rock stars and artists. Prone to dust ups, fisticuffs, and hilariously nasty (although often unintelligible) over the top quotes.* But the biggest reason to miss Oasis is the most simple. Songs. They were chock full of great ones. There are 26 songs on their new best of, Time Flies. Everyone is a keeper. As great as the compilation is though, it is still woefully incomplete. Not many bands could fill a 2 disc best of and leave you wanting more. Not many at all.
Sumo-Pop
June 29, 2010
*My personal favorite was when Noel was asked about his feud with the lead singer of Blur, Damon Albarn--"I hope he gets AIDS and dies" he replied. I know that's terrible, but it makes me laugh every time I think about it. It's just so bluntly ridiculous. And yes, I do feel bad about it.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
First The General, Now The War
There is a quote that I once heard that says something to the effect of "have mercy on the man whose wisdom brings him no comfort. In other words, sometimes it sucks to be right.
Take for instance 9/11. I think most Americans were solidly behind then President Bush when we went after the Taliban in Afghanistan. They clearly provided support and a safe haven to Al-Qaeda, who did indeed bring down the World Trade Center. It made perfect sense. And while there was less consensus around bombing Iraq, most people (politicians included) went along with the mission.
I had no problem backing the former, but when it came to Iraq my B.S. detector went off like a four alarm fire. The arguments for going to war just weren't convincing. All the professed certainty around Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" capacity seemed overblown and too much of a hard sell. It was as if they were trying to convince themselves--as much as us--that Iraq represented a clear and present danger to our national security. Plus, the claimed connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda was even more dubious. Bin Laden had no love for secular rulers such as Saddam Hussein. On the contrary, Bin Laden--ever the fundamentalist--hated Hussein for not ruling Iraq with an Islamic iron fist. Throw in the younger Bush's desire to get out from under his father's shadow and finish what Papa Bush started with Operation Desert Storm in 1990, and it just felt like we were looking for an ass to kick.
Defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan was relatively easy...at first. But because of Al-Qaeda's decentralized organization style, it was difficult if not impossible to say we won the war on terror. So, we needed a straw man. Everybody hated Saddam Hussein. Americans knew who he was and the axis of idiocy that was Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney knew we could get him. It was tangible and quantifiable. It was also incredibly foolish. By taking our eye off of Afghanistan and attacking a country that did not attack us, had no WMD's, and no relationship to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, we allowed ourselves to get mired in the nation building effort that stemmed from the execrable "Shock and Awe" campaign while Afghanistan remained unfinished and undernourished.
Still, when we started dropping bombs on the heads of the Iraqi's, I desperately hoped I was wrong. What good would being right do? To expend so much national treasure and end so many soldiers lives for a lie? Who would want that? And yes, I know that thanks to the genius of General Petraeus that this pig has a lot more lipstick on it than anyone could have ever expected. But at what cost? Now that we have propped up their government and the surge has created a relative level of security, do we really have a long term partner that we can count on as an ally? The current Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki is challenging the democratic election from March of this year in an effort to maintain his position. Despite a recount that confirmed the results that his opponent's party did indeed win out, al-Maliki is still trying to retain power. Not to sound fatalist, but civil wars have been started over less.
However, compared to the state that Afghanistan was left in by the Bush administration, Iraq is a certifiable bastion of democracy. After helping to ensure a democratic election in 2004, we watched as Hamid Karzai won a clear mandate from his people. So far, so good, right? Wrong. Karzai's government is chock full of corruption and incompetence. He has proven unable to coalesce his own security forces to protect his people. He continually makes statements that not only undercut our government but bring into question his own sanity.
Here are just two:
--"I don't think Osama is a Muslim. I don't think Osama is a human being."
--"if I come under foreign pressure, I might join the Taliban."
Nice.
As well, the 2009 Afghan elections were characterized as fraudulent. With widespread security issues that depressed voter turnout and allegations of ballot stuffing and voter intimidation. Guess who all those criticisms were aimed at? Yep, our own Mr. Karzai. Hell, his own brother, Ahmed--who is the representative of the southern Afghanistan region--is a noted drug lord. And this is what we have to work with after nine years?
Into this Bush-provided horse apple stepped our current President, Barack Obama. During his election campaign, then Senator Obama made it clear that he would draw down in Iraq and ramp up in Afghanistan. I was totally with him on the first point, but unsure on the second. As before, I hoped to be wrong.
One of the first decisions Obama made regarding Afghanistan was to honor a troop request that had sat on Bush's desk for nearly eight months. On June 10, 2009 the senate approved General Stanley McChrystal to take command of the effort in Afghanistan. Originally, McChrystal looked like a good choice. He knew the Middle East well, was considered a very sharp tactical mind, and was known for giving honest assessments to his superiors. Unfortunately, it didn't take long for it all to go pear shaped.
The one black mark on McChrystal's career was his role in the friendly fire death of former NFL star turned Army Ranger, Pat Tillman in Afghanistan. McChrystal was informed prior to putting in the paperwork for Tillman's Silver Star that the former Arizona Cardinal defensive back had died of fratricide. However, McChrystal's report made no mention of this and Tillman was awarded the Silver Star posthumously. While you could look at this situation as McChrystal attempting to honor Tillman's sacrifice, the inherent dishonesty of the whole endeavor points to a certain "moral flexibility" that should have been a greater concern to the Obama administration.
However, the embarrassment of falsifying Tillman's military record wasn't the last time that McChrystal would get himself in trouble. After making a troop request of 40,000 to the President, McChrystal went on the record as saying that he "could not support" a plan put forward by Vice President Biden that would have limited our engagement in Afghanistan to 1) Protecting the capital, 2) Securing their borders, and 3) Performing targeted anti-terror operations. In the end, Obama made it clear to the General that this kind of "talking out of school" was unacceptable, while also giving McChrytal 30,000 more troops.
Then came the article in the latest RollingStone Magazine (what were they thinking giving unfettered access to a hippie mag!) "The Runaway General." In this piece, McChrystal described Obama as "intimidated" and unengaged. He made jokes with his closest staff about Biden, referring to him as "Bite Me." He referred to National Security Advisor, Jim Jones, as a "clown," and also took shots at US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, and Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke. This breach of decorum put into question the entire war effort. It belittled the civilian leadership of the military and exposed a complete lack of respect by McChrystal and his staff. Some of this stuff is so sophomoric that you actually want to see the birth certificates of those involved. I mean, how long have they been out of high school?
By most accounts, McChrystal has gotten nearly everything he has ever asked for from the President and now he was undermining not only the nation's efforts, but his own. And shouldn't they have been one and the same?
The next decision by the President was probably painful, but clearly necessary. He fired McChrystal. Yeah, I know in the record books it's going to be called a resignation, but we all no better. While there were some that said firing McChrystal would have a negative impact on the war effort in Afghanistan, what would have keeping him in place done? You simply can't have an insubordinate General heading up something as important as the future security of an entire foreign nation as well as our own.
The next move by Obama was a political masterstroke. He essentially talked General David Petraeus into taking a demotion and cleaning up McChrystal's mess. While there is no doubting the brilliance of General Petraeus, there is plenty of reason to doubt this war effort all together.
We clearly do not have an honest partner in Karzai. We are losing soldiers at increasingly higher rates. There seems to be no date certain when the Afghan's will be able to man their own security force. It's costing us a fortune. And there is no clear sense of when this will turn around. From Alexander The Great to the vaunted Soviet Union, Afghanistan is the place where great foreign powers go to die. Due in large part to an unmanageable terrain and an extremely backward culture where 3/4 of the population can't read and whose greatest export is opium, Afghanistan has proven time and time again that it can't be won. At a time when when republicans in congress have filibustered a bill that would extend unemployment benefits to our own citizenry, we seem to have a bottomless supply of cash for this boondoggle. We need to extricate ourselves, and right soon.
Now I know this week when Obama announced that Petraeus would be taking over for McChrystal he said "This is a change in personnel, not a change in policy." I sincerely hope that was a political statement that covers up a deeper truth. This could present our President with an opportunity to disengage from this God forsaken mess. With new leadership in charge, Obama should order a new assessment of the war effort from Petraeus that will hopefully take us in a new direction. Because after nine years of banging our head against the wall, that plan by "Bite Me," er, Biden sounds pretty damn good right now.
Sumo-Pop
June 25, 2010
Take for instance 9/11. I think most Americans were solidly behind then President Bush when we went after the Taliban in Afghanistan. They clearly provided support and a safe haven to Al-Qaeda, who did indeed bring down the World Trade Center. It made perfect sense. And while there was less consensus around bombing Iraq, most people (politicians included) went along with the mission.
I had no problem backing the former, but when it came to Iraq my B.S. detector went off like a four alarm fire. The arguments for going to war just weren't convincing. All the professed certainty around Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" capacity seemed overblown and too much of a hard sell. It was as if they were trying to convince themselves--as much as us--that Iraq represented a clear and present danger to our national security. Plus, the claimed connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda was even more dubious. Bin Laden had no love for secular rulers such as Saddam Hussein. On the contrary, Bin Laden--ever the fundamentalist--hated Hussein for not ruling Iraq with an Islamic iron fist. Throw in the younger Bush's desire to get out from under his father's shadow and finish what Papa Bush started with Operation Desert Storm in 1990, and it just felt like we were looking for an ass to kick.
Defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan was relatively easy...at first. But because of Al-Qaeda's decentralized organization style, it was difficult if not impossible to say we won the war on terror. So, we needed a straw man. Everybody hated Saddam Hussein. Americans knew who he was and the axis of idiocy that was Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney knew we could get him. It was tangible and quantifiable. It was also incredibly foolish. By taking our eye off of Afghanistan and attacking a country that did not attack us, had no WMD's, and no relationship to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, we allowed ourselves to get mired in the nation building effort that stemmed from the execrable "Shock and Awe" campaign while Afghanistan remained unfinished and undernourished.
Still, when we started dropping bombs on the heads of the Iraqi's, I desperately hoped I was wrong. What good would being right do? To expend so much national treasure and end so many soldiers lives for a lie? Who would want that? And yes, I know that thanks to the genius of General Petraeus that this pig has a lot more lipstick on it than anyone could have ever expected. But at what cost? Now that we have propped up their government and the surge has created a relative level of security, do we really have a long term partner that we can count on as an ally? The current Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki is challenging the democratic election from March of this year in an effort to maintain his position. Despite a recount that confirmed the results that his opponent's party did indeed win out, al-Maliki is still trying to retain power. Not to sound fatalist, but civil wars have been started over less.
However, compared to the state that Afghanistan was left in by the Bush administration, Iraq is a certifiable bastion of democracy. After helping to ensure a democratic election in 2004, we watched as Hamid Karzai won a clear mandate from his people. So far, so good, right? Wrong. Karzai's government is chock full of corruption and incompetence. He has proven unable to coalesce his own security forces to protect his people. He continually makes statements that not only undercut our government but bring into question his own sanity.
Here are just two:
--"I don't think Osama is a Muslim. I don't think Osama is a human being."
--"if I come under foreign pressure, I might join the Taliban."
Nice.
As well, the 2009 Afghan elections were characterized as fraudulent. With widespread security issues that depressed voter turnout and allegations of ballot stuffing and voter intimidation. Guess who all those criticisms were aimed at? Yep, our own Mr. Karzai. Hell, his own brother, Ahmed--who is the representative of the southern Afghanistan region--is a noted drug lord. And this is what we have to work with after nine years?
Into this Bush-provided horse apple stepped our current President, Barack Obama. During his election campaign, then Senator Obama made it clear that he would draw down in Iraq and ramp up in Afghanistan. I was totally with him on the first point, but unsure on the second. As before, I hoped to be wrong.
One of the first decisions Obama made regarding Afghanistan was to honor a troop request that had sat on Bush's desk for nearly eight months. On June 10, 2009 the senate approved General Stanley McChrystal to take command of the effort in Afghanistan. Originally, McChrystal looked like a good choice. He knew the Middle East well, was considered a very sharp tactical mind, and was known for giving honest assessments to his superiors. Unfortunately, it didn't take long for it all to go pear shaped.
The one black mark on McChrystal's career was his role in the friendly fire death of former NFL star turned Army Ranger, Pat Tillman in Afghanistan. McChrystal was informed prior to putting in the paperwork for Tillman's Silver Star that the former Arizona Cardinal defensive back had died of fratricide. However, McChrystal's report made no mention of this and Tillman was awarded the Silver Star posthumously. While you could look at this situation as McChrystal attempting to honor Tillman's sacrifice, the inherent dishonesty of the whole endeavor points to a certain "moral flexibility" that should have been a greater concern to the Obama administration.
However, the embarrassment of falsifying Tillman's military record wasn't the last time that McChrystal would get himself in trouble. After making a troop request of 40,000 to the President, McChrystal went on the record as saying that he "could not support" a plan put forward by Vice President Biden that would have limited our engagement in Afghanistan to 1) Protecting the capital, 2) Securing their borders, and 3) Performing targeted anti-terror operations. In the end, Obama made it clear to the General that this kind of "talking out of school" was unacceptable, while also giving McChrytal 30,000 more troops.
Then came the article in the latest RollingStone Magazine (what were they thinking giving unfettered access to a hippie mag!) "The Runaway General." In this piece, McChrystal described Obama as "intimidated" and unengaged. He made jokes with his closest staff about Biden, referring to him as "Bite Me." He referred to National Security Advisor, Jim Jones, as a "clown," and also took shots at US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, and Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke. This breach of decorum put into question the entire war effort. It belittled the civilian leadership of the military and exposed a complete lack of respect by McChrystal and his staff. Some of this stuff is so sophomoric that you actually want to see the birth certificates of those involved. I mean, how long have they been out of high school?
By most accounts, McChrystal has gotten nearly everything he has ever asked for from the President and now he was undermining not only the nation's efforts, but his own. And shouldn't they have been one and the same?
The next decision by the President was probably painful, but clearly necessary. He fired McChrystal. Yeah, I know in the record books it's going to be called a resignation, but we all no better. While there were some that said firing McChrystal would have a negative impact on the war effort in Afghanistan, what would have keeping him in place done? You simply can't have an insubordinate General heading up something as important as the future security of an entire foreign nation as well as our own.
The next move by Obama was a political masterstroke. He essentially talked General David Petraeus into taking a demotion and cleaning up McChrystal's mess. While there is no doubting the brilliance of General Petraeus, there is plenty of reason to doubt this war effort all together.
We clearly do not have an honest partner in Karzai. We are losing soldiers at increasingly higher rates. There seems to be no date certain when the Afghan's will be able to man their own security force. It's costing us a fortune. And there is no clear sense of when this will turn around. From Alexander The Great to the vaunted Soviet Union, Afghanistan is the place where great foreign powers go to die. Due in large part to an unmanageable terrain and an extremely backward culture where 3/4 of the population can't read and whose greatest export is opium, Afghanistan has proven time and time again that it can't be won. At a time when when republicans in congress have filibustered a bill that would extend unemployment benefits to our own citizenry, we seem to have a bottomless supply of cash for this boondoggle. We need to extricate ourselves, and right soon.
Now I know this week when Obama announced that Petraeus would be taking over for McChrystal he said "This is a change in personnel, not a change in policy." I sincerely hope that was a political statement that covers up a deeper truth. This could present our President with an opportunity to disengage from this God forsaken mess. With new leadership in charge, Obama should order a new assessment of the war effort from Petraeus that will hopefully take us in a new direction. Because after nine years of banging our head against the wall, that plan by "Bite Me," er, Biden sounds pretty damn good right now.
Sumo-Pop
June 25, 2010
Missing White Woman Syndrome
For Cheryl Jenkins Jackson, whose support of the cause of missing minorities is unyielding.
It is a sad fact that if you go missing in this country, your chances of garnering national media coverage are greatly enhanced if you are a white woman. Throw in blonde and pretty and you're damn near an iron clad cinch to end up on Nancy Grace's show every night for weeks--if not months--to come.
There is even a name for this phenomena. It's called "Missing White Woman Syndrome," or "Missing Pretty Girl Syndrome." It is defined on wikipedia as: a vernacular term for the alleged disproportionately greater degree of coverage in television, radio, newspaper and magazine reporting of a misfortune, most often a missing person case, involving a young, attractive, white, middle-class (or above) woman, compared with cases concerning a missing male, or missing persons of other ethnicities or economic classes.
I would remove the word alleged from that definition. Here are some interesting statistics based around missing person reports:
--On average, 2300 people are reported missing everyday in the United States. That amounts to a whopping 840,000 per year. All but about 50,000 are juveniles.
--Of that 50,000, about 40% are white, 30% are black, 20% are Latino, and slightly better than half are male.
When you look at those numbers and then relate them to the national news coverage given to missing persons, it's clear that this "syndrome" is not alleged at all. It is a painful fact.
Just think of the most well covered missing persons cases in recent years:
--Chandra Levy in 2001. Sure, her case involved an extramarital affair with then U.S. Representative (CA), Gary Condit (whose career was ruined despite not being a suspect), but did you also know that an Asian woman named Joyce Chiang went missing around the same time and Levy's alleged killer is the prime suspect in that case as well? I'm sure you didn't.
--Laci Peterson also in 2002. Peterson was murdered by her husband while 7 and a half months pregnant. The body of the fetus washed ashore in the San Francisco Bay separately from the mother. The ensuing media drama coupled with the Smart case probably made Nancy Grace's career.
--Natalee Holloway in 2004. Perhaps the mother of all ongoing missing persons cases. Holloway disappeared while vacationing in Aruba and was last seen with Dutch citizen, Joran van der Sloot. The case was widely covered by all major media networks, and has recently been back in the news due to van der Sloot's alleged murder of a second female victim in Peru.
Besides being women, these ladies all had three other things in common: They were all white and pretty, and their families worked tirelessly to keep the case in the news. On that last score, I don't blame their parents and relatives one bit. The personal horror of having your loved one go missing has to be amongst the worst of all maladies. I happen to be married to a pretty blonde girl and if (God forbid) she ever disappeared, I would use every tool in the box to bring her home.
That being said, can anyone recall a case of a missing minority of any age that has received anywhere near the same amount of coverage? I can't think of a single one. Hell, even the so called "Amber Alert" was named after a little white girl. Now to be fair, most missing children are indeed caucasian females. And anytime a child goes missing, I am for pulling out all the stops to bring them home. However, I question if minorities get the same full court press that white children get.
Think of the two most famous missing children cases involving children from recent years:
--Elizabeth Smart in 2002. Abducted from her Salt Lake City home by two degenerates, Smart's case became a cause celeb for the nine plus months that she went missing until her rescue in March of 2003.
--Caylee Anthony in 2005. Anthony's body was later recovered in August of the same year and her mother was arrested soon after and the prosecutor's office is seeking the death penalty.
Is there even a comparable case involving a minority child? Unfortunately, that isn't even the right question to ask. The real conundrum is why? Why do we seem to value the lives of attractive white girls above all else? It's not like people of black, brown, or Asian persuasion never disappear. Do we simply value the lives of the attractive white female above all others? And worse yet, how do you answer "no" to that last question? What evidence can you provide to support a contrary thesis? Again, I'm stumped.
I do however think that you can pin point the biased media coverage back to a single event, the death of Jonbenet Ramsey. For those that don't remember, the six year old Ramsey was discovered murdered in the basement of her family home in 1996. Due in part to the odd behavior of her parents and the child's involvement in beauty pageants (why is this a good idea?), the story was all the rage for years. The inability to bring the case to trial played a large part in the drawn out nature of the media coverage as well. While many suspected both the mother and father of foul play, the murder site was so contaminated that no prosecutorial consensus could be reached. To this day, the case remains unsolved.
While the murder of Jonbenet remains unresolved, what is clear is that her case created a whole sea change in the way these cases are reported. Missing White Woman Syndrome became very good for ratings. Think of the amount of coverage that established news organizations like CNN has spent over the last 15 years covering these incidents. While major events have been going on in the world, there has always been plenty of time to cover the case of a pretty missing blonde girl. It's so bad now, that they don't even need to be missing, they can just be screwed up (see Anna Nicole Smith). At times it can be difficult to tell the difference between CNN and Entertainment Tonight. In fact, the CNN owned Court TV (now Tru TV), probably owes it's entire success to the "Syndrome."
But if this is the new reality, then fine. If we need to cover every missing person case with a frenzy that puts the tabloids to shame then I will accept with one caveat: If only on occasion, can we please make black the new blonde?
Sumo-Pop
June 25, 2010
It is a sad fact that if you go missing in this country, your chances of garnering national media coverage are greatly enhanced if you are a white woman. Throw in blonde and pretty and you're damn near an iron clad cinch to end up on Nancy Grace's show every night for weeks--if not months--to come.
There is even a name for this phenomena. It's called "Missing White Woman Syndrome," or "Missing Pretty Girl Syndrome." It is defined on wikipedia as: a vernacular term for the alleged disproportionately greater degree of coverage in television, radio, newspaper and magazine reporting of a misfortune, most often a missing person case, involving a young, attractive, white, middle-class (or above) woman, compared with cases concerning a missing male, or missing persons of other ethnicities or economic classes.
I would remove the word alleged from that definition. Here are some interesting statistics based around missing person reports:
--On average, 2300 people are reported missing everyday in the United States. That amounts to a whopping 840,000 per year. All but about 50,000 are juveniles.
--Of that 50,000, about 40% are white, 30% are black, 20% are Latino, and slightly better than half are male.
When you look at those numbers and then relate them to the national news coverage given to missing persons, it's clear that this "syndrome" is not alleged at all. It is a painful fact.
Just think of the most well covered missing persons cases in recent years:
--Chandra Levy in 2001. Sure, her case involved an extramarital affair with then U.S. Representative (CA), Gary Condit (whose career was ruined despite not being a suspect), but did you also know that an Asian woman named Joyce Chiang went missing around the same time and Levy's alleged killer is the prime suspect in that case as well? I'm sure you didn't.
--Laci Peterson also in 2002. Peterson was murdered by her husband while 7 and a half months pregnant. The body of the fetus washed ashore in the San Francisco Bay separately from the mother. The ensuing media drama coupled with the Smart case probably made Nancy Grace's career.
--Natalee Holloway in 2004. Perhaps the mother of all ongoing missing persons cases. Holloway disappeared while vacationing in Aruba and was last seen with Dutch citizen, Joran van der Sloot. The case was widely covered by all major media networks, and has recently been back in the news due to van der Sloot's alleged murder of a second female victim in Peru.
Besides being women, these ladies all had three other things in common: They were all white and pretty, and their families worked tirelessly to keep the case in the news. On that last score, I don't blame their parents and relatives one bit. The personal horror of having your loved one go missing has to be amongst the worst of all maladies. I happen to be married to a pretty blonde girl and if (God forbid) she ever disappeared, I would use every tool in the box to bring her home.
That being said, can anyone recall a case of a missing minority of any age that has received anywhere near the same amount of coverage? I can't think of a single one. Hell, even the so called "Amber Alert" was named after a little white girl. Now to be fair, most missing children are indeed caucasian females. And anytime a child goes missing, I am for pulling out all the stops to bring them home. However, I question if minorities get the same full court press that white children get.
Think of the two most famous missing children cases involving children from recent years:
--Elizabeth Smart in 2002. Abducted from her Salt Lake City home by two degenerates, Smart's case became a cause celeb for the nine plus months that she went missing until her rescue in March of 2003.
--Caylee Anthony in 2005. Anthony's body was later recovered in August of the same year and her mother was arrested soon after and the prosecutor's office is seeking the death penalty.
Is there even a comparable case involving a minority child? Unfortunately, that isn't even the right question to ask. The real conundrum is why? Why do we seem to value the lives of attractive white girls above all else? It's not like people of black, brown, or Asian persuasion never disappear. Do we simply value the lives of the attractive white female above all others? And worse yet, how do you answer "no" to that last question? What evidence can you provide to support a contrary thesis? Again, I'm stumped.
I do however think that you can pin point the biased media coverage back to a single event, the death of Jonbenet Ramsey. For those that don't remember, the six year old Ramsey was discovered murdered in the basement of her family home in 1996. Due in part to the odd behavior of her parents and the child's involvement in beauty pageants (why is this a good idea?), the story was all the rage for years. The inability to bring the case to trial played a large part in the drawn out nature of the media coverage as well. While many suspected both the mother and father of foul play, the murder site was so contaminated that no prosecutorial consensus could be reached. To this day, the case remains unsolved.
While the murder of Jonbenet remains unresolved, what is clear is that her case created a whole sea change in the way these cases are reported. Missing White Woman Syndrome became very good for ratings. Think of the amount of coverage that established news organizations like CNN has spent over the last 15 years covering these incidents. While major events have been going on in the world, there has always been plenty of time to cover the case of a pretty missing blonde girl. It's so bad now, that they don't even need to be missing, they can just be screwed up (see Anna Nicole Smith). At times it can be difficult to tell the difference between CNN and Entertainment Tonight. In fact, the CNN owned Court TV (now Tru TV), probably owes it's entire success to the "Syndrome."
But if this is the new reality, then fine. If we need to cover every missing person case with a frenzy that puts the tabloids to shame then I will accept with one caveat: If only on occasion, can we please make black the new blonde?
Sumo-Pop
June 25, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
A Letter To My Senator
Senator Lugar,
In my entire life, you are the only republican I have ever voted for. Despite my liberal leanings, I have always considered you a man of integrity and sound judgement. In fact, whenever I believe that congressional term limits are in order I also think, "Yeah, but then we would lose a guy like Dick Lugar." However, your "go along" stance with your party to filibuster a bill today that would have extended unemployment benefits to hundreds of thousands of people (like my dad) makes me feel physically ill to think that I could have ever cast a ballot in your favor.
You can rest assured that I will not do so again.
Thanks for nothing,
David E. Phillips
Sent to Senator Lugar today at 10:32PM through his website: http://lugar.senate.gov/
Response from Senator Lugar's office:
Dear Mr. Phillips:
Thank you for contacting me about the continuation of federal emergency unemployment benefits.
I support the continuation of this assistance program and am disappointed that Congress has to date been unable to come to a compromise to achieve this end. Emergency unemployment benefits have provided millions of Americans with a needed degree of financial security during this challenging economic time.
It is also imperative that legislation to continue unemployment benefits work toward sustainable economic growth and not against it. I do not believe that adding tens of billions of dollars to our national debt and increasing taxes on many small businesses for only a short term continuation of assistance programs represents a responsible pro-growth policy. As an alternative, I have voted to continue federal unemployment benefits and to pay for this additional spending with unused funds the government has already appropriated. Though this approach has received bipartisan support, this effort has been defeated on multiple occasions by Democratic Party leadership. Despite these failures to move a bill forward, I remain hopeful that differences can be resolved.
If you or friends or family are in need of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact my Indianapolis office at (317) 226-5555. While the continuation of federal emergency unemployment benefits is still under consideration, there are a number of other public assistance programs available. My staff has put together an assistance resource guide called "The Hoosier Connection," accessible at http://lugar.senate.gov/services/resources/, which provides information on some of these programs.
Thank you, again, for contacting me.
Sincerely, Richard G. Lugar United States Senator
My reply:
Not good enough. Not nearly. When did the senate become a place where the filibuster must be used on every single vote that does not reach the 60 vote super majority? 57 of your democratically elected colleagues are ready to vote for this. Your side talks about the will of the people, well the will of the people elected those 57 people. Why must 43% of the Senate hold up everything? Is this what you believe the senate was designed to do? Sorry Senator, but you can do better than this. I do appreciate the reply.
Sincerely,
David Phillips
In my entire life, you are the only republican I have ever voted for. Despite my liberal leanings, I have always considered you a man of integrity and sound judgement. In fact, whenever I believe that congressional term limits are in order I also think, "Yeah, but then we would lose a guy like Dick Lugar." However, your "go along" stance with your party to filibuster a bill today that would have extended unemployment benefits to hundreds of thousands of people (like my dad) makes me feel physically ill to think that I could have ever cast a ballot in your favor.
You can rest assured that I will not do so again.
Thanks for nothing,
David E. Phillips
Sent to Senator Lugar today at 10:32PM through his website: http://lugar.senate.gov/
Response from Senator Lugar's office:
Dear Mr. Phillips:
Thank you for contacting me about the continuation of federal emergency unemployment benefits.
I support the continuation of this assistance program and am disappointed that Congress has to date been unable to come to a compromise to achieve this end. Emergency unemployment benefits have provided millions of Americans with a needed degree of financial security during this challenging economic time.
It is also imperative that legislation to continue unemployment benefits work toward sustainable economic growth and not against it. I do not believe that adding tens of billions of dollars to our national debt and increasing taxes on many small businesses for only a short term continuation of assistance programs represents a responsible pro-growth policy. As an alternative, I have voted to continue federal unemployment benefits and to pay for this additional spending with unused funds the government has already appropriated. Though this approach has received bipartisan support, this effort has been defeated on multiple occasions by Democratic Party leadership. Despite these failures to move a bill forward, I remain hopeful that differences can be resolved.
If you or friends or family are in need of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact my Indianapolis office at (317) 226-5555. While the continuation of federal emergency unemployment benefits is still under consideration, there are a number of other public assistance programs available. My staff has put together an assistance resource guide called "The Hoosier Connection," accessible at http://lugar.senate.gov/services/resources/, which provides information on some of these programs.
Thank you, again, for contacting me.
Sincerely, Richard G. Lugar United States Senator
My reply:
Not good enough. Not nearly. When did the senate become a place where the filibuster must be used on every single vote that does not reach the 60 vote super majority? 57 of your democratically elected colleagues are ready to vote for this. Your side talks about the will of the people, well the will of the people elected those 57 people. Why must 43% of the Senate hold up everything? Is this what you believe the senate was designed to do? Sorry Senator, but you can do better than this. I do appreciate the reply.
Sincerely,
David Phillips
Friday, June 18, 2010
This Is Your Song
Along with recording some of the best loved songs of the 20th century, Elton John has contributed greatly to worthy causes. His Elton John AIDS Foundation is a model organization that has raised millions upon millions of dollars for AIDS research and care. He obviously has a big heart and cares for the less fortunate among us.
So why in the world would Elton sing at the wedding of a hateful, morbidly obese, racist, drug addict, homophobe like Rush Limbaugh?
Before I get to the answer, let me share my appreciation for Sir Elton John. I've been listening to Elton's music for as long as I can remember. His first 11 albums (from 1969's Empty Sky to 1976's Blue Moves) are the standard for piano based pop music. Songs like Rocket Man, Levon, Tiny Dancer, and Goodbye Yellow Brick Road (the list is seemingly endless), are among my all time favorites.
The late seventies and most of the eighties were not nearly so friendly to John. Prolific drug use, a bizarre marriage to a woman (he's gay, ya know) named Renate Blauel in 1984, struggles with his voice (which eventually led to surgery), and a noticeable drop off in song quality dogged Elton for well over a decade. Oh sure, he still had some high moments during this period (Empty Garden, I Guess That's Why They Call It The Blues, and Sad Songs are my favorites), but even after Elton cleaned up his act it was clear that he was never going to reach those seventies heights ever again.
Too many of his albums contained way too much filler. Age and the vocal chord surgery robbed him of his grand high notes. And there just seemed to be something lazy and plodding about most of his music. It often seemed as if he was writing for the radio as opposed to quality. I know people love his rework of "Candle In The Wind" for Princess Diana, but I think it's pretty brutal. I have no idea how long that song actually is, but it feels on par with the length of "Lawrence Of Arabia." Overall, I find it terribly ironic that Elton's best music was recorded when he was high, in the closet, and what little hair he had was his own.
Even so, it is difficult not to forgive much of his lackluster later work due to his championing of noble causes. Aside from his Foundation, John has also worked to alleviate poverty in the poorest of countries, assist refugees in war torn lands, and fought hard for gay rights as well.
So I ask again what was Elton John doing singing at Rush Limbaugh's fourth wedding on June 5th of this year? I doubt Rush has anything notorious on Elton (his life is pretty much an open book these days). Elton's comment that it was an opportunity "to go where people wouldn't expect me to go" is dubious and true at the same time. Dubious, because I don't think that's the "why" at all. And true, because yeah, nobody expected him to go there. Who would think that Elton John would perform at the wedding of a man who would say these words?:
--Democrats will “bend over, grab the ankles, and say, ‘Have your way with me’” to African American and gay voters.
--Openly gay students are “trumpeting” their sexuality, “inviting dissent”.
--“When a gay person turns his back on you, it is anything but an insult; it’s an invitation.”
He also once aired a song on his radio show that referred to the openly gay House Representative from Massachusetts, Barney Frank, as the "Banking Queen."
And those are just his anti-gay remarks. I could go on for days about his other offensive comments about blacks, democrats, liberals, women, and nearly every other category and sub-category of person known to man.
Therefore, I am left with the only bit of evidence left that might explain why Elton crooned to Rush and wife number 4. Actually, there are one million bits of evidence. For that was Elton's fee for warbling to Rush--$1,000,000.
Which leaves me wondering, does Elton John need money? I know he's considered to be a bit of an extravagant person, but come on. Even at his current age of 63 and with diminished vocals, he has no trouble selling out stadiums and arenas around the world. I'm sure the royalties of his back catalog bring in a pretty penny every year. I mean, if he wanted to score an easy mil couldn't he have just found some rich asshole that no one's ever heard of who would hire him to sing at little Buffy's sweet sixteen?
Like I said, I have long admired Elton John for his music and for his support of worthy causes. And he certainly has the right to take legal tender from any pig of a person he chooses. But he doesn't need to, and that's what irritates me most. Is there nothing too low to acquiesce to for the sake of easy money? For Sir Elton, I guess not.
So Sir Elton, I say to you that this, THIS is your song (and it goes a little something like this):
Bum bada, bada, bada da, bada da...for the love of money...MONEY!!
Sumo-Pop
November 18, 2010
So why in the world would Elton sing at the wedding of a hateful, morbidly obese, racist, drug addict, homophobe like Rush Limbaugh?
Before I get to the answer, let me share my appreciation for Sir Elton John. I've been listening to Elton's music for as long as I can remember. His first 11 albums (from 1969's Empty Sky to 1976's Blue Moves) are the standard for piano based pop music. Songs like Rocket Man, Levon, Tiny Dancer, and Goodbye Yellow Brick Road (the list is seemingly endless), are among my all time favorites.
The late seventies and most of the eighties were not nearly so friendly to John. Prolific drug use, a bizarre marriage to a woman (he's gay, ya know) named Renate Blauel in 1984, struggles with his voice (which eventually led to surgery), and a noticeable drop off in song quality dogged Elton for well over a decade. Oh sure, he still had some high moments during this period (Empty Garden, I Guess That's Why They Call It The Blues, and Sad Songs are my favorites), but even after Elton cleaned up his act it was clear that he was never going to reach those seventies heights ever again.
Too many of his albums contained way too much filler. Age and the vocal chord surgery robbed him of his grand high notes. And there just seemed to be something lazy and plodding about most of his music. It often seemed as if he was writing for the radio as opposed to quality. I know people love his rework of "Candle In The Wind" for Princess Diana, but I think it's pretty brutal. I have no idea how long that song actually is, but it feels on par with the length of "Lawrence Of Arabia." Overall, I find it terribly ironic that Elton's best music was recorded when he was high, in the closet, and what little hair he had was his own.
Even so, it is difficult not to forgive much of his lackluster later work due to his championing of noble causes. Aside from his Foundation, John has also worked to alleviate poverty in the poorest of countries, assist refugees in war torn lands, and fought hard for gay rights as well.
So I ask again what was Elton John doing singing at Rush Limbaugh's fourth wedding on June 5th of this year? I doubt Rush has anything notorious on Elton (his life is pretty much an open book these days). Elton's comment that it was an opportunity "to go where people wouldn't expect me to go" is dubious and true at the same time. Dubious, because I don't think that's the "why" at all. And true, because yeah, nobody expected him to go there. Who would think that Elton John would perform at the wedding of a man who would say these words?:
--Democrats will “bend over, grab the ankles, and say, ‘Have your way with me’” to African American and gay voters.
--Openly gay students are “trumpeting” their sexuality, “inviting dissent”.
--“When a gay person turns his back on you, it is anything but an insult; it’s an invitation.”
He also once aired a song on his radio show that referred to the openly gay House Representative from Massachusetts, Barney Frank, as the "Banking Queen."
And those are just his anti-gay remarks. I could go on for days about his other offensive comments about blacks, democrats, liberals, women, and nearly every other category and sub-category of person known to man.
Therefore, I am left with the only bit of evidence left that might explain why Elton crooned to Rush and wife number 4. Actually, there are one million bits of evidence. For that was Elton's fee for warbling to Rush--$1,000,000.
Which leaves me wondering, does Elton John need money? I know he's considered to be a bit of an extravagant person, but come on. Even at his current age of 63 and with diminished vocals, he has no trouble selling out stadiums and arenas around the world. I'm sure the royalties of his back catalog bring in a pretty penny every year. I mean, if he wanted to score an easy mil couldn't he have just found some rich asshole that no one's ever heard of who would hire him to sing at little Buffy's sweet sixteen?
Like I said, I have long admired Elton John for his music and for his support of worthy causes. And he certainly has the right to take legal tender from any pig of a person he chooses. But he doesn't need to, and that's what irritates me most. Is there nothing too low to acquiesce to for the sake of easy money? For Sir Elton, I guess not.
So Sir Elton, I say to you that this, THIS is your song (and it goes a little something like this):
Bum bada, bada, bada da, bada da...for the love of money...MONEY!!
Sumo-Pop
November 18, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Hysterical Blindness
You're blind/you can't see/you need to wear some glasses like D.M.C.---Run-DMC
It's a hell of thing setting high expectations. Invariably, you will disappoint. Certainly, with his soaring campaign rhetoric that created a winning coalition in the 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama had some people believing he could walk on water. Now that he has been President for over a year now, we have learned that he can't.
He and his administration have certainly not been perfect. They have ticked off independents with what they view as excessive spending. They have upset gays by not attacking the Defense Of Marriage Act and stalling on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. They have steamed liberals by showing a willingness to get what they can (see health care reform) instead of what the left wants. They have enraged the right by, well, waking up in the morning and being Democrats. And they have disenchanted the media and punditry by not being as accessible as they would like.
Still, the criticism by the left of the President's speech on the disastrous Gulf Coast oil spill Tuesday night gave me pause.
What exactly did they want him to say? As I was watching Keith Olbermann sighing and harumphing his way through his assessment of the speech, as well as Chris Matthews' stinging rebuke of the President's message with his lower lip literally wet with froth, I thought could they have possibly been watching the same address that I was?
Now I will agree it was not Obama's greatest speech. I don't think the venue suited him. He has always been at his best when he has a live audience in the room with him to play off of. But it was a reasonable summation of how we got to this point, where we are now, and where we are going. While Olbermann and Matthews criticized the President for not being more specific and in Matthews words not projecting "command and control" (whatever the hell that means) and "moral outrage," I realized that we are all the way into "damned if you do, damned if you don't" territory.
When this President gives detailed, complex answers to national concerns, he is criticized for being too "professorial." Now, he's not detailed enough. And I think what the oft-fiery Matthews is saying when he speaks of "command and control" and "moral outrage," what he really means is he wants to see the President good and mad. As if getting angry is a solution. That's obviously what Matthews would do--- and like most people he thinks others should do the same as he.
So fine. They didn't like his lack of detail or the fact that he didn't pound his fist against the desk. If they feel they didn't get that from the speech then that is a fair statement. However, what is not fair is to say that the President stated that he was going to "ask" BP to set up an escrow fund for covering the costs of the spill as Matthews suggested. In truth, the President said that on Wednesday morning he would "inform" BP that they would be creating this fund for the Gulf. I don't know what Matthews' definition of "ask" is, but mine does not include the word "inform."
As well, Olbermann said there was nothing in the speech about "Cap and Trade." Which is technically true but essentially false. The energy bill that the House passed--and is sitting in the Senate awaiting debate--that Obama referred to during the speech does include "Cap and Trade." I think the President is astute enough to know that the words "Cap and Trade" are as loaded as the "Public Option" was in the health care debate. Therefore, he was making a shrewd choice to discuss energy independence without that polarizing phrase. I know we'd like to think that there is no political calculation at play here, but that is wholly unrealistic. What the President is trying to do here is marshall public and political support for a much needed energy bill that will lead to us getting off of fossil fuels. The best way to do that is not to throw dirt on the bill by putting its most controversial measure upfront. Like I said, shrewd.
This President has often been lambasted (mostly by the right) of being more talk than action. Which makes no sense at all if you look at his legislative accomplishments thus far in his presidency, but I digress. So it was quite interesting watching Olbermann, Matthews, and James Carville (whose criticism of the President's response to the spill has been loud and withering) begin to at least partially walk back their hysterical blindness on Wednesday when the President secured a $20 billion escrow account from BP as well as $100 million for out of work oil rig workers (due to the off shore drilling moratorium), and more funds for a coastal wetlands restoration project. This axis of liberal bluster softened considerably after the President squeezed BP for an unheard of amount of cash. And here's the thing: this agreement did not come with a cap! The President made it clear that this merely a down payment.
I wonder if people realize how extraordinary these concessions are. It would have been far easier for the President to enter negotiations with the full force of law behind him. He had hoped to gain leverage previously by having congress raise the oil spill liability for crude companies from the paltry $75 million that it stands at now to something far more substantial. However, Republicans in congress (I'm looking at you Murkowski) have continually blocked such an effort. Without any change to the cap, the President was left with only two weapons in his arsenal. Fear and shame.
Fear that the Department of Justice would sue BP for negligence and regulatory disregard, and shaming the company by continually railing against them. And you know what? It. Worked.
Of course, this defense of the President's speech and recent action doesn't mean that I think that his handling of this crisis has been perfect. Far from it. There are several areas where the President and his administration need to improve. The chain of command needs to be more clear. The collection strategy needs to be stepped up. The ability of BP to control the press needs to be addressed. The clean up workers must be provided (at BP's expense) with proper safety gear to avoid long term health issues. The Department of the Interior needs to completely make over the Minerals Management Service that was supposed to be in charge of regulating the oil companies. And of course, "Plug the damn hole."
Obama is not at fault for the lax regulation during the Bush years which has played a big part in this disaster. However, he does bare responsibility for not cleaning up the MMS more expeditiously. I was personally incredulous when Obama agreed to open up more of our coasts to expanded off shore oil drilling (http://sumopop-ed.blogspot.com/2010/04/crude.html). Now that we see the state that the MMS was in at the time of that decision I am even more so. The MMS has been criticized for having "too cozy" a relationship with oil companies. That is putting it mildly.
The MMS is reported to have 60 inspectors for over 4000 oil rigs. The inspectors are both underpaid and poorly trained. The department relies heavily on accurate reporting from the oil companies to ascertain whether they are compliant with federal regulation. Which essentially means that they are regulating themselves. This is how you end up with spill response plans that are "virtually worthless" according to House Democrat, Bart Stupak. In fact, when the heads of the five major oil companies (Exxon, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips, as well as BP) met with congress on Tuesday, it was revealed that their Gulf Coast plans for capping and collecting oil in the worst case scenario were nearly identical. All of them included relief plans for walruses. Walruses! A creature that hasn't known the gulf as its home in the long history of the planet.
One executive (Rex Tillerson of Exxon) broke ranks and admitted that when spills happen, "we are not well-equipped to handle them." I'd like to commend his honesty, but every time I see an oil soaked pelican I can only reel in disgust at his negligence.
Clearly, Obama and the Department of the Interior (which oversees the MMS) have moved far too slowly in overhauling that department and must take some of the blame for this disaster.
But this department didn't get this way overnight. If you have been paying attention to the typical response from Republicans during this crisis, it's not difficult to see how things got this way after eight years of Bush and six years of a Republican controlled congress (2000-2006). Aside from blocking the effort to raise the cap on the oil spill liability law, you had House Minority Leader, John Boehner suggesting that tax payers should be on the hook for cleaning up this mess (he has since reversed course). House Republican from Minnesota, Michelle Bachmann, was on CNN referring to the escrow account by saying: "And we don't want - we don't think it's a good idea for the federal government to see private industry as essentially a piggy bank for the federal government.” To top it all off, yesterday the top ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee actually apologized to BP CEO, Tony Hayward for the Obama administration's "shakedown" of his company. "Shakedown!?" I think like most Americans I want the "shakedown" followed by a take down and finished off with a beat down.
I know Republicans are trying to turn this disaster to their favor for the mid terms (the Democrats did the same post-Katrina). But here's the thing: If the Republicans were to take back the House, Joe Barton would become the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Is that the guy we want looking out for the public interest? Does anyone really think that if Republicans were in charge that they would be tougher on big oil? Or that the possibility of this type of spill wouldn't actually increase?
Hell, the Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal already wants the moratorium on deep sea drilling lifted. While I understand that a significant portion of their economy relies on the oil industry, doesn't he see the damage being done to his shores? My God man, just look at the water! You can't have it both ways. There has been a lot of talk about Jindal's strong leadership during this crisis, and I was on board with it early on. But when you consider his position on the moratorium, how can his judgement not be questioned?
There is plenty of blame to be passed around here from previous administrations to the current one. From past chambers of congress to the present. All are at least somewhat responsible for this tragedy.
But let me close with this thought:
At a time when the cap on oil spill liability is a pathetic $75 million and Republicans in congress continue to block any raise of said cap, this President walked into a room with BP and came out 20 minutes later with $20 BILLION with NO cap despite not having the full force of law behind him. Can anyone--and I mean anyone--imagine Bush or McCain doing the same? I await the sound of crickets.
Sumo-Pop June 18, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
Oh, Carolina
You just have to be crazy don't you/You just have to be out of your mind/You just have to be crazy don't you/You just have to be--Grant Lee Buffalo
Well, you do have to be crazy don't you? At least you do if you want to run for office in South Carolina. Just look at the evidence:
I suppose we can start with SC House Rep, Joe "You lie!" Wilson who shouted down the President from the house floor on September 9, 2009 when Obama was addressing both chambers of congress over Health Care Reform. President Obama was discussing the misconception regarding the availability of government subsidized health care for illegal aliens. The bill took great pains to make it clear that the undocumented would not be covered in the measure. No matter, a red faced, bull snorting Wilson cried out "You lie!" just as Obama was completing his sentence. After being chastened by both sides of the aisle, Wilson formally apologized to the President who like a grown up, accepted. This of course didn't stop Wilson from using his foolish, uninformed bluster to raise campaign cash for his reelection campaign.
This isn't the first time that Wilson's big mouth has gotten him into trouble either. In 2003, a woman named Essie Mae Washington-Williams revealed that she was the illegitimate child of former segregationist South Carolina Senator, Strom Thurmond and his maid. Wilson stated that Williams was trying to "smear" Thurmond and "diminish" his legacy. Never mind the fact that it was true that Thurmond was her biological father, Wilson still thought it was wrong to divulge her birth right. But then, miss Williams is black, and South Carolina is the state that was flying the Confederate flag over their capital building as recently as the year 2000. You do the math.
Then came the soon to be disgraced Republican Governor of the Palmetto State, Mark Sanford. For those that have tried to forget, Sanford literally disappeared from June 18 to June 24, 2009. No one, not his wife, the Lieutenant Governor, or his staff knew of his whereabouts. In a pathetic effort to cover for the Governor, his staff released a statement that Sanford was "hiking the Appalachian Trail." If that were true, then the Appalachian Trail would have to extend all the way to Argentina where Sanford was enjoying some "quality time" with his mistress. Of whom Sanford would later refer to as his "soul mate." Did I mention that all this happened over Father's day and that Sanford didn't even call home to speak to his four sons? It was later revealed that Sanford had visited his mistress in Argentina multiple times on the tax payer's dime. Incredibly, Sanford still resides in the South Carolina Governor's Mansion.
Although Sanford will not be running for another term, it wouldn't be South Carolina without another gubernatorial controversy. Sanford protege, State House Representative, Nikki Haley has been embroiled in a bitter fight to succeed the state's faux hiker with South Carolina Lieutenant Governor, Andre Bauer. On May 24, 2010, former Sanford Press Secretary , Will Folks, claimed to have had an affair with Hailey "several years ago." As if that weren't seedy enough, former Bauer political consultant, Larry Marchant also stated that he had enjoyed a physical relationship with Haley. Neither of these, er, gentlemen can offer any proof, but why should that get in the way of a good humiliation?
As if that were not enough for Haley to deal with, Republican South Carolina state Senator, Jake Knotts referred to Haley (who is of Indian descent) as a "raghead." He didn't say this privately or near an open mic. No. He said this on an internet talk show called Pub Politics. The exact quote is: "We've already got a raghead in the White House, we don't need another raghead in the governor's mansion." After being called out for this racist statement, Knotts issued this ridiculous apology: "Since my intended humorous context was lost in translation, I apologize. I still believe Ms Haley is pretending to be someone she is not, much as Obama did, but I apologize to both for an unintended slur." How much you wanna bet that if this clown runs for reelection he will win hands down?
Now before you think I'm only whacking Republicans, au contraire. The latest bit of nonsense emanates directly from the Democrats. In the Democratic Senate Primary, an unemployed 32 year old veteran who had no campaign website, never held a single campaign rally, or raised a single dollar for his candidacy, but does have a pending obscenity charge against him for showing internet pornography to a college student, defeated former four-term state lawmaker, Vic Rawl by 18 percentage points for the right to face Tea Party favorite Jim Demint in November. How the hell does that happen? If you believe the venerable Democratic House Representative, Jim Clyburn (who along with Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham, must feel like the last sane person in South Carolina politics), something is "Rotten in Denmark."
Shortly after the primary results on Tuesday, Clyburn implied that Greene may have been planted by the Republican Party to embarrass the Democrats. At first, I thought Clyburn might have finally succumbed to whatever is in the South Carolina drinking water and went over the deep end. Then, last night I watched Keith Olbermann interview Mister Greene on his Countdown program on MSNBC. In an interview that has to be seen to be believed (link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxnTYPZOmK0), Greene proved to be barely capable of answering the most simple of questions. Such as "Did you hold any rallies?" Watching the halting, stammering Greene attempt to reply to such basic entreaties, I began to wonder if Clyburn was right. How in the world did this guy ever even get on a ballot? Hell, his opponent has never met Greene or even heard of him prior to the primary. I don't know if Greene is a "Republican Plant" or not, but after seeing Greene in action, I am convinced that he has the intellect of a different kind of plant, a house plant. Clyburn is now calling for an investigation into Greene's candidacy, and I for one am ready to be fascinated by the results.
All these incidents are the recent greatest hits of South Carolina politics. They stand as a staggering rebuke of the politicians and the citizenry that has elected them.
There has been a fair bit of discussion about secession since the election of Barack Obama. Mostly from the Republican Governor of Texas, Rick Perry. If this crazy talk ever reaches South Carolina--and Sanford, Haley, or whoever the hell might be the Governor at the time is willing to back a secession movement, I say we throw Clyburn and Graham a lifeline and bid "good riddance" to the rest of them.
Just prior to the Civil War, South Carolina was actually the first state to secede, and the founding state of the Confederacy. Our great President Lincoln went to war with the south and eventually brought all of the "rebel" states back into the fold, but it looks as if "All" might have been one too many.
Sumo-Pop
June 11, 2010
Well, you do have to be crazy don't you? At least you do if you want to run for office in South Carolina. Just look at the evidence:
I suppose we can start with SC House Rep, Joe "You lie!" Wilson who shouted down the President from the house floor on September 9, 2009 when Obama was addressing both chambers of congress over Health Care Reform. President Obama was discussing the misconception regarding the availability of government subsidized health care for illegal aliens. The bill took great pains to make it clear that the undocumented would not be covered in the measure. No matter, a red faced, bull snorting Wilson cried out "You lie!" just as Obama was completing his sentence. After being chastened by both sides of the aisle, Wilson formally apologized to the President who like a grown up, accepted. This of course didn't stop Wilson from using his foolish, uninformed bluster to raise campaign cash for his reelection campaign.
This isn't the first time that Wilson's big mouth has gotten him into trouble either. In 2003, a woman named Essie Mae Washington-Williams revealed that she was the illegitimate child of former segregationist South Carolina Senator, Strom Thurmond and his maid. Wilson stated that Williams was trying to "smear" Thurmond and "diminish" his legacy. Never mind the fact that it was true that Thurmond was her biological father, Wilson still thought it was wrong to divulge her birth right. But then, miss Williams is black, and South Carolina is the state that was flying the Confederate flag over their capital building as recently as the year 2000. You do the math.
Then came the soon to be disgraced Republican Governor of the Palmetto State, Mark Sanford. For those that have tried to forget, Sanford literally disappeared from June 18 to June 24, 2009. No one, not his wife, the Lieutenant Governor, or his staff knew of his whereabouts. In a pathetic effort to cover for the Governor, his staff released a statement that Sanford was "hiking the Appalachian Trail." If that were true, then the Appalachian Trail would have to extend all the way to Argentina where Sanford was enjoying some "quality time" with his mistress. Of whom Sanford would later refer to as his "soul mate." Did I mention that all this happened over Father's day and that Sanford didn't even call home to speak to his four sons? It was later revealed that Sanford had visited his mistress in Argentina multiple times on the tax payer's dime. Incredibly, Sanford still resides in the South Carolina Governor's Mansion.
Although Sanford will not be running for another term, it wouldn't be South Carolina without another gubernatorial controversy. Sanford protege, State House Representative, Nikki Haley has been embroiled in a bitter fight to succeed the state's faux hiker with South Carolina Lieutenant Governor, Andre Bauer. On May 24, 2010, former Sanford Press Secretary , Will Folks, claimed to have had an affair with Hailey "several years ago." As if that weren't seedy enough, former Bauer political consultant, Larry Marchant also stated that he had enjoyed a physical relationship with Haley. Neither of these, er, gentlemen can offer any proof, but why should that get in the way of a good humiliation?
As if that were not enough for Haley to deal with, Republican South Carolina state Senator, Jake Knotts referred to Haley (who is of Indian descent) as a "raghead." He didn't say this privately or near an open mic. No. He said this on an internet talk show called Pub Politics. The exact quote is: "We've already got a raghead in the White House, we don't need another raghead in the governor's mansion." After being called out for this racist statement, Knotts issued this ridiculous apology: "Since my intended humorous context was lost in translation, I apologize. I still believe Ms Haley is pretending to be someone she is not, much as Obama did, but I apologize to both for an unintended slur." How much you wanna bet that if this clown runs for reelection he will win hands down?
Now before you think I'm only whacking Republicans, au contraire. The latest bit of nonsense emanates directly from the Democrats. In the Democratic Senate Primary, an unemployed 32 year old veteran who had no campaign website, never held a single campaign rally, or raised a single dollar for his candidacy, but does have a pending obscenity charge against him for showing internet pornography to a college student, defeated former four-term state lawmaker, Vic Rawl by 18 percentage points for the right to face Tea Party favorite Jim Demint in November. How the hell does that happen? If you believe the venerable Democratic House Representative, Jim Clyburn (who along with Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham, must feel like the last sane person in South Carolina politics), something is "Rotten in Denmark."
Shortly after the primary results on Tuesday, Clyburn implied that Greene may have been planted by the Republican Party to embarrass the Democrats. At first, I thought Clyburn might have finally succumbed to whatever is in the South Carolina drinking water and went over the deep end. Then, last night I watched Keith Olbermann interview Mister Greene on his Countdown program on MSNBC. In an interview that has to be seen to be believed (link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxnTYPZOmK0), Greene proved to be barely capable of answering the most simple of questions. Such as "Did you hold any rallies?" Watching the halting, stammering Greene attempt to reply to such basic entreaties, I began to wonder if Clyburn was right. How in the world did this guy ever even get on a ballot? Hell, his opponent has never met Greene or even heard of him prior to the primary. I don't know if Greene is a "Republican Plant" or not, but after seeing Greene in action, I am convinced that he has the intellect of a different kind of plant, a house plant. Clyburn is now calling for an investigation into Greene's candidacy, and I for one am ready to be fascinated by the results.
All these incidents are the recent greatest hits of South Carolina politics. They stand as a staggering rebuke of the politicians and the citizenry that has elected them.
There has been a fair bit of discussion about secession since the election of Barack Obama. Mostly from the Republican Governor of Texas, Rick Perry. If this crazy talk ever reaches South Carolina--and Sanford, Haley, or whoever the hell might be the Governor at the time is willing to back a secession movement, I say we throw Clyburn and Graham a lifeline and bid "good riddance" to the rest of them.
Just prior to the Civil War, South Carolina was actually the first state to secede, and the founding state of the Confederacy. Our great President Lincoln went to war with the south and eventually brought all of the "rebel" states back into the fold, but it looks as if "All" might have been one too many.
Sumo-Pop
June 11, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Howl
Today marks the 46th day since the BP-created oil spill in the gulf. 46 damn days with no end in sight. Watching the agonizing coverage day after day as the crude spreads across the coast while each attempt to stanch the leak meets with failure is exasperating. The whole wretched experience seems to be happening in slow motion, and a solution to the problem is in no hurry to get here.
There is a feeling that this sort of hopelessness creates. It starts in the pit of your stomach as a sickening pang that threatens to work its way through your body like a cancer. And if this horrible feeling were to reach your larynx and become sound, it, WE would howl.
We would howl over the 35 million gallons of oil that has already gushed from this busted well.
We would howl over the toxic dispersants that are being used to break the oil down, but will likely create new problems that are yet to be seen.
We would howl over the continuing destruction of the wetlands that help shield coastal communities from storm surges.
We would howl over the noxious clean up efforts that will produce terrible health issues for those who are attempting to contain the spill.
We would howl over our reliance on the dirty fossil fuels that are moving towards our pristine shores.
We would howl over the booms, "top kill," "cap and kill," "mud kill," "junk shot," and the skimming, siphoning, and shoveling efforts that look positively prehistoric in their lack of effectiveness.
We would howl at BP, Halliburton, and Transocean whose gluttonous desire for profits exceeded the safety needs of their employees, marine life, and the very ocean itself.
We would howl at a Federal Government that must rely on the criminals that caused the spill to now contain it.
We would howl at Republicans and Democrats who have worked so hard at weakening regulations in the name of lining their pockets with corporate donations.
We would howl at Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar who had to know what a mess the Materials Management Department was before the spill happened.
We would howl at the "Drill, Baby Drill" crowd that have argued that deep sea oil exploration is not only safe, but necessary to bring down the price of gas a few damn pennies over the next 20 years.
We would howl at that damn camera at the bottom of the ocean that is a disgusting reminder of all that we have lost and are about to lose.
We would howl for Louisiana, for they have clearly suffered enough.
We would howl for Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and the whole Atlantic Coast that now awaits the worst.
We would howl for the fishermen whose whole way of life is in jeopardy.
We would howl for the animals that wash ashore covered in so much oil that it is difficult to ascertain their species.
We would howl for the 11 men murdered on that oil rig by a corporation too cheap to check the battery on the blow out preventer.
We would howl because it hurts. It hurts like hell.
Of course, we know all this howling probably makes no difference at all. So we howl over that too. What else can we do?
Sumo-Pop
June 4, 2010
There is a feeling that this sort of hopelessness creates. It starts in the pit of your stomach as a sickening pang that threatens to work its way through your body like a cancer. And if this horrible feeling were to reach your larynx and become sound, it, WE would howl.
We would howl over the 35 million gallons of oil that has already gushed from this busted well.
We would howl over the toxic dispersants that are being used to break the oil down, but will likely create new problems that are yet to be seen.
We would howl over the continuing destruction of the wetlands that help shield coastal communities from storm surges.
We would howl over the noxious clean up efforts that will produce terrible health issues for those who are attempting to contain the spill.
We would howl over our reliance on the dirty fossil fuels that are moving towards our pristine shores.
We would howl over the booms, "top kill," "cap and kill," "mud kill," "junk shot," and the skimming, siphoning, and shoveling efforts that look positively prehistoric in their lack of effectiveness.
We would howl at BP, Halliburton, and Transocean whose gluttonous desire for profits exceeded the safety needs of their employees, marine life, and the very ocean itself.
We would howl at a Federal Government that must rely on the criminals that caused the spill to now contain it.
We would howl at Republicans and Democrats who have worked so hard at weakening regulations in the name of lining their pockets with corporate donations.
We would howl at Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar who had to know what a mess the Materials Management Department was before the spill happened.
We would howl at the "Drill, Baby Drill" crowd that have argued that deep sea oil exploration is not only safe, but necessary to bring down the price of gas a few damn pennies over the next 20 years.
We would howl at that damn camera at the bottom of the ocean that is a disgusting reminder of all that we have lost and are about to lose.
We would howl for Louisiana, for they have clearly suffered enough.
We would howl for Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and the whole Atlantic Coast that now awaits the worst.
We would howl for the fishermen whose whole way of life is in jeopardy.
We would howl for the animals that wash ashore covered in so much oil that it is difficult to ascertain their species.
We would howl for the 11 men murdered on that oil rig by a corporation too cheap to check the battery on the blow out preventer.
We would howl because it hurts. It hurts like hell.
Of course, we know all this howling probably makes no difference at all. So we howl over that too. What else can we do?
Sumo-Pop
June 4, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Nobody's Perfect
Last night in Detroit, a young man was robbed of something he had rightfully earned. Because of the poor decision of another, Armando Gallaraga did not accomplish what only 20 other people in the history of the world have done. He did not pitch a perfect game.
After sitting down 26 consecutive batters, the Tiger's pitcher needed only to retire Cleveland Indian's shortstop, Jason Donald and he would own a select piece of history. All was well as Donald hit a weak ground ball up the first base line followed by a clean toss to Galaragga as he covered the bag a step before Donald's foot landed on the base. That's when it all went pear shaped. The well respected umpire (he was once voted the second best umpire in the league by the players), Jim Joyce blew the call. Or as he would later say: "I kicked the shit out of it."
This was an error on the Don Denkinger level. For those that don't remember, Denkinger infamously called The Royal's Jorge Orta safe at first in the ninth inning of the sixth game of the 1985 World Series on a similar play at first base. If that call had been made correctly, the Saint Louis Cardinals would have been the World Series champions. Instead, The Royals came back to win game 6 and then game 7 as well.
Now Denkinger has company. This isn't just any blown call, this is the kind that will live in infamy as long as anyone discusses the history of baseball. It was so clear, that one has a difficult time seeing how Joyce missed it. He was in position. It wasn't a bang-bang play. And he didn't rule that Galaragga juggled the ball or missed the base. How could he have missed it?! Well, because that's what humans do sometimes. They screw up. And Joyce just happened to do it while immortality was tapping on Galaragga's shoulder. Unfortunately, immortality didn't go home after the blown call. Nope. Immortality dressed Joyce up like the skunk at the party. Usually, the best thing you can say about an umpire is nothing. Typically, if they call a good game you barely notice them. Well, Joyce sure got noticed last night, and I'm sure he isn't enjoying the notoriety.
But you have to give the man credit. He admitted his mistake whole heartedly. After the game he watched the replay and then, crestfallen, he searched out Galaragga to deliver a heart felt apology. In fact, Galaragga was so affected that he hugged the man who took from him something he will probably never get a second chance at. When they interviewed the Tiger pitcher after his meeting with Joyce, you would almost swear that Joyce was the injured party. Galaragga even said "Nobody's perfect." In fact, Galaragga didn't even flip his lid when the erroneous call was made. He actually smiled! Ok, maybe it was more of a grimace, but still.
Today, Joyce was behind the plate for the last game of the Tigers-Indians series. Commissioner Bud Selig had offered Joyce the night off. Joyce turned it down. He did this even though he knew there was a good chance that he would be heavily booed. But as he told Tiger Manger Jim Leyland, "I'll take what's coming to me." Classy as ever, Leyland requested that the Tiger fans not boo Joyce today. And while some did, many actually cheered! My guess is that they did so because Jim Joyce is a stand up guy. And because Armando Galaragga and Jim Leyland are class individuals who were willing to forgive Joyce his folly. If they could, then why couldn't the Tiger faithful?
There is a rule in baseball that can be invoked under a clause called "In the best interest of the game." It's a vague rule that gives the commissioner the latitude to make a unilateral change if he sees fit. Commissioner Selig could have used this clause to overturn Joyce's call and award the perfect game to Galaragga retroactively. No one would say that Galaragga didn't "deserve" it. But as Clint Eastwood said in Unforgiven: "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." If Selig were to change the outcome of a game, it would open up a Pandora's Box. What if the Indians had come back and won the game? Would they have had that win taken away? And if so, what would stop a Commissioner from changing outcomes of games in the future? Don't get me wrong, what happened to Galaragga and Joyce was unfair, but you can't unring a bell can you? You can't say that something that happened, well, didn't. So, earlier today Selig ruled that the play and the final result of the game would stand. Which while painful, is correct.
This of course means that nobody's perfect. Not Galaragga, and certainly not Joyce. At least not on the field anyway. But consider the actions of both men after the game, and it's damn hard to argue that while they didn't get it right on the field, they certainly did off it.
Sumo-Pop
June 3, 2010
After sitting down 26 consecutive batters, the Tiger's pitcher needed only to retire Cleveland Indian's shortstop, Jason Donald and he would own a select piece of history. All was well as Donald hit a weak ground ball up the first base line followed by a clean toss to Galaragga as he covered the bag a step before Donald's foot landed on the base. That's when it all went pear shaped. The well respected umpire (he was once voted the second best umpire in the league by the players), Jim Joyce blew the call. Or as he would later say: "I kicked the shit out of it."
This was an error on the Don Denkinger level. For those that don't remember, Denkinger infamously called The Royal's Jorge Orta safe at first in the ninth inning of the sixth game of the 1985 World Series on a similar play at first base. If that call had been made correctly, the Saint Louis Cardinals would have been the World Series champions. Instead, The Royals came back to win game 6 and then game 7 as well.
Now Denkinger has company. This isn't just any blown call, this is the kind that will live in infamy as long as anyone discusses the history of baseball. It was so clear, that one has a difficult time seeing how Joyce missed it. He was in position. It wasn't a bang-bang play. And he didn't rule that Galaragga juggled the ball or missed the base. How could he have missed it?! Well, because that's what humans do sometimes. They screw up. And Joyce just happened to do it while immortality was tapping on Galaragga's shoulder. Unfortunately, immortality didn't go home after the blown call. Nope. Immortality dressed Joyce up like the skunk at the party. Usually, the best thing you can say about an umpire is nothing. Typically, if they call a good game you barely notice them. Well, Joyce sure got noticed last night, and I'm sure he isn't enjoying the notoriety.
But you have to give the man credit. He admitted his mistake whole heartedly. After the game he watched the replay and then, crestfallen, he searched out Galaragga to deliver a heart felt apology. In fact, Galaragga was so affected that he hugged the man who took from him something he will probably never get a second chance at. When they interviewed the Tiger pitcher after his meeting with Joyce, you would almost swear that Joyce was the injured party. Galaragga even said "Nobody's perfect." In fact, Galaragga didn't even flip his lid when the erroneous call was made. He actually smiled! Ok, maybe it was more of a grimace, but still.
Today, Joyce was behind the plate for the last game of the Tigers-Indians series. Commissioner Bud Selig had offered Joyce the night off. Joyce turned it down. He did this even though he knew there was a good chance that he would be heavily booed. But as he told Tiger Manger Jim Leyland, "I'll take what's coming to me." Classy as ever, Leyland requested that the Tiger fans not boo Joyce today. And while some did, many actually cheered! My guess is that they did so because Jim Joyce is a stand up guy. And because Armando Galaragga and Jim Leyland are class individuals who were willing to forgive Joyce his folly. If they could, then why couldn't the Tiger faithful?
There is a rule in baseball that can be invoked under a clause called "In the best interest of the game." It's a vague rule that gives the commissioner the latitude to make a unilateral change if he sees fit. Commissioner Selig could have used this clause to overturn Joyce's call and award the perfect game to Galaragga retroactively. No one would say that Galaragga didn't "deserve" it. But as Clint Eastwood said in Unforgiven: "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." If Selig were to change the outcome of a game, it would open up a Pandora's Box. What if the Indians had come back and won the game? Would they have had that win taken away? And if so, what would stop a Commissioner from changing outcomes of games in the future? Don't get me wrong, what happened to Galaragga and Joyce was unfair, but you can't unring a bell can you? You can't say that something that happened, well, didn't. So, earlier today Selig ruled that the play and the final result of the game would stand. Which while painful, is correct.
This of course means that nobody's perfect. Not Galaragga, and certainly not Joyce. At least not on the field anyway. But consider the actions of both men after the game, and it's damn hard to argue that while they didn't get it right on the field, they certainly did off it.
Sumo-Pop
June 3, 2010
Lost Without Lost
It's been a little over two weeks since the series finale of "Lost," and I still can't get it out of my head. When Jack's eye closed for the final time and the screen went blank, I wasn't 100% sure of how I felt about it. I knew I was at least vaguely satisfied, but I wasn't over the moon--so to speak.
However, as the days (and now weeks) have passed I feel more and more attached to the finale and the series as a whole. I realize now that any resistance I may have had that fateful Sunday evening had more to do with lingering unanswered questions. Mostly island specific stuff like "what really is the deal with that golden light in the cave?" "Why does the man in black need to take the form of another?" And "Did that time travel stuff really make any sense? But over time, I found that I didn't care much about any of that. All that mattered were the people that I had grown to feel such affection for.
Starting with Jack.
I know a lot of the show's fans were not always in love with Jack. Many preferred the more likable Hurley, or the oft-hilarious Sawyer (of whom you could have created a drinking game around his many utterances of "sonuvabitch"). Jack was often frustrating, self absorbed, and even borderline messianic as played (quite wonderfully) by Matthew Fox. I suppose Jack fit the leading man role a little too much for many viewers. Maybe it was hard to warm up to the handsome doctor who would so often force his opinion on others. His struggles with Locke and their many arguments of faith vs. science may have been maddening for the more spiritual followers of the show.
However, I believe Fox gave us a great portrait of a uniquely flawed character. He seldom made the easy choice while playing Jack. He could have softened the edges of the doctor and played him in a more standard heroic mode. And while that would have made his character more likable, he would have been infinitely less interesting. Think of the season that ended with Jack begging Kate to go back to the island. Was Fox not fearlessly vulnerable--even bordering on pathetic? And in the end wasn't the show really more about Jack's journey than all the other island residents? So, for me, it's awful hard to see how you could hate Jack and love the show.
In fact, I would argue that there was nothing sadder in the final episode--and that's certainly saying something--than Jack's invention of his son during the "flash sideways." Think of it: The guy had saved the island--and maybe the world--only to be continually dogged by his "daddy" issues to such a degree that he had to create a son out of whole cloth to prove to himself that he was not his father (my theory anyway). And how about the look on Jack's face when Locke told him he didn't have a son? Fox managed to convey a mixture of crush and confusion that was truly heartbreaking.
Ok, enough about Jack. What about the rest of the episode?
I have to say, I approached the 9 o'clock hour with a mix of anticipation and trepidation. Would they be able to resolve all my questions? No. But as I mentioned earlier, that wasn't what was most important. Would they be able to recover from the single worst episode in the history of the series (the dreadful tale of young Jacob and whathisname played by two awful child actors with Alison Janney in an epic folly of miscasting as their mother)? The show had suffered through the occasional quality slippage before. There were those six episodes on the "other" island that could have probably been shrunk to two. And who can forget those legendary characters, Paulo and Nikki (although I'm sure you've tried)? Still, the story of young Jacob and MIB was the longest hour of television I've sat through all year. So there were reasons to be concerned. However, the bounce back was more than worth it.
Not only was the finale moving and imaginative as it tied the current (if you can say such a thing about Lost) story to the flash sideways, it was also the most sensible explanation. Who wouldn't believe the choices that the characters made on the island? Jack, Desmond, Hurley and even Ben's sacrifices were all true to their characters. Sawyer and Kate leaving the island alive? Well weren't they always the "survivors" of the group?
As far as the "flash sideways" being purgatory, well, that made sense too. The idea that all of these fatally flawed characters would still be trying to work out their junk in the next life was completely fitting. Sawyer turning himself into a cop? Makes sense to me. Desmond's efforts to bring the group together? Wasn't he always pivotal? Hurley using his riches to help others? Right again. Kate putting Claire ahead of her own safety? No argument here. And how about Jin and Sun speaking perfect english after their "awakening?" Dead solid perfect.
I still remember the show's first season. This unruly clan of plane crash survivors marooned on a semi-deserted island dealing with needs as basic as food and water and as outlandish as monsters and polar bears. During that inaugural year, no one would have faulted you for thinking that the show's title related to their geography. But I've come to believe that the physical location of the cast aways meant little to nothing. On Lost, being well, lost had to do with the state of their hearts and minds. Because, really, weren't these people lost no matter where their bodies resided? Hell, they couldn't even move on to the next world without trying to take out the metaphysical trash.
As this gloriously confounding show came to an end, I believe the themes were actually pretty simple. Lost was about those nagging things in our past that threaten to chip away at all that we are or could ever be. It's about the search for redemption. The desire to be a better friend, lover, or just plain old human being. I think we all can relate to that.
So, that's it. As the fatally wounded Jack faded to black with that gorgeous golden lab, Vincent by his side--leaving not a dry eye in my house--so ended this extraordinary show. I fear we will not see the likes of it ever again. How in the world could we?
Sumo-Pop
June 3, 2010
However, as the days (and now weeks) have passed I feel more and more attached to the finale and the series as a whole. I realize now that any resistance I may have had that fateful Sunday evening had more to do with lingering unanswered questions. Mostly island specific stuff like "what really is the deal with that golden light in the cave?" "Why does the man in black need to take the form of another?" And "Did that time travel stuff really make any sense? But over time, I found that I didn't care much about any of that. All that mattered were the people that I had grown to feel such affection for.
Starting with Jack.
I know a lot of the show's fans were not always in love with Jack. Many preferred the more likable Hurley, or the oft-hilarious Sawyer (of whom you could have created a drinking game around his many utterances of "sonuvabitch"). Jack was often frustrating, self absorbed, and even borderline messianic as played (quite wonderfully) by Matthew Fox. I suppose Jack fit the leading man role a little too much for many viewers. Maybe it was hard to warm up to the handsome doctor who would so often force his opinion on others. His struggles with Locke and their many arguments of faith vs. science may have been maddening for the more spiritual followers of the show.
However, I believe Fox gave us a great portrait of a uniquely flawed character. He seldom made the easy choice while playing Jack. He could have softened the edges of the doctor and played him in a more standard heroic mode. And while that would have made his character more likable, he would have been infinitely less interesting. Think of the season that ended with Jack begging Kate to go back to the island. Was Fox not fearlessly vulnerable--even bordering on pathetic? And in the end wasn't the show really more about Jack's journey than all the other island residents? So, for me, it's awful hard to see how you could hate Jack and love the show.
In fact, I would argue that there was nothing sadder in the final episode--and that's certainly saying something--than Jack's invention of his son during the "flash sideways." Think of it: The guy had saved the island--and maybe the world--only to be continually dogged by his "daddy" issues to such a degree that he had to create a son out of whole cloth to prove to himself that he was not his father (my theory anyway). And how about the look on Jack's face when Locke told him he didn't have a son? Fox managed to convey a mixture of crush and confusion that was truly heartbreaking.
Ok, enough about Jack. What about the rest of the episode?
I have to say, I approached the 9 o'clock hour with a mix of anticipation and trepidation. Would they be able to resolve all my questions? No. But as I mentioned earlier, that wasn't what was most important. Would they be able to recover from the single worst episode in the history of the series (the dreadful tale of young Jacob and whathisname played by two awful child actors with Alison Janney in an epic folly of miscasting as their mother)? The show had suffered through the occasional quality slippage before. There were those six episodes on the "other" island that could have probably been shrunk to two. And who can forget those legendary characters, Paulo and Nikki (although I'm sure you've tried)? Still, the story of young Jacob and MIB was the longest hour of television I've sat through all year. So there were reasons to be concerned. However, the bounce back was more than worth it.
Not only was the finale moving and imaginative as it tied the current (if you can say such a thing about Lost) story to the flash sideways, it was also the most sensible explanation. Who wouldn't believe the choices that the characters made on the island? Jack, Desmond, Hurley and even Ben's sacrifices were all true to their characters. Sawyer and Kate leaving the island alive? Well weren't they always the "survivors" of the group?
As far as the "flash sideways" being purgatory, well, that made sense too. The idea that all of these fatally flawed characters would still be trying to work out their junk in the next life was completely fitting. Sawyer turning himself into a cop? Makes sense to me. Desmond's efforts to bring the group together? Wasn't he always pivotal? Hurley using his riches to help others? Right again. Kate putting Claire ahead of her own safety? No argument here. And how about Jin and Sun speaking perfect english after their "awakening?" Dead solid perfect.
I still remember the show's first season. This unruly clan of plane crash survivors marooned on a semi-deserted island dealing with needs as basic as food and water and as outlandish as monsters and polar bears. During that inaugural year, no one would have faulted you for thinking that the show's title related to their geography. But I've come to believe that the physical location of the cast aways meant little to nothing. On Lost, being well, lost had to do with the state of their hearts and minds. Because, really, weren't these people lost no matter where their bodies resided? Hell, they couldn't even move on to the next world without trying to take out the metaphysical trash.
As this gloriously confounding show came to an end, I believe the themes were actually pretty simple. Lost was about those nagging things in our past that threaten to chip away at all that we are or could ever be. It's about the search for redemption. The desire to be a better friend, lover, or just plain old human being. I think we all can relate to that.
So, that's it. As the fatally wounded Jack faded to black with that gorgeous golden lab, Vincent by his side--leaving not a dry eye in my house--so ended this extraordinary show. I fear we will not see the likes of it ever again. How in the world could we?
Sumo-Pop
June 3, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)