"It is what I believe"--Stephen Dillane as Thomas Jefferson in the miniseries, John Adams
There is an argument being pressed by a substantial portion of the population that we need to go back. To return to the good ol' days. That we've gone to far and are in need of a reversal of course. That we need not progress.
I would ask these people, what good ol' days do you speak of?
Is it the good ol' days when Plymouth Rock landed on the Indians and pushed them across the west and nearly into the ocean?
Is it the the good ol' days when we beat back one tyrannical nation to earn our freedom only to turn around and build up our country on the backs of another whose freedom we denied?
Is it the good ol' days when we denied another gender the right to vote?
Is it the good ol' days of Jim Crow Laws, lynchings, and separate but "equal?"
Is it the good ol' days when you could bash a man or woman over the head with no repercussions just because they love differently than the majority?
What good ol' days are they talking about? Because for some people, the good ol' days were pretty terrible.
Which is why we need liberals.
Because on the major issues of the day, liberals are always right.
We were right when we supported a man who asked us to shed the blood of our brothers to abolish the abominable practice of slavery.
We were right when we walked the streets in long dresses and fetching hats for the feminine ballot.
We were right when we backed a robust man who chose conservation over plunder.
We were right when we turned to the New Deal to escape the Hoovervilles of poverty.
We were right when we rebuilt Western Europe so as not leave our allies and enemies behind in the 20th century.
We were right when we faced down the water hose while dogs nipped at our heels on the journey to equality.
We were right when at a place called Stonewall we lost our civility over persecution based only on who we chose to love.
We were right when we grew our hair long, dyed our shirts, and protested an unwinnable war for the sake of peace.
We remained right even though our leaders were often arrested or even murdered.
We were right when the fates of many our fellow like minds with less recognizable names suffered the same fate.
And make no mistake we will be right again.
We will be right about health care for everyone, whether rich or indigent.
We will be right about the oversight of economic entities who worry only about lining their pockets and not for the workers who fill them or the land and sea that does the same.
We will be right about salvaging an industry that proves we can still make something.
We will be right when we extend the same rights to everyone to wed who they wish and serve if they choose.
We will be right about the humane treatment of immigrants who pick our produce and weed our gardens because we don't have the time or humility to do it ourselves.
We will be right to have defended the religious freedoms of those who some would like to drape in an all encompassing extremist cloak.
We will be right to lend our full throats to the voiceless, lest they be left behind.
We will be right even if the security forces of a deluded Alaskan pull our hands behind our backs, and the followers of a hypocritical hippocrat push their heels down on our necks.
It's not as if we haven't been here before.
And we will be right no matter what happens next Tuesday. We will awaken. We will fight. And we will be right.
Yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
We always are.
Sumo-Pop
October 28, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
The Obama Problem: Too Much And Not Enough
By almost any historical measurement, President Barack Obama's first two years in office have been a resounding legislative success. Health Care Reform, Finance Reform, and the passage of the Stimulus were all major accomplishments. When you throw in the auto bail out, the administering of the bank bail out, the expansion of stem cell research, the investment in green technology, the ending of combat missions in Iraq, as well as the Lilly Ledbetter act, it's clear that this President has excelled in getting things done.
Yet here we are on the precipice of the mid-term elections, and the electorate appears ready to turn the house and possibly the senate back over to the republican opposition.
With the President's approval ratings mired in the mid 40's, it's worth pondering how we got here.
Of course, it's no surprise that conservatives would take issue with the President's agenda. They have called him a socialist, anti-business, and in the case of the Tea Party--who have energized the base like nobody's business--they have called him Kenyan, Communist, and Anti-Christ.
Now, the socialist argument is pretty weak to begin with. Let's not forget that the bank bailout was created under Bush's watch. Yes, then Senator Obama (along with McCain) voted for it's passage, but the bill originated from the Bush White House. But here's the under publicized story: It worked. Nearly every economist worth his salt has stated that the propping up of the banks saved us from a second great depression. And while many argued that it would add an unmanageable burden on the backs of future generations, that 750 billion dollar bill has recouped all but 50 billion dollars. A lot of money to be sure, but if someone told you that we could save the economy from total free fall for 50 billion wouldn't you take it?
Oddly enough, the auto bailout was perhaps even more unpopular. While I find it surprising that more Americans would take offense to the saving of blue collar jobs over the the rescue of white collar bankers, that appears to be the case. However, if you take a closer look at the current state of the auto bail out, you will find that the auto makers have started to show a profit and have begun to pay back the treasury. So, it may have worked too.
Now I ask you, if the President is so anti-business, then why would he take part in saving both the banking and auto industries?
I believe that much of the Obama anti-business sentiment comes from the passage of the Finance Reform Bill.
But even that bill allowed banks to largely operate the way they have been, only with more oversight and regulation. Of course, bankers (and republicans) hate regulation, but isn't that a small price to pay after the government and the tax payers saved your ass?
The response on the right to Health Care Reform was even more incendiary. Who can forget "death panels," "government takeover," and the summer of the town hall criers? But was the bill really so radical? No single-payer, no public option, and no "death panels." In fact, the bill that passed looked a whole lot like the Bob Dole authored alternative to the Clinton plan in 1992 and even more like the Mitt Romney signed bill that is currently the law of the land in Massachusetts. Does anyone recall ever hearing Dole or Romney being referred to as socialists? I think not.
Then of course, we have the Stimulus bill. It may be hard to remember now, but few on either side of the aisle thought that we didn't need a stimulus. Even so, with unemployment hovering near 10%, the bill is roundly characterized as a failure. The problem the President has here is the difficulty in proving a negative. How do you sell people on the idea that without the stimulus things would actually be worse? But they most assuredly would be. There would definitely be fewer cops on the street, firemen dousing flames, and teachers in the classroom. In fact, if anything, republicans weakened the stimulus by insisting on 40% of it being tax cuts as opposed to say, more investment in infrastructure. Without that concession, Obama would have never gotten the votes necessary to pass the bill.
As I said before, conservatives taking issue with Obama's governing philosophy is no surprise. But what has to be particularly perplexing to the President is the hammering he's taking from the liberal base of the Democratic Party. In the case of the left, they don't take issue with the President going to far, they think he hasn't gone nearly far enough.
Looking again at the Financial Reform Bill, the Health Care Reform Bill, the left has found the President's measures to be no better than half of what they should have been.
In regards to the Financial Reform Bill, the left wing wanted nothing less than a break up of the banks. They wanted the Glass-Steagall provision reinstated to disallow retail banks from also being investment firms. In short, they wanted a complete end to "too big to fail." And I have no doubt that's what the President wanted too. But the votes simply weren't there.
As steamed as liberals and progressives may have been about the Finance Bill, they we re even more livid about Health Care Reform. They didn't believe that the President fought hard enough for a public option and didn't think he fought at all for single-payer. But I have to wonder, does anyone really believe that single-payer would have passed? And while there was a brief period of time when it looked like the public option had a shot, I think it's important to remember why it failed. The answer is two words: Joe freaking Lieberman. Ok, that's two words and a marginal expletive, but you get the idea.
Now, one might think that if the President had both the right and the left up in arms over his policies, that the middle might be with him. Wrong again. There are two basic reasons for this, the economy and loudness.
Obviously, when the unemployment rate is high and the pace of recovery slow, then the patience of the electorate is sorely tested. People simply aren't feeling an improvement in their lives even though the free fall has found it's bottom floor. The anxiety created by job insecurity is palpable. And any President would have a tough time with today's economic data.
So that's the economy, but what about the loudness? Well, the loudness I'm referring to is the deliberate and willful spread of misinformation and the media's fawning coverage of such.
This is the year of "You Lie!" And in the year of "You Lie!" it's awfully hard to find your way to the facts. The reporting of news has become entertainment. MSNBC and FOX run 6 hours of opinion based journalism from 5pm on. And CNN? Well, paradoxically, CNN has managed to make the reporting of actual news about as interesting as chewing on bark. While MSNBC and FOX court the extremes, CNN just flounders. And that's a shame, because we need a good CNN more than ever.
In this environment it's pretty hard to convince people on the merits of Health Care Reform, Finance Reform, and the Stimulus even if the evidence is on your side. And this is where you can say this President has truly failed.
Messaging.
How is it that a President who could galvanize so many with his ability to communicate during the election run a White House seemingly so incapable of telling their story? And make no mistake, they have a story to tell. One of the fascinating things about the health care debate is that while close to 60% of Americans are against it, when you explain what's in it (the ending of such risible practices as pre-existing conditions, dropping people from coverage, etc.), the approval rate spikes to over 60% in favor. Clearly, the White House's communication people are not doing anywhere near a good enough job of serving their President.
In fact, you could probably argue that the President's biggest problem is the lack of a surrogate with the heft and charisma to relay a positive message to the populous. The President is a bit like Lebron James with the Cleveland Cavaliers. He has to pour his own water and carry it too. No wonder James left the Cadavers, er, Cavaliers to join The Heat. He must have been exhausted. And every time I see our President in front of the camera with his rapidly greying hair, I get the feeling that he could use a Dwayne Wade too.
All of this information leads me to the conclusion that for the bulk of the country, Barack Obama is either too much, or not enough. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Why in the hell would anyone want this job?
Sumo-Pop
October 22, 2010
Yet here we are on the precipice of the mid-term elections, and the electorate appears ready to turn the house and possibly the senate back over to the republican opposition.
With the President's approval ratings mired in the mid 40's, it's worth pondering how we got here.
Of course, it's no surprise that conservatives would take issue with the President's agenda. They have called him a socialist, anti-business, and in the case of the Tea Party--who have energized the base like nobody's business--they have called him Kenyan, Communist, and Anti-Christ.
Now, the socialist argument is pretty weak to begin with. Let's not forget that the bank bailout was created under Bush's watch. Yes, then Senator Obama (along with McCain) voted for it's passage, but the bill originated from the Bush White House. But here's the under publicized story: It worked. Nearly every economist worth his salt has stated that the propping up of the banks saved us from a second great depression. And while many argued that it would add an unmanageable burden on the backs of future generations, that 750 billion dollar bill has recouped all but 50 billion dollars. A lot of money to be sure, but if someone told you that we could save the economy from total free fall for 50 billion wouldn't you take it?
Oddly enough, the auto bailout was perhaps even more unpopular. While I find it surprising that more Americans would take offense to the saving of blue collar jobs over the the rescue of white collar bankers, that appears to be the case. However, if you take a closer look at the current state of the auto bail out, you will find that the auto makers have started to show a profit and have begun to pay back the treasury. So, it may have worked too.
Now I ask you, if the President is so anti-business, then why would he take part in saving both the banking and auto industries?
I believe that much of the Obama anti-business sentiment comes from the passage of the Finance Reform Bill.
But even that bill allowed banks to largely operate the way they have been, only with more oversight and regulation. Of course, bankers (and republicans) hate regulation, but isn't that a small price to pay after the government and the tax payers saved your ass?
The response on the right to Health Care Reform was even more incendiary. Who can forget "death panels," "government takeover," and the summer of the town hall criers? But was the bill really so radical? No single-payer, no public option, and no "death panels." In fact, the bill that passed looked a whole lot like the Bob Dole authored alternative to the Clinton plan in 1992 and even more like the Mitt Romney signed bill that is currently the law of the land in Massachusetts. Does anyone recall ever hearing Dole or Romney being referred to as socialists? I think not.
Then of course, we have the Stimulus bill. It may be hard to remember now, but few on either side of the aisle thought that we didn't need a stimulus. Even so, with unemployment hovering near 10%, the bill is roundly characterized as a failure. The problem the President has here is the difficulty in proving a negative. How do you sell people on the idea that without the stimulus things would actually be worse? But they most assuredly would be. There would definitely be fewer cops on the street, firemen dousing flames, and teachers in the classroom. In fact, if anything, republicans weakened the stimulus by insisting on 40% of it being tax cuts as opposed to say, more investment in infrastructure. Without that concession, Obama would have never gotten the votes necessary to pass the bill.
As I said before, conservatives taking issue with Obama's governing philosophy is no surprise. But what has to be particularly perplexing to the President is the hammering he's taking from the liberal base of the Democratic Party. In the case of the left, they don't take issue with the President going to far, they think he hasn't gone nearly far enough.
Looking again at the Financial Reform Bill, the Health Care Reform Bill, the left has found the President's measures to be no better than half of what they should have been.
In regards to the Financial Reform Bill, the left wing wanted nothing less than a break up of the banks. They wanted the Glass-Steagall provision reinstated to disallow retail banks from also being investment firms. In short, they wanted a complete end to "too big to fail." And I have no doubt that's what the President wanted too. But the votes simply weren't there.
As steamed as liberals and progressives may have been about the Finance Bill, they we re even more livid about Health Care Reform. They didn't believe that the President fought hard enough for a public option and didn't think he fought at all for single-payer. But I have to wonder, does anyone really believe that single-payer would have passed? And while there was a brief period of time when it looked like the public option had a shot, I think it's important to remember why it failed. The answer is two words: Joe freaking Lieberman. Ok, that's two words and a marginal expletive, but you get the idea.
Now, one might think that if the President had both the right and the left up in arms over his policies, that the middle might be with him. Wrong again. There are two basic reasons for this, the economy and loudness.
Obviously, when the unemployment rate is high and the pace of recovery slow, then the patience of the electorate is sorely tested. People simply aren't feeling an improvement in their lives even though the free fall has found it's bottom floor. The anxiety created by job insecurity is palpable. And any President would have a tough time with today's economic data.
So that's the economy, but what about the loudness? Well, the loudness I'm referring to is the deliberate and willful spread of misinformation and the media's fawning coverage of such.
This is the year of "You Lie!" And in the year of "You Lie!" it's awfully hard to find your way to the facts. The reporting of news has become entertainment. MSNBC and FOX run 6 hours of opinion based journalism from 5pm on. And CNN? Well, paradoxically, CNN has managed to make the reporting of actual news about as interesting as chewing on bark. While MSNBC and FOX court the extremes, CNN just flounders. And that's a shame, because we need a good CNN more than ever.
In this environment it's pretty hard to convince people on the merits of Health Care Reform, Finance Reform, and the Stimulus even if the evidence is on your side. And this is where you can say this President has truly failed.
Messaging.
How is it that a President who could galvanize so many with his ability to communicate during the election run a White House seemingly so incapable of telling their story? And make no mistake, they have a story to tell. One of the fascinating things about the health care debate is that while close to 60% of Americans are against it, when you explain what's in it (the ending of such risible practices as pre-existing conditions, dropping people from coverage, etc.), the approval rate spikes to over 60% in favor. Clearly, the White House's communication people are not doing anywhere near a good enough job of serving their President.
In fact, you could probably argue that the President's biggest problem is the lack of a surrogate with the heft and charisma to relay a positive message to the populous. The President is a bit like Lebron James with the Cleveland Cavaliers. He has to pour his own water and carry it too. No wonder James left the Cadavers, er, Cavaliers to join The Heat. He must have been exhausted. And every time I see our President in front of the camera with his rapidly greying hair, I get the feeling that he could use a Dwayne Wade too.
All of this information leads me to the conclusion that for the bulk of the country, Barack Obama is either too much, or not enough. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Why in the hell would anyone want this job?
Sumo-Pop
October 22, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Misdirection Election 2010: Send In The Clowns
I have always hated clowns. Always. Whether of the circus variety, Marcel Marceau (ok, technically he was a mime, but whatever), Stephen King's IT, and even Bozo. They just creep me out.
However, those aren't the only clowns I hate. Some don't come with white powdery make up, funny shoes, and colorful wigs. Some come packaged smartly in nice suits and expensive haircuts. These clowns take on the appearance of respectable human beings. That is, until they open their mouths and speak. Most of the time, these side show freaks are left by the edge of the road as society kicks them to the curb and moves on without them. But in this year of the misdirection election, the clowns have taken center stage and are threatening the viability of our political process.
Let's take Christine O'Donnell for instance. Here is a person who has lied repeatedly about her educational background, has used campaign funds to pay her rent (illegal, by the way), has defaulted on her mortgage, not paid her taxes, and has called evolution a myth (because her certainty is more important than proof). Despite all of this, O'Donnell came out ahead of the esteemed and respected, Mike Castle, in the Republican Primary, and will now face Democratic nominee, Chris Coons, in the race to become the junior senator from Delaware.
O'Donnell's personal issues regarding her education and ability to pay taxes are one thing, but where does she stand on the issues of the day? Well, Miss O'Donnell believes that abortion should be illegal including cases of rape and incest, that creationism must be taught in science classes, and she opposes stem cell research. Ok, fine. Not exactly mainstream, but not necessarily crazy either. But, Miss O'Donnell believes that Darwin's theory is a myth because, "Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?" O'Donnell also claims to have been privy to classified information that links China to a potential takeover of the United States. And her best looney tune is her belief that "American scientific companies are cross breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains." And that's just the stuff she thinks she knows. Earlier this week, during her debate with Coons, she was asked to name a Supreme Court decision that she disagreed with. Flummoxed, O'Donnell requested an example from the moderator, who in turn made it clear to O'Donnell that she would need to provide her own examples.
She could not.
This is made all the more interesting when you consider that her debate prep was performed by the same folks who worked with Sarah Palin during the 2008 election. You may well recall, that Mrs. Palin was unable to answer a similar question when posed to her by Katie Couric. Here's for making the same mistake twice.
So far, Delaware voters don't appear to be falling under the former witch's spell. In most polls, Coons holds a 15-20 point lead. Which makes O'Donnell the most well covered non-contending candidate ever. Gotta love the media.
Now, O'Donnell may be the loopiest candidate for higher office in an election year, but she does have bad company.
In the mama grizzly's home state of Alaska, the republican nominee for the senate is one, Joe Miller. Some of his notable positions are eliminating the Department of Education, outlawing abortion in all cases, eliminating the minimum wage, requiring all bills that are voted on in congress to meet a constitutional litmus test, privatizing social security, he considers the science of global warming to be "dubious at best," and believes unemployment benefits to be "unconstitutional." That last one is rather fascinating, considering that Miller's own wife once collected unemployment benefits as recently as 2004. Maybe that's why Miller held a press conference on Monday and stated that he would no longer answer any questions about his background from the media. Incredibly (or maybe not, this is Alaska we're talking about), Miller is favored to win the general election.
In the state of my birth, Kentucky (go ahead and make fun, I'm used to it), Republican Senate nominee, Rand Paul, also holds a variety of strange positions. He also opposes abortion in all cases, would consider repealing the 14th amendment that created birthright citizenship, would abolish the Department of Education, opposes all gun control legislation, referred to the BP oil spill as a case of "sometimes accidents happen," he is against government provided health insurance even though, as a practicing ophthalmologist, 50% of his patients are on Medicare. Which means he takes no issue with taking government money when it suits him. But, perhaps the worst position that Dr. Paul holds is that of his views on the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. While Dr. Paul says that he "abhors racism," he does not find it constitutional to tell a restaurant that they must serve all races and creeds. Anybody for separate drinking fountains? Paul is favored in his race against the Democratic Nominee, Jack Conway.
In the senate race in Connecticut, WWE Business Manager and Republican Nominee, Linda McMahon is facing off against Democrat Richard Blumenthal. What is the WWE you might ask? Well, it stands for World Wrestling Entertainment. That's right, the Republican Nominee is the founder of the largest professional wrestling organization in the world. What could be so bad about that? Aside from the ultra-violent and misogynist presentation of the "bouts," when one looks deeper into the company's past, you find a series of abuses directed towards the employees that are the life blood of the business--the wrestlers themselves. Not only did McMahon's company turn a blind eye to the rampant steroid use in the profession, they encouraged it. As more and more former WWE wrestlers have started to die off at alarmingly youthful ages (Gertrude Vachon, 48 and Lance McNaught, 29 are the most recent), many have questioned the treatment of the wrestlers by the WWE. What has been discovered is the WWE did not consider the grapplers as employees at all. In fact, they were considered contract labor. This allowed the company to avoid providing health insurance to those who risk so much to the benefit of the WWE. This may be legal, but it certainly isn't ethical or moral.
And oh yes, McMahon has some interesting political positions as well. She believes that the minimum wage law should be "reviewed," even though she has no idea what the actual minimum wage is. She was against the off-shore drilling moratorium after the BP disaster. And of course, she would abolish the estate tax and the gift tax. After a narrowing in the polls, recent surveys show Blumenthal expanding his lead into the double digits.
There are some strange folks running in house races too.
Perhaps the most infamous takes place in Ohio, where Democratic Nominee, Marcy Kaptur's republican opponent, Rich Iott, believes that government bail outs are unconstitutional (ridiculous), that all illegal immigrants should be deported (impossible), and that the war in Iraq was a success (really?). But that's not why you might have heard of him. Iott recently made the national news due to the fact that he was a former (but recent) member of a group called the Wikings. The Wikings are a Nazi reenactment group that dress up as the 5th SS Panzer Division. When asked why he would be so eager to dress up like a fascist, Jew killing, member of the master race, Iott responded that he did so to "bond" with his son. You cannot make this stuff up. Iott is not considered a threat to Kaptur's seat.
Gubernatorial races are no strangers to strangeness either.
In Arizona, Republican Governor, Jan Brewer has been at the epicenter of the immigration controversy that briefly gripped the nation this year. Brewer signed into law a measure that would require police officers making stops to ask for the papers (say that out loud and with a German accent) of those that might be suspected of being illegal immigrants. She used the excuse of rampant crime as one of the primary reasons for instituting a law that probably isn't constitutional, will bog down local courts, and create a culture of mistrust and racial profiling in her state. She referred to "headless bodies" found in the desert to support her opinion. Apparently, she is the only person who has seen these bodies, because no one else has. Brewer later claimed to have "misspoke." What's even more interesting about Brewer's crime argument is the fact that Phoenix is considered one of the five safest big cities in America, that the border crime rate is actually down along with the rate of illegal immigration, and that deportations are actually up since President Obama took office. But why let facts get in the way of your chosen, politically expedient position?
Brewer also signed into law a recent bill that allows citizens to take guns into bars and restaurants. Because really, what could be better than having a gun in a place where copious amounts of wine and spirits are consumed?
Perhaps the best example of Brewer's fitness for Governor came in her one debate against Democratic challenger, Terry Godard, where Brewer sat blankly in silence for what seemed like an eternity when asked to simply give an opening statement. Afterwards, Brewer said that there would be no more debates. Political courage in action. Brewer is the runaway favorite in the general election.
But Brewer is in no way the craziest gubernatorial candidate in the U.S. No, that honor goes to the Republican Nominee of New York, Carl Paladino, in a landslide. The colorful Paladino has compared unions to "pigs," threatened to "take out" a reporter, sent out racist and misogynist e-mails (one depicting a woman having sex with an equine)--his excuse being that "I'm in construction"--for real, he opposes same sex marriage even though as a land owner he collects rent from at least two gay bars, he has stated that he would use the power of eminent domain to prevent the creation of an Islamic Community Center two blocks from ground zero, and he opposes abortion in all cases.
Paladino has attempted to position himself as a "family values" candidate even though he has a child born out of wedlock to his former secretary, all while accusing Democratic Nominee, Andrew Cuomo of having multiple affairs for which he has provided no proof. Mr. Cuomo currently enjoys a 20 point lead after seeing a brief single digit tightening in the polls.
However, no race points out what a ridiculous choice voters have before them more than the contest in Nevada between Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and his Republican opponent, Sharron Angle. Here, the good people of Nevada have not only one clown to consider, but two.
Do they go with the weak kneed, ineffectual, hang dog that is Harry Reid, or do they turn to the bizarre, carnival act represented by Sharron Angle?
What a choice.
I'm certain that in any other year, facing any other candidate, neither of these idiots would stand a chance. It should also be mentioned that in Nevada, "None of the Above" is an actual option, and so far many a poll shows that ghost of a candidate pulling in 10%. Incredible, to say the least.
So, what to do? If it were me, I would be forced to go with Reid. This despite his desultory performance in the Nevada Senate Debate earlier this week. How could someone with such an easy target fail so miserably? To think that a guy who I doubt could motivate an angry dog to take a bite out of Michael Vick even if he were smothered in bacon grease could win 5 consecutive elections to the Senate is mind boggling. But here's the thing, at least he's not crazy. Pathetic and dull as a post? Yes. Insane? No.
Which is more than I can say for Sharron Angle. Angle's policy, positions are not only naive, but in some cases, downright frightening. She is for the abolition of the Department of Education, the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations, a federal amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, she has claimed without a shred of proof that "sharia law" has taken over in Dearborn, Michigan, that the Constitution does not provide for the separation of church and state, she favors the privatization of Medicare and Social Security, she favors the prohibition of alcohol, does not believe in global warming, and perhaps most heinously has stated that those that are not happy with their government may "turn to second amendment remedies." When asked about how such remedies may manifest themselves, Angle has been non-committal. But since the second amendment refers to the right to bear arms, when Angle says that Harry Reid should be "taken out," I'm afraid I might know exactly what she means. And what she means is not only dangerous, but downright un-American.
Recent polling has found this race to be in a dead heat. Which only serves to point out what lousy candidates they both are. Best of luck, Nevada.
Now to be fair, there are some bozos in the Democratic Party other than Reid. Take Senate nominee, Alvin Greene in South Carolina who has a pending obscenity charge against him. But here's the difference, no one takes Greene seriously. Not even most Democrats. This in spite of the fact that he is running against Jim DeMint who has stated that homosexuals and sexually active single women should not be allowed to teach in public schools. Still Greene has literally no chance.
And of course, not all of the other eight nutters that I have profiled here are likely to win either. O'Donnell, Paladino, Iott, and McMahon are all trailing considerably in the polls. However, Brewer is almost a shoo-in in Arizona and Miller, Paul, and possibly Angle may indeed be joining the Senate in 2011. Which will only embolden future whack jobs and hypocrites to run for elected office. Because they will know that not only can they run, but they can win.
Now, I know that complaining about hypocrites running for office is like complaining about the New York Yankees buying their way into the playoffs every year. So fine, I can learn to live with them. But the crazies? Can't we do better than this?
If you have ever been to a circus, you have probably seen a small car drive into the center ring, open the door and watch what seems to be an endless procession of clowns coming out of the tiny vehicle. In 2010, that is what our election cycle has become.
A freakin' clown car.
However, those aren't the only clowns I hate. Some don't come with white powdery make up, funny shoes, and colorful wigs. Some come packaged smartly in nice suits and expensive haircuts. These clowns take on the appearance of respectable human beings. That is, until they open their mouths and speak. Most of the time, these side show freaks are left by the edge of the road as society kicks them to the curb and moves on without them. But in this year of the misdirection election, the clowns have taken center stage and are threatening the viability of our political process.
Let's take Christine O'Donnell for instance. Here is a person who has lied repeatedly about her educational background, has used campaign funds to pay her rent (illegal, by the way), has defaulted on her mortgage, not paid her taxes, and has called evolution a myth (because her certainty is more important than proof). Despite all of this, O'Donnell came out ahead of the esteemed and respected, Mike Castle, in the Republican Primary, and will now face Democratic nominee, Chris Coons, in the race to become the junior senator from Delaware.
O'Donnell's personal issues regarding her education and ability to pay taxes are one thing, but where does she stand on the issues of the day? Well, Miss O'Donnell believes that abortion should be illegal including cases of rape and incest, that creationism must be taught in science classes, and she opposes stem cell research. Ok, fine. Not exactly mainstream, but not necessarily crazy either. But, Miss O'Donnell believes that Darwin's theory is a myth because, "Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?" O'Donnell also claims to have been privy to classified information that links China to a potential takeover of the United States. And her best looney tune is her belief that "American scientific companies are cross breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains." And that's just the stuff she thinks she knows. Earlier this week, during her debate with Coons, she was asked to name a Supreme Court decision that she disagreed with. Flummoxed, O'Donnell requested an example from the moderator, who in turn made it clear to O'Donnell that she would need to provide her own examples.
She could not.
This is made all the more interesting when you consider that her debate prep was performed by the same folks who worked with Sarah Palin during the 2008 election. You may well recall, that Mrs. Palin was unable to answer a similar question when posed to her by Katie Couric. Here's for making the same mistake twice.
So far, Delaware voters don't appear to be falling under the former witch's spell. In most polls, Coons holds a 15-20 point lead. Which makes O'Donnell the most well covered non-contending candidate ever. Gotta love the media.
Now, O'Donnell may be the loopiest candidate for higher office in an election year, but she does have bad company.
In the mama grizzly's home state of Alaska, the republican nominee for the senate is one, Joe Miller. Some of his notable positions are eliminating the Department of Education, outlawing abortion in all cases, eliminating the minimum wage, requiring all bills that are voted on in congress to meet a constitutional litmus test, privatizing social security, he considers the science of global warming to be "dubious at best," and believes unemployment benefits to be "unconstitutional." That last one is rather fascinating, considering that Miller's own wife once collected unemployment benefits as recently as 2004. Maybe that's why Miller held a press conference on Monday and stated that he would no longer answer any questions about his background from the media. Incredibly (or maybe not, this is Alaska we're talking about), Miller is favored to win the general election.
In the state of my birth, Kentucky (go ahead and make fun, I'm used to it), Republican Senate nominee, Rand Paul, also holds a variety of strange positions. He also opposes abortion in all cases, would consider repealing the 14th amendment that created birthright citizenship, would abolish the Department of Education, opposes all gun control legislation, referred to the BP oil spill as a case of "sometimes accidents happen," he is against government provided health insurance even though, as a practicing ophthalmologist, 50% of his patients are on Medicare. Which means he takes no issue with taking government money when it suits him. But, perhaps the worst position that Dr. Paul holds is that of his views on the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. While Dr. Paul says that he "abhors racism," he does not find it constitutional to tell a restaurant that they must serve all races and creeds. Anybody for separate drinking fountains? Paul is favored in his race against the Democratic Nominee, Jack Conway.
In the senate race in Connecticut, WWE Business Manager and Republican Nominee, Linda McMahon is facing off against Democrat Richard Blumenthal. What is the WWE you might ask? Well, it stands for World Wrestling Entertainment. That's right, the Republican Nominee is the founder of the largest professional wrestling organization in the world. What could be so bad about that? Aside from the ultra-violent and misogynist presentation of the "bouts," when one looks deeper into the company's past, you find a series of abuses directed towards the employees that are the life blood of the business--the wrestlers themselves. Not only did McMahon's company turn a blind eye to the rampant steroid use in the profession, they encouraged it. As more and more former WWE wrestlers have started to die off at alarmingly youthful ages (Gertrude Vachon, 48 and Lance McNaught, 29 are the most recent), many have questioned the treatment of the wrestlers by the WWE. What has been discovered is the WWE did not consider the grapplers as employees at all. In fact, they were considered contract labor. This allowed the company to avoid providing health insurance to those who risk so much to the benefit of the WWE. This may be legal, but it certainly isn't ethical or moral.
And oh yes, McMahon has some interesting political positions as well. She believes that the minimum wage law should be "reviewed," even though she has no idea what the actual minimum wage is. She was against the off-shore drilling moratorium after the BP disaster. And of course, she would abolish the estate tax and the gift tax. After a narrowing in the polls, recent surveys show Blumenthal expanding his lead into the double digits.
There are some strange folks running in house races too.
Perhaps the most infamous takes place in Ohio, where Democratic Nominee, Marcy Kaptur's republican opponent, Rich Iott, believes that government bail outs are unconstitutional (ridiculous), that all illegal immigrants should be deported (impossible), and that the war in Iraq was a success (really?). But that's not why you might have heard of him. Iott recently made the national news due to the fact that he was a former (but recent) member of a group called the Wikings. The Wikings are a Nazi reenactment group that dress up as the 5th SS Panzer Division. When asked why he would be so eager to dress up like a fascist, Jew killing, member of the master race, Iott responded that he did so to "bond" with his son. You cannot make this stuff up. Iott is not considered a threat to Kaptur's seat.
Gubernatorial races are no strangers to strangeness either.
In Arizona, Republican Governor, Jan Brewer has been at the epicenter of the immigration controversy that briefly gripped the nation this year. Brewer signed into law a measure that would require police officers making stops to ask for the papers (say that out loud and with a German accent) of those that might be suspected of being illegal immigrants. She used the excuse of rampant crime as one of the primary reasons for instituting a law that probably isn't constitutional, will bog down local courts, and create a culture of mistrust and racial profiling in her state. She referred to "headless bodies" found in the desert to support her opinion. Apparently, she is the only person who has seen these bodies, because no one else has. Brewer later claimed to have "misspoke." What's even more interesting about Brewer's crime argument is the fact that Phoenix is considered one of the five safest big cities in America, that the border crime rate is actually down along with the rate of illegal immigration, and that deportations are actually up since President Obama took office. But why let facts get in the way of your chosen, politically expedient position?
Brewer also signed into law a recent bill that allows citizens to take guns into bars and restaurants. Because really, what could be better than having a gun in a place where copious amounts of wine and spirits are consumed?
Perhaps the best example of Brewer's fitness for Governor came in her one debate against Democratic challenger, Terry Godard, where Brewer sat blankly in silence for what seemed like an eternity when asked to simply give an opening statement. Afterwards, Brewer said that there would be no more debates. Political courage in action. Brewer is the runaway favorite in the general election.
But Brewer is in no way the craziest gubernatorial candidate in the U.S. No, that honor goes to the Republican Nominee of New York, Carl Paladino, in a landslide. The colorful Paladino has compared unions to "pigs," threatened to "take out" a reporter, sent out racist and misogynist e-mails (one depicting a woman having sex with an equine)--his excuse being that "I'm in construction"--for real, he opposes same sex marriage even though as a land owner he collects rent from at least two gay bars, he has stated that he would use the power of eminent domain to prevent the creation of an Islamic Community Center two blocks from ground zero, and he opposes abortion in all cases.
Paladino has attempted to position himself as a "family values" candidate even though he has a child born out of wedlock to his former secretary, all while accusing Democratic Nominee, Andrew Cuomo of having multiple affairs for which he has provided no proof. Mr. Cuomo currently enjoys a 20 point lead after seeing a brief single digit tightening in the polls.
However, no race points out what a ridiculous choice voters have before them more than the contest in Nevada between Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and his Republican opponent, Sharron Angle. Here, the good people of Nevada have not only one clown to consider, but two.
Do they go with the weak kneed, ineffectual, hang dog that is Harry Reid, or do they turn to the bizarre, carnival act represented by Sharron Angle?
What a choice.
I'm certain that in any other year, facing any other candidate, neither of these idiots would stand a chance. It should also be mentioned that in Nevada, "None of the Above" is an actual option, and so far many a poll shows that ghost of a candidate pulling in 10%. Incredible, to say the least.
So, what to do? If it were me, I would be forced to go with Reid. This despite his desultory performance in the Nevada Senate Debate earlier this week. How could someone with such an easy target fail so miserably? To think that a guy who I doubt could motivate an angry dog to take a bite out of Michael Vick even if he were smothered in bacon grease could win 5 consecutive elections to the Senate is mind boggling. But here's the thing, at least he's not crazy. Pathetic and dull as a post? Yes. Insane? No.
Which is more than I can say for Sharron Angle. Angle's policy, positions are not only naive, but in some cases, downright frightening. She is for the abolition of the Department of Education, the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations, a federal amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, she has claimed without a shred of proof that "sharia law" has taken over in Dearborn, Michigan, that the Constitution does not provide for the separation of church and state, she favors the privatization of Medicare and Social Security, she favors the prohibition of alcohol, does not believe in global warming, and perhaps most heinously has stated that those that are not happy with their government may "turn to second amendment remedies." When asked about how such remedies may manifest themselves, Angle has been non-committal. But since the second amendment refers to the right to bear arms, when Angle says that Harry Reid should be "taken out," I'm afraid I might know exactly what she means. And what she means is not only dangerous, but downright un-American.
Recent polling has found this race to be in a dead heat. Which only serves to point out what lousy candidates they both are. Best of luck, Nevada.
Now to be fair, there are some bozos in the Democratic Party other than Reid. Take Senate nominee, Alvin Greene in South Carolina who has a pending obscenity charge against him. But here's the difference, no one takes Greene seriously. Not even most Democrats. This in spite of the fact that he is running against Jim DeMint who has stated that homosexuals and sexually active single women should not be allowed to teach in public schools. Still Greene has literally no chance.
And of course, not all of the other eight nutters that I have profiled here are likely to win either. O'Donnell, Paladino, Iott, and McMahon are all trailing considerably in the polls. However, Brewer is almost a shoo-in in Arizona and Miller, Paul, and possibly Angle may indeed be joining the Senate in 2011. Which will only embolden future whack jobs and hypocrites to run for elected office. Because they will know that not only can they run, but they can win.
Now, I know that complaining about hypocrites running for office is like complaining about the New York Yankees buying their way into the playoffs every year. So fine, I can learn to live with them. But the crazies? Can't we do better than this?
If you have ever been to a circus, you have probably seen a small car drive into the center ring, open the door and watch what seems to be an endless procession of clowns coming out of the tiny vehicle. In 2010, that is what our election cycle has become.
A freakin' clown car.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Why I Can't Forgive Michael Vick
Over the first month of the NFL season, there has been no bigger story than the reemergence of Michael Vick as a top flight quarterback. Many thought Vick was done for as a star football player after serving 21 months in prison for running an interstate dog fighting ring. He returned to the game last year as the 3rd string quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles. He moved up to 2nd string this year after The Eagles traded Donovan McNabb to the Washington Redskins. After starter Kevin Kolb was injured in the first game of the season, Vick took over and had what might have been the best three game run of his career. Not only was he making plays with his feet, but he was also doing so with his arm, displaying a new found accuracy in the process.
Like many, I found his performance remarkable. He truly seems better than ever. Which of course, makes him quite a story. But is it a "feel good" story? I think not.
Now don't get me wrong, I understand that Vick has served his time for the crime that he plead guilty too. And I take no issue with his right to seek employment in his chosen profession. I say this even though I think his sentence was nowhere near what he deserved. Nor do I agree with The Eagles decision to offer him a job. But I do not argue their right to employ him or Vick's right to accept. Perhaps I should just be thankful that my Miami Dolphins didn't bring him back to the league.
Still, his presence in the NFL offends me. Of course, I know there are a lot of "bad" guys in the NFL besides Vick. Donte Stallworth returned to the league this year after killing a man while operating his car while legally drunk. Obviously, his crime was horrendous too. But I can give Stallworth a break more easily than I can Vick. Yes, I know, Stallworth killed a person whereas Vick killed dogs. I'm not trying to argue the value of a dog's life over that of a human being. But here's the difference, Stallworth did not set out to kill that man when he got behind the wheel of his car. Was he irresponsible? Certainly. Was he liable? Absolutely. Was his goal to torture, maim, and kill? No. And for me, therein lies the difference. Stallworth was foolish. Vick was intentionally cruel.
How cruel? Here is just a sample of what was found on Vick's property in rural Virginia:
1) Multiple shallow graves of deceased dogs
2) Rape stands which were used to lock a female pit bull into place while an aggressive male was forced to copulate with her
3) Bloody fighting pits in buildings painted black so that they could not be seen in the forest area behind the property.
4) 49 dogs that were used for fighting, breeding, and bait in squalid conditions.
Why in the world would Vick get involved in something as detestable as this? Many will point to a "culture" of dog fighting that permeates certain areas of the south. The point being that Vick grew up around dog fighting and therefore saw nothing wrong with it. Which I will buy up until a point. If Vick were a 15 year old kid involved in this racket, that would be one thing. Hell, if he were a 27 year old man who had never left his backyard, I might even understand that. But Vick wasn't. He was a 27 year old football star who had experienced much more than his "backyard." He went to a major college (Virginia Tech), was paid millions of dollars by the Atlanta Falcons, and surely had classmates and teammates who had loving relationships with animals. But maybe the most important point to note is this: He knew it was illegal. You don't go through all the effort that he did to keep his nasty side business under wraps if you think it's permissible behavior. Here was a man who didn't need this and should have known better. So why did he continue to do it? My guess is that he loved it.
He loved watching two pit bulls tearing each other apart in the blacked out rooms on his property. To see them maimed, brutalized, and disfigured. Many of them ending up dead or dying. He took pleasure in it. Monstrous.
And what did they do with dogs that were grievously injured or unwilling to fight? They murdered them. By methods such as drowning, electrocution, and hanging. In fact, one dog was picked up and thrown to the ground repeatedly until the poor beast's heart gave out. Why didn't they just shoot them? Because they didn't want anyone to hear the gun shot. Vick either participated or was present for many of these dispatchings. At minimum, he funded them. This is sick, vile behavior, and if it were up to me, they would have locked him up and thrown away the key.
Unfortunately (from my perspective), that is not what the law provides. In many states, animal cruelty is not even a felony. If there is a single good thing to come from this, it's that a light was shined on this diseased blood sport and there have been many crackdowns on dog fighting across the country.
Actually, there was one other good thing to come from this. Of the 49 dogs that were seized from the property, only two had to be euthanized (one for aggression, the other due to poor health). One of the dogs was deemed unadoptable, but will live out the rest of his life on a shelter in Utah. The other 46 have either been adopted, or are in training to become adoptable. Some have even become service dogs.
Pit bulls are often beset by a lot of mythology about their aggressive nature. While it's true that some of the worst dog attacks in recent years have been perpetrated by the breed, that behavior is not typical, and is often caused by irresponsible owners who do not properly train or socialize these powerful creatures. If Vick's Badnewz Kennelz has proven anything, it is that they are NOT "bad" dogs.
As I mentioned before, I take no issue with Vick's return to football. And if sportswriters around the country want to report his exploits as a "feel good" story, than that is their prerogative. Just don't expect me to salute. Yes, I'm aware that Vick has kept his nose clean since his release. That he has said all the right things--even doing PSA's for the Humane Society. And since I can't get inside of his head, I have no way of knowing whether he is sincere or not. I hope that he is. I hope that he can make something of his life beyond the football field and serve as an example of what not to do with your life. If his tale of dog fighting can become a cautionary one, than that will at least be something.
But some things are so heinous and despicable, that I simply can't forgive them. And the consistent, intentional infliction of cruelty on animals whose very life is dependant upon those whose hands they fall into is one of them. And yes, I know Jesus saves, and God forgives. But I'm not Jesus and I sure ain't God. And I don't.
Sumo-Pop
October 10, 2010
Like many, I found his performance remarkable. He truly seems better than ever. Which of course, makes him quite a story. But is it a "feel good" story? I think not.
Now don't get me wrong, I understand that Vick has served his time for the crime that he plead guilty too. And I take no issue with his right to seek employment in his chosen profession. I say this even though I think his sentence was nowhere near what he deserved. Nor do I agree with The Eagles decision to offer him a job. But I do not argue their right to employ him or Vick's right to accept. Perhaps I should just be thankful that my Miami Dolphins didn't bring him back to the league.
Still, his presence in the NFL offends me. Of course, I know there are a lot of "bad" guys in the NFL besides Vick. Donte Stallworth returned to the league this year after killing a man while operating his car while legally drunk. Obviously, his crime was horrendous too. But I can give Stallworth a break more easily than I can Vick. Yes, I know, Stallworth killed a person whereas Vick killed dogs. I'm not trying to argue the value of a dog's life over that of a human being. But here's the difference, Stallworth did not set out to kill that man when he got behind the wheel of his car. Was he irresponsible? Certainly. Was he liable? Absolutely. Was his goal to torture, maim, and kill? No. And for me, therein lies the difference. Stallworth was foolish. Vick was intentionally cruel.
How cruel? Here is just a sample of what was found on Vick's property in rural Virginia:
1) Multiple shallow graves of deceased dogs
2) Rape stands which were used to lock a female pit bull into place while an aggressive male was forced to copulate with her
3) Bloody fighting pits in buildings painted black so that they could not be seen in the forest area behind the property.
4) 49 dogs that were used for fighting, breeding, and bait in squalid conditions.
Why in the world would Vick get involved in something as detestable as this? Many will point to a "culture" of dog fighting that permeates certain areas of the south. The point being that Vick grew up around dog fighting and therefore saw nothing wrong with it. Which I will buy up until a point. If Vick were a 15 year old kid involved in this racket, that would be one thing. Hell, if he were a 27 year old man who had never left his backyard, I might even understand that. But Vick wasn't. He was a 27 year old football star who had experienced much more than his "backyard." He went to a major college (Virginia Tech), was paid millions of dollars by the Atlanta Falcons, and surely had classmates and teammates who had loving relationships with animals. But maybe the most important point to note is this: He knew it was illegal. You don't go through all the effort that he did to keep his nasty side business under wraps if you think it's permissible behavior. Here was a man who didn't need this and should have known better. So why did he continue to do it? My guess is that he loved it.
He loved watching two pit bulls tearing each other apart in the blacked out rooms on his property. To see them maimed, brutalized, and disfigured. Many of them ending up dead or dying. He took pleasure in it. Monstrous.
And what did they do with dogs that were grievously injured or unwilling to fight? They murdered them. By methods such as drowning, electrocution, and hanging. In fact, one dog was picked up and thrown to the ground repeatedly until the poor beast's heart gave out. Why didn't they just shoot them? Because they didn't want anyone to hear the gun shot. Vick either participated or was present for many of these dispatchings. At minimum, he funded them. This is sick, vile behavior, and if it were up to me, they would have locked him up and thrown away the key.
Unfortunately (from my perspective), that is not what the law provides. In many states, animal cruelty is not even a felony. If there is a single good thing to come from this, it's that a light was shined on this diseased blood sport and there have been many crackdowns on dog fighting across the country.
Actually, there was one other good thing to come from this. Of the 49 dogs that were seized from the property, only two had to be euthanized (one for aggression, the other due to poor health). One of the dogs was deemed unadoptable, but will live out the rest of his life on a shelter in Utah. The other 46 have either been adopted, or are in training to become adoptable. Some have even become service dogs.
Pit bulls are often beset by a lot of mythology about their aggressive nature. While it's true that some of the worst dog attacks in recent years have been perpetrated by the breed, that behavior is not typical, and is often caused by irresponsible owners who do not properly train or socialize these powerful creatures. If Vick's Badnewz Kennelz has proven anything, it is that they are NOT "bad" dogs.
As I mentioned before, I take no issue with Vick's return to football. And if sportswriters around the country want to report his exploits as a "feel good" story, than that is their prerogative. Just don't expect me to salute. Yes, I'm aware that Vick has kept his nose clean since his release. That he has said all the right things--even doing PSA's for the Humane Society. And since I can't get inside of his head, I have no way of knowing whether he is sincere or not. I hope that he is. I hope that he can make something of his life beyond the football field and serve as an example of what not to do with your life. If his tale of dog fighting can become a cautionary one, than that will at least be something.
But some things are so heinous and despicable, that I simply can't forgive them. And the consistent, intentional infliction of cruelty on animals whose very life is dependant upon those whose hands they fall into is one of them. And yes, I know Jesus saves, and God forgives. But I'm not Jesus and I sure ain't God. And I don't.
Sumo-Pop
October 10, 2010
Saturday, October 2, 2010
The Social Network
"You're not an a--hole, Mark. You're just trying so hard to be one."--Rashida Jones in The Social Network
Three times in his career, David Fincher has made a movie that deserves to be in the year end discussion of the year's best. He reinvented the serial killer movie in 1995 with Se7en. He summed up the vacuous nature of consumerism with Fight Club in 1999. And he defined noble failure with Zodiac in 2007.
The Social Network may be better than all of the aforementioned.
In telling the story of a Harvard sophomore (Mark Zuckerberg) who invented Facebook, screwed his only friend, and paid out massive dollars in settlement fees to classmates that claimed he stole their idea, Fincher has not only made his best movie, but encapsulated a generation.
I have a friend who asked me "why would I want to see a movie about Facebook?"
Well, aside from the electrifying direction, the crackling dialogue of Aaron Sorkin (fans of The West Wing already know that Sorkin's characters don't speak like real people, they speak the way you wish that real people spoke), terrific supporting turns by Justin Timberlake (accessing his id entertainingly as Napster creator, Sean Parker), Andrew Garfield (as that only friend), and Armie Hammer (doing double duty as the Winkelvoss twins who sue Zuckerberg for theft of intellectual property), and an absolute genius performance by Jesse Eisenberg as Zuckerberg, I would suggest to you that The Social Network is only nominally about the creation of Facebook. What it's really about is the Model T Ford, the first guy to strike oil, to pan for gold, hell, the quest for fire even. It's about the final frontier. Well, at least until the next final frontier comes along.
In an era where space has been traveled, all existing land has someone's flag planted on it, and we have created enough nuclear bombs to destroy the world several times over, the internet is the last extraordinary creation. I mean really, what's left?
Now of course, Zuckerberg didn't create the internet, or even online social networking (My Space and Friendster got there first). What he has done is--to some degree--perfected it. We now live in an age where you can have hundreds, even thousands of friends whose faces you may never see (outside of their profile pic), voices you will never hear, and presence you will never touch. We do this in large part because of the invention of Facebook. Because of Mark Zuckerberg.
And who is Mark Zuckerberg? Well, if Fincher's film is to be believed (it's important to note that Zuckerberg did not cooperate with the filmmaker), he is socially inept to the point of needing a test for Aspberger's Syndrome. He is seemingly devoid of a sense of humor, blind to social cues, and insensitive to a major fault. In a way, all he is is what he's after. I realize I probably just described 90% of all geniuses.
What's fascinating, is that a guy with almost no social skills would create the largest social network on the face of the Earth. How imperfectly perfect. We now live in a great big virtual world where intimacy between friends is no longer a given, or perhaps it is merely redefined. Because of social networking, that six degrees of Kevin Bacon game is now pointless. We're all Kevin Bacon now. I don't blame Zuckerberg for this world, but I do have to live in it.
And live in it I do. Because of Facebook I have reconnected with pals from my past and struck up internet friendships with people of similar interests whose time zones I may never breach. I'm hardly alone. My mother can barely use a computer and she's on Facebook.
But I do wonder if something is lost and soon to be gone forever. Starting next month, I will manage my employees by remote by working on a lap top from home. Oh sure, I'll get in front of their faces from time to time, but no longer on a daily basis. While in many ways this may be a more efficient and less expensive way to work, it's fair to wonder what this will do to our ability to communicate, to connect with others in a meaningful way. Will we one day in the future never have to leave our homes? Will all films be downloaded to your computer and acted out by seamlessly animated characters? Will we ever need to walk into a bookstore ever again? Or open the doors of a school building? If not, can you imagine what it will be like going to a grocery store (at least until virtual food is created)? We'll probably have to take anxiety medication before we choose a cart.
And that is essentially what this movie is about. The ongoing sea change in how we relate to one another. This film pin points the day that our lives changed forever before we even knew it. Who wouldn't want to see a movie about that?
Like I said, this is the fourth time that Fincher has put himself in the position of possibly having made the best movie of the year. To put it another way: Move over Inception, you are in The Social Network's seat.
Sumo-Pop
October 2, 2010
Three times in his career, David Fincher has made a movie that deserves to be in the year end discussion of the year's best. He reinvented the serial killer movie in 1995 with Se7en. He summed up the vacuous nature of consumerism with Fight Club in 1999. And he defined noble failure with Zodiac in 2007.
The Social Network may be better than all of the aforementioned.
In telling the story of a Harvard sophomore (Mark Zuckerberg) who invented Facebook, screwed his only friend, and paid out massive dollars in settlement fees to classmates that claimed he stole their idea, Fincher has not only made his best movie, but encapsulated a generation.
I have a friend who asked me "why would I want to see a movie about Facebook?"
Well, aside from the electrifying direction, the crackling dialogue of Aaron Sorkin (fans of The West Wing already know that Sorkin's characters don't speak like real people, they speak the way you wish that real people spoke), terrific supporting turns by Justin Timberlake (accessing his id entertainingly as Napster creator, Sean Parker), Andrew Garfield (as that only friend), and Armie Hammer (doing double duty as the Winkelvoss twins who sue Zuckerberg for theft of intellectual property), and an absolute genius performance by Jesse Eisenberg as Zuckerberg, I would suggest to you that The Social Network is only nominally about the creation of Facebook. What it's really about is the Model T Ford, the first guy to strike oil, to pan for gold, hell, the quest for fire even. It's about the final frontier. Well, at least until the next final frontier comes along.
In an era where space has been traveled, all existing land has someone's flag planted on it, and we have created enough nuclear bombs to destroy the world several times over, the internet is the last extraordinary creation. I mean really, what's left?
Now of course, Zuckerberg didn't create the internet, or even online social networking (My Space and Friendster got there first). What he has done is--to some degree--perfected it. We now live in an age where you can have hundreds, even thousands of friends whose faces you may never see (outside of their profile pic), voices you will never hear, and presence you will never touch. We do this in large part because of the invention of Facebook. Because of Mark Zuckerberg.
And who is Mark Zuckerberg? Well, if Fincher's film is to be believed (it's important to note that Zuckerberg did not cooperate with the filmmaker), he is socially inept to the point of needing a test for Aspberger's Syndrome. He is seemingly devoid of a sense of humor, blind to social cues, and insensitive to a major fault. In a way, all he is is what he's after. I realize I probably just described 90% of all geniuses.
What's fascinating, is that a guy with almost no social skills would create the largest social network on the face of the Earth. How imperfectly perfect. We now live in a great big virtual world where intimacy between friends is no longer a given, or perhaps it is merely redefined. Because of social networking, that six degrees of Kevin Bacon game is now pointless. We're all Kevin Bacon now. I don't blame Zuckerberg for this world, but I do have to live in it.
And live in it I do. Because of Facebook I have reconnected with pals from my past and struck up internet friendships with people of similar interests whose time zones I may never breach. I'm hardly alone. My mother can barely use a computer and she's on Facebook.
But I do wonder if something is lost and soon to be gone forever. Starting next month, I will manage my employees by remote by working on a lap top from home. Oh sure, I'll get in front of their faces from time to time, but no longer on a daily basis. While in many ways this may be a more efficient and less expensive way to work, it's fair to wonder what this will do to our ability to communicate, to connect with others in a meaningful way. Will we one day in the future never have to leave our homes? Will all films be downloaded to your computer and acted out by seamlessly animated characters? Will we ever need to walk into a bookstore ever again? Or open the doors of a school building? If not, can you imagine what it will be like going to a grocery store (at least until virtual food is created)? We'll probably have to take anxiety medication before we choose a cart.
And that is essentially what this movie is about. The ongoing sea change in how we relate to one another. This film pin points the day that our lives changed forever before we even knew it. Who wouldn't want to see a movie about that?
Like I said, this is the fourth time that Fincher has put himself in the position of possibly having made the best movie of the year. To put it another way: Move over Inception, you are in The Social Network's seat.
Sumo-Pop
October 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)