Thought Alarm

When six isn't enough

2009-01-30T06:31:00.001-08:00

The woman who gave birth to octuplets this week has six other children and never expected to have eight more when she took fertility treatment, her mother said. - Associated Press

Oh, by the way, the mother lives with her parents. So, how many more kids did she expect to have when seeking fertility treatment after the first six?

John Updike word of the day

2009-01-27T19:39:00.000-08:00

Today John Updike passed after battling lung cancer. I greatly admired his ability as a writer, his fictional works like Rabbit Run, and his essays.

In honor of the man, I give you a word for the day, plucked right out of one of his own works, the iconic tribute to Ted Williams' last game "Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu."

Cloyingly - adv - so sweet or pleasurable that it ultimately becomes sickly

As in: I, and 10,453 others, had shown up primarily because this was the Red Sox's last home game of the season, and therefore the last time in all eternity that their regular left fielder, known to the headlines as TED, KID, SPLINTER, THUMPER, TW, and, most cloyingly, MISTER WONDERFUL, would play in Boston.

Obama's big suit moment

2009-01-21T15:31:00.000-08:00

Though a freezing chill was in the air, a crowd of over a million people had gathered in front of the United States capitol. An electric current of anticipation seemed to bind them all, and warm them, as they waited for Barack Obama to emerge and take the oath of office as the 44th President of our great nation.

Preceding him was a line of former presidents, each emerging one-by-one, in order. First came Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, looking utterly ancient, amazing the crowd that he was still alive. A gasp rose, and then wild applause, his value to our nation enhanced by time. He smiled and took his seat. Next came George H. W. Bush, the 41st president, as he hobbled, walking with the help of a cane. Less of an applause. Then Bill Clinton, the 42nd president, emerged with wife Hillary on his arm. The crowd burst into wild applause, and the Clintons paused for a moment before taking their seats. Finally, George W. Bush came out, the current, failed president - the one Obama would be mercifully replacing. A jeer rose into the air.

After this the capitol doors were closed, and we waited for what seemed like an eternity - for The One to cross over the threshold. The anticipation was broken slightly as future first lady Michelle came out, in a stunning pale green dress, designed by Isabel Toledo. To say she was Chic, stunning, or lovely would hardly do this new Jackie O any justice! But her moment was quickly brushed aside by history.

All eyes were riveted on that historic platform, where the oath of office is administered by the Chief Justice, against the backdrop of the majestic capitol, and in front of the people of the country, as prescribed by that most perfect of documents, the Constitution. The moment seemed to hang in the air for an eternity and then... Barack Obama emerged... wearing a giant over sized gray suit, tailored by Chicago's own Hartmarx. It was at least six or seven times too large! His shoulders were perfectly square, bolstered by invisible giant shoulder pads, his head appeared in between them as but a tiny dot, ears peaking out to the sides.

The crowd, for a moment, was utterly stunned, as Obama stood at the threshold of the doorway, between the Capitol building and history, as if to say, "Look at my giant suit!"

The chill suddenly seemed to return to the air. Old ladies clutched at their coat collars. Somewhere a big dog barked.

"Oh no. No, no, no, no!" a woman next to me cried out. "Something is wrong here."

"He looks like David Byrne," someone muttered.

Then, the 44th president descended down the steps. Underneath the huge suit was that same confident stride. Obama, even in what can only be described as a laughably large, shabby looking suit, remained unruffled. He wore no smile, no smirk-- this was no joke--and the suit seemed to grow larger in the moment. As he descended down the steps, the crowd, which in an instant had recoiled in horror, returned to him stronger than ever before, recognizing the suit not as audacious, but powerful. It reinforced everything they wanted to believe about their new leader. The suit was a strong statement from an incredibly self confident individual.

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, known for being particularly unflappable, hadn't caught on to the moment, and was taken aback, as Obama formed before him, towering. Roberts stumbled over the beginning of the sacred oath:

"...do solemnly swear that I will execute the office of...comically big suit..."

Obama paused for a moment. Roberts collected and corrected himself. The oath was completed, and at the words "Congratulations, Mr. President," the crowd found themselves, every man woman and child, safely in Obama's pocket. A million voices rose, as one, into the air in a tumultuous cheer. Such a thunderous sound has not been heard in our nation's capitol since the city was shelled and set aflame by British soldiers in 1814, or perhaps, after the Redskins won the Super Bowl in 1992. Large cannons were fired off, a massive 21 gun salute, as a band played Hail to the Chief. But all was drowned out by the sound of that crowd, a euphonious noise I will never forget!

Obama's and his huge suit suddenly seemed not so completely inappropriate, but perfect. He squared himself to the thronging crowd, now all but surging forward. We were straining against one another to get closer to him. Under those immense shoulders, massive epaulets stretching north and south, Obama raised both hands into the air. But we had already started an unbroken chant of: "Obama! Obama! Obama!" How long this went on is hard to say, but people simply would not let the man speak. Instead, we wanted to savor this moment in history and shower praise on their new chief executive.

Finally, hoarse, spent and exhausted, the crowd noise subsided. Obama shuffled his note cards for a second and what came out of his mouth next will never be forgotten: "My fellow citizens...I stand before you today... in a very large suit!"

And with that, he smiled! We, in response, born again, bust into cheer! We yelled, cried, and threw ourselves forward as one body. It sounds ridiculous, I know. Such a scene can barely be described. Obama then made no attempt to stop the crowd and simply began to laugh along with everyone. It echoed over the loudspeakers, from the capitol to the Lincoln Memorial and beyond.

A braying, cathartic, "Ahaha! AHAHAHAH! HA!!!!" which carried on for at least a solid minute as we whistled and laughed with him.

"Just look how happy he is," the woman next to me remarked. Her face, almost angelic with joy: "I've waited my whole life to see a moment like this."

I nodded in agreement, he certainly did seem to be enjoying himself.

"It's a large suit!" he repeated, and we laughed again, completely caught up. It was as if we had never laughed at anything in our lives. Or, at least, for the last eight years.

"Oh yeah, and before I lose myself completely in the moment, George. W. Bush, you're fired! Your helicopter is waiting to take you, and your tiny suit, back to Texas. Now get out!"

That famous 44th inauguration will live long in all of our memories. It will be, of course, up to historians to judge its importance next to Lincoln or Kennedy. But one thing is undeniable: this Obama has his finger on the pulse of this nation. He knew better than we did; that we all just needed a damn good laugh. He can do no wrong.

44 thoughts on the inauguration

2009-01-20T19:17:00.000-08:00

1. Can't believe Jimmy Carter is still alive
2. Bush Sr. not walking well
3. Hillary coming down the hall with Bill, but really practicing for 2016?
4. Michelle's dress is green, which I'm sure is really cool
5. Cheney's in a wheelchair and starting to look like Mr. Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life"
6. Judge Roberts botched the oath
7. Obama looks annoyed at Roberts for screwing up the oath
8. Roberts just made Obama's list
9. Obama's speech didn't move me, but it was still miles ahead of Dubya
10. Speaking of Dubya, there he is looking hella old
11. Looks like there are a lot of people there....
12. And it looks chilly
13. I feel much better now that Bush can no longer make any major decisions
14. I wonder what that note said that Bush left for Obama in the Oval Office
15. Watching Dubya get on that helicopter, and wave goodbye was very surreal
16. Sort of like the Wizard of Oz getting in that hot air balloon and floating away
17. I can't come back, I don't know how it works!
18. He'll land somewhere in Texas and it'll all be like a strange dream
19. And he'll be somebody else's problem now
20. And we never heard from him, or Laura, again...
21. I wonder what Cheney, Rummy, and Condi are going to do now?
22. Maybe start a barbershop quartet?
23. Eight years is, in fact, a long damn time
24. The Republican party is in complete disarray
25. Sarah Palin?!
26. I hope the new guy does a good job
27. It'll be interesting to see how his first 100 days go
28. Will Obama do as he promised and install a basketball court in the White House?
29. That would be badass
30. Will Lance Armstrong mountain bike with him?
31. These are the questions that now keep me up at night
32. Twelve more of these to go
33. Oh I should mention that I'm very happy for African Americans, what a moment!
34. And I'm not going to try to steal any of it
35. This moment was for all of us, but for some more than others
36. Did I mention Bush is gone? Wow.
37. But...Jeb lives on...
38. We all shine on
39. Like the moon and the stars and the sun
40. This is a good moment, and I think John Lennon would be happy
41. Oh, and I didn't like the inaugural poem
42. How do you write a bad poem like that in a moment like that?
43. Just sound profound
44. That's what I try to do

Talking Heads and the comedy of suits

2009-01-02T21:03:00.000-08:00

Alright, so I just watched the Talking Heads concert movie "Stop Making Sense" and at one point David Byrne comes onstage in a giant suit and it's both mesmerizing and funny. I summed it up by calling it simply "badass."

But here's the thing, it turns out skinny guy in a large suit is funny in the same way fat guy in a little coat is funny! There's some kind of comic symmetry going on here.

Here's a full clip of Byrne in large suit:

Kanye West lame on SNL

2008-12-22T19:50:00.001-08:00

What do Kanye West and Milli Vanilli have in common? They both were Grammy award winning artists, and they both need to lip sych? Kanye, the self proclaimed "voice of this generation" apparently needs a lot of technical help while singing live from his new album 808's. A disastrous performance on SNL has people now comparing him to Ashlee Simpson.

“It’s a frustrating situation,” said Thomas Connor in the Chicago Sun-Times, “because here's an artist who stepped out on a limb to try something fairly interesting and maybe bold in the context of hip-hop.” Supposedly, Kanye uses an Autotuner to give his voice a “Vocoder-like effect,” but “judging by Saturday's performances, man, the ‘voice of this generation’ needs the help.”

Ahh, the bigger they are, the Kanye they fall.

Bush says he didn't compromise soul to be popular

2008-12-17T19:45:00.000-08:00

In a wide-ranging interview with Fox News Channel, Bush also praised the national security team assembled by President-elect Barack Obama. - The AP.

I know this may be an oversimplification, a shortcut if you will in complex times, but Bush has proven to be no good at everything. And anything anyone he ever selected must also be no good. And so, on consecutive days, Bush and Cheney have both applauded Obama's administration picks, which makes me terribly nervous.

"We've got a major economic problem and I'm the president during the major economic problem," Bush said, addressing his historically low popularity ratings. "I mean, do people approve of the economy? No. I don't approve of the economy. ... I've been a wartime president. I've dealt with two economic recessions now. I've had, hell, a lot of serious challenges. What matters to me is I didn't compromise my soul to be a popular guy."

He didn't, but perhaps he should have. Thankfully, he's almost out the door and we can begin the process of blotting his name off everything, like that pharoah...the guy...with the shirt...what was his name? Apollo Creed?

Cheney lauds Obama's cabinet

2008-12-16T17:04:00.000-08:00

"I must say, I think it's a pretty good team," Cheney said of Obama's national security choices, in a segment of the interview broadcast Tuesday on "Good Morning America."

I know it's really nothing, but it just seems odd to see someone like Cheney lauding Obama. A few on the left have already begun criticizing Obama's cabinet picks as center-to-hawkish. The endorsement by the Prince of Darkness can't help Obama's support on the far left.

I am quickly thinking back to the last Democratic president who had to triangulate his policies, and bend to the right. Welfare reform indeed.

Cheney mentioned just yesterday that Obama would appreciate the ways in which Bush and company have expanded executive power over the last eight years.

"Once they get here and they're faced with the same problems we deal with every day, then they will appreciate some of the things we've put in place," he said.

Strange bedfellows.

Book review: Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers"

2008-12-13T09:41:00.000-08:00

I've read Malcolm Gladwell's new book "Outliers: the story of success" and if you're curious what I thought, I've written a review on helium.com. Overall, I'd give the book a C. Like all Gladwell books, it is highly entertaining and the individual anecdotes are provoking. But with unsurprising conclusions, it reads more like a celebration of the author than a rigorous search for truth in a complex subject. That said, I'd be happy to hear your feedback.

Read my Helium review here.

In keeping with the success theme, I've moved on to "Talented is Overrated" a book by Geoff Colvin which Gladwell referenced. I hope to have my thoughts up shortly.

Book review: Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers

2008-12-07T18:38:00.000-08:00

Why do certain people succeed? Why do some rise above others? What makes them, in effect, outliers, distant from the set of data they came from? These are the questions Malcolm Gladwell hopes to answer in his new book "Outliers: The Story of Success." Gladwell, the erudite New Yorker staff writer, has become familiar to many. His first two books, Tipping Point, and Blink, have sold nearly five million copies. They eloquently address complex pop-psychology topics while their creator became known as a writer of first talent, and an intellect with considerable ability to distill research.

By this criteria, "Outliers" does not disappoint. Gladwell weaves entertaining anecdotes along with research findings, while attempting to shed light on what makes people successful. His approach is something like this: if you are from Canada, and dream of becoming a professional hockey player, much will depend on the month you were born. With this beginning, Gladwell seems to have discovered that success owes as much to luck as it does to skill. He expounds on this point over the next 285 pages.

While a thoroughly enjoyable and easy read, I couldn't help but absorb Outliers with a sense of faux surprise. While it may be true that in America there persists the romantic idea that ability alone enables you climb the ladder, how many people really believe this, unless perhaps, you were born on top of the ladder already? The rest of us have all suffered under a supervisor who only had that position because that person was related to the owner of the company, or watched someone else get a chance to succeed because of some family connection. We all immediately recognize the injustice because we saw that they were on their way to outlierhood, while the rest of us cobbled along. Gladwell's genius, the thing he can do that we can't, is to articuatle this in a book you can consume over a weekend.

Outliers is billed as "the international bestselling guru's" answer to "the ultimate question: why are people successful?" Tipping Point are Blink more pedestrian in their topics. They deal with such issues as why Sesame Street was so good at teaching children to read, and how our initial impressions are often more accurate than we think. But in Outliers, Gladwell is looking into the phenomena of exceptional people. Gladwell himself is one of them, and the conclusions he uncovers seem to be much more illuminating to him than for the rest of us. He seems more interested in understanding (himself) than truely explaining (the point of the book). The book is highly entertaining, but not all that revealing. That it takes luck, opportunity along with determination and skill to become an outlier, should surprise almost no one.

A "sticky" issue, if I may borrow a term from Tipping Point, is determining who is an outlier. Or, perhaps more importantly, why more people should want to be outliers. People like Bill Gates, the Beatles, Ropert Oppenheimer assume an ultra-outlier status in the book. But lawyers, doctors and other professional careers are also addressed. Is the book about what gives rise to someone like Bill Gates? Or is it about how, hopefully, more people arrive at the upper class? The former topic is more compelling. The latter is more pragmatic. But Gladwell doesn't seem exactly sure which way he wants to go, however he definitely wants the conclusions to be applied so more people can become outliers.

This is noble, except that the lessons are nebulous and cherry-picked. Take the case of the Beatles, whose success was attributed to skill and hard work honed by hours of playing Hamburg. There were many British bands who also had skill, and also worked for thousands of hours, why did we not hear about all of them? Why only a select few? For every one successful rock band, even those given the same opportunities, thousands vanish without recognition. Why? Gladwell would probably simply attribute this to luck, but then who among us couldn't have concluded that or didn't already know that? And if it really does come down to luck, how can we hope to apply what Gladwell has uncovered, in order to make more outliers?

Would it make a difference if more people were given the opportunists to hone their skills? Sure. But for every outlier, there are those left behind. That is just the way it works. I suspect we would still only have one Bill Gates, no matter how many kids were given similar opportunities. He was simply more talented, and along the way he buried other businesses behind him. What makes Gates unique was that he played the game perfectly, dodged all the pitfalls, made all the right moves at the right time. Luck may have put him in position, but his acumen did the rest. As luck gave him the opportunities, he had to seize them in the right ways. That is what made him an outlier, and that would be a very compelling study.

Many have and will continue to enjoy Gladwell's books. With their now ubiquitous and pithy titles, it is not hard to envision an entire box set someday sitting on the mantle places of upper middle class homes across the country. Gladwell has created a brand. The topics are complex, the titles are short, and the books are somewhere in the middle. This is both a blessing and a curse. Gladwell has propelled himself into rarefied literary air, and he would be the first to admit that he got there, like any other outlier, by considerable skill, but also by a lot of luck. But his books, specifically this book, Outliers, run the risk of being too slick, too easy. Outliers, and its general assumptions, while correct, may not have the social impact Gladwell desires. The conclusions, the socialistic truth that no outlier succeeds alone, are valid more now than ever. Gladwell could easily have moved the debate in the right direction, but Outliers seems more interested in proving the author correct on another insight, than applying anything to the debate.

The book contains the assumption that, in a better world, more people would be outliers. I think what Gladwell means is that a better world would be a place where more people could hone their skills and find fulfillment. But these people would not necessarily be outliers. Outliers are rare. Even if the tide raises for us all, a few will always rise further, but why? The hard answer to that statistical anomaly is what we are really looking for here, but, in the end, figuring out what creates an outlier seems beyond even Gladwell. It is a huge, sprawling topic. It is like asking, what makes certain companies uber successful, while others fail. This is something business scientists will study forever because there is no one answer. There are a million factors, just as there are a million factors determining which human lives rise above the fray. The answer, like a twisted proverb, is found in everything. Outliers, in tow, says a little of everything, while not saying much.

Final grade: C. Individual stories and research samples are thought provoking. The sum and conclusion is less so.

A Time to Regret

2008-12-07T17:09:00.000-08:00

"There is a time for everything," the Teacher mused. "And a season for every activity under the heaven." The Bush administration has uprooted, it has built, it has laughed and danced, it has spoken and it has hated, and now it has entered the time for regret.

"The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq," President Bush reflected in an interview last week. "A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein."

Today his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice echoed her boss's sentiments when she said, "I would give anything to be able to go back and to know precisely what we were going to find when we were there."

As the sun sets on what many are already calling one of the worst tenures in presidential history, administration officials, starting with former members Richard Clark and Scott McClellan, have been using the media as a cathartic outlet, repenting and regretting in front of the public that has long since lost interest in what they have to say.

Ever since the 2006 mid-term elections, it has been obvious that the American public was miles ahead of the Bush administration. Consider that at the time Donald Rumsfeld was still Secretary of Defense. He has few supporters these days, little over two years later. "I don't think we had the right structure," Rice said. "I'll very, very blunt. We tried in Iraq to give it to a single department, the Department of Defense."

Bush administration officials now seem to be conducting a long overdue lessons-learned session, albeit on national television. This seems extra surprising because Bush, when asked in a 2004 debate for three mistakes he had made as president, could not come up with one. Now, suddenly, the man who won reelection on his resoluteness seems to be more thoughtful than we ever could have imagined. While he seems to have opened his mind to hindsight, he still seems unable to reconcile contingency plans.

When asked whether he would have gone to war if the intelligence had said Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, which, by the way, it did say before coming under heavy pressure from the administration to make a link, Bush said, "That's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do."

Things certainly can't be outdone, but it would not have hurt matters had the administration taken a few moments, back in, say, late 2002, or early 2003, to consider some alternate situations. What if Iraq, as many were saying, did not have weapons of mass destruction? Should we give the weapons inspectors more time? Was Iraq really an imminent threat? Was there any link between Iraq and the attacks on 9/11? What if we invaded and we were not greeted as liberators? Etc. It should be job of those in leadership positions, not to plan for the best case scenario, but to consider the worst case.

But, of course, to this administration, even before 9/11, there was one singular foreign policy goal, to deal with Saddam Hussein. He was unfinished business, a mess left over from Bush's father. As many insiders have pointed out, 9/11 was simply the leverage needed to enact the overthrow of the Iraqi government. That is the great tragedy, the irreparable regret, that this administration boldly moved to solve a problem that was no real problem at all, and left the main problems of domestic issues and international terrorism, to go unheeded.

In all this, those rebuked by the 43rd administration, including Colin Powell, Richard Clarke, General Shinseki, and even former President George H.W. Bush, have been exonorated while those who so carelessly orchistrated executive poilicy over the last eight years, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld, to name just a few, now speak of regrets to a public that has long since thrown its attention to President elect Barack Obama.

Quantum of Solace review

2008-11-30T19:49:00.000-08:00

Check it out here on Helium. Vote it up if you give a damn! :)

Hannity & Colmes to split

2008-11-25T02:57:00.000-08:00

Fox News Liberal Alan Colmes is finally done being a human straw man for Sean Hannity and has decided to leave the top rated "Hannity & Colmes show." Coming behind Hannity, not just in title, but in every conceivable metric, has finally has lost its luster for Colmes who announced his decision yesterday.

“I approached Bill Shine (FNC’s Senior Vice President of Programming) earlier this year about wanting to move on after 12 years to develop new and challenging ways to contribute to the growth of the network," Colmes said in a statement. "Although it’s bittersweet to leave one of the longest marriages on cable news, I’m proud that both Sean (Hannity) and I remained unharmed after sitting side by side, night after night for so many years."

"Although my ass does hurt a little,” Colmes admitted.

Rumor has it that Hannity will go it alone after Colmes departure, a move that will change nothing about the format of the show.

"I guess I'll need to find someone else to grab my coffee and sweet rolls," Hannity joked after hearing the news. "Seriously, Alan, if you could just let me know when you're gone, that'd be great."

Hannity then gave Colmes a vicious wedgie, as is their spontaneous ritual before every show.

Colmes, the show's token liberal voice, won praise for his ability to hold a conversation with conservatives. However, he was widely criticized by liberals as too deferential in comparison to the often bombastic Hannity. He was famously lambasted in Al Frankin's book "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them" as the whipping boy on the "Hannity & Colmes" show. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. compared the show's format to a Harlem Globetrotters game in which it was Colmes job to loose every argument.

Fox producers have long been known to seek out nonthreatening liberal commentators to act as foils to their superior conservative dominatrix. Colmes is in a group which includes Juan Williams, Tammy Bruce, and Ed Koch. In addition to being non-threatening, they are often openly pro-Republican. Bruce and Koch voted for Bush in 2004. After Bush's famous "Mission Accomplished" speech in 2003, Colmes wondered, "Now that the war in Iraq is over, shouldn't the people in Hollywood who opposed the president admit they were wrong?"

Good one, Alan! Happy trails.

The New and Improved New Deal

2008-11-24T14:48:00.000-08:00

Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal: a fiercely independent punk group, or the words on every pundit's lips these days? With the economy in virtual free fall, and Democrats riding a tide of public support into the White House and congress, it's starting to look like 1932 all over again.

A recent cover of Time Magazine had an iconic photograph of FDR in an open-top car slightly altered to show president-elect Obama, over the title "The New New Deal."
George Packer, writing for the New Yorker, recently predicted an era of “new liberalism” to begin shortly, and examined Obama alongside Roosevelt.

The parallels are strikingly similiar. Obama was elected on a wave of issues, as the public happily ushered the George W. Bush out of the White House. Like FDR, Obama faces a staggering financial crisis. Like FDR, Obama has surrounded himself with pragmatists and intellectuals to deal with the problem. Many have already guessed that the 44th president's opening moves will match those of the 32nd, most notably, in something similar to FDR's famous, and controversial, New Deal.

The New Deal was the name Roosevelt gave to a series of economic programs he initiated during the great depression. It represented a sizable shift in domestic and economic policy, namely: increased federal government control over the economy, money, regulation, and production. Upon accepting the 1932 Democratic nomination for president, Roosevelt pledged himself to “a new deal for the American people.” This deal was to replace the extremely unpopular Old Deal of laissez-faire economics which had led to the stock market crash in 1929 and an unemployment rate of 25%. A little known fact is that the expression “new deal” was borrowed from the title of a Stuart Chase book “A New Deal: 10 Reasons Why the Old Deal Sucks” published earlier in the year.

The New Deal was a blend of pragmatism and experiment. Its policies drew from ideas proposed earlier in the 20^th century. Roosevelt formed what he called the Brain Trust, a group of advisors to assist in recovery policies. Many believed government action was the only viable solution from, as General Hugh Johnson put it, “the murderous doctrine of savage and wolfish individualism, looking to dog-eat-dog and devil take the hindmost!”

The New Deal was phased out after America entered World War Two in 1941. What followed as a period of high times and American economic dominance. A Square Deal was enacted 1952 by President Eisenhower, followed by President Johnson’s Great Society Deal in 1965. This was ebbed by President Nixon’s Raw Deal in 1972, President Reagan’s No Deal in 1983, and President Bush’s Deal or No Deal in 2005. Now President-elect Barack Obama stands with his hands on the arc of history, ready to bend it back towards Roosevelt’s policies in what may become a New and Improved New Deal for the 21^st century.

Will it bring us out of our current depression? Many conservatives, to whom FDR’s New Deal has, for years, been a rallying cry, say no, and claim that even the original policies did not turn the economy around, so why try them again? The lasting social institutions erected by New Deal policies have been targets for conservatives for years, culminating in President Bush’s attempt to privatize Social Security in 2005. That may prove to be the high-water-mark of conservativism for a while. Once again, at the crest of another economic crisis, the Democrats find themselves with their hands firmly on the wheel of history.

Doctors perform miracle windpipe stem cell transplant...in another country

2008-11-19T07:42:00.001-08:00

From the AP:

LONDON – Doctors have given a woman a new windpipe with tissue grown from her own stem cells, eliminating the need for anti-rejection drugs. "This technique has great promise," said Dr. Eric Genden, who did a similar transplant in 2005 at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. That operation used both donor and recipient tissue. Only a handful of windpipe, or trachea, transplants have ever been done.

If successful, the procedure could become a new standard of treatment, said Genden, who was not involved in the research.

America will now begin playing catchup in this area as well. Such medical miracles were banished from the homeland years ago. Federal funding for medical research involving the creation or destruction of human embryos through the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health have been forbidden by law since the Republican Revolution of 1995. On August 9, 2001 Bush signed an executive order lifting the ban on federal funding for the 71 existing "lines" of stem cells. On July 19, 2006, Bush used his veto power for the first time to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

Doctors transplant windpipe with stem cells - Yahoo! News

Obama meets Bush

2008-11-10T17:11:00.000-08:00

Today, there could not have been a wilder juxtaposition, as president elect Barack Obama met with the second most powerful man in America, President George W. Bush. Obama got his first look at the Oval Office, and discussed transition issues with the President. It was a formal first step since Obama's campaign victory, as Bush begins to finally fade away into oblivion.

Obama appears to be wasting no time during his transition. A few days into his election he met with economic leaders to discuss the nation's faltering economy. He then held a press conference under a seal which read "the office of the president elect." It was refreshing to see the would-be president eagerly taking the reigns and candidly confronting the issue. He calmly answered questions about the economy--an unimaginable move for our former president. For his part, Obama does not seem to be plagued with a disease that gripped the man he is replacing. Namely, laziness.

Although Obama is preparing to take over a country facing massive challenges after eight years of severe neglect, he seems anxious to confront the problems we face. He also seems ready to engage the country on an respectful level, rather than simply leveraging base emotions, and, failing that, vanishing from the scene altogether as Bush has done over the last few years.

President Bush can now move on to doing the things he loves best, without interruption due to national issues. Executive order, for the good of the nation, says he is not to be touched, interrupted, taunted, or interacted with in any way. His name will be removed from all history books, and any who utter his name or refer to his presidency will face severe punishment. The last eight years henceforth will be referenced as: the great unspeakable.

Bush can now devote his full, albeit short, attention span to the following activities: wasting time, clearing brush, shooting the shit, mountain biking. He is free to continue destroying everything he touches, holding back science, thwarting intellectualism, cursing the French, and fighting the war on terror with the following caveat: these actions, and anything else he ever does, will be forever confined to his ranch in Crawford, TX.

Meanwhile, Obama, and the rest of the nation, will attempt to clean up the incredible, incalculable mess left behind by ~~the 43rd president~~ the great unspeakable.

OBAMA WINS!

2008-11-05T00:14:00.000-08:00

Election day sees Barack Obama elected as the first African American President of the United States!

Huge, nation-wide win in every area: 52% of the popular vote and 350+ EC votes!

Historic end to longest, most expensive presidential campaign ever!

Sarah Palin returns to Alaska!

Pictures from the Democratic victory party in downtown St. Paul.

Why do so many evangelical teen-agers become pregnant?

2008-11-02T15:05:00.000-08:00

Why do so many evangelical teen-agers become pregnant? That's the provocative question Margaret Talbot tries to answer, in one of the most poignant articles I have read this year in the New Yorker. She writes:

Social liberals in the country’s “blue states” tend to support sex education and are not particularly troubled by the idea that many teen-agers have sex before marriage, but would regard a teen-age daughter’s pregnancy as devastating news. And the social conservatives in “red states” generally advocate abstinence-only education and denounce sex before marriage, but are relatively unruffled if a teen-ager becomes pregnant, as long as she doesn’t choose to have an abortion.

It's an interesting dichotomy. And one that also hits home for millions of families in America. Using data from Mark Regnerus's book "Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers," she shows that "religion is a good indicator of attitudes towards sex, but a poor one of sexual behavior." The vast majority of white evangelical adolescents (74%) say that they believe in abstaining from sex before marriage. However, that group begins having sex earlier than any other except one (black Protestants), and are significantly less likely than other groups to use contraception.

Talbot looks into why, if obviously the biological drive is the same in adolescents across groups, things are so much different in evangelical circles. The article, and Regnerus's book, is well worth reading for the findings. Contributing factors include unhealthy a lot of unhealthy information about sex including feelings that the sex drive is evil, fear that having protection on-hand will send the wrong message, information from the abstinence movement that says condoms wont actually protect you from pregnancy or STDs.

Deterrants for teen-age pregnancy include an observant religious life (not just going to chuch, but praying at home, etc.), a home life in-which both biological parents live, teenagers who have a sense that their parents listen to them and engage in activities with them, teenagers who have a sense of goals (college, a career, a family), and using logic and reasoning to solve problems rather than just emmotion.

Tito the Builder vs Joe the Plumber smackdown

2008-11-01T19:55:00.000-07:00

What if Tito the Builder and Joe the Plumber had a fight to the death?
Two go in, one comes out!

Tito!

Joe!

Fight!

Real name
Tito: Tito Munoz
Joe: Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher
Advantage: Push

Represents
Tito: Hispanics
Joe: White middle-class America
Advantage: Tito

Fled from
Tito: Columbia
Joe: Texas
Advantage: Joe

Key swing states impacted
Tito: Arizona, New Mexico, Florida
Joe: Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania
Advantage: Joe

Campaigns with
Tito: Sarah Palin
Joe: John McCain
Advantage: Tito

Moment of fame
Tito: interviewed on Hannity and Colmes
Joe: questioned Barack Obama's tax plan
Advantage: Joe

Shtick
Tito: wears sunglasses all the time
Joe: bald
Advantage: Tito

What he should be doing
Tito: Business owner
Joe: Plumber's helper
Advantage: Tito

Approach
Tito: Pissed off
Joe: Cool
Advantage: Tito

Has probably had
Tito: too much coffee
Joe: too much time on his hands
Advantage: Joe

Looks like
Tito: Pancho Villa
Joe: Michael Chiklis
Advantage: Push

Has signed with a PR firm
Tito: Unknown
Joe: Yes, for "a possible record deal with a major label, personal appearances and corporate sponsorships."
Advantage: Tito

Currently owes for back taxes
Tito: Unknown
Joe: Aware, unconcerned
Advantage: Joe

Has recently impressed
Tito: Sean Hannity
Joe: Conservative women
Advantage: Push--there are no winners here

Finishing move
Tito: Columbian necktie
Joe: The ol' wrench in the eye
Advantage: Tito

Strategy
Tito: Keep yelling until cameras find you
Joe: Put yourself in Obama's path
Advantage: Joe

Will be coming to Washington
Tito: One way or another
Joe: If McCain wins
Advantage: Tito

Biggest accomplishment
Tito: Came to America from Columbia and now owns own business
Joe: Asked, six years ago during job interview, about someday owning a business Advantage: Tito

Will be back in
Tito: every four years
Joe: every time blue collar workers need a voice
Advantage: Tito

Secretly wants to campaign with
Tito: Dora the Explorer
Joe: Michael Chiklis
Advantage: Joe

Could be the lost member of
Tito: The Village People

Joe: Right Said Fred

Advantage: Joe

Total
Tito: 10
Joe: 8

Winners: Joe, Tito
Losers: McCain, Palin, America

Weekend reading: Obama's coming victory

2008-10-26T12:29:00.000-07:00

We're now into single digits--nine days out from election day. McCain was on Meet the Press this morning to say he was "happy" about where his campaign was and insisting that he will win. But the polls are saying something very different. Here's an indication of how bad things are going for Palin/McCain: Georgia has gone to toss-up status according to pollster.com. McCain's lead is just under three points in...Georgia!

Over at Newsweek Markos Moulitsas has an article for the November 3 issue that starts off "On Nov. 4, will be elected as the next president of the United States." No ambiguity there at all. More and more analysts are willing to bet it all that Obama will win on November 4, and win big. As he says, "the big question is, will Democrats nationwide simply 'win' the night—or will they deliver an electoral drubbing so thorough that it signals the utter rejection of conservative ideology and kills the notion that America is a "center-right" country?"

What has happened since 2000 and 2004? The answer is probably that Republicans actually never had a very strong grip on the country. George W. Bush didn't even win the popular vote in 2000. The Supreme Court had to stop the Florida recount and declare him the winner. Florida pushed Bush over the goal line by one electoral vote. In 2004 Bush defeated Kerry by 35, which was, except for 2000, still the closest election since 1968. Looking back, it seems clear that Karl Rove and company knew they were walking a thin line, which is why every issue had to be politicized and leveraged for maximum impact.

But now all of that appears to be ending. If current polls are accurate, Obama could win 381 electoral votes. That's without Georgia's 15. That includes states like Colorado, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, and New Mexico. All states which voted for Bush in 2004. Given the toss-up status of the country, politically, in 2000 and 2004, and add in the complete failure of Republicans over the last eight years, and you have the makings of a landslide. I can't remember the last time a party made such large gains in both the executive election, and in the congressional races. Along with Obama coming to the White House, the Democrats stand to win up to nine more seats in the Senate, and add to their majority in the House.

I always thought McCain was the best candidate for the Republican ticket this fall. McCain once showed concern for immigrants, and disgust for corporate greed. He was known as a pragmatic reformer with a real track-record to run on, including everything from immigration reform to challenging Department of Defense officials on torture. Not to mention McCain's own, powerful, personal story. As David Brooks writes in the New York Times, "His campaign seemed the perfect vehicle to explain how this old approach applied to a new century with new problems — a century with widening inequality, declining human capital, a fraying social contract, rising entitlement debt, corporate authoritarian regimes abroad and soft corporatist collusion at home."

Immediately after Obama won the Democratic nomination last summer, the McCain camp started positioning themselves as reformers. Reformers of their own party, and of the country. They seemed to understand two important facts: that the country was hungry for change, and disgusted with anything associated with George W. Bush. But as Brooks points out, McCain "never articulated a governing philosophy." All of his tactics were about "how to present McCain, not about how to describe the state of country or the needs of the voter. It was all biography, which was necessary, but it did not clearly point to a new direction for the party or the country."

Someone--I wish I could remember who--boldly declared McCain's campaign over the minute he selected Sarah Palin to be his VP. I was not as sure, but now it appears that person was correct. Palin was a wild card with a lot of upside. But as she has made her case in front of Americans, many view her as simply unqualified for the job. Her rhetoric has turned increasingly hostile, and Brooks gets it right when he says she "represents the old resentments and the narrow appeal of conventional Republicanism." She has done nothing but appeal to the conservative base, which is not enough to win in 2008.

McCain's choice of Palin has been highly scrutinized. Many openly asking "why?" a question Jane Mayer attempts to answer in her New Yorker article "The Insiders: how John McCain came to pick Sarah Palin." Palin seems to have done a masterful job of wooing beltway insiders to transport herself from Alaska to Washington. Her most influential early supporter turned out to be William Kristol, neoconservative writer for the Weekly Standard. Kristol met Palin when his Alaskan cruise ship stopped in Juneau. After one meeting he was completely struck and began to push her for VP consideration.

Mayer writes how McCain came up to be linked to Palin. Originally he wanted Joe Lieberman but eventually backed down to advisers who warned that Lieberman was too liberal on social issues. Karl Rove wanted former rival Mitt Romney on the ticket, but hard feelings remained from the primaries. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was too conventional (McCain is now losing Minnesota by 12 points). McCain wanted his "maverick" image to be conveyed in his VP as well. Finally McCain's aides converged on Palin. "By the time he announced her as his choice," Mayer writes, "he had spent less than three hours in her company."

To read of how Palin came to be McCain's VP is almost laughable. The want ad would have read something like this:

Wanted: reformer and social conservative for the second highest position in the land. Female desired. Short resume a bonus.

The list of potential running mates was always pretty thin for the Republicans. Compared to the Democrats, their roster of stars is a joke. They knew a woman would be a plus, given all the angry Hillary supporters searching for a home. Palin fell right into their laps. But in 2008, capability trumps even gender.

One person close to McCain called the Palin pick "the fucking most ridiculous thing I've ever heard" and national reaction, after Palin finally gave a few interviews, wasn't far off. SNL quickly turned her into a national punch line, and her appearance on the show last weekend did nothing to buck that trend. A true maverick, Palin, with her $150,000 wardrobe, tanning bed in the executive mansion, and a makeup artist earning more on her payroll than her foreign policy adviser, seems to be all about brand Palin. She has certainly "energized the base" as McCain likes to say, but she has done nothing outside of that 30% of America. Many are openly saying McCain should have dumped her, and she is now an undeniable albatross on the campaign.

I find a few things particularly delightful about Palin's rise in correlation to McCain, and the Republican's, fall. One is William Kristol's participation in the matter. There's certainly no fool like an old fool, and that would be Kristol. Mayer's article, while certainly liberal, makes it clear that many Republican good ol' boys were takin in by Palin, the former beauty queen. Many described her--in print--as "a honey," or "a looker," etc. They stood no chance against a confident woman in a business suit. It must have been like meeting a modern-day Republican pin-up girl.

I noted before that America is fed up with Bush. Up to just recently, Kristol had been unceasing in his support of the president and the Iraq war. He was far behind the curve. That he applied his considerable judgment to the selection of the Republican VP pick, one which came to represent almost everything that is wrong about the Republican platform, is almost too good to be believed.

And poor McCain, a man who let his mavericky image trump what was once pragmatism. The right VP pick was Romney. Even before it went to hell, the economy was the number one issue on voters minds, especially to essential swing state blue collar voters. By picking the social conservative, McCain ceeded the center. He ceeded pragmatism for politics. And he lost the election.

McCain promises "bold new coal age"

2008-10-26T08:04:00.000-07:00

I was just struck by how much McCain has been out talking about coal lately. Every time I catch one of his rallies he manages to woo the coal vote.

Yesterday, where ever he was, he said something about standing on top of the largest coal deposit in the world. Is this coal stuff a way to break our dependence on foreign oil?

It's just that, well...coal? Nothing says visionary like...coal, does it? What's next? Railroads? Manifest destiny?

Greenspan Shrugged: shocked disbelief

2008-10-24T12:13:00.000-07:00

It has been said: blessed is the man proven right in his own lifetime. What, then, do we say about Alan Greenspan, a man who has watched his legacy as a financial "maestro" and reputation as an intellectual mastermind crumble with the tumbling economy. Summoned before Congress yesterday, Greenspan faced the scorn of Democratic leaders, harsh questioning, and admitting to making "a mistake" when it came to guiding the economy into our troubled times.

Even the New York Times could barely contain its contempt for the man, beginning its headline article about the hearings like this:

For years, a Congressional hearing with Alan Greenspan was a marquee event. Lawmakers doted on him as an economic sage. Markets jumped up or down depending on what he said. Politicians in both parties wanted the maestro on their side.

But on Thursday, almost three years after stepping down as chairman of the Federal Reserve, a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.

Greenspan, 82, is now blamed by critics and many economists, for the financial crisis sending the economy into depression. They say he encouraged housing bubble prices by keeping interest rates too low for too long and failed to support regulation which would have curbed fraudulent lending practices.

“You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”

Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”

The ideology in question was Greenspan's zealous adherence to Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. In 1963 Greenspan wrote: Capitalism is based on self-interest and self-esteem; it holds integrity and trustworthiness as cardinal virtues and makes them pay off in the marketplace, thus demanding that men survive by means of virtue, not vices. It is this superlatively moral system that the welfare statists propose to improve upon by means of preventative law, snooping bureaucrats, and the chronic goad of fear.

Or, to strip the rhetoric away and put it into working-class terms: the markets regulate all. The markets are their own highest form of ethics. Thus, what do we need regulation for? The markets regulate themselves.

It is the writing of a naive fundamentalist, one who happily believes one system can solve all problems, even the problems it creates, written by one who would become the most powerful figure in modern economics.

In the 1950s Greenspan found his way into Ayn Rand's inner circle, a group known ostentatiously as The Collective. It was a group who fancied themselves intellectuals, discussing and dreaming up financial utopias that would also free people of old moral and ethical constraints. Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged" was published in 1957. The book grandly suggests that man's highest virtue is the morality of self-interest. Capitalism, built on self-interest, had long been criticized for being uncaring and selfish. Here was a book that confidently posited that capitalism was its own grand morality. It quickly, masterfully, bridged the gap between being selfish and being ethical. It has been bedtime reading for executives ever since.

But concepts dreamed up over martinis in Manhattan high-rises sometimes have a tricky way of being falling short in the real world. In the real world greed drives banks to sell fraudulent mortgages at low introductory rates to potential home owners, then repackage them as complicated mortgage-backed securities, and sell the securities to other banks. What are they really worth? No one really knows.

This was one thing when Greenspan's housing bubble was inflating, and everyone was winning and trying to get in on the action. But once people got stuck in their ARMs at higher levels, once the housing bubble cooled and deflated and they couldn't get out from under their homes, owners began to default in large numbers, and the banks who bought the mortgages faced huge losses.

For years Greenspan argued successfully against government regulation on the market, insisting that the markets themselves were the best regulators. Greenspan also seemed to be the last person aware that a housing bubble was occurring--citing no evidence in the past that housing prices had ever declined--an explanation which can only be read as shockingly lazy. That is the problem when you replace common sense with blind faith in an ideology.

As Greenspan told Waxman: "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."

Last year at this time I wrote of Greenspan's new book "The Age of Turbulence":

The problem with people like Greenspan and Bush is not necessarily what they believe, but that they believe their point-of-view can't possibly fail. There is no stopping someone like Bush because he has the power of religion and an almost childlike faith in America to filter his decisions. Greenspan, on the other hand, uses reason and the computational power of economics. Two very different methods of induction, yet the results are the same. Groups of power, like the Collective, like Washington think tanks, are nothing more than self-serving entities wrapped in a philosophy. It does not take long to see their morality when it comes to using other people's lives.

Greenspan slouching his way up Capitol Hill, to face an angry mob of Democratic leaders representing an American public thirsty for blood, had an almost Biblical feel. Oh, it must have been hard for the "maestro" to concede failure, and he chose his words very carefully, lest what he clothed himself in would be stripped in an afternoon.

But at the end of it all, the great man was revealed to be just a man behind the curtain, mashing the buttons and pulling the levers of the economy, perpetuating an illusion. Ironic that what he held onto so tightly has ushered in, for at least a short time, an age of economic socialism in America. I wonder what Rand, who came to America from Communist Russia, would write about that?

Update
Tim Rutten has written a column in the Los Angeles Times called "Greenspan's Blindspot" wondering this:

Did Greenspan really believe that the people in power, presented with a chance to make a killing, would put the interests of their institutions and stockholders ahead of their own?

Put aside for a second the fact that the former Fed chairman spent more than 20 years of his life as a disciple of the novelist-turned-barely-baked-philosopher Ayn Rand, whose concepts of "rational egoism" and "individualism" put the "R" in ruthless and have provided generations of gullible undergraduates an intellectual rationale for their lingering adolescent self-absorption. Has Greenspan lived through the same times the rest of America has recently experienced?

And:

Perhaps only an economic education prepares a man to draw as his conclusion from catastrophe the gnomic declaration that fallible human beings are not infallible. Some things, however, are true 100% of the time: Societies in which the few are allowed to fatten themselves without limit on the labor of many are not just; they aren't even particularly productive for very long. Countries -- like companies -- that cling to notions that allow some to pursue their own interests by behaving indecently toward others come to bad ends.

WTF: Jeff Dubay's cocaine charge

2008-10-23T14:44:00.000-07:00

What has happened to Minnesota since Labor Day?? The Twins lost their one game play off, 1-0 to the White Sox, and eliminated their post-season hopes. The Vikings are HORRIBLE. Michele Bachmann is a moron. And now KFAN radio host Jeff Dubay, of the "PA & Dubay" morning show was arrested for posession of cocaine.

What the hell is this?

Dubay, driving with a suspended license, was pulled over by a Maplewood police officer. He then threw something out the passenger window (dude..!!!). It happened to be a bag of crack cocaine and a drug pipe. He has been charged with 5th degree possession of a controlled substance.

I'm only really writing about this because I dislike the PA & Dubay show. Actually, it wasn't Dubay that bugged me, but Paul Allen (PA), and his inane idioms ad nausium like "Long story LONGER!"

Cocaine is for the Marv Alberts of the world. The Joe Bucks of the world. Maybe even the Thom Brenammen's of the world. But certainly not for small-time radio personalities. Stick to shrooms.

Bachmann's "macaca" moment

2008-10-22T15:26:00.000-07:00

Usually when politicians talk, all that can hope to be discerned is doublespeak and talking points. They are so scripted and mechanical, news anchors have to try extremely hard to pry anything real from their lips. This was not the case when Michele Bachmann decided to make her first appearance on “Hardball” a memorable one. She was very, very excited to talk about terrorists, leftists, liberals, and anti-Americans, combining them all into some strange soup, and stirring it by dropping Barack Obama’s name into the middle, and adding a layer of white foam from her frothy mouth. All host Chris Matthews had to do was ask the obvious follow-up questions, and by the end of the interview Bachmann’s re-election chances had veered into the darkness.

The show opened with Matthews playing a clip from a McCain “robo call” linking Obama and liberals to terrorists like Weather Underground co-founder Bill Ayers. Bachmann was asked to comment on this. She too attempted to connect Obama with Ayers and even complained that the (liberal) news media had not done enough to expose this relationship.

When Matthews asked why this was any concern, given the other important problems this country is facing, Bachmann again said that Obama’s associations with Reverend Wright, and Ayers call into question his character. But then she made a subtle transition by also mentioning his liberal associations—Joe Biden, Harry Reed, Nancy Pelosi, essentially lumping liberals, terrorists, and anti-Americans all into one happy family.

Matthews then asked, “If you have liberal views, does that mean you have anti-American views? What’s the connection? I don’t get the connection? What’s the connection between liberal and leftist and anti-American? If you’re a liberal are you anti-American?”

Bachmann claimed that people like Ayers, Rev. Wright, and even Michele Obama were “over the top anti-American.”

Matthews asked “So you believe that Barack Obama may have anti-American views?” Bachmann was so excited to answer this question that she cut Matthews off at the end with an enthusiastic, “Absolutely! I’m very concerned that he may have anti-American views.”

Matthews then attempted to help Bachmann clarify what she meant. Are all liberals anti-American? Bachmann continued to hammer away at Obama’s associations, including Tony Rezko.

“I thought he was a business guy, I didn’t know he was a leftest,” Matthews said.

“Yeah, that’s troubling too,” Bachmann said.

When asked how many others in Congress Bachmann suspects could be anti-American, she called for a news media investigation to run a “penetrating exposé” and find out who in Congress has pro-American or anti-American views.

Bachmann’s statements don’t require much commentary, but Colin Powell found them interesting and derided them as “nonsense” on October 19. “This business of…a congressman from Minnesota who’s going around saying, ‘Let’s examine all congressmen to see who’s pro-America and who’s not pro-America. We have got to stop this kind of nonsense and pull ourselves together and remember that our great strength is in our unity and our diversity.” He also stated that his decision to endorse Obama was driven, in part, by comments like those made by Representative Michele Bachmann.

Powell's thoughts aside, Bachmann he has always been known as a hard-line conservative. She is demonstratively pro-Bush, embarrassing herself by swooning over him after his 2007 State of the Union speech. Honestly, I don’t find her “liberals are dangerous anti-Americans” line all that surprising. Conservatives have been employing this tone for decades. But what's odd is that she'd try it in 2008, a year when Republicans everywhere are ducking for cover. And what’s laughable is her call for the media to investigate Congress. The media, an institution Bachmann surely considers liberal and elite (and anti-American), so much so she believes they are uninterested in investigating Obama's own "terrorist" ties.

But it’s OK to talk about associations and draw inferences from them. Obama was eight years old when Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground. Twenty years later Obama sat on an education board with him. Obama seemed so unconcerned about this “association” that he freely took a few minutes to talk about it during the last debate, nationally televised. Compare this with McCain's association with the Keating Five scandal, which has a direct tie to banking deregulation. Or Sarah Palin’s husband Todd, who was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party from 1995-2006, a group whose founder was so definitively "anti-American" that he refused to be buried under the American Flag (he was buried in Canada). Which of these three matter most?

The 2008 answer is actually none of them. People really don’t care about what clubs others were a part of, considering the fantastic array of problems this country is facing today. If you looked at any person’s life you’d find associations that seem questionable. People are willing to let Todd and Sarah Palin slide for sending Christmas cards to a succession group. In the same way they’re willing to look the other way that Obama has no meaningful link to Bill Ayers. What they want now, above all is, competence, and that is trumping race or religion or associations. And that is what makes Bachmann and her comments look so incredibly tired and outdated.

Why Bachmann, who was all but penciled in for re-election in November, ever went on Hardball is anyone’s guess. She claimed she was not familiar with the format of the show. This seems incredulous, but if taken as true, makes her seem extra foolish for going on with so much to loose. Matthews needed someone to defend McCain and Palin and he got Bachmann? My only guess, bolstered by her enthusiastic tone, was that she was thrilled to shed light on just how anti-American Barack Obama and all the other liberals in Congress really are. The rest is television history.

Bachmann’s appearance was so strident, so over-the-top, and so inflammatory, it reminds me of George Allan calling a Democratic supporter “macaca.” After that slur hit the airwaves, the arrogant Allen's campaign was derailed. He lost a few weeks later to Democrat Jim Web. Rule number one: you never open your mouth unless you know what the shot is. Since Bachmann’s appearance on Hardball, the race for her seat has grown increasingly close with challenger Elwyn Tinklenberg (hampered by a terrible name). That the district's polling has gone to toss-up status shows people care less about inane attempts to connect well-known political figures to revolutionaries, then they do about the tired absurdities tumbling out of a politician's empty head.

Update

According to the AP:

National Republicans have yanked TV advertising for Bachmann's re-election bid after she suggested Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may have "anti-American" views and urged an investigation of unpatriotic lawmakers.

Bachmann is one of four at-risk Republican incumbents left to fend for themselves by a cash-strapped House campaign arm in the crucial final days of the campaign amid a tough political environment for the GOP . The National Republican Campaign Committee has also canceled planned TV ads to help GOP Reps. Marilyn Musgrave in Colorado, Tom Feeney in Florida and Joe Knollenberg in Michigan, spokeswoman Karen Hanretty confirmed.

Looks like her career may be coming to an end. It's time to vote her out. She never should have been there in the first place.

How McCain Blew It

2008-10-16T16:24:00.000-07:00

As this election comes to a merciful close, I can’t help but think that McCain could have won this thing. As a Republican with a brand linked to reform and pragmatism, he was the best in his party for the times. Guiliani, Huckabee, Thompson, and Romney, were all far too conservative, ideological, or political to turn swing voters in the middle. McCain, a guy who was openly mentioned as a possible VP candidate for John Kerry in 2004, was perfect. He also had the added bonus of Hillary Clinton exposing Barack Obama’s weaknesses prior to the general campaign. McCain could have won this thing, everyone knows that now, and he blew it.

Remember how Obama lost state after state at the end of the Democratic primaries? Remember how Hillary, found her niche, reinvented herself as a working class hero, and chided him for not being able to “close” the deal? The minute she finally had to cede the nomination to Obama, McCain should have picked up the torch she was carrying and ran with it full bore. He should have rolled up his sleeves and waded into Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan—states battered by job losses and a faltering economy—and vowed to fight for them in Washington. Looking back, I’m stunned he didn’t seize the chance to honestly address the needs of three pivotal swing states and champion them.

Instead he pulled out his maverick card, but never made the connection with the average voter what that should mean to them. Hillary--with her years of experience, with her husband’s knowledge of the presidency--had made the connection that she was going to be people’s surrogates in Washington. Those desperate for a voice found it in her. But McCain ended up becoming a bumper-sticker politician and nothing more. Even without the looming economic collapse, he could have shown that he understood the needs of the average person in a way Obama has never quite been able to connect on. Obama can’t be everything—he’s philosophical, he’s intellectual, he’s holistic. McCain can’t touch him in any of those areas, and Hillary couldn’t either. But McCain should have carved out some area of his own—as a fighter for the a common man, a reformer for the middle class.

And then there was Sarah Palin. It’s obvious why McCain picked her, but can that decision be defended on anything other than political grounds? It took little effort for Katie Couric to expose her as nothing more than an amateur one step away from the most powerful office in the world, and for SNL to turn her into a laughable caricature. McCain’s selection of her, while creating much media buzz, and augmenting his “maverick-y”image, left him open to the accusation that he is too unwieldy for such important times. Can anyone really posit that Sarah Palin is ready to run the country? Such an idea should scare the hell out of anyone who loves this country, and should indict John McCain as treasonous. Yes, as McCain said in the last debate, maybe she does understand families with special needs children. Maybe she is a reformer in Alaska. But does any of that prepare her to run a country?

Finally, there was the economic meltdown. McCain’s dramatic suspension of his campaign, his appeal to Obama to delay the debate so that he could go to Washington and oversee the formation of the $700 billion bailout bill, only to do nothing, show up at the debate as promised, and rubber stamp the bill a few days later, was the moment he jumped the shark. Had McCain, the maverick, come out and denounced the bailout as nothing more than a blank check for the Treasury Secretary and a fee pass for robber barons pilfering the middle class, perhaps he would have appeared sympathetic to millions of voters. Perhaps he would have appeared as a merciful champion of the taxpayer, or, a real maverick. At the very least he would have had something real to stake his campaign on during the debates, apart from Obama.

Instead, they both endorsed the bill, they both voted the same way at a key juncture in American economic history, so what’s the point? Why not give voice to millions of disconcerted, hurting tax paying voters, by articulating a unique position at a crucial moment in American economic history? For McCain, sagging in the polls, an economic meltdown was a blessing in disguise—a chance for his campaign to stake out an essential section of the American electorate apart from the base. Instead, he played it the same way Obama did, and then, as the economic crisis deepened, he began talking about Weatherman Bill Ayers.

McCain realized, too late, that Americans wanted a fighter. What Obama offered up in cold calculus, pragmatism, and fresh ideas, McCain finally decided to match by finding his inner Hillary, growing a pair, and pledging to fight for the American people. He came out in the last debate swinging wildly, keeping Obama on the ropes, denouncing, trashing, rolling his eyes, scribbling furiously on his pad, but it doesn’t seem like that will be enough. McCain has been a victim of his own wild swings. The final debate was a metaphor for his entire campaign: manic, angry, and desperate.

To me, the McCain has always seemed plagued by a “let’s just get through the next month” mentality. Ever since his campaign was broke last December, he has been running a month-to-month insurgency…trying desperately to beat the next opponent and stay on the field for one more round. The problem with this is no one is able to articulate what McCain’s vision for the country is. What does he want to do? Why should we make him president? Now that he has arrived, what will he do for the next for years? In the absence of a clear message it is not hard for Obama to tie him to Bush and the last eight years—which has become the swiftest form of death by association. McCain left this opening for Obama, and never closed it.

Obama, on the other hand, has struck millions as a leader. He has become a refreshing change. Ever since his victory in the Iowa caucus, he has cast his vision and challenged Americans to stand up and take ownership of the country’s problems and help fix them. His has always been a mix of addicting foresight, and unapologetic hindsight. McCain never captured the average American’s imagination, never appealed to hope, never channeled energy, never really had any ideas apart from nuclear power, offshore drilling, and trying the surge in Afghanistan. Most importantly, none of it seemed believable. From his ideological shifts starting in 2006, to Sarah Palin, to the final debate, McCain seemed to be improvising his way through. Making it up as he went along.

2008 will be a year of characters and stories. Obviously there is Barack Obama. But there is also his vanquishing of the Clinton brand. Hillary’s inept management again de-railed her ambitions. Her reach, again, went beyond her grasp. Once, she was in the shadow of her husband Bill, the one they called The Natural. Now, she resides in the shadow of the one they call The One.

And then there is McCain: the decorated Navy pilot, the Vietnam POW, the Senator, the man of courage and principle. In 2000 he was subjected to a different kind of torture at the hands of Karl Rove and George W. Bush, as they smeared him and his wife, to win the South Carolina primary, and go on to steal the presidency. This year, again, Bush has denied McCain. By 2008 Bush so badly damaged the country that perhaps nothing McCain could ever have done would have earned a victory in November. Bush had stacked the odds so far against him that to watch McCain fight for it, one last time, was itself a Sisyphean event, agonizing to watch.

Presidential Debate 3: Up with lefties!

2008-10-15T20:53:00.000-07:00

I have dutifully sat through all three presidential debates, the final one tonight, and what ever else may happen, this much is clear: it has been a victory for southpaws everywhere. By observing closely--specifically as Obama and McCain scrawled on their legal pads--I ascertained that no matter who wins, the next leader of the free world will be a lefty (just another thing both agree on).

This has happened before. I dug through Google and discovered that in 1992 all three candidates--Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ross Perot--were left handed. In-fact, lefties have dominated recent White House races. Six of the last 12 presidents have been written with the wrong hand: Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and now either Obama or McCain. Why do lefties--approximately 10% of the population--continually rise to the top in presidential elections? And was this key in Hillary Clinton's defeat? (she's a righty)

It's a well-known fact that left-handers are not only cooler, but better equiped for the job as president. To compare Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton by their lateral brain functions is almost a succinct rundown of their prevailing attributes.

Left-brained (Hillary): analytical, verbal, logical, exact, present and past, literal. Right-brained (Obama): intuitive, holistic, synthesizing, and forward looking.

No need to even mention George W. Bush, who is presumably a righty since he was not on the list above, but probably isn't sure which hand to write with, or when to write, or what part of his brain to use.

So I, for one, welcome our new left-handed overloards. I'd like to remind them, as a leftie myself, I can be very helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

In-case you're wondering, Obama off-set any left-brained deficiencies by selecting righty Joe Biden as his running mate. McCain picked Sarah Palin, who, even if she is right-handed, had a tanning bed installed in her executive mansion in Juneau, Alaska.

So, I give a Debate III (this time it's personal) victory to Obama, who wrote with a stylish thin pen. McCain scrawled over page after page with a big fat sharpie. Creepy.

The stump week that was: ugly Americans

2008-10-11T08:02:00.000-07:00

Watching angry Republicans stand up at rally after rally, confront McCain, shout and boo him down, and toss out bigoted remarks about Obama, it's hard not to sense that the wheels are slowly coming off his campaign. Many Republicans, sensing the election slipping away, have grown increasingly restless and unhappy about the way McCain has waged his campaign, and they are now vocalizing it on at stump speeches around the country.

Plain/McCain unveiled a new strategy on October 6, when a top adviser was quoted as saying "if we talk about the economy we'll loose." Since then the camp has subtly attempted to paint Obama as a shadowy, untrustworthy, anti-American (moves straight out of Hillary's playbook). This began with Palin's comments on October 4 that Obama "... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." She also said, "This is not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America." Recently the McCain camp has been trying to link Obama with William Ayers.

The tension has built up over the course of the week, as supporters at the McCain and Palin rallies tarted randomly screaming "terrorist!" and "off with his head!" and "treason!" and even "kill him!" at the mention of Barack Obama's name.

"I don't trust Obama. I have read about him. He's an Arab." said a woman at a McCain rally in Lakeville, MN today.

McCain's response was honorable. "No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with (him) on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."

He was met with boos when he said, "I have to tell you, he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."

On Thursday in Wisconsin, when a man stood up to "ask" a "question" and, veins popping in his neck, delivered himself of the following: "I'm mad. I'm really mad. And what's gonna surprise ya is not the economy. It's the socialists takin' over our country. [Lengthy applause] Sit down. I'm not done. Let me finish, please [laughter] ... when you have Obama, [Nancy] Pelosi and the rest of the hooligans up there gonna run this country, we gotta have our head examined. It's time that you two are representing us, and we are mad! So go get 'em!" [Extended chanting: "USA! USA! USA!"]

Who, exactly, is the socialist? Obama, who has proposed to cut taxes for the middle class? Or McCain? Which one actively participated while the size of the government and defect ballooned under a Republican congress and a president who took six years to veto a spending bill? And what could be more socialistic than a plan to buy up bad home mortgages and renegotiate them? Whose idea was that? You might never know, but it wasn't Obama. It was ~~McCain~~ That One.

Meanwhile, yesterday in Alaska, a legislative investigator found that Palin violated state ethics laws and abused her power by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper.

Smear ads and attacks and frustration seem to be all that Palin/McCain have left after a week in-which Obama's lead has reached double digits. This also after the "maverick" Senator suspended his campaign to skip the last debate and look into the economic crisis, only to return to debate and rubber stamp a $700 billion rescue plan. This also after Palin's embarrassing interview with Katie Couric, calling into question her preparedness for even the governorship of Alaska, not to mention McCain's sanity for choosing her to be the second in line to running the country.

Perhaps those angry should look not to Obama, but the ones they have chosen to run the country. From Bush 2000 and 2004, to McCain in 2008, it has been an exercrise in perpetual ineptness. The end of this comedy of errors is near. The curtain is falling to shouts and boos for one more pathetic act before and era comes to an end.

It aint gonna happen: Cubs swept by Dodgers

2008-10-04T22:13:00.000-07:00

This was the year, as the signs said, that it was "gonna happen." "It" being a World Series title for the first time in 100 years for the miserable Cubs and their fans. That would have been unusual, to put it mildly. But all that happened was the usual: a complete post season meltdown. For the second consecutive season the Cubs were swept and out before the October bleachers were even warm.

It was business as usual. A surprise would have been a big hit with two outs, a perfectly placed bunt to advance a runner, a stolen base, a great defensive play, a rally, some execution, some fundamentals... none of these things happened in the quick three game series. The end occurred in the second inning of game two, when the Cubs folded up, booted two double play balls and allowed a bases clearing double, finally leaving the field down 5-0. That was it, and every true Cub fan knew it. The rest was just hope meeting futility--like primitive man trying to fly, fashioning wings, launching himself off the edge of a cliff, caught by the wind for a moment, hovering, then crashing to the canyon floor below. For the rest of game two, and game three, the Cubs threatened but never advanced--stranding no less than 253 runners over the final 16 innings.

It's not about curses, really. All of that talk is a bunch of crap--like reading tarot cards in the face of a cold, inconsolable universe. So let this be a lesson to all those who lately have found it fashionable to embrace and cheer the Cubs. From Mark Cuban on down. Those who find curse reversal a fun pastime, like priests purifying the Confines with holy water. Like those who hang out in Wrigleyville to be seen. Like those who boldly declare the end of a century of futility, while, happily, probably never having lived inside it. Like those who are among the chosen people who stock Wrigley Field game after game, and prop up inane signs like "It's Gonna Happen!" Behold! I give you the Chicago Cubs. A team who can make 97 regular season wins irrelevant faster than a black cat skirting across the outfield. Faster than Steve Bartman's life can be ruined. Faster than a Soriano hop. And as a lifelong fan, to all the pop fans out there, repeat after me: wait until next year.

Bush to financial Crisis: 'Bring it on'

2008-09-24T14:38:00.000-07:00

President Bush said Wednesday that America will survive the latest Wall Street meltdown, and he challenged the opposing dark economic forces to, "Bring it on."

"We issued stimulus checks last spring which clearly have had no effect on this resolute and very economic enemy. So now we are asking for what anyone would in this situation: more money."

Bush referred to the proposed $700 million "bailout" package, currently stalled in Congress.

Palin power

2008-09-15T19:40:00.000-07:00

Palinsanity went plaid live from New York on SNL, with Tina Fey playing the VP candidate from Alaska alongside Amy Poehler as Sen. Hillary Clinton. The two both spoofed and accurately encapsulated their caricatures perfectly, capturing Palin's sudden rise to fame in the wake of Clinton's defeat to Barack Obama, showing the correlation of the two events flawlessly.

A few digs were made about Palin being less experienced than Clinton. As Poehler's Clinton bragged about her foreign policy experience, Fey's Alaskan governor exclaimed: "I can see Russia from my house!"

When Poehler said she disagreed with the Bush Doctrine, Fey's Palin acknowledged, "I don't know what that means" — a reference to Palin's apparent confusion on the subject in her first major interview earlier this week on ABC.

Poehler wrapped up the sketch: "In conclusion, I invite the media to grow a pair. And if you can't, I will lend you mine."

Yeah, it's all there, from Clinton's macho-feminism, to Palin's utter lack of experience, and how neither attribute benefited or harmed either candidate respectively.

So, what do I think of Palin? Politically, she was a shrewd pick by McCain. A few pundits signaled her selection as the end of his campaign--but it has had exactly the opposite effect. It softened McCain's crotchety old man image, while drawing the attention of female voters. Palin, the mother of five, is the everymom, someone millions of mothers can relate to. Attacks on her are attacks on an entire demographic of women. But she is also charismatic and endearing. In many ways she is the anti-Hillary, who represented what Maureen Dowd once called "shoulder pad feminism."

Back in May, Dowd wrote about what women in their 30s, 40s and 50s didn't like about Hillary:

They feel that women have moved past that men-are-pigs, woe-is-me, sisters-must-stick-together, pantsuits-are-powerful era that Hillary’s campaign has lately revived with a vengeance.
And they don’t like Gloria Steinem and other old-school feminists trying to impose gender discipline and a call to order on the sisters.
As a woman I know put it: “Hillary doesn’t make it look like fun to be a woman. And her ‘I-have-been-victimized’ campaign is depressing.”

I always thought this was a provocative perspective from a progressive woman--that feminism doesn't have to be all work and no play. It shouldn't be about trying to be just like a man or burying men as oppressors. My first thought when Palin got the VP nod: that paradigm just took a step backwards. Her acceptance by much of America confirms it.

McCain to fax VP announcement

2008-08-25T07:59:00.001-07:00

Breaking: This just in from St. Paul, Minnesota, the McCain camp has announced it will fax McCain's VP choice to GOP party members when announced.

"This is an exciting time for the party and for our country," said Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager. "Our faxing of senator McCain's vice presidential choice matches the mood perfectly."

The announcement comes just days after Democratic candidate Barack Obama notified party members via mobile phone text message that Joe Biden (D, Del) was going to be his vice presidential pick. Obama's move was chided by some pundits as fluff

"The democrats used text message, and that's OK if you're in range of a cell phone tower, or if you own one of those fancy iPhones, but we believe in the fax," Davis explained. "The fax is reliable, it's traditional, it's working-class. You could say it's a lot like senator McCain."

Republican party campaign workers plan on scouring database files for the fax numbers of party members. If the operation works correctly, fax machines across the country should all print out the announcement at 6:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.

"Imagine, millions of fax machines receiving the signal at the same time, printing out the name, families reading it over the dinner table, it has a certain Edwin R. Murrow feel to it," said one Republican strategist, in reference to the famous World War Two London correspondent.

Other modes of communication debated within Republican National Headquarters were the telegraph, carrier pigeon, smoke signals, Morse code, whistle stop, or pony express. In the end the facsimile, or fax, won out. McCain was reportedly very excited about the idea when shown a demo of how the fax machine works.

"This little device is amazing, and a testimony to American ingenuity," McCain said, waving the test fax in his hand. "It's at least twice as fast as the telegraph, and four times as fun!"

The Anna Karenina principle of dating

2008-08-20T12:45:00.001-07:00

I had a small breakthrough today while talking to a good friend about dating; specifically my newfound reluctance to dating. I tried to explain my phobia by pointing out that there are many more ways to fail in a relationship than there are to succeed, a small detail I had somehow managed to overlook over the last sixteen years of relationships.

This point has been much more succinctly stated by Tolstoy in his book Anna Karenina, which begins:

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.

Jared Diamond turned this famous line into a full-blown principle in his book Guns, Germs and Steel to describe a system in which a deficiency in one or more elements dooms it to failure. But on the other hand, a successful system is one where every one of those failures is avoided.

Diamond uses the principle to illustrate why so few wild animals have been successfully domesticated: because the animal fails domestication on one or more elements. Domestication occurs not because of the presence of some positive attribute, but rather the lack of any negative ones. In other words, successfully domesticated animals are all alike (in the sense that they pass all the tests), unsuccesful animals are different in their own ways. Some are too skittish, some are too independent, some are too mean.

Diamond's usage aisde, Tolstoy's was illustrating how an interpersonal relationship, such as a family, can break down and be "unhappy" in any number of ways, but a happy family passes all the required tests. This isn't to say that happy families are perfect, or the same, but the necessary elements for happiness are all within acceptable range.

In modern dating the elements of communication, intimacy, respect, security, time, all need to be present to have a "happy" relationship. You can do very well at many of them, but fail at one of them and the system begins to falter. This is daunting enough without acknowledging that external forces such as finances, health, family pressures, and even death in a family, can undermine an otherwise successful relationship.

So, it seems that finding a partner, and having a happy relationship, is somewhat akin to domesticating a wild animal. Some of the typical factors that have ruined an animal's chance at domestication are picky diet, size, problems with breeding in captivity, nasty disposition, tendency to panic, and independence. Interestingly, I've found that if even one of these six elements fails while dating then the entire relationship veers dangerously into the realm of failure.

Have you ever tried dating someone who hated most types of food? It's hellishly annoying. Have you ever dated someone with the disposition of a mongoose? Or have you tried to build something with a lone, independent person who thinks they want to be in a relationship but really they have no business even trying?

But the sobering thing is that you can date someone who loves the same food as you, the same music, someone who is pleasant, who fits nicely next to you on the couch, someone who lights up a room, but if that person has the panic reflex of the North American deer, and bounds over the nearest fence every time something startles, the system will prove difficult to sustain. If that person can't communicate, or provide love or respect, if the system fails in one area, none of the other positive attributes can save it.

Faced with all of that, the quest is worth it. People are still out there trying to find other people. Go ahead, go to the park and sit on a bench and watch at the couples walk by. They're out there! For every hundreds of domesticated failures, there is one that has learned to play nice and provide. For every zebra and lion and their wild cousins, animals who have bit and mauled and carried off primitive man, there is the llama, the pack mule, and the chinchilla, animals which fail none of the required tests.

Happy relationships are all alike; but unhappy ones are unhappy in their own ways. For every successful relationship there are hundreds of attempts lying in the rubbish pile, smoldering like burning tires in a junkyard. Relationships that were tripped up by one or more failing attributes, or external attributes. Solid relationships full of excitement and fun but lacking honest communication; full of respect but lacking intimacy; full of stability but lacking time. The successful combine all the necessary requirements in the right way and make all the prior attempts worthwhile.

The Harvard MBA's guide to complexity and uncertainty

2008-08-18T13:30:00.001-07:00

Former journalist Philip Delves Broughton chronicles what a $170,000 got him in his new book "What They Teach you at Harvard Business School." The book investigates a two year experience which starts with a request to keep your guitar, your cynicism, and your history books at home, and instead bring "the diverse rest of you," while the school accrues a pool of like-minded, unimaginative students and fills their heads with mantras, power point presentations, and test cases.

In the end, as Christopher Hart of the Sunday Times writes, Harvard Business School "is pervaded with an oppressive atmosphere of unquestioning obedience and creepy religiosity." And for all its importance and reputation "you feel that HBS neither understands the complexity nor acknowledges the chaotic unpredictability of the world economy any better than anyone else."

It should not be surprising that graduates of the school--people now run the World Bank, the American Treasury, General Electric, Goldman Sachs, and have an alum as President of the United States--preside over a country, and an economy that often seems has haphazard and slapdash as a disorganized trip to the bathroom.

What did surprise me was that the HBS seems to attract conforming, religious types. But the reason now seems so simple: faced with the overwhelming task of assimilating disparate pieces of financial information in an overwhelmingly interconnected and chaotic financial world, the best defense mechanism is good old fashioned stubbornness and lack-of-imagination. Normal people would completely balk or be baffled at attempting to reconcile the world economy into power point presentations--students at HBS come wired to do exactly that.

In the same way, when faced with a vast, complex, uncontrolable universe, many people find religion's Cliff Note style answers wildly appealing. It takes a certain person to overlook the inconsistencies, the wild variances, the depth of injustice in the real world--things that break normal people down. I find it telling that the same virtue of unquestioning is rewarded at business school. After all, graduates have to stand in front of people and shepherd them through the maze of unknowns. But to do so they must be true believers.

I was once baffled that an institution as highly regarded as the Harvard Business School could churn out someone like George W. Bush. But it turns out he's just the type of person they're looking for. I'd rather just have them throw up their hands and admit they really have no idea and it would be a lot easier if we'd just go along for the ride without much complaint.

W. Trailer Teaser

2008-08-17T21:24:00.000-07:00

I saw the new trailer for Oliver Stone's upcoming movie W. a biopic on our beloved and troubled president. I'll admit, when I first heard about the film I was skeptical but after seeing the trailer, I'm not going to miss it.

I like what Stone has had to say about his motivation for making the film too:

I want a fair, true portrait of the man. How did Bush go from an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world? It's like Frank Capra territory on one hand, but I'll also cover the demons in his private life, his bouts with his dad and his conversion to Christianity, which explains a lot of where he is coming from. It includes his belief that God personally chose him to be president of the United States, and his coming into his own with the stunning, preemptive attack on Iraq. It will contain surprises for Bush supporters and his detractors.

The movie stars Josh Brolin as junior Bush, James Cromwell as the elder Bush, Ellyn Burstyn as Barbara Bush, Scott Glenn as Rummy, Rob Corddry as Ari Fleischer, and Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney. The thing could suck, but the acting list is solid and the trailer is great.

Baby, I love your MHC smell

2008-08-13T11:38:00.001-07:00

It all comes down to the pill. Finally, a study has shed some light on why I wind up with the women I do. Apparently body odor is critical in selection of a long-term partner. Listen to your genes, friends. They know all. The body sends out aromatic scents that indicate genetic compatibility. Specifically Major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes.

It turns out opposites really do attract. The best partners are those that have different MHC smells than you. But this new study shows that when women are on the pill they prefer guys with matching MHC odors. Past studies have shown that couples with dissimilar MHC genes are more satisfied and more likely to be faithful to their mate. Couples with matching MHC scents, historically, show less satisfaction and more infidelity.

"Not only could MHC-similarity in couples lead to fertility problems," said lead researcher Stewart Craig Roberts, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Newcastle in England, "but it could ultimately lead to the breakdown of relationships when women stop using the contraceptive pill, as odor perception plays a significant role in maintaining attraction to partners."

So why does the pill change the woman's natural attraction for dissimilar MHC? Roberts suggests that since the pill imitates a hormonally pregnant state then subconsciously she is not seeking out a mate. The pill tricks her into thinking she is not looking for a mate, even though she could be.

"The pill is in effect mirroring a natural shift but at an inappropriate time," Roberts said.

So, what's the affect on you and me? It's both annoying and liberating to now know that so much of relational success is predetermined by MHC levels and what reactions they trigger in your brain. Of course we have no idea what MCH "scent" we are, and therefore what the opposite would be. But maybe you just have to trust your gut. If you find someone who trips your switches, trust your nose and run with it. Besides, what's love got to do with it?

Breakfast with Michael Phelps

2008-08-13T11:13:00.001-07:00

Michael Phelps is the biggest name in American Olympic athletes since Carl Lewis. Competing in his third Olympics, Phelps has won eleven gold medals. In 2008 alone he is aiming for eight, and has won five in his first five races.

But how does this top swimmer fuel his drive for Olympic gold? Bob Costas and NBC recently revealed the swimmer's breakfast regimen which astonishingly includes:

Three fried-egg sandwiches
cheese
lettuce
tomatoes
fried onions
mayonnaise
an omelet
a bowl of grits
three slices of French toast with powdered sugar
half a dozen chocolate chip pancakes
a bag of oats
two whole cantaloupes
two bowls of colon blow cereal
a bowl of slow whipped ice cream covered in Magic Shell
1 liter of Gator-Ade
six strips of hickory smoked bacon
a jawbreaker
a handful of flaxseed
1/4 cup olive oil
2 cups of flour
1 teaspoon of baking soda
2 cups semisweet chocolate chips
a dozen Krispy Kreme doughnuts
two slices of mom's left-over meatloaf
cold pizza
a few plantains
ants on a log
can of frosting
box of ego waffles topped with butter, whipped cream, and strawberry syrup
horse vitamins

All polished off with a cold glass of milk!

This high calorie, high carbohydrate, high fat, high protein diet has been genetically matched to Phelps' metabolism, to provide optimum calorie to energy ratio which allows him to maintain an absolute minimum of body fat, grow zero body hair on his back, torso, legs, fingers, toes, face, and ears, and evolve into some kind of half man half seal-like creature.

The huge front-loaded diet also allows Phelps to stay in the pool for 16 hours a day, never having to stop for a moment to replenish essential vitamins and minerals.

"When you're going for eight gold medals, against the fastest swimmers in the world, ever, every second of training counts," Phelps explains.

This high powered intake allows Phelps to run through a brutal daily training regimen involving such draconian methods as tying on heavy ankle weights while he swims and pulling pianos around through the water as he does his laps.

"Sometimes I'll swim a dozen laps or so just using my left pinky, or perhaps only wiggling my ears," Phelps explains. "In world class swimming, there are no useless muscles."

Just the other day Phelps not only eclipsed his best time in the 200 meter freestyle, but did it while helping his mom move out of her apartment, changing his own oil, and mountain biking with Lance Armstrong.

Every day for the last 16 years Phelps has been awakened from bed by the sound of a starting horn. The pitch and timbre perfectly match the ones used in the Olympic games. He immediately dives into a pool and begins swimming 48 laps. Meanwhile a team of scientists and chefs prepares his breakfast. The early morning swim is designed to warm Phelps up for the day while burning off any fat build up from the previous night's sleep.

Eight hours of sleeping, eight hours of inactivity, can increase your BMI by as much as a tenth of a percentage. Such numbers could mean the loss of a fraction of a second, the difference between a win or a loss in a swimming race.

When the 48 laps are completed, usually in or around five minutes, Phelps swims to a holding tank where he eats his massive breakfast while treading water.

Phelp's coach Bob Bowman also trains racehorses, and the approach he has taken with Phelps is similar. Racehorses need to get a feel for the track, in the same way Phelps must become completely acclimated and accustomed to the water. Thus he remains in the pool for 16 hours a day. Horses also must be raced alongside other horses, to get a taste of competition. The issue with Phelps was that no other human could match his speed or endurance in the pool.

"We brought in college swimmers as volunteers, just to put Michael through the paces," Bowman said. "We'd sub them out every two minutes or so. But they were leaving by ambulance exhausted."

After that Bowman switched from humans to a mammal better adapted to the water: the bottle nosed dolphin.

"We tried seals and sea lions," said Bowman, "But they couldn't hang with Michael long enough. Then we bought some dolphins and brought them in."

But this also proved problematic as the dolphins had to periodically come up for air, thus slowing their lap times and throwing Phelps off.

Desperate, Bowman hit on an idea.

"The mako shark is the fastest fish we could find," Bowman explained. "As a fish it doesn't have to come up for air. It knifes through the water at speeds of up to 60 mph. We let them chase Michael around for a few hours. That really develops his fast-twitch muscle fibers."

By the end of the day Phelps is allowed to emerge from the swimming pool, his body ripped and streamlined, every muscle honed to perfection, his skin now a rubbery water resistant material which literally slips through the pool. His sleep, like his stroke, is powerful yet effortless. He slides into bed, conked by a day in which he may have swam up to 30 miles at breathtaking speeds, shattered no less than a dozen records, and rewritten the laws of thermodynamics.

And tomorrow he'll do it all over again.

RIP: Bernie Mac

2008-08-10T09:12:00.000-07:00

I wanted your career to end...but not like this.

Mac died Saturday morning of complications from pneumonia in a Chicago-area hospital, his publicist, Danica Smith, said in a statement from Los Angeles.

Edwards admits to affair

2008-08-08T20:37:00.001-07:00

Son of mill worker got it on Hollywood style

Acknowledging a sex scandal he had dismissed as "tabloid trash" only last month, Edwards said he had told his cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth long ago, but "hoped that it would never become public." The affair took place in 2006, as Edwards was preparing to run for president.

In his statement, Edwards said, "It is inadequate to say to the people who believed in me that I am sorry, as it is inadequate to say to the people who love me that I am sorry.

"In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help."

In her statement Friday, Elizabeth Edwards said it wasn't easy to find out about the extramarital affair in 2006. She called the affair a "terrible mistake" but said the healing process was "oddly made somewhat easier" after her diagnosis of breast cancer in March 2007.

Edwards confessed to the schtupping on ABC News and that he had lied repeatedly about the affair with 43-year-old Rielle Hunter. He admits to meeting with Hunter at the Beverly Hills Hilton last month.

Blatant editorializing

Holy shit, Batman! I always disliked and was suspicious of Edwards. But this? My god, man. Anyone who can schlep about poverty while living in a HUGE house is pretty ego maniacal, but to hook up with your documentarian while preparing to run for president and enlisting the trust of thousands, if not potentially millions, of voters is just stupid and shameless.

I know a lot of his believers, drunk on the Two Americas Kool-Aid, will dismiss this as a private matter and irrelevant. But it does matter. He's a public figure. Integrity and honesty happen to matter when you're generating sympathy for yourself and your cause.

I've always been amazed by how many women feverishly defended Bill, after he subjected Hillary to public humiliation. It's unimaginable. And that was a case were the entire marriage could easily be imagined as sexless and calculated, run solely for ambition. Viewed in that light, I suppose both men and women could somehow find Bill's bathroom escapades with a young intern almost rote. Besides, Bill was so charming, powerful... it was inevitable.

But Edwards? He made his political name by stepping up to address poverty and becoming a voice for the powerless. He was someone they believed in and trusted. It's hard to imagine any of that in the same way when the guy cheats on his wife, who we all now remember campaigning by his side, defending him from smear attacks, all while being diagnosed with cancer. All of that while knowing he had cheated on her.

I know most politicians are just love-starved children who stray and cheat because they need another rush of power and affection. I can live with that. People enter politics for the same reason people have affairs--in the end they just love the attention too much. But when one is caught you can't help but wonder if he (it's almost always a man) has used all his followers in the same way--for the attention. What was Edward's poverty stuff all about anyway? Does he really believe it? Or is it just an itch he's happy to scratch while being applauded for doing so?

In the same way it doesn't surprise me when ministers have affairs. They too love the attention. When Ted Haggard was turned in my his male prostitute I wasn't too stunned. What stuns me is that ministers and politicians stand in front of people, bask in the glow, accept the adulation, dispense a vision, all while living a totally different type of life.

I never felt like Bill Clinton was really preaching at me. Sure, the guy had ideas, he had a vision, perhaps, for where he wanted the country to go, but he never preached at me. Edwards, sermonizes about the disparity in America, and butters his bread on the poverty issue. I find it that much harder to overlook the fact that while he's trying to do some major good, his own house is in such disorder. It's hard to reconsile how someone is trying to help the masses while humiliating his own wife. Physician heal thyself.

The only satisfaction I get out of this is it should be a dramatic and crippling end to a public career that was far more hype than substance. As a political figure Edwards has been overrated for years, wasting people's inane hero worship and devotion. And as a person he's no great shakes either. He's just another dog.

Americans tiring of Obama, but will always have Paris

2008-08-06T10:57:00.001-07:00

According to a poll released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, 48 percent said they're hearing too much about Democratic candidate Barack Obama. Just 26 percent said the same about his Republican rival, John McCain.

Meanwhile Paris Hilton continues to capture the nation's attention and headlines. The McCain camp used her image in an add suggesting Obama is nothing more than a celebrity unfit to lead. Apparently to the McCain campaign, being popular in a general election is a negative thing. We'll see how well that strategy plays out in November.

Hilton responded immediately, posting an internet video on funnyordie.com lampooning the ad, claiming she is "totally ready to lead." McCain's move further backfired when Hilton, showcasing her readiness, outlined a complex and comprehensive energy policy, something McCain has not done, and perhaps over-qualifying her for the Position of president of the United States.

While voters may be approaching Obama fatigue due to media over-exposure, McCain can hardly buy a headline. He may disdain her, but Hilton has lodged herself into the American psyche and has made it look incredibly easy. If you haven't noticed, she's kind of a big deal, but no one really knows why, and that is the genius of it all. Absent from the headlines for a few days, people can be found on the street mumbling "where's Paris?" "I wonder what Paris is up to?"

So pervasive is the Hilton media machine, the Associated Press once enacted a week-long ban of any and all Hilton related stories. (The boycott ended when Paris was ticketed for driving with a suspended license.) Her PR juggernaut is a model of efficiency. Never has more been done for someone contributing so little. In-fact, what she does contribute is utter garbage and still, some how, some way, she finds herself in the news, generating precious attention from the masses.

This spoof ad really hit the mark for me. It strikes at the ridiculous nature of most campaign ads. It makes foolish the self righteous stuffed shirts who run things into the ground. And it couldn't be much more irreverent. Political experts spend their entire life trying to create what Hilton seemingly does off-the-cuff. She is the brand! Meanwhile McCain is mired in...umm... where the hell is he today anyway?

A handful of things every man should do (before he dies)

2008-07-24T09:16:00.000-07:00

I read an interesting list today on Esquire: 75 things every man should do. It was strung with such pearls as:

Make a perfect omelet (#8)
Leave yourself a letter in a library book. Look for it twenty years later (#12)
Toboggan, aggressively (#14)
Go to Paris for two weeks and not tell anyone (#73)
Bungee jump (#75)

And I wondered: who would do such things? An aggressive tobogganer, bungee jumping, omelet making, narcissist? Besides, anyone who can attempt the things on the list, like sleep outside for a week (#70) must have a pretty flexible job and a patient spouse. Most of the items on the list presume a pretty charmed life already, and then what's the point of the list? Lists are for people who can't decide, can't get organized, and need bullet points to get it in gear. Lists are not for people who carry totems around in their pockets (#22).

So, as a primer, here's my list of 20 things every man should do before doing the 75 things men should do before they die:

#1 Get off the couch
#2 Get really good at doing the laundry, ironing, and folding clothes
#3 While doing the laundry think about getting the rest of your shit together
#4 Clean the garage
#5 Leave your ex alone
#6 Realize you're not as funny as you think when you're wasted
#7 Never drive drunk again. Ever.
#8 Get a date. Plan the date. Get to know your date. Be prepared to pay for it all.
#9 Learn that innuendo, done incorrectly, is really creepy
#10 Stop being a dick
#11 Get your credit score above 700
#12 Do a flip off a diving board. Nail it. (Oh, wait. That was from the real article)
#13 Fall in love, and stay faithful as long as you're together. No exceptions.
#14 Cancel your cable or satellite service
#15 Become a parent
#16 Then become a good parent
#17 Spend some time actually listening to your significant other
#18 Call your mom once in a while
#19 Quit smoking pot
#20 Stop listening to people tell you what to do with your life

I know what you're saying:"geez man, those are so routine and boring!"

Exactly. I admire the person who dares to do the boring, really, really well. There's something heroic and self rewarding about it that, of course, has no place in modern society. It seems to require what most lists are always missing: character.

Couples who play together stay together?

2008-07-23T12:37:00.000-07:00

In a discovery sure to set conventional relational wisdom on its ear, researchers at the University of Denver have found that couples who have fun together are happier than their counterparts. In-fact, finding moments to be together free of financial, family or other stresses — yes, just to simply "have fun" together — may no longer just be a selfish indulgence, but a vital ingredient to a happier relationship.

"The more you invest in fun and friendship and being there for your partner, the happier the relationship will get over time," says Howard Markman, a psychologist who co-directs the university's Center for Marital and Family Studies.

Dr. Markman added, "We've discovered a sharp, previously undiscovered, correlation between having fun together and being happy."

The research adds to findings published in 2000 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology by psychologist Arthur Aron of State University of New York-Stony Brook and colleagues. They showed that sharing in new and exciting activities is consistently associated with better relationships.

What new devilry is this, one may ask? That couples are now expected to, not only stay together, but "relate" to each other in some fashion? We live in an age of scientific wonder, to be sure, where we harness the power of nature, bend it to our will, and have it do our bidding, but who would ever think of having fun in marriage? Impossible! Are we really to believe this hard-earned research, which suggests, with a very low margin of error, that having fun together actually makes couples happier? Wizardry, plain and simple! Liberal hogwash of the highest order! Happy couples do not indulge, they do not share moments at the old "ball yard" or laugh together over a round of "mini put put golf." Oh, those couples may look like they're having a good time but I dare you to check back with them in even two years time. Such things simply cannot last.

Try to be happy, sure, but it fades. A long-term relationship is built on the solid foundation of quietly eating meals together at the kitchen table, doing the dishes, then watching the late show side-by-side. Such rote breeds stability, and routine builds confidence and keeps stress low. Life, as Paul Simon once wrote, should be full of superficial sighs on the borders of our lives. She reads Emily Dickinson and he Robert Frost. Note your place with bookmarks and measure what you've lost! Verses out of rhythm, couplets out of rhyme. Conversations starters should include, "Can analysis be worthwhile?" Or, "Is the theater really dead?"

No more talk of this, fun, which can only raise the heart rate to alarming levels, build an unwieldy intimacy, and allow the encroach of lustful thoughts. The very idea! Why, if I wanted to have fun I would hit the local pub with the boys from the office for a few vodka tonics. If one must be happy, if one cannot stand the mundane nature of life, then I say go to the track and get it out of your system! Place it all on Wooden Nickel and be done with it! Then return home, exorcised, having slayed your inner demon for the good of stability in the home. Speak nothing of it to your wife, who may, at best, find the whole situation terribly vexing, and at worst, a senseless indulgence. She never did understand you.

Rick Ankiel's amazing comeback

2008-07-16T08:58:00.001-07:00

In a year of great rags to riches baseball stories, Rick Ankiel's may be both the most impressive and the least recognized. Once a highly touted pitcher with a rocket arm, one night his young major league career imploded on the mound. Six years later he is back in the majors, as an outfielder, helping his team by belting home runs and stealing hits in the outfield. Sound familiar?

In 1997 Ankiel signed with the St. Louis Cardinals straight out of high school after being named Player of the Year by USA Today. By 2000 was starting in the major leagues as the second youngest player in baseball. He ended the season 11-7, helping the Cardinals win the NL Central.

Ankiel, chosen to start game one of the National League Division Series, made it through two innings before his career began to slip away. In the third inning he took the mound and suddenly could not find the strike zone. He walked three, threw five wild pitches, and gave up five runs before being pulled.

Ankiel appeared two more times in the post-season, both outings were similarly wild. He started game 2 of the NLCS and was removed after 20 pitches, including five uncatchable balls sailing ten feet over the catcher and careening off the backstop screen. In game five Ankiel appeared in relief and faced four hitters, walking two, and throwing two more wild pitches.

Though Ankiel tried to downplay his sudden control problems as mechanical, they were in-fact mental. People recalled Steve Blass or Mark Wohlers, dominating pitchers who mysteriously lost the ability to throw strikes. By the end of 2001 Ankiel was out of the majors. The next year he was sidelined in the minors with season ending surgery. He made a brief appearance back with the Cardinals in 2003 and then vanished.

Three years later Ankiel arrived at Cardinals spring training on a long-shot attempt to make the club as an outfielder. But he blew out his knee and underwent another season ending surgery.

Last year Ankiel came to spring training again and ultimately wound up at the Cardinals' AAA club in Memphis. On August 9th the Cardinals promoted him to the major league club. He was penciled in to bat second and play right field. The Busch Stadium crowd greeted him with a prolonged standing ovation. During the seventh inning, in his final at bat of the day, Ankiel hit a three run home run into the right field stands. Two days later he went 3-4 with two home runs, knocked in three, and made a beautiful catch in right field.

Charles Krauthammer, notable Washington Post columnist, wrote, "His return after seven years--if only three days long--is the stuff of legend. Made even more perfect by timing: Just two days after Barry Bonds sets a synthetic home run record in San Francisco, the Natural returns to St. Louis."

The remainder of 2007 was filled with spectacular games: a grand slam on August 31; another two home run game, including seven RBI and an over-the-shoulder catch on September 6; a walk-off triple on September 23. And just to make sure it wasn’t all a fluke, this season Ankiel has belted 20 homers, 50 RBI, and owns an .880 OPS. He is already regarded as one of the best defensive center fielders in baseball with wide range and a rocket arm.

Baseball is the most individual of all the team sports. Its isolation is instantly recognizable from the vantage point of the spectator. The position players are arrayed, far apart, asked to defend against a little white ball, batted at them by a hitter who stands alone at the plate. The pitcher stands alone on the mound to face him. Ankiel's career unraveled right before everyone's eyes in the middle of the diamond. And, incredibly, it has come back together on the other end, at the plate and in the field.

Ankiel has re-invented himself as a slugging outfielder. He has gone from losing his pitching control to now doing the hardest thing in all sports, and doing it amazingly well. What abilities are needed to be able to do this? Is it immense talent? Is it unstoppable drive? Millions of kids want to play baseball, how many ever make it? How many make it as a top pitcher, fall, and then make it all the way back as a top hitter?

On such things, tragedy and second chances, life is built. And in such things is the greatest nature of sports. The Roy Hobbs of the world, emerging from obscurity, overcoming their downfalls, and harnessing their immense talent represent facets of all of us. In their failure their success is magnified all the more. The flawed champions of Greek or Arthurian legend are both the most real, and the greatest of all.

Baseball's All-Time All-Mustache Team

2008-07-11T11:16:00.001-07:00

One of baseball's biggest first-half stories has been Jason Giambi and the rise of his new mustache. Giambi slumped early but turned things around by growing what has now become the most famous piece of facial hair in sports. Its presence has led him to 18 homers, 54 RBI and on Wednesday the Yankees gave away replica mustaches to the first 20,000 fans as part of an effort to get their first baseman voted onto the All-Star team.

The All-Star campaign has also received backing from the American Mustache Institute.

At this moment, all that matters is that you find a way to vote Jason Giambi - he of the mustache power - to the Major League Baseball All-Star game.

AMI's reasoning is simple:

It does not take a mathematician to know that Giambi + Mustache = All-Star. It's science.

Baseball player + Mustache = All-star. This simple sabermetric has been proven true over time. Baseball's history is one full of great mustaches. And now, in honor of the upcoming All-Star Game, I now give you Baseball's All-Time All-Mustache Team.

Pitchers
Richard "Goose" Gossage. All baseball mustache discussions must begin with Gossage. He began his career in 1972 with the Chicago White Sox, mustacheless, and middle of the road. By 1978 he joined the Yankees, had a wild handlebar 'stache, and became un-hittable. By the end of 1987 he ranked second in major league history in career saves. He trailed only Rollie Fingers, who was also sporting both a flamboyant and dominating mustache.

Roland "Rollie" Fingers. Fingers pitched from 1968-1985 and rose to power after growing a mustache to win a $300 bonus from Oakland Athletics owner Charles O. Finley. The 'stache took on a life of it's own, evolving into the barbershop-like curly variety. Batters may have been tempted to twirl it but Fingers never let them get close. He won three consecutive championships with the A's, seven all-star appearances, and three Rolaids Relief Man of the Year awards. In 1980 he broke the all-time save record which stood until 1992 when Jeff Reardon, in full beard, eclipsed it.

Catfish Hunter. They say the bigger the game the better he pitched and the better his mustache looked. They both dominated baseball from 1970-1976, winning over 20 games in a season five straight times, and both ended up in the Hall of Fame.

Fergie Jenkins. The man was Fergie before Fergie, and racked up 284 wins, including at least 20 per season six consecutive times. No small feat playing most of his career for the Cubs. He was known for pinpoint control, changing speeds, and a nicely kept mustache. He is now in the Hall of Fame.

Dennis Eckersley. No pitching mustache discussion would be complete without mentioning Eckersley. Eck broke onto the scene in 1975 with unstyled long hair, prominent mustache, and live fastball. He began his career as a starting pitcher but in 1987 he was converted to a relief pitcher and went on to close 220 games over the next five year. In 1990 he gave up five earned runs all season, posting a 0.61 ERA. He is the only relief pitcher in baseball history to have more saves than base runners allowed.

Catcher
Thurmon Munson. Munson was catcher for the New York Yankees from 1969 to 1979. Munson's dominating mustache (pictured up top) is the thing of baseball legend. He was known for his outstanding fielding, clutch hitting, and leadership. He was 1970 American League Rookie of the Year, a seven-time All-Star, two-time World Series champion, and 1976 American League MVP award winner. His career was tragically cut short by a plane crash at the age of 32. His number 15 is retired by the Yankees, and an empty locker in the clubhouse remains as tribute to their lost captain.

First base
Keith Hernandez. Giambi's famous mustache is not even the most dominant ever at his position, or even in his own town. First base has long been known for colorful, dominating mustaches. All-Time honors go to Hernandez who played from 1974-1990, had a prominent mustache, won World Series titles in 1982 and 1986, and appeared in the greatest Seinfeld episode of all time, while giving rise to the quote, "I'm Keith Hernandez." He currently holds AMI's coveted "Greatest Sports Mustache" of all time award and continues to style a dominating mustache to this day.

First base backup
Don Mattingly
Another all-time first base mustache belongs to "Donny Baseball." Mattingly broke into the majors in 1982 with a sweet swing and proud handle-bar mustache and dominated the American League for the next six seasons. In 1987 Mattingly belted a home run in eight consecutive games. His career went into decline shorty after, from being under the weight of such a heavy mustache.

Second base
Joe Morgan. Morgan did not have a predominant mustache during his playing days but he does now as Joe Miller's broadcasting sidekick on ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball.

Third base
Wade Boggs. The other corner infield position also has two all-time great mustaches. Here I give the nod to Boggs whose mustache was so wild it looked like he broke into the majors a decade late. Despite this he stuck with it through a downward trend in facial hair during the late 80s and 90s. He was rewarded with a .328 lifetime average, 3,010 hits, and a Hall of Fame induction.

Third base backup
Mike Schmidt. Schmidt played his entire professional career with a mustache, and with the Philadelphia Phillies. Schmidt's hall of fame career includes three three MVP awards, and 12 All-Star games. He is widely considered one of the greatest third basemen in history. He helped the city of Philadelphia win its last sports championship in 1980.

Shortstop
Robin Yount. Yount is another mustache bearer in the Hall of Fame. He played from 1974 - 1993 with the Milwaukee Brewers, collecting 3,142 hits, and two MVP awards. He was known for his consistency, sticking to the mustache for his entire career.

Outfield
Reggie Jackson. Special mustache mention must be made to Jackson, who ushered in the mustache era in baseball in 1972. As reported by writer Bruce Markusen:

In1972, Oakland A's star Reggie Jackson reported to spring training in Arizona, replete with a fully-grown mustache, the origins of which had begun to sprout during the 1971 American League Championship Series. To the surprise of his teammates, Jackson had used part of his off-season to allow the mustache to reach full bloom. By the time that spring training began in 1972, the mustache had reached epic proportions-at least by major league baseball's conservative standards of the day.

Reggie stuck with the 'stache for the remainder of his career and was elected into the Hall of Fame.

Jim Rice. Rice began his career in 1975 by winning the American League Rookie of the Year award and sporting a stylish mustache. He was also known for his power and clutch hitting and was elected to the All Star team from 1977-1980, and 1983-1986.

Dave Winfield. Winfield is often recognized as a ball player of pure ability, and his thin, manicured mustached reflected his elegant style of play. He was a complete player, with 12 All-Star appearances, seven gold gloves, and one hall of fame induction.

Manager
Billy Martin. Alfred "Billy" Martin was manager of the New York Yankees no less than five different times. Known for his colorful arguments with umpires, including popularizing the kicking of dirt on their feet, Martin's stature was only augmented by the presence of a wide, fiery mustache.

What do you think? Did I miss anyone?

Minnesota's Jesse Ventura to run for Senate?

2008-07-09T13:17:00.001-07:00

Jesse Ventura made history in 1998 trading in his WWF persona for governor of Minnesota. Now he may be thinking of running for Senate. The former Navy Seal was recently on public radio and made his frustration with the two current candidates known.

"All you Minnesotans take a good hard look at all three of us. If you
were in a dark alley, which one of the three of us would you want with
you?" Ventura said.

Minnesota's Senate race has been one of the most watched of the election. For one, the state is trending blue but is hosing the GOP convention in September. Also, Norm Coleman (R) is attempting to win reelection against notable humorist Al Franken (D). Ventura could enter this mix as an Independent.

The latest poll shows Coleman ahead of Franken 52-40. Franken, author, Saturday Night Live writer, and comedian, has had a hard time generating traction against Coleman, a man often compared to a Muppet, potted plant, or TV anchorman. Franken's troubles show that people typically do not like snarky or smart-ass when in the voting booth. Testosterone or towel snapping however have always played well.

Coleman previously lost a bid for Governor of Minnesota against Ventura. Many around the state are now openly predicting that Ventura will run. I, for one, welcome the idea and eagerly anticipate the first debate. I like to be entertained.

Obama Selects Stadium for Acceptance Speech

2008-07-07T13:39:00.001-07:00

The Ministry of Propaganda extends this invitation to you, supporter, to join us on August 28th. Then, Mr. Obama, your candidate, will formally accept the Democratic nomination surrounded by 75,000 people in a open-air event where he will deliver his acceptance speech to the American people.

Preceding the speech the gathered masses will be addressed by party leaders, will then swear loyalty and will participate in formation marches! Should the gathering spill over, marches will continue through downtown Denver.

If you act now, and make a donation of $5 or more, you could be one of a
handful of supporters chosen to fly to Denver and attend the convention
in an event you'll never forget!

Obama on Iraq

2008-07-03T20:10:00.000-07:00

Curious what the right thinks about Barack Obama's campaign? Look no further than Charles Krauthammer's latest Washington Post column. Krauthammer, you see, is a little concerned that Obama is now wearing a flag pin. Obama famously did not wear one during his primary campaign against Hillary Clinton and was derided by the right for it. Now he's put one on and you'd think such simple and transparent gestures would assuaged critics like Krauthammer. Instead it is seen not a symbol of patriotism but of liberal flip-flopping.

Obama's reasons for not wearing a flag pin were not only sound, but actually excessively patriotic. A flag pin is, after all, literally the very least you can do to support your country and, after so much banality masquerading as love-of-homeland, and so much youthful support being abused by the draconian minds in the current administration, the lack of a shallow symbolism was a refreshing moment of sincerity and sanity.

But people like Krauthammer see it as the ultimate test. The wearing of a flag pin I mean. It's almost laughable to think how easy it would have been for Obama to have worn one the whole time, rendering the whole issue moot, while also pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. People demand an answer for Obama's blatant and insidious plans to subvert and destroy the country and I say if those were his goals, why not wear begin the undertaking by wearing the flag pin? Why draw any attention to a supposed lack of patriotism? Only someone completely secure in love of country would have the onions to take the pin off and ask the public to vote for him.

But anyway, I've already been drawn into the time honored conservative straw man argument--which is casting a non issue as a real issue and getting people to talk about it while the real issues go unchallenged.

Obama's flag pin reversal is just the proverbial tip of the waffling iceberg according to Krauthammer. There's also NAFTA renegotiations, future chats with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the supreme court handgun decision, and, of course, the dreaded campaign finance flip-flop, as if that is anything at all. Yes, it's true, I'm happy to concede that Barack Obama has raised so much money from so many people that he doesn't even need to use public funds to run his campaign. He can do without, because common people are sending him the money. No doubt he kept the public fund option open, but when he raised several bazillion dollars decided there was no need to take from charity.

But these things are just child's play. The real nub of the crux for Krauthammer is Obama's precarious stance on Iraq, an issue which came to fruition today when he said he may "refine" his pledge to pull troops from Iraq over a 16 month time span if elected. This was akin to throwing a slab of ribs to a pack of wild dogs, and the right went from deep sleep to full frothy leap in before the food had even hit the floor. Today they put up such mock outrage that Obama and to reconvene his press conference and stress his commitment to everyone that he was sticking to his original plan.

It's the "refining" idea that conservatives can't stand. Such a thing turns coservativism in its grave. It whips people on the right into a frenzy. The concept that as facts on the ground change and your opinion may also change just doesn't resonate with the flat earth society. Even bastions on the left are willing to concede that Iraq has made progress and maybe hasty withdrawals not be entered into rashly.

In this week's New Yorker George Packer writes that when Barack Obama originally laid out his 16 month plan "no one in Baghdad would have predicted that blood-soaked neighborhoods would begin returning to life within a year."

The Iraqi turnaround has been, as Packer also points out, a mix of President Bush's surge, refined (yes, "refined") strategies in Iraq, the Sadr militia's cease fire, and turning the Sunnis against Al Qaeda. In light of recent success in Iraq, Packer suggests that Obama's original comments now seem "out of touch."

So here you have someone writing for publication with well known liberal leanings, suggesting that 1) Iraq has undergone some positive adjustments over the last 18 months and 2) a hasty withdrawal based on old realities may not be the right move at this time. Meanwhile, you have someone on the right insinuating that Obama reconsidering his timetable remarks is nothing less than the ultimate betrayal of public trust.

And so the climax of Krauthammer's column reads like this: "He [Obama] will use his upcoming Iraq trip to finally acknowledge the remarkable improvements on the ground and to formally abandon his primary season commitment to a fixed 16-month timetable for removal of all combat troops." And, believe me, the final few paragraphs show that Krauthammer doesn't mean this in a positive way.

"And with that," he intones, "The Obama of the primaries, the Obama with last year's most liberal voting record in the Senate, will have disappeared into the collective memory hole."

Perhaps Obama will change his stand on Iraq, and maybe he should. I'm not acute enough to judge either move. However, if Obama does "acknowledge the remarkable improvements on the ground" wouldn't that be more or less a remarkable thing to do? In the hands of a lesser executive, would that not be political suicide? It would be, OMG, like a thousand unworn flag pins times a million!! It would be like George Bush suddenly saying that Al Gore has been correct about this climate change stuff and we need to plan accordingly.

Such things, of course, never happen on the right. Carbon footprints get bigger. Evidence to the contrary is not only ignored but re-worded. Stem cell research receives no new funding. Wars are waged with a hand waved at reconstruction planning. Liberties are struck down by a party mired in the past. And that's exactly why we have someone like Barack Obama. That's why he has raised more money from more people than any other candidate in history--because he seems to posses a little thing called judgment. He weighs facts and decides. The right calls it flopping. Most post-renaissance societies call it practical.

And I haven't even mentioned the right's champion, John McCain, a rock of political Gibraltar whose flip flopping and political posturing is so well known that mentioning his hit parade here would be not only redundant but borderline cruel and would probably single-handedly deflate the right's entire argument against Obama and liberals in one fell swoop. And what fun would that be? Besides, McCain gets a pass for being a maverick. And what's more, I don't even care if he changes his mind. He's a grownup.

That seems to me what life is about--you live it, you're exposed to new realities, and you adjust. Along those lines I can think of nothing more patriotic than to weigh evidence carefully, including alternative ideas, and judge accordingly, and enact the correct solution for the good of the country, no matter what the particular issue is, or what the political cost. Obama, from day one, seems to be willing to do this. It's also the very most Americans want. It's why Hillary lost. It's what encapsulates people's "hope" in Obama. And it's also the thing which Republicans have not been doing for years.

Kanye once again offended, sucks

2008-06-26T09:22:00.001-07:00

"It broke my heart that I couldn't give these fans 'Stronger' in its
greatest form," said West, referring to his hit song. "I'm sorry to
everyone that I didn't have the ability 2 give the performance I wanted
to. I'm sorry."

Kanye West defended himself from criticism over his delayed performance at a Tennessee festival saying on his blog that the criticism he has endured has made him "the most offended I've ever been."

West, who was scheduled to go on at 2:45 a.m. on June 15 didn't actually take the stage until 4:25 a.m., inciting a revolt from the crowd who had stayed to see the rapper perform. While waiting for the show to start the crowd pelted the stage with glow sticks and beer, while chanting "Kanye sucks." The delay was caused by issues erecting West's extravagant stage set which includes planetary landscapes and a giant video screen.

Kanye's defense came in a blog post, written in caps, at www.kanyeuniversity.com. "This Bonnaroo thing is the worst insult I've ever had in my life," he wrote. And that's saying a lot. If you remember West was once totally dissed at the Grammys, being sidelined by Britney Spears. West later lashed out at MTV for exploiting Spears for ratings.

West concluded by saying his elaborate stage cuts his payday in half and leaves him icing his knees. "Call me what you want," he said, "but never say I didn't give my all!"

This just in: you're an asshole.

Dobson's controversial use of 'ruitcake'

2008-06-25T08:52:00.001-07:00

Dr. James Dobson, sensing his window of relevancy quickly closing, gave young whipper-snapper Barack Obama a strong tongue lashing for "distorting the Bible." The focus of Dobson's complaint was a 2006 speech given by Obama to liberal clergy where the senator attempted to point out the difficulties in legislating through religion, noting the various factions found in religion.

"Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?" Mr. Obama asked. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?"

"There is no equivalence to us," Dobson opined. "Unlike Mr. Sharpton, I am not a Reverend. I am not a minister. I am not a theologian. I am not an Evangelist. I am a psychologist."

"Frankly, I don't like his tone," Dobson added. "Kids these days, with their loud musics, their Nintendos and their internets... I just don't understand it. Kids used to be seen and not heard. Now we have all this!"

When asked what he meant Dobson replied, "I'm cold. Fetch my slippers, would you?"

"Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy," Mr. Obama asked in the two-year old speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?"

"So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles," Mr. Obama added.

"He says we ought to read the bible, I think he ought to read the Bible," Dr. Dobson said, noting Mr. Obama was mistaken in his interpretation of Deuteronomy. "Why can't he leave Deuteronomy out of it? He was such a wonderful fat tabby, and would never hurt a fly. Why he used to sit on my radiator and sun himself for hours..."

Then, wistfully, Dobson added, "He was magnificent. I loved that cat."

When asked what he meant by this Dobson said, "Fetch me my pills, will ya? Help an old man out and I've a quarter with your name on it."

"In my day we didn't deliberately distort traditional Biblical understanding," Dobson droned on. "We respected our elders and their traditions. By gum, if we didn't do that an elder would take us behind the woodshed and give us a real lesson. Grover Cleveland once gave me a lesson on two non consecutive occasions."

Finally Dobson called Obama's interpretation of the constitution "fruitcake."

"That's right, I said 'fruitcake'!" Dobson repeated. "Yes, and now run back to your editors. If that language is too strong I'll tell you what I really think! Return to me in two days time with a glass of warm milk, will you?"

"Dr. Dobson's use of the word 'fruitcake' was carefully considered," said Tom Minnery, senior vice president for government and public policy at Focus on the Family. "We bandied a few strong adjectives about. You know, the usual suspects: 'bananas', 'bonkers', 'crackpot', 'cuckoo',
'daffy', 'gaga', 'hair brained'... ultimately we chose 'fruitcake' which is on one hand a nod to all the old ladies who faithfully read our newsletter, and also to let young Mr. Obama know that these old people always turn up to vote. We mean business."

"What? Are you serious?" Obama spokesman Joshua DuBois said in a reply. "I'd hate to think that we've upset a man of Dobson's stature. We'd be happy to meet and talk it all out over a bowl of hard candy. And we apologize for digging up his tomato garden."

Republican national convention short on volunteers

2008-06-24T07:51:00.001-07:00

The Republicans sharply picked St. Paul, the Minnesota state capital, for their 2008 national convention. The strategy was simple: Minnesota is an important Midwestern swing state which has been trending red over the last few election cycles. The Republicans rewarded Minnesota with their convention in hopes that it would tip the state to the red in 2008.

But in a sign that things may not be going red in 2008, and with the convention a little over two months away, Republican coordinators have been hampered lack of local volunteers. A plea has gone up, led by St. Paul mayor Chris Coleman and Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak, asking for more people to sign up.

"This is not about being partisan; it's about putting our [Minnesota's]
best foot forward," said Teresa McFarland, a spokeswoman for the 2008 Republican National Convention. "It's been 116 years since we have
had a convention here and this is a chance to be a part of history."

It sounds to me like Minnesota may be on its way to making history if this keeps up. And, for me, it's about being partisan.

Read the whole story here.

Long live St. Louis

2008-06-20T10:00:00.001-07:00

"Everyone has a tear or two for gritty cities facing
hard times — for the Detroits, the Clevelands, the Buffalos — but who spares a
thought for the elegant dowager reduced to reusing teabags?"

So begins a Time article on the proud city of St. Louis, which has seem a dramatic population decline, and now faces a takeover of its beloved Anheuser-Busch brewing company by InBev, from Belgium. Everyone from Govenor Matt Blunt to Senator Claire McCaskill to the 58,000 who have signed the Save A-B petition, are trying to stop the deal from happening. But it looks doubtful that anyone can stop it.

"In the end, poor St. Louis may have to trust in InBev's promise to
keep St. Louis as its North American headquarters and flagship brewery," the article concludes. "As
for the Clydesdales — most of them moved to a farm in California years ago."

One St. Louis University professor summed up the city itself in this way, "St. Louis is, unfortunately, the city of yesterday. It
was built for the factory system, the steamboat and the railroad—and
made obsolete by the internal combustion engine."

Voting to secede from the surrounding county in 1876 to avoid paying an increase in services, St. Louis was one of the few major cities that did not extend its boundaries. In the 1950s, highways and affordable mortgages allowed people to live in the suburbs, and St. Louis saw a dramatic population decline.

However, the size of the city is not a measure of its worth. St. Louis is charming and accessible. The people are friendly. They can talk everything from baseball to poetry, yet there is hardly a whiff of pretension anywhere around. The restaurants sum up the city well: they are both cultured and pedestrian at the same time. St. Louis is home to well-heeled universities, three major sports teams, great ethnic food, beautiful neighborhoods, good music, riverboats, one 630-ft.-high stainless-steel arch, and, for now, the largest brewery in America.

Long live St. Louis.

NBA Finals predictions revisited

2008-06-18T14:09:00.001-07:00

Cherry picking from my previous post on the Celtics' championship, I found an article from June 5 in the Boston Sports Blog rounding-up finals predictions by the experts.

Most in the national media have glommed on to the Lakers machine in predicting the outcome of this series, lauding Kobe Bryant as the difference-maker, Phil Jackson's Zen more powerful than Red Auerbach's ghost. The most talked-about prognosis this week came from ESPN, where nine out of 10 experts picked the Lakers.

The only non-Boston-affiliated writer listed brave enough to pick the Celtics was Steve Dilbeck, of the Los Angeles Daily News (!!) who wrote, "The Lakers are this oddly popular pick. People are so worked up about them it's over the top. All this local gushing has spilled onto the national stage."

He seems to have accurately sized up Pau Gasol, the heralded big man the Lakers aquired from the Memphis Grizlies in a ~~trade~~ steal earlier this year.
"And although Gasol has helped the Lakers develop into a better team," Dilbeck wrote, "He is not such a dramatic upgrade over Bynum that his arrival assures things will be different now."

He even accurately targeted Paul Pierce, who would go on to become finals MVP, as "the one player the Lakers have no answer for."

Dilbeck then wrapped things up by saying the Celtics were hungrier, better, and possessed home court advantage. "Despite all this, most talking heads seem to favor the Lakers. They seem swept up by the Lakers' impressive playoff run."

I'm sick of seeing Boston win, or even almost win. But the only thing that makes it enjoyable is when they sweep away the swept up crowd.

Obama tide continues to turn against McCain

2008-06-18T09:01:00.001-07:00

Electoral-vote now has Barack Obama up 317 to 221 over John McCain. If the election were held today Obama would pick up Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia while losing none vs John Kerry's 2004 state total. Since last week Obama has picked up Virginia, which was tied, and Wisconsin, which was slightly red. McCain has reclaimed Indiana, which was tied.

The website, which monitors state to state polling in the national election, along with polls for the House and Senate seats, is also indicating five Senate seat gains for the Democrats in November, with none for the Republicans.

Celtics prove talking-heads wrong in six games

2008-06-18T08:21:00.001-07:00

When the Los Angeles Lakers, led by the undeniably great Kobe Bryant, dispatched the defending champion San Antonio Spurs in five games, talk began of a new basketball dynasty. The Lakers were young, talented, and led by a coach with no less than nine championships to his name. They had run circles around the unflappable Spurs, and expert analysts suddenly proclaimed how old the latter team was when, just one week before, they were compared to tempered steel. Kobe was again the toast of the town, and happily compared to Michael Jordan in even measured sentences. His march to a fourth championship a foregone conclusion.

And now those same columnists, radio hosts, and analysts are wondering what went wrong after the Lakers' six game subjugation to the Boston Celtics, a team heralded for having the best record in the NBA, but picked by almost no one to top Los Angeles in the finals.

After a quick two game drubbing to the Lakers all comparisons between Bryant and Jordan ceased. The tone switched to how effective Bryant was playing on a less talented team. It became clear that the Celtics, whose gritty determination, skilled defense, and floor spreading team play, had the elements on the floor that win a championship. While the Lakers' reliance on a superstar, a finesse offense, and coaching acumen, suddenly looked more style than substance.

The road to Celtic title was halted briefly in game three when, in Los Angeles, the Lakers held on to their large early-game lead and won by six. Game four proved to be the pivotal match with the Lakers bounding out to a 21 point lead in the first quarter. By the half the Celtics were no closer than 18. But the Lakers, contriving to blow the thing in front of their horrified fans, put up an anemic 33 second quarter points, and watched Boston eclipse and win by six. The next day pundits wanted to know one thing: was it a collapse or a comeback? As if the two are ever mutually exclusive.

The Lakers forestalled the Celtics one more time, holding on to game five by five. But in the end, in game six, it was all Boston in Boston. As if to quell any doubts the Celtics won going away, shelling Los Angeles with 131 points and allowing them 97. A modern day Boston Massacre.

My hat goes off to the Celtics. The team won 24 games last year, good for the second worst record in the sport (behind only Memphis). They lost the lottery to Portland, and then went out and assembled a championship team from available players. Kevin Garnett was had from Minnesota and Ray Allen was signed. Both would play alongside the talented Paul Pierce. Teams with superstars often falter under their own weight (see: Denver) but this team won 26 of their first 29 games and never looked back. They slugged their way through the playoffs, dispatched the formidable Detroit Pistons in six games, and then made their hated rivals, the Lakers, a footnote in their history. They did it by playing good basketball, playing as as the better team, and silenced the Bryant - Jordan debate for another eleven months.

Is the tide turning on stupid male syndrome?

2008-06-11T08:21:00.001-07:00

Click me!

Obama now leading McCain 287-227

2008-06-11T08:17:00.001-07:00

Checking the latest state polling numbers, Barack Obama now leads John McCain 287-227, with 24 votes up for grabs. Currently this puts Obama outside the margin of error as he is running above the 270 votes needed to win.

This marks a turnaround from a few weeks ago when the Senator from Illinois found himself down to McCain in state to state electoral vote counts. Since then Obama has turned Pennsylvania, Missouri and Ohio for a 52 vote turnaround. Virginia has also gone from "weak GOP" to "exactly tied" while Indiana still remains tied. If the election were held today the Democrats would pick up five states from 2004, the Republicans would get one--a 37 vote shift to the left (with Indiana and Virginia up for grabs).

I'll continue to monitor the polling at electoral-vote.com as the general election heats up.

This Obama pickup coincides with an article in today's Wall Street Journal stating that the GOP is also preparing for big congressional losses in the 2008 elections. One research center predicts Democratic gains of eight to 12 seats in the House and five in the Senate. Another is prediction 10 to 20 in the House and four to seven in the Senate.

The dynamics at work: voters' sharply negative views of President Bush and dismal feelings about the direction of the country, including rising oil and gas prices, a weak economy and fallout from the housing crisis. Even though Congress continues to register low approval ratings, voters overall appear to prefer putting Democrats in charge.

The Republicans have already lost three House seats this year in special elections in Republican-leaning areas. Many in the party are citing this as the canary in the coal mine for the November elections.

The death of conservativism?

2008-06-10T14:26:00.001-07:00

We come not to praise the Conservativism, but to bury it

Conservativism has been the driving political force for the last 40 years. Formulated with Barry Goldwater, it found power in President Nixon, and flourished under President Reagan. According to recent examinations it has now floundered and perhaps failed during President Bush's watch. Writers are rushing in to give the eulogy.

"It is rapidly falling apart," George Packer proclaims in a piece entitled The fall of conservativism, available in the May 26 edition of The New Yorker magazine. "Have the Republicans run out of ideas?" He asks, and reading the article the answer is a strongly implied "yes!" All this barely four years removed from the 2004 elections where the conservative movement looked interminable. Nothing could stop it. Not even George W. Bush, who won re-election even after it was clear that the centerpiece of his presidency, the war in Iraq, was quickly becoming an unruly fiasco.

The 2004 elections were so mind boggling, conservatism's grip on society so strong, that I did what I had to do and started this blog as an attempt to work my way through a few key questions. Where did the country stand after the 2004 election? And which direction it was going? I seemed to be in the minority in thinking Iraq a mistake, Bush a fool, and conservativism an arrogantly faulty movement. But if writers like George Packer are to be trusted, maybe something is in the air for a big change. Not to be outdone, Michael Lind writes in today's Salon,"On every front conservatives have failed, completely, undeniably and irreversibly."

Whereas Packer retains his balanced approach to the question at hand, one cannot help but read Lind's article, Relax, liberals, you've already won without picturing a beleaguered progressive relishing what he predicts to be a dramatic turn in the voting population. It's hard to blame his burst of exuberance, as one liberated from of Vichy France. For liberals it has been a long time coming, and with the rise of political heavyweights like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, along with a string of electoral victories stretching back to the 2006 bellwether elections, the genie is quickly emerging from the bottle.

Bill Clinton's two-term presidency, undoubtedly a high point for liberals over the last 40 years, was certainly not idealistic, and now seems awkwardly placed in-between conservative victories. Clinton was hampered by a conservative congress and forced to triangulate to the middle in order to retain his presidency. This is how I remember it in its heyday. I was 20, and Republican, when Bob Dole stood up to challenge the crafty Democratic president but his doom was foreseen the moment the Senator from Kansas ended a debate by stumbling through his campaign URL. At the time URLs and the internet were a new phenomenon, and you knew immediately the Bob Dole had no idea what either were. But he was trying desperately to appear young, and sharp, and hip, but time was against him. I was appalled that he was the strongest person the Republicans could come up with. Dole lost in a landslide.

In 2000, I was 24, still Republican, and I assumed Al Gore would continue right where his predecessor had left off. I figured then that the Republicans were in serious trouble, out of gas, with a blooming economy staring them right in the face. But Gore proved to be unable to connect with voters, and Bush had a talented campaign team, and connections to steal the election if necessary, which he did.

But, as Packer writes, "Conservatives knew how to win elections; however, they turned out to be not very interested in governing. Throughout the decades since Nixon, conservativism has retained the essentially negative character of an insurgent movement."

Packer states that the idea of a permanent conservative majority not
only went against history, but was "blown up in Iraq and drowned in New
Orleans." This shattered the illusion that politics mattered more than policy. Iraq was the issue that woke me up and turned me away from conservativism. It seemed inept and inefficient. Both Packer and Lind argue that Americans want their government to be productive and they want their government to be, above all, capable. We want it to help, not hurt us, and after all this time, Packer writes that conservatives "hadn't made much of a dent in the bureaucracy, and they had done nothing to provide universal health-care coverage or arrest growing economic inequality."

And there we get back to Packer's central issue: do the Republicans have any ideas on how to confront the problems most American's face? More importantly: do Americans trust Republicans to help them? As he describes it, conservativism is now plagued with "a doctrinaire failure to adapt to new circumstances, new problems." And he points out that polls now show that Americans are siding with Democrats on almost every domestic issue, from social security to the environment.

It appears the stage should be set for a Democratic victory in the 2008 general election. But not even Lind is bold enough to make that prediction. Indeed both writers remain cautious, qualifying things by saying that no matter who is in the White House in 2008, it wont matter, the movement to the left is here to stay. I doubt many liberals will be buoyed by this in the event that they do lose in November. Both writers allude to the greatest benefit of winning elections: stocking the judiciary to your side of the political scales.

Has 40 years of conservativism battered the hopefulness out of liberals? Even Michael Lind, who declared liberal victory in the title of his article, a venerable "Mission Accomplished!" ends his article with a warning about the potential rise of a "more formidable and competitive version of American conservativism" liberated from neoconservative ties. Ah, that's the skeptical liberalism I've tied myself too. You're never too far ahead to prepare for failure. The "win" Lind refers to is simply the chance. "The prospects for the moderate, reformist center left are better than they have been in nearly half a century" he concludes.

George Packer's writing has always had an everyman view that I find appealing. His own speculations about conservativism are not without talking to actual conservatives. Following a rally in the Appalachian hills of eastern Kentucky, Packer spoke with a few McCain supporters over beers about Democratic nominee Barack Obama. Packer recalls how they unapologetically refuse to ever vote for a black man. "No speech, on race, on elitism or anything else, would move them," Packer solemnly writes. "Here was one part of the white working class--maybe not representative, but at least significant."

My optimism for Obama in 2008 lies somewhere in-between Lind's exasperation and Packer's acumen. It's part emotional and it's part logical. I feel the average American has moved to the left on cultural issues, on race, and on ideals. In 2008 this began to make major headlines as Obama, an African American, and Hillary Clinton, battled for the highest office in the land. I feel the movement is here. It has taken root despite years of conservative victories. In my bones I feel it may be about to bloom. But in my heart I know a large swath of the population may forever be stuck in the past.

With Lakers down 0-2 Kobie-Jordan comparisons drop 83 percent

2008-06-10T08:20:00.001-07:00

With the Los Angeles Lakers down two games to none against the Boston Celtics in the NBA Finals, comparisons between Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan are down 83% across sports media nation-wide. Sports media trackers are monitoring a sharp rise in the "Can Kobe win without a superstar" line of debate.

"Just a week ago sports outlets like The Dan Patrick Show were buzzing about Kobe and Jordan comparisons," says Don Williams, a sports media expert analyst. "Now that they're down 0-2 no one is even mentioning it. In-fact, the specter of what used to haunt Kobe, his inability to lead a team to a championship without someone like Shaquille O'Neil, is rising sharply."

Sports media outlets excitedly began comparing Kobe to Jordan, a six time NBA champion, after the Lakers dispatched the San Antonio Spurts in the NBA Western Conference Finals.

"The presumption seemed to be that Kobe was going to win his fourth championship and then we'd have a real Kobe-Jordan debate," said Williams. "Of course, Kobe has to actually win the thing first. But we know ESPN and sports radio doesn't want to wait for that when it can speculate about speculation. They love to test these stories out before they actually even happen. It's very common."

The Lakers lost a tight game Thursday night in Boston to the Celtics, 98-88. The Celtics dominated most of game two on Sunday. Los Angeles came back near the end but fell short 108-102. The series now shifts to Los Angeles tonight.

Poem of the day

2008-06-09T11:21:00.001-07:00

1. Middle-aged, supremely bored

with his wife, hating his work,

unable to sleep, he rises

from bed to pace his mansion

in slippers and robe, wondering

if this is all there ever

will be to becoming Henry Ford,

the man who created

the modern world. The skies

above the great Rouge factory

are black with coke smoke, starless,

the world is starless now, all

because he remade it in

his image, no small reward.

2. Monday comes, as it must, with a pale

moon sinking below the elms.

They told us another dawn was

on the way, possibly held up

by traffic on Grand Boulevard

or by Henry, master of Dearborn,

who loathes sharing the light

with the unenlightened among us.

That was 60 years ago.

The day arrived, a weak sun

but none the less an actual

one, its sooty light bathing

walls, windows, eyelids while

old pal moon drifted off to sleep.

3. As a boy I’d known these fields

rife with wild phlox in April,

where at night the red-tailed fox

came to prey and the horned owl

split the air in a sudden rush

for its kill. I loved that world

with its little woods that held

their darkness and the still ponds,

clear as ice, that held the stars

each night until the dawn broke

into fenced plots of land,

claimed and named, barns and stables,

white houses with eyes shut tight

against the intrusion of sight.

4. Hell is here in the forge room

where the giant presses stamp

out body parts and the smell

of burning skin seeps into

our hair and under our nails.

The old man, King Henry, punches in

for the night shift with us,

his beloved coloreds and Yids,

to work until the shattered

windows gray. There is a justice

after all, there’s a bright anthem

for the occasion, something

familiar and blue, with words we

all sing, like “Time on My Hands.”

"Dearborn Suite" - by Philip Levine (as published in The New Yorker, June 9, 2008)

It is finished: Clinton backs Obama!

2008-06-07T14:01:00.000-07:00

Finally, it's over. Senator Hillary Clinton formally threw her support behind Senator Barack Obama on Saturday, clearing the way for Mr. Obama to head into the general election with a plan to challenge Senator John McCain in typically Republican states.

Mrs. Clinton ran a historic campaign, and became a figurehead for professional women and what they can accomplish. Had she won the nomination she would have become the first woman to lead a major party into a general election. As it is, Senator Barack Obama assumes the role as the first African American to head to the general election.

"Our party and our country are stronger because of the work she has done throughout her life, and I'm a better candidate for having had the privilege of competing with her," a newsletter from Mr. Obama stated earlier today. "Senator Clinton will be invaluable to our efforts to win in November, and I look forward to campaigning alongside her to bring this country the change it so desperately needs."

Obama clinches nomination

2008-06-04T00:13:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama becomes America's first black nominee of a major party while taking the next step towards 2008 bid for the White House and declaring "America, this is our moment!"

Viva, Obama! Viva!

Don't sweat the small stuff

2008-06-03T13:40:00.001-07:00

Call this sensationalistic but we're all going to die from cell phone brain cancer anyway.

New Yorker trashes "Sex and the City" movie

2008-06-03T12:52:00.001-07:00

I'll admit, I'm a little surprised by the panning "Sex and the City" received by The New Yorker. Not because "City" is supposed to be a good movie. My assumption was that all this shopping, drinking, and chatting are ingredients mixed and poured like some kind of Central Park cocktail, eagerly consumed by the critical masses. But Anthony Lane will not be fooled.

Movie reviews are to me a form of high art and writing. Good ones not only acquire the soul of a film, but analyze it on its merits. The best ones offer that and more. They recognize movies as representative of culture at large, and therefore not only critique the film but what the film is saying about its audience. "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" suggests a certain malaise among action-adventure audiences, a group which Hollywood figures will accept just about anything. According to Lane, "Sex and the City: The Movie" points to a disconcerting shallowness in modern society.

"At least, you could argue, Miranda has a job, as a lawyer," reviewer Anthony Lane states. "But the film pays it zero attention, and the other women expect her to drop it and
fly to Mexico without demur. (And she does.)"

And there's more:

Worse still is the sneering cut as the scene shifts from Carrie, carefree and childless in the New York Public Library, to the face of Miranda’s young son, smeared with spaghetti sauce. In short, to anyone facing the quandaries of being a working mother, the movie sends a vicious memo: Don’t be a mother. And don’t work. Is this really where we have ended up—with this superannuated fantasy posing as a slice of modern life?

When I became a father, at 24, I was terrified that I would lose my identity. I knew, not happily, that a lot of changes were going to be forced on me. In order to be a good parent you have to become a little less selfish. No, a lot less. Becoming a father was to be, essentially, the beginning of the end of my life. But, to my wonderment, it was the greatest thing that ever could have happened to me. It forced me to cut the crap and be responsible. It's hard to sweat the small, insignificant things, when a newborn life is in your hands. You really start to understand what matters and what doesn't.

Society would never have you believe this. The answers are not found inside, or in service, but with the acquisition of things, a mate being one of them. Oh, sure, being pregnant is glamorous, but is being a parent? Getting married is a trick, but what about having a good relationship? And how does this fit in with the idea that to be happy you have to serve yourself? Or to surround yourself only with those things that serve you. There's the idea that if you love yourself enough, and reward yourself enough, you will self-actualize. But I've found it all to be just the opposite. When I became a parent the part of me I lost was the part I didn't want anyway. I've never missed it.

On TV, “Sex and the City” was never as insulting as “Desperate Housewives,” which strikes me as catastrophically retrograde, but, almost sixty years after “All About Eve,” which also featured four major female roles, there is a deep sadness in the sight of Carrie and friends defining themselves not as Bette Davis, Anne Baxter, Celeste Holm, and Thelma Ritter did—by their talents, their hats, and the swordplay of their wits—but purely by their ability to snare and keep a man. Believe me, ladies, we’re not worth it.

While dating, I've been struck by how many women just want to be in a relationship. Not necessarily a good relationship, just a relationship. All their friends are in one, so it becomes a sort of measuring stick. I have played the role of the boyfriend dragged to weddings so my date wouldn't have to show up alone. Weddings, parties, BBQs--string them all together and you have some kind of relationship, right? You have something to pass the time with. You have something to talk about over cosmos with girlfriends, just like they do on TV! Even if the relationship is void and lifeless, at least there's something to commiserate over. And, better yet, if it is debilitating and insulting, oh my, you can mine that drama for years.

It’s true that Samantha finally disposes of one paramour, but only with a view to landing another, and her parting shot is a beauty: “I love you, but I love me more.” I have a terrible feeling that “Sex and the City” expects us not to disapprove of that line, or even to laugh at it, but to exclaim in unison, “You go, girl.”

The road to self actualization and happiness is paved with many shoes. Certainly there has to be something more out there than this. Certainly, in a relationship, it's not just about what you can get out of it but what you can provide--right? It's about providing a home for someone, literally, maybe, but metaphorically for sure. It's true, no one can make you happy all the time. And if your happiness is stocked on name brands, new thrills, and syncing with what television has propped up as reality, then there's probably nothing anyone can do for you. Who knows, maybe happiness isn't found where Hollywood wants you to look. Maybe it begins at the point where you end.

When movies Nuked the Fridge

2008-05-29T14:09:00.001-07:00

Now I'm starting to think about when certain movies have "Nuked the Fridge." It doesn't have to be an implausible unbelievable moment. Just when a movie or series looses its moorings and you begin to check out.

Last summer's "Transformers" started off good, but when the dog peed on Optimus Prime it NUKED THE FRIDGE. ("That's gonna rust" ?) Also, about the same time John Turturro showed up. After that the film deviated into Muppet Land.

"Across the Universe" NUKED THE FRIDGE when Bono shows up with his bus.

I saw a post that said "Spiderman 3" NUKED THE FRIDGE when Peter Parker gets all cool and dances around the bar--tapping into his darker side. I agree with that but for me that movie NUKED much earlier, and I think it had something to do with Topher Grace's first scene...but I can't remember for sure.

How about the Star Wars franchise. It NUKED when the Ewok's showed up in "Return of the Jedi." Or, maybe when Vader's helmet came off and there was a fat accountant inside. But that was at the end of the movie, so it didn't ruin a whole lot. Barring that, after Jar Jar Binx, Star Wars had definitely NUKED.

That's all I've got for now...

Nuke the Fridge roundup

2008-05-29T13:36:00.001-07:00

Once it was feared that the radiation from a nuclear blast would mutate DNA and create world destroying monsters. With the power of the internet, it now creates catch phrases. The nuke seen in the latest Indiana Jones movie has created a new netism: Nuke the Fridge.

The phrase refers to a scene in "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" where Indy survives a nuclear blast by climbing into a refrigerator. The blast vaporizes everything and flings the fridge several miles across the desert until it crashes back to earth where Indy climbs out relatively unharmed.

The phrase works for a movie the way "Jump the Shark" does for TV, namely, the moment when a movie or movie franchise starts going to crap. It's the moment when you realize this film is not as good as previous films, or other films of its genre. It's the moment when your disbelief overtakes your the requisite cognitive dissonance. It's the moment when the rest of the movie is spent emotionally detached because the main character is now seen as invulnerable, or the plot too implausible and therefore not worthy of any rational human attachment. It's the moment when you wish you had saved your money.

Being an internet creation, the rise of Nuke the Fridge has been covered in articles and on blogs and forums:

AlterNet

When did Indiana Jones officially nuke the fridge?

The official Fridge thread on IMDB

Nuke the Fridge Facebook Group!

Nuking the Fridge merchandise!

Nuke the Fridge video parodies are also now on YouTube.

Somewhere, someone is working hard on Nuke the Fridge page right now.... where we can talk about when movies or franchises Nuked the Fridge and never recovered. But it all stared with a shitty movie by two Hollywood legends: Spielburg and Lucas. The net giveth and the net taketh away. Long live the Fridge! I for one welcome our new Nuke the Fridge overlords...

Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crysrtal...huh?

2008-05-27T09:58:00.001-07:00

As my friends in the back row will attest to: Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull is a movie best viewed high. Here's a film that will test survival skills. Not Indy's. Yours. The original Indiana Jones venture managed to be original, while also paying homage to 1930s serials. It was tightly wound, witty, and even thoughtful. It's an incredible mystery that the 2008 edition was made by the same men who are now legends: Steven Spielburg, George Lucas, and Harrison Ford. A movie like Raiders of the Lost Ark could not even be made today. Ironically, one of the original blockbusters has given rise to a movie industry which would now mangle such a finely tuned piece of work.

Crystal Skull takes place in 1957 and Ford reprises his role as the Man in the Hat. The old Nazi villains have given way to Cold War Russians, led by Cate Blanchett's Irina, a caricature searching for a the title skull, an object which can literally blow your mind. Toss in a few stock characters--an Aussie, a young Marlon Brando from "The Wild Ones", an old love interest, pictures of Sean Conery, flesh eating ants, wild natives, and a few extra terrestrials, and you have what Speilburg and Lucas now consider a quality summer film. Is it the age, or the millage?

To talk of plot is to give the thing much too much credit. There's really nothing here other than stunts and CGI effects strung together to form a story in only the weakest sense of the term. All the pieces are there, to be sure sure: trains, motorcycles, detonations, a love affair rekindled, a lost son reuinted with father. But we've been here before with all of this, and most of it is unncessary. I'm reminded of a line from another Spielburg movie: they were so preoccupied with weather or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. The problem is these elements are nothing more than hollow building blocks given no life. By the end Crystal Skull is stuffed to the brim with accents, explosions, books, dust, skeletons, rocks, water, ants, and one spinning UFO. To call it a "movie" would be a stretch. It's more like a Disneyland theme park ride.

Crystal Skull is terrible and I say this as a huge Indiana Jones fan. Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of my favorite movies. I grew up with it. Even as a kid, when I didn't understand many of the references, the adventure was palpable. The urgency was real. The characters, though exaggerated, were believable and thus likable. Indy wore down and by the end of the movie you can felt his exhaustion. He didn't want to fight the big bald German dude around the plane because he was damn tired and the only thing that saved him was a timely propeller, not superhuman strength. I watched the same movie again before viewing Crystal Skull and those feelings were only heightened with age. The movie is emotional and exciting while also being funny and cerebral. Some of that magic carried over into the next two films Temple of Doom and Last Crusade, but you'd be hard pressed to include the 2008 ride into this collection. The only thing that links are the names in the credits.

You know it's going to be a long movie when Indy's first appearance is met with skepticism. Who's that old man in the Indiana Jones costume? I don't say this to make fun of Harrison Ford, who is certainly to be commended for his courage in donning the fedora again at 60 something, it's just that Indy himself is not believable on any level, starting with his creaky appearance. The movie proceeds like this, destroying any sense of plausible deniability as it goes. Any attachment to reality is obliterated in 15 minutes when Indy wanders into a town constructed as a nuclear (which Indy pronounces "nu-cu-ler") testing site. In the distance you see a atomic bomb set for detonation. Then you hear the countdown. The sense of danger is imminent. Still, in case you were confused, Indy reminds you, "This is not good." He then hides in a refrigerator, the bomb goes off, the town is vaporized, and the Maytag flies through the air, crashes to earth, rolls for half a mile, and Indy tumbles out and walks away.

In the original films Indy was a human. Now he is invincible. And in making him so, much of the magic and charm is lost. Here is a movie where anything can happen and does, even if it's laughable and irrelevant. Crystal Skull has all the earmarks of poor Lucas films: too much CGI, too much commenting through the obvious, not enough human touch. Or, to put it another way, not enough of what made a movie like Raiders so much fun. Bad filmmakers don't trust their audience to put together what is going on, so they verbalize the obvious plot points. They cram in more and more because silence becomes deafening. There's always some actor ready to quip out a one-liner to make what is going on clear, even though this movie has gone from an original to a well worn template.

My quest, with this film, was not to find where the Crystal Skulls came from, but how seemingly intelligent, discerning critics gave it good reviews. How is it clocking in at 80% on Rotten Tomatoes? Is it a nod to Lucas, Spielburg, and Ford--three people who could obviously care less? This is the Indy movie that took 19 years to make, which coaxed Ford to put the hat back on? This is the movie after a massive script re-write, which it ends with a UFO and something about the "space between spaces" ? It's not a bad movie because it's no Raiders, it's just a bad movie. And compared to this movie, Raiders seems as rare and untoucable as the lost Ark itself.

The modern male meets Hillary Clinton

2008-05-23T12:21:00.001-07:00

Sometime in the early 1990s, while Hillary Rodham Clinton was in the White House, the modern American male became helpless, clearly chronicled in various sitcoms where the husband, a bumbling oaf, is saved time and again by a capable, omniscient wife. Think of the show "Home Improvement" which ran from 1991-1999. By the time Tim Taylor was done blowing up garbage disposals the metamorphosis of the modern American male was complete. Why the Tim and Jill Taylors of the world want to play these roles is beyond me. For men, perhaps, its a chance to delay adulthood and responsibility in a world that has no pity. For women, maybe, its a long-awaited turn at the head of the table.

Go to a modern romantic comedy and the male "lead" is a stoner, a guy who parties late and sleeps until noon, a man child needing a mother to get him on the right track. The female lead is usually a woman who is so serious and professional she very little time to let her hair down. Apart they are both flawed, but put the two together and you have movie magic.

And so we have the 2008 Democratic campaign, staring white men who just can't seem to find a job, and a woman so professional and ambitious she'd impress Miranda Priestly. The men and the woman have been brought together out of necessity and survival, massing into a Volton-like mech that vows to crush anything in its path.

Many have already hailed, rightfully so, Clinton's campaign as a breakthrough, even if a loss. It has changed forever how America will view the professional woman, and how one woman, so deeply despised among traditionally macho men, won them over and got them to follow. Pundits are amazed at her ability to break through and connect with those working class white voters, but rather than pouring over poll data, all they had to do was watch a few episodes of "King of Queens." Hillary Clinton has effectively done in the real world of politics, before our very eyes, what Hollywood has been doing for years in sitcoms, movies, and commercials. The circuit is now complete.

The modern American male is a long way from "It Happened One Night" in-which Clark Gable played, not only a guy with a job, but an ambitious reporter in search of a story. Clark Gable's Peter Warne was driven to put food on his table, to carve out his niche. He was the one so motivated he didn't know how to have any fun. But he also didn't live in our modern times, in the decline of America; the uncertain, tenuous economic climate stocked with ready-made scapegoats in the form of cheap foreign labor. With an environment like that--where working harder gets you less, where you could very easily wind up with a pink slip after years of service, what is today's guy to do but throw it to the wind and look for someone who will believe in them and champion them no matter how bad it gets?

Hillary Clinton stood by her man, Bill, after he was done showing Monica Lewinsky the ropes around the White House. That's some serious loyalty. Guys like that. Eight years later she has vowed, on behalf of a white working-class coalition, to go to Washington and fight for them, and then fight some more. And the modern man could not be happier. It's the role they were born to play. It's the just-couldn't-do-it-without-you-honey association, which seems to have been clamoring for their own firey Jill Taylor to do the laundry, make dinner, take care of the kids, handle the finances, and go to Washington and kick some foreign and domestic ass.

It's all a farce of course. Fighting from the White House wont get Hillary any further than it did in 1993 and 1994 when, after rolling up her sleeves and working with a Democratic majority in congress, her approval ratings plummeted from the high 50s to the low 30s. No matter. Jobs have been lost and there's palpable anger and incapacity. There's helplessness. No one knows what to do, but Hillary will do something for somebody. She has been criticized for gauging the national mood incorrectly. I think she's right on, she just found it too late. All it took was a little less Meryl Streep and a little more Patricia Heaton. A little less ball busting and a little more we're-in-this-together. A little less "get off your ass" and a little more "I've already taken care of it."

The modern man has evolved.

Obama's troubles

2008-05-21T08:58:00.001-07:00

Interesting to note, Election 2008, a site which monitors state polling, has Clinton beating McCain 284 - 237, with Michigan as a 17 point tie. Alternatively, Obama is seen losing to McCain 242 - 285, with Indiana an 11 point tie.

Clinton's source of strength is bringing in Arkansas, Florida, New Mexico, Ohio and West Virginia, while losing Wisconsin and New Hampshire. That's a 49 vote pickup from 2004.

Meanwhile Obama can bring in Colorado, Iowa, and New Mexico but drops Michigan, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin, a net loss of 10 votes from 2004.

Obviously the polls will shift as Clinton fades away and it becomes a straight Obama vs McCain race. The question is where will those Clinton supporters return to Obama, or will enough turn to McCain?

Michigan and Florida remain vital battleground states. Clinton is polling high because she's been the only Democrat campaigning in those states but it remains to be seen if Obama can keep Michigan in the fold from 2004, or if his issues connecting with working-class voters will hamper him in 2008.

As for Florida, I don't see him winning it in November. He doesn't seem to resonate well with all those senior citizens, Jews, and Hispanics.

Another big state is Ohio with 20 electoral college votes. From feverish campaigning and acute posturing, Clinton is up there as well. Again, it shows Obama's issues connecting with working-class whites. The question is, can he make that connection between now and 2008? And will the DNC's punishment of Florida and Michigan at the convention ultimately hamstring the party in November?

I can't help but wonder how Obama would be doing in those key states of Michigan, Ohio, and Florida, had this nomination process been more conventional, and had Clinton not painted him as an elitist over the last two months and carped on and on about seating the Florida and Michigan delegates. Clinton has gained nothing from all of this, but what have Obama and Democrats lost?

Clinton is on her way to Florida today to argue that Obama is disenfranchising the states Democratic primary voters. This will net her nothing, as the math is already too far against her, and will certainly further harm Obama's chances in that state come November. Clinton has intoned a similar message in Michigan. It has been this kind of relentless march by Clinton, a venerable Sherman through Atlanta, that could ultimately ruin the Democrats in 2008.

Clinton has reached a kind of Kucinichesque marginalization. She has become the Ralph Nader of 2008, someone who has no shot of winning, but could certainly damage the left's chances for victory in November. I can't help but wonder what the tone would be if it was Obama undermining the prohibitive front-runner in the same way. If it were Clinton ahead in every metric but the final count, and Obama refused to concede, the outcry among Democrats would be vicious.

For all of her complaining about unfair media bias against women, Clinton has more or less been given a free pass to remain in the race, even to counter productive ends, surely because of her name and her gender. No one has the nerve to point out the obvious and tell the lady it's time to leave the dance.

The Al Gore watch

2008-05-15T08:57:00.001-07:00

Now that John Edwards has strapped himself onto the Obama gravy train, the big question is: where's Al Gore? He remains the one major Democratic leader who has not thrown an endorsement.

Like a great rock band that wont take the stage until the suspense has reached a fever pitch, the crowd churned into a frenzy, frothing like a thick foamy substance, crying out like a mass orgy of one living mob screaming for release.... Al Gore waits patiently for his moment of maximum impact.

Edwards endorses Obama

2008-05-15T07:36:00.001-07:00

John Edwards gave his long-awaited endorsement to Senator Barack Obama, bolstering Obama's efforts to rally the Democratic Party around his candidacy and offering potential help in his attempts to win over working-class white voters in the general election this autumn.

"The Democratic voters in America have made their choice, and, interestingly enough, so have I," Edwards said.

Edwards spoke a roaring crowd of more than 12,000 in Michigan on Wednesday, a day when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was trying to capitalize on her big win Tuesday in West Virginia and convince superdelegates and contributors that she still had a chance to capture the Democratic nomination.

"There is one man who knows in his heart that we have to build one America - not two - and that man is Barack Obama," Edwards said. "The time has come, with the nomination now irreversible, I stand before you now and enthusiastically offer my endorsement to Barack Obama."

"Now I know what many of you hard-working white people may be asking, can we trust this Obama?" Edwards asked, in an attempt to quell concerns about Obama with working-class voters. "And I say yes! Yes, this son of a mill worker once harbored the same concerns as you because I want what is best for this great country. But at this point I want to be clear: I for one welcome our new Obama overlord. I'd like to remind him that as a trusted politician, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in his underground sugar caves."

Who will be Obama's VP?

2008-05-13T09:31:00.001-07:00

I've been asked a few times who I think Barack Obama will pick as his running mate. My top pick is Senator Jim Webb from Virginia. A recent article on Huffington Post had similar feelings.

Webb is the closest thing to a front runner for Obama's VP these days. A former Republican, he served as Secretary of the Navy for Ronald Reagan. Webb defeated George "Macaca" Allen to become a junior senator in Virginia.

Pro: Webb is a good foil for Obama's post-partisan message, and he's got the military credentials to match up with John McCain. He's good at playing the attack dog, which will let Obama take the high road. And he's from trending-blue Virginia, which would be a great pickup in November for Democrats. He's also pro-guns.

Con: Webb can be a little out-of-control as attack dogs go.

I couldn't agree with this more.

Next up is Bill Richardson. He used to be my number one choice for an Obama running mate. He would shore up the Latino vote while also bolstering the ticket. Unfortunately, after recent months, I think far too many uneducated white voters are nervous about a non-white ticket. The political climate has changed over the last few months, and the black \ Hispanic combo is probably too radical for too many people.

Then we get to Joe Biden. I like Biden a lot. He's got foreign policy experience, and history ends up proving him correct when he takes a stand. But, again, given the current political climate, I'm not sure if he would help too much. To me he conjures too much John Kerry and not enough middle-America.

Chuck Hagel would be an interesting choice. I like this one a lot. He would probably be my number three pick right now. He would personify the idea that Obama is a pragmatist and willing to work across party lines--the source of his appeal. Hagel would add an element of toughness, much like Jim Webb, which should resonate with many undecided voters while helping to neutralize McCain. His negatives are his conservative leanings on abortion and health care but I don't see that being much of a factor in a Vice Presidential role.

Then there's my number two choice, General Wesley Clark. I've liked him since 2004 when he ran on an anti-war ticket. He would certainly remove much doubt about Democratic toughness, or weakness on national security. As a Clinton backer he could bring angry Democrats back into the fold.

Now let's talk about a few who would not be good choices.

People, even paid professionals, just can't stop pondering Hillary Clinton as a legitimate VP contender. I don't see this happening for all the reasons she has put on display over the last four months--she's remorseless, shameless, old school, and far too overtly political. She seems like the Democratic embodiment of George W. Bush--someone who surrounds herself with loyalists and hammers away at the party line, all while everything goes to hell around her. Then she just bunkers up and fights some more. She's everything Obama claims not to be. Putting her on the ticket doesn't help him at all.

Mike Bloomberg, the popular governor of New York City. I like this idea in theory, the media loves the guy, but I feel it would make the ticket a little too glamorous. Obama has more than enough glitz and media savvy, what they need is some lunch pail, working class, love-it-or-leave it gravity on the ticket.

John Edwards, would be another bad choice. I've never been a huge Edwards fan. To me, being against poverty is sort of like rooting for the Yankees, or listening to the Beatles. It's a tad unoriginal and safe. And I'd say that's a good way to sum Edwards up. Also, he carried nothing in 2004 when he had his chance at the big stage, and Cheney ate him for lunch during the debates. Edwards is a figurehead, a hood ornament of the party.

Finally, Al Gore. He's at his best when he's doing slide shows and he made the wise decision not to listen to the siren call and run in 2008. It would have ruined everything he has salvaged after his heart-breaking 2000 campaign. He's a good man, a smart man, a wise man, but his political time has come and gone. Besides, he'd never be VP again would he?

Tony Romo sings at Wrigley

2008-05-12T08:58:00.001-07:00

Sunday was a big day for baseball. Greg Maddux won his 350th game, and Illinois native Tony Romo fumbled the snap during the Seventh Inning Stretch at Wrigley.

What's next for Hillary?

2008-05-08T08:39:00.001-07:00

Now that Hillary has lost the Democratic nomination, what's next for the Senator from New York?

Sweep floor, shut off lights at campaign headquarters
Don't let the door hit her on the ass on the way out
Type a strongly worded letter to college educated, white collar Democrats
Scrape "Hillary '08" bumper sticker off car
Vanish into thin air
Quietly go insane
Hold up a liquor store
Beat up Al Gore, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, et. al
"Totally obliterate" Iran, Iowa
Cry
Get milk, pick up dry cleaning, divorce Bill
Seduce Barack, become VP
Begin Hillary 2016

To me, that's the question: will she go back and rebuild? Will she set her sights on 2016? This is by far the story of 2008. Hell, it's the biggest story since the Iraq war: how the prohibitive favorite, with the best brand name in Democratic politics, faltered and lost the big one, in the year of Democratic politics, after 16 years of preparation.

Will she retire quietly to the Senate? How much gas does she have left in the tank after this? It's almost Sisyphean. But I ask you this: were you not entertained? The world would be a less interesting place without Hillary Rodham Clinton. May she rest in peace.

Elitism? It's the stupid people, stupid!

2008-05-07T08:42:00.001-07:00

(Count the number of elitist words in this article.)

Why is liberalism often tied with elitism in American politics? What is it about elitism that bothers people? Jeff Greenfield, with help from George Orwell, has explored these questions, in a new article over on Slate.com. The answers are illuminating.

Ah, there I go. I used "illuminating" when I could have used "thoughtful." One is pretentious, the other is pedestrian. That is the basic difference between so-called elites and working-class, as Orwell explains in his 1937 book The Road to Wigan Pier, a look at working class life in the industrial heartlands of England before World War II.

In the first part of the book book Orwell goes inside the life of working class families. He does everything from famously descending into a coal mine and describing the working conditions, to commenting on the typical diet of a blue collar family. Greenfield's article is interested in the second part of the book. In it, Orwell states that these conditions are not acceptable, and that socialism could improve the lives of these families. But then, Orwell wonders, why are we not all socialists? The rest of the book attempts to answer this question.

It doesn't take too much effort to see the parallels between the setting of Orwell's book and the blue-collar districts Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are trying so hard to win. Why is Obama's elitist tag hurting him so much? Greenfield ties our modern elitism to Orwell's socialism. This works because blue collar voters rail against them for the same reasons. Orwell suggested that people do not argue against socialism for empirical reasons (another nice elitist term) but for more complex emotional reasons which most socialists fail to understand.

Greenfield gleans this and uncovers reasons why people today passionately balk against liberalism even though the system could benefit them. Orwell recognized how pretentious, arrogant people were contributing to socialism's negative reputation among more conventional people.

“...The food-crank is by definition a person willing to cut himself
off from human society in hopes of adding five years on to the life of
his carcase; that is, a person out of touch with common humanity.”

“One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ‘Socialism’ and
‘Communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice
drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’
quack, pacifist, and feminist in England."

(Hey, I'm not a nudist!)

"If only the sandals and the pistachio-colored shirts could be put in
a pile and burnt, and every vegetarian, teetotaler, and creeping Jesus
sent home to Welwyn Garden City to do his yoga exercises quietly!"

To read these lines, you'd think Orwell himself was anti-socialism. But he states very plainly that he is in favor of the system, but against many of its disciples. He put it this way, "As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."

I had never thought about it this way before. Over the last eight years of the Bush administration I have pondered why more people have not turned to liberalism in-light of what neoconservativism has brought on our country (and the rest of the world). But the problem is so many liberals are so damn annoying! And I'm one of them. It reminds me of the line from Annie Hall, "Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're
left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us
that way sometimes and I live here!"

But this explains a lot: from why people freak out when A-list (and B-list) Hollywood celebrities try to tell middle America how to live; to why Bill O'Reilly has a television show; to why the elitist tag is such an anathema. Oh, drat! Did I say "anathema" when I could have said "poison"?

That brings me to another reason Orwell found that people actively opposed socialism, namely the turgid (ding!) language employed by its followers. There are people who lace their speech with haughty words. Words like "haughty" or "nuance" or "notwithstanding." People who do that are probably also annoyingly liberal. They've probably never spent too much time in a mine shaft or working as a longshoreman. They probably sip their beer while they pontificate. They have as much in common with a blue class worker as my grandparents do with the digital age.

Ironically, socialism tends to suffer from the same thing that vexes (yes...vexes) it's more conservative cousin, fundamentalism. "The ordinary decent person," Orwell writes, "who is in sympathy with the essential aims of Socialism, is given the impression that there is no room for his kind in any Socialist party that means business." What's a reasonable voter to do?

During this democratic election there has been no shortness of pandering to the blue collar worker. Much has been made (another great elitist term: "Much has been made of...") of Obama's inability to connect with them, and Hillary's re-inventing herself as a working class hero (she's lived in every small town in Pennsylvania and Indiana). I have been surprised that such pandering has worked, after years of inaction by government to help them. This is the very thing Obama tried to explain in his disastrous San Francisco (ding!) talk on "bitter" middle America. And, with the help of Orwell, it's not hard to see why it was such a blunder. It's not that what he said was wrong. It's how he said it. It's how a vast group had been boiled down into a demographic, and quantified as an anthropological phenomenon.

I always felt there was a certain amount of play-acting among the most vocal liberals. I've also felt that I need to stop feeling and I need to start doing. Feelings are for elitists. Rolling up your sleeves, as our President has often done to clear so much brush at his Crawford ranch, is what connects with people. It's not that the liberal ideals are wrong, it's that you get the impression you need to change your whole lifestyle to believe them. It changes everything. You have to dress different. You have to act different. You have to grow a mustache and get all kinds of robes and lotions and you need a new bedspread and new curtains. You'd have to get thick carpeting and weirdo lighting. You'd have to get new friends. You'd have to get liberal friends. Most people aren't ready for all that.

The Contraditions of Christian Culture

2008-05-06T07:51:00.001-07:00

It's not often you read an essay that goes right to the core of what you've been thinking for the last fifteen years but just couldn't put your finger on it. Hanna Rosin over at Slate.com has done just that with her contemplative article on the marketing of Christian culture in America.

Her article is based around Daniel Radosh's book called Rapture Ready: Adventures in the Parallel Universe of Christian Pop Culture. If the title sounds whimsical, it's supposed to.

Rosin writes:

Reading Radosh's book is like coming across another planet hidden somewhere on Earth where everything is just exactly like it is here except blue or made out of plastic. Every American pop phenomenon has its Christian equivalent, no matter how improbable. And Radosh seems to have experienced them all.

Rosin mentions another section of the book where the author attends a Christian retail show where there are "rip-off trinkets of every kind"-- from My Little Ponies, to mood rings, to catchy Christian t-shirts subverting Madison Avenue taglines. Christianity has it all--from Christian rap, to Christian comedians, to sex-advice sites. The only problem is the core of all of those areas has been bored out, and replaced by a cheesy imitation. Christian rap, of course, has none of the inner city angst that makes actual rap so passionate. Christian comedians are just not funny. And Christian sex-advice sites are at best a joke and at worst unhealthy and dangerous. This brings up a huge flaw with American Christianity--the secular version is far more sincere and passionate and effective.

As one who was stepped in this culture for many years, I found Rosin's article to be both succinct and accurate in its portrayal. I always had a nagging sense of disappointment as I watched something that was supposed to be divine and eternal inflated and manipulated like a clown's balloon animal. It reminded me of the time a recruiter from a Christian college came to my youth group. His "promotion" of higher education involved sticking a rubber glove on his head and acting like a chicken. The point was--Christian college is fun, it's cool, it's safe!

This was the tip of the iceberg as I descended into a sort of fabricated hell where kids wore shirts, listened to music, read books, watched movies, that all were a sort of a sedated and Christianized version of American pop culture. There was something disingenuous and inauthentic to it all. Why should I have been surprised when these kids were also living disingenuous and inauthentic Christian lives. They were no better equipped and thus no different than kids who did not participate in this masquerade. All too often these kids got pregnant by teen-aged boyfriends who were too ignorant to even consider using protection. Their whole lives had been set up to be shallow, and irresponsible.

The title of Radosh's book is intentionally whimsical. The divine has been created after pop culture's image, rather than the other way around. This is entertaining to many. But it's also dangerous. It leads to a type of shadow existence that has no basis in reality. As Rosin says Christian pop culture creates an "eternal oxymoron."

The Obama's Journey

2008-05-04T08:42:00.000-07:00

In myth and literature disperate heroes often take a similiar path. Professor Joseph Campell first quantified then popularized this in his landmark book "The Hero With a Thousand Faces." In that book the monomyth is outlined in five steps: a call to adventure, a road of trials, achieving the goal, a return to the ordinary world, and applying the boon. Abraham, Herculeus, and Luke Skywalker were all given a call to a journey, they all faced trials, grew, changed, overcame, and applied. If Senator Obama's journey were to be put onto this continuum the last few weeks would inevitably been seen as his time of trials.

Barack Obama came from almost nothing, an obscure, mixed background, rose through academia, and eventually through politics. He accepted the call to seek the Presidency of the United States in the face of incredible odds. His meteoric rise was the stuff of legended, unchecked. It blazed its own path like a Roy Hobb's fastball. But then his tests truely began.

Questions of his patriotism arose when his pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright was seen on YouTube condemning America. Obama dispatched this controversy, like the killing of the many-headed hydra. But when he turned his back the heads grew back as before and struck. Who could have written that narrative? That a man Obama once considered a mentor would turn on his prodigy and attempt to strike a fatal blow? Et tu, Brute?

Wright siezed his moment in the national spotlight, gave a series of inflamitory interviews from Bill Moyers to an appearance before the National Press Club, at incredible and incalculable expense to Obama's campaign. The last thing the Senator from Illinois needed as his outspoken minister re-connecting him to fringe elements of society. Once again Obama was put to the test.

This time he repudiated.

His anger was broiling just under the surface, seething at the betrayal. As he explained on "Meet the Press" this morning, his decision to finally and unequivicabbly disavow his pastor was the result of Wright's decision to "double down" on his previous statements. Where Obama had once given the minister the benefit of the doubt, the minister took the opening to increase the doubt in voter's minds about Obama's judgement and perception of America.

The father had turned on the son, and the son had to strike him down.

Obama called Wright's interviews a "specticle." And used further strong language painting Wright's positions as absurd and outrageous. If it was Wright's goal to restore his self-image, Obama did him far greater harm than he had ever done himself.

What people like about Obama is that he seems reasonable and thoughtful. He is a man of incredible talent but it is also doled out in even-measurements. What people cannot stand about Rev. Wright and fanatical religion is that there is no limit. It assimiliates everything in its path into one perspective--an iron-clad black-and-white snare that allows for no grey areas, no real judgment.

Rev. Wright reprents so much of what is positive about religion--as an empowering force to for good in society, as represented by his church's community outreach and prison ministry. But he also represents so much of what is wrong with religion--an almost total disregard for anyone outside of its path, a source for division, and a catalyst for hatred. In this, Rev. Wright makes a compelling villian in our story--one with a nature that afflicts us all: the duality of man.

A Rocket in his pocket

2008-04-28T15:59:00.000-07:00

Roger "The Rocket" Clemens is the gift that just keeps on giving; figuratively and literally.

Figuratively: as the source of many "juicy" news stories over the last six months since he became indelibly linked to doping via the Mitchell Report.

Lierally: as the guy "rogering" country music singer Mindy McCready in a 10 year long affair.

As Mel Allen would say, "How about that?!"

The New York Daily News broke the story early this morning.

Rev. Wright's PR Campaign

2008-04-26T23:06:00.000-07:00

Ever since he became a household name for his inflammatory sermons, Rev. Wright has been hard at work restoring his reputation. Apparently thumbing his nose at the free PR and the chance to have one of his own parishioners, and fellow African American, elected President of the United States, Rev. Wright feels it's more important to clear his good name.

In the vast scheme of things not that many people knew who Rev. Wright was before his sermons surfaced on YouTube and tagged Presidential hopeful Barack Obama with a campaign-changing blow. And, over the course of a few months, his name would have quietly faded into the background. Most Americans no-doubt were able to accurately parse his message, put it in proper context, and move on with their lives. The fringe 20% never would have got it anyway.

So, why is Wright working so hard to restore his image, at the potential expense of Senator Obama's? I'm sure the answer to this lies in the inherent narcissism and greatly exaggerated sense of self importance most ministers suffer from. Wright has been called everything from crazy to anti-American. And I say: so what? The man has a lifetime of Christian service on one side of the scales and a few minutes of YouTube on the other. Is it fair? No. And it's not unprecedented either.

Interestingly enough, Jesus went misunderstood to the point of crucifixion, as did most of his early followers to execution. Central to the Christian message is that you may never be rewarded for your good work here on earth but you will be rewarded in heaven. Thus, work that much harder, and don't concern yourself with the temporary recognition. It was that type of motive that allowed Jesus to say "by their fruits you will recognize them." And Paul to say, "Work as if you were not serving people but the Lord." Wright's ministry speaks for itself, and the people he has helped stand for themselves. Nothing can take that away, and the rest shouldn't matter.

But such "turn the other cheek" advice flies in the face of ministers who helm mega-churches, and have private lines to presidents (Rev. Wright counseled Bill and Hilary Clinton). In those cases the image is what matters; it is everything. The brand is the very bread these ministers live on. Why else do they work feverishly to keep the outside of tomb clean?

Wright was always Obama's biggest liability. And when things exploded, Obama deftly handled the issue by giving an uplifting and empowering speech on the subject of race. It was perhaps his greatest moment so far, and one of the finest of any politician in the last 50 years. In doing so Obama did not repudiate his longtime pastor, or disown him for the trouble he had caused. Instead he referred to him as family, walking a fine line between understanding and agreement. Obama had done himself an obvious political favor, but not at the cost of the very person who had become his one liability. Wright, on the other hand, in a recent interview with Bill Moyers, stated flatly that Obama was speaking as a politician--saying what needed to be said to a specific audience.

Wright put together a solid career as a pastor, and prior military service as a Marine, and, most importantly, a life of integrity as a Christian. His legacy will stand in Chicago, and in the black community, regardless of anything he says on PBS or in other national interviews. Rev. Wright may have been handed an injustice, after all his service, but it pales in comparison to what other Christians have had to suffer for Christ. And the greater injustice would be to undermine Obama's image for the sake of his own. Obama's stage is national. Wright is in the hands of God. Obama, unfortunately, must be judged by men.

RBI Baseball: 1986 World Series, Game 6

2008-04-24T07:22:00.000-07:00

I found this gem on YouTube. For baseball fans it has it all: game 6 of the 86 World Series, Vin Scully doing the play-by-play, and the Nintendo classic RBI Baseball.

The call that would haunt Red Sox fans for the next 18 years:

"Little roller up along first.... behind the bag!"

Pennsylvania returns to dustbin of history

2008-04-23T21:01:00.000-07:00

"Well, that was fun while it lasted," said Herb McCullum, a laid off factory worker from Allentown.

Somewhere, a big dog barked.

Cubs World Series watch: first place

2008-04-22T15:59:00.000-07:00

The Cubs World Series watch, which has been active for the last 100 years, has been officially switched on for 2008. The Cubs are now on top of the NL Central (and it's April) thanks to their best start since 1975 with a record of 14-6. They have 13 wins in 16 games.

Lest anyone thinks I am jinxing my beloved team, Cubby Ronny Cedeno has already initiated that by actually saying, outloud, yesterday, that the Cubs are thinking about the World Series. Young and impudent. That's what we need. Stare into the abyss and laugh. Ignorance of Cubs tragedies past is bliss.

Springsteen endorses Obama

2008-04-16T15:48:00.000-07:00

Today Barack Obama received the endorsement that matters the most: from The Boss himself, Bruce Springsteen. Springsteen threw his hat into the ring with an endorsement of Senator Obama from his webpage.

Like most of you, I've been following the campaign and I have now seen and heard enough to know where I stand. Senator Obama, in my view, is head and shoulders above the rest.

He has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next President. He speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that's interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where "...nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone."

Many are speculating that Springsteen’s endorsement was prompted by Obama’s recent comments on “bitter” small town America, and his consequentially being tagged as “elitist” by the Clinton campaign.

At the moment, critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships. While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man's life and vision, so well described in his excellent book, Dreams of My Father, often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment.

The small town voter has come to the forefront in the Democratic nomination in the shadow of the upcoming Pennsylvania primary. Pennsylvania is a state that once relied heavily on manufacturing and has been hard hit over the past twenty years due to economic changes. Across the country, as in Pennsylvania, many are expressing uncertainty over the course of the country, specifically economic woes, and the war in Iraq.

To this Springsteen lends his voice as one who has made his name writing about the struggles of struggles of average Americans perhaps most memorably in his hit “Born in the U.S.A.” a stinging tale of the hardships suffered by returning Vietnam veterans. The song is about a boy from a “dead man’s town” who breaks the law, is sent to the Army, winds up in Vietnam, and can’t find a job when he returns. Sound familiar?

I got in a little hometown jam
And so they put a rifle in my hands
Sent me off to Vietnam
To go and kill the yellow man

Come back home to the refinery
Hiring man says "Son if it was up to me…"
I go down to see the V.A. man
He said "Son don't you understand?”

Those are the kind of great lyrics and sentiment that has endeared Springsteen to millions of working class Americans. He represents them and Hillary has Elton John.

As Springsteen himself said, "Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President."
And his message to Hillary?

"Give that big final good luck and goodbye to your all time top-five and just move on down the road."

Amen.

Penn voters on Obama's comments: No big thing

2008-04-14T19:37:00.000-07:00

The media is making a big deal out of Obama's comments that small town America "clings" to the values it finds familiar. Aparantly the people in small towns across Pennsylvania don't see what all the fuss is about.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/ap_on_el_pr/pennsylvania_bitter_voters

Tiger to Win Masters

2008-04-09T16:13:00.000-07:00

The Masters, the immutable, official, indisputable beginning of Spring, beings tomorrow. Forecasts here are for 39 degrees with a mix of rain and snow. That is why they play The Masters in Augusta, Georgia, and why I have to use a high level of symbolism to begin my Spring.

The question in this year's Masters is not so much who will win, but will Tiger Woods win? And I'm here to answer that for you: yes, yes he will. You see, Tiger is not like you or me. He wins Masters and he is a master. I bow to him and his golf game. I remember three years ago sitting on the couch and watching the Masters, Woods came back to win on Sunday, capping the tournament off by willing his putted ball with a determined stare into the cup after it had stopped rolling. That's the type of metaphysical power possessed by masters, and by a person who can win a Master when he wants to.

Alright, so there's that. You heard it here first, right? Tiger to win Masters.

A lot of people are protesting the Olympic torch running because the Olympics are going to be in Beijing, China this year and China is evil. People protest this evil by throwing rocks at wheelchair bound torch carriers. I don't understand the higher wisdom at play in this, but maybe Tiger can explain it. He would, but he's too busy channeling energy into his golf clubs. I certainly can't explain it, because, unlike Tiger, my wisdom and power is finite.

But as far as I can gather, people are upset about China hosting the Olympics because China has a long and uncontested track record of crushing human rights, much the way the Soviet hockey team used to crush all comers. This crushing is exemplified by China's stance on Tibet, which it seized and assimilated in 1951, and recently has re-invaded and harassed. To that we all wish a speedy return to an autonomous Tibet on the world stage. Then, and only then, will the Dalai Lama stop being the giggly plaything of super-rich movie stars. This is why we protest. Big hitter, that Lama.

But when did the Olympics, a tradition created by a warring society that held slaves, become a human rights symbol? The ancient Olympics were a series of contests where men competed naked, and, if they lost, were often assaulted. Games were basically metaphorical extensions of battlefield contests between city-states. Winning was held in such high regard that the contestants often cheated. There was an elaborate protocol for pederasty. If you won the javelin toss you received a laurel wreath and a supple young boy. This, to me, seems an unlikely source for humanism and national unity. But that brings us to the one force more powerful than Tiger Woods, and The Lama himself: capitalism.

When big business and corporate sponsorship seized and assimilated the Olympics what was fashioned was the pristine image of the games as a symbol of unity and idealism. This is the modern Olympics. The "games" as we know it: where doped up athletes strive ever faster and higher, where kids held captive by oppressive parents and coaches are unleashed to compete for the world's love, and where people scale tall bridges to hang banners of protest, and haze the torch carriers.

Now, let us find inner peace and reconcile the three formerly irreconcilable elements--golf, Tibet and the Olympics--with the help of the movie "Caddyshack."

I jump a ship in Hong Kong and make my way over to Tibet, and I get on as a looper at the course over in the Himalayas. A looper, you know, a caddy, a looper, a jock. So, I tell them I'm a pro jock, and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama, himself Twelfth some of the Lame. The flowing robes, the grace, bald...striking. So, I'm on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one -- big hitter, the Lama -- long into a ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier.

Do you know what the Lama says? "Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-galunga."

So, we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know."

And he says, "Oh, uh, there wont be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness."

So, I got that goin' for me, which is nice.

U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches 4,000

2008-03-24T05:45:00.001-07:00

Hillary's "sniper fire" story earns four pinocchios

2008-03-23T10:13:00.000-07:00

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." --Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.

The Washington Post's Fact Checker column has soundly debunked this entertaining, but fictional recollection.

"Clinton's tale of landing at Tuzla airport 'under sniper fire' and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios."

Here we see Hillary (and Chelsea) landing under sniper fire:

Richardson endorses Obama

2008-03-21T07:40:00.000-07:00

It's nice to see a high visibility member of the Democratic party putting it on the line and endorsing a candidate during a close nomination. No, I'm not talking about Al Gore or John Edwards. Those two so-called leaders are playing it close to the vest, no-doubt waiting to see which way things break before they take a stand. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson on the other hand put his hat in the ring for Barack Obama today.

During such a tight nomination key endorsements from high ranking Democrats are crucial for either candidate. Richardson has been relentlessly wooed by Obama and Clinton for his endorsement. As a Democratic "super" delegate, the governor plays a part in the tight race for nominating votes and could bring other superdelegates to Obama's side. He also has been mentioned as a potential running mate for either candidate.

Obama steps ahead

2008-03-19T17:29:00.000-07:00

To my liberal friends, and you know who you are, you were right about Obama. Those who introduced me to him after the 2004 Democratic convention. Those who called him a rising star. Those who said he was something special. If the matter was in any doubt, he dispelled it Tuesday morning with a speech on race. A speech unlike anything any of my peers have seen in our lifetime.

Part lawyer, part community organizer, part philosopher, part black, part white, part father, part husband, Obama brought all sides to bear on the issue of race, turned the matter on its head, and extended the discussion into a new era. He cast his vision for this country, a vision that does not avoid the issue of race, but talks about it honestly.

I like what Thomas Mann from the Brooking’s institution said. “It was honest, frank, measured in tone, inclusive and hopeful. I don't know whether it will be sufficient to stem a racial backlash against his candidacy, but he clearly demonstrated today his capacity to lead public opinion and not simply be a slave to it. Indeed, I would say he appeared wise beyond his years and genuinely presidential.”

I liked how he stood there bravely, talked about the issue, and challenged us all to recognize it but also to continue progressing into the future. I have a lot of friends who are disgusted with the slow pace of change in this country. Their frustrations are warranted, but the point is that we can move forward and we are moving forward. It is not easy to progress with 300 million people each with different background and different dreams. It takes time. But that we can move forward is the genius of this amazing country.

I think Barack Obama will have his work cut out for him in the general election. It is far too easy to be zealously and single-mindedly patriotic and black and white. Far too many people find cold comfort in such singletons. Obama sees the complexity of society and does not shy away from it but finds, in it’s myriad of issues and colors and dreams, America.

America is the Rev. Wrights, and the Geraldine Ferraros, and the John McCains, and even the George W. Bushes. It’s the evangelicals and the agnostics. And if we are to solve our problems it will take us all, embracing not our differences but our commonalities.

I’ve always liked that approach by Obama as opposed to Hillary’s more narrow raging-bull approach to change. She comes across as strident, overconfident, and, in McLuhan terms, too hot. She’s off-putting to many because if you’re not with her you’re her enemy and, like the first Clinton administration, that often leads to stalemate. She’s the flip side to the George W. Bush coin that goes nowhere.

Good for Obama for engaging us on a level commiserate with our responsibility. He confronted a systemic problem head-on in a way few could. Did his speech answer everything? No, and it wasn't meant to. It was meant to move the discussion to a higher plane and it did. And it was the most anyone could have said about race and this country in a short speech. It's hard to imagine how it could have been said any better.

Surely, it showed a reasoned and thoughtful individual who said what he said not to impress or to pander or to collect votes, but to enhance understanding. He came out and cast a vision, and showed us how he sees our history and our future, and in the process he proved he is ready to lead. Without a doubt it transcended other politicians in my lifetime, including those currently running against Obama. Those who have neither experienced nor pondered systemic issues in this country. They do not know them, and would never dare to address them, and therefore they do not clearly see the opportunities.

Getting fooled again

2008-03-16T07:57:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago Frank Rich wrote a column in the New York times that, among other things, compared Hillary Clinton to George W. Bush in managerial style and judgment. Since then Hillary has unleashed what has become known as the "kitchen sink" strategy, dubbed for throwing everything available at front-runner Barack Obama. The strategy, though wide-ranging, is surprisingly simplistic in its approach. The main component of the plan is also Bushian in nature.

One could make the argument that the Bill Clinton nomination in 1992 elevated campaign tactics to a new level--with the induction of a 24/7 "war room" to handle press questions and disseminate negative information on opponent George H.W. Bush. The elder Bush appeared slow and weak, while the Clintons stayed ahead of the attack curve. These tactics did not go unnoticed by the Republican party which took eight years to catch up. By 2000 Bush junior was vying for the White House, and at his side were people like Karl Rove who could not only cripple other Republican candidates, but negate Democratic heavyweights like Vice President Al Gore.

After 9/11 those Rovian tactics found their muse in the form of shadowy terrorists, rogue nations, axises of evil, and illegal immigrants--all things nebulous, subversive and alien--designed to scare the hell out of white America and drive them to the polls to vote for those who could save them. The Clintons, eying the White House again in 2008, have shown themselves exceptional political students. As Barack Obama gained momentum they got busy sowing the seeds of fear and tapping into white America's unrelenting xenophobia.

First, Bill Clinton rejected Obama's win in South Carolina as purely racial--noting that even Jessie Jackson won there not once, but twice. Then, after a lackluster Super Tuesday in-which Hillary not only did not win the nomination, lost her lead among delegates, the Clintons focused on Texas and Ohio and began scaring the daylights out of blue collar white workers.

Pictures of Obama in native Kenyan garb appeared on the Drudge Report. (Drudge claims they arrived via the Clinton camp.)

Meanwhile, the Clintons began painting the good citizens of Ohio and Texas as unfortunate victims of outsourcing.

Too painful to admit reality, that jobs have been lost because labor workers priced themselves out of the market and did not make themselves competitive enough, job losses were instead attributed to NAFTA, the evil trade agreement that allows our products to be made by Mexicans. Never mind that those Mexicans often work in appalling conditions with no insurance so we can, and do, buy their productions on the cheap. And never mind that NAFTA itself was enacted by the Clintons. As we have discovered over the last eight years the discontent and anger of the scared white voter knows no reason and no bounds.

Finally, there was the "red phone" add White children are sleeping soundly in their beds, yet something is amiss. Mom is alert, peering into their rooms to make sure everything is fine. But outside, somewhere, something is happening. There is a burglar in the proverbial bushes. The hedgerow surrounding the suburban house has been breached. Barbarians lurk at the gates. But fear not, Hillary Clinton is there to take the call and avert a national crisis of some unknown origin.

Hillary, vowed to go to Washington and fight. Against what, no one is really sure, but that's not the point. There's a lot of anger out there, a lot of uncertainty. It's the type of thing that can give fruit to an Iraq war, and give reason to a candidate gone mad. Barack Obama may just be the candidate who represents too much uncertainty. While Hillary has been a familiar white face we have recognized all these years.

And to no big surprise, all of this all worked. Obama's momentum was halted and both Ohio and Texas swung Hillary's way.

This week, Geraldine Ferraro dismissal of Obama as a flavor-of-the-month candidate. She ruminated that this month the flavor is black, and America is "caught up in this concept" as she said. To think that this statement, by a well-handled, politically savvy trailblazer was not intentional is to be totally ignorant.

And that brings me to Obama's minster, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose name alone not only sounds concocted but hearkens back to the Salem witch trials. Imagine Obama's misfortune at having to attend a church for twenty years where the minister shouts things like "God damn America!" from the pulpit. Obama has every right to attend what ever church he wants, and the rhetoric of Rev. Wright, which resonates with so many disillusioned African Americans, may be what keeps Obama grounded. There are millions who are hurting and broken and Wright taps into that spirit and Obama listens. Still, that comes with a steep price when white America begins listening in.

What does Wright have to do with Clinton? It plays right into her tactics. The Wright issue is huge, and any Obama supporter had better understand that. It is huge for the very reasons I mention above. As Obama himself pointed out in the wake of the Ferraro attack, "I think that if anybody was looking for the quickest path to the presidency, they would not say 'I want to be an African-American man named Barack Obama.' I do not think that is in the handbook for running for president."'

Obama says this for good reason. If there is any doubt about the precarious chances an African-American faces when getting elected to a federal position, one only needs to look back on the voting history of this country. Then, give that person a foreign-sounding name. A name so atypical all you have to do is say it to make the many whites cringe. Barack Hussein Obama.

And Now that very person is introducing himself to the country, and is, to many, a man educated in a madrassa, a man who when in Kenya does as the Kenyans do, a man who happily attends a radical black church. He has been painted that way not just by bigoted and agitated right-wing radio hosts but also by the Clinton campaign. This was a calculated ploy to show Clinton as the more trustworthy candidate. Because, in-comparison to Clinton, who seemingly has been around forever (many would say far too long!) Obama is the unknown. To many nervous white voters he is becoming a shadowy and therefore untrustworthy candidate.

You could tell in his rebuke of the Rev. Wright Obama knew he was walking a fine line between a black community with whom most of Wright's message resonates with, and a white community that finds the comments deplorable. So, what is a man of God to do? What Obama should have done was not put Wright on his staff, and should have done as much as he could to distance himself from what he knew, even a year ago, was a potential problem. One wonders what asset Wright was for Obama that outweighed his obvious liability. Maybe Obama was a little stunned at how distasteful his minister sounded to many Americans. Not good when many will rely on what they think they know rather than the unknown. A perfect voting block for calculating politicians.

Ferarro and Fairwell

2008-03-12T16:16:00.000-07:00

Geraldine Ferraro is back, relishing her second chance at the limelight after emerging from the dustbin of history. Once again the former Vice Presidential candidate is doing meaningful interviews on television shows with actual ratings, while offering her political acumen and support to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Ferraro’s latest remark was a racially tinged comment about Barack Obama. A comment which, when viewed in the light of history, makes absolutely no sense and sounds so overwhelmingly condescending and divisive it’s hard to believe anyone who considers themselves progressive could harbor any room for it in their minds. Even an obsolete progressive mind.

”If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she told the Daily Breeze, a California newspaper.

That statement may or may not be offensive, but it’s certainly a stupid thing to say. So stupid it is probably even be sane and deliberate. That may show how nutty this whole nomination process has gotten. By the time it’s over I’m not sure if anyone will have the mental capacity to be president.

Deliberate or not, it's hard to take her statement, that it’s an advantage to be African American in politics, seriously at all given our country’s election track record since reconstruction. Also, as many have also pointed out, any advantage a black man like Obama gains from consolidating the black vote is met equally by uncertainty from non-black voters.

That someone in a campaign said something crazy in a campaign is nothing new. But it’s that this whole process has become insane. I still can’t figure out why we need “super” delegates to save us from ourselves. They are at best rubber stampers or at worst unwanted judges in the democratic process. I still can’t figure out why any Democratic nominee needs 2025 delegates rather than a simple majority. And I can’t figure out why Michigan and Florida may re-vote after violating the rules and knowing their re-vote wont matter much anyway.

The press keeps spinning this process as if we’re not sure what is going to happen in the nomination process. They have to do that to have something to talk about every night. But what we do know is that Barack Obama will have the majority of delegates going into the DNC convention in Colorado. Only a miracle can stop that. The Michigan and Florida recounts will only add a few delegates to Hillary’s total and if she wins in Pennsylvania it will only had a few more. So what we do know then is that Hillary’s only chance of getting the nomination is to steal it away from the will of the people—to go into the convention and urge enough “super” delegates to vote for her.

And if that happens the Democrats will have effectively disillusioned blacks for years to come—after they have thrown the party their support all these years. The Democrats will also have disregarded the youth vote, which has turned out in record numbers this year for Obama. Whether or not they are prepared to go to the “nuclear option” for the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton remains to be seen. But a sane people like Ferraro are sounding more like loose cannons every day for their cause.

Perhaps that’s how Mrs. Clinton can offer, with a straight face, the vice presidential slot to Obama, the nominee who is winning, and will win the most delegates.

Still, why anyone would take someone like Ferraro seriously in 2008 is another mystery to me. When my grandma says something off-base I pay it no mind, even if she once was a powerful business woman. That was then, this is now. And with Ferarro I'm reminded of the Rodney Dangerfield line: you must have been something before electricity. In 1984 Americans wanted Reagan. Ferraro helped the Democrats lose a record 49 states in the election. In 2008 Americans want change. Ferraro hasn't changed her hair style in a quarter of a century. I think it may be time to call it a career.

I know many, many conservatives who are thoroughly enjoying how petty, and divisive, and indecisive the Democrats appear to be during this nomination. Liberals want to run the country? They can’t even figure out what to do with Florida and Michigan. These people are the non-fascist of the two political parties? Why do we have even a threat that “super” delegates may override all our votes? Not only do they seem to be no less enlightened then their Republican distant relatives, but they seem incapable of even picking a candidate.

I just can’t see how the Clintons are worth all this trouble. When Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize last fall liberals were titillated with the idea that he might run for president. That’s why I was never convinced Hillary had enough support. Liberals were salivating at the idea of Gore running. Gore. When Obama stepped up people couldn’t wait to get behind him and leave Hillary. He was the breath of fresh air they were all looking for.

But now what’s rightfully Hillary's is about to be lost, something she waited for all these years, even through her husband’s humiliating infidelity. And if she has to steal it to make all that suffering and calculating and waiting worthwhile, well, you can see how all of that could make someone a little crazy.

But for now, for Ferraro, it’s fun to be relevant again. Today, Ferraro dug her heels in and said, “Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist. I will not be discriminated against because I'm white. If they think they're going to shut up Geraldine Ferraro with that kind of stuff, they don't know me."

There will be no backing down. There will be blood. But I think the best thing we can do for Hillary and Geraldine is to give them a nice long vacation, and, soon, no more attention.

UPDATE
Mrs. Ferraro has resigned her post as of this afternoon.

Larry David bashes Hillary

2008-03-07T08:42:00.000-08:00

Larry David has a short and blistering column over on Huffington Post commenting on the Hillary phone ad.

There have been times in this campaign when she seemed so unhinged that I worried she'd actually kill herself if she lost. Every day, she reminds me more and more of Adele H., who also had an obsession that drove her insane.

Read the whole thing here.

Personally, I think she's nuts. Really. I'm in 100% agreement with him.

Breaking: Prince Harry's hair way out of regs

2008-02-28T09:41:00.000-08:00

For Hillary, conspiracies everywhere

2008-02-27T09:00:00.000-08:00

We've seen all sides of Senator Hillary Clinton over the last year--the side that is happy when winning, and the side that whines when losing. I was struck last night by her performance in the final Democratic debate--starting off so strong and then derailing herself by complaining that the moderators were being too hard on her. It was almost a microcosm of her entire campaign.

And if you missed it, here's the clip.

Awkward.

Not to mention her complaint against MSNBC making her "go first" twice in a row was as senseless as her complaints about Barack Obama being all style and no substance. Clinton wanted to prove she was a fighter, but there she was also battling the press. She batted the first question on health care around for most of the first 16 minutes making Obama look a little slow. She was doing fine. I thought to myself--this is a good tactic. Don't even let him talk. Run the ball, eat up the clock. And then she got a chance to answer the 2nd question first. And I honestly though--they're playing right into her hands.

And, rather than seizing it, and keeping Obama on the ropes, she complained about how unfair it was to go first twice in a row. Wha? Obama was obviously dying to talk and by not being able to go first he couldn't set the tone like she could. But she just had to get that odd jab in there, obviously written by some handler. Tina Fey? Saturday Night Live? Saturday Night Live hasn't been relevant for 15 years at least.

And it was passive aggressive complaint at that--that she found it curious she had to go first twice but was "happy to do so." What? No, you weren't happy, that's why you're complaining, right? The dark side of Hillary came out, seeing conspiracies everywhere. Is this the kind of president we want?

I was reminded of the George Packer article on Obama and Clinton from the New Yorker:

When I described to Greg Craig the Clinton campaign’s skepticism toward the idea of transcending partisanship, he said, “You’re getting to that five per cent of Hillary that I don’t like—which is to see in every corner a conspiracy or an opponent that must be crushed. Look at her comment ‘Now the fun part starts’ ”—Clinton’s announcement in Iowa that she would begin attacking Obama’s record. “There is a quality of playing the embattled, beleaguered victim that I find unappealing and depressing.” He added, “I want a President who is looking to move the country with positive inspirational ideas rather than to fight off the bad guys and proclaim victory by defeating the forces of reaction. I would like us to inspire the forces of reaction to join us in treating people better, and lifting more vulnerable people and people in jeopardy out of their vulnerability and jeopardy.”

I was so surprised that Hillary, knowing those are her weak points, would emphasize them in the debate. But she can't help herself. She has been spurned on prom night. She has been left at the alter. And now, conspiracies are everywhere.

Obama did not have a great debate. He let her filibuster on and on and he seemed to be subdued and tired. But he was dignified. Compared with his poise her blatherings seemed to border on the lunatic fringe. She may be brilliant, but that last 5% of her is so unlikeable it will cost her 100% of the nomination. You can see why 40% of Americans would never vote for her.
Even when she was the presumptive nominee there was a type of malaise about it among Democrats. It turns out we were just waiting for the right person to come along. And it's not her.