A Less Wordy Venue

To those watching/reading, I've decided to move shop to http://logicshouldcountformore.blogspot.com. I think that rolls off the tongue (and mind) a little easier. I'd be grateful if you'd follow me there.

The Movies That Never Were

Some say that the advent of DVD and the mainstreaming of "special features" has changed the way we watch movies. This is both accurate and unfortunate. Before DVD, when Laserdisc was the aficionados' format of choice, commentaries and other features were similarly aimed at aficionados. Moreover, because the movies that got this kind of enhanced treatment tended to be acknowledged classics, the additional material was often of scholarly interest presented by film historians as often as lead actors.

DVD changed that dynamic very quickly. Not only did prices start relatively low on the software, with just a $5-10 premium over the same title on VHS being commonplace, the hardware also dropped rapidly in price. From the mainstream introduction of the format in 1997 to 2000, players went from costing hundreds of dollars to under $100 for a decent quality machine. Crossing that $100 threshold seemed to break a psychological barrier with consumers as well, because within a few years VHS would be all but extinct.

Certainly, a big part of that shift was the simple fact that the sound and picture were much better than VHS (though not as good as Laserdisc, according to many), but the special features were also a key selling point. Sometimes they seemed to be only selling point, something I saw firsthand as a video buyer for Borders when movies (e.g. 1998's Lost in Space) often would be solicited to us more on the basis of the bonus features than the sub-par movies whose names were on the case.

Which brings us back to the question of whether special features are really a good thing for movie watchers. I've always had mixed feelings about special features. The behind-the-scenes programs are generally self-congratulatory puff-pieces, the deleted scenes reveal themselves to be deleted for a reason and then there are the Death Star of bonus features, director (and/or writer/producer/actor) commentaries. It takes a lot of work to make a movie, even a bad one, but the fact is that for all their hard work most of these people just aren't very interesting in this context.

To the extent that commentaries are interesting, it's usually when the participants talk about how the movie as produced differed from the original intention. It's here that we find the most vexing aspect of DVD special features, rather than adding dimension to the movie on the DVD, they tend to focus attention more on some alternate version of the movie that never was. If it's not deleted scenes showing us things whose removal typically make the movie better, it's a writer telling us in an interview or (worse yet) a commentary about changes that were made to their original vision. Whether or not those changes made the movie better or worse, the bottom line is that they're still talking about a movie that doesn't exist.

This wouldn't be so bad if DVD special special features weren't the focus of so much of what passes for film criticism these days. Even in major newspapers, which should know better, it's not uncommon for "reviews" to spend 90% of their text assessing the DVD features and barely 10% addressing why the film is worth talking about in the first place (as in the Washington Post's recent review of Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times).

One of the silver linings of the current shift to viewing movies online is that special features seem to be less of a focus. While I'm not sure that computer screens or Internet-enabled TVs are the best way to to get a film to a viewer, a process that puts the focus back on the work itself feels like a step in the right direction.

How's That For a "Government Takeover"?

What I'd really like for Christmas is for the shameless and unsubstantiated right-wing lies about "government takeovers" of seemingly everything will start falling on deaf ears. Seriously, it's stunning how oblivious a large chunk of the public is about the reality of these things. As the "tea party" crowd heaps lie upon lie about nationalizing GM or banks, it stuns me how few people realize that these government loans are being paid back with interest. I certainly agree that he government taking ownership stakes in private companies is less than ideal, but surely any sensible person can see these were exceptional (i.e. exceptionally bad) circumstances. More to the point, what was the preferable alternative to the government bail-out of GM? The Obama administration has taken so much flack for not paying enough attention to the dire employment situation, that it's beyond offensive that hose same critics turn around and criticize a measure that clearly saved jobs - ascribing political motives because many of those jobs were in a union that tends to lean Democratic. On reflection, the driving force behind this is actually quite simple. If the right wing pundits actually had an honest debate on the facts, they'd lose. Merry Christmas, America!

A Christmas Story for Recovering Cynics

Here's a Christmas trifle that involves no actual eating of trifle. I love the idea of Santa Claus and what he represents. At the same time, Christmas is still a day of sadness for so many. I wanted to see if I could split the difference in script form.

That You, Santa? (DPK 2010)

SAM stumbles into her living room with an unwieldy box, which she sets it down before sitting down herself.

SAM: Why didn’t I buy this pre-assembled?

Something, or rather someone, drops down the chimney. Some call him Santa but tonight he goes by NICK.

NICK: Oh, oh, oh!

Nick dusts himself off then looks around and sees Sam.

NICK: What are you doing here?

SAM: It’s my house!

NICK: Well, it’s Christmas Eve, and I have work to do.

SAM: As you can see, so do I.

NICK: Yes, but…you’re not supposed to be here right now. It’s against the tradition.

SAM: So is spending all of Christmas day putting toys together. I need to do this tonight.

Neither of them says anything for a moment.

NICK: Very well, just please stay out of my way.

SAM: That’s not so jolly.

NICK: I’m sure I can find another home for these presents. Your son wasn’t at the top of the “nice” list.

SAM: All right, all right, I was just trying to spread some cheer.

NICK: That’s my department.

SAM: Yeah, I guess it is. Pardon me a minute.

Sam opens the box and takes out the contents, while Nick goes back over to the chimney.

NICK: Donner, 825-Alpha-Two-X-Minus-1.

Something new drops down, which Nick catches.

NICK: Prancer, 297-Delta-Three-Stroke-Seven.

Another item drops, into Nick’s hands.

Nick: Vixen, 621-Omega-Four-Slash-Two.

The process repeats and nick takes the items over to the tree.

SAM: Damn it!

NICK: Something wrong?

SAM: There’s a part missing.

NICK: Which one?

SAM: There’s supposed to be a curved part that’s supposed to go here.

NICK: Oh yes, hold on a moment.

Nick walks back over to the chimney.

NICK: Blitzen, 536-Charlie-Four-Oblique-Dash-Zeta.

A smaller item drops into Nick’s hand.

NICK: This should do it.

SAM: Thanks.

NICK: You’re welcome, spare parts are essential in my line of work.

SAM: I guess they would be.

NICK: Make sure you put a tag on that so he’ll know it’s from you not me.

SAM: It’ll be fine, really.

NICK: You don’t care for the season, do you?

SAM: What does that matter?

NICK: It matters to me. It’s what I do, Sam.

SAM: It isn’t about a present, in case you’re wondering.

NICK: I know.

Sam gets up and doesn’t say anything for a moment.

SAM: The funny thing is that it was easier when she first left. They’d told me the
year before that there wasn’t any…well, you. So, I knew there was no magic in Christmas. It was just another day, just as likely to bring disappointment as any other, so I didn’t have a reason to be angry - or even care. Then, after Martin was born, you did that sponsorship deal so we knew you were real, and the day was magic, just not for me. I don’t want to be angry at you. You always gave me great stuff.

NICK: You always deserved it.

SAM: Thank you. I just…the loss was easier when there was no you, and no Martin, and no need for the day to be special. But there is now, and I want the day to be magic for him, but I still feel like I’m lying to him.

NICK: The day is always magic, Sam. But some things are beyond that, no matter how hard we wish it otherwise.

SAM: Easy for you to say.

NICK: It’s not just talk. I get to bring joy to so many, but I see a lot of hurt as well. I see the hurt that the eyes overlook. I saw it in her too.

SAM: What do you mean?

Nick pauses for a moment, thinking he may have said too much.

NICK: I saw it in your mother. I saw her Christmas Eve when she was leaving. I talked to her.

Sam is surprised.

NICK: I tried to talk her out of it, but she was going.

SAM: Why?

NICK: I really don’t know. Sometimes there is no why. When people are damaged on this inside, what they do on the outside doesn’t always make sense. What I do know is that there was nothing to be done. Neither you or I was going to change what was broken inside her.

Sam thinks this over for a moment.

SAM: I need to finish putting this together.

NICK: Are you alright?

SAM: I guess we’ll see.

NICK: I have to go. I’m a bit behind schedule.

SAM: Yeah, of course, thank you for the part.

NICK: You’re most welcome. Make sure you put a tag on it, so he knows it’s from you.

SAM: Having him think it’s from you wouldn’t be a bad thing; add a bit to the magic of the day.

NICK: Merry Christmas, Sam.

SAM: Merry Christmas.

Human Excrement

While the fact that he has served in the military keeps me from calling Lt. Colonel Lakin a coward or an outright disgrace to our country, I am thoroughly disgusted by his actions. Not wanting to go back to a war-zone is understandable, however, no true patriot would hide behind the racially motivated excrement of the birthers to get out of his commitment to serve America (and his fellow soldiers).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101214/ap_on_re_us/us_army_birther_4

Beyond the Palin?

At times it seems like there really are no other stories in American politics beyond President Obama attempting to govern amid a political climate dominated equally by the inflexible and the imbecilic, John McCain abandoning the principled stands that once made him one of the few politician's worthy of genuine admiration and Sarah Palin. Some would argue that those three items are really just different facets of the same narrative. There's a case to be made for that view but even if it's true Sarah Palin screams out for attention, literally and figuratively.

In particular, it's fascinating to see the burgeoning war of words between the former governor and the so-called Republican elites who question whether she's really a good candidate for the presidency in 2012. The comments from Republican establishment figures, mainly in the Reagan/Bush axis, are hardly surprising considering how many people seem to blame her for the loss of the 2008 election. To some extent, Palin's instinct to return fire is equally unsurprising, as she never seems to have met a petty dispute she didn't like, but it's also very revealing about why she is and is likely to remain a deeply flawed candidate.

Put simply, Palin just doesn't know when (or maybe even how) to take the high road. After all, why would she want to do that when it's so much easier to dismiss Barbara Bush and family as "blue bloods" instead of taking a step back to understand why so many in the party have a problem with her? The reason, of course, is that her itchy-trigger-finger responses do nothing to address the concerns about her experience but rather serve to emphasize two troubling aspects of her mindset.

One of these points really concerns just the Republican party itself, while the other should concern the electorate at large. Looking at reactions to Palin from within the GOP circles, there are times when it seems like Palin's lack of policy knowledge/experience is almost a secondary offense next to her lack of respect for Ronald Reagan's legacy. Whatever one thinks of Reagan's presidency, when Palin equates her TV celebrity and experience as a state governor to Reagan's pre-White House experience, it isn't hard to see why it rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Reagan's film career may not have been the stuff of legend, but he put in the work and was clearly respected by his peers. Similarly, Palin's partial term as Alaska's governor and resignation from that office don't stack up to two terms as governor of a state that in itself would rank as one of the world's largest economies. In short, whatever comparisons she herself might like to draw, all but get fiercest partisans (and, alas, John McCain) seem to respond, "you're no Ronald Reagan." Positioning herself as Reagan's equal rather than his heir shows a lack of proper respect that doesn't sit well for a large cohort of a very tradition-oriented party.

On a more general level, the part that should trouble everyone with a vote in the 2012 elections, regardless of party affiliation, is Palin's shoot-first-think-later mentality. As much as Palin may want to argue that a leader needs to respond decisively, this proud hunter seemingly doesn't appreciate the value of not going off half-cocked. If she can't keep her cool when a fellow Republican offers a critique, it's fair to wonder if she has the capacity to deal calmly with a real crisis.

Sadly, though, Palin seems happier to paint herself as a victim of elites within her own party than consider whether they might gave a valid point. In the short term, this doubtless will play well with her followers but, when it becomes time to move beyond that power-base and woo the party at-large, I suspect that approach will leave many unconvinced.

Interestingly, the model course of action to prove her GOP naysayers wrong has already been road-tested by the man who job Palin hopes to take in 2012. With President Obama unlikely to be challenged for re-election, the 2008 primaries seem awfully distant now. Lost in the haze of hindsight is the wariness many in the party establishment felt toward the upstart Senator's prospect's in the general election. Though nearly all acknowledged his charisma, many raised questions about whether he was qualified to be President (sound familiar?). Rather than complain about the party establishment trying to keep him out, he did what all good politicians need to do (indeed something he arguably needs to do more these days), he fought his way through to victory. 

The sometimes bitter fight doubtless led to many bruised feelings. It also led to an administration with a mixed but tangible record of accomplishment that includes two of the current President's former opponents. It's a model the former governor would be smart to emulate, but I doubt she has either the intellect or temperament to do so.

Is John McCain a Bigot?

OK, maybe McCain's not a bigot in the great American cross-burning tradition, but sometimes he makes you wonder. The latest case is some comments related to the proposed repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gay members reported via Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/02/john-mccain-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal_n_791040.html).

McCain's commented, "We send these young people into combat...We think they're mature enough to fight and die. I think they're mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness." Reading that, I couldn't help but think that the same sorts of things were being said in relation to African-American soldiers in the years before President Truman desegregated America's military. Much has been made about the differences between the John McCain who ran for president in 2000 and this year's model. I'd like to think the pre-2000 McCain would have appreciated the short-sightedness of his older self's remarks.

Our Star Blazers

For geeks of a certain age, the animated series Star Blazers is a powerful touchstone. Adapted from the Japanese series Space Cruiser Yamato, Star Blazers was marketed to kids but always felt a bit out of step with other kids fare, even fellow Japanese import/adaptation Battle of the Planets.

Doubtless, some of this stems from a premise (Earth is dying as a result of radioactive bombing and can only be saved through great risk and sacrifice) that reflects the history and tradition of its home country. Of course, as the original incarnation of Battlestar Galactica showed, a heavy duty premise is no guarantee of substantive programming. What made Star Blazers stand out, even with numerous edits to pass muster with American censors, was a willingness to embrace the moral ambiguities of war, even a war waged in the name of survival.

Even the good guys were pushed to the ethical edge, and even the bad guys were capable of moving beyond their obsessions to realize that "war does not allow us to be our better selves." This, along with the cool ships of course, is why Star Blazers is a treasured memory three decades later while so many other programs are enjoyed ironically if at all.

Against this backdrop, the news of a live-action Star Blazers/Yamato movie opening today/tomorrow in Japan (depending on where you are relative the international dateline) was cause for genuine excitement. That's not to take anything away from the animated show, it's just that the emotional core of the story always felt like something you wanted to see portrayed by flesh and blood actors. The results could, of course, be disastrous, but the early indications such as the trailers on YouTube and some early screenings (http://www.otakuusamagazine.com/SearchAudience/News1/Space_Battleship_Yamato_Live_Action_Review_3908.aspx) suggest they got it right. Time and perhaps an imported DVD will tell.

A Thought for the Season

I can't recall where this joke (or is it a moral?) came from, but it goes something like this. A man dies and is greeted at the Pearly Gates by Saint Peter. Saint Peter congratulates the man on getting into heaven but adds that because it was such a close call, he first is going to be shown the fate he narrowly escaped in Hell.

Saint Peter shows the man an enormous room whose tables filled with a lush banquet of every culinary delight known to man. At first, the newcomer is confused by the bounty laid out in front of the condemned until he notices that the people sitting at the tables picking up the food can't bend their arms. When the realization hits him that this is how they'll spend eternity, he asks Saint Peter to take away the vision.

Saint Peter then leads him through the gates and takes him to an enormous room whose tables are filled with every culinary delight known to man. His surprise turns to shock when he realizes that the people here can't bend their arms either. As Saint Peter leads him to a vacant seat at the end of the table, the man asks him how this is any different than hell. Saint Peter explains that in heaven people have learned to feed each other.

It Was 47 Years Ago Today That The Doctor Took Those Folks Away

On November 23rd 1963, on the heels of news coverage of President Kennedy's assassination, a most unusual program made its debut on the BBC. It started with a policeman walking his beat and ended with a mysterious old man plunging himself, his grand-daughter and her overly inquisitive teachers back in time. 47 years, 10 lead actors, 700+ episodes and thousands of non-television spin-offs later, Doctor Who remains one of the most unique shows on television.

Over those 47 years, Doctor Who has had dalliances with politics, usually emphasizing a strong humanist bent over partisan leanings. Toward the end of the show's original run in the late 1980s, though, the political aim became a bit clearer with Britain's then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as the target. This was most apparent in the 1988 story The Happiness Patrol, where acclaimed actress Sheila Hancock played a superficially benevolent, slogan-spouting despot who even apolitical fans could guess represented Mrs. Thatcher.

The Happiness Patrol is by no means one of Doctor Who's best moments, but even after two decades it remains among the most memorable. With a sometimes surreal production design and often witty script, it looks like nothing else on TV except perhaps the cult-classic The Prisoner as done on a shoestring budget. Occasionally, the story falls victims to Doctor Who's cliches (e.g. running up and down corridors), but there are moments that leave you transfixed.

Chief among them is when the Doctor confronts a pair of soldiers preparing to shoot a group of protesters. Armed with nothing more than his convictions, the Doctor faces them down, forcing them to see the implications of what they're preparing to do and making them realize they're better than that. Equal parts life-affirming and unsettling, it's a moment that encapsulated much of the appeal of Doctor Who. And if by chance that doesn't sound appealing, try another episode because it'll be wonderfully different, just like the Doctor.

The Party of Lincoln? I Wonder What Lincoln Would Say About That.

If my GOP friends ever asked me why I think the "party of Lincoln" has become the party of bigotry, I would point them to House Bill 295 recently introduced in the Texas legislature by Republic Representative Leo Berman. The bill would would require any candidate for president or vice president of the United States "to show his or her birth certificate to the Texas secretary of state."

According to Berman, "This bill is necessary because we have a president whom the American people don't know whether he was born in Kenya or some other place." The bill itself is reported to read that, "the secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen."

In 2008 John McCain who actually was born outside of the United States on a military base gets a bi-partisan resolution in the Senate affirming that he's a natural born US citizen. One of the bill's co-sponsors, Barack Obama, gets targeted in a Republican controlled legislature. Enough said.


Read More: http://nation.foxnews.com/birthers/2010/11/17/texas-republican-files-birther-bill

What's the GOP Equivalent of a Circular Firing Squad?

It's been said that Democrats shoot their electoral mistakes (i.e. wounded) while Republicans simply run them again. Obviously, that's not always true, Adlai Stevenson got two chances to lose to Eisenhower in the general election and Al Gore probably could have gotten the 2004 nomination. Still, the respective examples of Dukakis and Nixon seem to tell the broader tales for those parties.

Against that backdrop, the divide within the GOP surrounding the prospect of Sarah Palin running for President in 2012 shows that Democrats don't have a total monopoly on an aversion to damaged goods. While Palin was not the top of the GOP ticket in 2008, it's hard to dispute that she ultimately became its focal point, certainly generating far more buzz than Obama's VP pick. Under typical circumstances, Palin would seem to be a natural front-runner for the nomination and in some circles she is. To many, though, she is a worrying wild-card who's seen as having cost the party one election and poised to lose them another.

A lively example of this friction can be found in a recent editorial by conservative columnist and former Nancy Reagan speech-writer Mona Charen on the conservative "journalism" site townhall.com (http://townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2010/11/19/why_sarah_palin_shouldnt_run/page/1) and the posted reactions of readers. Charen criticized Palin for seeking the path of celebrity rather than building up her qualifications for higher office by studying up on policy issues and devoting herself to the governorship of Alaska. In Charen' view, Americans will be tired of political rock stars like Barack Obama and eager for basic managerial competence in 2012. Had Palin stayed in office, rather than resigning midway through her term to exert her influence on the 2010 election to mixed effect, Charen feels she would have been well positioned to be the GOP nominee. Instead, Palin has diminished herself by picking fights with the "lamestream media", joining the reality show circuit and otherwise undercutting the proposition that she can convince the independent voters who are crucial to winning the general election, that she offers competent, stable leadership.

Like many Americans across the political spectrum, I'm troubled by the idea of President Palin. Though I concede that the current occupant of the White House entered with a relatively thin resume, Barack Obama offset that deficiency with a sober temperament and a thoughtful mindset. Whether or not you approve of Obama's handling of certain issues, Palin's resume as a small-state governor and smaller-town mayor doesn't stand up to two years as President for anyone but the fiercest partisans. Throw in her attack-dog tendencies the moment she perceives someone (usually someone in "the media") has done her and/or her family wrong and you're left with a potential candidate who seems unelectable to most Democrats and independent voters.

While Charen probably sees Obama's performance as POTUS in a harsher light than I do, her critique of Palin seems (pardon the expression) fair and balanced. It's a telling sign of how hyper-partisan the current climate is, though, when questioning the presidential qualifications of your party's biggest star is enough to get you branded a Republican on Name Only. RINO seems to be the worst insult imaginable in today's GOP, and it gets thrown around quite a bit in the comments section for Charen's article. I haven't yet seen the reaction to Barbara Bush's comments about a Palin run, but I can imagine she's inflamed the tempers of a number of "real conservatives"

The Hysterical Channel

It wasn't so long ago that the History Channel was so dominated by credible historical documentaries. As this graphic makes it clear, history ain't what it used to be.

One in the Bush

It's not unexpected that a politician, especially a former President, trying to plant flags on the battleground of their legacy would engage in some degree of spin control. Based on his interviews with the Today Show's Matt Lauer, however, Bush 43 (aka former President George W. Bush) exists in a world where objective reality is simply irrelevant. When asked (what passes for a hardball question these days) about the surge in federal spending and by extension deficits during his time in office, Bush 43 unleashed a stream of rationalizations that made even "Slick Willie" seem like the ultimate straight talker. Unknown to us mere mortals who view deficits in terms of how much how many dollars more an entity spends than it takes in, the proper way to assess them is relative to The country's gross domestic product. Translation, as long as everyone around you is making lots of money, it doesn't matter that you're spending significantly more that you earn. Writing as someone who works for a profitable, well-run company this attitude seems beyond insane. Doubtless, none of this will register with Bush partisans, many of whom will vilify Bush 43's successor for driving up the deficit and mortgaging our children's future.

Election Day

I could almost stomach the idea of the GOP getting control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate if I knew that Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell wouldn't win. While I may disagree with a lot of GOP candidates, I believe those two are genuinely dangerous for America. Speaking of dangerous, New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino is another frightening prospect. Then again, so is Jerry Brown in California. Politics is always a mixed bag, where voters are often faced with the lesser of two evils, but that's no excuse not to vote if you're eligible. If you're eligible to vote and you don't do it, then your complaints are merely whining.

If We Amplify Everything We Hear Nothing

The best comedians approach their work with a great seriousness of purpose. In that light. Jon Stewart is surely one of the best. His "Rally to Restore Sanity And/Or Fear" offered a great deal of humor, but it was often just as insightful in its serious turns. While some may think it sad that the political landscape has become so poisonous that a comedian is the most trustworthy individual in the news media, I prefer to think of it as a testament to the durability of America and the ideals upon which it was founded. We really are a stupid bunch, doing our best but still getting so much wrong, but our capacity to laugh at our folly and resolve to do better the next time around is what gives us the potential for greatness.

If the atomic bomb was Einstein's monster...

...then Mark Levin, who almost makes Rush Limbaugh seem like a voice of reason and moderation, is one of Goldwater's monsters. Obviously Barry Goldwater didn't himself bring people Levin into the public eye. However, as the godfather of the debased philosophy that calls itself modern conservatism, the notoriety of hate-mongers like Levin has its roots with war-mongers like Goldwater.

First Amendment Blues

When looking at a political faction like the "tea party", that prides itself on adherence to the Constitution, it's especially amusing to see their chosen ones display fundamental ignorance of that document. Case in point, in a recent debate Delaware Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell questioned whether the United States Constitution actually outlines a separation between church and state.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101902501.html

For anyone who thinks I'm picking on O'Donnell and/or doesn't agree that virtually every public move she makes cries out for it, here is the first amendment of the Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If people believe that the current political establishment isn't paying sufficient attention to the principles of the Constitution and want to replace those politicians through peaceful democratic elections, that is of course their right, but they should pick replacements wwith at least a passing knowledge of said document's contents.

An Obtuse Angle

There are so many things that make Sharon Angle just wrong as a candidate for any office with national policy implications that it's hard to pick just one. That said, the Nevada Senatorial candidate's assertion that there are parts of the country where Islamic Sharia law has taken over is perhaps the most amazing.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/why_did_sharron_angle_think_sh.html

It says a lot about the electoral headwinds against incumbents that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is in a statistical tie with Angle.

Why Are The Democratic Candidates So Boring?

Putting aside the corrosive impact of the "tea party" on American politics, they deserve credit at least for backing colorful candidates. When you're up against the likes of Christine O'Donnell, Carl Paladino and Rick Iott, it's harder and harder to feel like San Francisco liberal darling Nancy Pelosi is in any meaningful way outside of the hum-drum mainstream of American culture. Seriously, the tea-party wing of the GOP has the congressional candidate who enjoys dressing up in a Nazi uniform, the evolution denier who would be senator and the gubernatorial candidate whose homophobic remarks may be some of the less offensive things he's said. Read the stories below and tell me how the democrats can compete with this.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tea-party-nazi-reenactor-rick-iott-defends/story?id=11845422

http://abcnews.go.com/News/christine-odonnell-evolution-myth/story?id=11721684

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010_Elections/carl-paladino-gay-successful-option/story?id=11846967

Please democratic party, what good is winning the war of ideas if you lose the battle of media attention. Candidates like Christine (not a witch) O'Donnell, Carl (I'll take you out) Paladino and Rick (doesn't like the Nazi ideology, just digs the clothes) Iott may be bad for the country, but they're much better for the media circus that really makes the country go. Sadly, I suspect that the remainder of the election cycle will ignore boring, dedicated public servants like Barbara Mikulski and Chris Van Hollen. Then again, if people vote for those boring, dedicated public servants on election day, I guess I can live with it.

David Bowie's Weird & Wonderful Station to Station

Taking a side trip from politics into music, this week saw one of my favorite artists release a new edition of a favorite album.

While I'm still excited by new music, I'd be lying if I denied that reissues of beloved or overlooked albums are as often as not the ones to which I look forward the most. Perhaps it's something reflective in my nature that prizes rediscovery over the shock of the new. In any case, this week brings the latest (and likely best ever) edition of one of the most strangely wonderful albums ever to grace the upper reaches of the pop charts, David Bowie's 1976 album Station to Station.

It's unlikely that anyone will ever know for certain just what demons, chemical or otherwise, haunted Bowie during the making of this album. Even Bowie himself isn't quite sure, if the story that preceded his performance of the song Word on a Wing on his 1999 Storytellers performance is to be believed. Whatever the causes, the effect is undeniable. No other album in Bowie's 40-year achieved the same balance between accessibility (Golden Years was one of his few top 10 pop hits in America) and musical experimentation (the cryptic title song stands as one of Bowie's most ambitious works).

Interestingly, it's also an album that convinced at least a few doubters of Bowie's talent. Though he had previously dismissed Bowie's act as "Johnny Ray on cocaine singing about 1984", critic Lester Bangs conceded that Station to Station was a masterpiece that showed Bowie coming into his own as an artist. Bangs, who had previously criticized Bowie's lyrics as among the worst in pop music, went so far as to praise the emotional coherence the album's lyrics brought to its impressive musical mix of rock of rock and soul styles.

Among Bowie's (numerous) classic albums from the 1970s, Station to Station has been largely eclipsed by Low. While this isn't surprising, and there's much to enjoy about Low, this Bowie fan can't help but feel that at least a portion of the later album's acclaim derives at least as much from the mythology surrounding its making (not to mention his work with Iggy Pop) as from its artistic merits.

The latter notion is, of course, highly subjective speculation on a topic that resists certainty. While Bowie hasn't to my knowledge performed the whole album in sequence as he's done with Low, songs from Station To Station have found their way onto the set-lists of most of his tours since its release. This ongoing re-visitation, including such unique forums as Live Aid and the aforementioned Storytellers program, suggests that the artist himself certainly retained a fondness for the album.

What is certain is that the latest edition of Station to Station is a real gift to Bowie fans, more so even than the anniversary editions of Ziggy Stardust and Aladdin Sane. Not only does it include a re-mastered version of the original album, it also includes the full recording of Bowie's 1976 Nassau Coliseum concert. A couple songs from this show, which had been recorded for broadcast, were included on the 1991 Rykodisc version of Station to Station, and I'm thrilled to see the rest of the show get a proper release.

Interestingly, this points to one of the few good things to come out of Bowie's lack of new recordings since Reality in 2003. Whereas legitimate releases of live Bowie had been relatively sparse for most of his career, the last few years have brought concert recordings spanning three decades to CD. While I'd rather have new music from him, these opportunities for rediscovery are an undeniable pleasure.

A Nomination For Biggest Embarassment to America

Amazingly, my nominee for biggest embarrassment to America is not a politician. It is the Phelps family, whose protests at a gay soldier's funeral are the subject of an upcoming Supreme Court case testing the boundaries of free speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/30/AR2010093006323.html?sid=ST2010093006341). Something tells me the Phelpses do not fully appreciate that it was the sacrifices of their objects of scorn, both the soldier and his family, than enable them to spew their hateful and, yes, un-American, filth. Even in an election season dominated by apparent low-lifes like New York's Carl Paladino, their competition for worst people in America is pretty slim. Sadly, as gut-wrenchingly awful as their actions are, I am genuinely conflicted as to what the Supreme Court should do in this case.

Loose Lips

It's always nice when a political candidate says something that makes it completely clear that you should not vote for them. A few years ago, we had George Allen with his "macaca" comment in Virginia. This year, we get Tea Party backed New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino who continually demonstrates his unfitness for office. Arguably, the finest example was his pronouncement that he would use the power of eminent domain to keep the proposed site of an Islamic community center in Manhattan from becoming a "monument to those who attacked our country."Putting aside the civil libertarian issues that raises, some may wonder whether he actually believes this is what Park51 would be or is simply saying this for political advantage, but frankly it's irrelevant, because either answer makes him unfit for office.

Fair and Balanced (as long as you're on their payroll)

An interesting dilemma for Fox News, how do you report on political candidates who are also effectively your employees without violating your journalistic ethics.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/42745

Obviously, the resolution to this is easier for Fox News than most other outlets. When you're so blatantly partisan, no one will blink and eye if you treat Palin, Gingrich, et al with kid gloves. Go for it, Fox News!

Confederacy of Cowards

A friend of mine on Facebook recently expressed the understandable (and laudable) frustration about the level of media oxygen consumed by bad-girl/bad-boy celebrity train-wrecks like Lindsay Lohan while brave men and women (gay and straight alike, while we're on the subject) die unheralded. She went on to wonder aloud what's wrong with our country. However deserving of scorn Lohan or (fill in embarrassing celebrity here) may be, I can't help but feel they're much too simplistic a target. Put another way, ranting against them serves the same purpose as the media's unsavory focus on them and other malcontents like would-be book-burners - distracting us from issues of actual substance.

As far as what's wrong with our country, while I didn't come here to bury the government, there's no doubt that it plays a large part though for reasons beyond the obvious. Starting with Bush 43 & perpetuated by Obama, rather than pushing Americans to face the hard truths of being at war, with the sacrifices that should entail, our government almost goes out of its way to disguise this national condition.

That's not to say this surprises me. The wars were funded outside the budget for years, enabling both major parties to dodge hard choices while the deficit expanded. Meanwhile, cowards on both sides of the aisle in congress fell victim to the fallacy that allowing a tax cut that was ill-advised in the first place to expire is the same thing as raising taxes at a time when the need to get our fiscal house in order is greatest. In short, we have a government fit only for cowards.

I'll have some DeMint Tea please

Today's "how gullible does he think voters are?" award goes to South Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint (photo at right). In his editorial in today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/17/AR2010091706454.html), while extolling the virtues of "tea party" candidates, DeMint lists a number of the administration's perceived failures. Among them, he cites the recently passed health-care reform bill.

To be sure, there are flaws in this bill, including some provisions that will personally impact my wallet, but DeMint is in fear-mongering mode here. He writes, "The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act hasn't made health care affordable. Instead, health insurance rates are rising." While there are indications that health care premiums are rising, trying to attach that to a bill whose major provisions have yet to take effect (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/23/AR2010032301714.html) is cynical posturing at its worst. I hope the electorate at large doesn't fall for it, though, I fear they will.

I take it on faith that there are a great many thoughtful and reasonable people who consider themselves Republicans. That said, when hateful nonsense like this is going on, not as the ramblings of a fringe group but rather from an official state party (and the GOP are champions of state versus federal, after all), I don't know how anyone who considers themselves reasonable and thoughtful can consider themselves a Republican.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gays_in_montana

Election Day (Round Two)

Lest anyone think I'm only interested in politics, let's turn the topic to music. Here are my five favorite political songs by Elvis Costello. Some are overtly political, particularly British politics, while others have gained political resonance with the passage of time. Some are among his best known, while others are a bit more obscure. Some are fantastic while others are just as good.

Pills and Soap: This standout from the somewhat lackluster album Punch the Clock is Costello at his most menacing. With a sparse, yet driving arrangement and lyrics that veer from the impressionistic ("ashtrays of emotion") to the starkly concrete ("give me the needle, give me the rope"), the song paints a bleak picture of a world where waking up is only the beginning of the nightmare.

Radio Radio: Three decades and numerous corporate mergers, culminating in more media outlets under the control of fewer and fewer people, have given this song even more dimension than when it was just the catchy song that got Costello banned from Saturday Night Live.

Less Than Zero: Oddly enough, the producers of SNL apparently had no problems with Costello playing this song. In fairness, most US listeners, they probably based their judgment on the so-called "Dallas version", where the Oswald in the lyrics was Lee Harvey Oswald rather than former British Union of Fascists leader Sir Oswald Mosley. Either way, the lyrics are among Costello's most pointed, even in comparison to other songs from his early albums.

Let Him Dangle: Inspired by the same true story as the film Let Him Have It, this song from 1989's Spike uses a gross miscarriage of justice as the springboard for Costello's musings about the political under-pinning of public outcries to revive the death penalty in England. Though the word-play is characteristically rich, the heart of the song is found in a fittingly blunt question. "If killing anybody is a terrible crime, why does this blood-thirsty chorus come 'round from time to time? Let him dangle?"

Tramp the Dirt Down: "When England was the whore of the world, Margaret was her madam." Suffice it to say, he wasn't talking about writer Margaret Atwood on this poison-pen letter, also from Spike.

Honorable mention would have to go to Costello's rendition of (What's So Funny `Bout) Peace, Love and Understanding? from his 1979 album Armed Forces. Though he didn't compose the song, it's become so much associated with it that it belongs to him as much, if not more, than its writer Nick Lowe.

If you don't own these songs already, you owe it to yourself to (legally) download at least two of them.

Election Day (Round One)

It's a primary election day in some states (or areas that should have the same rights as states like the District of Columbia). If you're eligible/registered to vote, remember that it's your responsibility to exercise this hard-fought right.

Laughter Through the Tears

No politics today, we all should be just Americans today. In that spirit, here's something from the Onion that everyone who was appalled by the 9/11 terrorist attacks should be able to enjoy.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/hijackers-surprised-to-find-selves-in-hell,1445/

Something is happening, but you don't know what it is. Do you Mister Jones?

According to Pastor (and so-called Christian) Terry Jones, he's just "just a man trying to do what God has told us to do, which is to take the blinders off as to how dangerous and violent Islam is."


http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/florida-pastor-terry-jones-says-he-might-scuttle-planned-quran-burning/19628291

Sadly, the above story didn't include Jones' best laugh-line, uttered on the Today Show this morning" where he proclaimed that "Islam is killing people." There's no doubt that violent, reprehensible and one could even say godless acts have been committed in the name of Islam. We'll be commemorating some tomorrow. To say, though, that an entire religion is evil remains shocking to me. In a weird way, that may be a good thing, as I at least can say I'm not numb to the hateful depravity that's becoming all too common.

Happy New Year

Shana tova to those celebrating Rosh Hashanah. I hope the year ahead brings peace and prosperity, which encompasses an indirect hope that the results of the mid-term elections keep the democratic party (i.e. the one that cares about the prosperity of those making less than a quarter of a million dollars) in control of congress.

At War?

One idea that we as Americans should take to heart when people talk about America being at war is that very few of us can legitimately make that claim. As the saying goes, "the military is at war, America is at the mall." Certainly, mistakes have been made post-9/11, such as diverting our attention from Afghanistan to launch the boondoggle in Iraq, but I remain humbled by the dedication of our men in uniform.

Burn Baby Burn

Let's get this party started with a quick observation about the plans of a Florida church to observe the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by burning copies of the Koran.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703713504575475500753093116.html

It's fascinating that this perverse remembrance and the plans to build a community center near (but not at) "Ground Zero" both exemplify the gulf between the idealism and the actuality of our constitution's 1st amendment. These groups absolutely have the right to do these things, and no true patriot would say otherwise. That said, that doesn't make it a good idea. I've always felt that maturity can be defined as an equilibrium between the knowledge of what one can do and the reasons why doing it may not be the right thing. Clearly, this kind of maturity is in short supply these days.