Rhymes with Duck

Harley-Davidson: The New Normal?

2010-11-20T14:07:00.000-08:00

Have you heard the one about how Harley-Davidson made big profits by firing more than a fifth of its work force?

No? Well, how about this one: The New York Times is reporting today that the same Harley-Davidson has forced its manufacturing employees to sign a contract that freezes their wages for most of the next seven years. How do you force unionized workers to accept such a contract, you ask? Why, you threaten to move their jobs elsewhere if they don’t, effectively leveraging the misery caused by the worst recession in 80 years. Obviously!

It’s not “mean-spirited”, though, says Matthew Levatich, the president of Harley-Davidson. “We have to retool if we want to survive. We should have started doing this, in small steps, 20 years ago.”

What Mr. Levatich doesn’t mention, of course, is that the decrease in demand for motorcycles, which is so disastrous for Harley-Davidson’s workers, doesn’t seem to be affecting the company’s executives in quite the same way. In fact, in 2009, Keith E. Wandell, the CEO of Harley-Davidson, received more than $6 million in compensation. By comparison, in 2006, then-CEO James L. Ziemer received around $4 million in compensation.

Call me a socialist, but it seems like an odd sort of economic system in which the biggest share of the risk is borne by the people who can not only least afford it, but who also inevitably receive the smallest share of the rewards.

Welcome to the new normal?

Thoughts on the "Ground Zero Mosque" (and community center)

2010-08-17T21:18:00.000-07:00

Pointing out that Sarah Palin is being hypocritical is like pointing out that a Mama Grizzly shits in the woods – not exactly revelatory – and yet I feel it needs to be done, if only to counteract the hurricane gust of half-truths and hot air that unceasingly blows from her general vicinity.

In this case, I actually happen to agree with the former governor of Alaska. The leaders of the Cordoba Initiative, the group behind the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” (which is actually a planned community center), should be sensitive to the feelings of those who lost loved ones on 9/11 in choosing the center’s location. By the same token, opponents of the community center should be sensitive to the feelings of Muslim Americans who had nothing to do with the attacks on the World Trade Center, and yet have been made to feel like outsiders in their own country. I don't mean to engage in a debate about whose pain is more strongly experienced; my point is simply that both are worthy of acknowledgment.

And that’s where the hypocrisy comes in. Because Sarah Palin’s pleas for “Peace-seeking Muslims” to reject the community center “in the interest of healing” because “it stabs hearts” expresses a desire for compassion strikingly similar to the "political correctness" that she has taken so many occasions to lament and lambaste and generally use to criticize those who disagree with her. Even if this is an honest calculation, and not a cynical one – even if Mrs. Palin would regard the one as different from the other because of its extreme nature – I wonder, how high are we willing to set the standards for tolerance?

It makes perfect sense that people whose loved ones were murdered by Islamist militants would be opposed to seeing a Muslim community center two blocks from the site of the tragedy and, if the families of 9/11 victims unanimously felt that way, Mrs. Palin’s would be a stronger case. But they don’t. Some seem to feel that the best way to honor their loved ones, as Mayor Bloomberg so eloquently put it, is by defending the freedoms that the terrorists attacked. Both views should be respected and carefully considered by the owners of the land, with whom the decision ultimately resides (as it should).

Whatever happens, I can only hope that we will all take away an appreciation for what it is to feel marginalized, and a recognition that having different opinions and values makes us Americans and not enemies. Whether you call it political correctness or not, sensitivity is vital to our success as a nation; it can be overdone, certainly, but that is hardly cause to “refudiate” it.

Playing not to lose

2010-01-21T09:20:00.000-08:00

After receiving a thumping in Massachusetts at the hands of a state senator known for little more than owning a truck and having once been naked in a major women's magazine (a man who, I might add, has already angered Glenn Beck in the two days since his election), the Democrats are now tripping over themselves to back down on the health care legislation that they've spent the better part of the last year working on, and openly quivering in fear because, as Sen. Barbara Boxer of California put it, "every state is now in play."

And that is precisely why they will lose in November.

Anyone who thinks it's politically expedient to, as Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana put it, "go back to the drawing board" on the signature legislation that the Democrats have fought and clawed for over the past year is absolutely out of his or her mind. Yes, there are voters who vociferously oppose the health care bill. There were even some of those in Massachusetts, but that isn't why the Democrats lost there. The Democrats lost in Massachusetts because: (a) their candidate ran an absolutely pathetic excuse for a campaign (Curt Schilling a Yankees fan, really? And, hey, if you can't spell the name of the state correctly in your own campaign ads, you don't deserve to win) and (b) President Obama hasn't delivered on the change or the leadership that he promised. Instead of embracing the mandate the American people gave to a progressive agenda, he went straight to the first page of the Democrat playbook, which reads in big, bold letters: "MOVE TO THE CENTER."

There have been a lot of mistakes made by the Democrats over the past year but, for the most part, they all fall under the same umbrella of "playing not to lose, instead of playing to win." Anyone who's ever been a competitive athlete knows that you have to be aggressive to be successful in sports, and that holds true just about everywhere else as well. It's no coincidence that the first of Stephen Covey's "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" is being proactive. While the Republicans have controlled the debate on health care by recklessly floating falsehoods like "death panels" and government takeovers and holding up for political reasons a bill that would save the American taxpayers a trillion dollars over the next couple of decades, the Democrats have fallen back on their heels, defending themselves against baseless attacks when they should be on the offensive about the lack of cooperation from the other side. You can't be reactive in politics and get anything done, especially right now. Period.

If the Democrats back down now on health care reform, not only will they fall in November (and, really, if you're so worried about losing your job that you can't effectively do your job, then you're probably not cut out for that particular line of work), but it will effectively put the nail in the coffin of the progressive agenda. If we give up on health care reform now, it won't be taken up later, it will die, and so will climate change legislation, and equal rights, and serious financial regulation, etc. Mary Landrieu is dead wrong that we can wait until tomorrow -- there is no tomorrow. In the words of Langston Hughes, "a dream deferred is a dream denied."

So, just for once, let's make like Republicans and play to win.

UPDATE:

In a humbling loss, an opportunity to lead

2010-01-19T20:43:00.000-08:00

Once again, Democrats have put up a needless roadblock on the path to effective governance, this time by bungling what should have been an easy victory in liberal Massachusetts and managing to lose both a priceless heirloom (the seat that Ted Kennedy had held for 47 years) and the crucial filibuster-breaking 60th vote in the Senate.

There are no doubt a lot of conclusions to be drawn from this shocking turn of events, but the prevalent argument that lawmakers should stop and consider what voters are saying about health care reform doesn't hold much water for me. Even if it's true -- and it very well may be -- that Republican wins in New Jersey, Virginia and now Massachusetts are indicators that the public is skittish about the President's signature legislation, I'm not sure how much bearing that should have on whether or not Congress passes it. This is a representative democracy, after all, and, as Wikipedia puts it, our elected officials are "charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives." If lawmakers are going to be nothing more than slaves to the latest polling data, we might as well replace them with referendums, and we've seen how well that's worked out for California.

It's a fundamental assumption of American politics that the people aren't always right and, just as holding elections serves as a check on the power of our officials, so should the authority vested in them serve as a check on ours. The suggestion that legislators should bend their decisions to the will of a fickle public strikes me as a kind of character-less politics we might do best to avoid. I would much prefer that my congressperson vote based on a careful study of the issue than on what's more likely to get him or her re-elected.

All of which is to say that if Congress ultimately decides to let health care reform die in the wake of Scott Brown's victory, it should be because the men and women we've entrusted with our futures truly believe that the overhaul is not in the best interest of the American people, and not because they like the views from their offices. This is a seminal opportunity for our leaders to stand by their values in the face of adversity. Let's hope they surprise us.

Mike Huckabee is an ass

2009-07-07T00:45:00.000-07:00

"Some of us fail to understand that our First Amendment right to speak and assemble is meaningless without our Second Amendment right to bear arms, we don't make the connection."

This is a shockingly idiotic statement. Does Mike Huckabee really want to give every dissident group free access to weapons? Or just the ones that he likes? And can we stop for a moment and imagine how many more innocent people would have been killed in Iran if thousands of scared protesters had been firing guns indiscriminately in the streets? Talk about a massacre. How about at Kent State in 1970? Or in Birmingham in 1963? Is he really suggesting that Gandhi would have benefited from an assault rifle?

While civil war (and, indeed, violence) may become necessary in the course of human events, it should be a last resort, not a first. Regardless of how you interpret the second amendment, what Mike Huckabee is advocating for isn't democracy, it's anarchy, and it's an irresponsible position for a former United States governor to take. Maybe he's just ratcheting up the crazy for the Fox News crowd, or competing with Sarah Palin for wingnut of the week, but for some reason, I expected more of the Huckster (must have been those sweet Chuck Norris ads...)

Source: [Wonkette]

Ron Artest is my new favorite singer, maybe

2009-07-07T00:39:00.000-07:00

I have no idea if this is real or not, but I'd like to believe that it is.

Source: [Deadspin]

Comcast to put its crappy TV on the Internet

2009-07-05T18:04:00.000-07:00

Do we really need more ways to watch The Closer?

Apparently so, as "Comcast and Time Warner Inc. will work together on a nationwide trial, set to begin this month, that will provide new and recent episodes from top TNT and TBS series over the Web to 5,000 of the operator's cable TV customers." (Comcast rival, Time Warner Cable, which was split off from its parent company in March, also has plans to pursue similar trials.)

The model, which the companies have ominously dubbed "TV Everywhere," will initially provide full episodes of TBS and TNT shows "only to customers who subscribe to both cable TV and broadband services, over only a Comcast-provided Internet connection through a subscriber's cable modem, and via only the Comcast.net or Fancast.com portals." If the trial is successful, more cable programmers will presumably join in and those restrictions will be loosened, though it will continue to be a subscription-based service.

Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes is confident about the potential of "TV Everywhere" to compete with the "a la carte, ad-supported" content offered by Hulu.com (itself a joint Venture by NBC Universal, Fox and Disney), which has enjoyed a rapid rise to popularity since its launch in March of 2008. Said Bewkes, “If you advocate show-by-show [distribution], that will blow up the model. You'll end up paying more because you won't have the ability to have niche networks, you won't have the ability for ad support.”

The truth of that statement remains to be seen but, frankly, whichever model emerges victorious, the real losers will be the American public. I was all for Hulu (ad-supported digital democracy, hooray!) until it released those obnoxiously self-mocking commercials (watch here and here) suggesting that its content providers were aliens seeking world domination through the gradual softening of human brains. While the tone was jocular, the message had an unshakable ring of truth -- the more that innovative technologies are used to peddle the same tired, mindless content to an even broader audience, the more we become victims of a corporate culture that increasingly devalues the human cost of its actions.

Nevermind the fact that the United States ranks a dismal 15th internationally in broadband access, according to a recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, now we're supposed to pay for the opportunity to turn the Internet into a television? Are we really so hell-bent on our own destruction that we're willing to pay to have reruns streamed to our laptops?

Don't answer that -- I have a feeling that I don't want to know.

Source: [Multichannel News via Free Press]

Sarah Palin blows this joint

2009-07-03T14:07:00.001-07:00

In what has to be the most bizarrely delusional move since Michael Jackson accepted the "Artist of the Millennium" award at the 2002 VMAs, Sarah Palin just announced that she is resigning as governor of Alaska, presumably so that she can get started on her 2012 presidential bid.

Considering that (soon-to-be-former) Gov. Palin is one of the most polarizing figures in American politics, this seems a bit like Hulk Hogan leaving pro wrestling to train for the Olympics, but I guess I shouldn't complain, being a Democrat and all. Still, if I have to listen to her babble about her foreign relations bonafides (Russia is "right over the border") and how David Letterman is mouth-raping her children for the next three years, I might seriously consider moving somewhere beyond the reach of cable news, like Mars.

Maybe she's on to something after all...

Source: [CNN]

Thanks for all the memories, Alaska:

Diving in the shallow end: Thoughts on the Twitter revolution

2009-06-29T21:39:00.000-07:00

Three weeks ago, I would have told you that Twitter, the latest craze to sweep the Internet like some sort of digital swine flu, was not only one of the dumber innovations to emerge out of the past decade (right up there with the Snuggie), but also quite possibly a serious threat to civilization. All of this in spite of the fact that I had never written or even read a "tweet" (the 140-character messages with which Twitterers communicate).

Then the Iranian uprising happened, and protesters used social networking tools like Twitter and Facebook to subvert government repression, communicating with each other and sharing gut-wrenching accounts of the brutality on the streets with the rest of the world. Suddenly, it was as if Twitter could serve a purpose other than broadcasting one's egotism and superficiality into the ether.

Admittedly, that purpose is limited. As Fareed Zakaria suggested, Twitter isn't necessarily a "game changer" in Iran -- while it certainly helped draw international attention to the protests, any real change will likely have to come from the top down, and it's not as if the government won't find a way to restrict this new technology as it has the old ones. Furthermore, with the attention span of the media-consuming world dulled by the constant barrage of information coming from the TV and the world wide web, it's easy to forget that the crisis in Iran is still in full swing, as new stories (Mark Sanford's sexy love letters, Michael Jackson's tragic-if-unsurprising death, Bernie Madoff's sentencing and a military coup in Honduras) muscle onto center stage. Still, let us not forget the lessons of Birmingham, Kent State and even Tiananmen Square about the power of the media to help affect political change.

As someone who has now sent a full 18 tweets into the world, I feel qualified to state the obvious -- that Twitter is neither good nor evil in and of itself. It's just a program that let you share a little bit of information with a lot of people very quickly. In the wrong hands, that can be a dangerous proposition, but I fully believe that social networking can also be used to foster intelligent, articulate debate if people simply choose to use it that way. And it's not as if we have much choice -- like it or not, Twitter isn't going away, and we can't shape the future from a cynical distance.

Nailin' Palin

2008-10-30T00:35:00.000-07:00

The now-infamous Nailin' Palin, as read by Thandie Newton and Ricky Gervais on The Graham Norton Show. If you haven't seen Oliver Stone's W., this is pretty much exactly how Newton plays Condi Rice, suggesting either that she has tapped into the essence of neo-con femininity, or that she's not an especially versatile actress. You be the judge.

Fixing D.C.'s public schools?

2008-10-29T23:13:00.001-07:00

Clay Risen has a great article in the November issue of the Atlantic Monthly profiling Michelle Rhee, the controversial chancellor of Washington, D.C.'s public school system. A graduate of Teach for America and its data-based approach to teaching, Rhee was pegged by newly-elected Mayor Adrian Fenty in 2007 to reform D.C.'s failing school system and immediately sparked controversy by firing 98 central-office employees, including 24 school principals. Of particular concern, both to the teachers' union and to many parents, is her support of merit-based compensation, which would eventually eliminate tenure based on seniority and introduce a pay-scale based on performance.

As someone who grew up in the area, I was pleasantly surprised to hear that the District has become a flashpoint for educational reform. Generally, in D.C., if you can afford to go to private school, you do (I went to the very expensive Georgetown Day School for 14 years), or you move to the suburbs (Montgomery County, Maryland -- which borders D.C. -- has some of the best public schools in the country). The D.C. school system was always a bit of an elephant in the room -- everyone knew that it was a mess, and frequently a violent one, but what could we do?

Regardless of which side of the debate you fall on, it's nice to see people willing to take on the challenges of rebuilding a failing school system. It makes you want to sign up for organizations like Teach For America...

The case for gun control

2008-10-27T19:27:00.000-07:00

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/27/boy.shoots.himself.ap/index.html

Men in tights

2008-10-27T13:49:00.000-07:00

This humdinger comes from Fox News' "Father Jonathan," by way of Real Clear Politics. After illuminating the fundamental differences between Obama and Robin Hood (beside the obvious fact that one is the next president of the United States, and the other is a 500-year old English legend), Father Jonathan goes on to warn against Comrade Obama's rampant socialism, citing a 2001 interview with Chicago Public Radio in which the young state senator extolled the virtues of the "redistribution of wealth." Scandalous. Quoth the good Father:

It is hard to believe the leading United States presidential candidate suggested, just seven years ago, we should be seeking legislative and administrative avenues to effect “redistributive change,” since it is impractical now to get the courts to do it on their own. It’s even harder to believe the leading United States presidential candidate, just seven years ago, was talking about the importance of community organizers “putting together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.”
But then again, maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. Seven years later, and just one month before Election Day, Senator Obama said to Joe the Plumber, word for word, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everyone.”

The whole thing raised a few questions for me, like "why is a Fox News 'Religion Contributor' writing editorials about issues that have nothing to do with religion?" and "Where exactly does this strange comparison of Barack Obama to Robin Hood come from?" More importantly, though, how does taxing the richest 5% of Americans -- the people who can most afford it -- qualify as "beating down some to lift up others?" And why is that worse than beating down EVERYBODY with a costly war based on false premises and deregulation policies that severely destabilized the economy?

Father John is right -- Barack Obama isn't Robin Hood. He's the future president of the United States. And dumbing down the discourse with analogies to fairy tales doesn't make the right any less wrong.

Personality Disorder

2008-10-27T02:03:00.001-07:00

Robert Draper's cover story from this weekend's New York Times Magazine, "The Making (And Remaking) of McCain," details the transformations that the McCain narrative has undergone in the last year. Given such an in-depth look at the abrupt shifts in policy and values that McCain and his advisers have hazarded in the run-up to the November 4th election, one gets a better sense for why his campaign has devolved into such a spectacular mess. Whereas George W. Bush won two elections largely on the strength of his conviction (no matter how wrong-minded or absurd it might have been), McCain has often seemed a candidate in search of an identity, caught between the rebellious instincts that once defined him as a "maverick" in the House and Senate, and the demands of a Republican base that spurned him in 2000. The result has been a palpable discomfort -- with his message, with his supporters (this lady, for instance) and, no doubt, with a last-minute, gimmicky vice-presidential choice who will likely prove to be the albatross that costs him the election.

The truth is, though, that with or without the disaster that is Sarah Palin (who is apparently already campaigning for 2012 -- how delusional can you be?!), John McCain -- or, at least, 2008 John McCain -- is simply the wrong candidate for this moment in history. The Obama campaign has been revolutionary not only in the way that it has raised money (shunning big donations from special interest groups in favor of smaller donations from individuals, what an idea!), but also in the way that it has branded its candidate with hip, iconic logos that make as much of a fashion statement as a political one. Hell, the guy even has his own presidential seal! And while that may seem blasphemous to traditionalists, it is perfectly tailored to an open-source culture that values nothing so much as appropriation (take, for example, Girl Talk, a musical artist whose songs consist entirely of samples, and who has found considerable success despite being virtually untouchable for mainstream radio). Obama speaks to our generation in much the same way that Bobby Kennedy spoke to his, and he has the following to prove it.

Still, it's hard not to wonder whether the John McCain of eight years ago -- the campaign finance-reformer who had an open and easy rapport with the press and younger voters -- would have fared differently in this election. Perhaps Obama's success in adopting the mantle of reform would have forced McCain to retreat from the middle ground no matter what, like an army withdrawing to the safety of fortress walls, albeit under a somewhat unfamiliar flag.

In any event, the McCain narrative is ultimately a tragic one. Even if he somehow miraculously wins the election (and I literally just knocked on my wooden bed frame in hopes that he doesn't), the victory will have come at a severe cost, not only to his ideals and party, but also to the country as a whole. This election, coupled with eight years of the Bush White House and its with-us-or-against-us rhetoric, has brought out the worst in people (see Michelle Bachmann) and opened up some very deep social divisions -- the last thing we need is someone trying to forge a new identity for this country who can't even get a handle on his own.

Note: For a fascinating portrait of the John McCain we used to know and love, I highly recommend Robert Timberg's The Nightingale's Song.

I defy you to watch this video and not get chills

2008-10-23T21:12:00.000-07:00

This guy is a fucking rock star.

http://media.gatewayva.com/photos/rtd/slideshows/20081023rally/index.html

Source: Richmond, Virginia [Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish]

Are You Smarter Than a 3rd Grader?

2008-10-21T23:42:00.000-07:00

If you're the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States the answer is apparently "no." On Monday, while fielding questions asked by Denver-area third graders on NBC affiliate WUSA, Sarah Palin suggested that the Vice President is "in charge of the Senate." Not exactly.

Palin was likely referring to the Vice President's Constitutionally-mandated role as "President of the Senate," which allows the VP to preside over the Senate and to cast a deciding vote in the case of a tie. While early VP's did, in fact, perform this duty on a regular basis, modern Vice Presidents rarely preside over the Senate except on special occasions.

Whatever level of nuance you care to attribute to her answer, the fact that Palin couldn't provide a more accurate description of the job she is so vigorously campaigning for is disheartening, to say the least. Even more mind boggling, though, is the fact that in the month and a half that she has been on the ticket, the McCain campaign hasn't bothered to prep their VP nominee on such a basic question. I guess they must have figured it was a no-brainer, sort of like the commonly accepted spelling of potato(e) was in 1992 ~~1988~~ ...

Sources:
Me Fail Civics? That's unpossible! [Daily Kos]
Vice President of the United States (President of the Senate) [United States Senate]

George Bush is an idiot. Again.

2008-04-19T11:01:00.000-07:00

For those of you who don't feel that the ability to speak eloquently is a vital quality in a presidential candidate (or just enjoy cringing), please watch this clip of President Bush thanking Pope Benedict for his "awesome" speech at the White House earlier this week, and keep in mind that this man-child has had his finger on the nuclear trigger for the past eight years.

Feel that icy shiver down your spine? That's the realization that the leader of the free world talks like an eighth grader. To the fucking Pope, no less. November can't come soon enough...

Source:
Bush To Pope Benedict: "Thank You, Your Holiness. Awesome Speech" [Huffington Post]

WTF, New Hampshire?

2008-01-08T21:20:00.000-08:00

Oh, New Hampshire, you rebel, you.

The Granite State, ever the spoiler, gave Hillary Clinton a victory tonight that was as narrow (39% of votes to 37% with 96% of precincts reporting) as it was entirely unexpected.

Look, I know that everybody is reading all sorts of things into this but I think the answer to "what happened tonight?" is relatively simple: First of all, people don't trust the media, especially in fiercely independent New Hampshire. So the fact that political pundits have been gushing about Obama all week like he's the second coming of Christ ultimately hurt him. Furthermore, people don't like being told whom to vote for, and the fact that nearly every poll had Obama winning by double-digits made his victory seem like an inevitability that these voters decided to put an end to.

I think that the Obama campaign also bungled the lead-up to the primary, running around and predicting a win by a big margin. In fact, this is practically a case study in why it's a bad idea to predict a hearty victory: Because there is always the danger that your supporters, assuming that you already have the thing locked up, will figure that there is no need for them to trek all the way down to the polls. This is particularly important in a state like New Hampshire, where independent voters can choose which party's primary to vote in that same day and, indeed, it looks as if a lot of independent voters chose to vote for Republican John McCain instead of Obama. Additionally, raising expectations gives you nowhere to go but down: The fact is that, even if Obama had pulled out a win, unless it was by 5 points or more, it would have been a moral victory for Hillary (which makes her actually coming out on top a much bigger deal). If the Obama camp had lowered expectations, however, and said "this race is tighter than the polls show and we'll be lucky to come away with a victory," I think we'd be having a very different discussion right now.

None of that, of course, is to take away from a hell of a comeback for Hillary. As much as I may have a distaste for their methods, the Clinton campaign did a great job of mobilizing her supporters and getting them to vote. Apparently, the unseasonably warm weather meant that more elderly voters made it out to the polls, as did Hillary's traditional-Democrat base. And, of course, let's not forget the crying jag on Monday which, combined with what was perceived as Edwards and Obama "ganging up" on Hillary during Saturday's debate and the political punditry "ganging up" on Hillary over the last week (Talking Points Memo blames Chris Matthews, in particular), inspired female voters to stand up for their overwhelmed sister. In fact, Obama got beat among women about 57% to 34%, a far cry from Iowa, where he actually came out slightly ahead in that demographic. Most people (including myself) seemed to think that the whole crying business spelled the end for the Hillster -- and I still think it was total political bullshit -- but, hey, it worked, so more power to her.

Still, I think that this race is far from over. To crown a winner now would be just as short-sighted as it was last week. Obama handled the defeat with graciousness, and I thought that his concession speech was every bit as thrilling and inspiring as was his victory speech was in Iowa (meanwhile, I thought Hillary looked like an oriental rug and sounded like an egotist, but that's just me). We'll see what kind of bounce Hillary gets out of this victory heading into Nevada and then South Carolina, a much more diverse state where Obama leads heavily in the polls (although, after tonight, what does that mean?). There's also the prospect of John Edwards dropping out, particularly if he doesn't do well in South Carolina, and throwing his support behind Obama (which you have to assume he would do after their love-fest on Saturday night).

Obviously, this is a huge boost for Hillary, and it means that this is probably going to be as closely-contested a race as its Republican counterpart (where the tragically underfunded Sen. John McCain, all but left for dead a few months ago, triumphed over Mitt Romney, with Mike Huckabee happily coming in third and Rudy Giuiani just beating out Rep. Ron Paul, OB/GYN). What I do not think it represents, however, is a rejection of Obama's message of "change" and "hope," nor of the candidate himself. Rather, I get the feeling, from what I've heard and read, that this was an historically fickle electorate trying to slam the brakes on what it saw as a "coronation." Let's not forget that Super Tuesday is not for another month, and the general election is not for another year, so there's plenty of time for all sorts of crazy things to happen (like Dennis Kucinich being called back to his home planet, for instance, or Duncan Hunter building a fence around the White House, effectively barricading himself inside).

Should make for an interesting few months, at least.

Sources:
Hours-upon-hours of MSNBC coverage.
N.H. Picks HILLARY, Because OBAMA Is A Loser! [Wonkette]

The Clintons are dysfunctional. And full of it.

2008-01-07T19:09:00.000-08:00

From the "I thought you said we had this locked up" department, yesterday's two most interesting stories from the campaign trail both involve Hillary Clinton's floundering bid for the presidency.

The first story comes from a round-table discussion in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, where the former First Lady responded to a question about how she keeps up with the rigors of campaigning by almost breaking down in tears. You can watch the video of the incident above but, in case you're in a hurry, let me paraphrase what she said: "I just want what's best for the country [sob]...and Barack Obama sucks so badly [sob]...and I already know where everything in the White House is! [sob]"

While political observers spent much of the day trying to figure out whether those tears were genuine or not, fellow presidential hopeful John Edwards was quick to jump on Hillary's apparent moment of weakness, saying "I think what we need in a commander in chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are a tough business, but being president of the United States is also a very tough business." While I agree with those pundits who are quick to point out that Edwards himself is no stranger to so-called "sob stories," I also think he has a point.

For the last two years or so, Hillary has seemed the inevitable choice for the nomination -- the continuation, you might say, of the Clinton dynasty -- and she has more or less lorded it over her opponents. I think it speaks volumes about Sen. Clinton's character, and the character of those around her, that it has taken LESS THAN A WEEK to basically undo her candidacy. I'm not saying that Hillary is going to pull out if (or, you know, when) she loses today, but she might as well. First there was the flood of negativity towards Obama, then the almost-complete 180 on her message (now she's the candidate of experience AND the candidate of change. Wait, what?), and now this.

Despite not being a supporter of hers, I wouldn't begrudge Hillary the tears if I thought that they were real -- campaigns are arduous and it's been a particularly rough week -- but I don't. I don't believe that they are real because they were accompanied by yet another thinly veiled attack on Sen. Obama, yet another moment of her moral self-righteousness and sense of entitlement shining through. Not only did she suggest that an Obama win would represent a "fall backwards" for the country (and, frankly, how much further back could we possibly fall after eight years of Dubya?), but she also not-so-subtly declared that "some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us ready and some of us are not. Some of us know what we will do on day one, and some of us really haven't thought that through enough." It's basically the same speech she's been giving for the last month, only this time with the force of big old crocodile tears behind it.

I also found it strange the way that Sen. Clinton positioned herself as the candidate who has faced "difficult odds," considering that one of her chief opponents grew up the son of a mill-worker, and the other grew up on the south side of Chicago, and that she came into this race as the anointed frontrunner with what can only be described as a political machine behind her. Difficult odds, indeed.

The second story comes from the OTHER, more likable Clinton (former president Bill), who at a speech in Plymouth, New Hampshire said, and I quote, "we can't be a new story. I'm sorry. There's nothing I can do. I can't make her younger, taller, male. There's lots of things I can't do but, you know, if you want a president and you need one, she would be by far the best." Now, I'm sure that Bill Clinton would like to make Hillary younger, and taller (and male? Okay, that's kind of weird...), but my understanding of marriage is that you're not supposed to say those things out loud (I don't know, maybe I'm wrong about that). In any event, he doesn't seem real enthusiastic about her chances -- frankly, he looks like he could use a drink (and I'm assuming that he subsequently went and got one, since I believe this speech took place in a bar).

The thing is, if 16 years ago, Hillary had been running around making wild statements about how she couldn't get her husband to keep it in his pants but we should vote for him, anyway, it would have been a huge liability. Right or wrong, people would have said, "How can we trust this guy to run the entire country when he can't even control his own family?" Well, it works both ways. The fact that Hillary's people can't keep Bill from running his mouth off doesn't really inspire confidence in their abilities to fix the free world.

What immediately emerges from these two incidents, I think, is that the Clinton camp is in disarray in the wake of Barack Obama's recent surge in the polls. After all the time spent preparing to win, they don't know what to do now that they're losing, and it shows. And, to be honest, what's really not presidential about the whole thing is not the crying, but the inability to respond to adversity. It's the equivalent of George Bush reading Dr. Seuss for 45 minutes after he learned that the World Trade Center had been attacked, and it's exactly what we don't need four more years of.

At the end of the day, though, all of this is kind of a moot point because I get the feeling that this race ended last week. At this point, Obama is less of a man than a movement, and one that is rapidly gaining momentum. Whether or not this turns out to be Hillary's "Howard Dean" moment, it's one more misstep in a campaign is going down in flames like the Hinderburg.

Oh, the humanity.

Sources:
Clinton chokes up, is applauded, at campaign stop [CNN.com]
Bill Clinton stresses Hillary's experience in Plymouth [Citizen.com]
Neener, Neener, "They" Made Hillary Cry [Wonkette]

The new "American Gladiators": Twice the flash, half the fun

2008-01-06T20:03:00.000-08:00

If you're like me (a dork), you've been waiting anxiously for the return of "American Gladiators" ever since it went off the air in 1996. Sure, you've tried the alternatives -- pro-wrestling, the short-lived "Battle Dome," even MTV's reality knockoff "Road Rules" -- but nothing ever quite quenched the thirst for mullets and spandex that the original "AG" so wonderfully satisfied.

Well, that 12-year wait ended tonight. Sort of. While NBC's brand-spanking new incarnation of "American Gladiators" (regularly airing Monday at 8) does its best to update its predecessor with 21st-century flare (read: silver and black outfits, giant water tanks and rampant pyrotechnics), it does so at the expense of much of the tongue-in-cheek kitschiness that made the old show so great. That's not to say that I didn't enjoy the new "Gladiators" (I was so psyched about the premiere that I would have been happy with a much worse show) or even that none of the updates are worthwhile -- the new and improved "Eliminator" is pretty sweet, for instance, and I love that they play "Another One Bites the Dust" when a contestant loses in The Joust -- but just that, overall, it felt like the magic was missing.

Some of that may be a result of my idealizing the show in its absence. This might sound stupid, but "American Gladiators" represents an important part of my childhood. In fact, the show hit its peak in basic-cable poularity during my formative years and, when I was 8 or 9, you couldn't change the channel at any given moment on a weekday afternoon without seeing it on USA Network, which meant that I spent many a summer day taking in episode after episode of "Gladiator" goodness. I watched through host changes (from Joe Thiesmann to Larry Csonka), Gladiator changes (from Laser to Turbo) and event changes (from the Atlasphere -- which needs to be brought back -- to the Sky Track). My buddy and I even used to play "American Gladiators" in his basement, chucking tennis balls at each other as we ducked behind couches. Cheesy as it may have been, the show was a piece of our culture that is probably irreplaceable.

It doesn't help that the new version is more style than substance. Right off the bat, using Hulk Hogan as one of the hosts, while I'm sure it ramps up the ratings, makes the competition seem fake. In their time, the unbeatable duo of Larry Csonka and Mike Adamle, both former NFL running backs, lent the original show a certain credibility without being distracting. You would probably never tune in to see those guys (unlike Hogan and partner Laila Ali), but you were always glad that they were there and you knew that, if it came down to it, they could run somebody over (well, at least Csonka -- I didn't even know that Adamle had played football until a few minutes ago. Wikipedia, bitches!) The real draws, though, were the Gladiators themselves, and the show was at its best when their carefully-crafted, ridiculously campy personalities shined through (see Malibu). This time around, the focus is almost entirely on the contestants, who are mostly boring (I almost barfed when I heard one of them say that she was "really feeding off of the Gladiators' synergy right now" -- lame!), and they don't even interview the big guys and gals, although I suspect that some of them -- like crazy-man Wolf, trash-talking Pacific islander Toa and Viking goddess Hellga -- are probably hilarious. I'm not saying that NBC should take out the reality TV flourishes altogether -- if harping on human-interest stories draws a broader audience, great -- but don't forget what made this show so great to begin with.

When it comes down to it, if nothing else, the success or failure of this new "American Gladiators" should present an interesting case study in how popular culture changes, and how the culture-makers adapt. Hopefully, this version will hit its stride and find the unapologetic giddiness that has been missing from my life for the last decade but, even if it doesn't, I'll still tune in, if only for the sake of sweet, sweet nostalgia.

See also:
American Gladiators [things i watch]

BONUS: Here's a picture of the smoking hot Hellga, my new Gladiator crush (don't worry Lace, no one will ever steal your place in my heart). Enjoy!

Hillary fights dirty

2008-01-05T19:55:00.000-08:00

According to the Washington Post, Hillary Clinton literally tried to block rival Barack Obama from getting on a plane to New Hampshire after her shockingly big loss in the Iowa caucus on Thursday night. Arriving at the Des Moines airport just seconds before Obama, "the cars in Clinton's motorcade fanned out on the tarmac as she boarded her plane, making it impossible for Obama's motorcade to get to his airplane." Classy. Eventually, thanks to the diplomatic efforts of the two candidates' respective Secret Service agents, Obama did finally make it on the plane and to New Hampshire, where the final four Democratic candidates debated tonight.

I'm not sure what Hillary was thinking -- I guess she let her bitterness get to her -- but this story doesn't do much to dispel the perception that she is a ruthless, icy politician. I mean, seriously, how childish can you be? I suppose next she's going to start calling his hotel room in the middle of the night asking if his refrigerator is running ("It is? Then you better go catch it!" Zing!) The truth is that getting smoked in Iowa must have been pretty frustrating for someone who spent as much time and money there as she did, but she better get used to it because Obama is gaining momentum like nobody's business. The latest polls from New Hampshire either show Clinton and Obama tied or Obama slightly ahead, and I personally thought that the big guy came off looking pretty swell in tonight's debate (although there was one moment when I thought he and Edwards were going to suck face -- can you say "Vice President Pretty Boy"?) Speaking of which, have you noticed how EVERYONE -- including Mr. Reagan-Conservative Mitt Romney -- is now running around talking about how they're for "change"?

Good old Barry O is suddenly THE political trend-setter, and that can't bode well for the competition.

Source:
After a Win, No Time to Lose [Washington Post]

BONUS: Here's Obama's stirring victory speech from Iowa. I defy you not to fall in love with this man.

Will Smith hearts Hitler. Wait, what?

2007-12-25T20:34:00.000-08:00

From the moral outrage department, movie star (and former Fresh Prince) Will Smith has apparently been taking flak for the last couple of days for a remark he made to a Scottish newspaper that Hitler "didn't wake up going, 'Let me do the most evil thing I can do today.' ... I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was 'good.'"

As of Monday, the Jewish Defamation league, according to TMZ, was "calling on Barack Obama [whom Smith has publicly supported] to repudiate Smith's comments, and [wanted] theaters to pull Smith's new flick 'I Am Legend' from their screens," saying that his words, "spit on the memory of every person murdered by the Nazis. His disgusting words stick a knife in the backs of every veteran who fought (and sometimes died) to save the world from the intentions of Adolf Hitler." For his part, Smith subsequently tried to defuse the situation, issuing a statement that said, "It is an awful and disgusting lie. It speaks to the dangerous power of an ignorant person with a pen. I am incensed and infuriated to have to respond to such ludicrous misinterpretation. Adolf Hitler was a vile, heinous vicious killer responsible for one of the greatest acts of evil committed on this planet."

Seriously, guys? Are we really that sensitive today that you can't even mention Hitler except to denounce him? I think we're all in agreement here that the Holocaust was a travesty (minus a few crazies, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ron Paul), and I'm pretty sure that Will "Get Jiggy With It" Smith is not a neo-Nazi, so what exactly are we getting so riled up about? Frankly, while I don't necessarily agree with Smith's comments -- personally, I'm more inclined to believe that Hitler's rhetoric was a calculated effort to gain power through hatemongering (kind of like President Bush's...) -- I don't think that they are particularly radical. He didn't say that Hitler was a fun guy to be around, or that the Jews had it coming, he just said that the Nazis thought they were doing the right thing. And...?

Of course, I'm not entirely sure what business Will Smith -- star of "Wild Wild West" and "I, Robot" -- has waxing philosophical about Hitler's motivations, but I don't think he should be crucified for it, either. On the bright side, maybe this will finally teach celebrities not to act like they're experts on everything under the sun just because they read a script about WWII once, or teach the rest of the world not to listen to them if they're talking about anything besides how they did their own stunts (probably not, though, on both counts).

On a deeper level, I think we need, as a society, to be able to discuss historical events like the Holocaust without having to fear this kind of unmitigated backlash, because all this ideological bullying does is to alienate anyone with a different point of view from our own. I know that these are sensitive subjects for a lot of people, but freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution in order to facilitate debate in this country -- are we really choosing, of our own accord, to undermine that?

At least if Will Smith thought that people were "basically good" before this shitstorm, he's probably nice and cynical like the rest of us now. What would Uncle Phil say?

Sources:
Will Smith angry over Hitler comment interpretation [CNN]
Will Smith -- Hitler, Schmitler; He Wasn't That Bad [TMZ]
Smith: 'Hitler was a good person' [Yahoo News]

"Charlie Wilson's War": Remember in the 80's when we sent money and guns to help Afghanistan fight the Russians? That was sweet...Or was it?

2007-12-24T19:38:00.001-08:00

In a lot of ways, Charlie Wilson's War is a mixed bag of a movie.

On the one hand, you have the really interesting, mostly-true story of how a liberal congressman from Texas, who had never really done much of anything besides party, managed -- with the help of a jilted CIA agent and a right-wing socialite -- to fund a covert war in Afghanistan that contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union (how much it contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union is questionable but, for the movie's sake, we'll say it was a lot). You have Tom Hanks, as the sleazy-but-lovable Wilson, and Philip Seymour Hoffman, as the unlikable-but-hilarious Company man, Gust Avrokotos, trading the razor-sharp barbs that screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and director Mike Nichols are famous for (one particular scene, in Wilson's office, is reminiscent of the best screwball comedies of the 1930's and 40's). And, if you're into that sort of thing, you have more cleavage than any film about Washington has any business displaying (Wilson's congressional staff was nicknamed "Charlie's Angels," so you can only imagine what that looks like translated to the big screen, although I think the ridiculously beautiful Amy Adams is underutilized in this regard).

On the other hand, you have a film that tries to be too many things at once -- political comedy, personal drama and uber-relevant statement on the failures of American foreign policy -- and winds up being somewhat uneven for its efforts. Sorkin's incessant concern with political details (the reason that "The West Wing" was sometimes dubbed "The West Wonk" by critics) shines through here, and there is a lot more discussion of the intricacies of congressional appropriations (and the specifications of Russian attack helicopters) than there needs to be. In fact, Sorkin and Nichols are so intent on proving their political credibility that they sometimes forget basic tenets of filmmaking like character development. For instance, the (let's call it "personal") relationship between Wilson and the aforementioned socialite, Joanne Herring (played satisfactorily by Julia Roberts), is often hinted at as being important for an understanding of Wilson's character, but it is largely an afterthought for the film. So that when Wilson ends up crying in his office because he "misses" the newly-married Joanne so much, it seems to come out of nowhere. Similarly, Amy Adams' aide (Wilson's right-hand woman) seems more than infatuated with her boss, fawning over him and giving Roberts the stink eye, but the thread is never really developed. At the end of the day, the characters verge on being three-dimensional, but are really little more than vehicles to propel the plot and recite Sorkin's zingers.

I don't want to disparage Charlie Wilson's War -- it's a film that manages to be entertaining and informative and that alone makes it worth seeing. Still, it was hard not to walk out of the theater a little disappointed. The American policy in the Middle East of providing support to fight our enemies and then bailing when it was time to build an infrastructure is a part of the reason that we are mired in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan today. It isn't necessarily Charlie Wilson's fault -- the film shows him fighting for money to build schools in Afghanistan post-war -- but his legacy as one of the players in the fall of the Soviet Union is problematic, nonetheless. Sorkin and Nichols try to make this point at the end of the film, but it is far too weak a statement after an hour of reveling in the machinations of the war. Some of that probably has to do with the script being changed at the request of the real Wilson and Herring (apparently, the film originally opened with a shot of the Pentagon in flames, circa 2001), but it doesn't do much for the film's impact that we have so little real connection to the characters, either.

When it comes down to it, the story of Charlie Wilson's war is a human one -- it was charm and humanity that made it possible, and it was human shortcoming that made it a failed policy in the long run. Despite the best efforts of Hanks and Co., this fact never really takes on the weight that it should, and that's where this film falls short -- it is just a good story told gracefully, rather than something more transcendent. All of which is to say that Charlie Wilson's War isn't bad, but it isn't especially memorable, either. And, as the saying goes, those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.

Sources:
Socialite Joanne Herring wins 'War' [NY Daily News]

Merry Christmas, bitches! [Weekend Links] 12/24/07

2007-12-24T09:54:00.000-08:00

-Hollywood is run by big, faceless corporations. Kind of like everything else. [Variety]
-Ron Paul has white pride. [Wizbang Politics]
-Speaking of white pride, Alan Keyes is a bonafide crazy person. [Wonkette]
-The Hillary campaign isn't good with dates. [Politico]
-Remember when R. Kelly taped himself peeing on a teenage girl like seven years ago? So does the state of Illinois, apparently. [The Superficial]
-After getting dumped on basic cable, Bret Michaels is heading back to the stripper-filled well with Rock of Love 2. It's about time someone put Tila Tequila in her place. [Blonde Savant]
-Tom Tancredo drops out, endorses Romney for shared distaste of Mexicans. Classic asshole move. [Huffington Post]
-Matt Taibbi on why Barack Obama is the great white hope. Read it. [Rolling Stone]
-And, finally, drunk Santas! [The Sun]

That dude from "Freaks and Geeks" + Mila Kunis + Kristen Bell in a bikini + the song from "Caddyshack" = Guaranteed awesomeness

2007-12-23T01:31:00.000-08:00

I just saw the trailer for "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and I felt compelled to share (Paul Rudd and Jonah Hill are in it as well, but they only give you so much room for the title of the post). Enjoy!