Spectator Consumer

Dave Matthews: Musical Performer of a Generation

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 21:47:03 PDT

Evolving out of the Grateful Dead-festival revival in the early 90's Matthews' unconventional music has endured for another yet another generation. Matthews was years ahead of his time, and his new Dave Matthews Caravan Tour will sell out the largest venues where it stops this summer. His choice of a wide range of instrumentation and folk vocals has garnered Matthews a devoted fan base of hippies, while still maintaining popularity amongst White Hats who enjoy "slumming it."

For a band that doesn't like theatrics, they sure enjoying putting on a ton of shows, touring nearly constantly. I assume Dave Matthews doesn't need to tour anymore, I hope his new tour comes to Alpine Valley this summer, although there may be issues with Matthews tour getting the three-day event approved by East Troy, the show hasn't been announced yet...it's even possible Alpine's affiliation with the new ticketmaster TM, aka LiveNation TM, is at i

How Long Until Software Critics Get Acclaim as Movie Critics Today?

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 21:19:22 PDT

The Biggie or Rick Ross of Film Critics

Tech is old, and there have been critics all along, but there is no Ebert!

Great Innovations: The "Netflix" Button on the Samsung Blu-Ray Player Remotes

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 20:50:22 PDT

The Netflix button...because Americans are too lazy to use press more than one button on their remote at a time.

Makes Me Almost Want to Vote for Hillary

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 07:25:48 PST

Fred Thompson should be hired by Hillary, because seriously, I think the Clintons aren't the best people and he makes me want to vote for Hillary. (Don't worry Obamanistas out there, I'm still with you.)

Thompson said, paraphrasing here, "There is no women on the horizon who ought to be President next year." Ok, I realize the guy probably just means Hillary, but nonetheless, what a truly dipshit thing to say.

Thompson's full quote.

Iraq is Wonderful, That's Why You Don't See It On TV

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 06:41:13 PST

I just knew we were making real strides in Iraq. What with Bush's upbeat assessments and the little coverage the US MSM has provided this year, could you really doubt progress has been made?

Damn Juan Cole and his party-pooperishness. What a dick this guy is. Like I'm supposed to believe some internationally renowned professor on the Mideast rather than CNN and Fox. Well, you all know where I stand. I'll state it again. Go USA, BEAT EVIL! ...AND TERROR!

Nonetheless, I will be fair and balanced and provide you with Professor Cole's supposed 10 Myth's About Iraq in 2007. Go be depressed all you anti-Americans.

3 Doors Down Propaganda

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:12:00 PST

Everyone is all up in arms about some "Citizen Soldier" crap playing before some movies recently. I can't recall if I've seen it, but what I don't get is why this is news to anyone.

I can't have been the only one who noticed the nauseating flag waving in the 3 Doors Down video being aired before the Iraq war. Remember, they were on a carrier? "When I'm Gone" was the name of the song? Well here's what one of the 3 Doors dipshits had to say at the time:

"We're not promoting violence against people of Middle Eastern decent that have nothing to do with [September 11], but at the same time, we wrote a song that's basically about going over there and kicking their ass."

So yeah, Citizen Soldier is propaganda. Big surprise. These guys apparently get cut checks by the DoD...real artists, I'm sure. Of course, maybe I'm too cynical, maybe the band is just a bunch of morons and the DoD just found them and paid MTV or whomever to put the song in heavy rotation. Who knows.

All I know is if their music wasn't shitty enough to make you hate them, now you have this.

These Whacked out Iowa Caucuses

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:52:49 PST

So there are like 1800 or 1900 precincts...in Iowa. Among them are like 3000 delegates. On caucus night you show up at your local precinct and walk to a corner of the room for your candidate. If your candidate doesn't get more than like 15-25% the candidate is "non-viable" and then there is a 30 minute reorganizing of voters to the "viable" or "undecided" camps - this is where the nonsense comes in.

Say Hill decides she can't win in Iowa but wants to sink Obama. Well, she can tell her delegates to caucus for Edwards who then would be guaranteed victory. Forget the fact that he'd be supported by people who don't actually want him to win the nomination.

Crazy ass system.

Smoking in the Mall

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:43:20 PST

Anyone else noticed this? Every year, and it never fails, you get these bullshit stories about Christmas sales being down from the year before. "Nervous retailers wondering if people will come out at the last minute..." Nonetheless, it seems like most years there are improvements in the amount of money spent when it's all tallied.

This all makes me wonder. Do you think there are Better Business Bureaus or Chambers of Commerce (or whatever) that float this crap every year, or is it just a story lazy news casters use to fill what would be dead air? (Couldn't you always find some shop that's doing poorly? I mean this year it wouldn't be Mylie Cyrus of Hannah Montanta fame, but what about the Disney cut out that came before her...the one with the dimples...whatever her name is? Do you think her sales are going through the roof? I doubt it.)

And if this is a retailer's strategy, it's kind of interesting. Normally retail markets shit we don't need by claiming everyone has to have it. Here it's like the opposite. No one is buying, so we expect you come out and save Freedom and Liberty by buying the latest Chris Brown or Fallout Boy nonsense. It's like reverse mental jujitsu.

I'm sorry, I don't feel sorry if the malls aren't crowded. But I'm so anti-establishment hip you'd know this by now.

We do need to bring back smoking in the malls. Smoking everywhere really. Just have the special locations for it...and not all walled off with glass partitions. Just little areas set aside.

Finding Porn on Your Partner's Computer

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 06:20:11 PDT

Okay here's an article about a girlfriend who finds porn on her boyfriend's computer. I've read these stories before and frankly haven't cared enough to read. But, I found this on Digg.com which is a web 2.0 meta-link site. The person who posted the story wrote a sensational tagline, like, you HAVE TO READ THIS!. So I figured it would be funny, or at least kinda, you know, different than what one might expect to find in a 700 Club newsletter. Well, I was wrong.

Leave out the power of Jesus to smite out the Satan worshiping meat beaters, and this poor woman's blog post could indeed be mistaken from something churchy (although not Catholic, because they must have a Saint of onanism as they do everything else). The surprising thing for me is the prudishness of the woman who wrote it. She goes on for four damn pages of blog about how she came across the porn (no fault of her own...I'm calling bullshit on that part), that this wasn't her first *OMG* time finding porn on a partner's computer, and it's taught her an important lesson. Let's deal with some of these from my perspective.

Let me preface this, in case you don't know me, I don't exactly have traditional views. I may not own Dildo World, but even though I'm straight, I have no problem with bisexuality - although strangely fashionable amongst women under 25 these day, so much so, I read "bi" and I just roll my eyes and think "there's another girl trying to be too school for skool, predictably rebelling against holy-roller parents, destined to return to church and refuse to let her own daughters date before age 16"; polygamy is fine as well, just not for me as it seems shallow, these are the swingers and nudist colonizers of the 70s all over again, feel free to laugh at them today; BDSM I don't much get, sex and pain are anathema to me - I might tie a girl up if she asked me to...but only because I can sort of understand the weird test of trust (you had the chance to rape me with a can of cheese whip, but you didn't - you really love me honey!). All that said, the evil alternative lifestyles are fine in my book, I don't give a damn what consensual adults do together. If it makes me laugh, all the better.

So, my personal take? I say bring on the vibrators and make use of them in the bedroom. I'm not some porn star and sometimes my saliva and tongue would rather give it a rest - jaw and tongue soreness, sexy. Girls deserve their orgasm, so why not make sure that happens each and every by bringing toys? I'm not going to have trouble getting mine, the least I can do is make sure she does as well. So, quickly onto this article.

This woman's blog post reminds me that EVERYONE is blogging these days, even "traditional" people (as she refers to her own sex - the holy kind Jesus loves apparently). And traditional to her means no toys and it sounds like she thinks missionary got its name straight from the Holy Roman See (which is totally true, except the new evil-Pope is going back to Latin, so be on the look out for slight name change). So I guess I know there are these girls are still lurking out there and haven't gone away (I thought the Internets were a sin to these types, guess not), but I just didn't think they were web-savvy types. I do note, her blog is over done with girly fonts and enough whitespace for a tampon commercial - someone has to design the website for Better Homes and Garden. But these points she brings up are just plain fucked up.

She's a year and half into dating some guy and hasn't discussed doing anything but missionary? She's "shocked" - I tell you!- to learn he likes porn. She questions her own adequacy (and sounds like she should) and then writes a screed against the boyfriend for not being more open. She is liberated, she admits *OMG...again* he caught her masturbating...in her sleep!...damn you demon succubus! She may consider "tantric sex," thanks to her intimate knowledge from local yoga class. (Sorry to burst her naive bubbly but she ought to look into Tantra before she says she wants it, my guess is she'd go to ground convulsing and start speaking in tongues if she really knew what it is - Tantra is high-level Buddhism wrapped in Hindu tradition where the Gods were some kinky mofos). Undoubtedly she means trying out maybe two new positions form the Kama Sutra rather than role-playing Tantric deities and such.

The comments on her blog are interesting. Half seem to be from angered, pornoholic men (why the anger?...perhaps the Beastie Boys need to reprise "Fight For Your to Party" with "Fight For Your Right to 'Bate"); then you have the porn is an addiction crowd (I'm willing to concede it could be for some, since beating the chicken is pleasure inducing - but these people seem think not only is it an addiction, but one worse than alcoholism or sodomizing the family dog); and, of course, her amen corner of regular readers.

Another issue I have this ladies' concerns are the automatic questioning she feels obligated to ask. Because she found porn she feels justified to ask if the guy is into kiddie porn, bestiality, or if she just doesn't interest him enough. Let's get a grip here. I mean if the guy is on some site, XXXdogporking.com, or XXXkiddiepornworld.com (and YES, I'm a member at both! - no, seriously I just made those up, so if they happen to be real I apologize, I'm not trying to promote), but if he had sites like that, well then it would be fine to ask him or simply make the logical presumption and leave the guy ASAP. (My guess is this type of chick is the let's go to counseling and buy some Dr. Phil books type). If all we're talking about is porn though, asking about kiddie porn and sex with animals is just fucked up.

Finally, why would anyone wait a year and a half to discuss this shit? Moreover, why is the guy hiding this? I have friends, man and wife, who've found themselves in the same situation as this lady. More importantly, their respective reactions were very similar to what this woman describes. Hiding the porn, porn found, guy embarrassed, girl questions if masturbation is allowed in marriage... Well color me confused, it simply isn't something any couple needs to hide (although you don't need to inform each other every single time you beat the one eyed burping gecko or turn on the vibe). Couples certainly shouldn't care about this stuff, except maybe to get new ideas to spice up their love lives.

So, what's your opinion? Have at it, and weigh in.

Long-Term Liberal Planning

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:00:47 PDT

Yesterday I was thinking about No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and its ideological underpinnings. Before I go into just what I was thinking, let me give you a quick and dirty overview of the act. The overtly stated purpose of NCLB is to better education. It goes about this by requiring yearly testing between grades 3-8, and 11, requiring both schools and districts, separately, to meet state defined standards. These standards must divide students into subgroups along ethnic lines, as well as special education status, and then mandates that each school "meets or exceeds" across all subgroups. If any subgroup fails, the entire school fails for the year. As written, NCLB is phased in over time, eventually requiring 100 percent of students to meet or exceed state standards in all subgroups. Failure to meet meet or exceed means the school has failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) towards the ultimate 100 percent requirement. If a school continues to fail to meet AYP, funds can be withheld, schools privatized and eventually closed if need be.

NCLB is extremely deft legislation aimed at achieving a covert goal - destruction of the NEA and AFT unions. The act does this by putting children's education as a stated goal, sets impossible marks for schools to meet and then allows for punitive actions which attack unions once schools fail to meet the unachievable standards. The Act is especially clever as it is phased in gradually over more than a decade before the percentages become truly onerous where most (if not all) schools will fail to make AYP. This allows for NCLB to insidiously infect the school system, generally fooling the public into thinking it has education as its real goal. Of course this isn't the case.

NCLB targets large, powerful, labor unions who work against the GOP agenda. It does this by claiming to be for the kids, but then makes requirements impossible to meet. When schools don't meet these standards, union protections go out the window, allowing for the dismissal of tenured teachers, promotion of non-unionized, private schools, and, finally, shutting down public schools altogether. Perhaps you believe I'm being too harsh on NCLB, but one simply needs to read the provision requiring 100 percentage passage across every subgroup to see, if anything, I'm understating what NCLB sets out to achieve. Ok, so how does this impact upon liberal long-term planning?

It's my conviction that after carefully examining NCLB one can easily see the ultimate goal of union busting pretty easily. What isn't so obvious is the long-term thinking and vision of conservatives required to formulate something like NCLB. And, NCLB is not alone. NAFTA and joining the WTO have been long-term strategies to cripple American unions by forcing American labor to compete with labor of Mexico (for example) where labor law is far lacking. Other attacks on the liberal agenda include "reform" of welfare, the attempt to destroy social security and the erosion of antitrust protection. There are many other instances, however I think these will suffice for now.

When taken as a whole, the conservative agenda is sweeping in its aims, its success and the time frame over which it has been, and continues to be pushed. This brings me to my question: Where are similar Liberal strategies? Where can one look and find long-term planning which attacks the fundamental support of the Conservative agenda? Where are they and why haven't they been pushed?

It's obvious Conservatives have an easy target, we call it the New Deal or the Great Society. Although conservatives strike at these programs directly, such attempts almost always fail as the programs are popular. Conservatives have been forced to retreat to a the think tanks and develop long-term projects to achieve their aims. After 30 years of Conservative success along these lines, whether it's NCLB, or media conglomeration, free trade with companies lacking labor policies, or simply the continued growth of the military - Liberals have not formulated their own plans to go at the underpinnings of the conservative agenda. So what might this look like?

I haven't had a great deal of time to think these through, but the first step must be to identify the roots of the Conservative agenda, i.e., what is it about Conservative ideas that makes them popular. Ideas that jump to mind are cheap goods, easy-but poor - employment, private schools/segregation, corporatism, nationalism, militarism, gun rights, bringing Christianity closer to the government, and demonizing governmental regulations. I don't have immediate solutions, and I'm sure my list is far from complete, but Liberals need to think long-term, just as the conservatives have if Liberals can hope to influence future policy. What to do with these? That's the next difficultly.

It's taken Conservatives 60 years in some cases to figure out ways to package their ideas to make them palatable. They've had half a century of people committed to bringing down the New Deal. The Liberals need the same tenacity and planning. Some policies jump to mind however. With the military being so abused and taking so much of the budget, an NCLB for the DoD wouldn't be a bad idea. If teachers have to show results on far less federal dollars, why shouldn't the military have to meet goals where every soldier is paid like their civilian counterpart, that those in the military have to pass tests equal to free-market jobs, and that military contractors be held to 100 percent standards (or else lose their right to bid). More directly, unionizing the military would be a great, long-term strategy to consider. Media must be opened up for compeition, this seems like an easy enough policy to sell. More later...

High School Musical 2: What the Hell?

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:22:02 PDT

Okay, so the whole High School Musical aka Disney Crack, caught my attention when I was subbing 6th grade last year. I had never heard of the movie before the day I subbed, but for the kids this was old hat. All the girls in the class knew ALL the words to ALL of the songs (and most had dance moves...). Even the boys in the class had all seen it. What the hell happened?

It turns out that HSM 1 was Disney's most watched thing of all time. I don't know how they promoted, where they promoted, but somehow this made for cable movie got like 11 million kids to tune in - and that was before the release to DVD. So Friday night we had the premiere of HSM: 2. Did it do well? Try nearly 18 million viewers, the most watched cable show ever. The Sopranos finale had near 12 million viewers in comparison. This really is something else.

I've only seen the first movie, and I can vouch for it sucking. It is exactly what you would expect it to be, perhaps worse. It looks like every other show to air on Disney. The lighting in perfect, everyone has perfect skin, everyone dresses in new clothes and has blindingly white teeth. All races are represented, much like the Village People except without costumes. The songs weren't special. But, I'm not their target audience, obviously, and they did something right.

Here's a link to an article about the hysteria surrounding HSM2. I also caught a little bit about this on NPR Friday, and that reviewer predicted a Broadway version. I'm sure that's correct, but I'd be equally surprised if there isn't a Hollywood release coming next year. Does anyone have any disturbing experiences surrounding this bizarre craze? ...Or maybe just theories or anecdotal reports about the greatest thing since Debbie Gibson and Tiffany?

Superbad a Tad Over-Hyped

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 09:29:36 PDT

I caught Superbad with some friends last evening and figured I'd post my thoughts. Most of my friends really enjoyed the film, probably more than I did, so take my opinion for what it's worth. I wouldn't say Superbad isn't worth seeing, but I definitely don't believe it's "iconic" or a "defining film of the generation," labels I've heard bandied about.

Superbad is basically a better American Pie. It's smarter, far more vulgar (hence true to life), the dialog is far superior and the overall atmosphere is well achieved. Since many people just love American Pie (another film I thought was ok, but not great), perhaps this is enough of an endorsement, but I had some problems.

For some reason, the pacing in this film is off. I found myself bored and looking at my watch several times in the film. Probably 10 minutes of tightening would have made this stronger. The plot that is there, is simple (and that's not an issue) but it lacks a moving dynamic. Fast Times could get away with this because it didn't tightly narrow it's focus on 3 characters and a single night partying. 1998's Can't Hardly Wait, which also focused on a single night of grad partying, is what Superbad might have been if it would have been a touch more realistic. Teenage romance is funny and I felt like Superbad tried a little too hard to be puerile. Superbad, for all of it's entertaining dialog only uses the main characters as simple cutouts. You never really care about any of these principal characters which hurts the film. The premise is 95 percent on dick jokes and losing virginity, they tried, but missed a real human connection with the lead actors. Another problem is basically no female presence in the film, except to provide sexual objects for our heroes. None of this makes Superbad, bad, it just was a touch disappointing. All that said, Superbad did do quite a few things right.

The trouble getting booze, ending up in strange parties, dealing with odd characters, running from cops, and preoccupation with sex did remind me of countless nights in my own high school past. Although I had many crazy nights in high school (as most of us did), the movie's quest to get booze and hook up with girls was true to life. The social awkwardness, the irresponsible drinking - all of that is captured to a degree that, like all good high school movies, made me a touch nostalgic for those crazy days of wild stupidity. Any movie that can elicit those feelings (almost a little depressing) must be fairly good.

In the end, Superbad gets a lot right, but feels like it missed out a little. Perhaps if the trailers hadn't given away as much as they did, or if the reviews weren't quite so positive, I wouldn't have went in with such high expectations. I went desperately hoping for a Fast Times or a Can't Hardly Wait, and I got a better version of American Pie. No doubt, some will love this movie like no other, it is good, but it's not all it might have been. *** 3/4 stars.

What are your thoughts?

ACLU Targets Reid and Pelosi over FISA

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 08:38:20 PDT

Post 1201!

This is why the ACLU kicks so much ass. The Democrats rolled over for the Bush administration regarding new powers to thwart FISA and now the ACLU is going after them for it. I'm still at a loss as to why the Democratic leadership went for this. It makes no sense.

We've already discovered that Bush was caught breaking the old FISA wiretap laws. We also know FISA has never been onerous. In fact, all FISA ever required was that AFTER 72 hours of unapproved surveillance the government was required to go before a secret FISA court and present evidence their targets were legitimately related to foreign intelligence. And it isn't as if the FISA court has turned down many requests. Although I can't remember the source or exact numbers, I believe the FISA court had turned down 19 warrant requests out of something like 19,000 presented since FISA was created in the late 70s. If you were the government, you couldn't lose. Nonetheless Bush ignored and broke the FISA statute. It's even puzzling why he chose to do so.

Given that you don't even need court authorization under FISA to wiretap for three days, and given how easy it is to obtain judicial approval, why the hell has Bush ever fought this? I can only speculate.

Did Bush circumvent FISA because he plans (or was) using FISA to wiretap ANYONE and EVERYONE (...essentially, does the Bush administration really not believe in the Fourth Amendment)? Was this some dumbass attempt to push the limits of the "Unitary Executive/Presidency" theory expounded by Cheney? Or was this simply a case of trying to paint Democrats as soft on terrorism?

Whatever the reason, Bush has a long history of abusing FISA, so much so, I've heard at least one Constitutional Law scholar (Turley of GW, I believe) suggest these violations are, and should, be grounds for impeachment. So this isn't minor stuff unless you really don't care about any right to privacy (meaning you don't care much for the Bill of Rights). This latest Democratic move to weaken FISA at Bush's request is even stranger than Bush ignoring FISA in the first place (and, personally, I believe FISA violates the 4th Amendment as it had stood, even if Bush had chose to follow it). As I posited above, Bush at least had some reason for wanting the law changed. So what could have motivated the Dems to go along and broaden FISA, giving people like Gonzales even more power?

A few theories. Theory 1: The Dems are over-confident about 08 and only fear being painted as the party of pussies by the GOP. This is the traditionally, defensive, fear-based, GOP-defined frame Dems often fall prey to. The Democrats are not pussies, at this point with Bush's wars going so wrong it might not matter if people thought that anyway, and most importantly, the GOP will STILL call them pussies. The Dems could authorize the carpet bombing of every country in the world in the GOP would still call them the party of national surrender.
Theory 2: Bush's team has dope on the Democratic leadership and are using it for leverage. No way to know we can verify it, but something has to explain why they went along with the, apparently, toothless Bush. Theory 3: Dem leadership have good intel that we're going to be attacked in soon and don't want to be blamed for it. No way to verify this one either.

Nothing makes much sense, so I'm glad ACLU is going to pressure Pelosi and Reid. There simply is no excuse, at least made public, that rationally explains this nonsense. Congress ought to be impeaching Cheney and Gonzales (low hanging fruit) not giving Bush what he wants. Congrats to the ACLU.

Bioshock = Biocrap

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:33:49 PDT

I don't get all these glowing reviews about Bioshock. Admittedly, I've only played the demo on the 360, so I'll keep my crap rating limited to the 360 rather than the PC version. What I don't get is why everyone and their mother seems to think this is the best game ever.

Let's start off with what everyone raves about, the graphics. If you haven't seen them, they're decent. Nothing special, but okay. The game suffers from many of the problems of Doom 3, everything is too dark. To rectify you can turn up the brightness, but this just washes out the textures and the game looks like it could have come out 3 years ago. Lesson: you have to play with dark, poorly illuminated scenes. What light you do have is horribly overdone in a film noir sort of way. There's never a doubt where you should look, it's spotlighted. The smoke, fog, and reflectivity are more of a distraction as they are used so often. The artistry is also heralded, and while it is using 1920s style architecture and surrounds; you might like this, it isn't my favorite. But this leads to another gripe I have, the game can't hold a reasonable suspension of disbelief.

The wonderful storyline people crap themselves for, is kind of cute. There's an underwater city built in the 40s by some Ayn Rand figure, named Ryan. Ryan built the city as a sort of utopia for self-made men and women. So far, so interesting. Your character enters after a plane crash in the middle of the ocean, right next to a capsule to take you down to the city. Of course, you're right away in a normal, moronic, shooter where you find yourself fighting crazed mutants, robot girls, a mechanical pressure suit-robot thing, and lots of annoying robotic guns (some of which fire on you). Okay, you had a good story line but then they went and fucked it up with the nonsense. I'll accept for a second that in the 40s you can build an underwater city and that residents might eventually go mad, but robots in the 40s? And it gets better, you have "plasmids" which "alter your DNA" and allow you to set things on fire, swarm bees on people, freeze people, shoot them with electricity and some other nonsense. This is just magic, meaning completely unrealistic and fantastic. This is like superhero shit, except without any plausible explanation. Okay, you may say who cares, but I do. Why do I give a shit about a story if it's just nonsense that wouldn't make a bad graphic novel?

I'm willing to tolerate some stupidity for fun (hell I sort of like the Zelda games), but the shit has to have internal consistency. Create a fantastical world, but give me rules that make sense in that world. It's stupid enough they have the period architecture off by a few decades, but the technology is off at least 80 years, and the DNA magic shit is just completely insane (why even attempt a rational explanation?). Then there is the fighting.

The fighting is far too frenetic. You have people shooting at you from god knows where, shrieks of people attacking that are not even in the room. Everyone moves around too fast. Why not take a cue from Resident Evil 4 and use a hybrid system (3rd person, but over the shoulder) if you're going to have all this activity to keep track of. And with all this happening in dark ass rooms with overdone lighting and haze, most of the trouble is simply seeing the shrieking weirdos. But I do have one nice thing to say about it.

If you let the demo for the 360 sit on the start screen it will go through some beautiful animation, however it's pre-rendered and looks twice or three times as good as in-game. Maybe the PC version can churn out graphics this good, if so, it might change my opinion. If the graphics were as good as the pre-rendered stuff, I might be able to put up with the other failings. Too bad that's not the game.

Bottom line. Don't believe all the reviews. Bioshock is just an average game, not as well executed as the mediocre game, Prey (which tied aliens to a native american spirit world...and that made more sense). Prey even looked better and controlled better. I don't know if people just like the strange story, the weird atmosphere or the inappropriate architecture and art, but for some reason reviewers love this one. Maybe they're getting paid or something. 70/100. What's your take if you've played the demo?

Lakoff Goes to Town on Ford and The DLC

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:47:52 PDT

Boy, this isn't pretty. Lakoff, co-author of one the most influential books I've ever read, "Metaphors We Live By," just lays bare the patent silliness of DLC "centrism." Apparently, what provoked Lakoff was this weekend's appearance/debate on Sunday's Meet the Press, between the DLC's Harold Ford Jr. and Daily Kos founder *and NIU Grad* Markos Moulitsas.

The central tenet of centrism, aka triangulation, is the metaphor of a linear politics: right and left. Of course, these are simple metaphors and Lakoff argues they aren't particularly descriptive or applicable to party affiliation. And, it only stands to reason, if right and left aren't helpful, the meta-metaphor of a political "center," serves very like purpose or utility. That leads Lakoff into the second half of his article at The Huffington Post, the senselessness of DLC strategy.

I won't divulge anymore about the article other than to say it is classic Lakoff. First he does away with out-moded metaphors and then attacks (metaphorically and rhetorically :) those who rely on the old assumptions. Check out the article, it's short and sweet. In the end, you almost feel bad for Harold.

Californication

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:14:59 PDT

Don't know if you caught the pilot on Showtime last evening, but you missed out if you didn't. Looks to be a great show. Stars David Duchovny, and it's a comedy. Best pilot I've caught in a quite a while. I have the series dvr'd, so we'll see if the series can keep up with high expectations.

Pollack-O'Hanlon Pro-Surge Deception Outed

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:53:04 PDT

Pollack and O'Hanlon are the two "scholars" who've recently returned from Iraq and written a pro-Surge op-ed for the New York Times. After writing the op-ed the two made over 10 major media appearances in which they contended the "Surge" needs to be given more time and that they'd personally seen signs of progress. The problem with their assessment was the nature of their trip and the lack of transparency they presented in their media appearances.

Most frequently, Pollack and O'Hanlon were described as war critics. They claimed to have spent a good time "on the ground" in Iraq meeting with US soldiers and Iraqi civilians alike. Given such a description, one might easily have been led to conclude the Surge must be working, since even critics were now claiming progress. Unfortunately, these were not critics, they spent very little time on the ground, their agenda and their interviewees was decided by the US military. In other words, this was psychological warfare, or more euphemistically, propaganda. (And one should note, used not to sway Iraqi opinion, but American.)

Glenn Greenwald of Salon has been leading the attack on the Pollack-O'Hanlon cheerleading and was able to confirm the aforementioned details in a 50+ minute interview with O'Hanlon. Click here to read Greenwald's article which includes a link to the transcript. To O'Hanlon's credit, he sat down and did the interview with Greenwald. O'Hanlon admited it was not fair to call him a critic of the war (although O'Hanlon was repeatedly billed as one and claim to be a war critic on Chris Matthews' show). He also confirmed the trip agenda and interviewees were chosen by US military and that little time was spent "on the ground." In my estimation, O'Hanlon realizes he's been caught red-handed and is seeking to maintain academic standing by coming clean now.

Apparently skilled in backtracking, O'Hanlon speaks in terms of needing to have provided more transparency and generally admits to limitations dictated by the conditions of his visit. The game here is to concede the criticisms are valid by claiming simple lack of foresight. In other words, O'Hanlon is smart enough not to stand behind the majority of his deceitful propaganda.* Instead this must merely have been an exercise of a first draft submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. Clever, since the objective has already been achieved and the only people paying attention are academics and critics, while the general population has accepted the misleading account and isn't likely to discover how they were misled. (And does anyone doubt this study will be repeated again and again over the next two months on Hannity, Limbaugh and other conservative shows? This is ammunition they need to sell the pro-Surge position. Reliance upon debunked science and reports is common fare for the right. One need only be reminded of the spurious claims of Iraqi WMDs being shipped to Syria, claims that it was proven WMD were discovered in Iraq, discounting or ignoring death estimates, etc.)

Every American ought to question any positive information coming out of Iraq. The Brits just received a report the surge was failing, and Michael Ware, CNN's contrarian reporter in Baghdad paints a very bleak picture when he's allowed air time (increasingly infrequent in recent months). And while I don't believe too many trust the White House anymore, I do fear people's faith in the military.

During times of war the military has one agenda - to win the war. The military lies strategically time and again. I would go so far as to suggest it prudent to question ANY information which seems to be connected with the US military, even if the source seems independent and simply relies on the military for protection. Independent voices are hard to come by when Iraq is so dangerous for reporters, but perhaps that in itself should give you an indication how bad things are.

*O'Hanlon continues to maintain his conclusions are valid. This is predictable given his method of conceding all the details. When called to account for his "reporting" he had three choices: 1. Defend the story and analysis, in toto; 2. concede mistakes were made but defend the conclusion; or, 3. concede the entire report was faulty. Given those three choices, considering how opaque and misleading his report has proven, only the final two would allow O'Hanlon to maintain any academic credibility. A good academic would have picked the third option, for clearly if the premises aren't valid -- if O'Hanlon really didn't get an honest appraisal from Iraqis, if he was unable to spend more than a few hours at any site, and if he depended entirely on the US military for his story -- clearly, his conclusion is merely conjecture. (Note, this third position also makes O'Hanlon look like a rather poor academic, albeit honest.) However, O'Hanlon has decided to try to both maintain his conclusion at the same time as he admits his methodology was flawed.

Effectively, O'Hanlon wishes to appear to be an academic (by admitting error in method) but keep his role as propagandist. Perhaps he can get away with it by maintaining his ultimately positive estimation of the Surge, relying on conservatives in academia to shield him. And, I suppose there is ultimately still a fourth option, retraction and explication in the future. For that, we'll have to wait.

Finally, there has been speculation about just how Pollack-O'Hanlon landed the NYT Op-Ed and all the media appearances when the third member on their trip, the one who didn't share the rosy outlook, only managed a single MSM appearance. Greenwald speculates, this may have something to do with the financial backer of O'Hanlon, a gentleman by the name of Sabin(sp?). Apparently Sabin is long-time supporter of Israel, a neo-conservative and major donor to Brookings. Greenwald has yet to do adequate analysis of this angle, and my guess is this is where the story will die. For some reason, when the machinations of militant Israeli policy advocacy in America come under scrutiny, the scrutiny seems to die a quick death. Of note is the recently convicted Israeli spy who worked at the Department of Defense. Linked to AIPAC, the spy story went unnoticed by virtually everyone due to a paucity of reporting. Of course, maybe it just isn't important when foreign spies are caught in the DOD, even when they're tied to a hugely influential American lobbying group. And, of course, when the White House is caught pushing bogus stories onto the front page of the NY Times by one Judith Miller...well that isn't worth looking into either.

Hot Rod and Sunshine and Instant Freezing in Space

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:29:59 PDT

I've seen a couple movies in the past few days and figured I'd leave my impressions.

Hot Rod
You may have assumed this would be a terrible film. It has all the hallmarks: debut solo opportunity for SNL talent (Andy Samberg), moronic trailer, even more inane "plot" involving a stunt man, it's been panned by the critics, and it's flopped. But you'd be surprised, it fucking sucked.

I'm an Andy Samberg fan. I like the weird comedy his little group of writers bring...Laser Cats, I'm a fan. Nonetheless, the whole movie is 84 minutes of crap. Don't get me wrong, there's enough in here for a short film. And, despite the movie sucking, there were a couple scenes that I found myself spitting up Fanta and making strange noises as I tried to control my laughter. The rest of movie is mildly amusing but predictable. The plot really isn't important, so I won't bother. I read someone compare it to Billy Madison, and I think that's apt. Hot Rod actually had me hysterically laughing a couple times where Billy Madison never did, but Billy Madison had more plot and a better story (can you imagine that?).

My rating: 1 and 1/2 * . Only go if you're really high.

Sunshine
This is Danny Boyle's attempt at sci-fi. If you don't know Boyle, he's the guy responsible for some of my favorite movies of the past 15 years: Shallow Grave, Trainspotting, 28 DAYS (not Weeks) Later. The guy has talent. I'm a sci-fi lover, so when I read a year back he was making this film I was excited.

There's been so little publicity I would have actually missed this film if I hadn't seen a placard for it while standing in queue for Hot Rod. The reviews on Rottentomatoes is about 75 % and over at IMDB a lot people seem to have trouble with the film. So, I went in not really sure what to expect. I knew there would be no aliens, photon torpedoes or hokey costumes; I was right. You have to go into this film thinking more cerebral sci-fi, like 2001, or maybe eXistenZ.

I really like the film. For me, this will almost end up as one of my top 5 films of the year. I know it's not for everyone, but go and check it out for yourself. Not all the science is dead on, but it isn't all way off either. (The hired a guy from CERN to consult).

Rating: **** 4/4.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention the instant freezing in space. In one scene a guy freezes almost instantly when he's exposed to near absolute zero of space without a suit on. This is a normal convention of sci-fi, but it's most likely incorrect. Yes, space is cold, but it's also a vacuum. This means you can only lose heat through radiation (nothing so fast as jumping in a freezing lake, for example). The interesting part is that your saliva would boil instantly and you couldn't hold your breath our your lungs would explode. But, as far as I was able to research on the net, the science opinion is that your skin would prevent you blood from boiling off. So the main problem would be a lack of oxygen which would lead to a loss of consciousness in under a minute (probably 15-30 seconds). But if you could be pulled back in, the actual exposure to space wouldn't do much too you. Interesting.

The Great Hillary Swindle

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:36:28 PDT

There is an idea floating around that Hillary has a realistic chance at winning the Presidency in 08. One of the main arguments in favor of this is her better than expected performance in DNC debates this summer. While I won't disagree that Hillary has softened her edges and made herself a better a candidate, the main reason she looks electable is because the GOP noise machine has gone suspiciously silent.

Hillary's problem has never been, chiefly, amongst Democrats. While it's true that she isn't a favorite for many of us, she is still a Democrat, at least in name, and preferable to the GOP. The problem for Democrats is that the GOP is salivating over the prospect of an HRC candidacy, so much so, I believe they've strategically stopped criticizing her. I believe this is a concerted attempt to get the Dems to nominate an opponent the RNC believes they can easily defeat.

What do I base this on? Well for one, if you listen to Fox commentary and conservatives in general, they have all largely spoken IN SUPPORT OF HRC. This has largely gone unnoticed even amongst liberal bloggers. Let me suggest that when the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh praise Hillary, it might be a wise thing to step back and question their motives. I believe they are doing their best to make certain Hillary is the Democratic candidate so they can easily defeat her in 08.

Take a listen to Hannity, O'Reilly, or and Fox News when they discuss Democratic candidates. Undoubtedly they will praise Hillary's maturity, her experience and speak of her as the Democrat's only sensible candidate. I'm not saying you won't still hear an occasionally barb, but, by and large, the GOP hate machine has been either supportive of Hillary or SILENT. This is strategic.

The vast right-wing conspiracy, call it what you will, are not REALLY supporters of Clinton. In fact, they hate her with a passion, far more than they hate the rest of the DNC field. Until Obama's rise and loss of an inevitable HRC nomination, the GOP was treating Hillary just as they have for the past 15 years. There were no compliments, only jokes, innuendo and mocking. Today you won't hear that.

Remember back to the build-up of the Iraq war, this GOP media can be summoned at will to do the bidding of the RNC. I think a good case study is the upcoming Surge debate. We've been seeing a steady stream of pro-surge coverage across the MSM. Lately, when 3 scholars returned from Iraq, the two with favorable words for the Surge got an NYT lead editorial, and did a tour of all the network and cable shows. What wasn't mentioned was that third scholar. I can't recall his name as he only made it on one network (CBS, one time), his assessment was that the Surge is failing. Now, this article isn't meant to debate which side is right about the Surge, I've made my opinion known on that already. I simply would like you to continue to watch the "pro-Surge" media blitz over the next month. Just last night Fox News aired what was supposedly a "fair and balanced" examination of the Surge. The title of the show may have showed a itsy-bit of bias, see if you can guess what side they came down on, here's the title: "Victory or Retreat?"

So the propaganda machine is still there for a united conservative cause. One has to wonder why they aren't bad mouthing Hillary, one of their favorite punching bags of the past 2 decades? Do you think it's because they really like her views? Do you think the GOP political operatives don't have a strategy for backing a candidate they believe they can defeat in the general? Look at the their past history, they had a book ready to be published for the summer of 04 about John Kerry's swiftboat. That didn't come about overnight. They wanted and pushed for Kerry. (In fact, there have been disturbing allegations that Lieberman, Daschle and the GOP all worked concertedly in Iowa to Defeat Dean in 04...if you want some fun research that can make for an interesting afternoon's reading.

So every time you hear how well Hillary is doing, every time someone tells you how much stronger she has become as a candidate, every time you think she might be plausible, I ask you to listen to the silence from the Right. The Democrats are not likely to get into the scurrilous - scandal-page politics in their primary. Hillary simply has to compete against Democrats on policy, without regard to the mudslinging. None of the candidates want to dirty themselves by attacking Hillary in such an unfair manner. This is really why Hillary is doing so well. She isn't really being tested.

If Hillary wins the nomination, the GOP will have the better part of a year to light into her with every lesbian-joke, every Bill Clinton blowjob, every FBI tape, every Travel-gate, every White Water, Vince Foster, the Clinton body count, Hillary's supposed socialism and radical Feminism...and I'm sure a truck full of shit ready to be dumped on her.

Hillary says she "knows how to fight back." Where and how has this ever been demonstrated? Bill Clinton was impeached over this nonsense. Sure, Hillary won a seat in the Senate, but do you honestly believe the RNC put much into the Rick Lazio campaign? The truth is that Clintons do know about the types of attacks which are sure to come, even so, they haven't ever been able to defend against them. They've never been able to fend off the scandal; it's their Achilles' heal. The public and media love Clinton scandals, and the RNC is expert at creating them and serving them up.

What will Hillary's tough girl strategy be when Rush Limbaugh is accusing her of murdering Vince Foster on a daily basis? When the evangelical church leaders remind their flock that the Clintons are the anti-Christ? How is Hillary going to stop Fox News from running bullshit stories 24/7? Will she be able to stop the MSM from Drudge from World Net Daily from Cybercast News Service chain of fabricated and sensationalized nonsense? I don't see where they've been able to in the past. The truth is that they were terrible dealing with it and there is no reason to believe they won't be terrible with it this time.

In fact, I think HRC has already telegraphed how she intends to respond. When asked about electability, Hillary uses the same tactics and lines from Bill's playbook (which caused him to be impeached). The strategy is to have a fake laugh, then claim the American Public has had enough of this scandal mongering..."The American people are sick of these personal attacks and want real answers." So Hillary's plan is to do just like her husband, ignore, play down, and speak to the issues. Does anyone believe that will work?

Americans love scandal. They still can't get enough Bill Clinton blowjob stories. Don't pretend you're in fantasy land of how things "ought to be." where voters most care about issues. Ground yourself in reality. Think to the 04, 2000 and entire Clinton Presidency and remember how popular the smear tactics were. Swiftboating WORKED, people talked about it instead of the war. In 2000, rather than the economy, Al Gore was called a liar for his claim that he helped build the internet. Then the story was Al Gore's excessive make-up and changing clothes. I've already covered what they did to the Clintons, as if any of us could forget. I'm sorry, but the GOP hate machine WORKS, and it worked against the Clinton's better than anyone else, EVER. It will work in 08, and they know it.

The GOP knows they will wipe the floor with Hillary if she's the nominee of the Dems. The election will be ugly, entertaining, and driven by fake scandals. If Hillary is the nominee, this election will be about the corrupt Clintons, not the war, health care or the economy. The GOP knows political entertainment and they already have the script for Hillary. This is why Democrats cannot nominate her. It's political suicide.

The GOP lies in wait for a Clinton nomination. Their discipline and organization can be seen in their coordinated silence and even praise for Hillary during the Democratic primaries. Democrats need to listen to the silence and remember that the campaign Hillary is running in the primary so effectively will look nothing like the sensationalized hate spewed forth if she wins the nomination.

Hey the Market's Collapsing, Let's Have Dinner

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:30:55 PDT

Well, the Dow fell 380 points today as a French Bank suspended funds and the European Banks pumped a record 130 billion into the market overnight to add some liquidity. This isn't news if you saw this clip on Friday where Jim Cramer calls for people to stop trading as he believes the market is about to go under: Jim Cramer goes nuts about mortgage meltdown and lack of Fed rate cut. Jim Cramer is the kinda crazy guy who hosts Mad Money on MSNBC. While he is over the top, he's also a respected Harvard guy and Wall Street Insider (he used to run a hedge fund). His outburst caused quite a stir, so, on Monday, he posted this more pacified explanation of his rant.

If he's right, 7 million people are likely to lose their homes in the not too distant future. Sorry it's not great news, but everyone ought to be aware this possibility is looming. Wall Street Journal's interactive map of global credit collapse which makes things look pretty damn.

Dating: Are Kids an Issue?

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:06:31 PDT

Say you find someone you're interested in but they have kids. Now, you may have kids as well, in that case I suppose it's a common bonding thing and the Brady Bunch isn't such a bad deal. Additionally, 25 percent of young people under 18 now live with a step-family. For them, I can't imagine kids from another relationship would seem in the least bit awkward. But 75 percent of us don't and didn't grow-up with step-families, so our gut reaction may be to be wonder about kids.

Kids brings added responsibility. They require more maturity and stability. They make trivializing dating less likely (presumably people aren't interested in hurting children by coming into and then leaving their life, so they won't be so cavalier about entering into a relationship where kids are involved. People may question the motivation for wanting for a single parent to get involved. Perhaps the parent needs a second income to do best for the kids and is therefore, perhaps, less interested in romance than in financial security.

So figures for additional thought. Just pulling up the first divorce rate page I found on a Google search produced these stats from 1997-2002. 59 percent of America is married (this continues to fall). 10 percent of population is divorced. Percentage of first marriages ending in divorce 50. Percentage of second marriages ending in divorce 60. Percentage of householders not married in 2000, 48 percent. Percentage of population never married 24 percent. Percentage of population married by age 25, 32 m, 50 f; by 35, 77 m, 84 f; by 45, 87 m, 90 f; by 55, 95 percent of all m and f have been married. Children living with just one parent, 28 percent. Percentage of children who will experience a family divorce by age 18, 40%. Median age for first marriage 25-26, first divorce, 30. Median age for second marriage ~33 and second divorce about age 39.

So lots of stats. But what they tell us that divorce is common, living single is common, single parents are common, marriage survival is about 50/50 these days.

So if you have kids, do you think it should matter to prospective dates? Does having kids impact what you're looking for? If you're single, do you see major drawbacks? (Potentially, you won't be as important to single parent as he/she has children to be concerned about.) Are you worried about being used for money? Do parents find having kids is a negative they have to conceal, or that they would have more success if they did conceal? Should people state their opinion about meeting people with kids in their profile? I'm interested in what people think, so leave your thoughts.

If you care, I'm one of those never married males under 35, still in the majority for my age group. Kids are an issue for me, although not really the per se, but their effect on a potential relationship. With baby sitters needed from the get go, doe-eyed romance isn't as likely. Also, the divorced, single or widowed mother I impute with a cynicism towards men which is perhaps completely unfair. I can tell you, that I would be VERY reluctant to ever consider marrying a two time divorcee, without regards to kids.

So comment away.

Would You Go Fight In Iraq if Asked?

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:52:17 PDT

Say there's a draft and your number comes up. We're past 4 years into this fiasco, so you know what you'd be doing. Here are some pros and cons:

Pros:
1. Patriotism - I'm actually not a fan of patriotism the related concepts of nationalism and ethnocentricism, but I readily admit I'm in the minority on this one. People love their country, so if you went and fought you'd be be fulfilling some national duty.

2. Pay - It isn't great pay, granted, but it isn't slavery. There's a chance to move up and make a career out of it. The benefits are pretty good.

3. You take someone else's place. For me this would be the big pro. As someone who thinks we're on the wrong side of this thing I can't justify it by really any other means. But this is a strong one. Since I do feel the war is wrong, if I don't fight, presumably someone else would have to take my place and risk themselves. I'm single, never married, no kids, so I might even be taking the place of husband/father/mother.

4. You believe in the Iraq war. Well I personally think you need psychiatric help if, at this point, you're still behind this thing. Nonetheless, a good 1/3 of the country disagrees with me so this might be an incentive.

5. Military valor. Another one I don't place much significance in but lots of people in many societies have over the years. Bushido in Japan is but one that jumps to mind.

6. You won't be called a coward.

Cons.

1. Giving up autonomy - especially the right to decide who you'll kill. This is a big deal to me. And yeah, you never have to fire, but if you don't fire in battle you might actually injure more people by not following orders.

2. The war is pretty messed up. We have some Iraqis we like, some we don't. Strategies seem to change pretty regularly. There isn't an easy way to figure out who the enemy is. You may kill innocent people by accident.

3. Who knows how long you'd be over there. Tours keep getting extended, and the war seems to have no end in sight.

4. You may face jail time. You can become a conscientious objector, but the status is hard to get.

So a draft has been declared, your number is up, your eyesight, disability, prior criminal acts, and gender don't matter, you'll be in combat - do you go and why?

Moving in the Left Direction

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:21:56 PDT

Dennis K is is closest to my own heart when we talk policy. And he is brave, the guy has been pushing the progressive agenda forever. People say his main problem is that he looks weird and is short. While I agree these aren't huge assets, I don't think they're what is really holding him back; it's his progressive policy.

Feingold is actually pretty close to DK in policy and doesn't have the looks issue. He's taken more seriously, considered running this cycle, but then backed out. I think he probably saw how difficult it would be for a true progressive to get funding.

What needs to happen for a "true" progressive to get elected is for one of two things to happen. The first is the return to power of organized labor. Taft-Hartley and NAFTA/WTO laregely prevent this from happening. Before a true progressive can find a major funding base to match corporate dollars, liberalism is on a short leash.

Obama, if you listen to his 2004 DNC keynote, advocates a pretty strong form of liberalism he hasn't been speaking of in this campaign - probably for a reason. Obama, I'm guessing, found he had to play down the liberalism in order to attract more major funding sources. This has led to Obama's tough talk on Iran and about pursuing terrorists in Pakistan. Nothing new, but not exactly in concert with Obama's previous positions, like helping to block the attempt cap malpractice awards (Dems did block) and his vote against bankruptcy "reform" (which sadly did pass and will push half bankruptcies out of chapter 7 and into chapter 13, or structured repayment instead of discharge of debts).

Today, on campaign trail, you won't hear Obama endorsing leaving NAFTA or the WTO, there is simply no way to get funded taking such a position. Instead Obama talks of reforming and establishing "worker' rights" in Mexico. That placates both sides in the debate because if Mexico has give worker's the right to collectively bargain, obtain health care and pensions; there simply won't be the gross disparity in wages between the US and Mexico. Obama's position, essentially, means you don't know what you're getting. Someone like me hopes he's only pandering to the money interests to get elected and will push for substantial reform and empower labor once elected...but we don't know. We know Bill Clinton was not in favor of these policies, he's a free trader, I assume HIllary is as well, because she hasn't been talking about amending NAFTA (rather, she says NAFTA is only part of the trade problem - I interpret this as a dodge, perhaps others won't).

The other possibility for a real progressive to succeed is through public financing of federal elections. This IS possible and I think might be part of an Obama legacy should be be elected. A system which allows easier access to the general ballot, coupled with public funds for candidates, effectively negates all the special interests. If we ever get this, we'll finally see real alternatives to the mainstream Dem and GOP candidates. Socialist candidates, libertarians, nationalists, labor, and religious-based parties could all compete as they do in most of Europe. Conservatives hate this possibility because the 1/2 of the country that doesn't vote, would largely vote for these other parties. Obama and a Dem Congress might just have the will to make substantial change. (Of course the Sup Crt. might rule it contrary to the 1st Amendment, but one can imagine a real matching dollar system that might pass muster.)

Frankly, neither situation, empowering labor or fixing election funding, is extremely likely to happen. ...But I believe it is necessary for one or both to happen before real progressives can be viable. We know HRC isn't likely to enact these sorts of policies, with Obama is there is still hope. My hope is that Obama is a significant, yet still incremental, change in the progressive direction. So, maybe DK and Feingold are left out in the cold today, but maybe they won't be 4 or 8 years from now. That's my hope.

Clinton is Bush-lite

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:49:40 PDT

Obama is the best we can do. And I don't mean that to put Obama down, but we have to face facts. Corporations and AIPAC largely control the establishment Democratic party and they've given two choices funding Clinton and Obama. Clinton because that was the plan and is reliably status quo, and Obama because they need to hedge their bets.

Obama has played it smart and close to vest. He's told AIPAC the minimum they need to hear, i.e., he'll talk tough against Iran and continue the general war on terror. Obama's also had to get in bed with major finance. He's probably promised not to shake up NAFTA too much or raise corporate taxes. The thing is, we know what we have with Clinton...it really is just Bush-lite.

If Hillary were to be elected (which is still a long shot for the general imho), sure, we may stop this war in Iraq, but Washington will still be run by the same folks running it now. Obama is more progressive; he might get Taft-Hartley repealed - the bill that killed labor in this country. Also, I think he's likely to lay off the drug war, back medicinal marijuana and decriminalization, the estate and gift tax will come back, and some kind of major health care reform will be offered (not gov't run single payer but probably universal coverage). With Obama you can count on stem cell research funding, social security strengthened, more initiatives like more mental hospitals. One can go on and on, but there are lots of smaller progressive measures Obama will probably make changes with that the Clinton's didn't bother with in their previous 8 years.

HIllary, if she can get elected, will bring what we know what a Clinton administration brings. It will be pro-business, social programs will be "reformed" (cut back) rather than reinforced, the drug war will be increased, and will labor continue to get shafted in favor of supply side economics. Health care from Hillary? Maybe, but she's a major recipient of health care money, her reform is more likely to be a smoke screen.

Obama isn't perfect, he's had to make major concessions to get in this, but he's a progressive. The Clintons are to the right of Nixon in many of their policies if you look at it fairly. We don't need a softer and gentler conservatism, we need the pendulum to swing back towards the young, poor, elderly, labor, the disabled, minorities, and women. We need a President who sees government as something positive that can improve conditions rather than an obstacle that needs to be minimized. Things were better under the Clintons, we didn't have this constant fear-driven war footing and the economy was better - but what else did they accomplish? We can do better.

Dateline Reporter Caught Undercover at Defcon

noreply@blogger.com (Spectator Consumer) — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:55:06 PDT

Who knew a geek convention could have such a funny story attached to it? Defcon is the annual hacker convention in Vegas. These are hackers in the true sense, some of the white hat, some black hat (although I don't believe the conference would agree) but all of them are into computer security. There are featured presenters, I suspect break-out sessions - it's basically just a convention. Dateline NBC apparently believes it's much more sinister, apparently oblivious to the nature of computer programming with all its debugging, inherent complexities and the necessity society places on data security. ...So they sent an undercover reporter.

The thing is, the geeks knew she was coming. They tracked her flight, knew where she was staying, and even prominently displayed her photo before she arrived non-incognito (maybe that should be cognito?). Anyway, the story, covered by The Inquirer, is worth your time even if you could care less about viruses, worms, botnets, zero - day exploits and trojans. I do, sort of, feel bad for the lady, but that's what you get.