Paul Levinson's Infinite Regress

The Dark Knight Transcends

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:14:00 +0000

I just got back from seeing The Dark Knight, and it is eons better than any previous Batman movie, or, for that matter, any Superman or other movie made of a comic book character. In fact, The Dark Knight is as far away from comic book tropes and exaggerations as The Grapes of Wrath is to a nursery rhyme.

Heath Ledger as The Joker was stunning and unforgettable - more like Brad Pitt in 12 Monkeys than Jack Nicholson's Joker in a previous Batman movie, and Nicholson was pretty good. A fitting last bow for Ledger indeed, and all the more tragedy that he won't be with us for more.

But Ledger's was not the only brilliant performance. Gary Oldman is truly in a class of his own in acting, playing radically different characters in different movies with the same ease and also unforgettable perfection. This time Oldman was James Gordon - and Gordon and the audience never had it so good.

Aaron Eckhart as the "White Knight" Harvey Dent was powerful, Maggie Gyllenhaal as Batman's and Harvey's love was perfect, and you can never miss with Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman (whose Lucius Fox takes a stand against Orwell's Big Brother). Lost's Richard (Nestor Carbonell) plays the Mayor, and our real Senator Patrick Leahy even puts in a nice cameo.

Christian Bale as Batman/Bruce Wayne was fine - but I wouldn't put him ahead of George Clooney and Val Kilmer's performances of the role.

But the story was so powerful, the supporting acting so extraordinary, that Bale really shined, too. I'm rarely surprised in a movie - I did guess one minor bad guy sitting in the driver's seat - but the complex story of The Dark Knight was packed not only with punches but real twists and surprises.

Most of all, despite its advertised "darkness," the movie had hope and soul. When you see it, I think you'll agree that the real heroes were the people of Gotham, and in a soft-spoken, understated, but memorable and heart warming way. I don't know, is it too much to say they evinced a distinctly Democratic, humane capacity, resisting the baser impulses of a people under attack? Yes, they did. Gotham - that mixture of New York and Chicago, the quintessential American city - shown bright in The Dark Knight tonight.

The Plot to Save Socrates

"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

more about The Plot to Save Socrates...

Read the first chapter of The Plot to Save Socrates .... FREE!

Suggestion for New Snorg Tee from Paterson NJ Councilman "We're Tired of Seeing Your Behind"

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:32:00 +0000

Not your behind, necessarily, unless you wear saggy pants, below the buttocks, in Paterson, New Jersey. If you do, Councilman Anthony Davis apparently has had his eye on you - or, at least, your backside - and is sick and tired of seeing it. So much so, that he's pushing for fines for indecent exposure for anyone parading around with such low cuts.

To be clear, I don't think anyone is actually showing a complete, naked rear. It's big baggy underwear, with maybe a little of the top of the bottom line.

But to tell you the truth, I'm not really the best person to testify about this, because, the few times that someone wearing such an outfit has crossed my path, I didn't particular look. So maybe because I'm not particularly interested in seeing those behinds, and therefore haven't seen all that many for all that long, I'm not tired of seeing them.

Councilman Davis presumably was, and is, and that's his business. But not the Paterson City Council's, not any government's, which isn't and shouldn't be in the business of telling us how to dress.

I won't go so far to say this is a bonafide First Amendment issue, but, hey, clothing is a kind of communication, I talk about modes of dress when I teach nonverbal communication, so maybe I wouldn't be that much of a smart ass if I said it was...

All right, the puns are endless. "We're tired of seeing your behind" has to be one of the funniest lines that has come down the pike since O'Reilly's "We'll do it LIVE!" If there's not a Snorg tee-shirt out with "We're tired of seeing your behind" in the next week, I'd be amazed.

But Councilman Davis really needs to get back to doing the people's business ... and stop cracking down on the people's business line...

Suggestion for Next New Yorker Cover: Cartoonist and Editors with Heads Up Their...

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 02:32:00 +0000

You've all no doubt heard about and seen The New Yorker cover with the inane cartoon of Barack and Michelle Obama in the White House, fist bumping, Barack dressed in mid-East garb, Michelle like an Angela Davis revolutionary, replete with AK-47, and the American flag burning in the fireplace decorated with a picture of the world's leading terrorist above it. You can see it in the video clip below, if somehow you missed it.

I can't see this having any adverse effect on the campaign. Who of Obama's supporters would change their vote because of this? Who of those who don't like Obama will be energized by this? I'd say no one. Those against Obama would have been, and will continue to be, whatever the New Yorker put on its cover.

But that doesn't mean that we should excuse let alone approve of this ridiculous cartoon. Yes, The New Yorker has every right under the First Amendment to put whatever it pleases on its cover. But we the world have every right to object.

And more than anything, this lame attempt at satire shows how out of it, how behind the times, The New Yorker was with this cartoon. Hyperbole has a role in satire, but putting together a kitchen sink of canards about Obama goes beyond humor - there's too much wrong in this cartoon to find it funny or sage in its attempted criticism of Obama's nutcase critics.

Well, The New Yorker has published some of the great cartoons of our age. Here's an idea for a new one: a cartoon about a cartoonist penning a cartoon, and editors approving it, all with their heads up their...

Paul McCartney Singing All Things Must Pass

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 06:12:00 +0000

Another YouTube gem - Paul McCartney singing George Harrison's "All Things Must Pass" at the Concert for George held at the Royal Albert Hall in London on November 29, 2002 one year after George's death...

My favorite line was always "daylight is good at arriving at the right time" ... not only good things, but bad things, don't last forever...

But there's a lot good in this song, and McCartney's performance. Look at the look McCartney gives Harrison's son, Dhani, at close to the end of the performance, followed by the look McCartney gives Eric Clapton.

All things must pass ... but perhaps not if they've been put up on the eternal golden playlist of YouTube....

Lovin' My Prius, Part III

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 01:29:00 +0000

Well, I've glowingly blogged and podcast about my Prius a few times in the past two years, but I was reminded again today just why I can't say enough good things about it.

I was sitting in my Prius at an intersection in Westchester County, NY. A big truck got stuck trying to make a turn. I missed about 4 lights before the truck was able to move again. For most of that time, my Prius wasn't costing me a cent of gas, because the internal combustion engine ("ICE") had automatically shut off, and the electrical engine had taken over.

Now, sure, I could have turned any car off, easily. But how many times have you ever really done that, sitting at a light for a long minute? Never, is my answer.

And when you drive in the city, you're stopping at lights, and sometimes stuck at them, almost as often as you blink. And every time that happens, you save a little gas money - that you otherwise would have spent, for literally moving nowhere.

I heard today that Toyota is shutting down an SUV plant in the US, and opening up a Prius production plant. Way to go...

Prius podcasts: My Sweet Prius, Part II ... Prius and Bluetooth

Prius blog post: Nine Reasons I Love My Prius

Sitting Shiva on Weeds and Laughing: 4.4

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:23:00 +0000

No, Weeds hasn't died - in fact, its sitting shiva episode was the best yet of Season 4, bursting with energy, humor ... and life.

Except for grandma. She may have survived being taken off life support in Episode 3, but not Nancy's pillow, applied off-camera. The pillow, by the way, is a good example of why no technology is inherently always evil or good. The evil gun can save lives and help us hunt for food, the good pillow can be used for murder and euthanasia (ok, not as bad as murder, but I'm just saying).

Now, in the Jewish religion, the custom is for the immediate family of the departed loved one to sit at home, on wooden boxes (not comfortable), for seven days - "shiva" is Yiddish for seven. You can't play, you can't work, you can't prepare or buy food. So compassionate friends and relatives bring it to you. It's tough going - when I was kid, I thought it was sitting "shiver".

You can talk, though. And the seven little clips of the Botwins talking for seven days were hilarious. One of the best sequences in all of the seasons.

In the aftermath:

Lenny takes Nancy's money and decamps - we may not see him again.

And Doug is moving in permanently.

Trading Lenny for Doug. Not bad ... but I'm going to miss Albert Brooks as Lenny. A classic performance.

See also: Showtime's Sassy Hour of Sin ... Weeds 4.3: Nancy by the Endless Sea

Obama and His Family Created Excellent History on Access Hollywood

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:24:00 +0000

I'm really surprised about the flack Obama has been catching about the recent interview of him and his family - Michelle, and daughters Malia (age 10) and Sasha (age 7) - by Maria Menounos on Access Hollywood.

I found the interview heartwarming and delightful. It was a pleasure to see a family joking, quipping, even complaining about Obama leaving his suitcase on the floor. Maybe I'm not objective, but this reminded me of my wife and our kids, when they were younger, and seemed refreshingly normal in a candidate for President.

So why the uproar?

Anderson Cooper, on CNN, was the first I saw expressing some displeasure, griping the night before last that the questions Ms. Menounos asked were softballs. Cooper expected, what, hard-hitting questions of children? Menounos conducted an excellent interview. As Dan Abrams (still my favorite on MSNBC) observed last night, Cooper was just jealous.

And what's vexing Andrew Sullivan? In his Daily Dish today, Sullivan says he was "was gob-smacked by the Obamas' decision to include their children in a soft-focus TV interview," and ties this to concerns about Obama's positions on FISA, the Second Amendment, Iraq, and deciding to give his acceptance speech in a huge outdoor stadium!

Talk about a laundry list. Much as I like seeing the word "gob-smacked," what on Earth is Sullivan talking about? Obama didn't change his position on Iraq or the Second Amendment, he did on FISA - I don't see that as such a problem, but even if I did - what does that have to do with having your family interviewed and wanting to accept your nomination in an outdoor stadium? Sullivan says it's all "hubris" for Obama - but, frankly, the hubris here looks more like Sullivan's.

Obama himself has said he regretted the family interview - but, I've got to say, that's one thing that I do disagree with Obama about. I predict Maria Menounos' interview of the Obama family will go down as an illuminating piece of history of a Presidential family to be.

Because, the fact is, we really don't have any others. Wouldn't you love to see one of JFK and his family right before he was elected? Of course, the timing wasn't quite right, Caroline was not even three, but you know what I mean.

But good for the Obamas and Access Hollywood and Maria Menounos for making this happen.

Secret Service Owes America an Explanation for Violation of Librarian's 1st Amendment Rights at McCain Townhall Meeting

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:36:00 +0000

You've all likely read about this, and/or seen the video below (my student, Mike Plugh, first brought this to my attention):

A 60-year old librarian in Denver was carrying a sign with the message, McCain=Bush, as she waited to attend a McCain town hall meeting at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts (a public venue). Some guy in a beige jacket asks her to remove the sign. She refuses. An onlooker asks him why she's been asked to remove the sign. The beige jacket responds that he was "asked" to do this, "by representatives of the Secret Service." Soon after, a Denver policeman starts talking, and informs the librarian that she has two choices: keep the sign, and be issued a ticket for "trespass," or get rid of the sign, in which case she can continue to stand in line to attend the McCain town hall event. Carol Kreck, the brave librarian, takes the ticket. She's escorted off the public premises, and tells the camera that she's been told that, if she returns, she'll be arrested.

This is one of the most outrageous violations of the First Amendment I've seen in a long time. Not a case of allegedly indecent broadcasting, in which there is at least a confused (and unconstitutional) Federal Communications Act to back it up. Not a shield law issue, which, although profound in its threat to the First Amendment, is not a direct assault upon it.

No, this is about as straight-up an attack on the First Amendment as you can get - an attack on exactly what Jefferson and our Founding Fathers were protecting in the very First Amendment to our Constitution: the right of every citizen to express her or his political views, unobstructed by the government.

What's to be done?

1. The Secret Service owes America an explanation. If they indeed put the beige jacket and the Denver police up to harassing and preventing Ms. Kreck from exercising her First Amendment rights, then those in the Secret Service who did this should be fired and brought up on criminal charges.

2. If the beige jacket was lying, and was not told to do this by the Secret Service, then he should be brought up on harassment and other criminal charges.

3. The Denver police in either case were pathetic. If the Secret Service ordered them to harass Ms. Kreck, they should have refused to follow the order, and should be reprimanded for such ignorance of the First Amendment. If the Secret Service gave no such order, and they harassed Ms. Kreck on the basis of what the beige suit told them, then they should be fired.

It's time we started standing up for our rights.

Obama's Acceptance of Nomination in Stadium Resonates with Democracy

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 01:26:00 +0000

Good for Barack Obama for deciding to accept the Democratic Party nomination for President this August in a huge outdoor football stadium in Denver.

Stadiums are usually thought of nowadays as platforms for sports and celebrity concerts. But they have a history that hearkens back to the very roots of democracy.

In ancient Athens, the birthplace of democracy as far as we know, the ideal size for a democratic state was thought to be the number of citizens who could sit in a public arena or stadium and debate the issues.

Ancient Athens put Socrates to death - they had no First Amendment back then - but not every aspect of our democratic system is better than theirs. In place of the direct democracy of Athens, we elect representatives who debate and vote on our behalves. Rather than seeing our speakers in person, we see them on television, where members of the press - another kind of representative - ask them questions for us.

YouTube has taken some of the press out of this process, and put videos in our own hands (or, at least, laptops and cell phones), but we still do not get to see candidates, or each other, in person, as we all pursue the democratic process.

Obama's decision to move his acceptance speech from inside the convention to Invesco Field at Mile High, in Denver, is a powerful and important symbolic move. Like JFK, who also accepted his party's nomination in 1960 in the big outdoor Memorial Coliseum in Los Angeles, Obama's nomination in Denver will be a crucial step in moving our democracy a good mile higher in responsiveness to the people than it is today.

Vantage Point: Flawed but Fine

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:58:00 +0000

Hey, I just saw Vantage Point on DVD. The critics didn't much like it, but, once again, I didn't much agree with them.

In fact, I thought Vantage Point was pretty good. Kept me guessing with good twists and lots of action. A refreshingly different kind of assassination movie - especially in tune with the complexities of our age, in which the bad guys are far from dummies.

Two points I did have a little trouble with -

1. William Hurt played both the President and his double. Now, I can understand the people in Spain, in the crowd, not knowing the difference. But the event was televised on GNN - a CNN equivalent - with close-ups to boot. How would the double, however much he looked and sounded like the President, have fooled the American people and everyone in the news business? (This flaw could have been dealt with by setting up the news coverage as unable, for whatever tech or security reason, to deliver close-ups of the President with decent sound.)

2. I guessed Matthew Fox (Agent Taylor) was the bad guy as soon as he told Dennis Quaid (Agent Barnes) that he, Fox, would check something out. Now, I think making Fox the bad guy was an ingenious move, given that we know him best as Jack Shephard on Lost, who is good, through and through. But something in that scene between Fox and Quaid gave it away, at least to me.

Nonetheless, if was a fine movie. With an especially good part played by Forest Whitaker, who never disappoints. (Also good to see Richard T. Jones - Agent Ellison from The Sarah Connor Chronicles - playing Agent Holden in Vantage Point.)

PS: My wife had trouble with an additional point in the movie: Why did the terrorists want to take the President alive? Didn't bother me, though. I thought that, with these more intelligent than usual terrorists, we're supposed to assume that they understand that holding a US President hostage gives you a better hand to play than killing the President.

Pete Seeger on the 4th of July: The Truest American Hero

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:34:00 +0000

My wife and I saw "Pete Seeger: The Power of Song" last night. Part of PBS's superb American Masters series, "The Power of Song" may well win an Emmy this year, and it would be eminently deserved. One of the best portraits of a singer - someone far more than a singer - I've ever seen.

Pete Seeger is 89, and has been a major player for good and peace throughout most of the 20th, and now the 21st, century. He had some number one records with the Weavers in the 1950s, was blacklisted in the McCarthy era, worked tirelessly for civil rights, and inspired the cleanup of the Hudson River in the 1990s - our kids actually helped a little with that when they were in summer camp. But what stands out most about Pete Seeger is his voice with banjo singing out against war.

My wife and I were inspired by him many times in the 1960s, when we were first dating, especially when we were marching in Washington in October, 1969 to stop that decade's unconstitutional, immoral war, and Pete Seeger, singing out John Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance," across the street from the White House, shouted "Are ya listenin' Nixon?" And, it took a few painful years, but eventually Nixon had to, because the American people roused by heroes like Pete Seeger gave Nixon no choice.

Yes, Pete Seeger was and is a hero - the best kind of hero in an illegal, disgraceful war - the kind of hero of who does what he can to bring that war to an end. Far more of a hero than a fighter pilot who drops death on innocent people.

Pete Seeger of course was scorned by the retrograde forces in America throughout his career. The Smothers Brothers courageously put him on their TV show after Seeger had been banned for 17 years. Johnny Cash did, too, and one of the best parts of "The Power of Song" was a clip of Cash standing up for Seeger in an interview on Cash's show. Johnny Cash was a great man, more than just a singer, too. Bill Clinton as President finally gave Pete Seeger the official admiration he deserved, honoring him at the Kennedy Center in 1994.

We should all stand up for Pete Seeger today - happy Fourth of July, Pete Seeger, you're the truest and best kind of American, and our country and the world owes you a lot.

========================================

And take a look at this superb video - Pete Seeger and Majora Carter in the This Brave Nation series, recorded just last year.

Weeds at 4.3: Nancy by the Endless Sea

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:52:00 +0000

A more serious bunch of Weeds this fourth season, I think, now past Episode 3.

The most dramatic and also profound part of the plot concerns Judah's mother, hooked up to machine, in a coma, tended by Judah's father, Len, aka Albert Brooks. She mutters in Episode 2, in Yiddish, that she doesn't want to live, and this sets most of the family off on a debate as to whether to kindly put her out of her misery. Andy leads the arguments for yes, Silas is the most opposed. The Andy Ayes eventually carry the day, and appoint Nancy (of course) to the task.

Nancy shuts off the machine via turning off circuit breakers - but, miraculously, grandma keeps breathing! I was glad to see that.

Meanwhile, Nancy's being tested as a runner to Mexico, the Feds finally believe Celia that Nancy's the drug runner, and some kind of crisis is clearly brewing, but it's still a little too soon to tell what.

But I'm enjoying Nancy and her family by the sea - not to mention Len v. Andy - and looking forward to maybe even grandma now playing an active role! Intimations of immortality...

See also: Showtime's Sassy Hour of Sin ... Sitting Shiva on Weeds: 4.4

AdaptiveBlue

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:01:00 +0000

Hey, have you noticed the two little widgets I put up on the right hand column of Infinite Regress a few days ago?

No?

Well, just scroll down a little from the top, past the What Am I Doing lavender Twitter widget, and the little Pownce badget, and the tiny ODEO player which, if you click on it, will tell you, in my own voice, how to get autographed copies of my books, and-

Right, there they are: two widgets, the first one flashing with covers of my novels, the second with pix of the covers of my nonfiction books, and much more. Because if you click on either of these, you can find out much more about the books, about me (there's even a link to the Wikipedia entry about me), and about the operation, AdaptiveBlue, where you can get these and all kinds of other widgets, free of charge.

Now, if all you wanted to do was put my widgets on your blog or profile page, that of course would make me very happy, and when you click on either of the widgets you'll see an easy option to do that.

But you can also design your own widget - and featuring all kinds of things other than books. You can have a widget for your Netflix queue, your Last.fm music, all kinds of things.

That's it - just a great new, free way to share just about anything online with your friends, readers, and public.

Arianna Huffington Interviewed on Mark Molaro's Alcove

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:27:00 +0000

Excellent 20-minute interview of Arianna Huffington by Mark Molaro on his Internet Alcove show. (I consider Mark Molaro the Charlie Rose of the Internet.)

Huffington correctly attributes Barack Obama's success to his campaign's mastery of the Internet - or, what I call "new new media," and discussed with Mark on The Alcove last November.

The Huffington Post is one of the primary heralds of new new media journalism and commentary, and this interview provides an important audio-visual document by its Editor-in-Chief. The interview is of course available on YouTube, which is part of this revolution, too.

My favorite line in the interview (one of many): the mainstream media, in ineffectively covering the build-up to the Iraq War (its failure to report that there were no weapons of mass destruction), became, in Huffington's words, "stenographers to power".

Obama's Modified Positions Make Sense

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:52:00 +0000

Barack Obama has received considerable criticism for changing his positions on public financing (will now not use it in his campaign), and on FISA (supports the bill passed by the House). A few disappointed supporters have said he's therefore no different from John McCain, who changed his position on Bush's tax cuts (McCain now supports them), etc.

I think this misses the point, which is: what counts most is not whether a candidate changes positions, but whether the change is for the better or the worse. Let's look at the candidates and the issues:

Obama on public financing: I frankly never liked public financing of Presidential campaigns in the first place. Designed to prevent wealthy donors from dominating an election, public financing laws also get in the way of all Americans contributing to campaigns. Further, in the Bush/Kerry election of 2004, loopholes allowed millions of dollars to be spent on ads that swiftboated Kerry. And, worst of all, public financing gives the government too much power. It is illogical and dangerous to democracy to have the government that is up for election also determine who gets public financing for the election, and how much.

This year, Obama would have received $84.5 million from the US Treasury for his campaign, would have been unable to accept any private contributions, and would have been prohibited from spending more than the $84.5 million. Given that Obama took in $95 million in private contributions in just March and April, and more than 90% of his donations were under $100 (according to Obama's communications director, as reported in The New York Times), Obama's acceptance of public financing would not only have made no financial sense, but would have been a slap in the face of democracy. His opting out - even though he had previously said he wanted to work with public financing - was the right thing to do.

Obama on FISA: The Bush's administration's wiretaps after September 2001 were a direct violation of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) provisions that a special court has to approve or warrant the wiretaps (Bush's wiretaps were not approved by the FISA court). The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is intended, in part, to make sure that does not happen again. A sticking point is what to do about telecom companies - AT&T, Verizon, etc - which permitted the illegal wiretaps. Many Republicans want to give them immunity from invasion of privacy suits. Many Democrats do not.

Back in February, Obama said he would not support a FISA Amendment Act which did not hold the telecom companies accountable. Last week, Obama said he would support the FISA Amendments Act which passed in the House, even though that Act does provide immunity for the telecom companies.

Here is why Obama's change of position makes sense: 1. We need a strong statement from Congress that FISA must be respected from now on. Delaying or defeating the FISA Amendments Act would work against that. 2. According to Keith Olbermann quoting John Dean on Countdown last night, the immunity in the Act pertains only to civil suits - the telecom companies could still be held liable for criminal proceedings (as would the Bush administration). See the video clip below.

McCain on Bush tax cuts: As just one example of the kinds of changes in position McCain has been offering, consider that he correctly denounced Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy, and now endorses Bush's taxes. I can see nothing positive or useful in McCain's reversal of positions - unless we agree with Bush that the ultra-rich were paying too high a tax.

===========

In sum, then: Not all modifications of positions are equal. In the case of Obama's change of positions on public financing, and on FISA, they make sense. We might reasonably have wanted Obama to have come to these positions sooner, but by far the more important point is that he has the right, or best possible position, now. If this is in part a result of being attuned to the political climate, that's not necessarily bad - part of being a successful public servant is being flexible, and attuned to changing circumstances.

In the case of McCain, no circumstances regarding Bush's tax cuts have changed - it was wrong to punish the less wealthy then, and it's wrong now.

Five Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Be Barack Obama's VP

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:34:00 +0000

I saw Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on television today in Unity, New Hampshire. I think more than ever that Hillary Clinton would make a great VP candidate for Obama. Here are 5 reasons why:

1. What Obama said in Unity today about he and Hillary both being revolutionary breakthroughs in American politics is completely true. Why not have both - the first African-American President, the first woman Vice President - in office next year.

2. I believe Obama will win by a big margin whomever his VP. But Hillary's passion and power as a campaigner on the ticket can make a big win into a victory of truly landslide proportions. Since I'd like to see the Republican party as it currently is demolished - as in, beaten to the point where it can never recover - I'm in favor of any Democratic ticket that can result in a landslide win.

3. The idea that Hillary Clinton as VP can somehow undermine Obama's program - his commitment to change - is nonsense. Not only because their views and proposals agree in so many respects, but because, let's face it, the Vice President only has as much power as the President allows. It's as simple as that. There's nothing to worry about.

4. Along the same lines, the suggestion that with Hillary Clinton as VP, Obama will need a food taster, is unfounded paranoid nonsense.

5. However much some or many of Obama's supporters (not I) may dislike Hillary Clinton, it is an absolute fact that she battled to almost a tie with Obama in the Democratic primaries. This is a powerful democratic ethical imperative to be on the ticket as VP.

So ... there you have it. What I have missed? With what, if any, of the above do you disagree?

Mars Soil Suitable for Asparagus - Can Humans Be Far Behind?

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:01:00 +0000

"It is the type of soil you would probably have in your back yard, you know, alkaline. You might be able to grow asparagus in it really well" - this from Sam Kounaves, lead scientist investigating the soil on Mars, via the Phoenix that landed there on May 25, after a 10-month journey from Earth.

Kounaves added that he was "flabbergasted" about the finding.

It's thrilling news indeed, even if you don't care for asparagus. Because even if there was no life on Mars in the past - and this finding certainly makes it more likely that there was - a soil hospitable to life is a big step towards the terraforming of Mars, or making it hospitable for current human life.

The Martian atmosphere is still too thin, the water picture not yet clear (ice may have been found, just beneath the surface), but the soil beneath our feet on Mars is an excellent foundation indeed for extending our world on Earth to our neighbor to the "north" in the solar system.

Imus's Racist History Means He's Not to be Believed

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:50:00 +0000

Given the fact that Imus made blatantly racist comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team last year, why should we believe his claim that the following exchange on his WABC radio show yesterday was not racist:

Warner Wolf about "Pacman" Jones: "arrested six times since he was drafted by Tennessee in 2005"

Imus: "What color is he?"

Wolf: "He's African-American."

Imus: "Well, there you go. Now we know."

You can hear this exchange with your own ears, as well as Imus's explanation today that what he was saying about Jones was that, of course he was arrested six times, African-Americans are subject to unfair treatment by police, in the video below.

I don't believe it. Imus has a record of racist comments going back long before his labeling the Rutgers women's basketball team last year "nappy-headed ho's" - including calling African-American broadcast journalist Gwen Ifill a "cleaning lady". What he said yesterday was clearly just more of the same, and unacceptable.

As I indicated last year, this is not a question of First Amendment rights - no government agency is fining Imus or his radio station. But neither does Imus have a right to be paid millions of dollars to spew his racist garbage - Citadel, the owner of WABC Radio, has every right to fire him.

Frankly, Citadel should not have put Imus back on the air in the first place. They ought to do the right thing now, and put Imus out of his racist citadel. Otherwise, Citadel will be regarded as as racist as Imus. But I'm not holding my breath.

Brand New Interview with Me

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:16:00 +0000

Just posted ... I cover everything from why Obama is grounds for optimism, the future of radio, new new media, and why writing science fiction and nonfiction is not much different for me...

McCain Inane on Trains, Barack Backs Amtrak

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:52:00 +0000

I've always loved trains, especially in the Northeast corridor. You can get to the heart of just about any big city from Boston to Washington, DC with less aggravation and often faster than a plane. And, unlike a car if you're the driver, you can sleep, get lots of work done, grab a bite to eat whenever you like, and the scenery isn't half-bad, either.

All of that was before the insanely high prices of gas, which have made not only autos more expensive to drive, but air travel, too. Trains of course also use energy, but the electricity that moves the trains draws less oil than cars or planes. An article the other day in the New York Times gives the details, along with the unsettling news that growing train use in our age of soaring gas prices may not be able to keep track with the aging equipment. Amtrak clearly needs help - or, more help than it's been getting from the Federal government. The article concludes with a brief mention of McCain opposing subsidies for Amtrak, versus Obama, who co-sponsored a bill that would increase them.

I decided to look into this a bit more. A DCist article from early June has the amazing rundown.

McCain not only opposes Federal subsidies for Amtrak, he's been working for years to do away with it completely. Why? The perennial Republican pipe dream of privatizing the industry. Which of course could take years to succeed, if ever it does, and in the meantime our country is deprived of the single best alternative to gas-hungry cars and planes.

Obama, unsurprisingly, has a much more sensible, enlightened approach - we do what we can to improve Amtrak, including extending the high-speed rail service in the Northeast corridor to the midwest, and eventually to all of America. (I've taken trains from New York to Chicago, and New York to Atlanta, and the rides were wonderful, but slow.) Some of these ideas go back to Obama's work in 2003. Like his thinking on Iraq, they show he is in tune with where America and the world are heading.

Trains are of course by no means the most important issue we face. But the drastically different positions of McCain and Obama speak to how they contrast on most issues: rigid, unworkable, out-of-date positions by McCain, versus practical, common-sense, pathways to the future by Barack Obama.

With any luck, people from the Northeast corridor and beyond will be able to take a fast train down to Washington in January for his inauguration.

Leonard Cohen's Tower of Song

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:03:00 +0000

What more can you ask for on a lazy June afternoon than Leonard Cohen singing his 1988 "Tower of Song" just a few weeks ago, at a concert in Newfoundland (May 27, 2008, to be exact)...

Cohen, of course, is best known for Suzanne, back in the 1960s. I once met a woman who claimed to be Suzanne - she was staying in the New Milford Hotel in Manhattan, where I was recording Twice Upon a Rhyme with Ed Fox and Peter Rosenthal in 1970. She was probably lying, but you never know.

Meanwhile, it's heartening to see that Cohen still has his stuff. Great lyrics, gravelly voice, and even a fine throwaway line, "some places, yes" - listen for it.

First Amendment Watch: James Joyce's Ulysses Once Again Under Gun

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:18:00 +0000

Most people know something of the story of Ulysses's reception, the 1922 novel by James Joyce, judged by many to be the greatest novel of the 20th century. U.S., British, and Irish officials promptly called for the novel to be banned, owing to its language, judged by those officials to be unacceptable for public consumption. Fortunately for the world, a real judge, Federal Judge John M. Woolsey, Jr. in New York City, ruled in 1933 that banning the novel for alleged obscenity would be inconsistent with the First Amendment.

Ironically, the Federal Communications Commission was created a mere year later. Although the Federal Communications Act of 1934 specifically said the FCC was not to engage in censorship, that same act also had contradictory language about keeping obscene and "indecent" language off of the public airways.

Unsurprisingly, the FCC has given more emphasis to the second (fining broadcasters for obscene and/or indecent language on their airways) than to the first (prohibition of censorship). In the past few years, in fact, Congress has authorized the FCC to increase its fines to millions of dollars for television or radio stations that digress from the FCC's unstated puritanical standards.

WBAI radio was a celebrated victim, not of FCC fines, but of an FCC "censure" (condemnation) back in the 1970s. WBAI's wrongdoing back then was broadcasting comedian George Carlin's "seven dirty words" routine. The ACLU and WBAI objected to the FCC censure, took their case all the way to the Supreme Court, and lost.

And WBAI is now in the news again. This past Monday, June 16, WBAI Radio and Symphony Space, for the first time since 1981, decided to not do a joint presentation of their "Bloomsday" celebration - readings of some of the best of James Joyce. The reason for this decision, according to a New York Times article, was "apprehension about obscenity and government regulation" - meaning, some people at WBAI were apparently worried about the millions of dollars of FCC fines that could well have come its way.

And thus we slip ever more into a state much like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The FCC, of course, still does not explicitly censor - it doesn't need to. Intimidation by huge fines has the same chilling effect.

Judge Woolsey's brave and perceptive decision in 1933 could not have foreseen an unconstitutional FCC which would be created just a year later, and by the 21st century would be exerting ever greater control over what Americans can see and hear.

But that's our reality. And unless we do something about this governmental agency gone out of control, we'll lose a lot more than James Joyce's prose, as wonderful as it is. For what the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany show is that, what starts out as censorship of "obscenity" in short order moves into censorship of political views and everything else in society.

See also my 2005 Keynote Address delivered at Fordham University: The Flouting of the First Amendment

Remembering Tony Schwartz: Master of Propaganda

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:59:00 +0000

Tony Schwartz died at age 84 this past weekend. He was best known for the famous or infamous "daisy ad" that Lyndon Johnson ran against Barry Goldwater in the 1964 Presidential campaign. The ad featured a little girl counting petals on a daisy, followed by a nuclear explosion (see YouTube clip below). It was designed to paint Goldwater as a war monger, who could bring the world to ruin. It was famous because it succeeded (without mentioning Goldwater by name). It was infamous because of the way it succeeded. The ad was pulled after one showing on NBC, but was replayed numerous times on evening news shows. That's where I first saw it. I and many other professors have cited this ad for years as a masterpiece of propaganda, with all the good and bad that that can entail.

But I actually knew Tony Schwartz in another, though related way. He was one of Marshall McLuhan's disciples in the 1960s. Tony Schwartz's specialty was what McLuhan would call "acoustic space" - the unique way, or very different from seeing, that sound is perceived by us and can influence us. That way is, mainly, that you don't have to look at it, as you do with an image. In fact, sound can reach us any time it likes, from anyplace in the environment, wherever we may be looking or not. Tony Schwartz put lots of insights like that into his best-known book, The Responsive Chord.

I cited and built upon that book in my doctoral dissertation (Human Replay: A Theory of the Evolution of Media) and my own much later book about McLuhan, Digital McLuhan: A Guide to the Information Millennium, in which I wrote about why radio survived the advent of television in the 1950s. The reason was that radio's presentations - hearing without seeing - are an entirely natural mode of communication. The world grows dark every night but not really silent, we can easily close our eyes but not ever our ears, etc. (In contrast, silent movies did not survive the introduction of talkies - there is no natural niche of seeing without hearing.)

As a Master's student at the New School for Social Research in the 1970s, I was privileged to visit Tony's studio in Manhattan, along with my class, several times. He sat at a desk surrounded by tape recorders and other pre-computer equipment. It felt like a scene out of a 1950s science fiction movie.

The history of propaganda is still being written - more so now than ever in this Presidential campaign. Tony Schwartz will have a permanent place in there, along with Leni Riefenstahl and Michael Moore - but much closer to Moore in the good that both have done for progressive causes.

Showtime's Sassy Hour of Sin

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:58:00 +0000

Showtime debuted its Monday night hour of sin last night - Season 4 of Weeds, and the brand new Secret Diary of A Call Girl - and it wasn't bad. Actually, it was bad in a good way. Anyway, I enjoyed both half hours.

Nancy and family are getting situated by the beach in a whole new area of California, in Judah's father's house (well played by Albert Brooks). Lots of good lines from all members of the family, especially brother-in-law Andy, as always.

Meanwhile, back in what's left of fire-ravaged Agrestic, Celia is pointing the finger at Nancy as drug lady - as she did at the end of last season - but Doug and her husband and the hilarious Indian gay guy are all telling the police otherwise, to wit, that Celia is behind it all.

A good set-up for this season.

Meanwhile, Secret Diary of A Call Girl is sassy, smart, funny, and real. Billie Piper (see the video below) is thoroughly appealing as Belle (the call-girl) / Hannah (her real-life name), giving good voice-over narration in the episode, as well as whatever her customers want, as soon as possible (as she informs us), if she is able to wheedle the deepest desires out of them.

There's even a nice character insight in the premier episode, when Belle realizes that what a customer (whom she likes) most likes about her are her Hannah's qualities - not good for someone in Belle's business.

Looking forward to more Weeds and wheedle in the weeks ahead ...

See also Weeds 4.3: Nancy by the Endless Sea

Another Finest Hour for Al Gore: He Endorses Barack Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Levinson) — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:42:00 +0000

He undoubtedly won the popular vote for President in 2000. He likely won the electoral college vote, too, but we'll never know, because the Supreme Court exceeded its authority and stopped the recount in Florida. He went on the galvanize a planet about the need to take global warming seriously.

Al Gore has had many finest hours. His endorsement of Barack Obama in Detroit tonight was surely among them. Gore hit all the right notes, including Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq before we went in (Gore expressed the same in September 2002), and the similarities in inspiration between Obama and JFK.

It was a special moment seeing Al Gore back in the political fray tonight. He couldn't have picked a better time. As Gore himself said, what's at stake has never been higher.

I would have liked to have seen Gore become President - there would have been a cosmic poetic justice in that. But I'll settle for Gore's endorsement of Obama tonight.