Thursday, December 23, 2010
One Toke over the Line, Sweet Jesus
Wow, what an unexpected Birthday present!!! Pat Robertson goes all hippie lefty on the air during a 700 Club episode, calling for the decriminalization of marijuana! Seeing is believing. . .
OK, so too many good potential lines here, so let's leave it at Praise the Lord and Pass the Dutchie!!
Wow, what an unexpected Birthday present!!! Pat Robertson goes all hippie lefty on the air during a 700 Club episode, calling for the decriminalization of marijuana! Seeing is believing. . .
OK, so too many good potential lines here, so let's leave it at Praise the Lord and Pass the Dutchie!!
Labels: Drug War insanity
Back on his feet 'Again'?
Has Barack Obama found his sealegs? After what was one of the more wobbly electoral efforts in recent memory (one which well dismissed the notion that the Prez and his White House was more suited to campaigning rather than governing), Obama seems to have had quite a string of successes leading up to Christmas break--and the end of his Democratically-controlled Congress. Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a new START treaty with Russia, funding the 911 first responders fund (thanks Jon Stewart!)--all things that the newly formidable GOP opposed.
And it all started with slapping down his own party when he made the compromise on extending Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy in exchange for what amounts to a second (much needed) stimulus package. He took a drubbing from the Left on that (me included) but whatever he's been doing in the last few weeks seems to be working. The hand-wringing which followed the election, not to mention the GOP triumphalism epitomized by Mitch "No second Term" McConnell's angry objectionist tirades have all been replaced with a series of Democratic High-Five Photo Ops.
In each case Obama perfectly played on the obstructionist, partisan-politics policies of the GOP. Frankly, in ways one wish he had done for the last two years, since neither the tactics nor tone of the GOP has changed much since 2008.
So chalk one up for the Prez and his team for winning the week and, more importantly, changing the standard meme coming out of Washington. Can it last? One hopes, but he's already squandered a much easier opportunity to enact change with huge majorities in both Houses and the firm support of a large majority of Americans when he was first elected. Time will indeed tell.
PS Merry Christmas!!!
Has Barack Obama found his sealegs? After what was one of the more wobbly electoral efforts in recent memory (one which well dismissed the notion that the Prez and his White House was more suited to campaigning rather than governing), Obama seems to have had quite a string of successes leading up to Christmas break--and the end of his Democratically-controlled Congress. Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a new START treaty with Russia, funding the 911 first responders fund (thanks Jon Stewart!)--all things that the newly formidable GOP opposed.
And it all started with slapping down his own party when he made the compromise on extending Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy in exchange for what amounts to a second (much needed) stimulus package. He took a drubbing from the Left on that (me included) but whatever he's been doing in the last few weeks seems to be working. The hand-wringing which followed the election, not to mention the GOP triumphalism epitomized by Mitch "No second Term" McConnell's angry objectionist tirades have all been replaced with a series of Democratic High-Five Photo Ops.
In each case Obama perfectly played on the obstructionist, partisan-politics policies of the GOP. Frankly, in ways one wish he had done for the last two years, since neither the tactics nor tone of the GOP has changed much since 2008.
So chalk one up for the Prez and his team for winning the week and, more importantly, changing the standard meme coming out of Washington. Can it last? One hopes, but he's already squandered a much easier opportunity to enact change with huge majorities in both Houses and the firm support of a large majority of Americans when he was first elected. Time will indeed tell.
PS Merry Christmas!!!
Labels: Congress, Elections, Obama
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
RIP. . . Reverend Ike
A bit of my childhood has passed to the great beyond. As a spry college student I spent many a late night/early morning engrossed by the Rev. Ike's ministry (he came on as I recall in the college-student friendly viewing slot of 2:00 a.m. on an obscure UHF channel).
The Reverend Ike truly defined the word shameless. As his NYT obit acknowledges, he was shamelessness personified, but all in the pursuit of greater glory.
"“Close your eyes and see green,” Reverend Ike would tell his 5,000 parishioners from a red-carpeted stage at the former Loew’s film palace on 175th Street in Washington Heights, the headquarters of his United Church Science of Living Institute. “Money up to your armpits, a roomful of money and there you are, just tossing around in it like a swimming pool.”"
I quickly got on the mailing list to receive his special prayer blessings, which included things like a string to tie around your finger which was to remind you (aside from the Reverend's intervention through Jesus to help you attain riches) to send a financial offering. This would, no doubt, grease the wheels with the Almighty while, only quite tangentially, mind you, line the Reverend's pockets.
In fact, all of the letters I got from The Rev. Ike had similar appeals, each cleverer than the next, culminating in the "Special Miracle Prayer Rug". This was in fact a piece of thick paper on which was a crudely rendered image of Jesus with really heavily lidded-over eyes. But crude as a marketing too it was not, I tell you. Why, it even had a 'lifelike' fringe edging and a carpet-backing pattern on the flip side (along with a note reminding you again that blessings would only be granted to those who ponied up some cash).
As I recall through the haze of years, the instructions were:
1. Place the "Special Miracle Prayer Rug" on your lap.
2. Meditate on the eyes of Jesus and see how they open and look directly into your eyes.
3. Pray for the things that you need Jesus' help with. . . money, relationships, job, a new home, a new automobile, curses, hexes and voodoo.
4. As you feel Jesus' power helping you through the "Special Miracle Prayer Rug" reach into your billfold and take out the largest bill, place it over Jesus' eyes, fold up the "Special Miracle Prayer Rug" with the offering and return it in the enclosed envelope (postage required) to Reverend Ike at . . .
Despite years of IRS hounding, The Reverend died, following a long illness which kept him from his ministry for years, a wealthy man in very comfortable surroundings.
Just as the Good Lord intended.
A bit of my childhood has passed to the great beyond. As a spry college student I spent many a late night/early morning engrossed by the Rev. Ike's ministry (he came on as I recall in the college-student friendly viewing slot of 2:00 a.m. on an obscure UHF channel).
The Reverend Ike truly defined the word shameless. As his NYT obit acknowledges, he was shamelessness personified, but all in the pursuit of greater glory.
"“Close your eyes and see green,” Reverend Ike would tell his 5,000 parishioners from a red-carpeted stage at the former Loew’s film palace on 175th Street in Washington Heights, the headquarters of his United Church Science of Living Institute. “Money up to your armpits, a roomful of money and there you are, just tossing around in it like a swimming pool.”"
I quickly got on the mailing list to receive his special prayer blessings, which included things like a string to tie around your finger which was to remind you (aside from the Reverend's intervention through Jesus to help you attain riches) to send a financial offering. This would, no doubt, grease the wheels with the Almighty while, only quite tangentially, mind you, line the Reverend's pockets.
In fact, all of the letters I got from The Rev. Ike had similar appeals, each cleverer than the next, culminating in the "Special Miracle Prayer Rug". This was in fact a piece of thick paper on which was a crudely rendered image of Jesus with really heavily lidded-over eyes. But crude as a marketing too it was not, I tell you. Why, it even had a 'lifelike' fringe edging and a carpet-backing pattern on the flip side (along with a note reminding you again that blessings would only be granted to those who ponied up some cash).
As I recall through the haze of years, the instructions were:
1. Place the "Special Miracle Prayer Rug" on your lap.
2. Meditate on the eyes of Jesus and see how they open and look directly into your eyes.
3. Pray for the things that you need Jesus' help with. . . money, relationships, job, a new home, a new automobile, curses, hexes and voodoo.
4. As you feel Jesus' power helping you through the "Special Miracle Prayer Rug" reach into your billfold and take out the largest bill, place it over Jesus' eyes, fold up the "Special Miracle Prayer Rug" with the offering and return it in the enclosed envelope (postage required) to Reverend Ike at . . .
Despite years of IRS hounding, The Reverend died, following a long illness which kept him from his ministry for years, a wealthy man in very comfortable surroundings.
Just as the Good Lord intended.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Apocalypse: Now? Part Two
A month ago when I penned the first of these updates I had paid $3.53 a gallon for gas, and (now laughably) I was a bit appalled. Last week I slammed on the brakes for $3.76 at a bargain basement no name joint in Norristown and today I read that gas is now over $4.00 in over 150 gas stations in Philly, although the official average is holding at $3.99.
The media continues to feed us a diet of human interest crappola about 'those darn prices', and gas has become not just a gimmick (as in Power 95FM selling gas for .95 for one hour at some station off of I-95) or sales ploy (as in buy a new Dodge and get $2.99 gas for two years guaranteed), but its now the actual prize itself. Sweepstakes are offering gas as the payout, and HotGiftZone.com is raffling a chance to win the prize of gas for filling out their online surveys.
But amongst this business-as-usual-in-the-US-of-A drumbeat, there's a definite air of unease, mostly in the form of a dystopic nostalgia. The lead article in today's Inky recalls the Levittown gas riots of 1979. Not only was nearby Levittown one of America's first experiments in post-war suburbia, but it was the site of "the first gasoline revolt in American history." It was a two-day mass protest and riot that drew thousands, left one station demolished, 200 injured and 100 arrested before it was all over.
Back then the flash point was when gas went over the unheard of price of $1.00 a gallon. That of course, is in 1979 dollars. The $4.00 a gallon we're paying now in those 1979 dollars would be $1.35.
Burn, Baby, Burn.
A month ago when I penned the first of these updates I had paid $3.53 a gallon for gas, and (now laughably) I was a bit appalled. Last week I slammed on the brakes for $3.76 at a bargain basement no name joint in Norristown and today I read that gas is now over $4.00 in over 150 gas stations in Philly, although the official average is holding at $3.99.
The media continues to feed us a diet of human interest crappola about 'those darn prices', and gas has become not just a gimmick (as in Power 95FM selling gas for .95 for one hour at some station off of I-95) or sales ploy (as in buy a new Dodge and get $2.99 gas for two years guaranteed), but its now the actual prize itself. Sweepstakes are offering gas as the payout, and HotGiftZone.com is raffling a chance to win the prize of gas for filling out their online surveys.
But amongst this business-as-usual-in-the-US-of-A drumbeat, there's a definite air of unease, mostly in the form of a dystopic nostalgia. The lead article in today's Inky recalls the Levittown gas riots of 1979. Not only was nearby Levittown one of America's first experiments in post-war suburbia, but it was the site of "the first gasoline revolt in American history." It was a two-day mass protest and riot that drew thousands, left one station demolished, 200 injured and 100 arrested before it was all over.
Back then the flash point was when gas went over the unheard of price of $1.00 a gallon. That of course, is in 1979 dollars. The $4.00 a gallon we're paying now in those 1979 dollars would be $1.35.
Burn, Baby, Burn.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Do As We Say. . .
Jihadi is out according to new government guidelines regarding how US agencies refer to Islamic extremists. The AP reports that the contents of a memo entitled "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication" has largely now been adopted by Pentagon and State Department spokespeople and officials.
As anyone paying attention has learned, jihad and mujahideen have multiple connotations in the Islamic world, mostly positive ones. Not so long ago, like in the Reagan years, they were pretty positive terms in the US as well--back when those groups had their US-provided stinger missile sights trained at Soviet troops being bled dry in Afghanistan. What a difference a few decades and a sunny September morning can make.
The change is really a good idea, although I'm distressed it took so long to implement. James Fallows wrote an excellent article in 2006 that sourced a wide variety of counter-terrorism experts and to a person they were arguing for such a language change, and had been for years. Fallows wrote:
"Jim Guirard, a writer and former Senate staffer, says that America’s response has helped confirm bin Laden’s worldview in an unintended way. The Arabic terms often brought into English to describe Islamic extremists—jihadists or mujahideen for “warriors,” plus the less-frequently used shahiddin for “martyrs”—are, according to Guirard, exactly the terms al-Qaeda would like to see used. Mujahideen essentially means “holy warriors”; the other terms imply righteous struggle in the cause of Islam. The Iraqi clergyman-warlord Muqtada al-Sadr named his paramilitary force the Mahdi Army. To Sunnis and Shiites alike, the Mahdi is the ultimate savior of mankind, equivalent to the Messiah. Branches of Islam disagree about the Mahdi’s exact identity and the timing of his arrival on earth, but each time U.S. officials refer to insurgents of the Mahdi Army, they confer legitimacy on their opponent in all Muslims’ eyes."
Fallows went on to note that:
"With the advice of Islamic scholars and think-tank officials, Guirard has assembled an alternative lexicon he thinks U.S. officials should use in both English and Arabic. These include hirabah (“unholy war”) instead of jihad; irhabists (“terrorists”) instead of jihadists; mufsidoon (“evildoers”) instead of mujahideen; and so on. The long-term effect, he says, would be like labeling certain kinds of battle genocide or war crime rather than plain combat—not decisive, but useful."
Again, this is a good thing, although a bit of acceptable smirking is allowed (A dollar to the first AHU reader who can cite a YouTube video with W butchering the word mufsidoon.). I only wish the next administration would follow the rest the suggestions made in that fine article. Its long but worth a read.
Jihadi is out according to new government guidelines regarding how US agencies refer to Islamic extremists. The AP reports that the contents of a memo entitled "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication" has largely now been adopted by Pentagon and State Department spokespeople and officials.
As anyone paying attention has learned, jihad and mujahideen have multiple connotations in the Islamic world, mostly positive ones. Not so long ago, like in the Reagan years, they were pretty positive terms in the US as well--back when those groups had their US-provided stinger missile sights trained at Soviet troops being bled dry in Afghanistan. What a difference a few decades and a sunny September morning can make.
The change is really a good idea, although I'm distressed it took so long to implement. James Fallows wrote an excellent article in 2006 that sourced a wide variety of counter-terrorism experts and to a person they were arguing for such a language change, and had been for years. Fallows wrote:
"Jim Guirard, a writer and former Senate staffer, says that America’s response has helped confirm bin Laden’s worldview in an unintended way. The Arabic terms often brought into English to describe Islamic extremists—jihadists or mujahideen for “warriors,” plus the less-frequently used shahiddin for “martyrs”—are, according to Guirard, exactly the terms al-Qaeda would like to see used. Mujahideen essentially means “holy warriors”; the other terms imply righteous struggle in the cause of Islam. The Iraqi clergyman-warlord Muqtada al-Sadr named his paramilitary force the Mahdi Army. To Sunnis and Shiites alike, the Mahdi is the ultimate savior of mankind, equivalent to the Messiah. Branches of Islam disagree about the Mahdi’s exact identity and the timing of his arrival on earth, but each time U.S. officials refer to insurgents of the Mahdi Army, they confer legitimacy on their opponent in all Muslims’ eyes."
Fallows went on to note that:
"With the advice of Islamic scholars and think-tank officials, Guirard has assembled an alternative lexicon he thinks U.S. officials should use in both English and Arabic. These include hirabah (“unholy war”) instead of jihad; irhabists (“terrorists”) instead of jihadists; mufsidoon (“evildoers”) instead of mujahideen; and so on. The long-term effect, he says, would be like labeling certain kinds of battle genocide or war crime rather than plain combat—not decisive, but useful."
Again, this is a good thing, although a bit of acceptable smirking is allowed (A dollar to the first AHU reader who can cite a YouTube video with W butchering the word mufsidoon.). I only wish the next administration would follow the rest the suggestions made in that fine article. Its long but worth a read.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Apocalypse: Now? part 1
Sadly, this is the first in a series , I fear.
I just paid $3.53 for gas; my neighbors in NJ were waiting in lines and fighting over $3.17 gas on the Turnpike before the price went up in the state-mandated pricing. A guy shot a constable who was trying to evict him in suburban Philly, and Costco and Sam's Club have just strated rationing rice. Oh yeah, and the supply of rye flour is almost depleted for the year. . . in April.
Sadly, this is the first in a series , I fear.
I just paid $3.53 for gas; my neighbors in NJ were waiting in lines and fighting over $3.17 gas on the Turnpike before the price went up in the state-mandated pricing. A guy shot a constable who was trying to evict him in suburban Philly, and Costco and Sam's Club have just strated rationing rice. Oh yeah, and the supply of rye flour is almost depleted for the year. . . in April.
Sorry, Charlie
OK, well Charlie Gibson has already gotten a raft of shit (along with co-moderator George Stuffin'envelopes) for his dismal "gotcha" performance at the last Democratic debate (held right here in Always Sunny Philadelphia).
Gibson asked Obama if he was an elitist. Yet in a later question he assumed that a local, small college professor made $100,000 and figured that a husband and wife team so employed dragged in $200,000 per year--and with that income status (no kids mentioned or implied) that they were solid middle income folks being squeezed by the pressures of daily life.
Yo, Charlie, 200k isn't chump change. You've been hanging around the superwealthy and just plain very-well compensated (like yourself, nes't pas?) in NY, LA and the like for so long you don't even recognize what real people earn. FYI: Only 6 percent of the nation earns that much, far from the struggling middle class. And yet he implies Obama is 'out of touch.'
Meanwhile, over at CNN Lou Dobbs again wrings his hands about Obama, saying "Just what we don't need is a typical Ivy-League elitist." That would be Lou Dobbs, Harvard '67.
Just no shame (or clue) with these people.
OK, well Charlie Gibson has already gotten a raft of shit (along with co-moderator George Stuffin'envelopes) for his dismal "gotcha" performance at the last Democratic debate (held right here in Always Sunny Philadelphia).
Gibson asked Obama if he was an elitist. Yet in a later question he assumed that a local, small college professor made $100,000 and figured that a husband and wife team so employed dragged in $200,000 per year--and with that income status (no kids mentioned or implied) that they were solid middle income folks being squeezed by the pressures of daily life.
Yo, Charlie, 200k isn't chump change. You've been hanging around the superwealthy and just plain very-well compensated (like yourself, nes't pas?) in NY, LA and the like for so long you don't even recognize what real people earn. FYI: Only 6 percent of the nation earns that much, far from the struggling middle class. And yet he implies Obama is 'out of touch.'
Meanwhile, over at CNN Lou Dobbs again wrings his hands about Obama, saying "Just what we don't need is a typical Ivy-League elitist." That would be Lou Dobbs, Harvard '67.
Just no shame (or clue) with these people.
The AHU Official Endorsement for POTUS
Well, kinda. . . Exerpt from a letter to my Dad--Sums up best my current political thinking.
"I guess that when it comes to Obama I've taken a (measured) leap of faith to a certain extent. He's in a unique position by virtue of his newness, his thoughtfulness, and his intelligence to best shepherd us through some of the changes that, as I see it, are on the near horizon. And maybe some reconciliation stuff as well, who knows. Change happens in unexpected places and in unexpected ways.
By contrast, McCain is just out of his element. He admits he knows nothing about the economy or, frankly, many crucial issues the next president will face (despite his recently clunky attempts to portray the opposite). As for his supposed forte, foreign policy, he is pretty much an unrepentant Neocon (he was the main choice of Perle, Feith, et al back in 2000, and these same architects of the Iraq war are his primary foreign policy advisors now). He won the GOP by default, much to the chagrin of the party, yet he seems intent on echoing Bush's policies at a time where 81% of the country thinks we're on the wrong track.
Anyway, the Hillary thing just makes me even more sad, as I think all things considered she has the best bona fides to do the job (though she has rarely emphasized her real governing qualities in the campaign). Instead her campaign, once thought to be little more than her pre-coronation for the nomination, foundered on the rocks of an unexpected Obama campaign. She would, I have come to believe, throw Obama (and her parties ideals and issues) under the bus before November in order to look toward running again in 2012.
There is really no mathematical way she can win without totally subverting the electoral choice of the party voters, via the superdelegates. And if that happened minus a really, really serious Obama implosion (the old "catch me in bed with a live man or dead woman" cliche), its a sure bet the animosity created by such convention moves would doom her general election candidacy anyway. So why persist unless she knows something really, really nasty about Obama or if she's thinking ahead rather than for all of the policies that she espouses in her speeches and ads?
Funny isn't it how the more 'democratic' of the parties put such an undemocratic counterweight into its process? No worse overall I guess than the winner-take-all primaries of the GOP, designed to annoint a candidate preferable to the GOP bigwigs, which didn't happen this year when Romney and Huckabee's fight defied the norm and left McCain unexpectedly in the driver's seat.Alas, I am forced to make a choice. Indeed not my favorite, but I've made the jump because I want serious change, and frankly in the coming years I expect serious change will happen regardless of our wishes, and I think Obama is the best person to be at the helm.
Of course, I could be utterly mistaken. Such are elections.
Well, kinda. . . Exerpt from a letter to my Dad--Sums up best my current political thinking.
"I guess that when it comes to Obama I've taken a (measured) leap of faith to a certain extent. He's in a unique position by virtue of his newness, his thoughtfulness, and his intelligence to best shepherd us through some of the changes that, as I see it, are on the near horizon. And maybe some reconciliation stuff as well, who knows. Change happens in unexpected places and in unexpected ways.
By contrast, McCain is just out of his element. He admits he knows nothing about the economy or, frankly, many crucial issues the next president will face (despite his recently clunky attempts to portray the opposite). As for his supposed forte, foreign policy, he is pretty much an unrepentant Neocon (he was the main choice of Perle, Feith, et al back in 2000, and these same architects of the Iraq war are his primary foreign policy advisors now). He won the GOP by default, much to the chagrin of the party, yet he seems intent on echoing Bush's policies at a time where 81% of the country thinks we're on the wrong track.
Anyway, the Hillary thing just makes me even more sad, as I think all things considered she has the best bona fides to do the job (though she has rarely emphasized her real governing qualities in the campaign). Instead her campaign, once thought to be little more than her pre-coronation for the nomination, foundered on the rocks of an unexpected Obama campaign. She would, I have come to believe, throw Obama (and her parties ideals and issues) under the bus before November in order to look toward running again in 2012.
There is really no mathematical way she can win without totally subverting the electoral choice of the party voters, via the superdelegates. And if that happened minus a really, really serious Obama implosion (the old "catch me in bed with a live man or dead woman" cliche), its a sure bet the animosity created by such convention moves would doom her general election candidacy anyway. So why persist unless she knows something really, really nasty about Obama or if she's thinking ahead rather than for all of the policies that she espouses in her speeches and ads?
Funny isn't it how the more 'democratic' of the parties put such an undemocratic counterweight into its process? No worse overall I guess than the winner-take-all primaries of the GOP, designed to annoint a candidate preferable to the GOP bigwigs, which didn't happen this year when Romney and Huckabee's fight defied the norm and left McCain unexpectedly in the driver's seat.Alas, I am forced to make a choice. Indeed not my favorite, but I've made the jump because I want serious change, and frankly in the coming years I expect serious change will happen regardless of our wishes, and I think Obama is the best person to be at the helm.
Of course, I could be utterly mistaken. Such are elections.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
'Stop-Loss' Syndrome?
I saw an interesting bit of pop culture today that got me thinking--the trailer for a new movie called Stop-Loss. There have been a lot of films critical of the Iraq debacle, mostly documentaries such as the award-winning Fahrenheit 9/11, or the more critically-acclaimed No End in Sight and the must-see, superior Why We Fight. These are all good or great films, but they are at the end of the day tailored to a predictably liberal, anti-war audience. They generally preach to the choir.
What struck me about the trailer for Stop-Loss was the seeming audience--red-state, middle America. The visuals, the music, the themes were 100 percent NASCAR nation.
The film title itself refers to the deplorable military contractual clause where in times of crisis the services can bolster their depleted ranks by keeping troops who have finished their agreed-to service of contract on a bit longer than they thought--and of course send them back to the worst possible places, regardless of their last deployment. And, on Hollywood cue, conflict and mayhem ensues.
Its a great bit of film history that movies critical of a particular war tend to come out well after the conflict has ended. And even then they will likely be controversial, such as France's 1919 J'Accuse, about the horrors (and ultimate futility) of World War I. All Quiet on the Western Front is better known, especially as it was one of the first works banned by the war-glorifying Nazis upon their rise to power. There were many years between the final shots of the Vietnam War and the production of Coming Home or the exquisite The Deer Hunter (Local note: best Pittsburgh movie ever, though Wonderboys is up there).
But how will this anti-military, anti-government film play in the ill-named 'flyover-states?' My guess is it will do OK. The thing that remains to be known at this point is what the end results will be. Easy Rider changed my mind as a teen (wrongly, or rightly?) about travel through the south. Will Stop-Loss begin to change rural and small town America's willingness to send its sons and daughters into military service, given a potential 100-years in Iraq? And thus, if it is well-received, could such a pop culture film impact our upcoming election?
I saw an interesting bit of pop culture today that got me thinking--the trailer for a new movie called Stop-Loss. There have been a lot of films critical of the Iraq debacle, mostly documentaries such as the award-winning Fahrenheit 9/11, or the more critically-acclaimed No End in Sight and the must-see, superior Why We Fight. These are all good or great films, but they are at the end of the day tailored to a predictably liberal, anti-war audience. They generally preach to the choir.
What struck me about the trailer for Stop-Loss was the seeming audience--red-state, middle America. The visuals, the music, the themes were 100 percent NASCAR nation.
The film title itself refers to the deplorable military contractual clause where in times of crisis the services can bolster their depleted ranks by keeping troops who have finished their agreed-to service of contract on a bit longer than they thought--and of course send them back to the worst possible places, regardless of their last deployment. And, on Hollywood cue, conflict and mayhem ensues.
Its a great bit of film history that movies critical of a particular war tend to come out well after the conflict has ended. And even then they will likely be controversial, such as France's 1919 J'Accuse, about the horrors (and ultimate futility) of World War I. All Quiet on the Western Front is better known, especially as it was one of the first works banned by the war-glorifying Nazis upon their rise to power. There were many years between the final shots of the Vietnam War and the production of Coming Home or the exquisite The Deer Hunter (Local note: best Pittsburgh movie ever, though Wonderboys is up there).
But how will this anti-military, anti-government film play in the ill-named 'flyover-states?' My guess is it will do OK. The thing that remains to be known at this point is what the end results will be. Easy Rider changed my mind as a teen (wrongly, or rightly?) about travel through the south. Will Stop-Loss begin to change rural and small town America's willingness to send its sons and daughters into military service, given a potential 100-years in Iraq? And thus, if it is well-received, could such a pop culture film impact our upcoming election?
A Wee Dram of Sanity?
Well, not from Obama when it comes to the asinine Reagan-mandated national drinking age of 21. The candidate with the mostest told a group of young vets that he didn't support lowering the drinking age to something sane like those that exist in every other reasonable functional Western democracy. Sure, they're fighting and dying and going insane of PTSD at an incredible rate, but why be able to drop a Bud at the corner bar? Not like it matters too much in many quarters. When I was in that awkward time between 18 and 21 in Pennsylvania, back before too many khaki-clad folks were dying in deserts, I never knew one person with a military ID card that ever got denied drinks at a local watering hole. Things have tightened up all over since those times, of course. Lets be real--we should all deal with the fact that our laws are way out of sync with reality.
Well, not from Obama when it comes to the asinine Reagan-mandated national drinking age of 21. The candidate with the mostest told a group of young vets that he didn't support lowering the drinking age to something sane like those that exist in every other reasonable functional Western democracy. Sure, they're fighting and dying and going insane of PTSD at an incredible rate, but why be able to drop a Bud at the corner bar? Not like it matters too much in many quarters. When I was in that awkward time between 18 and 21 in Pennsylvania, back before too many khaki-clad folks were dying in deserts, I never knew one person with a military ID card that ever got denied drinks at a local watering hole. Things have tightened up all over since those times, of course. Lets be real--we should all deal with the fact that our laws are way out of sync with reality.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Pulling the Nails from Hillary's Coffin
So it looks like a mea culpa is in order--to some extent. Hillary indeed did win both Texas and Ohio, as I did not think she would, thus invalidating my premature announcement of her demise. Conventional wisdom is now that she's back. I do have some problems with that. A few points are in order:
The races were Clinton's to lose Look at the compiled tracking data courtesy Real Clear Politics from Texas. Around mid-February Clinton had an aggregate 10+ point lead over Obama in the Lone Star State (as much as 16 pts in one Rasmussen survey). She pulled out the stops, threw in alot of money, placed some effective and perhaps reasonable, albeit scaremongering, TV spots, and won by a mere 3.5 pts on March 4. Granted, she did overcome the statistical tie they were in just a few days before the primary to pull ahead with last minute voters (usually Obama's forte), but all along this was supposed to be a Hillary state. The same holds for Ohio, where Clinton held an almost 20pt lead on February 14, and ended up winning by roughly 10 percent.
Rather than looking at these contests as a Clinton comeback phenomenon, the case could easily be made that all of her effort and smears only prevented Obama from delivering a knockout blow in states that she's totally dominated since the get-go.
The nomination is Obama's to lose Regardless of the outcomes in Texas and Ohio, and even my beloved Keystone state come April 22, there is little chance that Clinton will be able to overcome Obama's delegate lead going into the convention. {Quick aside: I noticed that this very evident meme got little play outside of wonky politics blogs leading up to the March 4 vote, emerging with some surprising frequency only afterwards. To me further evidence that the MSM only wants to keep the storyline moving--which I guess makes sense since it's how they earn a paycheck. But still, I'm left to wonder how either big state would've played out had this been featured as prominently from March 1-3 as it has been since March 5?} We're left with some uncomfortable and contorted tales for the Clinton camp to weave. For her to gain the nomination she'll need to rely on superdelegates. They have recently been defecting to the Obama camp, though they are free to alter their preference at any time until their votes are actually cast on the convention floor. Further, 2/3 of voters in democratic exit polls say that the superdelegates should follow the results of their state's caucus or primary. As John Dickerson noted in Slate:
"Clinton is pleading for time, arguing that voters should be allowed to have their say in future contests. But even in this she comes up against a contradiction posted by Obama's lead. Because she must rely on the superdelegates to beat back Obama's likely lead in the popular vote and among pledged delegates, she is essentially asking those superdelegates to listen to the people—but only long enough to be persuaded to vote for her. Then she expects them to undo the will of the people by voting against Obama in Denver."
Those eager to revive the halcyon days of Clintonism must be enthused. . . that is some serious 'slick willie' style triangulation.
Still, I think it is up to Obama to counter Hillary's criticism about his being 'all hat and no cattle,' as they say in Tejas. Given his strong and disciplined campaign so far I think its likely he can and will do so.
So it looks like a mea culpa is in order--to some extent. Hillary indeed did win both Texas and Ohio, as I did not think she would, thus invalidating my premature announcement of her demise. Conventional wisdom is now that she's back. I do have some problems with that. A few points are in order:
The races were Clinton's to lose Look at the compiled tracking data courtesy Real Clear Politics from Texas. Around mid-February Clinton had an aggregate 10+ point lead over Obama in the Lone Star State (as much as 16 pts in one Rasmussen survey). She pulled out the stops, threw in alot of money, placed some effective and perhaps reasonable, albeit scaremongering, TV spots, and won by a mere 3.5 pts on March 4. Granted, she did overcome the statistical tie they were in just a few days before the primary to pull ahead with last minute voters (usually Obama's forte), but all along this was supposed to be a Hillary state. The same holds for Ohio, where Clinton held an almost 20pt lead on February 14, and ended up winning by roughly 10 percent.
Rather than looking at these contests as a Clinton comeback phenomenon, the case could easily be made that all of her effort and smears only prevented Obama from delivering a knockout blow in states that she's totally dominated since the get-go.
The nomination is Obama's to lose Regardless of the outcomes in Texas and Ohio, and even my beloved Keystone state come April 22, there is little chance that Clinton will be able to overcome Obama's delegate lead going into the convention. {Quick aside: I noticed that this very evident meme got little play outside of wonky politics blogs leading up to the March 4 vote, emerging with some surprising frequency only afterwards. To me further evidence that the MSM only wants to keep the storyline moving--which I guess makes sense since it's how they earn a paycheck. But still, I'm left to wonder how either big state would've played out had this been featured as prominently from March 1-3 as it has been since March 5?} We're left with some uncomfortable and contorted tales for the Clinton camp to weave. For her to gain the nomination she'll need to rely on superdelegates. They have recently been defecting to the Obama camp, though they are free to alter their preference at any time until their votes are actually cast on the convention floor. Further, 2/3 of voters in democratic exit polls say that the superdelegates should follow the results of their state's caucus or primary. As John Dickerson noted in Slate:
"Clinton is pleading for time, arguing that voters should be allowed to have their say in future contests. But even in this she comes up against a contradiction posted by Obama's lead. Because she must rely on the superdelegates to beat back Obama's likely lead in the popular vote and among pledged delegates, she is essentially asking those superdelegates to listen to the people—but only long enough to be persuaded to vote for her. Then she expects them to undo the will of the people by voting against Obama in Denver."
Those eager to revive the halcyon days of Clintonism must be enthused. . . that is some serious 'slick willie' style triangulation.
Still, I think it is up to Obama to counter Hillary's criticism about his being 'all hat and no cattle,' as they say in Tejas. Given his strong and disciplined campaign so far I think its likely he can and will do so.
