Crazy Like a Fox?

Some think he's actually a Wackobee -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Who is Mike Huckabee? He is the charming ex-Governor of Arkansas, who's now a come-from-behind phenomenon in the GOP presidential race. According to the latest polls, he's neck and neck with Mitt Romney in Iowa -- a state where Huckabee has invested comparatively little time or money. Matt Taibbi is the Rolling Stone's ace political reporter and he gives us the low-down on Huckabee in the latest issue of Rolling Stone.

Huckabee takes a page from the Clinton likeability playbook -- he's very congenial and likes to play bass in a rock band. He's jammed before with Percy Sledge and Grand Funk Railroad. Many people know him from a well-publicized diet in which he lost 100 lbs. Huckabee is also a devout Christian who places a literal interpretation on the Bible and has been quoted as saying, "When Armageddon comes, the Christians will win". Arkansas public school performance declined during his tenure, and it was partly attributed to the governor's abhorrence of evolution and in fact, most science. Evangelicals will be delighted to know all this but others not of his ilk will be subtracting it from the "likeability" column.

Arkansans know Huckabee from other things, maybe not as appealing to the Republican "like" factor. He's an economic populist like John Edwards who believes in prison reform and poverty relief. He believes in a "fair tax" -- a flat tax alternative that conservatives dislike. He has expressed some leniency toward illegal immigrants, even suggesting tuition help for their children. As governor Huckabee even had the nerve to expand health care for children and then he raised taxes to pay for it. He's quoted as saying "We shouldn't allow children to sleep under a bridge" which are horrible words for a typical "Dickensian" Republican to hear. Huckabee's populist themes would be music to a Democrat, but there's no telling how they'll play in the GOP.

The Huckabees as First Couple of Arkansas have also taken some other hits to their reputation. There was a scandal over a $60,000 taxpayer fund which the Huckabees allegedly used for a shopping spree. Items bought: dog food, pantyhose and Taco Bell food. Adding into the “white trash” column, they publicized their wedding registry at Dillard’s and Target when they renewed their vows; they made it known that cash and Target gift cards would be perfectly OK from the general Arkansas public.

In all, they don’t seem like over-the-top shysters. Target gift cards are hardly on the same level as scandals that have played out elsewhere. Huckabee has gained a lot of momentum – his daily fundraising proceeds have increased from $6,000 at the start of his campaign to $30,000 today. He doesn’t have the “negatives” that are unspoken Republican realities about his rivals: he’s not Mormon, Italian, too old (McCain) or Hollywood Elite (Thompson). Those are four categories that he doesn’t fit, and it might just propel an evangelical populist to the White House in 2008.

© 2007 blogSpotter

A Sin to Kill a Song Bird...

Harper Lee tells a gripping tale -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
The latest book in my "Boomer Lit" series is To Kill a Mockingbird. I thought I'd read this book in my distant teenage past, but I hadn't -- I only saw the 1962 movie with Gregory Peck starring as Atticus Finch.

The book has much finer detail, and more character sketching than could possibly be squeezed into a two hour movie. It's set in Maycomb, Alabama circa 1935, and the small-town Southern setting would surely resonate with my own parents. My mother grew up in Bellmead, Texas and my father grew up in towns such as Groom and Shamrock, Texas (also in the 1930's). The Texas towns' drawls, the attitudes and the racism were much the same as depicted in Mockingbird, though my parents never observed a sensational trial or a near-lynching.

Mockingbird came out in 1960, as the civil rights movement was heating up across America. The book earned a Pulitzer and was recently voted Best Novel of the 20th Century by the Librarians of America. At the time of its publication, it grabbed the attention of Hollywood and thus white Middle America -- it had an enormous influence on our collective racial attitudes and it advanced civil rights.

To Kill a Mockingbird tells the story of an 8-year old tom boy named Scout and her 12 year-old brother Jem. They are children to Atticus Finch, a widower who is the Public Defender at the local court house. Atticus is assigned to defend a black man accused of raping a white woman; the town of Maycomb is in a total scandalized buzz over the proceedings. I won't divulge what all happens, but the author, Harper Lee, tells the story with amazingly realistic imagery. Woven into the racial plot-line is the children's fascination with a local reclusive, shut-in named Boo Radley. Mockingbird adeptly focuses on issues of gossip, innuendo and labeling no matter whether the target is a poor black defendant or a cloistered, ill white person with no public identity.

Mockingbird is semi-autobiographical. Lee herself was the daughter of a prominent Alabama lawyer and witnessed race-related trials in her childhood. There is a bit of Harper Lee trivia to note. She never published another novel after this one. If only one novel was to be done, this was the one to do. She was childhood friends with Truman Capote and the character Dill (Scout's mischievous blond playmate) was inspired by Truman. There were murmurs that Capote was the ghost-writer of the book but all parties including Mr. Capote denied that. Also, the style of the book is similar to but not the same as Capote's style. Lee and Capote remained good friends through adulthood, and she even helped him with research for his opus, In Cold Blood.

Once in a blue moon, a book comes along that changes the world at least in part. Uncle Tom's Cabin and All Quiet on the Western Front come to mind. To Kill a Mockingbird is very much in that tradition.

© 2007 blogSpotter

What Are Words For?

Tell me you didn't just say that -- Picture by blogSpotter

by blogSpotter
I'm reading To Kill A Mockingbird, and of course the book is an excellent read. (Review is forthcoming). The setting is Maycombe, Alabama in the 1930's. The book overflows with the N-word, and even characters sympathetic to the Finch family and the black defendant use the N-word. It has me thinking about how bad epithets evolve and develop social restrictions over the years. The words that come to mind now are the N-, B-, and F- bombs: nigger, bitch and fag. Yet another term flirts with banishment, but not just yet: Jew.

The terms can be bandied about liberally within the target group. Blacks will use the N-word liberally between themselves, even as a form of empowerment. Gays will use the F-word with riotous abandon, but if a straight person says it he will be punished with a stale dessert and a bad hair-do. The B-word has such powers that women don't really even use it with each other unless they want a hair-pulling catfight. A woman will use the B-word for a woman who is absent from the room. Coming from a man (and depending on the circumstances) the B-word is pretty much a declaration of war, or a cessation of future relations. Such is the power of a word -- and destructive power at that.

The word "Jew" has for some reason taken a negative connation, particularly used as an adjective or verb. People may opt for "Jewish", "Israeli", "practices Judaism" and other workarounds because the word itself seems somehow accusatory or racist. It should have no bad connotation, but these words only have destructive powers because of the nasty tone with which they've been delivered over the years. There are words that used to shock but have somehow gone mainstream and have mostly camp appeal nowadays: whore, slut, queer and darkie to name a few. Whore, slut and darkie reflect faded, antiquated values (by 21st century "humanist" standards anyhow). Queer has been resurrected as a valid synonym for odd and has even made its way into TV titles.

The preschool saying is, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Words not only have the power to hurt -- they can cause wars and embargos. The King of Spain recently told Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez to "Shut up". Because of this impolitic exchange, Venezuela is threatening to cut off Spain from its fiscal dealings. You can say that someone is too sensitive and it doesn't matter. If you say something thoughtlessly, you'll be composing your apology the very next day. If you deliberately toss out one of the "bomb" words above, you've lit a fuse as surely as if you were a pyromaniac. Get ready for an explosion.

I think the words have ugliness, not at all because of the target groups but rather the ugliness of the speaker's mentality. Ugly is as ugly does; nothing reflects ugly like ugly words. In You've Got Mail, Tom Hanks' character says that he has the gift of a savage tongue. He follows by saying he has a profound sense of depression each time he uses it as a weapon. We shouldn't water down what we have to say -- political correctness is a mire to avoid at the other extreme. But by according other people their basic dignity and refraining from nastiness, we garner much dignity for ourselves. Funny how it works out that way.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Jigsaw Puzzle

Faisal Mosque in Pakistan -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I don't know where exactly to begin with today's blog. In "Don't Bomb, Bomb Iran" I talked about the United States' most recent debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq. In that blog, I suggested that maybe we should put out one fire before we ignite another one. Now, as we focus on the Middle East, it seems that troubles are multiplying. Here is a brief run-down:

Iran -- Iran's president has spoken in a bellicose manner about the US, has mentioned Islamic "end times" and touts Iran's nuclear progress loudly and obnoxiously.

Pakistan -- Pakistan's President Musharraf has suspended the constitution and civil liberties in reaction to protests and civil unrest. Part of this unrest was fomented by the return of ex-Prime Minister Bhutto who according to some is the presumed successor to Musharraf. The Taliban is profiting from this standoff since Musharraf and Bhutto have represented more tolerance and secularism in previous years. Now they are now fighting one another.

Turkey -- Turkey is literally up in arms over the transgressions of Kurdish rebels at its southern border. The US is working intensely with the Iraqi government in Baghdad to curtail the rebels’ activities. Here, we have the odd situation of two American allies taking warlike stances against each other.

In the above-described situations, Pakistan and Turkey have been staunch allies to the US. Losing their good graces would be a major loss for us in that part of the world. It is hard to say how much the Iraq war inflamed these other regions but it almost certainly didn't help things. Taliban groups have now been emboldened by unanswered challenges to established authority since the Iraq war put so many things in motion.

This week's Newsweek suggests that violence has abated in Iraq -- not because ethnic consensus has been reached. Instead, the lull is due to a geographic patchwork quilt of ethnic divisions where the boundaries are (at least momentarily) being respected. There is still no secularism, and no love lost between Sunni and Shias. The US military has actually been handing out arms and supplies to both groups. So, what does the future hold for this Balkanized tinderbox we've helped create? No telling.

The whole Middle East is an argument for secularism and church-state separation. Look at what happens when one variant of religion lowers the boom on every other variant. Look at what happens when crazies are swept into power and have access to nuclear weapons. If the United States can recast itself as a Peace-maker rather than a war-monger, its tenure in the Middle East should be long. That part of the world will need baby-sitting for decades to come.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Office Memo

Jan and Michael share a tender moment -- Picture courtesy of NBC

by blogSpotter
One of my favorite television shows this season is The Office on NBC. The show is in its 4th season, and didn't win me over right away when it started in 2004. At the outset, I thought it moved at a slow pace and the humor was subdued. I stuck with it though, and what I've seen over the past couple of seasons is a terrifically honed cast reaching its stride. As I recall, Seinfeld was slow and quirky in its first couple of seasons. Sometimes it takes a little while for the ingredients to mix.

What we have now is a delicious comedy pastiche -- a viciously, hilariously accurate lampooning of the American office. Steve Carell plays Michael Scott, the pathetically insecure boob who manages the Dundermifflin sales office. One of his employees is Stanley Hudson, a sardonic aging black man who has little patience for Michael's nonsense. We also have Angela, the uptight priss who serves as office accountant. There is smirky Kevin, good-hearted Phyllis, loutish Andy, gay Oscar and by-the-book Toby to round things out. Pam, played by Jenna Fischer is perfect as the sweet and slightly mischievous secretary. John Krasinki plays Jim Halpert, the handsome salesman who rises above the level (and sometimes to the same level) of Michael's outrageous tom-foolery; he also is Pam's on-again off-again love interest. Ryan is the young MBA suck-up who has usurped Michael by going from temp underling to regional manager. Last but definitely not least is Dwight Schrute, a lead salesman who is Michael's lieutenant of sorts. Dwight is a nerd who lets any whiff of power go straight to his head. In episodes where Dwight is given even a momentary responsibility (selecting a health insurance plan for the office, subbing for Michael) he goes on a power-mad kick -- seeking to fire people or form some kind of secret cabal. A real-life Dwight would probably be committed to a padded cell at some point.

Many of the characters you see are but a shade away from someone you know. Michael the boss is so over-the-top, I can’t help but think someone that self-centered and incompetent would be fired in short order. As it happens on the series, his workaholic fembot of a boss, Jan, becomes romantically involved with Michael. Her emotions and behavior become erratic -- she goes on work day shopping sprees and gets her breasts enlarged. She's the one who actually gets canned (at end of last season). The show has so many romances, conspiracies, betrayals and what-not it's hard to keep pace. You might liken it to a soap opera, but these characters seem very real and multi-dimensional, unlike a soap opera.

The Office has some excellent comedy veterans writing and producing for it. Greg Daniels, producer is also known for The Simpsons and King of the Hill. B.J. Novak who plays Ryan is also a writer/co-producer of the show. He's well-known from his previous work in stand-up comedy. Steve Carell of course has been in several movies of late, and is at the top of his game. If you find yourself channel surfing on Thursday evenings, stop and watch The Office. You might not glean all the rich irony and humor from a first viewing, but as you learn the characters' quirks it will become must-see TV.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Come And Knock On Our Door....

We'll be waiting for you -- Picture courtesy of TVLand

by blogSpotter
One of my guilty TV pleasures from the late 70’s is the sitcom Three's Company. The show was based on a British show called Man About the House. It was written and produced by Don Nicholl, Michael Ross and Bernie West – previously well-known for All in the Family and The Jeffersons. At the time Three’s Company debuted in March ’77, I was on my college high horse, and thought it was a lowbrow piece of fluff. I couldn’t believe that Nicholl, Ross and West had defected from bright political humor to high school sexual innuendo. I wasn’t alone at the time; TV critic Bart Andrews listed the show in his book The Worst TV Shows Ever. The LA Times called it “…inane, cheap sexual humor about as funny as a mugging…”.

Critics can get it wrong. Does anyone remember Mr T and Tina or Holmes and Yo Yo? May these short-lived series rest in peace. They were given first shot by ABC in '77 and rated more kindly by the critics. Three's Company is indeed a sex-giggles-and-jiggles sitcom centered around an aspiring chef, Jack Tripper, rooming with beautiful blonde Chrissy Snow and sensible (but also comely) brunette Janet Wood. To keep their landlord, Mr. Roper, from evicting him on a “morals” premise, Tripper says that he’s gay and adds that there is nothing between him and his foxy roommates. There really is nothing between Jack and the two girls but a lot of flirtatious shenanigans. Mr. Roper’s wife, Mrs. Roper is frustrated because the Ropers have no sex life. She constantly makes scalding, sarcastic remarks to remind Mr. Roper how undersexed they are. Here is some sample dialog:

MR. ROPER, (fixing the plumbing): I haven’t got the right equipment
MRS. ROPER: You’re telling me!

Having dismounted from my college high horse, I’ve seen All in the Family episodes that now seem preachy and self-righteous. Then again, I’ve seen many Three’s Company episodes that can make me laugh until I fall off the couch. The late John Ritter was extremely gifted at physical pratfalls and he is said to have been one of Lucille Ball’s favorite actors. The entire cast was gifted in their astonished double-takes and Shakespearean quality mix-ups. The show had several bumps along the way – The Ropers were spun off to a short-lived show. Suzanne Somers left after four seasons in a contract dispute. Still in all, the show kept its wonderful wackiness until a poorly conceived last season where they tried to marry off Jack and surround him with a new cast.

Things to love about this show: the over-the-top 70’s style and attitude. As someone who lived the first round of 70’s disco-era artifacts, and appreciates the retro fare of Urban Outfitters, you have to love Jack’s tricolor terry cloth shirts and the 70’s Herculon couch going on. There was nothing really tasteful about this show – deliberately so; it was in some ways a precursor to Married With Children. A TV show doesn’t have to be tasteful, preach or educate; all it really needs to do is entertain. If you find yourself channel-surfing some evening, stop at the TVLand channel and catch an episode of Three’s Company – there’s hardly anything more entertaining.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Savage Island

The call of the wild -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Just finished reading another novel in my "Boomer Lit" series, Lord of the Flies. Lord of the Flies (LOTF) was the first novel by Nobel Prize winner William Golding; it was published in 1954. The book only sold 3,000 copies its first year but developed a following and is now considered one of the best English-language novels ever written. Warning: there are spoilers that follow; in fact I'll probably give away the whole plot...

LOTF has a fairly dull beginning but is a gripping thriller by the last couple of chapters. It deals with a group of @ 30 British school boys ages 6 to 12, who become abandoned on a Pacific Island when their plane (part of a war time evacuation) crashes with no adult survivors. There's a natural age segmentation between the 'big'uns' (ages 10-12) and the ‘little’uns’ (ages 9 and under). At the outset, the boys organize in a fairly "Democratic" way. The older boys take charge, holding an election. They elect the genial, fair-skinned Ralph as their Chief. Piggy, a plump boy with glasses is Ralph's friend and implicit advisor. Jack is a "macho" strong-willed rival to Ralph. He loves to bark orders and is incensed at Ralph's victory. Even so, at the beginning the boys have a cooperative society. They set about to build huts, gather fruit and build a fire (using magnification from Piggy's eyeglasses). The fire is intended to send a skyward smoke signal to any rescue ships that might pass by.

Jack has a small group who are designated "the hunters". Their only stated mission is to hunt wild pigs using wood spears and a knife. They succeed in killing a couple of animals and become big-headed at their success -- they even originate a celebration dance ritual. After cooking one of the pigs they let the fire go out, which deeply troubles Ralph -- the rescue signal has been snuffed out. Ralph confronts Jack and the two groups develop a fissure. Jack challenges the group: "Whoever wants to be part of the hunt, join with me!". Astonishingly, most of the boys glom to Jack -- maybe impressed by his macho certitude or maybe liking the pork dinners.

From here, things spiral out of control. The hunter group gets carried away with itself and its ritual dance (in which they imitate the capture and slaughter of a pig). Simon, a solitary boy who belongs to neither group, happens on the ritual scene and they slaughter him much like a pig. The hunters steal Piggy's glasses and in a group confrontation, Piggy is shoved off a 40 foot cliff, to his death. By this point, Ralph's "Democratic" group has dissolved or abandoned him. Ralph stands alone against the remaining 'big'uns'. A chase ensues where the hunters intend to kill Ralph. Knowing how skilled Ralph is at hiding in the underbrush, the hunters decide to smoke him out with fire. They inadvertently set the whole island on fire. The chase ends for Ralph and his tormentors when a rescue ship is drawn to the burning island. The boys transform from savage hunters back into skittish school boys as the rescuing Naval officer chastises them for slovenly habits and juvenile war games.

This book was mesmerizing -- I was taken by the turn of events. E.M. Forster wrote the forward to the book, and says that it's a political allegory. Ralph represents Democracy, Jack represents fascism or despotism and Piggy represents reason and truth. These symbolic equations make perfect sense to me. Whether you take the account literally or symbolically, Lord of the Flies is a powerful tale. For anyone who's ever been drawn into office political drama or Faustian bargains of any sort, this book is a must-read. You'll recognize people you've known albeit in an extreme fashion. Some critics have said the book's overall message is that man is fallen and hopeless. I prefer to think that man has hope, but here is what happens when reason takes a back seat to brutal force.

© 2007 blogSpotter