Visions of 1988

Dukakis looking silly -- are we set for a repeat? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
As I look at the Democratic party, I can't help but wonder why it engages in self-immolation so frequently. You can look back to previous elections like 2000, where we fumbled on the 5 yard line. Why should 2008 be different? This election year should've been a giant "Gimme". We have a recession, an unpopular war and a very unpopular incumbent President. We Democrats should've had the election in the bag.

More gravy for the Dems -- the GOP is running a weak candidate. McCain is old, he's been defeated in a previous national election and he's unpopular with the conservative wing of his own party. He refuses to fight "dirty", which pretty much puts his Boy Scout persona at the mercy of his next opponent. He also just recently confused the Iranian Shiites with Al Quaeda which may invite questions about his clouded view of foreign affairs, or possibly his advanced age. Again -- this election should be served to the Dems on a silver platter.

But somehow, we've managed to finagle two candidates with baggage and image problems galore. Neither Clinton nor Obama are free from controversy -- both of them can serve as lightening rods for various elements. Obama’s longtime pastor is a friend of Louis Farrakhan. Hillary is a “Trojan Horse” candidate who brings Bill on board with her. If you look at www.realclearpolitics.com, McCain bests Clinton or Obama in any theoretical match, by at least 6 points. It seems both parties did a leftward shift, but not to any great advantage for either party. Democrats will take an extra five miles, if given an inch. Some operatives saw the “Gimme” factor of this election year and they became overly confident. “Now is the time,” they thought, “to break through racial and gender stereotypes”. I would say that the very shrill Howard Dean faction took over the show. The Democratic “big tent” sprawls much larger than the Republican tent, and the circus animals in it are more unruly. Is it any wonder that we always manage to pull it down on ourselves? One only has to remember Michael Dukakis in the 1988 campaign, or Kerry in 2004 to see how we’re so frequently swift-boated.

Another poll out today says that 28% of Hillary supporters will switch to McCain if Obama is the nominee. Hillary is being vilified by the likes of columnists David Brooks and Jonathan Alter for “tearing apart the Democratic Party” by continuing her campaign. Newsflash to David and Jonathan – it was already torn apart. There is no parallel universe where I’d vote for Obama (see previous blog entries for the details). Hillary’s actions have no bearing on my actions.

This morning’s paper says that McCain would keep with Bush’s direction on both the economy and Iraq. McCain says the only thing he might do differently is hold interest rates steady and not bail any companies out of debt. He has indicated recently that economics is not his forte and he can’t speak “as an economist”. McCain comes across as tepid, dull and lifeless. Not only is he older than average, but his policies have run past their expiration date. I hate to think that any candidate would promise nothing more than same W Bush song, third verse. 2008 is a truly bad election year. We have the unsavory dealer of glib fibs versus the cadaver-blue Hooverite Republican versus the cultural lightening rod. Election Day this year might see me with a here-to-fore unknown case of indifference, staying at home.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Stopped Worrying about Iraq

"Simple to understand... credible and convincing" -- Picture courtesy of Sony Pictures

by blogSpotter
Every once in a while, a movie comes along which is a cultural touchstone -- discussed in literary salons, maybe even required in a college syllabus. 1964's black comedy, Dr. Strangelove, is such a movie. Directed by Stanley Kubrick, the movie serves as an indictment against knee-jerk, war-mongering anti-Communists in positions of military authority. I watched the movie this weekend (via Apple TV), and I must say the humor and content is relevant some 44 years later.

The movie is so realistic in its technical depictions of B-52 bombers and our Air Force command, that a disclaimer was required at the beginning of the movie stating, "This is fiction. The US government has safeguards to prevent this from happening". Cinematically, Peter Sellers did triple duty portraying the US President, British General Mandrake and the mad ex-Nazi weapons expert Dr. Strangelove. He excelled in all roles most hilariously as Strangelove; Mandrake is probably closest to Sellers' actual personality.

In the movie, a demented Air Force officer declares war on the Soviet Union, dispatching 34 nuclear armed B-52s to bomb Russia. He does this using "Plan R" (for emergency retaliatory action) not requiring presidential approval. The planes can only be summoned back with a secret 3-letter code which the mad general (General Jack Ripper) makes difficult to obtain by committing suicide in the bathroom. Ripper is a rabid anticommunist who believes communist-inspired fluoridated water has caused his impotence. George C. Scott plays General Buck Turgidson whose macho bravado is nearly as over-the-top as Jack Ripper. He informs the war cabinet that we could "take out the Ruskies" and keep deaths at 10 million if we just proceed and get first strike. Rounding out the crazies is Slim Pickens' B-52 pilot Major "King" Kong. He's eager to go "nuclear toe-to-toe" with the reds. The wheelchair-bound Dr. Strangelove is a war room weapons expert who actually only has two small appearances in the film. He worships technology and still has an obvious passion for Hitler.

This movie could easily be about Iraq. Our Middle East crisis doesn't involve a "Doomsday Machine" or mutually assured destruction (yet), but the differences end there. Strangelove was made in England, and I must say Americans do not come out looking good. Americans are shown as macho, shoot-from-the-lip, foam-at-mouth reactionaries with completely self-centered agendas. Remind you of anyone? One other difference between Strangelove and Iraq is that the movie had two reasonable voices -- American President Muffley and British General Mandrake. Alas, in reality we are unmoored and lost at sea -- no real voices of reason. I can't think of anyone in governmental authority right now with a realistic view of Iraq or the Middle East. If I were to remake this movie in 2008, I would use Bush and his favorite advisors -- they wouldn't even have to act, just be themselves:

Dr. Strangelove will be portrayed by Paul Wolfowitz.
General Turgidson -- George W. Bush
General Jack D. Ripper -- Dick Cheney
Major "King" Kong -- A younger John McCain

Is this movie fair in its assessment of things? In fact it is dead accurate, so accurate that the American Film Institute has ranked it in the 100 best comedies of all time. The movie is a reference point for just the type of messes we've encountered with Viet Nam and Iraq. Strangelove came out in 1964, and was probably instrumental in changing attitudes about Viet Nam, the Cold War and war in general. It's too bad the movie didn't inform us 40 years later about "preventive wars" in the Middle East.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Righting Wright's Wrongs

No longer looking for Mr. Wright? -- Picture courtesy of FNC

by blogSpotter
It's a testament to Obama's charm and aura that yesterday's apologetic "race awareness" speech was so well received. The speech was to allay doubts generated by the extremist views of Obama's long-time minister, Jeremiah Wright. The Dallas Morning News hyperbolized that Obama's message was the best speech since MLK was alive. Others in the Obama swoon club are columnists James Mitchell and Shawn Williams. Both hailed Obama has "tough, instructive and statesmanlike". Others were not so impressed. Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institute says that Obama needs to show some consistency -- his words and deeds are contradictory. Columnist Mark Davis (a Bush fan I frequently diss) also says that no Obama speech can excuse Minister Wright's hate speech. I have to agree with Sowell and Davis on this one -- there's no proper context for saying "God Damn America!”

Who is this Jeremiah Wright? He's a prominent, 66 year old author and ex-minister. He has a Master of Divinity degree from University of Chicago Divinity School and is well-respected by his parishioners. He was Obama's minister and mentor at Trinity United Church of Christ the last 20 years; he actually officiated at Barack and Michelle's wedding ceremony. Barack was so enamored of him in 2007 that he was going to have him be his introducer for his Presidential announcement. Wright was already controversial enough at that point that Obama disinvited him.

Why is Jeremiah Wright controversial? Well let's see ...in the 80's he traveled on a church mission to Libya with Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam's leader. His church later gave an award to Farrakhan. Wright has been filmed sermonizing these types of ideas...

- 9/11 is a consequence of America's attitudes towards people of color
- The US government is responsible for the 9/11 attacks
- HIV was invented by the government to infect blacks
- Zionism is white racism

Some of these assertions bring Jerry Falwell to mind -- he blamed 9/11 on gays and feminists. I myself can understand righteous indignation, and 'rage against the machine' -- have experienced those feelings myself even as a white person. But Wright's tirades look more like undirected lashing-out and even paranoid thinking. They don't serve any constructive purpose. Several Obama apologists say that you have to put it all in "historical context". There is no place or placement of Wright's sermons that would be appropriate. Obama saying he "didn't hear those sermons" sounds incredible; maybe Jay Leno is right and he was sleeping in church. Or maybe, just maybe, Obama is doing political damage control. I already had misgivings about Obama (just search "Obama" in this blog and see my prior articles). This uproar won't change my mind since I was already in the Hillary camp -- it might change some other minds though.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Governors Gone Wild

When good governors go bad ... -- Pictures courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Just as we are adjusting to the reality that Eliot Spitzer had a sleazy series of encounters with prostitutes, we are met with the astounding new information that ex-NJ Governor Jim McGreevey had several 3-way trysts with his wife and Theodore Pedersen, a 29-year old political aid and driver. McGreevey’s wife, Dina Matos has denied the allegations. McGreevey came out publicly as a gay man a couple of years ago; Pedersen says that his presence in the three-ways may have been necessary to "inspire" McGreevey to make love to Dina.

Words cannot describe how appalled I am that these men in the public eye have done so very much and gotten away with it. Both governors were Democrats from the Northeast, but we probably can’t make generalizations about geography or party affiliation. Mark Foley was from Florida and Larry Craig hails from Idaho. We do know that drug additives have been found in some of our public drinking water – perhaps some Cialis made its way in. Maybe also some testosterone.

How did these men get away with things as long as they did? Lesser humans would probably get arrested on a Class C misdemeanor the first time out. What gets me about the McGreevey case is that he and Dina had squared things away and gone their separate ways. McGreevey is studying to be an Episcopal priest for heaven’s sake. Why did McGreevey and Pedersen wake this tabloid monster from its peaceful rest?

I will loath, absolutely despise doing it – but I must see what Leno, Letterman and O’Brien have to say about these new developments. These men of high distinction with their towering libidos – they make choices you and I would never make. And yet, it makes the world more colorful all the same. I’m shocked, I’m appalled, and yet I must follow these cases until all the tawdry details are known, for the public good.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Kristen and Client 9

Ashley catches some rays -- Picture courtesy of Myspace.com

by blogSpotter
As I read more about ex-NY Governor Eliot Spitzer's affair, it seems to invite more questions than it answers. The buxom 22 year-old that he was caught with was known as "Kristen" at the Emperor's Club agency. Her "real" er, stage name is Ashley Dupre. She's an aspiring Manhattan singer, who had to pick up some extra money to make ends meet. Now, she's caught in a whirlpool of lust, legislators and liaisons -- she's already been subpoenaed to testify on what she knew and when she knew it.

Poor Ashley! Or is she so poor? At $4300 a tryst, she was doing well even if her pimp received 75% of the cut. What on Earth could she possibly be doing that justifies that kind of rate? Some people in my office speculated that they chose the wrong line of work. At Ashley's rates, you could hook for 10 years and then retire for life. Am curious to know if Emperor’s Club has 401K and medical benefits. She's now at the center of a storm (flashbacks to Donna Rice and Monica Lewinski). What is next for this aspiring singer? Donna Rice went on to model for "No Excuses" blue jeans; Monica Lewinski developed a signature line of hand bags. For Ashley, this may be just the spotlight she needed -- her American Idol moment. Yes, the closing of Spitzer's political career can have a positive aspect. His toppling could propel Ashley into being the next Madonna. Or not. Her page on Myspace.com is now getting more hits than Foxnews.com.

On a semi-related topic, I'm tired of people saying that Spitzer's wife should have ditched him when he announced his resignation. Figure this -- she's already going thru pain and upheaval. She doesn't need to feed the news sharks anymore with speculation about divorce settlements or vindictive behavior. It might just be a civilized thing to do, to accompany the man while he faces the music. She might still dissolve the marriage later, but it's a private matter and it's up to her. Marriages and particularly political marriages are institutions as much as they are romantic couplings. There might be pragmatic concerns (children, money, property, in-laws) where all the loose ends need to be dealt with nicely and neatly. One thing at a time -- and later.

OK, I don't want this blog to turn into a tabloid. I will try to refrain from anymore such trifling articles or gratuitous pictures of women with ample bosoms. Unless somebody has something royalty-free. Signing off for today.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Spitzer gets his own Spritzer

The bigger they come, the harder they fall... -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Unless you've lost all of your five senses, you must know by now that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has been brought down by a sex scandal this week. It appears that he solicited prostitutes from an elite NYC service called Emperors Club VIP. His last "encounter" cost him $4,300 (not counting the governorship, his career or his credibility). The dalliance was traced by wire transfers -- the very type of sleuthing he did as NY Attorney General.

Spitzer was known as "the enforcer" as AG, and he had several noteworthy cases:

o Computer chip price fixing case involving five chip companies
o Investment bank inflating of stock prices involving @ 10 banks
o Gambino family domination of NY garment trade
o NYSE excessive compensation for Dick Grasso
o Unlawful insurance "override" commissions

Looking at his track record, he actually did a great deal of good. Short of being Batman or Superman, he brought down greedy institutions in all their many manifestations. Spitzer is a died-in-the-wool Democrat and as such has supported many liberal causes. He worked for immigrant rights, same sex marriage rights and he was even a super delegate pledged to Hillary Clinton. An irony in all of this is that Hillary loses another delegate when Spitzer steps down (which is speculated to be today).

More on the down side, Spitzer received bad publicity for sending home style maven Martha Stewart up the river for a year. Martha's infraction was miniscule compared to the cases above, and many people thought that the prosecution of Martha's case was very heavy handed. Martha's embarrassment pales next to Spitzer's as it turns out.

Much along the lines of Bill Clinton, Spitzer became foolhardy and careless in his rambling ways. My own take is that each of these men was so fueled with ego and arrogance that he mistook himself for a "God" of sorts -- like Icarus who didn't believe his wax wings would melt by flying too close to the sun. In a final analysis, we come back to Lincoln's quote: "You can't fool all of the people all of the time". Now Lincoln, as the charter member of Log Cabin Republicans probably had first hand experience himself with that quote. And Spitzer can probably recover some of his lost credibility in private practice, as long as he is willing to retire his rambling ways.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Laptop Lite

A computer made for Starbucks? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I'm going way off course today to do a product review. I know it's the election season, but we all need a breather. Today's blog will discuss Apple's new MacBook Air from a fairly non-technical consumer point of view.

I'd like to venture into car history for a moment. When Ford Motor Company replaced their aging (but affordable) Thunderbird model with a super jazzy retro convertible in 2002, everyone was "pumped". The new model was a convertible with rounded headlamps and a hood scoop -- looked like a reinterpretation of the 1955 model. Only one problem, and a fairly big problem -- the price nearly doubled. It went from base price of 16K to base price of 32K in one year. Ford was hoping to pick up a new market, and what they actually did was give fatal sticker shock to the old market. The car won rave reviews but sold so poorly that it was withdrawn from the market after a few years. When I look at Apple's $1800 MacBook Air, I can't help but have Thunderbird flashbacks.

The MacBook Air is extremely lightweight, thin and beautiful. Many sacrifices were made for the sake of thinness -- no CD drive, 80 GB hard drive and a paltry 3 interfaces for headphones, USB and micro-DVI. I'm figuring that this notebook would be ideal for an SMU sorority pledge who does email and light web surfing. It would be the perfect accessory for Starbucks, where you're there more to visit and look good than to do serious computer work. You would never fit your iTunes repository on it, and you probably wouldn't want to go too far with an Office Suite either.

The MacBook Air has a sealed, nonreplaceable battery that pretty much forces you to take it in for factory service if you need a new battery. If you want a CD you need to buy a USB accessory or "network" to a desktop computer (implicitly your "real" or "regular" computer). These impracticalities fairly ensure that looks-oriented people will carry the Air as more a fashion accessory or a toy -- never for serious number crunching.

The price of $1800 puts MacBook Air in the province of MacBook Pro, and I don't have to say which is more for the money. If MacBook Air would roughly cut its price in half, I'd find it appealing for all its superficial cuteness. At $1800, it's a toy that I can't well afford. I'll qualify all this to say that I've been wrong on this before, even with an Apple product. I couldn't imagine that people would pay almost as much for a color iPod mini as they would for a black model with twice the memory. Dumb, silly, pretty Apple customers! They flocked to the color iPod mini. I'm an overall Apple fan (silly & pretty at that), so more power to them if they find a willing market for this pricy toy.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Stayin' Alive!

Hilla gives us a Thrilla -- Picture courtesy of HillaryClinton.com

by blogSpotter
Today's blog is aimed directly at Jonathan Alter, Tim Russert and Howard Fineman. These are three usually sensible talking heads who have recently implied, or said outright that Hillary should just roll over and die -- just take one for the team. According to their reasoning, there's no real substantive difference between Clinton and Obama; her protracted campaign against Obama will just give McCain some kind of time advantage.

First of all, Clinton and Obamas' delegate counts are neck and neck -- they're essentially tied. Obama leads Hillary 1451 to 1365 by the latest count. Hillary's victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island closed the gap some last night. The candidates are not the same. I won't bedraggle it any further here, but Obama isn't everyone's cup of tea. If he were nominated I probably would vote for McCain -- it does in fact matter who the nominee is.

A couple of other things worth mentioning... Florida and Michigan were punished by the Democratic Party for moving their primaries up in the schedule. The thinking now is that do-overs in these two states might serve as tie-breakers. One super delegate being interviewed on CNN last night said that they'd be looking for the strongest overall candidate -- he said that Hillary's victories in all of the big states would figure prominently.

Bottom line is that Obama doesn't have it "in the bag". This campaign may be taken to the mat at a brokered Democratic Convention. That is altogether fair and reasonable when the candidates are this close and each has a vocal, committed group behind it. Who said that the nominating process has to be a cake walk? Democracy is probably served better when it isn't a cake walk.

Lastly, the Hillary detractors were saying that her "3 in the morning" phone ad was fighting below the belt. There is nothing below the belt about wondering if your 46 year old speech-making President wannabe could handle a nuclear crisis. There was nothing deeply personal or insulting about the ad. The ads could and probably will get much worse than that. I don't think Clinton or Obama has it all sewn up -- it remains to be seen. But kudos to Hillary for staying in the fight; she has that right. I'll sign off for now, lest I do anymore rhymes like that.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Is McCain too much of a Boy Scout?

Echoes of 1996 -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Today’s blog has a couple of directions it can go, maybe I’ll explore both avenues. First of all, it looks like the 2008 election is shaping up to be McCain vs. Obama. My candidate of choice was John Edwards and he’s already wiped out. Hillary was my second choice but her campaign appears to be imploding and maybe we don’t need someone running the country that has trouble with placards and phone banks. Obama reminds me of New Jersey’s ex-governor James McGreavy. There is something smarmy and inauthentic about him – like a smooth operator who’s just a little too smooth. His supporters give me a bigger case of the willies than he does. These people who are injecting religious fervor and metaphors frighten me – Obama is not the messiah. He didn’t pay his college parking fines, and he fibbed in his autobiography; I don’t think Jesus would operate that way.

The “talking heads” on today’s Meet the Press said that Hillary would have to take 70% of remaining delegates to win. That’s not likely, and it’s also unlikely that her peers will tolerate a brokered Democratic convention. It’s looking more and more like Obama vs. McCain.

Now on to McCain. I could stomach him very well if it weren’t for that 100 year Iraq commitment. Also, he’s anti-Choice and he’s reversed directions on a couple of important issues – immigration and tax cuts for the wealthy. Shades of Mitt Romney’s flip-flops – “I’ll say anything to get elected”.

Here is where McCain has his biggest problem, and it’s not even properly a problem. He’s too nice. He comes across as a nice older man, who has said repeatedly that he won’t throw mud pies or be “underhanded”. He’s already decried other people focusing on Obama’s middle name (“Hussein”) and the picture of Obama in Arabic garb. Both were probably intended by Hillary operatives to raise the specter that Obama is anti-Semitic; possibly even to suggest that he has ties to Nation of Islam and Lois Farrakhan.

Now McCain has the sweetie pie grandpa persona that calls to mind Bob Dole from the 1996 election. Dole did not have any hardball players like Karl Rove or Bob Perry on his team. W Bush on the other hand, had nothing but hardball players running his 2000/2004 campaigns. In fact, they are the same ones who derailed McCain in 2000. As they did with John Kerry, they managed to use McCain’s Viet Nam heroism against him. They wouldn't blanch at kicking a man in the balls a couple of times and then dropping a file cabinet on his head while he's down.

The voting public says it doesn’t like mud pie contests and yet the mud sticks and seems to be effective. When you have a genteel, avuncular Boy Scout like McCain as your candidate, you may be on the losing team. I myself am appalled by the whole turn of events. We’ve gone from a knuckle-dragging Nazi (“W” of the last 8 years) to a smarmy, smooth talking “phenomenon” who can sell tonic without showing anyone the ingredients. The American voting public never ceases to astound me. This is probably another blog topic, but the unmentionable 3rd party candidate Ralph Nader is looking better all the time.

© 2008 blogSpotter