Strange Fascination

Catching up with Oscar

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Tue, 27 May 2008 03:19:00 +0000

How I spent my weekend -- Pictures courtesy of Ghoulardi Films and Fox Searchlight

by blogSpotter
This was a low-key Memorial Day weekend; Dallas had cloudy, humid weather and I came down with a cold. I managed to catch a couple of good movies on Apple TV during my convalescence. Apple is now offering newer movie releases in iTunes, so I’m only a little behind Blockbuster or Best Buy.

There Will Be Blood
This movie is based on a novel, Oil, by Upton Sinclair. The movie is an allegorical depiction of a greedy, rather despicable oil man who uses up all the people around him and eventually consumes himself in alcoholism and self-loathing. The movie is darkly poetic with its violin music and its somber blue, black and brown hues. It places us at the turn of the last century and also imparts the sad, lonely circumstances of its characters. Blood reminded me quite a bit of Christmas Carol with Daniel in the role of Scrooge. But Scrooge finds redemption in his tale – Blood has a shocking conclusion that is anything but redeeming.

Juno
Someone described this movie inaccurately as a “chick flick”. It’s really not about marriage or romance – it’s a cogent, well scripted social “dramedy” centering on a 16 year old, self-effacing tom boy named Juno who gets pregnant. Her boyfriend is also 16 – a high school track star who, like Juno, is immature and nowhere near parental readiness. Juno is helped by her father and step-mom in finding a “perfect” 30-something yuppie couple to adopt the infant when it’s born. The movie has one interesting twist at the end, but the main thing to glean here is the nuanced acting and believable, appealing characters. There aren’t really heroes or villains – just flawed humans searching for happiness or equilibrium however it may be found.

Both of these movies received Oscars and its easy to see why. Movie-making is so much more than story or dialog. It’s music, light, mood, cadence and many other things. You know when it’s done right and both of these movies are exemplary.

My other guilty pleasure this weekend was Indian Jones and the Crystral Skull. For a pure adrenaline rush in an Amazon jungle, this movie surely delivers. At 65, Harrison Ford still has an athletic build and does his own stunts. The AMC audience had many older people in it, probably also in awe that Harrison can still pull it off. I’d like to say that I accomplished much more than watching movies this 3-day weekend, but nay. Given the state of my health and the weather, I’d say I chose some very good cinema to keep me entertained.

© 2008 blogSpotter

OPEC Sends Its Love

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Thu, 22 May 2008 18:57:00 +0000

Is the well running dry? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I'm looking at the sky high oil prices of 2008. The public is justifiably angry and there are accusations flying in all directions. Liberals point to the Iraq War and conservatives point to untapped Alaskan reserves. Right or wrong, the tendency is for voters to blame the Presidential and Congressional incumbents. In today's setting, it's much more of an indictment against Republicans than it is against Democrats. Democrats have had only a thin majority since 2006 and Bush is able to veto any of their measures. The Iraq war, the deficit and crippled economy are the legacies of Bush appointees, Bush policies and Republican carelessness thru the last two presidential terms.

What if someone saw the voter's reaction to the oil market, and decided to take advantage of it? If OPEC were to artificially run up the price of oil in an election year, could it be deliberately damaging to Bush and his cronies? If you look at the 13 members of OPEC, several would be considered outright "evil-doers" by the Bush administration: Iran, Libya and Venezuela, among others. There is no love lost between these nations and the United States. They don't like us on a good day, much less when Bush has put one of them on his "axis of evil". The Arab member nations have never been cool with us landing on their soil to do anything -- even something as noble as democratizing Iraq. They can say they've throttled oil production to lessen green house gases when just maybe, they throttled it to gig the status quo in the United States. Furthermore they're not necessarily spiting their faces by alienating a customer -- they have plenty of new oil demand coming from China and India. There is both humor and irony in the fact that the Saudi Royals gave Bush a bicycle on his recent visit to their land. One might ask if there's a not so hidden message about being less dependent on their oil output.

What if you had a President who fiddled while all the oil burned? What if you had a President who developed testy, strained relations with the very people we might need to make nice with? "What if" is no longer such a big speculation -- welcome to 2008. As I've pointed out in previous blogs, there are no less than 75 credible solutions for reducing oil dependency. Now with the fate of our consumerism and industrialism in the clutches of "evil doers" maybe we should look into some of those credible solutions. With Obama and/or Hillary in the White House, maybe we can try something like open dialog. It doesn't mean you love the other party, but it does mean that you intend to keep the oil flowing while working on alternative technologies.

© 2008 blogSpotter

The Iron Man Cometh

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Mon, 19 May 2008 03:58:00 +0000

The Iron Man shines a light ... -- Picture courtesy of Marvel Studios

by blogSpotter
This weekend, I had the occasion to see Iron Man with Robert Downey Jr. in the title role. Iron Man tells the story of Tony Stark, a multimillionaire playboy who heads up a high tech weapons company, Stark Industries. I won’t go into the whole synopsis, but suffice it to say that Stark gets caught up in fighting Middle East terrorists as well as corporate intrigue at home. He sustains a serious injury in one foray, with shrapnel to his heart; he’s also taken captive by the Afghan terrorists. The terrorists provide Stark a high tech lab in hopes of getting his Jericho missile secrets. A fellow captive named Yinsen is a medical and technical genius who fashions a super battery-powered magnet that holds Stark’s heart together. Together they also figure out how to hook the heart to a metal suit that gives Stark his Iron Man super powers. I won’t rehash the rest, Iron Man enthusiasts probably know what all to expect. I do have some observations about the genre which I find amusing.

The AMC Theater was filled to capacity for an 8PM showing; a greater percentage of the audience was male. In fact, this movie is the ultimate guy movie and seems to garner more interest than Spiderman, Batman and the Incredible Hulk combined. Where women fantasize about becoming princesses (Pretty Woman, My Fair Lady), men seem to fantasize about transforming into super tough fighting machines. I think what gives Tony Stark extra appeal is that he’s presented as an ordinary man. His powers could be exhibited by anyone who dons his rocket powered gold-titanium suit. (“Hey dude, it could really happen!”). Stark is loosely based on Howard Hughes, the legendary “Spruce Goose” millionaire. Stark is also shown as all too human in his suitless state – a womanizing alcoholic. He does have a faithful, leggy assistant named Pepper, played to perfection by Gwyneth Paltrow. They have a sexual tension all throughout, which finally is somewhat acknowledged.

TEETERING HIGH HEELS

Iron Man plays by the action movie rules, and admirably so. In a couple of scenes, Pepper is in a frantic hurry. In one scene, she’s running from the demonic Obadiah (played by Jeff Bridges). In another scene she’s rushing about the lab hoping to forestall a disaster. In all scenes, she is wearing six inch high heels that would almost be challenging for lesser girls to wear for a casual stroll. She’s a faithful blonde Girl Friday who stands by her genius man but doesn’t try to fathom his deep ideas.

DELL versus APPLE

Apparently Satan uses a Dell. In a couple of scenes, it’s made apparent that Stark uses Apple iMacs for his genius work. When Pepper sneaks into Obadiah’s office to investigate something, it’s made apparent that Obadiah, the evil villain uses a late model Dell with a Dell brand flat screen. All of this confirms what I already suspected from the Apple commercials – that the cool and the virtuous use Apple hardware. I do think it’s funny that in so many movies and TV shows, Apple computers are prominently displayed. Not complaining mind you – I the virtuous blog author am typing this on an iMac Mini.

CONCLUSION

This movie was thoroughly enjoyable, although with more of a wink and a smile from my particular perspective. I don’t see the Iron Man suit being perfected by military intelligence any time soon, and I don’t have any fantasies about increasing my powers with rocket legs and bazooka arms. If you had that suit available right now, I would not put it on – on my first test flight I’d probably smack into a wall at 400 mph. But for guys who like the aforementioned movie ingredients, Iron Man is a must see. There might even be some girls that come along for the ride, if only to get footwear ideas from Pepper, the sexy assistant.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Can the Voter Get his Groove Back?

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Fri, 16 May 2008 21:52:00 +0000

Nobody should surrender this right ... -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I checked the latest polls on realclearpolitics.com, and saw something a bit unusual. In hypothetical match-ups, Obama beats McCain by 3.8 points and Clinton beats McCain by 3.4 points. This is early in the campaign and the Democrats haven't even selected a final nominee. Both Obama and Clinton have distinct negatives (the baggage of Jeremiah Wright & Bill Clinton respectively). And yet both of them have a decent edge over McCain, who presumably has enjoyed the past three months as the sole GOP nominee.

Not unrelated to this polling trend is the tremendous increase of black Americans' participation in the 2008 election. It's almost as if in previous elections, they didn't feel they had a "dog in the fight". Blacks were putatively Democrats in 2000 / 2004, but their presence was tiny in comparison to the 2008 election. White evangelicals on the other hand were much attuned in the last two elections. They very likely sealed the deal for Bush. In this year's election, they're disappointed with McCain and have been much less vocal. They even seem to have rejected Mike Huckabee, a fellow evangelical but one with a non-Republican populist streak. What you have in all 3 elections (2000, 2004 and 2008) is electoral abdication by one of two major groups:

1. African Americans or
2. White evangelicals

Each group represents a significant percent of the voting populace. I'm not in either group myself, but must admonish that they do have a dog in the fight. By all appearances, Republicans are so deflated by the performance of "W" they've very nearly thrown in the towel. As Peggy Noonan pointed out in a recent Op-Ed, Republicans don't know how to distance themselves from the incumbent without seeming disloyal or in some way inappropriately liberal. But if they say and do nothing, they stand accused of offering a 3rd Bush term. It's a rock and a hard place if ever there were one. If African Americans had come forth in 2000 or 2004 as they have in 2008, would we be looking at 4,077 U.S. Iraq fatalities? Would we be looking at one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression? Now addressing evangelicals ... are you ready to sit on your hands showing contempt for McCain, knowing that Obama might select the next Supreme Court judges? What we have when whole groups abdicate is an extreme anomaly -- an elected president who steers way too far right or left and is unrepresentative of the nation at large. I think Bush has been somewhat a disaster and can't help thinking Obama, with his inexperience and his Chicago Southside cronies, would be a recipe for another disaster.

Interesting side note -- the California Supreme court just overturned a ruling against gay marriage yesterday. Pundits are saying it's unlikely to get overturned again by any constitutional amendment. A similar controversy erupted during the 2004 election, the striking down of the Texas Sodomy law. In 2004, that was impetus enough for evangelicals to come running out of the woodwork to save "traditional marriage". Karl Rove used it to great advantage for Team Bush. The Right is preoccupied this year and staring down problems much more worrisome than the "horrors" of gay marriage -- foreclosed housing, sky high gas prices and Middle East turmoil. In recent polls, significantly fewer people even identify themselves as Republican. There is much work needed for the GOP to get its groove back. Do I want snarky, anti-Gay evangelicals running the show? No I do not. Do I think we get freaking weird results when whole parts of the electorate sit out an election? Yes I do. I think 2008 will be to politics what El Nino was to weather patterns. When disaffected groups can "man up" and have dialogs with others, we may finally get representative government.

Maybe I'm wrong. Louis Farrakhan, leader of Nation of Islam, believes that whites and blacks are intrinsically unable to get along. He believes they should have separate leaders, separate governance. I hope for the sake of our diverse and dynamic "Great Melting Pot" that he's wrong. Everybody out there – please vote like it matters, because it does.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Our Fair Lady

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Mon, 12 May 2008 14:58:00 +0000

Memoirs of Eliza -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I'm listening to Julie Andrews' autobiography "Home". She's had a remarkable adult life as an Oscar-winning screen actress and singer. She's played a gamut of roles from Eliza Doolittle to Mary Poppins to Queen Clarisse in the Princess Bride movies. At 73, she is now the Grande Dame of Anglo-American Theater (and was in fact named a Dame by Queen Elizabeth II in 1999).

Her childhood was dysfunctional to say the least. Her parents divorced when she was about 7; she spent most of her remaining childhood travelling with her vaudevillian parents. Her Mother Barbara was a pianist and the step-dad sang. Both were alcoholics in need of the program. Julie was fortunate to have a close-by Aunt Joan, and a highly devoted noncustodial father who would step in to care for her when the Mother and step-dad "flaked out" as they frequently did. Julie's Mother dropped a bombshell on her in her early teens -- telling her that her "real" father was in fact a one-night-stand she'd met at a party. Julie continued to embrace and strongly admire Ted Wells, her "societal" father as her real dad.

Her Mother and step-dad sobered up enough to notice her incredible singing range when she was about 9, and sent her to voice coaches and trainers. By age 14, Julie was supporting the family with singing engagements and appearing in small English productions including pantomime shows. Her audiences included the Royal Family by this point, although the good reviews didn't necessarily translate into money. The Andrews struggled to pay bills, and Julie was very oddly parent to her own parents -- ironing shirts, scrambling eggs and sorting out disputes between family members.

When she was pegged for The Boyfriend on Broadway, the naive 18 year old Julie was unaware of how special that was. When Lerner and Loewe interviewed her for My Fair Lady, she had no idea how legendary they were. She almost took a much smaller role in another production until the casting director of that production heard the news. He magnanimously said, "Play Eliza for God's sake! It's the role of a lifetime!" And indeed it was. My Fair Lady brought together some of the finest entertainment talents, anywhere, ever, in one place: Moss Hart, Rex Harrison, Stanley Holloway and many others. A shy 20-year-old Miss Andrews had to deal with the towering egos of those around her. Rex Harrison thought she was way too young. Cecil Beaton, the costume designer, thought she was too unphotogenic and unsophisticated (and would tell her snipily, to her face). Even Moss Hart would dress her down fiercely if she flubbed any lines. Nevertheless, she persevered and got to be friends with Harrison and Hart.

Julie says that she felt at times like Eliza Doolittle -- a country girl undergoing a major metamorphosis into a Bavarian princess. Listening to the book, I realize that she was very much Eliza. She had a suit-up, show-up survivor mentality that is incredible and rare. In taking care of her two younger brothers and reprimanding her lushy parents, she was very much in the role of Mary Poppins. On top of all that, she is and was extremely knowledgeable about opera, singing and music in general. She can give a history of any song -- who sang it, how it was played and in what setting. Dame Andrews remains grounded, kind and approachable where such stellar success would go to anyone else's head. I still have a few chapters remaining in her book but much is already obvious. Julie Andrews is a Dame and a gem -- a rare find in any lifetime.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Camelot II?

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Wed, 07 May 2008 17:37:00 +0000

A couple from Hollywood casting -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Barack and Michelle Obama are the new "it" couple. They're attractive and they've been likened to John and Jackie Kennedy in their "Camelot" phase. We are tantalized by the possibility of this handsome couple hosting state dinners and greeting dignitaries. The packaging couldn't be smoother if it came from Madison Avenue. They have the looks and style of Denzel Washington and Halle Barry. They have catchy new age slogans about "change" and "unity".

If the Obamas were served to us as first couple, would we still be as love-struck? What kind of presidency would it be? Some of this allure smacks of a high school popularity contest where voters take their cues from things that are way more superficial than substantive. For high school student council, not much more is at stake than new band uniforms or ecology day to pick up trash. For the Presidency of the United States, I myself have a strong preference for gravitas over glamour.

The past serves as a predictor for the future. Obama has possibly the most liberal voting record in the Senate. He has past associations with some sketchy people -- a Weatherman radical, a "liberation" minister and a crooked housing contractor. Who would Obama select for his cabinet, for Secretaries of Treasury and State? Who would be his Supreme Court nominees? The court is aging and he may get to pick two or three. Both Obama and his wife have said things that smack of victimhood and impotent passivity -- "At last I'm glad to be an American.... the rules keep getting changed on us ...” In general, people are certainly entitled to their points of view. But for President wouldn't you prefer someone with more positivity? What policy implications are there for that frame of mind?

I can't help but think we'd have ourselves a passel of problems. George W. Bush created a huge mess, and we need a serious, centered and knowledgeable person to pick up all the pieces. We don't need a new incarnation of Bush to create newer messes. There is the possibility that another inexperienced boob (and Bush is certainly one example) could actually compound and confound what's already wrong. In closing I can only say, "Be careful what you ask for". You might be getting it this November.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Death Ride of Bonnie and Clyde

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Mon, 05 May 2008 14:40:00 +0000

Texas folk heroes -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter

You've read the story of Jesse James--
Of how he lived and died;
If you're still in need
Of something to read
Here's the story of Bonnie and Clyde

from "The Story of Bonnie and Clyde" by Bonnie Parker, 1934

I watched the 1967 movie, Bonnie and Clyde last night on Apple TV. I hadn't seen the movie in its entirety since the 1970's -- had forgotten many elements. The movie was controversial at the time it was released; reviewers felt that it glorified violence and celebrated the criminals. It was linked to the mood-shifting, anti-authoritarian style of French new wave films in the late sixties. It was also part of its own "American" new wave, featuring more nudity and graphic violence than previously seen in movies. Also new were the actors; no less than four actors in the movie were relative new-comers whose careers were made by Bonnie and Clyde: Estelle Parsons, Gene Hackman, Gene Wilder and Faye Dunaway. (Beatty and Pollard were already established names).

The criminal couple portrayed, Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker, hailed from West Dallas. In fact, much of the movie was filmed in places like Red Oak, South Lake, Midlothian and Denton. Dallas has been known as "the city that shot John Kennedy" since 1963 -- I guess our link to history-making violence is preordained. Our only other association in the public's mind is the TV show Dallas which does little to dispel a trigger happy image.

When they met, Barrow was a 23 year old ex-convict whose prior crimes were relatively petty (car theft, stealing turkeys). Bonnie was a 21 year old cafe waitress. Over their two year reign of Texas terror (1932-1934) they killed approximately 9 law officers. Insiders have said that Bonnie never actually fired a gun, but that she helped with logistics and getaways. The movie melded some of the characters together (into C.J. Moss) and simplified much of the goings-on -- pretty much a necessity for a 2 hour movie.

They were ambushed in Louisiana and controversy surrounds that also. The duo was never given an opportunity to surrender or "come out with your hands up". Also, Bonnie Parker was never even served any kind of warrant. Parker's family would not let her be buried "side by side" with Clyde as the more recent ballad would imply. The couple actually became folk heroes to Depression-era poor people and it's estimated that 20,000 people attended Bonnie's funeral (actually preventing the immediate family from access). It's not just the 60's film producers that saw a legendary saga in the yards of yellow police tape and chalk outlines.

The Bonnie and Clyde "death car" has been a favorite of county fairs throughout the South since 1934; funny that there are several such cars in different year models and colors. The fact that this handsome couple forsook all safety and future well-being for a shoot-em-up thrill ride still intrigues people today. If you get a chance, pick up a copy of the 1967 movie. If you happen upon the "real, genuine death car" at a county fair, take that with a grain of salt. If you are a citizen of Dallas or a nearby area, ponder why the city is so indelibly associated with so much violence and brutality.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Pretty Savvy in Pink

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:56:00 +0000

Hill meets another Bill -- Picture courtesy of Fox

by blogSpotter
I actually watched Bill O'Reilly's No-Spin Zone last night. For the first time, it wasn't because my treadmill at 24 Hour Fitness was positioned under a TV airing the show. No, I actually watched it at home. Now Mr. O'Reilly has been cited by others as one of the vocal minority who gives conservatives a bad name (eg, Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh). For whatever reason, I've never been entranced by him in any way. His main distinguishing trait is that he's a little bit "scrappier" with some of his liberal guests than other hosts might be. He's otherwise known for a sexual harassment suit of a few years back.

My reason for watching was, of course, to see m'lady Hillary as the guest. It's probably no coincidence that she decided to come on No-Spin Zone just as Obama's campaign is getting torpedo strikes from Obama's ex-pastor Jeremiah Wright. According to some insiders, Wright was hurt when Obama removed him from the 2007 campaign announcement ceremony. Insult was added to injury when Obama disavowed some of Wright's words and politely distanced himself back in March. It was only a matter of time until Wright could no longer bear these wrongs and let the world know that Obama was only speaking "as a politician". Truer words were never said.

O'Reilly immediately asked Hillary about the Wright controversy, and she used it as an ample opportunity to express her disapproval of Wright's ideas, as well as to express relief for Obama that he finally resolved that issue. This interview was part 1 of 4, and fairly short. Other topics discussed were the Bush tax cuts and fuel prices. They basically "agreed to disagree" on about every topic without any trace of vitriol or raised voices. Overall, the interview was very civil -- even at some points convivial. O'Reilly and Clinton are close in age and have both been cultural lightening rods. It almost looked like a very odd form of friendship or connection at work. Imagine a conservative liking a liberal or vice versa! Of course, there is lefty policy wonk James Carville married to right-wing wonkette Mary Matalin. And actually -- quite a few other examples besides that. Not to imply that this is a budding romance or anything... people can just be friends! :-)

Hillary wore a bright pink ensemble which varies somewhat from her usual navy pinstripes and gray tweeds. This may have been to boost her image with the FOX News audience. It looked pretty good and maybe she should also run it by the folks at CNN and MSNBC. Following the interview were FOX talking heads (Dennis Miller, Dick Morris) giving their spins on the spin. Miller thought O'Reilly was too nice, that he used kid gloves. Morris cynically suggested that Hillary knows she's lost -- she's just beating up on Obama so she can run again in 2012. BS to both. O'Reilly respectfully disagreed with Hillary on just about everything. And Hillary wouldn't waste that much time, energy and money on someone else's demise.

So, let's tune in for the follow-up interviews. Will the gloves come off? Will Hill become friends with a new Bill? We'll have to see on Fox News.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Oink!

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:51:00 +0000

Chug-a-lug -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
What is it about the American size-fixation? The size of the average American home is now 2349 square feet, roughly twice the size it was in the 1950's. Make the ceiling height 10' rather than 8' -- you've dramatically increased the amount of air being heated and cooled by your average house-buying American. If Mr. Americano needs to drive somewhere, no problem. The 10 mpg Chevy Tahoe will get him there in cushioned, air conditioned comfort.

George Will wrote a column recently, where he mentioned that our idea of luxury has been redefined by modern marketing, financing and production technologies. Essentially, everybody has luxury now -- flat screen TV, granite countertop, central A/C. You can't even buy a low end Kia Rio that doesn't have A/C and carpet -- those used to be extra frills. Your new $450/month apartment -- it may comparatively modest but it will still feature 10' ceilings, wood burning fireplace and garden tub in the bathroom. Now, if a $35K/year school teacher can have those things it behooves a $135K executive to do something to set himself apart. He must do something that says, "I've made it. I'm successful. And I'm more successful than you are". That means he needs to burn money somewhere ostentatiously. How about an outdoor kitchen by the pool -- with nicer appliances than what most people have in their indoor kitchens? How about a home theater? Maybe a gift wrap room?

There's a problem with a society that defines success this way. It runs into a couple of logical impasses, the first and most obvious is the straining of resources. When a couple of people engage in this materialism it's no big deal; when a whole nation does it, it becomes a big deal. We basically have doubled our fuel consumption for a collective, egotistical "Hey look at me!” How much is real need, and how much is hubris? I didn't feel deprived in a 1600 square foot house growing up. Our Chevy Impala didn't seem downscale at the time. The second logical impasse is more abstract. If we use materialism as the sole (could as easily say soul) measure of who we are, is there any good way to express what's uniquely good about ourselves? Are you only as good as what you own?

If the George Will scenario continues, everyone will soon have a satellite dish and birch cabinets. We lose the distinctions and even ourselves in the whole ugly process.

This will seem like a non-sequitur but bear with... When Jane Fonda ended her marriage to Ted Turner, she noted that she still loved him but they were growing differently. He kept bringing new cars, boats, people and parties into their lives. He wanted breadth and she wanted depth. She (at a relatively late age, early-60's) was exploring her spiritual feelings and wanting to grow inwardly. Kudos to Jane -- we should all want to strive for an added dimension. And for America at large, we could stand to have a new dimension too -- one that isn't purchased with Visa or Master Card. You can't take material goods with you when you die, but I can't help but think -- all that is your essence goes right along with you.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Tomorrow Started?

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:29:00 +0000

Has it happened before? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter

I’m sitting in the North Park Starbucks on a Friday day off. Am amazed at the number of working age people (no students, no retirees) who are here. How do you join that elite group outside of being self-employed or unemployed? Earlier, an entire middle school class was herded into the AMC Theaters for some kind of Earth Day movie. My teachers never took me to a fun shopping mall for a field trip. I got to see an electricity plant and a computer parts factory – they suffer in the comparison to North Park which offers Abercrombie and Mrs. Fields Cookies.

None of this has to do with today’s title, “Tomorrow Started” -- a 1980’s new wave song title by the group Talk Talk that has always intrigued me. The album featuring that song, It’s My Life, has cover art that shows puzzle pieces with various animals falling out of the sky. What to make of all that? Maybe it does nothing other than provoke the thoughts of an over-caffeinated blog writer.

Has tomorrow already started? Or does time flow relentlessly from past to future? There are some interesting aspects to the question. Some physicists claim that if you were incredibly small and could enter a black hole, you could go back in time. At 200 earth pounds, I’m too big for this earth scale much less that scale. According to Einsteinian physics, space and time are on some kind of continuum – perhaps manageable by some technological genius.

A favorite argument against time travel is that we’d be seeing visitors from the future gallivanting around earth as tourists visiting the early 21st century. While here, you think they might also impart the cure to cancer, or an effective design for a nuclear –powered automobile. But nay, we only see our humdrum present with its humdrum possibilities. There is one loose thread here … the visitor might satisfy the above-mentioned criterion – small enough to enter a black hole. Thus it’s here, but so incredibly tiny that we fail to see it. For that matter it might need some incredible telescopic powers to see us.

Does intelligent complexity necessitate a particular size, scale or dimension? As anthro-centric humans, we fairly assume that an intelligent being would be made of organic molecules, be our scale of size and have a DNA blueprint. We are certainly an example where that’s the case, but are we proof that it’s always the case? I’ve never followed Star Trek episodes, but I know they must’ve covered this.

I’m skipping the refill here at Starbucks. I’m too shaken up by the possibilities. There’s a chance, however small and beyond bizarre that Talk Talk is on to something…. Tomorrow Started. It might also mean that yesterday is approaching. Let’s try not to think about that too much, unless we can choose which yesterdays to relive.

Adamsville

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 04:22:00 +0000

Snickers says, "Hello" -- Picture by blogSpotter

by blogSpotter
I’m driving the 16 miles from Lampasas to my brother’s house, now approaching Adamsville. My usual mile-a-minute estimate fails here, because the narrow two-lane highway forces caution. My 55 mph (in a new Chevy HHR from Alamo Rent-a-car) is pissing off the locals, who roar around me in their F250’s and Avalanches. We’re in Central Texas hill country, and the late afternoon views of nearby Lucy Creek and cedar thickets are distracting me a little bit.

Adamsville has one intersection, ten houses, a service station, and Luke’s Music Hall. Five of the ten houses appear to be abandoned or in serious disrepair. A sign tells me that Izaro is nine miles east. I can’t help but wonder who lives in these houses now, or ever did. But in fact, appearances can be deceiving... My brother and his wife live in a beautiful 4-acre hillside “ranchette” just two miles north of Adamsville. They have two dogs, two cats and two pet donkeys (the donkeys are named Dinky and Snickers). My brother and his wife have very full lives rehabilitating old computers and restoring old cars. I enjoy a lengthy visit with them and their church friends – dinner included. Their back porch runs the length of the house and looks over a spectacular hill country view.

There was a time when I felt like I needed to be “where the action is”, the heart of a big city. How do you get by without Best Buy, Nordstrom’s and Olive Garden? What of nightclubs and restaurant row? I’ve lived at the Heart of Dallas now for 25 years and can’t say I’ve benefited all that much from the city beat. I know you can experience solitude in a throng of people. My brother has made me aware that you can have a sense of total belonging with a few well-chosen friends and companions.

As I go (somewhat unwillingly) into my 2nd half-century, I realize my needs are not what they were, or what I thought they ever were. Lampasas has what I need for all practical purposes: HEB, Blockbuster, Wendy’s, nearby friends and family. I could drive into Austin for weekend shopping forays. What of tripping the lights fantastic? What of the parties, museum galas, street fairs and phantasmagoric events of the big city? … It was all somewhat a mirage -- never had it, never will. I sometimes think that urban living drives one further inward, not outward. I’ve remained perfect strangers with many of my nearby neighbors. The biggest advantage of the city is the job selection. As you phase towards retirement, the job doesn’t matter so much. As you age your way into a prune-like senior citizen status, an active bar scene is way less a concern. If you’re lucky enough to be partnered, it’s even less a concern than that.

So, am I about to pack it all up and move to Green Acres? I still have to have HEB, so Adamsville loses the bet. And at 50, I still need to earn for my retirement – by all estimates, Social Security will be endangered by my 66th year. But would it be such a tragedy to “live small”? Most high school seniors in a small town chomp at the bit to leave. I think many boomers, like me, have become bored with suburban “Pleasant Valley Sundays” to borrow from the Monkees. You wouldn’t want to run into small-minded prejudices that characterize some small Texas towns but as more boomers make this late migration, it shouldn’t be as much of a concern.

And now, Luke’s Music Hall beckons…

© 2008 blogSpotter

Bittergate Unfolds

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:54:00 +0000

Obama tastes something bitter -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

With these words spoken at a San Francisco fundraiser last Friday, Obama stepped in a pile of "resonant speech-making". He was trying to hook his liberal San Francisco audience, all the while forgetting that the press corps would broadcast his remarks to the whole world. To someone less politic, an approximate translation is:

"Those hayseeds in the Midwest have become Bible-thumpin', gun-totin' racist assholes because of 25 years' unemployment."

The word "bitter" has connotations beyond angry or disaffected -- it almost implies a bit of derangement. Some of the remaining primaries are in rural areas and Obama needs the support of fence-sitting Midwest Anglos. He has clearly put that support in some jeopardy. Also, in an ongoing campaign it's possible to lose a state (in the general election) that you "won" in the primary. There can't really be any resting on laurels. Therefore, the Obama spin machine needs to crank it up.

The first Obama spin was going after Hillary for going after Obama. Hillary affirmed that people who worship and own guns may not be particularly "bitter" about anything. Obama and quite a few others accused Hillary of posturing as Annie Oakley (of Annie get Your Gun). Hillary doesn't have to be Annie Oakley or a religious zealot to make her point. She doesn't have to own any guns or attend church weekly, to speak to the rights of those who do own guns and attend church regularly. There are things a bitter human might do, but worship God isn't one of them. Unlike Hillary's sniper fire miscue two weeks ago, Bittergate gives us a look into what Obama really thinks. And one thinks he'd rather be shopping for arugula at Whole Foods, commiserating with the secular, gun-hating glitterati.

My overwhelming first impression of Obama was that of a smug, disingenuous smooth-talker. That's how I still see him and this week's ado will not change my opinion. But stacked on top of Reverend Wright's rants, this Bittergate quote is likely to change other minds; it's likely to have legs and follow Obama all the rest of the campaign.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Aliens Among Us

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:21:00 +0000

Aliens on the approach? -- Picture courtesy of Columbia Pictures and EMI

by blogSpotter
I just watched a movie, Steven Spielberg’s 1977 sci-fi opus Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Close Encounters is probably one of the most important, seminal movies with regard to the cinematic depiction of aliens and UFO’s. Notably, Encounters shows aliens as benign curious creatures where earlier movies showed portrayed them as warlike invaders.

Previous filmmakers didn’t have problems with the illogic of matching the war-making abilities of 20th humans against that of aliens capable of bending space-time to get here from somewhere else. Another logical nit that seems to be irrelevant even in most sci-fi movies is that this superior intelligence would need to be so furtive – it does fly-bys in remote locations, seldom ever landing or presenting itself. The closest solar system to ours is light years away; it’s unlikely that our cosmic interlopers wouldn’t land for a rest stop. If these aliens could conquer the fabric of space-time, they probably wouldn’t be coy about showing themselves to early 21st century humans who still haven’t cured cancer, achieved world peace or progressed beyond fossil fuel-powered vehicles. Close Encounters advances admirably beyond this sci-fi impasse -- these aliens put on a light show, play an intergalactic concerto and step out of the mother ship to engage in sign language diplomacy. I have to mention though, that even in this movie the landing is shrouded in secrecy at a remote site in front of mostly military personnel.

It's not just the filmmakers that pique my curiosity. I'm taken by the the passion of sci-fi fans (now or then) desperately wanting to commiserate with aliens -- not contemplating whether the encounter would be a friendly one. In human history, when one culture meets another, the technologically superior side will just about always conquer and subsume the less advanced culture.

I had a friend a few years back that followed sci-fi and loved alien stories. I asked him, given the mountain of logical evidence against it, why so many people gravitate towards the idea of alien visits. He suggested that it’s another form of seeking God or afterlife, a striving to make sense of life and find something bigger than us. All of that makes sense and yet I want my “story” to make sense too. Dr. J Allen Hynek, the UFO expert who advised Spielberg in 1977, said that “alien” is probably not the right word. The creatures he conjured are almost omnipresent and deeply familiar with us, their subjects. If Hynek wants to postulate that there is more dimensionality, more than meets the eye with Earth life I’m on board. But this intelligence didn’t get here in a flying saucer, nor does it have almond-shaped eyes – my admitted prejudice. I’ll stop there and let the reader take it where he or she will.

Back to Close Encounters… I saw this movie when it first came out, when I was 19. I completely forgot that Dreyfuss’ character flirts with another woman (outside of his crumbling marriage) who shares his alien obsessions. I also forgot about the pilgrimage to Devil’s Tower in Wyoming or the partial government cover-up. How many other movies and TV shows (e.g., X Files) owe a debt to this movie? It basically got the alien ball rolling, as we know it today. Even if you don’t buy the sci-fi premise, the acting and special effects are superb. Check out a copy of Close Encounters of the Third Kind today and find out why the U.S. National Film Registry has preserved this film as one of extreme cultural significance.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Vista One Year Later

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 02:01:00 +0000

Is XP looking better? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter

When Windows Vista came out in February of 2007, I wrote a fairly softball review, “A Vista That’ll Mystify”. It’s now about 14 months since Windows Vista made its debut. It sold well at first – 20 million copies in the first month. But then as word of its problems got out, the market penetration slowed considerably. As of now, only 14% of XP users have gone over to the “dark side” and an incredibly small 1% of business users have done so.

Briefly, here are Vista’s most talked about problems… The hardware requirements are stringent and were initially misleading. One company in Britain filed a lawsuit, because even after expensive memory upgrades the company’s computers lacked the correct graphics chips. Vista was cited for slow file access, (reportedly now fixed with SP1). It ran into controversies with OEM licensing and draconian Digital Rights Management. Last but not least is the “User Account” security feature that plagued users with “permission to continue” prompts. I call this “Mother May I” feature. This was lampooned mercilessly on the Apple commercials with Justin Long and the PC Guy.

My own Vista experience has been rather dismal -- let me preface this by saying I’m not a Bill Gates basher and have enjoyed many Windows products. My Vista boot-up and shutdown times have drawn out to 10 minutes. Program invocation (by double-click) can have me drumming my fingers for a minute or two. The performance-tuning tool itself locked up and slowed my computer terribly. On another recent occasion, Vista kept reinstalling my HP printer driver and doing multiple copies of the driver (until I deleted everything and reinstalled the driver). I wanted to cry, or maybe toss it all in the trash and buy something not-Vista.

According to the MS sales group, Vista has huge advancements in security infrastructure. A security administrator could be infinitely pleased by these changes. However, these changes are lost on the end users. All we notice is that we have a snail-slow computer that keeps asking irrelevant questions. Customer experience is a popular buzzword expression now. It should be prominently on Microsoft's mind for the next OS go-round.

PC World labeled Vista as 2007’s “biggest tech disappointment”. InfoWorld ranked it #2 of IT’s all-time 25 flops. Microsoft has given clues that it may feel the same; they’re supporting XP though 2011 and coming out with a completely reworked Windows 7 in 2010. Let’s hope that the sailing is smoother in 2011. I’m typing this on my new MacBook that has Boot Camp dual boot to OS X 5.2 and what else – Windows XP Home Edition. I guess neither I nor the rest of America is sophisticated enough to appreciate Vista.

Avoiding a Fashion Fox Paw

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:39:00 +0000

Or is that a faux pas? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter

I am very far from being a fashion plate. I couldn't ever be an editor at GQ magazine or even the men's wear section in Exercise for Men. But in the great whirl of daily life, I have seen the fashion follies of nerds and even heard the cruel remarks that are made about the fashion-disadvantaged. This is a very practical list of guidelines for someone who isn't clothing or looks-centered but nevertheless wants to "present" acceptably. You've heard of Robert's Rules of Order -- these are Robert's Rules of Avoiding Fashion Exile:

1. Cleanliness is next to Godliness - There is no bigger turnoff than halitosis, body odor, greasy hair or dandruff. I've heard some males in particular imply that cologne is unmanly. I myself would rather smell like Paco Rabanne or even Old Spice than smell like an armpit. Even if you are of the group that abhors cologne (due to allergy or fear of appearing effeminate) you should know that people in general and women in particular like a nice fragrance. Even if you don't have the light, woodsy scent of Calvin Klein cologne, at least smell vaguely clean. The waft of freshly laundered clothes or Irish Spring is far better than funky shirt and smelly under arms.

2. Be within the decade. Only the idle rich or shallow can spend lots of time and money primping in mirrors and trying on clothes. It's true that the clothes don't make the man. BUT --- if you start to resemble a street urchin you might be "unmade" by people who avoid being seen with a big nerd. You don't have to be up-to-the-minute trendy; just make sure your clothes are in a moving 10-year window of current fashion. Suspenders were fun in 1986 -- now they're not. Stone-wash oversize jackets were hot once upon a time; now it looks like a thrift store purchase.

3. Stick with classics, and let the store clerk help. Display mannequins sometimes give a giant hint about what colors and styles go together. You can hardly go wrong with traditional (yes "square") items. Stay AWAY from the teen department and be age appropriate. Expensive, high fashion garments when inappropriately donned, will elicit laughter and hurtful, mocking words. :-) Good, traditional brand identities can help steer you the right way: Izod, Arrow, Levis, Timberland, J. Crew etc. Don't buy extensively (much less exclusively) from discount stores and thrift stores. A reputation is at stake!

4. Buy clothes that fit and replace them when they don't fit any longer. DON'T wear high water pants. DON"T wear threadbare clothes that need replacing. DON'T wear the same item so frequently that people wonder if you have anything else. I had a college physics professor, a nice woman, who only ever wore two dresses. One was blue, one was green and they were otherwise identical. We would place bets on which dress she'd wear on a given day. Who knows, maybe she had a walk-in closet with 50 look-alike dresses.

5. Don’t be too much of an iconoclast. People have different "inner selves" that they may want to express with fashion quirks. The problem is that sometimes an external expression can be garbled, much like a verbal expression. Thus, your studded black belt makes you look like a jaded S&M freak, not a tough guy. A shaved head can call to mind skin heads and Neo-Nazis; sometimes a buzz (or burr) cut gives you the same low maintenance without frightening the ACLU. Other looks that happen by happenstance are: waif, pirate, Amish villager and halfway house denizen. Unless you really are an S&M freak, waif, pirate, Amish villager or halfway house denizen, dial back on the individuality some.

In general, the ideas here are fairly obvious. I think that people who are bright and creative (OK, myself included) sometimes get so lost in the stratosphere of thought, they never alight to the bionosphere of ordinary living and interacting. So you're not Tommy Hilfiger or Ralph Lauren -- nobody gives a hoot about that anyway. You're clean, refreshed and nicely, albeit casually groomed? That's all that matters, and that's a look that works.

Visions of 1988

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:57:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:39:00 +0000

"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

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:40:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 01:34:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:27:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:10:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:40:00 +0000

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!

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:27:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:34:00 +0000

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

Miracle Men and Martyrdom

noreply@blogger.com (blogspotter) — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:13:00 +0000

Shaking the status quo -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
When you look at the violent 1960’s, there are at least five assassinations that stand out:

➢ President Kennedy, 1963
➢ Medgar Evers, 1963
➢ Malcolm X, 1965
➢ Martin Luther King, 1968
➢ Robert Kennedy, 1968

Looking at this list, it’s disturbing that 3 of the 5 were prominent black activists – a couple even predicted their own untimely deaths. The KKK was actually implicated in the death of Evers. There were other “powers that be” who despised the Civil Rights movement (most notably the CIA and the FBI) but they didn’t provably kill anyone. J Edgar Hoover had a major axe to grind against MLK and kept a huge dossier on the civil rights leader.

In Oliver Stone’s JFK, he offered speculation of no less than five groups who loathed the Kennedy’s: the mafia, the KKK, the government of Cuba, the CIA and the KGB. To this day, there are lively discussions about who might have done the killing, if indeed there was a conspiracy. (Refer to my own previous blog, JFK Redux).

What invites all of this morbid speculation is the new popularity of Barack Obama – a photogenic, charming mover who currently stands a good likelihood of being our next President. At a rally yesterday, Obama pulled out his hanky and begged the audience’s pardon while he blew his nose. For this, he received a near ovation. People with this kind of magnetism are frequently seen as threats to the status quo. Black Democratic organizers have recently expressed fears about Obama’s safety for that very reason.

Looking at the 1960’s, our last flirtation with youthful, Democratic optimism, there is reason for concern. The Kennedy-hating groups listed above have (for the most part) lessened influence nowadays and collective xenophobia is certainly less than it was in 1968, but who can say for sure? Robert Kennedy was on a trajectory to be our President in 1968, and some group or groups felt strongly enough to take him out.

This is no dig against all Republicans – by and large a law-abiding group, but the forces of conservatism are still at work. Time “hath shown” that conservatives on a tear will stop at nothing to achieve an objective. Witness how the Neocons invaded Iraq in 2003; witness how Bob Perry and Karl Rove turned John Kerry’s Viet Nam heroism into a strong negative in 2004. Provide a “solid” enough motive, and supporting actions follow. It may be a character assassination if not capping somebody with a gun. If I were Obama, I’d take some extra precautions especially in the South. Many people have likened the whole 2008 race to the 60’s. Let’s keep the positive aspects of that comparison and lose the negative aspects of it this time around.

© 2008 blogSpotter