Do you WOOT? I haven't yet, but if the right product shows up, I might.
But what's more impressive than the deals they offer is their FAQ section. It's the appropriate mix of snarky and informative to reach their target audience.
Well done dude who wrote the WOOT FAQ, you are a master of the genre.
Maybe this should be a new irregular feature, well written FAQs.
20 June 2007
Hollywood Rediscovers Faith . . .
Sorry, wrong Faith. Though, does seem like Eliza Dushku should work more, I mean look at her (and she's not a bad actress, either).
The LA Times has an article, not really an article more an unpaid press release, today regarding Evan Almighty. It's aimed at assuaging fears that the picture is anti-religion, or that the picture is too religious.
But the message I take away is that the film isn't a celebration of a Christian God or Christian Theology, but it's pure, unadulterated Gaiaist Worship wrapped in a flimsy gauzy pretext of being semi-christian. The article doesn't address that issue at all, instead they end the piece with a warm and fuzzy anecdote about some viewer in Kansas who was thankful for this picture (but for all we know her reaction was more for the 'green' message of the film and not the religiosity)
Somehow I doubt they ever address the promise from God to Noah in the Old Testament that He would never visit a global flood upon the Earth again. Seems like the whole 'covenant with God' part of Genesis should be the take away from that part of the bible, and not, 'gee, wouldn't it be cool if God did something to help fix the environment, like wipe almost everybody out with a flood again'. Guess little plot inconveniences like that aren't worth worrying about. Not like anyone really ever reads that text all that closely, anyway, right? I'm no bible scholar, not even faithful, but even I know that there's an explicit mention in Genesis that there wouldn't be another global flood (presumably they address this somehow in the picture).
The main message of the film based on the press and the ad campaign seems to be about environmentalism. Caring about the planet and being Christian aren't antithetical, many would argue that being a good steward of the environment is a basic tenant of faith, but based on that article, I don't get the sense that beyond having God in the picture, or having Evan pray, or mentioning a few biblical passages, that this film has anything to do with Christianity as it is practiced. Instead this film feels like an extended Goracle approved Gaiaist revenge fantasy about how our wicked and wasteful ways will loose upon the Earth unbridled destruction unless we all buy twisty compact fluorescent light bulbs and insist that everyone else ditch their SUVs, set their thermostats to 80 during the summer, and downsize their lives.
My impression that this is primarily a Gaiaist picture and not a Christian or Jewish picture (Genesis is Old Testament after all, should give the tribes some love, even though they've been trying to sell this pictures to Christian groups, haven't seen anything in the publicity or press that precludes the Evan character from being Jewish), isn't helped by the official website. An "Act of Random Kindness" link is there (so hippie dippie), and a prominent link to another website http://www.getonboardnow.org/, which is nothing but the usual crunchy granola enviro-action recommendations and blather. To suggest that this film is somehow a kindred spirit to all those sword and sandal, fishes and loaves pictures of the 50s and 60s seems like a far, far stretch.
Ten things I know about this picture without seeing it or reading much press about it:
1. Other primates are always funny.
2. Beards are always funny.
3. No matter how bad the inevitable flood scene looks, somehow nobody will be killed.
4. Lauren Graham is a cutie (see, being 40 can be fabulous!)
5. There will be at least 4 scenes in this picture where various people step in various animal droppings.
6. This movie cost an arkload of money to make.
7. You could do worse than Morgan Freeman for casting "God".
8. I like lamp (sorry wrong, Steve Carell character).
9. Get Smart won't be funny, either (sorry, already getting a head start on dismissing Steve Carell's picture for next summer).
10. Shouldn't this film have disqualified Tom Shadyac from ever directing a feature again?
UPDATE: Decided if I'm going to mention Steve Carell should at least spell his name right.
19 June 2007
Oops, There Goes Another Rubber Tree Plant
James Lileks, has Buzz now, but that doesn't mean he doesn't still Bleat (thankfully). Today's Bleat has an interesting digression regarding ants.
Funny thing about ants, they outweigh us. At least that's what Ted R. Schultz wrote about seven years ago, and who am I to argue with Ted R. Schultz? The wiki on Ant quotes his little factoid, and all the citations for that factoid seem to point back to this article by Schultz that isn't mainly about that factoid.
Did nobody think about the remarkable number of ants in the world before? That seems doubtful, but maybe he came up with the hook that brought it to everybody's attention and birthed an oft repeated factoid, or his was the first article to mention that concept that was readily searchable through google and the like.
I'm a little surprised that Lileks didn't dust off that factoid himself during his little ant related digression in today's bleatings.
When I was at UC Riverside, it was much easier to believe that factoid than here in Santa Monica. Anything sugary left out was an invitation for a full scale invasion. The dorms would get colonized from time to time, those ants meant business. If you didn't have good habits with regards to food disposal before being in those dorms, you had much better habits when you left. Ants in the Pants isn't just a plastic kids game from the 60s, it's also a really lousy way to start the day.
Speaking of UCR, you may have heard of a bomb threat that caused the postponement of some commencement ceremonies on Friday. Sucks, but you could tell the perp wasn't an engineering student, or else he would have cooked up something more effective. Luckily the idiot didn't know what he was doing, or else someone might have been hurt.
Back to those ants, with the slew of apocalyptic and semi-apocalyptic pictures released lately, I'm a bit surprised nobody's been tempted to remake Phase IV. Somehow this film hasn't ever been released on DVD. Not sure why given all the other crap available. My memories of this film are vague at best as I don't think I've seen it since the original release in 1974 (my memories are hazy from back then not for druggy haze reasons, but only being 5 at the time reasons). The idea that an intelligent hive mind could develop amongst a colony organism like ants is a compellingly creepy idea.
That film was the only feature directed by Saul Bass, a man whose work you've undoubtably seen. There's quite a bit of his work up on YouTube. I only embedded (above) the title sequence to Vertigo, but just search Saul Bass on YouTube and you'll see all the hits.
Speaking of YouTube searches, while seeing if any clips from Phase IV are there (none to be found), came across the above video titled Economic System IV. Not sure how the pretty pictures are supposed to help analyze anything. All complex systems show emerging patterns over time given the right limitations on what you put into the simulation.
Now, you may be wondering, what the hell does the Soup Dragons video above have to do with any of this? It's all due to a mistaken belief I had of the derivation of their band name. Given the use of fractal patterns on their cover art and in this video, I had thought that the phrase "soup dragons" was a reference for how we tend to visualize familiar objects out of the repeating fractal patterns. It's like seeing a dragon in your soup, or a fluffy bunny in the clouds, or The Virgin in your tortilla. I've always thought Homo Sapiens was a very incomplete description of what makes us unique as a species. It's not just that we think, it's that we feel compelled to see order in the chaos. This ordering of chaotic signals, and the ability to intuit patterns without complete data is what allowed us to be a tremendously successful species, and though ants may outweigh us in total, we can still kick their collective puny little asses when we need to. But I probably shouldn't talk too tough about those ants, wouldn't want to end up like one those rubber trees Frankie sang about (and just to put a neat little bow on all this, the people in the video below are so high up in Tokyo, that if the folks were visible down below, they'd look like . . .)
Funny thing about ants, they outweigh us. At least that's what Ted R. Schultz wrote about seven years ago, and who am I to argue with Ted R. Schultz? The wiki on Ant quotes his little factoid, and all the citations for that factoid seem to point back to this article by Schultz that isn't mainly about that factoid.
Did nobody think about the remarkable number of ants in the world before? That seems doubtful, but maybe he came up with the hook that brought it to everybody's attention and birthed an oft repeated factoid, or his was the first article to mention that concept that was readily searchable through google and the like.
I'm a little surprised that Lileks didn't dust off that factoid himself during his little ant related digression in today's bleatings.
When I was at UC Riverside, it was much easier to believe that factoid than here in Santa Monica. Anything sugary left out was an invitation for a full scale invasion. The dorms would get colonized from time to time, those ants meant business. If you didn't have good habits with regards to food disposal before being in those dorms, you had much better habits when you left. Ants in the Pants isn't just a plastic kids game from the 60s, it's also a really lousy way to start the day.
Speaking of UCR, you may have heard of a bomb threat that caused the postponement of some commencement ceremonies on Friday. Sucks, but you could tell the perp wasn't an engineering student, or else he would have cooked up something more effective. Luckily the idiot didn't know what he was doing, or else someone might have been hurt.
Back to those ants, with the slew of apocalyptic and semi-apocalyptic pictures released lately, I'm a bit surprised nobody's been tempted to remake Phase IV. Somehow this film hasn't ever been released on DVD. Not sure why given all the other crap available. My memories of this film are vague at best as I don't think I've seen it since the original release in 1974 (my memories are hazy from back then not for druggy haze reasons, but only being 5 at the time reasons). The idea that an intelligent hive mind could develop amongst a colony organism like ants is a compellingly creepy idea.
That film was the only feature directed by Saul Bass, a man whose work you've undoubtably seen. There's quite a bit of his work up on YouTube. I only embedded (above) the title sequence to Vertigo, but just search Saul Bass on YouTube and you'll see all the hits.
Speaking of YouTube searches, while seeing if any clips from Phase IV are there (none to be found), came across the above video titled Economic System IV. Not sure how the pretty pictures are supposed to help analyze anything. All complex systems show emerging patterns over time given the right limitations on what you put into the simulation.
Now, you may be wondering, what the hell does the Soup Dragons video above have to do with any of this? It's all due to a mistaken belief I had of the derivation of their band name. Given the use of fractal patterns on their cover art and in this video, I had thought that the phrase "soup dragons" was a reference for how we tend to visualize familiar objects out of the repeating fractal patterns. It's like seeing a dragon in your soup, or a fluffy bunny in the clouds, or The Virgin in your tortilla. I've always thought Homo Sapiens was a very incomplete description of what makes us unique as a species. It's not just that we think, it's that we feel compelled to see order in the chaos. This ordering of chaotic signals, and the ability to intuit patterns without complete data is what allowed us to be a tremendously successful species, and though ants may outweigh us in total, we can still kick their collective puny little asses when we need to. But I probably shouldn't talk too tough about those ants, wouldn't want to end up like one those rubber trees Frankie sang about (and just to put a neat little bow on all this, the people in the video below are so high up in Tokyo, that if the folks were visible down below, they'd look like . . .)
18 June 2007
Is Ron Livingston Available?
Scott Adams posted the following:
Suppose there was a Dilbert movie with live actors, not animation. Who would you cast for the main characters?
There's more, but that's the gist.
My answer is in the title, though it might feel a bit of an Office Space remake, but that film is so good, I'd see it again under a different name, anyway.
Kal Penn would be an excellent Dilbert as well. A tech guy being South Asian would be more believable, and nothing about Dilbert in the comics precludes the actor playing him having a non-white background.
The other key role would be the Pointy Haired Boss, that's a tough role to fill, they'd have to be funny looking and short. Jon Lovitz might work but might be a bit old, Jack Black might be a bit too manic, but then again, who knows, he could work out pretty well.
But most importantly, Jeff Bridges would have to be the Garbage Man, no other could do that role justice.
Suppose there was a Dilbert movie with live actors, not animation. Who would you cast for the main characters?
There's more, but that's the gist.
My answer is in the title, though it might feel a bit of an Office Space remake, but that film is so good, I'd see it again under a different name, anyway.
Kal Penn would be an excellent Dilbert as well. A tech guy being South Asian would be more believable, and nothing about Dilbert in the comics precludes the actor playing him having a non-white background.
The other key role would be the Pointy Haired Boss, that's a tough role to fill, they'd have to be funny looking and short. Jon Lovitz might work but might be a bit old, Jack Black might be a bit too manic, but then again, who knows, he could work out pretty well.
But most importantly, Jeff Bridges would have to be the Garbage Man, no other could do that role justice.
A Scheme Designed to Enhance the Quality of Those That Serve Us in Federal Politics
(this isn't quite a "proposal" and I wouldn't call this either modest or immodest, hence "scheme")
One of the odd vexations regarding American politics is the seeming contradiction in the constant low rating for Congress as a body, but generally warm regard folks feel towards the representative in their district. I don't think that's something that will ever change, we see all the shenanigans in DC and know that which is being done in our name is often wasteful, venal, and counter to good governance, yet when we look at the representative we elected, we see that our personal Congressperson has done good things and brought home projects that help the community, so we forgive them their sins while damning all those around them.
I say harness this as a force for change. My scheme would require all congressional districts nationwide to be grouped as a series of triads. In each triad, you would not be allowed to elect the representative in your district, but you would elect the representative in two neighboring districts. Voters would no longer have a vested interest in keeping an incumbent in office for decade after decade simply to bring pork home. Instead they would be forced to think about their neighbors' needs along with their own, and consider how their choice for their two neighbors would effect the choices their two neighbors would make for them. Candidates wouldn't be able to run on pork, instead they'd have to run on regional issues as well as the rationality and workability of the ideas they represent. State legislatures, in states with multiple districts, would find the complexity and problems associated with gerrymandering increased exponentially. Hopefully, they'd have little choice but to create districts that make more sense geographically and demographically. States with only one representative would find themselves grouped when prudent, and state boundaries would be respected when possible. Also, reapportionment would have to be modified so that the number of districts was always divisible by three, but that wouldn't be a difficult change to enact.
I don't think voters would be too vindictive in saddling a neighboring district with an unacceptable candidate, as the threat of payback in the next election would loom. It would make it easier to argue against lengthy incumbency, however, and those in Congress would have to consider the greater good for their own district as well as those that actually elected them. The more voters these folks feel beholden to, the better. It can only force them to act and vote in a manner where their record shows clear benefit for all, and not just their home district, or else they won't have an easy campaign the following year.
I'd work the Senate slightly differently, and a little more radically. I think the direct election of Senators has been an unmitigated disaster. Repeal the 17th Amendment (I agree with former Gov. and Sen. Zell Miller on this one), immediately. I have no problem returning to the days when the Senate was elected by each state's legislature. Popularly elected Senators are too powerful, too secure in their position and serve incumbency more than they serve their constituents. So besides repealing the direct election of Senators, the other major change would be a random lottery in which states are paired with each other and the opposite legislature of each pair gets to pick the Senators for their partnered state, selected from a pool of candidates recommended by the state legislature of the state which the Senator would serve (a minimum of three candidates per party, to give the other state's legislature a wider choice in the manner). Just as in the House, this reform would force Senators who want to stay in the Senate to work for all the people, not just their own state, plus changing the pairings on a random basis every 4 years would shake up the process. The particulars could get messy, and occasionally there might be hard feelings between states, but politics is already messy, at least the new mess would be a fun mess. For example, imagine all the ink spilled in anticipation of the Alabama State Legislature getting to choose the representatives for New York, and vice versa. The quaking, shaking, and rabid editorials in the New York media would be a sight to behold and would be worth any problems this scheme might cause.
Unfortunately, there's no political will to enact such a radical, though sensible, change. Some ideas are just too good for the real world.
One of the odd vexations regarding American politics is the seeming contradiction in the constant low rating for Congress as a body, but generally warm regard folks feel towards the representative in their district. I don't think that's something that will ever change, we see all the shenanigans in DC and know that which is being done in our name is often wasteful, venal, and counter to good governance, yet when we look at the representative we elected, we see that our personal Congressperson has done good things and brought home projects that help the community, so we forgive them their sins while damning all those around them.
I say harness this as a force for change. My scheme would require all congressional districts nationwide to be grouped as a series of triads. In each triad, you would not be allowed to elect the representative in your district, but you would elect the representative in two neighboring districts. Voters would no longer have a vested interest in keeping an incumbent in office for decade after decade simply to bring pork home. Instead they would be forced to think about their neighbors' needs along with their own, and consider how their choice for their two neighbors would effect the choices their two neighbors would make for them. Candidates wouldn't be able to run on pork, instead they'd have to run on regional issues as well as the rationality and workability of the ideas they represent. State legislatures, in states with multiple districts, would find the complexity and problems associated with gerrymandering increased exponentially. Hopefully, they'd have little choice but to create districts that make more sense geographically and demographically. States with only one representative would find themselves grouped when prudent, and state boundaries would be respected when possible. Also, reapportionment would have to be modified so that the number of districts was always divisible by three, but that wouldn't be a difficult change to enact.
I don't think voters would be too vindictive in saddling a neighboring district with an unacceptable candidate, as the threat of payback in the next election would loom. It would make it easier to argue against lengthy incumbency, however, and those in Congress would have to consider the greater good for their own district as well as those that actually elected them. The more voters these folks feel beholden to, the better. It can only force them to act and vote in a manner where their record shows clear benefit for all, and not just their home district, or else they won't have an easy campaign the following year.
I'd work the Senate slightly differently, and a little more radically. I think the direct election of Senators has been an unmitigated disaster. Repeal the 17th Amendment (I agree with former Gov. and Sen. Zell Miller on this one), immediately. I have no problem returning to the days when the Senate was elected by each state's legislature. Popularly elected Senators are too powerful, too secure in their position and serve incumbency more than they serve their constituents. So besides repealing the direct election of Senators, the other major change would be a random lottery in which states are paired with each other and the opposite legislature of each pair gets to pick the Senators for their partnered state, selected from a pool of candidates recommended by the state legislature of the state which the Senator would serve (a minimum of three candidates per party, to give the other state's legislature a wider choice in the manner). Just as in the House, this reform would force Senators who want to stay in the Senate to work for all the people, not just their own state, plus changing the pairings on a random basis every 4 years would shake up the process. The particulars could get messy, and occasionally there might be hard feelings between states, but politics is already messy, at least the new mess would be a fun mess. For example, imagine all the ink spilled in anticipation of the Alabama State Legislature getting to choose the representatives for New York, and vice versa. The quaking, shaking, and rabid editorials in the New York media would be a sight to behold and would be worth any problems this scheme might cause.
Unfortunately, there's no political will to enact such a radical, though sensible, change. Some ideas are just too good for the real world.
13 June 2007
NBA Basketball is FAAAAAAANTASTIC!
Game three of the finals was brutal. They just missed besting (worsting?) the Finals record for crappy scoring. If a 75-72 game could be even less exciting than it sounds, this one was it.
Yes, San Antonio played great defense and Cleveland did a great job on the offensive boards, but this isn't fun to watch (unless you're a San Antonio fanatic already). This game was at 67-57 with about 6:18 left and San Antonio didn't score again until there was 1:32 left in the game. It got close, but Cleveland never seemed like they'd take over, or San Antonio would relinquish the lead. Whether or not the predicted sweep is fulfilled Thursday is irrelevant, this series won't be going back to San Antonio.
I agree with Bob Fitzgerald (hat tip TrueHoop), redo the conferences (into 3 two division conferences instead how it is now), play a more regionally compact schedule in the regular season, and seed the teams by record, not by conference (I'd add reseeding each round of the playoffs to his recommendations, but beyond that he's got some good suggestions, and I won't even point to a previous post where I suggested something similar a few weeks ago . . .)
Yes, San Antonio played great defense and Cleveland did a great job on the offensive boards, but this isn't fun to watch (unless you're a San Antonio fanatic already). This game was at 67-57 with about 6:18 left and San Antonio didn't score again until there was 1:32 left in the game. It got close, but Cleveland never seemed like they'd take over, or San Antonio would relinquish the lead. Whether or not the predicted sweep is fulfilled Thursday is irrelevant, this series won't be going back to San Antonio.
I agree with Bob Fitzgerald (hat tip TrueHoop), redo the conferences (into 3 two division conferences instead how it is now), play a more regionally compact schedule in the regular season, and seed the teams by record, not by conference (I'd add reseeding each round of the playoffs to his recommendations, but beyond that he's got some good suggestions, and I won't even point to a previous post where I suggested something similar a few weeks ago . . .)
12 June 2007
What He Said . . .
He, being President Bush, what he said, being his speech at the dedication of the Victims of Communism Memorial today.
(noticed the flag above the DMV flying at half staff, assume the President might have issued an order to do so to honor those killed by, and those who died opposing, that awful ideology)
(noticed the flag above the DMV flying at half staff, assume the President might have issued an order to do so to honor those killed by, and those who died opposing, that awful ideology)
10 June 2007
A Message To You . . .
. . . David Chase: Meh! (if 'meh' could be loud and emphatic, the final episode of Sopranos earns one)
. . . David Milch: W T F ? ! ? (nice use of Ed O'Neill, though)
. . . David Milch: W T F ? ! ? (nice use of Ed O'Neill, though)
09 June 2007
It Was 25 Years Ago Today . . .
. . . OK, not exactly 25 years ago today, but close, that a certain album was released that changed the way music was received, perceived and consumed.
I found the dreary nonsense of boomer nostalgia over an album that I've never been able to listen to all the way through rather annoying (non-dreary non-nonsense about that album can be found at Althouse, however).
So figured, fight fire with fire.
Started thinking about the albums released in 1982 that had a major impact, and which one really helps define the time and stands out as a landmark for what that era was.
Plenty of terrible albums were released that year, some great albums, too. Thriller was released that year, but I've never been a big fan of that album and it has accrued a lot of baggage that makes a major discussion about that album unappealing. Avalon was released and it's great, but not a cultural touchstone, Prince unleashed 1999 and it's a great listen, but he's done better. Combat Rock was the Clash at full force, but they aren't really what the 80s were about. Scoff if you will, but Kissing To Be Clever is a totally awesome (oops, sorry, the spirit of an 80s Valley Girl snuck into my keyboard for a sec) album and would be worthy of a lengthy discussion, but not in this post. Another album that many would scoff at but others cherish would be The Number of the Beast, but that's also an album for a different post.
Have I worn you out with this preamble yet? Have you guessed what album might be worth the attention? Did you even consider that this is all leading up to a discussion about Duran Duran? Well it is, and if you have patience I'll explain why.
Rio by Duran Duran was released in the UK and US in May of 1982. It took awhile to pick up steam, it was never the #1 album in the UK or US, but it stayed in the Billboard Hot 100 for 129 weeks. It's not just the music that makes this album *THE* album of 1982 (more so than even the biggest selling album of all time (THRILLER) released later that year), it's the overall effect it had on the music industry and Duran Duran's position as the first band that really made a name for itself through its music videos. The album languished in the States for months before MTV started playing the videos.
The Rio video above is little more than a video postcard of exotic locales intercut with images of the band and exotic babes, yet it was the right combination at the right time and it helps that the song still sounds amazing. The bass line in this album kicks all sorts of ass, and the cheesy synth sounds layered on top aren't really cheesy at all, they actually add something to the sound. This is when "new wave" really did seem like something new, it wasn't dusty old hippies still turning out music. This was sunny, optimistic, comfortable with wealth, lush, and sexy. Watch and listen to this and try not to feel better, it's impossible, this stuff is made for good times, better times, and as it so happens, the 80s were good and better times.
The next track on the album is My Own Way. Umm, another fun song, but this video luckily didn't get such heavy rotation in the States, this would have killed the band. Red silk headbands are never, ever, ever a good idea. But this band did have one tight rhythm section, and Simon has a solid voice for this music and presence, which may not seem that big of a deal now, but it is a big change from the type of crap that was popular in the late 70s and the more mainstream bands of the early 80s.
Hungry Like the Wolf is the other big track off this album, the band goes all "Indiana Jones" in this video and it has a cinematic sheen to it, even if it still makes no sense whatsoever. I've accused this song of being cheesy, and it is, and this video is plenty cheesy as well, but it's quality cheese, and there's nothing wrong with high quality cheese. Once again I have to say that their drummer and bassist are amazing together.
Another lushly tropical song, more exotic locales, this time for the more moody, downbeat (though not down) Save a Prayer. All the same tricks are applied to this song, but at a different pace and for melancholy effect. Not much more to say, listen to it yourself, allow it to sweep you away, get caught in this song's undertow, you won't regret it.
The last video I'll link from this album is for "The Chauffeur", the video has naughty bits in it and more than a hint of sexual situations (nothing graphic, an androgynous blonde dancing topless, and a suggestion without depicting some lesbian action), so to watch you'll have to find naughty bits acceptable viewing and be logged in with your YouTube account (and over 18). But it's all arty and in black and white, so that makes it all OK, right? This is the 80s, afterall. There's sadness, strangeness, and a hint of danger wrapped up in the song and the video. There was plenty of that going on in the early 80s with regards to sexuality. Sex was becoming dangerous again after the bachanal of the 70s, no more free love, that stuff turned out to be deadly (at least until folks figured out what was going on and re-embraced barrier protection).
The album itself is an artifact of the time, but it's perfectly listenable outside of that time and place, even if you aren't a kid of the 80s, you should find the sounds engaging, and if you are a kid of the 80s who was caught up in the New Wave wave, then memories should be flooding about now. Rio wasn't an album made to be specifically about the early 80s. Duran Duran purposefully didn't write topical songs, or write songs that are particularly meaningful. Yet despite this, they perfectly captured that time, or defined it, it's hard to know which way the influence went now, there were other bands with a style similar, they were grouped in the UK with the other "new romantics" yet they were the one that broke the biggest worldwide and they were the ones who seemed least constrained by the conventions of that sound. They may seem like unlikely and accidental revolutionaries, but Duran Duran was a revolutionary band and Rio was a revolutionary album, even if neither seemed the case at the time. They captured the promise of that time, the awakening out of the long dreary hangover that was the 70s, and they helped point the direction to a new style of life and art that wasn't afraid of being commercial or urbane. It's not something that hadn't existed before, but after all those dirty hairy hippies, or dirty oddly haired punks were running around, it was something that had to be relearned.
They were the perfect band for Reagan's new morning and Thatcher's spring revival. They were the exact style and sound that personified the neon colors, big shoulder pads, silk suits, and embracing of prosperity that the 80s represented.
So go buy yourself this album if you don't already own the CD, pick up a Nagel print, put on a white suit (or slinky cocktail dress), and drink a fruity beverage, there ain't nothing wrong with any of those things.
I found the dreary nonsense of boomer nostalgia over an album that I've never been able to listen to all the way through rather annoying (non-dreary non-nonsense about that album can be found at Althouse, however).
So figured, fight fire with fire.
Started thinking about the albums released in 1982 that had a major impact, and which one really helps define the time and stands out as a landmark for what that era was.
Plenty of terrible albums were released that year, some great albums, too. Thriller was released that year, but I've never been a big fan of that album and it has accrued a lot of baggage that makes a major discussion about that album unappealing. Avalon was released and it's great, but not a cultural touchstone, Prince unleashed 1999 and it's a great listen, but he's done better. Combat Rock was the Clash at full force, but they aren't really what the 80s were about. Scoff if you will, but Kissing To Be Clever is a totally awesome (oops, sorry, the spirit of an 80s Valley Girl snuck into my keyboard for a sec) album and would be worthy of a lengthy discussion, but not in this post. Another album that many would scoff at but others cherish would be The Number of the Beast, but that's also an album for a different post.
Have I worn you out with this preamble yet? Have you guessed what album might be worth the attention? Did you even consider that this is all leading up to a discussion about Duran Duran? Well it is, and if you have patience I'll explain why.
Rio by Duran Duran was released in the UK and US in May of 1982. It took awhile to pick up steam, it was never the #1 album in the UK or US, but it stayed in the Billboard Hot 100 for 129 weeks. It's not just the music that makes this album *THE* album of 1982 (more so than even the biggest selling album of all time (THRILLER) released later that year), it's the overall effect it had on the music industry and Duran Duran's position as the first band that really made a name for itself through its music videos. The album languished in the States for months before MTV started playing the videos.
The Rio video above is little more than a video postcard of exotic locales intercut with images of the band and exotic babes, yet it was the right combination at the right time and it helps that the song still sounds amazing. The bass line in this album kicks all sorts of ass, and the cheesy synth sounds layered on top aren't really cheesy at all, they actually add something to the sound. This is when "new wave" really did seem like something new, it wasn't dusty old hippies still turning out music. This was sunny, optimistic, comfortable with wealth, lush, and sexy. Watch and listen to this and try not to feel better, it's impossible, this stuff is made for good times, better times, and as it so happens, the 80s were good and better times.
The next track on the album is My Own Way. Umm, another fun song, but this video luckily didn't get such heavy rotation in the States, this would have killed the band. Red silk headbands are never, ever, ever a good idea. But this band did have one tight rhythm section, and Simon has a solid voice for this music and presence, which may not seem that big of a deal now, but it is a big change from the type of crap that was popular in the late 70s and the more mainstream bands of the early 80s.
Hungry Like the Wolf is the other big track off this album, the band goes all "Indiana Jones" in this video and it has a cinematic sheen to it, even if it still makes no sense whatsoever. I've accused this song of being cheesy, and it is, and this video is plenty cheesy as well, but it's quality cheese, and there's nothing wrong with high quality cheese. Once again I have to say that their drummer and bassist are amazing together.
Another lushly tropical song, more exotic locales, this time for the more moody, downbeat (though not down) Save a Prayer. All the same tricks are applied to this song, but at a different pace and for melancholy effect. Not much more to say, listen to it yourself, allow it to sweep you away, get caught in this song's undertow, you won't regret it.
The last video I'll link from this album is for "The Chauffeur", the video has naughty bits in it and more than a hint of sexual situations (nothing graphic, an androgynous blonde dancing topless, and a suggestion without depicting some lesbian action), so to watch you'll have to find naughty bits acceptable viewing and be logged in with your YouTube account (and over 18). But it's all arty and in black and white, so that makes it all OK, right? This is the 80s, afterall. There's sadness, strangeness, and a hint of danger wrapped up in the song and the video. There was plenty of that going on in the early 80s with regards to sexuality. Sex was becoming dangerous again after the bachanal of the 70s, no more free love, that stuff turned out to be deadly (at least until folks figured out what was going on and re-embraced barrier protection).
The album itself is an artifact of the time, but it's perfectly listenable outside of that time and place, even if you aren't a kid of the 80s, you should find the sounds engaging, and if you are a kid of the 80s who was caught up in the New Wave wave, then memories should be flooding about now. Rio wasn't an album made to be specifically about the early 80s. Duran Duran purposefully didn't write topical songs, or write songs that are particularly meaningful. Yet despite this, they perfectly captured that time, or defined it, it's hard to know which way the influence went now, there were other bands with a style similar, they were grouped in the UK with the other "new romantics" yet they were the one that broke the biggest worldwide and they were the ones who seemed least constrained by the conventions of that sound. They may seem like unlikely and accidental revolutionaries, but Duran Duran was a revolutionary band and Rio was a revolutionary album, even if neither seemed the case at the time. They captured the promise of that time, the awakening out of the long dreary hangover that was the 70s, and they helped point the direction to a new style of life and art that wasn't afraid of being commercial or urbane. It's not something that hadn't existed before, but after all those dirty hairy hippies, or dirty oddly haired punks were running around, it was something that had to be relearned.
They were the perfect band for Reagan's new morning and Thatcher's spring revival. They were the exact style and sound that personified the neon colors, big shoulder pads, silk suits, and embracing of prosperity that the 80s represented.
So go buy yourself this album if you don't already own the CD, pick up a Nagel print, put on a white suit (or slinky cocktail dress), and drink a fruity beverage, there ain't nothing wrong with any of those things.
08 June 2007
You Make the Call!
Another round of "You Make the Call"
In the above photo (via Drudge, used to illustrate this article):
mature individual, undergoing a serious psychological break fearful for what a few weeks of incarceration will do to her already delicate mental health status . . .
or, petulant, whiny, brat, whose emotional age isn't much beyond the terrible twos, and is shocked that their usual act, tantrums, and manipulations of other people didn't get her what she wanted for once . . .
UPDATE:
The bloggers at Jezebel referencing a post by Andrew Sullivan (I guess they're feminist and collectivist, no individual name given for this blogpost) (hat tip, Gawker, interestingly, there's no way to link the Gawker post, all roads lead to Jezebel, guess they're trying to improve traffic over at their latest blogging little sisters), note the gentleman responsible for the above photo, also snapped the famous crying, running, naked Vietnamese girl from 35 years ago. I think the point the Jezebelites try to make is a bit of a stretch, but nice catch, anyway (and as always with everything Sullivan-y, it wasn't Sullivan himself who notices the connection, but a "reader")
In the above photo (via Drudge, used to illustrate this article):
mature individual, undergoing a serious psychological break fearful for what a few weeks of incarceration will do to her already delicate mental health status . . .
or, petulant, whiny, brat, whose emotional age isn't much beyond the terrible twos, and is shocked that their usual act, tantrums, and manipulations of other people didn't get her what she wanted for once . . .
UPDATE:
NICK UT: CRYING FETISHIST?
The bloggers at Jezebel referencing a post by Andrew Sullivan (I guess they're feminist and collectivist, no individual name given for this blogpost) (hat tip, Gawker, interestingly, there's no way to link the Gawker post, all roads lead to Jezebel, guess they're trying to improve traffic over at their latest blogging little sisters), note the gentleman responsible for the above photo, also snapped the famous crying, running, naked Vietnamese girl from 35 years ago. I think the point the Jezebelites try to make is a bit of a stretch, but nice catch, anyway (and as always with everything Sullivan-y, it wasn't Sullivan himself who notices the connection, but a "reader")
Another In a Long Line of Posts Where I Claim Primacy With Regards to a Matter of Small Consequence . . .
Which fantastic idea I had this time that is suddenly being batted about?
Cross-party debates earlier in the election cycle.
I came up with the idea back in the middle of May, independently of my idea, Ann Althouse's son John, IM'ed her with a notion along those lines and she blogged about it, now Patrick Ruffini guest posting at Hugh Hewitt's blog also comes out for such a notion.
The pros for this are greater than the cons (at least if they follow my brilliant scheme). One of the main pros would be entertainment value. Politics should be engaging, and a broader group of folks will engage sooner if politics were more entertainingly combative. Right now we have a terrible combination, sure politics are combative, , but not in a manner that's instructive, intellectual or engaging. The sooner the better for forcing an honest intellectual, emotional and moral confrontation between the folks who hope to lead this nation. The other main pro would be that this would force candidates to campaign more like the person they will be in office rather than the person they think people of their own party want them to be. Screw the cons. I'm about the positives factors affirming ideas I take credit for, as far as all the cons I have two words for you, pish and tosh.
If the campaign for the presidency is to be a 18-24 month affair as it seems to be now, steps should be taken to make as many of those months moments of revelation rather than obfuscation. Debates between the parties would be revelatory, debates within the parties are too often obfuscatory.
But, all this aside, another notion I remember suggesting (or at least thinking, maybe I never typed it out before) was that it would be far more instructive if candidates were forced to send their 'policy experts' and 'advisers' out into the internet to have debates with each other. When we pick a President we aren't just picking a single person, we are picking a team, and I want to know as soon as possible what the make up of that team will look like. A Bloggingheads type format would be perfect, with dingalinks, and a relatively unstructured time frame. Would Clinton have beaten Bush in 1992 if we had known it would have been a bunch of dweeby munchkins, a few crusty Carter leftovers, and heavily favoring academic over real world folks? Likewise, in 2000 if folks had known Bush was skipping past his father, and even Reagan to pick folks with experience in the Nixon and Ford years, would Gore have won more than the popular vote (although in this scenario I think he would have had a stable of far lefty policy wonks that would make Hillary look like Ayn Rand, so he probably would have lost resoundingly, even against the Bush/Ford/Nixon team).
Could any of the Republicans get Colin Powell to speak on their behalf? Would Clinton be crazy enough to dust off Albright? Does anyone know who Obama's people are or what his cabinet would look like? Does McCain have any friends (aside from a few in the media)? Would Rudy look past the five boroughs for advisers?
These are all questions that would be far more informative than if some 4th tier candidate manages to get off a sound bite, or if a first tier candidate has a response interrupted by a lightning strike.
But, there's no incentive whatsoever for the presidential hopefuls to submit to such a risky scheme. The money people could turn off the money spigot until the candidates engage each other and the issues more directly, but that won't happen, folks are eager to throw money at the campaigns, either cause they're true believers, or cause they hope a scratched back has a memory and where there's some quids there might also be some pros hanging out with some quos. Too bad the multiple 'expert's roundtables' idea will never take off, it would be magnificent, and lead to better governance, but so would terminal limits, and those aren't likely to ever be imposed.
So many ideas, so few listening, oh well . . .
UPDATE:
Woohoo! Hello Althouse readers. I always like it when a popular site turns its attention towards my immodest little blog. Feel free to read other posts, they won't bite, some of them might even be interesting . . .
Cross-party debates earlier in the election cycle.
I came up with the idea back in the middle of May, independently of my idea, Ann Althouse's son John, IM'ed her with a notion along those lines and she blogged about it, now Patrick Ruffini guest posting at Hugh Hewitt's blog also comes out for such a notion.
The pros for this are greater than the cons (at least if they follow my brilliant scheme). One of the main pros would be entertainment value. Politics should be engaging, and a broader group of folks will engage sooner if politics were more entertainingly combative. Right now we have a terrible combination, sure politics are combative, , but not in a manner that's instructive, intellectual or engaging. The sooner the better for forcing an honest intellectual, emotional and moral confrontation between the folks who hope to lead this nation. The other main pro would be that this would force candidates to campaign more like the person they will be in office rather than the person they think people of their own party want them to be. Screw the cons. I'm about the positives factors affirming ideas I take credit for, as far as all the cons I have two words for you, pish and tosh.
If the campaign for the presidency is to be a 18-24 month affair as it seems to be now, steps should be taken to make as many of those months moments of revelation rather than obfuscation. Debates between the parties would be revelatory, debates within the parties are too often obfuscatory.
But, all this aside, another notion I remember suggesting (or at least thinking, maybe I never typed it out before) was that it would be far more instructive if candidates were forced to send their 'policy experts' and 'advisers' out into the internet to have debates with each other. When we pick a President we aren't just picking a single person, we are picking a team, and I want to know as soon as possible what the make up of that team will look like. A Bloggingheads type format would be perfect, with dingalinks, and a relatively unstructured time frame. Would Clinton have beaten Bush in 1992 if we had known it would have been a bunch of dweeby munchkins, a few crusty Carter leftovers, and heavily favoring academic over real world folks? Likewise, in 2000 if folks had known Bush was skipping past his father, and even Reagan to pick folks with experience in the Nixon and Ford years, would Gore have won more than the popular vote (although in this scenario I think he would have had a stable of far lefty policy wonks that would make Hillary look like Ayn Rand, so he probably would have lost resoundingly, even against the Bush/Ford/Nixon team).
Could any of the Republicans get Colin Powell to speak on their behalf? Would Clinton be crazy enough to dust off Albright? Does anyone know who Obama's people are or what his cabinet would look like? Does McCain have any friends (aside from a few in the media)? Would Rudy look past the five boroughs for advisers?
These are all questions that would be far more informative than if some 4th tier candidate manages to get off a sound bite, or if a first tier candidate has a response interrupted by a lightning strike.
But, there's no incentive whatsoever for the presidential hopefuls to submit to such a risky scheme. The money people could turn off the money spigot until the candidates engage each other and the issues more directly, but that won't happen, folks are eager to throw money at the campaigns, either cause they're true believers, or cause they hope a scratched back has a memory and where there's some quids there might also be some pros hanging out with some quos. Too bad the multiple 'expert's roundtables' idea will never take off, it would be magnificent, and lead to better governance, but so would terminal limits, and those aren't likely to ever be imposed.
So many ideas, so few listening, oh well . . .
UPDATE:
Woohoo! Hello Althouse readers. I always like it when a popular site turns its attention towards my immodest little blog. Feel free to read other posts, they won't bite, some of them might even be interesting . . .
07 June 2007
NBA Playoffs, Finals Edition
I don't think a lot of people were clamoring for a San Antonio Spurs versus Cleveland Cavaliers finals, but here we are, and it starts tonight.
LeBron proved himself in game five of the Eastern Conference Finals, but the challenge he faces against San Antonio will be far greater.
Cleveland had a shockingly easy path to the finals, they faced a depleted Wizards, a Nets team that was incapable of putting the ball in the basket for long stretches at a time (that series was unwatchable), and a Detroit team that ran out of gas (yes, using the term 'ran out of gas' with regards to the Pistons is a cliche, but in this case, the cliche fits well).
San Antonio on the other hand, faced a talented Denver team and dismantled them, faced a great Phoenix team and beat them up (with some help from the league), and beat soundly an over matched Utah team.
San Antonio is rolling, and Cleveland looks like little more than a speed bump.
Even though I hate San Antonio, all their players (except for Horry), and their little dog too (or coyote, whatever their mascot is) . . ., I'm going to have to say that the Spurs will sweep the Cavs and the folks in Cleveland will once again take comfort in not having to deal with one of those big messy victory parades.
LeBron proved himself in game five of the Eastern Conference Finals, but the challenge he faces against San Antonio will be far greater.
Cleveland had a shockingly easy path to the finals, they faced a depleted Wizards, a Nets team that was incapable of putting the ball in the basket for long stretches at a time (that series was unwatchable), and a Detroit team that ran out of gas (yes, using the term 'ran out of gas' with regards to the Pistons is a cliche, but in this case, the cliche fits well).
San Antonio on the other hand, faced a talented Denver team and dismantled them, faced a great Phoenix team and beat them up (with some help from the league), and beat soundly an over matched Utah team.
San Antonio is rolling, and Cleveland looks like little more than a speed bump.
Even though I hate San Antonio, all their players (except for Horry), and their little dog too (or coyote, whatever their mascot is) . . ., I'm going to have to say that the Spurs will sweep the Cavs and the folks in Cleveland will once again take comfort in not having to deal with one of those big messy victory parades.
06 June 2007
What?!?
Los Angeles residents were urged on Wednesday to take shorter showers, reduce lawn sprinklers and stop throwing trash in toilets in a bid to cut water usage by 10 percent in the driest year on record.
OK, first off, who does this? Second of all, there's enough people who do this that they feel compelled to remind people not to do this for conservation purposes? Third of all, what's wrong with you people?
(at least they didn't break out with the mantra I remember way back when from the 70s vintage Southern Californian drought, "if it's yellow let it mellow, if it's brown flush it down")
And before you go off half-cocked with a "global warming" thesis regarding this "worst drought since records began", that may be true on an annual basis, but there's no such thing as an average year for rainfall in Los Angeles. We are either very wet, somewhat dry, or bone dry, rarely in between. This has been the pattern for longer than they've been keeping records, as evidenced by tree rings from the Sierra Nevadas that suggest there have been periods of little rainfall that have lasted centuries in Southern and Central California over the past 3000 years.
A useful chart to see this pattern for yourself is over at LA Almanac which has monthly rainfall totals since they've been keeping records. There are plenty of stretches with three and four year periods under 8 inches of rainfall, and we've survived, and even thrived. The past ten years have actually been fairly wet if you were to average them (we can assume it won't rain again this season, it almost never rains in June, so we'll call 2006-7 as having produced 3.21 inches). The average since they've been keeping records is 14.93 inches, the average the past ten years (assuming no more rain falls this month) is 15.40 inches. So nothing unusual is happening locally, just the usual extremes that we've lived with since well before they've been keeping records.
The real problem lies in the fact that the excess water from wet years runs straight into the ocean and not into an aquifer, so there's no reserve for a year or two period of less precipitation. Over the past ten years we've had two 30+ inch seasons, including a near record 37.96 inches in 2004-5.
If we had a river instead of a concrete ditch, that might help, but then you'd have to allow for flood plains near the river as when it rains here it really rains. The area around the Los Angeles river is heavily industrialized through most of its journey to the Pacific, so I don't see any serious 'rewilding' of the river happening, a more wild river in a desert climate that is a trickle most of the time and a raging river with flows greater than any other river in the word at other times, would present a daunting logistical challenge, so instead we have a concrete ditch that serves as an outdoor movie studio most of the time.
But my main point is that a few bad months shouldn't mean instant drought, the wet years should be managed better, and we've had enough wet years recently that this past few months of 'historic drought' shouldn't be causing the problems it will likely cause.
Also, the reporter for Reuters doesn't know what he's talking about, the reporter states, "Below average rainfall for the past few years has also turned the traditional summer southern California fire season into an all-round event.", if you look at the chart I linked you'll see last season was a close to average 13.19" and the previous year was the near record 37.96", so no matter how you slice it, there has not been "below average rainfall for the past few years".
And the unusual fire season this winter had to due with unusually low humidity coupled with lack of rain from November to February when usually those are our wet months. And almost all the fires were started by humans (either by accident, or on purpose), so if folks would be sensible around brush, we'd do better as well. Little throwaway lines like that one which are either ignorant of the facts or purposefully distort the facts to lead to a conclusion that the data doesn't suggests really riles me, especially in a 'neutral' just the facts wire story.
I just feel it in my bones that the writer of the piece quoted above wanted to launch into a diatribe about advanced human caused global warming and this historic drought was all a sign that we should bow down before the Goracle and do all he asks of us, but pulled back at the last second (it is a short word count wire piece, after all), hoping that the 'facts' as presented would do that job without being too obvious.
04 June 2007
That Was Then, This Is Now . . .
Lileks, in his bleatings, posted the above photograph. He focused on the mysterious hatted gentleman standing on the building's roof.
I'm focused on the big fat 600,000 SUNDAY CIRCULATION sign.
Out of curiousity I checked wikipedia, and they show current Sunday circulation for the Minneapolis Star Tribune (as reported in this PDF) of 574,406.
Ouch.
But, then the population for the city of Minneapolis was over 500,000, and it's less than 400,000 now.
The suburbs surrounding Minneapolis have grown quite a bit, so all those folks haven't fled for better climate, and the area the paper serves targets more people, so as a percentage of the demographic the paper's penetration looks pretty meek compared to what it was 60 years ago.
That's the case for most every daily that was around back then as well, I would guess.
01 June 2007
What If This Is All Part of the Plan . . .
Peggy Noonan has stirred thoughts across the internets regarding her feelings of betrayal at how the Bush administration has acted with regards to immigration reform. I'm too lazy to link, you've been probably soaking in all the arguments, counterarguments and recriminations, so a rehash hear won't be needed.
The biggest effect has been the massive drop in money coming into the RNC. The rank and file is duly pissed. They're showing their anger by shutting their checkbooks, at least for the moment.
But what if that's a good thing for the GOP in the long run?
I think the end result of this current mess is that it weakens conservatives, even in the primaries, and strengthens social moderates. That seems backwards, but the social conservative wing of the GOP, formerly known as Reagan Democrats, are weakly partisan at best. They will sit out the primaries if they think they're not getting served. If *shamnesty* (as Michelle Malkin likes to call it) passes, the primary candidate who stands to benefit most is Rudy Giuliani. McCain has been mortally wounded, Romney is weak on this issue, and Fred Thompson may not be able to compete against Rudy if the social conservatives stay home.
If your main goal in the Bush administration is to see policies similar to the ones that you currently have in place, Rudy is your man. He's for low taxes, an aggressive stance with regards to terrorists and their sponsoring states, and he's never said he's against easing restrictions on immigration, only that enforcement should come first (a position he shares with Thompson, though Thompson manages to sound tougher on the subject).
The backlash has not helped the aggressively anti-amnesty candidates like Hunter and Tancredo, they still get no traction, so those that are truly upset with the party will stay home.
What the GOP has to hope for is that when it comes general election campaign time that whichever Democrat gets the nod will manage to scare those folks turned off by the GOP back to the polls and vote against Obama or Clinton, rather than for Giuliani or Thompson. The capacity for Hillary to generate negatives is phenomenal, so if she's the candidate, things are looking up for the GOP. Obama presents a bigger problem, he's slippery, and even though he might be an even bigger socialist than Hillary, he sells it much better. He seems prone to stumble between now and when the votes count, and Hillary has the unions in her pocket, and they generally pick who gets the Dem nod. The anti-war sentiment might push Obama over the top, but if it does, their anti-military rhetoric will damage him in the general election.
Despite all that's going on, it's hard to see what states Giuliani would lose that Pres. Bush won, whether he's against Clinton or Obama, plus he'd force the Dems to spend treasure in New York and California, and just having to compete in those states could seriously damage the Democrats nationwide.
So, driving away the GOP activists now might be a brilliant move to help get a socially moderate, fiscally conservative, tough on terror New Yorker nominated as the GOP standard bearer. But only if the Dems are stupid enough to force them back into the GOP's bosom by running a general election campaign that scares the bejeezus out of folks who think draconian new global warming regulations, nationalized health care, capitulation in the face of terror, and much higher taxes are bad ideas.
Stranger things have happened.
The biggest effect has been the massive drop in money coming into the RNC. The rank and file is duly pissed. They're showing their anger by shutting their checkbooks, at least for the moment.
But what if that's a good thing for the GOP in the long run?
I think the end result of this current mess is that it weakens conservatives, even in the primaries, and strengthens social moderates. That seems backwards, but the social conservative wing of the GOP, formerly known as Reagan Democrats, are weakly partisan at best. They will sit out the primaries if they think they're not getting served. If *shamnesty* (as Michelle Malkin likes to call it) passes, the primary candidate who stands to benefit most is Rudy Giuliani. McCain has been mortally wounded, Romney is weak on this issue, and Fred Thompson may not be able to compete against Rudy if the social conservatives stay home.
If your main goal in the Bush administration is to see policies similar to the ones that you currently have in place, Rudy is your man. He's for low taxes, an aggressive stance with regards to terrorists and their sponsoring states, and he's never said he's against easing restrictions on immigration, only that enforcement should come first (a position he shares with Thompson, though Thompson manages to sound tougher on the subject).
The backlash has not helped the aggressively anti-amnesty candidates like Hunter and Tancredo, they still get no traction, so those that are truly upset with the party will stay home.
What the GOP has to hope for is that when it comes general election campaign time that whichever Democrat gets the nod will manage to scare those folks turned off by the GOP back to the polls and vote against Obama or Clinton, rather than for Giuliani or Thompson. The capacity for Hillary to generate negatives is phenomenal, so if she's the candidate, things are looking up for the GOP. Obama presents a bigger problem, he's slippery, and even though he might be an even bigger socialist than Hillary, he sells it much better. He seems prone to stumble between now and when the votes count, and Hillary has the unions in her pocket, and they generally pick who gets the Dem nod. The anti-war sentiment might push Obama over the top, but if it does, their anti-military rhetoric will damage him in the general election.
Despite all that's going on, it's hard to see what states Giuliani would lose that Pres. Bush won, whether he's against Clinton or Obama, plus he'd force the Dems to spend treasure in New York and California, and just having to compete in those states could seriously damage the Democrats nationwide.
So, driving away the GOP activists now might be a brilliant move to help get a socially moderate, fiscally conservative, tough on terror New Yorker nominated as the GOP standard bearer. But only if the Dems are stupid enough to force them back into the GOP's bosom by running a general election campaign that scares the bejeezus out of folks who think draconian new global warming regulations, nationalized health care, capitulation in the face of terror, and much higher taxes are bad ideas.
Stranger things have happened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)