Just a couple thoughts that occurred to me over the weekend:
First of all, on the late night wars. Two things bother me, or rather two opinions bother me. One is the opinion that Conan O'Brien is a victim. Look, I've always liked Conan and I think he's pretty funny but let's be honest: the guy just got paid $33 million to NOT host a tv-show. Every day of my life, I've NOT hosted a tv show. Where's my check? I think that NBC and Leno pulling the plug on him was unfair, but he's been adequately compensated for it and then some. He's not a victim. The second opinion that annoys me is people responding to this story with "how can these celebrities get paid and companies throw around all this money when there are millions starving in the world" or some derivation of that. Entertainers and athletes are paid exorbitant amounts of money. Deal with it. They are paid that much because their is a market for their services, and that is the market rate. If you don't like it, I'm sure that Cuba and Venezuela would be glad to have you.
I was saddened to learn that apparently Dennis Hopper has late-stage terminal cancer and is facing his final days. Did I just have my head in the ground or has this just not been widely reported? Not like I'm the world's biggest Dennis Hopper fan but I've always enjoyed him and his work. I loved him in Easy Rider, Apocalypse Now, Blue Velvet, Hoosiers, True Romance, and, yes, even Speed and I think he qualifies as an American film icon. And not even the worst of human beings deserves the slow horrid death that cancer brings, so all I can wish for him is as little pain and as much peace as possible in his final days. It's times like these where I think that instead of the endless memorials and tributes that are going to be shown in his honor after he dies, wouldn't it be nice if we paid tribute to him now while he's still around to enjoy and be touched by them? That's something that's always seemed so backwards to me.
The other strange bend to this story is that he's apparently using his final days to file for divorce from his wife, supposedly to keep her from contesting his will. That just seems like some misguided priorities to me. You find out that you've got a month or so to live and rather than trying to cope and be at peace with it and learning to detach and disassociate yourself from materiality and things that will no longer be of concern to you shortly your thoughts turn instead to "Bitch ain't gettin my money!" And his wife, for her part, is certainly not doing much to elicit sympathy. Under their pre-nup, she is still entitled to one quarter of his estate even if they're divorced. So does she say "I don't care about the rest of the money; let's not spend the rest of our time together fighting." Nope. She's supposedly "barricaded herself into their house" while he's been at the hospital. Classy. And they have a 6-year-old child together (Galen). So always remember Galen: even (and, apparently, especially) in the face of death, money is always the most important thing.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
The Downfall of the Two Party System
I intially started this as a response to Weir's comment about the difference in Congressional voting patterns between Republicans and Democrats, but as is so often the case I found that I had more to say about it then I first realized and thought it deserved to be a topic in it's own right.
I believe that we are currently witnessing the downfall of the two-party system. To be sure, it will be a slow, painful, agonizing death but I think that we've seen the cracks in the foundation already and those cracks will just widen given time. Allow me to elaborate.
The fundamental weakness of the two-party system is, unsurprisingly, its binary nature. Outside of the primaries, you don't get a diverse range of choices on the issues. You don't like candidate A or candidate B's position on a particular issue? Tough luck; pick one. This can be overcome when the system is functioning at its best, and that's when there is a semi-clear line of demarcation between the two parties that occurs at or near the center of the political spectrum. In that scenario it's fairly clear what each party stands for and when you elect more members of one party you can have a reasonable expectation of their priorities and you can also expect that they will more or less vote together. But the fundamental flaw which cannot be overcome in this system is that you have no good method of registering discontent with the ruling party other than to vote for the other side. That often leaves the electorate in the awkward position of voting for someone they don't ideologically agree with, just because they're fed up with what the current party has been offering. And small wonder that these voters are fickle and will abandon you the first chance they get; they never agreed with you in the first place!
But the real breakdown occurs when one party, rather than being spread throughout their half of the political spectrum, becomes ideologically clustered around the last 20% of it (as the Republicans have). Then, by definition, the other party is left to cover the remaining 80%. That might seem like a good thing for the party with the wider base, but it actually becomes a huge hindrance. You've got somebody who is 10 "points" right of center in the same party with someone who is all the way left. At that point the question becomes less "why can't you two stay together on an issue?" and more "why the hell are the two of you in the same party?"
Here's the other problem. The Democrats don't actually cover the remaining 80% of the spectrum abdicated by the Republicans. At heart, most Democrats are left of center. So they move to the right to try and fill the void left by the Republicans but they're not going to go all the way to 30 "points" right of center. I'd say they're probably only going about half that far - to about 15, but let's not get hung up on the numbers since they're pretty arbitrary anyway. The point is that you've now got a fairly sizeable gap in ideology between the two parties and that's a huge problem. When the two parties each inhabit an entire half of the political spectrum, the members in the middle aren't too far apart, no matter which party they belong to. That makes compromise feaible and, since they are by definition compromises by centrists, they tend to be pretty good ones. But now that you've got a gap in ideologies between the parties - forget it. It might as well be a chasm as far as compromise is concerned.
So the result is depressingly logical: complete gridlock when the Democrats are in charge and lots and lots of legislation that the majority of the country disagrees with when the Republicans are in charge. Taken in this context, it makes all the sense in the world that the period of our greatest prosperity (recently) occurred when we had a Democratic president with a Republican congress (94 - 2000). We avoided the gridlock of the Democratic congress while at the same time the Republicans were forced to come back towards the center to avoid a veto.
So is this unavoidable? I don't think so, but it will take a lot of time and, most importantly, a lot of courage from a small group of people (but then again isn't that the recipe for most major changes?). I used to think that the Republicans would be the ones splintering. That the fiscal conservatives would disassociate themselves from the religious fundamentalists and return to the center. I think they had a chance to do that, but that ship has now sailed. They realize that their base, while extremely passionate, is small and thus abandoning the party for the center would most likely just lead to political obscurity. Some (like Bob Barr) went to the Libertarian party and political obscurity was indeed the result (unless you consider .4% of the vote in the 2008 Presidential election to be "relevant"). Others (like Jim Webb) flipped and joined the Democratic party. But most just shuffled to the right along with their colleagues.
So what about a new 3rd party springing to national prominence? I just don't see it happening. Perot had a chance to do it in the early 90s but he was only interested in getting himself elected; the creation of a viable 3rd-party alternative was not on his agenda. Nader's Green Party? I don't think they'll ever have mass appeal, even among the left. Libertarians? There was a time when I'd like to have thought that but then something changed. I went to one of their meetings and they are just an incoherent mess. The Economist hit it right on the head when they said that they can basically be put into two groups: anarchists and drug decriminalization advocates. Hardly a platform with mass appeal.
So, yes, that leaves the Democrats as the most likely to fracture, and I'll give you a script for how it might happen. They lose power in either 2010 or 2012. The Republicans then proceed to pass a lot more legislation that is horribly unpopular. At some point they probably get us involved in another war too. The people once again get fed up with them and give the Democrats another go. The Dems take control and all the same gridlock happens again. The electorate is fed up with them yet again, but they also still remember that the Republicans haven't done anything they agree with for a long time. So then the key will be that a small group of important and popular Democrats have to get fed up as well. And it would probably have to be a group of either just retired or those thinking about retiring who don't have a whole lot to lose. It would be a big risk but if you got enough people to jump at once and enough momentum you could basically have a microcosm of how Obama overtook Hillary in the primaries. If you are able to move people from "well that's nice, but it'll never happen" to "wow, there might really be something here" you can do anything.
Hey, I can dream can't I?
I believe that we are currently witnessing the downfall of the two-party system. To be sure, it will be a slow, painful, agonizing death but I think that we've seen the cracks in the foundation already and those cracks will just widen given time. Allow me to elaborate.
The fundamental weakness of the two-party system is, unsurprisingly, its binary nature. Outside of the primaries, you don't get a diverse range of choices on the issues. You don't like candidate A or candidate B's position on a particular issue? Tough luck; pick one. This can be overcome when the system is functioning at its best, and that's when there is a semi-clear line of demarcation between the two parties that occurs at or near the center of the political spectrum. In that scenario it's fairly clear what each party stands for and when you elect more members of one party you can have a reasonable expectation of their priorities and you can also expect that they will more or less vote together. But the fundamental flaw which cannot be overcome in this system is that you have no good method of registering discontent with the ruling party other than to vote for the other side. That often leaves the electorate in the awkward position of voting for someone they don't ideologically agree with, just because they're fed up with what the current party has been offering. And small wonder that these voters are fickle and will abandon you the first chance they get; they never agreed with you in the first place!
But the real breakdown occurs when one party, rather than being spread throughout their half of the political spectrum, becomes ideologically clustered around the last 20% of it (as the Republicans have). Then, by definition, the other party is left to cover the remaining 80%. That might seem like a good thing for the party with the wider base, but it actually becomes a huge hindrance. You've got somebody who is 10 "points" right of center in the same party with someone who is all the way left. At that point the question becomes less "why can't you two stay together on an issue?" and more "why the hell are the two of you in the same party?"
Here's the other problem. The Democrats don't actually cover the remaining 80% of the spectrum abdicated by the Republicans. At heart, most Democrats are left of center. So they move to the right to try and fill the void left by the Republicans but they're not going to go all the way to 30 "points" right of center. I'd say they're probably only going about half that far - to about 15, but let's not get hung up on the numbers since they're pretty arbitrary anyway. The point is that you've now got a fairly sizeable gap in ideology between the two parties and that's a huge problem. When the two parties each inhabit an entire half of the political spectrum, the members in the middle aren't too far apart, no matter which party they belong to. That makes compromise feaible and, since they are by definition compromises by centrists, they tend to be pretty good ones. But now that you've got a gap in ideologies between the parties - forget it. It might as well be a chasm as far as compromise is concerned.
So the result is depressingly logical: complete gridlock when the Democrats are in charge and lots and lots of legislation that the majority of the country disagrees with when the Republicans are in charge. Taken in this context, it makes all the sense in the world that the period of our greatest prosperity (recently) occurred when we had a Democratic president with a Republican congress (94 - 2000). We avoided the gridlock of the Democratic congress while at the same time the Republicans were forced to come back towards the center to avoid a veto.
So is this unavoidable? I don't think so, but it will take a lot of time and, most importantly, a lot of courage from a small group of people (but then again isn't that the recipe for most major changes?). I used to think that the Republicans would be the ones splintering. That the fiscal conservatives would disassociate themselves from the religious fundamentalists and return to the center. I think they had a chance to do that, but that ship has now sailed. They realize that their base, while extremely passionate, is small and thus abandoning the party for the center would most likely just lead to political obscurity. Some (like Bob Barr) went to the Libertarian party and political obscurity was indeed the result (unless you consider .4% of the vote in the 2008 Presidential election to be "relevant"). Others (like Jim Webb) flipped and joined the Democratic party. But most just shuffled to the right along with their colleagues.
So what about a new 3rd party springing to national prominence? I just don't see it happening. Perot had a chance to do it in the early 90s but he was only interested in getting himself elected; the creation of a viable 3rd-party alternative was not on his agenda. Nader's Green Party? I don't think they'll ever have mass appeal, even among the left. Libertarians? There was a time when I'd like to have thought that but then something changed. I went to one of their meetings and they are just an incoherent mess. The Economist hit it right on the head when they said that they can basically be put into two groups: anarchists and drug decriminalization advocates. Hardly a platform with mass appeal.
So, yes, that leaves the Democrats as the most likely to fracture, and I'll give you a script for how it might happen. They lose power in either 2010 or 2012. The Republicans then proceed to pass a lot more legislation that is horribly unpopular. At some point they probably get us involved in another war too. The people once again get fed up with them and give the Democrats another go. The Dems take control and all the same gridlock happens again. The electorate is fed up with them yet again, but they also still remember that the Republicans haven't done anything they agree with for a long time. So then the key will be that a small group of important and popular Democrats have to get fed up as well. And it would probably have to be a group of either just retired or those thinking about retiring who don't have a whole lot to lose. It would be a big risk but if you got enough people to jump at once and enough momentum you could basically have a microcosm of how Obama overtook Hillary in the primaries. If you are able to move people from "well that's nice, but it'll never happen" to "wow, there might really be something here" you can do anything.
Hey, I can dream can't I?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Why the Democratic party is like a 4-year old
So thanks to the special election in Massachusetts yesterday, the Democratic party will no longer wield a super-majority in the Senate. This is seen as a big deal. And it certainly sounds like a big deal. No longer will the Democrats be able to wield supreme legislative authority, effortlessly passing bill after bill and relentlessly ticking off campaign promises. Oh wait, they weren't doing that. Remind me again about all the shining legislative achievements they've pushed through in the 6 months since Franken was sworn in as the 60th Democrat. It seems to me that they were languishing, and largely failing, to keep all of their caucus together while the Republicans just voted "no" to everything. And it further seems to me that they will still be doing that.
But from reading the news and the blogosphere you'd never know that. Pundits are talking about the Democrats being "devastated" and Democratic bloggers everywhere are lamenting the loss of the super-majority. And the more I read, the more it all started to seem very familiar. Let's roleplay a little - and no I'm not talking about getting out my dominatrix outfit (which I look damn hot in BTW). It's 3 months before Christmas and all your 3-year-old son can talk about is how much he wants a Buzz Lightyear action figure. On and on he goes about how great it is and how every night he dreams about it and generally how perfect and wonderful his life would be if only he had a Buzz Lightyear action figure. And on Christmas morning he gets it and you watch his eyes light up and he jumps up and down screaming and tells you how amazing and wonderful you are for getting it for him and how he'll never be bad again and will love it and cherish it for ever and ever. And for the next few weeks he goes everywhere with it. Eats with it, sleeps with it, goes to pre-school with it. And he treats it with the reverance that a monk would treat a first edition of the Bible. But then gradually the novelty of it all starts to wear off. Inevitably it starts getting nicked up and eventually after one too many ill-fated takeoffs a wing snaps off and once you caught him in the nick of time before he subjected Buzz to "military stress testing" with a lighter and an aerosol can. And eventually Buzz just gets thrown in the toy chest with everything else and gets largely forgotten about. Fast forward a year later and you are looking to give away some toys to Goodwill and you say "he doesn't ever play with this Buzz Lightyear anymore so he'll never miss it. And I bet some other kid would really like it." So you give it away. A few days later your son notices that it is missing and now, of course, he is irate and inconsolable. "How could you have given away my favorite toy in the world?!?!?! I loved that toy and now there will never be another one like it . . ." and so on.
So I guess what I'm saying is that no matter how rarely your child plays with a toy, don't give it to Goodwill. It's just not worth the hell you're going to catch.
No, wait, that's not it. The point is that the Democrats finally got the one thing that they've wanted forever. And they were really excited when they got it. But then they misused, neglected, and then ultimately stopped using it and despite that now they're all horribly depressed that it's gone.
So now supposedly the new gameplan is to try and get the Senate version of the healthcare bill to pass the House, thus bypassing the reconciliation process and negating the need for it to pass the Senate a second time. My opinion? If the idea of bringing a bill back to a place where you control 59 of the 100 seats fills you with such terror that you will do anything to get around doing it, then maybe it's not a very good bill. What the Democrats should do (and of course won't) is just start over. Pass a small bill that just eliminates pre-existing conditions and lifetime limits, declare victory, and move on so that maybe you actually have some legislative accomplishments to run on this November. That's what they should have done even before yesterday, but it's even more what they need to do today.
But from reading the news and the blogosphere you'd never know that. Pundits are talking about the Democrats being "devastated" and Democratic bloggers everywhere are lamenting the loss of the super-majority. And the more I read, the more it all started to seem very familiar. Let's roleplay a little - and no I'm not talking about getting out my dominatrix outfit (which I look damn hot in BTW). It's 3 months before Christmas and all your 3-year-old son can talk about is how much he wants a Buzz Lightyear action figure. On and on he goes about how great it is and how every night he dreams about it and generally how perfect and wonderful his life would be if only he had a Buzz Lightyear action figure. And on Christmas morning he gets it and you watch his eyes light up and he jumps up and down screaming and tells you how amazing and wonderful you are for getting it for him and how he'll never be bad again and will love it and cherish it for ever and ever. And for the next few weeks he goes everywhere with it. Eats with it, sleeps with it, goes to pre-school with it. And he treats it with the reverance that a monk would treat a first edition of the Bible. But then gradually the novelty of it all starts to wear off. Inevitably it starts getting nicked up and eventually after one too many ill-fated takeoffs a wing snaps off and once you caught him in the nick of time before he subjected Buzz to "military stress testing" with a lighter and an aerosol can. And eventually Buzz just gets thrown in the toy chest with everything else and gets largely forgotten about. Fast forward a year later and you are looking to give away some toys to Goodwill and you say "he doesn't ever play with this Buzz Lightyear anymore so he'll never miss it. And I bet some other kid would really like it." So you give it away. A few days later your son notices that it is missing and now, of course, he is irate and inconsolable. "How could you have given away my favorite toy in the world?!?!?! I loved that toy and now there will never be another one like it . . ." and so on.
So I guess what I'm saying is that no matter how rarely your child plays with a toy, don't give it to Goodwill. It's just not worth the hell you're going to catch.
No, wait, that's not it. The point is that the Democrats finally got the one thing that they've wanted forever. And they were really excited when they got it. But then they misused, neglected, and then ultimately stopped using it and despite that now they're all horribly depressed that it's gone.
So now supposedly the new gameplan is to try and get the Senate version of the healthcare bill to pass the House, thus bypassing the reconciliation process and negating the need for it to pass the Senate a second time. My opinion? If the idea of bringing a bill back to a place where you control 59 of the 100 seats fills you with such terror that you will do anything to get around doing it, then maybe it's not a very good bill. What the Democrats should do (and of course won't) is just start over. Pass a small bill that just eliminates pre-existing conditions and lifetime limits, declare victory, and move on so that maybe you actually have some legislative accomplishments to run on this November. That's what they should have done even before yesterday, but it's even more what they need to do today.
Monday, January 11, 2010
My Gratuitous Top 10 List
As (sort of) requested here is my list of the top-10 movies of the "aughts" with caveats galore. The first being that there are many films which I know are excellent that I haven't yet seen. And I only put about an hour of thought into this after consulting about 10 different "top" lists on the web, so there's also almost certainly at least a few movies which I have seen that I'm just plain forgetting about. Take that as an open invitation to try and persuade me with which masterpiece I'm obviously missing. So without further ado:
10. The Dark Knight - I wonder if Heath Ledger's performance would still have garnered the same acclaim had he not died. I'd like to think so, because it's simply one of the best performances ever filmed. The rest of this movie is nothing more than a decent superhero/action movie, but with his performance it's enough to elevate it onto here.
9. High Fidelity - Ah the movie that introduced the world to Jack Black. A romantic comedy for people who hate romantic comedies. Just the right balance of comedy and drama with just enough philosophy thrown in.
8. The Fog of War - This shouldn't surprise any frequent reader, since I've talked extensively about this documentary on here on at least two occasions. If you still haven't made time to see this, consider this just one more nudge.
7. Memento - I feel a little odd putting this here, because I find that I spend a lot of time arguing that this movie isn't as good as most people think. However, that's because I find myself talking to a lot of people who want to place this up there with the greatest films of all time and I'm just not there with it. Still, as just a pure cinematic experience this is hard to top. Few films have the power to just reach out and grab you from the opening credits, engross you in a story, and not let go till the end as much as this one did.
6. Almost Famous - Another odd one because looked at separately no component of this movie stands out as exceptional. Everything (story, dialogue, directing, characters, acting) is pretty much good but not great. But what can I say? I just flat out love it! Probably the best way I can describe it is "immensely watchable". I can pretty much watch this movie any time, any place. That's a rare quality for a film. I remember that after seeing this in theatres, it was one of the 5 films they were offering on the little personal TVs on my flight to Amsterdam (it was pre-"On Demand"; the movies just ran in a loop). I think I ended up watching it 3 times on the flight over and twice more on the flight back.
5. Pan's Labyrinth - I am a sucker for a good fantasy (which are, admittedly, very rare) and this is one of the best (even despite the fact that, technically, it may not even qualify as a fantasy). Some of the most engaging scenes and breathtaking images.
4. Lord of the Rings - Speaking of great fantasy . . . OK, so maybe it's a cheat to include this all as one movie, but I think it's actually more of a cheat to split them up. It's clearly all one story and I like them all equally anyway.
3. Waking Life - There are only two movies ever where after I finished watching it at home I've just instantly watched it again. This is one of them (Trainspotting is the other). This film pioneered the "live animation" look that's now unfortunately been ruined by investing commercials. It's the perfect look for this film. Yes, it's really "just" a collection of scenes where random people wax philosophically but I found every single scene engaging and almost all of them had at least something to say that I'd never thought of before. I also learned how to lucid dream from watching this film. Talk about practical usage!
2. City of God - When I first saw this film, I think I told everyone I knew that they needed to see it. But when they inevitably asked "what's it about" I found that I could never explain it in a way that made it sound even a fraction of as interesting as it really is. I find that I still have this problem, so I'll just say this. I guarantee you that no one who has watched it would dispute it's inclusion on this list.
1. Mulholland Drive - This will probably not be a very popular choice. This is a movie that splinters people. It's the ultimate "love it or hate it" movie. After I recommended this, a number of people saw it and then asked me to help explain it to them. Curiously I found that for everybody (myself included) whether or not you understood it was irrelevant to whether or not you liked it. It took me probably 5-6 viewings before I felt like I understood everything (or *almost* everything) but fitting all the pieces together was probably the most enjoyable part. Watching it, letting it all sink in, coming up with theories during drives to and from work, then rewatching it to see how my theory fit, and then doing it all over again. If that sounds like torture, then this is not the movie for you. If it sounds like fun though, you've got a fun little puzzle ahead of you. A word of warning though; the DVD has no chapter stops. Yeah, David Lynch is a quirky guy (to put it mildly).
Honorable mentions: Minority Report, Kill Bill (1&2), Inglorious Basterds, Avatar, Spirited Away, Best in Show, WALL-E
5 Movies that I'd like the 2 hours of my life back:
5. Transformers I and II - I love the Transformers. I still have the original 80s movie on VHS. I also don't have a problem looking at Megan Fox. But you'd find yourself both more entertained and more fulfilled staring at a Megan Fox poster for 2 hours - even if someone took away the poster after 30 minutes and you were stuck staring at a blank wall for the next 90.
4. Dumb and Dumberer - I didn't expect the genius of the Carey/Daniels original, but I did expect to laugh at least once. And I didn't. Not once. This is the start of a common theme for the rest of the movies on this list: when you don't have an idea, DON'T MAKE A SEQUEL!
3. Ocean's Twelve - One of the few films that actually made me angry as I watched it in the theatres. A pivotal plot point that revolves around the fact that Julia Roberts' character looks like Julia Roberts. Are you f'n kidding me?!?!?!? You. Can. Not. Do. That.
2. The Whole Ten Yards - I like to imagine that during filming right after the director yelled "cut" each time Bruce Willis and Matthew Perry just burst out laughing in disbelief that they were getting paid for this. I don't think this movie had a script. Seriously, I don't.
1. Matrix Revolutions - Even after "Reloaded" I still defended this series. I had faith in the Wachowskis (being a big fan of Bound and the original Matrix), that they would tie up the loose ends and wrap up the story in a satisfying way. I could not have been more wrong. After seeing it, I remember writing an e-mail saying that "I wish when I had gotten to the theatre Keanu Reeves had just kicked me in the nuts and stole my $7. That would have been more honest." I still feel that way.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Happy New Year, Decade, Etc!
OK, so as usual I'm not exactly on top of things. Oh well.
First of all, I was very excited that yesterday my favorite Cub of all-time was finally recognized as one of the best players of all-time. Dawson, Mark Grace, Ryne Sandberg, and (believe it or not) Shawon Dunston are the reason that I am the Cubs fan I am today. Congrats to the Hawk!
Random thought; as I was walking around in the cold earlier this week for some reason I started thinking about futuristic movies (there is actually a train of thought that led to this, but I'll spare you). I realized that I have never seen a movie set in a "happy" future where it was cold. Anytime it is cold in the future, it's always as part of a desolate world where the Earth has become a barren wasteland or somehow uninhabitable for humans. Now the opposite isn't true; just because it's warm in the future doesn't mean it's happy (e.g. Waterworld and Mad Max). It's as if to have a happy future, we have to solve winter. So help me out here movie buffs: can anyone think of a movie where a happy future still had cold in it?
Hope everyone had a good Christmas and New Year's. I don't know about you, but it didn't really feel like the end of a decade to me. It might just be that the end of the last decade was such a big deal that everything else pales in comparison, but even though I was young I recall the change from the 80s to the 90s being a far bigger deal. Personally, I think the culprit is that it never really had a good name. Saying goodbye to "the aughts" just doesn't have the ring of the 80s or 90s.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
