Forgive the horrible pun, but I couldn't resist (and I'm also surprised I haven't seen that used anywhere else in print; the press is usually all over that).
In any case, the announcement this week that centrist Democratic Senator Evan Bayh would not seek reelection was another blow to Democratic control in Congress and, to a slightly lesser extent, the President. On the one hand, I applaud Senator Bayh for bringing some more attention to the bitter partisanship in Congress and not simply laying the blame for it on the Republicans. On the other hand, I wish that he (and other Senators) would do more of that as part of their ordinary discourse and not just a retirement speech.
Remember how so many of us Obama supporters hoped that he'd help usher in a new era of "post-partisanship"? How long ago that seems now. It's not that I'm disillusioned with Obama; I don't think he deserves much of the blame for this. His only real mistake in this regard was in ceding too much control of the domestic agenda to Congress. As it turned out, it was akin to giving a 6-year-old the keys to the family car. The results were fairly predictable. But I can't blame Obama for that because every strategist and pundit agreed that the thing he needed to avoid above all else was making the Clinton mistake of dictating a plan to Congress without their involvement and having them revolt (again, like a bunch of 6-year-olds).
So I guess the lesson is that you shouldn't trust Congress with anything you wouldn't trust a 6-year-old to do and, in general, it's about all you can do to keep them in matching shoes and from eating paste.
Anyway. so I don't blame Obama (much). But I can certainly blame Congress and there's a whole lot of blame to go around there. The Republicans established early on that they would take up the mantle of obstructionists. As has been repeatedly said by me and many others, that's good politics but bad governing. If you're the majority, the way to combat that is to project the image that you're acting conciliatory but the other side is spurning you at every turn. The olive branch that's being set on fire. But the Democrats did themselves no favors in this regard. Years of frustration from 12-years of a Republican ruled Congress still seethed below the surface, and the Democrats basically acted like the Republicans would be forced to go along with their agenda or would be rendered irrelevant. Well, if you're going to have that attitude, you'd better be sure you can hold your party together to pass your agenda. And of course they couldn't (didn't).
The other thing they couldn't do was sell any of their (limited) ideas to the American public. I challenge anyone to give me a good example of a Democratic Congressional member going on the offensive against a Republican. There are a couple, but they are nearly universally used as a response to a Republican attack. There's a good quote from Democratic strategist Paul Begala (in a variation of an old Patton quote), "The purpose of a campaign is not to respond to every one of your opponent's attacks, it's to make the other son-of-a-bitch respond to your attacks." And the Democratic Congress has just done an abysmal job at this. You can only deflect so much before some attacks get through, and if you're not able to get any in yourself, well, as one of my favorite comic strips once said (in lampooning sports commentators), "It's very hard to win if you score less points. Even with a good defense."
So to bring this back on topic, it's lamentable to be losing another centrist - regardless of party affiliation. It's yet another step in the continuing polarization of our government. Governing by ideology instead of practicality is just simply not going to allow us to meet the challenges we need to as a nation and as human beings. And the sounds you hear on CSPAN will sound more and more like Nero's fiddling.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Crazy Heart and Crazy Idea
Finally got a chance to see Crazy Heart yesterday. I don't think it's possible to talk about the movie without comparing it to The Wrestler. They certainly are similar. I enjoyed both films immensely, but I find myself taking the unusual position of saying that while I believe The Wrestler is a better film, I enjoyed Crazy Heart more. The Wrestler just has an overwhelming bleakness to it that, while it doesn't detract from the film's merit, makes it inherently more uncomfortable to watch. Crazy Heart hits a lot of the same notes (unintentional pun) but on the whole it's just a much more optimistic film. Whereas Jeff Bridges' character seems largely indifferent to the destructive effects his lifestyle has on his body, Rourke's seems to almost actively seek out his own self-destruction. A big part of that is the differene in the subjects: has-been musicians still usually fare quite a bit better than has-been wrestlers. Case in point, given the choice who would you rather be: Tom Cochrane or Jake the Snake Roberts? In any case, Crazy Heart certainly abounds with cliches, but Bridges' performance is fantastic and he deserves the Oscar (as Rourke did last year, but hopefully Bridges will actually get it).
In other news, I've decided to embark on a mission to write a book. Specifically a non-fiction book. Even more specifically, a political non-fiction book. As long as I've watched political debates, particularly the Presidential ones, I've always been struck by the fact that we ask our candidates to exhaustively state their positions and plans on every issue we can think of and then whoever is elected invariably only gets to even attempt, at most, about a fourth of what they wanted to. So I've always wanted to read a book that examined the main issues of each Presidential campaign and then follow them through the winner's Presidency to see what progress was made. Was the issue just completely forgotten? Did legislation get introduced but then defeated? Did some major event happened that drastically shifted the nation's priorities? Well, after doing some searching I don't see any such book out there so I've decided that I'll try to write it.
My plan is that I am just going to start with one particular election and the next Presidential term and try to write that portion along with my introduction sometime over the next year. If that goes well and I'm not completely demoralized and defeated, I'll try to use that to get a literary agent and then, hopefully, a publisher. The eventual plan would be to examine all the campaigns going back to Kennedy-Nixon in 1960 (I like that as a starting point since that's when debates were first televised), but we'll have to see how it goes. It's a long-shot I know but hey, the worst thing that can happen is that I spend a lot of time learning about historical politics and get some experience writing non-fiction, and that's not a horrible thing as worst possible outcomes go. I intend the book to be non-partisan, meaning that I will try to focus on just what the candidate said that he wanted to do and compare that to what the President did. I want to completely set aside the question of whether or not they "should" have done it. Unfortunately, that of and by itself is quite dry and academic. Where I think it can be made more interesting is in exploring the decisions that a President made which were not mentioned in the campaign. Were there things said during the campaign (maybe in response to a totally different question) that gave insight as to how this President would respond to this or was his response just completely out of the blue and at the whim of the political winds of the day? More importantly, are there things we should look and listen for from candidates other than their official positions that will actually tell us more about the kinds of decisions that they will make?
So in any case, it's certainly an ambitious project. The campaign I've decided to start with is 1992, followed then by the 92-96 Clinton presidency. I did this for a couple reasons. First of all, 92 was a really interesting campaign. It was the first time in 80 years where we had a "real" 3rd party candidate (in the sense that he garnered nearly 20% of the popular vote and participated in all of the televised debates). I also find H.W. Bush and Clinton to both be really interesting (I initially thought about doing the 1988 campaign but god help me I'm just not ready to devote tens of hours of my life to Michael Dukakis). Finally, I think that the 15-20 year timeframe is long enough ago that I can get some good historical perspective but recent enough that I should have no shortage of sources. I've got 5 books on the way just to give me some good base knowledge, and I'm currently in the process of going through transcripts of the 3 debates. So far it's every bit as interesting as I was hoping that it would be. So if anyone has any good book recommendations on the 92 campaign or early Clinton presidency I'd love to hear them.
In other news, I've decided to embark on a mission to write a book. Specifically a non-fiction book. Even more specifically, a political non-fiction book. As long as I've watched political debates, particularly the Presidential ones, I've always been struck by the fact that we ask our candidates to exhaustively state their positions and plans on every issue we can think of and then whoever is elected invariably only gets to even attempt, at most, about a fourth of what they wanted to. So I've always wanted to read a book that examined the main issues of each Presidential campaign and then follow them through the winner's Presidency to see what progress was made. Was the issue just completely forgotten? Did legislation get introduced but then defeated? Did some major event happened that drastically shifted the nation's priorities? Well, after doing some searching I don't see any such book out there so I've decided that I'll try to write it.
My plan is that I am just going to start with one particular election and the next Presidential term and try to write that portion along with my introduction sometime over the next year. If that goes well and I'm not completely demoralized and defeated, I'll try to use that to get a literary agent and then, hopefully, a publisher. The eventual plan would be to examine all the campaigns going back to Kennedy-Nixon in 1960 (I like that as a starting point since that's when debates were first televised), but we'll have to see how it goes. It's a long-shot I know but hey, the worst thing that can happen is that I spend a lot of time learning about historical politics and get some experience writing non-fiction, and that's not a horrible thing as worst possible outcomes go. I intend the book to be non-partisan, meaning that I will try to focus on just what the candidate said that he wanted to do and compare that to what the President did. I want to completely set aside the question of whether or not they "should" have done it. Unfortunately, that of and by itself is quite dry and academic. Where I think it can be made more interesting is in exploring the decisions that a President made which were not mentioned in the campaign. Were there things said during the campaign (maybe in response to a totally different question) that gave insight as to how this President would respond to this or was his response just completely out of the blue and at the whim of the political winds of the day? More importantly, are there things we should look and listen for from candidates other than their official positions that will actually tell us more about the kinds of decisions that they will make?
So in any case, it's certainly an ambitious project. The campaign I've decided to start with is 1992, followed then by the 92-96 Clinton presidency. I did this for a couple reasons. First of all, 92 was a really interesting campaign. It was the first time in 80 years where we had a "real" 3rd party candidate (in the sense that he garnered nearly 20% of the popular vote and participated in all of the televised debates). I also find H.W. Bush and Clinton to both be really interesting (I initially thought about doing the 1988 campaign but god help me I'm just not ready to devote tens of hours of my life to Michael Dukakis). Finally, I think that the 15-20 year timeframe is long enough ago that I can get some good historical perspective but recent enough that I should have no shortage of sources. I've got 5 books on the way just to give me some good base knowledge, and I'm currently in the process of going through transcripts of the 3 debates. So far it's every bit as interesting as I was hoping that it would be. So if anyone has any good book recommendations on the 92 campaign or early Clinton presidency I'd love to hear them.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Pay No Attention to the Fee Behind the Curtain
I think I've just invented a new cause that I want to take up. There is something about the idea of sales tax and tipping that has always bothered me. No, I'm not going to host my own Tea Party and no I don't have some kind of Mr. Pink philosophical objection. I've just always been uncomfortable with the whole idea of "this item or service costs X, but to actually obtain it will cost you X + Y". It seems to me that if I go to the Apple Store for a new iPod and my credit card gets charged $217.84, then $217.84 is its price. Yet it gets advertised for $199. Why?
And every time a fast food comes out with a 99 cent value menu, they always run a commercial with a guy walking in and pulling out one crumpled up dollar bill from his pants and leaving with a 99 cent item. And every time I see that I think "Bullsh*t!", but then again maybe I take my Taco Bell commercials a little too seriously. And speaking of Taco Bell, who knew 2 weeks ago that the "Bell" came from founder Glen Bell? I sure as hell didn't. But I digress . . .
In any case, it was always something that just generally annoyed me but over the last 5 years or so I think it's really been elevated to an actual problem worthy of significant attention.
Let's set aside the issue of sales tax for now. Apart from that, I don't think that you should be allowed to advertise a price for something when it's impossible to procure the item for that price. But that's exactly what cell phone companies do. They will advertise a phone for $199, contingent on you agreeing to a 2-year contract. I'm fine with that stipulation (relatively speaking). But the problem is that you go in to purchase it and right at the end of the process they tell you "oh, there's also a $30 connection fee to set the phone up on the network." Wait, so if I don't sign a 2-year contract the phone will cost me $399, and if I do sign the contract it will cost me $229, so who is it that can buy the phone and walk out with it for $199? No one! So why do they get to advertise that as the price?
Ticketmaster is even worse. If you buy 4 tickets to an event you end up paying at least one more ticket's worth of fees. Again, setting aside the truly asinine labels like "convenience fees" (wow, isn't it so convenient that I actually received the tickets I paid for?) they use to describe these blatant price gouges (I've always just lovingly referred to them collectively as "horseshit fees"), they are another example of complete dishonesty in pricing. I used to assume that all the money was going to Ticketmaster and thus there was some form of legitimacy in that they were acting as a middle man between the venue and the purchaser and thus were charging a fee (granted, a ridiculously high fee) for their service in much the same way that Fed Ex charges to get a product from producer to customer. Yet I recently discovered (thanks to an article in The Economist) that most of the money from these fees goes back to the promoters and the artists. But wait, I thought that was what the face value of the ticket was for? Basically it's just a big racket whereby an artist can claim that they are keeping ticket prices low for their fans while at the same time pocketing the extra money. True, there are some instances where you can go to the venue and purchase the tickets without paying the fee, and in that case I'm fine with it. But there's also plenty of situations where tickets are available online only and that's just another example of an item that has a "price" at which the item can't be purchased.
And I'm not even gonna get started on car dealers . . .
So now we get to my cause that I'm going to take up - total price transparency. All brick and mortar locations will be required to display (and advertise) the price at which the good or service can actually be procured for. Can't be done you say? Lots of places already do it! When you go to the movies, the price on the ticket and the price displayed for the popcorn and soda (exorbitant as they are) are the prices you actually pay. Same thing when I go to my barber, or to a bar. Why can't other businesses do this? It's not like they don't know the sales tax amounts and it's not like they change all that often.
Online pricing is a little trickier, since by their nature they serve many different geographic areas. Still, it's not an insurmountable problem. Just make it clear that what's being displayed is the "base price". And you know how practically every site makes you create a profile when you buy something? Well, when you're signed in they know where you live so they should be able to update the prices accordingly. But I'm flexible about that. The key is to eliminate those nasty little extra fees they are going to charge everyone at the end that has nothing to do with where you're located.
To me, this is really just an extension of the concept behind the Freedom of Information Act. I think we're entitled to know, before the absolute last second before purchase, exactly how much out of pocket a product is going to cost us. And businesses should not be allowed to advertise anything other than that amount. To do so is dishonest and does a tremendous disservice to all consumers.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
What's on your List?
So Christy and I actually got a chance to go out into the world sans-baby on Saturday. The occasion was a friend of ours' 30th birthday celebration (who turns 30 in 2010? 30th birthdays are sooooooo 2009). By the way, for all those who DID turn 30 in 2009, my brother came up with a great excuse to celebrate your 31st: it's the 10th anniversary of your 21st!
But I digress. Anyway, during the course of the evening Bon Jovi's Livin' on a Prayer came on and I mentioned to Christy that, after much thought, I'm putting that song on "The List". To clarify, The List was invented for and necessitated by Paradise City. It was the first, and for a long time only, entry that I classified under the category of "songs that I think are good but that I can happily go the rest of my life without ever hearing again." I just think that there is a little counter in each of our brains that keeps track of how many times we've been exposed to a particular stimulus and once we reach a certain point (which I think is variable) there's no longer any reaction. You're just numb to it. It's not like you actively dislike it now; it's just that you can no longer (and can't ever envision being able to) "get into it". Off the top of my head, here are the songs on the list:
One caveat I should mention regarding numbers 9 and 10. Both of those songs I actually CAN still listen to and enjoy but only briefly. I want them to end after about 2 minutes, but of course they go on for another 4, so I'd rather they not come on at all.
I'm sure there are many more that I'm just not thinking of right now. Yes, most of the songs on the list are from the 80s. Make of that what you will.
So, fellow readers, what's on your list? Keep in mind the rules. We're NOT talking about "songs you can't stand" or "songs that are overplayed". These are specifically songs where if someone said to you "this is a good song" you'd absolutely agree, but you still wouldn't want to listen to it. For instance, I'm reasonably sure that "Smells Like Teen Spirit" would be on a lot of people's list, but it doesn't make mine for the simple fact that I never liked it in the first place. Similarly, I never need to hear "Ice, Ice Baby" again but I don't put it on the list because even though I did like it at one time I would never defend it as "good".
But I digress. Anyway, during the course of the evening Bon Jovi's Livin' on a Prayer came on and I mentioned to Christy that, after much thought, I'm putting that song on "The List". To clarify, The List was invented for and necessitated by Paradise City. It was the first, and for a long time only, entry that I classified under the category of "songs that I think are good but that I can happily go the rest of my life without ever hearing again." I just think that there is a little counter in each of our brains that keeps track of how many times we've been exposed to a particular stimulus and once we reach a certain point (which I think is variable) there's no longer any reaction. You're just numb to it. It's not like you actively dislike it now; it's just that you can no longer (and can't ever envision being able to) "get into it". Off the top of my head, here are the songs on the list:
1. Paradise City
2. Livin' on a Prayer
3. Pour Some Sugar on Me
4. Runnin' with the Devil
5. We Didn't Start the Fire
6. You Shook Me All Night Long
7. Baby Got Back
8. Jeremy
9. American Pie
10. Piano Man
One caveat I should mention regarding numbers 9 and 10. Both of those songs I actually CAN still listen to and enjoy but only briefly. I want them to end after about 2 minutes, but of course they go on for another 4, so I'd rather they not come on at all.
Then there are also the following 5 songs which, while not on the list quite yet, will inevitably be on there. The slide is irreversible; it's just a matter of time. They are:
1. Here I Go Again
2. Like a Prayer
3. Billie Jean
4. Jessie's Girl
5. Welcome to the Jungle
I'm sure there are many more that I'm just not thinking of right now. Yes, most of the songs on the list are from the 80s. Make of that what you will.
So, fellow readers, what's on your list? Keep in mind the rules. We're NOT talking about "songs you can't stand" or "songs that are overplayed". These are specifically songs where if someone said to you "this is a good song" you'd absolutely agree, but you still wouldn't want to listen to it. For instance, I'm reasonably sure that "Smells Like Teen Spirit" would be on a lot of people's list, but it doesn't make mine for the simple fact that I never liked it in the first place. Similarly, I never need to hear "Ice, Ice Baby" again but I don't put it on the list because even though I did like it at one time I would never defend it as "good".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
