Not often you pray for Tuesday to come

The day of reckoning is nearly upon us, and I for one am starting to get giddy and suprisingly confident that John Kerry will be the next President of the United States. Maybe I am now being swept along by the rising tide of the last days of his campaign, like I was last December by the groundswell of support for Matt Gonzalez. Maybe everything seems possible from atop the wave, but when it crashes to shore on Nov. 2nd, I'll be left nursing a sore arm on the same rotten, stinking beach I swam out from earlier this year. Here's hoping that we all end up on our feet...and that low tide has finally passed.

Over the past week, I had planned to post a lot, covering topics such as the Civil Rights Commission's report on the Bush administration (how do you think that turned out?), how a University of Maryland report found that Bush supporters were far less knowledgeable about issues and the candidates' stances on them than Kerry supporters (hello, Fox News), Sean Hannity bucking for Bush administration Communications Director (oh, wait, that's his position now), and what promises to be an incredible mess -- polling places in the swing states. Yes, a lot of ideas and passionate stances were swirling around in my head. I was ready to rant and rave, postulate and (as Bill O'Reilly is fond of saying) bloviate -- but then I became tired. Tired of thinking about Sean Hannity, tired of pointing out the mind-boggling hubris of the most dishonest administration in recent history, tired of being indignant. I'm so very tired, and I just want a break from it all. So don't try to cheat Bushies, we all need a break from your slithering and dithering, your forked-tongued stump speeches and, for God's sake, all the smirking.

We hope for a fair election, which, if achieved, would no doubt lift Senator John Kerry to the White House. I've even given my father 5-to-1 odds on it. If you aren't as sure as I am, I'd suggest you go to this video-clip page and check out Eminem's new video 'Mosh'. Not only is it a great song, with a great message (about Bush's failings and how they affect the poor and disenfrachised), but it will get a lot more young people out to vote, along with the efforts of P. Diddy, Russell Simmons and others. That, along with all the newly registered voters (especially in urban areas) and the normal tendency for late undecideds to go to the challenger in my mind signals a comfortable Kerry victory, barring any nonsense from electronic voting or missing absentee ballots or voter intimidation. Wouldn't it be great on Nov. 2nd to give G.W. the big fuck-you in the form of a five-percentage-point victory for Kerry. I'll have my TV tuned to Fox News to catch the hangdog looks on all of their smarmy faces. Fuck you too Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Neil Cavuto, Brit Hume, Shepard Smith, Carl Cameron -- and fuck you most of all Rupert Murdoch. This isn't your world, it's our world -- now why don't you go dig for a John Kerrry sex scandal for the next eight years, beeeoootches!

Someone's finally talking about it

As I mentioned last week in the post about the SF Weekly column on Kerry, Bush and Iran-Contra; the media and the Kerry campaign haven't been talking much about Kerry's role in uncovering the Iran-Contra Scandal or his role in the investigation of drug trafficking and money laundering in Central America. Well, today Salon is running an article by an AP writer who first broke the story. It is very interesting and goes into a little more detail about Kerry, his staff and their involvement in uncovering the ties between the Contras, the drug cartels, the CIA and arms sales.

Here is the link, check it out:

Salon Story on Iran-Contra and Kerry

While you're surfing 'The Internets', check out this hilarious story on Slate. The writer dresses up as a Bush supporter and goes to the hip east side of Los Angeles (Silverlake, Los Feliz) as well as high-end, leftist Brentwood. He also dresses up as a Kerry supporter and goes to Bakersfield and Newport Beach to see how the conservatives react.

Political Poseur

Last Day at The Office

Last Thursday marked the U.S. airing of the two-hour final episode of the The Office, the brilliant British TV series that can still be seen on Thursdays at 10 on BBC America (or on DVD).

As expected, the special wrapped up the series in an entirely satisfying way. Anyone who has not seen this show (and has cable or a DVD player) should check it out. There are only 12 episodes and the two-hour special. The creators decided to stop there, to the dismay of many of the show's rabid fan base.

The show's premise: There is a BBC documentary crew filming at a company that is purported to be in the business of selling paper and paper products, though not much selling seems to be getting done. The camera captures the monotony of workaday life in this office in a drab, lifeless, industrial suburb of London called Slough. We are not spared the silences, the droning of office equipment or the over(or under?)whelming tedium of everyday events at a paper company.

The presence of the film crew elicits some show-off-y behavior from the office's inept and off-color boss, David Brent, a paunchy, goateed, forty-something, middle manager with a serious need to be the center of attention. Brent's antics don't inspire productivity in many of his employees, leading others within the company to conclude that the people at Slough are just 'having a laugh'. Brent is forever trying to joke around or get invited out to drinks with the younger employees. But he almost always comes across as inappropriate, misogynist and just embarassing.

Some examples:

1. Brent decides to get down to business one day early in the second season after receiving what amounts to a demotion for his first season antics. After kicking around some TV game show ideas instead of generating an important report, he concludes he must do something about safety and preparedness in the office. He conducts a fire drill with the help of lackey Gareth, but they have some trouble evacuating one of the new employees who is wheelchair bound. After a flight of stairs, they decide that it is just a drill, so they leave her on the staircase until the drill is over.

2. Brent hears an off-color joke from Gareth that has to do with the Queen of England and a part of the male anatomy, specifically that of a black man. He wastes no time in passing this joke on to the employees, but isn't sure what to do when Oliver 'The Office Black Guy' joins his audience mid-joke. One of the women in the Office complains about his inappropriate jokes, to which Brent argues, "He (Oliver) thought it was funny."

3. In the first episode, Brent feels compelled to tell the attractive, young receptionist Dawn, who is trying to eat lunch in the break room, about a 'scare' he had just had -- he thought he felt a lump in one of his testicles.

His employees react to his off-the-wall behavior with a mixture of indifference, disbelief and appeasement -- but their silences and stolen looks at the camera convey what words cannot.

Tim, the most relatable character in the office, has learned how to deal with Brent and spends much of his day amusing himself and trying to impress receptionist and partner-in-crime Dawn at the expense of his deskmate, the extremely self-serious, toadying 'team leader' Gareth, whose title, Tim always reminds him, was just given to get him to do things no one else wanted to do.

While most of the laughs come from David Brent (no surprise since co-creator Ricky Gervais plays him), the heart of the series lies in the unconsummated relationship between Tim and Dawn -- which is revealed in oft-unnoticed looks and awkward exchanges. Dawn is dating Lee, a thoughtless and unsupportive blue-collar guy who works in the shipping department. Tim tries to respect this, and is presumably also afraid of rejection -- but does take some chances, usually at the worst possible time and with embarassing results. Both Tim and Dawn have feelings for each other, but neither is willing enough to go out on a limb and disturb the status quo.

The great thing about this series is that they let situations develop slowly and naturally rather than forcing plot points into hour-long episodes.

The Office finds a great balance between humor and empathy, entertainment and awkwardness, cringeworthy moments and gutbusting laughs. Rent the DVDs, or buy the new complete DVD set which is due out on November 16th.

You'll Want to Bookmark This

I was recently referred to this page, which I was happy to discover holds an archive of some very funny, entertaining and sometimes chilling video clips. You can check out such classics as the Will-Ferrell-as-Bush television campaign ad, Jon Stewart on Crossfire, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog at Spin Alley and Zell miller's diatribe.

I also suggest watching the Barnes interview and Tim Ryan's speech.

Here's the link:

Triumph Video and Others

Instant Runoff Voting -- It's not just for SF anymore

As I stated in my first-ever post on this site, voting reform is one of my pet issues. Specifically the need to both abolish the electoral college and institute some type of instant-runoff voting. I'm happy to say that both of these efforts got a boost this month.

Abolishing the electoral college is an idea that gained a lot of support after Al Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election, but lost in the electoral college. The other day, another blow was struck when a George Bush elector in West Virginia said he would refuse to cast his vote for Bush if Bush took West Virginia. Certainly good news for Democrats. He says he probably won't give his vote to Kerry, but likely would cast a protest vote for Dick Cheney. This is the 10th time that this has happened since the establishment of the electoral college.

The more of these types of situations that arise, the more people that will back the abolition of the electoral college. No electoral college would mean that everyone's vote would count toward the final tally, unlike now, where millions of people who live in solidly Blue (or Red) States feel their votes are meaningless.

This system disenfranchises millions of voters every election, and needs to go. A step in the right direction is having more states decide to split their electoral votes -- a measure which is on the ballot this year in Colorado. But the real carrot is banishing the crusty, old electoral college system to the annals of American political history.

On to Instant Runoff Voting. This month is an historic one for proponents of IRV. Not only is San Francisco becoming the first major municipality in America to employ instant-runoff voting, but Jesse Jackson, Jr. has introduced a (likely DOA) bill into the House that would require all states to use instant-runoff voting for federal elections by 2008. It is more of a symbolic effort than a realistic one, but it is encouraging nonetheless.

But many of you are still wondering: What is Instant Runoff Voting, anyway? Well, allow me to explain to the best of my ability. The basic definition of instant-runoff voting is a voting method where the voter ranks the candidates in order of preference, rather than voting for only one candidate.

Let's say there are four candidates for mayor of San Francisco: Gavin Newsom, Matt Gonzalez, Angela Alioto and Tom Ammiano.) Our voter ranks them this way:

1. Matt Gonzalez
2. Tom Ammiano
3. Gavin Newsom
4. Angela Alioto

From there, it becomes a little more complex. In the system now in use in San Francisco, the votes would be tallied like this:

First, the first-place votes are tallied. As you see above, our sample voter ranked Gonzalez first. When all votes were counted, so did 199,999 other people, giving Matt Gonzalez 200,000 first place votes. Tom Ammiano had 50,000 people rank him first on their ballots. Gavin Newsom had 250,000 people rank him first on their ballot. And Angela Alioto got 40,000 first-place votes. So after the first-place votes have been tallied, the preliminary results look like this:

1. Gavin Newsom -- 250,000 votes
2. Matt Gonzalez -- 200,000 votes
3. Tom Ammiano -- 50,000 votes
4. Angela Alioto -- 40,000 votes

No candidate has a majority of the votes (more than 50%), so the next step is to knock off the last place candidate. In this case, Angela Alioto, and redistribute her votes. This done by taking the ballots that ranked her first (40,000 of them) and now ingoring their first place votes, since Alioto is now out of the race. The former Alioto ballots are now redistributed according to who these people ranked second. Let's say, it splits like this: 10,000 for Newsom, 20,000 for Gonzalez and 10,000 for Ammiano. When these votes are redistributed, now the race looks like this:

1. Newsom -- 260,000
2. Gonzalez -- 220,000
3. Ammiano -- 60,000

But still, no candidate has carried more than 50% of the 540,000 total votes. So now we knock off the last place candidate again -- this time Ammiano and redistribute his votes. On the Ammiano ballots (60,000 of them), we now ignore both Ammiano and Alioto's names. So whoever is ranked higher between Newsom and Gonzalez on each of those ballots gets that vote. Let's say it goes like this: 55,000 for Gonzalez and 5,000 for Newsom. Now the race has gotten interesting, because when we redistribute, Gonzalez has now taken the lead.

1. Gonzalez -- 275,000
2. Newsom -- 265,000

And now, Gonzalez has a majority of the votes and becomes mayor.

Instant Runoff voting is designed to allow people to vote on all of the candidates, rather than just choosing one. It also eliminates many of the situations where it would benefit a voter to choose someone who they believe has a chance to win, rather than voting for who they want the most. There are still scenarios where this type of strategic voting would be necessary (especially if a third party beame strong enough to knock off one of the Big Two), but it is a step in the right direction.

There is another type of instant-runoff voting called the Condorcet method (named after a French mathematician), that retains the voter ranking aspect of IRV, but tabulates the votes differently by dividing each ranking into all of the possible one-on-one matchups between candidates. This method would completely eliminate strategic voting -- but has a couple of problems of its own. For example, it doesn't measure the strength of a voter's support for a candidate (other than in relative terms). And because of this, there are scenarios where a candidate can win by just being ranked in the middle of the pack by most voters. The problem here being that if voters are ranking several candidates they may throw the candidates they know nothing about (and thus don't feel strongly about) in the middle. In this way, they might mistakenly help a Libertarian or American Independent or a complete wackjob like Alan Keyes get into office. It is the best system only when voters know enough about the candidates and use it properly. In other words, you'd hope that most voters would rank Kerry AND Bush ahead of Alan Keyes. So I think that the media would have to carry more responsibility for educating the voters on all candidates and how their ranking could affect the outcome.

Stay Tuned!

I know I haven't posted in over a day, but be patient. I have a few posts in progress and they will probably be up on the site by tonight. One is about instant-runoff voting (a subject about which several of you have expressed interest) and also posts on the Civil Rights Commission's report on the Bush administration, Sean Hannity's interview with Dick Cheney (that's for you, Rick!) and hey, how'bout those Red Sox?!

Also, make sure to tune in to BBC America tonight (I believe it's at 9:00) for the two-hour The Office reunion special!

The SF Weekly is Good For Something

I don't like SF Weekly. I think their music coverage (for the most part, not speaking of you, of course, Nancy) is weak, as evidenced by another pedestrian Music Awards issue in the little red boxes now. Sometimes I wonder if any writers on their staff actually go to local music shows, or whether they just write about their friends.

But there are a couple of good things about SF Weekly. First of all, there's Dan Savage, but that's just a syndicated column. And they do also have decent film coverage. But one of the best things they have going for them is Matt Smith. Sure, sometimes I disagree with him, but he always seems to find interesting and provocative stories, something hardly anyone else at the Weekly seems capable of doing.

This week, his column is one of the best I've read. It basically focuses on two things: the contrast between the actions of Bush and Kerry relating to Iran-Contra and Central America, and the Bay Area volunteer efforts to canvas and oversee elections in battleground states.

Early in the column, he provides some encouraging numbers from progressive phone company Working Assets' effort to register voters and oversee polling places.

Apparently, Working Assets and the NAACP registered a million voters in swing states, in mostly Democrat-leaning areas. They are also spearheading an effort to oversee the polls in nine swig states -- so far signing on 11,000 volunteers as well as attorneys for them to call if there are any problems. By the way, they offer both long-distance and wireless services for anyone who wants to switch to a socially responsible provider.

Later in his column, Smith points out a gigantic gaping hole in Bush's contention that John Kerry has been on the wrong side of nearly every foreign policy issue since joining the Senate. To wit:

"In his first year in Congress, Kerry got wind that a mysterious Marine officer detailed to the National Security Council was illegally arranging money transfers for former members of the National Guard of ex-dictator Anastasio Somoza who were trying to overthrow the left-wing Nicaraguan government. Kerry used his personal staff to conduct an ad hoc investigation into what eventually became the Iran-Contra scandal."

And guess who was on the wrong side of that one? No, not George W. Bush (at that point), but quite probably his father and his dad's boss, Ronald Reagan.

Next Kerry led an investigation into the CIA and its connections with drug cartels, money laundering and terrorism that lead to the detainment of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and the discovery of laundering of drug money by the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

So much for Kerry getting nothing done during his time in the Senate. Now on to W.'s connection with Iran-Contra. Smith describes the Iran-Contra Affair as such:

"U.S. officials had trained and funded allies who tortured and killed thousands of civilians, including priests and nuns, who razed villages, who terrorized the citizenry and who then lied to the public about the details of the wars, during the mid-1980s."

So why would George Bush go and hire several of the figures involved in this scandal to top posts in his administration?

His hires (from Matt Smith's piece):

John Negroponte, ambassador to Honduras while the ex-Somoza guard members were illegally being given aid through that country, was made ambassador to the United Nations.

In 1986, Kerry questioned Elliot Abrams, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, about illegal funding for the Contras; Abrams' answers denying such funding led to felony convictions on charges of misleading Congress. The first President Bush later pardoned Abrams.

George W. Bush made Abrams special assistant to the president and senior director for Near East and North African affairs on the National Security Council. Abrams prepares policy papers and advice for NSC Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

John Poindexter, also convicted of lying to Congress about the Contras, was made head of a Pentagon project -- Total Information Awareness -- designed to collect data on Americans to better identify terrorists.

During the 1980s, Otto J. Reich ran an illegal propaganda campaign on behalf of the Contras from his post as Ronald Reagan's director of public diplomacy at the State Department, misleading U.S. newspaper editors into believing U.S. government-produced editorials were written by Contras themselves.

George W. Bush made Reich an assistant secretary of state.

Bush even hired an actual Contra -- Rogelio Pardo-Maurer, who worked with the Contra political leadership in Washington, was appointed a deputy assistant secretary of defense for inter-American affairs.


I encourage everyone to check out Matt Smith's column. It is an eye-opener. I wonder why Kerry or his supporters never tout his role as an investigator in the Senate?

Go Yankees?

Oh, the perils of routing against the Red Sox in this series! It's like voting against George Bush when the only other option in the election is Pat Buchanan.

The Yankees started out great, calmly and methodically taking apart the Red Sox, all the while maintaining their trademark class.

Then they began to look more like the As or the Giants than the Yankees -- coming within a few outs of eliminating Boston twice before giving up both games.

Then came the very funny Rob Corddry sketch that inspired some level of fondness for the antics (and the silly accents) of at least some Red Sox fans.

Finally, tonight, Alex Rodriguez impersonates Robert Fick, swatting at pitcher Bronson Arroyo's glove as he attempted to tag him out at first base. If you remember, last year Fick was fined $25,000 by Major League Baseball, and an undisclosed amount by the Braves, for grabbing at the glove of Cubs first baseman Eric Karros on a similar play. Probably the cheapest play I have ever seen.

Yankees fans either didn't see the replay or were in a state of denial, and began throwing baseballs and other debris on the field. Eventually, the umpires had to disperse riot police to make sure the situation didn't get any worse. I guess class went out the window tonight in New York.

I think I may now be leaning toward a Houston/Boston matchup, with Carlos Beltran beating the Sox with a walk-off home run in the seventh game. Red Sox beaten by Clemens once again?

And this is the last time I cheer for the Yankees.

Stewart Part 3

I tuned in to The Daily Show last night wondering if there would be mention of Friday's Crossfire appearance. Stewart did talk about it briefly.

He opened the show by saying, "How was your weekend? I had a great weekend. Let's see what did I do on Friday...uhhh...I got a haircut...uhhh...I called a guy a dick on national television..."

He then went on to call Crossfire 'a nuanced public policy analysis show, that is named after the stray bullets that hit innocent bystanders in a gang fight.'

Next he revealed what brought about the Crossfire outburst. "Let's face it, I was dehydrated. It's the Martin Lawrence defense."

After talking about why he really went on the show and said what he did, he said, "They came back at me pretty good... by saying I wasn't being funny. I said, 'I know that. But tomorrow I'll go back to being funny...and your show will still blow.'"

It was very funny, but the real payoff of this episode was Rob Corddry's playoff report from Boston.

It was about a 16-year-old who thinks he was ended the Curse of the Bambino by getting hit in the face by a Manny Ramirez foul ball. The kid believes this because he lives in a house where Babe Ruth used to live. At one point as he's interviewing him, Corddry asks him where his parents are. He tells him they're out of town. Corddry cracks a sly smile and says, "You wanna get high?"

Corddry then goes to a bar where he talks to patrons about the curse and the kid who says he broke it. This is what then happens.

Sox Fan #1 (skeptically)-- "I've caught many balls off the face...look at my face..."

(cut to Pedro Martinez pitching on a nearby TV.)

Sox Fan #2 (who has just finshing pouring himself a beer, and is now laughing mockingly and hysterically, and pointing in his friend's face) -- "YOU JUST SAID...ON NATIONAL TV...THAT YOU CAUGHT MORE BALLS IN THE FACE THAN ANYBODY!!" (then resumes hysterical laughter, with Corddry joining in)

Sox Fan #2 --"That'll break the curse!"

and later...

Sox Fan #1 (over a pitcher of beer) -- "Maybe if we all stop drinking, the Red Sox will win the World Series."

NARRATION: But after 36 beers, and 16 shots of Jager, we came up with a better idea. (One drunk Red Sox fan nonchalantly walks up toward the bar and then suddenly violently shoves Sox Fan #1 (his friend) off his bar stool and onto the floor.) Then cut to two very drunk fans yelling at Corddry:

Sox Fan #2 -- "IF YOU CAN FINALLY, JUST COME ON CAHHDDRY..."

Sox Fan #1 -- "PLEASE!! JUST DO IT!!"

Sox Fan #2 -- "...AND SLAP ME IN THE FACE AS HAHD AS YOU CAN!!!!"

Sox Fan #1 --"SLAP HIM AS HAHD AS YOU CAN!!! AS HAHD AS YOU CAN!!!" (pounding the bar with his fist)

Sox Fan #2 -- "MAYBE THE $#%! RED SOX WILL WIN THE WORLD SERIES!!!"

Sox Fan #1 -- "I'M NOT KIDDING!! AS HAHD AS YOU CAN!! AS HAHD AS YOU CAN!!!" (pounding the bar)

Sox Fan #2 -- (pointing with both hands to the rest of the crowd at the bar) "COME ON CAHHDDRY!!! COME ON CAHHDDRY!!!"

Sox Fan #1 -- "AS HAHD AS YOU CAN!!! AS HAHD AS YOU CAN!!! AS HAHD AS YOU CAN!!!" (still pounding the bar)

(The whole bar is yelling and egging him on.)

Corddry: ALRIGHT!! I"LL DO IT!! (Winds up and slaps Sox Fan #2 as hard as he can.)

NARRATION: The %$#! curse is lifted!

Then they all celebrate.

Maybe the funniest segment I've seen on the Daily Show since Rob Corddry's Boston segment during the Democratic National Convention. For those of you in San Francisco -- I have it on DVR. For the rest of you, tough $#%!, you're going to have to make due with my half-assed transcript. Or try to get some local Red Sox fans to act it out for you. Chances are they'd be more than happy to. I'm looking at you on this one, Zach. But trust me, this segment was so funny, it almost made me want to pull for the Red Sox...hmmmm....nah.

What do they do better?

An interesting little quiz I found on Yahoo! today.

Quiz

Results/Answer (in case the quiz is no longer up)

The question is: U.S. Markets have had the best return during the administrations of Presidents from which political party?

Care to take a guess?

Yep. And surprisingly, 68% of respondents answered correctly (although we are talking about somewhat financially savvy people that frequent Yahoo! Finance).

Now I know some of you are saying, 'George W. Bush inherited his recession.' I somehat agree, though it sure is taking him a long time to get us out of it. But this study that came to the conclusion that Democrats have presided over the best times for the stock market, covered the years from 1927 to 1988. So it doesn't take into acount the fiscal glory of the Clinton years or the train wreck that has been the Bush II presidency.

Now there is some argument as to what part the sitting president's policy plays in the performance of the markets, but at the very least, the Republican contention that the Democrats are bad for business has to be called in question. Like we ever believed it in the first place.

Couple this study with the fact that only two administrations in the last forty years have balanced the budget -- and both were Democrat (Lyndon Johnson once and Bill Clinton three times). Whose policies appear to you to be more fiscally sound?

Silent Passing

For those aesthetes out there who are already tired of political discourse and Red Sox-bashing. (I never tire of either) Here's something for you.

While I was away on my recent trip to Chicago and Detroit, the world quietly relinquished one of the great visual artists of our time.

Richard Avedon, who went to size up his Maker on October 1st, was arguably the finest portrait photographer of the 20th century. Annie Leibovitz, Walker Evans and Diane Arbus fans might have something to say about that, but he was unquestionably one of the best.

I was lucky enough to stumble across a mention of an Avedon exhibition in the SF Weekly (or possibly the Guardian, but who really cares) a few years back. The exhibition, called 'Made in France' took place at the Fraenkel Gallery on Geary Street in Downtown San Francisco. It was one of those experiences you rarely have at an art gallery or museum, where your entire way of thinking as relates to an art form is forever altered. I have had that happen to me exactly three times. At that Avedon exhibit, at this year's Yves Behar fuseproject industrial design exhibit at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and just a day before Avedon's death at a Charles Sheeler photography exhibit at the Detroit Institute of Arts.

But it's Avedon we're talking about here, so I'll stick to that. I personally was most inspired by his portraits of 50s supermodel Suzy Parker. They had a relationship, that is Ms. Parker and Avedon and his camera, that can only really be understood by looking at the pictures, so I won't even get into it. He also created unforgettable portraits of luminaries such as Audrey Hepburn, Truman Capote, Ezra Pound and even George H.W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. I highly suggest that you check out some of his work on artnet ('link' below) and try to find a gallery show, if you can. While you're at it, keep an eye out for Sheeler and Behar's work as well.

Avedon 'links':

Richard Avedon on Artnet

Avedon Obituary at UK Guardian

Stewart Part 2

For those of you who don't read the comments or don't click on the nice pink-highlighted words therein (links), I'd like to thank Daniel for providing a link to the video of Jon Stewart's apppearance. It's a lot more entertaining than the transcript. Here is the link. But unfortunately, I still don't know how to create a link on this service, because the help pages won't display -- I assume either due to my operating system or browser. So cut and paste, people.

Jon Stewart on Crossfire video

And while I'm posting, let me just take this chance to say that the Red Sox meltdown came a little late this year, or a little early, depending on how you look at it. But there it is again. It has become one of the few things one can depend on in this topsy-turvy, mad, mad, mad world. Thanks, Red Sox. You've made my October. I'm leaving it up to the American voter to make my November (and for that matter, my 21st century).

And Daniel, Jon, Dave or whoever else is blogging on Blogspot and reads this, if you could explain to me the link field and how to use it, I'd appreciate it. Just leave a comment.

An Interesting Thing Happened at Crossfire

Last night, Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala of CNN's Crossfire welcomed comedian and the pride of my alma mater, Jon Stewart. He was on the show to talk about his new book America. But what ensued was a dead serious lesson on the shortfall of modern journalism that would make fellow William & Mary alumnus Thomas Jefferson proud.

As Carlson and Begala tried to prod Stewart to riff on Bill O'Reilly and vibrators, Stewart refused to take the bait , instead choosing to confront the two anchors on their responsibilities as journalists.

It all started innocently enough with Stewart asking Carlson and Begala why we all have to fight, to laughs from the audience. He asks them both to say something nice about both candidates for President. Then Carlson tries to steer the conversation to whether Kerry was the best the Democrats had to offer. Stewart won't answer what he sees as a loaded question.

STEWART: "I had always thought, in a democracy -- and, again, I don't know -- I've only lived in this country -- that there's a process. They call them primaries. And they don't always go with the best, but they go with whoever won. So is he the best? According to the process,"

Stewart then goes on to point what the two anchors already know, but never say.

"I think, oftentimes, the person that knows they can't win is allowed to speak the most freely, because, otherwise, shows with titles, such as CROSSFIRE, or "HARDBALL" or "I'm Going to Kick Your Ass" will jump on it." (See Al Gore)

Stewart then goes on to explain that he came on the show because he wanted to say the things that he had been saying about Crossfire to friends and in the media to their faces and to speak to them frankly about it. He then asks them to 'stop hurting America'.

That led to this exchange:

STEWART: See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.

BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes.

STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.

Carlson, now irritated, challenges Stewart by criticizing the type of questions he asked Kerry when he had him on the Daily Show. Stewart does not back down.

STEWART: "If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to...I didn't realize that -- and maybe this explains quite a bit -- that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity. So what I would suggest is, when you talk about you're holding politicians' feet to fire, I think that's disingenuous...But my point is this. If your idea of confronting me is that I don't ask hard-hitting enough news questions, we're in bad shape, fellows."

Begala argues that Crossfire is a debate show and this criticism is like getting on the Weather Channel for focusing on storm fronts. Stewart doesn't miss a beat and delivers a better entertainment metaphor: "No, no, no, no, that would be great. To do a debate would be great. But that's like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition."

Stewart then makes the argument that Crossfire is pure theater, pointing out that the 35-year-old Carlson still wears a bowtie, purey for effect.

Then this priceless exchange:

STEWART: You know, the interesting thing I have is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.

CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think.

STEWART: You need to go to one.

The thing that I want to say is, when you have people on for just knee-jerk, reactionary talk...

CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.

STEWART: No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey.

When an exasperated Carlson questions whether they are really talking to JON STEWART here, Stewart replies, "Yes, it's someone who watches your show and cannot take it anymore."

After collecting himself over the commercial break, Carlson tries to get Stewart to tell him what he thinks of the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story.

"I'm sorry. I don't," Stewart replies. Begala tries to change the subject as Stewart asks the two, "Where is your moral outrage on this?"

Carlson replies, "I don't have any."

Begala then wants Stewart to tell them which candidate would provide him with better material if elected.

STEWART: "Mr. T. I think he'd be the funniest. I don't...I don't really know. That's kind of not how we look at it. We look at, the absurdity of the system provides us the most material. And that is best served by sort of the theater of it all, you know, which, by the way, thank you both, because it's been helpful."

Stewart then brings up the absurdity of debate coverage and the fact that networks follow up speeches by going to a place called 'Spin Alley'. Begala and Carlson then proceed to spin the merits of spin jockeys and Spin Alley.

Then this exhange:

CARLSON: I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion.

STEWART: You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.

After taking a couple of questions from listeners, they end the show. Stewart is reported to have said, "That went well." as the credits rolled.

I encourage everyone to take a look at the full transcript at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html

Jon, you done us all proud. By the way, I could only find two mentions of this story on Nexis -- one in the New York Daily News and one poorly written account in the TV column of the Washington Post. I'm personally anxious to see if Fox News, or CNN, have anything to say.

To me, this story illuminates the purpose of comedians and cartoonists in our culture. And it's is not just to be funny. The best comedians, like Stewart says, are there to point out the absurdities of life. They are not just jokers; they are sociologists, psychologists and commentators on the painful ironies that are so pervasive in our society. Self-righteous blowhards like Carlson, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity see comedians as just above trained chimps, but the sad truth is that these so-called journalists often find themselves overmatched against funnymen. Great comedians have a keen eye for the basic truths, a nose for the absurd and enough self-loathing to not let their own self-aggrandisement cloud their views. That's why we depend on them more today than we have in a long time. Here's to Jon Stewart, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Al Franken, Garry Trudeau, Tom Tomorrow, Mo Rocca, Patton Oswalt, Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, David Cross, Sacha Baron Cohen and all the others.

What You Can Expect

As you can probably already tell, this blog is in its nascent stage -- a work in progress. I am still trying to figure out the capabilities of Blogspot, which I know to include posting of images and linking. I also am toying with ideas as to content. As you can tell, politics are foremost in my thoughts right now, as we are two weeks away from what is being touted as the most important election in a long time. But I would really like to have this blog be a foutainhead of opinion on a variety of progressive issues and a place where I (and others) can share recommendations and opinions on things like music, film, theater, art, television and comedy. You know, the good stuff. I am hoping to find a setup where I can post my up-to-the-minute endorsements in these areas while providing for a way for others to add to them.

I have things I would like to research and discuss with you like Internet and satellite radio, environmentally and socially conscious consumerism, where the good TV is at, who are our modern creative geniuses, where can reliable news be found, what's funny out there and how we as consumers can leverage whatever power we have so as not to get worked by our corporate daddies. (I'm lookin' at you MBNA...and you too, Wells Fargo)

As I am often wont to do, I am casting a wide net and not sticking to a specific area of focus. But, then again, who's going to be reading this thing anyway? Probably just me. Look for more posts Saturday, for as anyone who has spent a lot of time with me knows, I spend my non-working days cooped up in my apartment until the sun goes down and I feel that I can safely leave the house.

Also, if anyone who is reading any of this has any suggestions as to things I might cover on this blog...or can help me with any of the technical issues mentioned above, please email me or reply to one of the posts.

Are You Talkin' To Me? Are You Talkin' To Me?

My favorite moment of Wednesday night's debate was when GWB insinuated that the jobless problem is tied to lack of achievement in school! There are jobs out there, but no candidates skilled enough to fill them?! As a chronically unemployed American, I take umbrage, sir! In fact, I wish we lived in the day when you could challenge a man to a duel!...

On another note, I am really relishing watching the Yankees late-waking pitching staff ream those liberal New England elitists...er, I mean... punk-ass Red Sox hitters. Mariano Rivera for President! Who knows, maybe after Schwartzenegger gets the law changed. Ah, who am I kidding, I'll be railing on the sins of the Yankees hours after they knock out Boston. Sorry about the above paragraph, Zach.

Oh and I've thought of another way that the pennant race parallels the presidential race: Both involve one side that used to identify as 'cowboys' but has now settled for the lowered expectations commensurate with just being an idiot. (See Johnny 'We're Idiots' Damon and George W. 'Laura Speaks English A Lot Better Than I Do' Bush)

Bush a Wind-Up Doll?

The crack research staff here at The Bossman Cometh have finally solved the mystery of the Bush bulge. Using frame-by-frame playback (Thanks Tivo!), we were able to make out a shadowy figure (with an eerie resemblance to Karen Hughes) creeping up behind Bush exactly thirty minutes into the debate at which point he/she appeared to twist a small metal mechanism on the President's back, leading to the following answer to a question on abortion:

"I think it's important to promote a culture of life, I think a hospitable society is a society where every being counts, every person matters. I believe the ideal world is one in which every child is protected in law and welcomed to life. I understand there is great differences on this issue of abortion, but I believe reasonable people can come together and put good law in place that will help reduce the number of abortions. Take for example the ban on partial birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. People from both political parties came together in the halls of Congress and voted overwhelmingly to ban that practice. It made a lot of sense. My opponent, in that he's out of the mainstream, voted against that law. What I'm saying is as we promote life and promote a culture of life, surely there are ways that we can work together to reduce the number of abortions."
--Third Presidential Debate, Oct. 13, 2004

This rousing answer harkens us back to the good old days...last week.

"This is an issue that divides America, but certainly reasonable people can agree on how to reduce abortions in America. I signed the partial-birth -- the ban on partial-birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. It's one way to help reduce abortions. My opponent voted against the ban...These are reasonable ways to help promote a culture of life in America. I think it is a worthy goal in America to have every child protected by law and welcomed in life... Culture of life is really important for a country to have if it's going to be a hospitable society."
-- Second Presidential Debate, Oct. 8, 2004

Watch from the comfort of your living room as your irrepressible Bush doll recites up to seven phrases on one winding! Not only that, he smirks, blinks, winks and walks with a genuine Texas swagger!

Wind Bush up and sit back as he repeats some of your favorite catchphrases!

'(It's important) to promote a culture of life.'
'Partial birth abortion -- it's a brutal practice.'
'Have every child protected by law and welcomed in life.'

Don't forget to upgrade to the new, ultra-conservative Bush doll on Nov. 2! The new model comes with extra swagger since he no longer has to acknowledge the American voter!

Right On!

I wholeheartedly agree that we are all working too hard. Something must be done. Check out this site.

http://www.simpleliving.net/timeday/

Oh, I gotta go, Dr. Phil is on.

Hello Peoples!

"Hello Peoples!"-- Robert Downey Jr. as Hungarian Director Franz Mazur in Hugo Pool


Welcome to my new blog. This will now be your source for all the information you will need to inform your paltry existence. Repeat: This will now be your source for all the information you will need to inform your paltry existence.

It is now the day after Columbus Day and there is something in the air. Luckily in our house we have an Ionic Breeze to take care of that. Yes, the air is clear here, but in many homes across the nation the great unwashed will be be dealing with the musky odor of another Yankees-Red Sox playoff series. The Yankees have A-Rod back and hopefully Mariano Rivera, while the Red Sox will be once again depending on their wacky haircuts and penchant for high-fiving each other. My A's will be watching from their modest homes, hopefully at least equipped with those Ionic Breezes, if not plasma TVs.

Meanwhile, there are only three weeks to go until Judgment Day, so all of you righties out there, repent! San Francisco will be trying out ranked-choice voting for local offices for the first time, the only major U.S. municipality to have done so in recent history. This little experiment will probably not got a lot of press, but carries almost as much import as the presidential election itself. But with the City By the Bay's recent election day problems -- including the floating ballot-box tops a few years back -- one can only pray they don't fuck this one up.

And while he could (or should) be backing ranked-choice voting, the scrapping of the electoral college, proportional representation and the like, Tuesday Nov. 2nd will more likely find Ralph Nader screwing over his backers, and other liberals, again by handing the election to Bush. He can rail all he wants about the lack of choices in Washington and the likeness between the two parties, but the only way that a third-party candidate will ever be elected to national office is to fight for voting reform. The once-effective advocate for the little guy is now focusing his energies in the wrong place entirely. In fact, some experts believe that if the U.S. populace had voted via one ranked-choice voting system (pairwise voting -- where your ranking of candidates is split into head-to-head races between candidates) Nader may actually have WON four years ago. Has anyone told him this? Ralph, fight for pairwise voting, don't bang all of our heads against the wall with your spoiler effort.

We all await the third presidential debate tomorrow as well. At least those of us that can still claim to be surprised as to the hollow attacks of the Bush administration (as delivered through the lump on W's back), the parching dryness (get an Ionic Breeze!) of John Kerry's policyspeak and the disconnect between the view of the cable news pundits and the great unwashed they claim to represent -- who, if you remember, are actually watching Yankees-Red Sox.

And if you think about it, there are many similarities between these two battles. Here are just a few:

1. The Red Sox haven't won a World Series since 1918. A sitting Senator hasn't won the presidency since Kennedy in 1960.

2. It is a battle between the two biggest payrolls in baseball. And on election day we will choose between a rich oilman (by birth) and a rich ketchup baron (by marriage).

3. There has been much talk about hair. Johnny Damon's, Kevin Millar's, Bronson Arroyo's. There has also been much talk about John Edwards' coiffure and Cheney's lack thereof.

4. Anyone But Yanks (or if you're me, Anyone But Sox). Anyone But Bush.

5. The Red Sox are hard-hitting, have all the tools, but many people just don't like their personality. John Kerry, well, you know where I'm going with this.

6. The Yankees have managed, over the past several years, to alienate most of the world, just like someone else we know.

But if John Kerry's chances are somehow tied in with the Red Sox's fate, I don't know what to do, maybe I could sleep through all of this. Or maybe I just need to buy another Ionic Breeze and take what comes. At least my house will smell nice when the end days arrive.