SOON TO BE SNAIL MAIL

Dear Readers,

Here's my newest promotional postcard. Please feel free to save it and print it out for later use, as I need to cut back on stamps. I think it's rather cute, don't you?

Read more...

A LINCOLN, NOT A FORD

Dear Readers,

Needless to say, it's been a rough few months for Barack Obama. In a nation obsessed with apps and American Idols, change must happen with the speed of thought, and with so many bottomless problems to deal with, it seems that people are quite willing to sacrifice sense on the altar of swiftness.

Ironically, it's the speed of the progress of the health care bill that seems to have bothered the nation the most. While the President seems to dither on W's war in Afghanistan, he gets slammed for the slowness of action in that problem, and at the same time gets pilloried for pushing too hard and too fast in the massive reform of our medical system. No matter how confident an incoming President may be, the truth is, you just can't win.

Most newly-elected Chief Executives - with the possible exception of FDR - have had rough first years. Even John F. Kennedy, with far less immediate crises to deal with, was viewed by some as not up to the job because of the Bay Of Pigs disaster and his less-than-successful first meeting with the USSR leadership. But JFK didn't have a legion of radio and TV Brownshirts publicly 'hoping he would fail' and even doubting his claim to be a natural-born US citizen. Critics back then grumbled but they didn't attempt to overthrow the new government.

A more apt comparison to Obama's rookie season could be made with the first year of Abraham Lincoln's presidency (not surprisingly, our president's favorite role-model), one in which the nation went to war with itself and Abe had to watch as his poorly-led army suffered defeat after defeat on the battlefield. Lincoln also had to put up with savage attacks on his motives, his character and even how he looked. He was often compared to a simian and some of his less-clever critics referred to him as 'Ape' Lincoln (...c'mon, Rush, I dare you...). But our 16th President kept his cool and instead of pandering to the mob literally baying for his blood, he remained himself, confident (outwardly, at least) that he would eventually find the solutions.

Obama has not only had to hear it from all the media chicken-hawks on how to conduct policy as regards to Afghanistan - but he's also had to stand some fairly inappropriate public comments from his Generals running the hopeless conflict. A lesser man would have ordered wholesale firings, but I think his commitment to rationalism remains firm. While it looks like feckless inaction to some, it looks like thoughtful resolve to me. Lincoln, in the early days of the Civil War bemoaned his lack of a winning General, one who would confront the enemy and fight instead of holding back for fear of losing. Today, it's the Generals who bemoan the lack of a decisive president who won't give them 500,000 more troops to waste in a lost cause. The last president who gave the generals all that they wanted was Lyndon B. Johnson (whom I seem to remember had a fantastic first year in office). So clearly, history, with all it's parallels, is not always the best example to gauge the present by. Last November, we voted for change, and we got it. We replaced a quick-acting, slow-thinking (often no-thinking) President with an intelligent, analytical and deliberate one. Isn't that change enough?

Read more...

HELLO, I MUST BE GOING

Dear Readers,

In the fun house-mirror world of entertainment, nothing becomes a celebrity more than how they make an exit. Many of us have spent obscene amounts of money to attend 'farewell tour' concerts of our best-loved musicians, comedians and other circus acts, only to find out a few years later that the celeb has decided to come out of retirement. Let's face it, all people who have grabbed the brass ring of fame will only give it up when it's prised from their cold, dead fingers. Perhaps the only celebrity who has announced a farewell tour who actually kept their word was Michael Jackson, and he needed quackery and enough meds to knock out a battalion of Cossacks in order to do it.

So, in a tearful statement last week, Oprah Winfrey announced she was leaving her daytime syndicated show -her farewell tour lasting only another eighteen months - and voluntarily stepping down from the gabfest throne. Like her or not, Oprah is a phenomenon. I can't say I'm a regular viewer, but by daytime talk-show standards, she's the best there has ever been in the genre, and the best that probably ever will be. In a Rupert Murdoched media environment, no articulate, telegenic and intelligent person will ever again be allowed access to the airwaves, and we'll be left with meatballs like Dr. Phil and airheads like Tyra Banks to stare at idly while we wait for the unemployment check to arrive. Besides, with on-line playpens like Facebook, You Tube and Twitter, the daytime TV schedule is increasingly irrelevant (along with newspapers). Like Muhammad Ali with heavyweight boxing, Oprah is taking the category of daytime talk-show host with her when she goes.

But wait! While Ms. Winfrey intends to step away from her popular, high-paying gig in about 2 years, she'll almost immediately pop up on her own soon-to-be network on cable. Yes, in the 35 minutes or so between contracts, we'll have the Oprah Winfrey Network to look forward to (I can already see the revolvers, sleeping pills and razor blades emerging from the desks of ABC and CBS executives). Although nothing has been announced in detail, I would lay odds that we shall see Oprah again in a show or two not unlike the one she's giving up.

But I say, good for her. She seems a smart and level-headed lady, and her fame is nothing if not truly deserved. If you give her credit for only one thing, her talk show - and it's by-products, like the Oprah Book Club - have not only raised the national IQ a point or two, but have saved daytime TV from going totally over the Jerry Springer cliff, no mean feat. So, I wish Ms. Winfrey all success, a long life and continued good fortune, but please don't make it seem like you're leaving us. How can we miss you if you never go away?

Read more...

COLORING THE TROOPS

Dear Readers,

I didn't think it was possible to squeeze anymore entertainment juice out of World War Two, but the current WWII In HD series on the Discovery Channel has proved otherwise.

In this instance the said channel is living up to its name, as it has discovered new footage of the war, some taken by soldiers and individuals during the conflict that had been stored and forgotten in private collections. It's hard to believe that so many veterans had kept these films in attics and basements, thinking they were of little value. Maybe they thought there's been so many TV programs, series and re-assessments of WW2 (enough to merit it's own cable channel, at least), every moment of the conflict must have already been captured on celluloid and their contributions would be superfluous. In an age where practically every piece of junk is a 'collectible' to somebody, and nothing seems to be valueless, these newly-found artifacts are invaluable, and take us beyond the familiar and iconic images to give us a little taste of how messy and nasty this 'good war' was for the ordinary citizen who had to do all the dirty work.

During the war, a good amount of censorship was felt necessary to keep the reality of the battlefield from the public, and the most graphic material stayed under wraps - especially if it involved 'our' side. Letting people see what they might be in for if they were sent into battle was not very good for morale, obviously. But having seen the first episode of this series, I was impressed by the amount of footage of the dead and the dying that was aired, and also of field hospitals (an often forgotten ancillary of warfare), and the operations on wounded soldiers that took place within. It reminded me of a sadistic health teacher I had in grade school who showed some similar films (only to the boys) in order to 'toughen us up'. We saw reels and reels of surgery on these battlefield injuries, causing some of us to faint. I hung on, but was haunted by what I saw.

Surprisingly, a lot of the more gruesome stuff was actually filmed in color, and this in an age before digital 'colorizing' (all previous wars were in black-and-white only). So if I have any criticism of WWII In HD, its that quite a lot of the footage they used to tell the stories was obviously colorized. It's a pretty refined technique these days, but I think a lot of the people who do colorizing are techies, not artists. For instance, when there was a shot of an explosion shown, the fireball had all it's oranges and reds, but the dust-and-debris cloud remained a stubborn B&W-film grey (grey has color, too - to an artist). Also, all faces seemed to be the same tint. A minor point, but annoying all the same.

I wonder what the vets - who had put away these films and practically forgotten about them - feel about seeing their 'home' movies messed with. My guess is that, to a combat veteran of World War Two, their memories have always been in vivid, stark and unfading color, and no technology can ever mess with that - unfortunately.

Read more...

McCAIN'S REVENGE

Dear Readers,

Excerpts from the Sarah Palin book, Going Rouge are beginning to appear, and it looks like the man who pulled her from well-deserved obscurity is not going to come out of too well. Yes, not only are we going to be treated to a no-holds barred re-writing of the would-be Veep's disastrous 2008 campaign, but poor old John McCain will be savaged by his very own creation.

I suppose it will not only become a best-seller, trash McCain and his handlers and offer us the wit and wisdom of the moose-slaughtering, ex-governor of Alaska, but it will probably be regarded as the first serious stirrings of the 2012 presidential campaign. The very notion that Sarah would be taken seriously by anyone as a US president is offset by the sheer exasperation many Americans seem to have for Mr. Obama, perhaps our brainiest chief executive. But a quick think about the motives of the Republican Party - i.e., get the controls of government again - and you begin to see the sense of promoting Palin as the saviour of the country. The neocons have a long track record of getting 'amiable dunces' elected to the White House - just examine the list of the last 30 years or so. If you think that there's no way a half-wit could ever get his or her feet under the desk in the Oval Office, think again. You have to admire the skills of the Cheneys, Rumsfelds, and Roves of the GOP, as they've been at or near the heart of the machines that saw Ronald Reagan and a couple of George Bushes (easily the dimmest dynastic family since the Windsors) win election to the highest office in the land. The Democrats, on the other hand, have gotten extremely smart people elected in the last 30 years - Jimmy Carter (nuclear peanut baron), Bill Clinton (Rhodes scholar) and Barack Obama (earned a degree from Harvard in 6 weeks) - yet it's the Republican double-digit IQ candidates that people are beginning to look back at fondly - in spite of the fact that a fair-minded assessment of the records would have to conclude these GOP presidents have collectively wreaked the most damage on ordinary citizens.

So Palin puts out Going Rouge (I know it's really called 'Going Rogue', but let me have my little joke) and the cycle starts again. In the film Frankenstein, the torch-carrying mob corners and seems to kill the monster Victor Frankenstein has created, but it's looking like in real life, the mob wishes the monster to live, and instead, turns on itself. Meanwhile, back in the gloomy, gothic laboratory, the mad scientists of the GOP nudge and wink at each other, thinking "it's alive, it's alive"!!

Read more...

YOU VET YOUR LIFE

Dear Readers,

For those who's history only goes as far back as the Imac, Veteran's Day probably needs some sort of explanation. Arising out of the slaughter of World War One, so many people had been affected by the loss or maiming of a loved one, some sort of acknowledgement of the wasting of so many lives needed to take place -probably not for sentimentality's sake, but in order that the people in power could maintain that control over the mass of humanity that sustains those who seek to rule.

It's in this context that we observe another yearly recognition of those who choose to defend us.

Yet there are those of us who command the airwaves and earn huge salaries by stoking prejudices, railing against common sense and urging our country into military folly that see our brave boys and girls as (as Bob Dylan once wrote) as 'pawns in the game', and want to send even more of them into a mindless Moloch of misguided madness. Yes, Rush, Glenn, Sean and Bill, I'm talking about you.

The right-wing 'chicken-hawks' who feel it's their duty to urge young men and women to take up arms -when they did not bother to- should be ashamed of themselves, even as they pose as 'patriots', stirring up 'teabag' mobs into action against ideas which do not suit these media satraps' notions of how we should behave. Men with microphones are the bravest - as long as it's not they who are doing the dying.

Yes, this country should absolutely revere those who have taken up arms in defense of this democracy, and many have died horrible, painful deaths in fighting fields where honor and liberty was at stake - but survival was what it came down to in the end. Without realizing it, they were metaphors, and it pains me to see so many right-wing blabbermouths elevating their own status on the dead bodies of people they view as mere fuel for their own firestorms.

But life isn't fair, and the cowards who have suddenly found militarism thrive while the very audiences they pander to send their children off to hopeless, murderous wars.

I sleep uneasily thinking about the veterans who have been maimed and slaughtered in service to this country, but Glenn, Rush and Sean sleep peacefully in the confident assurance that there will always be armies willing to die for their wealth and comfort. Is this a great country, or what?

Read more...

ALL'S RIGHT WITH THE WORLD

Dear Readers,

The New York Yankees have won the World Series and have regained their place as the champions of Major League Baseball. The planet has regained it's equilibrium, the stars have aligned in a new 'age of Aquarius', and we can count on at least 6 months of perfect weather in all parts of the country.

There are other effects to be noticed that have been effected by this return to normalcy, like:

Osama Bin Laden has been captured and has offered -along with all the Al-Queida members he's aware of - to personally rebuild the World Trade Center buildings - for free.

Bernard Madoff has informed authorities that he has a Swiss bank account with $750 trillion dollars in it, and would like to repay all the people he ripped off plus retire the entire U.S. national debt.

Hamid Karzai has announced he will join the Green Party, quit as President, and allow Afghanistan to have free elections without him.

Rush Limbaugh has announced he's giving up his radio show to join ACORN.

Paula Abdul has promised she will never appear on TV again.

Sarah Palin has retired from politics to become a US park ranger, to be stationed in Greenland.

Iran has decided to give up it's nuclear weapons program and has applied to become the 51st US State.

And you thought sports was silly. I'll let you know of more normalcy events as they come in.

Read more...

OBAMA BOMBS?

Dear Readers,

In a free society like the United States, being able to elect our leaders is one of the most cherished rights we have - even if this right is only exercised by about half of the eligible voters in any given election year. If the system has a flaw, it's that every year seems to be an election year, even if - like this year - there were only a handful of contests of national interest. There just never seems to be enough time between elections to get much done before the political winds begin to shift.

So, only 10 months or so into a new Presidency, voters in Virginia and New Jersey have reversed themselves and voted Republican in states that President Obama carried only one year ago. Many will see the results as a test of Obama and of his polices, and the man who sailed through a fancy school like Harvard has scored a 'D', at best. If there's any comfort for the Democrats out of this election, it's that the weird race in New York's 23rd congressional district, where right-wing kooks pulled out all the stops to win, may turn out to be a gain for the plucky blue-staters. But it's not much comfort for most sane people to see the GOP, having been reduced to a quarrelsome rump by the unambiguous results of the elections of 2006 and 2008, suddenly feeling as if they have renewed life, especially as they have petulantly poisoned the national debate and body politic all year long.

The 'new spirit of co-operation' lasted only long enough for Republican pols to digest and eliminate the inaugural-day meals they ate (along with some humble pie) on January 20th. I give team Obama props for giving 'peace' a chance, but once it was clear that co-operation on the serious issues bequeathed to the country by the Cheney-Bush nightmare was not going to happen (this should have been understood say...about January 21st), then the Democrats should have just proceeded to ignore the 'bleating hearts' of the opposition and gotten down to business. But the cool and calm Obama (perhaps bringing the first sense of thoughtfulness to the Oval Office since JFK) didn't exactly spring into action but instead, accidentally built up an image of a dithering neophyte - a cardinal sin in a country full of five-minute attention spans, talent 'reality' shows where a new idol is created in a matter of weeks and a techno-savvy electorate who have seen 85,000 apps for the !#$%&*ing I-phone appear in a matter of months. How do you explain and re-set complex issues like the economy, health care and international terrorism to a mob like that? The worst that can be said about the administration is that it didn't seem to try.

Into this vacuum we saw the cruel simplifiers of the GOP effortlessly fill the void. From tea parties to town meeting disruptions to the Fox News Channel's endless Obama-bashing, the opinions tipped and the losers of 2008 became the winners of 2009. The ineptitude of the Democrats was excruciating to watch through the spring and summer.

Now, here in the autumn, we witness life being breathed into an ideology that looked like road-kill only twelve months ago. The architects of a system that has failed an enormous number of people for an enormous amount of time are acting like leaders again while our actual leaders look feeble and uncertain So, ladies and gentlemen, as of this moment, the 2010 election has officially begun, which means it's almost certain that nothing good is going to get done for a bad, long while. Ironically, people impatient and frustrated over a perceived lack of movement for the better have once again voted for -you guessed it - change.

Read more...