A Journalist In Need of A Pole

If ever you doubt that television news journalism is dead tune in some morning to HLN Morning Express with Robin Meade. Every morning Robin Meade, the resident newswoman/journalist, as she is billed, treats the viewer, and we can assume mostly male viewers in the 18-34 year old age range, to some of the best eye candy west of the beltway. Ms. Meade gravitates about the set in a variety of provocative outfits, usually consisting of tight sweaters, tighter fitting skirts, high heels and often times stiletto-heeled animal print boots. Her jewelry blings and she makes the most of the finest hair extensions and wigs. Each morning Ms. Meade cackles her way through the news making one forget the serious nature of war and oil spills, drawing our attention to her silky smooth legs, luscious lips and deep hypnotic eyes. Ms. Meade is indeed a distraction of the finest sort when it comes to female newswomen/journalists. There is little left to the imagination when one tunes in to Ms. Meade. CNN has made sure of that. This is not a case of arcane titillation, this is in your face cable news lap dancing from the core. I will not be surprised one day to wake up to a redecorated set featuring pounding techno rhythm and Ms. Meade working the pole. You go girl, but I think I'll go with Candy Crowley and no pole.

Looking Into a McChrystal Ball

I watched two documentaries last week, one about the Viet Nam War and one about Napoleon. They prompted me to wonder, once again, if the people that run this country know anything about history. Or, if they do know and understand history, do they somehow feel like their destinies are somehow controlled by different paradigms than other historically tragic figures.

Surely, if Obama studied Viet Nam and Napoleon he would understand that wagging war without a reason is folly. There is no glory in killing and the only historical motive that has ever been advanced to justify war is self-preservation. It is pretty accepted as a historical fact that Viet Nam was a mistake that was premised on mysterious logic and arcane fear. Despite all indications to the contrary, President after President perpetrated a lie on the American people, selling fear along the way. Somehow, while thousands of young men died, those guys were able to sleep at night. What where they scared of that made them back seat their conscience? How could these men watch the images coming back to America of the atrocities. How could anyone of good conscience use a substance like napalm or carpet-bomb?

Napoleon defined a complex, that I suspect visited the likes of Johnson and Nixon, despite their physical statures. Some grand concept was envisioned by these guys that motivated them to ignore logic and the evidence at hand and refuse to make the harder choices; the right choices. In the end, the only result was defeat and banishment. It makes no sense to go to fight in Russia in the winter, as it makes no sense to fight an enemy who is invisible, sustain millions of casualties and has the patience to wage war for decades until his enemy is vanquished.

I can accept the fact that George W. Bush was and is a moron who probably didn't bother to learn history, but why would those in Congress kowtow to a moron and commit this country to war without purpose? What is it about Washington that seems to evaporate common sense in those who work there?

I don't doubt that Obama is a smart guy and probably isn't easily duped by those around him. So why does he continue to follow a foreign policy that is tragically flawed with no upside that I can see? This latest episode with McChrystal is disturbing in the sense that it appears there is no strategy in Afghanistan. McChrystal, like most career military guys see themselves at home in war. Like Colonel Kilgore in Apocalypse Now these guys seem to lament the possibility that war could end, leaving them with no purpose. Not exactly the guys to listen to when setting policy.

It didn't take a crystal ball for Obama to see that the time to wage war in Afghanistan, if ever, was right after 9/11. When Obama took office he should have started pulling out the troops and left the historical blame for Bush. Instead his took some bad advice from somebody and made a poor choice. What with this latest "chain of command" debacle, he should make the right choice, the hard choice and end this thing now before one more American or one more Afghani dies. Viet Nam today is a prospering, economically viable country; a popular tourist destination. Learn a lesson there. It's time to talk to the Taliban, cut a deal and get back to creating jobs and alternative energy in this country. McChrystal did you a favor Mr. President. McChrystal gave you a window of opportunity to do the right thing. Do it.

Obama's Speech - The Audacity of Hopelessness

I watched President Obama's speech Tuesday and tried to keep an open mind, but found it difficult. Despite being a supporter of Obama, what I saw was not inspirational, it was disappointing. Obama gives good speech, but at some time the rhetoric has to go away and there has to be some real substance. Talking about holding BP's feet to the fire is fine, but as time passes and the leak is finally plugged, the legal realities of this whole affair will eventually come down to BP digging in and fighting every attempt to extract money from them and hiding behind their Congressionally gifted liability limit. Sending National Guard to the area is a nice idea, but what is really needed is a whole lot of ships to skim the oil that has yet to make it to shore. Pledging to clean up the area is a nice promise, but the government still hasn't cleaned up the area, post Katrina.

I found it curious when Obama decided that he would favor more offshore drilling under the premise that we are too dependent on foreign oil. I found it curious because, as a Harvard guy, he must know that BP is a British corporation (Ltd. I think they call 'em) and all the oil they suck out of the earth goes into an international market. This guy is still trying to cut deals with Congress and big business after the finance and health insurance wars? Either Obama is getting some really bad advice or he is finally coming around to the reality of the Beltway.

Obama ran on a platform of hope and real change. He asked for and was given a mandate. This latest speech offered little hope and sounded eerily like Bush. His anti-intellectual blather about blessing the fishermen and how he wants God to bless America is insulting to anyone with a drop off brainpower. Religion and God is who cowards and conservatives turn to when they don't have a plan or are befuddled by nature and life.

Yesterday I watched an old documentary about Viet Nam and was reminded how our government lied to us through five presidencies about that whole debacle. Nothing has changed that I can see. In the day when big business started to exert too much influence over the lives of people the government turned to anti-trust litigation to reinstate competition. Times have changed and big business got a lot smarter. From banking to healthcare to energy, big business is in control and has learned well how to buy influence on capital hill and make sure that Congress has their back.

Obama promised a lot to get elected. He promised health insurance reform and caved on that, he promised to bring our troops home, yet proceeded to send more troops into Afghanistan and he promised to take this country in a new direction toward cleaner energy and independence of foreign oil. How's that working out?

What I saw Tuesday night was a President who, like a boxer, has taken a lot of body punches and is starting to weaken. He calls the chairman of BP into his office and the guy walks out with an arrogance that is telling about how unafraid big business is of government. Legally and politically there is only so much Obama can do. What he can do is go back out on the campaign trail and rally the citizens to start lobbying Congress themselves and to start demanding accountability from elected officials, exposing the economic links to their voting records.

This is not the time for God to bless America, this is the time to take the road less traveled and provide some insight and leadership. We got neither of those Tuesday night. The President going on TV is looking more and more like an SNL opening skit. Is there hope? Well there is an election coming up in November. Maybe, just maybe, the trend in this country toward independent voting and the rejection of party politics will have some impact. Voting is the only real influence citizens have in the game. I'm not particularly thrilled by the choices I'm being offered in Illinois come November, but until real hope and real change is offered up, I'm going to continue to vote against incumbents. I see little hope for real change up until the time when money is taken out of politics, when there are term limits are set for Congress and when a permanent, independent special prosecutor's office is established just to prosecute elected officials. I'm tired of being lied to.

Until we as Americans start feeling a little more audacious, nothing will change.

A Special Place In Hell

Joran Van Der Sloot the primary suspect in the disappearance, and I guess now we can assume murder, of Natalie Holloway was arrested yesterday in connection with the murder of a young Peruvian woman. The woman's body was found beaten and stabbed wrapped in a blanket in Van Der Sloot's hotel room.

Eerily enough this all happened almost five years to the day when Natalie Holloway disappeared in Aruba. Apparently Van Der Sloot's m.o. would be to pick up young woman at night spots, administer a date rape drug and then murder them. Van Der Sloot has traveled much of the world and one can only wonder about the trail of dead bodies that he has left behind, bodies of young women who had no families to care perhaps.

I have little doubt this young man qualifies as a sociopath. His demeanor during the months following Holloway's murder revealed someone with little or no conscience who seemed to enjoy the media attention. Once back in his native Holland and feeling confident that he had gotten away with his crime, he even gave a video-taped confession to an undercover reporter.

As with most sociopath serial killers, Van Der Sloot couldn't stop himself. He had to indulge the urge to kill again and his narcissistic personality or subconscious desire to be caught left a gruesome murder scene replete with clues pointing in his direction. Very sloppy this time leaving a body and blood and video evidence galore.

Van Der Sloot will now inhabit some Peruvian jail pending trial and a potential life sentence. One can only hope that Van Der Sloot feels some sense of morality and tells the truth about Natalie Holloway to give her family some closure. It would be nice if he outed the Kalpo brothers and anyone else involved in Holloway's murder, so that all those responsible are punished, as well, but I doubt he will feel any remorse.

Coincidentally, I recently watched the DVD of Lovely Bones a movie dealing with the murder of a young girl. The movie drew a good counterpoint to the good and evil of the world, suggesting that one cannot exist without the other. Just the other day DNA evidence led to charges against a man in Illinois in connection with the rape and murder of a six year old girl several years back. I shudder to think of the statistics nationwide of these types of crimes. There are a lot of Van Der Sloots out there.

There is a lot of evil in the world and a lot of evil people. Those who believe in a God and practice a religion can probably find some explanation that makes sense. Lovely Bones was very good at putting a spiritual spin on the heinous. I cannot. I can't imagine what motivates someone to kill an innocent woman or a child and then to just dump the body into a river or the sea. I can't find a spiritual or a rational meaning to all this. This is a special kind of evil, no doubt. Being an atheist I don't believe in Heaven or Hell, but when I consider someone like Van Der Sloot, I do wish there was a Hell; a special Hell, maybe that Hell is in Peru.

Almost Perfect

Last night a baseball pitcher came one play away from pitching a perfect game. A bad call by an umpire on a play at first base prevented that from happening. In the aftermath there has been the uproar to use instant replay in such instances to prevent bad calls in the future.

It is true that technology exists to correct errors in judgment at sporting events. I watched the replay a few times at full speed and have to say that the play was very close and in the moment the call could have gone either way, in my estimation. Humans are not perfect, sometimes mistakes are made. It is too the umpire's credit that he made that call based upon his best perception of what took place without regard to the ongoing perfect game.

The problem I have is this. If they are going to use technology to try to make the game perfect, then go all the way. Why not set up some type of laser system to start calling balls and strikes. Why ask the third and first base umpires if a hitter went too far on a checked swing, set up a laser beam in front of home plate. Put sensors on the top of the outfield wall and the foul polls and the foul lines. Put a sensor in the bases, in the ball and on the players uniforms to register tags. Etc., etc., etc.

Or, in the alternative, leave the game alone. Baseball has existed since the late 1800s pretty much as it is today. There have been different eras come and go, but the basic game is as it has been. Part of the charm of baseball is that unlike a violent game like football, it is very pastoral, very friendly and very human. They players don't wear helmets that obscure their faces and body armor. The players interact with other players on the field, as well as, with the umpires. The game has no time constraints. The fans are invited in, not keep away.

Maybe, just maybe the game is perfect now. One more perfect game doesn't mean much in the cosmos of baseball. If the game could withstand the steroid era, it will survive this. Sometimes perfection comes with a few flaws. I know this to be true. I've been a Cubs fan since I was a kid.

http://daynepost.blogspot.com/

Gay Or Not To Be Gay, That Is The Question - Mark Kirk

There is supposition that Mark Kirk, Senate wannabe from Illinois is Gay. Gay or straight, we do know for sure that Kirk is a liar, not that you can't assume that about most any politician.

I disagree with those who say that politicians personal lives are their own business. I think anyone who is asking for the trust of the voters to represent us should be willing to be open and honest about every aspect of their lives. The paradox is that this is what keeps a lot of good people from running for office; they like having their privacy. I also don't believe that one's sexual exploits necessarily disqualifies them from being a good representative. I, for one, wish that Jack Ryan had stayed in the race against Obama.

What I prefer is honesty. I didn't really care that Clinton was a horn dog, but I found it patently insulting that he lied about it. Same goes for Tiger Woods, John Edwards and all the rest. Years ago when Billie Jean King got outed she held a press conference and just admitted everything. It was refreshing and became an immediate non-issue. Of course BJK is a class act, something that cannot be said for the rest who just can't own up to the truth.

Crazy Heart, Lazy Filmmakers

I wasted my Monday evening watching yet another formulaic, canned product from Hollywood called Crazy Heart.

I gave this movie a shot because I am a Jeff Bridges fan and have enjoyed this actor's work over the years going back to his role in The Iceman Cometh. I didn't expect much from this film and I wasn't disappointed. There is a saying in literature and film making that there are only a finite number of story lines. The trick in writing and film making is coming up with something original using one of these plots. The producers, writers and director of this film failed to do so.

The plot went like this. A washed up country singer who drinks and smokes too much meets an inspirational single mother and bonds with her kid. He stages a mini-comeback only to self-destruct by drinking and driving and losing the kid while imbibing at the shopping mall. The mother wisely chooses child over washed up drunk. Washed up drunk goes into rehab, heads down the right path, but loses the woman to an invisible, responsible man. Hmmm, where have we seen this before.

Jeff Bridges is an effortless actor who always seems like he is playing himself, ala Clint Eastwood, but still manages to sell you the character. Is this the stuff Oscars are made of, apparently so since he got one for hobbling through this screenplay acting drunk and stupid and doing a passable job of signing country and western songs. If this is acting, I'm Lawrence Olivier; I can hobble, drink and sing bad C & W with the best of em. The point here is that one gets the impression that from the writers to the actors, no one really made an effort making this movie and I find that somewhat insulting to those of us who invested time and money to watch it.

Yet, all in all, to it's credit the movie wasn't offensive and the writers and director did take the high road and end it on a positive note with the two main characters going back to the point of inception in their relationship with seemingly no hard feelings and no weepy deaths.

Movie making has devolved to the point where there is precious little originality. I can count on one hand the number of movies I have seen in my lifetime that I considered to be surprisingly original despite being based on familiar story lines. Among these are A Clockwork Orange, The Usual Suspects, Unforgiven, Vanilla Sky, The Crying Game and pretty much anything Quentin Tarantino does. Keep in mind that Crazy Heart wasn't what I would consider a bad film. If you want to see a bad film check out anything George Clooney tries to produce and/or direct. It also strayed from the safe harbor of big blockbuster, cartoon genre films such as Batman, Spiderman, X-Men, etc. So there was a bit of risk-taking here, just not enough.

It is a popular perception that the creative gene in Hollywood has been damaged by the toxic influence of television that has taken our children away from the written page. I don't doubt that television has had a negative influence on movie making. Quite a few movies are now produced based upon television shows/series. I don't see this as a particularly good trend since....well just turn on the TV for yourself to see the crap that is thrown at us from the inside of the screen. Can an American Idol movie be far behind. Oh wait, I think Hugh Grant already made one of those.

So what is a film fan to do? I search Netflix for old movies with big name stars from the days when there were big name stars. Marlene Dietrich, Burt Lancaster, Humphrey Bogart, Lee Marvin, Bette Davis are some searches that have led me back to the time when movies were not special effect-based, but simply produced, and character/story driven. These movies were not necessarily original in the way the plots were manipulated, but they were meticulously crafted, well-written and acted by actors and actresses who felt a responsibility to their audience. They feel original. When I watch one of these films I feel invested in it, like reading a good book that one wishes would never end. When I watched Crazy Heart, I couldn't wait for it to end. It's a subtle distinction, but one that movie makers should start paying attention to.