This morning I was looking over an e-mail I received that lists some of the concerts coming to town and the on-sale dates for tickets. With apologies to the band, I had to just burst out laughing. Supporting Lily Allen, apparently on all or most of her upcoming tour dates, is a group from Washington that calls itself:
Natalie Portman's Shaved Head
No joke. You read that correctly. The band calls itself Natalie Portman's Shaved Head.
Now, I'm not sure how far they expected to get when they picked this name, but I'm guessing it was some kind of joke that got out of hand. The name makes them sound like a novelty act, though in an attempt to move past it, they have taken to using an abbreviation (NPSH) to identify themselves. Incidentally, their music sounds like it was plucked from the '80s, which is another thing I thought we had moved past. Oh well.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Barack Obama's Inaugural Speech
Everything is on YouTube, including a lot of nonsense. Still, I easily found Barack Obama's inauguration speech, which likely will go down in history as one of the better ones. Great speeches do not make great presidencies, and it remains to be seen what Obama can do. He has a lot that needs to be accomplished quickly. Still, for those few who haven't seen it. Here it is:
Economic Stimulus: A Matter of Perspective
Those who know me have heard me kvetching endlessly about the proposed economic stimulus package, and specifically, the idea that simply slinging money at the problem prove to be its solution. In particular, the money to be distributed to the average taxpayer is no bigger than what outgoing president George W. Bush gave out a year ago. We all know how well that turned out. It didn't help the economy one bit, and things actually worsened considerably.
Well, the latest issue of the New Yorker features a column by James Surowiecki, who, for my money, is one of the smarter financial columnists in the business. In "A Smarter Stimulus," he makes a convincing argument that Obama's plan actually is a pretty decent idea. Yes, the infusion of money to the taxpayers alone won't solve the problem, but the way in which the rebate will be distributed (in smaller, weekly increments rather than a lump sum payment) is a far better proposal because people view the former method as additional income to spend and the latter one as wealth that should be saved.
It's all a matter of perspective, and in an age when no one trusts the government to get anything right, we need people like Surowiecki to set the record straight.
Well, the latest issue of the New Yorker features a column by James Surowiecki, who, for my money, is one of the smarter financial columnists in the business. In "A Smarter Stimulus," he makes a convincing argument that Obama's plan actually is a pretty decent idea. Yes, the infusion of money to the taxpayers alone won't solve the problem, but the way in which the rebate will be distributed (in smaller, weekly increments rather than a lump sum payment) is a far better proposal because people view the former method as additional income to spend and the latter one as wealth that should be saved.
It's all a matter of perspective, and in an age when no one trusts the government to get anything right, we need people like Surowiecki to set the record straight.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Frost / Nixon = Couric / Bush
So, I saw Frost/Nixon last night. I can't think of a movie that was better timed than this one. It's a fascinating story, and the film, which was directed by Ron Howard, is very well done. It got me thinking -- I wonder if 30 years from now we will see a sequel called Couric/Bush? Think about it -- there are a lot of parallels to be drawn between the presidencies of Bush and Nixon. And Couric is kind of like this generation's David Frost. Maybe in an attempt to prove herself, she'll get Bush to admit that he was drunk for 8 years (which is the only explanation I've ever come up with for that pretzel incident) and left Cheney in charge of everything.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
2008 Election and Other Housekeeping Items
It's about time an election swings the right way. Don't get me wrong -- those who know me also know that 8 years ago I thought John McCain deserved a shot at the White House. He was more of a maverick then. There really was a point where even if you didn't agree with his position on something, you had to respect his point of view, which is more than I can say for most politicians these days. It's amazing how he has spent the last 8 years squandering the respect that he had earned. I am happy he lost. He would have been so very wrong for this country.
Those who are worried about Barack Obama ought to read the New Yorker's endorsement of him from their October 13 issue. I meant to post that link before the election, and I forgot. It still is a good description of what we can expect from him, and it certainly made me feel better about him. Perhaps it will do the same for those of you who remain skeptical.
Obama still doesn't excite me when he speaks, but he has a lot of fresh ideas, which is something we desperately need, and the way he has managed to inspire so many people in this country is refreshing. When was the last time we had a President who did that? Some would cite Bill Clinton, but his personal problems undermined his ability to accomplish much, and it wound up dividing the country. So, that leaves JFK, which is the type of leader we need right now. We need someone to challenge us to get off an oil-based economy and move to other sources of energy. Obama is the guy to do it, and he really has to be. We can't afford not to make the switch, and the investment that would be needed would spur our economy and our sense of innovation, which has been missing for a long time. I really believe that any bailout of the auto industry ought to be tied completely to developing cars that do not use gasoline. It really is a lot like JFK's challenge to go to the moon in the early 1960s, and it is a matter of national security.
Speaking of the '60s, The Music Box, one of my favorite hangouts online, has been stuck in the 1960s lately. They've been working their way through the recent Creedence reissues, starting with their debut, Bayou Country, and Green River. They also recently reviewed Richie Havens' Nobody Left to Crown, which is an album I want to like, but lose interest in about halfway through.
This same issue has dogged Bruce Springsteen lately, at least for me. Speaking of which, Rolling Stone let the cat out of the bag regarding a new album from Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band. It is encouraging to read about how the album came together so quickly. It just might help him rediscover a sense of urgency, which he still has in concert but has lost in the studio. Working on a Dream is due on January 27. Although Magic and The Rising were disappointing to me, I'll still be in line to pick this one up.
Last but not least, as we wait for Neil Young's Archives series, which doesn't seem as if it ever will come out, he has found another live album to release. Sugar Mountain: Live at Canterbury House, from 1968, is coming out next week. I hope it's good, and I can't imagine that it won't be. But you never know what you're going to get with Neil.
Those who are worried about Barack Obama ought to read the New Yorker's endorsement of him from their October 13 issue. I meant to post that link before the election, and I forgot. It still is a good description of what we can expect from him, and it certainly made me feel better about him. Perhaps it will do the same for those of you who remain skeptical.
Obama still doesn't excite me when he speaks, but he has a lot of fresh ideas, which is something we desperately need, and the way he has managed to inspire so many people in this country is refreshing. When was the last time we had a President who did that? Some would cite Bill Clinton, but his personal problems undermined his ability to accomplish much, and it wound up dividing the country. So, that leaves JFK, which is the type of leader we need right now. We need someone to challenge us to get off an oil-based economy and move to other sources of energy. Obama is the guy to do it, and he really has to be. We can't afford not to make the switch, and the investment that would be needed would spur our economy and our sense of innovation, which has been missing for a long time. I really believe that any bailout of the auto industry ought to be tied completely to developing cars that do not use gasoline. It really is a lot like JFK's challenge to go to the moon in the early 1960s, and it is a matter of national security.
Speaking of the '60s, The Music Box, one of my favorite hangouts online, has been stuck in the 1960s lately. They've been working their way through the recent Creedence reissues, starting with their debut, Bayou Country, and Green River. They also recently reviewed Richie Havens' Nobody Left to Crown, which is an album I want to like, but lose interest in about halfway through.
This same issue has dogged Bruce Springsteen lately, at least for me. Speaking of which, Rolling Stone let the cat out of the bag regarding a new album from Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band. It is encouraging to read about how the album came together so quickly. It just might help him rediscover a sense of urgency, which he still has in concert but has lost in the studio. Working on a Dream is due on January 27. Although Magic and The Rising were disappointing to me, I'll still be in line to pick this one up.
Last but not least, as we wait for Neil Young's Archives series, which doesn't seem as if it ever will come out, he has found another live album to release. Sugar Mountain: Live at Canterbury House, from 1968, is coming out next week. I hope it's good, and I can't imagine that it won't be. But you never know what you're going to get with Neil.
Friday, October 17, 2008
McCain Challenged by Lettermen
Because John Stewart and Steven Colbert spend so much time dissecting the news (which is, of course, the basis for both of their shows), they typically get all of the credit for challenging and skewering the politicians. They do a great job, and they certainly deserve the accolades that they have received.
The guy who gets lost in the shuffle, though, is David Lettermen. He does not toss softball questions at politicians, and I think he actually does a better (and tougher) interview than either Stewart or Colbert. He has been skewering the McCain/Palin ticket since John McCain skipped out on his program a few weeks ago. McCain had stated that he had to head back to Washington to deal with the economic meltdown, which wasn't exactly the truth. Instead of leaving town, McCain remained in New York for an interview with Katie Couric. Lettermen picked up the feed and has been poking fun at him ever since.
Well, last night, McCain finally fulfilled his obligation, and Lettermen jostled with him a bit before getting down to business. (He even had Keith Olbermann standing by in case McCain didn't show up again). Now, Lettermen is a really smart guy, and he uses two things to his advantage: 1) real news shows don't ask tough questions anymore and 2) the perception is that he is just a host of a late night comedy and entertainment program, so how hard can it be?
Essentially, McCain was lulled into complacency. He was given an opportunity to state his case, and Lettermen was fine to allow him to do that. You could see it coming, though. McCain has had a habit of late of bringing up William Ayers as a way of knocking his opponent Barack Obama down a peg. It hasn't worked. This is partially because Ayers has transformed himself into a respectable member of the community, but the real reason the issue hasn't gained traction is that, with everything in the country falling to pieces after 8 years of Republican political schemes, no one cares (nor should they, but that's another story).
Sure enough, as the interview continued, McCain tried to turn Ayers into a controversial issue. Of course he was led there by Lettermen, who set him up perfectly after challenging McCain's pick of Palin to serve as his VP. (He also asked why she keeps saying that Obama pals around with terrorists, which clearly isn't true). McCain took the bait, and the sly smile on Lettermen's face said it all. He pounced all over McCain's continuing need to bring up Ayers by asking the Senator about his relationship with G. Gordon Liddy, who served almost 5 years for burglary and admitted to plotting to kill a journalist. McCain tried to brush it off, but Lettermen persisted in defining McCain's relationship to Liddy as current and relevant, which is something the mainstream news organizations have failed to do.
It was a great moment, and you can watch the full interview at Lettermen's site. It's a gem of a interview.
The guy who gets lost in the shuffle, though, is David Lettermen. He does not toss softball questions at politicians, and I think he actually does a better (and tougher) interview than either Stewart or Colbert. He has been skewering the McCain/Palin ticket since John McCain skipped out on his program a few weeks ago. McCain had stated that he had to head back to Washington to deal with the economic meltdown, which wasn't exactly the truth. Instead of leaving town, McCain remained in New York for an interview with Katie Couric. Lettermen picked up the feed and has been poking fun at him ever since.
Well, last night, McCain finally fulfilled his obligation, and Lettermen jostled with him a bit before getting down to business. (He even had Keith Olbermann standing by in case McCain didn't show up again). Now, Lettermen is a really smart guy, and he uses two things to his advantage: 1) real news shows don't ask tough questions anymore and 2) the perception is that he is just a host of a late night comedy and entertainment program, so how hard can it be?
Essentially, McCain was lulled into complacency. He was given an opportunity to state his case, and Lettermen was fine to allow him to do that. You could see it coming, though. McCain has had a habit of late of bringing up William Ayers as a way of knocking his opponent Barack Obama down a peg. It hasn't worked. This is partially because Ayers has transformed himself into a respectable member of the community, but the real reason the issue hasn't gained traction is that, with everything in the country falling to pieces after 8 years of Republican political schemes, no one cares (nor should they, but that's another story).
Sure enough, as the interview continued, McCain tried to turn Ayers into a controversial issue. Of course he was led there by Lettermen, who set him up perfectly after challenging McCain's pick of Palin to serve as his VP. (He also asked why she keeps saying that Obama pals around with terrorists, which clearly isn't true). McCain took the bait, and the sly smile on Lettermen's face said it all. He pounced all over McCain's continuing need to bring up Ayers by asking the Senator about his relationship with G. Gordon Liddy, who served almost 5 years for burglary and admitted to plotting to kill a journalist. McCain tried to brush it off, but Lettermen persisted in defining McCain's relationship to Liddy as current and relevant, which is something the mainstream news organizations have failed to do.
It was a great moment, and you can watch the full interview at Lettermen's site. It's a gem of a interview.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Of Elephants and Donkeys....Part Two
Four years later, I'm still aggravated over what the Republicans did to John Kerry. Or maybe, I should say that eight years later, I'm still angry over what the Republicans did to Al Gore. The flip-flop strategy works, even if it's not true. In two presidential elections in a row, it has been used to make the eventual losing candidate look foolish.
Naturally, it shouldn't really be this way. Do we really want a leader who is so fixed in his views that he (or she) ignores the facts and refuses to alter course, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Actually, a case could be made that we already have one of those running the country, and look where it has gotten us. The U.S. is a mess. Thanks, George.
The Republicans have been trying to get something, anything to stick and break Barack Obama's momentum. They've tried the flip-flop strategy, but it hasn't worked. This mostly has been because Obama has been consistent or has, at least, framed his views well enough that he can't be portrayed as a flip-flopper, when all he is doing is clarifying or refining his position, mostly by shifting the emphasis of his words rather than his overall point of view.
The same cannot be said for John McCain. Since losing the primary in 2000, McCain has lost his mind and my respect. Is anyone sure what he stands for anymore? Here are some examples:
McCain opposed Bush's mammoth tax cuts. He leveled the same accusations at them as the Democrats did. Bush's tax cuts have favored the wealthy, quite heavily too. All of sudden, though, McCain now wants to extend them by making them permanent. Hmm, talk about a flip-flop. McCain claims that it will help the economy, but no highly respected economist agrees with him. America needs a tax cut, but it's the 90% of people who would be unaffected by McCain's plan that need it most.
There also was a time when McCain opposed off-shore drilling. He was never anywhere close to being a champion of the environment, but he did at least believe that the benefits of allowing off-shore drilling were far less than the devastation that the practice would wreak. Now, he's all for off-shore drilling, and it has become one of the cornerstones of his campaign. Sure, it sounds great to say that it would relieve the pressure of America's dependence on foreign oil. Everyone is for that. However, the amount of domestic production that would result from off-shore drilling (as well as drilling in ANWR, for that matter) is so minimal (and so far off in the future) that McCain would be best advised to drop the plan and focus instead upon alternative energy sources.
These are but two examples of how McCain has flip-flopped his positions on important issues. Admittedly, flip-flopping isn't as bad as it usually is made out to be, provided that there is a solid foundation for doing so, one that emanates from sound facts and logic. In these cases, however, McCain has dramatically altered his positions to ones that don't even make sense.
Naturally, it shouldn't really be this way. Do we really want a leader who is so fixed in his views that he (or she) ignores the facts and refuses to alter course, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Actually, a case could be made that we already have one of those running the country, and look where it has gotten us. The U.S. is a mess. Thanks, George.
The Republicans have been trying to get something, anything to stick and break Barack Obama's momentum. They've tried the flip-flop strategy, but it hasn't worked. This mostly has been because Obama has been consistent or has, at least, framed his views well enough that he can't be portrayed as a flip-flopper, when all he is doing is clarifying or refining his position, mostly by shifting the emphasis of his words rather than his overall point of view.
The same cannot be said for John McCain. Since losing the primary in 2000, McCain has lost his mind and my respect. Is anyone sure what he stands for anymore? Here are some examples:
McCain opposed Bush's mammoth tax cuts. He leveled the same accusations at them as the Democrats did. Bush's tax cuts have favored the wealthy, quite heavily too. All of sudden, though, McCain now wants to extend them by making them permanent. Hmm, talk about a flip-flop. McCain claims that it will help the economy, but no highly respected economist agrees with him. America needs a tax cut, but it's the 90% of people who would be unaffected by McCain's plan that need it most.
There also was a time when McCain opposed off-shore drilling. He was never anywhere close to being a champion of the environment, but he did at least believe that the benefits of allowing off-shore drilling were far less than the devastation that the practice would wreak. Now, he's all for off-shore drilling, and it has become one of the cornerstones of his campaign. Sure, it sounds great to say that it would relieve the pressure of America's dependence on foreign oil. Everyone is for that. However, the amount of domestic production that would result from off-shore drilling (as well as drilling in ANWR, for that matter) is so minimal (and so far off in the future) that McCain would be best advised to drop the plan and focus instead upon alternative energy sources.
These are but two examples of how McCain has flip-flopped his positions on important issues. Admittedly, flip-flopping isn't as bad as it usually is made out to be, provided that there is a solid foundation for doing so, one that emanates from sound facts and logic. In these cases, however, McCain has dramatically altered his positions to ones that don't even make sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
