Wide Awake at 1:50 am

It is not unusual for me to be awake at this early/late time. I like to have "vampire hours" during the summer time. But I've got to learn that I can't watch "28 days later" and expect to be able to sleep right away. My cat interrupting the movie asking to be fed and the presence of my every reliable protector, Teddy Bear, couldn't prevent the jumpy nerves that I have now.

I am a wimp.

Reporting from Beirut...no not me

My expertise is in American politics not international or comparative politics. Therefore, I will try to refrain from commenting on areas outside of my expertise. I will also direct readers to sites that I think are illuminating. I regulary read Juan Cole's blog since he is a professor of Mideast history, reads Arabic and simply knows that part of the planet. Today I read a blog reporting from Beirut on the latest conflagration in the Middle East. It captures my views as well. I've copied the opening and the link can send you to site for the rest.

Back to Iraq 3.0

BEIRUT — Why, oh, why do people with access to really big bombs continue to think they can change people’s loyalties by dropping those big bombs on their homes and families?

Israel’s strategy in Lebanon is pretty clear now: Make the pain of “supporting” or “harboring” Hizbullah so great that the Lebanese will deal with the group. That was also the idea behind the attack on Gaza and Hamas as well as the so-called Bush Doctrine — the U.S. will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them. It’s also the hot air for the trial balloon often floated in D.C. regarding regime change in Iran: Bomb the mullahs and watch the pro-American youth embrace the Pax Americana!

Except… it almost never works.

Politics as Entertainment

The internet makes following political races so much easier than it used to be. Now a number of blogs regularly post polls from races across the country. News from those races can also be followed through political blogs, local news websites or just an email from a friend. For political geeks like me it is the golden age of political information overload. Since other sites are much better at providing information, I'll add some useless insight today. Judging from what I see and what I know, I give you a few of what will be the NASTY races and why I think they'll turn that way if they haven't already. By the way, no matter what any political geek says we do enjoy nasty races as entertainment if our side is giving better than it's getting.

Nastiness has one necessary condition: competiveness. All of the campaigns I note here are competitive or they wouldn't be here. If a losing campaign turns nasty it has no meaning except to make for a bigger loser. There are other factors that enhance the first condition: a desperate incumbent, a tradition of nasty politics, and two competing candidates that just don't like each other. I'll examine these in reverse order.

The Missouri Senate race and the Minnesota Governor's race are two excellent examples of candidates who just don't like one another.
In Minnesota incumbent governor Tim Pawlenty is being challenged by Attorney General Mike Hatch. As I understand it, these two men have their official offices across the hall from one another and the hallway has become like the "neutral zone" from Star Trek -- an area not to be passed. How did such disdain for one another start? I don't know, but it will show in the campaign. Look for this race to quickly violate all Minnesota nice rules.
In Missouri Claire McCaskill is trying to build on her near miss in the 2004 governor's race to take out incumbent Jim Talent. McCaskill is still ticked off by her near miss in the governor's race and this statewide battle is the major skirmish between the parties as Missouri Democrats attempt to actually beat a Republican with the name of Talent or Blunt. Democrats are pushing ballot proposals on stem cell research and the minimum wage to motivate their voters along with a lot of emphasis on corruption connections to people named Blunt and Talent in Missouri and Washington. Republicans need to hold this seat to make a Democratic Senate a total pipedream in 2006. Look for lots of national money on both sides as each party looks to begin swaying a frequent presidential race swing state.

The New Jersey Senate race and the Illinois governor's race are two examples of nasty campaigns as a political tradition.
Both of these states simply expect that candidates will be willing and able to fight in the gutter to get your vote. If a candidate is not willing to "do what is necessary" to win, voters don't want to bother with him or her. In New Jersey this is currently being demonstrated by the use of false accusations from each side on the ethics of the other. The Republicans charges had been proven false in a public investigation and the Democratic charges relate to a law that doesn't seem to apply to the Republican candidate. I've not seen similar news from Illinois, but it will come. Neither state has a great track record for honest politics, but if they did they wouldn't be nearly as fun.

The Senate races in Connecticut and Montana are examples of a desperate incumbent. In Montana Senator Conrad Burns is tied to ethics questions related to the Abramoff scandal and is weighed down by one of the lowest approval ratings in the Senate. In Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman refuses to let a Democratic primary get in the way of his re-election as he simultaneously runs in the Aug. 8th primary and gathers petition signatures for an independent run if he loses the primary. You can call that chutzpah, but it is really just another incumbent who just can't understand why this isn't as easy as it was six years ago. Incumbents who aren't ready to retire fight dirty and have the money to make it stick. Burns is in bigger trouble right now. However, I think Lieberman overestimates how much independent voters are paying attention to his campaign as a victim of liberal bloggers. When independents wake up to the Senate race in the fall, they may be wondering why two Democrats are running and wanting to know if this is the return of what Bush supporters in 2000 dubbed "Loserman."

I'll try to post links to the more entertaining aspects of the nastiness as the year goes along.

"The first rule of war is that young men die"

This is my first serious post on this blog. The Iraq War hits hard every day. Last month it cost us the nephew of the author of the words below. I asked the author's permission to be able to post his words. He asked that he and his nephew remain anonymous. I have gladly honored that request. As you read it, think of someone you know that could be lost in W's War. Support the troops by praying that choices that can bring peace start to be made soon.

The Iraq War suddenly became very personal this week. On Friday we learned that our nephew, ____________, was killed while on patrol thousands of miles away from his wife and family. It's a story as old as war itself, though the news now comes to uncles and aunts via Microsoft Outlook rather than Western Union or Ma Bell. It's a story shared by 2,500 other American families, from Hawaii to Maine, not to mention the thousands whose memories are still raw from wars fought generations ago. And it is, of course, a story of loss that spans continents, linking mourners from Birmingham, Alabama, to Birmingham, England, to Baghdad, and beyond.

________ was not always our nephew. He entered our lives when he was about four years old, when his mother married my wife's brother. The awkwardness that often follows the blending of families was never there with _______ or his brother. At every meeting, they would rush to hug us, unconcerned with such trivial matters as bloodlines or shared histories. They insisted that we were family and so we were.

I would like to say that we were always close, but we were generally separated by hundreds or even thousands of miles, and it was rare that we saw each other more than once a year. Even when we briefly lived in the same city, our get-togethers were all too infrequent. We were usually busy, and so were they, and there was no sense of immediacy because everyone was so young. Time, we assumed, was on our side, and our relationship often consisted mainly of exchanging Christmas and birthday gifts, and thank you notes.

When we heard that ______ had joined the Army, we were apprehensive, but we also understood. It would be a good opportunity for him, a chance to find direction in his life, acquire some valuable skills, and perhaps get some money together for college. When we learned that he was going to Iraq, our apprehension only increased, but we knew—or thought we knew—that the odds were still very much in his favor. We were invited to his graduation from basic training in Fort Benning, Georgia, a drive of only a few hours, but other obligations prevented us from attending. I no longer remember what those obligations were, and I wish now that we had been there, because, while we were, at best, ambivalent about the Iraq War, we were never ambivalent about ______.

Though it is a word that is commonly tossed around in these situations, I refuse to think of _______ as a hero because I believe that the term trivializes his life. Heroes are plaster saints, nameless, faceless, and interchangeable. ______ was none of those things. He was an authentic, good-hearted, flesh-and-blood person, with most the virtues and a few of the vices inherent in our shared humanity. He joined the U.S. military for the same variety of reasons that young men have been doing so since the days of Lexington and Concord. I am certain that he took pride in serving his country, but I don't imagine he ever regarded his choice as an act of heroism.

There will be time later to sort out the politics of the War and its causes and consequences. But for us, that time is not now. At the moment, the speeches of politicians on both sides of the debate sound tinny and self-serving. The words of a thousand commentators and pundits seem obtuse and irrelevant. It is no longer possible to think of the war in abstract terms.

Instead, now is the time to remember a smiling, happy little blond boy who invited us into his family with a generosity of spirit almost unknown in the adult world. That, too, was an act of heroism. And for now, at least, it is the thing that matters most.

Top Twenty 1970s Wimp Tunes

I am a child of the 1970s. I was too small to remember the 1960s very clearly. The 1970s were my formative years. This includes influencing my taste (or lack thereof) in music. I have 2 friends who share this influence and have an extensive collection of tunes we have dubbed "70s schlock." One night we put together a unique subcategory of these tunes: wimp tunes.
Wimp tunes are those pop love songs involving the love that will not be consummated. The failure is not due to a great tragedy or anything that might inspire really good poetry. Nope, these are the unrequited loves caused by wimpiness. The idiot won't get off his/her butt and go after the chick/dude. This wimpness is accentuated by the way the song is sung. In the 1970s pop singers specialized in this craft. These tunes represent another reason that the 1970s were a very special decade.
Here are our top 20 wimp tunes. They are not ranked except that "Sometimes When We Touch" is first as the "Wimp National Anthem" and "Auld Lang Syne" last as a 1980 tune that matches the style, but would probably get replaced if we did this again.

For your next iTunes download....

"Sometimes When We Touch" Dan Hill
"Feelings" Morris Albert
"Diary" Bread
"Last Song" Edward Bear
"Telephone Line" ELO
"Living Next Door to Alice" Smokie
"Sylvia's Mother" Dr. Hook
"All By Myself" Eric Carmen
"I Like Dreamin'" Kenny Nolan
"Stand Tall" Burton Cummings
"I Think I Love You" Patridge Family
"I'd Really Love to See You Tonight" England Dan & John Ford Coley
"Don't Pull Your Love" Hamilton, Joe Frank & Reynolds
"I Honestly Love You" Olivia Newton John
"My Eyes Adored You" Frankie Valli
"Taxi" Harry Chapin
"Knock 3 Times" Tony Orlando & Dawn
"I'll Have to Say I Love You in a Song" Jim Croce
"Same Old Lang Syne" Dan Fogelberg


I believe I found a 21st Century version of this with James Blunt's "You're Beautiful." [Complete lyrics can be found at: http://www.seeklyrics.com/printer.php?lyric_id=649537] Yes, she's beautiful, in fact she's "an angel." But nothing ever happens. In fact, right after he says he's got "a plan," he sees her again but is too stoned to do anything. The chorus then whines, "I'll never be with you." Not unless you sober up and get off your ass you won't. This is a true wimp tune.

Update 7/14 Corrected the artists who sang "Taxi" and "Don't Pull Your Love" and title of Fogelberg tune

"Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest"

What lies below may include "spoilers" that those who have not seen this may wish to avoid. Read at your own risk.

I waited a couple of days since seeing “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” before writing this. I’ve been trying to work out how to say what I think about the movie. I’ll start with the basics and work from there and see how it goes.

This movie exists to setup the third film which will be out to next summer. It is a 2 ½ hour setup. It is often very enjoyable and has flashes of what made the first “Pirates” such a wonderful summer surprise. Please, don’t tell me you really thought a movie based on an old Disneyland ride would be good. There was magic in that movie. This one has too little fairy dust and leaves you wondering if they’ve saved it up for the next one.

The movie starts as if it is a straightforward tale. The new bad guys representing the East India Company (how many will get that reference) want Captain Jack Sparrow’s compass for some nefarious reason and have arrested Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann on their wedding day to force Will to go after Jack for them. Well into the movie, you get our two comic characters, the no longer immortal Pintel and Ragetti (you’ll recognize them when you see them), giving a 20 second run down of all the various subplots that have been twisting around. It’s a funny bit, but makes your realize how you were fooled by the opening plot. The last 20 minutes or so are the fun carnival ride that you were waiting for since you heard that this sequel was being made. What you have to be willing to accept is that nothing will be resolved. As I said, it’s all to setup next summer’s third movie. Few movies can pull this off. The one that sticks in my head that really worked was “Empire Strikes Back.” That movie also setup up the third film, but there was so much good stuff in it that stood on its own you were left only wanting more and happy to pay again and again to try to see what clues George Lucas may have snuck in to decipher.

This movie isn’t in that league. Not that it’s bad. It’s a decent movie. On my scale, I’d say it’s a matinee price movie. Here’s my full scale from best to worst with recent examples so you can see my movie taste:
Best: full price movie that I’ll see again and buy the DVD [Superman Returns; V for Vendetta; United 93]
Good but not great: full price movie, but now I’ve seen it and I’ll move on [Thank You for Smoking; Cars; Over the Hedge]
Good: worth the price of a matinee admission [Chicken Little; X-Men 3]
Fair: worth the price of the 2^nd run theater admission [The Devil Wears Prada]
Bad: I wish/glad I waited for this to run on HBO or to be $1.88 one week rental [Sky High]
Horrible: Must find something worthwhile to do to make up for the time from my life that this movie took from me [Not that I saw this, but “Doogal” would qualify]

In conclusion (pardon the academic transition habit), if you liked the first “Pirates” movie and think you’re likely to see the next one, go see it during a summer matinee. Or, if you prefer, rent it about a week before you see the third one next summer and hope they did save some fairy dust for next year.

Me at 3 circa 1965...I no longer carry a gun, but I'm still danerous

Opening Comments
I begin this blog as an experiment. I have been an Internet lurker for almost 20 years. Academic access allowed me to browse the Internet long before the web became popular and easy to use, but I've kept my Internet usage quiet beyond its use for my classes. Now I reveal a bit more of myself and see if I like it and if I think it can be of use professionally.

I am opening this blog to comments from anyone because I don't think I'll see much traffic. Please keep your comments PG or PG-13. I won't have any qualms with banning someone you I deem too nasty or just a "troll." If you want to trash me thoroughly with language best reserved for locker rooms and episodes of "Deadwood," do it via the email provided in my personal info. I imagine I can take it. Jesus loves me. I don't need anonymous persons on the Internet to love me.

This blog will not detail much of what is going on in my life unless my life gets a lot more interesting. Instead I'll comment on various areas of interest and link to places I find interesting. I'll post some of my favorite blogs and websites later. I may allow others to post on the frontpage if I get something interesting. I'll respect the author's anonymity if he/she desires.

So, as Jackie Gleason used to say, "Away we go..."