When people look back ...

... on this election, they'll probably ask what McCain did that caused him to tank with voters. To get all Russert-like -

 

• Some might say he really wasn't going to ever win - I've always suspected that he wasn't the right-wing's first choice.
  
• Some might say that it all went downhill when he picked Palin - for the longest time, I subscribed to this point.

But I suspect much of the analysis will look back at the economic problems that hit at the same time, and how McCain dealt with them.

 

This comment from Steve Benen sums this up nicely -

 

"The conventional wisdom has been that McCain dropped in the polls after the crisis began in earnest because voters' attention shifted to the economy, which is McCain's weakest point. That's largely true, but it's incomplete. McCain dropped because his response to the crisis has been ridiculous. This was an opportunity for McCain to not only show some leadership and a "steady hand," but also that he knows what he's talking about when it comes to the economy. He's failed miserably."

 

That being said, I do think there's a larger issue going on.

 

Part of it lies with the idea that the American public is finally seeing the American Right Wing (as housed in the current incarnation of the Republican Party) ideology for what it really is. All those years of scandals, fake issues are insignificant now. What I'm hoping is that this will be the start of the public finally realizing that the American Right should be kept far away from government. They are very good at getting into power, but running government is something that should be left to those who know how to govern for all, not use government as a vehicle to reward a select few.

 

 

Right-wing pundits upset over McCain and Palin ....

Here's one from David Brooks -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/david-brooks-sarah-palin_n_133001.html

Here's the thing -

All the polls, voter registration numbers, and momentum are moving towards Senator Obama and the Democratic Party for the coming election. I think Mr. Brooks is looking for someone else on the right-wing to blame besides Senator McCain. Choosing to direct his ire at Sarah Palin is not really going to really accomplish that (that is, if you assume that it was Senator McCain himself who picked Governor Palin as his running mate).

Further, where was he with this kind of piece when Governor Palin was introduced by Senator McCain? It was pretty obvious within an hour of announcing her that she wasn't qualified for any public office, let alone the one she currently occupies.

For that matter, where was he and perhaps others when George W. Bush was running for President back in 1999/2000?

This is why I don't have much respect for conservatives and their movement as it is these days. I can respect someone for having opinions (even if I disagree with them). But Mr. Brooks, and many other of his political stripe who apparently had these types of concerns about Bush, yet chose to keep quiet because they probably saw it as a chance for their movement to dominate all levels of government, as did much of the corporate media (even though we all know Al Gore won in 2000, as did Senator Kerry in 2004). They are now playing a game of CYA with their readers because the country has gone down the tubes thanks to Bush and his cronies, and voters are largely not buying into Senator McCain's ideas, campaign, or judgment (perhaps because it's really similar to Bush).

That these pundits knew and chose not to speak makes them hypocrites to be angry now. That's why I don't respect them.

I think the pending Obama election victory result will be the first salvo in the Republican Party civil war, fought between the three main factions (foreign policy hawks, corporate interests/lobbyists, and religious/social conservatives). These are I think some of the first sets of rumblings.

Pictures of a wedding

No, not mine again, but rather my brother's ...

 

Meet Sonia, my sister-in-law, and George at their engagement and wedding:

 

http://picasaweb.google.com/georgejoseph.pattara0/GeorgeSoniaSMarriagePhotos

 

They got married in India some months back.

 

Enjoy!

American Vice-Presidential Debates

Vice-Presidential debates are primarily about one thing - they are a defacto-test of the candidate's judgment.
 
In a lot of cases, the picking of the VP is something a candidate must think long and hard about. Will the person complement them, not upstage them? Can the person play the role of attack-dog, but not serve to be an irritant? Can the person stay on message, but demonstrate personality and character? And most important, if something were to happen to the candidate, can this person pick up the mantle an carry on?
 
Watching the VP candidate debate last night, it's clear to be that each person selected validated all these points. That is, they truly represented the judgments of their respective candidates.
 
Watching Biden, it's clear he had spent a lot of time prepping, but it didn't visibly show. Why? Because he spent years, decades preparing. He was truly ready and he delivered a great performance. He was calm and clear. And he managed to expose Palin and McCain for the frauds that they are without being rude, weak, or mean to his opponent. He also spent a lot of time doing something Obama did in his debate with McCain; that is ask the viewer to think about the two sides' positions and compare what's going on today with what could happen tomorrow. On that note, Biden succeeded. And on a more higher level, he confirms Obama's judgment in picking the right person for the job.

 

Now all Obama and Biden need to do is stay focused, stay on track, and get voters registered and to the voting booths.
 
As for Palin - all about ambition, nothing else. Her sad fake routine (very reminiscent of Bush) will fool only the incredibly ignorant. One can hope that the country, having endured close to eight years of this with Bush, will learn from that mistake once and for all. Her lack of substance demonstrated she really should not be in public office at any level. And it confirmed one thing about McCain ...
 
Mitt Romney and Joe Lieberman must have said no.

Talking about Charlton Heston was larger than life - Movies- msnbc.com

Mr. Hartl,

I too admired Mr. Heston for his acting ability. But let's face facts - he was the head of a crazy organization. Whether I believe and support the right to bear arms is inconsequential to the fact that, I certainly would not let the National Rifle Association speak on my behalf.

After all, this is an organization that believes one should carry firearms at National Parks. Hello?

Keeping ready-to-fire guns in out of the country's National Parks is not about Second Amendment "rights"; it's about families being able to camp in National Parks without the fear that some NRA nervous Nellie will mistake them for a bear and start shooting away during the night.

If the NRA are so fearful of crime and wildlife in National Parks, then they don't need to go into them.

The rest of us rational people can camp in peace. This is about our rights, not a specific segment of the population's selfishness in bringing the potential for violence into the last vestiges of our tranquil natural heritage as a nation. Something the NRA and Mr. Heston just could not comprehend.

Their lunatic-like obession with guns is the biggest reason there is so much violence in America today. But I bet you didn't think of that when you were insulting Michael Moore and his film.  Frankly, if Mr. Heston was unable or unwilling to answer serious questions posed by Mr. Moore in his movie, he should never have been ithe NRA's head.

Geniality and heading the NRA is a recipe for hypocrisy - and Mr. Moore exposed that for what it really was.

Next time, Mr. Hartl, please use some common sense when writing your obituaries in future. Mr. Heston's acting, demeanour were no excuse for fronting such rabid supporters of violence.

The future of TV for me ...

The issue I have with the end of all analog (NTSC) TV transmissions in the US on February 17, 2009, has not so much to do with - 

 

• politics (the issue of whether the NTSC, an arm of the FCC is really nothing more than a tool of the corporate media; where private interests/technology are influencing decisions on national public airwaves);
  
• nor the actual technology of HD TV (though I’ve heard they apparently burn more energy than regular TVs, and I question the long-term impact on one’s vision);
  
• UHF channels at the high end of the band being decommissioned and sold for other uses (who gets to buy them, and for what purposes);
  
• or even the voucher program (under different circumstances, I would rather see 100% compensation for the purchase of converter boxes with ATSC tuners, rather than just a voucher).

No, the issue has really gotten me thinking about television in general. In my time here in the US, I’ve perceived the quality of TV programs to have decreased significantly. I base this on the not just a noted decrease in watching television in general, but the reduced number (and types) of programs I watch.

There are essentially three type of television shows that really dominate the prime-time television line-up; ‘reality’ ‘reality-game show’ and the ‘Sex And The City’ clones. None of which I have any interest in. And they have largely replaced sitcoms and drama television programs as the dominant prime-time programs viewed by the public at-large.

And as to what sitcom and drama shows do remain,  the quality and availability of such shows that I do watch has decreased.

By in-large I tend really to watch four types of television shows –

• Local News
  
• The Simpsons
  
• Law and Order
  
• Live Sports events  

Looking at each one -  

1. Local news stations are - by in-large - extensions of the global media conglomerates which dominate the US broadcast television networks and airwaves. Each of them (News Corp, Paramount, Disney, and GE) are major contributors to right-wing and Republican politicial establishments. I’ve observed, much of the news (even at a local level) I find tends to have a right-wing bias, often gets many facts wrong, or even spreads false information. Basic elements of most newscasts (camera work, live feeds, and visual articulation), I’ve found to be remarkably unprofessional in presentation. Elements of the news (like the weather forecasts) are often full of bluster, rarely ever right, and almost never acknowledge errors in predictions. With their bombastic music, most of these stations’ own TV commericals during these local news casts are often self-absorbed, about the station patting itself on the back for its bluster and ‘coverage’. I find I get more accurate, consistent (and reliable) information and coverage from sources online.

 

2. While I still enjoy the Simpsons on re-runs, I do agree that newer episodes aren’t as funny as perhaps 6-7 years ago. And I’m disappointed that the makers are apparently not permitted to criticize/lampoon the Republican Bush administration (of which News Corp has been major political donor and propagandic sponsor through its cable channel). Mr. Murdoch apparently had no issue with them making fun of the previous administration’s key figures.

 

3. Similar issue with Law and Order (the show really went downhill when they brought in Fred Thompson. And especially after 9/11, the show went increasingly more right-wing). But on a more general level, the show has (IMO) become more unrealistic even for its own universe. And its reputation has been hurt by the sister spin-off shows (all of which generally contain poor acting, and really weak storylines).

 

4. I have a lot less time to watch MLB and NFL games, and the occasional soccer match. I have mixed feelings whenever the occasional NHL game is broadcast. I’m not very happy with the overall direction of the game of hockey, as presented by the NHL (too much fighting, not enough hockey). And even if I do put that aside and try to watch anyways, often it’s broadcast on networks which lack the profressional analytical skills I’m used to seeing on Canadian broadcast television. The points are moot, as most sports events are largely televised on cable, of which I have other issues with. 

 

Most of what I watch nowadays are older TV shows, on DVD. We should be able to watch those on our old TV set. And if a new TV show does come along that I’d like to watch, we can rent it from Netflix, or perhaps view it from iTunes with an iPod.

What I want to get away from are the broadcast networks, with all their product placements in TV shows, and endless commercials around them. I have this theory that attention span decrease will be traced to watching too many TV commericals.

The bottom line is, television – whether HD or not -  is not worth pursuing.

 

It’s because of this, that I have decided to simply not bother with broadcast television come February 17, 2009. I think I'll be better without it.

Quote of the day ...

... from Jon Stewart -

Basically, first-term president Bush, you invaded to remove the threat of Saddam Hussein. And you, current president Bush, are there to battle the threat created by the lack of Saddam Hussein.

 

(thanks to Atrios)