Elephant (Van Sant): C+
Gawk! at the beautiful Calvin Klein model high school kids doing mundane things.
Revel! in the exquisitely choreographed tracking shots that contain, in the shot, a kid's entire universe.
Behold! the gay outsiders who love guns and watch shows about Nazis.
Grimace! as this lovingly crafted "tone poem" clunkily shifts into exploitative crap.
To Be and to Have (Philibert): B+/B
It takes a village, or maybe it takes the dedication of an attentive soul with the right touch just to keep these adorable French urchins on track. Shapeless yet so in rich in carefully observed cuteness that you gotta be a Grade-A tin man to resist.
The School of Rock (Linklater): B+
Probably the best Kindergarden Cop-type movie ever made. Jack Black is so awesome, but I bet he'd be pretty obnoxious to have around all the time.
Intolerable Cruelty (Coen): B/B-
An homage to the greatest genre of classic Hollywood, the screwball comedy. The problem with the Coens' scenario is that the spy v. spy set up makes the boy gets girl an anticlimax. (In the best screwball comedies, usually one of the two would-be lovers has a heart.) That CZJ is completely overmatched by a pitch-perfect Clooney doesn't help. Many fine scenes, especially those involving Billy Bob Thorton, make it worthwhile.
Kill Bill, Vol. 1 (Tarantino): B+/B
So fucking cool, except when it's trying too hard to be so fucking cool. Superb use of music, virtuoso filmmaking, and dope references (Lone Wolf and Cub, Tokyo Drifter, Killer Clans, Intimate Confessions of a Chinese Courtesan, Zatoichi, Female Scorpion 41, etc. -- basically, ego-tripping for hardcore movie nerds), all adding up to what, exactly? And, yo, QT: Yuen Wo-ping does not do samurai swordplay. Stick with one-on-one stuff like the schoolgirl/Uma showdown. Now that was awesome.
Thursday, November 06, 2003
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Reagan/Dean 2003
1. CBS pulls its planned "The Reagans" mini-series after right-wingers whine and moan.
Reaction: Liberals are pissing all over CBS right now, and perhaps not without reason. But you know, what the wingnuts did isn't substantially different from minority groups protesting "insensitive" representations. One spat I got into online a while back involved the controversy surrounding F/X's planned scheduling of a Charlie Chan marathon, a plan which got shelved after vehement protests by some Asian groups, which enraged certain wingers. At the time, I argued that while the protests are largely misguided, the outraged responses ("PC police is running wild again!) are just as troubling.
Here's the deal: Ideally, programs should never be pulled. There's no captive audience for TV programming, so if you don't want to watch Charlie Chan or "The Reagans", then don't. These protests are energy ill-spent. Moreover, hypersensitive identity politics on the left and the Cult of Reagan on the right rank among two of the most annoying contemporary political phenomena, which makes it hard to take their side.
Without taking their sides, I can at least see where both groups are coming from. Just as it's crystal clear why Asian groups would find ol' Charlie offensive[1], it's also understandable why conservatives would be upset with this mini-series. You don't have to be a Reagan groupie to see how a seemingly extremely biased biopic of a man a chunk of the population considers a hero should probably not be airing while the guy's nearly on his deathbed. These political wars tend to focus on absolutes, but what's lost are good judgment and taste.
Essentially, what we have here is a kind of market correction by way of political activism. The passions of a well-organized minority can trump the extremely marginal interests of the majority in having those programming choices available. While that's not necessarily an awful thing, the way to check these kinds of controversies is by having different voices heard in programming. I suspect that there were no Asians (and likely no minorities) with input on the Charlie Chan programming decision. Likewise, it's likely that there were no conservatives among the decisionmakers that approved "The Reagans." Nobody talks about this angle, but a diversity of viewpoints and good judgment by programmers -- not whining -- is the best preventive measure.
So yeah, it's always regrettable when distributors cave to political hysteria. But when (1) the work is largely of dubious artistic merit; and more importantly, that (2) there are alternative avenues for consumers to see the product (Showtime will be showing "The Reagans" now), it's hard to cry wolf. What's best is if everybody shut the fuck up.
Bonus: Let's pay close attention to the hypocrisy meter when some liberal interest group applies the pressure. I bet both sides will hit ten on the dial again.[2]
[1] The most hilarious part of the online debate involved a bunch of utterly clueless white dudes trying to convince me why those dumbass, oversensitive Asians are wrong to be offended by Charlie Chan. Check out this idiotic page as well. To this day, it never ceases to amaze me how in the world a certain (laughably arrogant) segment of the White population can come to believe they *know* or understand what constitutes racially offensive depictions better than the group being depicted. "Well, hey, Charlie Chan's a good guy, and a conniving sleuth. Why's that bad?" Um, how 'bout the bucktooth, the exaggerated Asiatic features, the inscrutability, the accent, the sexlessness -- all contributing mightily to the image of the sexless, humorless, inscrutable Oriental male that continues to persist to this day, an image that's probably far more pernicious than any other Asian stereotype out there. And also consider that perhaps Asian males might experience certain situations that shed light how negative stereotypes plays out in real life -- y'know, experience which may elude the grasp of some white guy in Alabama? Just a thought.
[2] Sure, there are differences between Charlie Chan and "The Reagans", but they cut both ways. The former's a historical document and so the stereotyping is easier to contextualize, but "The Reagans" is clearly a work of fiction that need not strictly adhere to known facts. Wingers are trying to make content-changes to a show that hasn't been seen; Asian groups want to suppress a show that's already been widely disseminated. In short, these distinctions don't matter that much, and both sides should stop their fucking whining the next time something like this goes down.
2. Howard Dean gets slammed by other Dems for expressing his desire to appeal to the voter "who flies a confederate flag on his truck".
Reaction: Wake me up when this shit is over. This is exactly the kind of nonsensical controversy that makes presidential politics so frustrating to follow sometimes. Dean's basically suggesting that it's a good idea to broaden their appeal to recapture culturally conservative working class whites. He does it in provocative, colorful and half-serious language, exactly the kind of talk that can be easily distorted by political opponents. Too bad, because this kind of thing is really robbing us of any interesting or provocative political rhetoric.
Anyway, are any of these candidates really arguing that trying to expand your appeal isn't a laudable goal? Are any of these guys gonna pledge to reject votes for them by anybody who flies the Confederate flag? C'mon.
Dean wasn't saying that he's specifically trying to tailor his message to appeal to these guys. That would be extremely problematic, especially for a guy who's supposed to represent the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party". All he's saying, really, is that the Dems should appeal to folks who have fled the party. Doesn't seem all that objectionable to me, though I suppose I'd paint a different stereotype myself. But the more Dean gets beat up about this, the greater the urge I feel to support him.
(How realistic Dean's goal is is another matter entirely. Due to the intractable Red/Blue split, I'd write off most of the South and hone my electoral appeal to Midwestern battleground states, Florida and Dem-trending states like Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia myself, as Dean no doubt will if he wins the nod.)
But it's funny again to see wingers like the WSJ editorial page defend Dean. I wonder how the purists on both sides would react had Steve Forbes mentioned something about appealing to Castro Street drag queens in 1996.
3. Which of the following choices best describes the Bush Administration state of mind in prosecuting the Invasion of Iraq and its aftermath?
(A) Psychopathic.
(B) A vile mendacity that surpasses the worst dissembling of Nixon and Clinton.
(C) Dumb, but probably well-intentioned.
(D) Dangerously delusional.
(E) All of the above.
(E) is probably one right answer, but the more correct answer is (D). And that meme is finally getting the play it deserves. Best line from Kristof: "I wish administration officials were lying, because I would prefer hypocrisy to delusion — at least hypocritical officials make decisions with accurate information."
Exactly.
Oh, lastly, the Brzezinski speech -- probably the most persuasive indictment of Bush's foreign policy that I've seen -- has gotten a lot of play in the blogosphere already, but it deserves all the attention it gets.
Reaction: Liberals are pissing all over CBS right now, and perhaps not without reason. But you know, what the wingnuts did isn't substantially different from minority groups protesting "insensitive" representations. One spat I got into online a while back involved the controversy surrounding F/X's planned scheduling of a Charlie Chan marathon, a plan which got shelved after vehement protests by some Asian groups, which enraged certain wingers. At the time, I argued that while the protests are largely misguided, the outraged responses ("PC police is running wild again!) are just as troubling.
Here's the deal: Ideally, programs should never be pulled. There's no captive audience for TV programming, so if you don't want to watch Charlie Chan or "The Reagans", then don't. These protests are energy ill-spent. Moreover, hypersensitive identity politics on the left and the Cult of Reagan on the right rank among two of the most annoying contemporary political phenomena, which makes it hard to take their side.
Without taking their sides, I can at least see where both groups are coming from. Just as it's crystal clear why Asian groups would find ol' Charlie offensive[1], it's also understandable why conservatives would be upset with this mini-series. You don't have to be a Reagan groupie to see how a seemingly extremely biased biopic of a man a chunk of the population considers a hero should probably not be airing while the guy's nearly on his deathbed. These political wars tend to focus on absolutes, but what's lost are good judgment and taste.
Essentially, what we have here is a kind of market correction by way of political activism. The passions of a well-organized minority can trump the extremely marginal interests of the majority in having those programming choices available. While that's not necessarily an awful thing, the way to check these kinds of controversies is by having different voices heard in programming. I suspect that there were no Asians (and likely no minorities) with input on the Charlie Chan programming decision. Likewise, it's likely that there were no conservatives among the decisionmakers that approved "The Reagans." Nobody talks about this angle, but a diversity of viewpoints and good judgment by programmers -- not whining -- is the best preventive measure.
So yeah, it's always regrettable when distributors cave to political hysteria. But when (1) the work is largely of dubious artistic merit; and more importantly, that (2) there are alternative avenues for consumers to see the product (Showtime will be showing "The Reagans" now), it's hard to cry wolf. What's best is if everybody shut the fuck up.
Bonus: Let's pay close attention to the hypocrisy meter when some liberal interest group applies the pressure. I bet both sides will hit ten on the dial again.[2]
[1] The most hilarious part of the online debate involved a bunch of utterly clueless white dudes trying to convince me why those dumbass, oversensitive Asians are wrong to be offended by Charlie Chan. Check out this idiotic page as well. To this day, it never ceases to amaze me how in the world a certain (laughably arrogant) segment of the White population can come to believe they *know* or understand what constitutes racially offensive depictions better than the group being depicted. "Well, hey, Charlie Chan's a good guy, and a conniving sleuth. Why's that bad?" Um, how 'bout the bucktooth, the exaggerated Asiatic features, the inscrutability, the accent, the sexlessness -- all contributing mightily to the image of the sexless, humorless, inscrutable Oriental male that continues to persist to this day, an image that's probably far more pernicious than any other Asian stereotype out there. And also consider that perhaps Asian males might experience certain situations that shed light how negative stereotypes plays out in real life -- y'know, experience which may elude the grasp of some white guy in Alabama? Just a thought.
[2] Sure, there are differences between Charlie Chan and "The Reagans", but they cut both ways. The former's a historical document and so the stereotyping is easier to contextualize, but "The Reagans" is clearly a work of fiction that need not strictly adhere to known facts. Wingers are trying to make content-changes to a show that hasn't been seen; Asian groups want to suppress a show that's already been widely disseminated. In short, these distinctions don't matter that much, and both sides should stop their fucking whining the next time something like this goes down.
2. Howard Dean gets slammed by other Dems for expressing his desire to appeal to the voter "who flies a confederate flag on his truck".
Reaction: Wake me up when this shit is over. This is exactly the kind of nonsensical controversy that makes presidential politics so frustrating to follow sometimes. Dean's basically suggesting that it's a good idea to broaden their appeal to recapture culturally conservative working class whites. He does it in provocative, colorful and half-serious language, exactly the kind of talk that can be easily distorted by political opponents. Too bad, because this kind of thing is really robbing us of any interesting or provocative political rhetoric.
Anyway, are any of these candidates really arguing that trying to expand your appeal isn't a laudable goal? Are any of these guys gonna pledge to reject votes for them by anybody who flies the Confederate flag? C'mon.
Dean wasn't saying that he's specifically trying to tailor his message to appeal to these guys. That would be extremely problematic, especially for a guy who's supposed to represent the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party". All he's saying, really, is that the Dems should appeal to folks who have fled the party. Doesn't seem all that objectionable to me, though I suppose I'd paint a different stereotype myself. But the more Dean gets beat up about this, the greater the urge I feel to support him.
(How realistic Dean's goal is is another matter entirely. Due to the intractable Red/Blue split, I'd write off most of the South and hone my electoral appeal to Midwestern battleground states, Florida and Dem-trending states like Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia myself, as Dean no doubt will if he wins the nod.)
But it's funny again to see wingers like the WSJ editorial page defend Dean. I wonder how the purists on both sides would react had Steve Forbes mentioned something about appealing to Castro Street drag queens in 1996.
3. Which of the following choices best describes the Bush Administration state of mind in prosecuting the Invasion of Iraq and its aftermath?
(A) Psychopathic.
(B) A vile mendacity that surpasses the worst dissembling of Nixon and Clinton.
(C) Dumb, but probably well-intentioned.
(D) Dangerously delusional.
(E) All of the above.
(E) is probably one right answer, but the more correct answer is (D). And that meme is finally getting the play it deserves. Best line from Kristof: "I wish administration officials were lying, because I would prefer hypocrisy to delusion — at least hypocritical officials make decisions with accurate information."
Exactly.
Oh, lastly, the Brzezinski speech -- probably the most persuasive indictment of Bush's foreign policy that I've seen -- has gotten a lot of play in the blogosphere already, but it deserves all the attention it gets.
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Josh Beckett is an asshole
Reporter: "So what kind of adjustments did you make to Derek Jeter tonight, considering he got three hits off of you the last time out?"
World Series MVP, with a look of utter disdain: "I can't even believe we're talking about this, man."
Throughout the post-Game 6 press conference, Beckett treated the entire press corps as if they were tobacco snuff. And that's how the brash 23-year-old treated the Yankees, Cubs, and Giants lineups during the postseason: chewing 'em up and spit 'em out.
Yeah, he's a cocky little prick. But with postseason like that, who can hold that against him? Anyway, I've always dug asshole pitchers. Kevin Brown, possibly the most boorish man on the planet, is a particular favorite, along with widely-despised (though recently revered) Ra-jah Clemens, my childhood sports idol. Add Beckett to that group. Like Wood and Prior, he's got that exploding high nineties fastball and 12-to-6 curve. His stuff is the reason I've made a special effort to snap up Beckett on one of my Fantasy teams two years running (in neither year was he worth the price).
But it's that "I don't really give a fuck you've hit 500 homers, don't fuck wit' me" fearless swagger on the mound that's turned him into a guy I'll now always pay to see. I don't understand the fan mentality about wanting sports figures to be "good guys." Is it to perpetuate some fantasy that one day, Pedro will show up at Gillian's and throw back a few while telling you the inside dope? Sorry, man, I just want to see them dominate on the mound, just like I wanna see Barry at the plate with the bases loaded. If the player's awesome, I really don't give a fuck how often he dicsk over reporters in front of his locker or ignores autograph hounds.
Oh, and the Yankees? Whatever happened to Mr. Clutch in Game 6? Beckett's high cheese getting to his stomach?
Also: Grady Little gets canned. It had to be done because of the following reasons: (1) Red Sox Nation will never forgive him, making his job impossible; (2) his poor in-game managing is ill-suited to a team under such an electron microscope, where a sixth inning pitching change against Tampa Bay in late May is analyzed and argued over on the internet. Grady seemed like a good players' manager, but he's probably not a great fit for an organization as devoted to sabermetrics (stathead-ism) as the Red Sox.
World Series MVP, with a look of utter disdain: "I can't even believe we're talking about this, man."
Throughout the post-Game 6 press conference, Beckett treated the entire press corps as if they were tobacco snuff. And that's how the brash 23-year-old treated the Yankees, Cubs, and Giants lineups during the postseason: chewing 'em up and spit 'em out.
Yeah, he's a cocky little prick. But with postseason like that, who can hold that against him? Anyway, I've always dug asshole pitchers. Kevin Brown, possibly the most boorish man on the planet, is a particular favorite, along with widely-despised (though recently revered) Ra-jah Clemens, my childhood sports idol. Add Beckett to that group. Like Wood and Prior, he's got that exploding high nineties fastball and 12-to-6 curve. His stuff is the reason I've made a special effort to snap up Beckett on one of my Fantasy teams two years running (in neither year was he worth the price).
But it's that "I don't really give a fuck you've hit 500 homers, don't fuck wit' me" fearless swagger on the mound that's turned him into a guy I'll now always pay to see. I don't understand the fan mentality about wanting sports figures to be "good guys." Is it to perpetuate some fantasy that one day, Pedro will show up at Gillian's and throw back a few while telling you the inside dope? Sorry, man, I just want to see them dominate on the mound, just like I wanna see Barry at the plate with the bases loaded. If the player's awesome, I really don't give a fuck how often he dicsk over reporters in front of his locker or ignores autograph hounds.
Oh, and the Yankees? Whatever happened to Mr. Clutch in Game 6? Beckett's high cheese getting to his stomach?
Also: Grady Little gets canned. It had to be done because of the following reasons: (1) Red Sox Nation will never forgive him, making his job impossible; (2) his poor in-game managing is ill-suited to a team under such an electron microscope, where a sixth inning pitching change against Tampa Bay in late May is analyzed and argued over on the internet. Grady seemed like a good players' manager, but he's probably not a great fit for an organization as devoted to sabermetrics (stathead-ism) as the Red Sox.
Friday, October 17, 2003
Thursday, October 16, 2003
It's On.
As Rob Neyer shows, taking into account nothing else, the deathmatch between the Red Sox and the Yankees will feature the greatest pitching matchup for a Game 7 in baseball history.
But baseball isn't just numbers. The beauty's in the history and backstory. And Bernard Malamud couldn't have scripted this one any better. The old gunslinger, on his last ride, with one bullet in his six-shooter, coming back with the U.S. Army to take out his old posse, the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Leading that posse is the brash, arrogant, formerly invincible Dominican pitcher, who once boasted that he'd drill the Babe in his behind if the Sultan of Swat were batting today. He now steps to the mound, with the disgrace of his previous start hanging over him, when he pouted and drilled a guy when things didn't go his way and tossed the 72-year-old Yankee bench coach with a metal plate in his head (who was the manager of the Red Sox in the previous Biggest Game in the Most Storied Rivalry in Sports) to the grass. One team is the most successful franchise in American team sports; the heartbreaks suffered by its accursed rival has become part of American lore.
But this year feels different. The teams have played 25 times this year, with the Yankees having taken just one more. It seems fitting that the Sox should even the season score.
This is the biggest sporting event of my adult life. Whatever happens, this game will be talked about for years and years. Step up like you did in Game 5 v. the Indians in 1999, Pedro, strutting out of the bullpen to shut out the Indians for 6 innings while throwing the mid 80s with that frayed shoulder. Write your legend.
On the other side, nobody wanted to see the Marlins in the World Series, and they knew it. But they've just been playing the kind of baseball purists like to see in the playoffs -- clutch hits, solid innings from the bullpen, and excellent, gaffe-free defense. It's a great story to blame the fan and the Cubbies' losing ways, but in the end, the Marlins were the more balanced, athletic, well-rounded team. And they had a better in-game manager. Over the years, nobody has squeezed more out of mediocre teams than Dusty Baker. The Giants last year started four guys who wouldn't make the Yankees playoff roster. Nobody gets more out of his players. But the same "faith in his players" approach doesn't work in big games. Prior should've been taken out after 5 in Game 2. Clement should've pitched yesterday. Zambrano should've pitched yesterday. Gonzalez should've gotten only junk in that at bat in the 7th, with Beckett on deck and nobody warming up for the Fish. And while I hesistate to jump to conclusions, it's hard not to suspect that all those 120+ pitch starts that Prior and Wood made this year didn't take its toll on their young arms.
But baseball isn't just numbers. The beauty's in the history and backstory. And Bernard Malamud couldn't have scripted this one any better. The old gunslinger, on his last ride, with one bullet in his six-shooter, coming back with the U.S. Army to take out his old posse, the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Leading that posse is the brash, arrogant, formerly invincible Dominican pitcher, who once boasted that he'd drill the Babe in his behind if the Sultan of Swat were batting today. He now steps to the mound, with the disgrace of his previous start hanging over him, when he pouted and drilled a guy when things didn't go his way and tossed the 72-year-old Yankee bench coach with a metal plate in his head (who was the manager of the Red Sox in the previous Biggest Game in the Most Storied Rivalry in Sports) to the grass. One team is the most successful franchise in American team sports; the heartbreaks suffered by its accursed rival has become part of American lore.
But this year feels different. The teams have played 25 times this year, with the Yankees having taken just one more. It seems fitting that the Sox should even the season score.
This is the biggest sporting event of my adult life. Whatever happens, this game will be talked about for years and years. Step up like you did in Game 5 v. the Indians in 1999, Pedro, strutting out of the bullpen to shut out the Indians for 6 innings while throwing the mid 80s with that frayed shoulder. Write your legend.
On the other side, nobody wanted to see the Marlins in the World Series, and they knew it. But they've just been playing the kind of baseball purists like to see in the playoffs -- clutch hits, solid innings from the bullpen, and excellent, gaffe-free defense. It's a great story to blame the fan and the Cubbies' losing ways, but in the end, the Marlins were the more balanced, athletic, well-rounded team. And they had a better in-game manager. Over the years, nobody has squeezed more out of mediocre teams than Dusty Baker. The Giants last year started four guys who wouldn't make the Yankees playoff roster. Nobody gets more out of his players. But the same "faith in his players" approach doesn't work in big games. Prior should've been taken out after 5 in Game 2. Clement should've pitched yesterday. Zambrano should've pitched yesterday. Gonzalez should've gotten only junk in that at bat in the 7th, with Beckett on deck and nobody warming up for the Fish. And while I hesistate to jump to conclusions, it's hard not to suspect that all those 120+ pitch starts that Prior and Wood made this year didn't take its toll on their young arms.
Thursday, October 09, 2003
No jinxes
I lost my Red Sox cap in Bali. Speeding down on a bumpy road in the middle of nowhere on a moped, looking desperately for help after the jalopy I rented broke down (it's the jeep model issued to GIs during WWII, I'm sure of it), my cap flew off. After finding some help, I got the moped boy to turn back so I can retrieve it on the road, but it was nowhere to be found. A bystander told me that another local happily scooped it up and rode away. So some Balinese rice farmer named Wayan has my cap and during this hour of need, he better tend to it like a newborn child.
The Balinese is my cap's keeper. Though I'm tempted to pick up a replacement cap this week, I just can't do it. Wearing new gear might jinx them. Ridiculous? Perhaps. But at least I wasn't wearing the same shirt three days in a row like the Sports Guy (funniest sportswriting I've read all year -- check it out).
Today, Derek Lowe, he of the shit-eating Lowe face, goes up against Big Game Andy Pettitte. Pettitte is always tough on the Sox, but he also blows up once every five games or so. Let's hope it's Pettitte's bad turn, and Lowe continues to roll.
Oh, for fans of great sportswriting, an exquisitely written piece on the Sox-Yanks matchup by Thomas Boswell.
The Balinese is my cap's keeper. Though I'm tempted to pick up a replacement cap this week, I just can't do it. Wearing new gear might jinx them. Ridiculous? Perhaps. But at least I wasn't wearing the same shirt three days in a row like the Sports Guy (funniest sportswriting I've read all year -- check it out).
Today, Derek Lowe, he of the shit-eating Lowe face, goes up against Big Game Andy Pettitte. Pettitte is always tough on the Sox, but he also blows up once every five games or so. Let's hope it's Pettitte's bad turn, and Lowe continues to roll.
Oh, for fans of great sportswriting, an exquisitely written piece on the Sox-Yanks matchup by Thomas Boswell.
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
Ahnold iz Govnuh
If the early exit polls are to believed, the vote wasn't even close. It's at least a ten point spread on the Recall question and a similar margin for Arnold. The race is to see if the "no on recall" vote is higher than Arnold's percentage, which would deprive the Gropenator of a mandate. Reportedly, a higher "no" vote will give various liberal groups a stronger rationale to then start a drive to recall Arnold. Ugh. Will people give it a rest already?!?
The problem is the process. This faux-populist madness needs to stop. This shit makes me wish I hand a billion dollars to bank roll the Initiative to End All Fucking Voter Initiatives Ever in California Ever Forever.
And contra most of my friends, I don't see the Gropenator being nearly as fucked up as Bush. Sure, he's a Republican, with a pathetically simpleminded worldview to boot. But he's inherited a 20 billion dollar problem (the size of the state budget deficit, after all the smoke & mirrors are removed), and he's mandated to balance the budget. Because of the idiotic initiatives that voters have passed, the governor's hands are tied anyway (many budget items are mandatory and he can't run up a deficit to solve all his problems like some people). Undoubtedly, the poor will get jacked by the massive spending cuts that are needed, but it'll be checked somewhat by the Democratic legislature. Plus, he commands no standing army.
Other questions: (1) will Arnold help Bush take the state in 2004? Actually, it'll be funny if the Bush people believe this and start throwing money into California's black hole. Unless things change dramatically, Bush has about a 3% chance to take California. (2) Will Arnold reinvigorate the moribund California Republican Party? Unlikely. I expect Arnold to have a Ventura-like term; lots of publicity and hot air, but his gradiose pronouncements frustrated by the agonizing horse-trading and compromising that goes into governing. Like Ventura, he'll end up not running for re-election. But if he does move the Republican towards the middle and revitalizes it as a viable party, that's only good for California politics. It'll keep the CalDems on their toes, so they don't stock their leadership with Kafkaesque technocrats. How in the world did a bloodless, charisma-free hack like Gray Davis become the Governor of California anyway?
What's worse? Arnold's win (a) starts a new trend of doofus-celeb candidates who run because they think they're entitled to public office, or (b) spawns a cottage industry of "post-modern cultural critiques" about celebrity and politics.
Late-breaking benefit! Mickey Kaus will finally shut the fuck up and go back to pimping welfare reform 24-7. Why I keep reading this knee-jerk contrarian blowhard, I have no clue.
The problem is the process. This faux-populist madness needs to stop. This shit makes me wish I hand a billion dollars to bank roll the Initiative to End All Fucking Voter Initiatives Ever in California Ever Forever.
And contra most of my friends, I don't see the Gropenator being nearly as fucked up as Bush. Sure, he's a Republican, with a pathetically simpleminded worldview to boot. But he's inherited a 20 billion dollar problem (the size of the state budget deficit, after all the smoke & mirrors are removed), and he's mandated to balance the budget. Because of the idiotic initiatives that voters have passed, the governor's hands are tied anyway (many budget items are mandatory and he can't run up a deficit to solve all his problems like some people). Undoubtedly, the poor will get jacked by the massive spending cuts that are needed, but it'll be checked somewhat by the Democratic legislature. Plus, he commands no standing army.
Other questions: (1) will Arnold help Bush take the state in 2004? Actually, it'll be funny if the Bush people believe this and start throwing money into California's black hole. Unless things change dramatically, Bush has about a 3% chance to take California. (2) Will Arnold reinvigorate the moribund California Republican Party? Unlikely. I expect Arnold to have a Ventura-like term; lots of publicity and hot air, but his gradiose pronouncements frustrated by the agonizing horse-trading and compromising that goes into governing. Like Ventura, he'll end up not running for re-election. But if he does move the Republican towards the middle and revitalizes it as a viable party, that's only good for California politics. It'll keep the CalDems on their toes, so they don't stock their leadership with Kafkaesque technocrats. How in the world did a bloodless, charisma-free hack like Gray Davis become the Governor of California anyway?
What's worse? Arnold's win (a) starts a new trend of doofus-celeb candidates who run because they think they're entitled to public office, or (b) spawns a cottage industry of "post-modern cultural critiques" about celebrity and politics.
Late-breaking benefit! Mickey Kaus will finally shut the fuck up and go back to pimping welfare reform 24-7. Why I keep reading this knee-jerk contrarian blowhard, I have no clue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)