America Loses a Great One

I am shocked and saddened to learn of Tim Russert's death.

At 58, he was too young. It was too sudden. He was too good a father. And he was too valuable to the American people.

The longest running host of Meet the Press, Russert was an interviewer of uncommon skill. His unwillingness to accept obfuscation and untruths from his subjects, constantly citing dates and playing tape of previous statements they were now contradicting, made him an indisensable asset to anyone attempting to navigate the waters of national politics.

His panels, consisting of top Beltway journalists, were always informative, comprehensive, and even entertaining. He was knowledgeable, professional, and driven to make the best show he could, and he succeeded.

Meet the Press, under his leadership, was simply the best political talk show out there, and it is very difficult for me to imagine anyone filling his shoes. Yet we need, desperately need, people like him. The Woodwards and Bernsteins get the glory, and the movies made about them, but Tim Russert was there every Sunday, asking the hard questions, reminding politicians who they work for, and keeping the American public informed about the nuances of the issues affecting their lives. It's a sad day for American journalism.

Tim, we're going to miss you.

What Can I Say? Indy's Back!

The danger inherent in any sequel made decades after the original film(s) is obvious. Part IV's are not known to be succesful. Movie stars tend to give up action roles as they get older. This movie could have been quite a disappointment.

Yet, it wasn't. In fact, it was the second movie in the last twelve months to meet the above criteria and not suck (the other one being Live Free or Die Hard, the first film reviewed in this space).

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is everything you want from a summer popcorn movie, in full Spielberg style. And Harrison Ford is not too old, and Shia LaBeouf is not lame, and it is good to have Karen Allen back.

One thing I did miss, was the feeling of endless different locations and dire situations. This aspect of the previous installments (especially the first) definitely delivered bang for your buck. You walk out of the theater thinking, "Wow! That was really a lot of movie!" This movie had a similar running time, but it felt shorter, because it just didn't seem to take very much time to get to the place they ultimately needed to be. It felt like, "They were here, then they went there, then they came to this place." Boom.

That being said, it had chase scenes, sword fights, death defying waterfall plunges, poison darts, terrifying entomological adversaries, all against fantastic backdrops, from the American desert to the South American jungle. Oh yeah, and it also had INDIANA JONES!

Seriously, Indiana Jones, as created and executed by Messrs Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford, is one of the greatest action/adventure heroes of all time. (For GenXers, dare I say, the greatest?) And Lucas and Spielberg give him plenty of things to do. Plenty of impossible situations, plenty of fights, plenty of one-liners. And Harrison Ford pulls it off. If you were willing to suspend disbelief for young Indy, you should be able to suspend it for 60s Indy, because Harrison Ford himself proves that it's possible to age that well.

In addition, the stunts and action are everything you could hope for in a movie bearing the Indiana Jones name. Let me just say: swordfight between two people standing up in the back of two Jeeps driving at top speeds side by side through the jungle. If that doesn't get you revved up, this isn't your type of movie.

But what of the supporting cast? Well, Cate Blanchette is sufficiently cold and evil and badass as the Soviet villain. Mr LaBeouf is actually quite engaging as the young, arrrogant, but still badass sidekick. John Hurt turns in a fine performance as the old, wise professor. And Karen Allen brings back the chemistry missing since the first film.

Some will question the underlying mythology, but I accepted it as the MacGuffin, albeit without quite the payoff provided by the Ark of the Covenant. Really, not so left-field when we consider other notable projects from Spielberg and Lucas. (Vagueness intentional, I don't wanna spoil...)

I know I've been gushing, but the fact is, if you like Indiana Jones, you'll like this movie. No, it's not the magical ride the first one was, all those years ago. But it is as good a sequel after a 19 year break that you could want. You like Indy? Go see it!

Stephen Malkmus and the Jicks

If you were alive in the 90s and even remotely interested in rock music outside the mainstream, you've either heard SM, or you've heard artists who were influenced by him. As leader and frontman for the band Pavement, Stephen Malkmus introduced ideas that would influence a generation of aspiring college radio rockers. From his quirky melodies and bizarre, loopy lyrics to the non-equal-tempered tunings, and the bursts of lovely, crunchy noise, Pavement were like the Beatles of the 90s indie-rock scene.

When the breakup news came after their fifth album, much concern was had by all. "This can't be happening", we said, with our heads in our hands. As it turned out, our fears were without merit.

Not to disparage any of the other musicians from Pavement, but it turns out SM is the kind of singer-songwriter who takes his style and feel with him, regardless of the other musicians playing with him. This is not to take away from the Jicks either, I'm simply saying Pavement fans have enjoyed an organic development of music through the two bands.

With the release of his fourth album with the Jicks under his belt, he brought his show to the WOW Hall in Eugene Wednesday night.

First the bad news. Even during Pavement days, old songs were poorly represented in their set. The older the album, the fewer songs from it they played, but I can deal with that. The bigger problem was that they would be the same from tour to tour. If you want to focus on your new stuff, fine. But if you're only going to play one song from your first album, at least re-learn a different one for the next tour.

Having seen SM with the Jicks for the second year in a row, I sadly report that this is still his MO. Last year we got "Jo-Jo's Jacket", this year we got "Jo-Jo's Jacket". Compounding the problem is that we didn't even really get anything new. While he may have had an new album out, the fact is those songs were done a long time ago... long enough to have played them on the last tour.

But enough of that. Let's talk about the good things (which far outweigh my complaint).

First of all, the band. Janet Weiss, drummer for Sleater-Kinney, joined the band last year, and she is a welcome addition. Powerful and energetic, her distinct style gives the band more edge and dynamics than it had previously. Joanna Bolme laid down solid bass lines, chatted with the crowd, and generally was a lot more pleasant to look at than Pavement's Mark Ibold. Both women provided back-up vocals, which added a nice, distinctly Jicks texture. Mike Clark on second guitar and keyboards filled in spaces and added power.

This band is more likely to go off on improvisational flights than Pavement, although they still remain grounded in the songs. SM has never gotten over his shyness on stage, facing Mr Clark more than the audience and letting his hair obscure his eyes. But you'd never know it by listening. His signature guitar style and vocal delivery were in evidence as always.

I already mentioned the lack of surprise in the set list proper, but that changed during the encore. I don't know if we got a little something extra due to Oregon being his adopted home state or if he was just in the mood to go nuts, but they played a hefty five songs, including "Jenny and the Ess-Dog" from the first album (which mitigates somewhat my forgoing complaint), as well as two covers.

The first cover (and first song of the encore) was "Remedy", by the Black Crowes. This one was obviously rehearsed and planned, and it rocked. A couple more new songs, and then it seemed like it was over, but then SM goes and talks to his band mates, and voila! An unrehearsed, unplanned "Jenny and the Ess-Dog". Bonus!

After this, both the audience and the band were looking to SM to see what the plan was. SM goes to Ms Bolme, teaches her a riff, and then they launch into... "Godzilla", by Blue Oyster Cult. I'm not even kidding, that was cool.

Overall, it was a great show, because it's a great band with a great singer/songwriter/leader. But as a standout show, only the encore saved it.

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do

It's been a foregone conclusion since McCain emerged as the solid GOP frontrunner that the excitement in the 2008 primary season lies on the Democratic side. McCain's got it sewn up, the Dems are locked in a heated battle. True enough, but I think there is something interesting, and even historical, about the way the Republican race has played out.

Even though the GOP candidates have essentially held to the Bush line in many respects, they have certainly not gone out of their way to align themselves with Bush by name. The name they prefer to have associated with them is, of course, Ronald Reagan.

Why? Well, of course, not wanting to be associated with Bush is a no-brainer. The president has a 30% approval rating. But Reagan was popular, and is the icon of modern conservativism and Republican supremacy. He was the architect of the "three-legged stool" upon which the Republican party has been seated for a quarter of a century.

The three components of Reaganist Republicanism are foreign policy conservatives, economic conservatives, and social conservatives. These three groups' interests don't always coincide, but they have maintained an alliance that is showing definite signs of breaking down.

For instance, we have seen much greater interest and involvement by evangelicals when it comes to the environment and poverty. To me, these seem like entirely natural issues for Christians to take a left of center position on, but this is counter to the interests of the economic conservatives, so it has been repressed. The fact that this is changing, along with other factors, leads to the conclusion that the GOP stool has had its day.

One of the other indicators seems to be this primary season. The Republican Party is normally the party of unity, but that isn't the case this cycle. We have in fact seen a foreign policy conservative (McCain), an economic conservative (Romney), and a social conservative (Huckabee), splitting the Republican vote. Conventional wisdom says Huckabee and Romney were splitting the anti-McCain vote, and that may be true to some extent, but I think the data show that the Reagan coalition is fractured, probably fatally.

What does this mean? I think it may portend the rise of the "New Republican", The Giuliani's and Schwartzenegger's, and even the McCain's; people who take a hard line on foreign policy, but may be more relaxed economically, and who could even be described as liberal on social issues.

Everything changes, and I feel we may be witness to a number of them this cycle, not the least of which is the evolution of the Republican party.

From South Carolina to Tsunami Tuesday.

Well, this is an interesting cycle so far, isn't it? Looking ahead the next few weeks, what can be said?

On the Republican side, Giuliani seems washed up before he started. What made him think he could blow off the first few weeks of voting? Now he's losing ground in Florida, and with Gov. Charlie Crist's endorsement of McCain, things don't look good for the former New York mayor. It's hard not to see Florida as a must win for Rudy. I guess people needed to hear more than 9/11. As a footnote: Thompson ends his non-campaign (yawn).

Mike Huckabee created a sensation, but seems unlikely to have the base to win many states on February 5th. He's surprised before, and predictions have gone quite wrong many times this cycle, but I suspect his more-maverick-than-McCain image will force the party to rally (ironically) around McCain.

The only real question mark left on the GOP side is Romney. It's hard to imagine anyone voting enthusiastically for another flip-flopper from Mass., but whether he looks good enough to the pro-business and establishment elements to beat McCain remains to be seen.

On the Democratic side, Edwards is pressing on, as he should. He is still viable, with solid support and the vast majority of delegates still to be awarded, and he has a message of economic inequality which should continue to be part of the dialogue.

But that brings us to my real question: Obama or Clinton?

First let's address qualifications. Clinton claims the mantle of experience, but let's acknowledge that the truly experienced Dems (Dodd, Biden, Richardson) have all dropped out of the race. I'm not sure that "living in the White House" is ultimately that relevant. It may be that Clinton is familiar with day-to-day Presidential doings like no other current candidate, and she may have been involved like no first lady before her, but does that really translate into the kind of experience advantage she is claiming? She held no office, she had no security clearance.

That being said, she is a wonk. You don't want to get get into a detailed policy debate with her. She has been a hard working senator. Contrast this with Obama, reportedly disinterested with the inner workings of the Senate, and long on poetry, short on prose, according to the Clinton camp.

On the other hand, Ruth Marcus, writing for the Washington Post, gives Obama's stimulus plan an A-. It's got credits/rebates going to those who need it and are likely to spend it quickly. Edwards gets a B- for being on top of things, without including the best ideas, and Bush gets a B- for not insisting on making tax cuts permanent (a big deal for him). Both lose points, in Bush's case for not putting money where it will be spent, and Edwards for too much lag time in his ideas to truly act as a stimulus. Other Republicans get D's, except for Giuliani, who is too incoherent to be graded. Clinton gets a C+, points for being early, but no ideas to actually "soften the landing". I guess Obama may have good crisis solving ideas after all.

But isn't the poetry part important? I say yes. In office, the president will have to persuade Congress, the American people, and leaders, governments, and people of foreign countries of the value of his/her policies. The bully pupilt is an important, albeit extra-constitutional part of the president's job.

I believe Obama has demonstated an ability to transcend political boundaries. Not only have moderate "liberal's conservatives" such as David Brooks spoken highly of Obama and his presidential potential, but so have iconic conservatives such as George Will and Charles Krauthammer.

Furthermore, Obama appeals to independents. So does McCain. In many ways, independents decide elections. When electability is taken into account, it seems to be Obama's advantage. This is especially important if McCain does indeed win the nomination.

All things considered, I believe Democrats should support the ultimate nominee, but in the meantime: Vote Obama!

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Leader of the Free World

Editor's note: The following is a reprint of a post by Tim Grieve on Salon.com's War Room. My conclusion? Our president doesn't have a clue.

Thursday, Nov. 8, 2007 06:26 EST

Business is great, people are terrific

Here's the New York Times this morning with the latest news on the economy:
"Stock markets plummeted and the dollar sank to a record low against the euro yesterday as investors worldwide grew skittish over rising oil prices and the prospect of a substantial economic slowdown in the United States.
"The Dow Jones industrial average fell 360 points and the broader stock market dropped nearly 3 percent, driven down by fear that the troubles in housing are likely to continue well into next year, contributing to further losses in credit markets and spreading pain to the rest of the economy. After a relatively strong summer, consumer spending is expected to tighten and business profits slow in the months ahead, analysts said.
"''We are experiencing among our clients an awakening that the United States is in big trouble,' said Erik Nielsen, chief Europe economist at Goldman Sachs."

And here's George W. Bush yesterday on why he thinks that a Republican will win the White House in 2008: "The economy is in pretty good shape, and we've got some issues, but the economy is pretty strong, which -- and the other side does want to raise taxes."
In other news, Bush said yesterday that, "If you lived in Iraq and had lived under a tyranny, you'd be saying, 'God, I love freedom!' -- because that's what's happened." And asked what message he has delivered to Pakistan's President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Bush said: "You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time."
― Tim Grieve
Posted in: George W. Bush

Westboro Baptist Church: Agents of Satan? Or merely contemptible, low-life, black-hearted, despicable pieces of shit?

If you're not aware of this morally bereft, disgustingly offensive organization, it is a group that believes that the war in Iraq is punishment for the US's tolerance of homosexuality. This idea is bizarrely stupid and deeply offensive on its own, but they're entitled to it, and it's not what earned them this diatribe.

No, their sin is that they've used this idea to justify, get ready for it, the picketing of funerals for soldiers, carrying signs with such egregiously, colossally offensive slogans as "God hates fags", and "Thank God for dead soldiers". Read those again. It's unconscionable, isn't it? Remember, they are doing this at funerals, with these soldiers' poor parents forced to endure this unbelievably immoral onslaught on top of their burden of grief... one reels at the awful, callous, detestable wrongness of the dregs of humanity that call themselves the Westboro Baptists.

I don't believe in hell, but I hope there is one, for the sake of terrorists and Westboro Baptists. May they both burn there forever.