Support indie music!

I'd like to make a plea to anyone who stops by, on behalf of my friend Robert Goodman. He is trying to raise some money to fund the release of the debut album by his group, the Robert Goodman Band. If you think you'd like to be a part of helping a self-supporting band get to the next level, then please check out the video, info and link to visit the Robert Goodman Band page on KickStarter. KickStarter is affiliated with Amazon.com, and if you already have an Amazon account, then donating (anything from $1 on up) is as easy as logging in and clicking a few times. They'll certainly appreciate the support!

Here's the link to the Robert Goodman Band page on Kickstarter:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/robertgoodmanband/robert-goodman-band-2011debut-albumeverthing-is-be?ref=search

And here's a little taste of what they do:

Support indie music!

Its a small world after all

The internet's a funny old thing.

On the one hand, it has the power to separate people from one another. Every day, there are more and more ways to waste time on the web, and every day there are more and more people wasting time alone with their PC, instead of going outside their homes and doing actual things. And the problem doesn't stop when they do leave their houses. You'll see whole families, waiting for their meals at a restaurant, ignoring each other while they text, or check their email, or look at a YouTube video. I know a few people who can't go more than an hour or so without checking in on Facebook, because they are so hooked into it. It's at the point where even young kids who have absolutely no reason to have a Facebook page (like my 10-year-old daughter) think that they NEED a Facebook page, because they've come to think that is the best way to keep in touch with the people they know. Conversations are so old school; why bother when you can post a comment on your friend's wall, or even better, just click "like"? In a lot of ways, the internet has undermined the relationships and activities many people used to enjoy.

And then, on the other hand, the internet has given us the potential for connections and opportunities we might not have otherwise had. Let me offer you my heartwarming Christmas story as an example of what I mean.

I am a rabid fan of the indie rock group Elbow. They're from Manchester, England, and I've been following and supporting them for years, with an enthusiasm that most people usually reserve for sports teams or Jesus. When an Elbow forum called Elbow Room Only made its online debut in 2008, I was quick to join up. It was great to find so many fellow fans, especially since this band has not exactly become a household name here in the US. At last, I had some folks with whom I could share my thoughts and feelings about this incredible music! And they turned out to be a really nice bunch of folks, too, with some of them becoming the 21st-century equivalent of pen pals. I have sent and received goodie packages, exchanged emails and Christmas cards, and generally kept connected to several of them over the past 2 years.

Over the past little while, there have been a lot of happy conversations on the Elbow forum. News was posted on the Elbow website that they'd be releasing a new album this coming March, with a tour to follow in the UK. Of course, this put all of us Elbow geeks in a proper tizzy, though some were a bit tizzier than others. I am one of only a few Americans on the forum; nearly all the rest are from the UK/Ireland or Europe. And since the tour dates were all in the UK/Ireland or Europe...well, I was a bit less able to join in the fun. My fellow Elbow-heads were posting about the shows they planned to attend, while I just had to wait until (eventually) some US dates would (hopefully) be posted.

Or so I thought. As it turns out, the internet was about to play a vital role in The Greatest Christmas Ever.

At this point in our heartwarming tale, a bit of background info might be useful. I've been married nearly 20 years now. However, my husband and I went through a really (really, REALLY) rough patch and were apart for some years, beginning when when our daughter was just about to start school. Only recently have we managed to work our way back to some normalcy, and over the past year or two, we've really made a lot of progress. Things are better for us now than they've been in quite a long time, as a family and as a couple, and I think it was for this reason that my husband decided he was going to make this a Christmas to remember.

He knew just how much I wanted to see Elbow in concert. However, the odds of them coming here to Florida are approximately the same as the odds of me joining the Celine Dion fan club (in other words, less than zero). Now, I've actually traveled out of state to see them twice before, but I would never even remotely have considered trying to arrange a trip outside the US to catch one of their shows. So, he decided to do it for me.

He knew that I had a pen pal-type relationship with one particular member of the Elbow forum, a perfectly lovely woman named Lorraine, who lives in one of England's Northern Counties. My husband and I had even planned to try and meet up with Lorraine and her husband (also an Elbow fan/forum member) when we take our planned family trip to visit his relatives in Scotland this coming summer. Lorraine, he thought, could help him execute his cunning plan.

He knew her name, and tried searching for her email address or other contact info, but came up empty handed. He also knew that Lorraine and I follow each other on Twitter, so he created a Twitter account and tried finding her that way. That was how he got his first break. As it happens, Lorraine had started up her own site for Elbow fans (called, appropriately enough, elbowfans), as a sort of sister site to the other forum, and she has a second Twitter account to tweet about updates to that site. My husband saw one such tweet, and found his way to the elbowfans site, where he promptly signed up as a new member. Lorraine, in her admin capacities, sent him a welcome message, and then he let her know who he was and what he was up to.

From there, he and Lorraine started communicating via email, and with her suggestions and assistance, my husband managed to arrange a complete trip for me. I would be flying to Manchester, Elbow's hometown, to see them in concert this coming spring. He got me the plane tickets, a ticket to the gig, and a room in a really sweet hotel. He made plans to work from home while I'm away, so he can look after the kid and the dogs, and he enlisted Lorraine's help in looking after me once I'm there, as she and her husband will be coming into Manchester themselves for the show and have offered to hang with me and keep me company there. Like I said before, greatest. Christmas. EVER.

It's ridiculous how much time and effort he put into planning this for me. And it was all through social media and websites that he managed it. In this case, those same online entities that isolate so many of us actually worked to create new connections and strengthen old ones. In fact, the first time I had the chance to hear Lorraine's voice came on Christmas morning, when my husband told me about my trip and gave me Lorraine's number. Previously, our communication had all been online or in the mail, so having a proper chat with her was truly a gift in itself (See? Didn't I tell you this was a heartwarming story?).

I am profoundly amazed and grateful, to my husband and to Lorraine, for the work they did to make this happen. But I am also grateful for the technology that enabled them to do what they did. Somehow, two people who live thousands of miles apart from one another and had never met, managed to pull off a mindblowing and brilliantly sneaky Christmas surprise for me, all via online interaction. As I was saying, the internet's a funny old thing.

Its a small world after all

The best Christmas story ever

Folks, I have an early Christmas present for all of ya. I know we're all plenty busy getting ready for the holidays, but I'm gonna ask you to take about 18 minutes out of your day to watch a little something, and if you do, I know you'll be glad you did.

I don't think I've ever seen a Christmas story that I love as much as this one. It's a clip from the end of the film Smoke. Now, if you've never seen that flick, it is one you should check out ASAP, because it's fantastic all the way through. But the ending, in particular, is one of the best things I've ever seen in my life. It's not Frosty the Snowman or It's a Wonderful Life. It is, however, the most real and human and beautiful piece of film I've ever seen on the subject of Christmas.

The skills of actors Harvey Keitel and William Hurt, the direction of Wayne Wang, and the cinematography of Adam Holender are all extraordinary during this clip. See for yourself, and make sure you watch it all the way through, because when it changes from color to black and white, it gets REALLY good. Enjoy, and happy holidays, folks.

The best Christmas story ever

Deal or no deal

Over the past few days, there has been a giant pile of negative vibes floating around. Between the passing of Elizabeth Edwards from cancer, the 30th anniversary of the murder of John Lennon, the fire which recently consumed the home of one of my neighbors, and the general stress and psychosis that are beginning to creep into my days as I rush to complete my holiday preparations, I've been fighting a bit harder than usual to keep my sunny side up.

And yet, with all this to think about, the one thing my mind keeps chewing on more than anything else is the god-awful "compromise" that has been struck between the White House and the GOP over the Bush tax cuts. It has saddened and infuriated me in ways I can't fully articulate. I am trying to tell myself that it's not what I should be focused on, especially at this time when there is so much else going on that requires my immediate attention. But I just can't help it.

The thing is, I have really worked hard to back this president up. Many people have. He was someone that I thought would be driven to make good on the promises he made while campaigning. Not that he'd necessarily deliver on all of them; that would be impossible and even I, on my most optimistic days, know that. But I expected, from his words and the force with which he delivered them on the campaign trail, that he'd be driven to at least try and tackle the issues once he'd been elected, and that even when he inevitably lost a political battle here and there, he'd go down swinging.

I had seen that maddeningly cool and reasonable side of him on the campaign trail, too. I knew he could go full-on Vulcan once in a while, and that it often happened when you most wanted him to be fired up and fire other people up. So I don't suppose I have any right to be shocked when that Spock-like demeanor appears and undermines the passionate side of his personality. Weighing all the information is a good thing, and I appreciate the fact that the president can do this - and values doing this - when making his decisions.

But here's where I get angry. This was not a decision that had to be made at the last minute. Someone who values information as much as President Obama does should have known that. We all own calendars. We all knew the issue of Bush's tax cuts would need to be resolved before the end of this year, and we all knew that the issue of extending unemployment benefits would also need to be dealt with in the same time frame. When the Republicans blocked those benefits from being extended before the compromise (not once, but multiple times), why was this not made into a huge public issue by the White House? Why were we not told by our president at the time, in no uncertain terms, that this action was indefensible, and that the people needed to communicate with their elected officials to get them to do the right thing? He could have made a bigger deal about this, and he should have. This would have forced the unemployment benefits issue to stand alone, as an example of GOP stubbornness hurting the American people, and it would have forced the Congress to deal with it as it stood and not as part of a tax cut package.

Granted, there are many other important situations that have been fighting for attention in D.C. But if the well-being of the unemployed was as much of a heartfelt concern for the president as he's been saying it is (nonstop, for the last 24 hours, as a justification for why he "had" to compromise with the GOP), then he would have moved it up a bit on his agenda. He would have made sure there was a plan in place well before now, when the sense of urgency about extending those benefits wasn't a carrot the Republicans could dangle to get the White House to jump through its hoops. President Obama said, at his press conference yesterday, that it only makes sense to negotiate with hostage-takers if "the hostage gets harmed". Well, on whose watch did the American people get taken hostage by the GOP, Mr. President? How did they become pawns in this discussion, and why could that not have been prevented somehow?

The art of political negotiating in Washington is, no doubt, a highly complex and inscrutable process. I don't suppose I have the expertise needed to truly judge how skilled or how unskilled a person is at making good deals on Capitol Hill. I just have a gut feeling that President Obama didn't do all he could to advance his cause, and that he left the discussion too late to operate from a place of strength. Yes, he may have wanted to spare the unemployed any problems that they might face should their benefits run out, but the fact that he was in that position - standing with a political gun to his head by the GOP, forced to give up a principle that formed a major cornerstone of his campaign just to get something so basic and so necessary - tells me that this president is not as capable of effective legislative leadership as his supporters expected him to be.

I've already heard what the president thinks of my opinion, and the opinions of others who feel he failed by making this compromise. He's been very clear about the idea that those of us who disagree with him simply don't know what a great deal this actually was, and how satisfied we should all be to have it, under the circumstances.

Those circumstances, however, are the problem, and they are a problem of the president's own making. God help me for saying this, but there are a few times when he should be "the decider", as George W. Bush so memorably put it. Obama based his whole campaign on change. Changing the way Washington worked, changing the way things got done, changing the whole scene. And yet, here he is, explaining away this deal he's made by telling his base that it's not so bad, considering the way things are. That he is expecting us to be OK with him working within the constraints of "the way things are", after all his words about change during his campaign, is truly distressing.

I know the president has a big mess to clean up. I know he's not getting all the help and support he needs, either from Washington or from those of us outside of Washington. I don't expect everything to be peachy keen only 2 years after we ended the 8 years of Bush's crazy train presidency. But I am not being unreasonable or out of line when I say that this compromise should not have happened as it did, and that there must have been other, and probably better, ways in which to handle this.

I am not a member of what is known by the White House as "the professional left". No one has ever paid me a dime to think the way I think, or believe what I believe. My opinions are not dictated to me by anyone in the media. I am simply an informed and interested citizen who takes seriously my rights and responsibilities as a part of America's democracy. And I consider it both my right and my responsibility to speak out when I feel something is wrong. I support President Obama, and I have for a long time. That does not mean I agree with all he does, nor does it mean I should just shut up and act grateful no matter what he does. And when something as infuriating as this compromise happens, I don't have any qualms about expressing my anger.

None of us who helped the president get elected did it half-heartedly. Nobody gave up hours of their time working phone banks or chunks of their money donating to his campaign on a whim. It was out of commitment to him, and to the principles he claimed to represent. Even when it was inconvenient, even when it was difficult, even when it cut into our free time or our disposable income, we did not stop. We never compromised a damn thing when we worked so hard to help him. We didn't expect him to compromise so freely on something so important. If he continues to sell out on what he promised us he'd do, and if he continues to play the victim when we express our unhappiness with such decisions, he will find that his army of support from 2008 has largely dried up by 2012. And if the Democratic base is even less enthusiastic about their party in 2012 than they were for this year's midterm elections, we are all in big, big trouble.

Deal or no deal

Music that doesn't suck (Part 1)

Alrighty, I have been in the house all day, doing fun stuff like balancing my checkbook and paying bills and whatnot. the only reason I haven't stabbed myself in the eye with a fork is because I had some good songs coming up on my mp3 shuffle. I decided to take a break and share some of the musical goodness with ya. I kinda listen to a bunch of different stuff, so pardon the bizarro nature of the following stuff. It doesn't all go together, but it works somehow. Kinda like chocolate-covered pretzels.

Daft Punk - Derezzed
One of the new songs from the upcoming soundtrack to Tron:Legacy. Which I do not care about AT ALL, except for the fact that there is new Daft Punk music in it. This is not the song as it appears on the OST, it's a remix, because Disney's cracking down on anyone who posts material from the soundtrack. But you get the idea; this is gonna sound frawesome (that's freakin' awesome, in case you didn't know).


Bjork - Who Is It
Speaking of frawesome...a human beatbox, handbells, and Bjork. Brilliant.


Elbow - Great Expectations
You will never hear a more gorgeously done song. Never.


Rufus Wainwright - Oh What a World
One of my two favorite Rufuses.


Rufus and Chaka Khan - Tell Me Something Good
And here's my other favorite Rufus. Check out Chaka's gold glitter disco top and the bell bottoms! Day-ummm!


Eels - Last Stop:This Town
Mark Oliver Everett is one of my favorite songwriters ever. this video is pretty wackadoo, but the song is ace.


Hanson - Thinking 'Bout Something
I know it's not cool to like Hanson. But guess what? I don't give a flying motherfucking fuck. And this video's got Weird Al, so it's automatically cool. Don't like it? Bite me. Twice.


Everly Brothers - Let It Be Me
One of the most incredible songs ever written, sung with one of the all time great harmonies in recorded music.


Lyle Lovett - Bears
I freakin' love Lyle Lovett. And this is one of my favorite of his songs.


Tom Waits - In the Neighborhood
It doesn't get any better than this. Except for all the other songs Tom Waits has done, that is.
They're all amazing on an interplanetary scale.


Bettye LaVette - Love Reign O'er Me
I love watching this. It's fun to see the looks on the faces of Pete Townshend and Roger Daltrey as Bettye LaVette kicks their song square in the ass. Epic pwnage.


Flaming Lips - Fight Test
Wayne. WAYNE. WAAAAAAYNE!!!!!!!


Loretta Lynn w/Jack White - I Miss Being Mrs. Tonight
I really like this one a lot, despite the fact that Jack White is one freaky lookin' dude.


Beastie Boys - So What'cha Want
What's cooler than this song? Not a goddamn thing.


Kanye West - Robocop
Kanye West: unparallelled bag of douche, but Lord help me, I like his music. What're ya gonna do? *shrug*


REM - Nightswimming
Something beautiful to round out the set. Sort of like a dollop of post-Kanye sorbet.


And there you have it, the music that got me through the day. Now I gotta go pick the kid up from school and listen to her Radio Disney crap all the way home...*shudder*

Music that doesn't suck (Part 1)

Pick your battles

Alright, I know I've already posted once today, but bear with me, folks. It's my own fault; I probably shouldn't read the news headlines as often as I do, because I know I'll see something that pisses me off. For example...

Earlier today, there was a press conference announcing the release of the Pentagon's report on the effect of repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy for the military. According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the report indicates that there would be no major disruption within our armed forces if DADT is repealed, and gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly. This report was meant to answer those members of Congress who had insisted on some form of in-depth study into the issue before moving forward with any decisive action. So, now we got the answers we were after, and that should satisfy everybody, right?

Of course not, you silly! That would be too easy! I mean, so what if the report says the military can handle repeal? And so what if the majority of Americans favor repeal? And so what if people really don't support DADT anymore? And so what if other nations have managed to allow openly gay men and women to serve without a problem?

The bottom line, very simply, is that the GOP does not want this repeal to happen. In their eyes, it is a political point on which they cannot yield, whether it's due to fear of the far-right, Tea Party element in their base, or whether it's just old-fashioned homophobia and hate. Whatever the reason, there is no report, no poll, no set of facts or figures that will ever change the minds of the many Republicans who oppose repeal.

As evidence, you can check out the responses from Republicans today, including Rep. Joe "You Lie!" Wilson. They are declaring a need for reports on the reports, in true Washington-clusterfuck style. Maybe further recommendations, maybe some hearings, whatever it takes to really, reeeallly be super-dee-duper sure that the world won't explode if we invite people who have The Gay to fight and die for our country. And if all else fails, according to some Republicans, let's just stall until next year, when a repeal will be a bit harder to come by.

Folks, I don't know about your moms, but my mom always used to tell me, "Pick your battles". She told me that not everything needed to be a fight, and that maybe there were times when the struggles weren't worth it. I wonder if the moms of all those GOP lawmakers ever told them the same thing. I know they have only one item on their agenda right now, and that item is, "Stop Obama from succeeding/getting re-elected". I realize that allowing the repeal of DADT would be in direct violation of that sacrosanct agenda. And I realize that the knee-jerk, mob-think mentality to which the vast majority of Republican politicians subscribe makes it nearly impossible for them to respond to the facts and the overwhelming public opinion supporting repeal.

I just wonder if it ever crossed any of their minds that, perhaps, their resistance on this particular issue is a dead-end road. Everyone knows DADT will be repealed. It's no longer an "if", but a "when", and those who oppose its repeal will undeniably be on the wrong side of history. There is no credible reason to ask men and women to hide their sexual orientation as a requirement to serving in the military. It simply makes no sense.

Would it be OK to ask troops to pretend they weren't black, or Jewish, or athiestic, or anything else? Would we ever accept a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on behaviors which actually have the potential to affect others, such as excessive alcohol consumption, smoking or gambling? How is it considered bad for morale and cohesion in a military unit when someone is gay, but not if they're intolerant of gays - or certain ethnic groups, or Muslims? Why don't we ask troops to conceal that sort of despicable mentality if they want to serve? It really doesn't matter why we don't place restrictions on things like that. The point is, we don't. We couldn't. And it makes no more sense to ask gay troops to pretend they're not gay. It's ridiculous, it's illogical, and it is ultimately indefensible.

Republicans might not care how ridiculous they appear. With Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and so many other truly loopy people representing them, they certainly seem to be okay with the whole "lack of public credibility" thing. But if they really did want to fix their image, be seen as more than just "The Party of No", and gain some traction with the majority of America, a good way to start would be to stop being so crazy about the DADT policy. There are plenty of battles to fight on Capitol Hill. It makes sense to pick those that will actually lead somewhere, and abandon those that can't be won, and really shouldn't be fought in the first place.

Pick your battles

Too much of a good thing

Once again, it's "overload" time in America.

We just got finished stuffing and shopping ourselves silly, and now we are all ready to begin the annual holiday wig-out. We've got to find time to buy/wrap/ship gifts, send cards, prepare food, attend holiday parties/events, and basically drive ourselves crazy for the next 25 days or so.

Even the fun stuff is too time-consuming these days. For example, remember when you were younger, and you looked forward to watching your holiday favorites on TV? Whether you liked Charlie Brown, Rudolph, or Jimmy Stewart, you would be able to relax and enjoy some televised Christmas spirit for a few happy prime time hours as the countdown to December 25 rolled on.

But now? Well, now there's simply too much to watch. Back in the day, you used to have maybe a dozen shows/movies that would air in the weeks before Christmas; they'd be spaced out so that there were only a few on each week (not counting "very special" holiday episodes of regular shows like Happy Days or whatever), and once they aired, that was it. You knew if you missed Frosty, you weren't gonna be seeing him again until next December.

Today, things are different. There are a bazillion channels, each with their own schedule of holiday offerings. The ABC Family channel has at least one holiday program on every night right up till Christmas Day. And of course there are DVDs and On Demand and Netflix, so you could literally watch different holiday shows nonstop from now until Christmas if you wanted to.

I still love holiday shows and movies. There are so many I like, but that's sort of the problem. After 42 years on this planet, I've accumulated too many favorites to fit 'em all into one month. I'd probably have to start watching them in (at least) mid-November to make it work. Some are the old-school classics (Miracle on 34th Street, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, and Charlie Brown of course), and some are more recent (Scrooged, The Muppet Christmas Carol, Jingle All the Way, A Christmas Story). But, add them all up, and you're talking a shitload of time parked in front of the TV, when there are other, more productive things I need to do. I feel guilty even thinking about watching them.

Hard to believe that something as mindless as watching TV could be so complicated, but that's life in today's America. The Grinch and Yukon Cornelius are competing against real life for my precious time, and I'll need to start mapping it out somehow. Hmmm, lemme look at my calendar...maybe I can pencil in The Polar Express for Thursday, right between drum lessons and taking the car in for an oil change...

Too much of a good thing

Thanksgiving dinner? But Sears is open!

First, there was Black Friday. Then, Black Friday went from just the busiest shopping day of the year to a masochistic marathon in which stores opened earlier and earlier, with some even starting their sales events on Thursday at midnight. On top of that, we added Cyber Monday, since the weekend-after frenzy just wasn't enough. And this year, for the first time, top-name retailers such as Sears, Toys R Us and K-Mart will even have sales hours on Thanksgiving Day itself. Thanksgiving has mutated into this insane, materialistic free-for-all, and it ain't pretty.

I thought we were all in dire economic straits here, folks. Isn't that why we just went through the whole "throw the bums out" mob scene during the midterm elections? All the unemployment and foreclosures and pay cuts and everything...didn't we just go to the ballot boxes to tell our politicians that we were hurting and needed help?

And yet, it seems that this year, Americans simply DO NOT have enough hours in the days after Thanksgiving to spend their money. I guess we're all doing a little better than we thought we were, though you wouldn't know it from the news. If we're recovering, that's great and all. But, more to the point, even if we are all suddenly able to shop for hours (and hours and hours) all weekend, why are we doing it?

Yes, things are cheaper for a little window of time. Yes, there's a deal or two to be had and yes, it is a way to get a jump on the holiday shopping most of us must do. Honestly, though, it is making me a little ill to see how enormous and all-encompassing this buying freakout has become. It's as if people are simply terrified to miss out on a price cut, even if they must spend less time with their family and friends, and more time on line in the pre-dawn hours, waiting to stampede into a store so they can fight over the last $29.99 digital camera. It's beyond my comprehension how we got this way, but trust me, y'all. You and your loved ones will survive if you don't get a truckful of crap at the mall this weekend. You really will.

Tell ya what, folks. I love my family and my friends. I love Thanksgiving. I love the parade, the food, the football, the naps - all of it. And I am honestly thankful for all those things, and for everything else I have, and I enjoy taking one measly day out of life to reflect on those things and revel in them. I'd like to think all y'all are in the same boat, and have enough good stuff in your own lives to make you content on Thanksgiving, instead of clamoring for bargains on plastic shit with the masses out there. If you're one of those who lives for the after (or, God help you, during) Thanksgiving sales, then more power to ya, and I hope you find whatever you're looking for at a rock-bottom price. Seriously. But if you're one of the lucky ones, like me, I hope you savor every minute of your day tomorrow, and Friday, Saturday and Sunday too.

Maybe you'll even join me in a little tradition I have. When I'm having a slice of leftover pumpkin pie with whipped cream as a midnight snack, I always think of the poor slobs lining up to do battle with their fellow consumers, shivering in the dark, working out their shopping strategies and slurping coffee from a thermos to get them through a sleepless night. And as I chomp down on that first whip-creamy forkful in my cozy kitchen, I smile and offer my last thanksgiving of the day: Boy, am I thankful that I'm not them.

Thanksgiving dinner? But Sears is open!

I'll take "Pathetic Has-Beens" for $500, Alex!

My kid was home sick today. There's a bad case of the barfs going around her school, and she didn't want to be left out, I guess.

She's actually fine now (thanks for asking), but the day was a bit long. She was pretty low-energy, as you would imagine, and we ended up cuddled on the couch, watching the idiot box. Nothing wrong with that, exactly, since she was just too bedraggled after a sleepless night to focus on arts & crafts or Monopoly. The problem was with the specific shows we ended up watching. After some random channel-flicking, we ended up on the Game Show Network. No, really! See, they had on some Deal Or No Deal reruns, and she knows that game because she's played the arcade version. It caught her eye, and she got hooked in, big time.

She kept asking me, "Mommy, what would you do? Would you take the $65,000 or would you tell the banker no deal and try to get the million?" "OK, now he's offering $98,000. Would you take that or not?" I soon saw how badly she was jonesing for a big money win. No matter what the damn banker was offering, it JUST WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

Once in a while, as the cases and remaining dollar amounts were eliminated, they'd put up some stats on the screen, explaining what the odds were that the contestant would win a certain prize. But the concept of probability had no meaning to her. If it said on the screen that there was an 83% chance that the contestant would only have a maximum of $75 in their chosen case, my daughter was unmoved. "Yeah, but there's still, like, almost a 20% chance that the case has the million dollars in it, right? So she should keep going, right?" I swear to God, I hope she never goes to Vegas when she grows up. She'll lose everything she owns and end up moving back home.

By the last few minutes of the show, the suspense was getting to her, and she was practically pleading with the contestant through some couch-to-TV studio communication portal that only children can use. "No Deal! Tell him no deal! You've got that million in your case, I just KNOW it!" Eventually the woman took home $165,000 and found out that her case had only been worth $75. That was a tremendously anti-climactic moment for my kid, and she was pretty bummed for a bit there.

But then, the next show came on. It was one I'd never seen or heard of, called Catch 21, and it looked lame. It was hosted by the actor who used to play Carlton on "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air", for one thing, and though it was great to see he still had a job and didn't have to resort to selling crack to make ends meet, it really seemed sad to see him there. And to top off the lameness sundae, the contestants on this "very special celebrity edition" of Catch 21 were all former contestants on "The Biggest Loser". It was a virtual has-been-apalooza. Not what I wanted to watch, at all. But for whatever reason, my kid was enthralled all over again by the spectacle of people on TV having the infinitesimal chance to win a whole shitload of cash.

I was kinda puzzled, and then I got a sudden mental flashback of my own childhood sick days. Man, I used to love spending my sick days watching "The Price is Right". Loved the games, loved Bob Barker, loved the Showcase Showdown. And, yes, I was rooting for the contestants to win it all. It was a big freaking treat for me when I happened to be home on a day when somebody won the trip to Hawaii, the washer/dryer combo, AND the year's supply of Turtle Wax and Rice-a-Roni.

It's pretty funny that my daughter has the same sort of tendencies as I did when I was her age. But sick days seem to turn kids into little game show freaks, and they do want to see the big money payoff. Greed, as they say, is good. At least it is when you are emotionally invested in the economic advancement of a random dental hygienist from New Jersey, or some person who lost 125 pounds on a network reality show. I can't explain it this phenomenon. All I know is, the next time my kid catches a virus, I hope she'll sleep through the day, because if I have to watch poor old Carlton pretending to be happy about hosting a lame game show , I'll get sick too.

I'll take "Pathetic Has-Beens" for $500, Alex!

Beatles and blips and scrobbles, oh my!

My digital music universe is expanding once again.

Today, Apple announced that it has added the Beatles catalogue to its iTunes stores. This is a big deal to many people, and a big non-event to a nearly equal number of people. But it undoubtedly represents a major breakthrough in what has been, by all accounts, a long and difficult period of discussions between Apple and the Beatles' representatives.

I am a huge Beatles fan, and have been since the ripe old age of 10 or so. Even so, I can't really say that the Apple deal is a major "wowee-kazowee" moment for me. I have been listening to the Beatles in digital form for years already, after adding all my CD's to the hard drive of my computer and to my MP3 players. And I am not a big fan of iTunes to begin with. As any iPod/iPhone user knows, Apple does not play well with others. I hate the way they make it so hard to get, manage and move music - even music you are paying for or have paid for - and I resent spending big bucks on their products, only to be told that I am limited in what I may watch or listen to, or how I may watch/listen to things. Not to mention, I still prefer listening to the music I like best, including the Beatles, on CD with a good pair of headphones. The digital version isn't the same, sonically, and I am not in a big hurry to download anything the iTunes store will be adding.

On another front, however, I am embracing the online musical universe known as Blip.fm. This site basically offers you the chance to play digital DJ, by putting together your own set of streaming music which is then listened to by other users. Those users can then give you "props" for playing songs they like, or become a listener of your "station", and you can find other DJ's to listen to yourself. It's free, and (for music geeks like me) kinda addicting. In fact, as soon as I blow this popsicle stand, I'm headin' over there to start streaming a new set of tunes.

Each time you choose a song to play on your station, you can also post updates on what you're playing instantly, to your Twitter or Facebook pages. And you can hook up your Blip.fm activity to other social music sites like Last.fm, so your blips can be simultaneously scrobbled (if you don't know what the hell I'm talking about, then you're even more of a net-tech noob than I am, which is highly unlikely).

Suffice it to say, between all the blipping and scrobbling, I'm gonna be wasting waaaay too much time for the foreseeable future. Until I get bored of it, which, with my attention span, could be any second now. But if you're interested in what my blips look like, and you want to catch it before I get distracted by a shiny object or something, check my page by clicking here: http://blip.fm/invite/ChrissieInFl Have a rockin' day, y'all...

Beatles and blips and scrobbles, oh my!

My 5th grade field trip dilemma

My kid is in her last year of elementary school (wait, how the hell did that happen already?). The school always arranges a field trip for the 5th graders to go on as a nice little parting gift, just so they can have one last fun fling before they have to deal with the big "oh-by-the-way-FUCK-YOU" that is middle school in America. This year, they want to send the kids on a day trip to Sea World.

Now, I know my kid's all excited about this, and I don't blame her. She's 10, and who doesn't love Sea World when you're 10? But I am substantially older than 10, and I really, really dislike Sea World. It's just an ethical nightmare for someone like me, who has serious wild-animals-in-captivity issues. I do not relish the idea of giving her $75 to go gape at these poor creatures, not to mention the fact that I (as room mom) would be going as a chaperone.

Of course I will have to let her go, and go with her. Despite my moral objections, it would be too much to ask of her to miss the trip because I have issues. I'm not perfect, but I'm not Joan Crawford either.

We won't be going until the spring, and I'm sure I'll be dreading it every day between then and now. I'm not sure I can fake happiness about being there, but I don't want to bring her day down. I know I'll genuinely enjoy having some time together with her, so I will focus on my kid and not on the whales and dolphins. And maybe, after we come home, I'll mention to her that Mommy isn't planning to go back there anytime soon, because I'd rather see those creatures out in the oceans where they belong, and not in a tank. I dunno - at some point I hope she'll develop a sense of things herself, and realize that nature is not meant to be our entertainment. But until that time, I guess I'll be sucking it up - through a straw, from my $7.95 jumbo Shamu souvenir cup.

My 5th grade field trip dilemma

Bad words

Alright, people. I need to ask a big, big favor of y'all. I need you to stop whatever you're doing right now, just for a minute, and I need you to close your eyes, take a deep breath in through your nose, and then exhale slowly through your mouth. Here we go. Ready? One, two three... *whew*

Feel a little better? A little calmer? Good. Me too. Now, here's the thing. I think some people around here -scratch that; a whole big boatload of people around here - have got to stop and take a breath a bit more often. We are in the process of blowing our collective gasket here, y'all, and I am really, really concerned about this situation. Let me tell you a little story, okay?

I am in South Florida, where yesterday, there was a 3-hour lockdown of every school in Broward County. At the time, all we heard was that a credible but unspecified threat of some kind had been communicated to a local radio station, and that government buildings and schools in Broward needed to be on high alert. My own child doesn't attend school in that district, but I have a niece and nephew, a godchild and many family friends who were affected by this. It was a long, tense wait while we tried to find out more information about what had happened.

Well, today, some of that information is beginning to surface. And apparently, the threat had something to do with local radio talk show host Joyce Kaufman. She is a real special lady, let me tell you. You may have already heard some of her greatest hits in the news recently, but just in case, here's a few nuggets of wonderful that Kaufman has dropped in her time:

“If you commit a crime while you’re here, we should hang you and send your body back to where you came from, and your family should pay for it.” (this was part of a screed against illegal immigrants)


"...a vast number of Florida's elementary and high-school history and geography textbooks are Islam-slanted."

“There’s no way I’m going to live in a country that’s been radically Muslim-ized … and I’m not afraid to say it."

And, of course, her most recent tirade advocated violent measures if the elections didn't go the "right" way:

“I don’t care how this gets painted by the mainstream media, I don’t care if this shows up on YouTube, because I am convinced the most important thing the Founding Fathers did to ensure me my First Amendment rights was they gave me a Second Amendment. And if ballots don’t work, bullets will.”

Unfortunately for her, this uplifting message did show up on YouTube. And on the Rachel Maddow Show, and all over the place. Interest in Kaufman's inflammatory comments skyrocketed after recently elected Congressman-to-be Allen West announced he had chosen her as his new Chief of Staff.

Within a matter of hours, infuriated people all over the state of Florida began calling and emailing local newspapers, media outlets and websites in protest. For some reason (hmmmm, now what could it be?), there were quite a few Floridians who could not believe that a man who'd been charged with representing the best interests of our state would make such an extreme person part of his inner circle.

What happened next is still a bit unclear, but it all begins to connect to the school lockdown we had in Broward yesterday. Today, reports are beginning to link the anonymous threat that caused the lockdown with Joyce Kaufman. The radio station she works for was the one that initially received the threat via email, and the email was about Kaufman. It is still unknown at this time whether the man who sent the email was supporting Kaufman or opposing her, but whatever his perspective, he had obviously been worked up into some sort of unbalanced state and decided that maybe he ought to shoot some random people somewhere in Broward.

Today, on Kaufman's radio show, she announced that she would not take the job as West's Chief of Staff. In typically understated fashion, she said she'd dropped out of the gig to protect West from any controversy she would have brought along with her:

"I will not be used in an electronic lynching by proxy.''

Yeah, forgot to mention that Allen West is an African-American, so I guess "lynching" thing was eventually gonna enter into it at some point. :/

Folks, I have lived in Florida for nearly 40 years. I have dealt with hurricanes, alligators, the Bush/Gore election debacle of 2000, and Pastor Terry Jones. I have seen drama, y'all. And I guess I ought to be used to it by now. But let me tell ya, I am more than a little demoralized by this latest political soap opera.

I campaigned here for Obama in 2008. As I did, I saw a lot of things I hadn't seen in people for a long, long time. People in my state who had felt disenfranchised and disconnected from the government for many years were suddenly active, aware and excited about the election. People who had been emotionally and spiritually exhausted by the events that transpired during George W. Bush's presidency were suddenly seeing light at the end of the tunnel. People who had been dealt major blows - losing their jobs or their businesses, losing their health insurance, losing their homes, even losing their loved ones to war - found a way to hope and to focus on the prospect of better times to come. It was an amazing thing for a jaded old broad like me to witness. The cockles of my heart are pretty resistant to being warmed too easily, but warmed they were nonetheless as I joined with these people to try and support Obama's presidential run.

Some would say (and have said) that Obama's campaign was a sham, and that all he had were words. Rhetoric gets a bad rap lately, and more often than not, that's deserved. But the greatest statesmen in American history were often great orators, and their words stirred Americans during times of war and adversity. Sometimes, when all we had were words to keep us going, we got by on them and found our way to better times. Now, I'm not saying that words are all you need to govern successfully, especially in this politically treacherous age. Once Obama got to the White House, that lesson was made painfully clear. But the words of hope and change he used in his campaign were not empty ones to many, many people I know, nor were they to me. They inspired us and got us busy trying to make this country better in some way. Unfortunately, after being elected, Obama could no longer address his words mainly to those who supported him. He had to speak to the whole nation, and he was not adequately steeled or prepared for the onslaught of other people's words trying to negate or drown out his own. Those words have been harsh, unyielding, and very effective in killing both Obama's momentum and the momentum of those who had supported him.

And now we can see the result of these escalating battles of rhetoric. Those who will use their words as calls to violence, intolerance or hate can stir passions in people just as effectively as anyone who preaches a more positive message. In fact, it's simpler to energize people with negative words, since they are so much easier for most people to agree with. Joyce Kaufman, and more importantly Allen West, our elected representative, had not been worried that the passion they created in others would work against them. But it has, and it is working against all of us when it starts posing an actual threat to the safety of the public. I will take Obama's type of rhetoric any day of the week if it gives people an urge to do something good for their country, rather than the type of fear-mongering, antagonizing rhetoric that Kaufman and West - and so many others - are relying on to politically empower themselves every single day.

So, if you are beginning to experience rhetorical overload - if you find yourself worked up after listening to a radio show or reading an article or watching the news; if you are arguing regularly with others who don't share your views; if you find yourself thinking about the things "they" are doing to piss you off in ways that make it seem like it's a matter of life and death - just stop, and take a breath. If we don't get a grip around here, this talk may well become a matter of life and death for some kid sitting in school, or a secretary working in a government building, or who knows who else. Listen to the words that move you to make things better. Filter out the ones that serve no purpose other than to anger or scare you. And then try to encourage those around you to do the same. Words changed people in this country for the better many times over the years. Words can do that for us again if enough of us say and listen to the right ones.

Bad words

Tax, lies & videotape

There is so much double-speak, exaggeration and flat-out lying going on in politics right now that it's hard to know where to begin discussing it all.

Part of the problem is that one man's truth is another man's BS. In our polarized and increasingly self-segregated society, many of us in America have started choosing what realities we wish to accept. There's one reality going on over on Fox News, for example, while another, completely different reality exists on MSNBC. The version you choose to accept as "real" will likely depend on your political party affiliation, race, socio-economic level and education, among other things.

It seems to me, however, that there could be one topic on which the right and the left should be able to find common ground: taxes. I was thinking about this after watching the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC last night.

Part of her program was dedicated to a discussion of the Bush tax cuts. She explained why those cuts are due to expire at the end of the year (answer: that was the intention all along, since there had been no provision made to pay for them when they were signed into law and so a 10-year window was stipulated as part of the plan), and she explained how it doesn't seem likely that the GOP will have enough votes to force an extension. But the main point she made was that both the Democrats' plan and the Republicans' plan will leave most Americans' tax levels the same, or nearly the same, as they are now. The only groups that will see significant changes in their tax rates, should the Bush cuts expire, will be those making upwards of $500K per year.




The chart Maddow referenced originally appeared in the Washington Post, and is the handiwork of their economic columnist, Ezra Klein. Here's a better view of it. Go ahead - don't be afraid, give it a good look.



So, it's pretty clear that the extension of the Bush tax cuts WOULD HELP NO ONE, other than the very highest earners in America. Anyone making less than $500,000 a year should have no problem with the Obama plan, which allows the cuts to expire for the top earners but keeps the cuts in place for everyone else. And, unless you are in one of those very top income brackets, I can't understand why you'd support any politician who is still fighting for the tax cuts for the top 2% to remain in place.

As for the politicians themselves, I have no clue as to how they can go out in public and say, with a straight face, that letting these cuts expire will have a negative effect on the economy. Especially after they all ran campaigns based on fiscal responsibility, and reducing the deficit, and all that good stuff. You'd think they'd understand the simple concept that the deficit can't be reduced by allowing such huge tax breaks to continue. And yet, there was Mike Pence, a Republican congressman from Indiana, yammering away on Christiane Amanpour's show this past Sunday about how raising taxes on the rich won't really help increase government revenue, anyway. In fact, Pence upped the ante by claiming that revenues actually go down when taxes go up.

Only problem is, he's completely wrong about that. As reported by PolitiFact this week, the idea that tax increases don't correlate to increased government revenue is false. Pence, and all the other conservatives beating this particular drum, are simply not reflecting the facts accurately, and those on the right who parrot their party lines are seemingly oblivious to how far off these politicians and pundits really are.

I find it amazing - stupefying, really - that the American public as a whole isn't seeing this thing the same way. I get why politicians have to peddle this baloney, but I am finding it impossible to comprehend how all the non-millionaires that make up the bulk of the GOP's base could be so supportive of what their side is trying to pull.

As I watched Rachel Maddow's show, I realized that the folks who most needed to see it wouldn't even be watching. They'd be busy seeking out their version of reality over on Fox. But I found myself wondering if it would make any difference at all for conservative voters to see that chart, and to have a clear picture of exactly what we're talking about here when we discuss these Bush tax cuts. Would what seemed so obvious to me be as apparent to them, or would they find some basis on which to reject it? Would they have their own chart, drawn up by someone who's not part of the "lamestream media", which told the opposite story about who would benefit from the tax cuts?

It can be both maddening and wearying to contemplate these things, especially in the political environment in which we find ourselves at the moment. With a newly divided balance of power in Washington and with so little incentive for either side to give ground, with polarized voters and with an overload of dueling statistics and sources of information, how can we hope to figure anything out? It has long been said that the only two sure things in life are death and taxes, but I think we've actually found a way to narrow that list down to death alone.

Tax, lies & videotape

Cee Lo Green, "The Lady Killer"

I’ve been waiting for a good while now to download the new solo release from Cee Lo Green. At midnight, as November 8^th turned into November 9^th, I headed to Amazon and brought that sucker in. I’d heard the tracks already, for the most part, on music blogs and on Cee Lo’s website. But now that I’ve listened to it in its entirety, I have one thing to say: DAAAYUM!

Most of you, if you have been on the internet at anytime in the last couple months, have already heard the single, “Fuck You”. It’s a viral sensation that even got William Shatner to sing along (not too sure you could actually classify what the ShatMan does as “singing”, exactly, but whatever). But this tune, as good as it is, is only the tip of the iceberg. “The Lady Killer” is a great listen from top to bottom.

The whole thing hinges on Cee Lo’s unique voice. Some people like it more than others, but I friggin’ LOVE it. I could listen to this guy sing the phone book and walk away happy. He’s got a sweet soul croon, a snarling swagger, a haunted low-register rumble, and a seductive smoothness that all swirl around and vie for attention as the album progresses. His voice is more dynamic and interesting to listen to than many other performers I’ve heard on the radio lately, and it’s definitely the strongest element on this record.

The songs themselves are a mixed bag, with James Bond-ish secret agent-type flourishes, dance grooves, and lots of old-school soul/R&B. In some ways, the album feels a bit lightweight, especially when you compare them to Cee Lo’s rap work with the Goodie Mob, or his journeys into sonic and emotional weirdness as a member of Gnarls Barkley, or even the darker terrain covered in his own earlier solo work. But if you can set aside those comparisons and just listen to the album for what it is, it’s a lot of fun. You can dance to it, sing along with it, get a few laughs from it, and you can even make sweet love while it plays in the background. I reckon you can’t ask for much more from music than that.

STANDOUT TRACKS: “Fuck You” (duh!), “Old Fashioned”, “No One’s Gonna Love You”

BUY IT! At Cee Lo Green's official site At Amazon

Cee Lo Green, "The Lady Killer"

A long time ago, at a rally far, far away...

"I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler."

So read the sign that Jon Stewart brandished from his Daily Show desk, on the day he announced the Rally to Restore Sanity. It struck a real chord with moderates and liberals everywhere, because we all recognized that, as comical as it was, it truly needed to be said. Someone needed to point out that you can disagree without demonizing, and that rabid extremism on both sides had made progress nearly impossible in this country.

Flash forward about 7 weeks. I glance over the comments section of an article I'm reading online, and I see some pretty harsh stuff. "Complete dumbass"..."lying lackey"..."unparalleled douchebag"..."he should rot for this"..."Nazi stormtrooper".

The ridiculous thing is that these comments were all made by liberals, on a left-leaning blog. What could get the left to forget about the lessons of the Rally for Sanity so quickly? Well, all these insults (and many more) were directed at Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, because he had suspended Keith Olbermann from hosting Countdown.

The saga of Keith Olbermann has had the left in a blind panic for days. With the announcement by MSNBC that he will return to his post on Countdown tomorrow night, liberals everywhere can finally unclench their asscheeks, wipe the spittle from their faces and calm down. I have to wonder, though, why they were so bent out of shape in the first place.

As I noted in an earlier post, I get why people feel that Olbermann should have been allowed to donate to the candidates of his choice without fear of punishment. However, the fact remained that NBC News did have a policy that expressly prohibited its employees from making such donations, and Olbermann did violate that policy. The policy seems unfair, in light of the many well-documented instances of both direct and indirect support provided to Republican politicians by the Fox News crew. At this point in time, it seems sensible for NBC News to allow its anchors, whose political loyalties are already abundantly clear, to spend their private money on campaigns and candidates they support. Still, the rule was in place and Olbermann broke it, so he got what amounts to a time-out, and now he may resume normal operations. This all seemed fairly reasonable to me. Even Rachel Maddow seemed to strike this same tone when she discussed Olbermann's suspension on her own MSNBC show.

According to the vast majority of liberal America, however, the 2-night suspension of Keith Olbermann was a major injustice, and it required an immediate and deafening response on Olbermann's behalf. Twitter was ablaze following the announcement that Olbermann was suspended; most tweets decried the move and promised boycotts, petitions and continued pressure on MSNBC to "Free Keith!". Phil Griffin was called every name under the sun and instantly became the left's Public Enemy #1. And liberals started exchanging information about how to protest by canceling your cable, and which sponsors to write to, and what Griffin's email address was.

I watched all of this with a combination of bemusement and mild concern. Why, I wondered, were my fellow left-wingers so enraged? Why the Chicken Little routine? Didn't they see that this was not exactly the coming of Armageddon for our side?

I feel that Keith Olbermann, as well as all other NBC News employees, should have the freedom to contribute legally to political campaigns without it being a violation of their contract. I think it made sense for viewers and fans to express their support and to let NBC know that they wanted Olbermann back. Beyond that, I thought it was more or less obvious that neither MSNBC nor Keith Olbermann wanted the suspension to go on for too long, and that the histrionics many liberals displayed were unnecessary. I know about the tensions between Griffin and Olbermann, but I didn't really believe that Griffin would let the centerpiece show in his prime-time lineup wither and die. Still, some worried that this suspension COULD BE THE FINAL STRAW that would SEND OLBERMANN OVER THE EDGE, and then WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO COUNTDOWN, and WHAT WOULD WE ALL DO???

See, this is the sort of stuff that can make me a bit uncomfortable. I am a liberal, and have been for pretty much my entire adult life, even though "liberal" has recently become a dirty word for so many people in this country. I do not consider myself an extremist, however, and I feel this is why I was so out of step with other liberals on the whole Olbermann thing.

I never felt that it was necessary to go all torches and pitchforks on Phil Griffin. That guy is not Olbermann's staunchest supporter, not by a long shot, but he does know on which side his bread is buttered. If for no other reason than pure selfishness, the dude was not going to permanently axe Olbermann, because if he did it would be the end of MSNBC as we know it, and he didn't want that when all's said and done.

Still, people on the left had no problem whatsoever in dumping on Griffin, and going immediately into full panic mode. They started throwing out the hyperbole, the insults, and the moral indignation that, more often than not, comes from the mob on the right and not from the left. It was kinda icky.

I love Keith's show. I believe he is a vital voice for the left, and that he is one of only a handful of people on television right now who are both brave and intelligent enough to get the progressives' case out there before the American public in a clear and passionate manner.

However, I was not about to blindly freak out in his defense when he got suspended, nor did I assume that it would really change things too much if I did. I knew the punishment was going to be short-lived, a token of sorts to let the public know that even though its prime-time hosts are obviously liberals, MSNBC is still trying to maintain some official semblance of impartiality. Now that the exile has ended, I am hoping the drama has ended as well, so liberals can go back to being liberals and return to more left-wing pursuits, like being reasonable and not hurling insults at people when they disagree with them.

A long time ago, at a rally far, far away...

What's "wrong" about the left is what's right

Over the past week, I've been asking myself what it means to be a Democrat.

I'm not talking about the political aspects of being a Democrat, or the causes and beliefs of the party as a whole. For the most part, those are pretty clear. I'm wondering more about the nature of the typical Democrat. And it's MSNBC host Keith Olbermann that provoked these musings, for a couple of reasons.

First, he tweeted something last weekend, in response to Jon Stewart's choice to include clips of Olbermann alongside clips of Fox stalwarts like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, during a video montage shown at the Rally to Restore Sanity. Olbermann felt that it was a case of false equivalency for Stewart to have aligned him with the mouth-frothers at Fox, and after a few tweets to that effect, he ended on this note: "Whatever the losses are on Tuesday, will they be because Liberals were too LOUD or because they were too timid?"

Then, in today's news, the story broke that Keith Olbermann had contributed to the campaigns of a few Democrats in the run-up to the midterm elections. While none of his contributions were over the allowable limit and all were properly disclosed, they were in apparent violation of the code of ethics at NBC, which precludes its news employees from creating any possible "conflict of interest" by directly supporting political campaigns or organizations. Again, there were early attempts to both defend and dismiss the behavior on Twitter following the story, although they have so far been made on behalf of Olbermann by his fans and supporters and not by Olbermann himself. Tweeted responses to the story include, "It's not like Olbermann pretended to be unbiased or a news journalist", and, "You mean he's a liberal?"

Part of the reaction many will have when criticizing Olbermann will be a charge of hypocrisy. After all, it is Olbermann's show, Countdown, where several recent and ongoing stories have focused on the contributions made to the Republican Governors Association and the Chamber of Commerce by News Corp, the parent company of Fox News. Pointing out how a rival cable network has been unethical with their political contributions may now seem like the pot calling the kettle black, in the minds of some critics.

I'm sure the argument that will be put forth by Olbermann's supporters - and perhaps, ultimately, by Olbermann himself - will go something like this: A few small contributions made legally by a private citizen aren't the same as million-dollar donations made on behalf of a corporation. Olbermann wasn't using his program to raise funds or to solicit other contributions, as Fox's Sean Hannity had done for Republican gubernatorial candidate John Kasich last month. And, so what if Olbermann gave money to Democrats? At least MSNBC doesn't pretend to call itself "fair and balanced" while simultaneously feeding the right-wing's political machine, as does Fox News.

And I get all of that, just as I got why Olbermann and his fans might have been a bit riled by seeing clips from Countdown included in Jon Stewart's Rally for Sanity video montage. The cries of "false equivalency" that surfaced then may well pop up again now.

Still, I feel that the calling out of Keith Olbermann is not "false equivalency" at all. Full disclosure here: I am also a fan of Keith Olbermann. I am a regular Countdown viewer, and I enjoy and appreciate a lot of what he does on his show. Having said that, however, I think it's time to tie in the recent public nudges he's received with the results of this week's elections and the nature of Democrats as a group.

It seems to me that Democrats, on average, are a decent bunch of folks. I shouldn't generalize, of course; there are ignorant and narrow-minded Dems just as there are decent, thoughtful conservatives, and no one person is representative of either party as a whole. But I spend a lot of time with Democrats, and they do tend to have a certain way about them.

They tend to be inquisitive, and will look for information so that they may understand a question before they answer it. The knee-jerk responses are fewer and farther between among my liberal friends, because they are usually more info-based than doctrine-based. With most of them, there is acknowledgment of grey area, of doubt, on many topics they discuss, and when they have those doubts they find out more facts until they feel comfortable with their position on a subject.

They are not, generally, "me first" people. They are sympathetic to the needs of others, and are as responsive as their circumstances allow them to be. They are willing to spend time, money and effort when they can to help when help is needed. They also understand the need for communities and governments to play a role in America's well-being, and if that means we need to pay taxes in order to build roads, pay teachers' salaries or give deserving students grants for college, they're OK with that.

Nor are they "America - love it or leave it" people. They do love America, fiercely, but realize that for all its strengths, it has many weaknesses and areas that need to be improved. They point these out not to bash this country, but to try and garner support for the improvements that need to be made, so that we may be an even better nation. They realize that American exceptionalism, the buzz-phrase dear to the hearts of many on the right, is a bad idea for any nation that wants to have a strong future to look forward to, and not just the remnants of a glorious past to look back on.

Democrats are usually tolerant, and do not fear or persecute those who have a different skin color/religion/sexual orientation, etc. They can live and let live, and they can recognize the difference between behaviors that might be a problem because they actually affect others (like hate crimes against minorities or homosexuals), and behaviors that really don't matter to anyone but the person themselves (like gay marriage).

Another trait that is shared by most Democrats I know personally is the tendency to play fair. I realize that, on the bigger scale of national politics, there are definitely Democratic politicians who are crooked and corrupt too. But in my own circle of Democratic acquaintances, there is a natural inclination to abide by the rules, and to work within the system. Even when they want to change the system, they try to do it from within, not through advocating "second-amendment remedies", as suggested by Sharron Angle. Democrats don't think they are above the rules, and they are outraged when others act as if they are.

And this is where we come back to Keith Olbermann. When he was called out by Jon Stewart for the insults he used in occasional rants on Countdown, it was because Democrats know that's not the right way to carry on. False equivalency didn't apply; insults are insults, regardless of their frequency or severity compared to those thrown around by the hosts on Fox. Lowering the discussion to that level isn't productive, no matter which side does it, and Stewart was correct to make that observation. And if Olbermann's campaign contributions did, in fact, happen in violation of NBC's ethics policies, then it doesn't matter if his donations were smaller and less significant than the ones News Corp. made to the right. His actions may have been legal, and he may have had a right to make those contributions, but he did flout the rules of his workplace. Additionally, in terms of looking bad ethically, he has given some fresh ammunition to his enemies.

Finally, let's consider Olbermann's query about whether the left will suffer more by being too loud or too timid. His concern about the timidity of the left seems perfectly valid when you look at the way most left-leaning folks I know tend to act. Their inquisitiveness and open-mindedness looks like lack of conviction when compared to the black-and-white world the right occupies. Their willingness to support their community and their government can be construed as naive. Their acknowledgment of America's flaws allows some to call them self-loathing apologists. And their tolerance and sense of fair play are no match for the ruthless way that right-wing groups often exploit the rules and the fears of others in order to further grow their control and influence.

So, yes, we Democrats (and liberal Dems in particular) do have a lot of inherent characteristics that may contribute to our perceived timidity. And to people like Keith Olbermann, this is a liability that will forever hold us back when opponents threaten our political landscape, as was the case this past Tuesday. I can't help but wonder, though, if in trying to level the playing field with the right, we'd have to abandon some (or all) of the principles we currently use to govern our own behavior. And if so, would it be worth it?

The fact of the matter is, we Democrats aren't as effective politically as the GOP may be, due to our tendencies as a party in general. I mean, we've all heard it said that the meek shall inherit the earth, but I'm pretty sure that when it comes to politics, that's pretty much bullshit. President Obama displays all the tendencies I named above, and his leadership abilities have been criticized and questioned by both sides. He may be a one-term president as a result. So, is it useful to hold on to our liberal ways if it means that, in so doing, we're resigning ourselves to a government dominated by the GOP?

I can't speak for everyone who supports the Democratic party. I'd like to think that, just as in Star Wars, the powers of good can and will triumph over the dark side of the force, though we may lose a forearm and a whole pile of X-wing fighters before that happens. For myself, I don't think I'd be able to sleep knowing that our side won, but only because we were total scumbags in our pursuit of power. If there's a way to overcome right-wing scumbaggery without being actual scumbags ourselves, I'm all for it. But that's a magic formula we don't seem to have discovered just yet. Hopefully people like President Obama - yes, and Keith Olbermann too - will play a role in helping to guide us closer to that answer before the next election cycle begins.

What's "wrong" about the left is what's right

(Real) Lessons from Election 2010

I don't suppose too many of us are surprised by the results of yesterday's elections. As a Democrat, I am deflated today, but I am certainly not shocked. I'm sure the media pundits will all be feeding off the carcass of this election cycle for weeks, pretending to understand what it all means. I personally know better than to presume that I know what it means, and I will refrain from analyzing the mood of the electorate or predicting the future of the nation based on these results.

What I do know is what went wrong in terms of the election process as a whole. It seems we've outgrown the "business as usual" template for political campaigning and reporting. I really do think the way we've gone about things is old, tired and in sore need of some serious upgrading. In the spirit of bi-partisanship, let me offer some ideas with which both the left and the right may agree.

The reality of the situation is this: even with all the available coverage of political candidates and campaigns, voters still manage to remain unaware and uninformed in so many ways. In fact, it could be argued that this lack of awareness is a direct result of the overwhelming amount of available information out there today. If you're someone who leans right, there are cable channels, newspapers and websites which will present "news" from your perspective, and nothing but. The same holds true for those who lean left. It's pretty clear that most voters tend to seek out their own particular safe havens, and dwell there without venturing beyond them. This severely limits the information and viewpoints that they are exposed to, and at the end of the day, no matter how much time people spend reading and viewing, nobody learns anything.

There's also the (very large) segment of the population who has simply switched off altogether. They are sick of the hype and disgusted by the system, and have decided that they'd rather not participate in the process at all. They have no respect for any politician or party, and no motivation to become involved.

For both the ideologically rigid and the politically apathetic, there are certain truths that apply. I think the media, both parties and all politicians need to accept these truths now, and learn a lesson or two about how to better handle the campaign and election process next time around. In that spirit, here are the real lessons of Election 2010:

NO MORE DEBATES. The debates I watched over the past several weeks were complete wastes of time. On the local and state levels, I saw nothing that even approached a healthy exchange of ideas and opinions. Candidates no longer answer the question, regardless of what question is being asked. The debate process has degenerated into a platform for extended political ads, in which talking points are endlessly regurgitated and digs at the opposing candidate(s) are volleyed at regular intervals. If these political wanna-bes can't even handle giving a straight answer in a debate, we cannot hope to get straight answers from them once they are elected.

NO MORE POLITICAL ADS. When an ad comes on the television, who is actually paying attention? When a flyer appears in the mailbox, who is actually reading it? Even if some people do see them, how many change their minds or find new points of view to consider as a result? I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of political advertising, both broadcast and print, is completely ineffective at this point in time. There are some ads which have attracted attention for their sheer nuttiness/entertainment value (demon sheep? "I am not a witch"?), but I would bet my house on the fact that no one who cares enough to vote is using the ads as a source of information on which to base their decisions. The amount of money spent on advertising is insane, and a waste of epic proportions.

NO MORE ROBOCALLS. One of the worst ideas ever in the history of politics. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine that anyone does anything other than screen their calls or hang up once the robocalls start coming in. Again, a waste of time and money.

NO MORE POLLS IN THE NEWS. If politicians want to do internal polling to let them know what campaign strategies are working and which are not, that's fine. But when the polls are the focus of every news report for months, it hinders the democratic process. I can tell you that, here in my home state of Florida, there were so many people who "knew", months ago, that the Democratic candidate for Senate, Kendrick Meek, had no chance to win and should just drop out, because the polls told them so. Similarly, when I did some "Get Out The Vote" work for the Dems, I saw incredible numbers of people who felt there was no point voting for the incumbent Congressman from my district, Democrat Ron Klein, because the polls showed his GOP opponent to be leading by a sizable margin. These polls depress voter enthusiasm and turnout by convincing people that the results are already a forgone conclusion, long before the election even takes place. Additionally, they are notoriously flawed and can be affected by many different factors. To feature them as gospel on so many news networks and websites is irresponsible journalism. News outlets may as well use a Magic 8 Ball or an Ouija board as a source.

NO MORE MEDIA COVERAGE OF INSIGNIFICANT CANDIDATES. There was a ludicrous amount of press on Delaware's Christine O'Donnell during this election cycle. This, despite the fact that she was never seriously expected to win, no matter whose side you were on. She, and other kooky, long-shot candidates, ate up a ton of media time, distracted a huge chunk of the voting public from more important topics, and further solidified the idea that our government is a circus rather than a functioning body of public servants.

With such over-saturation of the political landscape, is it any wonder that American voters are either completely polarized or completely indifferent? The current means of campaigning and of covering elections has jumped the shark. Unless things change, I know that, by the time this nation is asked to vote again, it will have been beaten senseless by the mind-numbing barrage of ads and media coverage that it has had to endure, just as it was this time. And most of those who have endured it will either remain unswayed by the hue and cry, voting the party line blindly, or will ignore it all and choose not to choose. That is certainly not the best way to elect our leaders. The system needs to be radically revamped, and soon, so that we may find a way back to meaningful debate, dialogue and democracy before we are asked to head to the polls again.

(Real) Lessons from Election 2010