BELOW: Al Gore might finally get a little revenge against the Clintons by helping to seal the deal for Obama
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Rumour Has It...
...that later this week Al Gore will come out in support of The Dalai Obama. A friend of mine is a Texas Obama delegate, and word seems to be spreading amongst those in the Obama camp that Gore's announcement is coming this week.
BELOW: Al Gore might finally get a little revenge against the Clintons by helping to seal the deal for Obama
BELOW: Al Gore might finally get a little revenge against the Clintons by helping to seal the deal for Obama
Friday, May 16, 2008
Nazis, terrorists and hypocrisy
Soon after George W. Bush's inartful jab at Obama (while in Israel to celebrate 60 years of Israel's existence and ensuing good times in the Middle East, W. compared people who would engage "terrorist leaders" in dialogue to appeasers who wanted to reason with Hitler before the outbreak of WWII), the Dems responded on cue with their canned outrage. I find it interesting that so many years later, few things resonate more acutely than bringing up Hitler and the Nazis. While not referring to Obama by name, it was clear who Bush was referring to. Subsequent White House claims to the contrary are just silly. Even Shrillary came to Obama's defense, saying:
"President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced; unfortunately, this is what we've come to expect from President Bush."
She's right and she's wrong. Comparing Democrats to Nazi appeasers is not outrageous if you hold the view that you should not negotiate with rogue leaders. For the record, I don't think it is a good idea to categorically say you will not speak with any leader. Just because you have a dialogue with them does not mean that you sympathize with them or you have agreed to any concessions. Sometimes in diplomacy you must engage in dialogue with unsavory characters. But, if you hold the view that you should not engage in dialogue with certain leaders, then it is a legitimate comparison, and reasonable arguments can be made for that position.
Hillary was right in saying that it was not an appropriate forum in which to make the statement. As transparent as our political squabbles may be, we should keep a somewhat unified front when traveling abroad. We should leave our internal political battles at the border. It would have been one thing if Bush had made the comment at some press conference in the White House or at a fundraising dinner, but taking political jabs while abroad on a state visit...that is poor judgment. (Are you listening, Jimmy Carter? We should revoke Carter's passport.)
Bush's statement is not even consistent with the actions of his own administration. In the past, Bush has characterized North Korea and Iran as sponsors of terror (and rightfully so). Yet talks have occurred at the ambassador level with Iran, and many people in Bush's own State Department urge more substantial dialogue with Iran. We have also had similar talks with North Korea. True, Bush hasn't gone golfing with Ahmadinejad or invited Kim Jong-il out to Crawford for some bar-b-q, but he has sanctioned diplomatic talks conducted by his administration with both governments. This ties into broad, sweeping statements ("I will not talk with rogue leaders", "I will not raise your taxes") that come back to bite politicians in the ass.
I have always liked Joe Biden. His response to Bush's remarks was a simple: "This is bullshit...Since when does this administration think that if you sit down, you have to eliminate the word 'no' from your vocabulary?" Not surprisingly, Biden was my favorite candidate on the Democratic side.
"President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced; unfortunately, this is what we've come to expect from President Bush."
She's right and she's wrong. Comparing Democrats to Nazi appeasers is not outrageous if you hold the view that you should not negotiate with rogue leaders. For the record, I don't think it is a good idea to categorically say you will not speak with any leader. Just because you have a dialogue with them does not mean that you sympathize with them or you have agreed to any concessions. Sometimes in diplomacy you must engage in dialogue with unsavory characters. But, if you hold the view that you should not engage in dialogue with certain leaders, then it is a legitimate comparison, and reasonable arguments can be made for that position.
Hillary was right in saying that it was not an appropriate forum in which to make the statement. As transparent as our political squabbles may be, we should keep a somewhat unified front when traveling abroad. We should leave our internal political battles at the border. It would have been one thing if Bush had made the comment at some press conference in the White House or at a fundraising dinner, but taking political jabs while abroad on a state visit...that is poor judgment. (Are you listening, Jimmy Carter? We should revoke Carter's passport.)
Bush's statement is not even consistent with the actions of his own administration. In the past, Bush has characterized North Korea and Iran as sponsors of terror (and rightfully so). Yet talks have occurred at the ambassador level with Iran, and many people in Bush's own State Department urge more substantial dialogue with Iran. We have also had similar talks with North Korea. True, Bush hasn't gone golfing with Ahmadinejad or invited Kim Jong-il out to Crawford for some bar-b-q, but he has sanctioned diplomatic talks conducted by his administration with both governments. This ties into broad, sweeping statements ("I will not talk with rogue leaders", "I will not raise your taxes") that come back to bite politicians in the ass.
I have always liked Joe Biden. His response to Bush's remarks was a simple: "This is bullshit...Since when does this administration think that if you sit down, you have to eliminate the word 'no' from your vocabulary?" Not surprisingly, Biden was my favorite candidate on the Democratic side.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Dez Reviews: IRON MAN
The latest in the unstoppable march of comic book-based summer flicks (see previous post on this subject) is Iron Man. As stated in my super hero movie post, I was looking forward to this one, since I have always thought Iron Man was one of the more intriguing comic book heroes. I am happy to say that the film did not disappoint.
Iron Man is successful on the backs of the actors. That is a refreshing thing to say in a genre usually dominated by CGI effects that render the actors fairly disposable. Much has been made of the perfect casting of Robert Downey, Jr. as millionaire playboy/weapons magnate Tony Stark/Iron Man. But the great casting goes beyond the title role. Gwyneth Paltrow brings more than you would expect to the role of Pepper Potts, and the always excellent Terrence Howard sets up the character of Jim Rhodes for what already has been announced will be an expanded role in the Iron Man sequel as sometimes ally superhero Jim Rhodes/War Machine. From what I understand from the comics, this is a very uneasy alliance, and I hope they will keep that dynamic for the film. And then there is Jeff Bridges. All of the talk around Downey overlooks just how great Jeff Bridges is in the movie as the villain, Obadiah Stane (any better name for a villain? Anyone?) Bridges builds the character nicely, and you can somewhat sympathize with him for his disdain for Stark.
But in the end, the movie is about Robert Downey, Jr. The choice of a recovering drug addict/alcoholic Hollywood wildman with prodigious acting talents to play an alcoholic, womanizing, troubled hero with prodigious talents may sound obvious in retrospect. But what comes through is that Downey does not look down on the material. In fact, he seems to absolutely relish the role, and that enthusiasm comes through in every frame of the picture. Director Jon Favreau knows how to get the most from Downey, and Favreau's own background as a comedic actor serves the film well, as it is full of comedic moments and lightning fast quips from Downey.
BELOW: A superior cast for a comic book movie. (From left) Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow, Robery Downey, Jr. and Jeff Bridges
As I stated before, I was interested to see how they would treat the political overtones of the original comic. Iron Man was the ultimate flawed Cold Warrior, who often unwittingly did as much destruction as he actually helped people. Whereas in many comics the politics are in the background or only hinted at, politics are front and center in the world of Iron Man. Stark profits as an arms dealer, and he uses Iron Man to right some of the wrongs that his own products have wrought on the world. The film wisely (and in a risky move) updates the conflicts to modernday Afghanistan. While it may be a stretch to believe that getting captured by Taliban-types is what forces Stark to realize for the first time the true consequences of his products, it does make for an interesting "origin story" premise (he is captured by Taliban-type terrorists who try and force him to make weapons for them. Instead, he creates Iron Man and kicks Taliban ass).
ABOVE: Iron Man kills more terrorists in one afternoon than George W. Bush has in eight years
Funny enough, the weakest parts of the film are the parts that usually save other superhero flicks. The action scenes and culminating battle between Iron Man and Obadiah Stane are entertaining enough, but Stark is so interesting that you sometimes find yourself looking forward to the next scene when Downey is out of the suit and is delivering great lines in a conversation. This is not to diminish the action sequences, which are adequate. But I found myself enjoying most the scenes with Downey in his lab creating Iron Man through some very amusing trials and errors.
***1/2 out of *****
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Dez Reviews: Lindsey Buckingham - 'Live at the Bass Performance Hall' CD + DVD
Only days after I posted my list of favorite live albums, I bought one that will most certainly take a spot in the Top 10. Most casual music fans know Lindsey Buckingham as the guitarist and one of three singer/songwriters for the most successful Fleetwood Mac line-up. The catchy hits of Fleetwood Mac are indeed delicious, but they do not really do justice to the talents of Buckingham. If you are more than a casual Fleetwood Mac fan, you know damn well that Buckingham was the engine behind the whole operation. Stevie Nicks may be listed as songwriter on her Mac hits, but Buckingham was as much responsible for the creation of "Rhiannon", "Dreams" or "Landslide" as the lovely Ms. Nicks was. Not that he needs the attention, as his own hits for Mac are just as timeless..."Go Your Own Way", "Secondhand News" and "Big Love", to name a few.
I will be the first to admit that Buckingham is a weird dude. He has used his relatively low profile solo career as an outlet for his less commercial side. His solo albums are alternatively puzzling, brilliant and frustrating. But put the man on stage and roll tape; that is the way to cut through all the crap. Thankfully he has done that for us with this new live album.
If you are a guitar fan, this combo CD/DVD set is an absolute must. Michael Hedges and Stephen Stills are the only two men that come to mind who can touch Buckingham as a rock acoustic guitarist. He's a fine electric player, as well. Six of the fifteen tracks on the CD are solo acoustic. He reprises his jawdropping reinterpretation of his Fleetwood Mac hit "Big Love" that he first unveiled a few years back on the Fleetwood Mac live album The Dance. But he delivers an equally compelling solo acoustic rendition of Fleetwood Mac's "Never Going Back Again", an almost classical reading of his own paranoid "Go Insane", and a gorgeous closer "Shut Us Down". Just so you don't forget that he can also shred on the electric, he plays a blazing 10 minute "I'm So Afraid" (another Mac chestnut). I also like his good humoured romp through "Holiday Road", his nostalgic soundtrack tune from 'National Lampoon's Vacation'. The band is solid throughout, but the focus is always on Buckingham.
This record is a wonderful balance of Fleetwood Mac picks and tunes from his solo career, with a generous focus on his latest release, Under the Skin. What were overproduced tunes on the studio album really come to life on the stage.
My favorite tune has to be the solo acoustic rendition of his minor hit "Trouble". He turns a good unsettled pop song into acoustic perfection here. I have probably listened to this track about 30 times in the past few days alone. The CD is great, but the DVD is just as worthwhile. Listening to these intricate arrangements is one thing, but it is an added joy getting to watch this criminally underrated performer in action.
BELOW: This clip of Buckingham performing "Big Love" solo acoustic is from Fleetwood Mac's The Dance, but it is the same arrangement that appears on Live at the Bass Performance Hall.
**** out of *****
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Dez's Top 10 Live Albums
Let me say from the start that I believe anything meaningful can be reduced to a list. Secondly, live albums are interesting creatures. I am more interested in a live album that takes the music somewhere else. I don't go to concerts to hear note for note reproductions of what I can sit at home more comfortably and listen to without standing in crowds amidst drunken yahoos screaming for "Freebird". Each of the ten records listed below take the music to a different place from where it was taken in the studio. Also, track selection is key. It has to stand on its own as a coherent work vs. being merely a greatest hits with crowd noise. Each of the selections below take those chances and moves beyond greatest hits. Without further ado, Dez's Favorite 10 Live Albums...
10. Kiss – Alive!
9. Van Morrison – It’s Too Late To Stop Now…
8. Fleetwood Mac – The Dance
7. Talking Heads – Stop Making Sense (extended edition)
6. Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band – Live 1975/85
5. Michael Hedges – Live on the Double Planet
4. The Allman Brothers Band – At Fillmore East (complete show edition)
3. Dire Straits - Alchemy
2. The Band (and guests) – The Last Waltz (extended edition)
1. Neil Young & Crazy Horse – Live Rust

ABOVE: Dez's favorite live album of all time, Neil Young & Crazy Horse's Live Rust
Honorable Mentions (in no particular order): Rush – Rush in Rio, The MC5 – Kick Out the Jams, Sting – Bring on the Night, The Kinks – One For the Road, U2 – Under a Blood Red Sky, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young – Four Way Street (extended edition), Genesis - Live, Led Zeppelin – How the West Was Won, The Who – Live at Leeds (super duper extra special extended edition...it seems they re-release this gem every couple of years with even more extra tracks. And each time addicts like me contribute more to Pete Townshend's bank account), The Rolling Stones – Get Yer Ya-Ya’s Out, The Corrs (and guests) – Live in Dublin, Peter Gabriel – Plays Live, Bela Fleck & the Flecktones (and guests) – Live Art, Stephen Stills - Live and Billy Joel – Songs in the Attic.

ABOVE: Out of all of my picks, The Allman Brothers Band's At Fillmore East is probably the most accomplished. The improvisational skills of that band captured at that time make this record a work of art on par with the best jazz work of Miles Davis or John Coltrane. Be sure to grab the version with the extended tracks.
Your favorites?
10. Kiss – Alive!
9. Van Morrison – It’s Too Late To Stop Now…
8. Fleetwood Mac – The Dance
7. Talking Heads – Stop Making Sense (extended edition)
6. Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band – Live 1975/85
5. Michael Hedges – Live on the Double Planet
4. The Allman Brothers Band – At Fillmore East (complete show edition)
3. Dire Straits - Alchemy
2. The Band (and guests) – The Last Waltz (extended edition)
1. Neil Young & Crazy Horse – Live Rust
ABOVE: Dez's favorite live album of all time, Neil Young & Crazy Horse's Live Rust
Honorable Mentions (in no particular order): Rush – Rush in Rio, The MC5 – Kick Out the Jams, Sting – Bring on the Night, The Kinks – One For the Road, U2 – Under a Blood Red Sky, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young – Four Way Street (extended edition), Genesis - Live, Led Zeppelin – How the West Was Won, The Who – Live at Leeds (super duper extra special extended edition...it seems they re-release this gem every couple of years with even more extra tracks. And each time addicts like me contribute more to Pete Townshend's bank account), The Rolling Stones – Get Yer Ya-Ya’s Out, The Corrs (and guests) – Live in Dublin, Peter Gabriel – Plays Live, Bela Fleck & the Flecktones (and guests) – Live Art, Stephen Stills - Live and Billy Joel – Songs in the Attic.
ABOVE: Out of all of my picks, The Allman Brothers Band's At Fillmore East is probably the most accomplished. The improvisational skills of that band captured at that time make this record a work of art on par with the best jazz work of Miles Davis or John Coltrane. Be sure to grab the version with the extended tracks.
Your favorites?
Saturday, May 3, 2008
NBA Playoffs, Round 2
Well, Round One is done (except for one series), and it indeed has been intriguing. But first, am I the hoops Nostradamus? Eh, not really. I got four right, three wrong, and one is still pending. My friend JMW (he also made predictions in the comments of my original post about the first round), did a little better. He got six right, one wrong, and one is still pending.
Before moving on to Round Two, some reflections on the carnage that has already occurred. The L.A. Lakers, led by Kobe Bryant, easily dispensed with the defensively-challenged Denver Nuggets 4-0. No surprise there. Utah defeated my Rockets 4-2. Oh what could have been if the Rockets had been healthy. Feel good story New Orleans Hornets beat the Dallas Mavericks 4-1, prompting the firing of Avery Johnson as head coach just two years after winning Coach of the Year awards and leading the Mavericks to their first ever NBA Finals appearance. And after an epic double overtime Game 1, the once promising San Antonio Spurs vs. Phoenix Suns series fizzled to a 4-1 victory for the Spurs. Suns coach Mike D'Antoni may be following Avery out the door. On the East Side, Orlando beat Toronto 4-1, Detroit over Philly 4-2, Cleveland over Washington in a contentious, nasty series 4-2. That leaves the most unlikely series to go to seven games set for a Game 7 on Sunday in Boston: Atlanta Hawks vs. Boston Celtics. The Celtics had the best record in the NBA, the Hawks had the worst record of any play-off bound team. All predictions (including my own) were that the Celtics would cruise in a sweep, with the Hawks just happy to be there. Not so. That is why I love the play-offs. If the Hawks win, that would be the biggest upset in NBA play-off history. My prediction: The Celtics win. But kudos to the scrappy Hawks.
OK, now for the next Round:
L.A. Lakers vs. Utah Jazz: Since I think the Lakers could go all the way this season, I've got to go with the Lakers. It is questionable whether the Jazz would have even gotten by Houston had Houston been healthy. I say Lakers in 6.
New Orleans Hornets vs. San Antonio Spurs: As much as I am rooting for the Hornets here (I love the team, it would be great for the city of New Orleans), I think that the Spurs' experience and play-off toughness will prevail. This could go to 7 (especially since New Orleans has home court advantage), but I say the Spurs win.
Detroit Pistons vs. Orlando Magic: The Magic are fun and dangerous, and Detroit has a tendency to play down to its competition, but I still feel that the Pistons will march on to an (almost) inevitable Celtics/Pistons Eastern Conference Finals. So Pistons in 7 (because they always make it tougher on themselves than it needs to be).
Cleveland Cavaliers vs. Boston Celtics/Atlanta Hawks: I do not see the Hawks winning a Game 7 in Boston, so this is most likely the Celtics. If that is the case, Boston over Cleveland in 6. If the Hawks do the impossible, then I would give the series to Cleveland in 6.

ABOVE: Congratulations to MVP Kobe Bryant. It was leaked that Kobe will be named MVP next week
These are all great teams at this stage. If my predictions come true, then we should have conference finals for the ages on both sides with Lakers/Spurs and Celtics/Pistons. Wow. I'm glad Kobe got the MVP. Once it became a race for first seed in the West, I decided that the MVP should go to Kobe if the Lakers took the top seed, and Chris Paul if the Hornets held on to it. Since it was a toss-up between those two and the Lakers took first place...congrats to Kobe.
Before moving on to Round Two, some reflections on the carnage that has already occurred. The L.A. Lakers, led by Kobe Bryant, easily dispensed with the defensively-challenged Denver Nuggets 4-0. No surprise there. Utah defeated my Rockets 4-2. Oh what could have been if the Rockets had been healthy. Feel good story New Orleans Hornets beat the Dallas Mavericks 4-1, prompting the firing of Avery Johnson as head coach just two years after winning Coach of the Year awards and leading the Mavericks to their first ever NBA Finals appearance. And after an epic double overtime Game 1, the once promising San Antonio Spurs vs. Phoenix Suns series fizzled to a 4-1 victory for the Spurs. Suns coach Mike D'Antoni may be following Avery out the door. On the East Side, Orlando beat Toronto 4-1, Detroit over Philly 4-2, Cleveland over Washington in a contentious, nasty series 4-2. That leaves the most unlikely series to go to seven games set for a Game 7 on Sunday in Boston: Atlanta Hawks vs. Boston Celtics. The Celtics had the best record in the NBA, the Hawks had the worst record of any play-off bound team. All predictions (including my own) were that the Celtics would cruise in a sweep, with the Hawks just happy to be there. Not so. That is why I love the play-offs. If the Hawks win, that would be the biggest upset in NBA play-off history. My prediction: The Celtics win. But kudos to the scrappy Hawks.
OK, now for the next Round:
L.A. Lakers vs. Utah Jazz: Since I think the Lakers could go all the way this season, I've got to go with the Lakers. It is questionable whether the Jazz would have even gotten by Houston had Houston been healthy. I say Lakers in 6.
New Orleans Hornets vs. San Antonio Spurs: As much as I am rooting for the Hornets here (I love the team, it would be great for the city of New Orleans), I think that the Spurs' experience and play-off toughness will prevail. This could go to 7 (especially since New Orleans has home court advantage), but I say the Spurs win.
Detroit Pistons vs. Orlando Magic: The Magic are fun and dangerous, and Detroit has a tendency to play down to its competition, but I still feel that the Pistons will march on to an (almost) inevitable Celtics/Pistons Eastern Conference Finals. So Pistons in 7 (because they always make it tougher on themselves than it needs to be).
Cleveland Cavaliers vs. Boston Celtics/Atlanta Hawks: I do not see the Hawks winning a Game 7 in Boston, so this is most likely the Celtics. If that is the case, Boston over Cleveland in 6. If the Hawks do the impossible, then I would give the series to Cleveland in 6.
ABOVE: Congratulations to MVP Kobe Bryant. It was leaked that Kobe will be named MVP next week
These are all great teams at this stage. If my predictions come true, then we should have conference finals for the ages on both sides with Lakers/Spurs and Celtics/Pistons. Wow. I'm glad Kobe got the MVP. Once it became a race for first seed in the West, I decided that the MVP should go to Kobe if the Lakers took the top seed, and Chris Paul if the Hornets held on to it. Since it was a toss-up between those two and the Lakers took first place...congrats to Kobe.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Obama and Rev. Wright, pt. 2
I must say that I do feel somewhat vindicated in my original read on the Rev. Wright situation after watching Rev. Wright's recent lengthy speeches at the Press Club and the NAACP, and also Obama's response to them. Recall our discussions in the comments section of my original Wright post here. Rev. Wright could derail Obama's campaign. The controversy that won't go away has injected new life into Hillary's campaign just when Obama needed to strangle the life out of it, and it has left a lasting impression on many Americans who before were tentatively considering supporting a black man for the highest office in the land. As usual, I thought Obama did a good job discussing the issue, and it was clearly a difficult thing for him to do (SEE BELOW).
So, is this enough to put this to bed? If Wright himself continues to demand the spotlight and continues to openly show disdain for Obama's sincerity while at the same time reinforcing the point that Obama was a loyal member of this man's congregation for 20 years (the worst of both worlds for Obama, in a sense), what will be the overall impact on Obama's once positive, feel-good, all inclusive vibe that was so unstoppable just a month ago?
You just cannot give the Clintons this type of opening. They are ravenous wolves for this type of opportunity. Rush Limbaugh and right wing talk radio may come to soon regret their "Operation Chaos" campaign encouraging listeners to register as democrats and vote for Hillary in the primaries to keep the fight going. (This has evidently had a real impact on the race in the most recent primaries, starting in Texas going forward.) I have come to the conclusion that there are three strong political parties in the country right now: the republicans, the democrats and the Clintons. The Clintons have as much loyalty to the dems as they do the repubs. They do not care how much damage they do to the democratic party. This could be the perfect storm for Obama's once perfect campaign: Rev. Wright, McCain's free months running virtually unopposed so he can shore up support (and polls seem to indicate it is working for him), and Hillary's apparent determination to make a kamikaze run for the nomination (the democratic party being the plane she is crashing into the carrier in my rather tortured metaphor).
So, is this enough to put this to bed? If Wright himself continues to demand the spotlight and continues to openly show disdain for Obama's sincerity while at the same time reinforcing the point that Obama was a loyal member of this man's congregation for 20 years (the worst of both worlds for Obama, in a sense), what will be the overall impact on Obama's once positive, feel-good, all inclusive vibe that was so unstoppable just a month ago?
You just cannot give the Clintons this type of opening. They are ravenous wolves for this type of opportunity. Rush Limbaugh and right wing talk radio may come to soon regret their "Operation Chaos" campaign encouraging listeners to register as democrats and vote for Hillary in the primaries to keep the fight going. (This has evidently had a real impact on the race in the most recent primaries, starting in Texas going forward.) I have come to the conclusion that there are three strong political parties in the country right now: the republicans, the democrats and the Clintons. The Clintons have as much loyalty to the dems as they do the repubs. They do not care how much damage they do to the democratic party. This could be the perfect storm for Obama's once perfect campaign: Rev. Wright, McCain's free months running virtually unopposed so he can shore up support (and polls seem to indicate it is working for him), and Hillary's apparent determination to make a kamikaze run for the nomination (the democratic party being the plane she is crashing into the carrier in my rather tortured metaphor).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
