http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1131764&page=1
And here is another treat the same Dutchman sent me, pretty funny in my book
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Katrina from the Dutch perspective
A friend of mine is from the Netherlands and has pointed me to an interesting article from ABC news about a flood in Holland in 1953, here is the link if you care to read about Dutch people
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1131764&page=1
And here is another treat the same Dutchman sent me, pretty funny in my book
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1131764&page=1
And here is another treat the same Dutchman sent me, pretty funny in my book
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Is Dan Rather going crazy, senile or paranoid?
Dan Rather is becoming a lot like your paranoid crazy old grandfather or uncle, who is always saying that everything in the past is better than it is now, and they way things are now essentially suck. Every family seems to have one of these in their closet.
“The former CBS News anchor said Monday that there is a climate of fear running through newsrooms stronger than he has ever seen is four-decade career.”
Rather was asked if he felt the same repressive force in the Nixon Administration as in the current administration.
“No, I don’t” said Rather. That is not to say there weren’t forces trying to remove him from the White House beat while reporting on Watergate; but he felt supported by everyone above him. “(There) was a sense of, we’re in this together. It’s not that the then-leadership of CBS wasn’t interested in shareholder value and profits, but they also saw news as a public service.” Rather said he never knew about the pressure from the White House, because of his bosses support.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050920/tv_nm/television_rather_dc_1
To begin with, Dan Rather was never my favorite news broadcaster, and was always too controversial. He was always too willing to share his opinion, rather than just report the news. I have been impressed with Brian Williams recently, because he was asked his opinion on the way the federal government handled the Hurricane Katrina situation in the gulf coast, and he refused to comment saying he is a reporter, and therefore has no place stating his opinion. I can respect that. Walter Cronkite, Rather’s predecessor at CBS, was the most watched man for years and he very rarely gave an opinion and when he did, the whole country listened.
However, this article clearly shows that Dan Rather does not feel he has the support of his former superiors at CBS. This is a major problem if those that report the news are concerned that their superiors don’t have their back if things get tough. It is hard enough in industry to try to succeed if you don’t have your bosses support, but it has to be 100% more difficult when you are trying to uncover information, that others are trying to keep under lock and key, and knowing that your boss will fire or severely reprimand you if you take a wrong step. Where is the incentive for this investigative journalism if that is the reward?
He also acknowledges that the political operators are now more media savvy and know how to push back in all the right places. This was clearly demonstrated during the past presidential campaign when Rather was the first to break the story about the president’s military record (or lack thereof). What is interesting is that the republicans were able to squash the entire story, based upon a few missed placed and not fully fleshed out sources. Obviously, CBS News and Rather rushed the story to press in order to be the first to break it. The fundamental question about Bush’s military record was swept under the covers as Karl Rove and company spun this story as the liberal media trying to bury a republican president. The issue itself is still unresolved, and no one seems to care to find out what the president was doing for the last few months in the National Guard. Why is that? And more important, why does no one seem to care?
Rather also talks about the “dumbed- down, tarted-up coverage” of the national media. It is the job of the press to cover the government to ensure they are doing their jobs as representatives of the people of the United States and not violating the constitution. The first amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right for the free press to exist. Where is the person looking deeper into these issues and questions such as the president’s military career, or John Kerry’s military career, which was tarnished by the Swift Water campaign? The media seems to believe that an independent council, ala Kenneth Starr, is a better way to uncover government corruption rather than have to do the legwork themselves. This system only winds up costing the tax payers millions of dollars to usually conclude nothing.
He also refers to news media as no longer being a public service, but instead a form of entertainment. As a life long subscriber to Time Magazine, this point seems valid. Every few years Time will attempt to “update” the magazine format by making it more glossy, and removing some of the more thought provoking essay’s or more in depth articles and replace them with more entertainment, product reviews and human interest stories. I realize that selling magazine’s is a business and they need to cater to their audience, just as television news does, but why does it have to remove the intelligent articles and replace it with fluff?
So is Dan Rather going crazy, senile and becoming paranoid? Quite possibly!!! More importantly, we need to understand why the mainstream press does not seem to be doing their job, questioning people in power, digging deeper to find answers to questions that we the people may not want to hear. We cannot trust the government to always tell the truth, and I am ok with that regardless of the administrations political affiliations at the time. However, you need a strong press to balance the equation. The press needs to question and investigate and understand and explain the actions of their government to the people and why the government is doing what it is doing. Then the press must dig deeper if the answers are incomplete or deceitful or unacceptable to their audience for whatever reason. Sometimes the press will be right, sometimes wrong, sometimes something in between. You need a media outlet that is interested in the public service and not the ratings or the advertisers or whatever else might currently motivate them in order to achieve this balance of power between the government and those that report. Otherwise we wind up with a dictatorship or some other form of government controlled media, where it becomes impossible to determine what is true and what is not, and then we lose our freedom.
“The former CBS News anchor said Monday that there is a climate of fear running through newsrooms stronger than he has ever seen is four-decade career.”
Rather was asked if he felt the same repressive force in the Nixon Administration as in the current administration.
“No, I don’t” said Rather. That is not to say there weren’t forces trying to remove him from the White House beat while reporting on Watergate; but he felt supported by everyone above him. “(There) was a sense of, we’re in this together. It’s not that the then-leadership of CBS wasn’t interested in shareholder value and profits, but they also saw news as a public service.” Rather said he never knew about the pressure from the White House, because of his bosses support.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050920/tv_nm/television_rather_dc_1
To begin with, Dan Rather was never my favorite news broadcaster, and was always too controversial. He was always too willing to share his opinion, rather than just report the news. I have been impressed with Brian Williams recently, because he was asked his opinion on the way the federal government handled the Hurricane Katrina situation in the gulf coast, and he refused to comment saying he is a reporter, and therefore has no place stating his opinion. I can respect that. Walter Cronkite, Rather’s predecessor at CBS, was the most watched man for years and he very rarely gave an opinion and when he did, the whole country listened.
However, this article clearly shows that Dan Rather does not feel he has the support of his former superiors at CBS. This is a major problem if those that report the news are concerned that their superiors don’t have their back if things get tough. It is hard enough in industry to try to succeed if you don’t have your bosses support, but it has to be 100% more difficult when you are trying to uncover information, that others are trying to keep under lock and key, and knowing that your boss will fire or severely reprimand you if you take a wrong step. Where is the incentive for this investigative journalism if that is the reward?
He also acknowledges that the political operators are now more media savvy and know how to push back in all the right places. This was clearly demonstrated during the past presidential campaign when Rather was the first to break the story about the president’s military record (or lack thereof). What is interesting is that the republicans were able to squash the entire story, based upon a few missed placed and not fully fleshed out sources. Obviously, CBS News and Rather rushed the story to press in order to be the first to break it. The fundamental question about Bush’s military record was swept under the covers as Karl Rove and company spun this story as the liberal media trying to bury a republican president. The issue itself is still unresolved, and no one seems to care to find out what the president was doing for the last few months in the National Guard. Why is that? And more important, why does no one seem to care?
Rather also talks about the “dumbed- down, tarted-up coverage” of the national media. It is the job of the press to cover the government to ensure they are doing their jobs as representatives of the people of the United States and not violating the constitution. The first amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right for the free press to exist. Where is the person looking deeper into these issues and questions such as the president’s military career, or John Kerry’s military career, which was tarnished by the Swift Water campaign? The media seems to believe that an independent council, ala Kenneth Starr, is a better way to uncover government corruption rather than have to do the legwork themselves. This system only winds up costing the tax payers millions of dollars to usually conclude nothing.
He also refers to news media as no longer being a public service, but instead a form of entertainment. As a life long subscriber to Time Magazine, this point seems valid. Every few years Time will attempt to “update” the magazine format by making it more glossy, and removing some of the more thought provoking essay’s or more in depth articles and replace them with more entertainment, product reviews and human interest stories. I realize that selling magazine’s is a business and they need to cater to their audience, just as television news does, but why does it have to remove the intelligent articles and replace it with fluff?
So is Dan Rather going crazy, senile and becoming paranoid? Quite possibly!!! More importantly, we need to understand why the mainstream press does not seem to be doing their job, questioning people in power, digging deeper to find answers to questions that we the people may not want to hear. We cannot trust the government to always tell the truth, and I am ok with that regardless of the administrations political affiliations at the time. However, you need a strong press to balance the equation. The press needs to question and investigate and understand and explain the actions of their government to the people and why the government is doing what it is doing. Then the press must dig deeper if the answers are incomplete or deceitful or unacceptable to their audience for whatever reason. Sometimes the press will be right, sometimes wrong, sometimes something in between. You need a media outlet that is interested in the public service and not the ratings or the advertisers or whatever else might currently motivate them in order to achieve this balance of power between the government and those that report. Otherwise we wind up with a dictatorship or some other form of government controlled media, where it becomes impossible to determine what is true and what is not, and then we lose our freedom.
NY Giants get an unfair advantage over NFC
Giants get an unfair advantage with “road” victory!!!
Last night, the NY football Giants dismantled a tired and disheveled New Orleans Saints on an extra Monday Night Football Game. Because of the damage at the Louisiana Superdome the game was to Giants Stadium. The Giants got a benefit of additional home game, which no other team in the NFC will have this year. If they make the playoffs, I will question the validity and thinking of the NFL by moving this game to the Meadowlands, rather to a neutral site, which would not have given the Giants an advantage.
I understand and empathize with the NFL and Commissioner Paul Taglibue for making the decision right after Katrina and before the season started to move the game to the Giants home, because logistically this was probably the easiest and fastest way to make a decision. There was one small problem in that the NY Jets were scheduled to play Miami at the same stadium on Sunday, so the NFL simply moved the game to Monday night, and split the TV rights between ABC and ESPN (both owned by Walt Disney Co) and moved on calling it the Saints home opener. Now before I go further, I would like to commend the NFL for dedicated this weekend to fund raising effort for the victims of the Katrina, and giving the oddest combination since Lewis and Martin, former Presidents Bush and Clinton another chance to shine and do what they do best in raising awareness and funds from both sides of the political spectrum. They were successful in January when they went to Tsunami devastated Southern Asia, so why not pair up again? It was odd, to here GHW Bush (41 as he likes to call himself), praise his successor during last night’s game. For anyone that remembers the 1992 election, will remember that they were not always so cordial, but that is thankfully in the past. Remember if you would like to donate, go to http://www.redcross.org/.
Now, the problem with calling the Saints the home team only meant that the groundskeeper’s at Giants Stadium needed to add a Saints logo to one of the end zone, they wore the home dark jersey, and the visiting Giants go to call the opening coin toss. Other than those three attributes, the Saints were playing in hostile country, with more than half the house rooting for the Giants, so immediately if there is such a thing as home fans being the 12th man on a football team, then that went against New Orleans. The Saints played terribly and did not deserve to win from the start by fumbling the opening kick-off. Clearly they could not continue with the momentum they had gathered in last week’s final second win over the Carolina Panthers. Obviously, the reality of being on the road would eventually set in, and it did very early in the season, I just hope they can rebound, since many fans will be pulling for them this year.
The additional problem in my mind is that the Giants effectively have 9 homes games, where they get to stay at home, not travel, not alter their routines and get all the additional perks that go with playing at home. Hindsight is always 20/20, but what the NFL should have done was moved the game to a neutral site, such as another city that had a team on the road that day. Some options included Jacksonville, Kansas City, Miami, St. Louis, and Washington. St. Louis would have been an excellent choice as it is a dome, similar to their home field, and it might have been easier and cheaper to ship and accommodate more than 1000 fans from New Orleans. Now when the playoff picture comes rolling around in November and December this game is going to taint the rest of the NFC, since the Giants are going to have that one extra home game and may help them go 9-7 or 10-6, which might be enough to win the East (doubtful with the Eagles, but possible) or be in the wildcard mix. Now again, it is possible that New York still would have beaten New Orleans on any field last night, but we won’t ever know and now the Giants have an advantage which none of the competitors will have for the rest of the season. With the balance of the Saints home games being played in Baton Rouge or San Antonio, all of their opponents will need to travel to LA or TX, and not have a “Home” crowd behind them. It is just something to keep in mind later in the season.
I see the Giants losing in San Diego next week and New Orleans traveling to play the pathetic Minnesota Vikings. Not a good game to be a Saints fan. I am assuming the Vikings will get back on track next week, and the Saints have another sloppy outing.
The Jets are still suspect in my mind having barely beaten a weak Dolphins team 17-7. I predict the Jacksonville Jaguars beating the Jets in a low scoring affair, though I was disappointed that the Jags were only able to muster 3 points this week against the might Indianapolis Colts this past weekend. Congratulations to Colts for finally realizing that they cannot score 50 points a game then give up 47 to their opponent and expect to go to the Super Bowl. Anyone who has paid attention the past few years knows the Patriots, and most of the recent Super Bowl participants have gotten to where they with a strong defense. In my mind, the Colts might have finally turned the corner and are the premier team in the AFC. It is too early to write of the Patriots, but they have had a lot of personnel changes on and off the field, which could have an overall negative effect and could be suspect come January.
The Yankees (86-63) have battled back winning 6 of 7 and are now just a half a game behind the Boston Red Sox (87-63). I have to be honest, I did not assume the Red Sox would struggle the way they have down the stretch. A friend of mine from Boston has told me that the common BoSox fan thinks that just because the won last year, that the past 86 years have been forgotten. I am not sure I am willing to go there until that actually happens. I said last year, even up 3-0 in the ALCS that Boston was good, and still fee the same way. The Red Sox have 2 remaining with TB, 3 at Baltimore, 4 against Toronto and 3 against the Yankees. The Yankees have 7 remaining with Baltimore, 3 against Toronto then the final 3 in Boston. Considering the Devil Rays are a Jekyll and Hyde team against the Yankees this year, can they do the same against the Red Sox that they have done against the Yankees. The Yankees have one extra game, but gets a quickly fading Baltimore team 7 more times. I questioned the Yankees commitment earlier this season, but it is the final series could be like 1949 and 1978, where the winner goes to the playoffs and the loser goes home. If they wind up tied, the Yankees won a coin toss a few weeks ago saying the 1 game play-off would be in the Bronx. Advantage Yankees??
Meanwhile in the AL Central, the White Sox (90-59) who once led the division by 15 games are now down to a 2.5 game lead with 5 left against the red hot Indians (88-62). Aside from the Chicago series, the Indians have 3 against Tampa and 4 against the Royals. It is not unreasonable to think they could win 6 of those 7, which gives them a 94-63, with 5 to go. Chicago has 4 against Minnesota, and 4 against Detroit. Both divisional rivals, that would love to knock the front running White Sox down a notch. I will be optimistic and assume they win 5 of the 8, though it is not unrealistic to see them split those 8, moving them to 94-63 with 5 to go. So whoever wins the remaining 5 games will win the AL Central with a 97-65 record, I am betting on the Indians right now.
Either way, it is going to make the last weekend of the season that much more exciting for folks in New York, Boston, Cleveland and Chicago. It is good to see 4 of the original 8 AL teams in contention.
Last night, the NY football Giants dismantled a tired and disheveled New Orleans Saints on an extra Monday Night Football Game. Because of the damage at the Louisiana Superdome the game was to Giants Stadium. The Giants got a benefit of additional home game, which no other team in the NFC will have this year. If they make the playoffs, I will question the validity and thinking of the NFL by moving this game to the Meadowlands, rather to a neutral site, which would not have given the Giants an advantage.
I understand and empathize with the NFL and Commissioner Paul Taglibue for making the decision right after Katrina and before the season started to move the game to the Giants home, because logistically this was probably the easiest and fastest way to make a decision. There was one small problem in that the NY Jets were scheduled to play Miami at the same stadium on Sunday, so the NFL simply moved the game to Monday night, and split the TV rights between ABC and ESPN (both owned by Walt Disney Co) and moved on calling it the Saints home opener. Now before I go further, I would like to commend the NFL for dedicated this weekend to fund raising effort for the victims of the Katrina, and giving the oddest combination since Lewis and Martin, former Presidents Bush and Clinton another chance to shine and do what they do best in raising awareness and funds from both sides of the political spectrum. They were successful in January when they went to Tsunami devastated Southern Asia, so why not pair up again? It was odd, to here GHW Bush (41 as he likes to call himself), praise his successor during last night’s game. For anyone that remembers the 1992 election, will remember that they were not always so cordial, but that is thankfully in the past. Remember if you would like to donate, go to http://www.redcross.org/.
Now, the problem with calling the Saints the home team only meant that the groundskeeper’s at Giants Stadium needed to add a Saints logo to one of the end zone, they wore the home dark jersey, and the visiting Giants go to call the opening coin toss. Other than those three attributes, the Saints were playing in hostile country, with more than half the house rooting for the Giants, so immediately if there is such a thing as home fans being the 12th man on a football team, then that went against New Orleans. The Saints played terribly and did not deserve to win from the start by fumbling the opening kick-off. Clearly they could not continue with the momentum they had gathered in last week’s final second win over the Carolina Panthers. Obviously, the reality of being on the road would eventually set in, and it did very early in the season, I just hope they can rebound, since many fans will be pulling for them this year.
The additional problem in my mind is that the Giants effectively have 9 homes games, where they get to stay at home, not travel, not alter their routines and get all the additional perks that go with playing at home. Hindsight is always 20/20, but what the NFL should have done was moved the game to a neutral site, such as another city that had a team on the road that day. Some options included Jacksonville, Kansas City, Miami, St. Louis, and Washington. St. Louis would have been an excellent choice as it is a dome, similar to their home field, and it might have been easier and cheaper to ship and accommodate more than 1000 fans from New Orleans. Now when the playoff picture comes rolling around in November and December this game is going to taint the rest of the NFC, since the Giants are going to have that one extra home game and may help them go 9-7 or 10-6, which might be enough to win the East (doubtful with the Eagles, but possible) or be in the wildcard mix. Now again, it is possible that New York still would have beaten New Orleans on any field last night, but we won’t ever know and now the Giants have an advantage which none of the competitors will have for the rest of the season. With the balance of the Saints home games being played in Baton Rouge or San Antonio, all of their opponents will need to travel to LA or TX, and not have a “Home” crowd behind them. It is just something to keep in mind later in the season.
I see the Giants losing in San Diego next week and New Orleans traveling to play the pathetic Minnesota Vikings. Not a good game to be a Saints fan. I am assuming the Vikings will get back on track next week, and the Saints have another sloppy outing.
The Jets are still suspect in my mind having barely beaten a weak Dolphins team 17-7. I predict the Jacksonville Jaguars beating the Jets in a low scoring affair, though I was disappointed that the Jags were only able to muster 3 points this week against the might Indianapolis Colts this past weekend. Congratulations to Colts for finally realizing that they cannot score 50 points a game then give up 47 to their opponent and expect to go to the Super Bowl. Anyone who has paid attention the past few years knows the Patriots, and most of the recent Super Bowl participants have gotten to where they with a strong defense. In my mind, the Colts might have finally turned the corner and are the premier team in the AFC. It is too early to write of the Patriots, but they have had a lot of personnel changes on and off the field, which could have an overall negative effect and could be suspect come January.
The Yankees (86-63) have battled back winning 6 of 7 and are now just a half a game behind the Boston Red Sox (87-63). I have to be honest, I did not assume the Red Sox would struggle the way they have down the stretch. A friend of mine from Boston has told me that the common BoSox fan thinks that just because the won last year, that the past 86 years have been forgotten. I am not sure I am willing to go there until that actually happens. I said last year, even up 3-0 in the ALCS that Boston was good, and still fee the same way. The Red Sox have 2 remaining with TB, 3 at Baltimore, 4 against Toronto and 3 against the Yankees. The Yankees have 7 remaining with Baltimore, 3 against Toronto then the final 3 in Boston. Considering the Devil Rays are a Jekyll and Hyde team against the Yankees this year, can they do the same against the Red Sox that they have done against the Yankees. The Yankees have one extra game, but gets a quickly fading Baltimore team 7 more times. I questioned the Yankees commitment earlier this season, but it is the final series could be like 1949 and 1978, where the winner goes to the playoffs and the loser goes home. If they wind up tied, the Yankees won a coin toss a few weeks ago saying the 1 game play-off would be in the Bronx. Advantage Yankees??
Meanwhile in the AL Central, the White Sox (90-59) who once led the division by 15 games are now down to a 2.5 game lead with 5 left against the red hot Indians (88-62). Aside from the Chicago series, the Indians have 3 against Tampa and 4 against the Royals. It is not unreasonable to think they could win 6 of those 7, which gives them a 94-63, with 5 to go. Chicago has 4 against Minnesota, and 4 against Detroit. Both divisional rivals, that would love to knock the front running White Sox down a notch. I will be optimistic and assume they win 5 of the 8, though it is not unrealistic to see them split those 8, moving them to 94-63 with 5 to go. So whoever wins the remaining 5 games will win the AL Central with a 97-65 record, I am betting on the Indians right now.
Either way, it is going to make the last weekend of the season that much more exciting for folks in New York, Boston, Cleveland and Chicago. It is good to see 4 of the original 8 AL teams in contention.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Well Written Shows on TV??
Why is there no good writing on television? This is a question I have heard asked repeatedly recently. I generally agree that most of the shows on TV today are not worth watching, but there are some exceptions. I would say the reason this query is posed so readily is because the writing on the majority of programs is quitely simply bad on the majority of shows being produced and aired today. The network executives make safe decisions are not allowing programs to grow an audience. A good program is one that is well written with compelling story lines that get me involved with the characters. There are a few well written TV shows and hopefully you will check them out this upcoming season.
One very well written show is Desperate Housewives and it pains me to admit it. In spite of its schlock story telling and heavy female appeal the writing was compelling and intelligent that made the show fun to watch. It is also serialized, so you have to see them in order and if you miss one, you are out of the loop. However, I do not consider it a comedy, where it was nominated and will probably win the Emmy tonight. The producers of DH pulled a fast one ala Ally McBeal a few years ago, since it is a dramedy, and so many good drama’s on TV now (nominated this year are Deadwood, Lost, Six Feet Under, 24, and the West Wing), that they figured they could get an easy win in the other category against Arrested Development, Everybody Loves Raymond, Scrubs and Will and Grace. I hope any of the other 4 tradition comedies win tonight, though I doubt it will happen. I am intrigued to see if they can continue with the high ratings this year, most shows lose their luster after all of the over-exposure which DH experienced last season. Time will tell.
I was watching the Gilmore Girls the other night, which is definitely a chick show, but a well written one. This show is in the same category as DH. It utilizes a witty fast banter pacing, that does not give the audience time to realize what was said until it is well past, and you say wow did she just say that. It's problem in finding an audience is that GG is on the WB, which as a new network has not yet found its stride, though it seems to be doing better than UPN. The point is it is dialogue driven show that makes people think. Most television executives don’t seem to want to do this, based upon my observations of surfing up and down the channels. Most of the shows on now are reality programs, stupid comedies, safe comedies, police and hospital dramas and now Sci-fi is back on prime time..
Reality shows are cheap and relatively easy for the networks to produce, so it is a no-brainer for them to put them on; or stupid comedies, like “The War at Home” a new program on Fox, which is trying to emulate “Married with Children” but worse. The program, which premiered last week, was difficult to watch. The story was terrible, the writing was mediocre at best, and the acting was just as bad. If a program is well written, I can over look other short comings, but this was just plain bad and I am guessing will be gone long before the Super Bowl. The safe comedy is a program like "Yes Dear", which is simple family drama that has been on the for too long, considering no one watches it, but because it does not offend it continues to chug along. Very freightening.
Another popular genre is the police and hosptial drama; CSI, Law and Order, NCIS, House, etc. Now I will admit I think the greatest TV show of this genre in the past 20 years was Homicide Life on the Street. This was hands down the greatest written, acted and directed show I have ever seen. It was compelling, with an excellent ensemble ever-changing cast. NBC never gave this show its proper due, putting it on sporadically during its 7-8 year run on Friday nights at 10. Sometimes it was there, sometimes there would be something else.. It was very difficult to build an audience, when you never knew if it was going to be on, or not. Finally, we now have the sci-fi fantasy type shows, which was Lost, Medium, Invasion, etc. Some folks have told me that some of these are good, but being a Star Trek guy, I could just not get into these new programs, but that is just me.
Many folks are opining that the traditional comedy is dead. Remember they said the same thing in 1984, when Cosby debuted? If people would pay attention the format is not dying, just changing. It is changing as shows on the cutting edge are definitely worth watching and emulating. They are taking the old format and twisting it around into the next generation, leaving the old traditional situation comedy in the dust. You know what demonstrates the sad state of television comedy? Two and Half Men on CBS is the only remaining comedy (Everybody Loves Raymond wrapped production last season) in the Top 10 these days. It is a good show, but I don’t think it is great. Cleary I am out of touch with mainstream America.
The Simpson’s continue to be excellent even after 16 seasons. They find ways to poke fun at anything and everything under the sun. Kudos to the writers for keeping the series fresh and compelling after all this time. Remember it debuted in 1989, with the Christmas show. Other comedy’s that are worth catching are Arrested Development and Scrubs. AD is written in a documentary format and shot with a single hand held camera. It follows a typical sitcom dysfunctional family, but the difference is that the writers might drop a nugget of information in the beginning of the season, then not utilize that nugget until late in the season. This forces the viewer again to use their brain to listen and digest what the characters and remember it for future reference. It was even funny to me the second time I saw it this summer in repeats, I actually picked up some new references as well.
Scrubs is another comedy that is worth watching and should help resurrect this art-form. Again it uses one single camera, following these wacky doctors around the hospital and homes, in a more traditional sitcom style. However, it does not utilize a laugh track nor does it pander to its audience. It sometimes gets serious, and leaves the audience thinking about issues or tries to teach a lesson, but never in a preachy way that the M*A*S*H did in their later years.
Everything else is crap!!!
By the way, David Letterman just did an amazing tribute to Johnny Carson on the Emmy award show. It is amazing to me to see how funny Johnny still is today. His comedy never gets old with time. His timing and grace were impeccable and he was always classy. There will never be another Johnny Carson. John Stewart then paid tribute to David Letterman, saying that Letterman is now the standard barometer that up and coming comedians use to determine if they have made it. The comment was very genuine and sincere a nice gesture from a truly talented individual.
Does anyone else find it odd that the Daily Show, which airs on a channel called Comedy Central, is about the only media inspired show that will actually question current events (politics, media, entertainment, etc), when that is the role of traditional media? They seem to be the only show willing to investigate or question the issues. They do it in a very funny way, but it contrasts how traditional television media has missed the ball in investigating issues. But I suppose that is another story for another day.
One very well written show is Desperate Housewives and it pains me to admit it. In spite of its schlock story telling and heavy female appeal the writing was compelling and intelligent that made the show fun to watch. It is also serialized, so you have to see them in order and if you miss one, you are out of the loop. However, I do not consider it a comedy, where it was nominated and will probably win the Emmy tonight. The producers of DH pulled a fast one ala Ally McBeal a few years ago, since it is a dramedy, and so many good drama’s on TV now (nominated this year are Deadwood, Lost, Six Feet Under, 24, and the West Wing), that they figured they could get an easy win in the other category against Arrested Development, Everybody Loves Raymond, Scrubs and Will and Grace. I hope any of the other 4 tradition comedies win tonight, though I doubt it will happen. I am intrigued to see if they can continue with the high ratings this year, most shows lose their luster after all of the over-exposure which DH experienced last season. Time will tell.
I was watching the Gilmore Girls the other night, which is definitely a chick show, but a well written one. This show is in the same category as DH. It utilizes a witty fast banter pacing, that does not give the audience time to realize what was said until it is well past, and you say wow did she just say that. It's problem in finding an audience is that GG is on the WB, which as a new network has not yet found its stride, though it seems to be doing better than UPN. The point is it is dialogue driven show that makes people think. Most television executives don’t seem to want to do this, based upon my observations of surfing up and down the channels. Most of the shows on now are reality programs, stupid comedies, safe comedies, police and hospital dramas and now Sci-fi is back on prime time..
Reality shows are cheap and relatively easy for the networks to produce, so it is a no-brainer for them to put them on; or stupid comedies, like “The War at Home” a new program on Fox, which is trying to emulate “Married with Children” but worse. The program, which premiered last week, was difficult to watch. The story was terrible, the writing was mediocre at best, and the acting was just as bad. If a program is well written, I can over look other short comings, but this was just plain bad and I am guessing will be gone long before the Super Bowl. The safe comedy is a program like "Yes Dear", which is simple family drama that has been on the for too long, considering no one watches it, but because it does not offend it continues to chug along. Very freightening.
Another popular genre is the police and hosptial drama; CSI, Law and Order, NCIS, House, etc. Now I will admit I think the greatest TV show of this genre in the past 20 years was Homicide Life on the Street. This was hands down the greatest written, acted and directed show I have ever seen. It was compelling, with an excellent ensemble ever-changing cast. NBC never gave this show its proper due, putting it on sporadically during its 7-8 year run on Friday nights at 10. Sometimes it was there, sometimes there would be something else.. It was very difficult to build an audience, when you never knew if it was going to be on, or not. Finally, we now have the sci-fi fantasy type shows, which was Lost, Medium, Invasion, etc. Some folks have told me that some of these are good, but being a Star Trek guy, I could just not get into these new programs, but that is just me.
Many folks are opining that the traditional comedy is dead. Remember they said the same thing in 1984, when Cosby debuted? If people would pay attention the format is not dying, just changing. It is changing as shows on the cutting edge are definitely worth watching and emulating. They are taking the old format and twisting it around into the next generation, leaving the old traditional situation comedy in the dust. You know what demonstrates the sad state of television comedy? Two and Half Men on CBS is the only remaining comedy (Everybody Loves Raymond wrapped production last season) in the Top 10 these days. It is a good show, but I don’t think it is great. Cleary I am out of touch with mainstream America.
The Simpson’s continue to be excellent even after 16 seasons. They find ways to poke fun at anything and everything under the sun. Kudos to the writers for keeping the series fresh and compelling after all this time. Remember it debuted in 1989, with the Christmas show. Other comedy’s that are worth catching are Arrested Development and Scrubs. AD is written in a documentary format and shot with a single hand held camera. It follows a typical sitcom dysfunctional family, but the difference is that the writers might drop a nugget of information in the beginning of the season, then not utilize that nugget until late in the season. This forces the viewer again to use their brain to listen and digest what the characters and remember it for future reference. It was even funny to me the second time I saw it this summer in repeats, I actually picked up some new references as well.
Scrubs is another comedy that is worth watching and should help resurrect this art-form. Again it uses one single camera, following these wacky doctors around the hospital and homes, in a more traditional sitcom style. However, it does not utilize a laugh track nor does it pander to its audience. It sometimes gets serious, and leaves the audience thinking about issues or tries to teach a lesson, but never in a preachy way that the M*A*S*H did in their later years.
Everything else is crap!!!
By the way, David Letterman just did an amazing tribute to Johnny Carson on the Emmy award show. It is amazing to me to see how funny Johnny still is today. His comedy never gets old with time. His timing and grace were impeccable and he was always classy. There will never be another Johnny Carson. John Stewart then paid tribute to David Letterman, saying that Letterman is now the standard barometer that up and coming comedians use to determine if they have made it. The comment was very genuine and sincere a nice gesture from a truly talented individual.
Does anyone else find it odd that the Daily Show, which airs on a channel called Comedy Central, is about the only media inspired show that will actually question current events (politics, media, entertainment, etc), when that is the role of traditional media? They seem to be the only show willing to investigate or question the issues. They do it in a very funny way, but it contrasts how traditional television media has missed the ball in investigating issues. But I suppose that is another story for another day.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Yankees Trail Wildcard, Messier Retires
Well, the Yankees took two of three from the Red Sox this weekend, and lost two of three to the mighty mighty Tampa Bay Devil Rays earlier last week. It is amazing, since this year’s incarnation of the Bronx Bombers does not seem to have the ability or maybe desire to win on a consistent basis. Two weeks ago, Chris “Mad Dog” Russo said on WFAN here in NYC after they went 2 games ahead in the wild-card race that the Yankees should be embarrassed if they wind up losing that lead with 30 games left. How true that statement is now. They should be embarrassed, considering that once again the primary damage was done by Tampa Bay. Cleveland is playing great ball, and at absolutely the right time. I don’t think that the Indians have what it takes to beat the Red Sox or the eventual Western Division Champion (A’s or Angels?) in the ALDS, but I think they are good enough to take the Wild-card, based upon their momentum and their remaining schedule. I also don’t think the White Sox will get out of the first round either, which makes a Red Sox against the AL West in the ALCS, but that is another story.I am so certain that the Yankees won’t make the playoffs; I have bet a fellow Yankee fan $1. However, much to my family’s chagrin, it is possible I am wrong. Let’s see how this could play out.
CC Sabathia has a reason to be smiling. The front running Indians have 2 games left at home against Oakland after losing last night 2-0 with a record of 82-62. They have 3 left against KC, 3 in Chicago, 3 at KC, 3 at home against Tampa and finish with 3 at home against the White Sox. Let’s assume the Indians split the remaining 2 games with the Athletics. Then they have six against KC, which they should win 5, and 6 games against Chicago, which they should split. This leaves them with 3 against the aforementioned Rays. The Indians can go 10-6, with 3 remaining against Tampa. Can you imagine the Rays lying down to Indians in order to keep the Yankees out of the playoffs? Cleveland should take 2 out of 3, regardless, ending with a 12-7 record over their final games giving them a 94-68 record at the end of the season.The Yankees are currently 80-62, a game back in the wild card with 20 games left to the Indians 18. They finish the season with 3 in Tampa, 3 in Toronto, 4 at home against the Orioles, 3 against Toronto, 4 at Camden Yards in Baltimore, and finish with 3 in Boston. Let’s assume they figure out how to beat Tampa, starting tonight and go 2-1 against the Rays they need and they will lose 2 of 3 the final weekend in Boston. This leaves them at 83-65, with 8 games against Baltimore, and 6 games against Toronto. They need to win 11 out of these 14 games, just to tie the Indians, and I have no idea how the tie breaker system works, but quite frankly it is a moot point since I cannot see this team winning 5 of 6 from the Blue Jays, and 6 of 8 from the Orioles. Even if the Royals are able to beat the Tribe one more time in those 6 games, that only lowers the mark to 93 wins. I just don’t see the Yankees winning that many games based upon the previous 142 played so far this year. Let's see how the Yankees due tonight against their arch-nemesis DRays, I don't hold out hope for a miracle.
So with that in mind, I say the following: Let’s go Jets, Let’s go Giants, Let’s go Rangers.
The Jets looked terrible on Sunday. Now it is possible that the Chiefs D improved so much and they are going to be competing with the Ravens, and the Bills for the leagues best defense, but I just don’t see that happening with them facing the Raiders, and Chargers twice this season. The Jets receivers dropped passes, the o-line provided no running room for Curtis Martin, and the defense could not tackle or defend the pass to save their lives. Many people will blame Chad Pennington for this loss, but this was a team effort, a real stinker. Gang Green has a long way to go to show me what they are made of this year. Herman Edwards, your time is almost up if you don’t do something soon. TE Chris Baker was the only bright spot and deserves to be smiling.On the flip side, the Giant fan should not be salivating at the possibilities of their team this year. Eli Manning started just his 8th professional game and looked like it in the first half. I blame the Cardinals for this Giants win. They were almost as bad as the Jets, though they scored more points. It was an interesting game to watch, and I thought in the first half that the Cardinals were going to win, since they made adjustments on both sides of the ball to slow the boys in blue down, and start moving the ball. However, they just fell to pieces in the 2nd half, same old Cardinals, same old result. A 42-19 crushing defeat to open the season for the team from the desert. Congratulations to the Giants, but they are going to be facing a touch motivated Saints team, coming back from a hard fought victory over the Carolina team, which many pundits pick to go all the way this year. I don’t think the Saints can win 16 games on the road (LSU and San Antonio aren’t home after all), but they are going to start the season strong and make the New Orleans fans proud. Someone recently wrote, “Sorry Cowboys, the Saints are America’s team now.” I agree, at this for this year. I predict the Saints go 9-7, without looking at their schedule.
The Rangers yesterday announced the retirement of Mark Messier yesterday after 25 years in the NHL and plan on retiring his #11 on January 11, 2006, joining Rod Gilbert (7), Ed Giacomin (1) and Mike Richter (35) in the Madison Square Garden rafters. Oddly, that will be 37 years to the day after Joe Namath led the upstart Jets over the Johnny Unitas led Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III. Messier, or the Messiah as he was called, NY legend was set in 1994 when he almost single handedly led the Rangers to the Stanley Cup after a 54 year drought. He also emerged from the shadow of his former Edmonton teammate, Wayne Gretzky, proving that he was able to win the cup, without him, which coincidently Gretzky was unable to do. Messier left the Rangers in 1997, to play with the Vancouver Canucks only to return again for the 2000-2001 season. He was unable to lead either team into the playoffs late in his career. Quite frankly, he would still have been a legend if he retired in 2000 before his return to Broadway. I believe he tarnished his image, and kept younger players out of the lineup or traded as Neil Smith and Glen Sather, believed with him they could take that one last shot at the cup. Needless to say those plans failed. He still finishes 11 short of Geordie Howe’s all-time games played of 1767, and second on the scoring list with 1,887 points, and astonishing 970 fewer than Gretzky. However, it is time for him to go and I tip my hat to him, so we can now rub it in the Islanders face, that they have not won the Stanley Cup since 1983.
Good Bye Mark!! It was fun to watch you play.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Bush Family Vacation
I realize it is a little early for these types of things, but they were just two good to resist. Thanks Eric and David.
Bush family vacation:
Bush family vacation:
and a picture which says 1000 words, courtesy of Sky News Ireland:
Monday, September 05, 2005
George W. Bush compares Iraq to WWII
On Aug 30, AP reporting the following:
“President Bush on Tuesday answered growing anti-war protests with a fresh reason for American troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields that he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists. The president, standing against a backdrop of the imposing USS Ronald Reagan, the newest aircraft carrier in the Navy's fleet, said terrorists would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to recruit followers, train them and finance new attacks.
"We will defeat the terrorists," Bush said. "We will build a free Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and sanctuary."
Appearing at the Naval Air Station North Island to commemorate the anniversary of the Allies' World War II victory over Japan, Bush compared his resolve now to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's in the 1940s and said America's mission in Iraq is to turn it into a democratic ally just as the U.S. did with Japan after its 1945 surrender.”
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050830090609990033&_ccc=3&cid=842
This has to be one of the most outrageous statements ever made by this president. It is a combination of stating a new goal of protecting Iraq’s oil, which could fall under control of extreme terrorist (I assume this means anyone against the US). This seems like a new goal to me. Then he had the audacity to compare Iraq to WWII, which is amazingly outrageous on so many levels. Once again this demonstrates to me how out of touch this president is with at least half the country. His advisors and inner circle seem to keep him informed with only a limited perspective of what is going on in the real world, based 100% on a conservative agenda. I remember a candidate who campaigned in 2000 as a compassionate conservative and a unifier of political parties. After 5 years I don’t see much compassion from him and I don’t see much unifying. I understand that a president is supposed to look confident and strong, but he takes this to such an extreme that he winds up looking ridiculous with statements like the ones above.
First of all, it could be my ignorance, but I did not know that our goal in Iraq was to protect the oil fields from control of terrorist extremists. I thought our goal was to defeat terrorism, so we can make America safer and prevent terrorist attacks in the future. Either way, I honestly believe protecting the interest of big oil, is probably the closest reason we are actually engaged in this quagmire in the first place, and probably why we went to war in the gulf in 1990 as well. Prior to the United State invasion there has never been any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there was no terrorist breeding ground in Iraq and Iraq was not on the verge of civil war. Now the two latter scenarios are making the United States a prime target for future terrorists, and Iraq is one or two major political events from all out civil war and I would not be surprised if someone is able to get WMD into lawless Iraq now, and start some kind of major event. Seems like President Bush is developing a place that he is claims he was trying to prevent in the first place; kind of ironic, isn’t it? Now, I am not in favor of another Saddam Hussein like dictatorship in Iraq, but there is something to be said for self rule; allowing people to make decisions about their own future, without an imperialistic power inside your borders, dictating how your government is going to run, and “protecting” their oil fields.
Second, to compare this “war” to World War II is simply ignorant. It would seem that George W. Bush has FDR envy. After the election he tried to revoke the great American safety net known as social security. Now I believe that social security could use tinkering before it goes insolvent. In order to achieve this type of goal someone will need to get agreement from a majority of players in both party’s from both houses of congress, as well as some governor’s to push a major initiative like that through the bureaucracy, but that is another story.
World War II was a global affair before we even got involved. It involved a multiple number of nations banded together for the goal of global domination and the free world’s attempt to stop that from happening. It was about America being attacked by another sovereign nation and having every person stepping up to do their duty to their country. It was about sacrifice and doing the right thing. This current war is with a single country, which we invaded and could not persuade our closest allies to join us. This war seems to be about nepotism (finishing what Daddy couldn’t) and a distraction to take our attention away from the fact that we missed Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2002 and 2003. The President would like us to believe that this war was caused by a direct attack on this country, but time and time again professional non-partisan reports state that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had no connection with Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queida, prior to our invasion and there are no WMD’s in Iraq.
I always will believe that America’s soldiers deserve the support and respect of the American people; after all they are just doing their job. It is a job that is more dangerous then the majority of us face, but they chose to sign up. What we can do is question the motives the government and more specifically the president has for this war and now how we are going to get out of this mess. As far as why we are there, I think he summed it up best when he said we are there to protect oil fields from extreme terrorists, which is no way near the goal of WWII. Case Closed!!
“President Bush on Tuesday answered growing anti-war protests with a fresh reason for American troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields that he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists. The president, standing against a backdrop of the imposing USS Ronald Reagan, the newest aircraft carrier in the Navy's fleet, said terrorists would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to recruit followers, train them and finance new attacks.
"We will defeat the terrorists," Bush said. "We will build a free Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and sanctuary."
Appearing at the Naval Air Station North Island to commemorate the anniversary of the Allies' World War II victory over Japan, Bush compared his resolve now to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's in the 1940s and said America's mission in Iraq is to turn it into a democratic ally just as the U.S. did with Japan after its 1945 surrender.”
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050830090609990033&_ccc=3&cid=842
This has to be one of the most outrageous statements ever made by this president. It is a combination of stating a new goal of protecting Iraq’s oil, which could fall under control of extreme terrorist (I assume this means anyone against the US). This seems like a new goal to me. Then he had the audacity to compare Iraq to WWII, which is amazingly outrageous on so many levels. Once again this demonstrates to me how out of touch this president is with at least half the country. His advisors and inner circle seem to keep him informed with only a limited perspective of what is going on in the real world, based 100% on a conservative agenda. I remember a candidate who campaigned in 2000 as a compassionate conservative and a unifier of political parties. After 5 years I don’t see much compassion from him and I don’t see much unifying. I understand that a president is supposed to look confident and strong, but he takes this to such an extreme that he winds up looking ridiculous with statements like the ones above.
First of all, it could be my ignorance, but I did not know that our goal in Iraq was to protect the oil fields from control of terrorist extremists. I thought our goal was to defeat terrorism, so we can make America safer and prevent terrorist attacks in the future. Either way, I honestly believe protecting the interest of big oil, is probably the closest reason we are actually engaged in this quagmire in the first place, and probably why we went to war in the gulf in 1990 as well. Prior to the United State invasion there has never been any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there was no terrorist breeding ground in Iraq and Iraq was not on the verge of civil war. Now the two latter scenarios are making the United States a prime target for future terrorists, and Iraq is one or two major political events from all out civil war and I would not be surprised if someone is able to get WMD into lawless Iraq now, and start some kind of major event. Seems like President Bush is developing a place that he is claims he was trying to prevent in the first place; kind of ironic, isn’t it? Now, I am not in favor of another Saddam Hussein like dictatorship in Iraq, but there is something to be said for self rule; allowing people to make decisions about their own future, without an imperialistic power inside your borders, dictating how your government is going to run, and “protecting” their oil fields.
Second, to compare this “war” to World War II is simply ignorant. It would seem that George W. Bush has FDR envy. After the election he tried to revoke the great American safety net known as social security. Now I believe that social security could use tinkering before it goes insolvent. In order to achieve this type of goal someone will need to get agreement from a majority of players in both party’s from both houses of congress, as well as some governor’s to push a major initiative like that through the bureaucracy, but that is another story.
World War II was a global affair before we even got involved. It involved a multiple number of nations banded together for the goal of global domination and the free world’s attempt to stop that from happening. It was about America being attacked by another sovereign nation and having every person stepping up to do their duty to their country. It was about sacrifice and doing the right thing. This current war is with a single country, which we invaded and could not persuade our closest allies to join us. This war seems to be about nepotism (finishing what Daddy couldn’t) and a distraction to take our attention away from the fact that we missed Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2002 and 2003. The President would like us to believe that this war was caused by a direct attack on this country, but time and time again professional non-partisan reports state that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had no connection with Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queida, prior to our invasion and there are no WMD’s in Iraq.
I always will believe that America’s soldiers deserve the support and respect of the American people; after all they are just doing their job. It is a job that is more dangerous then the majority of us face, but they chose to sign up. What we can do is question the motives the government and more specifically the president has for this war and now how we are going to get out of this mess. As far as why we are there, I think he summed it up best when he said we are there to protect oil fields from extreme terrorists, which is no way near the goal of WWII. Case Closed!!
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Where is the LA National Guard?
It is sadly ironic that having grown up and lived in the north east my entire life that I have never experienced a need for the national guard in my lifetime. A few months ago, I even heard some rumblings from state governors around the country that they were not prepared for local situations that would require deployment of their guard, because they were already deployed in Iraq. I have to be honest I paid it little or no attention at the time, because I figured it did not really effect me. Having watched the utter destruction by Hurricane Katrina of New Orleans and the rest of the gulf coast this week on TV has made me rethink my naïveté.
According to the Army National Guard website the mission of the individual state National Guard is as follows: (http://www.arng.army.mil/about_us/aiding_america.asp)
“The Army National Guard exists in all 50 states, three territories and the District of Columbia. The state, territory or district leadership is the Commanders in Chief for each Guard. Their Adjutants General are answerable to them for the training and readiness of the units. At the state level, the governors reserve the ability, under the Constitution of the United States, to call up members of the National Guard in time of domestic emergencies or need.”
I don’t have confirmation of these numbers, but I heard the Louisiana National Guard, has 11, 000 soldiers on active duty, 8,000 of those are currently deployed in Iraq. Now my math shows that leaves about 3,000 men and woman left on the ground in the state of Louisiana to help assist with this natural disaster, which is the true mission of the National Guard as defined above. The mission statement says nothing about defending democracy and fighting a debatable war of terrorism half-way around the globe. However, our glorious draft dodging President has seen it fit to send these soldiers overseas and they are not around to do what they signed up for protecting the state. So the fundamental question is, why are they not in Louisiana doing their job?
As a strict Jeffersonian Libertarian, who believes that states have very specific constitutional rights and thus can refuse requests from the federal government when the request violates the constitutional rights of the state, I have an issue with the whole deployment since these soldiers of the Louisiana National Guard have dedicated themselves to the defense and protection of the their state, their homeland, and this is a clear violation of the second amendment, but as I said, that is another issue.
I am not saying that with a larger force the Louisiana National Guard, would have had a better chance to help prevent the chaos and anarchy that has erupted in the big easy, but I guess we will never know. It makes me question our reasons for being in Iraq in the first place, but again that is obviously another issue as well.
I am heart broken and sad seeing what is happening in the Gulf Coast and specifically in New Orleans, and knowing that the Big Easy may never be the same again. I have always had a fondness in my heart for New Orleans. It was a place where you could go to and know you were going to have fun. I think it was the only place I never wanted to live, simply because I liked visiting there. If I lived there, I would need to get a job, and it would be regular and normal. It would lose its allure and charm. It was always alright to go there and drink until you could no longer stand, to party like you had never partied before. I once drove there for Mardi-Gras, leaving LaGuardia Airport in a February blizzard, driving 21 hours straight through the night, getting out of the mini-van and feeling suprisingly not tired but rather that it was time to drink and have some fun. I could sleep later, but now that we were there, it was time to party. No other town I have been to has ever made me feel that way, and now it is potentially gone forever, flooded under 20 feet of water.
Worse yet, I feel for the people living in the Gulf Coast, whose homes were destroyed, whose business were lost and whose lives will probably never be the same. Some commentator on CNN said this has the potential to be this century’s dust bowl, a period in the 1930’s when farms in the southwest simply dried up and blew away. These people just got up and left Oklahoma and Texas leaving their dried and withered homes and farms with no money, no jobs and no where to go. The potential impact of this Hurricane is very similar with up to 100,000 homeless people, wandering the south for months, with no where to go, looking for work, hoping to find something or someplace to start over.
It is interesting to hear why people stayed in their homes; “We have been through hurricanes before”; “It never got this bad”, “We made it through Camille in 1969 and we are still here”. I guess this was worse. Now anarchy and chaos reigns with armed bandits looting and dead bodies floating everywhere in New Orleans and the Saints will be like the old 1899 Cleveland Spiders, probably never playing a home game this year. It will also be interesting to read the sociological studies done in the future to determine how society broke down and deteriorated in just a few days there. Overall it is Very Sad!
Wouldn’t it be interested in President Bush were forced to serve his last month in the Alabama National Guard now and really have to physically clean up this mess? Again, I think that is another issue.
If you want to help go to the American Red Cross website (http://www.redcross.org/) and make a donation. I assume that every charity and non-profit will be sending out emails, throwing up a tithing plates, sending around a charity basket and generally collecting donations to help the victims of this terrible disaster. If we learned anything from the Tsunami in Southeast Asia last December, is too many hands in the pot, spoils the broth. So many international agencies collected money it was impossible to tell how much was collected or where it was going. Let’s avoid that situation this time, and donate directly to the Red Cross, where they can and know how to put the donations to good use and will do so immediately.
My prayers go out to the victims of this disaster, and to all of the citizens of the United States that are now going to have to pay upwards of $3 and $4 for a gallon of gasoline, while I almost guarantee that big oil companies will show huge profits over the next year. Just a guess.
Buy shares in Sunoco, BP, Standard Oil (Exxon/Mobil) and Texaco now, as I am sure there stocks will rise and this next year will be very good for them.
According to the Army National Guard website the mission of the individual state National Guard is as follows: (http://www.arng.army.mil/about_us/aiding_america.asp)
“The Army National Guard exists in all 50 states, three territories and the District of Columbia. The state, territory or district leadership is the Commanders in Chief for each Guard. Their Adjutants General are answerable to them for the training and readiness of the units. At the state level, the governors reserve the ability, under the Constitution of the United States, to call up members of the National Guard in time of domestic emergencies or need.”
I don’t have confirmation of these numbers, but I heard the Louisiana National Guard, has 11, 000 soldiers on active duty, 8,000 of those are currently deployed in Iraq. Now my math shows that leaves about 3,000 men and woman left on the ground in the state of Louisiana to help assist with this natural disaster, which is the true mission of the National Guard as defined above. The mission statement says nothing about defending democracy and fighting a debatable war of terrorism half-way around the globe. However, our glorious draft dodging President has seen it fit to send these soldiers overseas and they are not around to do what they signed up for protecting the state. So the fundamental question is, why are they not in Louisiana doing their job?
As a strict Jeffersonian Libertarian, who believes that states have very specific constitutional rights and thus can refuse requests from the federal government when the request violates the constitutional rights of the state, I have an issue with the whole deployment since these soldiers of the Louisiana National Guard have dedicated themselves to the defense and protection of the their state, their homeland, and this is a clear violation of the second amendment, but as I said, that is another issue.
I am not saying that with a larger force the Louisiana National Guard, would have had a better chance to help prevent the chaos and anarchy that has erupted in the big easy, but I guess we will never know. It makes me question our reasons for being in Iraq in the first place, but again that is obviously another issue as well.
I am heart broken and sad seeing what is happening in the Gulf Coast and specifically in New Orleans, and knowing that the Big Easy may never be the same again. I have always had a fondness in my heart for New Orleans. It was a place where you could go to and know you were going to have fun. I think it was the only place I never wanted to live, simply because I liked visiting there. If I lived there, I would need to get a job, and it would be regular and normal. It would lose its allure and charm. It was always alright to go there and drink until you could no longer stand, to party like you had never partied before. I once drove there for Mardi-Gras, leaving LaGuardia Airport in a February blizzard, driving 21 hours straight through the night, getting out of the mini-van and feeling suprisingly not tired but rather that it was time to drink and have some fun. I could sleep later, but now that we were there, it was time to party. No other town I have been to has ever made me feel that way, and now it is potentially gone forever, flooded under 20 feet of water.
Worse yet, I feel for the people living in the Gulf Coast, whose homes were destroyed, whose business were lost and whose lives will probably never be the same. Some commentator on CNN said this has the potential to be this century’s dust bowl, a period in the 1930’s when farms in the southwest simply dried up and blew away. These people just got up and left Oklahoma and Texas leaving their dried and withered homes and farms with no money, no jobs and no where to go. The potential impact of this Hurricane is very similar with up to 100,000 homeless people, wandering the south for months, with no where to go, looking for work, hoping to find something or someplace to start over.
It is interesting to hear why people stayed in their homes; “We have been through hurricanes before”; “It never got this bad”, “We made it through Camille in 1969 and we are still here”. I guess this was worse. Now anarchy and chaos reigns with armed bandits looting and dead bodies floating everywhere in New Orleans and the Saints will be like the old 1899 Cleveland Spiders, probably never playing a home game this year. It will also be interesting to read the sociological studies done in the future to determine how society broke down and deteriorated in just a few days there. Overall it is Very Sad!
Wouldn’t it be interested in President Bush were forced to serve his last month in the Alabama National Guard now and really have to physically clean up this mess? Again, I think that is another issue.
If you want to help go to the American Red Cross website (http://www.redcross.org/) and make a donation. I assume that every charity and non-profit will be sending out emails, throwing up a tithing plates, sending around a charity basket and generally collecting donations to help the victims of this terrible disaster. If we learned anything from the Tsunami in Southeast Asia last December, is too many hands in the pot, spoils the broth. So many international agencies collected money it was impossible to tell how much was collected or where it was going. Let’s avoid that situation this time, and donate directly to the Red Cross, where they can and know how to put the donations to good use and will do so immediately.
My prayers go out to the victims of this disaster, and to all of the citizens of the United States that are now going to have to pay upwards of $3 and $4 for a gallon of gasoline, while I almost guarantee that big oil companies will show huge profits over the next year. Just a guess.
Buy shares in Sunoco, BP, Standard Oil (Exxon/Mobil) and Texaco now, as I am sure there stocks will rise and this next year will be very good for them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
