"Beat Surrender," the Jam (27) - My kids love this song. I'm afraid the "bullshit is bullshit, it just goes by different names" line is going to be a problem soon.
"Someday I Suppose," the Mighty, Mighty Bosstones (27)
"Come on Eileen," Dexy's Midnight Runners (26)
"I Confess," English Beat (25)
"Last Nite," the Strokes (23)
Not exactly a 2008 list since some of these songs have been on the 'pod since I got it a couple years ago.
6 Movies I Watched From Beginning to End This Year Because I didn't see enough to make a Best Of List. In no particular order:
Iron Man
Indiana Jones 4
The Incredible Hulk
Doubt
The Forbidden Kingdom
W.
If I get to see 6 more 2008 movies in 2009, they'll be:
Pineapple Express
Burn After Reading
Quantum of Solace
Slumdog Millionaire
Harold & Kumar 2
I think I read enough this year to make a slightly decent Best of the Books I Read 2008 list. "The Chicago Way" will not be on it. "The Secret History" might make it if I finish it tonight.
2008 in Books I took up the 888 challenge this past year and succeeded, although with much less ambition that I intended. I tracked my books through my LibraryThing, which was a blast even while it managed to show me just how middle and lowbrow so much of my reading has become in the past year. In the 888 challenge, you read eight books in eight different categories and are allowed eight repeats. My initial categories were things like politics, history, over 25 years old and books I've been avoiding (generally meaty classics). By the end of the year, poker had its own category, I had split crime and pulp into two separate categories while combining history and politics into one and filling it out with a history of the World Series of Poker, and those books I'd been avoiding? Still generally avoiding them.
That said, my reading has always had more than its share of comics, sci-fi and crime. I shouldn't be shocked by how it looks in cover view.
Two of my favorite books of the year were admirably lowbrow. I can't say enough good things about Lucky at Cards and Grifter's Game, both reprinted by Hard Case Crime. Both are long on obsession and cons and short on meandering. Someone once described a good novel as being like a Ramones song. Bang! Bang! Bang! and you're done. Grifter's Game was initially published as Mona, but you should get the reprint because the cover of the original, while much more lurid, gives away the shocking and poetic ending. And Lucky at Cards features my favorite tag line of the year - "He could handle cards like a master. But could he handle her?" If that doesn't crack you up, go read James Patterson.
My political reading of late has been largely depressing. I'm sending Worst President Ever off with a bunch of anti-Bush books. Trainwreck:The End of the Conservative Revolution (and Not a Moment Too Soon)by Bill Press (and researched by Kevin at Ghost in the Machine) bookended the year nicely with Paul Krugman's Conscience of a Liberal. Jacob Weisberg's The Bush Tragedy spends no time establishing that W was a horrible president - you already knew that - but tries to explain the possible psychological/Shakespearean family dynamics that lead to W's awful mental make-up. It's a slightly rude poke in the brain of the president. (Excuse the word brain there.) It does contain a lot of personal and Bush family information that may be new to you.
For complete and utter depression, however, I recommend The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How America's War on Terror Turned into a War on America's Ideals by Jane Meyer. It exhaustively details our inexcusable rendition and torture program. Dick Cheney is the star of the book, to his eternal shame. I'm glad I read it, but it truly made me sad.
Kid's books did not. I proudly used children's literature as one of my 888 categories. Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing was even better than I remembered. Peter is a true character, in every sense, and by the end of the book I disliked Fudge just like one might dislike a younger sibling - and this comes from someone who is but does not have a younger sibling. I'm too old to have read Holes as a kid, but I can easily see why it is heading for classic status. It will be read by generations of subversive kids. Tightly plotted and funny.
Nothing blew me away in 2008, the way Watership Down did in 2007. Although with two strong Lawrence Block novels, a new name may have achieved "Grab at Any Library Sale" status. I'll start 2009's 888 challenge conceding that poker, crime and children's literature may as well be categories and we'll see where it goes.
Whoo-Hoo! Anyone notice how McCain has claimed, several times now, that if Obama had accepted his offer for ten townhall style debates, he would not have been forced to go as negative as he has? (And even with this, McCain doesn't get his facts straight.)
Republicans really are thin-skinned these days, aren't they? A few weeks ago we were all told that House GOP'ers rejected the urgent bailout that would have saved our country because Nancy Pelosi was a big meanie. Now, because Obama didn't want to debate precisely the way McCain wanted, McCain had to question his patriotism and call him a big pervert.
I would like to thank Senator Obama for rejecting the ten debate proposal. One, it brought out Mr. Crankypants and that's just great. Two, it spared me from having to watch seven more of these awful things. Debates have become horrid events. The moderators are tepid. The questions, when they aren't dodged entirely, are predictable. It's an excercise in returning to your talking points. The contemporary debates matter for two reasons - the big gaffe and style. Now that they are concluded I can fully appreciate how smart Obama's approach was. Obviously, I wanted every McCain lie smacked down hard. I wanted Bush mocked. I wanted sharp facts and sharper sarcasm.
But these debates aren't for me. I'm voting for Obama even if he sighs too much or claims communist-occupied Poland is Freedomland. (Gee, which one of those gaffes was more important?) The general population doesn't want much in the way of attacks and finger-pointing. Obama simply needed to remain gaffe-free (yep) and appear presidential (big-time).
McCain has shown a surprising tin ear of late. The hard right wants him to get nasty and go all smear all the time and he doesn't recognize that this advice is turning a squeaker into a bloodbath. (And Senator, if you think the hard right will take the blame for your loss, you don't know them like I do.) The most telling moment of last night's debate came when they talked about the negativity. McCain brought up Ayers, after saying he didn't care about him. Then McCain complained about Representative John Lewis' comments. He accused Obama of "not repudiating" the comparison between himself and George Wallace.
What did McCain think would happen next?
First of all, you've pointed out that a civil rights hero has criticized you. Then, you hand Obama an opportunity to point out that you're wrong again, Obama did repudiate the comparison. And who didn't know that the next step in this conversation is the hateful, violent crap shouted at McCain/Palin rallies? Obama talked about hearing "Kill him" and "terrorist" shouted about him. Who looked calm and reasonable during this exchange? Who looked thin-skinned and, well, erratic?
McCain spent time in an earlier debate complaining that Obama would go after bin Laden in Pakistan. Did he think that would score points with the American people? Obama is going to be too aggressive pursuing bin Laden? "I'll follow bin Laden to the gates of Hell ... unless, you know, we have to cross some sort of border to get there." Tin ear.
There Is Sir, the Small Matter of the Bill ... It's that time again. The triptychcryptic domain name is up for renewal in August. It's $15/year to renew. I think Primetime covered some or all the expense last time around. Any cryptonauts feeling flush and willing to shuffle a few clams my way to cover?
This Is Our Time Maybe you missed Obama's speech last night. Obviously, suspense over who the nominee would be has been gone for weeks. You might want to check it out. It's a good one. Also eye-opening, refreshing and joyous is the fact that 17,500 people were there to hear it with another 15,000 waiting outside. I've faced the mocking "Oh, Obama's just a good speaker. That's it, and you get to be President. Talking!" As if it would be bad to have a President who can complete a sentence. As if speaking isn't a component of leading. The sentiment behind the mocking is fear. Fear that our country is changing.
Years from now, we will look back on Obama's nomination with pride except ....
Look, It Just Isn't Your Time Um, Hillary's gone off the deep end. Her speech has been parsed elsewhere so I'll just add a couple of thoughts. 1) Look, even W. congratulated Obama. It was his night. 2) At some point in the past few weeks - and even last night - Hillary could have given a good speech, saying she wanted to carry her campaign the distance because of her passionate supporters, endorsing Obama, highlighting the historic nature of her campaign and then returned to the Senate as its most powerful member. Why on earth would you give that up for miniscule leverage on a bid to be Vice President in an administration that wouldn't let you do anything under any cirumstances? 3) Mrs. BoneDaddy and I are really baffled by this repeated explanation offered by her supporters that "Hillary has been campaigning for a long time. You can't expect her to just suddenly concede." Doesn't every politician have to suddenly concede when they lose? Hundreds of them do it every November. Isn't this exactly the kind of patronizing, sexist crap her supporters have been complaining about? And if she can't psychologically adjust to a reality that I could spot months ago, why would I want her anywhere near the White House? Until the Last Dog Dies, indeed.
I've been pretty quiet about Clinton for months now because the whole spectacle is a little sad. I've found over the years that I'm only a Hillary fan when she's getting unfairly attacked, which has happened quite a bit over the course of her political life. I've always thought she was less than inspiring but often worth defending against the talk radio flying monkeys. I expected to vote for her, but I'm frankly relieved I won't have to.
So I don't post this picture out of malice, but because I'm mesmerized by it. Did a supporter really think "Until the Last Dog Dies" was a stirring campaign sign? There's a sad, mean fatalism here dressed up as cheer. I'm just going to assume it's a supporter and not someone playing a joke. Should someone sneak into Clinton rallies with a sign saying "Time to Kill the Last Dog"? I don't type this as just an animal-lover. Obviously, dog is a metaphor for campaign workers, money, Democratic voters and political capital. Shouldn't they be pledging some kind of success with these things rather than death.
"What do we want?"
"To be left frozen and starving on a lonely tundra!!"
"When do we want it?"
"As soon as the sun goes down and the winds pick up!!"
I alluded to the Clinton tendency to fight things out. Even with Obama's recent 8 for 8 string of victories, even if Hillary doesn't take both Ohio and Texas, I fully expect her to be in it. If you are hoping for a orderly conclusion to the Democratic primaries, you should read this post at Ghost in the Machine. In order to avoid some ugliness, Obama needs a knockout. Hillary will fight to turn this thing on the unrecognized delegates of Florida (Obama hasn't won a major state), on the superdelegates (The mature leaders of the party have an obligation) or on P.R. (They're picking on me again) She didn't lend herself five million (try it, it's fun!) just to concede.
Here's hoping the voters do their bit and/or Howard Dean earns his pay.
Whenever anyone - anyone - tries to pass off that media-inspired bit about McCain being a "maverick" or "independent" around me, I spew forth about how McCain always caves in to his party about everything. The only exception I allow is McCain's speaking out against torture.
When a candidate drops out, it's often a time to say nice things about him. (Usually a him, of course.) So I'd like to take a moment and say Screw you, Romney! I might have ignored his dropping out altogether except for his comment that a Clinton or Obama win is some sort of "a surrender to terror."
Really? If a Democrat wins we'll have to roll out the red carpet and greet our terrorist overlords on bended knee? If they put that in their speeches I wouldn't vote for them.
Seriously though, Republicans have elevated this kind of shrill overstatement to the point where no one notices anymore. If a reasonable candidate suddenly suggested this, we'd all be talking about the slip. But if you're crazy all the time ...
"We all were challenged to engage and serve our country by John Kennedy. That is my starting point," DeLauro said. She believes Obama is now the charismatic figure inspiring the young to register for the first time. "This is a once-in-a-lifetime moment, and I felt compelled to join."
Still, she travels quite a bit of personal distance to reach that conclusion.
Knows When to Hold 'EmJames McManus on Barack Obama's poker history. Obama took up the game in the Illinois legislature apparently as a way to make connections. This is the third time or so I've heard he's a decent player, which makes me more inclined to vote for him. (I plan to drop this info at my next home game, which has members that lean too far rightward. That Obama's poker playing may switch votes says a lot about the fanaticism my group has for poker or the utter lack of enthusiasm many republicans have for their field.) McManus wrote Positively Fifth Street, about covering and playing in the 2000 World Series of Poker and the Binion murder trial. It's a decent book and he's supposedly at work on a book about the history of poker, which might be even better since the parts of Fifth Street that I didn't like were mostly autobiographical. (Link via Ghost in the Machine, which has become a nice clearinghouse for all things Obama.)
When Bill Clinton was running for President and the Gennifer Flowers story broke, it was Hillary Clinton who was fierce and ready to fight back and power forward.
During the Lewinsky saga, Clinton probably could have settled for a censure but he decided to fight. Clinton cared little for how embarrassing things might have been for him and his family. He decided to fight every inch of the way.
Reportedly, Clinton thought that Gore should have given up the noble approach and fought more during the Florida recount.
Now, I don't bring these things up to say the Clintons were in the wrong on any of these issues. They weren't. But I just don't think anyone should entertain the notion that the Clintons will step aside or back off anytime soon. There will be no "toning it down" or "stepping aside for the good of the party" so don't get your hopes up.
Mike Huckabee will not be our next president. He will probably never be president. But just in case you encounter anyone suffering from Huckabee fever, familiarize yourself with the name Wayne Dumond. Dumond is a serial rapist who had his sentence commuted by Huckabee at the urging of anti-Clinton freaks. Bear with me, this is fairly sordid. See one of Dumond's victims was a seventeen year-old named Ashley Stevens. Because Stevens is a distant relative of Bill Clinton, Dumond is innocent.
Did your brain just make a TWAAANG sound like a rubber band stretched aaall the way across the kitchen? Good. You're still sane and not a conservative activist. See, Dumond became a cause celebre among right wing types. As a new governor Huckabee was petitioned by many anti-Clinton types to grant Dumond parole. Huckabee was also advised by the parole board and several of Dumond's victims not to release him. Guess who he listened to? I need to know nothing else about Mike Huckabee.
Read the articles. I apologize for dragging something so depressing here, but I don't really see who the Republicans will eventually stagger behind. It really could be Huckabee and everyone should know the name Wayne Dumond. You've probably already guessed but yes, when released, Dumond raped again and this time murdered one of his victims.
Good News, Bad News. Well, the Yankees lost, which means the Indians will have to knock the Red Sox out since you can't count on the National League to do anything. In good news, C-dog and I both won our bets with Phinster in the same week. C-dog picked the Red Sox to go farther than the Yankees and I picked a ticket other than Gingrich/Rice to win the 08 election. Gingrich is not running, which will make it really hard for him to win. (That's the second bit of bad news, by the way. A Gingrich campaign would have been hysterical. Dan Quayle level of comedy. And he had no chance to actually win and damage the country. There was no downside to Newt '08 so I'm sad tonight, except for winning $20.)
No Sense of Decency ... Bush scratches at the wounds of Vietnam in an attempt to smear his critics and prop up faltering support for his Iraq folly. I've long maintained that the pro-war right will get loonier and more violent as the debacle that is Iraq becomes less and less deniable. No reason Bush would be exempt from this I guess. There's two ways of looking at this - either a man with little ability to grasp the present is showing his trouble with the past as well, or Bush knows perfectly well that Iraq is and will continue to be a disaster for some time and he is setting up others to take the blame.
In a small sense, Vietnam War protesters have helped set up Bush's blame-those-who-were-right strategy by taking too much credit for ending Vietnam. We lost Vietnam because of the Vietnamese and, to a lesser degree, because we shouldn't have been there. Not because of the hippies.
Less than a year ago, Bush floated this analogy, prompting Robert Scheer to write ...
The lesson of Vietnam is not to keep pouring lives and treasure down a dark and poisonous well, but to patiently use a pragmatic mix of diplomacy and trade with even our ideological competitors.
The United States dropped more bombs on tiny Vietnam than it unloaded on all of Europe in World War II, only hardening Vietnamese nationalist resolve. Hundreds of thousands of troops, massive defoliation of the countryside, "free fire zones," South Vietnamese allies, bombing the harbors ... none of it worked. Yet, never admitting that our blundering military presence fueled the native nationalist militancy we supposedly sought to eradicate, three US Presidents--two of them Democrats--lied themselves into believing victory was around some mythical corner.
Lastly, I'd like to ask, if Bush knows so much about winning in Vietnam, why didn't he go ahead and fight there?
Can they sink any lower?Newt Gingrich has joined fellow creep Rush Limbaugh in blaming the Virginia Tech tragedy on liberals. I hope Gingrich runs for president. His idiocy on parade will do nothing but damage to his own party. Follow the Gingrich link, it's a doozy. Did you know video games were liberal? Me neither. Did you know you can no longer say "Murder is wrong" in America without some liberal getting all in your grill? Me neither. That liberals alone support dehumanizing name-calling? Me neither. Thanks Newt. Please run for president.
(BTW, Gingrich and Limbaugh have at least three divorces, at least one drug habit, tons of ethical problems and two long histories of de-humanizing name-calling between them.)
