http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Sun, 4 Jul 2004 17:30:32 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/04/173032.php Christopher BargerThe 4th of July has always been my favorite holiday, between the fireworks and summer picnics and baseball games (one of which I am going to today - the Mets have become my favorite team for a day, since they are playing the cursed Yankees). But for all of the trappings, we musn't forget the real reasons why today is a day for celebration.We should celebrate because with the Declaration of Independence, we set in motion an experiment in a form of government that had never been tried before... and we've made it work for 228 years.We should celebrate because our collective commitment to that form of government is so strong that even in a debacle like the 2000 election, with both sides believing the other was trying to steal the election, there wasn't a tank or a gun in sight - just opposing parties battling it out in court.We should celebrate because I have the freedom to call George W. Bush and Dick Cheney lying traitors, in writing and in public, without having the army show up at my door in the middle of the night. We should celebrate because Republicans have the freedom to call me a jerk for calling Bush and Cheney liars, without having gangs of thugs show up at their doors in the middle of the night. We should celebrate because there are a million different beliefs of what constitutes Americanism, and what the "right way" is. We should celebrate because every one of them is right, and every one of them is wrong.We should celebrate because we have the right to turn the channel or change the station when we find programming we find objectionable - because despite recent evidence to the contrary, our government still respects our intelligence enough to allow us to make that choice. We should celebrate because, Fox "News"'s efforts notwithstanding, we don't have state-run news in this country, meaning that our citizens can learn for themselves what is happening in their country and in their world.We should celebrate because millions of our fellow citizens wear the uniform of the United States military - not because they have to, but because they've chosen to... and they are willing to carry out their duties with honor and courage, no matter the cause, and no matter the danger or cost. We should celebrate because the ideals of our country are so strong that Arlington National Cemetary is full of brave men and women who gave the last full measure of devotion to those ideals - and did so willingly and with pride. We owe it to them to celebrate, because they died in order to ensure that we could.We should celebrate because for all of our disagreements and differences, we still are bound by the invisible ties of the ideals we were founded on... so that when evil rears its head and strikes us without warning, we are drawn together, not torn apart; we cry, we grieve, and then we move on together even more determined than before that freedom is worth any sacrifice. We should celebrate because across the country today, from the inner cities of the East coast, to the farm town main streets of the Midwest, to the beaches of California... our fellow Americans will get together, will enjoy a summer's day and fireworks and barbecue and watermelon and corn on the cob... and will not have to think once about how remarkable this experiment has been... and we should celebrate because many will think about it anyway.We should celebrate because in America, love of country does not mean the simple parroting of the ruling party's platform or mantra... because dissent and opposition are proud traditions in America, and are in fact in some cases the greatest show of love of the ideals upon which the nation was based.We should celebrate because this Sunday morning (or Saturday evening, or Friday), millions of Americans worshipped the God of their choice, in the manner they saw fit... and because both the government and I have to respect that. We should celebrate because this Sunday morning - like fifteen years of Sunday mornings before it - I chose not to attend church at all... and because both the government and the churchgoers have to respect that.Because we have the ability to feed ourselves, because we've built an economic machine the likes of which the world has never seen, and because we give more to charity than any nation on earth.Because of Mary-Kate and Ashley; where else in the world can 18 year-olds become billionaires? Because little kids still learn the words to "America the Beautiful." Because they still learn the words to "We Shall Overcome." We should celebrate because in this country, a kid from a working class family can get an advanced education and use his talents to get jobs and salaries that his ancestors only dreamed of - and that will seem miniscule to his descendants. And because his story is not at all unique - in fact, it's been repeated for generations by other Americans, and will be repeated again for generations to come. There are now other democratic nations in the world where this is possible, but America was first. Without the experiment than began 228 years ago today, all of our opportunities and freedoms would not exist - in America or anywhere in the world. That alone is worth a decade's worth of fireworks.Happy Birthday, America. And many more. Politics17106@blogcritics.org Sun, 4 Jul 2004 17:30:32 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/21/181233.php Christopher BargerBlender magazine and VH1 have compiled a list of the 50 worst songs ever... the whole list is to be revealed on a VH1 special on May 12. Their list inspired me, and I decided to compile my own. I had a couple of prerequisite qualifications... one, all songs from 1971-1975 were immediately disqualified: that five year stretch was so full of cheese -- in music, in fashion, in television, in everything -- that it should be called the Gouda Period. By definition and point of origin, 95% of all songs from this time period were hideously cheesy (exceptions being anything by James Taylor or the Eagles, "Dream On" by Aerosmith, and some of Elton John's work), and were too slam dunk to include on my list. (You can bet that "The Night Chicago Died," "Billy Don't Be a Hero," and "Croccodile Rock" would otherwise have made the list.) The second rule was that songs intended to be cheesy or novelty songs were also too obvious to be included (thus eliminating "Macarena," "Convoy," and "Pac Man Fever").I'm sure I missed a bunch; music history is littered with flotsam and jetsam, songs people are embarrassed years later to admit that they liked. But here are my nominees for the P. Diddy Lifetime Achievement Award in Crappy Music.25. Boogie Oogie Oogie, A Taste Of Honey The most childish song title ever (most childish band honors go to Kajagoogoo). Not only that, but it was a freakin' awful song.24. When The Children Cry, White Lion This is your brain. This is your brain when dropouts try social commentary. Any questions?23. You Light Up My Life, Debby Boone It wasn't the first poorly written, schmaltzy love song. It wasn't the last. It was just the worst.22. I've Never Been To Me, Charlene No song written as part of someone's therapy should ever be released as a single. Ever. 14 year old girl poetry is better than this drudge about some chick being undressed by kings and sipping champagne on a yacht. Hey, honey? If you've been knockin' boots with royalty and flitting about on yachts, your life is pretty damn fulfilled. You're self-discovered already; quit bitching.21. In Da Club, 50 Cent Not on the list on its own "unmerits" so much as for representing an entire genre. I'm just flat out sick of "artists" who mistake street grammar, boasts about toughness, and explicit references to sexual prowess for talent. Yeah, yeah, I get it. You're tough, you have street cred and you score lots of women. Yawn. And by the way, deliberately misspelling your titles doesn't make you phat, it just makes you look stoopid.20. Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go, Wham! The only song in history to use "yo-yo" as a rhyme in the chorus, and a song that stands out for its cheesiness in an era of kitsch. 19. Far From Over, Frank Stallone Question for the ages: which is worse, Frank's singing or Sly's acting? 18. Do You Really Want To Hurt Me?, Culture Club Yes. For this song? Yes, I do. 17. Mickey, Toni Basil Cheerleaders do not belong in a top ten chart unless it's one of those movies. What's next - "We Got Spirit?"16. Spill The Wine, Eric Burdon & War Makes the list simply for including the phrase, "overfed, long haired, leaping gnome" in the lyrics.15. Mambo #5, Lou Bega Talent was #2. I could have used a little bit of stomach flu in his life.14. Wannabe, Spice Girls. What I really, really wanted was for Baby Spice to be the one with the nekkid pictures.13. Vision of Love, Mariah Carey Introduced the "Look, I can squeak like a dolphin" school of vocals to pop music. Dogs within a 200 mile radius come running when they hear this song.12. Do You Feel Like I Do, Peter Frampton Frampton Comes Alive! Frampton Uses Cheesy Synth Device! Frampton Sucks!11. Silly Love Songs, Paul McCartney Marks the official point at which Paul stopped being a former Beatle and started being embarassing.10. I Will Always Love You, Whitney Houston Okay song when Dolly did it, but Whitney's version had way too much stooo-ooh-OOH-uh-ooh-OOH-pid over the top vocal inflection.9. Free Bird, Lynyrd Skynyrd The song that launched 1000 lighters; the NASCAR quotient alone puts this in the top ten. The whole southern rock genre makes me want to call up General Sherman and ask if he's busy.8. We Built This City, Starship The musical equivalent of a skid row bum, this was the example of the once proud band falling on hard times and wandering the streets drunk and in need of a shower. For this song she should have to change her name to "Fall From Grace Slick."7. Rico Suave, Gerardo Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrico... Suckay. Proved once and for all that talentless cheesy performers could cross over into all genres of music.6. Achy Breaky Heart, Billy Ray Cyrus Of course, everyone always remembers The Mullet That Ate Nashville. But look beyond the single worst haircut of all time, and you find juvenile lyrics and a lame riff. Hall of Fame levels of suckitude.5. Back To Life, Soul II Soul This song single-handedly began my hate-hate relationship with hip-hop.4. Ice, Ice Baby, Vanilla Ice White guys rapping isn't embarrassing in and of itself. But white posers with crappy hair cuts who invent a false motocross resume are embarassing. Dude... you lied about your background to give yourself more street cred, and all you could come up with was being a motocross champion?3. The Greatest Love of All, Whitney Houston I believe that rehab is my future...2. My Heart Will Go On, Celine Dion On the soundtrack to the worst movie of all time. Also on the soundtrack in Hell. This song is featured in the Fox television special, "When Over-Emoters Attack!"And my #1 worst song ever is:Desert Moon, Dennis DeYoung I mean no offense to Mr. DeYoung; I'm sure he's a nice guy and all. But when you take an inexplicable desire to bring Broadway-like storytelling to pop music -- minus Meatloaf's tongue-in-cheek self-awareness -- you get a cheesy, overwrought, melodramatic piece of schlock about meeting up with your first love. The lyrics are as painful as a Bush press conference, and the video quite possibly was the lamest ever to run on MTV.There you have 'em - my 25 worst songs ever. If I listed one of your favorites and you're all upset, too bad... I am sure that your list of 25 would contain one or two of my favorites. But that's the beauty of music... everyone is free to choose their own sucky songs as guilty pleasures. Music14967@blogcritics.org Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:12:33 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/16/093151.php Christopher BargerSo millions of conservative Americans were upset at seeing a breast, and the FCC had to come screeching in to protect decent folk from a nipple. And Howard Stern's racy dialogue and sex-laden schtick is offensive and indecent, so much so that the FCC must come save the people from having their airwaves polluted with such things as the favorite sexual practices of porn stars. So the pattern you might infer here is that sexually explicit images or talk are verboten by Michael Powell's FCC, and that it's time to tone things down... right? Unless you're a pharmaceutical company with an erectile dysfunction drug, I guess. In that case, you can go ahead and ratchet up your advertising, making it even more explicit than ever before. Before, you could only talk about four hour erections during the Super Bowl. Now, you get to have a pretty woman on screen, talking about how her husband's taking the drug and is friskier more often. Yep, you get to sell your product by having an attractive woman brag about how much she's gettin' lately... and Powell's FCC won't raise (no pun intended) an eyebrow at you. So, to recap: Breasts during the Super Bowl are bad; talk of four hour erections during the Super Bowl is okay. An ugly guy selling his show by asking porn stars how often they have sex is bad; a pretty actress selling a drug by talking about how often she's having sex is okay. Hmm... seems to be a double standard there, doesn't there? I wonder why that is? It couldn't be because pharmaceutical companies have deep pockets and give lots of money to the campaign coffers of Mr. Powell's boss, Mr. Bush, now would it? Naaah, it couldn't be that! You don't really think that Powell's FCC will turn a blind eye at some content just because they're Republican contributors, do you? Why, you'd have to be a total cynic! Or just an astute observer. I forget which. Politics14790@blogcritics.org Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:31:51 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/14/105502.php Christopher BargerThe Reichstag -- I mean, the House -- overwhelmingly passed higher fines for radio and television "indecency" the other day. This was a failure for democracy on the highest levels... and the resounding nature of the vote (391-22) indicated that this isn't a Republican or Democratic issue. It's an issue of our so-called leaders laying down for the religious right. There are apparently only 22 members of the US House with any sort of spine or principle.My issues with this are myriad -- too many to even begin to go into. I'm furious that a renegade band of evangelicals is bascially dictating to us what the rest of us can watch, hear or see. Who decides what is "indecent?" The Supreme Court only ruled on the seven dirty words - beyond that, there's nothing from the Supreme Court as who what constitutes indecency. And what bothers me most is that we've handed over our collective right to make our own judgement to these southern-fried bible-thumpers who find Janet Jackson's breast or Howard Stern's interviews with porn stars "indecent." But you know what? I find televangelists who stage fake "healings" (like Benny Hinn does) indecent. And religious "leaders" like Oral Roberts who tell old ladies and poor people that God will call him home unless they give him $8 million by a specific date... I find that indecent. I find the airing of the 700 Club (on which Pat Robertson and his team of loonies and liars go about passing off whatever libel and slander they wish to about Democrats, claiming to have spoken to God about election results and the paths of hurricanes, and endorsing discrimination against gays, as well as hatred of liberals or anyone who thinks differently than they do) to be indecent. I find Jerry Falwell's show, in which he had the audacity to say that America suffered 9/11 as punishment from God for tolerating gays, abortion rights, and liberal thought, to be indecent.So how about increasing the fines on that programming? What? No? You only want fines for programming that the religious right finds indecent? A ha... now we're getting to the truth of it. This isn't about indecency so much... it's about the squelching of thought or expression that the religious right does not find acceptable. And you can bet that once they've been given that toe in the door of your freedoms, they will kick it in until they're all the way inside.Whatever happened to, "change the channel?" Moreover, whatever happened to paying attention to what your kids are watching on television - or even more importantly, whatever happened to actual parenting, as opposed to just plopping little Jacob and Hannah in front of the television as a surrogate? "I am tired of hearing parents tell me how they have to cover their children's ears," Rep. Joseph Pitts, R-Pa., said during debate on the measure.Yeah well, Pittsy, if those parents were doing their job instead of just using TV as a babysitter, maybe they'd have to worry about it less. Raise your own kids instead of letting television do it for you, and maybe this is less of a problem. I find it highly ironic that the group who screams the loudest about "family values" and the importance of family is the group that most stubbornly refuses to accept the most basic of all family responsibilities: active parenting.But what infuriates me most isn't that the Christian right made this effort; after all, it's what they do. Religious zealots in this country have opposed freedom of all speech but their own since back in the days of the Puritans, through the Salem Witch Trials, and on up through American history. What is so maddening this time is how meekly our politicians rolled over and let them do it. Where were the fiery speeches in defense of free speech? Where was the principled opposition to censorship - the most un-American concept going? Where were the defenders of liberty?I guess we haven't elected any lately. I guess 10% of the US population gets to dictate to the rest of us what is acceptable. Your Congress... your House of Representatives has just declared that some bible bashing preachers and housewives in Alabama somewhere get to tell you what is okay for you to watch, hear and see. Telling you what is okay to think isn't far behind. That's what they want. And unless you call on your Senator to stand up for your rights instead of caving to the whims of censoring zealots, that's what's next.If you don't like what's on, turn the damn channel. But how dare you try to tell me what's acceptable for me to be entertained by?! McCarthyism is back, friends. They just call it "decency" this time. Politics13695@blogcritics.org Sun, 14 Mar 2004 10:55:02 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/26/104544.php Christopher BargerWatching the pre-trial motions going on in Colorado, there's something that's just crying out to be said: Kobe Bryant and his lawyers are scum-sucking, malodorous, disgusting people, and I hope he spends the next 10 years as the MVP of the Colorado Penal League while dodging rapists of his own in the Eagle County Jail weight room. Bryant's defense attorneys have now officially subpoenaed his victim to provide her medical and sexual history into evidence. Their line of defense seems to be that this woman sleeps around, so whatever Bryant did to her is okay. Let's pretend for just one pathetic second that the "evidence" is accurate - that the girl in question had sex with three different guys in three days before meeting Kobe. Let's even say for the sake of this argument that she initially went into the hotel room intending for something to happen with Bryant.It doesn't matter. At some point, she said no. And no means no. No means no if the girl is a chaste virgin, and no means no if she's the kind of girl you don't take home to mother. No STILL means no if the girl's just finished taking on a football team or filming a porn movie. No means no if it comes from Britney Spears or Britney Skye. No means no. So when she said no to Kobe, her entire medical and sexual history became completely irrelevant. Period. End of sentence. Or hopefully, the beginning of one. Here's hoping that Kobe Bryant is sentenced to 15 years of sharing a lockerroom with guys named "Bulldog," "Snake," and "Blade." Sports13164@blogcritics.org Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:45:44 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/21/100838.php Christopher BargerDear Ralph,As an active and engaged American citizen whose political views run to the left of center, I have something to tell you.Get out. And stay out.Sorry to open so bluntly, but I believe that anything short of a clubbing on the head will have no impact on you whatsoever. Certainly, reality doesn't.I'll be the first to admit that the Democrats aren't perfect. I'll be even faster to concede that Al Gore was an uninspiring candidate in 2000. But there is a reality of the American political scene that I believe you're (deliberately?) overlooking. Greens, Libertarians, and the Natural Law and Reform parties aside, we live in a two-party system, Ralph. Whether it's right or wrong, there are only two major political parties in our country, and with a few notable exceptions during the 19th century, it has been that way in America for 220 years. Your quixotic tilting at that windmill isn't going to change it - at least any time soon. But Ralph, my point isn't to try and bury the idea of a third party; I'd actually like to see a viable one emerge. Rather, my point is to question why you would entertain the notion of running again in 2004. You're a smart man - or I assume smart enough to be able to read history books, polls, and assessments of political reality - so you must know that you can't win. If you know going in that you can't win, then there must be another reason you're running. I can only think of two: either you are trying to "get your issues on the table," or you are arrogantly making a vanity run for office with no regard for the consequences of your self-serving actions. I believe it's the latter; but let me address the former.Getting your issues on the table and into the scope of the public debate is an admirable goal, whether I agree with you or not (often I don't, but that's beside the point). But running an outsider campaign for the Presidency that is destined only to siphon 3 or 4 critical percent of the vote from the non-Republican candidate is a folly that harms the chances of any candidate not named Bush from winning in November. And don't hand me the crock you fed people the last time about the Democrats being no different than the Republicans... like I said at the beginning, the Democrats are admittedly not perfect, but given a choice between someone I agree with 70% of the time (or 50%, or 40%, or even 20%) is better than someone I agree with 0% of the time. And the political reality of America dictates that those are my two choices - never mind the idealistic arguments about the choices I ought to have, because we need to deali in reality, not the Perfect World. Voting for anyone else is simply throwing my vote away.So let's get to the other possibility - or in my view, the probability. You're running for President as some kind of vanity project. What did that get us in 2000? Well, it got you 3 whole percent. And it gave the rest of us George W. Bush. Yes, I know that Gore ran a remarkably lackluster, uninspiring campaign, and that he & his people frankly just flat out screwed up in 2000, blowing a race that should have been theirs to win. And I will always believe that the Bush machine engaged in some level of fraud in Florida... and that Antonin Scalia chose the President in 2000, not the American people. But... they wouldn't have had the chance in Florida if Al Gore had received even half of the 97,000+ votes you siphoned. And Florida itself wouldn't have mattered if New Hampshire had gone to Gore in 2000. You siphoned off 22,188 votes in New Hampshire - a state Bush won by a scant 7211. Even if only a third of the Nader voters had chosen to vote Gore, New Hampshire would have been Democratic - and we'd all have been spared George W. Bush. Gore, in my opinion, would not have been a great president. But he would have to have been better than Bush, who has given us a $500 billion budget deficit that threatens to balloon to a trillion plus; the first administration since Herbert Hoover to preside over an overall loss of jobs during a four-year term; statements about job creation that are so misleading that even the president has to scramble to disassociate himself from them; tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans under the tired old theory that if the rich are given more, they'll spend enough to provide better table scraps for the rest; no-bid contracts being given to private sector bedfellows like Halliburton; denials of scientific proof of global warming that are so out of step with accepted research practices that 12 American Nobel laureates signed a letter accusing the president of politicizing scientific research at the expense of American scientific credibility; invasions of civil liberties under the guise of national security (the Patriot Act); and of course, the invasion of Iraq and the great hunt for WMD that was undertaken under pretenses that were at best incorrect, were most likely exaggerated, and at worst were a direct lie. Bush has $150 million in the bank and is adding to it every day. It's going to be a formidable challenge to defeat him in November. So why are you helping him? Do you want to see four more years of the same - with the added side benefit that whoever wins in 2004 will likely select the next two or three members of the Supreme Court? Like I said at the beginning, Ralph... get out. And stay out. Politics13011@blogcritics.org Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:08:38 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/20/111416.php Christopher BargerThere is an old fable about a man who, while walking on a cold day, came upon a snake lying on the side of the road, nearly frozen to death. Taking pity upon the creature, the man picked the snake up and placed it inside his coat and against his body, using his own warmth to bring the snake back to life. As soon as it recovered, the snake bit the man and began to slither away. Collapsing to his knees, mortally wounded, the man looked at the snake in disbelief. "How could you do this to me?" he asked. "I saved your life. How could you be so ungrateful?" "Mister," said the snake, "you knew I was a snake when you picked me up."The New York Yankees have picked themselves up a snake. All bets are on now to see how long it will take for Alex Rodriguez to bite them.If there's one thing that's become abundantly clear over this off-season, it's that A-Rod is only out for A-Rod, and that his word means nothing. No matter which side of the "good for baseball/bad for baseball that the richest team has the best player" debate, there's no denying A-Rod's track record.He got upset in Seattle because he wasn't THE man, having to share the spotlight with Ken Griffey and Randy Johnson. He told Seattle he wanted to stay, then hit the free agent market. He claimed all that winter that he just wanted to play for a winner, but spurned offers from several winning ball clubs to sign with Texas for a record $252 million. The unofficial word in New York at that time he had declined the Mets' offer because they had refused to cave in to A-Rod's numerous marketing demands. After three losing seasons in Texas - caused in great part by the lack of flexibility his own contract allowed the team - A-Rod talked publicly about wanting to fulfill his obligations to the Rangers... while behind the scenes, he had his agent Scott Boras begin talking to the Red Sox about a deal. After that deal fell apart because the union wouldn't allow the restructuring of his albatross-like contract, A-Rod was made the captain of the Rangers and talked again about being committed to Texas. But as soon as the opportunity arose to head to the one team that can afford that ridiculous contract, A-Rod initiated talks with the Yankees.Nothing in A-Rod's history indicates that he is anything remotely resembling a team player. This guy is all about himself. He doesn't like sharing the spotlight, he can't handle losing (even when it's his fault), he says one thing and does another. It's not new in this deal - Rodriguez has behaved like a selfish, spoiled little brat. The man's word isn't worth even one of his 252 million dollars.Now, he's going to the biggest fishbowl in sports, where the rabid New York tabloid papers and sports talk radio will dissect everything he says and does. And when Derek Jeter makes an occasional error, or if the Yankees go on a five game losing streak, A-Rod will start to chafe and hint that maybe if he were at shortstop, it wouldn't be happening. A-Rod will also have to share the spotlight in this town - with the other sports teams in the area, with his teammates Jeter and Giambi and Posada and Kevin Brown... heck, even with - especially with - his owner, George Steinbrenner. He's not going to like that. And that makes him a time bomb waiting to go off.This isn't the first time the Yankees have picked up someone else's snake. Roger Clemens' whole career was full of ungrateful exits and actions that showed Roger was out for Roger. The Yankees took him in, loved him, protected him even while he was throwing bats at Mike Piazza, got him his World Series rings, and made him a darling whose exit from the field last fall in Florida was a great moment. This off-season, Roger - who'd said all through 2003 that he would be retiring at season's end - un-retired and signed with Houston, to pitch alongside his friend Andy Pettite and to be closer to home. Roger did what Roger does - looked out for himself. It was entirely within character. But the way that the Yankees and the New York sports fans reacted, it was as if they'd been bitten by the frozen snake they'd revived. They behaved as if they'd been uniquely betrayed, lied to by someone who'd never lied before. The Yankees and their fans behaved as if somehow their aura would make someone change his career-long personality and behavior. So what do you think the reaction will be when A-Rod does what A-Rod is best at: looking out for himself? It might not happen this year. It might not happen next year. It may not even happen the year after that. But mark my words, it will happen: Alex Rodriguez will screw over the Yankees like he's screwed over everyone else that he's ever dealt with - the Mariners, the Mets, the Rangers, and the Red Sox. And when he does, we'll see more hand-wringing in New York, with fans and the team brass displaying incredulity that they were bitten by the snake that they picked up on the side of the road. Sports12968@blogcritics.org Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:14:16 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/16/135615.php Christopher BargerSo today is President's Day... which means, besides getting a well-deserved day off of work, that I'm supposed to be thinking about the men who have led our country since 1789. I decided to think about how other American presidents might have been different if they had been more like George W. Bush. Here's a few ideas:George Washington: "I cannot tell a lie... the Spanish chopped this tree down. Not only did the Spanish chop down this cherry tree, but they possess hundreds - if not thousands - of axes, ready to chop down all the freedom-loving American cherry trees. In fact, the Spaniards have tried to acquire yelllowcake ash wood, which they would use to build handles for axes of mass destruction. So the Spanish represent a threat to the American way of life, and must be stopped. I propose we send US troops to Spain to remove the King from power. Wait... what? The British are the ones who attacked us? And you think that we ought to be fighting them instead? But the Spanish have axes! Do you not understand the threat from Spanish axes? They could deploy those axes in 45 minutes against American cherry trees, and then where would we be? See, you just aren't patriotic. Shut up, you liberal!"Abraham Lincoln: "Four score and seven tax cuts ago, our fathers - no, not your fathers, you middle-class jokester; our fathers, us rich white guys from privleged families - brought forth on this continent a new economic structure, conceived in greed and dedicated to the proposition that rich men are created better than everyone else and should be allowed tax breaks to stay that way. Now we are engaged in a record budget deficit, testing whether this economy - or any economy so staggered to benefit the wealthy - can long endure... It is for us the wealthy rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who were born into privlege have thus far so shamefully advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from my tax cuts for the rich we take increased devotion to that cause for which my and Dick Cheney's rich friends gave the last full measure of devotion -- allowing us to rack up a $130 million war chest. We here highly resolve that the rich shall not be rich in vain, that this nation under God (no, not your God, silly... I'm talking specifically about my God) shall have a new birth of offshore incorporations, and that government of the people, by the rich, for our own benefit, shall not perish from the earth."Teddy Roosevelt: "Speak stupidly, and carry a big stick."Woodrow Wilson: "We must create a League of Nations, and use its resolutions to justify the invasion of another country. But when the League of Nations disagrees with us and says that a case for war has not yet been made, we should ignore and belittle it, taking great care to offend and alienate every other country on the planet."Franklin Roosevelt: "In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world... except in America if you want to critize me or my war effort, in which case we'll brand you unpatriotic and encourage a climate in which you are intimidated into shutting your mouth. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- as long as it's my God, and it's the way that my evangelical friends and I say you should worship Him. The third is freedom from want. . . everywhere in the world. Because my tax cuts for the rich will mean that the rich will spend more, and that will trickle down to you! What? They're not spending it, they're offshoring jobs and incorporating in Bermuda instead? Shut up, you liberal! The fourth is freedom from fear. . . anywhere in the world. Unless you're an American citizen whose politics or affliliations I don't like... in which case, I'm gonna have Ashcroft use the Patriot Act to violate your privacy and make you afraid that you're being watched or could be brought in for questioning at any time."Bill Clinton: "My father did not... have... diplomatic relations with that tyrant - Mr. Hussein." Politics12802@blogcritics.org Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:56:15 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/14/115443.php Christopher BargerThe Democratic Party is going to find itself in a very difficult place this election season. Judges and Supreme Courts from San Francisco to Massachusetts are forcing their hand; gay marriage will be an issue in 2004.This places me in a quandry that I suspect I share with many Democrats. In general, I am a strong supporter of gay rights. Moreover, I think it's inherently unfair that in many cases, legal rights available to heterosexual couples (joint tax returns, for example, among many others) are denied to gay people because they're not married ... and yet the law prohibits them to marry. At the risk of sounding like I'm tossing out the old "some of my best friends..." garbage, I will say that I know several homosexual couples who are more stable and loving and who've been together longer than many of the straight couples I know. I don't think gay couples represent any sort of "threat" to the family. Just like staight couples, there are good matches and bad, and good matches make for good families no matter what.But I don't know about gay marriage. Because while there is a legal component to the issue, certainly, marriage is also largely a religious institution. And I don't think the government ought to be in the business of mandating its will into religious practice. (I am highly uncomfortable with the precedent it sets; once the government can dictate what MUST be practiced or included in a religion, we've opened all sorts of nasty floodgates.)My own conflicted emotions on the subject serve to illustrate how hard it's going to be for Democrats to dance around this issue in 2004. When even those sympathetic to the cause have mixed emotions, it tells me that the country's not going to be ready for this, or wish it to become law. And that makes it a loser issue for the Dems this year.I know the arguments... doing what's right and doing what's popular are infrequently the same thing; and you can't tell people who've waited for centuries to wait a few years more. I am sure that there were some Democrats in the 60s who tried to tell Martin Luther King, "Look, I sympathize with you, but the country's not ready... can't you wait a little longer - and in the meantime, stop killing us at the polls by making this an issue?" That approach was the easy way out 40 years ago, and I'll concede that it's an easy way out now.But there is a practical truth to admit: if the Democrats endorse and support gay marriage as a party platform or even on a national or state candidate level, 9 times out of 10, we're going to lose. And I for one do not believe the country can afford four more years of George Dumya Bush. I think Bush's re-election would be disasterous. This year, the stakes are just too high.Bush is weak on so many levels; Democrats can attack his rush to war in Iraq (which he was planning long before 9/11), his having at best exaggerated and at worst lied about WMD intelligence in Iraq, his feed-the-rich and screw-the-rest-of-you fiscal policies, his assault on civil liberties, his basic untrustworthiness... we have so many things to point out to the American people that will resonate and will drive people to defeat him a second time. Why on earth would we hand him an issue with which he can invoke the culture wars and distract the public from his innumerable failures? So where does that leave me? Stuck between what I believe may be right and what I know is practical; between the courageous and the realistic; between following my heart and following my head. Caught between a rock and a hard place.What's a good socially tolerant Democrat to do? Politics12745@blogcritics.org Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:54:43 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/02/13/004728.php Christopher BargerTwo months ago, Howard Dean was the prohibitive front runner for the Democratic nomination - even going as far as suggesting that the other candidates should withdraw and support him for the good of the party's chances in November. Today, Dean is a single-digit also-ran, having finished second in only three contests and struggling for relevancy. After having first declared that Wisconsin was critical to his campaign and that he would drop out of the race if he doesn't win there, Dean now says that he's staying in no matter what. So much for the need to unite around one candidate, eh Governor?"There are too many people who have come up to me and said, 'Whatever you do, don't drop out,'" he says. This reminds me a little of Norma Desmond in "Sunset Blvd.," convinced that her millions of fans await her comeback. I keep expecting Dean to look wildly at the camera and say, "I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. DeMille."Dean served a great value to the Democrats - channeling the anger that's out there in the Democratic rank and file over Iraq, over the deficit, over the Patriot Act... heck, over everything about George Bush. Dean crystallized the anti-Bush message that has rallied Democrats to believe that Bush in fact can be beaten. And he lit a well-needed fire under the asses of Kerry, Edwards, and the party leaders as a whole. For that, I'm grateful to him.But if I ever needed convincing that Dean is not the man I want as my president, his behavior since his fall from the top has proven it beyond a doubt. The guy went from a nobody to being the front-runner in large part due to the media and the fawning coverage he received; but when the honeymoon ended and he began getting neutral or even unfavorable coverage, he turned on the media and accused them of being out to get him. After having argued that the party's chances in November rested on early support of the front-runner, he's now turning on John Kerry and calling him "part of the corrupt political culture in Washington." Geez, Howard, why don't you just write Bush's commericals for him?Dean's vindictive and petty nature over the last few weeks - not to mention his delusional quest for the support he somehow believes is still out there - make me question his judgement, his temprement, and his stability. I hate to agree with conservatives on anything, but Dean's showing the conservatives to be correct in one thing: in a Bush-Dean race, Bush would win in a landslide that would make 1984 look like 2000.Howard Dean is not going to win the Democratic nomination in 2004. His behavior is quickly eroding the likelihood that he could be a credible candidate in 2008 should the Democrats lose this year. He's tilting at windmills in the land of cheese this week, only with no Sancho Panza to assist him. Unfortunately, reality - and the larger chances of defeating George W. Bush in November - seem to elude this Dean Quixote. Politics12700@blogcritics.org Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:47:28 EST