The End of the Page

CPAC Starts Its Wild Ride

(Honestly, the joke here writes itself.)

Coming directly on the heels of the Tea Party Convention only a few short weeks back, the other clamoring section of the far right came together once again from all over the country for their once-a-year, bang-a-gong, color coded convention (red, white and blue being the consistent theme).

CPAC stands for the Conservative Political Action Conference, where those politicians looking to connect to the fervent and boisterous base of the conservative movement come to recharge and reload their political weaponry (or actual real-life weaponry depending on how dedicated they are to appeasing the second amendment crowd). The main keynote speaker on the final night will be Fox TV host and poster child for the Chalkboard Lovers of America, Glenn Beck. I’m doing mental workouts each morning in preparation for this speech, making sure I can handle the triple jumps of logic and 100-meter dash from assumption to conclusion (while dodging those nasty fact hurdles, of course). Yet before Mr. Beck can grace the stage, the crowd must be worked into a frenzy over the opening days.

I can’t comment on Marco Rubio, the new young buck on the right-wing  block, since I didn’t catch his speech. I know he’s young and he’s bringing a hearty primary challenge in Florida against Republican Governor Charlie Crist in the race for a Florida senate seat. Once a total longshot, Rubio rallied strong and sits atop a healthy lead in the polls right now. From clips I did see the only thing I can truly hold against him is he began the unending train of anti-Obama teleprompter jokes, all while standing in front of a shiny pair of teleprompters. (Nearly every speaker who followed made a similar crack, each one more tactless than the one before)

Let hypocrisy ring, people. Oh, wait, it’s freedom. That’s what they meant to ring. Freedom. Oops.

Jim DeMint graced the stage and really got things cooking with a reminder about where the conservative movement truly wants to take this country. While touting the goal of freedom for everyone he simultaneously spouts the idea that all politicians should be taken out of office if they are not voting based on Judeo/Christian values. His claim that this was the true intention of the founding fathers and the Constitution seems to fly in the face of the first ammendment when it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” but hey, don’t let the actual words of the Constitution get in the way of your point Mr. DeMint. Please proceed.

He goes on to state that what the government should do is place a moratorium on all spending and spend the next two years balancing the budget, but again he staunchly opposed, alongside the entire Republican caucus, the creation of a bi-partisan budget commission created to do that very thing. Hmmm…I’m sensing a pattern here.

Lastly, making a nice closing, he related a thinly veiled threat to those in the Republican party who were only pretending to be Conservative to gain the political voting power of these fine folks. Mentioning Mr. Rubio and others like him, DeMint made it clear that all the incumbent Republicans could easily be replaced if they didn’t fall in line with the people and this nationwide groundswell from the Tea Party movement.

Let the right-wing evisceration begin. Self-inflicted, of course.

Later on Kevin McCullough came up and reminded everyone how freedom loving the Conservative movement is. One of his points was that the young people in the conservative movement had to save the next generation from the terrors inside the “halls of academia”. Are our children are being taught too much? Given too much information so they can think for themselves and make up their own minds? Maybe he’s angry at the system because more and more of the youth are growing up more tolerant towards gays and lesbians, which is staunchly opposed to his “freedom”. Oh yeah, so is Roe v. Wade. So ladies, prepare to grow more free while simultaneously losing control over your own body.

My favorite moment of his was when he used the phrase “we will not sit in the back of the bus”, which is a direct reference to Rosa Parks and her daring silent protest against blacks being made to sit in the “black” section of the bus back in the pre-Civil Rights days. I had no idea the conservative fight for freedom was so identical to the civil rights movement.

That’s because it’s not. Not even close.

More and more came up, singing the praises of Ronald Reagan and each other and rehashing new version of the teleprompter gag. Scott Brown and Mitt Romney took turns praising each other, while Dick Armey, current head of FreedomWorks, dropped a gem when he claimed Obama created the illusion of the health care crisis in order to gain control of the economy. I wonder if Mr. Armey works for Aetna Blue Cross as well? They could most certainly afford to pay him well since they are planning to raise their rates for a large section of Californians by up to 39% with no reasoning whatsoever.

Nope, no health care crisis here. Not at all, Please move along and do not under any circumstances look behind the curtain. (Did you notice our new curtains, by the way, their made out of 100% money. Feel how decadent they are…)

Also, the right wing should know better what it look like when someone creates a fake crisis in order to gain control. Bush did a splendid job of that with his mythical WMD’s in Iraq. *BOOM goes the dynamite*

Lastly, Ginni Thomas, an everyday citizen who just wanted to get involved, spoke about how pleased she was with the energy surround the tea party movement. She specifically pointed out how wonderful she thought all the homemade signs were. Think she’s talking about this one:

this guy is actually the head of one of the largest Tea Party groups


















or possibly this one:

maybe this one:

but she couldn’t have meant this one:

Is half-breed muslin washable with other like fabrics?












These are the people rallying right now to take control of the direction of our country.  Progress sure looks funny, doesn’t it.

The Assault on Reason: Attacks from the Head and Gut

Since I’m not President, I finally have time to finish writing my book.

Rating: 7 out of 10

Flipping through these pages can be tragic when you read the level of intelligence behind the words and begin to wonder what the world would be like today if Al Gore had served George W. Bush’s two terms in office. Would there be milk chocolate fairies delivering candy and fountain-style root beer floats to children throughout the heartland of America? No, absolutely not. Yet I would wage a healthy amount of money that the U.S.A. would not have been in the geopolitical crapper as it was when George W. Bush finally walked out of those hallowed doors with one of the lowest approval ratings in history. His one-time opponent, Al Gore, tries to explain and extol on the reasons things went so badly off the rails.

The Assault on Reason is written by former Vice President Al Gore and details chapter after chapter the numerous areas where the Bush years, and some of those before, have displayed an incredible and frightening trend replacing science and reason with faith and narrow-mindedness. The government we once knew, the one begun all those years back, has been systematically dismantled, pulling the power from the people as a whole and concentrating it into an increasingly small number of hands. Those chosen few have since done everything in their power to eliminate reason and intellectual debate in favor of religious rhetoric and cowboy posturing in face of any and all opposing evidence. In essence, readers feel the true power of the American people slip further and further away with each turn of the page.

Before even opening the book, it must be noted the context in which these words live. Al Gore lost the Presidential election back in 2000 in one of the most contentious, and in some minds demonstrably corrupted, rulings in history. This man was a single breath away from the oval office and seven years later he writes a book about how terrible a job his former opponent is doing. So it is impossible to view this book without a small sense of bias on the part of the author. Yet, although the book does sometimes fall too far into “political slam-book” territory and reaches a slight whiny tone, Gore checks himself and within a few pages brings it back to a place where he backs up each and every criticism with solid, reasonable and irrefutable facts. In those passages when he cites source after source and charts out the trends which we should be so afraid of, that is when Gore is at his most effective.

The real power of the book is not as a weapon against the Bush-era style of politics and power grabbing, but the entire political system hierarchy and its continued growth away from the general public. Gore points out numerous occasions, pre-Bush, that also helped lead to the dangerous place we are today with so much control centralized into the office of President and not spread out amongst the three co-equal branches of the government as intended by those who set it up all those years ago. Yet, Gore even expands on this to the rest of the planet as well when talking about nuclear proliferation, detailing other nations and how they followed the missteps of the American powerhouse. In one of his most eloquent moments in the book, Gore writes:

“As a world community, we must prove that we are wise enough to control what we have been smart enough to create.”

In my mind, that is the central thesis to his entire argument. His textual intent is to warn us of the danger of nuclear arms being in the hands of people who block out reason in favor of belief, religious or otherwise, but sub-textually I believe the statement also shines lights on the creation of our government. Power should never be wielded only by one man alone; that is the antithesis of our democratic style of government. The balance between the three branches has been slowly ebbing away and the person sitting in the oval office has been the silent beneficiary of it all. Both sides have played their parts in the dismantling of that balance, but the Republicans took more giant steps on that march towards  an iron-fist government between 2001-2008 than ever before in history.

What we can learn from this book is how to regain that balance, if you can filter out Gore’s “I wouldn’t have done it that way” tone in various portions. Science, reason and factual proof are slowly making their way back into governing politics, but there is a long way to go and more people who live by that credo need to find their way into the hallowed halls of the capital buildings. I’m not suggesting no one of any faith should be in government, just that they no longer turn a blind eye to anything that doesn’t follow in lockstep with that belief. Important choices should only be made after the most rigorous of debate and unfortunately, as you will see in these pages, our last President was not a huge fan of differing points of view. Even though this was written while Bush was still in office, many of the policies and laws enacted during that time are still in effect and Obama has yet to find the spare time to return some of that balance the government so desperately needs. Let’s help remind him.

The End of the Page Recommendation: A well written and well researched book on the state of our government and the dangerous path it is on. Although not exactly a page turner and it gets randomly embroiled in mudslinging and overly scientific terminology, the final result is still impactful and important.

A Glimpse Behind the Fog of Hope and Hate

I promise to do whatever my political party says, in right and in wrong, till death do us part

I can hear it now rumbling in the back closet, rocking back and forth with one broken foot, that same one I’ve been meaning to fix for two hundred years:

The Political Spin Machine

…and it’s going full steam.

With the election of Republican wunderkid, Scott Brown, the troops on the right are doing everything they can to convince Democrats across the nation that every progressive and liberal policy currently being proposed now has as much chance of succeeding as Conan O’Brien ever doing a show on NBC again. Yet, let’s take a good close look at what really happened yesterday and see if we can’t find a way to help each party find its way back to some type of ethical center.

By electing Scott Brown, Massachusetts brought the Democratic majority in the Senate down by exactly one. They dropped from 60 to 59 and while many will bemoan the loss of the filibuster proof majority, what they neglect to mention is the filibuster proof majority never really existed because of those Democrats in the Senate referred to as “Blue Dogs”, or more conservative-leaning voters. The squelching of the filibuster happened only once, which was to finally push the Health Care bill out of the Senate, and the reparations the liberal Democrats had to make in order to secure those Blue Dog votes over the filibuster helped to shape a bill that virtually no one is pleased with. So the idea that Scott Brown’s inclusion in the Senate will suddenly destroy the happy-go-lucky hand-holding going on in the left leaning side of the chamber just shows how little the right side actually pays attention to what is going on.

This is nothing more than a scare tactic to frighten the left and encourage the right, but I honestly believe the right has more to fear from Scott Brown than the left. Republicans think his election is a repudiation of Democratic policies and of Obama himself, but in fairness I believe he was chosen more out of frustration of continued record unemployment ratings and a growing disappointment from independents who let themselves believe the Obama hype machine during his campaign. I’m not knocking Obama, I voted for him as well, but people seemed to forget he is just one guy inside a government machine built by money, power and massive special interests. He has made many changes already, in demonstrably record time, but people on Main Street won’t feel the effects of those until much later. The change some people was hoping for was much more than he could ever achieve in such a short amount of time. Remember, his one-year anniversary as President was yesterday!

Scott Brown also comes in claiming he is ushering in a “new type of Republican”, which in other terms means “time for the old guys to move on out.” Let’s see how well that plays out in the polls come mid-term time. Anyone coming in preaching change to the “old way of politics” is a danger to anyone currently sitting, Republican or Democrat.

Now, while watching Mr. Brown gloat over his seemingly amazing win, I can’t say I’m incredibly impressed with him or how he handles himself (check this little moment of pimping out his daughters at his acceptance speech), but I wasn’t all that enchanted by his opponent, Martha Coakley, either. This is where people need to help usher in a real and tangible sense of change. We need to start looking beyond the party name and look at the actual person. As unattainable as it might sound, filled with pretty rhetoric and uplifting oratory, I agree with Obama when he stumps for the goal of bi-partisanship, but I want to take it one step farther. “Bi-partisanship” alludes to the idea of two parties getting along, but what about “tri-partisanship”? Actually, we do have one Independent senator (wave to the nice Internet folks, Mr. Barney Frank of VT). What about “quad-partisanship”? The Tea-Partier’s are about to host their own conference, so who will deny they have a chance to get their own candidate on a ticket and not be forced to list them as Republican? I’m a good distance off from supporting anything currently coming out of the tea-party caucus, but I fully encourage their right to not affiliate with either dominating party. My belief is if we breakdown the powerhouse parties the American populace would be forced to learn more about who they are voting for instead of just checking whether their was an “R” or a “D” next to their name.

An informed populace is an absolute necessity of any great democracy and it’s time that we as members of that populace bore some responsibility for that.

Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment on Health Care

I’m not one known for reposting videos, except the expected movie trailers, but due to my own personal attachments to the current discussion over Health Care and the similar nature of Keith Olbermann’s situation with one I only so recently had to endure, I felt this eloquent and heartfelt speech he gave last night on his show is one that should be heard and spread far and wide.

Health Care Debate Without the Actual Debate

Now turn your head and cough up $75. It’s for your deductible.

Anything worth doing is worth fighting for, but no one ever said the fight was going to be fair. Nothing in the current political climate proves that case better than the repulsive, divisive and downright irresponsible tactics being employed day after day by those against the proposed health care reform package put forward by President Obama.

Before I get any further, let me be frank and fully admit my own shortcomings. I have not read the full bill being supported by Obama. After doing a number of searches online for a copy of the bill all I could find were cut-down versions or ones rewritten as “plain-English” translations by people with their own agendas. Without getting the exact words from the bill itself I don’t feel any of the “laymen” versions are fully trustworthy (especially since most of those demonize the plan anyway without pointing back to the original language as examples). Yet with all the coverage being given to this debate from all around the political spectrum, I feel fine in pointing out some rather glaring hypocrisies being badly hidden by the raucous and rambunctious opponents of health care reform.

There are a wide number of issues to discuss, but I’m going to focus on one of the most talked about and absolutely least intrinsically important lightning rods inside the fight, the so-called “death panels”. Sounds scary, right? Does it bring images of judge’s benches built way too high specifically to make you seem insignificant in the eyes of the law and the people who run it? Then do you picture yourself being wheeled in front of said bench only to hear from robed faceless politicians that you are too sick to make continued care efficient for the economy, so the lever is pulled and you are essentially dropped out of existence? That is what the fear-mongering conglomerates on the right would like you to dream about at night, specifically so you will wake up on the day of your local town hall meeting and race out with your pitchfork held high and the light of your torch lighting the way.

Trouble is, there are no “death panels”. Nope. None at all. The tiny piece of legislation inside the 1,000 page bill which is being referenced for this demonic fantasy actually says that under the new government sponsored plan they would reimburse you for an appointment with your own doctor if you chose to have a counseling session about end of life decisions and setting up a living will. That is all. No death panel, no politician having any say what-so-ever about “pulling the plug on Grandma” as Sen. Grassley keeps touting. It is simply a small payment covered by your insurance policy for an appointment to let you talk to your very own doctor about how you would like to face that most difficult of decisions. The impact to the health care industry and its costs comes from the fact that thousands and thousands of people are kept on life support systems for many, many years with no hope of recovery and costing their families and the economy millions and millions of dollars. Studies have shown that an increasing number of seniors would choose not to have their life end with them lying in a hospital with wires and tubes protruding from every part of their fragile bodies. More and more are choosing to die at home, with their families, surrounded by loved ones and with a higher sense of dignity.

Before anyone decides to challenge the validity of the sentiment, my mother died just under four years ago from brain cancer. The moment she was diagnosed and it was made quite clear by the doctors that her condition was fatal and incurable, she immediately got paperwork going for a living will. She had no intention of wasting away hooked to a machine and due to her diligence and forward thinking she was able to spend her remaining weeks at home surrounded by a constant rotation of friends, family and loved ones. The living will also takes the onus and pressure off of the families. End of life decisions are terrible and painful to make and without the expressed sentiment of the actual patient, families have been completely torn apart. Let’s not forget just a few years back with the tragic case of Terri Schiavo. She was completely brain dead and her husband felt he knew Terri’s feelings about being alive solely based on life support, so he wanted to have her machines turned off so she could die naturally. Terri actually had a “do not resuscitate” order in place, but the medical staff at her hospital convinced her husband early in her treatment to have it rescinded. Years later, after no improvement at all, he tried to have the order re-enacted. Her family was dead set against that decision and felt prayer and God’s will would bring her back from her vegetative state. It turned into one of the most contentious court battles over the “right to die” in history.

The main reason why this case is of supreme importance to the current health care debate is the very people who are screaming and rallying over the purported offense of having the government step in and interfere in the intimate family-only decision of when and how a loved one should die, those people were on the forefront of the government effort to stop Terri’s husband and keep her alive. In that case they said it was their moral and ethical right to step in as the government of all people and help ensure the safety of one of their own. The President of the United States at the time, George W. Bush, actually came back from a vacation early just so he could sign a piece of legislation urging the Supreme Court to rule on the side of denying Terri’s previous wishes.

So you see, when stepping in supports what the right wing wants, the family and their heart-rending decisions have no place in front of the government desire. Yet when stepping in does not support their desire – which in the overall case it doesn’t because it will lessen the money flowing into the pockets of the health insurance agencies – now the government should keep their damn hands off our grandmothers. The hypocrisy is brighter and more apparent than a first grader’s coloring book.

The idea of educating and supporting the furthering of “advance care directives” or living wills, which now makes so many on the right sick to their stomachs since it is really a plot by Obama to kill old people (true statement from health care reform opponents), was once touted and rallied for by those exact same people. In 2003, tucked nicely inside the prescription drug reform package, was a very familiar sounding piece of legislation which actually pooled a percentage of funds to educating more people on living wills and even offering early consultation services as part of the drug plan package. That prescription drug package was sent up, voted on and widely passed by the current Republican majority of 2003 and celebrated by then President Bush as a major success for the health of our wise and venerated citizens.

For those concerned about the changes being talked about, please read between the lines and find out where the scary nightmares are actually coming from when they are being screamed and bellowed at these surprisingly camera-ready impromptu protests. These are all made up of random concerned citizens. A percentage of them, not all, but certainly some, are bought and sold mobs funded by the right wing special interests whose pockets are lined with millions from the health insurance industry and drug manufacturers. The people with the most money to lose are the ones feeding the hysteria, because this is the nightmares they see when they sleep. Dark dreams of years without $11 million dollar bonus and a gloomy “For Sale” sign posted on the lawn of one of many summer homes in the Hamptons.

This is a fight to help the common citizen. Don’t be blindfolded with the dollar bills of the rich.

Follow this link to find out the truth about what’s really in the reform bill: HealthReform.gov

Also, if you would like to help or support the foundation set up in memory of Terri Schiavo, click here.

Indeed, Love is a Battlefield

Come on wind, don’t die on me now. *Pfooooo….pfoooo….*

To many around the country and even beyond its borders to the outside world, the fight for marriage equality centers around the formerly progressive state of California and the infamous Prop 8. Prop 8 was voted on and narrowly approved in the November elections, thereby banning same sex marriages in the state. Less than a week ago, a decision was handed down by the California Supreme Court to uphold Prop 8 by a vote of 6 to 1, leaving the ban in place, while a small note of logic and compassion slipped through allowing the nearly 18,000 same sex couples who were married in the brief time of legality to stay married in the eyes of the California legal system. In the amazingly harmonic words of the Canadian a capella group, Moxy Fruvous: “Can’t really call that a loss or a win?”

Let’s be frank here, it was a step back on the road to equality, even with the already performed marriages upheld. Supporters of equal rights for same sex couples rallied all over the state on the day of the decision, chanting and yelling, doing anything they could to keep their spirits up and not let themselves get crushed under the angry, fearful bus of bigotry and discrimination that just ran over them once again. For those of us on the side of equality, we knew this decision was likely. The Supreme Court has a great tendency towards not overturning what they describe as “the will of the people,” but we also knew the justices are all human beings, with the same faults and the same fears, one of which is being looked at unkindly by history and handing down a mass divorce decree for 18,000 couples would certainly not look good in the record books. Being prepared for the likely answer didn’t make it any less disappointing, but it did allow plans to be put in place in case things fell in that fashion.

The discussion now surrounds whether or not to bring the issue back to the ballot in 2010 or 2012. I completely understand the facilities needed to fight this and the finances which must be drawn to keep pace with those who want to see the ban stand, but I can’t see any downside to pushing forward and bringing the fight in 2010. Even if we lose once again, I feel confident ground will be gained and it will only bring us that much closer to success in 2012 (if necessary).

Let’s look at the facts here once more, just as a refresher:

- Although many opponents of same sex marriage use religious rhetoric and diversionary fear tactics, this is not a religious fight. The church has nothing to do with who gets married. The church, synagogue, mosque or temple, doesn’t issue the marriage certificate. In fact, they cannot even officiate over a marriage without getting the aforementioned certificate sent to them by the state. This is a government issue and religion has absolutely no place in the argument.

- Although the case brought before the state supreme court was ill-framed, the fact remains their job is to interpret the law and ensure it is fairly enforced over all its constituents, not just the narrow majority. One of the main roles of government is to ensure the rights of the minority are not trampled on by the majority and this is point for point the failing in this case, not only in California, but nationwide. Beyond the whooping and hollering by both sides here in California, this issue should never have been left in the hands of the states. How can we ever say one state has the right to control who you love while another state doesn’t? Love is not a statewide right, like being able to smoke in a bar. Love is a civil right, one due to every citizen of this nation, no matter if they stand under the rainy clouds of Seattle or bask in the sultry sun of Key West. It is the basic human right to have your love for another person recognized by the government and take part in all the benefits wrapped up in that acknowledgment. There is a case being brought before the Federal Supreme Court now, launched just days before the decision to uphold Prop 8, and the two lawyers arguing for same sex equality are top people from each side of the landmark Gore v. Bush case, which awarded Bush his first term in office. These guys know what they are doing when they approach those hallowed halls of justice and those on the side of discrimination have no clue what is coming their way.

- In most states gay couples can petition and be granted the right to legally adopt children, but are denied the right to marry. Think about that for a second. How does this support a cohesive family unit, one so desperately protected by those against gay marriage?

- Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, was quoted after the California Supreme Court ruling saying: “Marriage is worth protecting because it is the way we teach the next generation: children need mothers and fathers.” So, to all those single parents out there thinking right now you are doing everything you can to provide for and love your children, guess what…you’re not enough. You’re not traditional and “nuclear”. You can’t possibly fully provide a loving and nurturing home for your children because you are only half as good as a gender balanced couple. Thanks for trying though. Please drop your kids off at the nearest adoption clinic so they can be fed into the foster care system until they’re eighteen years of age and dropped back into the world alone.

- The national divorce rate is 50%. What exactly is being torn apart by allowing more people the shot at having long fruitful, respectful and loving relationships? Does it look like the heterosexual population is really, truly respecting the “traditional” values of marriage? Those people who wave the banner of sanctity in marriage can come and talk with me once they legally shut down 24-hour drive thru wedding chapels officiated by Elvis impersonators. Reinstill respect and tradition for the straight world first before claiming the gay world is ruining it. Some of the couples who have taken advantage of the right to marry, in California and the handful of other states who recognize it legally, have actually been together for thirty years or more, just waiting and hoping for the day to make it legal and gain the respect and rights of thier country. I would love to see a statistic of how many straight couples make it that long without officially tying the knot.

President Obama did make a number of statements during his campaign pledging support for the rights of gay people all over the nation, both in regards to civil unions and marriage equality and in the realm of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which forces gay soldiers to hide their true self in order to serve and not be discharged. He has not made a lot of headway on these issues during his brief time in office, but I can honestly afford him some slack on these since it’s easy to see he has other, more nationally compelling issues to deal with (economy crashing, rising wartime violence, spiraling budgetary concerns, etc…). But make no mistake about it, the gay community and its allies, like myself, will not let him forget the promises he made and I fully expect them to be dealt with during his second term, when he won’t have to worry about the need for re-election votes.

I encourage all those who wish to deny the full rights of marriage to the gay community to find a history book, anything from the seventh grade and above. Crack it open and read a couple chapters on the suffrage movement of the 20s, the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s (pay extra close attention to the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education where we received the lasting legislative ruling that stated “separate, but equal” was inherently unconstitutional), and toss in a light dusting of the fight for women to serve in the military. If you look close enough, you will see where this modern day civil rights movement is heading. There is a light at the end of the tunnel for supporters of same sex marriages and it is unavoidable, whether you like it or not. History ignored is history repeated and although we would like to think people would see logic, reason and humanity in these early stages, we’ve already read to the end of the history books and seen equality handed down once again to those who most certainly deserve it.

Last note: For the supporters of marriage equality, it can be a touch confusing on how to support financially or with volunteer work since it feels like another grassroots organization sprouts up each and every day. With the people I’ve talked to and the research I’ve done, I happily point you towards Equality California and the Human Rights Campaign. These two organizations are incredibly motivated and connected with the fight, both in California and across the nation. If you want to support the cause, I recommend starting your research with either of these groups.

New Look, New Home

Conquering is fun!

[image via Flickr: mr la rue]

Big greetings to all the readers out there. You might have been a little troubled and possibly emotionally scarred by the disruption in service yesterday, so for that I humbly apologize. I’ve been working on a new blog design over the past couple months and it finally reached the point where I needed to turn it all on and see it work in action. There were a few bumps in the road along the way, but everything seems to be in place now. There will be more design changes to come, but hopefully they will not interrupt service at all.

Thanks as always for reading and please feel free to leave comments on the posts, share them using the new cool “Share This” widget and keep coming on back! In the coming months you will see some new voices, new topics and an expansion on where this whole project is going. If you have any interest in writing for The End of the Page or maybe just a suggestion on the blog itself, leave me a comment or send an e-mail.

The Imperfections of Role Models

There are parts of our cultural heritage which inspire and motivate countless generations to push beyond their boundaries and raise the limits of the human potential. Yet, just as there is light, there is also dark. Other parts of our history serve to tear down those heroes, knock cracks into the pedestals they have been raised up on and bring them crashing down to earth only to gain the opportunity to crush them underfoot. Whether it is from jealousy, spite, envy or greed, these despicable actions by a flawed few can damage the whole in ways  I find particularly vile.

Here are just a few of the recent examples:

- Michael Phelps: record holder for most gold medals won during a single Olympic games (8 during the Beijing Games) has a photo posted of him taking a hit from a bong. The controversy ignites like a firestorm, sending shockwaves through not only his fan base of athletes all over the world, but also to his numerous corporate sponsors. Already his Kellogg’s contract is not getting renewed and Subway is looking for a way to cancel their current deal with him, along with requesting their previous sponsorship money back. Phelps was suspended for three months from the U.S. Olympic swimming team and is now on the fence as to whether he will even compete in the 2012 Olympics in London. (Recent Update: Subway, while not being supportive of his actions, has decided to stick with Phelps and not pursue exiting their contract.)

- Christian Bale: accomplished and critically acclaimed actor who began his career at an incredibly young age with a dramatic performance in Empire of the Sun and recently helped reshape the legendary caped crusader, Batman, and bring about on the biggest and widely loved comic films in history, The Dark Knight. His most recent effort was to reshape and relaunch another franchise, The Terminator, as he took on the role of the adult John Connor. While filming the first installment of the new batch of films, Terminator: Salvation, Bale went on a verbal tirade against the Director of Photography, Shane Hurlbut, for stepping into his line of sight during a rather intense rehearsal. An audio recording of that barrage was leaked online in an apparent effort to show people Bale was not the knight in shining armor audiences were making him out to be. This incident, coupled with an arrest last year in London for an argument with his own mother and sister, Bale is being draped now with a persona of a violent, temper-tantrum throwing prima donna. While the fallout from this last attack on his character is not known as of yet, Bale already issued an apology and plea for people not to write off his upcoming film based solely on his on-set reactions.

- President Barack Obama: Yes, I am including him, not in a subliminal effort to say Bale or Phelps are in the same league, but because Obama is suffering already from the same type of political and social character attacks. Barely three weeks into his inaugural term, members of the old guard in Washington are openly and continually putting their feet down in the way of progress and change. They have already caused the withdrawal of three different cabinet choices based solely on tax issues that they found and they have caused a dangerous and dangerous delay in the stimulus package by holding it up in the Senate. It is crystal clear that if this plan whether the plan goes through or not, we are in for tough economic times and I have no doubt the old shadows of Washington are going to blame Obama for continued damages, especially those which they are currently refusing to help fix.

These are only three examples and they are have widely differing effects on our cultural landscape, but they all stem from the same negative phenomenon. When someone rises above the masses, through hard work or sheer happenstance, someone will always be there to try and tear them down. Justifications will be wrapped around them like warrior cloaks, but inside can’t escape the truth, it’s all ego. “I need money, so I’ll sell this incriminating photo.” or “This guy’s famous, but I’m not, so I’m gonna embarrass him.” or lastly “If he can actually fix our mistakes it’ll actually prove we made them to begin with. We must stop him.” The people behind the attacks are always thinking of themselves above all others and that’s where we fail as a society. I’m not trying to move people to another dogma or impose Communism, thinking of the group above all, but there has to be a balance where the individual can appreciate the success and acclaim of another without seeking to shift the spotlight onto themselves. Envy is described as a sin and can truly be a detriment when left uncontrolled, but wanting what someone else has worked so hard to achieve can also be used as a motivator. The achievement of the mantle ‘role model’ once served as a positive thing, but now acts as double-edged sword due to the intense pressure of perfection draped over their shoulders. A person, be it movie star, athlete or politician, can still exist as a role model even after flaws have been uncovered. No one is perfect and trying to force that on someone is only a guarantee of disappointment. When cracks are found in the chiseled veneer they work so hard to craft, instead of raging and calling for their utter downfall, we should relax and remember that they are only ordinary people with extraordinary skills. When we let ourselves devolve into actions like these attacks we not only damage them, but we damage ourselves and our society. Just in the examples above it ranges from millions of dollars lost to a single person to billions of dollars in aid denied to the entire country and for what? We need heroes, we need people to look up to, we need  people to point to and tell our friends and family we want to be like them, because if we don’t see anything over the horizon, we will have nowhere to go.

I am not suggesting that these people, or any others like them in the realm of cultural spotlight, are deserving of extra leniency or a new set of rules. They should adhere to the same laws and be punished by the same consequences we all deal with by the sheer fact of living in this country (and more specifically in our individual states). Yet in the cases above, these people are not being judged and punished by the legal system, it is by the court of public opinion, which is wildly hypocritical. This doesn’t necessarily come into play in Obama’s case, and as far as I know it is not a crime to be a raving lunatic on a film set (lucky you, Bale) , but being caught with weed is still illegal everywhere, depending on the amount on your person, so Phelps is indeed treading in murky waters. But once again, he should be treated like everyone else at that party. Are there pictures and possible criminal trials being hunted for anyone else there? Do we really believe he was the only one smoking at that party? On top of that, unless Phelps gives a complete and detailed confession to smoking weed that night and even the amount that he was holding, that photograph is not nearly enough to convict him of anything other than being stupid enough to be caught on camera doing it in the first place. The punishment should always fit the crime, no matter the person involved and Phelps is being socially persecuted for something in some states only equates to a fine and a warning. Equality works both ways, people. Take a look here to listen to a more comedic and acerbic take on the Phelps fiasco.

So please keep this in mind next time you have the opportunity to snap a photo of a celeb walking slightly off the beaten path, or catch and athlete relaxing from his training a bit “too much”, or next time you’re at the voting booth and you have the opportunity to elect people who are shaking hands with our new President instead of slapping it away.

When we raise one, we raise us all.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Che: Film Misses the Mark on Legendary Figure

For the last time, I was not Keyser Soze.

Rating: 7 out of 10

To the oppressed and abused, he was a legendary hero, to those in power, he was a dangerous revolutionary, and to the middle class hipsters in non-third world countries, he was a pop icon. It is truly an extraordinary person who can fill all these roles at once. He was a lightning rod, grabbing the electricity from the air, from the ground and from the people and using it to burn out the injustice he saw all around him. Whether you were a supporter, detractor or fair-weather fan, you can’t ignore the impact of the one they called ‘Che’.

Che is a gargantuan effort on the part of Steven Soderbergh to tell the story of one of the world’s most politically dynamic personalities. This film begins with his introduction to Fidel Castro and his unassuming beginnings in the armed resistance in Cuba, but it continues as we watch his rise in the revolution, his success in Cuba and his willingness and desire to keep the momentum going in other Latin American countries. The man detailed here is the strategist, the uncompromising moralist and a devout leader to his followers . The film follows his continuing revolution all the way to its tipping point and Che’s eventual downfall.

For any actor out there, starring in a four-and-a-half hour epic is a massive undertaking both in endurance and determination. It’s been a while since someone attached themselves to such a quest, but Benecio Del Toro bites into this role as if he knew this was what he had been waiting for his whole life. Del Toro never totally disappears into the character, but he does succeed in playing it with fire and passion which helps bring the audience through the slower sections. He attacks the story with an uncompromising passion for the cause and I honestly believe if Del Toro wanted to take a step into international politics, his charisma and intensity would win him plenty of respect. He also made one of Che’s main issues throughout his life, his battle with chronic asthma, so believable that during one of his attacks I could actually feel my own chest constricting. The only real question here is whether the audiences that see this film are going to be able to follow Del Toro seamlessly into his oncoming projects, like The Wolf Man. Parts such as this have a tendency to become nearly iconic and hard for an actor to shake off.

Although the character of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara is the central focus of the film, there is a plethora of other people introduced throughout the hours-long epic. The problem here is most of them have a tendency to drift into the background and become unrecognizable. This same issue came up with Milk and Sean Penn’s performance and level of detail leaving all the other characters feeling flat and one-dimensional in comparison. Che is told in Spanish with English subtitles, so there were no discernible accents or patterns of speech for the smaller characters and an overwhelming amount of them were all dressed in the same green army clothes. So in a number of scenes it became a struggle to be emotionally connected to who had just been shot or which captain of a wandering faction had just been discovered. On the flip side, there are two cameos in the film of well known actors which become very jarring since no one else in the entirety of the piece is incredibly recognizable to American audiences. Lou Diamond Phillips steps on as the leader of one of the Communist Parties in Bolivia and his presence is not totally off kilter for the film, but it does snap the audience out for a moment and make them realize the movie in front of them is not a documentary, but a fictional retelling of those events. As much as it hurts me to say this, worse still was the cameo of Matt Damon. Personally I love Damon and think he is one of the best actors out there in his age group. His appearance as a missionary was played fine, but it did nothing to strengthen the film. All it did was make a number of the film goers laugh during Damon’s one and only scene. It felt like a behind-the-scenes gift from Soderbergh to Damon, who worked wonderfully together on all the Oceans movies, but it will go down in film history as one of the worst cameo choices in terms of tone and importance.

I give mounds and mounds of credit to Soderbergh for attempting such a mammoth film, but in the creation of something so large he fails to really capture the dynamism and attraction of its central character. All we receive here is the military man, the up-and-coming revolutionary who will follow his moral code to its inevitable end, but there was so much more to the man who became the godfather of guerrilla warfare. The passionate side of Che, the teacher of not only tactics, but ethics and morals to his followers is missing from this film. Also, Soderbergh has continually defended this film by saying it is not a glorification of Che, but simply a statement on his worldwide impact during those years, but he failed to really explore the backlash, even from the Cuban people, to Che and his guerrilla tactics. Also, in the editing and creation of the two chapters (how most of the movie going audience will see it, not as one four-and-a-half hour piece), Soderbergh stumbles into making the first half about Cuba incredibly more interesting than the second half detailing Che’s efforts in Bolivia. The first half shows the making of the man, the spark which set Che in motion, but the following chapter only serves as more jungle warfare and feels slightly redundant. I feel it would have served the piece better to remove some of the military movements through various countries and slip in more scenes about who Che was underneath the tattered and torn uniform.

Recommendation: When the film does return to theaters around the country in two separate parts, go see the first one and feel if your interest will carry you through the next one. On its own the first one will remain a strong piece, but the second will falter in comparison. Also, if the film truly succeeds in anything, it definitely makes people want to know more about the medical student who went on to try and heal entire countries.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Frost/Nixon: Bringing the Fight to the People

Did I have your phone tapped? Your voice sounds so familiar…

Rating: 9 out of 10

There are few things in life as exciting or exhilarating as watching a good fight. Maybe it’s the primate in us, a deep evolutionary need to see two people beat the piss out of each other in order to prove dominance. Maybe it’s the need to see a champion, someone we can look up to and model our own lives after. Or, on a slight chance, it’s the glimmer of hope we huddle around to keep us warm and keep our dreams from fading away, the dream that one day someone will topple the champ and change the world forever. Now you might think those emotions only get woken up during a purely physical battle, but if so, you are truly missing out on some of the best battles in human history. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debated seven times in 1858 for control of the Illinois legislature and those verbal fencing matches were a preview of the power and eloquence with which Lincoln would bring to bear in his time as President. Almost exactly one hundred years later, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon took to the airwaves for the first ever televised debate between Presidential candidates. Those four on-air matches drew numerous comparisons to their predecessors of nearly a century before. Even in our latest election a highlight truly arrived during our one and only debate between Vice-Presidential candidates, Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. While it might not have been the intelligence and skill in the fight we were all watching for, it still made for captivating television.

Yet one thing all those previous moments lacked was the dark cloud of obvious guilt and shame hanging over the head of Richard Nixon after he resigned the Presidency in disgrace over the Watergate scandal. A man who achieved amazing and brilliant things during his time in office was forced to step down and hang his head for something he was arguably not the first to do, just the first to get caught red-handed. I’m not defending Nixon, but in the context of political history, including any number of the documented and undocumented crimes committed by our still reigning President, Nixon was a lightweight. But for the American people of the 1960’s, his betrayal of the public office was the lowest they had seen a President stoop to and they demanded action. After newly sworn-in President Ford issued a complete and unequivocal pardon of Nixon, it seemed as though the American people were going to have to drink and eat whatever they could get their hands on to cover up the bad taste. But then one man stepped up to the plate, determined to give the people exactly what they wanted.

This is not just a history lesson; this is the premise and plot of Ron Howard’s new film, Frost/Nixon. David Frost was a British talk show host who came up with the idea of interviewing Nixon after his resignation, but his original motives were not entirely altruistic. Mainly, he was a master of television audiences and he could feel the ratings he would get for such an interview would be outrageous. Once he locked the interview in place however, it became a monster he almost couldn’t control. The film is incredibly small in scale, beginning the year where Frost came up with the idea and ending within days after the interview was concluded. We get to see the build up to the big interview, but the actual recorded and tastefully lit chat between the two characters is really the lynch-pin on which the whole film rests. Thinking about the premise beforehand, it’s hard to imagine there being an incredible amount of tension in the movie-going audience, especially since we know what happens, but quality filmmaking and intelligent storytelling can make any old story seem new once again. By the time Frost and Nixon sit across from each other, microphones pinned to their lapels, handkerchiefs folded and makeup invisibly applied, the intensity is palpable. It was akin to watching a heavyweight boxing match, except one contender had never really felt the blow of a well-landed punch before. Once he does, the fear in his eyes truly brings the audience into his mindset. Luckily for us, both in the theater and in history, fear that might make some men run will make others fight all that much harder.

Ron Howard has been making movies for a number of years now and won a number of accolades and critical acclaim, but Frost/Nixon might end up topping them all. With a very simple story he found a way to display two very non-simple people. There is tension, anticipation and weight all brought to bear on a simple interview which ended up changing the lives of not only the people in the chairs, but the worldwide audience as well. Howard also got his two lead actors gift-wrapped, Frank Langella as Nixon and Michael Sheen as Frost. Both actors originally played their roles on stage to massive acclaim, so heading into the movie, they had these characters down cold. There is definitely a difference between playing a role on stage and playing it on film, but the internal work and preparation by these actors is a virtual treasure chest in comparison to what you get on most film sets. The moment they appear on screen, you can feel the depth and skill both actors gained from all their time put in. Frank Langella disappears into Nixon, truly embodying Nixon’s confident walk and sweeping movements of his arms, his imposing intrusion into people’s personal space, and finally the stoop — which on anyone else would have made them look old, but with Nixon is just made him look dangerous and determined. On the other side of the ring, we have Michael Sheen, who shined as David Frost, the plucky and charming television talk show host. There are some moments where Sheen is just listening to Langella rant on and on and Sheen displays an amazing level of intensity, fear and nearly overwhelming nervousness just by using his eyes. He doesn’t even have to move to show the wave after wave of emotional turmoil this man goes through while trying to go toe-to-toe with “Tricky Dick”. Both actors are strong contenders for nominations in the award season.

Beyond the powerhouse duo in front, there is a wealth of strong supporting cast. Sam Rockwell, one of Hollywood’s best go-to character actors, delivers an impassioned performance as James Reston Jr., one of the researchers on Frost’s team. He is the emotional anchor for the team, representing the anger, fury and bitter disappointment of the American people, and if there is one thing Rockwell does better than anything else, it’s playing disappointment and disdain (try poking your head into almost any scene in Choke). Right alongside Rockwell is another amazing talent, Oliver Platt, who plays Bob Zelnick, the more political structure based portion of Frost’s team. Platt continues to do his thing with great talent and shine without ever stealing scenes or trying to make the moment about him. He can be the star of the show if cast that way, but his true talent is blending into an ensemble and making everyone around him better for it. If you’ve never really experienced Platt, I would happily and heartily suggest Casanova and The Three Musketeers, both brilliant comedic performances. A little on the lesser-known side is Matthew Macfadyen, who plays John Birt, Frost’s manager, who continually rallies the troops and sticks by his side even when things are at their most bleak. Macfadyen brought a great sense of strength and loyalty that kept the audience in check and never giving up on Frost and his ultimate goal. As if we needed another name to add to the list, this will benefit all those addicts of the “Six Degrees” game, Kevin Bacon plays Jack Brennan, Nixon’s Chief of Staff and most devoted servant. Bacon lays it on thick, the dogged determination and defense of Nixon, even in the final moments when it all is slipping away. A solid job from an incredibly consistent actor.

Recommendation: If you like movies about important moments in American History, you should like this. If you like Ron Howard films, you should like this. If you like purely character pieces, you should like this. If you are looking for sex, drugs and rock n’ roll, you might wanna move on by. Lastly, if you are like me and try to watch everything on the Oscar nominated list, I’m putting good money this film will end up on there somewhere, whether for acting, directing or writing. Save yourself the rush of trying to track it down during awards season and catch it now.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::