Monday, December 13, 2004

There's only two "Get out of Jail" cards in the game

Since the following quote was from an anonymous "senior U.S. official", I'm not conferring them with official "Skippy" status. I did want to comment on it, however, so here's the story and here's the quote:

"The lawyers looked at all these issues," said the official. "We believed they were not disqualifying."
So, despite the fact that the issues raised with Kerik have been used on multiple occasions in the past to bring down other political figures, somehow the White House thought that he was special enough to get a free pass from both the confirmation officials and the media?

I think Dubya's "mandate" is going to his head.

I have no doubt that, as in the past, the Democratic party will find themselves submitting to Dubya's wishes once in a while even though they should not. I'm also hoping that these instances will be fewer than in the last four years. Still, it's one thing to look the other way on one issue in someone's past, and it's another to simply gouge out your eyes altogether.

As I write this post, the following allegations have been leveled against Kerik (as stated in the above linked article):

"...an immigration problem involving a family housekeeper."
"...two extramarital affairs...one with the corrections officer and another with New York book publisher Judith Regan."
"...accepted thousands of dollars in cash and gifts without proper disclosure."
"...had ties to a construction company that investigators believe is linked to the mob."
"...part of a series of lawsuits related to a New Jersey condominium owned by Kerik."
Any one of these could be used as a serious objection in his vetting process, yet the White House (if we are to believe the anonymous official) thought that they themselves and Kerik were immune.

There's a part of me that wants to say that all of this was on purpose. The White House wanted to see how much they could actually get away with after their November victory. Further reading reveals that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales was in charge of the background check on Kerik. Gonzales is himself about to go through a confirmation process for Attorney General, even though he is thought to be the engineer of the torture that went on at Abu Ghraib. Perhaps he was testing the waters to see how much scrutiny he would soon face?

All of this is conjecture, of course. I'm sure that the White House is not that diabolical. But I have to raise issue with a party that thinks a man with immigration problems and a record of theft is a safe bet for Homeland Security Chief, and that a man who thinks torture is A-OK is a great choice for Attorney General.

Of course, we liberals have already been told we have different values than red state-ers. Thank heavens for that.

Friday, December 10, 2004

Spiffing up the place

Several years back, Jacksonville was chosen as the host for the Super Bowl in 2005. The excitement from this announcement has yet to die down in some circles. For myself, I can't say I'm all that enthused. I like watching FSU college games and the Jaguars play on occasion, but football in general doesn't excite me. As is increasingly typical with viewers, I watch the Super Bowl more for the commercials than anything else.

But this isn't really about Football. It's about the city wanting to become more recognized as a bustling southern metropolis. The Super Bowl announcement was Jacksonville's biggest achievement since...well...since we were awarded the NFL expansion team in 1993. So now the city has been instituting some procedures in order to impress the people who come in for the game. And as cynical a bastard as I can be sometimes, I actually like two of them.

The first is an artistic stroke. Sea Cows for Kids is a program that has placed 50 fiberglass manatees, all of them painted and molded around a different theme, throughout Jacksonville. Sally Corp, which has one of the coolest looking buildings downtown, created the manatees and different Jacksonville businesses sponsor each one. Mrs. Mosley and I went downtown about a month ago to take pictures of some of them. It was a Sunday afternoon during a Jaguars game and downtown, as is the trend for our downtown on a weekend, was nearly a ghost town. We parked and walked from manatee to manatee, taking pictures. The only other people we saw were...also taking pictures of the manatees. Needless to say, we have a long way to go in order to get our downtown jumping again.

The second is a marketing maneuver. The city paid a local PR group $91,000 to come up with a new slogan for the city: "Jacksonville: Where Florida Begins". Not only is this geographically true (I-95 is the busiest artery into Florida, and it first comes through Jax), it's also very elegant in it's simplicity. I've certainly heard worse. Fans of Michael Moore's "Roger & Me" will remember the cheesy "Our new spark will excite you" slogan that Flint, Michigan came up with for their revitalization. Plus, and here's where the cynical part of me peeks through, the slogan doesn't make any high promises. Instead of saying that our city is the greatest thing since sliced bread, it simply puts a kernel of knowledge into people's brains that we exist and that we have great potential. Any other conclusions can be drawn from the visitors themselves.

Jacksonville certainly isn't alone in the area of needing to revamp downtown. Having worked in the are for coming on 18 months now, I can see it possibly becoming a pedestrian downtown, as opposed to the pace where people work nine to five on Monday through Friday. I doubt the Super Bowl will work the overnight miracles people are hoping for, but it can be a decent start.

Thursday, December 09, 2004

Skippy of the Day: Donald Rumsfeld

Donald Rumsfeld raised some eyebrows on Wednesday when a soldier asked him a question about insufficient armor. The following is Rumsfeld's response:

"You go to war with the army you have." Besides, he added, "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can be blown up."
He stopped short of suggesting that they might as well leave the Kevlar at home since they could always be shot in the face.

In a "Skippy" post back in August, I mentioned Bush's remark that taxes on the rich were useless since they would dodge them anyway. Rumsfeld's response seems just as cynical, basically telling these soldiers that they're going to get killed anyhow, so why put forth the effort to try and prevent it? Just stop bitching and make do.

Well, such cynicism does not inspire us, Don.

After enduring six months of the Bush campaign yelling from the rooftops about John Kerry voting against body armor, we have Bush's Defense secretary stating that they have all the protection they need and any more would be pointless. As the piece in Slate points out (link above), even if the equipment will not provide complete protection, isn't it the responsibility of the Bush administration to give them the best equipment available? Aren't we always boasting that the American Military is the most well equipped military in the world?

Since the comment, both Rumsfeld and Bush have been frantically backpedaling, with Rummy calling the soldier's complaint "healthy". Old Don learned that tactic from his boss. On the rare occasions when someone gets through Dubya's screened audiences and voices a grievance he's unprepared for, he will automaticly comment that he's proud to live in a country with freedom of speech...and then continue to ignore the issue. Feh.

My hat is off to Spc. Thomas Wilson, the brave soldier that dared voice a concern over the safety of he and his fellow soldiers. If the reaction by everyone else in the audience is any indication, then he is far from alone in his view. Donald would do well to keep his smart-ass answers to himself when speaking to good and honest men who are getting shot at everyday.

And one more thing, Don. You're in danger of further proving to the troops and their families that you don't give a rat's ass about them if stuff like this is true. During a war, the last thing you need to be worrying about is a friggin hand cramp.

Librarian not included

The library I work in is scheduled to move into a brand new building come next summer, which all of us who work here are very excited about. One resulting issue from this is what to do with the old building. To some, it is a very ugly, lime green tribute to 1960's architecture. Nonetheless, it's still in decent shape, and the library administrators are endeavoring to sell off this valuable piece of downtown real estate. Rumor is that Peterbrooke Chocolate is the latest interested party, which seems a fate far cooler than is likely for this building.

This afternoon, I was to host a program in the 2nd floor auditorium. This was eventually cancelled, as the instructor failed to show up, but that's another story. In the half hour before it was to start, I paced on the small stage thinking of opening remarks. As I was doing this, the door opened and two men entered: one of the library administrators and another prospective buyer. He came in and showed off the brick walls and unusual light fixtures and did this for about two minutes before they finally left.

The interesting thing about all this is that the entire time they were in the room they never once acknowledged my presence! I mean, it's not a big auditorium, by any means. They just walked in where this librarian was standing on the stage and they went about their business. Combined with the absent instructor, this could seriously give me a complex. Maybe I blended into the background, or perhaps they thought there was always a librarian on the stage of the auditorium.

It would have been funny if, after a minute of the administrator's pitch, the buyer said, "OK. If you throw in the guy, then it's a deal".

Wednesday, December 08, 2004

Be careful not to light any candles near the manger

There was story on the Today Show this morning concerning a nativity display at Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum in London. There is a controversy over the museum's use of celebrity figures in the nativity, including David Beckham and Posh Spice as Joseph and Mary. The concept of Blasphemous Nativity Scenes suddenly reminded me of a scene in "Blackadder's Christmas Carol":

Baldrick: I've been helping out with the workhouse nativity play.

Ebenezer: Oh, of course! How did it go?

Baldrick: Well, not very well -- at the last moment, the baby playing Jesus died!

Ebenezer: Oh, dear! This high infant-mortality rate is a real devil when it comes to staging quality children's theatre. What did you do?

Baldrick: Got another Jesus.

Ebenezer: Oh, thank goodness. And his name?

Baldrick: 'Spot'. There weren't any more children, so we had to settle for a dog instead.

Ebenezer: Oh, dear. I'm not convinced that Christianity would have established its firm grip over the hearts and minds of mankind if all Jesus had ever said was "Woof."

Baldrick: Well, it went all right until the shepherds came on. See, we hadn't been able to get any real sheep, so we had to stick some wool...

Ebenezer: ...on some other dogs.

Baldrick: Yeah... and the moment Jesus got a whiff of them, he's away! While the angel's singing "Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Mankind," Jesus scampers across and tries to get one of the sheep to give him a piggyback ride!

Ebenezer: Scarcely appropriate behaviour for the son of God, Mr Baldrick. Weren't the children upset?

Baldrick: Nah, they loved it. They want us to do another one at Easter -- they want to see us nail up the dog.
I have no other point here, really. I just consider any excuse to post Blackadder dialogue a good one.

Review: "Ray" (2004)

A hagiography, which is the story of someone's life told in only glowing terms, simply does not make for good drama. Perhaps my favorite biographical film, 'Malcolm X", encountered some trouble while filming. Malcolm's family protested Spike Lee's plan to show the slain Muslim leader's younger days as a gangster and drug addict. Instead of tarnishing his image, the inclusion of this material ended up making the man more real and admirable for it. Of course, these scenes only occur in the first half, after which he was a clean and reverent Muslim. With other famous men, however, such dark aspects accompany them throughout their professional lives.

"Ray" is the story of Ray Charles, a man born into poverty in rural Florida and suffered two tragedies in quick succession: The accidental death of his little brother and the loss of his sight. His stern but loving mother taught him how to survive in a world without pity, which gave him the confidence to strike out on his own and try to make a living as a musician. His rise to fame is steady and impressive as he meets a variety of good and bad characters along the way. It is his two weaknesses of heroin and women, however, that threaten to strike him down if he doesn't wise up.

The first surprising thing about this film is how the standard blind shticks do not even seem to occur to the filmmakers. By the time Ray leaves home, he is so sure of his movement that blindness isn't even an issue anymore. But he is nonetheless ostracized by members of the band he joins up with and, in an action to prove his manhood, tells them he wants to try the heroin their using. This small moment, where he trades one disability for another, provides the theme that dominates the film all the way to the end.

The drug abuse is interesting in that it is not addressed and dealt with quickly, as with other films. It lingers and becomes essential to Ray's day-to-day living. Repeatedly, he comes to a crucial and deciding moment when he should give it up. These moments pass and Ray continues with his work without mention of his habit, only for it to emerge again twenty minutes later. In this way, we get a real feel of how deep the addiction went and thus makes the scenes of his withdrawal all the more painful.

In addiction to the drug abuse, of course, is the story of Ray Charles's music. And unlike other biographies of musicians, Ray Charles's story is about more than just one or two hit songs. His role as innovator is detailed through his efforts to combine Gospel with Soul, his use of full orchestras when he signed with ABC Paramount, and also his introduction of country music to his fans and, thus, a wider audience. And through the telling of all these steps along the way, we get many elongated music performances to enjoy. It also makes for a longer movie, which could have possibly been trimmed a bit more, but can be forgiven for its exuberance.

Jamie Foxx is Ray Charles. It's such a cliche, but it applies to this film in far more ways than other actors in other biographies. Foxx completely disappears behind those glasses. His body movements, contagious smile and unique pattern of speech completely convinces us that here stands the man that was Ray Charles. One glaring mistake made by this film is near the end when Ray has a dream sequence of being back in Florida. He takes off his glasses and discovers he's able to see again, and the audience is spellbound at the sight of...Jamie Foxx. It's quite jarring after two hours of being completely convinced that you were watching a young Ray Charles to see Foxx standing there, the spell broken.

The supporting players are a distinctly varied lot. The two men that recruit Ray for Atlantic Records are none other than Richard Schiff (Toby from "The West Wing", looking very odd without his beard) and Curtis Armstrong (Booger from the "Revenge of the Nerds" movies, also looking like a whole different person). The MC at the first club Ray plays is none other than dwarf actor Warwick Davis doing a brief role here in between gigs as Professor Flitwick in the "Harry Potter" movies. Finally, special mention should be given newcomer Sharon Warren, who plays Ray's determined mother Aretha in flashbacks. She gives an intensity to this pivotal role that stays with the viewer after they leave the theater.

There is one nagging loose end that is never resolved, and it does contain a minor spoiler. Early on, Ray becomes friends with Jeff Brown, the bus driver for his first band. The man is honest and trustworthy, so Ray recruits him to be his right hand man. Much further down the road, Ray recruits an announcer named Joe Adams to come on tour with him. Adams quickly muscles Brown out of the picture by convincing Ray that he's been pocketing Ray's money. There is an argument ending with Brown leaving Ray and telling him that his actions would cost him dearly one day. Was Brown really stealing the money? Did Adams set Brown up? We never find out, and we never see a consequence befall Ray as a result of his actions (such as Adams eventually betraying Charles). Either the already long movie was trimmed of a scene that answered these questions, or the filmmakers simply decided to make the decision to leave it hanging. In either case, it was a bad call as the question is something that deserves closure.

Ray actually had the script for this film translated into Braille so that he may read it, and he eventually gave this warts-and-all portrait his approval. We should be thankful he did, and it is emblematic of a man who was told repeatedly in his early career to not sound like other people but instead use his own real voice and sound. And when it comes to the story of his life, only his own real story will do.

Eight out of Ten