At the conclusion of my last post regarding the disgrace who is Rod Blagojevich, I noted two steps that needed to be urgently taken in response to allegations of illegal activity by the Illinois governor: First, he needed to resign or be impeached and removed from office; and second, the state Legislature needed to act immediately to prevent him from naming Barack Obama's senatorial successor.
Sadly, neither step has yet been accomplished, and in the case of the latter, it's too late. In a supreme yet unsurprising act of hubris, Blagojevich on Tuesday announced his selection of Democrat Roland Burris, former Illinois State Comptroller and Attorney General, as the man to fill Obama's vacant spot in the U.S. Senate. If that wasn't enough, he threw the race card on the table by explicitly daring Democratic senators to go on the record as trying to block the appointment of a black man.
Burris, who himself is now complicit in this horrendous situation by failing to decline Blagojevich's tainted offer, has done nothing to assuage the inevitable fury of Illinois voters. In an interview broadcast on NBC 5 News in Chicago on Tuesday night, the 71-year-old politician was asked about the prospect of entering the Senate when none of his colleagues would want him there. His response was quick and smug: "That's their problem, not mine." Clearly, this is a man whose concern is for his personal aspirations, not the hurting people of Illinois. He must not be seated in the U.S. Senate under any circumstances. Another African American senator would be a wonderful addition to Congress — but any appointment made by Illinois' corrupt governor is inherently unacceptable.
Burris has already implied that he'd legally challenge any attempt by fellow Democrats to block his entry to the Senate. This is truly tragic. With the seemingly insurmountable list of foreign and domestic problems this nation faces in the new year, such a distraction from those issues will simply plunge us deeper into crisis. Any respectable public figure who bears some semblance of grace or selflessness would recognize this and step aside for the greater good of his state and country. Burris — much like his friend, the governor — does not fit that description. Nevertheless, if a drawn-out legal battle is the only choice to prevent this appointment from going through, so be it. Perhaps Illinois voters will have had their chance to weigh in before the matter is even resolved. The main concern, of course, is quickly appointing a second Illinois senator who is credible and not corrupt.
Meanwhile, Blagojevich and his very few remaining allies keep repeating the concept of innocence until proven guilty. This standard is true in a criminal court of law, and he'll have an opportunity to defend himself just like any other American accused of a crime. But he can do so as a private citizen. Impeachment and removal from public office does not need to stem from criminal charges — it can be a remedy for a politician who has engaged in official misconduct or is simply unfit to serve in his or her role. Clearly, the current governor fits that bill, and with his unspeakable actions on Tuesday, he's demonstrated the danger he poses to our state and nation with each day he remains in power. He must be removed now, before the damage he inflicts to this already-ailing state becomes irreparable.
The Pacific Northwest, like many other parts of the country, has been hammered all week long with some unusually harsh winter weather. I ended up working from home on Thursday as Seattle was blanketed with at least 3-5 inches of snow. That sort of weather is exceptionally rare in these parts; heavy snow typically only falls in the mountains, and when it does hit the city and surrounding lowlands, it almost never sticks around for long.
Nevertheless, temperatures this week have been very cold by Seattle standards — 20s and 30s for daytime highs, and teens at night. That means the snow we got won't be going anywhere for some time. It also means that the city has been shut down. When I first stepped outside on Thursday morning to go grab a cup of coffee, I was greeted by a gorgeous winter wonderland and an eerie, quiet stillness that hung in the air — a stark contrast to the rumblings that woke me up just before dawn, which at first I feared was an earthquake. It turned out to be "thunder snow," accompanied by bright flashes of lightning that were magnified by the snow falling. Quite exceptional.
There's a few things to be learned about winter conditions in this area. First, they don't ever salt the roads — for environmental reasons, I hear — which sometimes makes the steep hills of Seattle non-navigable when freezing precipitation falls. If sand doesn't do the trick, they simply close the streets. Second, because residents of the area aren't used to this kind of weather, they tend to freak out about it much faster than Midwesterners would. If Seattleites must drive in snow, they chain up their tires as though they're preparing for a trip over the mountain pass (on some of these hills, they might as well be). Even still, they don't always drive well in it. As a pedestrian, I discovered quickly to ensure that a car has come to a complete stop before venturing into a crosswalk. Just because the vehicle appears to be slowing down does not mean that the driver will be able to stop in time. I saw too many cars today with locked tires that were nevertheless still moving uncontrollably.
My flight back to Chicago for Christmas is scheduled to leave on Friday afternoon. Between the messy weather here and even messier weather there, I doubt that it will depart on time. (My recent air travel experiences have left me with nothing but a cynical attitude toward the whole idea.) Regardless, I will be in the Midwest for the next two weeks. If you will be as well, let's plan to meet at some point.
We're experiencing a "deep freeze" here in Seattle, so I decided to cocoon myself in my apartment and watch movies for much of the weekend. One that I watched — on my Netflix instant viewing device, no less — was an indie film called "Broken English." It told the story of a 30-something single woman in New York with a dead-end job and a group of friends who all enjoyed successful relationships while she struggled with predictably bad luck in dating. Since this seemed like the sort of plot line I'd resonate with — minus the dead-end job and being a 30-something woman in New York, of course — I decided to go with it. (Warning: Spoiler coming. I'm sure everyone who hasn't already seen this movie is eagerly awaiting to do so.)
Nora, the main character in the story, eventually meets by accident a young Frenchman named Julien, and the two quickly become close. Alas, he ends up having to return to France, and the infatuated couple are separated. Nora ultimately decides to travel to Paris in search of the love of her life, but when she arrives, she loses the phone number he gave her and has no other way to locate Julien. Forlorn, Nora wanders the city aimlessly with a friend for a few days, until her friend has to return to New York and she stays behind. Finally, she comes to terms with the reality that she'll never find Julien in a huge city like Paris, so she boards a train to the airport to catch a flight back to New York. Shockingly, Julien happens to catch the same train Nora did, and just when the viewer might believe that the two characters would never reunite, they do — and, presumably, live happily ever after.
I was OK with the premise of this movie until I saw its ending, at which point I was reminded of how lame some story lines can be, even in independent films. I have a strong preference for movies that contain realistic plot elements — but even I'm perfectly willing to suspend disbelief in some cases. This, however, was over the top. It got me thinking about how many movies I've seen that contain conclusions that simply satisfy the expectations of the audience. That's precisely what "Broken English" did. The ending was predictable for the simple reason that it wasn't realistic, but even so, the producers of the film went with it most likely because they knew it was what their audience would want. Let's face it — how many viewers would walk away from this movie satisfied if Nora never again found her love?
But such an ending is profoundly unsatisfying for a viewer like myself — and, in fact, it tarnished my perception of the entire film. Happy endings are fine when they are plausible; but reality is too stark for movies that always conclude with the lovers being reunited, or the bad guy being caught, or the crisis being averted, especially when it happens under such unlikely circumstances. Surprises — both of a positive and negative nature — are part of the thrill of following the plot of a movie, and when a story ends predictably just for the sake of pleasing the viewer, the entire presentation falls flat and becomes a disappointment. Too many movies are like that. I'd much rather see a thought-provoking film with a less-than-cheerful or even depressing conclusion than one with an unrealistically happy ending that leaves me yawning the entire way through.
Today, Illinois residents would probably scoff at the notion that there will ever be any salvageable aspect of Gov. Rod Blagojevich's legacy. But they may end up surprised. Even in the near future, the now-infamous Democratic governor may be looked upon as a case study and cautionary tale on the shocking extent to which power corrupts.
It is, after all, hard to imagine how such a high-profile public official could carry out illegal activity of this caliber with such brazenness, arrogance, greed, and most of all, stupidity. Blagojevich knew that he had long been under investigation for campaign and hiring fraud and that federal agents were watching him closely. But profanity-laced excerpts of his phone conversations reveal open discussions about the potentially lucrative nature of his authority to appoint a senatorial replacement for President-elect Barack Obama, and the leverage he could use to achieve the firings of Chicago Tribune editorial board members who had been critical of his administration. Such carelessness on the governor's part in the commission of his crimes is reflective of a man drunk with power beyond reason or common sense and to the point of self-delusion.
Blagojevich's arrest on Tuesday was hardly surprising. A completely inept governor with a historically low approval rating, he has managed to isolate himself even from members of his own political party, which controls the Illinois General Assembly but has routinely stalled on state budgets and legislation because of fights with him. Couple that with a dubious moral character and arrogant style of governance that was widely scrutinized long before this week's developments, and there should be no question as to how this Illinois politician ended up where he did.
Sadly, however, he's hardly the first Illinois politician in recent memory to travel such a road — though, incredibly, he may have even gone farther than his predecessors. Republican George Ryan, Illinois' preceding governor, is currently serving time in federal prison after being convicted of racketeering and fraud for selling driver's licenses for bribes as secretary of state. Two other former Illinois governors — Otto Kerner in the 1960s and Dan Walker in the 1970s — were convicted of bribery and fraud, respectively, and both served time as well. In the 1990s, former Illinois Rep. Dan Rostenkowski pleaded guilty to mail fraud. In a state whose largest city has a long-lived reputation for machine politics, another crooked public official is hardly what the Land of Lincoln needs to improve its image. As a native of that state, I'm embarrassed and appalled by this week's developments.
Two things need to happen in short order. First, Blagojevich needs to resign. He's likely way too arrogant to do that, so the Illinois Legislature should begin impeachment proceedings immediately. Second, the state law needs to be changed so that the governor alone is not charged with appointing senatorial replacements. Such appointments either need to require legislative confirmation or should simply be decided by the state's voters. The bottom line is that any measure necessary to prevent Blagojevich from selecting Obama's successor should be taken quickly — and the lessons learned from this mess should be applied to prevent similar malfeasance in the future. Hopefully, Blagojevich's misdeeds will finally be the straw that broke the camel's back for the citizens of Illinois.
As many have probably already heard — because he's so good at getting his name and face in the headlines — Bill O'Reilly is angry about an atheistic message on display at the Washington State Capitol in Olympia. The main target of his ire is Gov. Christine Gregoire, who has refused to order removal of the sign that religious groups across the country are protesting. Her office has reported being deluged with phone calls and e-mails in the days since this clip was aired on the Fox News Network.
I disagree entirely with the message conveyed by this sign. However, let's be clear on one point: The group responsible for the content of the sign can publicize its message for the exact same reason O'Reilly and his audience can protest that message. They can do so for the same reason I can give my own perspective right here on this blog. The constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech and expression is not limited to messages that are universally agreeable or appealing. In fact, speech widely regarded as offensive or even repugnant is exactly what the First Amendment was intended to protect. Would the Fox News commentator like to be subject to censorship just because his program leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of many Americans?
Keeping that in mind, O'Reilly's rants aren't even worth entertaining unless he can devise an argument more compelling than the notion that the atheist display is inappropriate or offensive or an alleged attack against national tradition. He calls Gregoire "cowardly" — but truly, the only cowardice observable in this scenario is someone who advocates stifling other perspectives while simultaneously expecting that the right to express his own remain intact. Suggesting that free speech of any kind be infringed upon is an extraordinarily dangerous road to travel.
Here's some comic relief, courtesy of Saxby Chambliss, the Republican victor in Georgia's senatorial runoff election held this week:
"People all around the world truly had their eyes on Georgia, and you [Georgia voters] have delivered tonight a strong message to the world that conservative Georgian values matter."
Yes, Saxby. I'm sure that the entire international community had Georgia on its mind on Tuesday night. I'm sure that locals at wine bars in Paris were poised on the edge of their seats. I'm sure that city dwellers quaffing vodka in St. Petersburg were doing so out of anxious anticipation. And I'm sure that Aussies riding the waves near Sydney took a break to find out the answer to the burning question: Just which way did the enviable wisdom of Georgia voters tilt this time around? Forget about last month's presidential election — this was the moment the world was really waiting for.
In all seriousness, though: "Saxby"?? Was this a kid routinely pushed into lockers during high school? Or perhaps that's not an unusual name in Georgia. Maybe we could ask Sonny, the state's governor. Or Johnny, the state's junior senator.
Saxby, Sonny, and Johnny. Don't they sound like a trio of small-town misfits?
As I shared my thoughts last night on the dismal status of the air travel industry, I started thinking about other industries and companies I don't like. One of the first that came to mind was cable television.
I don't have any cable channels — and, by extension, no network channels either — and that's completely fine with me. I read all of my local, national, and world news online, and if there is a televised event I genuinely want to watch — for example, the presidential debates of this fall — I can easily stream it live on the Internet. Other television programs that I watch, such as "The Office" or "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," can also be viewed online.
There's good reason why I decline cable service providers: They're generally a waste of money, and they must think their customers are idiots. I routinely receive offers in the mail from Comcast, proclaiming some excellent deal in big, bold print, such as four months of service for only $24.99. Of course, what isn't in giant font is the microscopic print at the bottom of the card, which notes that after the four months have expired, the price is hiked somewhere to the ballpark of $50 or higher. That's a classic bait-and-switch tactic that must work well, because they use it all the time. I don't want them telling me the price they'll use to lure me to purchase their lousy service; I want to know the standard price I'll be forced to pay after the introductory period is over, which is usually a rip-off, especially when I won't even watch most of the included channels. It might be a different story if channels could be purchased individually — but, of course, cable providers wouldn't earn nearly as much money that way.
A much better deal for my money is a combination of online viewing and Netflix, a service to which I've subscribed for more than three years. Recently, Netflix developed streaming devices that can be connected to one's television and the Internet. Mine is pictured above. I can use it to stream movies and programs directly from Netflix's instant online viewing service to my television. The service contains an ever-improving selection of TV series and movies, both new and old. The Roku device, as it's called, costs $99 to purchase and comes with the cables necessary to connect it to a television. Thereafter, it's just a matter of paying your monthly Netflix subscription fee. Mine is $15, which also continues to provide me with two DVDs at a time on an unlimited basis per month. The instant viewing service is also unlimited. With such a deal provided by Netflix, why would I bother with cable — or, for that matter, even a satellite dish?
Of course, I have to note that none of the services described above affords me access to the Lifetime Movie Network. I consider that to be a serious drawback. I'm sure several others who read this would as well.
Air travel these days is a total disaster. I'm reminded of that every time I fly — especially this past week when I went home to Illinois for Thanksgiving.
On the flight from Seattle to Chicago last Tuesday, I sat aboard a motionless plane at the gate for two hours after boarding. The explanation? Some maintenance work was being done on an engine, and the issue was resolved, but they needed to submit some "paperwork" on the incident. During those 120 minutes, I pondered in irritation why they had boarded the aircraft in the first place if it hadn't been ready to go. (I would have much rather sat in the terminal for that time period, sipping coffee with room to stretch my legs, instead of being stuck on a cramped, stationary plane with nothing to eat or drink. I'm sure I wasn't alone.) Then, of course, there was the mysterious "paperwork" question: Why did such a technicality prevent our departure? Couldn't someone staying on the ground take care of filing the report while my already-delayed flight moved on? It's probably some ridiculous FAA regulation that causes more headaches than it solves.
But I had hardly experienced the worst. Chicago was hit with its first major snowstorm of the season on Sunday night, so I was incredulous when I arrived at the airport on Monday morning and saw that my return flight was listed as being on time. Indeed, we did board the aircraft at 8 a.m. as scheduled. This time, however, we sat motionless at the gate for four hours — yes, four hours — while the crew waited for the plane to be de-iced. The pilot advised us that regulations require all passengers to be boarded with the doors closed before the procedure commences. He didn't mention how long it would take for the de-icing equipment to arrive. Unfortunately, we were to find out.
Aside from mammoth departure delays and airport incompetence, there's the increasingly stingy nature of airline industry. This past week, flying on American Airlines, I had to pay $15 each way just to check one piece of luggage. And, of course, they stopped serving food on domestic flights long ago — if you want so much as a snack on board, you can expect to pay at least $5. One complimentary beverage is generally served, but I don't even expect that to be long for this world. This time around, I didn't even receive one of those small bags of trail mix or crackers with my drink.
I understand that the economy is in the tank these days, that bad weather was involved in one of the aforementioned instances, and that it was a busy week for travel. But these experiences represent a pattern; they aren't isolated cases and certainly can't be attributed to any of those factors alone. It's unfortunate that air travel has become so miserable; now that I live in the Northwest, it has become an essential part of visiting anywhere outside of this region.
At the conclusion of my last post regarding the disgrace who is Rod Blagojevich, I noted two steps that needed to be urgently taken in response to allegations of illegal activity by the Illinois governor: First, he needed to resign or be impeached and removed from office; and second, the state Legislature needed to act immediately to prevent him from naming Barack Obama's senatorial successor.
