One of the fun things about the holidays is the opportunity to just hang out with relatives that you don't normally see. So we're spending some time with my sister, who has a Wii console game.

Those things are addictive! I spent some time creating an avatar, then we started playing some of the sports games. (Funny, I recall when Atari and company originally started mass producing gaming consoles back in the stone age, they also started with the same basic sports games -- baseball, tennis, ping pong...)

The big difference between Atari and Wii is that if you played Atari for two hours maybe your thumb would hurt. Play the Wii for two hours, on the other hand, and look forward to aching muscles for a few days. The Wii is much more holistic an experience, with the controller forcing you to use more natural movements to mimic the sports you're playing. The bowling game, for example, pretty much behaved exactly as real bowling does. Indeed, my brother's Wii bowling score is the same as his regular league average in the real world.

Very fun, the Wii, I highly recommend it.  Unless, of course, you'd rather just go out an experience the real world -- that can be fun too.

Merry Christmas to all 

Some folks are ecstatic about Obama's landslide victory, others are not, and still others are cautiously optimistic about what he might do once inaugurated. In my efforts as a concerned citizen, I have a few suggestions for the President-elect that might make his job a bit easier and more appealing to all. Here's one for now:

Hire Joe Lieberman

I know Senator Lieberman said some harsh things about you, and went so far as to endorse your opponent for President. Still, recall that after his oh-so-close bid to become the Democratic Vice President in 2000, your party froze him out in his 2006 re-election bid and he had to rely on the kindness of Connecticut Republicans and Independents to get re-elected. (This despite calls for him to quit from party chairman Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton...)

He has continually sided with the Democrats on most issues, although continuing to question the party stance on others such as the war in Iraq. (He does know a thing or two about this, having served for years as chairman of the Homeland Security committee.) It's ironic that he's friends with Senator McCain, as Lieberman is probably McCain's counterpart as a Democratic maverick.

Now we see the Senate Majority leader Harry Reid wants to "punish" Joe for saying and doing what he's always done -- holding the party accountable for what it says and does.

This is a tough situation, President Obama, especially for a candidate who ran on the promise of change. Political retribution is very old-school, but clearly the Democratic party doesn't want Joe to play on its schoolyard anymore.

So here's my suggestion: appoint Senator Lieberman to your cabinet as Homeland Security Chief. As I said he knows a thing or two on the subject. He'd be sure to get Senate approval by Republicans who like him and Democrats who want to see him gone. His replacement would still be a Democrat, as his state has a Democratic governor. You'd be seen as somebody who is willing to listen to all sides, and take those sides into your inner circle.

Everybody wins! 

Shortly after the election, I was sent the following rant by a good friend who was trying to vent his frustrations. While I don't agree with everything he says, he makes some very excellent points. Here it is, you be the judge: 

The trouncing of the Republican Party at the recent election was far more widespread than simply the McCain-Palin ticket’s defeat by Barack Obama.  It appeared that in nearly every case, the Democrats exceeded expectations with the result that they now control all three branches of government.

What happened?

Republican pundits are looking for the license plate of the truck that hit them, and seem to be saying that the driver of the truck was either a) Obama, b) Sarah Palin, or c) the economy.  While all of those were contributors, the fault seems much deeper than that, and lies within the Republican Party itself.

Let’s start with the unpopularity of the Bush administration.  By that I don’t mean simply the President himself, but those associated with the leadership of the party, with him simply being a beneficiary of the political machine that took hold after 9/11 and, emboldened by that event, laid waste to truth, ethics and decency!

The truth is, the political tactics of the Republican administration, and the lengths to which they would go to increase their power, have become apparent to an increasing number of Americans (including myself).  The evidence is clear to any informed person:

• Iraq invaded over mythical WMD’s – This started the process, with the policy determined and the evidence selectively presented to justify the invasion.  Bad Intelligence does not fully explain the extent to which information was twisted, including what Colin Powell was tricked into presenting at the U.N. to justify a pre-emptive attack.  The mistakes made after that just compounded things, including the decision to “fire” the army, leaving hundreds of thousands of unemployed trained and armed men hanging around just waiting to be scooped up by the insurgency.

• Katrina – In the aftermath of 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security was given authority over many things, including FEMA, in order to make it a powerful cabinet department.  Having FEMA under them proved to be a disaster when they were unprepared to respond to Katrina, even given days of advanced notice of its potential.  President Bush’s congratulating of Secretary Brown’s “Great Job” was a clueless and typically wrong assessment that demonstrated that cronyism was valued over performance.

• Hiring and Firing at the Justice Department – It would appear that the Republicans were using litmus tests to fill any vacancies in the various branches of government, especially the Justice Department.  Anyone whose illegal back ground checks (including Internet searches) did not establish their staunch Republican credentials need not apply.  The firing of 8 U.S Attorneys for (at least) flimsy and political reasons was a pattern that politicized a department that should be about justice, not ideology.

• Editing Science – There are numerous instances where scientific reports were edited and parts removed or changed to match the administration’s view of the “facts”, specifically with respect to global warming.  The scientific method does not and should not have an agenda.  If the administration did not agree with the findings, they were free to offer a rebuttal, but by censoring the studies before they were issued they proved that they are only interested in truth if they agree with it.

• Executive Privilege - Dick Cheney’s repeated stonewalling of the public’s right to know how government is making decisions and spending their money is an affront to democracy exceeded only by the Watergate coverup.  He has repeatedly demonstrated his contempt for the public interest through a policy of secret deals and catering to special interests of the military and oil establishments that he came from.

Now, let us get to the election.  Despite the unpopularity of the Republican President, Senator McCain appeared to have a real chance of victory in the election.  Part of his appeal was his having not “gone along” with the administration on many counts.  Being a “maverick” of a party whose leader was so unpopular had potential.  Even favoring current policy on the war was not a disqualifying factor since his military credentials left many thinking that if we’re in it anyway, he could be the one to get it right.  Given that, the Republican Party did Senator McCain no favors.  While the real stories are sure to come out, it would appear that the Republican Party undermined Senator McCain’s efforts at several critical points.  

• The choice of Sara Palin was clearly not his, and was obviously forced on him to satisfy the Party’s Right Wing.  It undermined his best campaign strategy – to attack Obama’s lack of experience - and fed on the fears people had that McCain was too old, since Palin would be the President in case of McCain’s death.  She was clearly being “handled”, with carefully picked interviews and no open press conferences.  Even that back-fired as the Katie Couric interview was a disaster and confirmed people’s tendency to consider her unprepared and cost Senator McCain credibility on his judgment.

• While negative campaigns are common to both sides, the type of dirty tricks employed by the Republicans was so out of character for Senator McCain that it tarnished his image, which a key part of his appeal.  Robo-calls and “surveys” that spread misinformation were both elements of the “politics of personal destruction” that Republicans had so decried when practiced by the Clintons in the 1990’s.  The Republicans seem to have perfected this approach, led by Karl Rove, and I find it abhorrent.  Above all, John McCain has always been a decent and respectful person, proving it by bucking his own party with initiatives to reform campaign financing and eliminate pork-barrel spending.  He would have been better served to let that part of his character be reflected in the campaign.

The financial crisis that hit just weeks before the election certainly hurt Senator McCain’s chances, since the incumbent party will always be blamed for a downturn in the economy – as evidenced by the favorite slogan of the Clinton campaign in 1992 – “It’s the Economy, stupid”.  In many cases, including President Bush I in 1992, it is simply unfortunate timing tied to a typical economic cycle.  This year, though, it is a justified blame since the Bush administration regulators have been asleep at the switch while easy credit and imaginative Wall Street investment houses were allowed to run amok and manufacture ways to make money out of nothing and build a house of cards of debt that came crashing down at the worst possible time.

The net result of this is that the Republicans cannot be trusted.  They appear to be willing to do whatever it takes to gain and keep power.  The pattern of deceit, unethical practices and arrogance has not gone unnoticed, with many moderates such as myself disgusted with what they have seen and many abandoning the party choice despite his simply being smeared by those around him.  

I am embarrassed to say I am a Republican.

Wow, powerful stuff.

All to often we see negative ads dominating the election process, from the Barry Goldwater daisy girl to Willie Horton. Here is the kind of ad we should be getting from Obama and McCain. Go Ralph!

With Election Day a few short days away, I have to pause and reflect on how the theme of "change" has shaped this excessively lengthy election season.

1. For all the talk of "change" from both candidates, hasn't it been pretty much like always? Outrageous promises made from both sides, lacking details about how to implement plans or pay for them? Doesn't sound much like change to me.
2. Power brokers continue to dominate the process. Obama, backed by Ted Kennedy and Speaker Pelosi, steamrolled the presumed frontrunner to capture the Democratic nomination based on his call for "change." On the other side, McCain chose Palin for his VP in an effort to placate the conservative/evangelical wing of his party. His call for change might just be the sort of "me too" approach we've seen in many elections, but either way his choice reflects the power behind the Republican party. Both cases reflect the same old story of the wielders of power (Democratic old guard or Republican base) dictating the actions of the candidates. Again, that doesn't sound like change to me.
   
3. Money talks. Anybody catch the Obama infomercial? It underscored the sad truth that money is what makes any election go. McCain took public financing and is getting buried by Obama's money-raising machine. The federal government aka US taxpayers -- gave McCain a lump sumof $75 million for his campaign, and he's still buried. (I think I recall reading that Obama raised more than that in one month on at least two occasions.) "Money talks" is not change either.

Those of us hoping for change should do well to consider all the facts before voting next week. Sure, most Americans are tired of Bush -- most presidents wear out their welcomes after two terms, even the popular ones. Also, each new presidentmay bring in many of his own people to fill top jobs, but the federal bureacracy is so vast and entrenched that it would take a minor miracle to push real change down throughout the executive branch.

When you cast your vote, vote for the candidate that you think will honestly do a good job and not just a candidate that promises change. Remember, electing a goat for president would be change too...

In a couple of hours, Yankee Stadium will host its final professional baseball game. It has seen an obscene parade of stars over the years, from Ruth and Gehrig to DiMaggio and Dickey to Berra and Ford and Mantle, and winding up with Jeter and Mariano.

Growing up in New York City (or "the city" as it's known to the locals), I spent my share of afternoons at Yankee Stadium enjoying the winning ways of Reggie and Munson, and the not so great years of Winfield and Mattingly. It was a wonderful run for me, capped off by my very last game at the stadium -- Game 5 of the 2001 World Series. (I was sitting just beyond the left field wall for that game, and got a close look at Scott Brosius' game-tying homer in the ninth inning. In fact, stop the video at 12 seconds and find the "M" in Moments on the Kodak sign -- I'm wearing a bright blue jacket about one inch above the M.)

It's a shame things didn't work out this season and the last game played there will not be in the playoffs. I have no doubt, though, that come next year we'll be right back in the thick of things where we belong. We'll just be missing our old friend Yankee Stadium, but we'll have our new friend Yankee Stadium to keep us company.

Late comedian Richard Jeni had it right when he categorized the polarizing political climate in this country: "If you're on the far left or the far right, you know what you've done? You've gone too far."

I've always had a problem with this sort of extremism, as it blinds people to realities. Personally, I tend to be liberal in some areas and conservative in others (which probably makes me somewhat of a pariah to both sides... Move over, Joe Lieberman.)

Anyway, enjoy this clip that captures our political system so perfectly. 

The Democratic National Convention is upon us, and tonight Hillary Clinton will address the crowd. What will she say?

She put up a long, hard primary fight and blew what almost everyone considered a lock for the nomination; she stands at a crossroads now, and none of the options look very good. She wants to be President, almost as badly as Bill Clinton wants her to be President. BUT...

I mentioned in an earlier post about a possibility for a last-minute Clinton move that could snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. The pieces are falling into place as I predicted:

• Barack Obama got the Florida and Michigan delegations full voting rights
• Obama picked Biden as his VP -- an establishment old white male (hardly indicative of "change")
• Clinton supporters are angry over his apparent dismissal of Hillary as a VP choice
• Hillary will be voted upon as a nominated candidate
  
• Bill got dissed in his speech topic (national security instead of the economy, which he believes he excels at)
  
• The vaunted Obama lead in the polls over John McCain has vanished

Her options at this point are few:

1. She throws full and active support behind Obama, and when he wins resigns herself to the fact that she'll never become President.
2. She throws half-hearted support behind Obama, and when he wins resigns herself to the fact that she'll never become President.
3. She throws full and active support behind Obama, and hopes he loses so she can run in 2012.
4. She throws half-hearted support behind Obama, and hopes he loses so she can run in 2012.

Well, #1 and #2 won't cut the mustard. As for the other two, hoping Obama loses is one thing but helping that happen with half-hearted support will royally piss off the Democratic Party, and she can kiss goodbye any election chances in 2012. That leaves #3, but it'll be hard to work hard for an outcome she doesn't really want.

The alternative to #3 is to pull off the Clinton Ambush. Convince her followers to vote for her nomination, while convincing a hundred or so superdelegates not to vote for Obama on the first ballot. That opens up the floor to the real question -- is Obama really best positioned to capture the White House and lead the country?

Both options -- work hard and hope he fails, or pull off the Clinton Ambush -- are fraught with peril. If she wants to be President, though, she'll need to make a hard choice. Still, making hard choices is the hallmark of a good President, isn't it?

An idea has been percolating in my brain over the past few weeks, as I witness the media event that is the Obama world tour. I'm watching him continue his domination of the news with little real substance, and yet McCain is still on his tail in the polls. This has to be troubling the Democratic Party leadership.

Then it hits me... there's something going on underwraps, and I'm going to blow the lid off it.

Except that I'm not the only one who's been thinking, and someone else beat me to it.

When the Democratic Convention gets underway at month's end, there could very well be some serious drama up to, and possibly including, a nomination for Hillary Clinton as Democratic candidate for President.

Think back, her delegate total wasn't that far short of Obama's. His big lead was on the superdelegate side -- those government and party bigwigs that are focused above all on taking back the White House and have no problem switching allegiances. In fact, if Hillary can get a hundred or so supers to switch positions or even just sit out the first vote, Obama won't have enough votes to get nominated on the first try. After that, the "pledged" delegates can vote for whoever they feel like.

In a further show of arrogance, Obama is calling for party officials to fully seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan and grant them full voting rights. Apart from potentially causing chaos next primary season, this move increases Hillary's pledged delegates and makes it easier for her to blindside him. I love this quote from the article:

This is proof that the man should not be negotiating with Ahmadinejad. If he cannot think strategically and recognize his vulnerability to a last minute ambush at the convention, he would be eaten alive in big league world affairs.

This convention is going to be more interesting than any of us realized...

Yesterday's news broadcast reported yet another drop in gas prices, for the 20th day in a row. Good news for sure, but plenty of room for more improvement there. After all, with gas still so high it's premature to do any celebrating. Still, falling gas prices is a good trend.

So what's causing prices to drop?

It isn't speculators, that's for sure. Speculators have been blamed for rising prices, but they are no more than investors gambling on which way prices will go down the road. They're smarter than the slot-machine jockeys you'll see in Atlantic City or Reno too -- if they bet prices will go up, that's because there's a good chance prices will go up. It's a cause-and-effect thing lost on many of our Congressmen, who seem to think that prices go up because the speculators "bet" it up. By that thinking, will black come out on a roulette wheel because I bet the farm on black? I don't think so...

It isn't Iran either. Sanctions remain in place, with talk of additional ones, due to continued intransigence over their nuclear plans. In the past, skittishness over this subject has goosed up prices. Didn't happen this time, though. 

Think back a bit, what happened about three weeks ago that could have caused this steady drop in prices?

On July 14, when a barrel of oil cost $144, President Bush reversed the executive moratorium on offshore drilling. It meant little at the time, we were told, because Congressional and state bans were still in place. Besides, as many Congressmen assured us, we can't drill our way out of high gas prices. Drilling wouldn't bear fruit for ten years, they said.

Curious how quickly "ten years" have passed, though. Prices started dropping almost immediately on this first step by our government down the road of "we're not going to take it anymore." Poll after poll shows the American voter overwhelmingly wants this drilling, if only to help reduce prices. Congress, meanwhile, has utterly failed to do anything to help. Plus, in an ironic twist, the ban they refuse to consider voting to lift may expire from their inactivity.

By the way, a barrel of oil is down to $118. 

Have I mentioned that I'm really not happy about Congress, or that our only two real choices for President -- McCain and Obama -- are Congressmen?