A Maverick or a Gambler ?

Jo Becker and Don van Natta Jr from The New York Times delivered a very interesting paper on John McCain and his relationship to gambling and the gambling industry*.

The man is a gambler, and members of his team as well as major sponsors of his campaign have close ties with the industry.

This doesn't come as a surprise and explains a lot about the man, and his behavior... particularily after a week during which the wheel kept turning in the wrong direction for him.

I want to raise the issue of timing. Why raise this issue right now ?

It sounds like more and more people, including in the GOP, are not feeling so comfortable with the McCain-Palin ticket.

Palin is a magnet for theocons, but a scarecrow for voters who want a reliable vice-president instead of a theocon puppet. McCain and Bush will have to invent a major diversion to cancel her "debate" with Joe Biden (even if the format of the meeting protects her : no direct confrontation, this impostor can safely recitate Schmidt's mantras)

McCain was relatively spared, but the media will be more focusing on his character in the days to come : a gambler, often bad tempered, a womanizer who dumped his first wife because she didn't look as nice after a dramatic car incident... not exactly a poster child for the religious right.

True Republicans will feel relieved if this ticket fails. It's the only way of reforming the GOP, of getting rid of the Bush-Cheney theocon-neocon clique who disgraced the party and the country over the past 8 years.

Expect more circumstantiated character destruction about John McCain and Sarah Palin in the days to come.

This character destruction will prevent the character assassination of the US of A**.


* see "McCain and Team Have Many Ties to Gambling Industry" (NYT 20080928)
** see "Change is coming" and Mac "will fight", but for whom and for what ?"

Pink blogule to Hollywood - followers at best

Ang Lee truly was the best director around. To me, it means even more than the best picture award : he won on the human side, and anyway "Brokeback Mountain" has already become an all time great.
"Crash" won't reach that level. That movie reminds me of "Boyz n the Hood" : a "sign 'o the times" flick with a clear message and an interesting twist, but a little bit too much arranged and caricatural... just like Haggis' scenario for "Million Dollar Baby". You can enjoy it on the spot (good parts, great actors) but unlike Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing", the effect doesn't last. I guess Hollywood voters* were touched by the painting of the L.A. clamors reaching almost the top of their Beverly Hill fences.
That was a nice year for indies, but Hollywood didn't go all the way for their 2006 Academy Awards. George Clooney nailed it quite well by saying Hollywood "reflect society, not truly lead it".
Hollywood was two years too late because the majors accepted a deal with the Devil : our Administration passes the laws you want, don't attack us before the elections. Last year, it was as if the majors offered more playtime to their independant arms. But come moneytime or the All Star Game, only the big names did get their chances.


* (as Jon Stewart put it) "the first time many of [which] have ever voted for a winner".