For All Mankind 4.5: Al Gore as President and AI

My favorite part of For All Mankind 4.5 was Al Gore as President, 2001-2005.  First of all, that's an especially satisfying piece of alternate history, since in our reality Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, and the Republican dominated US Supreme Court stopped the recounts in Florida which could have given Gore a victory in the essential Electoral College as well.  (Also, in my time travel story, Ian's Ions and Eons, a time-traveler from the future goes back to 2000 to prevent the Supreme Court from taking that election victory away from Gore, and it's fun to see Gore in the White House in For All Mankind, a completely different story.)

Gore as President could have given the US and the world a real jump on the climate crisis, which of course he was sounding clarion calls about in the first decade of the 21st century in our reality.  I'd like to see something showing Gore as President leading the world in responding to global warming in For All Mankind.  So far, the only notable alternate history flourish in Gore's alternate history Presidency is his taking credit for discovering a very valuable asteroid approaching Mars, mirroring what he said about inventing the Internet in our reality.  Both cases were accidentally misleading statements by Gore, but the media in both realities had a field day with them.

There hasn't been much about AI in For All Mankind as yet, but it's no doubt being used to make the fictional Gore speak so clearly about things the real Gore certainly wasn't exactly talking about in our history.  It struck me that maybe the reason the series ditched Gorbachev is there wasn't enough raw material from our history for AI to put whatever words the narrative may have needed for a Gorbachev who stayed in power in our reality at least through the early 21st century.

[And now some spoilers ahead ... ]

As what's going on now in For All Mankind on Mars, it was painful to see Poole and Baldwin at such odds, but that was probably inevitable.   The two have gone from saying hello Bob to each other to Poole stripping Baldwin from his rank and position.  I agreed with Baldwin that Poole was wrong to send the Russian back to Earth in the previous episode, but she's not wrong to be concerned about the tremor in Baldwin's hand.

On the bright side, it was good to see Dev going up to Mars permanently, and I'm looking forward to seeing how things develop with all of our characters back in the US and USSR.

Chuck Todd and Paul Levinson talk Alternate History, including For All Mankind

See also For All Mankind 4.1: Back in Business and Alternate Reality ... 4.2: The Fate of Gorbachev ... 4.3-4.4: The Soviet Union in the 21st Century, On Earth and Mars

And see also For All Mankind 3.1: The Alternate Reality Progresses ... 3.2: D-Mail ... 3.3-3.4: The Race

And see also For All Mankind, Season 1 and Episode 2.1: Alternate Space Race Reality ... For All Mankind 2.2: The Peanut Butter Sandwich ... For All Mankind 2.3: "Guns to the Moon" ... For All Mankind 2.4: Close to Reality ... For All Mankind 2.5: Johnny and the Wrath of Kahn ... For All Mankind 2.6: Couplings ... For All Mankind 2.7: Alternate History Surges ... For All Mankind 2.8: Really Lost in Translation ... For All Mankind 2.9: Relationships ... For All Mankind 2.10: Definitely Not the End

For All Mankind 4.1: Back in Business and Alternate History

For All Mankind is back with the debut of its 4th season on Apple TV+ today, and it's excellent in all kinds of ways.

[Mild spoilers ahead ... ]

As readers of my reviews -- and for that matter, my novels and short stories -- will no doubt know, what I most like about this series are not its life-and-death adventures out in space and here on Earth, which are suitably staged and enacted, but the alternate history framework in which all of that is presented.

As the world turns into the 21st century in this new season, among my favorite alternate history highlights are Gore is elected President in 2000 (good), Gorbachev is still in power in the Soviet Union (better), and John Lennon's doing concerts (best of all).  I've written time-travel science fiction about the first (Ian's Ions and Eons), thought a lot about the second, and have an award-nominated novel (The Loose Ends Saga) and a short story (It's Real Life) that's won and been nominated for awards, made into a radio play, and I'm currently expanding into a novel, (a world in John Lennon is alive and The Beatles still together in 1996).   For All Mankind excels in this kind of stuff, which is catnip for alternate histories devotes like me.

Meanwhile, there is lots of adventure, ranging from political and personal intrigue down here on Earth, and life-and-death situations resulting in death out in space.  This is realistic, and has been part of this series since its first season.  When you're pressing the boundaries beyond this planet, accidents and misjudgements are bound to happen.

The keys to avoiding them, or making the best of them, of course reside in the personnel.  I miss all the characters who for one reason or another haven't made it into this fourth season.  And it's too soon for me to get to have confidence in the newcomers.  But I'm very glad this series is back on the air, and I'll be reviewing every episode.

Chuck Todd and Paul Levinson talk Alternate History, including For All Mankind

See also For All Mankind 3.1: The Alternate Reality Progresses ... 3.2: D-Mail ... 3.3-3.4: The Race

And see also For All Mankind, Season 1 and Episode 2.1: Alternate Space Race Reality ... For All Mankind 2.2: The Peanut Butter Sandwich ... For All Mankind 2.3: "Guns to the Moon" ... For All Mankind 2.4: Close to Reality ... For All Mankind 2.5: Johnny and the Wrath of Kahn ... For All Mankind 2.6: Couplings ... For All Mankind 2.7: Alternate History Surges ... For All Mankind 2.8: Really Lost in Translation ... For All Mankind 2.9: Relationships ... For All Mankind 2.10: Definitely Not the End

get the paperback or Kindle of this alternate history here

or read the story FREE here

=========================

The Loose Ends Saga 

=========================

Ian's Ions and Eons

House of Cards Season 5: Reality Less Alternate

Well, it's obvious that with Trump in the White House, the alternate reality that House of Cards is with Frank Underwood as President is a lot less alternate than it was last year, in Season 4, with Obama in the White House on our nonfictional television screens.  Indeed the only big difference between Trump and Frank is that Trump has not actually murdered anybody - by his own hand or by order - and I'm not sure how much money I would bet on that, especially the latter.

That said, however, Frank Underwood is a vastly more literate and likely intelligent man that the current winner of the Electoral College vote.  Frank has a grasp of history so astute that he knows that Jefferson not Washington was the author of a famous statement.  One gets the impression that Trump won more from dumb luck that brilliant planning, which is precisely the opposite of how Frank has climbed to the top.

In previous seasons, we've seen Frank first work his way into the Vice Presidency, and then into the Presidency, culminating with a knock on the desk in the Oval Office, and a trail of bodies and broken lives in his wake.  He does the same in the first half or so of Season 5, holding on to the Presidency in the face of a JFK-like Republican challenge.  I don't know if I find the way he did it - manipulating the governors of Tennessee and Ohio to close their polls, due to a terrorist threat that Frank fabricated - completely plausible, but it worked in the narrative.

Even less plausible is Frank withdrawing in favor of his VP wife Claire, on her promise that she'll grant him a pardon (which of course she doesn't - at least not when she says she will - which nicely sets up the next season).  Claire has really come into her own as almost or even every bit Frank's equal in this season, with a new hairdo about halfway through that makes her look more like Megyn Kelly than Mika Brzezinski, and killing her lover Tom literally in flagrante delicto with her on top, which puts her not only in Frank's class but a significant step above.

But I don't completely buy Frank resigning because he thinks the truest power resides outside the White House, not to mention that he had to have seen that Claire's promise of a pardon could be broken.  So I'll be eagerly awaiting the next installment of this alternate reality, which begins sometime after Al Gore conceded and then withdrew his concession in 2000, which Frank aptly cites.

And it will be fun to see how the two new enigmatically powerful advisors whose loyalty to Frank or Claire is unclear - gamely played Campbell Scott and Patricia Clarkson - all works out.

See also House of Cards Season 1: A Review ... House of Cards Season 2: Even Better than the First, and Why ... House of Cards Season 3: Frank, Claire, "Putin," and Superb ... House of Cards Season 4: Trump and Frank

Ending the Electoral College

Yesterday as an extraordinary day, the likes I which I haven't seen since I rallied against the Vietnam War at the Pentagon in 1969, and my wife (then girlfriend) and I marched against that same immoral, unconstitutional war that same year in New York City.   Yesterday, my son and daughter and nephew marched in New York City against Trump and everything he espouses.  My daughter-in-law and mother-in-law marched against the new President and his polices in Washington, DC.  Another nephew was at a similar rally for decency in Barcelona.   My wife was taking care of our grandson, and I helped out a little with that, too.

The marches against Trump were also rallies against immorality.  But not against a violation of the Constitution.  Because, unlike the Vietnam War, which occurred without the Declaration of War mandated by our Constitution, Donald Trump was elected President in accordance with our Constitution.  He received more than the required majority of votes in the Electoral College.

We'll never be able to precisely identify all the factors that led to this miscarriage of democracy - miscarriage not only figuratively, but literally, since Trump lost the popular vote.   If I had to identify the single most important factor, I would certainly put James Comey's public statements about possible Hillary Clinton email on her assistant's computer, so close to the election, in stark violation of FBI precedent and policy, right up there as a grievously significant factor.  But it's obviously not the single most important factor.  Because that would have to be the Electoral College.

Because, look, even with Comey's statements, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million.  Which means that the only absolutely knowable reason Trump not Hillary is now President is  Electoral College.

Yeah, I know that Trump's campaign would have been deployed differently if winning depended on the popular vote.   But Trump only won because he won very narrowly in a lot of states.  How could those narrow margins possibly have added up to a victory for Trump in popular vote, however differently he might have campaigned?

And, this is not the first time in recent history the Electoral College has defeated democracy.  The Supreme Court wouldn't have been called on to make a decision in Bush v. Gore over the Florida vote in 2000 - and awarded the election to Bush - if there had been no Electoral College - because in that year, Gore won the national vote, and no one objected to the national vote count.

The rallies yesterday are aptly focused on winning elections in two years, and after.  That's the only way to stop Trump and Republicans who support him.   But that impressive power - correctly identified in the media as the most powerful demonstrations since the Vietnam War - needs to go further.   We need to once and for all retire the Electoral College.  We need to insist that a vote in California or New York counts exactly the same as a vote cast in Michigan or Wisconsin.

This doesn't guarantee that someone like Trump would not be elected again.  But it will mean that an occupant of the White House will never again be a product of an antiquated system designed to protect the nation from democracy, rather than directly express the will of the people, which is democracy itself.

Why the Recounts in WI, MI, and PA Make Sense

I don't think they're likely to change the results of our Presidential election - Hillary Clinton would need to win all three of these states to win the electoral vote -  but I'm glad to see that the recounts for Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have been funded and are proceeding,

In order for democracy to work, we have to have 100% confidence in the results of elections - not that we have to like them, but we need to believe in them.  And if we don't like them, we can use those results as the basis for improving our losing positions, so they won't be losing next time.

Hillary Clinton of course won the national popular vote.  She lost the electoral vote, based on the tallies before the recounts.   But that crucial difference, in itself, demands that we be super sure when it comes to the counts in crucial states.

Computer scientists say that the voting patterns reported in those three states are such that there could be some sort of irregularities in the tallies.  That doesn't mean that there are - but surely we should investigate further.

It's often said that previous candidates who lost in close Presidential elections didn't go for recounts. Nixon didn't in his close loss to JFK in 1960, and Gore didn't in his loss to Bush in 2000 (when Gore also won the national popular vote).

But Nixon didn't lose to a Donald Trump, and Gore actually did pursue recounts in Florida, which were stopped not by him but by a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who joined the majority decision to stop the recount, later said she regretted.

The election of Trump is the most extraordinarily bad result of a Presidential election in my and I'd bet most Americans' lifetimes (well, certainly a majority).   We owe it to ourselves and the future of this country and the world to be sure of its results.

Review of Connected: A Triple Threat Movie by Tiffany Shlain

Just saw Tiffany Shlain's new documentary Connected: An Autoblogography about Love, Death & Technology via private online screening.  I saw an earlier version about a year ago, and was well impressed both times.

The movie is actually three in one -

1. Connected is a sagely and even delightfully presented story of our interconnectedness as a species - among ourselves, all living things, and the technologies through which we extend ourselves and give substance to our imaginations, plans, and desires.   In its warnings about what we can do wrong - such as Mao's killing of sparrows to improve harvests (sparrows eat seeds) which resulted in massive crop failure (fewer sparrows resulted in more locusts, also eaten by sparrows) - Connected is cousin to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.  In the hope it holds out for our new media, it is the kind of movie Buckminster Fuller might have made.

2.  Connected is a passionate biography of Leonard Shlain (1937-2009) - Tiffany's father - whose The Alphabet versus the Goddess (1999) argued that the advent of the alphabet over earlier forms of writing encouraged masculine thinking and dominance.   In its daring media determinism and historical sweep, the book put Leonard Shlain on a par with Julian Jaynes as a worthy successor to Marshall McLuhan in provocative and mind-opening hypothesis.

3. But Connected is most of all an autobiography of Tiffany Shlain, who recounts her inspiration by her father, her struggle with his passing, her struggle to make sense of the curves the universe has thrown her, and in one way or another, throws at all of us.   That's what it means to be an intelligent being in this world, someone who doesn't just accept what she or he finds, but seeks to understand it, get a little on top of it, and thereby have a little bit more say and control over the course of our lives and the world.

Narrated by Tiffany Shlain and Peter Coyote. Animated bits by Stefan Nadelman (of Food Fight fame). Highly recommended for students of media - indeed, for students of life.

Connected opens in major cities in America in September - here 's a list - and Fordham University will be hosting a special free screening on September 25 as part of its Media at the Center McLuhan Centenary symposia.

Note added October 14, 2011:  I was at the premiere screening in New York City - at the Angelika Film Center - earlier this evening.  The movie's better than ever on the big screen, and the audience loved it.  It's become increasingly clear to me, in the past few weeks, that Tiffany Shlain's movie is the story of humanity, and recent history in particular, leading up to the healthy resurgence of direct democracy in the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street - triggered, stimulated, facilitated by the advent of social media, or what I call New New Media.  Which is what I'll be talking about when I lead a discussion with the audience after the October 19, Wednesday, 7:15pm screening, at The Angelika.

Looking Forward to Olbermann's Return to Countdown on Al Gore's Current TV

Great interview with Keith Olbermann posted in Rolling Stone a few days ago.

As I've written here often over the years, I was no constant fan of Olbermann on MSNBC.  I often found him abrasive, over the top, even trivial (for example, in his critique of 24 as Bush-driven, and in his incessant lampooning of Bill O'Reilly).  But I also found him refreshing, surprising, original, and, at his best, a most needed passionate voice for the progressive point of view.   As he says in the Rolling Stone interview, Olbermann was responsible for putting MSNBC on the map as the progressive counterpoint to Fox's conservativism.

I was therefore not happy when Olbermann was suddenly shown the door at MSNBC earlier this year, by the same or equivalent tone-deaf corporate execs he had dragged kicking and screaming into relevance and eloquence.   And I'm therefore eagerly awaiting Olbermann's return to Countdown on Al Gore's Current TV on June 20.

As Olbermann makes clear in the interview, he does not see Countdown on Current as a graceful swan song - even though Current TV now has at best no more than 10% of any cable all-news audience - but rather as a no holds-barred challenge to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.   Olbermann's new Countdown will be on at the same time as the old one - 8pm Eastern - which means he'll not only be competing against Bill O'Reilly on Fox, and but against his incisive, keenly rational replacement on MSNBC, Lawrence O'Donnell.

In many ways, I like O'Donnell more than Olbermann, in particular O'Donnell's targeted logic and real political experience, in place of Olbermann's passionate showmanship.   But if only to punish slow-witted MSNBC for its treatment of Olbermann, and, more, because I think the progressive view can be well served by another powerful voice on another station (Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly still outnumber the progressives on the air), I will be watching and rooting for Olbermann to shake up television, once again, as hold forth from the station run by the man who at very least won the popular vote for President in 2000, and has himself carved out a unique place for himself in our history.

Olbermann to Have Nightly Show on Current TV

Glad to see this report in the Huffington Post that Keith Olbermann will soon be on Current TV with a new, nightly news and commentary show.   As I noted to a reporter at Crain's New York yesterday, in an interview about AOL's takeover of the Huffington Post, big corporations are not the best foundations for free press and broadcast media.

Although there is no direct evidence that anyone at GE or Comcast was responsible for Olbermann leaving MSNBC, or that Viacom led to Dan Rather's leaving CBS over Docugate, it certainly is reasonable to suppose that Rather would have been more respected had William Paley still been in charge at CBS, and Olbermann would have done better with a more independent MSNBC.    To be clear, I'm not necessarily against corporate acquisitions, and certainly do not want the FCC or FTC to unconstitutionally interfere with such media business, but nor should we be blind to possible adverse consequences of such mergers.

In Olbermann's case, his no-holds-barred progressive commentary will no doubt find a better home on Current TV, with Al Gore and his uncompromising support of free speech at the helm.  As Gore said to the Huffington Post, "We believe at Current that every citizen has freedom of speech, and that freedom of speech includes the ability to donate to candidates of your choice."

In other words, Olbermann is not likely to be abruptly yanked off the air, as he was a few months back on MSNBC, or leave on almost no notice, as also happened on MSNBC, both of which actions redound to MSNBC's discredit.

In other words, Olbermann on Current TV is good for our democracy.

The Shame of Joe Lieberman

Senators Joe Lieberman and Harry Reid met today, to discuss Lieberman's future in the Democratic caucus. With the Democrats presently still short of the magic number of 60 Senators needed to dissolve a filibuster, Lieberman's status could be crucial. After the meeting, Lieberman said he and Reid had had a good discussion, and would be thinking these matters over for a few days.

What a strange journey Joe Lieberman taken. He was Gore's VP candidate in 2000 - an election in which Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote, because the Republican-dominated US Supreme Court stopped the recount in Florida.

Lieberman in 2006 lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut, but went on to be reelected to the Senate as an "Independent". He has since the "caucused" with the Democrats, which gave the Democrats a crucial one-vote majority in the Senate - not enough to stop a filibuster, but still a majority.

So far in this story, I still have some praise for Joe Lieberman. I disagreed strongly with his pro-war policy, but I respected his right to speak his mind, and admired his win as an Independent.

But then Lieberman took a turn for the worse.

He endorsed John McCain for President. On the plus side, Lieberman was entitled to stand up for his friend. On the negative side, did Lieberman agree with all of McCain's policies?

Word at first was that Lieberman would be speaking on behalf of McCain's foreign policy.

But Lieberman's speech at the Republican convention went far beyond foreign policy.

And, he irrevocably crossed a line for me when he stood up there on the stage, beaming next to McCain, as the Republican candidate attacked Obama's economic domestic policy.

What happened to Joe Lieberman, the hawkish Democrat, who still professed to support the Democratic progressive economic agenda? Did he want McCain to be President so much, that Lieberman was able to swallow and endorse the Republican lies about Obama's tax policy and all the rest?

I always liked Josiah Royce's Philosophy of Loyalty (1908), and its thesis there's no greater good in the universe than loyalty - but loyalty both to people and to principles. We need both. Lieberman put his loyalty to McCain above his loyalty to his progressive principles. He allowed his loyalty to McCain to betray his principles - either that, or he never had those Democratic principles in the first place, but just pretended he did.

Shame on you, Joe Lieberman. Were it up to me, I would rather see the Democrats have one vote less in the Senate than ever see you counted as part of our party.

Al Gore: The Two Lines of History Converge

Al Gore won the Presidency in 2000. He certainly won the popular vote, and likely would have won the electoral college vote, too, had the Republican dominated Supreme Court not stepped in - unconstitutionally - and stopped the recount in Florida.

A lesser man might have given up public service in the face of such public abuse. But Al Gore became a citizen of the world, championing an issue upon which the future of this planet depends. He never became President, but he galvanized a planet and won the Nobel Prize.

And tonight he spoke at Mile High Stadium at the Democratic Convention on behalf of Barack Obama. Talk about appealing to our better angels - no one could spoken more eloquently of the need not only of country but our globe for an American President not beholding to oil companies and the ways of the past. As Gore aptly pointed out, the same progressive policy that would free us from dependence on oil would not only help the climate but our economy and national security as well.

Had Al Gore been allowed to become President eight years ago, he might well have been on this same stage tonight, endorsing Barack Obama as his successor.

The two lines of history - Al Gore as rightful President, Al Gore not in office and eight years of Bush-Cheney - converged tonight in Denver. The result will be the same - Barack Obama as the next President. History is at last correcting itself.

And I'll be back later after Obama's acceptance speech.



See also Obama Delivers New Kind of Speech - Calls Out McCain on "Temperament"

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day Three: America Moves Up - Obama Nominated! ... Biden Hits McCain on Everything from Afghanistan to Amtrak

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day Two: Patrick Buchanan on MSNBC: Hillary Will Campaign Hard for Obama, But Won't Shed Tears If He Loses ... Hillary Speaks Powerfully at Democratic Convention, in a Scene for the Ages

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day One: Olbermann to Scarborough on MSNBC: "Jesus, Joe, Get a Shovel!" ... Ted Kennedy at 2008 Democratic Convention: JFK Would Be Smiling ... Michelle Obama's Speech: Bringing Home America

Another Finest Hour for Al Gore: He Endorses Barack Obama

He undoubtedly won the popular vote for President in 2000. He likely won the electoral college vote, too, but we'll never know, because the Supreme Court exceeded its authority and stopped the recount in Florida. He went on the galvanize a planet about the need to take global warming seriously.

Al Gore has had many finest hours. His endorsement of Barack Obama in Detroit tonight was surely among them. Gore hit all the right notes, including Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq before we went in (Gore expressed the same in September 2002), and the similarities in inspiration between Obama and JFK.

It was a special moment seeing Al Gore back in the political fray tonight. He couldn't have picked a better time. As Gore himself said, what's at stake has never been higher.

I would have liked to have seen Gore become President - there would have been a cosmic poetic justice in that. But I'll settle for Gore's endorsement of Obama tonight.

Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize: No US Supreme Court Could Stop It

The news just went up on the nobelpeaceprize.org - Al Gore (along with the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change) has won the Nobel Peace Prize!

No neo-con US Supreme Court was able to get in the way of this.

Whatever the specifics of global warming, Al Gore deserves enormous credit for coaxing the world to think of itself in global terms. He was able to do this, after going through the extraordinary ordeal of winning the popular vote for US President in 2000, and not becoming President.

It is rare that history provides an opportunity to remedy such an error.

I hope Al Gore gives the American people a chance to correct it.

See also Gore's Nomination for Nobe Prize Poetic Justice

Emmy Analects and Predictions

Just bopping in here with a few observations and predictions about tonight's Prime Time Emmy Awards ...

The very first Emmy, given back in 1949, was given to a ventriloquist - there has to be some significance in that.

Al Gore's up for an award for his Current TV cable and internet venture. Would be great if he announced he was running for President, but I predict he won't (make the announcement tonight, that is).

The Sopranos is deservedly nominated in a huge number of categories. The only real question, then, is in which category or categories it will lose. I'm predicting Michael Imperioli will not win Best Supporting Actor in a Drama Series for playing Christopher Moltisanti (though he did a superb job). The winner will be: Masi Oka for playing Hiro Nakamura on Heroes!

Ugly Betty will win for Best Comedy Series, but Mary-Louise Parker will win for playing Nancy Botwin on Weeds.

And last prediction for this morning: look for Colbert to win Outstanding Music, Variety, or Comedy series...

See you later tonight ...

Weeds 3 Eps 4-5: Prius and Gluteus

I've been so busy writing political stuff that I didn't get a chance to post my review of Weeds last week. But I've got my priorities straight now - at least, for the next few minutes - and so herewith a double-shot review of Weeds, Episodes 4 and 5.

They actually do go together in lots of ways - most of them really turning the screws up on Nancy in this ever darker but still very funny comedy. Silas is dealing, Nancy's driving the car - her Prius - as U-Turn gives shoot-em-up payback to the guys who shot Marvin in the gluteus maximus (his certainly maximus), and Nancy ends up with a big shipment of heroin tonight...

But speaking of Nancy's Prius, I was delighted to see her use her car for Bluetooth, wireless phone calls - I've been writing about the enjoyment I've been taking in my Prius Bluetooth connection for almost a year - and U-Turn pick up on that, too. He buys a whole fleet of Priuses for his crew. Sure, it was for the Bluetooth. But nothing wrong in combining a little blue with green. Too bad the Live Earth concert already took place - Al could have had U-Turn on as example of even drug dealers being environmentally helpful (hey, better that than U-Turn driving a gas guzzler).

Meanwhile, Andy's gotten out of his army service - but at a terrible price. His gung-ho buddy is killed by some kind of new weapon, and the military wants to keep this quiet, so Andy's ushered out.

There was also another aspect of this ... Suffice to say that ass seems to be playing a large role on Weeds this year ... and come to think of it, there was something about that in Californication tonight, too...

Anyway ... apologies again for falling behind with my reviews of Weeds ... I'll be better from now on...

See also Nine Reasons I Love My Prius

listen to 20-minute podcast about my Prius and Bluetooth, right here...

And see also Weeds in Perspective

and reviews of other Season 3 episodes: 1 ... 2 ... 3. Important, Appealing Questions ... 6. Ray of Hope ... 7. Conrad Rules! ... 12: Nancy and Conrad! ... 13. Shane Pays the Price ... 14. Just Nancy Thought Things Couldn't Get Any Worse ... 15. Finale: The Fire and the Clean Slate

---

The Plot to Save Socrates

"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

Endeavor's Safely Home - On a Wing and a Pun

Space Shuttle Endeavor landed safely in Florida an hour ago. "You've given new meaning to higher education," Ground Control told the crew.

It's rare that a pun was so welcome. Barbara Morgan was the first teacher to fly in space since Christa McAuliffe perished with the crew of the Challenger. Usually wounds like this can never be redressed - we can't go back in a time machine and prevent tragedies from occurring.

But, every once in a while, we as a species manage to put in an aftermath which, while never being able to make up for the loss, seems to put us back on track, and rectify the cosmic wrong.

Teachers are special members of our species down here on Earth. It is in their hands, mostly, that the continuation of our culture and civilization is entrusted. When a teacher like Barbara Morgan goes out into space, she is not only continuing but extending the cutting edge of our culture, and providing a lesson not only to her students but the whole world.

The new fleet should be here in a few years. The shuttles still have some missions to go. Let this be the beginning of an end of the age of the shuttle that shines as brightly as this historic mission of the Endeavor.

And, as for rectifying cosmic injustices ... how about Al Gore and his global perspective getting the Democratic nomination for President...

Dems Debate in the Iowa Morning

The Democratic Presidential debate in Iowa yesterday morning - on ABC-TV - was a fine, articulate exchange. But it had no real surprises, and certainly no knock-out punches.

I continue to be impressed with Obama's position as an outsider - not going along with conventional Washington wisdom on how to deal with world leaders, and correctly putting out that it was the traditional Congressional way of doing things that got us involved in Iraq in the first place. (And kudos here to Bill Richardson, for pointing out that we should have had a Declaration of War - as required by the Constitution - something which only Ron Paul among the Republicans seems able to point out.)

But Hillary continues to be appealing as well, for different reasons. The more Karl Rove attacks her, the better Hillary looks - and responds. Her point about knowing how to beat the Republicans is very well taken. (Well, Gore beat the Republicans too in 2000 - certainly in the popular vote - but no doubt not by the margins that Bill Clinton achieved in 1996 and 1992. My preferred Democratic ticket for 2008, by the way, would still be Gore and Obama.)

John Edwards continues to say good things. I still don't find him as compelling as Obama or Hillary - but his voice deserves to be heard, and the polls in Iowa show a three-way tie among Obama, Clinton, and Edwards.

The truth is, for my money, any of the Democrats are easily better than any of the Republicans, with the exception of Ron Paul.

Leonardo DiCaprio's 11th Hour

Leonardo DiCaprio's The 11th Hour opens this Friday in New York and Los Angeles, and around the country next week.

It's a movie in the tradition of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

You can see a trailer for it here:



I have to say that I'm not really convinced that the Earth or our species are in the 11th hour, and certainly not at 11:59pm - a minute away from utter destruction or extinction - as one of those experts says in the trailer.

We just don't know enough about the Earth, its history, what's going on right now, to make such apocalyptic pronouncements.

Nonetheless, anything that gets us to think like a global community, to look at reducing the environmental problems that do beset us, to understand whether Katrinas are inevitable or avoidable, to come with ways we can all help - any movie that encourages this is very welcome.

So, while I don't agree that we're there, I look forward to seeing The 11th Hour.

Live Earth and YouTube

Live Earth kicked off a few hours ago, with opening concerts in Australia and Japan.

It will be a great event. A truly worldwide concert to raise even more attention, still needed, about global warming. Another valuable contribution from Al Gore, who should have been President.

But it would be even better, and more effective, if it was available on every media outlet - on YouTube, for example, in addition to MSN.

Here is what I said about over-possessive media and Live Earth in Live Earth may set new stage for Web viewing, an article by Yinka Adegoke published on Friday by Reuters:

Media experts say over-restrictive limitations over broadcast rights on on-demand viewing are fast becoming a thing of the past, particularly for an event which is trying to make a difference by getting in front of many eyeballs as possible.

Paul Levinson, professor of communication and media studies at New York's Fordham University, says video clips will show up eventually on YouTube or elsewhere outside of MSN, so it makes more sense to enable video sharing.

"The idea that any organization can keep something in popular culture to itself is 19th Century thinking," he said.

The human spirit doesn't care who has rights to what. Our technologies are already interconnected to make sharing of video and other content effortless. It's time for our media organizations to wake up and smell the percolation.... Our global needs require it.

Meanwhile, here's an article about some of the other controversies swirling around Live Earth.... The path to improving the Earth never did run smooth...

Something New: How About We Look for Best Candidates in =Both= Parties?

The approach most people take to Presidential elections is, pick a candidate - if you can - one candidate, and support him or her to the hilt. If your candidate fails before getting the nomination, you may or may not switch to another, and go through the same process.

If your chosen candidate is a Democrat, you likely will have little real interest in the Republicans, except to hope that they choose the weakest person to run for office. And vice versa - if your favorite candidate is a Republican, all you likely will care about regarding the Democrats is what they can do, presumably unintentionally, to help your Republican candidate win.

But does this approach get the best out of our democracy?

I'm trying something a little different this time around. I am going to try to pick my favorites in both the Democratic and the Republican fields, and do whatever little I can to help them get nominated. If I'm lucky enough to see both nominated, I'll then decide whom to vote for in the general election.

So far, here are my favorites, and why:

Democratic Party:

Al Gore: pluses: his election would correct the deep injustice of the 2000 election, he was anti-Iraq-war from the beginning, he is genuinely interested in science to improve our human condition; minuses: I'm concerned that he may be in favor of Congress's crackdown on "indecency," given his wife Tipper's history on this issue

Barack Obama: pluses: he was anti-Iraq-war from the beginning, he would bring a Kennedy-esque youthful vitality to the White House, it would be healthy for America to have an African-American President; minuses: not enough experience, and untested on many issues

*John Edwards: see below for note added on April 21, in which I've including Edwards in my Democratic favorites

Republican Party:

Ron Paul: pluses: he was anti-Iraq-war from the beginning (and, better than Gore and Obama, was in office at the time, and voted against the war resolutions), he is a vigorous defender of the Constitution and the First Amendment, he is an opponent of government censorship, he's in favor of private enterprise in space (so is Gore); minuses: he's in favor of states (but not the Federal government) banning abortion (I'm in favor of a women's right to choose), an opponent of gun control (I agree that the Second Amendment is consistent with Paul's position - I'm in favor of repealing it), urged US neutrality in Israeli-Hezbollah war

***

So, there you have it. I currently consider myself a supporter of all three candidates. Regarding Gore and Obama, I would certainly be happy with a Democratic ticket that had them both (Gore for Pres, Obama for VP), and I would be happy with a ticket that had either for President. Regarding Ron Paul: at this point, there is no other Republican even remotely as good, in my view.

Regarding the minuses for all three candidates: I'll keep researching their positions and records, and of course be on the look-out for new developments. And I'll also be open to any new candidates, or to any dramatic shifts in all of the candidates currently in the field, but I'm not holding my breath for either.

***

*Added 21 April 2007 - John Edwards' Favorite Book is I. F. Stone's The Trial of Socrates. If find this so impressive - indicative of a love a freedom of expression, and a philosophic depth - that I now include Edwards along with Gore and Obama as Democratic candidates for President that I could enthusiastically support.

===========================================================================

25-minute podcast of this proposal - 14 Oct 2007

Gore and Obama

I received a Friend request the other day over on MySpace from "Gore and Obama" - a group in Washington, DC promoting the possibility of this Democratic ticket in the upcoming election.

I'm not yet sure whom I'll be voting for, but I pretty quicky said yes to the Friend request.

Here's why-

There are some things I don't like about Gore - mostly his wife's campaign (which he endorsed) against what she saw as music dangerous to "children" in the 1980s, and Al Gore's opposition to our space program - but he did win the popular vote in 2000, was the victim of the Supreme Court's intervention preventing a recount in Florida, and, most recently, had the cojones to make a movie - An Inconvenient Truth - about what he believes in (the dangers of global warming).

Lesser men and women would have crawled off under a rock somewhere after the 2000 cauldron. I give Gore credit for pushing the envelope and putting himself out there, eight years later. He showed real moxie making that movie. Also, right or wrong about the specific issue of global warming, I think it's crucial that we start thinking about our planet as a whole.

And what about Obama? I think we need fresh faces and voices. I'm certainly ready to listen to what he has to say. (Plus, he also has the cred of being smeared by Fox News in its wrong reporting of where and how Obama was schooled.)

So ... I'm not yet ready to vote for this ticket ... But I'm more than willing to have it as a MySpace friend...

See also my Gore Nomination for Nobel Prize Poetic Justice