On What to Do About President Lieberman

There is a great deal of anger amongst progressives today. And rightfully so. We have seen the most important political initiative in the last several decades be shanghaied by a petulant, spoiled brat. All the bad things they are saying about him are absolutely true. He was against the misuse of the filibuster until recently. He favored universal coverage, or so he said in his 2006 campaign. He was THE advocate for a medicare buy-in, and endorsed it as recently as September. And he told the New York Times today that when he realized that liberals actually liked the medicare buy-in, he decided to turn against it. Unbelievable. This so far exceeds any decent politics, even in today's hyper-partisan era (at least from the Republicans), that it borders into the realm of evil. And I do not say that lightly.

So what do we do about Traitor Joe? It is so tempting to strip him of his chairmanship. It would mean so much to expel him from the caucus. But none of that gets us health care.

Whatever we do or don't do to our pseudo-President, we cannot lose sight of so many in need of better health care. I say pass whatever's left of the bill, concentrating on reforms such as pre-existing conditions and improving access. Then pass a medicare buy-in and/or truly robust public option as a reconciliation bill. Does anyone think that the Republicans wouldn't have the stones to do it if it what they wanted to? IT WOULD ALREADY BE DONE.

We also need to reform the Senate rules so that a tiny group of industry protectionists can NEVER do this again. The simplest way to do it would be for Harry Reid to effect a change in filibuster rules, which can be done by a simple majority vote. Set it at 55. Or make all filibusters true filibusters - get your frickin' dictionary and hold the floor as long as you can. Again if it were the Republicans, and they had been filibustered a record number of times, IT WOULD ALREADY BE DONE.

The best way to deal with A--hole-In-Chief Lieberman is to mute his power through reconciliation and changes in the filibuster. Reduce his irritating yapping to background noise. And by the way, Connecticut citizens - think about a anti-spoiled brat rule in your state and federal elections - if you lose your primary, you can't turn around and run as an independent.

He makes me sick to my stomach, but let's keep our eye on the prize. There must be true reform and true choice. Do not give up the fight.

Pallin' with Palin Update: The Independent Run Looms

Since stating several months ago that she would run Third Party/Independent for President in 2012, around the time of her resignation as Governor of Alaska, I think subsequent events only continue to bear this out. She endorsed a third party choice in NY-23, causing a huge uproar in the Republican Party. Her candidate succeeded in sidelining the Republican, but also created an opening for a narrow victory by the Democrat (first win in that district in over a century).

Her book has been unkind towards her Republican handlers, showing she is completely willing to burn bridges (including those that seem to go nowhere). Her book tour shows no inclination towards any conventional wisdom in her conduct. It does show she's mostly interested in Sarah, with $16 photos, controlled media and SarahPac promotions. Her remarks have shown no sensitivity to pragmatic politics, and often created more media frenzy than they warranted.

As I stated in the original Pallin' with Palin article, she has no desire to run the gauntlet of Republican debates and primaries. She can run from day one her own way by becoming an Independent. She will probably do this by grasping the controls of emerging and/or existing parties, including the growing Tea Party movement, and perhaps the Constitution and Reform parties, It would also be a major coup to secure the Libertarian Party nomination, which Bob Barr has shown can be shanghaied by an outsider.

Depending on circumstances, she could garner anywhere from five to twenty per cent of the vote. She could possibly win a handful of extremely conservative states. I doubt that this in itself would be enough to jeopardize the election of a mainstream candidate, but politics is full of surprises. If unemployment remains or soars, do not expect the reaction of the American people to be rational. The 1930s were a rocky time in World history, with the Depression bringing out extreme virulent forms of fascism and communism. Thank God we had FDR and his confident pragmatism to steer us through. We can only pray that Obama has the same ability to see us through, and that as a nation our political maturity has not deteriorated. If not, then the minor threat of Palin may turn into the biggest disaster this nation has ever faced.

Sci Fi on TV - What the Hell do you Want?

I have noticed this phenomenon for many years, but it seems particularly pronounced right now. A science fiction program will open with great and/or spectacular ratings, and then those ratings will rapidly deteriorate over subsequent episodes. This has been most pronounced recently with the premieres of Flash Forward and V. Both opened up to great ratings, both had sharp audience declines in subsequent weeks. The ratings are also dropping for returning series Fringe and Heroes. If they continue to go down, we may be left awash in a sea of reality shows, doctor soaps and crime procedurals.

If science fiction was unpopular, it wouldn't get the initial ratings that it does. So my question out there to all my loyal followers, and the proud few who blindly stumble across this blog is WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT? What is it in the science fiction series that come on that make you sample but not stick? What is it that you're looking for but not finding?

Although some science fiction programs have had some success in the ratings, few have been consistent top ten programs. The X-Files had the most success in that regard. I think it worked because it was a crime procedural in scifi clothing. It also had a heavy case of the week feel. There were continuing elements, but they were almost secondary (at least for most of it's run). Lost flirted with top ten status initially, but now is more of a cult/DVR/demographic hit. It's emphasis on character and de-emphasis on scifi elements probably helped it early on. Burt as the story grew more complex and clearly scifi, it's fan base shrank some (although vocal and hard core).

Another trend I worry about is the USAfication of scifi shows. USA Network specializes in shows that are light, airy, built on amusing interplay between quirky but likable leads, with a de-emphasis on continuing elements. SyFy is gravitating to these kinds of shows, with Eureka and Warehouse 13. These aren't horrible shows, but they're nowhere near as filling as such greats as Battlestar Galactica, Buffy, Pushing Daisies, Firefly and hell, even Dollhouse.

Well, that's just some thoughts I have on a genre that I haven't blogged about until now, but it is a big part of my life. I really would appreciate some feedback from others as to what they may be looking for in science fiction television.

And then, later, maybe we can talk about comic books!