Avenue G

Well folks, this is probably the last entry for Avenue G for a long while.

I started this blog back in 2006 as a way to "cut loose" and do wacky blogs away from the judgmental eyes of coworkers and relatives. That really didn't happen primarily because blogging is a lot of work and I got behind. Supporting two blogs is pretty difficult and time-consuming.

I tried putting Avenue G on "auto-pilot" with syndicated content and selected retreads from my other blog, Strange Fascination. Was hoping that I could focus more interest on the arts and movie/book reviews but it didn't garner enough page hits to be worthwhile.

The blog will stay out here; who knows I might even resume posting to it again if I get the time back in my schedule.

My other blog is still active: http://strange-fascination.blogspot.com

Best wishes and thank you for your patronage faithful readers.

Robert, aka blogSpotter

Labels: Retrospective

What blue dress? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I was a naïve 40 year old Democrat in 1997, when the first whispers of “Monicagate” hit the political airwaves. There was a lot of rumor and innuendo, but no proof that President Bill Clinton, serving his 2nd term, was having an affair with anyone at all. I was a Clinton supporter, and couldn’t imagine that the rumors had any credibility. Clinton was already confronting the Paula Jones accusations; in a Jones deposition he denied any rumors about the 22 year old intern, Monica Lewinski. That Clinton was willing to settle out of court with Paula for $850,000 should’ve clued me in. That’s a nice chunk of change even for a sitting president and ex-lawyer. To friends and anyone who would listen I’d say, “These accusations are ridiculous! There are cameras and people all around!”. I figured that Paula was just a gold-digger. And diehard Clinton-haters were behind all the rest of it.

I was surprised and concerned when the Drudge report broke the story on January 17, 1998. Everyone in my Supply Chain class huddled around the TV in the lounge that afternoon, as the story played out on CNN. This was only Day One, and already the snarky jokes had begun. It seems that Monica Lewinsky, a college intern from an affluent California family, had “inappropriate relations” with Clinton from 1995 thru 1996. Lewinsky’s superiors, well aware of the situation, decided to place her at the Pentagon – well away from the President. There, the love-struck girl became friends with the (still) serpentine, evil Linda Tripp – a motherly, middle-aged confidante with book royalties and political intrigue coiled up in her heart. Lewinsky confessed all to Tripp, who dutifully recorded the conversations and handed them over to Ken Starr, the Independent Counsel investigating Paula Jones. Starr gave Lewinsky “transactional immunity” if she would spill the beans on Clinton. Very reluctantly, Monica did just that – otherwise she could’ve been prosecuted for perjury. She even turned over the infamous “blue dress” (kept at Tripp’s suggestion) to help seal the deal.

The blue dress became the watershed evidence – no longer was there any he-said-she-said. Clinton had to come clean (so to speak) and at the very least admit an “improper relationship”. The rabid Republicans in both houses of Congress were champing at the bit for any reason to take the rascally, popular president down. Imagine their delight when it looked like there was just cause. The House voted to issue Articles of Impeachment, and a 21-day trial ensued in the Senate. Clinton was acquitted of all charges and remained in office. His Arkansas law license was suspended from his earlier false testimony to Starr, but that was his only punitive consequence.

AFTERMATH OF A SCANDAL

Monicagate very nearly became the orbital center of our pop culture for the two years that it played out. Moralists decried the fall of American values. Comedians mined it heavily for a mother lode of jokes which produces gems to this day. Middle aged matrons wagged fingers at Monica – “That filthy tramp!” – without pausing to think that the 50-something Leader of the Free World might have had some control over his own situation. Tripp was easily vilified as the ultimate betrayer and portrayed by John Goodman on SNL. Republicans used Monicagate for “Holier Than Thou” posturing until Larry Flynt came calling, bringing down GOP Congressman Robert Livingston, aspiring Speaker of the House, as the sacrifice that comes of hypocrisy. The scandal produced catch-phrases that resonate to this day:

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
“This vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since he announced for Predident…”
“It depends on what the definition of the word is is”.

Clinton later attributed his indiscretions to stress and pressure. “I cracked, I just cracked”. He since has rebounded admirably as political operative and husband to Hillary who herself has soared as NY Senator and then Secretary of State under Obama. As for Monica, she had a short-lived stint as a C-List celeb after Monicagate, publishing a bio, and attempting a purse line. She has since finished a Masters degree in Psychology from the London School of Economics and otherwise keeps a low profile, away from the glare of publicity. If she never does a noteworthy thing, her contribution to our historical and cultural lore will be inestimable.

© 2010 blogSpotter

Labels: Humor, Politics, Society

I Know You Want Me -- Picture courtesy of Acer

by blogSpotter
Dear readers, I’m having my year-end writer’s block along with coming off of colds, flu and vacations. If I can ever get back to my normal, quiet and otherwise healthy existence I may recover the muse of witty and provocative blog-writing.

That being said, we’ll have to make do with a "Christmas memory" retrospective and movie review combo. My mother has become frail in recent years and we don’t do an over-the-top, house-of-lights yuletide festival that we once did at her house. In fact, this year there was nary a Santa candle to be found on any table top. We still had a wonderful family gathering with good food, cheer and gift exchange. In a Dickensian moment, it finally occurred to me that Christmas is not about the gaudy tinsel decor or the towering Scotch pine Christmas tree. It’s not really about the Mississippi mud pie or pecan fudge desserts. No sir, not at all. In the final analysis, Christmas is about the gifts. OK, you can bring baby Jesus into it too if you want. After we did our exchange of cologne, jewelry, candy, gift cards and various DVD’s all was right with the world. Well, almost right.

My Mother’s gift to herself was a purple (Amethyst) Acer Aspire netbook computer. It’s the new model, with 160GB hard drive and Windows 7 Starter edition. She paid about the same as I paid a year ago for a black HP Mini with Windows XP and a seriously smaller hard drive. I don’t know why my mind works as it does, but in the time that I set up her new Aspire, my HP Mini (which now has a dark spot on the middle of the screen) lost pretty much all of its appeal. How can I go thru major electronics as quickly as other people go thru shirts or magazines? I haven’t done anything yet, but an avocado green mini is probably in the near future for me.

We had 10 people and 4 dogs crowded into 1 house, so I had to flee the premises a couple of times to go to the Round Rock Cinemark. I watched Up In the Air in which George Clooney portrays a workaholic bachelor who lives out of a suitcase and lays people off for a living. The movie is an eye-opener for some of us who can relate to the main character’s lonely but simultaneously clueless situation. This movie will make the viewer question what success is in any real sense. It ends a little bit sadly and ambiguously -- you hope that George’s character, Ryan, has found a key to happiness if not yet happiness itself.

I also caught Sherlock Holmes with Robert Downey and Jude Law. This movie was stylish and plush with eye candy for all. With it’s clever plot twists, technical intrigue and fun bromance attitude, it reminded me of either Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid or maybe The Sting. Some of the technical gimmickry reminded me of Wild, Wild West where things improbable for 2009 are shown happening in London of 1887. No matter -- this movie is certainly not for historical nitpickers. This movie is for anyone who enjoys action, romance, intrigue and plot twists galore -- the main ingredients for all great cinema.

In sum, I had a really fun Christmas and very long (6 day) stay in Round Rock. I’m hoping that my future blog entries bring me back to history, science or philosophy but I’ll need to flush all the cold medicine, flu germs, and Christmas candy out of my system. Cheers, and Happy 2010 to all.


© 2009 blogSpotter

Labels: Cinema, Humor, Retrospective

Who do you love? -- Picture courtesy of Eagle Vision

by blogSpotter
Today’s article is a bit of a mixed bag -- movie review and political commentary. The two are actually (however remotely) connected, for readers who might think I’m totally stream-of-consciousness in my writing. I just watched Blue State, a small-budget sleeper movie from 2007. In it, Breckin Meyer plays John Logue -- a young, Kerry-Edwards campaigner disillusioned by the 2004 Presidential election loss. He decides to act on a drunken campaign promise and move to Canada since Bush has just been reelected. He takes on a fellow traveler , Chloe (played by Anna Paquin), to share gas and travel expenses and they embark on an adventure of romance and new awakenings.

The movie is billed as a comedy but is dead serious in its exploration of our loyalties, our egos and our sometimes empty political posturing. I have to acknowledge that even as a damn liberal Democrat, some of my very best friends are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, as is much of my family. Blue State makes it very evident how many different shades of red, blue and purple there really are, and how nearly impossible it is to dismiss the different shades. (Spoiler alert) -- the movie brings out the fact that John’s older brother was a casualty in Iraq and it shows John’s stridency (shared by many of us even now) that Iraq is a bad, unnecessary war. The movie doesn’t solve any big political arguments or serve to change anyone’s mind -- it serves rather to show us how deeply mired we are in our family and cultural origins. No amount of Houdini maneuvers can free us from that.

Now speaking of good and bad wars, much has recently been made of Barack Obama’s decision to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan with an eye on exiting in 2011. Liberals such as Michael Moore decry the escalation while conservatives decry the pre-announced withdrawal date. To conservatives, I would admonish that no large expenditure of men and money should be without expected benchmarks, targets and yes, time goals. None other than Bush’s man Rumsfeld expounded the idea (although he didn’t act on it). If the pivotal date arrives, and the results aren’t at hand, the date will probably be slipped but it’s something that our military will seek to avoid.

To liberals, I would remind them that crazy Arabs flew some airplanes into our buildings eight years ago. We haven’t caught Osama Bin Laden, we haven’t closed any Madrasas schools that teach anti-American hatred, we haven’t laid a finger on Wahabi Arabs that sponsored most of the terrorist activities, we haven’t significantly reduced Taliban influence in Afghanistan or Pakistan and we haven’t done much more than inflame Al Quaeda. Given the sad, sorry, namby-pamby, illogical and politically correct response we’ve given to this over eight years, I would say we should finally, at last, focus American man-power and attention to the people and geographic locale(s) that actually produced 9/11. To do otherwise is to invite a reoccurrence.

In sum, I think Obama gave a reasoned reaction to the events going on. It’s not a blank check or an open-ended engagement. It’s a stated objective and let’s hope for the sake of everyone involved that the objective is met. It would be politically expedient and tidy if it's met by 2011, but it might not make that date. Afghanistan differs from Viet Nam in significant respects, but should it come to develop a resemblence let us have the wisdom and grace to cut our losses and learn from our mistakes.


© 2009 blogSpotter

Labels: Politics

I don't think Mommy likes me -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I just returned from a week-long vacation in LA and Palm Springs. As soon as I gather my thoughts and notes about all that, I may post a travelogue; I caught a bad cold halfway through the week and it has slowed down my thought process. That doesn’t stop me from doing a movie review (triple-header) however...

ORPHAN
This morning I watched a movie made for Halloween -- Orphan. The movie is basically a retelling of 1956’s Bad Seed which has Patty McCormack as the evil, possessed child. Orphan features less well-known actors, and has a very talented 12 year-old named Isabelle Fuhrman in the role of the disturbed 9 year old orphan, Esther. The movie has received some bad press because it seems to cast shadows on the whole adoption process. The movie company had to change it’s ad campaign as a response. "It must be difficult to love an adopted child as much as your own," was switched to "I don’t think Mommy likes me very much."

I wasn’t too keen that (early in the movie) she was singled out as potentially evil for being precocious or having a large vocabulary for her age. What are we implying? Must you be a dunce to not be evil? There I went and used a word like "dunce" -- hoping that doesn’t put me in the evil category. The movie has you believe that the step siblings wouldn’t report Esther’s bizarre, violent behavior to the parents. I guess movies need incredible events to proceed. Have to confess that I enjoyed some of the sillieness -- it's easily worth a $1 redbox rental fee.

WHATEVER WORKS
This small-budget Woody Allen movie challenges our assumptions about what normal really is, when a "normal" family from the deep south dissolves. The daughter seeks life’s answers in Manhattan, rooming with an old, acerbic retired physicist played by Larry David. The mother tracks her down, soon followed by the father. I won’t divulge what happens but each person experiences self-discovery in the unfettered setting of the Big Apple. I can’t say that the movie is ground-breaking since Allen and others have done similar topics in movies like Annie Hall and Manhattan.

MAIDEN HEIST
Can’t help but think that this was a "straight-to-video" movie since I never saw theater ads for it. It features three museum guards who scheme to keep a new curator from moving some of their favorite exhibits off to a museum in Denmark. They work up a plan to substitute forgeries for the real items and all manner of buffoonery ensues. With Morgan Freeman, William H Macy and Christopher Walken, even this "B" movie was an enjoyable use of time while I was answering the door for trick-or-treaters. I am reminded of what Carrot Top said on Jay Leno: "I make my movies right in the video store, and cut out the middle man". While that makes no sense it still made me laugh out loud.

OK, I’ve had my 3rd dosages of Wal-Phed and still feel like crapola. Have done all the usual things -- fluids, rest, chicken soup. Maybe about three more movies will bring me around. I have a busy week at work next week, as well as my first on-call rotation so we’ll keep our fingers crossed that everything works out OK.

© 2009 blogSpotter

Labels: Cinema

Say what? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Before tackling the Letterman topic, I'd like to talk about Obama. A letter today in the DMN described this term as "Yes We Can't". Obama's health care initiative stalled out in committee, he was rebuffed on his quest for Chicago Olympics, and according to Paul Krugman (in today’s op-ed), we still have a recession and need more stimulus. Also, Afghanistan is getting uncomfortably close to a quagmire status with no end in site. If I were a Sunday pundit, I’d be giving Obama a “C” right now. It’s still better than Bush’s “D-“ but not much. Obama needs to lead now, and quit speechifying.

LETTERMAN
I was really surprised last Thursday when David Letterman told his Late Show audience that he had just been victimized with blackmail and extortion. It seems Robert Halderman, a producer on 48 Hours, was threatening to disclose information about a series of sexual affairs Letterman carried on with staffers (including recently). Halderman was seeking $2 million to quiet the story and was justifiably arrested for his actions.

The story did pique my curiosity because a successful producer at the same network hardly seems like your average extortion artist. Why would he sacrifice so much for really so little? It turns out that there’s quite a bit more. Halderman was having dire financial problems, facing bankruptcy. Still, that wouldn’t necessarily push someone to do something desperate and illegal. But on top of that, Halderman and Letterman were romancing the same young woman. Apparently Letterman maintains a “stabbin’ cabin” right there at the Ed Sullivan Theater for all his staffing dalliances. This woman was a “dalliance” to Letterman, but a serious love interest to Halderman.

Now we’re talking. In the “what I did for love” annals, this could be an entry. Maybe Halderman’s defense could be “crazy in love” or “insanely jealous”. He had both a romantic and monetary motive – neither one sufficient to justify blackmail or extortion.

What of Letterman’s career and marriage? Well, he’s not a politician so the bar is a little lower for showbiz types. That a talk show host diddles around isn’t nearly as momentous as for politicians who are supposed to be perfect. He made a public apology yesterday to his wife, Regina, and one just has to hope that it takes. When I look at Letterman’s bespectacled, slightly befuddled picture I have trouble seeing him as a Don Juan. This old grandpa with heart trouble was breaking hearts?!

Whatever. I still like Letterman and could care less about his private life. Hope he works it out with the wife and doesn’t let up on the Elliot Spitzer jokes. We care about the sex lives of presidential candidates and attorney generals. Talk show hosts? Not so much.

© 2009 blogSpotter

Labels: Television

A brat never looked so good -- Picture courtesy of A.A. Productions Ltd

by blogSpotter
TCM showed Stanley Kubrick’s Lolita (1962) last night -- a very black, splendid comedy about 20 years ahead of its time. Based on Nabokov’s novel, the movie tells the tawdry tale of Professor Humbert Humbert, a 50-something college professor rooming with a ditzy widow woman and her flirtatious beautiful teen daughter, Dolores (aka Lolita). He falls in lust (and even later into love) with the gum-chewing, hula hooping teen temptress. I’m not going to replay the whole plot line -- by all means rent this fantastic movie and wrap yourself up in the weird sequence of events.

There is so much to love in this movie, where to begin. Some misguided souls may see it as a drama or tragedy but it's very much the opposite -- it’s a smoldering, black comedy. The wordplay and names have double entendres that would shock and amuse David Lynch:

Cherry pie -- (Charlotte Haze bakes prize pastries, or is this what Humbert refers to?)
Camp Climax -- Where the bratty Dolores must go -- and why a camp with such a name?
Clare Quilty -- His strange last name is only one letter removed from “Guilty”
Charlotte Haze -- The ditsy 40-something has a last name that sums up her state of mind
Humbert Humbert -- A first & last name which may reflect upon the duality of Quilty and Humbert

The movie evokes Alfred Hitchcock in places. The road trip in the ‘58 Ford station wagon might call to mind Janet Leigh's character in Psycho, running from her embezzling crime, conscience in tow. The stark black and white photography also brings Psycho’s type of sleazy grittiness to the fore. Another great director who deals heavily in symbolism, irony and dream sequences is David Lynch (of Blue Velvet fame). He might have even gotten his Twin Peaks “cherry pie” pun from Lolita.

Here are a couple of interesting side notes about the movie. Pedophilia was such a forbidden topic that the novel was first published by a pornographer in France. In America, Lolita had to be advanced 4 years in age, from 12 to 16, so that the public wouldn’t be appalled (too much) by what it saw on screen. Sue Lyon played Lolita well and might even come across more as an 18 or 20 year old. Even so, the movie barely squeaked by the Hollywood ratings board and the Catholic Morals Council adamantly rejected the movie.

BlogSpotter has his own bizarre take on the movie. The Clare Quilty character played by Peter Sellers is portrayed as both a romantic rival and tormentor of Humbert. His character is most improbable -- throughout the movie he dogs Humbert and impersonates a state policeman, a German Psychiatrist and an uncle of Dolores. He shows up at strange but convenient moments when Humbert is feeling especially stressed and guilty. I think an argument could be made that Quilty isn’t even a real person -- he is in fact the guilty alter-ego of Humbert. The movie ends in suicide, not homicide. Discuss! OK, even the Nabokov screenplay has Humbert serving time for a homicide in a final note -- even he puts a literal take on his weird character(s). Movies like Fight Club and Sixth Sense have used “imagined” characters in years since Lolita was made; it might work in a rendition of this movie.

All said, the movie is excellent. I’m in a quandary as to whether I should ever erase it from my DVR, it’s that good. Please rent a copy of Lolita and see how far Kubrick had already advanced the state of cinema by 1962.

© 2009 blogSpotter

Labels: Cinema