Clint Eastwood should savagely beat down on Karl Rove and David Axelrod

Seriously. One could write a college dissertation on Clint Eastwood's sort of creepy, very patriotic Super Bowl Chrysler ad, but the ad has metamorphosed beyond merchandising.

Right now, the one minute spot is an advertisers dream: it has made news; it gets repeated on television without anybody paying for it. Goldmine.

I'm not even quite sure how put phrase my own thoughts on the matter, because apparently Karl Rove and David Axelrod have told me what I should think about it.

Rove's response was, as usual, a baseless lie coupled with character assassination.  On the bright side, Rove's words were stupid enough to induce uproarious laughter.

“I was, frankly, offended by it,” said Rove. “I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood, I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising.”

Um, okay. I guess the ad had too much hope and unity and Rove went ballistic. I guess it just goes to show how much the Republican Party is focused on letting us know that our country has been on a one-way track to the underworld ever since January 21st, 2009.  And that the fact that people have jobs, well, that just makes things worse!

Okay. Whatever. Karl Rove doesn't like the ad. I guess that means Obama's people love it, right?

Not so fast. Thanks to the genius of twitter, David Axelrod was able to share his douchbaggery to the masses within seconds.

“Powerful spot." Tweeted the twit Axelrod. "Did Clint shoot that, or just narrate it?”

Hey Punk! Maybe we should stop sending jobs overseas and rebuild at home!

From his tweet, I can't tell if Axelrod should have utilized a medium that would allow to speak more than 140 characters to further explain himself, or if he should have just kept his mouth shut and enjoy the game like everybody else.

But what is Axelrod saying? That Eastwood's words don't matter, simply because he didn't direct the commercial? Is he afraid that Clint Eastwood will make a run for president?

If that's the case, it underscores how much President Obama doesn't know how to play it cool. But what better can we expect from a man to full of cowardice to simply let the Bush tax cuts expire?

And when it comes to re-election, he's worried about Mitt Romney? Aka, BarMitt RomnObama? I guess Obama's losing sleep about actress Roseanne Barr, and the thought about Dirty Harry making a run has the President not feeling lucky at all.

What do you think? Should Clint go for it? Who cares if he's a Republican. Obama sure governs like one! Or should we call on McGovern once again? And does anyone want to fill in the scantron dot for macadamia nut farmer Roseann Barr?

Whatever. Maybe I should just watch Gran Torino again.

Exploring reality and artifice in the Saturday New York Times

Two articles in today's New York Times underscore the difference between perception and reality in more ways than one. On the hand, there are abstractions; political talking points, statistics with little if any context, and outright lies. On the other hand, there is cold, harsh reality.

For people living in rural Maine, the reality is very, very cold right now. One family on extremely hard times is a retired couple on by the name of Robert and Wilma Hartford. The Hartford's are on disability, making a bad situation even worse. Dan Barry of the New York Times reports:

Heating oil currently averages $3.71 per gallon, and that doesn't include delivery charges. To add insult to injury,  the Obama administration and Congress have trimmed the energy-assistance program that helps the poor — 65,000 households in Maine alone — to pay their heating bills. Eligibility is harder now, and the average amount given here is $483, down from $804 last year, all at a time when the price of oil has risen more than 40 cents in a year, to $3.71 a gallon.

That adds up to about $350 a month just so that homeowners can prevent themselves from freezing to death. And it's not as if the oil delivery man is getting rich off the endeavor, either. Ike Libby, owner of hometown energy, confesses that he would sell his business in a heartbeat to be a store greater at Wal-Mart.

Are we going to use 19th century technology to heat our homes?

Seriously, he said that.

That's the reality. Fossil Fuels aren't cheap: they're expensive. Many alternatives are more affordable that the status quo and would help, rather than hurt, our economy. Thermal solar systems could save homeowners in cold weather climates hundreds, even thousands of dollars every year.

The savings wouldn't stop there. Fewer oil deliveries to far-flung residences would mean less diesel. Less diesel and less oil would mean fewer oil tankers making deliveries.

Or we will enjoy the comforts of the 21st century instead?

The savings continues. Less oil and diesel exhaust means less particle matter in the atmosphere. Less particle matter means fewer heart attacks. Fewer heart attacks means fewer ambulance trips to the hospital. Not only does the ambulance use diesel fuel, but that life-saving medication that the paramedics give you to keep your heart from killing yourself? That's right, it comes from oil!

But that's not the analysis that the New York Times--or any other mainstream news source--chooses to pursue. The Grey Lady saved that ink and paper to "analyze" the political implications of the nation's unemployment rate that had just "fallen" to 8.3 percent. It's almost farcical to hear Mitt Romney and company complain about high unemployment--a problem that wasn't on the Grand Old Party's radar until January 20th, 2009. A problem that has was caused by and has been exacerbated by Republican policies.

But the article implores you to keep reading. Obama might win, he might not. Check the polls. But it's early. Check back again later. Keep reading your daily paper. Follow us online. Stay tuned after this commercial break.

The artifice of the news cycle never ends. It's not so much a cycle as a continues stream of horse manure. Occasionally, that manure does fertilize the soil of news into something that is actually newsworthy, and we learn about the Hartford's.

We can do our best to stop the lies. In this case, any homeowner who pays for heat in the winter (just about any of us) can benefit from a solar heating system, even in grey New England. Some companies, like Sunrise Solar in Vermont, specialize in geographic areas in which there is little sunlight in winter. Maine Solar is another example of an organization that tailors to the needs of local residents.

Said the wise man: "Be the change you wish to see."

It's worth noting that a solar system need not replace one's entire heating system, but can simply augment it. If the solar panels only heat your hot water to 100 degrees, your furnace won't have to use nearly as much energy as if it were heating 40 degree water.

If one of us embraces the future, well, that's one person who's saving some money and helping out the environment. If a dozen of us do it, well, than we might even establish a trend.

And if we all do it? Then we've solved a very big problem.

What are we waiting for?