The Day La Bamba Died

Today is 2004 February 3, the forty-fifth anniversary of the day that La Bamba died. Some would say that it is the day that music died, but music continues to be played all over the place. In fact, La Bamba has been played many times. It is the favorite song of the summer camp I go to, SUUSI, where it used to be that every night right at midnight, the DJ at the Serendipity dance hall would play it, and we would all dance free-form and in conga lines. I have not heard much La Bamba at SUUSI recently; maybe it did die. But I had heard it many times in the 1990s.

No what I am talking about is an event that took the life of the author of La Bamba, Ritchie Valens. He along with Buddy Holly and two other people died on 1959 February 3 in a plane crash. As I heard the story, the band was going from Iowa to a place in North Dakota. They were traveling by bus, but it was a cold night, and the bus' heating system was not working. So they stopped at an airport and arranged to get a plane to fly them north. Four people were on the plane including the pilot, Buddy Holly, and Ritchie Valens. The plane took off and five minutes later it crashed into a field. There were instrument flight rules (IFR) at the time, and perhaps the pilot did not have the proper training in flying with IFR.

The moment has been celebrated as an event which killed off a lot of music that could have been written and played. It was the subject of many essays and tributes, including American Pie, a tune part of whose lyrics ran, "singing this will be the day that I die; This will be the day that I die." But before that time, Ritchie Valens, a Hispanic who bought much Mexican music into the mainstream, had written La Bamba, and it has been performed frequently since. It is fortunate that it did, because when I hear "Baile baile baile La Bamba" and "un poca de gracia", I know it is time to get out into the dance floor and grab onto some conga line. So even though it may have been the day that music or La Bamba died, the tragic event of 1959 February 3 did not prevent me from enjoying the music of those who died that day. May their music be played forever more…

Super Tuesday

It is now 2004 February 3 21:54. The primary results are mostly in. Not all of them are in, but enough are in to make some conclusions. First the results:

Delaware: Kerry easily, half the vote, with Dean, Clark, Edwards, and Lieberman (second) around 10% each.
South Carolina: Edwards; what is surprising is the margin by which he took the state. Polls had him only slightly ahead; he won by about 15% instead.
Oklahoma: Edwards or Clark. I thought Clark would win this one, but Edwards is essentially tied with him, with Kerry a little ways back. Edwards has the lead as I type this.
Arizona: Kerry. CNN projected him the winner even though a grand total of 0 votes have been counted.
Missouri: Kerry easily, with Edwards a strong second.
New Mexico: No results in as of yet.

So what does this mean? I think Edwards is going to get it. Here is my review of the candidates' status:

Graham: Ran out of money last year and quit.
Braun: Quit in January after seeing that she was not going to win much.
Gephardt: Quit after finishing a dismal fifth in the Iowa caucuses.
Lieberman: Finished poorly tonight, including Delaware where he was expected to be strong. Just now I got word that he is withdrawing from the race.
Kucinich: He may or may not quit; can keep up as long as the money is there. But it won't make a difference because he is only picking up low single digits.
Sharpton: Strong showing in South Carolina, so may continue; otherwise in the same situation as Kucinich; won't matter.
Dean: Didn't win anything! He is doing poorly in all of the contests I have seen, at 6% in South Carolina, well behind Sharpton. I think he is going to quit soon.
Clark: Doing the best he can in Oklahoma, but is not winning anything. He may hang in a while but I expect that he may throw in the towel soon.
Kerry: Doing well everywhere, except maybe South Carolina. He is the leading contender and may remain that way for a while. But…
Edwards: Clearly has the momentum. He did much better than expected in Oklahoma and South Carolina and is doing well everywhere else. He is still behind Kerry, but this guy is on a roll, and he may be charismatic besides.

That is why I think Edwards is going to win the nomination; he will probably pick Clark or maybe Kerry as his running mate.

How well will he do against Bush? I think he is going to lose, as it stands now. Bush has the keys; he has lost four of the Lichtman keys but is apparently holding on to the others. For Edwards to defeat Bush, two more keys will have to topple, with one being the short-term economy, which I believe will be measured by the number of jobs available. The other would have to be something like Third Party, Scandal, or Social Unrest. It is conceivable that Edwards will get the electoral victory and Bush the popular, reversing the 2000 debacle and returning the favor.

But why did he do so well tonight? And why has Kerry emerged all at once as the leader? I believe there is one primary factor that will determine who will get the nomination from what I have seen so far: ability to defeat Bush. Kerry now leads him a whopping 7%, and Edwards by 1%. All the other candidates trail Bush. If you beat Bush in a poll, you will do well in the primaries.

The Super Breast Exposure

The Super Bowl was held. Strict security may have deterred anyone from thinking about a terrorist attack. The Patriots won 32-29. But that was not the big thing that happened there. The action was at the halftime show, wherein Justin Timberlake in an act removed part of Janet Jackson's dress, exposing her right breast. People have gone gaga about this event. The media have hammered on it over and over again to the point where that two minutes of act may be the most replayed two minutes in history. And why?

Because a breast was exposed, that's why. People are objecting all over the place that this should not be shown to children on prime-time TV, let alone the Super Bowl. The FCC is investigating and could penalize MTV and CBS. Both networks apologized, as did Janet Jackson who said it was unintentional. People call the incident names, calling it such names as inappropriate, lewd, and classless, and using the verb be in doing so.

I don't think it was. She said it was unintentional, so therefore it was. It is just as with politicians earlier, which led me to develop false syllogisms, where you start by assuming the hypotheses are false. But what was she after with the exposure? The Greenback, that's what. I think she is going to get a heap of money out of this act, because of all the attention applied to it.

All because we have a fixation on the female breast. We want women to hide their breasts from others in public, even though many cultures do not have this fixation and think as much of a woman going topless as a man going shirtless. It even goes so far as laws are needed to protect women who want to nurse their babies in a public area. So I don't think Janet's breast exposure was immoral, classless, or anything like that. It was just ordinary, and I think people should stop castigating it. However, for the same reason, I don't think Janet should get one red cent out of exposing her breast. I expose mine when I run shirtless in the summer when it's hot. I wish I would get a hundred bucks every time I do that. Stop dwelling on breasts and get a life, please.

Presidential Primaries

These are getting interesting now. Especially interesting is an article I found in Common Dreams which says that not only did Kerry win the New Hampshire Democratic primary, but he also received 3,009, or 5%, of the vote in the Republican primary, finishing ahead of all Republicans in that primary except George W. Bush. This article says this could mean trouble for Bush later on. Already, in a poll, Kerry outpolls Bush by 49-46%.

Here is how I rank them now:

1. John Edwards. He seems like the candidate that I would vote for now. He is from the South, so would have a chance at taking Southern states, especially the Carolinas. He is a defense lawyer, and so would know the plight of people not as fortunate as most of us; in particular, those in trouble with the law for innocuous reasons such as smoking the wrong stuff. He knows how to cheer crowds on, and he also has some sensible ideas. So I rank him first.

2. John Kerry. That poll saying that he would beat Bush 49-46% says it all. We need to send Bush back to Texas, and the Democrat who can do it best is who I will vote for. The question is whether this popularity of Kerry, who was once in single digits, will hold out. A reasonable ticket would be Kerry-Edwards.

3. Howard Dean. Another look needs to be taken at this candidate. The media overplayed his "scream" talk rather big. A recording from elsewhere in the auditorium showed Dean getting fainter as time progressed, and that last "Yeeaaahhh!!" was completely inaudible. I say that if you are going to turn away from Dean simply because of "Yeeaaahhh!!", then you better not say that at sports events, especially the Super Bowl. Still, the Republicans hope he gets the nomination; we need someone the GOP does not want.

4. Wesley Clark. Too much of a deal was made of the Michael Moore article that called Bush a deserter. It is exactly as Clark says, that everyone has a right to his own opinion. However, he is doing badly in the polls; he should have campaigned in Iowa. We need someone who can win.

5. Dennis Kucinich. He has some dramatically good views on things, in my opinion, on gay marriage, on the Iraq war (end it now), and his proposal for a Department of Peace. Still, we need someone who can get votes to get a Democrat in the White House, and Kucinich may not be able to do it.

6. Al Sharpton. A witty person who has shown up on Jay Leno. He may be a bit too aggressive for the nomination, and he is way behind. Sooner or later, though, we may get a chance to vote for a black for President.

7. Joe Lieberman. His cool manner appeals to me a lot; however, his views tend too much to the right. He approved the Iraq war and still does, and is even against civil unions. He appears to be midway between the other Democrats and George Bush.

This ranking differs substantially from other ratings that I have made, suggesting that I still have not made up my mind. I am one of the undecideds, and the Democratic candidates need to show to me that they are the one I should select to challenge Bush in November.