Monday, March 31, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
I know this is going to come off as paranoid, but...
...there's some bad shit going on here. I can just feel it.
Also, the miniseries John Adams is fantastic. How have we strayed so far from such noble ideals at the beginning, and a willingness to give up comfort, security, wealth, even life so that our children may have a better future? Maybe we have nothing to fight against. Maybe we're totally in control and Americans will live in freedom and prosperity for generations to come. But again, I just feel like something is wrong. But maybe that's just Paul Giamatti getting me in the mood for a revolution - believe me, it doesn't take much.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Bosnian snipers and a whole pack o' lies
Roger Cohen (who I'm liking more and more) delivers another wonderful column on the Clintons, McCain, foreign policy and campaign fibs. The conclusion was my favorite bit:
On issues that cross borders – terrorism, financial market volatility, global warming – and on Iran, Israel-Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq – three things are essential: a new moral authority in the White House, the capacity for original strategic thought, and a 21st-century understanding of the border-jumping networks that have knit humanity into new relationships.
Obama, in his speech on race, did important things. He confronted reality, thought big, probed division, sketched convergence. He took Americans and many people beyond U.S. shores to a different mental place. Imagine that capacity applied to GWOT, Iran, Russia, China and Israel-Palestine.
If you don’t like the sound of that, there’s always seasoned swagger of the sort that runs from imaginary snipers.
On issues that cross borders – terrorism, financial market volatility, global warming – and on Iran, Israel-Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq – three things are essential: a new moral authority in the White House, the capacity for original strategic thought, and a 21st-century understanding of the border-jumping networks that have knit humanity into new relationships.
Obama, in his speech on race, did important things. He confronted reality, thought big, probed division, sketched convergence. He took Americans and many people beyond U.S. shores to a different mental place. Imagine that capacity applied to GWOT, Iran, Russia, China and Israel-Palestine.
If you don’t like the sound of that, there’s always seasoned swagger of the sort that runs from imaginary snipers.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Money, the Iraq War and the Evils of Pandering
Bill Maher addresses what Eisenhower called the modern military-industrial complex in this article - and he makes a good point. Our government has never been quite so connected to the private sector as during the G.W. Bush years - years that also brought the terrible waste of taxpayer's money (and one of the biggest lies told to the people in American history) called the Iraq War.
Now, despite his support for the war, I don't dislike McCain; I actually think he's a generally good person. However, I think that coming so close to finally winning the presidency is changing him, and not for the better. As the race progresses toward November, I think we're going to see him make more and more moves to placate traditional GOP voters - moves that may be against his character, but can help him win. In short, we will see a lot of pandering, a lot of flip-flopping, a lot of mixed words. Now, many critics criticize Obama for being all talk and no action. But as I have mentioned before, talk comes before action. If a candidate can't get their story straight (as usually happens when they don't actually believe the stuff that comes spewing from their mouths), it's a pretty blatant sign they're either pandering or they haven't formed an opinion yet (in which case, they should just admit the truth, set a date by which they will have a proper response for the public and research the issue in order to form an educated opinion). While, in theory, a large part of being a politician is pleasing your constituency, voters want to see someone (particularly in the office of president) with a solid character whose words and actions accurately represent their own beliefs. This is one of the major problems I see in the candidacies of both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. They've been pandering, mixing up their words, contradicting themselves, tripping all over the issues. Pandering leads to deceived voters. Pandering leads to presidents whose actions don't match their words. Pandering leads to backroom arrangements, to secret alliances, to mistakes like the Iraq War. Because if there's anything that Iraq has taught us, it's that the president and those he or she aligns themself with will follow their true beliefs, not what they say in public.
On the other hand, Obama has been remarkably steadfast and consistent. His words and ideas lead me to believe (and I mean really BELIEVE) he is a person with a strong character who is speaking words he actually believes (and I mean really BELIEVES). Why do I think this? Well, for many reasons, but one of the biggest ones is that he has admitted mistakes, admitted ignorance, and provided arguments that are not necessarily the politically safe route. And it's worked out for him in the race, which gives me many warm and fuzzy feelings about the future. Because if it's worked out for Obama, even though he's taken non-traditional route, it means the old bag o' political tricks isn't working on the American people (at least on the Democratic side). Maybe (and I know this is quite optimistic) we're wising up. Maybe we've figured out that honesty, rather than always saying the right thing, really is the best policy. Maybe we can start trusting politicians again, even if it's just a little, and implicitly, that means we will start trusting each other. How great does that sound? And that's why Obama's message of personal accountability and citizens taking responsibility for change in America resounds like it does - because deep in our hearts, we know it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the majority votes for someone that trusts Americans to get involved in the political system, we'll trust each other and see that it's not pointless to get involved in the political system. Because if the president built his platform on American involvement in the political system, and he really believes it's the best way to progress into the future, he better back that up - which means not ignoring American desires. And that's what the lie about WMDs really was - it was the adminstration ignoring American desires in order to accomplish their own ends. It was pandering. Pandering was the reason we ended up spending $5,000 a second. So my point is, be very wary of pandering. Vote for someone you believe is telling the truth, because if recent history has taught us anything, it's that in the end, they're just going to do what they believe is right anyway.
Now, despite his support for the war, I don't dislike McCain; I actually think he's a generally good person. However, I think that coming so close to finally winning the presidency is changing him, and not for the better. As the race progresses toward November, I think we're going to see him make more and more moves to placate traditional GOP voters - moves that may be against his character, but can help him win. In short, we will see a lot of pandering, a lot of flip-flopping, a lot of mixed words. Now, many critics criticize Obama for being all talk and no action. But as I have mentioned before, talk comes before action. If a candidate can't get their story straight (as usually happens when they don't actually believe the stuff that comes spewing from their mouths), it's a pretty blatant sign they're either pandering or they haven't formed an opinion yet (in which case, they should just admit the truth, set a date by which they will have a proper response for the public and research the issue in order to form an educated opinion). While, in theory, a large part of being a politician is pleasing your constituency, voters want to see someone (particularly in the office of president) with a solid character whose words and actions accurately represent their own beliefs. This is one of the major problems I see in the candidacies of both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. They've been pandering, mixing up their words, contradicting themselves, tripping all over the issues. Pandering leads to deceived voters. Pandering leads to presidents whose actions don't match their words. Pandering leads to backroom arrangements, to secret alliances, to mistakes like the Iraq War. Because if there's anything that Iraq has taught us, it's that the president and those he or she aligns themself with will follow their true beliefs, not what they say in public.
On the other hand, Obama has been remarkably steadfast and consistent. His words and ideas lead me to believe (and I mean really BELIEVE) he is a person with a strong character who is speaking words he actually believes (and I mean really BELIEVES). Why do I think this? Well, for many reasons, but one of the biggest ones is that he has admitted mistakes, admitted ignorance, and provided arguments that are not necessarily the politically safe route. And it's worked out for him in the race, which gives me many warm and fuzzy feelings about the future. Because if it's worked out for Obama, even though he's taken non-traditional route, it means the old bag o' political tricks isn't working on the American people (at least on the Democratic side). Maybe (and I know this is quite optimistic) we're wising up. Maybe we've figured out that honesty, rather than always saying the right thing, really is the best policy. Maybe we can start trusting politicians again, even if it's just a little, and implicitly, that means we will start trusting each other. How great does that sound? And that's why Obama's message of personal accountability and citizens taking responsibility for change in America resounds like it does - because deep in our hearts, we know it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the majority votes for someone that trusts Americans to get involved in the political system, we'll trust each other and see that it's not pointless to get involved in the political system. Because if the president built his platform on American involvement in the political system, and he really believes it's the best way to progress into the future, he better back that up - which means not ignoring American desires. And that's what the lie about WMDs really was - it was the adminstration ignoring American desires in order to accomplish their own ends. It was pandering. Pandering was the reason we ended up spending $5,000 a second. So my point is, be very wary of pandering. Vote for someone you believe is telling the truth, because if recent history has taught us anything, it's that in the end, they're just going to do what they believe is right anyway.
Hillary's victimization
Another wonderful Slate piece on the Democratic race - this time, Melinda Henneberger asks, "What if Hillary Clinton gave a speech about gender? (And why she won't.)"
Really, really great insight into female attitudes toward men and themselves and the world in general. Also, it really tears into Clinton at the end, in my opinion, quite deservingly.
Really, really great insight into female attitudes toward men and themselves and the world in general. Also, it really tears into Clinton at the end, in my opinion, quite deservingly.
I wonder...
...why don't we have hydrogen-powered airplanes? Too dangerous? Capital investment for development too large? What? It seems like it'd be an easy solution to a bad problem that would result in easing both gas and ticket prices. If anyone knows, please enlighten. If not, I'll have to remember to look it up
Woot woot!
Richardson backs Obama!
I actually really like Richardson - it's such a shame there probably wouldn't be an Obama/Richardson ticket. Apparently, he's close with Bill Clinton (who did contribute a lot to furthering Richardson's career) - but I think this was a little dramatic:
The reaction of some of Mr. Clinton’s allies suggests that might have been a wise decision. “An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.
“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.
Update: Succinct Slate commentary on the Richardson move. I specifically liked this part of the argument:
There's nothing wrong with making these arguments, and by the party's rules, it's perfectly legal for Clinton to reverse Obama's pledged-delegate lead with superdelegates. But in listening over the weeks to Clinton's advisers make their superdelegate case, you can feel the criteria changing as the conversation ensues. I am reminded of the movie Stripes. John Candy, playing a new Army recruit*, hoodwinks another member of his troop. "You gotta make my bunk," he says earnestly. "See, we're in Italy. The guy on the top bunk has gotta make the guy on the bottom's bunk. He's gotta make his bunk all the time. See, it's in the regulations. See, if we were in Germany, I would have to make yours, but we're in Italy, and you gotta make mine. It's regulations."
This whiff of hokum is one problem. The second problem for the Clinton pitch is that even if superdelegates buy it, no one on the Clinton team can explain why Obama's coalition of African-Americans, liberals, and first-time voters is going to buy it. In a recent CBS News poll, 92 percent of Obama supporters said they would feel disappointed and angry if Clinton won by superdelegates. When I asked Mark Penn how he would soothe these hurt feelings, he had no real answer other than hope: Democrats have come together before.
So, Clinton claims that Obama's campaign of hope that Americans can come together for a better future is unrealistic and just words etc. etc., even though thus far in the primaries it seems to be happening, at least in a small way. And he hasn't done anything to really offend the voters (I could be wrong, and I'm certainly biased, but Wright and Revko seem to be the shadiest parts of his life so far, and I don't think they're a big deal, personally). Clinton, on the other hand, expects to gyp Democratic voters out of representation (whether or not this is entirely true is irrevelant, the voters are going to FEEL betrayed) and then HOPES that come general election time, they'll put all of the petty primary crap out of mind and rally. This in a year when Nader is re-running. Yeah, that sounds like a GREAT idea. Ugh.
I actually really like Richardson - it's such a shame there probably wouldn't be an Obama/Richardson ticket. Apparently, he's close with Bill Clinton (who did contribute a lot to furthering Richardson's career) - but I think this was a little dramatic:
The reaction of some of Mr. Clinton’s allies suggests that might have been a wise decision. “An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.
“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.
Update: Succinct Slate commentary on the Richardson move. I specifically liked this part of the argument:
There's nothing wrong with making these arguments, and by the party's rules, it's perfectly legal for Clinton to reverse Obama's pledged-delegate lead with superdelegates. But in listening over the weeks to Clinton's advisers make their superdelegate case, you can feel the criteria changing as the conversation ensues. I am reminded of the movie Stripes. John Candy, playing a new Army recruit*, hoodwinks another member of his troop. "You gotta make my bunk," he says earnestly. "See, we're in Italy. The guy on the top bunk has gotta make the guy on the bottom's bunk. He's gotta make his bunk all the time. See, it's in the regulations. See, if we were in Germany, I would have to make yours, but we're in Italy, and you gotta make mine. It's regulations."
This whiff of hokum is one problem. The second problem for the Clinton pitch is that even if superdelegates buy it, no one on the Clinton team can explain why Obama's coalition of African-Americans, liberals, and first-time voters is going to buy it. In a recent CBS News poll, 92 percent of Obama supporters said they would feel disappointed and angry if Clinton won by superdelegates. When I asked Mark Penn how he would soothe these hurt feelings, he had no real answer other than hope: Democrats have come together before.
So, Clinton claims that Obama's campaign of hope that Americans can come together for a better future is unrealistic and just words etc. etc., even though thus far in the primaries it seems to be happening, at least in a small way. And he hasn't done anything to really offend the voters (I could be wrong, and I'm certainly biased, but Wright and Revko seem to be the shadiest parts of his life so far, and I don't think they're a big deal, personally). Clinton, on the other hand, expects to gyp Democratic voters out of representation (whether or not this is entirely true is irrevelant, the voters are going to FEEL betrayed) and then HOPES that come general election time, they'll put all of the petty primary crap out of mind and rally. This in a year when Nader is re-running. Yeah, that sounds like a GREAT idea. Ugh.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Great column on race
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/opinion/20cohen.html?th&emc=th
Cohen hits it spot on with a reaction to Obama's "Toward a More Perfect Union" speech.
Honesty feels heady right now. For seven years, we have lived with the arid, us-against-them formulas of Bush’s menial mind, with the result that the nuanced exploration of America’s hardest subject is almost giddying. Can it be that a human being, like Wright, or like Obama’s grandmother, is actually inhabited by ambiguities? Can an inquiring mind actually explore the half-shades of truth?
Yes. It. Can.
The unimaginable South African transition that Nelson Mandela made possible is a reminder that leadership matters. Words matter. The clamoring now in the United States for a presidency that uplifts rather than demeans is a reflection of the intellectual desert of the Bush years.
Cohen hits it spot on with a reaction to Obama's "Toward a More Perfect Union" speech.
Honesty feels heady right now. For seven years, we have lived with the arid, us-against-them formulas of Bush’s menial mind, with the result that the nuanced exploration of America’s hardest subject is almost giddying. Can it be that a human being, like Wright, or like Obama’s grandmother, is actually inhabited by ambiguities? Can an inquiring mind actually explore the half-shades of truth?
Yes. It. Can.
The unimaginable South African transition that Nelson Mandela made possible is a reminder that leadership matters. Words matter. The clamoring now in the United States for a presidency that uplifts rather than demeans is a reflection of the intellectual desert of the Bush years.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Obama's race speech
Commentary from the Huffington Post: Obama Cracks My TV in Half
I had several similar reactions when I read the text. I've yet to see the actual performance, but the video is up on his website and I'll be watching tonight. Just from reading, however, I teared up. It was... phenomenal. Now, a lot of people have been saying that all Obama offers is words. First of all, what words! But secondly, these people act like taking a public stance on a subject and commenting on it in such a way that it prompts the American people to reflect on their own beliefs is nothing. It's not nothing. Actions start with ideas, and ideas are conveyed in words. Many of these same critics say that he's putting forth a Utopian ideal, that the ideas are unrealistic. I've learned, over the years, to be wary of people pushing realism and nothing else. Realism leaves you with the present, with nowhere to go from there. If you aim for the most perfect world you can imagine, then even if you only make it one-tenth (or whatever) of the way, you've still progressed much farther than if you grounded all of your expectations (and yes, hopes and dreams) in reality. Plus, working toward your ideal just feels better than working toward someone else's idea of what is realistically possible. I believe that this concept is integral to Obama's campaign and appeal. I don't think it's a dishonest approach. I don't think it's a pointless pursuit. And I think honest, tasteful, insightful and moving speeches like the one Senator Obama gave yesterday are a great starting point for turning America from her current state, to one where a greater proportion of the people feel they're getting a fair deal, that they're represented. Because before we can change the country, I think we must change ourselves and the way we view America. And I don't think we can do that until we examine ourselves, the way we affect others, and the way the tough issues affect all of our lives. That's a good start. The race speech was a beautiful exercise in good starts. Let's continue...
I had several similar reactions when I read the text. I've yet to see the actual performance, but the video is up on his website and I'll be watching tonight. Just from reading, however, I teared up. It was... phenomenal. Now, a lot of people have been saying that all Obama offers is words. First of all, what words! But secondly, these people act like taking a public stance on a subject and commenting on it in such a way that it prompts the American people to reflect on their own beliefs is nothing. It's not nothing. Actions start with ideas, and ideas are conveyed in words. Many of these same critics say that he's putting forth a Utopian ideal, that the ideas are unrealistic. I've learned, over the years, to be wary of people pushing realism and nothing else. Realism leaves you with the present, with nowhere to go from there. If you aim for the most perfect world you can imagine, then even if you only make it one-tenth (or whatever) of the way, you've still progressed much farther than if you grounded all of your expectations (and yes, hopes and dreams) in reality. Plus, working toward your ideal just feels better than working toward someone else's idea of what is realistically possible. I believe that this concept is integral to Obama's campaign and appeal. I don't think it's a dishonest approach. I don't think it's a pointless pursuit. And I think honest, tasteful, insightful and moving speeches like the one Senator Obama gave yesterday are a great starting point for turning America from her current state, to one where a greater proportion of the people feel they're getting a fair deal, that they're represented. Because before we can change the country, I think we must change ourselves and the way we view America. And I don't think we can do that until we examine ourselves, the way we affect others, and the way the tough issues affect all of our lives. That's a good start. The race speech was a beautiful exercise in good starts. Let's continue...
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Marine protests in Berkeley on Daily Show
A little outdated, but this was a ridiculous experience (and proof that every Berkeley stereotype is pretty damn accurate). Protests have continued, and I just received a warning e-mail that there are numerous demonstrations planned for tomorrow. We'll see how the Code Pink saga unfolds...
p.s. Just to clarify, I think it's absurd to expect the Marines/other military branches to offer protection (not just in war, but in the event of an earthquake etc.) without allowing them a recruiting station. The complaint was supposedly largely due to the station's proximity to Berkeley High and UC-Berkeley, but it's not that close to either, really. It's just downtown, with everything else.
Google Bias
So, just out of curiosity - I wanted to see what images popped up first in a Google Images search of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Here is Hillary:
#2: The "what went wrong?" shot - including Bill, the Clintons seem to be your average happy hipsters of their day. What happened? p.s. Bill's beard is FANTASTIC.
#1: the crazy b*tch shot
#2: The "what went wrong?" shot - including Bill, the Clintons seem to be your average happy hipsters of their day. What happened? p.s. Bill's beard is FANTASTIC.Now for Obama.
#1: Senate mug shot, pretty standard
#2: Topless shot, yes, that's right. Topless shot.
Now, I know I'm not alone in thinking Obama is a handsome guy - he is! But hot enough to be sandwiched between Penelope Cruz and Hugh Jackman? I don't know...
Anyway, the search pretty much revealed what I expected. The media bias against Hillary (it's pretty obvious) does indeed transcend traditional media outlets. However, I should make it clear that although there's a media bias against Hillary (c'mon - she's old news, Barack is a shiny, happy new and very interesting face), it shouldn't change either the way she runs her campaign or the way the public votes. Haven't we become smart (or jaded) enough to realize there will always be media bias and that we should only count on ourselves for opinion? I mean - 8 years of Fox News later, you think something would have sunk in. Thus, is there a media bias against Hillary Clinton? Yes. Is it the reason for HC losing? Nah, sorry, don't buy it.
Why superdelegates are a terrible idea: part 3,242 of a 23,048,320 part series
Superdelegate Sleaze: A Case Study
Wait, these superdelegates are using their voting power for personal gain? In politics? No, I don't believe it!
Wait, these superdelegates are using their voting power for personal gain? In politics? No, I don't believe it!
Victimhood
How much danger is the Democratic Party really in?
Generally decent article - but this is the part that disturbs me:
Many of Clinton's supporters, particularly women, also warn that they feel Obama has benefited from a free ride in the press and has taken advantage of barely veiled sexism. Clinton tellingly referred supporters to the analysis of ABC's Cokie Roberts, who said this of the reaction some women have to Obama: "Here is this woman, she's worked hard, she's done it all the way you're supposed to do it, and then this cute young man comes in and says a bunch of sweet, you know, nothings, and pushes you out of the way. And a lot of women are looking at that and saying, 'There goes my life.' "
What? What?! Here is the problem with this entire race - Clinton's arguments and ploys only work up to (down to?) a certain age group. In regard to the passage above, that is not my life. Nor is it the life of any of my female friends. And honestly, it feels like shit to be part of a group (the female gender) that would make important political decisions because they feel sympathy for the candidate, who is (schemingly, mind you) playing the victim. How can Hillary be tough enough to handle the White House (or the goddamn red phone) when she keeps whining about being a victim all the time? Why would women want our first representative in this historic role to be a) crazy and b) pathetic? Because that's what this victim argument is - crazy and pathetic. You win office because you're the best. Not because you've supposedly been shafted your whole life. If you come against someone who is better at the political game - well boo fucking hoo, either step it up or accept the fact that perhaps you're not president material. But don't complain about it and reinforce the stereotype of women as whining, pathetic, helpless little creatures. We're not. I certainly am not. Nor would I ever want to be put into a position of any sort because someone feels sorry for me. I can't think of a worse way to win (minus the 2000 elections, that was pretty bad). Women, particularly, I plead with you - don't vote for someone because you can relate, because you feel sorry for them, because she's a victim. If Hillary wins and history chooses her victimhood as the reason (because let's be honest, history is completely malleable), women will be set back significantly. My generation really is free from a lot of the old hang-ups (well, not completely free - that's still a way off, but I believe old attitudes toward these subjects hold very little sway in our minds) - be it gender, race, religion. From what I've seen, members of my generation have displayed a remarkable degree of tolerance - it warms my heart, it really does. My message to older voters would then be - please, really think about why you're voting for Hillary - if it's because you believe she truly is the best person for the job, then by all means! But if it's because you relate to her tale of woe (which is exaggerated), think again. There is an entire group of ladies who haven't felt victimized whatsoever in their lives. Women are doing extraordinary things, even in traditionally male industries (like mine). Don't reinforce an old, outdated stereotype. Hillary may have had a few rough patches in her life, but who hasn't? I don't know how you can look at this race, and believe that she is losing solely because she's a woman. And, for her to play that card, to manipulate voters into thinking they're evening the playing field, to set herself up as a victim - well, it makes the voters (particularly the women voters) look foolish and it proves what I've always suspected to be true - American voters vote with emotion, not reason. (Which, funnily enough, seems to be the argument against supporting Obama - we're too easily charmed - but that's nothing compared to the victim game.) Ladies, I'm talking to you - I think this is where we need to bring reason back. And reason clearly shows that Hillary cannot run a presidential campaign. To boil it down to its most concise form, which I know you've already heard, if you can't run a political campaign, you probably shouldn't be trusted with an entire country. Victim or not.
Generally decent article - but this is the part that disturbs me:
Many of Clinton's supporters, particularly women, also warn that they feel Obama has benefited from a free ride in the press and has taken advantage of barely veiled sexism. Clinton tellingly referred supporters to the analysis of ABC's Cokie Roberts, who said this of the reaction some women have to Obama: "Here is this woman, she's worked hard, she's done it all the way you're supposed to do it, and then this cute young man comes in and says a bunch of sweet, you know, nothings, and pushes you out of the way. And a lot of women are looking at that and saying, 'There goes my life.' "
What? What?! Here is the problem with this entire race - Clinton's arguments and ploys only work up to (down to?) a certain age group. In regard to the passage above, that is not my life. Nor is it the life of any of my female friends. And honestly, it feels like shit to be part of a group (the female gender) that would make important political decisions because they feel sympathy for the candidate, who is (schemingly, mind you) playing the victim. How can Hillary be tough enough to handle the White House (or the goddamn red phone) when she keeps whining about being a victim all the time? Why would women want our first representative in this historic role to be a) crazy and b) pathetic? Because that's what this victim argument is - crazy and pathetic. You win office because you're the best. Not because you've supposedly been shafted your whole life. If you come against someone who is better at the political game - well boo fucking hoo, either step it up or accept the fact that perhaps you're not president material. But don't complain about it and reinforce the stereotype of women as whining, pathetic, helpless little creatures. We're not. I certainly am not. Nor would I ever want to be put into a position of any sort because someone feels sorry for me. I can't think of a worse way to win (minus the 2000 elections, that was pretty bad). Women, particularly, I plead with you - don't vote for someone because you can relate, because you feel sorry for them, because she's a victim. If Hillary wins and history chooses her victimhood as the reason (because let's be honest, history is completely malleable), women will be set back significantly. My generation really is free from a lot of the old hang-ups (well, not completely free - that's still a way off, but I believe old attitudes toward these subjects hold very little sway in our minds) - be it gender, race, religion. From what I've seen, members of my generation have displayed a remarkable degree of tolerance - it warms my heart, it really does. My message to older voters would then be - please, really think about why you're voting for Hillary - if it's because you believe she truly is the best person for the job, then by all means! But if it's because you relate to her tale of woe (which is exaggerated), think again. There is an entire group of ladies who haven't felt victimized whatsoever in their lives. Women are doing extraordinary things, even in traditionally male industries (like mine). Don't reinforce an old, outdated stereotype. Hillary may have had a few rough patches in her life, but who hasn't? I don't know how you can look at this race, and believe that she is losing solely because she's a woman. And, for her to play that card, to manipulate voters into thinking they're evening the playing field, to set herself up as a victim - well, it makes the voters (particularly the women voters) look foolish and it proves what I've always suspected to be true - American voters vote with emotion, not reason. (Which, funnily enough, seems to be the argument against supporting Obama - we're too easily charmed - but that's nothing compared to the victim game.) Ladies, I'm talking to you - I think this is where we need to bring reason back. And reason clearly shows that Hillary cannot run a presidential campaign. To boil it down to its most concise form, which I know you've already heard, if you can't run a political campaign, you probably shouldn't be trusted with an entire country. Victim or not.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Wolfgang's Vault
Mmmmm... rock memorabilia. I remember my dad telling me about Bill Graham's warehouse full of archives several years ago. That man must have had one hell of a life. The sheer volume of it was hard to believe, and now parts are up for sale. Let's hope I get lucky in Vegas...
p.s. There are also recordings of historic concerts available for listening on this site - check it out! You have to register, but other than that - it's free.
p.s. There are also recordings of historic concerts available for listening on this site - check it out! You have to register, but other than that - it's free.
Friday, March 14, 2008
The Wire and Urban Decay
*From the Wall Street Journal
Urban Decay
By JULIA VITULLO-MARTIN
March 14, 2008; Page W11
"I'm a big fan of 'The Wire,' " Barack Obama told US Weekly last week. "It's not a happy show, but it's addictive." His fellow liberal intellectuals apparently agree. Called "the best TV show ever broadcast in America" by Slate's editor in chief, Jacob Weisberg, and "astonishingly sophisticated" by NPR media reporter David Folkenflik, the HBO series, whose finale was shown on Saturday, is a cops-and-criminals saga that brings its genre to an entirely new level. "No other program has ever done anything remotely like what this one does, namely to portray the social, political and economic life of an American city with the scope, observational precision and moral vision of great literature," wrote Mr. Weisberg last year. Conservatives such as National Review's Jack Dunphy and The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett laud the show too. But conservatives may see in it a lesson that liberal viewers are unlikely to take to heart.
Set, written and produced in Baltimore, "The Wire" aired 60 episodes, with each of its five seasons focused on a different subject -- drug trafficking, the port, local politics, public schools and the city's newspaper. From the series' opening sequences filmed in "The Towers" -- huge public housing projects whose courtyards serve as drug bazaars -- through its depiction of the continuing devastation of neighborhoods by violent crime and unemployment, the Baltimore of "The Wire" becomes the poster child for six decades of failed urban policy. Its crumbling, corrupt Baltimore is in virtual free fall while the city's caretakers -- including nearly all its politicians -- feed at the public trough, cavorting and partying as Baltimore burns and children die. By season five, the city's fiscal situation is so dire that budget cuts cripple the already disheartened police department even further as police cars break down for lack of service.
A look at some real-life statistics shows how accurate this picture is. Surpassed only by Detroit in CNN/Morgan Quinto's 2006 ranking of the country's most dangerous large cities, Baltimore has traded places over the past few years with Detroit and Washington as the country's urban murder capital. With 282 homicides last year and a population of about 641,000, Baltimore had a homicide rate six times that of New York and three times that of Los Angeles. While crack usage faded in resurgent cities like New York, Boston and Chicago in the 1990s, it never lost its hold in many Baltimore neighborhoods, even as heroin became the new drug of choice. Addicts just used both. By 2000, the federal Drug Enforcement Agency said, Baltimore had the highest per-capita heroin consumption in the country.
Meanwhile the public schools deteriorated, graduating less than half their students. The Baltimore Housing Authority was put on HUD's troubled authority list and in the 1990s dynamited many of its high-rise projects.
Mr. Obama, like most of his fellow liberals, believes that poverty is at the heart of urban problems and that its eradication is a federal duty. "What's most overwhelming about urban poverty is that it's so difficult to escape -- it's isolating and it's everywhere," he commented as he released his plans last July to reinvest in impoverished neighborhoods. By this he means giving more public funding to after-school and job training programs, parental counseling, extended day care, and public-private business incubators. What Lyndon Johnson called "model cities" programs Mr. Obama refers to as "promise neighborhoods." The idea is that, freed from poverty, people who are now dealing drugs would be living productive lives. But Mr. Obama's favorite show puts forth a very different message: It is the crime that causes the poverty, not the other way around.
Just watch a few episodes and it becomes clear that brazen drug trafficking degrades everything it touches, seducing children with its lure of money and murderously punishing anyone who defies it. When the city blows up the federally funded housing projects whose density helped make drugs so profitable, trafficking becomes even more vicious as dealers war over the smaller territory that's left. Many favorite characters are murdered or set themselves on a clear path to death and disaster. Apparently no one is immune: Even "citizens" -- the cops' term for normal, law-abiding people -- are gunned down.
Crime prevents what little legal economic activity that exists from flourishing. The often overlooked second season of the show covers the port, its decline and deep corruption. One union boss who oversees the loading and unloading of cargo ships accepts bribes from corrupt importers to rename or "lose" containers in order to evade customs. He fools himself that by lining the pockets of his union brothers with this money he is protecting the mainly underemployed stevedores and their families. But as the port's decline worsens, the bribes are paid for increasingly brutal purposes -- such as human trafficking.
"The Wire" shows that there are other factors besides crime at the heart of Baltimore's problems (both real and fictional). The breakdown of the family and the horrendous urban schools are more significant than poverty itself as the source of urban decay. You would never know it, though, to hear all of the Democrats' talk of the income-inequality gap.
In one scene in "The Wire," a frail boy who was badly beaten in a street fight comes to Cutty, a former criminal, for boxing lessons and is pummeled in the ring by a smaller boy. When he cries bitterly that he's a failure "on the street," Cutty tries to comfort him, saying that the rules of the street aren't the same as those in the rest of the world. "But how do I get from here to the rest of the world?" asks the boy -- who has a missing father, a drug-using mother who ignores him, and a school that teaches him nothing.
Getting from teeming urban streets to the rest of the world has been the objective of generations of city dwellers -- and of urban policy. Yet the West Baltimore of "The Wire" may be more desperate, perilous and "isolating," to use Mr. Obama's word, than the worst of 19th-century slums. Those slum dwellers saw a way up and out. Characters on "The Wire" do not. Many are not even sure where "out" is, having never been beyond West Baltimore.
Even the show's longshoremen are unsure of how to get from here to the rest of the world. The days of well-paying industrial jobs are over, probably forever, the men's skills are limited, their futures dim. Their unions protected a few jobs at the cost of the overall economic health of the port, just as the public-school unions have favored teachers, including incompetent ones, over students.
The real lesson of "The Wire" is what New York's Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Police Commissioner Bill Bratton understood from day one: To restore a city and its neighborhoods, fight crime successfully and everything else will start to fall into place (though New York's public schools remain deplorable). And don't wait around for federal support. Take whatever money you can find.
Instead of advocating old-time Model Cities-type programs, Mr. Obama should propose The Wire Urban Agenda: Fight crime Bratton-style and resist the unions that stand in the way of prosperity. Now that would be true audacity of hope.
Ms. Vitullo-Martin is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Urban Decay
By JULIA VITULLO-MARTIN
March 14, 2008; Page W11
"I'm a big fan of 'The Wire,' " Barack Obama told US Weekly last week. "It's not a happy show, but it's addictive." His fellow liberal intellectuals apparently agree. Called "the best TV show ever broadcast in America" by Slate's editor in chief, Jacob Weisberg, and "astonishingly sophisticated" by NPR media reporter David Folkenflik, the HBO series, whose finale was shown on Saturday, is a cops-and-criminals saga that brings its genre to an entirely new level. "No other program has ever done anything remotely like what this one does, namely to portray the social, political and economic life of an American city with the scope, observational precision and moral vision of great literature," wrote Mr. Weisberg last year. Conservatives such as National Review's Jack Dunphy and The Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett laud the show too. But conservatives may see in it a lesson that liberal viewers are unlikely to take to heart.
Set, written and produced in Baltimore, "The Wire" aired 60 episodes, with each of its five seasons focused on a different subject -- drug trafficking, the port, local politics, public schools and the city's newspaper. From the series' opening sequences filmed in "The Towers" -- huge public housing projects whose courtyards serve as drug bazaars -- through its depiction of the continuing devastation of neighborhoods by violent crime and unemployment, the Baltimore of "The Wire" becomes the poster child for six decades of failed urban policy. Its crumbling, corrupt Baltimore is in virtual free fall while the city's caretakers -- including nearly all its politicians -- feed at the public trough, cavorting and partying as Baltimore burns and children die. By season five, the city's fiscal situation is so dire that budget cuts cripple the already disheartened police department even further as police cars break down for lack of service.
A look at some real-life statistics shows how accurate this picture is. Surpassed only by Detroit in CNN/Morgan Quinto's 2006 ranking of the country's most dangerous large cities, Baltimore has traded places over the past few years with Detroit and Washington as the country's urban murder capital. With 282 homicides last year and a population of about 641,000, Baltimore had a homicide rate six times that of New York and three times that of Los Angeles. While crack usage faded in resurgent cities like New York, Boston and Chicago in the 1990s, it never lost its hold in many Baltimore neighborhoods, even as heroin became the new drug of choice. Addicts just used both. By 2000, the federal Drug Enforcement Agency said, Baltimore had the highest per-capita heroin consumption in the country.
Meanwhile the public schools deteriorated, graduating less than half their students. The Baltimore Housing Authority was put on HUD's troubled authority list and in the 1990s dynamited many of its high-rise projects.
Mr. Obama, like most of his fellow liberals, believes that poverty is at the heart of urban problems and that its eradication is a federal duty. "What's most overwhelming about urban poverty is that it's so difficult to escape -- it's isolating and it's everywhere," he commented as he released his plans last July to reinvest in impoverished neighborhoods. By this he means giving more public funding to after-school and job training programs, parental counseling, extended day care, and public-private business incubators. What Lyndon Johnson called "model cities" programs Mr. Obama refers to as "promise neighborhoods." The idea is that, freed from poverty, people who are now dealing drugs would be living productive lives. But Mr. Obama's favorite show puts forth a very different message: It is the crime that causes the poverty, not the other way around.
Just watch a few episodes and it becomes clear that brazen drug trafficking degrades everything it touches, seducing children with its lure of money and murderously punishing anyone who defies it. When the city blows up the federally funded housing projects whose density helped make drugs so profitable, trafficking becomes even more vicious as dealers war over the smaller territory that's left. Many favorite characters are murdered or set themselves on a clear path to death and disaster. Apparently no one is immune: Even "citizens" -- the cops' term for normal, law-abiding people -- are gunned down.
Crime prevents what little legal economic activity that exists from flourishing. The often overlooked second season of the show covers the port, its decline and deep corruption. One union boss who oversees the loading and unloading of cargo ships accepts bribes from corrupt importers to rename or "lose" containers in order to evade customs. He fools himself that by lining the pockets of his union brothers with this money he is protecting the mainly underemployed stevedores and their families. But as the port's decline worsens, the bribes are paid for increasingly brutal purposes -- such as human trafficking.
"The Wire" shows that there are other factors besides crime at the heart of Baltimore's problems (both real and fictional). The breakdown of the family and the horrendous urban schools are more significant than poverty itself as the source of urban decay. You would never know it, though, to hear all of the Democrats' talk of the income-inequality gap.
In one scene in "The Wire," a frail boy who was badly beaten in a street fight comes to Cutty, a former criminal, for boxing lessons and is pummeled in the ring by a smaller boy. When he cries bitterly that he's a failure "on the street," Cutty tries to comfort him, saying that the rules of the street aren't the same as those in the rest of the world. "But how do I get from here to the rest of the world?" asks the boy -- who has a missing father, a drug-using mother who ignores him, and a school that teaches him nothing.
Getting from teeming urban streets to the rest of the world has been the objective of generations of city dwellers -- and of urban policy. Yet the West Baltimore of "The Wire" may be more desperate, perilous and "isolating," to use Mr. Obama's word, than the worst of 19th-century slums. Those slum dwellers saw a way up and out. Characters on "The Wire" do not. Many are not even sure where "out" is, having never been beyond West Baltimore.
Even the show's longshoremen are unsure of how to get from here to the rest of the world. The days of well-paying industrial jobs are over, probably forever, the men's skills are limited, their futures dim. Their unions protected a few jobs at the cost of the overall economic health of the port, just as the public-school unions have favored teachers, including incompetent ones, over students.
The real lesson of "The Wire" is what New York's Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Police Commissioner Bill Bratton understood from day one: To restore a city and its neighborhoods, fight crime successfully and everything else will start to fall into place (though New York's public schools remain deplorable). And don't wait around for federal support. Take whatever money you can find.
Instead of advocating old-time Model Cities-type programs, Mr. Obama should propose The Wire Urban Agenda: Fight crime Bratton-style and resist the unions that stand in the way of prosperity. Now that would be true audacity of hope.
Ms. Vitullo-Martin is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Hillary as Republican Manchurian Candidate
From the variety of nastiness that has emerged from the Clinton campaign, I still think this is the worst (because it's not about identity politics, but rather a genuine disregard for the future of our nation, our troops, our money - in short, a selfish betrayal of the American people):
'For the record, AmericaBlog documented her repeated endorsements of Senator McCain and, concurrently, her offenses against the Democratic Party:
"[McCain has] never been president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."
"I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
"Of course, well, you know, I've got a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. And you know, Senator Obama's whole campaign is about one speech he made in 2002."
Clearly, the senator's point was that if she doesn't win the nomination (and it's mathematically impossible at this point), she would prefer to see Senator McCain defeat Senator Obama in November. After all, and by her own admission, Senator McCain is more qualified and better equipped to defend the nation against the evildoers. What's more is that Senator Clinton has provided for the McCain campaign enough clips to launch a thousand fear mongering commercials.'
And check out this cozy little shot:
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Colbert on Clinton
"But they were wrong about her [Hillary] being inevitable, right? She was not inevitable - she is unkillable. You cannot stop her. You chop off her head, she’ll crawl toward you. Now, I think, I think, you know, in these dangerous days, that might be what we need in a president."
I need to start watching The Colbert Report again. And as brilliant as Stephen is, the quality is much improved since the writer's strike ended. Hooray.
I need to start watching The Colbert Report again. And as brilliant as Stephen is, the quality is much improved since the writer's strike ended. Hooray.
The difference between how wealthy we perceive America to be, and how wealthy she actually is...
Fabulous column from Herbert on our financial situation and the ever-widening income gap. I have many thoughts on the subject and how it relates to our current economic mess, but am unable to put them down now - hopefully soon!
"For years, families have been fighting weakness on the employment front with every other option imaginable. Wives and mothers have gone to work. People have been putting in more hours and working additional jobs.
"And Americans have plunged like Olympic diving champions into every form of debt they could find.
"As Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, told me some months ago: 'Workers are incredibly, legitimately scared that the American dream, particularly the belief that their kids will do better, is ending.'"
Generally, I try to be as optimistic about our futures as possible (while still holding on to reality), but when I read that last sentence, some part of me shuddered at its truth. All is not lost, but I certainly don't think we're on the right track yet.
"For years, families have been fighting weakness on the employment front with every other option imaginable. Wives and mothers have gone to work. People have been putting in more hours and working additional jobs.
"And Americans have plunged like Olympic diving champions into every form of debt they could find.
"As Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, told me some months ago: 'Workers are incredibly, legitimately scared that the American dream, particularly the belief that their kids will do better, is ending.'"
Generally, I try to be as optimistic about our futures as possible (while still holding on to reality), but when I read that last sentence, some part of me shuddered at its truth. All is not lost, but I certainly don't think we're on the right track yet.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Holy crap.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4440551&page=1
Wow. And I thought the Clinton campaign screw-ups couldn't get any worse...
Wow. And I thought the Clinton campaign screw-ups couldn't get any worse...
Monday, March 10, 2008
This is some nasty business right here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/opinion/08herbert.html?th&emc=th
Hillary really should be ashamed.
"Mr. Kroft asked Senator Clinton if she believed that Senator Obama is a Muslim. In one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date, Senator Clinton replied: 'No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.'"
"More serious was Senator Clinton’s assertion that she was qualified to be commander in chief, and that John McCain had also “certainly” crossed that “threshold,” but that the jury was still out on Mr. Obama.
"In other words, if a choice on national security had to be made today between Senators Obama and McCain, voters — according to Mrs. Clinton’s logic — should choose Senator McCain."
Hillary really should be ashamed.
"Mr. Kroft asked Senator Clinton if she believed that Senator Obama is a Muslim. In one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date, Senator Clinton replied: 'No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.'"
"More serious was Senator Clinton’s assertion that she was qualified to be commander in chief, and that John McCain had also “certainly” crossed that “threshold,” but that the jury was still out on Mr. Obama.
"In other words, if a choice on national security had to be made today between Senators Obama and McCain, voters — according to Mrs. Clinton’s logic — should choose Senator McCain."
Sunday, March 09, 2008
The Presidio
Now, I'm fairly certain I'm not going to live in San Francisco forever. It's glorious, but my family is all the way on the east coast, and given my tendency to wander - it's just a safe assumption. So, while I do live here, I try and get as much enjoyment out of it as possible. One of the greatest things about this city is how quickly one can go from a wholly metropolitan environment to a surprisingly natural one (particularly given the city's small size: 7 mile X 7 mile square). I live quite near one of San Francisco's largest protected areas, the Presidio. I've taken to going on long weekend walks through the Presidio, among other SF locales that are pleasing to the eyes (you don't have to go far...). Anyway, just thought I'd share a few photos from yesterday's trek.
Does this look like a city to you? Me neither. And actually, I'm always surprised at how silent it gets on these trails. Sometimes you can hear the faint rumble of traffic, but mostly, it's like hiking anywhere else.
I'm also fascinated by west coast flora. I can't remember seeing anything like this back east, or even when I lived in Colorado. Let me know if you know what this is, although I will be consulting my own plant expert - my mother.
This is Mountain Lake (where's the mountain?). Again, I never left the city. Also, I hit every "scenic overlook" listed in the website above, but I felt too touristy to take a picture there. Everyone else either looked like a hardcore weekend biker or a hardcore hiker. I tend to take off in a hoodie and jeans. Meh! I should probably learn to be less self-conscious about looking like a tourist - I'm not self conscious about much, but for some reason, that's one of my weaknesses. Good times anyway. Last weekend I went on a 15-mile walk that included crossing the Golden Gate Bridge (for the first time!) - I'll probably post pictures from that sometime soon. There's just so much to see - it's a bit overwhelming.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Websites to check out once you have some free time
www.openthegovernment.org
www.fedspending.org
www.opencongress.org
Also, download and watch this webcast after March 19.
www.fedspending.org
www.opencongress.org
Also, download and watch this webcast after March 19.
Recession for sure
Unfortunately, lots of bad news today:
Payrolls declined by 63,000 jobs.
Defaults on mortgages reached a historic high.
And Saturday Night Live is apparently back on the radar.
"'Saturday Night Live' has been in the news a lot lately, first for allegedly catering to Hillary Clinton's campaign with too-favorable skits and appearances, then for hiring Fred Armisen to portray Barack Obama even though Armisen is not black and, finally, for being cited as a catalyst - by way of a skit featuring fawning reporters asking Armisen/Obama softball questions - for tougher media coverage of the Illinois senator.
"To which we say: What? People are still watching 'Saturday Night Live'? Why? To kill time in a slow and unfunny manner? "
Also, see this post for some of the reasons I hate the entire "bitch is the new black" thing. Being a bitch is not a good thing! I find it absurd that I even need to type that. Remember, the origin of the word is a female dog - it's not exactly the type of description women should desire. And yes, I know it wasn't Hillary Clinton who invented the phrase, but one of her supporters - however, many of her [particularly female] supporters have embraced this motto. If another candidate appropriated a word into their campaign that applied to a specific demographic and had a negative origin, my guess is there would be a HUGE backlash. No matter how much I read, I still find it very hard to understand the Clinton campaign, particularly the feminist aspect, which she's been trying to play for all its worth. Hillary's campaign seems to alternate between accusing everyone else (the media, her opponents, the voters!) of misogyny and displaying it themselves. I cannot think of a better word to describe her entire campaign than "hypocritical".
Payrolls declined by 63,000 jobs.
Defaults on mortgages reached a historic high.
And Saturday Night Live is apparently back on the radar.
"'Saturday Night Live' has been in the news a lot lately, first for allegedly catering to Hillary Clinton's campaign with too-favorable skits and appearances, then for hiring Fred Armisen to portray Barack Obama even though Armisen is not black and, finally, for being cited as a catalyst - by way of a skit featuring fawning reporters asking Armisen/Obama softball questions - for tougher media coverage of the Illinois senator.
"To which we say: What? People are still watching 'Saturday Night Live'? Why? To kill time in a slow and unfunny manner? "
Also, see this post for some of the reasons I hate the entire "bitch is the new black" thing. Being a bitch is not a good thing! I find it absurd that I even need to type that. Remember, the origin of the word is a female dog - it's not exactly the type of description women should desire. And yes, I know it wasn't Hillary Clinton who invented the phrase, but one of her supporters - however, many of her [particularly female] supporters have embraced this motto. If another candidate appropriated a word into their campaign that applied to a specific demographic and had a negative origin, my guess is there would be a HUGE backlash. No matter how much I read, I still find it very hard to understand the Clinton campaign, particularly the feminist aspect, which she's been trying to play for all its worth. Hillary's campaign seems to alternate between accusing everyone else (the media, her opponents, the voters!) of misogyny and displaying it themselves. I cannot think of a better word to describe her entire campaign than "hypocritical".
One thing I never understood...
Why don't schools utilize Home Economics Class to provide more nutritious (and varied) lunch options? Cafeteria workers could supervise (because obviously kids cannot be trusted not to tamper with the food of their peers - although I think they should make whoever cooked it, eat it - to avoid moral hazard). And while not every dish would turn out edible, I feel like the vast majority would. And the Home Ec class doesn't need to eat an entire German chocolate cake, do they? Anyway, just a thought on improving efficiency - not to mention feeding the dreams of any inspiring chef. Pun intended.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Izzy!
One seldom-discussed negative about puppies, is that they simply grow up way too fast. This is little Isolde, whom I got to name (it was the first family dog I've actually gotten to name, although my mother restricted me to German names since she is a German shepherd - not obvious at all). In the photo above, it's October 2007. Below, Izzy in December. Ridiculous. And I suffer disproportionately to the rest of my family because I live all the way across the country. Apparently, she's grown exponentially since the holidays, surpassing the size of our two year-old Golden Retriever. Absurd. Anyway, just a thought - in case any of you are thinking about getting puppies, remember they don't stay puppies for long! (Though dogs are still wonderful long after their puppy days...)
Lesson of Defeat: Obama Comes Out Punching
I just have to say, he looks pretty badass in this shot. And why is that one girl holding that many microphones? From the New York Times.Wednesday, March 05, 2008
I'll be there.
Oh you can bet your sweet ass I'll be there. (Bonus points for naming the origin of that quote.)
One of life's most unfortunate "necessities"
The Fine Art of Sucking Up To Your Boss, presented by Forbes Magazine: "Employees seeking to develop trust and rapport with their bosses are advised to adopt a similar style and energy, be respectful of their position and produce quality work that comports with their expectations. "Or you could short-cut right to the Andy Bernard version: "Name repetition, personality mirroring, and never breaking off a handshake."
Hey, it worked for him! Oh, wait...
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
For all The Wire fans out there...
http://timgoodman.blogspot.com/
Tim Goodman is also a San Francisco Chronicle writer, but this is his personal blog. Always great commentary on the creme de la creme of HBO.
Sidenote: Series finale Sunday - it's been a great lead-up so far, I'm beyond anticipation.
Tim Goodman is also a San Francisco Chronicle writer, but this is his personal blog. Always great commentary on the creme de la creme of HBO.
Sidenote: Series finale Sunday - it's been a great lead-up so far, I'm beyond anticipation.
David Brooks does it again!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/opinion/04brooks.html?th&emc=th
This guy is brilliant. Great column.
This guy is brilliant. Great column.
This is important.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/opinion/04herbert.html?th&emc=th
My list for the new president
Goal #1: Stop hemorrhaging money!
My list for the new president
Goal #1: Stop hemorrhaging money!
Monday, March 03, 2008
Arcade Fire supports Obama
http://cemusic.blogspot.com/2008/03/arcade-fire-plays-for-barack.html
**good commentary on this site too
**good commentary on this site too
Nader, part deux
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902786.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
Best part: "By now it is no secret that a large segment of the public has soured on "Washington." To denizens of the District, this can seem a childish, naive sentiment. It's not. What Americans have turned against is the broken two-party system. According to a poll taken last year by the firm I founded, Penn, Schoen & Berland, 61 percent of voters say that having a third-party candidate on the ballot in the presidential race would be beneficial to America. A poll by the Luntz Maslansky Group found that 81 percent of the electorate would consider voting for a third-party candidate."
Please, please - let's keep going with this! (Maybe not in this election, but in the next and the next and the next - who knows how many choices we could have - and by free market logic, more choices=more competition=increased efficiency - our political system needs more of this than perhaps any other abstract quality!) Although I'm still not sure about Nader, specifically; can anyone concisely explain his views to me (I'm just not that familiar...)?
Best part: "By now it is no secret that a large segment of the public has soured on "Washington." To denizens of the District, this can seem a childish, naive sentiment. It's not. What Americans have turned against is the broken two-party system. According to a poll taken last year by the firm I founded, Penn, Schoen & Berland, 61 percent of voters say that having a third-party candidate on the ballot in the presidential race would be beneficial to America. A poll by the Luntz Maslansky Group found that 81 percent of the electorate would consider voting for a third-party candidate."
Please, please - let's keep going with this! (Maybe not in this election, but in the next and the next and the next - who knows how many choices we could have - and by free market logic, more choices=more competition=increased efficiency - our political system needs more of this than perhaps any other abstract quality!) Although I'm still not sure about Nader, specifically; can anyone concisely explain his views to me (I'm just not that familiar...)?
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Saturday, March 01, 2008
The anti-Dowd
Gail Collins proves you can be a liberal female columnist, incorporate humor, and still sound like an intellectual human being - unlike Maureen Dowd who needs to stop writing and making women look like incompetent hacks. Gail Collins is not my favorite Times columnist, and maybe she's not as easy on the eyes as Dowd, but my goodness, she doesn't make me ashamed of my gender, and for that, I thank her.
*Just a small note, this is to contrast her with Maureen Dowd who I LOATHE. Loathe, loathe, loathe - for her ridiculous nicknames (Barry=Barack - what?!), weak arguments, false logic, and a million other wrongs. Women columnists are quite clearly in the newspaper minority, even in the liberal New York Times, and seeing Dowd alongside intimidatingly good columnists like Frank Rich and Paul Krugman makes my blood crawl. I'm not particularly inclined to be ashamed of my gender (I LOVE being a woman, truly) but the Dowd juxtaposition is too much to bear. It's like her role, in addition to being one of the token females, was to provide the "dumbed-down" column. It's disgusting. At least Coulter had the decency to be on the other side (politically) - Dowd supposedly represents my views. BLECH.
*Just a small note, this is to contrast her with Maureen Dowd who I LOATHE. Loathe, loathe, loathe - for her ridiculous nicknames (Barry=Barack - what?!), weak arguments, false logic, and a million other wrongs. Women columnists are quite clearly in the newspaper minority, even in the liberal New York Times, and seeing Dowd alongside intimidatingly good columnists like Frank Rich and Paul Krugman makes my blood crawl. I'm not particularly inclined to be ashamed of my gender (I LOVE being a woman, truly) but the Dowd juxtaposition is too much to bear. It's like her role, in addition to being one of the token females, was to provide the "dumbed-down" column. It's disgusting. At least Coulter had the decency to be on the other side (politically) - Dowd supposedly represents my views. BLECH.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
