A friend of mine sent me the link for a pretty funny blog on wordpress. The title of the blog says it all: "Stuff white people like". Basically, the blog uses faux-scholarship to explain why white people are privy to X, Y, and Z. Some of the more hilarious posts involve topics like "expensive sandwiches", "Divorce", and "Hating your parents".
On the whole, most of the posts concern latte-drinking, city liberals. I don't remember too many people in Southern Indiana having a passion for Apple products, Toyota Priuses, or indie music.
It's an entertaining read and worth bookmarking. There's even a "Stuff Indian People like" blog which discusses the Indian fascination with things like "Chicago", "Indian fashion shows", and "Taco Bell Fire Sauce". The last one is especially true; I had a friend who grabbed fistfuls of those sauce packets and slurped them like they were vodka shots.
Of course, if there was a blog entitled "Stuff Black People Like", it would be racist. Many of the readers of the white people blog are quick to point that out and I mostly agree with that sentiment. But if one hand you have centuries worth of slavery and discrimination and on the other a good-natured, innocuous blog, I think some mild ribbing isn't worth getting all hot and bothered about.
Anyways, there was one particular entry I wanted to comment on. Interestingly, the most popular post on the blog is "asian girls". The post has sparked some lively (sometimes racist) debate. It's a contentious topic for sure. My East Asian friends are genuinely concerned about that: white guys stealing "their women". There's no denying the discrepancy: Asian women are much more likely to intermarry than Asian men are.
I think there's a domino effect operating here because I'm seeing more and more Asian guys with Indian girls. It all comes full circle when you see that us Indian men buck the trend by being much more likely than Indian girls to intermarry (mostly with white women). By the way, when I heard that stat, I almost didn't believe it. Nerdy Indian guys can be that pimp?
So I can't give reasons for these racial phenomena, but, honestly, it shouldn't matter that much. If white guys are going for asian girls because of their perceived quiet subservience or the whole exotic stereotype, then it is wrong and objectifying. If it's for love, then let it be. Racial intermarriage is bound to happen in a multicultural society so why pick sides and cling to antiquated ideas. Love should be blind to skin color.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
I wish I could have jumped out of the theatre
This past weekend, my friends and I continued a long tradition beginning my freshman year of college: watching low-rated, shitty movies for the singular purpose of ripping on it later. Though movies like "Man of the Year" and "ATL" have some redeeming qualities, the film we watched this past weekend, "Jumper", is so bad that it was worth not only a blog post, but also an attendant analysis as to why it's so humiliatingly awful. Jumper is so horrid that it shouldn't have even been a straight-to-video. The director, Doug Liman, and the screenwriters involved should be banned from Hollywood for conjuring up such dreck. I think banging my head with a frying pan repeatedly would have been a more constructive use of my time.
When I think about this movie, there were a few things that stick out in my head as being the death-knell of this movie. If they had been corrected, MAYBE Jumper would have been mediocre. But then again, it may be an impossibility to salvage such a Titanic failure of a movie.
1. Casting anyone other than Hayden Christensen
I think it's only fair to start with the most explicit, dunderheaded decision of this movie. I used to think Hayden Christensen was just a victim of a bad script in Star Wars. Although that was definitely the case with Jumper as well, Hayden Christensen really seemed to go out of his way to be god-awful. The guy has been in the industry long enough for me to make this assessment: Hayden Christensen is the worst actor working in Hollywood today. Keanu Reeves is a better actor. There, I said it.
He has no concept of voice inflection and how to convey emotion. His line delivery was so bad I found myself laughing out loud during moments that were meant to be poignant. "Wooden" or "stilted" don't go far enough to describe the Hayden school of acting. He just sounds apathetic and/or fatigued when he talks.
In fact, I really think Hollywood studios are conspiring to make Hayden Christensen a popular actor. They think America's stupid enough to not know the difference as long as you have cool special-effects.
2. Giving Jamie Bell a more prominent role
Jamie Bell was the lone bright spot of this movie. You know why? Unlike Hayden, Rachel Bilson, and Samuel L. Jackson, you actually feel empathy for his character. He has a likable, snappy personality, which is a glaring contrast to David's childish adolescence.
In fact, Jumper would have been exponentially better if Jamie Bell was made the main character. Instead, the casting people went with the better looking, safer choice in Hayden Christensen.
3. Reducing the love angle and fleshing out the story of how David is a Jumper
Basically, the whole romance between Millie and David was wholly unnecessary. It's not even believable that these two would love each other. David is like that moody, somber kid who hates his life. Millie is the prototypical, cheery popular girl.
Eight years elapse before they see each other again and, when they finally do, it doesn't even seem like Millie is that enthused. The guy nearly dies getting back that stupid snow-globe, runs away from home, and has been out of her life for eight years. Not only that, but after 5 minutes of seeing each other after such a long time, he takes her to Rome (her childhood dream).
I know this is a movie, but that's totally unbelievable. In real life, Millie would think nothing of a moody loser like David and when he appears out of thin air later to take her to Rome, she'd think he's a creep. To add insult to injury, the chemistry between the two is non-existent. It just feels weird seeing them having sex or an intimate moment.
They should have replaced the love story with an explanation of why the paladins are after the jumpers, Mary's relationship with David, Griffin's backstory, etc. In other words, AN ACTUAL, COHERENT PLOT! They should have made the movie throwing a blind eye to the possibility of a sequel. Those type of loopholes central to a movie are inexcusable.
4. Better script
This is obviously the most egregious mistake. I've already mentioned the loopholes that exist in this film, but compounding the problem is some of the worst dialogue in a major film release in a while. It just seems like the writers neglected to proofread the script. And Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson are much too inept to know the difference. Here's a sample of what I can remember:
"You don't have to tell me anything, just don't lie to me, David." -- Millie
ok, so abject lying is bad, but omitting key details is alright. Makes a whole lot of sense.
"Remember when I said you don't have to tell me anything? I changed my mind." -- Millie
What made the line bad is that it was delivered dramatically AND it hearkened back to a line that was crappy to begin with. A bullshit bonus.
"Only God should have this power, the power to be anywhere." -- Roland
Now, this is the ONLY line proferred as to why the Paladins want to kill the Jumpers. Atleast in the Matrix, you get a slew of dialogue as to why the agents want to kill Neo and company. I must point out as well that this line and its delivery perfectly encapsulates what Samuel L. Jackson has become in the last decade: a parody/caricature of himself.
So I can go on and on, but I feel like I've made my point. Jumper is a movie with a shallow plot, bad acting, and numerous plot holes. It's a confusing mess and I expected much, much better from the director of the Bourne movies. I guarantee if you watch this movie you'll alternate between cringing and snickering at the sheer inanity of it all. I watched it purposely to continue this weird tradition of ours, but Jumper was so atrocious that I think we should end it. Giving 10 bucks to Hollywood for making this rubbish is simply immoral.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Acceptable news alternative...for now
So a few posts back, I discussed my vehement disgust with CNN nowadays. I've always been hesitant to embrace the New York Times as my ready news source. It's the "liberal" paper out of touch with America's majority. However, lately, I've grown to appreciate the political op-eds and general quality of writing. I agree that it skews liberal, but honestly is there any such thing as an unbiased news source anymore? My conservative acquaintances always level that charge against the New York Times and the so-called "left-wing" media. I guess they're right....except for Bill O'Reilly, Rupert Murdoch, Hannity and Colmes, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Dennis Miller...
Anyways, lately the Chicago area has been rocked by the NIU shootings. Suddenly, the safety of the college environment has been compromised. Can anything be done? One of my Republican friends suggests looser gun laws would be the solution. In other words, allowing students to arm themselves would allow students to fight back and kill a would-be shooter. So the solution is to make the classroom a Wild West saloon? I have to disagree.
The only solution that really works is more restrictive gun laws, I'm sorry. If our politicians weren't so far up the NRA's asses, they would realize this as well. Until then, we're just leaving ourselves more vulnerable to future incidents of the Virginia Tech, NIU, and Columbine ilk.
People say you can't say Europe is relatively safer because of more restrictive gun laws, but I beg to differ, when that seems to be the only differentiating factor. I really do agree with those mothers of the victims, and so should the rest of America in the year 2008.
Anyways, lately the Chicago area has been rocked by the NIU shootings. Suddenly, the safety of the college environment has been compromised. Can anything be done? One of my Republican friends suggests looser gun laws would be the solution. In other words, allowing students to arm themselves would allow students to fight back and kill a would-be shooter. So the solution is to make the classroom a Wild West saloon? I have to disagree.
The only solution that really works is more restrictive gun laws, I'm sorry. If our politicians weren't so far up the NRA's asses, they would realize this as well. Until then, we're just leaving ourselves more vulnerable to future incidents of the Virginia Tech, NIU, and Columbine ilk.
People say you can't say Europe is relatively safer because of more restrictive gun laws, but I beg to differ, when that seems to be the only differentiating factor. I really do agree with those mothers of the victims, and so should the rest of America in the year 2008.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
you know what's embarassing?
...getting your laundry out of the machine in front of a girl and having your underwear fall out of the basket, right in front of her. Oy ve....
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Animals gone wild
Now, this is unexpected. I was reading GQ magazine, a magazine noted for being a men's style manual more than being a profound publication. There's nothing wrong with that, but imagine my surprise when I opened up the issue and saw a bizarre article about animals working in a concerted fashion against humans.
If that idea seems a bit difficult to wrap your head around, let me explain. Basically, it's the theory that constant encroachment by humans on the habitats of animals has caused animals (intraspecially for the most part) to band together and take "revenge" out on humans. For example, in Africa, there has been an increase in incidence of elephants banding together and destroying small villages. Not just trampling down random huts, but specifically going after people and injuring (sometimes killing) them.
How does one show that these aren't just random, isolated events, but are part of an ongoing trend? Well, this seems to be the work of a scholar from a small college in Ohio. He is the primary scholar of this controversial theory. I have to admit; his methodology is pretty interesting. He has an algorithm set to detect geographical trends of this concerted, anti-human animal behavior. For example, let's say there has been a spike in dolphin attacks in recent years off Chesapeake Bay. His program pinpoints the locations of these incidents and determines if the trend is accelerating with respect to say the last twenty years. It also compares these incidents with other regions of the world and sees if this is "out of the ordinary" in terms of dolphin attacks.
It's a bizzare, but tantalizing theory. Imagine if animals were capable of the same sort of base human feelings that we are. It's a higher level of savagery; one that involves active planning and involves complex feelings like "revenge" and "spite". It seems to suggest that animals may have some sort of memory or perhaps some kind of way of saying to each other "Humans are bad and out to get us. It's us or them."
Obviously, this guy is a fringe and controlling for outside variables would be a challenge for his theory. However, the idea that nature's tired of our fucking around and is turning against us, it's such a controversial idea that I can't help but be fascinated.
If that idea seems a bit difficult to wrap your head around, let me explain. Basically, it's the theory that constant encroachment by humans on the habitats of animals has caused animals (intraspecially for the most part) to band together and take "revenge" out on humans. For example, in Africa, there has been an increase in incidence of elephants banding together and destroying small villages. Not just trampling down random huts, but specifically going after people and injuring (sometimes killing) them.
How does one show that these aren't just random, isolated events, but are part of an ongoing trend? Well, this seems to be the work of a scholar from a small college in Ohio. He is the primary scholar of this controversial theory. I have to admit; his methodology is pretty interesting. He has an algorithm set to detect geographical trends of this concerted, anti-human animal behavior. For example, let's say there has been a spike in dolphin attacks in recent years off Chesapeake Bay. His program pinpoints the locations of these incidents and determines if the trend is accelerating with respect to say the last twenty years. It also compares these incidents with other regions of the world and sees if this is "out of the ordinary" in terms of dolphin attacks.
It's a bizzare, but tantalizing theory. Imagine if animals were capable of the same sort of base human feelings that we are. It's a higher level of savagery; one that involves active planning and involves complex feelings like "revenge" and "spite". It seems to suggest that animals may have some sort of memory or perhaps some kind of way of saying to each other "Humans are bad and out to get us. It's us or them."
Obviously, this guy is a fringe and controlling for outside variables would be a challenge for his theory. However, the idea that nature's tired of our fucking around and is turning against us, it's such a controversial idea that I can't help but be fascinated.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Energized Youth
I just wanted to mention that perhaps the best thing to come out of these primaries is the record turnout of an often overlooked and apathetic segment of the population: twenty-somethings. It's genuinely surprising to see the energy of this group for the PRIMARIES! Some states have seen a quadrupling of the amount of young voters. That's insane.
I think there are two main reasons for this surge of young voters: 1) there's a lot at stake this election 2) Barack Obama. Number two cannot be stressed enough. In fact, young voters alone are the reason he eked out the win in Missouri. There's something special about this guy. This is not a one-hit wonder. He's a phenomenon. The rest of the nation is catching the same fever that we in Illinois have had for the last four years.
Number one is an important reason too. Partisanship is at an all-time high. There is a clear difference, it seems, between the Republican and Democratic fields. I mean, just consider the top two contenders in the Dem field : a black man and a woman. I didn't think I'd see this with my own two eyes for atleast a few more decades, but it's happened. And people of my generation are driving this change. So kudos to fellow millenials and continue this trend of involvement in future elections. For now however, let's focus on November.
I think there are two main reasons for this surge of young voters: 1) there's a lot at stake this election 2) Barack Obama. Number two cannot be stressed enough. In fact, young voters alone are the reason he eked out the win in Missouri. There's something special about this guy. This is not a one-hit wonder. He's a phenomenon. The rest of the nation is catching the same fever that we in Illinois have had for the last four years.
Number one is an important reason too. Partisanship is at an all-time high. There is a clear difference, it seems, between the Republican and Democratic fields. I mean, just consider the top two contenders in the Dem field : a black man and a woman. I didn't think I'd see this with my own two eyes for atleast a few more decades, but it's happened. And people of my generation are driving this change. So kudos to fellow millenials and continue this trend of involvement in future elections. For now however, let's focus on November.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Mitt's out!
Looks like Mitt took the hint, capping off a very bad week for New England. America didn't want him and good riddance. From the start, Mitt Romney never understood why people didn't like him, including the conservatives in his own party he tried so hard to court. The primary problem with Mitt is that he never had a clear message for his campaign. And I believe that came out of the fact that he had capricious beliefs.
When he first declared his candidacy, he basically abdicated everything he believed in when he was governor of Massachusetts. After that, Romney obviously had no qualms pumping so much of his personal money into his own campaign. It's true that you need loads of money to run for president, but when you are your own biggest donor, you certainly lose that populist vibe. He was spending immense amounts of money per delegate. It was a strategy he could not maintain for the primaries, much less the actual election. After he failed to essentially pay off Iowa and New Hampshire, he resorted to labeling himself the "conservative" candidate. He even had the audacity to suggest Huckabee drop out. Before that, he was the "CEO" running for America's highest position. So first, he was gearing his campaign towards being the salve to our economy, but then he decides he's going to be the self-labeled successor to the Reagan legacy. Then, after he got whupped on Tuesday, you see "Mitt for change" signs.
There lies the problem. Do you get a clear sense of what a candidate stands for if he or she keeps changing their central message? Of course not. It's like he looks at the polls and then pulls his ethos out of a hat. Principles shouldn't come from polls, but from within. Republicans could see that and hence decided to not vote for him. If he was the conservative candidate, then how come he did so poorly in the South? People could see through the fallacy.
Now, nothing stands in McCain's way. Huckabee will get trounced in non-Southern states and eventually drop out. That actually bodes not so well for the candidate to make it out of the Democratic primaries. Barack or Hillary will already be behind by the time the actual election season starts...
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
General Reactions from Super Tuesday
So I ended up staying up until 1 AM watching the Super Tuesday returns come in. I just couldn't turn off CNN or stop refreshing the New York Times page to see how delegates in California were going to be apportioned. As melodramatic as it may sound, it feels like a seminal moment, for both sides actually. Barack and Hillary is a real dogfight; it may go to the convention. Mccain is going to wrap it up, but there's real potential (as one of my friends pointed it out) that a "real conservative" like Pat Buchanan or some other nutjob will try to run as well. At the very least, there will be much conservative opposition to a Mccain opposition. It may embolden conservatives as much as the prospect of Hillary running. Anyways, I wanted to break down the returns and what they mean, in my opinion, for the future.
1. Barack Obama
Overall, Barack did well, perhaps better than expected. Although he didn't win as many delegates as Hillary, he won more states and is really gaining popularity with the independents and new, young voters. Two critical blocs.
What was really encouraging to see is that his wins (besides Missouri and Connecticut) were really definitive wins. He routinely got 65-35 or 70-30. It makes up for the more marginal shortfall in the states he lost, thanks to the proportional representation rule for the Democratic primaries.
Barack is in great shape. He has plenty of money and is moving on to states that he should win pretty easily I think (Maryland, DC, maybe Ohio and Texas too). You get the sense that the Barack train is gaining momentum at the right time. And that's especially good news considering that he's less than 100 delegates behind. Yes we can, indeed.
2. Hillary Clinton
Overall, I think Hillary hd a mixed night. Sure, she grabbed the Latino vote and was able to contain O-mentum in the Northeast and in California, but she failed to put Barack away. That was supposed to be the goal after winning so many primaries after Iowa. In her home state of New York, she had a 15 point win, but it should have been a 30 point difference. Her victory margins weren't convincing enough in those large states she won. That's precisely what she needed to put away Obama.
Regardless, I have to respect Hillary's resilience in the Northeast. The Ted Kennedy, Deval Patrick, and John Kerry endorsements amounted to almost nothing in Massachusetts. Which seems to reinforce my opinion that the Kennedy mystique is really a bunch of hogwash and that Kerry is desperate to appear relevant after losing in 2004. Anyway, Hillary missed a golden opportunity to really put away the upstart and she should be genuinely worried that she came out of Super Tuesday in a virtual tie.
3. John McCain
Not really much to say about Mccain. He did as well as expected by capturing the large states. The only worrisome point is that he did not catch much of the conservative vote. In the Solid South, for instance, they were much more willing to go for the huckster.
Is that going to stop him from getting the nomination? No not at all. The conservative base, although always an importnat component in the GOP, is taking a backseat to moderates and independents in the party this time around. I think people are genuinely fatigued with Bushie style neocons who were partly responsible for the partisanship in this country nowadays. McCain represnets an opportunity to build bridges with the Dems and stop the petty bickering.
The best way for him to allay the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters is to have a conservative VP, in my opinion. By the way, I think it's nothing short of a miracle that McCain is in the race, much less the lead, given how his campaign imploded in the summer. He's a fighter and will roll to the nomination no problem, especially given the winner takes all aspect of the GOP primaries.
4. Mitt Romney
So much for the "I am the conservative" talk. It really amounted to an extremely subpar showing. The problem with his re-positioning of himself as the alternative to McCain lies in his disingenious nature. He's flopped more than a fish out of water from the start of his campaign. Primary voters are smart enough to know that. It doesn't help that he's just plain an unlikable person. He attacks people for positions he once held and has the audacity to label himself a "conservative" and try to have Huckabee drop out. He will do anything that is politically expedient. If tomorrow Republicans decided they all wanted to be pro-choice, hemp smoking, flag burning hippies living in communes, Mitt would start to champion all those in a new, redesigned platform the next day.
Mitt Romney is a tool of unimaginable proportions; I can't stress it enough. He's his own biggest donor, and with a personal value of a quarter of a billion, he will stay in this race until the convention. And then when he officially loses, he will not be gracious and congratulate and support McCain. Instead, he will whine like a little bitch thanks to his oversized ego.
I think it says a lot when Republicans themselves say they would vote for Hillary over Mitt. They can smell a con artist when they see one.
5. Mike Huckabee
No-one gave Huckabee much of a chance to do anything. His strong showing in the South doesn't mean he'll win the nomination, but it will give him strong consideration as a VP candidate for McCain. In addition, his folksy roots and nice guy attitude would really help to balance out the smugness and somewhat elitist tendencies of mccain. Mitt's claim that he was the real conservative candidate and that Huckabee should drop out in all probability helped to rally support for the huckster.
I especially liked how West Virginia turned out. McCain supporters realizing that they had no chance after the first round, put all of their support behind Huckabee. Hence, Huckabee edged out Romney in WV. Was this is a behind the back collusion as the Romney camp asserts? No, it's just genuine dislike for Mitt Romney. Did I mention I don't like Romney enough?
Anyways, Huckabee is a breath of fresh air, but missed an opportunity to capitalize on his Iowa win to build broad support outside of evangelicals. Evangelical support will not carry the day in 2008 and his camp should have made adjustments after the Iowa win.
1. Barack Obama
Overall, Barack did well, perhaps better than expected. Although he didn't win as many delegates as Hillary, he won more states and is really gaining popularity with the independents and new, young voters. Two critical blocs.
What was really encouraging to see is that his wins (besides Missouri and Connecticut) were really definitive wins. He routinely got 65-35 or 70-30. It makes up for the more marginal shortfall in the states he lost, thanks to the proportional representation rule for the Democratic primaries.
Barack is in great shape. He has plenty of money and is moving on to states that he should win pretty easily I think (Maryland, DC, maybe Ohio and Texas too). You get the sense that the Barack train is gaining momentum at the right time. And that's especially good news considering that he's less than 100 delegates behind. Yes we can, indeed.
2. Hillary Clinton
Overall, I think Hillary hd a mixed night. Sure, she grabbed the Latino vote and was able to contain O-mentum in the Northeast and in California, but she failed to put Barack away. That was supposed to be the goal after winning so many primaries after Iowa. In her home state of New York, she had a 15 point win, but it should have been a 30 point difference. Her victory margins weren't convincing enough in those large states she won. That's precisely what she needed to put away Obama.
Regardless, I have to respect Hillary's resilience in the Northeast. The Ted Kennedy, Deval Patrick, and John Kerry endorsements amounted to almost nothing in Massachusetts. Which seems to reinforce my opinion that the Kennedy mystique is really a bunch of hogwash and that Kerry is desperate to appear relevant after losing in 2004. Anyway, Hillary missed a golden opportunity to really put away the upstart and she should be genuinely worried that she came out of Super Tuesday in a virtual tie.
3. John McCain
Not really much to say about Mccain. He did as well as expected by capturing the large states. The only worrisome point is that he did not catch much of the conservative vote. In the Solid South, for instance, they were much more willing to go for the huckster.
Is that going to stop him from getting the nomination? No not at all. The conservative base, although always an importnat component in the GOP, is taking a backseat to moderates and independents in the party this time around. I think people are genuinely fatigued with Bushie style neocons who were partly responsible for the partisanship in this country nowadays. McCain represnets an opportunity to build bridges with the Dems and stop the petty bickering.
The best way for him to allay the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters is to have a conservative VP, in my opinion. By the way, I think it's nothing short of a miracle that McCain is in the race, much less the lead, given how his campaign imploded in the summer. He's a fighter and will roll to the nomination no problem, especially given the winner takes all aspect of the GOP primaries.
4. Mitt Romney
So much for the "I am the conservative" talk. It really amounted to an extremely subpar showing. The problem with his re-positioning of himself as the alternative to McCain lies in his disingenious nature. He's flopped more than a fish out of water from the start of his campaign. Primary voters are smart enough to know that. It doesn't help that he's just plain an unlikable person. He attacks people for positions he once held and has the audacity to label himself a "conservative" and try to have Huckabee drop out. He will do anything that is politically expedient. If tomorrow Republicans decided they all wanted to be pro-choice, hemp smoking, flag burning hippies living in communes, Mitt would start to champion all those in a new, redesigned platform the next day.
Mitt Romney is a tool of unimaginable proportions; I can't stress it enough. He's his own biggest donor, and with a personal value of a quarter of a billion, he will stay in this race until the convention. And then when he officially loses, he will not be gracious and congratulate and support McCain. Instead, he will whine like a little bitch thanks to his oversized ego.
I think it says a lot when Republicans themselves say they would vote for Hillary over Mitt. They can smell a con artist when they see one.
5. Mike Huckabee
No-one gave Huckabee much of a chance to do anything. His strong showing in the South doesn't mean he'll win the nomination, but it will give him strong consideration as a VP candidate for McCain. In addition, his folksy roots and nice guy attitude would really help to balance out the smugness and somewhat elitist tendencies of mccain. Mitt's claim that he was the real conservative candidate and that Huckabee should drop out in all probability helped to rally support for the huckster.
I especially liked how West Virginia turned out. McCain supporters realizing that they had no chance after the first round, put all of their support behind Huckabee. Hence, Huckabee edged out Romney in WV. Was this is a behind the back collusion as the Romney camp asserts? No, it's just genuine dislike for Mitt Romney. Did I mention I don't like Romney enough?
Anyways, Huckabee is a breath of fresh air, but missed an opportunity to capitalize on his Iowa win to build broad support outside of evangelicals. Evangelical support will not carry the day in 2008 and his camp should have made adjustments after the Iowa win.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Let's vote, bitches!
The real event is today -- Super Tuesday. This is a really momentous occasion, for the first time in a long time, there's actually a lot at stake. Could you have said that eight years ago? And unlike four years ago, the Democrats actually have a couple candidates who can beat the GOP.
Will Romney's load of shit "I'm the real conservative" schtick stop the McCain express? Can Barack's O-mentum catch up to the suddenly faltering Hillary Clinton? We'll see. Although the Republican nomination may be all but decided by this time tomorrow, the Democratic nomination may go on for a while longer especially given how both Hillary and obama are adept fundraisers. It should be exciting....
Will Romney's load of shit "I'm the real conservative" schtick stop the McCain express? Can Barack's O-mentum catch up to the suddenly faltering Hillary Clinton? We'll see. Although the Republican nomination may be all but decided by this time tomorrow, the Democratic nomination may go on for a while longer especially given how both Hillary and obama are adept fundraisers. It should be exciting....
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Eating my words
Well, I guess I was wrong. Wow, Eli Manning pulled it out. Never in a million years would I have seen this at the beginning of the season. Did Giants fans even see it coming? Then again, if being wrong and seeing the Patriots win the Super Bowl are my two options...then I'll take the former gladly. Congrats to the Giants and Peyton's little bro.
General Reaction from the State of the Union
So this is much delayed because I've been out of town, but I wanted to give my reaction from the State of the Union. Basically, this speech could have been given in any year of the Bush presidency. There was nothing enlightening or new, just the same deluded crap. Bush has surrounded himself with so many cronies in his administration that he's completely oblivious to what's going on in this country. They stroke his ego and spin every negative into a positive. That's the only explanation I have for why he continues to "stay the course" when his approval ratings are piss-poor and most people have soured on current Iraq policy -- a failure that will define his presidency for decades to come.
It was so unremarkable and trite that specific details less than a week after his speech are escaping me. I do remember his saying that social programs like Social Security have to be reformed. What does that mean exactly? In Bush terms, it probably means "less funding" or "cut".
The tax rebate is nice, but it may be too little too late. We're heading towards a recession. And honestly, it's exacerbated by Iraq. Bush may be in denial, but the constant deficit spending because of the war is a huge contributing factor to a recession. Coupled with the housing crisis, declining infrastructure, stingy R&D, and the falling dollar, I really think that things will get a lot worse before they get better.
So as we gear towards Super Tuesday, the fact that the Republican field is distancing themselves from Bush is a good thing. For example, consider the debate in California. I especially like the bullshitting the candidates employed when asked "Do you think things are better from 8 years ago?" or something like that. It was a clear barb against Bush. Mitt Romney, aka everyone's favorite tool, started talking about what he did in Massachusetts -- totally dodging the question. He's political poison and even the GOP knows it.
On another note, the Super Bowl is today. One thing before this spectacle designed for non-fans gets started...people are making too big of a deal of how the Giants nearly beat the Patriots in week 17. NEARLY is the important word here. They still lost, in other words, they didn't win. So why is everyone making such a big deal out of it?
It was so unremarkable and trite that specific details less than a week after his speech are escaping me. I do remember his saying that social programs like Social Security have to be reformed. What does that mean exactly? In Bush terms, it probably means "less funding" or "cut".
The tax rebate is nice, but it may be too little too late. We're heading towards a recession. And honestly, it's exacerbated by Iraq. Bush may be in denial, but the constant deficit spending because of the war is a huge contributing factor to a recession. Coupled with the housing crisis, declining infrastructure, stingy R&D, and the falling dollar, I really think that things will get a lot worse before they get better.
So as we gear towards Super Tuesday, the fact that the Republican field is distancing themselves from Bush is a good thing. For example, consider the debate in California. I especially like the bullshitting the candidates employed when asked "Do you think things are better from 8 years ago?" or something like that. It was a clear barb against Bush. Mitt Romney, aka everyone's favorite tool, started talking about what he did in Massachusetts -- totally dodging the question. He's political poison and even the GOP knows it.
On another note, the Super Bowl is today. One thing before this spectacle designed for non-fans gets started...people are making too big of a deal of how the Giants nearly beat the Patriots in week 17. NEARLY is the important word here. They still lost, in other words, they didn't win. So why is everyone making such a big deal out of it?
Saturday, February 2, 2008
This Midwestern life
So after revisiting one of my old stomping grounds in Cleveland, I became flooded with old memories from childhood and my early teens. I took the 6 bus along Euclid Ave to University Circle. Ahhh, the Cleveland Clinic campus. The building that looks like an Aztec pyramid and the douchey "we're ranked number one in everything" signs still remain. Case has a wonderful campus with new modern buildings. Beautiful Severance Hall is very nearby. The biggest knock on Case, in fact, is that it's located in Cleveland, Ohio. When I was a kid, we only lived in dicey Cleveland and Euclid for a little bit. Most of the childhood I can remember was spent in much nicer Mayfield Heights and Solon. The suburbs of Cleveland are nice and clean. Beachwood and Shaker Heights are comparable to the North Shore suburbs of Chicago.
The city of Cleveland itself? It's a model of urban blight. I knew it was going to bad when I stepped out of the RTA station into Tower City. Tower City is billed as one of the major shopping attractions downtown. Oh yes, FYE and Rave are really going to bring in the tourists. The mall is a joke. It doesn't even have anchor stores; it's only redeeming points are that the Ritz and Bice Restaurant are there. I saw not one, but TWO altercations at the mall. One guy getting in a scuffle with a guard for bringing his bike in and a kid stealing from the FYE.
Once I got out, I started walking towards my hotel in downtown Cleveland. Sure, there's some downtown revitalization. Gund Arena and the Jake, for example, but the city still looks dirty and dingy. This is your downtown area. Where are the trendy restaurants and people walking around? It's even more barren and depressing once the clock hits 5. Not to mention unsafe. I heard downtown Cleveland had improved and shed it's Rust Belt image. If anything, it seems that things have gotten marginally worse since I was last there. One positive: I don't remember the RTA being so good. The seats are cushioned and it's relatively fast. Take a cue from Chicago and have value added fare cards, please.
It's funny how Indy has taken a widely divergent route from Cleveland. Indianapolis was also a manufacturing-based mid-sized city. That's where the similarities seem to end though. There's actual development in Indianapolis' downtown. The new stadium and condos are being constructed. Circle Centre is a decent shopping place and there are a number of hip eating establishments with outside seating during the warmer months. It's genuinely surprising to see how clean everything is in a city of about a million.
The point is that the vitality of the city isn't in the suburbs or the outer-reaches, but rather downtown. Indy can be boring though. You have to try harder sometimes to find fun. It's not like Chicago where the sky's the limit in terms of what you can do. Plus, Indy has PATHETIC public transportation. A couple of buses and that's it. At the very least, there should be a light rail system downtown and around the IUPUI campus. If they wanted to be more ambitious, connect to the Broad Ripple neighborhood and around 86th st. Still, not bad for the dreary Midwest. Chicago remains the gold standard, especially when considering a city like Cleveland. But I think towns like Indy and, hell, Minneapolis have enough to offer too (with cheaper housing).
The city of Cleveland itself? It's a model of urban blight. I knew it was going to bad when I stepped out of the RTA station into Tower City. Tower City is billed as one of the major shopping attractions downtown. Oh yes, FYE and Rave are really going to bring in the tourists. The mall is a joke. It doesn't even have anchor stores; it's only redeeming points are that the Ritz and Bice Restaurant are there. I saw not one, but TWO altercations at the mall. One guy getting in a scuffle with a guard for bringing his bike in and a kid stealing from the FYE.
Once I got out, I started walking towards my hotel in downtown Cleveland. Sure, there's some downtown revitalization. Gund Arena and the Jake, for example, but the city still looks dirty and dingy. This is your downtown area. Where are the trendy restaurants and people walking around? It's even more barren and depressing once the clock hits 5. Not to mention unsafe. I heard downtown Cleveland had improved and shed it's Rust Belt image. If anything, it seems that things have gotten marginally worse since I was last there. One positive: I don't remember the RTA being so good. The seats are cushioned and it's relatively fast. Take a cue from Chicago and have value added fare cards, please.
It's funny how Indy has taken a widely divergent route from Cleveland. Indianapolis was also a manufacturing-based mid-sized city. That's where the similarities seem to end though. There's actual development in Indianapolis' downtown. The new stadium and condos are being constructed. Circle Centre is a decent shopping place and there are a number of hip eating establishments with outside seating during the warmer months. It's genuinely surprising to see how clean everything is in a city of about a million.
The point is that the vitality of the city isn't in the suburbs or the outer-reaches, but rather downtown. Indy can be boring though. You have to try harder sometimes to find fun. It's not like Chicago where the sky's the limit in terms of what you can do. Plus, Indy has PATHETIC public transportation. A couple of buses and that's it. At the very least, there should be a light rail system downtown and around the IUPUI campus. If they wanted to be more ambitious, connect to the Broad Ripple neighborhood and around 86th st. Still, not bad for the dreary Midwest. Chicago remains the gold standard, especially when considering a city like Cleveland. But I think towns like Indy and, hell, Minneapolis have enough to offer too (with cheaper housing).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
