(Due to the attention given Hurricane Gustav and the low-key agenda for Day 1 of the RNC, we skip to Day 2)
My first thoughts of this year's RNC is that I'm not expecting much from this crowd -- they are, after all, the party that has held the White House for 8 years now, so what more can be said? Of course we all know the motive is to continue to elect the POTUS from their party, but the problem I see is the reality of what is going on in this country. The Iraq conflict (and the billions upon billions of dollars spent on it, without recourse from the same oil-rich country) is not popular. The economic stagnation is not popular (though some would say it's returning to normal from previous unnatural levels). The mortgage mess is not popular (although the system is failing from its own self-serving attempts to loosen the guidelines of homeownership -- I can personally attest to this, having been a part of this industry for over 11 years, but I'll save that for another post). The widening discrepancy between the "haves" and the "have nots" is not popular (will this issue ever go away in this country that relies on free enterprise and capitalism? No.).
McCain has his work cut out for him -- his predecessor has not left him with much to work with, and it's going to be difficult to disassociate himself from the current (and very unpopular) POTUS. The question becomes: how to market yourself as equal but separate? Let's use another sports analogy to analyze this: whenever a team dominates their sport for an extended number of seasons, it becomes a dynasty, but it also becomes a victim of its own success. Other teams openly court key players of the dynasty with offers of more money, less work, more control of their own schedule. The coaching staffs are robbed with promises of head coaching jobs to current assistants of the dynasty. The public fall prey to the old saying "familiarity breeds contempt" and lose interest in watching the same team win over and over again. Thus, the dynasty breaks down -- unless the dynasty becomes proactive and plans for the inevitable changes by making decisions that are so unexpected, so bombastic that no one saw them coming. The New England Patriots were consistent winners, and in the off-season they cut popular (but aging) players who were formerly instrumental to their success -- the team had to move on to stay competitive, and this is not a popularity contest. The New York Yankees were consistent winners, and in their off-season, they did the same as the Patriots, cutting loose of key players or (even worse!) signing players from their arch-rivals, because the team had to move on to stay competitive, PLUS stay in front of the public eye by making moves that made people talk about them.
In the McCain camp, we have the same thing going on. McCain needs to provide the same ol', same ol' with something different, but not too different so as to jeopardize the home base. McCain and Bush never got along, and were friendly adversaries at best. Their only connection was that they both belong to the same political party, so they had to make the peace if they wanted their party to have a future (and with all the millions of dollars in donated campaign funds over the years, they both had heavy "debts" to pay back, one way or another, and BTW, this is not isolated to the GOP, either). To see Bush up there, promoting McCain with conviction and emphasis, was, for lack of a better word, weird. All would agree that the best thing to happen to McCain was to have Bush not be there in St. Paul. The party got what it wanted in keeping the Bush speech short and sweet. Heck, the speech was even pre-recorded, so I'm sure Bush was watching SportsCenter while his speech was being played to the crowd. But that's ok with the party. Speaking of OK: I thought Laura Bush did a great job -- this woman is a teacher, so she is comfortable with commanding an audience, and she was not heard from enough these past 8 years, in my opinion.
Fab Freddy Thompson came up next, after a short film on McCain's service record as narrated by Gary Sinise (Lt. Dan to most of us). Fred did a great job telling the story of McCain's suffering as a POW. It was moving and inspiring, but every once in a while, I couldn't help wonder about the mentality of someone who would put up with this crap for 5.5 years. I wonder if McCain has secret desires to give the order to flatten all of Vietnam within five minutes after taking the oath. Or secretly commissioning a "massaud-like" team to go in there and find his captors and pull a Marcellus Wallace on 'em. But I digress...
After a video tribute to Ronald Reagan (which I thought was sloppily produced and lacking in key rallying points), we were treated to a speech from Joe Lieberman. Or at least, I heard he spoke -- I dozed off around then and don't remember much about it. Seriously, Joe should have been replaced by Rudy Guliani in that spot. Who is planning this convention agenda?
The best part of the night was when a reporter interviewed Newt Gingrich after Joe's speech -- when Newt was asked to explain Sarah Palin's experience (or lack of it), Newt went off on a tirade that was so incredible, I had to rewind the DVR and hear it again, because I just knew that Keith Olbermann was stewing about it and just couldn't wait to unleash his attack dog Rachel Maddow on it -- and I was right. Only problem for Keith was that it was followed by commercial break, then an on-the-spot interview by Andrea Mitchell with Joe Lieberman, then a segue to Chris Matthews' panel who quickly diffused the speeches properly, as we expect political discussion to be handled. Sorry, Keith, no one wants to hear what you and Rachel have to say, mainly because you don't know what you're talking about anyway, plus that's not the way to run a political discussion group. Watch the experts like Matthews and Buchanan, and learn.
All speakers were complimentary to Sarah Palin, and with good reason. Palin is going through an incredible amount of scrutiny in the past 48 hours, and most of it is uncalled for and lacking in professionalism, but it's not surprising (I blogged about this yesterday). Palin gets to speak tonight, and I would expect it to be one of the most watched speeches of either convention. Stay tuned...
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
The Very Idea of Sarah Palin
WELL, Well, well. McCain pulls the string on a pitch while the Dems were sitting on dead red on a 3-2 count with runners in scoring position. For you non-baseball folks out there, what I'm saying is that the GOP went with a pick that no one saw coming, and as a result has the opponents scrambling to counter. Just as it's commonly considered a bold move to throw a change-up in the above baseball example, it was equally bold for McCain to pick someone that was way off the radar of conventional thought, especially given her political experience. But the most caustic issue seems to be her gender. Over the weekend, I've scoured the op-ed pages, and all agree of the opinion that the move was made solely to appeal to the HRC hold-outs. I cannot imagine that McCain would make this pick just to pick up a few thousand votes -- we all know that most of the HRC supporters' ideologies do not agree with Palin's, therefore it wouldn't make sense to, in essence, throw this pick away. What I did find, however, was that women were very polarized by this pick, and the female liberal base was so upset about it that they could not see beyond the blood boiling in their eye sockets.
As a long-time admirer of the female persuasion, I felt as if I've seen this reaction before. You can generalize it and criticize it and debate it all you want, but the fact remains: women do not like not having the last word. When Obama made his triumphant nomination acceptance speech, the euphoria attached to it was embraced by all Obama supporters like a warm quilt on a snowy evening. And just as sobering and unsettling, that same quilt was yanked away within 12 hours, courtesy of the Palin pick (to be honest with you, I was fully prepared to see McCain announce his pick DURING the Obama speech, as a political ploy to split up the media attention. The very idea that this did not happen tells me the two candidates want to share a "gentleman's agreement" to keep things as civil as possible, outside of the negative ads. I believe this "agreement" carried over to Obama's reaction later about Palin's private family matters, but more on that later). The vitriol that spewed from the various female blogs (see the commentary on jezebel.com, for example) was so one-sided, so eye-opening in terms of getting a feel for what the reaction was on the pick. Women feel both threatened and angered by the pick, for all of the reasons you've (no doubt) heard by now. This speaks to me of fear -- fear that their feel-good story has been shattered, and maybe this Obama election victory may not be such a sure thing after all. Suddenly the Bush-dread has come back and it's deja vu all over again. Suddenly the feeling of doubt has re-appeared in the minds of the formerly euphoric Dems, and it's only human nature that when fear appears, one of the first immediate reactions is to get defensive.
This pick was not made to capture the disgruntled HRC supporter vote -- if that happened, it would be considered an added benefit. This pick was made to soothe the staunch conservative base, and, as evidenced by the incredible fundraising bounce in the past 72 hours, it is a home run with them. Palin is the ideal pick: attractive, tough, pro-life, pro-NRA, a devoted wife and mother, and not afraid to fight for the cause. And please stop with all the conjecture that she's only a heartbeat away -- have we not learned anything from Watergate? It's the people you surround yourself with that will make or break you. Don't we always tell our children the same thing? McCain-Palin or Obama-Biden will hold the posts, but the real policy will be shaped by the administration, and the real decisions will be made by the three branches of government. For instance, Palin is pro-life, but if elected, she and the GOP will still have a very difficult time rescinding Roe v. Wade. And with congressional elections held every two years, the balance of power is never a sure thing.
Personally, I think Palin is in for a very rough ride. She's a mother of five children, and most parents with children know how tough it is to juggle work and family schedules, with every child adding an expotential number of obstacles with it. The Dems will not be kind to her, just as the GOP will not be kind to Obama (by the way, please remember that the campaign is just getting started, the dirt has yet to fly). She has, to bring back the baseball analogy, gone from Single-A ball to the major leagues overnight, and is expected to perform at the top level from this day forward. Any player that has gone through a similar flight will tell you the pressure is enormous at the top, especially when compared to where they came from. I'm sure the McCain camp talked through all of this before making the pick, but you still never know how someone will do when put under the microscope (see Eagleton in recent history, for example). I just cannot imagine how she will hold up under this scrutiny. In one respect, it's only 65 days, so I guess she can look at it that way, saying to herself that she'll exchange 65 days for a personal and professional life that will never be the same after the election, for her and her family, win or lose. Think of the doors that will open for her and her family if she loses. Regardless of outcome, she's now a part of history, plus she's a role model for all young women, as a symbol of strength in moving closer to shattering that glass ceiling. My only comment to that is, "be careful what you wish for".
As a long-time admirer of the female persuasion, I felt as if I've seen this reaction before. You can generalize it and criticize it and debate it all you want, but the fact remains: women do not like not having the last word. When Obama made his triumphant nomination acceptance speech, the euphoria attached to it was embraced by all Obama supporters like a warm quilt on a snowy evening. And just as sobering and unsettling, that same quilt was yanked away within 12 hours, courtesy of the Palin pick (to be honest with you, I was fully prepared to see McCain announce his pick DURING the Obama speech, as a political ploy to split up the media attention. The very idea that this did not happen tells me the two candidates want to share a "gentleman's agreement" to keep things as civil as possible, outside of the negative ads. I believe this "agreement" carried over to Obama's reaction later about Palin's private family matters, but more on that later). The vitriol that spewed from the various female blogs (see the commentary on jezebel.com, for example) was so one-sided, so eye-opening in terms of getting a feel for what the reaction was on the pick. Women feel both threatened and angered by the pick, for all of the reasons you've (no doubt) heard by now. This speaks to me of fear -- fear that their feel-good story has been shattered, and maybe this Obama election victory may not be such a sure thing after all. Suddenly the Bush-dread has come back and it's deja vu all over again. Suddenly the feeling of doubt has re-appeared in the minds of the formerly euphoric Dems, and it's only human nature that when fear appears, one of the first immediate reactions is to get defensive.
This pick was not made to capture the disgruntled HRC supporter vote -- if that happened, it would be considered an added benefit. This pick was made to soothe the staunch conservative base, and, as evidenced by the incredible fundraising bounce in the past 72 hours, it is a home run with them. Palin is the ideal pick: attractive, tough, pro-life, pro-NRA, a devoted wife and mother, and not afraid to fight for the cause. And please stop with all the conjecture that she's only a heartbeat away -- have we not learned anything from Watergate? It's the people you surround yourself with that will make or break you. Don't we always tell our children the same thing? McCain-Palin or Obama-Biden will hold the posts, but the real policy will be shaped by the administration, and the real decisions will be made by the three branches of government. For instance, Palin is pro-life, but if elected, she and the GOP will still have a very difficult time rescinding Roe v. Wade. And with congressional elections held every two years, the balance of power is never a sure thing.
Personally, I think Palin is in for a very rough ride. She's a mother of five children, and most parents with children know how tough it is to juggle work and family schedules, with every child adding an expotential number of obstacles with it. The Dems will not be kind to her, just as the GOP will not be kind to Obama (by the way, please remember that the campaign is just getting started, the dirt has yet to fly). She has, to bring back the baseball analogy, gone from Single-A ball to the major leagues overnight, and is expected to perform at the top level from this day forward. Any player that has gone through a similar flight will tell you the pressure is enormous at the top, especially when compared to where they came from. I'm sure the McCain camp talked through all of this before making the pick, but you still never know how someone will do when put under the microscope (see Eagleton in recent history, for example). I just cannot imagine how she will hold up under this scrutiny. In one respect, it's only 65 days, so I guess she can look at it that way, saying to herself that she'll exchange 65 days for a personal and professional life that will never be the same after the election, for her and her family, win or lose. Think of the doors that will open for her and her family if she loses. Regardless of outcome, she's now a part of history, plus she's a role model for all young women, as a symbol of strength in moving closer to shattering that glass ceiling. My only comment to that is, "be careful what you wish for".
Friday, August 29, 2008
DNC -- Epilogue
Day 3 was exactly what we thought it was: the former President rallying the troops, as only he can, with that (in)famous wagging index finger, spelling it out for party faithful, letting us know the "truth": his personal contribution as POTUS, how he was regarded as too young and inexperienced, how he worked it out so that the country prospered while he was in office -- and "consequences": what would happen if Mac was elected to (allegedly) continue the Bush doctrine, the expansion of the current economic malaise, the bottomless pit of despair that is our foreign policy. It all played very well. The pundits were questioning HRC's speech the night before as being too soft on O and on Mac, as if she was still trying to hold a torch for her 2012 hopes; if the Dems were serious on wanting to win, they needed to get more aggressive, so what was HRC thinking with that weak speech? Well, the dogs were let out on Wednesday night, first with Bill, then with Biden. The main point of Bill's speech was to rally 'round the HRC troops to come over to the side of the O, and he sounded effective to me. If the Dems are (again) serious about winning this thing, they need to come together and put their loyalties for their candidate aside. You could say that O knows this; in a way, he wants to see them be "forced" to come to him. It was a smart play. O won the primaries. HRC bowed out. Now the delegates had to give it up. It wasn't advisable for HRC to tell them the way Bill did. She was the good cop, he was the bad cop, but he did it so well. I can only imagine what political wagering was discussed between camps, post-O election. But first things first -- as Bill said, you have to elect O first. So there it is: you got the thanks, you got the explanation of what's at stake, and you got the permission -- no, make that order -- to move over to O's side.
Biden's speech was moving and equally effective, in terms of describing what's at stake and what it means to him personally, with the addition of many jabs at his "good friend" Mac. I like Joe. I like that he chooses to employ logic and reason (as opposed to what we currently see in Washington) to his opinions on foreign policy and domestic agendas. Joe's "problem" is that he gets too emotional, too wrapped up in his opinions at times, and he comes off as wayward (sort of like this blog) and word-heavy. He needs to write his speeches and then take it to a professional writer skilled in cutting to the quick, and the end result would be very effective. Regardless, this ticket seems strong and determined.
DAY 4 -- the O in the Temple. As for the backdrop, I was not sure what to think about how the stage looked so "Roman" or "temple-esque", as were the rest of the pundits, but it was quickly diffused when compared to other convention nomination acceptance speeches (JFK's speech, after all, was in the L.A. Coliseum). And hey, he had it in a 75,000-seat stadium, so he opened it up not only to the convention delegates, but to other voters and those "on the fence", and there was great weather too boot, so I say it was a good move. As for the speech, all I can say is, "very smart". The speech was effective in that O went directly to the 'publican strengths and trumped them all. The strategy was to show O as strong and not fluff, direct and not hesitant, focused and not intimidated by it all, and most importantly, attacking on the same points and not whining about the differences in parties and what we want vs. what they want. It was a defensive offensive, and we all in the sports world know that the best offense is a good defense, and defense wins championships. I like to see strategy and smart thinking be put to good use for once. And the speech wasn't over inundated with poetic rhetoric, which is a good thing -- the facts needed to be re-stated. He needed to come in here and draw the line in the sand, and he did just that. The 'publicans have a lot of work to do.
Music: Bill's speech was preceded by "Don't Stop" by Fleetwood Mac -- the same song that we all remember so well on the night of the election in 1992, where he and HRC danced for joy upon the news they won. Again, nice song in terms of memories of younger, more innocent days, and equally important, memories of when the economy was perceived to be in better shape. Pre-O speech music was, in essence, an outdoor concert, with Stevie Wonder and Sheryl Crow performing live to the crowd. Post-O speech music was Brooks & Dunn, which is a favorite used by the Bush campaign (country music for the Dems? Wait...what?). All in all, the Dems did many things the 'publicans do for their conventions: lots of American flags waving, lots of talk about getting tough with the terrorists, lots of grandeur (and there were no balloons, but when was the last time you saw actual fireworks fly overhead after a convention speech?), and lots of accolades by all networks.
Next week: the GOP convention, but first, today is the big day for the Veep pick. And let's not forget that a major hurricane is on its way to New Orleans, which is NOT what the GOP needs right now -- we don't need more reminders of Katrina (even though the local Dem mayor and governor completely dropped the ball and were over their heads, it was easy to point fingers at the feds, which is a complete joke but can't be mentioned, but don't get me started)....
Let's get ready to rumble!
Biden's speech was moving and equally effective, in terms of describing what's at stake and what it means to him personally, with the addition of many jabs at his "good friend" Mac. I like Joe. I like that he chooses to employ logic and reason (as opposed to what we currently see in Washington) to his opinions on foreign policy and domestic agendas. Joe's "problem" is that he gets too emotional, too wrapped up in his opinions at times, and he comes off as wayward (sort of like this blog) and word-heavy. He needs to write his speeches and then take it to a professional writer skilled in cutting to the quick, and the end result would be very effective. Regardless, this ticket seems strong and determined.
DAY 4 -- the O in the Temple. As for the backdrop, I was not sure what to think about how the stage looked so "Roman" or "temple-esque", as were the rest of the pundits, but it was quickly diffused when compared to other convention nomination acceptance speeches (JFK's speech, after all, was in the L.A. Coliseum). And hey, he had it in a 75,000-seat stadium, so he opened it up not only to the convention delegates, but to other voters and those "on the fence", and there was great weather too boot, so I say it was a good move. As for the speech, all I can say is, "very smart". The speech was effective in that O went directly to the 'publican strengths and trumped them all. The strategy was to show O as strong and not fluff, direct and not hesitant, focused and not intimidated by it all, and most importantly, attacking on the same points and not whining about the differences in parties and what we want vs. what they want. It was a defensive offensive, and we all in the sports world know that the best offense is a good defense, and defense wins championships. I like to see strategy and smart thinking be put to good use for once. And the speech wasn't over inundated with poetic rhetoric, which is a good thing -- the facts needed to be re-stated. He needed to come in here and draw the line in the sand, and he did just that. The 'publicans have a lot of work to do.
Music: Bill's speech was preceded by "Don't Stop" by Fleetwood Mac -- the same song that we all remember so well on the night of the election in 1992, where he and HRC danced for joy upon the news they won. Again, nice song in terms of memories of younger, more innocent days, and equally important, memories of when the economy was perceived to be in better shape. Pre-O speech music was, in essence, an outdoor concert, with Stevie Wonder and Sheryl Crow performing live to the crowd. Post-O speech music was Brooks & Dunn, which is a favorite used by the Bush campaign (country music for the Dems? Wait...what?). All in all, the Dems did many things the 'publicans do for their conventions: lots of American flags waving, lots of talk about getting tough with the terrorists, lots of grandeur (and there were no balloons, but when was the last time you saw actual fireworks fly overhead after a convention speech?), and lots of accolades by all networks.
Next week: the GOP convention, but first, today is the big day for the Veep pick. And let's not forget that a major hurricane is on its way to New Orleans, which is NOT what the GOP needs right now -- we don't need more reminders of Katrina (even though the local Dem mayor and governor completely dropped the ball and were over their heads, it was easy to point fingers at the feds, which is a complete joke but can't be mentioned, but don't get me started)....
Let's get ready to rumble!
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
DNC -- Day 2
Not much to report here -- locally, we were under constant steady rain and we lost power shortly before 9pm, until after 2am ('publican conspiracy, perhaps?). Here's what I interpret from the morning shows...
1) HRC gave a good speech, but didn't wax poetic about O the man and why he is particularly qualified to be the next POTUS. Most say this was a ploy for her to remain at arm's length, in the event the O loses the election, which would make it easier for her to jump in again in 2012. Very telling segment on Morning Joe re the interview of the HRC supporter that, when directly asked, still cannot commit to the O. As I said yesterday, this could be the decisive point in the election. A good thing to come out of this is that the HRC supporters are at a cross-roads right now, which gives anyone running a great opportunity to spin their candidacy and viewpoints -- working with a blank slate is always easier than one you have to prime over before painting.
2) Then again, you could say I'm nitpicking. She said she was a proud supporter of the O. She said no way to McCain. She said the lines about, if McCain is elected, we'll see more of the same. She said her supporters should vote for the O. What more do we need? She did what was asked of her. She towed the party line. She voiced her support for the soon-to-be nominee.
3) All are wondering about tonight's speakers: Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. We speculate that Joe will try to reach out to the HRC supporters directly -- their demographics are more similar to his supporters, and I'm sure that had a lot to do with his selection as Veep. We dont' know what the former POTUS will say, and how he will say it. We know he's a gifted orator, but we also know the Kennedy's have resurfaced as power brokers within the party and they are backing the O, which is a major slap to the Clinton's. Bill has a great opportunity to re-establish his identity as the once former Big Dog of the party. Word is the HRC speech was proof-read by the O's staff, but they do not have the speech from Bill. Oh, this is going to be good...
4) How important is foreign policy in this election? The 'publicans are sending over Cindy McCain to Georgia to "oversee" the restructuring post-conflict with Russia. Since when is Cindy a key advisor in matters of foreign policy? Or are the 'publicans looking for any excuse to get more exposure on the evening news? Stay tuned...
1) HRC gave a good speech, but didn't wax poetic about O the man and why he is particularly qualified to be the next POTUS. Most say this was a ploy for her to remain at arm's length, in the event the O loses the election, which would make it easier for her to jump in again in 2012. Very telling segment on Morning Joe re the interview of the HRC supporter that, when directly asked, still cannot commit to the O. As I said yesterday, this could be the decisive point in the election. A good thing to come out of this is that the HRC supporters are at a cross-roads right now, which gives anyone running a great opportunity to spin their candidacy and viewpoints -- working with a blank slate is always easier than one you have to prime over before painting.
2) Then again, you could say I'm nitpicking. She said she was a proud supporter of the O. She said no way to McCain. She said the lines about, if McCain is elected, we'll see more of the same. She said her supporters should vote for the O. What more do we need? She did what was asked of her. She towed the party line. She voiced her support for the soon-to-be nominee.
3) All are wondering about tonight's speakers: Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. We speculate that Joe will try to reach out to the HRC supporters directly -- their demographics are more similar to his supporters, and I'm sure that had a lot to do with his selection as Veep. We dont' know what the former POTUS will say, and how he will say it. We know he's a gifted orator, but we also know the Kennedy's have resurfaced as power brokers within the party and they are backing the O, which is a major slap to the Clinton's. Bill has a great opportunity to re-establish his identity as the once former Big Dog of the party. Word is the HRC speech was proof-read by the O's staff, but they do not have the speech from Bill. Oh, this is going to be good...
4) How important is foreign policy in this election? The 'publicans are sending over Cindy McCain to Georgia to "oversee" the restructuring post-conflict with Russia. Since when is Cindy a key advisor in matters of foreign policy? Or are the 'publicans looking for any excuse to get more exposure on the evening news? Stay tuned...
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
DNC Day One
Missed the first couple of hours due to being "unavoidably detained". I heard that I missed the Ann Curry/Nancy Pelosi interview -- just how bad of a train wreck was it? Must have been uneventful if the morning shows aren't talking about it.
Caroline Kennedy looked great -- and very shy. I hear she's not a fan of the public spotlight, but remains a pillar of inner strength for her family. I'm sure the party would love to see her get more involved in the movement, but she seems content with her current role and I can't see her selling out for her own self interests. I also expect the O will appoint her an important role in his administration if he becomes POTUS -- probably not cabinet level, but I can see an ambassadorship in her future. I've always felt Caroline to be a kindred spirit -- she was born only a few months after me, and we both share a sense of family tragedy (granted, her tragedy was MUCH worse) at a young and influential age. She's somewhat attractive, but much more importantly, she's seen the world from a wide emotional spectrum, thanks to her famous (or infamous) parents. She did a good job in introducing her uncle last night.
Ted looked well. It was like watching living history. Like him or not, you have to acknowledge that this man has seen many changes in America in his lifetime, and most of us were wondering if this was the last time we will see him in this setting. He must have felt the same -- he was taking it all in at the end of his speech, looking around and around, as if even he knew this could be the last time. As for the speech, well, it wasn't the 1980 convention speech that still ranks up there as one of the best all-time. He's an older, very sick man, and you can see it was taking all that he had to make it through, but he also gave it all he got. His talking points weren't very strong, but given his condition, it was probably a good thing for him to not let his emotions override his physical limitations. One thing about the video tribute that I found weird was that it opened with a scene of water slowly lapping up to a coastline, and the first thing that came to my mind was "Chappaquiddick" -- I would say the video editors either screwed up (unintentionally) or were hoping that viewers would or could not remember or associate that event with this scene. After all, it was almost 40 years ago...Anyway, it was great to see Ted, even if it's one last time. Future DNC's will never be the same, but then again, that's the circle of life. One could say Ted will be replaced by Bill Clinton for future DNC's. It's never a bad thing to have a good and talented orator to make a speech at your convention...
Michelle Obama's speech was also, in my opinion, very lightweight. Is it me or did Teresa Kerry give a better speech four years ago? Maybe the intent all along was to have her come off a bit more human, more motherly, more loving and nurturing (which I'm sure she is all of the above, but the public is divided on that perception) to show her softer side, complete with her daughters ad-libbing at the end, talking to their daddy on the big TV like he's an astronaut in quarantine. The better half thought she gave a good speech, and I think it appealed to her because of the reasons I mentioned -- she drank the kool-aid given. And this is probably a good thing. The Dems have long been criticized for being too soft, too liberal, and here comes the O with his quasi-militant wife, going against the grain, and the 'publicans are lathering at the gums, ready to counter next week and beyond (see New Yorker Magazine cover for example), so Michelle's soft delivery had to be given to counter the counterstrike. I'm sure this campaign will see more of her tough side, but for now, the plan is to set the foundation for change, for the good, and it starts with a working Mom who's just like us, who feels our pain at the pump and in the grocery stores, who struggles daily to set a good example for her children, 'cause that's the first thing she thinks of in the morning, and the last thing she thinks of before she falls asleep, and isn't that what it's all about? Say it with me now: awww...
The O on the big screen. Didn't like it. He looked confused, tired and (again) not in control. Would have been easier to understand if viewers knew where he was and what he was doing prior to his coming on-screen. Or if they did announce this (and I wasn't aware of it), would it have hurt to "remind" us of the announcement details?
The Stage: I see those lit-up door frames and all I can think of is the scene in "Beetlejuice" -- if you remember the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. You don't have to get so grandiose with these things -- keep it simple so as to not take the attention away from the speakers and (more importantly) their message.
The DNC pundits are trying very hard this morning to spin it and promote that message of theirs, but the speeches last night were nowhere near heavy-lifting. And judging from their comments, the grand design includes a soft opening. Should be interesting to see HRC (tonight) and Bill (tomorrow night) deliver their messages. Word is the Dems threw HRC a bone by letting her be the one to put the O over the top by acclamation -- this will be pivotal, because we all know the party is starting to divide between the camps and the O cannot win without the HRC supporters. Stay tuned...
P.S. the McCain spot on The Tonight Show: very awkward moment when he plays the POW card on a comedy show routine. This is another one of those moments I love to catch: when the candidate stumbles or blows the counter prep given to him by his staff on issues he screwed up earlier. McCain's rebuttal was not funny, not appropriate, and still didn't help to explain what he meant last week...
Caroline Kennedy looked great -- and very shy. I hear she's not a fan of the public spotlight, but remains a pillar of inner strength for her family. I'm sure the party would love to see her get more involved in the movement, but she seems content with her current role and I can't see her selling out for her own self interests. I also expect the O will appoint her an important role in his administration if he becomes POTUS -- probably not cabinet level, but I can see an ambassadorship in her future. I've always felt Caroline to be a kindred spirit -- she was born only a few months after me, and we both share a sense of family tragedy (granted, her tragedy was MUCH worse) at a young and influential age. She's somewhat attractive, but much more importantly, she's seen the world from a wide emotional spectrum, thanks to her famous (or infamous) parents. She did a good job in introducing her uncle last night.
Ted looked well. It was like watching living history. Like him or not, you have to acknowledge that this man has seen many changes in America in his lifetime, and most of us were wondering if this was the last time we will see him in this setting. He must have felt the same -- he was taking it all in at the end of his speech, looking around and around, as if even he knew this could be the last time. As for the speech, well, it wasn't the 1980 convention speech that still ranks up there as one of the best all-time. He's an older, very sick man, and you can see it was taking all that he had to make it through, but he also gave it all he got. His talking points weren't very strong, but given his condition, it was probably a good thing for him to not let his emotions override his physical limitations. One thing about the video tribute that I found weird was that it opened with a scene of water slowly lapping up to a coastline, and the first thing that came to my mind was "Chappaquiddick" -- I would say the video editors either screwed up (unintentionally) or were hoping that viewers would or could not remember or associate that event with this scene. After all, it was almost 40 years ago...Anyway, it was great to see Ted, even if it's one last time. Future DNC's will never be the same, but then again, that's the circle of life. One could say Ted will be replaced by Bill Clinton for future DNC's. It's never a bad thing to have a good and talented orator to make a speech at your convention...
Michelle Obama's speech was also, in my opinion, very lightweight. Is it me or did Teresa Kerry give a better speech four years ago? Maybe the intent all along was to have her come off a bit more human, more motherly, more loving and nurturing (which I'm sure she is all of the above, but the public is divided on that perception) to show her softer side, complete with her daughters ad-libbing at the end, talking to their daddy on the big TV like he's an astronaut in quarantine. The better half thought she gave a good speech, and I think it appealed to her because of the reasons I mentioned -- she drank the kool-aid given. And this is probably a good thing. The Dems have long been criticized for being too soft, too liberal, and here comes the O with his quasi-militant wife, going against the grain, and the 'publicans are lathering at the gums, ready to counter next week and beyond (see New Yorker Magazine cover for example), so Michelle's soft delivery had to be given to counter the counterstrike. I'm sure this campaign will see more of her tough side, but for now, the plan is to set the foundation for change, for the good, and it starts with a working Mom who's just like us, who feels our pain at the pump and in the grocery stores, who struggles daily to set a good example for her children, 'cause that's the first thing she thinks of in the morning, and the last thing she thinks of before she falls asleep, and isn't that what it's all about? Say it with me now: awww...
The O on the big screen. Didn't like it. He looked confused, tired and (again) not in control. Would have been easier to understand if viewers knew where he was and what he was doing prior to his coming on-screen. Or if they did announce this (and I wasn't aware of it), would it have hurt to "remind" us of the announcement details?
The Stage: I see those lit-up door frames and all I can think of is the scene in "Beetlejuice" -- if you remember the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. You don't have to get so grandiose with these things -- keep it simple so as to not take the attention away from the speakers and (more importantly) their message.
The DNC pundits are trying very hard this morning to spin it and promote that message of theirs, but the speeches last night were nowhere near heavy-lifting. And judging from their comments, the grand design includes a soft opening. Should be interesting to see HRC (tonight) and Bill (tomorrow night) deliver their messages. Word is the Dems threw HRC a bone by letting her be the one to put the O over the top by acclamation -- this will be pivotal, because we all know the party is starting to divide between the camps and the O cannot win without the HRC supporters. Stay tuned...
P.S. the McCain spot on The Tonight Show: very awkward moment when he plays the POW card on a comedy show routine. This is another one of those moments I love to catch: when the candidate stumbles or blows the counter prep given to him by his staff on issues he screwed up earlier. McCain's rebuttal was not funny, not appropriate, and still didn't help to explain what he meant last week...
Monday, August 25, 2008
PARTY TIME!
It's no secret I'm a political wonk, so my fun re-starts this week with the Democratic Convention. I enjoyed the 2-yr primary run, but it gets longer and longer each POTUS election cycle. Hopefully, the end result will show that people like HRC and John Edwards gained NOTHING by starting so early. The party's get so uptight on when it's acceptable for states to schedule their primaries -- maybe they should be equally uptight on when it's acceptable to officially begin these campaigns, complete with strict guidelines and penalties that cannot be easily challenged in court. Let's see, what else...
The Selection of Joe Biden (not to be confused with the movie "The Seduction of Joe Tynan"):
I seem to recall a certain electronic correspondence shared between friends about 6-8 months ago, where I suggested that Biden be seriously taken as strong presidential timber. Having watched Joe on various political shows the past 12 months in particular, I could see he had a grasp of what is (mostly) needed to stop the madness and to move forward with making sense of it all. Joe has a son going to Iraq very soon, and therefore he has a (stronger) vested interest in the conflict over there. I've always believed that statesmen should not be allowed to make policy on issues they don't have a direct interest in -- sort of like the argument that if you don't' have children, you shouldn't be on the school board or make nasty comments about interactions between parents and their children in public. I'm not saying to ignore public child abuse -- we still, as a civilized society, have an obligation to uphold ourselves to a higher and rational standard. But I also remember being single and carefree, and being annoyed at the local mall by all the strollers pushed by parents who were walking at a snail's pace -- "how rude of them!" I thought, until the day I had kids that I was strolling in a mall, and it all came back to front. And so it is very similar with Joe -- he's past the mindset of working to make the world a better place for he to personally enjoy, and is now thinking and working to leave the world a better place for his children and his children's children. Joe makes sense of his complaints about the current administration's faults, yet he also knows that no administration can get it all correct, all the time, but at least cut your losses and move on, it's ok to admit mistakes, no one's perfect.
It seems that Obama shares the same sentiment in that this Biden dude got mad skills when it comes to foreign policy and Beltway protocol. Oh, stop it already with the soundbites that "Biden isn't an outsider"; as a moderate conservative, I don't care if you're in or out, I just want you to work harder to get it right, but don't take forever and a day doing it.
The Introduction Speech: OK, so there's the O, taking the stage in shirtsleeves (gotta be sure to convey he's a working man's man), and I get the sense that he's struggling here because he's always been the one to be introduced, he's always been the one to be propped up, not the other way around...suddenly the O seems lost, as if he forgot for a second who is actually running for POTUS. It's natural (to me) that the O slips a few times on the speech, he's in unfamiliar territory. He can't get out of there fast enough, you can see he's not diggin' this at all.
And then there's the Boss' song "The Rising" blaring between speeches, and we see Joe, also in shirtsleeves, jogging on stage -- is this to show the youth and vigor of these guys compared to the old man of the GOP? Of course it is!
The Joe Speech: Oy Vey, here we go. I'm sure they told him backstage, Hey, Joe, it's hot and humid out here, save it for later, don't go off on a tangent if you can help it. Joe has a few good zingers for McCain, and it's clear to see the O will use Joe as a foil since both Joe and McCain are long-time Senate members and adversaries. I like the move -- it makes for good theater, which we'll all see in the next three months.
Post-speech photo ops: U(we sold out long before this)2's "Beautiful Day" blares on the speakers to close it out...Joe getting a little too comfy and cuddly with Mrs O, while the O is polite to the white woman (kinda hard to kiss/hug with one eye on Mrs Drop Dead Gorgeous and the other eye on the old dude fondling my wife right next to me)...Then it's on to the handshakes -- this is where the Secret Service earn their money: Holy cow, these guys/gals are all business, they look like they just came out of a Men In Black convention, complete with shades. None of them look like they are enjoying this. You know what's on their minds, and so do the cameras, by the way. Let's not fool ourselves: We don't want another Bobby. But if anything goes down, we'll see it live and in various camera positions....OK, that went without a hitch, it's on to the Mile High City...
Speaking of Denver, my holiday season starts today: first day of school for the kiddies, and the wall-to-wall convention coverage begins, starting with Morning Joe on MSNBC, with a few peeks at Fox News, just enough to keep it "fair and balanced". The conventions have their moments between all the mindless party rhetoric: I love to see the many characters and personalities emerge on the floor, and that's just the TV people (watch for the jostling of face time at key events), and it's interesting to see who will deliver the keynote address and how they do it, 'cause you know it's either make or break for that pol, but my absolute favorite part of the convention is the night when the states announce their nominations -- there's always some drunk old man or woman who screws up their one shining moment..."Madam Chairman (hic), the great state of Ohio, home of (hic burp) the blah blah blah, pride of the Midwest, blah of the blah blah blah, would like to recognize (hic) one of our crown jewels (read: largest fundraiser)...(this is the part where former anti-war hippie sympathizer-turned-CFO of Dunder Miflin steps up, sweating like a hooker in church)..."the great state of Ohio (like we forgot already) nominates all 27 delegates to...our hope for change, peace, blah blah blah, the next president of the United States, (and by this time you are loading your revolver with one hand while searching your phone list for Angela Lansbury's number with the other hand)....
And we get to see this 52 times? Well, maybe not that long -- the networks know that no one's gonna bitch if they pull away from American Samoa's or Puerto Rico's turn so that we can see another bombardment of their fall TV crap they're shamelessly self-promoting (who knew Christian Slater was still alive?) or who's swinging the biggest dick of "the best political coverage team...EVER"...this is the part where I wish I had an Olbermann mute button, or hopefully his sushi will be (how do you Americans say) "tainted" tonight...please PLEASE don't make me switch over to CNN with Wolf (I peaked in 1992, but don't tell anybody) Blitzer and their ridiculous classroom setting -- I feel like I'm watching the college version of "Are you smarter than a fifth-grader". Yes, there's always FOX News, but I've put away my Hilter Youth Group uniform long ago (FOX does have better looking female talking heads, I'll give them that. They know which side their bread is buttered, plus they have to off-set those O'Reilly/Hannity ogres).
There's my prelim synopsis. I hope to post every day of the convention, to try and be more relevant to current events. Send me your comments, tell me who ya got, who bugs you, who you want to have a beer with, who's baby you want to have, you know the drill....
The Selection of Joe Biden (not to be confused with the movie "The Seduction of Joe Tynan"):
I seem to recall a certain electronic correspondence shared between friends about 6-8 months ago, where I suggested that Biden be seriously taken as strong presidential timber. Having watched Joe on various political shows the past 12 months in particular, I could see he had a grasp of what is (mostly) needed to stop the madness and to move forward with making sense of it all. Joe has a son going to Iraq very soon, and therefore he has a (stronger) vested interest in the conflict over there. I've always believed that statesmen should not be allowed to make policy on issues they don't have a direct interest in -- sort of like the argument that if you don't' have children, you shouldn't be on the school board or make nasty comments about interactions between parents and their children in public. I'm not saying to ignore public child abuse -- we still, as a civilized society, have an obligation to uphold ourselves to a higher and rational standard. But I also remember being single and carefree, and being annoyed at the local mall by all the strollers pushed by parents who were walking at a snail's pace -- "how rude of them!" I thought, until the day I had kids that I was strolling in a mall, and it all came back to front. And so it is very similar with Joe -- he's past the mindset of working to make the world a better place for he to personally enjoy, and is now thinking and working to leave the world a better place for his children and his children's children. Joe makes sense of his complaints about the current administration's faults, yet he also knows that no administration can get it all correct, all the time, but at least cut your losses and move on, it's ok to admit mistakes, no one's perfect.
It seems that Obama shares the same sentiment in that this Biden dude got mad skills when it comes to foreign policy and Beltway protocol. Oh, stop it already with the soundbites that "Biden isn't an outsider"; as a moderate conservative, I don't care if you're in or out, I just want you to work harder to get it right, but don't take forever and a day doing it.
The Introduction Speech: OK, so there's the O, taking the stage in shirtsleeves (gotta be sure to convey he's a working man's man), and I get the sense that he's struggling here because he's always been the one to be introduced, he's always been the one to be propped up, not the other way around...suddenly the O seems lost, as if he forgot for a second who is actually running for POTUS. It's natural (to me) that the O slips a few times on the speech, he's in unfamiliar territory. He can't get out of there fast enough, you can see he's not diggin' this at all.
And then there's the Boss' song "The Rising" blaring between speeches, and we see Joe, also in shirtsleeves, jogging on stage -- is this to show the youth and vigor of these guys compared to the old man of the GOP? Of course it is!
The Joe Speech: Oy Vey, here we go. I'm sure they told him backstage, Hey, Joe, it's hot and humid out here, save it for later, don't go off on a tangent if you can help it. Joe has a few good zingers for McCain, and it's clear to see the O will use Joe as a foil since both Joe and McCain are long-time Senate members and adversaries. I like the move -- it makes for good theater, which we'll all see in the next three months.
Post-speech photo ops: U(we sold out long before this)2's "Beautiful Day" blares on the speakers to close it out...Joe getting a little too comfy and cuddly with Mrs O, while the O is polite to the white woman (kinda hard to kiss/hug with one eye on Mrs Drop Dead Gorgeous and the other eye on the old dude fondling my wife right next to me)...Then it's on to the handshakes -- this is where the Secret Service earn their money: Holy cow, these guys/gals are all business, they look like they just came out of a Men In Black convention, complete with shades. None of them look like they are enjoying this. You know what's on their minds, and so do the cameras, by the way. Let's not fool ourselves: We don't want another Bobby. But if anything goes down, we'll see it live and in various camera positions....OK, that went without a hitch, it's on to the Mile High City...
Speaking of Denver, my holiday season starts today: first day of school for the kiddies, and the wall-to-wall convention coverage begins, starting with Morning Joe on MSNBC, with a few peeks at Fox News, just enough to keep it "fair and balanced". The conventions have their moments between all the mindless party rhetoric: I love to see the many characters and personalities emerge on the floor, and that's just the TV people (watch for the jostling of face time at key events), and it's interesting to see who will deliver the keynote address and how they do it, 'cause you know it's either make or break for that pol, but my absolute favorite part of the convention is the night when the states announce their nominations -- there's always some drunk old man or woman who screws up their one shining moment..."Madam Chairman (hic), the great state of Ohio, home of (hic burp) the blah blah blah, pride of the Midwest, blah of the blah blah blah, would like to recognize (hic) one of our crown jewels (read: largest fundraiser)...(this is the part where former anti-war hippie sympathizer-turned-CFO of Dunder Miflin steps up, sweating like a hooker in church)..."the great state of Ohio (like we forgot already) nominates all 27 delegates to...our hope for change, peace, blah blah blah, the next president of the United States, (and by this time you are loading your revolver with one hand while searching your phone list for Angela Lansbury's number with the other hand)....
And we get to see this 52 times? Well, maybe not that long -- the networks know that no one's gonna bitch if they pull away from American Samoa's or Puerto Rico's turn so that we can see another bombardment of their fall TV crap they're shamelessly self-promoting (who knew Christian Slater was still alive?) or who's swinging the biggest dick of "the best political coverage team...EVER"...this is the part where I wish I had an Olbermann mute button, or hopefully his sushi will be (how do you Americans say) "tainted" tonight...please PLEASE don't make me switch over to CNN with Wolf (I peaked in 1992, but don't tell anybody) Blitzer and their ridiculous classroom setting -- I feel like I'm watching the college version of "Are you smarter than a fifth-grader". Yes, there's always FOX News, but I've put away my Hilter Youth Group uniform long ago (FOX does have better looking female talking heads, I'll give them that. They know which side their bread is buttered, plus they have to off-set those O'Reilly/Hannity ogres).
There's my prelim synopsis. I hope to post every day of the convention, to try and be more relevant to current events. Send me your comments, tell me who ya got, who bugs you, who you want to have a beer with, who's baby you want to have, you know the drill....
So Long, Beijing
(to all non-sports fans: don't worry, this won't be about the nerdy stats of any particular sports contests themselves, I'll keep it relevant)...And so, another Summer Olympics has ended. There's a few things I've taken away from these games:
1) Wow, can China put on a display or what? Granted, they "manipulated" the viewing of the opening ceremonies, and (no surprise here) would have never fessed up to it if they didn't get caught (keep that in mind, it happens again), but it was a sight to behold, and I know that two-dimensional TV didn't do it justice. I was amazed by the level of choreography and the incredible show of colors and themes. They did a great job -- it's nice to see hard work be rewarded by way of the outcome of the plan. No slackers here.
2) Broken ERRR Shattered World Records. Again, wow. It's clear to see how technology can help advance sports, and those new swimsuits were no exception. You could see the difference between those who used them vs. those who didn't. Phelps had all the physical attributes to be a champion, but he needed that suit to Shatter those records (and it may have had an indirect benefit to him on the race he won by a fingernail). As for the Jamaican runner Usain Bolt, who crushed the individual competition: I don't know if he had any techno help, but he was impressive in his wins. There were other winners that were equally strong, but Phelps and Bolt were the two that stuck out in my mind.
3) Winners...and Losers. Cheers to the USA basketball teams...but weren't they expected to win? Cheers to the Relay teams...for the long races they won. Both men's and women's teams dropped their batons during (simple yet required mandatory) exchanges in the short relay race that both were heavily expected to win. See? It happens in all walks of life: the devil is in the details. They were so worried about losing tenths' of seconds and jeopardizing a world record, that they failed to complete a small but vital part of the race and thus were disqualified. My impression was that the Americans were so overconfident and had such a smug attitude that they never thought this would happen to them -- and yet here we are, all full of talent, all full of ability, yet we STILL cannot close the deal on this particular race. Lesson to learn here, kids. Then again, children's books are full of old fables (Tortoise and the Hare; Ant and the Grasshopper) that have (for years) told us to never count our chickens before they're hatched. But hey, if you think "you're all that and a bag of chips", this is all BS to you, cuz you the bad mamma jamma, you 're above all that...whoops.
4) Cheat, cheat...never beat. The Chinese raided their local Gymborees to field their women's team, fudged on their passports, and won the gold in events they could not have done otherwise. Now, I'm not trying to be jingoistic here, I'm just asking that we all play fair and by the same rules. We'll play 14-yr olds, too, if it was allowed. One of the famous sayings in sports is, "if you're not cheating, you're not trying", and although there's some merit to that, it needs to be fully explained and not poorly used as a crutch or a surface-level cloak to cover up the sin.
5) Chinese Democracy. OK, so here's this oppressive super-power, very government-oriented, very uptight, yet we see scantily-clad girls dancing provocatively at the opening ceremonies and other events (including a very attractive cheerleading squad at the beach volleyball events...why? I don't know) and it cracked me up to see the Chinese women's beach volleyball team in bikini uniforms. Hey, I'm not complaining here, I just find it odd for China to embrace the Western Way (I heard the nightclubs were hoppin', too). The explanation is easy to see: the Chinese have no problem taking advantage of the Western immoral lifestyle to fit their (I'm sure) very short term needs. Just do me a favor, China, and don't be coming down with post-par tum depression and acting like a hard ass after the games by knocking the very thing you used to your benefit. Nobody likes a hypocrite -- just ask Quadafi or Sadaam Hussein or the Soviet Union (good luck on those last two). BTW, this mind-set reminds me of my good ol' Southern boys and girls around here -- they love the Baby Jesus and are quick to spout Scripture and condemn Satan, but they also like them some Hooter Girls and have no problem with "gentlemen's clubs" openly promote themselves on Chamber of Commerce materials. See? We have more in common that you thought!
6) Post-First Date impressions. For most of the world, this was like a first date with China, so it will be interesting to see how they are graded...and more importantly, if there's going to be a second date. Hey, we all have our quirks, and nobody's perfect, but if you can live with most of the good points and enjoy life and what it gives to you, then you should have no problem dealing with some of the weird stuff we all carry with us. So, what do you say? Do you want to play?
1) Wow, can China put on a display or what? Granted, they "manipulated" the viewing of the opening ceremonies, and (no surprise here) would have never fessed up to it if they didn't get caught (keep that in mind, it happens again), but it was a sight to behold, and I know that two-dimensional TV didn't do it justice. I was amazed by the level of choreography and the incredible show of colors and themes. They did a great job -- it's nice to see hard work be rewarded by way of the outcome of the plan. No slackers here.
2) Broken ERRR Shattered World Records. Again, wow. It's clear to see how technology can help advance sports, and those new swimsuits were no exception. You could see the difference between those who used them vs. those who didn't. Phelps had all the physical attributes to be a champion, but he needed that suit to Shatter those records (and it may have had an indirect benefit to him on the race he won by a fingernail). As for the Jamaican runner Usain Bolt, who crushed the individual competition: I don't know if he had any techno help, but he was impressive in his wins. There were other winners that were equally strong, but Phelps and Bolt were the two that stuck out in my mind.
3) Winners...and Losers. Cheers to the USA basketball teams...but weren't they expected to win? Cheers to the Relay teams...for the long races they won. Both men's and women's teams dropped their batons during (simple yet required mandatory) exchanges in the short relay race that both were heavily expected to win. See? It happens in all walks of life: the devil is in the details. They were so worried about losing tenths' of seconds and jeopardizing a world record, that they failed to complete a small but vital part of the race and thus were disqualified. My impression was that the Americans were so overconfident and had such a smug attitude that they never thought this would happen to them -- and yet here we are, all full of talent, all full of ability, yet we STILL cannot close the deal on this particular race. Lesson to learn here, kids. Then again, children's books are full of old fables (Tortoise and the Hare; Ant and the Grasshopper) that have (for years) told us to never count our chickens before they're hatched. But hey, if you think "you're all that and a bag of chips", this is all BS to you, cuz you the bad mamma jamma, you 're above all that...whoops.
4) Cheat, cheat...never beat. The Chinese raided their local Gymborees to field their women's team, fudged on their passports, and won the gold in events they could not have done otherwise. Now, I'm not trying to be jingoistic here, I'm just asking that we all play fair and by the same rules. We'll play 14-yr olds, too, if it was allowed. One of the famous sayings in sports is, "if you're not cheating, you're not trying", and although there's some merit to that, it needs to be fully explained and not poorly used as a crutch or a surface-level cloak to cover up the sin.
5) Chinese Democracy. OK, so here's this oppressive super-power, very government-oriented, very uptight, yet we see scantily-clad girls dancing provocatively at the opening ceremonies and other events (including a very attractive cheerleading squad at the beach volleyball events...why? I don't know) and it cracked me up to see the Chinese women's beach volleyball team in bikini uniforms. Hey, I'm not complaining here, I just find it odd for China to embrace the Western Way (I heard the nightclubs were hoppin', too). The explanation is easy to see: the Chinese have no problem taking advantage of the Western immoral lifestyle to fit their (I'm sure) very short term needs. Just do me a favor, China, and don't be coming down with post-par tum depression and acting like a hard ass after the games by knocking the very thing you used to your benefit. Nobody likes a hypocrite -- just ask Quadafi or Sadaam Hussein or the Soviet Union (good luck on those last two). BTW, this mind-set reminds me of my good ol' Southern boys and girls around here -- they love the Baby Jesus and are quick to spout Scripture and condemn Satan, but they also like them some Hooter Girls and have no problem with "gentlemen's clubs" openly promote themselves on Chamber of Commerce materials. See? We have more in common that you thought!
6) Post-First Date impressions. For most of the world, this was like a first date with China, so it will be interesting to see how they are graded...and more importantly, if there's going to be a second date. Hey, we all have our quirks, and nobody's perfect, but if you can live with most of the good points and enjoy life and what it gives to you, then you should have no problem dealing with some of the weird stuff we all carry with us. So, what do you say? Do you want to play?
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
A Scandal in Beijing?
This is in response to Dan Wetzel's column "Karolyis’ sour grapes makes bad whine":
"Dan,I'm not trying to be a homer any more than you are trying to purposely stir the pot, but I must disagree with your assessment -- not of the Karoli's (sp), but of the suspected ages of the Chinese "women's" gymnasts, and of the conspiracy raised with the time delay. As a father of two young girls, even I could see the physical differences in the faces (and solely on the faces/skull structure) of the Chinese vs other teams -- why do I have a sinking suspicion that we will find out in 5-10 years that these girls were underage, via a press conference by one of the girls to promote her book in her new homeland of America? And I agree about the time delay -- please take the time to review the tape and look at the times between each contestant before they go on their beam routine; I am convinced that you will see a discrepancy large enough to warrant suspicion. After all, we're talking about the same folks who have admitted to lip-syncing and "engineered" televised fireworks during the opening ceremonies, so it would only be fair to your readers if you acknowledge the character of the source in question. Thank you for your consideration."
Dan's column does not provide a comment section that you can openly converse with other readers, and it's probably a good thing for him because anyone of sound logic and reason would immediately disagree with his unresearched viewpoint. I'm not trying to be an ugly American -- the silver medal in the Olympics is still pretty awesome -- but let's not pretend to ignore obvious discrepancies in these games. And I'll also be the first to say I'm not surprised by all the new world records in swimming -- it's not all talent, it's the major advances in swimwear and pool construction that's making the difference (just like graphite tennis rackets and golf clubs changed their respective sports). Certainly we wouldn't dare suggest our swimmers are performance-enhanced by any other way, would we?
"Dan,I'm not trying to be a homer any more than you are trying to purposely stir the pot, but I must disagree with your assessment -- not of the Karoli's (sp), but of the suspected ages of the Chinese "women's" gymnasts, and of the conspiracy raised with the time delay. As a father of two young girls, even I could see the physical differences in the faces (and solely on the faces/skull structure) of the Chinese vs other teams -- why do I have a sinking suspicion that we will find out in 5-10 years that these girls were underage, via a press conference by one of the girls to promote her book in her new homeland of America? And I agree about the time delay -- please take the time to review the tape and look at the times between each contestant before they go on their beam routine; I am convinced that you will see a discrepancy large enough to warrant suspicion. After all, we're talking about the same folks who have admitted to lip-syncing and "engineered" televised fireworks during the opening ceremonies, so it would only be fair to your readers if you acknowledge the character of the source in question. Thank you for your consideration."
Dan's column does not provide a comment section that you can openly converse with other readers, and it's probably a good thing for him because anyone of sound logic and reason would immediately disagree with his unresearched viewpoint. I'm not trying to be an ugly American -- the silver medal in the Olympics is still pretty awesome -- but let's not pretend to ignore obvious discrepancies in these games. And I'll also be the first to say I'm not surprised by all the new world records in swimming -- it's not all talent, it's the major advances in swimwear and pool construction that's making the difference (just like graphite tennis rackets and golf clubs changed their respective sports). Certainly we wouldn't dare suggest our swimmers are performance-enhanced by any other way, would we?
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Bobby and the Infinite Sadness
I finally was able to see the movie "Bobby" the other day, via cable, and it reminded me of several things, all of them sad but true. I've always considered myself a democratic conservative, and although I support more Republican-esque policies in general, I hope I never forget the importance of the principles that drive the Democratic Party ideals.
1968 was an important year for me because it presented me with the defining moments that created my intense love of all things within political science. RFK and MLK were assassinated 40 years ago, and the world has never been the same since then. Oh, I'm not saying these two events were the only things to tilt the globe, but I do believe this was the culmination of how our modern-day political correctness was derived.
I realize that no one is perfect, and my more stanch 'publican friends would surely disagree wtih me, but I remember how RFK gave so many people so much hope for a better world, and it was all gone in an instant. It's been 40 years, and I have yet to see that hope come back to us. It was like a light suddenly went out and we've been lost in the dark since then. We've learned to survive and adapt, but it's not the same as when hope sprung from everywhere. We are such an advanced nation in so many ways that I don't understand why we cannot do a better job with humanity, and maybe this is supposed to be like the 40 years in the wilderness that we all must bear.
I still believe there is a reason for everything, and I hope to someday find out the answers to all the questions I have, but I also hope that the world (and especially my children and their children) will see those days come back again. Some say this year is somewhat similar to 1968 with the advent of Senator Obama -- although I'm not quite yet convinced, I will remain optimistic and see what happens.
1968 was an important year for me because it presented me with the defining moments that created my intense love of all things within political science. RFK and MLK were assassinated 40 years ago, and the world has never been the same since then. Oh, I'm not saying these two events were the only things to tilt the globe, but I do believe this was the culmination of how our modern-day political correctness was derived.
I realize that no one is perfect, and my more stanch 'publican friends would surely disagree wtih me, but I remember how RFK gave so many people so much hope for a better world, and it was all gone in an instant. It's been 40 years, and I have yet to see that hope come back to us. It was like a light suddenly went out and we've been lost in the dark since then. We've learned to survive and adapt, but it's not the same as when hope sprung from everywhere. We are such an advanced nation in so many ways that I don't understand why we cannot do a better job with humanity, and maybe this is supposed to be like the 40 years in the wilderness that we all must bear.
I still believe there is a reason for everything, and I hope to someday find out the answers to all the questions I have, but I also hope that the world (and especially my children and their children) will see those days come back again. Some say this year is somewhat similar to 1968 with the advent of Senator Obama -- although I'm not quite yet convinced, I will remain optimistic and see what happens.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Main Street Shrugged
In my never ending quest to be the Devil's Advocate, I find it important that both sides of the story be heard before comment and judgement is made. The big story to date is the American economy: are we approaching the recession that so many have predicted? Commodity prices are going way up, gasoline is over $3.25/gallon, and large financial companies are adding huge amounts to reserves to offset even larger losses, especially in the credit markets. Some are blaming the corporations for their greed; no surprise here, given the well-known insider sentiment that corporations exist solely to survive and (more importantly) advance the price per share for the holders of record, all else be damned, and when times go bad, the fingers point to the folks in the ivory towers and their "above-average" compensation. This doesn't help the newly unemployed -- their struggle is relentless. The easy solution is to break the principle down to its bare components: don't live beyond your means. Joe Sixpack struggles to survive and gets frustrated while watching his neighbor get another new car or the latest and largest audio/video appliance for the house. Mr. Sixpack wants to keep up, but cash is short and credit is scarce -- the only thing free is vocal resentment and jaded opinion. Meanwhile, the rich get richer, and the divide widens. We've seen this before, back in the late 70's. The middle class is less defined, unemployment increases as the market is slow to adjust to the changes in the global economy.
Housing is taking all the heat right now, because foreclosure rates are going through the roof. Suddenly everyone is surprised to see that people can't afford their mortgage. Pundits are screaming that we should have not let this happen, that we dropped the ball and proceeded with reckless abandon and loose underwriting guidelines, but that's all gone now. Wait a minute -- let's think about this: the housing market boom was created because Wall Street found another conduit to make big money in slick fashion by way of mortgage-backed securities. Nothing wrong with the idea, but like everything else, it has a limit, and that limit was raped and pillaged by the barbarians at the gate, and no one looked back until 10 months ago.
My suggestion is to not blame the cause, but blame the effect. Yes, housing guidelines got out of control, but not before gas prices and food prices. I seriously wonder if any of these economic/political pundits have EVER shopped in a grocery store or pumped their own gas for an extended length of time. I doubt it. If they did, they would have seen the problem a long time ago. When you only make so much per month and your disposable income continues to shrink every month because everyday commodity prices rise beyond expectations, you run out of options and you pull back. Now multiply that by 100 million or so and you can imagine the wave being created. Of course, if you make more than that average American (and you never have the need to balance your checkbook), this is irrelevant, and to that I say "congratulations, take your place in Myopiaville." In the real world, people are walking away from their homes, and it all trickles down from there. Wall Street doesn't get this -- they think the important thing is retail sales and housing sales and consumer sentiment, and they're wrong. Those items exist by way of the trickle-down from disposable income, not the other way around.
The popular sentiment today is that Greenspan and Congress created this housing mess and that's why the financials are getting killed. Actually, the financials are getting "spanked" for being out of line, i.e. too greedy. Look at it as the economy being the parent, and the financials being the spoiled kid: the kid pushes and pushes until it gets into trouble, and then the parent comes in with discipline and sends the kid to the corner until it learns its lesson. The financials loved these MBS deals cuz they were making a boatload of money, but then they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar one too many times. If you're really serious about solving this crisis, try this idea: do everything possible to lower gas prices by $1/gallon for an extended period of time. The market needs euphoria and hope, and it starts with the boots on the ground. If Joe Sixpack feels better about his dollar being able to afford more, he'll be much more likely to spend money on other consumerables. And don't skimp on the amount -- you have to show a big enough savings to change the sentiment, and $0.25/gallon won't do it.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when you read about the increasing number of foreclosures and bankruptcies. That's your sign that Main Street (and Joe Sixpack) is reacting the only way they know how -- by hoping that their sighs and shrugs will shake loose the over-abundance of greed and maybe, just maybe, Wall Street will feel the tremors enough to share in the experience and suffer their own losses. Just don't expect any sympathy from Main Street when it happens.
Housing is taking all the heat right now, because foreclosure rates are going through the roof. Suddenly everyone is surprised to see that people can't afford their mortgage. Pundits are screaming that we should have not let this happen, that we dropped the ball and proceeded with reckless abandon and loose underwriting guidelines, but that's all gone now. Wait a minute -- let's think about this: the housing market boom was created because Wall Street found another conduit to make big money in slick fashion by way of mortgage-backed securities. Nothing wrong with the idea, but like everything else, it has a limit, and that limit was raped and pillaged by the barbarians at the gate, and no one looked back until 10 months ago.
My suggestion is to not blame the cause, but blame the effect. Yes, housing guidelines got out of control, but not before gas prices and food prices. I seriously wonder if any of these economic/political pundits have EVER shopped in a grocery store or pumped their own gas for an extended length of time. I doubt it. If they did, they would have seen the problem a long time ago. When you only make so much per month and your disposable income continues to shrink every month because everyday commodity prices rise beyond expectations, you run out of options and you pull back. Now multiply that by 100 million or so and you can imagine the wave being created. Of course, if you make more than that average American (and you never have the need to balance your checkbook), this is irrelevant, and to that I say "congratulations, take your place in Myopiaville." In the real world, people are walking away from their homes, and it all trickles down from there. Wall Street doesn't get this -- they think the important thing is retail sales and housing sales and consumer sentiment, and they're wrong. Those items exist by way of the trickle-down from disposable income, not the other way around.
The popular sentiment today is that Greenspan and Congress created this housing mess and that's why the financials are getting killed. Actually, the financials are getting "spanked" for being out of line, i.e. too greedy. Look at it as the economy being the parent, and the financials being the spoiled kid: the kid pushes and pushes until it gets into trouble, and then the parent comes in with discipline and sends the kid to the corner until it learns its lesson. The financials loved these MBS deals cuz they were making a boatload of money, but then they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar one too many times. If you're really serious about solving this crisis, try this idea: do everything possible to lower gas prices by $1/gallon for an extended period of time. The market needs euphoria and hope, and it starts with the boots on the ground. If Joe Sixpack feels better about his dollar being able to afford more, he'll be much more likely to spend money on other consumerables. And don't skimp on the amount -- you have to show a big enough savings to change the sentiment, and $0.25/gallon won't do it.
Otherwise, don't be surprised when you read about the increasing number of foreclosures and bankruptcies. That's your sign that Main Street (and Joe Sixpack) is reacting the only way they know how -- by hoping that their sighs and shrugs will shake loose the over-abundance of greed and maybe, just maybe, Wall Street will feel the tremors enough to share in the experience and suffer their own losses. Just don't expect any sympathy from Main Street when it happens.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Where are our Priorities?
I'll cut to the chase: I have a problem with Congress using our tax dollars to discuss the steriod-HGH scandal in baseball, while another month brings us another deadly campus shooting and nothing is said or done about it. As a baseball fan, I appreciate the concern of our legislators, but I'm more concerned that there are bigger fish to fry here and they are ignoring it. Is it because they're too detached (personally, emotionally or otherwise) from the incidents and therefore not ready to act, or is it because of something bigger, like purposely staying clear of the big stick that is the NRA?
Congress will be quick to bitch about the mortgage meltdown and point fingers at the lenders, but God forbid that they cast a wary eye towards consumers who are all too willing to spend beyond their means. Hey, you know that Congress is smart enough to know not to shit where they eat: no sense in scolding potential voters, especially in an election year. And we all know that there's lots of voters who also luvvv their gunnns, so no need to piss on them until that fateful day when a Congressional kid is killed in the same random and reckless style. As constituents, we must demand an investigation. We must demand proaction, not reaction.
Congress will be quick to bitch about the mortgage meltdown and point fingers at the lenders, but God forbid that they cast a wary eye towards consumers who are all too willing to spend beyond their means. Hey, you know that Congress is smart enough to know not to shit where they eat: no sense in scolding potential voters, especially in an election year. And we all know that there's lots of voters who also luvvv their gunnns, so no need to piss on them until that fateful day when a Congressional kid is killed in the same random and reckless style. As constituents, we must demand an investigation. We must demand proaction, not reaction.
Those who don't remember the past...
are condemned to wear hip-huggers (or "lo-risers", as the kids say nowadays) and unwashed hair -- and support retro movies like "Semi-Pro"...
For those of us who remember, and especially for those who don't and want a refresher course, here's a tidbit (special thanks to Conde Nast Portfolio.com):
http://www.portfolio.com/interactive-features/2008/02/Stagflation
Keep On Truckin' !
For those of us who remember, and especially for those who don't and want a refresher course, here's a tidbit (special thanks to Conde Nast Portfolio.com):
http://www.portfolio.com/interactive-features/2008/02/Stagflation
Keep On Truckin' !
Friday, February 29, 2008
Sheep in Wolf's clothing
So the US Dollar is taking a POUNDING lately, and the pundits are saying this is not good. I say "Au Contraire, my friend". Let's think about it: our Dollar is worth much less than the Euro, which means that more of them will be coming over here instead of us going over there. Hmm, if they come over here, they're going to spend money at our restaurants, shops, upscale retail outlets and the like. Isn't this what we want all along -- more shoppers net net? If your market has dried up, if your cheese has moved, what do you do? You go to where the market is. You change your tactics to increase your market share. Or, in this case, in addition to all of the above, you welcome the new shoppers that are coming to YOU. Sure, it's not a proud moment to admit that your national currency (the national currency of the world's strongest power, by the way) is worth less than the upstart Euro, but hey, if the "tactic" keeps you afloat and helps you pay your bills, what's your beef? The economy will slowly come back, thanks not just because of Fed intervention via economic stimulus, but also because of natural market events, such as the new underground cash flow created by the Euros coming to America and spending here (did I just say "such as"? That Miss South Carolina is rubbing off on me...yikes!). Already we are hearing of Euros buying up discounted real estate in Florida. Yes! That's what we need! They'll invigorate the real estate market and who knows? Maybe that will trickle down to help the rest of the r/e market. So what if they buy low and hold until the market returns and they sell high -- they'll take their profit and do what? Buy more! Now, political pundits will say that this may result in a growth pattern that the new administration will take full credit for, but the saavy ones will know the truth that it wouldn't matter what administration is in office, the market moves independently regardless. I'm not pushing aside Fed interaction completely, but as a long-time watcher and investor of the markets, I for one realize the logic of the markets as being an animal unto themselves, and no one can predict or control speculation (and Calvin Coolidge had it right: The business of America is business). So, bring me your Euros, your Drachmas, your Yen -- let's welcome your business with open arms, cuz we'll take the cash infusion!
Monday, February 11, 2008
Roger Reject
Clemens is sticking to his steroid-enhanced (allegedly) guns, but we all know McNamee is not as big a threat as Petitte's testimony -- if Andy gives him up, it's all over for the Rocket. And now we get word that Rocket's wife was shot up, too? Hey, you know what they say: The family that juices together, stays together. I'm sure Rocket will not take this well, and we may see an outpouring of rage -- no, wait, nevermind...And does this make Jose Canseco legit after all?
Toute Le Monde, 2/11/08
1. Hillary making a major staff change: Pundits reading the tea leaves are painting this as a bad sign for the Clinton campaign. The O is coming on strong, and his message is becoming infectuous. I think they should join forces and run together on one ticket, but I don't see how one of them will step aside and take the Veep position. As a long-time registered 'publican (yet no stranger to independent and non-partisan voting), even I can see that if Clinton is the nominee, the Dems will lose because the 'publican war machine is salivating and ready to pounce; the opposite is true if The O runs against The Old Man.
2. The Huckster is still hanging on: Can't figure out why Huckabee wants to stay in the race, but I admire his tenacity. And I'm always on the side of Question Authority, yet he's got to be very careful not to step on graves while marching through the cemetery. The Mitt has done the honorable thing and has fallen on his sword -- plus I'm sure his FP has been yelling at him to stop the madness or the Mitt Family will be eating StarKist instead of sushimi for generations to come, and we can't have that. I'd like to see Mitt take the Veep spot with The Old Man, it makes sense from a Wall Street position (even though it's not fiscally responsible to blow millions on a losing campaign). Just what is the Huckster hanging on for?
3. Bill Maher: bitch bitch bitch! But where's the solution? Bill, your constant condescending comments of the President is getting old and disrespectful, but I still support your show because you are the only one that's willing to put both sides on the air to have a somewhat intelligent discussion. Your audience, however, needs a lobotomy, and it makes your show more circus and less likely to be taken seriously, which is a shame. Your anti-Bush guests bring nothing to the table except weak complaints and no solutions, and whenever your conservative guests produce great talking points, you can't come back with anything except nervous jokes or weak counters. Gee, I wonder why you don't put on Joe Scarborough or Dennis Miller on your show anymore? Cuz you can't hang with them, that's why!
4. Bob Knight, man or myth? I'm glad he walked away. Why force someone to do something they don't want to do? Who wants that around their program? But please, Coach Knight, please don't come back unless it's to Indiana. You both deserve each other. Meanwhile, I think your son is set up for failure and won't last long, but hey, at least his resume will include a head coaching position (which TT owed you for your help in putting them back on the map).
5. Grammys: oh, Kanye, you got bitch-slapped, and by Vince Gill of all people? Even Usher was smaking on you! Why? Because your bitching is stupid and narcissistic -- who in music hasn't suffered to get their music on air? That's part of being an artist -- or are you only in it for the money? You need to decide what's more important to you -- your talent or your materialism. What did your mother die for? Meanwhile...how 'bout Le Winehouse! She looked incredibly lucid and sober, and I was glad to see it. She's different and compelling, and there's nothing wrong with that. Question is, will this make her party like it's 1999, or will this snap her out of it? Hate to say it, but I'm not taking her out of the Death Pool Top Five List just yet...and what about the show in general? I thought it sucked out loud. MTV, again you have been given a huge gift -- you can make your show harder, faster, stronger, better, but as usual, you won't -- you'll do something you think is cutting edge but will miss by a mile. Is there no one out there that can produce a music awards show that's fun and entertaining to watch, with appropriate music guests playing relevant (read: not last year's) songs?
6. Microsquash rejected by Yahoo: Hmm, I wonder if Google had anything to do with this? Let's see a hostle takeover!
2. The Huckster is still hanging on: Can't figure out why Huckabee wants to stay in the race, but I admire his tenacity. And I'm always on the side of Question Authority, yet he's got to be very careful not to step on graves while marching through the cemetery. The Mitt has done the honorable thing and has fallen on his sword -- plus I'm sure his FP has been yelling at him to stop the madness or the Mitt Family will be eating StarKist instead of sushimi for generations to come, and we can't have that. I'd like to see Mitt take the Veep spot with The Old Man, it makes sense from a Wall Street position (even though it's not fiscally responsible to blow millions on a losing campaign). Just what is the Huckster hanging on for?
3. Bill Maher: bitch bitch bitch! But where's the solution? Bill, your constant condescending comments of the President is getting old and disrespectful, but I still support your show because you are the only one that's willing to put both sides on the air to have a somewhat intelligent discussion. Your audience, however, needs a lobotomy, and it makes your show more circus and less likely to be taken seriously, which is a shame. Your anti-Bush guests bring nothing to the table except weak complaints and no solutions, and whenever your conservative guests produce great talking points, you can't come back with anything except nervous jokes or weak counters. Gee, I wonder why you don't put on Joe Scarborough or Dennis Miller on your show anymore? Cuz you can't hang with them, that's why!
4. Bob Knight, man or myth? I'm glad he walked away. Why force someone to do something they don't want to do? Who wants that around their program? But please, Coach Knight, please don't come back unless it's to Indiana. You both deserve each other. Meanwhile, I think your son is set up for failure and won't last long, but hey, at least his resume will include a head coaching position (which TT owed you for your help in putting them back on the map).
5. Grammys: oh, Kanye, you got bitch-slapped, and by Vince Gill of all people? Even Usher was smaking on you! Why? Because your bitching is stupid and narcissistic -- who in music hasn't suffered to get their music on air? That's part of being an artist -- or are you only in it for the money? You need to decide what's more important to you -- your talent or your materialism. What did your mother die for? Meanwhile...how 'bout Le Winehouse! She looked incredibly lucid and sober, and I was glad to see it. She's different and compelling, and there's nothing wrong with that. Question is, will this make her party like it's 1999, or will this snap her out of it? Hate to say it, but I'm not taking her out of the Death Pool Top Five List just yet...and what about the show in general? I thought it sucked out loud. MTV, again you have been given a huge gift -- you can make your show harder, faster, stronger, better, but as usual, you won't -- you'll do something you think is cutting edge but will miss by a mile. Is there no one out there that can produce a music awards show that's fun and entertaining to watch, with appropriate music guests playing relevant (read: not last year's) songs?
6. Microsquash rejected by Yahoo: Hmm, I wonder if Google had anything to do with this? Let's see a hostle takeover!
Sunday, February 03, 2008
UPset Special
Wait a minute, I had it right -- I did say that the winning team would win by 3, thanks to a last-minute TD drive....oh, yeah, I picked the wrong teams to win/lose. But hey, I was closest, does that count? I don't remember the commercials (except for the Victoria's Secret spot at the end of the game -- hubba hubba!)....
Congrats, Giants. Is it baseball season yet?
Congrats, Giants. Is it baseball season yet?
Out of the Blog Closet, Part Deux
1) Don't hold back. If you think you have something to contribute, whether it's long-winded (like most of my stuff) or short and sweet, then let it rip.
2) Try not to think this is beneath you or that you can't measure up. I've hobnobbed at several black-tie events, and I've had to rely on public transportation to take me to and from work. I've easily mingled with some bright and successful people, and I've broke bread with some simple down-home folk. I can say with certainty that everyone, no matter what background or education, can contribute something of value to this world.
3) Use a nickname if you want. That goes for Doc, Dog, Dagwood, HairGoddess, and anyone else.
4) Try not to have a thin skin. Constructive criticism can be a good thing (except for me, I'm still working on it).
5) Since I just KNOW you are curious -- the name of the blog comes from a procedure used by a former bank employer of mine, and I always swore I'd use it as the name for my rock band, but since that didn't happen (yet), it goes here.
2) Try not to think this is beneath you or that you can't measure up. I've hobnobbed at several black-tie events, and I've had to rely on public transportation to take me to and from work. I've easily mingled with some bright and successful people, and I've broke bread with some simple down-home folk. I can say with certainty that everyone, no matter what background or education, can contribute something of value to this world.
3) Use a nickname if you want. That goes for Doc, Dog, Dagwood, HairGoddess, and anyone else.
4) Try not to have a thin skin. Constructive criticism can be a good thing (except for me, I'm still working on it).
5) Since I just KNOW you are curious -- the name of the blog comes from a procedure used by a former bank employer of mine, and I always swore I'd use it as the name for my rock band, but since that didn't happen (yet), it goes here.
stupor bowl predictions -- who ya got?
The Gang (you know who you are) and I recently shared emails about our predictions for the Big Game (with all due respect to the Goodell Syndicate). I took a leap by supporting my favorite AFC team with a swami-like call of a 20-17 New England victory, thanks to a last-minute incredible TD drive by Gisele's boyfriend (lucky guy!). Plus, I want to see history being made. Giants came a long way, but the jury's still out on whether Eli has finally risen to his pre-pro career expectations, or is he just Kerry Collins incarnate.
I've been invited to a SB party at a buddy's house down the street, but it's also a workday and schoolday tomorrow, bright and early, so I don't see myself staying too long. Where will you be for the game, and Who ya got?
And be prepared to be asked about your reactions to the commercials (and what you did at halftime).
I've been invited to a SB party at a buddy's house down the street, but it's also a workday and schoolday tomorrow, bright and early, so I don't see myself staying too long. Where will you be for the game, and Who ya got?
And be prepared to be asked about your reactions to the commercials (and what you did at halftime).
Out of the Blog Closet
'The time has come,' the Walrus said, 'To talk of many things...'
For a few years now, I have sporadically (at best) worked on a personal blog, mostly for selfish reasons -- I fancied myself as having a hidden writer just dying to get out, and this may be the best conduit to help me achieve that objective. After all, it's no secret to my former professors (by their grading and comments at the time) or those close to me that I have a "gift" for writing, especially when pressed for time. Only problem is that I find "the spirit has to move me", as they say in the vast cultural wasteland of (insert your favorite cultural wasteland here), or else the hidden writer stays beneath the surface for another week, or month, or months.
I still want to write, but I also have recently come to the conclusion that I know many people, all or most being your average person-next-door, who have the ability to contribute unique and equally interesting ideas that I feel not only need to be heard (or in this case, read), but can create a honest rebuttal for others, concluding (I hope) in food for thought. These people I know are a small group, but they vary in age, experience, culture, political partisianship, and gender, and I find them refreshing and capable of providing a counterpoint when the need arises. With that in mind, I have decided to open the floodgates, if you will, by exposing this blog to them, and hopefully they will respond in kind with their opinions, and their friends' opinions, and any others who wish to join the party. I only ask that we keep this somewhat above-board -- have some respect for your fellow contributors. I'm not a prude per se, and I love a funny joke (adult or otherwise) just as much as the next person, and there may be times that a funny joke or cartoon or caption is used to amplify a point, but let's not go overboard if we can help it. Personally, if my blog is fortunate enough to receive contributions from who I think will write in, then I believe we'll have nothing to worry about.
And so it begins...
(special thanks to Lewis Carroll)
For a few years now, I have sporadically (at best) worked on a personal blog, mostly for selfish reasons -- I fancied myself as having a hidden writer just dying to get out, and this may be the best conduit to help me achieve that objective. After all, it's no secret to my former professors (by their grading and comments at the time) or those close to me that I have a "gift" for writing, especially when pressed for time. Only problem is that I find "the spirit has to move me", as they say in the vast cultural wasteland of (insert your favorite cultural wasteland here), or else the hidden writer stays beneath the surface for another week, or month, or months.
I still want to write, but I also have recently come to the conclusion that I know many people, all or most being your average person-next-door, who have the ability to contribute unique and equally interesting ideas that I feel not only need to be heard (or in this case, read), but can create a honest rebuttal for others, concluding (I hope) in food for thought. These people I know are a small group, but they vary in age, experience, culture, political partisianship, and gender, and I find them refreshing and capable of providing a counterpoint when the need arises. With that in mind, I have decided to open the floodgates, if you will, by exposing this blog to them, and hopefully they will respond in kind with their opinions, and their friends' opinions, and any others who wish to join the party. I only ask that we keep this somewhat above-board -- have some respect for your fellow contributors. I'm not a prude per se, and I love a funny joke (adult or otherwise) just as much as the next person, and there may be times that a funny joke or cartoon or caption is used to amplify a point, but let's not go overboard if we can help it. Personally, if my blog is fortunate enough to receive contributions from who I think will write in, then I believe we'll have nothing to worry about.
And so it begins...
(special thanks to Lewis Carroll)
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Number Four with a Bullet!
Yes, I'll admit it -- I'm slightly superstitious. I sit the same way and don't move my position during a crucial part of the game, as if it somehow helps my team. I only wear certain shirts while watching my team play, because I've worn shirts/jerseys before that always Always resulted in a loss for my team, so I don't do that anymore. And if I email some smak talk to my friends, my team always loses their next game. It's as if the Big Guy likes to feed that humble pie with authority, and with a sense of humor. Now, it's no secret amongst my friends and family that I am a staunch non-believer of ghosts or supernatural stuff or spirits or anything like that. I'm too much of an amateur scientist to believe in the human side of the unknown -- it's illogical to me. And yet I dread saying anything about my Sun Devils, because I fear they will lose their next game because of my bragging about them and their #4 ranking. In April of this year, I got on everyone about how I thought this was most definitely the year for my Dodgers, and they fell flat on their ass in September and not only missed the playoffs but were this close to finishing dead last. And around that same time in April, I was also boasting about how the Hurricanes would make it back to the Stanley Cup Finals, and they promptly missed the playoffs entirely. So there you have it. Don't expect me to say anything proud and loud about my Sun Devils. I'll let them speak for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)