![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Kenya trip
Apr. 1st, 2008 | 04:22 pm
so i'm back in nairobi after a couple of days in the towns of meru and nanyuki, mostly in rural areas with no internet access, little property of any kind, living conditions that generally approach squalor, and extreme natural beauty. mount kenya, in particular, is an amazing sight - not only is it the largest mountain i have ever seen, clocking in at a cool 17,000 feet, but there isn't a single other hill to be seen anywhere near it, so it completely dominates the skyline. both meru and nanyuki are right at the base of the mountain, giving us fairly amazing views during the early morning hours before it became surrounded by cloud cover. the area up there was very lush and green; wild banana trees grow everywhere (not that we're allowed to eat them, according to the restrictive health rules we've all agreed to) along with coffee and tea trees.
we were conducting interviews with women up there, most of whom had been through reasonably horrifying experiences of domestic violence, getting thrown out of their homes, being forced to marry their in laws, etc, mixing up the horror stories with nicer stories about some of the work that these women are doing with a group called TIST that pays women to plant trees. it's a sweet deal for the women farmers - they plant the trees in year 1, and collect money per tree per year not only during year 1, but every year after that, gradually increasing their income without having to do any additional labor as the trees get bigger and soak up just a little more of our first world carbon dioxide. the money gives many of these rural women an income that they need to be able to survive without being totally dependent on their husbands and in-laws, many of whom turn out to be assholes (i have also met some great kenyan men who work with TIST or with the feminist group FIDA). cliched though it may be, the people are very warm and hospitable, and their tea is delicious, although the food - and there really is no other word for it - blows. i was hoping kenyan food was going to be a lot like ethiopian food. turns out, not so much. kenya's national specialty turns out to be a dish called nyama choma: meat grilled until it is dried out, served without any particular flavor. the rest of the food is less appetizing.
i have, not surprisingly, utterly failed in my attempt to network with the people i met in TIST, and thus remain unemployed.
in nairobi, we spent the day today interviewing people who are a little more well off, judges and lawyers and community organizers. also, our hotel is the height of colonial luxery. first of all, it is located on the same street as the israeli embassy, a street that you can only get to by passing through the friendly security checkpoint. i kid you not - the sign says 'please stop at the friendly checkpoint' complete with two actual smiley faces on the sign. beneath the sign are two friendly looking soldiers with friendly looking machine guns. if i can get a picture of the friendly checkpoint, i will, although i'm worried about asking the soldiers for permission to take the picture because of, you know, the huge weaponry. once you get past the friendly checkpoint, the hotel is filled with exotic gardens, extremely expensive food, several swimming pools, etc. hard to believe that within a five mile radius there are several million people (60% of nairobi's population) living in some of the worst slums in the world - slums that we are not actually allowed to see, even with an armed escort.
unfortunately, it turns out that this is not actually a vacation, but rather about as hard as i've had to work during my time in law school (or, to put it another way, ever). we get up at 6 am, we rush out to interview #1, who is inevitably late, making us late for interview #2, which turns out to be ok because the person we are interviewing for interview #2 is even later than we are, which sets us up to be almost equally late for interview #3, and so on. timeliness is not a big value in kenyan culture. which would be more than fine with me except that my professor is an ocd neurotic freak who flips out at every change in schedule and drives us all somewhat nuts. you'd think that having worked in africa for 10+ years she'd be used to it, but susan deller ross is not exactly culturally sensitive. or aware. or easy to deal with. or receptive to criticism. or able to relax - ever. but the rest of us are having a good time, especially when she isn't around. anyway, when we're finally done with our four rescheduled and shifting interviews, it is usually about 7 and we haven't had a break for lunch and are thus starving, and when we're done with dinner, it's meetings for several hours and then typing interview notes for several hours, rinse, repeat. fortunately, my interview partner rocks, so its going pretty well all things considered.
the word is we'll get to go on safari on saturday before we leave. we have already gotten to see wild baboons, which was pretty cool. you look them in the eye and you're like hey, primate. and they are like dude, you've got forward facing eyes and manipulatable hands. and you're like, your family structure and problem solving ability seems kind of familiar, not to mention your pink rear ends. it's pretty cool.
of course, once they find out you are an american everybody here wants to talk about obama, and lauren and i have immediately become rock stars for having volunteered for obama in south carolina. they are - well, lets just say very excited about him. it's nice to see someone that seems to make kenyans proud to be from kenya, regardless of their tribal affiliation - he's just as much a transformative figure in the ethnic relations between kenyan groups as he is between blacks and whites in the u.s.
speaking of which, i haven't seen many traces of the violence that erupted a few months ago, despite news stories that suggest the power sharing deal is strained during the current cabinet negotiations. in meru, there was a somewhat ominous scene where somebody was yelling something loud under a big mao-like poster of president kibaki to a crowd of ominous looking people, but the group was small and everybody else seems back to business as usual (meru is a kikuyu area that would support the kikuyu kibaki). for the most part, everyone expresses shock that things got as bad as they did and confidence that the brief nightmare is over, and assumes that the tension between the two corrupt douchebags in charge is just the typical posturing by politicians. kenyans love to talk politics, and so do i, so i've gotten quite a few details about the situation here in return for their hunger for information about the u.s. presidential election.
we were conducting interviews with women up there, most of whom had been through reasonably horrifying experiences of domestic violence, getting thrown out of their homes, being forced to marry their in laws, etc, mixing up the horror stories with nicer stories about some of the work that these women are doing with a group called TIST that pays women to plant trees. it's a sweet deal for the women farmers - they plant the trees in year 1, and collect money per tree per year not only during year 1, but every year after that, gradually increasing their income without having to do any additional labor as the trees get bigger and soak up just a little more of our first world carbon dioxide. the money gives many of these rural women an income that they need to be able to survive without being totally dependent on their husbands and in-laws, many of whom turn out to be assholes (i have also met some great kenyan men who work with TIST or with the feminist group FIDA). cliched though it may be, the people are very warm and hospitable, and their tea is delicious, although the food - and there really is no other word for it - blows. i was hoping kenyan food was going to be a lot like ethiopian food. turns out, not so much. kenya's national specialty turns out to be a dish called nyama choma: meat grilled until it is dried out, served without any particular flavor. the rest of the food is less appetizing.
i have, not surprisingly, utterly failed in my attempt to network with the people i met in TIST, and thus remain unemployed.
in nairobi, we spent the day today interviewing people who are a little more well off, judges and lawyers and community organizers. also, our hotel is the height of colonial luxery. first of all, it is located on the same street as the israeli embassy, a street that you can only get to by passing through the friendly security checkpoint. i kid you not - the sign says 'please stop at the friendly checkpoint' complete with two actual smiley faces on the sign. beneath the sign are two friendly looking soldiers with friendly looking machine guns. if i can get a picture of the friendly checkpoint, i will, although i'm worried about asking the soldiers for permission to take the picture because of, you know, the huge weaponry. once you get past the friendly checkpoint, the hotel is filled with exotic gardens, extremely expensive food, several swimming pools, etc. hard to believe that within a five mile radius there are several million people (60% of nairobi's population) living in some of the worst slums in the world - slums that we are not actually allowed to see, even with an armed escort.
unfortunately, it turns out that this is not actually a vacation, but rather about as hard as i've had to work during my time in law school (or, to put it another way, ever). we get up at 6 am, we rush out to interview #1, who is inevitably late, making us late for interview #2, which turns out to be ok because the person we are interviewing for interview #2 is even later than we are, which sets us up to be almost equally late for interview #3, and so on. timeliness is not a big value in kenyan culture. which would be more than fine with me except that my professor is an ocd neurotic freak who flips out at every change in schedule and drives us all somewhat nuts. you'd think that having worked in africa for 10+ years she'd be used to it, but susan deller ross is not exactly culturally sensitive. or aware. or easy to deal with. or receptive to criticism. or able to relax - ever. but the rest of us are having a good time, especially when she isn't around. anyway, when we're finally done with our four rescheduled and shifting interviews, it is usually about 7 and we haven't had a break for lunch and are thus starving, and when we're done with dinner, it's meetings for several hours and then typing interview notes for several hours, rinse, repeat. fortunately, my interview partner rocks, so its going pretty well all things considered.
the word is we'll get to go on safari on saturday before we leave. we have already gotten to see wild baboons, which was pretty cool. you look them in the eye and you're like hey, primate. and they are like dude, you've got forward facing eyes and manipulatable hands. and you're like, your family structure and problem solving ability seems kind of familiar, not to mention your pink rear ends. it's pretty cool.
of course, once they find out you are an american everybody here wants to talk about obama, and lauren and i have immediately become rock stars for having volunteered for obama in south carolina. they are - well, lets just say very excited about him. it's nice to see someone that seems to make kenyans proud to be from kenya, regardless of their tribal affiliation - he's just as much a transformative figure in the ethnic relations between kenyan groups as he is between blacks and whites in the u.s.
speaking of which, i haven't seen many traces of the violence that erupted a few months ago, despite news stories that suggest the power sharing deal is strained during the current cabinet negotiations. in meru, there was a somewhat ominous scene where somebody was yelling something loud under a big mao-like poster of president kibaki to a crowd of ominous looking people, but the group was small and everybody else seems back to business as usual (meru is a kikuyu area that would support the kikuyu kibaki). for the most part, everyone expresses shock that things got as bad as they did and confidence that the brief nightmare is over, and assumes that the tension between the two corrupt douchebags in charge is just the typical posturing by politicians. kenyans love to talk politics, and so do i, so i've gotten quite a few details about the situation here in return for their hunger for information about the u.s. presidential election.
Link | Leave a comment {1} | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
The Wire favorites
Mar. 10th, 2008 | 07:45 pm
Season
The third. The Stringer-Avon conflict was epic, and done so subtly and effectively. The Hamsterdam plotline was their best social commentary, and I thought was a pretty interesting treatment of the issue.
Character
D'Angelo Barksdale. All of his key scenes are amazing - the "you just grow up in this shit" speech, the "you are what you are" death speech, his description of the killing of that girl, his tense but oddly close relationship with Bodie, that character just owned the screen every moment he was on it.
Episode
This is a really tough call, but I think I have to go with the season 4 finale.
Scene
The fight between Avon and Stringer. Every line is phenomenal - "I knew I forgot something, we're the Trump brothers now"; "The difference between me and you is I bleed red, you bleed green"; "When I look at you I see a man without a country"; "I took that shit off you and put it on me." And then the episode ends with a minute of total silence.
quote
"Y'all don't understand, man. Y'all don't get it. You grow up in this shit. My grandfather was Butch Stanford. You know who Butch Standford was in this town? All my people man. My father, my uncles, my cousins. It's just what we do. You just live with this shit until you can't breathe no more. I swear to God, I was courtside for 8 months, and I was freer in jail than I was at home." -D'angelo
I also like the recent exhange between Bunny and Carcetti: "There was nothing I could have done with your experiment in the Western. There wasn't anything anybody could have done with that." Colvin: "Well Mayor. Then I guess there is nothing to be done."
Funny quote
"Yea man I'm just like you, I got the shotgun, you got the briefcase." - Omar Little
Funny Scene
It's too recent to find online, but the scene in Quantico where they give the profile of the serial killer and it is a perfect description of Jimmy McNulty, ending in the punch line "what did you think?" and Jimmy: "they're in the ballpark."
Best Montage
The closing montage of season 2 (the Nicky Sbotka against the wire fence montage).
The third. The Stringer-Avon conflict was epic, and done so subtly and effectively. The Hamsterdam plotline was their best social commentary, and I thought was a pretty interesting treatment of the issue.
Character
D'Angelo Barksdale. All of his key scenes are amazing - the "you just grow up in this shit" speech, the "you are what you are" death speech, his description of the killing of that girl, his tense but oddly close relationship with Bodie, that character just owned the screen every moment he was on it.
Episode
This is a really tough call, but I think I have to go with the season 4 finale.
Scene
The fight between Avon and Stringer. Every line is phenomenal - "I knew I forgot something, we're the Trump brothers now"; "The difference between me and you is I bleed red, you bleed green"; "When I look at you I see a man without a country"; "I took that shit off you and put it on me." And then the episode ends with a minute of total silence.
quote
"Y'all don't understand, man. Y'all don't get it. You grow up in this shit. My grandfather was Butch Stanford. You know who Butch Standford was in this town? All my people man. My father, my uncles, my cousins. It's just what we do. You just live with this shit until you can't breathe no more. I swear to God, I was courtside for 8 months, and I was freer in jail than I was at home." -D'angelo
I also like the recent exhange between Bunny and Carcetti: "There was nothing I could have done with your experiment in the Western. There wasn't anything anybody could have done with that." Colvin: "Well Mayor. Then I guess there is nothing to be done."
Funny quote
"Yea man I'm just like you, I got the shotgun, you got the briefcase." - Omar Little
Funny Scene
It's too recent to find online, but the scene in Quantico where they give the profile of the serial killer and it is a perfect description of Jimmy McNulty, ending in the punch line "what did you think?" and Jimmy: "they're in the ballpark."
Best Montage
The closing montage of season 2 (the Nicky Sbotka against the wire fence montage).
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Our bad breakup with Hillary Clinton
Mar. 8th, 2008 | 07:49 pm
You know, I'm starting to change my mind about the "Obama needs to get tough and attack Hillary" meme. For one thing, this view is in response to the "Hillary got a last minute surge of support because of negative ads in Ohio and Texas" meme, and I'm not sure that's actually accurate. When you look at focus group data on the red phone ad (sorry I can't remember where I saw this) undecided voters actually had a strong negative reaction to it. I have a different explanation for the sudden Hillary surge in the days before Texas and Ohio: the media started writing her obituary. People in the Democratic base have been rooting for Hillary for almost 16 years now. For all that time, her successes have been the successes of the party; Democrats have been identifying with her accomplishments and failures, in the same way that we identify with the accomplishments or failures of, say, David Ortiz. That identification I think is strongest among people who don't pay that close attention to politics, Democrats who look at politics through an "our team" versus "their team" lens, and especially women, who on a very personal level identify with Hillary's struggles as a woman trying to be successfull in a man's world.
What's happening now is like a bad breakup between Clintons and Democratic voters. You know the way you can want to break up with a girl, think it's the right move, have someone better lined up - and then all of a sudden, once you're actually halfway through ending it, you start to think about how great they were, how you had such great times together, etc. A solid percentage - I think a majority - of Democrats want to move on past the garbage of the Clinton years. But once it starts to seem like that is actually happening, once Hillary starts to fade a bit from the public spotlight, the story becomes "The End of Clinton" and voters immediately sympathize with her and her support rises. That's what happened in New Hampshire, and I think to a lesser degree that's what happened in Ohio and Texas.
I know people are going to say that I'm trying to explain away Hillary's support, and I suppose in part I am, but I do have some respect for the value of loyalty. I don't personally feel any, because I never liked the Clintons, but I respect the fact that some people do.Another way of putting this I suppose is "buyers remorse" or doubts about Obama. But I don't think the doubts really are about Obama. I think the doubts are about leaving Hillary behind.
If I'm right about this, then the last thing Obama should do is go negative. In fact, Obama should do the reverse; he should show respect and admiration for Hillary's time of service, which is really showing respect and admiration for Hillary's supporters. Maybe even take a shot at somebody for making sexist charges against Hillary. I don't think he has anything to lose, because I don't actually think Hillary has a shot at the nomination at this point - I think superdelegates are ultimately going to decide this thing, and they are going to decide it for Obama. They know he is in the interest of the party.
Of course, if I'm right, then the last thing Hillary should do is continue to go negative, which is the lesson that she learned from those victories.
What's happening now is like a bad breakup between Clintons and Democratic voters. You know the way you can want to break up with a girl, think it's the right move, have someone better lined up - and then all of a sudden, once you're actually halfway through ending it, you start to think about how great they were, how you had such great times together, etc. A solid percentage - I think a majority - of Democrats want to move on past the garbage of the Clinton years. But once it starts to seem like that is actually happening, once Hillary starts to fade a bit from the public spotlight, the story becomes "The End of Clinton" and voters immediately sympathize with her and her support rises. That's what happened in New Hampshire, and I think to a lesser degree that's what happened in Ohio and Texas.
I know people are going to say that I'm trying to explain away Hillary's support, and I suppose in part I am, but I do have some respect for the value of loyalty. I don't personally feel any, because I never liked the Clintons, but I respect the fact that some people do.Another way of putting this I suppose is "buyers remorse" or doubts about Obama. But I don't think the doubts really are about Obama. I think the doubts are about leaving Hillary behind.
If I'm right about this, then the last thing Obama should do is go negative. In fact, Obama should do the reverse; he should show respect and admiration for Hillary's time of service, which is really showing respect and admiration for Hillary's supporters. Maybe even take a shot at somebody for making sexist charges against Hillary. I don't think he has anything to lose, because I don't actually think Hillary has a shot at the nomination at this point - I think superdelegates are ultimately going to decide this thing, and they are going to decide it for Obama. They know he is in the interest of the party.
Of course, if I'm right, then the last thing Hillary should do is continue to go negative, which is the lesson that she learned from those victories.
Link | Leave a comment {2} | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Clinton's ugly death throes
Feb. 25th, 2008 | 06:04 pm
I didn't think she could possibly get this ugly:
That's a photo of Barack Obama that Hillary Clinton supporters have been circulating. Here's the Clinton campaign's defense:
We don’t think there’s anything wrong with this photo. Sen. Clinton has herself, while traveling abroad, dressed in traditional, local dress. And there’s nothing divisive about that.
So what we are asked to believe is that the Clinton campaign just wanted to distribute a picture of Barack Obama. It could have been the one of him sitting with his family, it could have been the one of him giving a speech, but they decided to go for the one of him in a turban. After all, why not? There's nothing bad about being in a turban. Is Barack Obama saying there is something wrong with being in a turban?
By the way Hillary, John McCain thanks you for lending credibility to the pathetically un-credible smear that Obama is a Muslim.
Or get this accusation:
"He wavers from seeming to believe that mediation and meetings without preconditions can solve some of the world's most intractable problems to advocating rash, unilateral military action without the cooperation of our allies in the most sensitive part of the world," Clinton said in a speech at The George Washington University.
He favors different approaches to different situations in different parts of the world. How indecisive. We should just go with one foreign policy strategy and stick with it, under any and all circumstances.
Hillary's campaign is not only insulting to Obama, to Muslims, and to black people. It's actually an insult to all of us. Hillary Clinton may be the first person to go broke underestimating the intelligence of the average American.
That's a photo of Barack Obama that Hillary Clinton supporters have been circulating. Here's the Clinton campaign's defense:
We don’t think there’s anything wrong with this photo. Sen. Clinton has herself, while traveling abroad, dressed in traditional, local dress. And there’s nothing divisive about that.
So what we are asked to believe is that the Clinton campaign just wanted to distribute a picture of Barack Obama. It could have been the one of him sitting with his family, it could have been the one of him giving a speech, but they decided to go for the one of him in a turban. After all, why not? There's nothing bad about being in a turban. Is Barack Obama saying there is something wrong with being in a turban?
By the way Hillary, John McCain thanks you for lending credibility to the pathetically un-credible smear that Obama is a Muslim.
Or get this accusation:
"He wavers from seeming to believe that mediation and meetings without preconditions can solve some of the world's most intractable problems to advocating rash, unilateral military action without the cooperation of our allies in the most sensitive part of the world," Clinton said in a speech at The George Washington University.
He favors different approaches to different situations in different parts of the world. How indecisive. We should just go with one foreign policy strategy and stick with it, under any and all circumstances.
Hillary's campaign is not only insulting to Obama, to Muslims, and to black people. It's actually an insult to all of us. Hillary Clinton may be the first person to go broke underestimating the intelligence of the average American.
Link | Leave a comment {4} | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
My Political Compass
Feb. 23rd, 2008 | 08:23 pm
Closest world leader is the Dalai Lama, who apparently is slightly more authoritarian than I am.
Link | Leave a comment {1} | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Oscar predictions
Feb. 22nd, 2008 | 01:56 pm
Best picture
Should win: Juno
Will win: No Country for Old Men
I'm in a strange position this oscar season for best picture, and not only because I'm in the rare position of actually having seen every one of the nominated films. The Coen brothers are probably my favorite directing combination, and they are probably going to finally break through and capture their first best picture award. And yet, I just can't get excited about their film. It's certainly more cinematically brilliant than the cute, quirky Juno, but I just didn't find the central plot that compelling and the whole thing had a heaviness and dark realism unlike the fun fantasies of the best CB movies (O Brother Where Art Thou, Hudsucker Proxy, Big Lebowski, etc). So I find myself rooting against my favorite director, but also expecting them to win, since their film was both very technically strong and a much more oscar-ish film in general.
But to me, Juno has an undefinable quality that makes it special. The characters feel very real, and are portrayed with compassion and empathy, as well as humor. The central storyline is not superficial at all. The story is certainly very sweet, but I don't think that detracts from some very serious themes that are delt with in a way that feels honest. Hard core cinema-philes don't seem to like this style of movie, but the best thing a film can do is make you love the central character, and Juno is that kind of movie.
There will be blood has some scenes of total brilliance, but is so dour and depressing that I can't say I enjoyed it and I thought the third half of the film both unraveled and dragged. Atonement is a great movie with compelling characters and beautiful cinematography. Michael Clayton is a decent legal thriller that becomes somewhat great because of Tom Wilkinson's terrific acting, but the scenes without him are ordinary.
Best Actor
Will win: Daniel Day Lewis
Should win: Daniel Day Lewis
I've seen all of these movies too. Damn, I saw a lot of movies last year. Daniel Day Lewis was something in TWBB. Without the aid of many direct references in the script, he brilliantly portrays (particularly in the movie's second stage) a slow descent into insanity. I can't say that I enjoyed anything about watching him do this. But it was something to watch.
Best Actress
Will win: Marion Cotallaird
Should win: probably Marion Cotallaird
This is a guess based on reputation; I didn't actually see La Mome, despite my Edith Piaf obsession. But I heard she was brilliant, and it's a role that has best actress all over it. I'd really like to see Ellen Page win, just as a big f-you to all the film snobs out there. Comedic acting counts! It's just as much a part of the art as any other kind of acting, and doing it well is just as hard.
Supporting Actor
Will win: Tom Wilkinson
Should win: Tom Wilkinson
This is the only award that I will be pissed about if it doesn't go my way. Tom Wilkinson is a fucking great actor and he deserves a fucking oscar. He got totally screwed out of one in In The Bedroom which was one of the best performances I've ever seen (he lost to Denzel Washington in Training Day which I refuse to see). He made Michael Clayton. This film is basically derivative legal fare, with one incredibly brilliant character that makes the film almost great. If he loses to Casey fucking Affleck, I'm going to be pissed.
Actress in a supporting role
Will win: Saoirse Ronan
Should win: Saoirse Ronan
I'm always impressed by talented child actors. This little girl was amazing in Atonement; easily the best part of the movie.
Best Director
Should win: Jason Reitman (the Juno guy)
Will win: Joel Coen
Best original screenplay
Will win: Diablo Cody (the other Juno guy)
Should win: Diablo Cody (the other Juno guy)
Best adapted
Will win: Paul Thomas Anderson (TWBB)
Should win: Chrisopher Hampton (Atonement)
Should win: Juno
Will win: No Country for Old Men
I'm in a strange position this oscar season for best picture, and not only because I'm in the rare position of actually having seen every one of the nominated films. The Coen brothers are probably my favorite directing combination, and they are probably going to finally break through and capture their first best picture award. And yet, I just can't get excited about their film. It's certainly more cinematically brilliant than the cute, quirky Juno, but I just didn't find the central plot that compelling and the whole thing had a heaviness and dark realism unlike the fun fantasies of the best CB movies (O Brother Where Art Thou, Hudsucker Proxy, Big Lebowski, etc). So I find myself rooting against my favorite director, but also expecting them to win, since their film was both very technically strong and a much more oscar-ish film in general.
But to me, Juno has an undefinable quality that makes it special. The characters feel very real, and are portrayed with compassion and empathy, as well as humor. The central storyline is not superficial at all. The story is certainly very sweet, but I don't think that detracts from some very serious themes that are delt with in a way that feels honest. Hard core cinema-philes don't seem to like this style of movie, but the best thing a film can do is make you love the central character, and Juno is that kind of movie.
There will be blood has some scenes of total brilliance, but is so dour and depressing that I can't say I enjoyed it and I thought the third half of the film both unraveled and dragged. Atonement is a great movie with compelling characters and beautiful cinematography. Michael Clayton is a decent legal thriller that becomes somewhat great because of Tom Wilkinson's terrific acting, but the scenes without him are ordinary.
Best Actor
Will win: Daniel Day Lewis
Should win: Daniel Day Lewis
I've seen all of these movies too. Damn, I saw a lot of movies last year. Daniel Day Lewis was something in TWBB. Without the aid of many direct references in the script, he brilliantly portrays (particularly in the movie's second stage) a slow descent into insanity. I can't say that I enjoyed anything about watching him do this. But it was something to watch.
Best Actress
Will win: Marion Cotallaird
Should win: probably Marion Cotallaird
This is a guess based on reputation; I didn't actually see La Mome, despite my Edith Piaf obsession. But I heard she was brilliant, and it's a role that has best actress all over it. I'd really like to see Ellen Page win, just as a big f-you to all the film snobs out there. Comedic acting counts! It's just as much a part of the art as any other kind of acting, and doing it well is just as hard.
Supporting Actor
Will win: Tom Wilkinson
Should win: Tom Wilkinson
This is the only award that I will be pissed about if it doesn't go my way. Tom Wilkinson is a fucking great actor and he deserves a fucking oscar. He got totally screwed out of one in In The Bedroom which was one of the best performances I've ever seen (he lost to Denzel Washington in Training Day which I refuse to see). He made Michael Clayton. This film is basically derivative legal fare, with one incredibly brilliant character that makes the film almost great. If he loses to Casey fucking Affleck, I'm going to be pissed.
Actress in a supporting role
Will win: Saoirse Ronan
Should win: Saoirse Ronan
I'm always impressed by talented child actors. This little girl was amazing in Atonement; easily the best part of the movie.
Best Director
Should win: Jason Reitman (the Juno guy)
Will win: Joel Coen
Best original screenplay
Will win: Diablo Cody (the other Juno guy)
Should win: Diablo Cody (the other Juno guy)
Best adapted
Will win: Paul Thomas Anderson (TWBB)
Should win: Chrisopher Hampton (Atonement)
Link | Leave a comment {3} | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
The savior of the Republican Party
Feb. 5th, 2008 | 12:42 am
This is a must read article for people voting in today's Democratic primary:
Hillary Clinton might be losing Democratic voters to Barack Obama, but she has a stalwart cheering section that won't abandon her even as she slips in the polls: Republicans nearly everywhere.
Bill's relationship to Hillary is blissfully straightforward compared with that of Republicans. They hate her, and they love hating her. They have wanted her to lose the nomination for the mere sport of it, and they have wanted her to win because they think she's the weakest potential Democratic nominee. Lately, the entire party seems united in its quiet pleading: "Please, Hillary, you're in it, now win it -- for us."
Clinton strategist Mark Penn once boasted about Hillary winning over Republican women. If she is, it's only that they have the same rooting interest as other GOP partisans. Hillary has long loomed in the Republican imagination as the savior of 2008, and there's been a desperate wishfulness to it.
The nomination of Hillary Clinton is the greatest gift the Democrats could give to the Republican party. It would instantaneously unite them, erase our enormous advantage in appealing to moderates and independents, and give them a whole new opportunity to take both the White House and Congress.
Hillary Clinton might be losing Democratic voters to Barack Obama, but she has a stalwart cheering section that won't abandon her even as she slips in the polls: Republicans nearly everywhere.
Bill's relationship to Hillary is blissfully straightforward compared with that of Republicans. They hate her, and they love hating her. They have wanted her to lose the nomination for the mere sport of it, and they have wanted her to win because they think she's the weakest potential Democratic nominee. Lately, the entire party seems united in its quiet pleading: "Please, Hillary, you're in it, now win it -- for us."
Clinton strategist Mark Penn once boasted about Hillary winning over Republican women. If she is, it's only that they have the same rooting interest as other GOP partisans. Hillary has long loomed in the Republican imagination as the savior of 2008, and there's been a desperate wishfulness to it.
The nomination of Hillary Clinton is the greatest gift the Democrats could give to the Republican party. It would instantaneously unite them, erase our enormous advantage in appealing to moderates and independents, and give them a whole new opportunity to take both the White House and Congress.
Link | Leave a comment {6} | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Obama v. McCain
Feb. 4th, 2008 | 12:26 pm
Wouldn't it be amazing to have a general election in which the dominant theme was 'which one of these two candidates can better create a national reconciliation between our political parties'? If that's the theme of your campaign, then it means there are big disincentives for engaging in dirty politics. I think a McCain-Obama race would actually be substantive, with two people who advertise themselves as candidates who are above the dirt of Clinton and Bush politics, both of whom try to appeal to voters on both sides of the red-blue divide. It would be great for the country.
A Clinton v. McCain campaign would be an ugly disaster. First Clinton would do whatever she could to tie McCain to George Bush. She'd refer to McCain's 100 years in Iraq as even more aggressive than Bush; every one of McCain's positions would get the adjective "George Bush" added to it, as in the sentence 'McCain supports the George Bush tax cuts, McCain supports the George Bush social security program, McCain supports the George Bush immigration plan", etc. She wouldn't be able to say the words "John McCain" without having "George Bush" find its way into the same sentence. When that fails, Clinton will try and force McCain to take an unpopular position on some meaningless symbolic issue - like, say, crosses in public universities or whether non-Christians are going to hell. If McCain takes the bait, she'll hammer him incessantly on it, and make it so that in the mind of the average voter, putting crosses in public unviersities is McCain's #1 campaign issue. Then she'll try to find some policy position or statement that McCain makes about entitlements, and take it out of context to suggest that McCain is going to take away the social security checks of every elderly person in the United States. If all that fails, she'll try and turn McCain's S&L past against him, and try to get Americans to buy the idea that his career should be judged not on the basis of his war experience or his POW past, but on whatever that Keating 5 scandal was, which I assume will be compared to Enron in almost every public statement. Meanwhile, she'll look for unpopular people on the left to attack to create her own Sister Souljah moments, and she'll take a couple high profile positions that sell the left out on issues where we aren't enormously popular - like gay marriage (remember the Defense of Marriage Act?), mandatory minimums for drug crimes (an insane and racist policy that the Clintons consistantly supported during the 1990s), and hawkish foreign policy.
And so on. By the end, more people might show up at the polls to vote against McCain than vote against Hillary Clinton. But the campaign will drive down turnout, energize the Republican base, seriously damage Democratic prospects in red states, and the base case scenario is another starkly divided government in a fiercely antagonistic society.
That's why at this moment, in an election between McCain and Hillary, right now, I'm leaning towards McCain. McCain could easily lose my vote depending on how he runs his campaign, and there is some chance that Hillary could win it back. But I cannot stand the partisan bitterness that comes with the Clinton philosophy of governance. And I thin our country is better off with a Republican who can unite the country and try to appeal to all Americans than another Clinton presidency of dishonesty, spin and manipulation.
I mean really, look at this shit:
Karl Rove would be proud of this ad.
A Clinton v. McCain campaign would be an ugly disaster. First Clinton would do whatever she could to tie McCain to George Bush. She'd refer to McCain's 100 years in Iraq as even more aggressive than Bush; every one of McCain's positions would get the adjective "George Bush" added to it, as in the sentence 'McCain supports the George Bush tax cuts, McCain supports the George Bush social security program, McCain supports the George Bush immigration plan", etc. She wouldn't be able to say the words "John McCain" without having "George Bush" find its way into the same sentence. When that fails, Clinton will try and force McCain to take an unpopular position on some meaningless symbolic issue - like, say, crosses in public universities or whether non-Christians are going to hell. If McCain takes the bait, she'll hammer him incessantly on it, and make it so that in the mind of the average voter, putting crosses in public unviersities is McCain's #1 campaign issue. Then she'll try to find some policy position or statement that McCain makes about entitlements, and take it out of context to suggest that McCain is going to take away the social security checks of every elderly person in the United States. If all that fails, she'll try and turn McCain's S&L past against him, and try to get Americans to buy the idea that his career should be judged not on the basis of his war experience or his POW past, but on whatever that Keating 5 scandal was, which I assume will be compared to Enron in almost every public statement. Meanwhile, she'll look for unpopular people on the left to attack to create her own Sister Souljah moments, and she'll take a couple high profile positions that sell the left out on issues where we aren't enormously popular - like gay marriage (remember the Defense of Marriage Act?), mandatory minimums for drug crimes (an insane and racist policy that the Clintons consistantly supported during the 1990s), and hawkish foreign policy.
And so on. By the end, more people might show up at the polls to vote against McCain than vote against Hillary Clinton. But the campaign will drive down turnout, energize the Republican base, seriously damage Democratic prospects in red states, and the base case scenario is another starkly divided government in a fiercely antagonistic society.
That's why at this moment, in an election between McCain and Hillary, right now, I'm leaning towards McCain. McCain could easily lose my vote depending on how he runs his campaign, and there is some chance that Hillary could win it back. But I cannot stand the partisan bitterness that comes with the Clinton philosophy of governance. And I thin our country is better off with a Republican who can unite the country and try to appeal to all Americans than another Clinton presidency of dishonesty, spin and manipulation.
I mean really, look at this shit:
Karl Rove would be proud of this ad.
Link | Leave a comment {6} | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
McCain could crush Hillary
Jan. 30th, 2008 | 11:09 am
The likelihood of the Republican Party nominating John McCain should raise even more doubts about the ability of Hillary Clinton to get elected in November. Of all the plausible matchups between prominent Democrats (Obama, Clinton or Edwards) and prominent Republicans (McCain, Romney, Giuliani or Huckabee), I think Clinton-McCain is the absolute worst combination for Democrats. Consider:
1) McCain annihilates Hillary's primary advantage, namely experience. McCain simply has much more. Hillary is an 8 year Senator who was also an 8 year first lady. McCain has been in the Senate for 22 years, and was a war hero and POW. It's not even a draw; McCain turns Hillary's biggest strength into a minor liability.
2) McCain is insulated from what is certain to be Hillary's primary strategy in any general election, namely trying to tie the opponent to the policies of George W. Bush. The fact is, despite his assent to much of W's agenda, everybody knows that McCain hates Bush and had little to do with the disaster of the past 8 years. When McCain has disagreed with Bush, he did so publically, and in a general nomination, I'm sure he will emphasize those disagreements (global warming, torture, the tax cuts, etc).
3) McCain is also insulated from another important criticism of Bush; McCain clearly is not beholden to the religious right in his party. The statements McCain has made that are critical of leaders like Falwell and Robertson will be replayed in a general election and will reassure many moderate and independent voters that McCain is a totally different animal from Bush. And they will be right.
4) McCain's biggest strength - sincerity - is also Hillary's biggest weakness. We've already seen in this campaign that Hillary is just as much about the lies, spin and double-speak as her husband. McCain is a person with actual integrity. I don't think it is possible to overstate the importance of this. The McCain-Hillary fight is going to be a conflict between one guy who seems to say what he actually believes and supports policies based on principle, and a woman who, as Barack has said, will say anything to get elected. That's a massive advantage for the Republicans.
5) McCain's biggest weakness as a candidate is that, for many of the above reasons, he is very unpopular with his base in the hard right. Of course, the conservative base isn't going to vote for a Democrat, but in an election against a generic Democrat, McCain might have difficulty getting the hard right to turn out for him given his positions on illegal immigration, civil unions, global warming, torture, etc. If the Democrats nominate Hillary, that disadvantage is gone. The hard right won't turn out to support McCain, but they definitely will turn out in great numbers to vote against Hillary Clinton. She, and not McCain, is the only person who can truly unite the Republican party - against her.
6) Meanwhile, if HRC is the nominee, she's going to have a very hard time getting the support of a critical part of the Democratic base - black voters. Again, like the hard right, black voters are certainly not going to vote Republican. But the degree to which they are energized to vote and organize themselves is a huge part of any Democratic strategy for victory. I doubt that blacks will be forgiving of the transparent and disgusting way that the Clinton's have used race in the campaign against Obama.
This match-up would be a disaster for the Democrats. Of the twelve possibilities created by the seven prominent candidates, it's the only one in which I believe the GOP has a clear advantage.
1) McCain annihilates Hillary's primary advantage, namely experience. McCain simply has much more. Hillary is an 8 year Senator who was also an 8 year first lady. McCain has been in the Senate for 22 years, and was a war hero and POW. It's not even a draw; McCain turns Hillary's biggest strength into a minor liability.
2) McCain is insulated from what is certain to be Hillary's primary strategy in any general election, namely trying to tie the opponent to the policies of George W. Bush. The fact is, despite his assent to much of W's agenda, everybody knows that McCain hates Bush and had little to do with the disaster of the past 8 years. When McCain has disagreed with Bush, he did so publically, and in a general nomination, I'm sure he will emphasize those disagreements (global warming, torture, the tax cuts, etc).
3) McCain is also insulated from another important criticism of Bush; McCain clearly is not beholden to the religious right in his party. The statements McCain has made that are critical of leaders like Falwell and Robertson will be replayed in a general election and will reassure many moderate and independent voters that McCain is a totally different animal from Bush. And they will be right.
4) McCain's biggest strength - sincerity - is also Hillary's biggest weakness. We've already seen in this campaign that Hillary is just as much about the lies, spin and double-speak as her husband. McCain is a person with actual integrity. I don't think it is possible to overstate the importance of this. The McCain-Hillary fight is going to be a conflict between one guy who seems to say what he actually believes and supports policies based on principle, and a woman who, as Barack has said, will say anything to get elected. That's a massive advantage for the Republicans.
5) McCain's biggest weakness as a candidate is that, for many of the above reasons, he is very unpopular with his base in the hard right. Of course, the conservative base isn't going to vote for a Democrat, but in an election against a generic Democrat, McCain might have difficulty getting the hard right to turn out for him given his positions on illegal immigration, civil unions, global warming, torture, etc. If the Democrats nominate Hillary, that disadvantage is gone. The hard right won't turn out to support McCain, but they definitely will turn out in great numbers to vote against Hillary Clinton. She, and not McCain, is the only person who can truly unite the Republican party - against her.
6) Meanwhile, if HRC is the nominee, she's going to have a very hard time getting the support of a critical part of the Democratic base - black voters. Again, like the hard right, black voters are certainly not going to vote Republican. But the degree to which they are energized to vote and organize themselves is a huge part of any Democratic strategy for victory. I doubt that blacks will be forgiving of the transparent and disgusting way that the Clinton's have used race in the campaign against Obama.
This match-up would be a disaster for the Democrats. Of the twelve possibilities created by the seven prominent candidates, it's the only one in which I believe the GOP has a clear advantage.
Link | Leave a comment {1} | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
(no subject)
Jan. 28th, 2008 | 12:09 am
There’s been a lot of talk about the transformative potential of the Barack Obama campaign, but this weekend I got my first taste of what this campaign could mean for America while working as a volunteer down in South Carolina. My partner, Lauren Torbitt and I were assigned to go door to door to try and get out the vote in the town of Salters, South Carolina.
Let me tell you a few things about the town of Salters, or at least the part of it that we experienced. The community is entirely black. Other than my partner, I didn’t see another white person the entire time I was there. Most of the people speak with an accent that I can’t even identify, much less understand; it sounds like some variant on a southern accent, but I’ve never heard anything quite like it before. The condition of the houses in Salters is shocking. Many of the houses are clearly in a state of active decay. Several times, my partner and I hesitated before approaching a house, on the grounds that it was hard to imagine that anyone lived there, given the crumbling roofs and rotting wood, and it was easy to imagine the house collapsing on top of us if we knocked too hard. Sometimes, closer inspection revealed that the house had indeed been abandoned, but other times there were still people living in there. The houses that do finally collapse are left to rot as ruins, seemingly indefinitely. I can’t imagine what kind of work is available in this community, but it doesn’t seem like there is very much; on the way to our neighborhood, we passed the rusted corpses of several small factories.
By comparison, my biggest personal concern right now is trying to decide between looking for a $50,000 per year public interest job or a $150,000 per year firm job, and I act like not having my first choice of such jobs is a big problem.
As two white volunteers for Obama, Lauren and I immediately became something of a spectacle in this town. People seemed fascinated by the absurdity of it: two white people coming into a black town to encourage black people to vote for a black candidate. Many of the cars that passed us in our Obama shirts came to a dead stop in the middle of the street so that the drivers could talk to us. Others yelled out advice as we passed them about what houses to hit, or what their neighbors had done. One man, the reverend of the local church, hugged Lauren. I’ve done get out the vote work before for several other campaigns. I have never been hugged. Usually, you’re lucky if they don’t slam the door in your face.
Afterwards, the group of Georgetown Law volunteers gathered with the local volunteers to watch Obama’s victory speech. The local volunteers were again clearly surprised at the diversity of the group. When Barack Obama said “They are young and old; rich and poor. They are black and white; Latino and Asian,” an black woman in the front of the room turned around to face us, spread her hands out and exclaimed “Yes, that’s right, look a the people in this room.” She was beaming when she said it. Several went around the room to shake the hands of each GULC volunteer. One guy made a point of saying “thank you for coming to our state” to every one of us. As Obama said, real leadership is “the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose – a higher purpose.” That is exactly what his campaign is doing.
In contrast, the Clinton strategy of governance is a strategy founded on division. Clinton’s main strategiest, Mark Penn, wrote a book about it called Microtrends. The book is a fusion of the logic of marketing with the logic of politics. The basic idea is to isolate particular sub communities of Americans, and get a sense of their way of looking at the world. Then send sends out specific, targeted messages to those communities that are basically attempts to manipulate these subcultures into believing that the candidate shares their worldview. The best argument for this kind of politics is that it seems to produce fairly centrist, reasonable, responsible governments that are highly sensitive to the needs of particularized interest groups and tries to make reasonable compromises. To be fair to Hillary, that’s not a terrible way to run a government. But what this kind of vision does is that it abandons the idea of uniting people behind a higher purpose. That’s what Lincoln did. That’s what Roosevelt did. In a different and unfortunate way, that’s what Reagan did.
And that, incidentally, is the only political skill of George W. Bush. After 8 years of this kind of Clinton governance, despite great economic success, the American people almost elected a guy who was universally recognized to be kind of dumb, with no foreign policy experience and a reckless background, because the way he speaks gives people something to believe in. That something turns out to be bullshit, but given the choice between believing in bullshit or believing in nothing at all, people seem to typically choose bullshit. What we have right now is a historical moment when a large section of the American public is realizing that the theology of Bush was wrong, not only ineffective but basically immoral. Many people are looking for something new to believe in. If Democrats can’t speak at that level, we’re screwed. And Hillary Clinton cannot speak at that level.
That is the possibility of the Obama campaign: to seize advantage of this historical moment by reviving the spirit of the civil rights movement. If we can do that, we can a new liberal governing majority analogous to the majority that transformed the country from 1932 to 1968. Many intelligent Republicans can see this threat, and they are terrified about it, and praying that Hillary wins. With this kind of opportunity in the unique person of Barack Obama, we’d be crazy to nominate Hillary Clinton. I hope that Obama’s victory in South Carolina is a sign that my fellow Democrats will see this opportunity and take advantage of it.
(this is going to be running in tomorrow's student newspaper here at GULC).
Let me tell you a few things about the town of Salters, or at least the part of it that we experienced. The community is entirely black. Other than my partner, I didn’t see another white person the entire time I was there. Most of the people speak with an accent that I can’t even identify, much less understand; it sounds like some variant on a southern accent, but I’ve never heard anything quite like it before. The condition of the houses in Salters is shocking. Many of the houses are clearly in a state of active decay. Several times, my partner and I hesitated before approaching a house, on the grounds that it was hard to imagine that anyone lived there, given the crumbling roofs and rotting wood, and it was easy to imagine the house collapsing on top of us if we knocked too hard. Sometimes, closer inspection revealed that the house had indeed been abandoned, but other times there were still people living in there. The houses that do finally collapse are left to rot as ruins, seemingly indefinitely. I can’t imagine what kind of work is available in this community, but it doesn’t seem like there is very much; on the way to our neighborhood, we passed the rusted corpses of several small factories.
By comparison, my biggest personal concern right now is trying to decide between looking for a $50,000 per year public interest job or a $150,000 per year firm job, and I act like not having my first choice of such jobs is a big problem.
As two white volunteers for Obama, Lauren and I immediately became something of a spectacle in this town. People seemed fascinated by the absurdity of it: two white people coming into a black town to encourage black people to vote for a black candidate. Many of the cars that passed us in our Obama shirts came to a dead stop in the middle of the street so that the drivers could talk to us. Others yelled out advice as we passed them about what houses to hit, or what their neighbors had done. One man, the reverend of the local church, hugged Lauren. I’ve done get out the vote work before for several other campaigns. I have never been hugged. Usually, you’re lucky if they don’t slam the door in your face.
Afterwards, the group of Georgetown Law volunteers gathered with the local volunteers to watch Obama’s victory speech. The local volunteers were again clearly surprised at the diversity of the group. When Barack Obama said “They are young and old; rich and poor. They are black and white; Latino and Asian,” an black woman in the front of the room turned around to face us, spread her hands out and exclaimed “Yes, that’s right, look a the people in this room.” She was beaming when she said it. Several went around the room to shake the hands of each GULC volunteer. One guy made a point of saying “thank you for coming to our state” to every one of us. As Obama said, real leadership is “the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose – a higher purpose.” That is exactly what his campaign is doing.
In contrast, the Clinton strategy of governance is a strategy founded on division. Clinton’s main strategiest, Mark Penn, wrote a book about it called Microtrends. The book is a fusion of the logic of marketing with the logic of politics. The basic idea is to isolate particular sub communities of Americans, and get a sense of their way of looking at the world. Then send sends out specific, targeted messages to those communities that are basically attempts to manipulate these subcultures into believing that the candidate shares their worldview. The best argument for this kind of politics is that it seems to produce fairly centrist, reasonable, responsible governments that are highly sensitive to the needs of particularized interest groups and tries to make reasonable compromises. To be fair to Hillary, that’s not a terrible way to run a government. But what this kind of vision does is that it abandons the idea of uniting people behind a higher purpose. That’s what Lincoln did. That’s what Roosevelt did. In a different and unfortunate way, that’s what Reagan did.
And that, incidentally, is the only political skill of George W. Bush. After 8 years of this kind of Clinton governance, despite great economic success, the American people almost elected a guy who was universally recognized to be kind of dumb, with no foreign policy experience and a reckless background, because the way he speaks gives people something to believe in. That something turns out to be bullshit, but given the choice between believing in bullshit or believing in nothing at all, people seem to typically choose bullshit. What we have right now is a historical moment when a large section of the American public is realizing that the theology of Bush was wrong, not only ineffective but basically immoral. Many people are looking for something new to believe in. If Democrats can’t speak at that level, we’re screwed. And Hillary Clinton cannot speak at that level.
That is the possibility of the Obama campaign: to seize advantage of this historical moment by reviving the spirit of the civil rights movement. If we can do that, we can a new liberal governing majority analogous to the majority that transformed the country from 1932 to 1968. Many intelligent Republicans can see this threat, and they are terrified about it, and praying that Hillary wins. With this kind of opportunity in the unique person of Barack Obama, we’d be crazy to nominate Hillary Clinton. I hope that Obama’s victory in South Carolina is a sign that my fellow Democrats will see this opportunity and take advantage of it.
(this is going to be running in tomorrow's student newspaper here at GULC).
Link | Leave a comment {2} | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
(no subject)
Jan. 23rd, 2008 | 10:47 pm
Pretty good description of the Clinton machine:
The recent roughing-up of Barack Obama was in the trademark style of the Clinton years in the White House. High-minded and self-important on the surface, smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard to the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four more years. The thought makes me queasy.
I wish the media would stop giving Bill so many headlines, or acting like he has an independent opinion on this thing. His statements are part of a coordinated strategy with one of the campaigns. His opinions, therefore, are obviously just strategic positioning. Why should we care what he thinks?
Hillary is getting totally overshadowed as a political figure by her husband right now, and it doesn't say a lot about her leadership skills or her ability to connect with voters. The fact is, she is not a very good politician and this campaign was a disaster until her husband asserted himself as the dominant presence of the two. She would be a disaster as a general election nominee. Getting people to like you and to trust you is the most importantl skill of a politician - probably more important than all other skills combined - and she sucks at it. It's hard to believe that the Democrats are really about to make this mistake.
Another good description of the self-inflicted disaster that the nomination of Hillary will be for the Democratic party:
I didn't think that there was a way Democrats could fail to win the Presidency in 2008.
But I underestimated us.
We not only can lose the election; at this point, I think we will.
I have been writing for weeks that I believe that the injection of race into the campaign was not an accident. Nor is the campaign in the Jewish and Christian communities to label Obama a Muslim fundamentalist. Nor the accidental-on-purpose references to drugs or even to Obama's youth (older than both Clinton and JFK when they ran, why is Obama's youth a negative?).
In fact, virtually the entire campaign against him has been smear and innuendo with a racial subtext.
It better stop, but I expect it won't. It won't stop because after Iowa it was decided that Obama could not be defeated fair and square. So fair and square went out the window.
The result?
A Republican victory especially if McCain is the nominee and pledges to serve only one term.
I'm bracing myself for the targeted anti-Obama smear accusing him of being connected to Islam or Farrakhan directed at Jewish voters in New York, New Jersey and Florida. The smear will be so unfair that the Clinton's won't launch it until the very last minute when there is no time to refute it, but it won't matter. All you have to do is put Obama and Farrakhan in the same sentence - no matter how obviously absurd the comparison, or distant the relationship - and you're going to change a lot of votes.
Microtrends: the division of the public into discrete and specific entities, with a message going to each group tailored by the marketing scientists, without any regard for integrity or consistency of message. That's the essence of Clintonism.
The recent roughing-up of Barack Obama was in the trademark style of the Clinton years in the White House. High-minded and self-important on the surface, smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard to the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four more years. The thought makes me queasy.
I wish the media would stop giving Bill so many headlines, or acting like he has an independent opinion on this thing. His statements are part of a coordinated strategy with one of the campaigns. His opinions, therefore, are obviously just strategic positioning. Why should we care what he thinks?
Hillary is getting totally overshadowed as a political figure by her husband right now, and it doesn't say a lot about her leadership skills or her ability to connect with voters. The fact is, she is not a very good politician and this campaign was a disaster until her husband asserted himself as the dominant presence of the two. She would be a disaster as a general election nominee. Getting people to like you and to trust you is the most importantl skill of a politician - probably more important than all other skills combined - and she sucks at it. It's hard to believe that the Democrats are really about to make this mistake.
Another good description of the self-inflicted disaster that the nomination of Hillary will be for the Democratic party:
I didn't think that there was a way Democrats could fail to win the Presidency in 2008.
But I underestimated us.
We not only can lose the election; at this point, I think we will.
I have been writing for weeks that I believe that the injection of race into the campaign was not an accident. Nor is the campaign in the Jewish and Christian communities to label Obama a Muslim fundamentalist. Nor the accidental-on-purpose references to drugs or even to Obama's youth (older than both Clinton and JFK when they ran, why is Obama's youth a negative?).
In fact, virtually the entire campaign against him has been smear and innuendo with a racial subtext.
It better stop, but I expect it won't. It won't stop because after Iowa it was decided that Obama could not be defeated fair and square. So fair and square went out the window.
The result?
A Republican victory especially if McCain is the nominee and pledges to serve only one term.
I'm bracing myself for the targeted anti-Obama smear accusing him of being connected to Islam or Farrakhan directed at Jewish voters in New York, New Jersey and Florida. The smear will be so unfair that the Clinton's won't launch it until the very last minute when there is no time to refute it, but it won't matter. All you have to do is put Obama and Farrakhan in the same sentence - no matter how obviously absurd the comparison, or distant the relationship - and you're going to change a lot of votes.
Microtrends: the division of the public into discrete and specific entities, with a message going to each group tailored by the marketing scientists, without any regard for integrity or consistency of message. That's the essence of Clintonism.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
(no subject)
Jan. 14th, 2008 | 02:02 am
I'll bet you any amount of money this is true. One night, maybe shortly before the Democratic Primary in New Hampshire, maybe shortly after, the Clintons had a strategy meeting. This meeting was devoted to a single topic: how can we best exploit the potential of Obama's race to alienate white voters. Of course, running against the man who would be the first black president in American history, they have to be careful bringing up racial issues. They can't say anything that would directly try to exploit racial stereotypes or racial divides in the country. The problem is that Obama's candidacy does something extraordinary: it actually seems to put people's minds at ease about race. I don't think white voters are truly ready for a black President; what works about Obama is that he speaks with a kind of ease about race. He doesn't come across as someone who has an ax to grind. That, I think, is what draws comparisons between Obama and Martin Luther King, along with the obvious similarity in oratory ability. Both are leaders who are able to actually communicate the black experience to a white audience, because both speak in a way that is non-confrontational; that tries to genuinely take seriously the experience of white America and integrate it with the experience of blacks.
But that presents a problem for the Clinton campaign. How can you exploit the potential alienation of a black candidate with white voters when the white voters thus far are identifying with the central message of the campaign? Here's a strategy: say something kind of stupid about race. Something that's pretty pointless, preferably about something arcane that doesn't matter. Make it dumb enough that black people will get upset, and demand that Obama say something in response. But make it sensible enough that white people won't really understand why anyone cares that much, and will interpret Obama's reaction as oversensitive. What you're looking for is a little something to force Obama to defend his race. That makes Obama look like someone who is not trying to unify Americans, but instead is just another hyper-sensitive black intellectual trying to yell at people who say things that seem at least somewhat logical about race.
Thus we have this comment:
"I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done."
Prompting national discussion of two hot button, emotional, meaningless issues: who deserves more credit for the Civil Rights Act, LBJ or MLK? And is it racist to say LBJ? That's not an incidental or oblivious comment. Hillary Clinton does not decide to randomly throw out a comment that sort of denigrates Martin Luther King without thinking very long and very carefully about the political fallout. And what I'm sure she calculated is knowing that black people are very sensitive about the way people talk about the civil rights movement, making a comment like this would start a little race war. And even though that race war would be an attack on her, that she'll end up successfully defending herself in the eyes of most voters, and will therefore "win" the confrontation. She's provoking a fight that nobody needs to have, that intentionally exploits and deepens racial conflict in our society, because she knows it is a fight she can win. That is the Clinton style of governance. And Obama is fucked. I mean, this blow isn't devastating, but he loses no matter what he does, even though this battle has literally nothing to do with him. It's a brilliant Machiavellian move.
Honestly, at this point, if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, my vote in November is up for grabs.
But that presents a problem for the Clinton campaign. How can you exploit the potential alienation of a black candidate with white voters when the white voters thus far are identifying with the central message of the campaign? Here's a strategy: say something kind of stupid about race. Something that's pretty pointless, preferably about something arcane that doesn't matter. Make it dumb enough that black people will get upset, and demand that Obama say something in response. But make it sensible enough that white people won't really understand why anyone cares that much, and will interpret Obama's reaction as oversensitive. What you're looking for is a little something to force Obama to defend his race. That makes Obama look like someone who is not trying to unify Americans, but instead is just another hyper-sensitive black intellectual trying to yell at people who say things that seem at least somewhat logical about race.
Thus we have this comment:
"I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done."
Prompting national discussion of two hot button, emotional, meaningless issues: who deserves more credit for the Civil Rights Act, LBJ or MLK? And is it racist to say LBJ? That's not an incidental or oblivious comment. Hillary Clinton does not decide to randomly throw out a comment that sort of denigrates Martin Luther King without thinking very long and very carefully about the political fallout. And what I'm sure she calculated is knowing that black people are very sensitive about the way people talk about the civil rights movement, making a comment like this would start a little race war. And even though that race war would be an attack on her, that she'll end up successfully defending herself in the eyes of most voters, and will therefore "win" the confrontation. She's provoking a fight that nobody needs to have, that intentionally exploits and deepens racial conflict in our society, because she knows it is a fight she can win. That is the Clinton style of governance. And Obama is fucked. I mean, this blow isn't devastating, but he loses no matter what he does, even though this battle has literally nothing to do with him. It's a brilliant Machiavellian move.
Honestly, at this point, if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, my vote in November is up for grabs.
Link | Leave a comment {6} | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Why objectivism isn't a "philosophy"
Dec. 26th, 2007 | 11:39 am
For the philosophy geeks on facebook. I didn't write this, but it is still ( brilliant )
Link | Leave a comment {6} | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Why everyone should be rooting for the Red Sox
Oct. 20th, 2007 | 06:14 pm
Jacoby Ellsbury needs to kick Cleveland's ass tonight (Ellsbury is Navajo). Fuck the Indians. I actually mostly like their players - Lofton and Hafner seem like good guys, and I like Carmona's style - but these pics remind me why this organization should be hated by everyone in baseball. No matter who plays for them, this is a racist organization whose fans relish in that racism without a hint of shame, and any condemnation from anybody in the media.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Best dissent ever
Jul. 13th, 2007 | 05:24 pm
For those of you who like the funny smarmy dissents, this one from the second circuit is pretty quality. It begins:
I concede that this short opinion of mine does not consider or take into account the majority opinion. So I should disclose at the outset that I have not read it. I suppose this is unusual, so I explain why... this is not a case that should occupy the mind of a person who has anything consequential to do.
The case is about a student election 10 years ago, in which the student newspaper officially endorsed a slate of candidates, only to have the current student president suspend the election on the grounds that the endorsement violated election rules. 10 years later, the writers of the article are seeking "nominal damanges" - that is, $2. More of the dissent:
Contrary to the impression created by the majority’s lengthy formal opinion, this case is not a cause célèbre; it is a slow-motion tantrum by children spending their graduate years trying to humiliate the school that conferred on them a costly education from which they evidently derived small benefit. A selection from the illiterate piffle in the disputed issue of the College Voice is set out in the margin for the reader’s fun.
He then goes on to rip on every stupid thing that was mentioned in the newspaper issue that started all of this controversy. Read the whole thing. It pretty much caused me to blow a funny fuse.
I concede that this short opinion of mine does not consider or take into account the majority opinion. So I should disclose at the outset that I have not read it. I suppose this is unusual, so I explain why... this is not a case that should occupy the mind of a person who has anything consequential to do.
The case is about a student election 10 years ago, in which the student newspaper officially endorsed a slate of candidates, only to have the current student president suspend the election on the grounds that the endorsement violated election rules. 10 years later, the writers of the article are seeking "nominal damanges" - that is, $2. More of the dissent:
Contrary to the impression created by the majority’s lengthy formal opinion, this case is not a cause célèbre; it is a slow-motion tantrum by children spending their graduate years trying to humiliate the school that conferred on them a costly education from which they evidently derived small benefit. A selection from the illiterate piffle in the disputed issue of the College Voice is set out in the margin for the reader’s fun.
He then goes on to rip on every stupid thing that was mentioned in the newspaper issue that started all of this controversy. Read the whole thing. It pretty much caused me to blow a funny fuse.
Link | Leave a comment {3} | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
(no subject)
Jul. 6th, 2007 | 01:11 pm
Conversations among environmental defense law interns:
A: "What's the name of the law review article?"
B: "It's 'A Review of Major Provisions: Command and Control Versus the Market"
A: "You can stop right there. You pretty much know where the article is coming from as soon as they say 'command and control'. Nobody ever supports 'command and control.' If they say command and control, it's in opposition.
C: I do! I support command and control. I love command and control.
A: OK, Martha supports command and control.
C: That's why I'm single.
B: Don't step on the market, bitch.
A: "What's the name of the law review article?"
B: "It's 'A Review of Major Provisions: Command and Control Versus the Market"
A: "You can stop right there. You pretty much know where the article is coming from as soon as they say 'command and control'. Nobody ever supports 'command and control.' If they say command and control, it's in opposition.
C: I do! I support command and control. I love command and control.
A: OK, Martha supports command and control.
C: That's why I'm single.
B: Don't step on the market, bitch.
Link | Leave a comment {2} | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Curt's bloody sock
Apr. 26th, 2007 | 02:03 pm
Baltimore announcer Gary Thorne last night on Curt Schilling: "The great story we were talking about the other night was that famous red stocking that he wore when they finally won, the blood on his stocking. Nah, it was painted. Doug Mirabelli confessed up to it after. It was all for PR. Two-ball, two-strike count."
The only accurate part of that statement was the count. Look (with props to SoSH poster Sawxsince67), this is a pic from Schilling's sock during game 2 of the 2004 World Series:
And here is a pic of the same sock in the Hall of Fame (which, by the way, is kind of gross):
See how in the first pic, the sock is red, while in the second pic the sock is brown? That wouldn't happen if the sock was painted. One of the important qualities of paint is that when it starts red, it stays red. Blood, on the other hand, decomposes, and as it decomposes it turns brown.
I'm sure Gary Thorne was the kind of guy who told his whole first grade class that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny aren't real. It is pretty amazing that a red sock would actually become relevant to the first Red Sox World Series victory in 86 years. But this myth is true. And accusing Schilling of sending a fraudulent sock to the Hall of Fame based on no evidence is bullshit.
The only accurate part of that statement was the count. Look (with props to SoSH poster Sawxsince67), this is a pic from Schilling's sock during game 2 of the 2004 World Series:
And here is a pic of the same sock in the Hall of Fame (which, by the way, is kind of gross):
See how in the first pic, the sock is red, while in the second pic the sock is brown? That wouldn't happen if the sock was painted. One of the important qualities of paint is that when it starts red, it stays red. Blood, on the other hand, decomposes, and as it decomposes it turns brown.
I'm sure Gary Thorne was the kind of guy who told his whole first grade class that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny aren't real. It is pretty amazing that a red sock would actually become relevant to the first Red Sox World Series victory in 86 years. But this myth is true. And accusing Schilling of sending a fraudulent sock to the Hall of Fame based on no evidence is bullshit.