Promises, Promises

So the Democratic Convention is over and we can drop the presumtive from Mr. Kerry's title.  I didn't really watch the speech.  I was talking with Mrs. X on the phone for nearly half of it and then I was changing out laundry and other stuff.  What I did gather was that Mr. Kerry served in the military during Vietnam and people should view him as a capable leader who is perfectly capable of doing what Mr. Bush is already doing, only better.  Except that he's still a little vague on the specifics.  As for other points, MSNBC put out a little list of high points promised during Mr. Kerry's speech:

* Cut the deficit in half over four years by ending corporate tax cuts.
* Offer targeted tax breaks for the middle class; roll back tax cuts to people earning over $200,000 a year.
* Close tax loopholes to companies moving jobs abroad and give breaks to firms keeping good-paying jobs at home.
* Pledge not to privatize Social Security or to cut benefits.
* Invest in new technology and alternative fuels to lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
* Pledge never lead the United States into a preemptive war.
* Immediately implement the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission and reform intelligence gathering.
* Rebuild alliances with other nations.
* Ensure the United States would lead the global effort against nuclear proliferation.
* Add 40,000 active-duty troops; double the number of U.S. Special Forces.
* End the military’s heavy reliance on National Guard and military reservists.
* Offer incentives that would save families $1,000 a year on health insurance costs; allow Americans to buy prescription drugs from countries like Canada.

The points which grab my attention the most are the pledge to add 40,000 active-duty troops and end the heavy reliance on National Guard and reserves.  Right now, upwards of 1/3 of the forces in the field are National Guard and reserve.  That's about 50,000 troops.  If Mr. Kerry recalls them and then replaces them with regulars and adds 40,000 more, you're looking at nearly 100,000 extra troops entered into the service.  I'm sure recruiters would be the first to tell Mr. Kerry that he's probably not going to make those numbers based on volunteers.  So, is Mr. Kerry supporting a new draft to meet goals?  If he is, I would like to hear that directly.

I also think that Mr. Kerry might have a small problem selling his message to corporations.  Corporate tax cuts go away to pay down the debt (a laudable goal that I would like to see achieved) and corporations loose the tax loopholes that allow them move certain operations overseas.  Yet we're supposed to keep jobs here by offering them incentives.  I don't necessarily see that corporations are going to go along with that.  But, one could argue that he doesn't need the cooperation of corporations to get elected and then all bets are off.

Really, all this is much hype over little.  As we are both aware, most of the stuff that Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush are promising can't be done anyway unless they have Congress backing them up.  Given how closely divided Congress is, they aren't going to do anything that might jeopardize their position, so nothing will really change from the status quo.  Mr. Bush will present a similar list of things he wants to do and won't be able to get done in about a month.  We'll have to see what kind of party they throw in New York relative to the one in Boston.  The only thing I can guarantee is that we won't get random shots of Ben Afflack sitting next to Mrs. Clinton during the speeches.

Book Wars: The Right Strikes Back

More than any other election that I can recall, books seem to be playing a major role.  They've been used quite successfully in the past, but I can't recall an election where as many books came out that were designed to inform and influence public opinion.  The Democratic side has been doing most of the hitting lately with a new biography of John Kerry, the attack book of Bush staffers that were Clinton holdovers, and even John Snow (Mr. Bush's first secretary of the treasury).
 
Now it seems that the Republican side is launching its own book assault.  The Drudge Report has posted an article on a book due to be released sometime next month.  The book is called Unfit for Command and apparently was written by the man who replaced Mr. Kerry when his swift boat command expired.  Apparently he writes some rather nasty things about Mr. Kerry including accusations that the first and third purple hearts awarded to him were for self inflicted wounds and that only 2 of the 23 swift boat commanders from Coastal Division 11 support his bid for president.  Ouch.
 
Mr. Kerry has been polishing up his Vietnam war record to counter attacks made by Republicans that Mr. Kerry is unfit to be Commander in Chief.  But in his haste to pump this image up, Mr. Kerry seems to have irritated some people.  Apparently the trouble stemmed from Mr. Kerry's use of an old photograph with him and 19 other shipmates saying that his old comrades stood behind him.  Unfortunately for Mr. Kerry, 11 of these shipmates have refuted this and said that they actually oppose him and that 6 others in the photograph are either dead or unwilling to commit to either side.  Mr. Kerry has since ceased using the photograph and only uses those comrades who do actually support him, but some of the veterans now seem keenly POed.  The book seems to be the culmination of their outrage.
 
Now, whether all these accusations are true is beside the point.  I personally think that Mr. Kerry should never had bothered to bring Vietnam into it and should focus on what he is capable of now.  Can he inspire leadership and following now?  I don't care if he did or did not then.  I doubt this book will sway too many independents.  Most are like me and don't give a rat's butt as to what someone did 30 years ago.  Heck, Mr. Clinton went to Canada and England and the electorate didn't have too much of a problem with him.  But politicians on both sides always underestimate the intelligence of the independents who actually look at issues and not just what letter is besides someone's name.  Greater the folly them. 

Conventions

Why do we still have political conventions?  The ratings came back on the first day when the three networks were all broadcasting Bill Clinton's speech and some of the juicier parts and they all stink.  ABC did the best at 3.5 rating/5 share.  Now, compare that to a rerun of CSI: Miami - 8.6 rating/13 share.  Now, we can't fully say its a flop until we see the numbers for Thursday when Mr. Kerry gives his acceptance speech and (hopefully) outlines his platform as to how he's going to do the things he says he's going to do (and how he's going to pay for them).
 
Even if Mr. Kerry's speech is a success, that only reinforces the argument that the nominating convention should only be one or two days, not four.  We all know who the nominees are going to be and we usually also know who the vice presidential nominees are as well.  So you're left with three days worth of speeches by people that no one cares about except the party faithful and the news media.  An accurate editorial cartoon I saw, showed three men holding convention banners.  The first two were very excited and they were labeled media and political junkies.  The third man was asleep and was labeled average voter.  We just don't care about these things.
 
Something else that works against the conventions is how dangerously choreographed they need to be.  Mr. Kerry and several members of the Democratic leadership are trying very hard to keep the vitriol down and are only partially succeeding.  Mr. Clinton came in and gave a good speech that was classic of his old days, but prior to him was Al Gore who just looked bad trying to keep those angry feelings in and still let loose a bit of red meat.  Tonight you're going to have Mr. Ted Kennedy speak and aside from boring the viewers with a long speech, he may get carried away and swept into a big Bush-bashing tirade.  All which is something Mr. Kerry must avoid.  People are starting to get very tired of what a person is against and want to start hearing what a person is for.  A good strategy for Mr. Kerry to follow as up to half of the electorate still is fuzzy on him.  But if all they get is three days of red meat, are they going to pay that much attention when he does start to explain himself?  Just another danger that could be nullified if you didn't have to have three days of speeches in front of you.
 
One last thought I had but it isn't convention related.  Mr. Bush came into office saying that he would be a uniter and not a divider.  Obviously that hasn't quite worked the way he planned but I will say that its been quite a while since I've seen both parties united either for or against one person.  Many reporters have said during their canvassing of the floor that they just can't find any real Kerry Democrats.  Its only we-hate-Bush Democrats.  A rather amusing observation on my point that I'm sure other people have already noted.
 
BTW, day one of the bar is upon us.  Mrs. X is working hard and will hopefully pass with flying colors.  Again, all prayers and crossed fingers are appreciated.

Ponderings

I have three topics to address here at the moment so I'll try to get through them without too much fluff.  First, a happy, happy, joy, joy dance moment to Mrs. X.  She has formally accepted a position with Ohio Legal Aid and will be starting work toward the end of August.  We're both very happy with this turn of events as it now allows us to start picking locations for housing.  However, she still has to get through the bar exam which starts tomorrow morning.  All crossed fingers and prayers are readily accepted.

Second, the title of Episode III has been released.  For once, Lucas followed mainstream fan thinking and opted for Revenge of the Sith.  Most fans were 50-50 with this title or Rise of the Empire.  But the Revenge title nicely dovetails with Episode VI: Return of the Jedi.  So now we can officially have all the title abbreviations in a row: TPM, AotC, RotS, ANH, ESB, and RotJ.

Third is what I had originally thought about blogging about today before these two little bits of news grabbed my attention and demanded to be heard.  I would like to know just what kind of a boob John Kerry is for not having this election sewn up yet.  By mine and other people's thinking, he should be stomping George W. Bush in the polls but he only seems to be able to cling to a narrow lead because he keeps shooting himself in the foot.   For example, I heard that Mr. Kerry was attending a rally in Detroit and he arrived in a Rolls Royce.  That's not exactly a great impression to make on all the auto union workers up there.  Its not getting much play elsewhere but its hurting Mr. Kerry's reputation in Michigan, a state he should have already placed solidly in his column.  There's also incidents like Mrs. Kerry giving a good speech on cutting the nastiness out of politics and then looking for a certain reporter and telling him to "shove it."  Little, stupid mistakes.

Something else that bugs me is that Mr. Kerry is telling everyone that this week is his time to define himself to the American public.  So... what exactly were you doing during the 5 month "get to know Kerry" campaign across the US?  We've known who the candidates are going to be since March and yet its still a toss up as to whether Mr. Kerry is going to be defined by his own views or the views of his opposition.  It just boggles my mind with the amount of money that Mr. Kerry has raised that he still has nearly a quarter of the country who doesn't know anything about him.  Now, maybe that's a good thing because it means that Mr. Bush's people haven't been able to tar him either.  But I don't see Mr. Kerry as the type of person who is going to reach out and grab people away from an image of a tax and spend liberal with a vibrant personality and cut to the middle as Mr. Clinton did in 1992.  He should have already done that.

Polls in most battleground states are pretty split down the middle.  Last one I saw showed Mr. Bush leading in Florida, tied with Mr. Kerry in Missouri, and Mr. Kerry ahead in Ohio.  But all seemed rather fluid.  If Mr. Kerry doesn't get a large bounce from the convention and keep holding on to it after the Republican convention in late August, he could be in trouble.  Now, maybe I'm wrong and Mr. Bush will be equally stupid.  He's certainly made a few large blunders that I've noticed.  But with all things going for him, Mr. Kerry is going to have no one to blame but himself if things get screwed up in September or October.

Wishful Improvements

Last night I was reading some information off The Force.net on Episode III and I couldn't help but think about the previous two movies.  They are generally recognized as being decent action flicks but just not up the standard of the original trilogy.  So I asked myself, what was it that made the first ones work and the second ones not. 

The answer lies in acting.  George Lucas is not the best writer in the world but the dialogue from both sets is pretty much the same.  Harrison Ford often joked that you just couldn't say the dialogue that George wrote.  In the first trilogy, you had three core actors who had some experience and schooling to develop their talent.  Then you surrounded them with classically trained actors such as Sir Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing.  With that working for you, the movie overcomes the cheese and stands out as a great action/adventure. 

In the first two movies of the prequels, things haven't gone that well.  Ewan McGreggor and Liam Neeson did a pretty good job rescuing their lines by a good use of emotions and action.  But Lucas chose for his two other leads, two child actors.  Lucas chose to make Anakin only 10 and Padme only 14.  Jake Lloyd was around that age and Natalie Portman was around 16 or 17.  Even though they had both been acting for a little while, neither actor could adequately grasp of how to manipulate the dialogue into a more usable medium.  Portman gave a good effort, but Lloyd just didn't have the tools yet to work out of it.  I've wondered a great deal why Lucas didn't cast older actors.  It certainly wouldn't have hurt the storyline at all if Anakin had started Episode I around the age of 15 or 16 and the Queen around 20.  In fact, there would have been significantly less suspension of disbelief.  As a teenager, Anakin's emotions would have been even more reckless, making him even more of a risk to the Jedi council.  It would have also been a little more believable to have a queen who was a little older and had a chance to start making some impact in other arenas before she was elected planetary ruler.  Actors of this age might have been able to work out the dialogue better and they certainly would have had more experience in trying to manipulate the love scene in Episode II.  Mrs. X's opinion is that Lawrence Olivier and Katherine Hepburn couldn't have made the love scene work in Episode II.  I'm not firmly convinced that it was that bad, but it definitely needed some work in both acting and development.  Having a 25 year old Anakin and a nearly 30 year old Padme would have been a decent start.  It also would have made the cut scene where Padme is wishing for a normal life a little more believable.

But blame cannot rest entirely on the Anakin and Padme actors.  Blame must also go to some the adults as well.  I'm a great fan of Sam Jackson but keep getting the feeling that he's trying to channel Jules from Pulp Fiction to much.  I think Lucas' writing is also influencing that.  We can assign the usual blame for letting Lucas get too enamored with the sets and effects at the expense of dialogue development, but I don't know that that's any different from any the first three movies.  Lucas just has better toys to work with this time. 

All in all, I remain hopeful that things will improve with Episode III.  But it will probably suffer from the same lapses that hurt the first two.  At least we know it'll be darker and more violent.  Maybe a change in the feel will help the movie down a different path.  Only 10 more months to find out. 

Establishment and Rebellion

Unlike Mrs. X, I don't have a lot of blogs that I read on a regular basis.  The two I do pay a reasonable amount of attention to are Glen Reynolds and Daryl Cagle.  I've mentioned Mr. Reynold's stuff here before but I've never talked about Mr. Cagle's stuff.  He talks about various editorial cartoonists and the declining state of the profession due to newspapers not wanting to rock the boat.  He gets a lot of hate mail from people who take some serious umbridge with his cartoons.  But he also lets people submit articles for posting.
 
His most recent post has an article written by Henry Payne.  For those of you not familiar with Mr. Payne, he's a conservative leaning cartoonist who draws for the Detroit News.  His article focused the decline in cartooning due to media consolidation and bias.  He specifically looked at how frustrated conservative cartoonists are getting with the Pulitzer Prize committee, who in the last 5 to 10 years have been favoring the most liberal viewpointed cartoonists.  He goes on to argue that we need a good balanced argument from both viewpoints and that even liberal cartoonists could get shut out in a few years because of newspaper fears of rocking the boat.

Now, you may just think of this as another rant from a conservative against the perceived liberal bias of the media.  That's your opinion and you may disagree or agree with him as you see fit.  But he mentioned one thing in his argument that got me thinking:
 
But "the establishment" is a moving target. The notion that liberalism is anti-establishment is a nice illusion, but it's 30 years out of date. Today, the hypocritical, self-satisfied protectors of the status quo are on the left.
The welfare state has failed, with its liberal champions denying their legacy of fatherless, unemployable children and tattered inner cities. The civil-rights movement has become desperate quackery, abandoning Martin Luther King's ideal of "the content of their character" for a permanent racial spoils system. "Green" pols park their SUVs at the curb and then bloviate about America's wasteful consumption. And fantastically rich trial lawyers claim to represent the "little guy" while looting 50 percent of their clients' winnings.
 
Forty years ago when the baby boom generation celebrated anti-establishment and the leaders began to shift to more liberal causes, the country was coming out of a strong conservative phase.  The 40's, 50's, and very early 60's were strong conservative times.  Everything was white bread and Leave It to Beaver.  Never mind that minorities and women had limited rights and the government was unassailable.  Those are just the thorns that go with conservative rule.  But then the country began to shift to the left again.  More rights were granted to minorities and women.  Government became larger to help the underprivileged and fix other problems.  We became a more liberal society. 
 
The conservative elements faught back.  Leaders were assassinated and change required mass upheaval and violence and riots erupted through the late 60's and 70's.  But things settled down.  Reagan came in and moderated some of the liberal swing.  However, government did continue to grow and people became more comfortable with the more liberal ideas of government fixing your problems.  People coming in to power were former anti-establishment activists from SDS and the Black Panthers. 
 
During the Clinton years the liberal viewpoint was firmly established, but the conservative viewpoint was waking up.  It started sprouting up on the fringes in the form of things like the Moral Majority and right-wing militias.  Then people who claimed to represent conservative interests started to come into power.  But even they were still affected by the liberal focus of government.  To fix moral problems you regulate it through government and no economic problem can't be fixed by throwing money at it in some way.  Now we have candidates who are so alike in most policy ways that its just a question of what their personality is like or whether they will play nice with foreign leaders and such.  As Mr. Payne noted, the liberals are now the establishment and have gotten fat.  But they still cling to the idea that they are anti-establishment.  It is not in the nature of conservativism to strike out and be anti-establishment, but I think it will.  I also think that such a change is necessary at this time and may be as violent as the transition that made liberalism the norm.
 
You may disagree with me and I won't hide the fact that I could be totally off base.  But this is an observation that occurred to me and one that I think may not be as far off as we hope.  I certainly believe that things are going to get worse before they get better.

Nostalgia

Nostalgia is rather funny in some ways.  While perusing Target a little while back, I was somewhat amazed to see Strawberry Shortcake dolls.  She was a little more hip that I remembered her back in the 80's, but it was her.  Mrs. X told me that a lot of 80's toys were making comebacks.  Apparently Care Bears are very high on the market list right now. 
 
One thing I did notice though is that most of the comeback toys have been girl oriented.  Yes, TMNT are back after a revamp, but most of the male oriented toys have not made much of a comeback.  I've been told that GI Joe has returned to its 80's form after a funky 90's deviation in the comics, but I haven't seen any new attempts at toy marketing.  This strikes me as rather strange given the right wing bent our country is now under.  I've also seen no attempt at resurrecting either Transformers or Go-Bots.  I'm told that a He-Man makeover didn't do to well and sank back in to oblivion.
 
Still, its interesting.  NAMCO has been putting out packages of the popular old 8-bit games that we all used to play.  I actually have been doing fairly well at Pole Position II, despite how much the game cheats (you do not graze someone else's tire and then explode).  We've also seen VH1 go overboard with their I Love xx's shows.  The 90's were okay but it was very obvious that they cut some things and extended others just so they could have an I Love the 90's part deux which they went ahead and advertised in the 1999 segment.  But then again, shameless corporate greed is a part of the 80's and deserves a revival as much as anyone.
 
So I'll keep looking and see what other fun and amusing 80's things we can bring back to infect our kids with.
 
Greed, for lack of a better term, is good.  Greed works. - Gordon Gecko

This Land Is My Land

A guy at work forwarded this link to me.  Its a cartoon someone got off Jib Jab and put on their own site.  Its a parody of This Land is Your Land with John Kerry and George Bush ripping each other with all kinds of insults.  Its really funny.  I've watched it three times already while I was supposed to be working ;)  I've been told that Jib Jab has other things but you have to buy them and that just sucks.  There's supposed to be a real funny one of Arnold Schwarztenegger out there.
 
Meanwhile Mrs. X is at an interview right now.  We're all hoping that everything goes well for her there.  Either way, we'll have a good BBQ for her tonight.  I've got a london broil that's been marinating for the past two days.  Mmmmm... meat.
 
Hope your weekend goes well.  Mrs. X and I will be heading over to see the Reds play the Cardinals tomorrow.  It was supposed to be an evening game, but its been moved to 1:30 in the afternoon.  So we'll get a little exposure to the sun.  I just hope it'll be a good game.

African Spying Incidents

Earlier in the week, I read a story that has been circulating some of the conservative courses and popped up on the Drudge Report. How accurate it is, I cannot say, but I thought I would talk about it for debate sake.

Several months ago there was a big todo about an article written by Bob Novak where he disclosed the name of a CIA agent who was the wife of an ex-diplomat named Joe Wilson. Mr. Wilson instantly made the accusation that someone in the White House (Karl Rove was his guess) was the source for the article and it was done as a revenge tactic for Wilson talking about how he had never found any evidence that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger. Wilson had been sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate these claims in February 2002, despite his somewhat dubious qualifications for the job (he was serving as ambassador to Gabon at the time). Wilson spent 12 days in Niger, drinking tea with local officials and poking around in an official capacity. He returned and filed a report saying he had not found any evidence that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake.

After the article that mentioned his wife was published, Wilson accused the White House of revenge tactics and for ignoring his report on the subject. He referred to Bush as a liar for mentioning Iraq's desire to buy yellow cake during his state of the union speech, despite his memo saying the opposite. Wilson became a semi-hero to anti-war types and published a book on the subject.

However, because disclosing the name of a CIA agent in the field is a felony, the Senate Intelligence committee began to do some investigating of its own. The Senate report (which was signed off on by all members) contradicted Wilson's statements on several key points. Wilson claimed that he had been given the yellow cake assignment independently. The committee concluded that it was active campaigning by Wilson's wife which got him the assignment. Wilson said that in his report, no evidence of yellow cake acquirement attempts by Iraq could be found. The committee concluded that there was evidence in Wilson's report and the British and French intelligence communities, from whom the original rumors emerged, still say that their reports were accurate. Wilson also claimed to have known that certain procurement documents were fake. However, he later admitted that he had not read those documents until 8 months after his assignment, causing the Washington Post to get a little miffed with him as they has published his original interview.

In the end, the committee decided that Wilson's claims were not sufficiently valid to warrant charges against any members of the White House. So the matter has been dropped. Unresolved yet is whether Bob Novak will be charged with publishing Wilson's wife's name. However, questions are still floating as to whether Wilson's wife was on actual assignment or working at CIA headquarters in Langley. If its the latter, then Novak did nothing wrong as she was not an agent in the field at that time. That issue is still open for investigation.

Many conservative pundits have claimed that this exposes Wilson as a left wing operative and not the wronged moderate that he claims to be. Certainly his instant and active support for several Democratic politicians after the incident have not helped him in terms of those opinions. But the real question is what to make do with this information. Its not made much of a splash in the mainstream media and many in the public have probably forgotten Mr. Wilson and the incident. At the very least, they probably didn't care to much over whether the yellow cake story was true or not as we've found no deposits of said material in Iraq. So its more the question of public opinion as to whether Mr. Wilson is anything more that a shrieking speed bump on the road of history.

TAR Enjoyment

Mrs. X is studying for the bar for the next two weeks so I guess its up to me to post random TV thoughts. I can't say anything about the other stuff she watches, but I can talk about The Amazing Race. As the show goes on, we'll develop more about the teams and who we like and root for.

Last night's episode was very good. The Big Brother Team went from first to worst in one episode. It was great. I normally don't watch Big Brother, but when Mrs. X last summer we did watch the Saturday episodes together so I am fairly familiar with the BB4 cast. Allison was a total whiney backstabbing bitch in that show and it proved to be a very accurate portrayal of her personality. In the first and second legs of the race, she complained, blamed Donny for everything and offered very little in the way of assistance to him. It just felt very good that they finished first in the first leg and then squandered everything to finish dead last among 10 teams.

I'm not sure, but I think the Pizza Brothers team is being set up as the antagonist team. In a couple of different situations, they've shown their boorish qualities and very American centered point of view. When a local can't help you and you call him a stupid foreigner, I think it shows a real bad side of you.

Everyone else is still getting felt out. I'm liking the military dad/daughter team more. They surprised me with they're good rebound in this leg. The bowling moms are also entertaining to root for. I like the black couple and the internet old couple as well. I'm not getting a winning vibe from any of them yet, but anything can happen. Odds are favoring the Christian models at the moment, but I think they are one bad spill away from losing it.

The little person/cousin team I'm mixed on. I like the little person's spunk and determination, but I am disliking her cousin each more every time I see her. Its a cow, don't be scared of it. I see her being the downfall of this team about halfway through the race.

Lots of good stuff up still. Should be interesting through the rest of the season.

I Love the 90's

VH1 premiered I Love the 90's last night. I was talking with Mrs. X over the phone so I didn't get to hear 1990, although I did see some of the images on TV. But I did get to see 1991. So far I'm mixed. They're straying into more teenage and adult pop culture stuff and the early 90's was when I went into the teenage angst/ignore the world phase. So some of the stuff I've seen and some of it I don't. I do recognize almost all the movies and TV stuff, even if I haven't seen too much of it. An example of that would be Family Matters. Everyone knows of it, including me, but I didn't watch it. Urkle annoyed me and then I just got more annoyed when people thought it was funny to imitate him and quote him all the time.

I imagine as we get a little closer to the mid-90's it'll get more interesting because that's when I started to reconnect with pop culture stuff. Until then, it'll be a mixed bag. I'll give more updates on the show as I view more of the episodes.

More Half-Blood Speculation

I'm sorry to keep harping on this subject, but its just been sitting in my mind like a nut that I can't quite crack. I just finished rereading Chamber of Secrets and I've been working out a few things in my mind. Based on comments that Rowling has made, I'm reasonably confident that the half-blood prince is someone who's been introduced already. So I'm going to go through significant characters from CoS and my speculation on whether they might be the HBP.

1) Harry Potter - Rowling has already said that it isn't Harry.
2) Lord Voldemort - Rowling has already nixed him as well.
3) Ron (and all other Weasley's) - Pure bloods.
4) Hermione - Muggle born
5) Hagrid - I proposed Hagrid in an earlier post, but I'm beginning to lean away from that. First, Hagrid is half giant so he really doesn't qualify under the standard definition of half blood. I'm also against it now because Hagrid's parentage wasn't introduced until GoF. It would have been a stretch to shift those to CoS.
6) Snape - Snape is a popular choice, especially given that we're supposed to learn much more about Snape in book 6. I will concede that he is a suspect. However, CoS is the book that seems to have Snape in it the least. Under no circumstances do I get the feeling that Rowling might have decided to reveal something about Snape and then change her mind. I think this lack of focus on him hurts the argument.
7) Colin Creevy - Now, Colin is attacked by the basilisk giving us the idea that he's muggle born. He even mentions that his father is a milk man. However, it seems very odd to me that a family where both parents are muggles would produce two children who are wizards. Colin's brother, Dennis, appears in PoA. Given that, it may be that Colin's mother is not a true muggle. Either a witch who doesn't use her powers or a squib. Both are a little bit a stretch, but it leaves the argument open for something in the future. Of course, a counter argument would be that Colin is attacked first after Mrs. Norris and is absent for at least half of the book. Odd to have your title character disappear that quickly.
8) Tom Riddle - I know, he's Voldemort and we know that its not Voldemort. The thing is, Harry and Tom are the only well known half bloods. Tom also runs well through the narrative of CoS. Voldemort was very quickly shot down, but I've not heard anyone bring up the Riddle argument. This one could be hotly debated and without further evidence, it'll be impossible to prove. However, I think we should bear it in mind.

None of the other characters in CoS present themselves as good candidates. Their parentage is well established, or they're too minor of a character for open consideration. Without further information, I'm not sure I'll be able to ever solve the argument. Its a lot like the "who's going to die" game we had with OotP. But I'll keep looking for clues.

Random Bits

In a move that surprises everyone, I actually don't have anything substantial to talk about. Its been a quiet week so far and I only have little snippets to discuss today:

*Mrs. X is studying hard and trying not to kill herself in the last days of the bar review class.

*I finished rereading Order of the Phoenix. I share Mrs. X's opinion that Harry is very stupid in this book for not doing what he should. I also think that Umbridge should have been punished in a much worse fashion, but I don't think that Rowling is up to my level of death and mayhem.

*Keeping with the Harry Potter theme, I'm starting to reread Chamber of Secrets. I want to go and look through it again and see if Rowling left any hints as to what she left out as to who the half-blood prince may be. It probably won't turn up anything, but its something to look at.

*The Reds continue to fade. Whispers are starting to come about a small fire sale after the All-Star break. I don't really understand that as they need to keep what pitching they do have and try to improve next year.

*One of my coworker's wife had a baby on July 4th. Jared Taylor White is his name and his dad's been showing off the first pictures today. He was a couple of weeks early so he's a little small, but then again, his mom isn't that large of a woman so he may not have been that big even if he had gone full term. He's still very pink and wrinkled.

*I've seen a couple of different editorials saying that VH1's I Love the 90's is just too soon. Maybe, but I still think it'll be fun to watch and laugh. Especially the stuff in the early 90's that we can all still be embarrassed by. Like the slap on bracelets and stuff.

That's about it right now. If something substantial happens in the world that needs discussing, I'll hit it. In the meantime, talk amongst yourselves.

The Amazing Race

Mrs. X will probably have an article relating to this subject sometime in the near future, but I thought I would go ahead and offer my own two cents. I got into TAR last year and have been eagerly looking forward to the next season. I enjoy laughing at people who walk right by markers and get into the most inane fights over little things.

The first episode brought us from southern California to Uruguay and introduced us to the teams. Its hard to get a handle on all the teams in the first episode, but they are starting to fall into discernible patterns and getting their own nicknames:

1) Big Brother Team - Allison from BB4 is once again proving that she's quite the bitch. I didn't really see it, but judging from the descriptions, I think they are channeling team Flo from season 3. I certainly hope the BB team doesn't win like the Flo team did.

2) Pizza Brothers Team - I'm already starting to not like these guys. They are competitive, but they are also boorish and annoying. They fit the world view stereotype of Americans to a tee. But I think we may have to deal with these guys for a while.

3) Bowling Moms Team - They have good chemistry and are likeable. They'll work well together, but may get bogged down in some of the heavily physical challenges.

4) Internet Couple Team - I have a soft spot for this team due to their circumstances and the fact that they are they oldest team. Age will probably do them in before the race is finished, but I'm going to enjoy them while they can.

5) Cousins Team - The little person member is spunky and very likeable. Her cousin is a little bit dim and a lot whinny. They are also projecting a little too much "poor little us" attitude for my taste. I could see this team eventually going down due to a fracture between those who work and those who don't.

6) Christian Models Team - They had a good little spat in the first episode but recovered well. I think they could be challenging for the lead if they work out the little things.

7) Texas Couple Team - This team wasn't developed much so I imagine they'll stick around for a little bit. Biggest things we know are that the female is a former Miss Texas USA winner and lived for a time in Santa Monica, CA.

8) African-American Team - A middle aged couple that seems to work well together. They had a couple of misteps in the beginning, but I could see this team pulling it out if they get a couple of lucky breaks.

9) Twins Team - I'll never be able to keep them straight. I'm mixed about this team. They are intense and bicker with each other a bit. I also get a slightly condesending vibe from them. If they don't rush things, they'll recover and finish high.

10) Dad and Daughter Team - I like the dad. His messed up knee looked pretty nasty, but he played hard through it. His daughter is a bit cutthroat and coming off as a bit bitchy. They are the early favorites to get eliminated in the next leg if only due to the injuries they are dealing with now.

The eleventh team is a non entity as they have been eliminated. It should be an interesting season. Perhaps my perception of each team will change as we go. I'm also looking forward to seeing the new twists they've added. I like the yield as a way of pushing back a team that might be very close to you. I assume the fast forward is also still in the game as well. We'll have to wait a little bit until we see what the twist is for arriving last at a non-elimination leg.

Should be interesting.

The Top Office

Much speculation has been going on for the past year about who will take over the top office. Many people are leaning towards one candidate but others are opting for others. I am here to give my own opinion and offer my skepticism at the idea of the favorite. Given all this, I'll now tell you who I think will be the next Minister of Magic (What? Did you think I was talking about Bush-Kerry?)

The current front runner for the MoM job is Arthur Weasley. Nice fellow, very smart, loyal to Dumbledore. However, he has been languishing away in his own little office for many years with no desire for advancement. Its been hinted that Weasley himself has passed up opportunities for advancement because of his love of Muggles and not just been passed over every time some new post is open.

I might also point out that before Order of the Phoenix was released, people were absolutely certain that Mrs. Figg was going to be the next Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher. Instead, she turns out to be a squib and we get Umbridge. So going on precedent and our own knowledge of the character, I don't think Arthur Weasley is a strong candidate.

So who is? Well, Rowling could easily create a new character and just say that they've been in the background all the time. I won't deny that that's a strong possibility. But if we want to play with characters we know, I lean towards Amelia Bones. There have been whispers in the past that the character of Susan Bones will be important and having her aunt as MoM would elevate her stock a bit. She has also been defined as a stern but fair witch. I've envisioned her as a bit like McGonagall and I think the ministry might need some tough love. Politically, they can't put in someone who will be seen as a Dumbledore puppet so quickly. So they move to the middle ground: strong character, open to ideas and willing to fight Voldemort openly if necessary.

Of course, I could be totally wrong in this. My last post I picked Kerry to tap Vilsak and he goes with Edwards, the obvious choice. But this is my guess as of right now. I'm rereading OotP looking for some clues as to the future as well.

Politics Talk

Mrs. X and her mother were talking yesterday and they both agreed that if the election were held today, Bush would probably lose. Happy news for Mrs. X and not so happy news for her mom. The problem is, the election is not being held today, its being held in 4 months. Much could change and all the predictions are just making my head swim. There's an article over at MSNBC that says that Bush should win with somewhere between 52 and 58% of the vote. I don't think anyone really believes that.

Most likely this will be just like 4 years ago where it will go neck and neck right down to the last week and either some bit of outside news will tip the balance or someone will screw the pooch in someway. We should also remember that national polls don't mean jack. While everyone says its dead even with Bush at 46% and Kerry at 45%, they don't take into account what the polls are doing in the states. Its close to tied here in Ohio and in neighboring Pennsylvania and those are the only polls that really matter. So we'll just step back, wait, and see what happens.

Meanwhile, Kerry is starting to crawl out from Bill Clinton's book news and make his own with rumors of who the VP will be. Polls seem to indicate that people want Edwards, but I highly doubt Kerry will do that. He has no reason to pick someone who ran close to him and could challenge him in 4 years. Kerry is going to have enough to worry about if his base erodes and shifts to someone like Hillary Clinton in 2008. Gephardt is a possibility but I don't see that he really adds anything. I wouldn't even guarantee that he could deliver Missouri to Kerry. Richardson withdrew and Graham has too much liability. My own opinion would be for someone like Tom Vilsak of Iowa. It would sew up Iowa and give Kerry a little more credibility in the Midwest where he's likely to be seen as somewhat weak. Evan Bayh of Indiana would also fit this bill fairly well, but I would always favor a governor over another senator. Always play the outsider card. Wes Clark also might grab some attention to shore up the military vote. But troops usually have to be very disaffected before they go against the C-in-C and I'm still not seeing the capital protest rallies. If anything, Kerry keeps drifting towards full support of the war to keep the troop votes in play (he just keeps saying that we need other countries more). So I would still make Vilsak my top choice.

Other than that, I can't say too much. It should be a fun 4th. Mrs. X and I will be burning and eating lots of dead animal and watching much fire in the sky. Hope your 4th is equally as entertaining :)

I don't know the scientific reason behind it, but fire made it good. - Homer Simpson (Flaming Moes)