A very busy weekend for me. We spent Saturday moving Mrs. X out of her apartment in Columbus and down with me. So now we're all moved in snug. We're still sorting things out as to which additional items of mine and hers will go into storage and which we actually have room for. We also may have to put some of the shower gifts into storage as we won't be able to use all of them while we are living in the apartment. As soon as the wedding is over, its the beginning of house hunting season for us.
The Olympics started on Friday. Mrs. X and I have been watching a great deal of them over the past several days. Its much more entertaining than all the other crap that's normally on during the summer, even though football has officially started again. The opening ceremonies were entertaining although I think the Greeks were a little hung up on things flying through the air. Someone here in the office mentioned that the Olympic cauldron reminded him of the telescope gun that Marvin the Martian uses in his attempt to blow up the Earth - Oh, the Earth will be gone in a few minutes. I'm going to blow it up. It obstructs my view of Venus.
For the most part I've been quite entertained but I do have two rants. First, I wish the media would drop all this crap about Michael Phelps and his failure to break or tie Mark Spitz's record. First off, he's probably going to win 8 medals period and that's an enormous feat. Second, the field is much harder than it was in 1972 as evidenced by South Africa's win in the relay. Third, the kid is only 19. Let him go out and have fun for God's sake and just be appreciative that he swims for us and not Australia.
My second rant has to do with men's basketball. I personally feel that there was only one Dream Team and that was the '92 team. All others are just pale imitations so stop calling them that. Second, a lot of people seemed to have expected this, including me, so why is it a big deal that they lost. We all knew what the problems with this team were so how is it such a shock? And I don't want to hear if they had other superstars like Kobe, Shaq or KG they wouldn't have lost. This is not a team. They are not balanced, they have no perimeter shooting and they can't play the fundamentals of the game. This is a function of the deterioration of basketball in this country. Basketball used to be fun to watch with strategy, movement and balance. But as we said goodbye to the talent of the 90's, we gave way to prima donnas who never learned the strategy of the game and just came in with raw talent. Today, I can't watch a regular season basketball because its so boring. There is either a drive on the baseline for a dunk or a three point attempt. No one can work the middle and bury the inside jumper anymore. Honestly, the last good basketball game I remember seeing was the 1998 finals. I'd still opt to watch a game from the 80's or 90's over anything on today. Now the Americans are going to see what that rashness has done to them as the Europeans and South Americans wipe the floor with them.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Cnails and Slams
As an engineer, I tend to have my feet firmly rooted in science. However, I have great reservations about what scientists say about how the earth was formed and its age. Faith and reason are often portrayed as being at odds and that can create lots of conflict. Recently though, a group of guys got into a discussion about evolution here at work and one of them mentioned this lecture that he had on tape where a biologist went through and pointed out several large flaws in the evolutionary argument. I asked him if I could borrow that tape. I managed to listen to it yesterday and it was quite interesting. I had to listen to it in a disjointed fashion as I was interrupted by normal aspects of life while I was listening to it, but I got several key points out of it.
The first example he gave was against the idea of progressive mutation. This idea is that mutation happens every once in a while and some animal gets something it didn't have before which pushes it forward to become a new species. The example the lecturer gave (and I've forgot his name as of the moment) that hurt this argument was that of a woodpecker. The woodpecker forcefully bangs his head and bill into a tree to make a nest and extract bugs to eat. The impact deceleration of the head striking a tree can produce a force the equivalent of 20-30 G's on the head of the bird. To help against this the woodpecker has a long sturdy bill which cushions the impact and a reinforced skull to resist impact. The woodpecker also has a very long sticky tongue to stick down into the holes it makes to extract the bugs. Conventional theory says that the woodpecker would have gotten each item individually as it mutated. Except that if a woodpecker tried to peck wood before it got all the components, it would have killed itself in the attempt.
The second example was that of polystratic fossils. Strata are the layers of rock that have built up in one formation or another. Conventional wisdom says that this process takes millions of years to accomplish. However, there are quite a few examples of fossilized bones or trees which extend across multiple strata layers. To accomplish this, the bones would have had to be standing on end for thousands or even millions of years to settle in these shapes. With trees it gets even worse because trees rot much more efficiently than bones and should be less likely to produce fossils, especially ones going across several layers of rock. As the tree was partially buried, it would have rotted away and the hole collapsed on itself. The only way to explain these phenomenon would be if the bones and trees were rapidly buried in a sudden imolation of rock or water. Such phenomena has been observed after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens where several trees were fossilized in the same manner over a period of a week when the mountain exploded. Many of these polystratic fossilized trees are found in coal deposits which are supposed to be the product of millions of years of transformation of swampy matter. Now, how can you have swamp matter washing all around a tree, have that matter turn to coal over several million years and still keep the tree not rotting and standing upright as its covered up?
A third example is the age old one that we've never found cross animal hybrids. If you look in the fossil record, you don't find one thing that's halfway between a snail and a clam, you find snails and clams. Also when you go back, you always find more animals, not less. Evolution is supposed to be starting from something small and branching out like a tree. Instead you have thousands of animals and more and more just keep disappearing as time goes on.
There are a few other things that I or other people have thought of that I don't have the time to cover now, such as the error factor of C-14 dating and progression from asexual to sexual. But this gives a little bit for someone to think about. As with all things, weigh the evidence with an open mind. You may be surprised at the things you find out.
Some rocks, dirt, water, sugar, and lightning - now, HORSES!
The first example he gave was against the idea of progressive mutation. This idea is that mutation happens every once in a while and some animal gets something it didn't have before which pushes it forward to become a new species. The example the lecturer gave (and I've forgot his name as of the moment) that hurt this argument was that of a woodpecker. The woodpecker forcefully bangs his head and bill into a tree to make a nest and extract bugs to eat. The impact deceleration of the head striking a tree can produce a force the equivalent of 20-30 G's on the head of the bird. To help against this the woodpecker has a long sturdy bill which cushions the impact and a reinforced skull to resist impact. The woodpecker also has a very long sticky tongue to stick down into the holes it makes to extract the bugs. Conventional theory says that the woodpecker would have gotten each item individually as it mutated. Except that if a woodpecker tried to peck wood before it got all the components, it would have killed itself in the attempt.
The second example was that of polystratic fossils. Strata are the layers of rock that have built up in one formation or another. Conventional wisdom says that this process takes millions of years to accomplish. However, there are quite a few examples of fossilized bones or trees which extend across multiple strata layers. To accomplish this, the bones would have had to be standing on end for thousands or even millions of years to settle in these shapes. With trees it gets even worse because trees rot much more efficiently than bones and should be less likely to produce fossils, especially ones going across several layers of rock. As the tree was partially buried, it would have rotted away and the hole collapsed on itself. The only way to explain these phenomenon would be if the bones and trees were rapidly buried in a sudden imolation of rock or water. Such phenomena has been observed after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens where several trees were fossilized in the same manner over a period of a week when the mountain exploded. Many of these polystratic fossilized trees are found in coal deposits which are supposed to be the product of millions of years of transformation of swampy matter. Now, how can you have swamp matter washing all around a tree, have that matter turn to coal over several million years and still keep the tree not rotting and standing upright as its covered up?
A third example is the age old one that we've never found cross animal hybrids. If you look in the fossil record, you don't find one thing that's halfway between a snail and a clam, you find snails and clams. Also when you go back, you always find more animals, not less. Evolution is supposed to be starting from something small and branching out like a tree. Instead you have thousands of animals and more and more just keep disappearing as time goes on.
There are a few other things that I or other people have thought of that I don't have the time to cover now, such as the error factor of C-14 dating and progression from asexual to sexual. But this gives a little bit for someone to think about. As with all things, weigh the evidence with an open mind. You may be surprised at the things you find out.
Some rocks, dirt, water, sugar, and lightning - now, HORSES!
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
TAR Recap
Well, I was both right and wrong about this week's episode. I was right in that the Texas Twosome screwed themselves over by taking the fast forward so early in the game. Everyone caught up to them and their impressing 7 hour lead was lost. They still finished 1st this week, but mostly due to their own fighting spirit. I was wrong in that I thought the Bowling Moms would be eliminated this week. They had a brilliant idea of getting money from the tourists and managed to get up to the point where the pizza brother's injuries put them in last place.
The host said that no one had ever really quit on the race before, but then, I don't think I ever seen a racer in that much physical pain before. I don't view them as quitting as I see it as more bowing to the inevitable. They knew they were eliminated and felt no need to push on. I still don't like them that much as they acted like stereotypical American jerks through most of the race, but you do have to give them a little dap for pushing through the pain towards the end. Hopefully the producers took him to a local hospital after they were eliminated.
My impressions of the rest of the teams haven't shifted too much. The Texas Twosome is getting more annoying. I'm starting to view them in the same light as the team that finished second last season, a team you know is going to be around until the end, but one you hope doesn't win. Myrna and Shmirna are getting more annoying as well. I was briefly impressed when I saw that Myrna spoke Arabic fairly well, but it went right back down the tubes with her accusations against the Texas Twosome and complaints against how she couldn't do the tasks. Shut up and just do the job.
I keep going back and forth on the Christian models. They seem likeable one minute and hateable the next. I'm also not as sure that they will be in the final three the way they keep messing up and snipping at each other in little places. I think Chip and Kim seem to be the couple that the producers are cultivating towards getting you to like them the most. They also seem to be the team that's just having the most fun. I hope they stick around until the end.
Next week looks like they're going down to either Kenya or Tanzania. It should be another non-elimination leg, but if the Bowling Moms finish last again, I don't know if they'll keep it or forward it to the next leg so that they can hit another team. It would suck if you had to take the cash of the same team twice in a row. I'm hopeful that the Moms are invigorated by their scare enough that they push someone else down and stick around for a little bit longer.
The host said that no one had ever really quit on the race before, but then, I don't think I ever seen a racer in that much physical pain before. I don't view them as quitting as I see it as more bowing to the inevitable. They knew they were eliminated and felt no need to push on. I still don't like them that much as they acted like stereotypical American jerks through most of the race, but you do have to give them a little dap for pushing through the pain towards the end. Hopefully the producers took him to a local hospital after they were eliminated.
My impressions of the rest of the teams haven't shifted too much. The Texas Twosome is getting more annoying. I'm starting to view them in the same light as the team that finished second last season, a team you know is going to be around until the end, but one you hope doesn't win. Myrna and Shmirna are getting more annoying as well. I was briefly impressed when I saw that Myrna spoke Arabic fairly well, but it went right back down the tubes with her accusations against the Texas Twosome and complaints against how she couldn't do the tasks. Shut up and just do the job.
I keep going back and forth on the Christian models. They seem likeable one minute and hateable the next. I'm also not as sure that they will be in the final three the way they keep messing up and snipping at each other in little places. I think Chip and Kim seem to be the couple that the producers are cultivating towards getting you to like them the most. They also seem to be the team that's just having the most fun. I hope they stick around until the end.
Next week looks like they're going down to either Kenya or Tanzania. It should be another non-elimination leg, but if the Bowling Moms finish last again, I don't know if they'll keep it or forward it to the next leg so that they can hit another team. It would suck if you had to take the cash of the same team twice in a row. I'm hopeful that the Moms are invigorated by their scare enough that they push someone else down and stick around for a little bit longer.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Tin Soldiers
I doubt many in my reading audience will recall from where I got my title, but its relevant to today's topic. 30 years ago yesterday Richard Nixon resigned as president of the United States. Quite a different time. No matter what you think of Nixon as a person, his first term would be considered a great success by any measure. His second term, however, was a huge disaster. A simple break in and it all went to hell. No one has ever really determined whether Mr. Nixon authorized or even knew about the break in originally, but he definitely took point on trying to cover it up. In the end, the tapes Mr. Nixon had created to help preserve his legacy ended up destroying him.
Mr. Nixon's legacy was salvaged a bit during the late 80's and 90's as he clawed his way back to respectability. After he died, I saw a political cartoon which showed an angel helping Mr. Nixon up. He was sitting on one end of a scale, on a block that said "Opening China." The other block said "Watergate" but it was being outweighed by the first block. The real legacy, of course, was the distrustful nature we still have of government and the media's desire to root out anything for a political scandal. Gone are the look the other way gifts that were afforded to prior presidents such as Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Harding. That style was already on the way out with the nastiness that started coming out during Mr. Johnson's administration over Vietnam, but Watergate accelerated the thing to a screeching pitch.
As a person who is very fond of alternative history, I've wondered what would have happened had Watergate either not happened, or if Mr. Nixon had come out immediately, apologized to the people for mistakes made by people in his government and been able to move on. Vietnam occupied a great portion of the public's mind. It's possible that with his new relationship with China, Mr. Nixon might have been able to broker a better peace accord that the one laid out in 1973/74 which lead to the fall of South Vietnam in 1975. I think South Vietnam would have eventually collapsed due to its own corruption, but that might have been staved off until 1976 or later. Its hard to say. We can't even say how many more troops Mr. Nixon might have felt were necessary to keep in Vietnam if he wasn't trying to win back the public by bringing them home.
If Mr. Nixon had successfully retired in 1976, I doubt we ever would have heard much of Mr. Jimmy Carter. He would have grabbed the nomination but Mr. Ford would have probably have enough forward momentum (to say nothing of no Nixon anger working against him) to get elected in the following election. Bob Dole was his running mate then and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't have been that again, unless the Reagan camp made enough of a push to Mr. Ford that having Mr. Reagan would secure California for him. Mr. Dole's Kansas was probably already securely in the Republican column. So we could have seen a Ford-Reagan administration or a Ford-Dole administration with Mr. Reagan securing a juicy cabinet post for his assistance in delivering California. From there, we can't really say what else would have happened. I imagine Mr. Ted Kennedy would have made his push in 1980, but perhaps been beaten out by another prominent Democrat of the time. After 12 years of Republican rule, the people might have been itching for a change and there is no evidence that the economic problems of the late 70's would have been staved off by a Republican ticket. But then again, perhaps Mr. Ford's advisors would have forced him to take a very aggressive line against Iran during the hostage crisis. If Mr. Ford were successful in delivering the Iranian hostages prior to the election and in an aggressive manner, he might have nicked it out against his Democratic nominee. Still, I think we could safely say that Mr. Reagan probably would never have had the chance to become president unless Mr. Ford lost the 1980 election and then beat out Mr. Dole and Mr. Bush for the 1984 nomination. Its very difficult to project what would have happened at this point, but it makes for fun speculation.
So we remember Mr. Nixon and the legacy he left us. But in that remembrance, we think as to what he squandered and how events might have been different had a little third rate burglary been swept under the rug.
Mr. Nixon's legacy was salvaged a bit during the late 80's and 90's as he clawed his way back to respectability. After he died, I saw a political cartoon which showed an angel helping Mr. Nixon up. He was sitting on one end of a scale, on a block that said "Opening China." The other block said "Watergate" but it was being outweighed by the first block. The real legacy, of course, was the distrustful nature we still have of government and the media's desire to root out anything for a political scandal. Gone are the look the other way gifts that were afforded to prior presidents such as Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Harding. That style was already on the way out with the nastiness that started coming out during Mr. Johnson's administration over Vietnam, but Watergate accelerated the thing to a screeching pitch.
As a person who is very fond of alternative history, I've wondered what would have happened had Watergate either not happened, or if Mr. Nixon had come out immediately, apologized to the people for mistakes made by people in his government and been able to move on. Vietnam occupied a great portion of the public's mind. It's possible that with his new relationship with China, Mr. Nixon might have been able to broker a better peace accord that the one laid out in 1973/74 which lead to the fall of South Vietnam in 1975. I think South Vietnam would have eventually collapsed due to its own corruption, but that might have been staved off until 1976 or later. Its hard to say. We can't even say how many more troops Mr. Nixon might have felt were necessary to keep in Vietnam if he wasn't trying to win back the public by bringing them home.
If Mr. Nixon had successfully retired in 1976, I doubt we ever would have heard much of Mr. Jimmy Carter. He would have grabbed the nomination but Mr. Ford would have probably have enough forward momentum (to say nothing of no Nixon anger working against him) to get elected in the following election. Bob Dole was his running mate then and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't have been that again, unless the Reagan camp made enough of a push to Mr. Ford that having Mr. Reagan would secure California for him. Mr. Dole's Kansas was probably already securely in the Republican column. So we could have seen a Ford-Reagan administration or a Ford-Dole administration with Mr. Reagan securing a juicy cabinet post for his assistance in delivering California. From there, we can't really say what else would have happened. I imagine Mr. Ted Kennedy would have made his push in 1980, but perhaps been beaten out by another prominent Democrat of the time. After 12 years of Republican rule, the people might have been itching for a change and there is no evidence that the economic problems of the late 70's would have been staved off by a Republican ticket. But then again, perhaps Mr. Ford's advisors would have forced him to take a very aggressive line against Iran during the hostage crisis. If Mr. Ford were successful in delivering the Iranian hostages prior to the election and in an aggressive manner, he might have nicked it out against his Democratic nominee. Still, I think we could safely say that Mr. Reagan probably would never have had the chance to become president unless Mr. Ford lost the 1980 election and then beat out Mr. Dole and Mr. Bush for the 1984 nomination. Its very difficult to project what would have happened at this point, but it makes for fun speculation.
So we remember Mr. Nixon and the legacy he left us. But in that remembrance, we think as to what he squandered and how events might have been different had a little third rate burglary been swept under the rug.
Monday, August 09, 2004
Unbiased News Coverage?
This caught my eye. I know we're only confirming what most of us already know, but it still sits a bit uncomfortably.
Shower Fun
So we had the bridal shower for Mrs. X yesterday. I didn't go of course, but I made the customary groom show towards the end when people started leaving. I actually spent most the shower time giving my grandfather a brief tour around the suburbs where I work and live. That was a lot of fun, although my voice was getting a little hoarse towards the end. My grandfather has very poor hearing and he doesn't use his good hearing aid very often, preferring to use his cheap one. So, one had to elevate their voice a bit while speaking to him.
Anyway, the shower was good. Mrs. X and I got a great deal of nice kitchen things that will be quite useful in the near future. I'm going to be spending the better part of the week trying to figure out where to put everything and how to organize it. But that's no big deal. After all this, Mrs. X and I will also have to be adding thing to the registry again. Our lists have gotten a bit low so we're going to have to imagine other things that we would like to have. Fun times for us.
Probably the highlight of shower had to be after I arrived and some people started to leaving. One of the guests was Mrs. X's cousin (once removed) who had brought her two little girls along (2 and half and 6 months). At one point I was just sitting down and Mrs. X, who had been holding the younger girl, asked me if I wanted to hold her. I did and did a pretty good job of it. Mrs. X made the comment that she thought it looked very natural for me. I think my parents and her mom got a little gleam in their eyes at that point. They won't say it, but they are getting very eager for grandkids. They're a bit like sharks who smell blood in the water and start circling. Hopefully I'll have a couple of pictures to show around of me holding Lorelei, who made it very easy for me. Apparently I bear a passing resemblance to her dad and I think she might have thought I was him. She did keep grabbing at my chin and apparently he has a rather prominent one. Or maybe she just liked the sandpaper feeling.
After the shower we went to dinner at the place where we will be having our rehearsal dinner. Mmmmmm... stuffed pork chops. Quite good and if you're ever around Mason, OH, I would highly recommend the Houston Inn. Down home cooking and a very nice salad bar.
But now, Mrs. X has returned to her apartment for the last stages of packing. We move all the big stuff on Saturday and then she'll turn the keys in sometime a little later in the week. Should be an adventure. I just can't wait until we're all done and settled.
Anyway, the shower was good. Mrs. X and I got a great deal of nice kitchen things that will be quite useful in the near future. I'm going to be spending the better part of the week trying to figure out where to put everything and how to organize it. But that's no big deal. After all this, Mrs. X and I will also have to be adding thing to the registry again. Our lists have gotten a bit low so we're going to have to imagine other things that we would like to have. Fun times for us.
Probably the highlight of shower had to be after I arrived and some people started to leaving. One of the guests was Mrs. X's cousin (once removed) who had brought her two little girls along (2 and half and 6 months). At one point I was just sitting down and Mrs. X, who had been holding the younger girl, asked me if I wanted to hold her. I did and did a pretty good job of it. Mrs. X made the comment that she thought it looked very natural for me. I think my parents and her mom got a little gleam in their eyes at that point. They won't say it, but they are getting very eager for grandkids. They're a bit like sharks who smell blood in the water and start circling. Hopefully I'll have a couple of pictures to show around of me holding Lorelei, who made it very easy for me. Apparently I bear a passing resemblance to her dad and I think she might have thought I was him. She did keep grabbing at my chin and apparently he has a rather prominent one. Or maybe she just liked the sandpaper feeling.
After the shower we went to dinner at the place where we will be having our rehearsal dinner. Mmmmmm... stuffed pork chops. Quite good and if you're ever around Mason, OH, I would highly recommend the Houston Inn. Down home cooking and a very nice salad bar.
But now, Mrs. X has returned to her apartment for the last stages of packing. We move all the big stuff on Saturday and then she'll turn the keys in sometime a little later in the week. Should be an adventure. I just can't wait until we're all done and settled.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Troubled Waters?
The surf appears to be looking a little choppy for Mr. Kerry. The new book, Unfit for Command, which attacks Mr. Kerry's war record is comming out soon and it has some rather unflattering details. The book charges that Mr. Kerry lied about the account to which he was awarded his silver star and in the incident he went so far as to shoot a wounded Viet Cong soldier in the back while he was running away. It also accuses him of coming across an abandoned village and, after shooting all the livestock, burning it down. Very nasty and very Apocolypse Now. How much of it is true? I don't know and I'm not going to hazard a guess. However, I will say that this could be a nasty distraction, espcially as Mr. Kerry has mentioned that he committed "attrocities" during his tour in Vietnam and then gone on to make his service a centerpiece in his campaign.
Another thing is just the public perception of Mr. Kerry. A Boston blogger posted his thoughts on Mr. Kerry's percieved intellectual superiority over Mr. Bush. He's certainly not a Kerry fan, although he did make an interesting offer to the Kerry supporters for his defense.
Several other bloggers are in mixed reactions of worry or delight depending on where they stand in support of Mr. Kerry. Glen Reynolds has a compilation of some of these concerns.
But, as many of the undecided voters only care about what the candidates are going to do on the issues, all this may just blow over. We really won't be able to tell anything until the debates come. Hopefully Mr. Kerry will know how to sigh properly during the debate, for his sake.
Another thing is just the public perception of Mr. Kerry. A Boston blogger posted his thoughts on Mr. Kerry's percieved intellectual superiority over Mr. Bush. He's certainly not a Kerry fan, although he did make an interesting offer to the Kerry supporters for his defense.
Several other bloggers are in mixed reactions of worry or delight depending on where they stand in support of Mr. Kerry. Glen Reynolds has a compilation of some of these concerns.
But, as many of the undecided voters only care about what the candidates are going to do on the issues, all this may just blow over. We really won't be able to tell anything until the debates come. Hopefully Mr. Kerry will know how to sigh properly during the debate, for his sake.
First Amendment
Here's one that's right up Mrs. X's alley. An Orlando, Florida news station reported that a woman was fired from her telecommuting job after she had a pizza with ham on it and a BLT for lunch. The woman worked for Rising Star, a telecommunications company headquartered in central Florida. Apparently, the company has strong ties to the Muslim community and has some unwritten rules in deference to the teachings of the Koran. That is not a bad thing in my mind. However, one of these rules is that you cannot consume pork products on company grounds. This is not a written rule and the woman was never asked to sign a waiver saying that she would not eat pork on company grounds. But, after these two incidents, the woman's position was terminated.
I'm not that well grounded in employment law and first amendment, but I'm sure Mrs. X would tell you that there is some violation of the Equal Opportunity Law in here somewhere, to say nothing of a possible first amendment suit. As it is a fairly localized company and a Muslim based discrimination suit, I don't think we'll be getting much national coverage over it. But it does make one think and boggle the mind as to what some people try to impose on others.
I'm not that well grounded in employment law and first amendment, but I'm sure Mrs. X would tell you that there is some violation of the Equal Opportunity Law in here somewhere, to say nothing of a possible first amendment suit. As it is a fairly localized company and a Muslim based discrimination suit, I don't think we'll be getting much national coverage over it. But it does make one think and boggle the mind as to what some people try to impose on others.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
TAR Recap
Interesting episode this week. I like the new twists of only having two fast forwards in the entire game and the loss of money in a non-elimination round. I only wish that it had not been the bowling moms who had finished in last place. I can imagine that between the loss of money and the twisted ankle one of them suffered, they'll be the team eliminated next week.
The non-elimination rounds should be happening every other episode now and they will probably do a good job in eliminating the same team the following week. Now, there is always hope, but its just crippling to loose money, especially when you keep getting less and less of it the rest of the way. I imagine this was in response to the last two seasons where a team that was not that popular with the viewers finished last but wasn't eliminated and then rebounded to finish high in the standings and stick around, much to the annoyance of the audience.
I also like the limitation of the fast forward, although it was rather amusing to see teams jump at it early last season and then start to fall behind again. It kept around some amusing teams that would normally have been eliminated much earlier. But this way is interesting too. Now, if I had been team Texas, I would not have used the FF. They were 6 hours ahead of the second place team and the FF bumped them further up to probably at least 10 hours ahead. However, anyone who has seen the show before, knows that teams catch up to each other at airports and bus stations later in the day. They'll be leaving at 11:30 PM Cairo time and I can't imagine that anything will be open when they need it to be. So they will lose the lead until Myrna and Shmirna catch up to them as was shown in the previews for next week. What's more, team Texas cannot use the other FF which will probably come sometime when there are only 4 or 5 teams left and could be much more useful in jockeying for position among the final 3.
Irregardless, it appears the twins team will stay around for a little longer. The bowling moms, crippled by no money will be eliminated next week unless there is a huge gaffe made by another team. After that, I think the pizza brothers will be eliminated as injuries to knees push them further back. So that leaves our final 5 as the twins, Myrna and Shmirna, Chip and Kim, team Texas, and team Modeling for Christ. I've yet to see anything that makes me think that the twins will not stave off elimination around 5 or 4. Mistakes might keep one of the other teams down as well, but its difficult to say. I can't give any real impression as to who will be next on the block until after these next two teams are eliminated.
The non-elimination rounds should be happening every other episode now and they will probably do a good job in eliminating the same team the following week. Now, there is always hope, but its just crippling to loose money, especially when you keep getting less and less of it the rest of the way. I imagine this was in response to the last two seasons where a team that was not that popular with the viewers finished last but wasn't eliminated and then rebounded to finish high in the standings and stick around, much to the annoyance of the audience.
I also like the limitation of the fast forward, although it was rather amusing to see teams jump at it early last season and then start to fall behind again. It kept around some amusing teams that would normally have been eliminated much earlier. But this way is interesting too. Now, if I had been team Texas, I would not have used the FF. They were 6 hours ahead of the second place team and the FF bumped them further up to probably at least 10 hours ahead. However, anyone who has seen the show before, knows that teams catch up to each other at airports and bus stations later in the day. They'll be leaving at 11:30 PM Cairo time and I can't imagine that anything will be open when they need it to be. So they will lose the lead until Myrna and Shmirna catch up to them as was shown in the previews for next week. What's more, team Texas cannot use the other FF which will probably come sometime when there are only 4 or 5 teams left and could be much more useful in jockeying for position among the final 3.
Irregardless, it appears the twins team will stay around for a little longer. The bowling moms, crippled by no money will be eliminated next week unless there is a huge gaffe made by another team. After that, I think the pizza brothers will be eliminated as injuries to knees push them further back. So that leaves our final 5 as the twins, Myrna and Shmirna, Chip and Kim, team Texas, and team Modeling for Christ. I've yet to see anything that makes me think that the twins will not stave off elimination around 5 or 4. Mistakes might keep one of the other teams down as well, but its difficult to say. I can't give any real impression as to who will be next on the block until after these next two teams are eliminated.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Reality Update
How is this for funny: Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush are both scheduled for campaign stops in the same town at the same time, and I am very familiar with both locations. Both candidates will be making stops in Davenport, IA, about 30 miles north of the town my parents live in. I used to head up to Davenport a lot while I was in high school and college. The fact that both men are in the same town at the same time is even funnier to me since I know where the locations are and can picture them. Although, I'm a little surprised Mr. Bush is there. Despite it being in the heart of the Midwest, the QC have enough manufacturing jobs to make it a very solidly Democratic area. I couldn't even tell you the last time a Republican represented the 17th district of Illinois.
Anyway, the real news on my mind is The Amazing Race. Mrs. X and I are sliding more and more into dislike of Myrna. Certainly her loud, obnoxious comments during the caviar eat while several other women were getting sick, were very annoying. I don't like the Texas couple very much either, but there is no need for that kind of poor sportsmanship.
I have a strong feeling that we will be saying goodbye to the twins very soon. They keep lagging towards the back and one of them was clearly very sick from the caviar eating. They themselves said that they don't have a partner who really balances out their weaknesses. I expect Egypt will be hard on them and we will be seeing them fall by the wayside before too long. I hope the same doesn't happen to the bowling moms but I'm getting skeptical of seeing them past India (which I suspect they will be going to after Egypt). We shall see but I'm looking forward to seeing what happens tonight.
Mrs. X has also given up on her TV blog and will only be keeping up one blog from now on. I suspect she'll give TV her focus there after the wedding. But for those of you starved for her BB5 thoughts, I can tell you that she is relieved that the Four Horsemen seem to be breaking down and that their leader, Scott, is looking like the key figure in being knocked out. She is also ticked to see the reaction with the red-headed twins reveal themselves and give notices to the meathead alliance, as she calls them, realize that they are down another vote. I'm sure she'll give you updates as necessary.
Anyway, the real news on my mind is The Amazing Race. Mrs. X and I are sliding more and more into dislike of Myrna. Certainly her loud, obnoxious comments during the caviar eat while several other women were getting sick, were very annoying. I don't like the Texas couple very much either, but there is no need for that kind of poor sportsmanship.
I have a strong feeling that we will be saying goodbye to the twins very soon. They keep lagging towards the back and one of them was clearly very sick from the caviar eating. They themselves said that they don't have a partner who really balances out their weaknesses. I expect Egypt will be hard on them and we will be seeing them fall by the wayside before too long. I hope the same doesn't happen to the bowling moms but I'm getting skeptical of seeing them past India (which I suspect they will be going to after Egypt). We shall see but I'm looking forward to seeing what happens tonight.
Mrs. X has also given up on her TV blog and will only be keeping up one blog from now on. I suspect she'll give TV her focus there after the wedding. But for those of you starved for her BB5 thoughts, I can tell you that she is relieved that the Four Horsemen seem to be breaking down and that their leader, Scott, is looking like the key figure in being knocked out. She is also ticked to see the reaction with the red-headed twins reveal themselves and give notices to the meathead alliance, as she calls them, realize that they are down another vote. I'm sure she'll give you updates as necessary.
Friday, July 30, 2004
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.
* 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.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
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.
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.
Monday, July 26, 2004
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.
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.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
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
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
Friday, July 16, 2004
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.
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.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
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.
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.
Monday, July 12, 2004
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.
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.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
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.
*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.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
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 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.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
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.
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.
Friday, July 02, 2004
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)
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)
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
New Harry Potter Title
Well, after much speculation, JK Rowling has released the title for book 6. Despite her making people work for it, its been dissipated on the internet fairly well. Its Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.
Now we can begin the speculation on what it means. Rowling has released a few clues that we can play around with for a while. Obviously, Harry is not the prince and Rowling has already stated that the prince also is not Voldemort. Rowling has also mentioned that she thought about using this title before settling on Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets for book 2. She said that to do this, she would have had to include some information that she decided would fit better in book 6.
So now we can speculate if the prince is someone we already know or a new character. Given that Rowling almost used this for CoS, I lean towards it being someone we already know. So who are the half bloods we already know? Of all the people's ancestry we know, only two people match this description: Seamus Finnegan and Rubeus Hagrid. Everyone else is pureblood (Malfoy, Ron, Neville, etc.) or is Muggle born (Hermione, Dean Thomas, etc.). We could argue that its someone whose ancestry hasn't been revealed yet, but what would be the fun in that ;)
Seamus has been relegated pretty much to a background character as of now. His only real stint has been his extended argument that lasted through most of Order of the Phoenix. So, I'm dismissing him for the moment. Someone who did have a reasonable role in CoS was Hagrid though. Many people (including myself) thought that Hagrid was going to be the famous death in OotP. But Rowling continues to keep him around despite his real lack of purpose. He was important in the first book, but he's pretty much been relegated to a means of expressing the trio's thoughts about each crisis. So at the moment, I suggest Hagrid as our prince, until better information is available.
I'm sure someone will have a proper breakdown of CoS and what we might be missing to construe the title to any such characters as needed. In the meantime, we'll all just have to wait.
Now we can begin the speculation on what it means. Rowling has released a few clues that we can play around with for a while. Obviously, Harry is not the prince and Rowling has already stated that the prince also is not Voldemort. Rowling has also mentioned that she thought about using this title before settling on Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets for book 2. She said that to do this, she would have had to include some information that she decided would fit better in book 6.
So now we can speculate if the prince is someone we already know or a new character. Given that Rowling almost used this for CoS, I lean towards it being someone we already know. So who are the half bloods we already know? Of all the people's ancestry we know, only two people match this description: Seamus Finnegan and Rubeus Hagrid. Everyone else is pureblood (Malfoy, Ron, Neville, etc.) or is Muggle born (Hermione, Dean Thomas, etc.). We could argue that its someone whose ancestry hasn't been revealed yet, but what would be the fun in that ;)
Seamus has been relegated pretty much to a background character as of now. His only real stint has been his extended argument that lasted through most of Order of the Phoenix. So, I'm dismissing him for the moment. Someone who did have a reasonable role in CoS was Hagrid though. Many people (including myself) thought that Hagrid was going to be the famous death in OotP. But Rowling continues to keep him around despite his real lack of purpose. He was important in the first book, but he's pretty much been relegated to a means of expressing the trio's thoughts about each crisis. So at the moment, I suggest Hagrid as our prince, until better information is available.
I'm sure someone will have a proper breakdown of CoS and what we might be missing to construe the title to any such characters as needed. In the meantime, we'll all just have to wait.
Friday, June 25, 2004
Presidential Curse
I tried to publish this entry once before but blogger seems to have eaten it. I guess that's why one should save their stuff before doing a full publish. Well, live and learn.
Earlier today we were discussing presidential politics and we got sidetracked by the presidential curse story. I'm sure you've all heard it before. During the Indian Wars of the 1820's and 30's, the Native American warrior Tecumseh proclaimed a curse, saying that every American president who was elected in a year ending in 0 would die in office. His curse has had a remarkable degree of accuracy:
1840 - William Henry Harrison - died 30 days after taking office.
1860 - Abraham Lincoln - assassinated during his second term.
1880 - James Garfield - shot but in fact died from complications due to his treatment, see more below.
1900 - William McKinley - assassinated by a radical anarchist.
1920 - Warren G Harding - died of a heart attack in 1923.
1940 - Franklin Roosevelt - died of a cerebral hemorrhage early in his 4th term, although he became eligible for the curse by his 3rd term.
1960 - John F Kennedy - assassinated in Dallas.
1980 - Ronald Reagan - shot early in his first term but survived mostly due to modern medicine and a little luck. Reagan almost died although this fact was not released to the public until much later.
Another interesting thing about the curse is the 100 year parallels:
1840, 1940 - Both presidents die due to illness shortly after beginning their term. FDR waited for the next 4 year term though.
1860, 1960 - Both presidents are assassinated while enjoying high popularity after steering the country though a significant crisis.
1880, 1980 - Both presidents are shot but do not die from their wounds. Reagan survived completely. Garfield died, but not from the bullet. The bullet passed through his body and lodged in a cyst near his spine. It is widely believed that he would have survived the incident had it not been for his "treatment." Many of the doctors probed the entry wound with unsterilized fingers and instruments, even managing to puncture Garfield's liver during an examination. Garfield eventually died of a heart attack brought on by infection 80 days after being shot.
Given these parallels, George W Bush might want to be a little bit careful. Granted, John Kerry could defeat him in 2004 and render the curse moot, but if he doesn't, Bush is still a prime target. Already there are some unsettling similarities between Bush and McKinley. McKinley was elected president as a two term governor of one of the largest and most powerful states in the Union. He also came to power in the waning days of a significant economic downturn. After being elected, McKinley cozied up to major industrialist and was even derided as being a "little boy" who was led around by his "nurse", a representative of the corporate trust. Later, he went to war in a perceived attack on American soldiers when the USS Maine exploded off Cuba. His subsequent annexation of Cuba, Guam, and the Philippines earned him the name of imperialist by his reelection opponent (William Jennings Bryan). McKinley was reelected, but shortly into his second term, he was assassinated by a member of a radical movement, working to topple Western style governments.
George W Bush has said that he tries to model himself in the manner of Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. If he were told that he was more closely following the path of William McKinley, I wonder how interested he would be in seeking reelection.
Earlier today we were discussing presidential politics and we got sidetracked by the presidential curse story. I'm sure you've all heard it before. During the Indian Wars of the 1820's and 30's, the Native American warrior Tecumseh proclaimed a curse, saying that every American president who was elected in a year ending in 0 would die in office. His curse has had a remarkable degree of accuracy:
1840 - William Henry Harrison - died 30 days after taking office.
1860 - Abraham Lincoln - assassinated during his second term.
1880 - James Garfield - shot but in fact died from complications due to his treatment, see more below.
1900 - William McKinley - assassinated by a radical anarchist.
1920 - Warren G Harding - died of a heart attack in 1923.
1940 - Franklin Roosevelt - died of a cerebral hemorrhage early in his 4th term, although he became eligible for the curse by his 3rd term.
1960 - John F Kennedy - assassinated in Dallas.
1980 - Ronald Reagan - shot early in his first term but survived mostly due to modern medicine and a little luck. Reagan almost died although this fact was not released to the public until much later.
Another interesting thing about the curse is the 100 year parallels:
1840, 1940 - Both presidents die due to illness shortly after beginning their term. FDR waited for the next 4 year term though.
1860, 1960 - Both presidents are assassinated while enjoying high popularity after steering the country though a significant crisis.
1880, 1980 - Both presidents are shot but do not die from their wounds. Reagan survived completely. Garfield died, but not from the bullet. The bullet passed through his body and lodged in a cyst near his spine. It is widely believed that he would have survived the incident had it not been for his "treatment." Many of the doctors probed the entry wound with unsterilized fingers and instruments, even managing to puncture Garfield's liver during an examination. Garfield eventually died of a heart attack brought on by infection 80 days after being shot.
Given these parallels, George W Bush might want to be a little bit careful. Granted, John Kerry could defeat him in 2004 and render the curse moot, but if he doesn't, Bush is still a prime target. Already there are some unsettling similarities between Bush and McKinley. McKinley was elected president as a two term governor of one of the largest and most powerful states in the Union. He also came to power in the waning days of a significant economic downturn. After being elected, McKinley cozied up to major industrialist and was even derided as being a "little boy" who was led around by his "nurse", a representative of the corporate trust. Later, he went to war in a perceived attack on American soldiers when the USS Maine exploded off Cuba. His subsequent annexation of Cuba, Guam, and the Philippines earned him the name of imperialist by his reelection opponent (William Jennings Bryan). McKinley was reelected, but shortly into his second term, he was assassinated by a member of a radical movement, working to topple Western style governments.
George W Bush has said that he tries to model himself in the manner of Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. If he were told that he was more closely following the path of William McKinley, I wonder how interested he would be in seeking reelection.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Political Overview
Since sports is in a bit of a lull right now, I'll just do a general political sweep around.
On Friday, Mr. Moore is releasing his new movie Fahrenheit 9/11, a title in tribute to Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. Bradbury was so impressed that he is threatening a lawsuit against Moore if he doesn't change the title for copyright violation. Not the best start. Reviews have been mixed. Most reviewers seem to say that if you leave the politics out, its very entertaining. Others, like Christopher Hitchens have a slight problem with it. Either way, liberals will rate is as the greatest thing since sliced bread, conservatives will call it the greatest move towards treason since Benedict Arnold, and people in the middle will bury their heads in the sand and scream "Why me?"
In other news, Bill Clinton is attempted to whitewash history and claiming that Ken Starr is the spawn of the devil. That may be true, but I don't think Mr. Clinton is the most objective observer of that fact. Clinton has done well in sales, although Mugglenet is quick to point out that he failed to come close to the opening day sales figures of Order of the Phoenix.
Also, the Saudis are trying to figure out how they can destroy all terrorists, keep their iron grip on wealth and power, and still preach a lifestyle of rebellion and mollification. Fareed Zakaria has good article on this that was published in Newsweek.
Last but not least, the great deciders of change have come to the conclusion that the election will be won by George W. Bush or John F. Kerry. USA Today put together a fascinating article that says that we really just don't know what's going on. So, all you people who don't care until September, keep doing what you're doing. The rest of us will be moving on to tea leaves and dreams very soon.
Paging Sybil Trelawney...
On Friday, Mr. Moore is releasing his new movie Fahrenheit 9/11, a title in tribute to Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. Bradbury was so impressed that he is threatening a lawsuit against Moore if he doesn't change the title for copyright violation. Not the best start. Reviews have been mixed. Most reviewers seem to say that if you leave the politics out, its very entertaining. Others, like Christopher Hitchens have a slight problem with it. Either way, liberals will rate is as the greatest thing since sliced bread, conservatives will call it the greatest move towards treason since Benedict Arnold, and people in the middle will bury their heads in the sand and scream "Why me?"
In other news, Bill Clinton is attempted to whitewash history and claiming that Ken Starr is the spawn of the devil. That may be true, but I don't think Mr. Clinton is the most objective observer of that fact. Clinton has done well in sales, although Mugglenet is quick to point out that he failed to come close to the opening day sales figures of Order of the Phoenix.
Also, the Saudis are trying to figure out how they can destroy all terrorists, keep their iron grip on wealth and power, and still preach a lifestyle of rebellion and mollification. Fareed Zakaria has good article on this that was published in Newsweek.
Last but not least, the great deciders of change have come to the conclusion that the election will be won by George W. Bush or John F. Kerry. USA Today put together a fascinating article that says that we really just don't know what's going on. So, all you people who don't care until September, keep doing what you're doing. The rest of us will be moving on to tea leaves and dreams very soon.
Paging Sybil Trelawney...
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
When did it Begin?
Most Americans feel that our war with Islamic fundamentalists began after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. However, I recently received an e-mail that listed various attacks committed against the US or its personnel starting back as far as 1979. Given the list and the manner in which we have dealt with them, is this simply a case of being something we can't pretend will go away any more?
November 1979 - Iranian revolutionaries break into US embassy, a violation of US territory, and seize hostages. They are eventually released as the clock hit midnight in the Carter administration.
April 1983 - A car packed with explosives detonates outside the US embassy in Beirut, Lebanon killing 63 people.
October 1983 - A truck loaded with TNT crashes into a marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 servicemen.
December 1983 - A car packed with explosives rams the gate of the US embassy in Kuwait.
September 1984 - A van filled with explosives drives into the gate of the US embassy in Beirut.
April 1985 - A bomb explodes inside a restaurant frequented by US servicemen in Madrid.
August 1985 - A car packed with explosives rams the main gate of the US Air Force Base in Rhein-Main, Germany killing 22 people.
November 1985 - The cruise ship Achille Lauro is hijacked and an American is singled out and executed.
April 1986 - TWA Flight 840 is bombed killing 4 people.
December 1988 - Pan Am Flight 103 is bombed over Scotland killing 270 people.
January 1993 - Two CIA agents are killed entering CIA headquarters in Langley, VA.
February 1993 - A van explodes in the parking garage of the World Trade Center killing 6 people and injuring over 1,000.
November 1995 - A car bomb explodes at a military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing 7 service men and women.
June 1996 - A truck bomb explodes outside a US Air Force barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia killing 19 people and injuring over 500 others.
August 1998 - Two bombs explode outside US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killing 224 people.
October 2000 - The USS Cole is bombed while in port in Aden, Yemen killing 17 sailors.
September 2001 - 4 planes are hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Given this history, it seems to me that despite our best efforts to pretend that the situation will go away, it will not. However, I don't totally believe that the situation can be fully resolved militarily. War is upon us and will be needed to stamp out the engaged enemy. But we must also look to social and economic change to cut off the recruiting process. Unfortunately, much of this is out of our control, but maybe we can help push other countries in the right direction before things get much worse.
November 1979 - Iranian revolutionaries break into US embassy, a violation of US territory, and seize hostages. They are eventually released as the clock hit midnight in the Carter administration.
April 1983 - A car packed with explosives detonates outside the US embassy in Beirut, Lebanon killing 63 people.
October 1983 - A truck loaded with TNT crashes into a marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 servicemen.
December 1983 - A car packed with explosives rams the gate of the US embassy in Kuwait.
September 1984 - A van filled with explosives drives into the gate of the US embassy in Beirut.
April 1985 - A bomb explodes inside a restaurant frequented by US servicemen in Madrid.
August 1985 - A car packed with explosives rams the main gate of the US Air Force Base in Rhein-Main, Germany killing 22 people.
November 1985 - The cruise ship Achille Lauro is hijacked and an American is singled out and executed.
April 1986 - TWA Flight 840 is bombed killing 4 people.
December 1988 - Pan Am Flight 103 is bombed over Scotland killing 270 people.
January 1993 - Two CIA agents are killed entering CIA headquarters in Langley, VA.
February 1993 - A van explodes in the parking garage of the World Trade Center killing 6 people and injuring over 1,000.
November 1995 - A car bomb explodes at a military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing 7 service men and women.
June 1996 - A truck bomb explodes outside a US Air Force barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia killing 19 people and injuring over 500 others.
August 1998 - Two bombs explode outside US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killing 224 people.
October 2000 - The USS Cole is bombed while in port in Aden, Yemen killing 17 sailors.
September 2001 - 4 planes are hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Given this history, it seems to me that despite our best efforts to pretend that the situation will go away, it will not. However, I don't totally believe that the situation can be fully resolved militarily. War is upon us and will be needed to stamp out the engaged enemy. But we must also look to social and economic change to cut off the recruiting process. Unfortunately, much of this is out of our control, but maybe we can help push other countries in the right direction before things get much worse.
Monday, June 21, 2004
HP III Review
So, Mrs. X and I went to see the third Harry Potter movie on Saturday. We were both very excited having heard lots of good things about it and having enjoyed the first two quite well. Our final opinion? Some good, some not so good.
The Good
I personally really enjoyed the darker tone of the movie and its edgier quality. Right from the beginning it kind of grabbed you and said that we were going for a left turn down this road. I also think that the acting quality of the three heroes has improved greatly over the years. Dan Radcliff still needs a little education on truly grabbing a scene and chewing it for his angst moments, but for the most part, I was quite impressed. I also liked the brief looks at their lives outside of classes and adventures. It really gave you the impression that he was where he belonged.
The Bad
Alfonzo Cuaron and Steve Kloves are a good director and writer team, but they did a bit of injustice to the movie in trying to trim it down. Two or three plot points were glossed over and a couple of things were never even addressed. Many of those things would have added barely 10 minutes to the movie and would have solved a lot of little problems that Mrs. X and I had. A perfect example is an explanation of how Sirius knew that Pettigrew was at Hogwarts. In the book we know its because he saw the picture of him in the photo the Weasley family in Egypt. So he knew he was passing himself off as an ordinary pet rat. In the movie, Sirius just knows and the point is never explained. Another point that was omitted and was quite noticeable was the explanation of how Lupin knew about the map and who Moony, Padfoot, Prongs, and Wormtail were. It could have been done quite easily at the end during that little session Harry had with Lupin. Five minutes or less of explanation. It also would have cleared up the Stag point. Instead, Cuaron deferred it to GoF which is going to be crowded enough without having to cover missed points from PoA.
The Ugly
The simple and most overwhelming flaw with this movie is that the director and scriptwriter are operating from the perspective that the audience already knows the whole story and from that, they can cut corners. As a result, anyone who doesn't know the story will be quite lost on several major points unless its explained to them. That is not a good movie making technique. I had similar reservations when The Phantom Menace came out back in 1999. There was never that explanation scene as in Episode 4 of what the force is, what a jedi knight is, and how the force is used. Lucas simply assumed that everyone knew the points from watching the first trilogy and didn't have to hit them again, despite the fact that from now on, a person will have to watch Episode 4 first and then go back to the beginning to clear up things. Not exactly what George had in mind I think.
Summary
Despite my strong language, I did enjoy the movie. I just felt that if a little extra care had been taken, it would easily rank as the best of the three. Now, I can't really bring myself to say that. Its still good and I imagine Mrs. X and I will buy it on DVD when it comes out, but it does leave you with a slight feeling of what could have been.
Overall grade: B
The Good
I personally really enjoyed the darker tone of the movie and its edgier quality. Right from the beginning it kind of grabbed you and said that we were going for a left turn down this road. I also think that the acting quality of the three heroes has improved greatly over the years. Dan Radcliff still needs a little education on truly grabbing a scene and chewing it for his angst moments, but for the most part, I was quite impressed. I also liked the brief looks at their lives outside of classes and adventures. It really gave you the impression that he was where he belonged.
The Bad
Alfonzo Cuaron and Steve Kloves are a good director and writer team, but they did a bit of injustice to the movie in trying to trim it down. Two or three plot points were glossed over and a couple of things were never even addressed. Many of those things would have added barely 10 minutes to the movie and would have solved a lot of little problems that Mrs. X and I had. A perfect example is an explanation of how Sirius knew that Pettigrew was at Hogwarts. In the book we know its because he saw the picture of him in the photo the Weasley family in Egypt. So he knew he was passing himself off as an ordinary pet rat. In the movie, Sirius just knows and the point is never explained. Another point that was omitted and was quite noticeable was the explanation of how Lupin knew about the map and who Moony, Padfoot, Prongs, and Wormtail were. It could have been done quite easily at the end during that little session Harry had with Lupin. Five minutes or less of explanation. It also would have cleared up the Stag point. Instead, Cuaron deferred it to GoF which is going to be crowded enough without having to cover missed points from PoA.
The Ugly
The simple and most overwhelming flaw with this movie is that the director and scriptwriter are operating from the perspective that the audience already knows the whole story and from that, they can cut corners. As a result, anyone who doesn't know the story will be quite lost on several major points unless its explained to them. That is not a good movie making technique. I had similar reservations when The Phantom Menace came out back in 1999. There was never that explanation scene as in Episode 4 of what the force is, what a jedi knight is, and how the force is used. Lucas simply assumed that everyone knew the points from watching the first trilogy and didn't have to hit them again, despite the fact that from now on, a person will have to watch Episode 4 first and then go back to the beginning to clear up things. Not exactly what George had in mind I think.
Summary
Despite my strong language, I did enjoy the movie. I just felt that if a little extra care had been taken, it would easily rank as the best of the three. Now, I can't really bring myself to say that. Its still good and I imagine Mrs. X and I will buy it on DVD when it comes out, but it does leave you with a slight feeling of what could have been.
Overall grade: B
Friday, June 18, 2004
The Unchecked Branch
Well, according to the ads on my blog, I'm a supporter of John Kerry now. Very amusing when you consider my politics. Of course, Mrs. X thinks I'm conservative enough to be chairman of the RNC, but I don't take it personally ;)
Much talk has been discussed (mostly in non-media circles) about the nature and problems with the press. In the past couple of years we've had the Jayson Blair scandal, the USAToday people firings, a couple of other incidents involving the NY Times, and of course, Robert Novak (guy who published CIA identities). I was reading Glenn Reynolds yesterday and he posted a story about how a couple of reporters were refusing to testify about some information they published in a story. The prosecutor wanted them to verify that the lawyer who was on trial had in fact told them the facts they used in their articles. They have refused so far as testifying would "compromise their neutrality" on the issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but I can't recall of any instance where a person was excused from testifying because it would force them to take sides. I believe that excuse is often thrown out the window when mob pigeons talk.
The press has long abandoned its true duty of informing the public. A proper press corp would state all the facts of a particular issue and leave it to the public to make up their mind about what to do about it. But in the age of news bites and 24 hour news coverage, its only some of the facts and we'll go ahead and summarize and tell you what you are supposed to think. Some of us are intelligent enough to filter out what they are saying and get the nuggets out of it. But too many people simply take the news at face value without looking at multiple sources and checking. I myself look at three different news sources when I read articles on-line. Each on presents a different perspective and it allows me to sift out what the truth is.
The press likes to call itself the "4th branch of government." However, they enjoy one aspect that the other three don't. They don't have a check and balance system on themselves. It takes great folly to knock down any reporter who has made up or embellished stories. And even then, news outlets are usually quite slow about correcting the issue and then they protect their own. Jayson Blair was dismissed as a NY Times reporter for making up stories. He then claimed it was racism that forced him out and he was quietly picked up by another outlet as a commentator and signed to a book deal. Robert Novak published the name of an active CIA agent, compromising any work that agent has done in the field. This is a felony, but Novak is still hiding behind protecting his source and no one is pursuing him out of fear of media reprisals.
I don't believe in policing the media by filtering out what they say, but we in the public should demand a much higher standard for the information we receive. If we do that, maybe we'll actually get news worth paying attention to now and again.
Much talk has been discussed (mostly in non-media circles) about the nature and problems with the press. In the past couple of years we've had the Jayson Blair scandal, the USAToday people firings, a couple of other incidents involving the NY Times, and of course, Robert Novak (guy who published CIA identities). I was reading Glenn Reynolds yesterday and he posted a story about how a couple of reporters were refusing to testify about some information they published in a story. The prosecutor wanted them to verify that the lawyer who was on trial had in fact told them the facts they used in their articles. They have refused so far as testifying would "compromise their neutrality" on the issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but I can't recall of any instance where a person was excused from testifying because it would force them to take sides. I believe that excuse is often thrown out the window when mob pigeons talk.
The press has long abandoned its true duty of informing the public. A proper press corp would state all the facts of a particular issue and leave it to the public to make up their mind about what to do about it. But in the age of news bites and 24 hour news coverage, its only some of the facts and we'll go ahead and summarize and tell you what you are supposed to think. Some of us are intelligent enough to filter out what they are saying and get the nuggets out of it. But too many people simply take the news at face value without looking at multiple sources and checking. I myself look at three different news sources when I read articles on-line. Each on presents a different perspective and it allows me to sift out what the truth is.
The press likes to call itself the "4th branch of government." However, they enjoy one aspect that the other three don't. They don't have a check and balance system on themselves. It takes great folly to knock down any reporter who has made up or embellished stories. And even then, news outlets are usually quite slow about correcting the issue and then they protect their own. Jayson Blair was dismissed as a NY Times reporter for making up stories. He then claimed it was racism that forced him out and he was quietly picked up by another outlet as a commentator and signed to a book deal. Robert Novak published the name of an active CIA agent, compromising any work that agent has done in the field. This is a felony, but Novak is still hiding behind protecting his source and no one is pursuing him out of fear of media reprisals.
I don't believe in policing the media by filtering out what they say, but we in the public should demand a much higher standard for the information we receive. If we do that, maybe we'll actually get news worth paying attention to now and again.
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Badge of Shame
Mr. Clinton was recently interviewed about things relating to his new book. Among the things he discussed was his impeachment and the following trial. He is quoted as saying that he considers his fight against the impeachment trial as "a badge of honor." He goes on, "I don't see it as a stain, because it (the impeachment process) was illegitimate." He added that the process was an abuse of power.
Illegitimate? Now, I may agree that the Republicans were a bit zealous with their pursuit, but Mr. Clinton did commit an impeachable offense (perjury) and under the constitution, Congress has the right to draft articles when the President commits such acts. One might argue that the first impeached president, Andrew Johnson, also did not really deserve his impeachment and it was a case of an over zealous Republican Congress getting after a Democratic president. But history doesn't make that argument. They note that Andrew Johnson was impeached for abuse of power. He was not convicted though and neither was Mr. Clinton.
It may have been mostly partisan politics, but Mr. Clinton should not whine about how he was the victim in the whole affair. He is the one who first committed the affair and then elected to commit perjury during the Jones deposition. If you want to avoid situations like this, jut don't do it in the first place. As a society, we rely too much on doing things we shouldn't do and then make up excuses and avoidances after we are caught. The upcoming months regarding the Kobe Bryant trial are going to be perfect examples.
You're like the thief who has no remorse about doing the deed, but a great deal of remorse about being caught. -Rhett Butler
Illegitimate? Now, I may agree that the Republicans were a bit zealous with their pursuit, but Mr. Clinton did commit an impeachable offense (perjury) and under the constitution, Congress has the right to draft articles when the President commits such acts. One might argue that the first impeached president, Andrew Johnson, also did not really deserve his impeachment and it was a case of an over zealous Republican Congress getting after a Democratic president. But history doesn't make that argument. They note that Andrew Johnson was impeached for abuse of power. He was not convicted though and neither was Mr. Clinton.
It may have been mostly partisan politics, but Mr. Clinton should not whine about how he was the victim in the whole affair. He is the one who first committed the affair and then elected to commit perjury during the Jones deposition. If you want to avoid situations like this, jut don't do it in the first place. As a society, we rely too much on doing things we shouldn't do and then make up excuses and avoidances after we are caught. The upcoming months regarding the Kobe Bryant trial are going to be perfect examples.
You're like the thief who has no remorse about doing the deed, but a great deal of remorse about being caught. -Rhett Butler
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Mono... D'OH!!!
I've been waiting for you Phil Jackson. When I left you, I was but a learner, now I am the master.
I know, Larry Brown isn't Darth Vader, but it was funny in my head when I thought it up a few minutes ago. If anything, Phil Jackson should be Vader since he is head of the evil empire Lakers. But the quote is funnier this way. Hats off to the Pistons. We'll get about two days worth of praise and then its back to the breaking of the Laker fellowship. Good riddance.
On the lighter side, I now have Simpsons: Season 4 on DVD. I haven't watched quite all of them yet, and I haven't even touched the commentaries yet, but I imagine that will change soon. I'm even going to save up a little bit and not watch "I Love Lisa" until Mrs. X and I are together for the weekend and she can enjoy it with me. She is a great fan of that episode. In the meantime, I'll just annoy everyone with quotes from season 4.
If you're going to get mad at me every time I do something stupid, then I'll just have to stop doing stupid things.
I know, Larry Brown isn't Darth Vader, but it was funny in my head when I thought it up a few minutes ago. If anything, Phil Jackson should be Vader since he is head of the evil empire Lakers. But the quote is funnier this way. Hats off to the Pistons. We'll get about two days worth of praise and then its back to the breaking of the Laker fellowship. Good riddance.
On the lighter side, I now have Simpsons: Season 4 on DVD. I haven't watched quite all of them yet, and I haven't even touched the commentaries yet, but I imagine that will change soon. I'm even going to save up a little bit and not watch "I Love Lisa" until Mrs. X and I are together for the weekend and she can enjoy it with me. She is a great fan of that episode. In the meantime, I'll just annoy everyone with quotes from season 4.
If you're going to get mad at me every time I do something stupid, then I'll just have to stop doing stupid things.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Basketball Musings
Much ballyhoo and ink has been wasted in the last two days as we await the possible coronation of the Detroit Pistons as kings of basketball. Some of this is understandable. No Eastern team has won the NBA championship since the last year of the Jordan Bulls in 1998. In fact, over the course of the last 6 years, the West has fielded the top 4 or 5 teams in basketball. It was freely acknowledged a few years ago that the Western Conference Finals between the Lakers and the Sacramento Kings was the real NBA finals.
Such is not the case now. The quality of play in the West has slipped and at least two teams in the East seem to be returning to the ideas which made basketball fun to watch back in the 80's and early 90's. Back when it was all about the team and not the individual. Both Detroit and Indiana built teams designed to work together. Detroit beat an Indiana team that is still maturing (with the exception of Reggie Miller) and are now functioning smoothly against an overhyped Laker team.
Many people in the media and on the street like to think that the Lakers are just imploding from the personalities and egos. I won't say that's not true, but I think we give too little credit to the Pistons. They are not the exciting Bad Boys of the late 80's, but they are efficient and its quite nice to not have any chest thumping until the goal has been achieved.
Goodness knows what's going to happen in the off season, but it'll be interesting to see if there is any break-up of the "greatest team ever built" or if they give it one more try next year.
On a side note, I think we can expect that the US will not win the gold medal in basketball, losing to either one of the Balkans, Spain, or perhaps Brazil. Then we can at least drop this stupid Dream Team logo to every basketball team. I'm sorry. There was only one dream team: the '92 Barcelona team. Everything after that has been but a pale shadow, gold medal or not.
Such is not the case now. The quality of play in the West has slipped and at least two teams in the East seem to be returning to the ideas which made basketball fun to watch back in the 80's and early 90's. Back when it was all about the team and not the individual. Both Detroit and Indiana built teams designed to work together. Detroit beat an Indiana team that is still maturing (with the exception of Reggie Miller) and are now functioning smoothly against an overhyped Laker team.
Many people in the media and on the street like to think that the Lakers are just imploding from the personalities and egos. I won't say that's not true, but I think we give too little credit to the Pistons. They are not the exciting Bad Boys of the late 80's, but they are efficient and its quite nice to not have any chest thumping until the goal has been achieved.
Goodness knows what's going to happen in the off season, but it'll be interesting to see if there is any break-up of the "greatest team ever built" or if they give it one more try next year.
On a side note, I think we can expect that the US will not win the gold medal in basketball, losing to either one of the Balkans, Spain, or perhaps Brazil. Then we can at least drop this stupid Dream Team logo to every basketball team. I'm sorry. There was only one dream team: the '92 Barcelona team. Everything after that has been but a pale shadow, gold medal or not.
Monday, June 14, 2004
Splitting the Electorate
There has been a lot of discussion lately about the flaws in the electoral college system. Most Democrats will denounce the system, reminding you that Gore won the popular vote by nearly 500,000 votes. However, Republicans support the system and will point out that Bush won more states (30 vs. 20) and the electoral college total. This particular debate is pretty stupid as there were alternate outcomes for either side and if the roles had been reversed you would have had the same argument with the names of the parties reversed.
The real problem is that because its an all or nothing system within each state, 33 states have been taken off the board. People in those states are told that their state is going for candidate X or Y and, subsequently, they decide not to go out and vote, especially if their candidate is the one not going to win that state. Meanwhile, those of us in the other 17 states get saturated with ads and become so disgusted with the process that we decide not to vote because we hate both guys.
Yet we can't go to a popular vote either because then the candidates would focus solely on large cities. You would get the same effect were the rural voters are told that their votes don't matter and the people in the cities become disgusted and don't vote.
So what's the solution? A fellow I work with had a fairly good idea. Keep the electoral college system, but modify it such that electors are awarded based on how each candidate does in the state.
Example: Candidates X, Y, and Z are vying for the election. The state of Florida has 25 electoral votes. On election night, Candidate X gets 51%, candidate Y gets 45%, and candidate Z gets 4% of the Florida vote. Under the old system, candidate X would get all 25 electoral votes. Under the new system, candidate X would get 13 electoral votes, candidate Y would get 11 electoral votes, and candidate Z would get 1 electoral vote.
Such a system would one, force the candidates to pay attention to all the races in all the states and two, would enable third parties to get enough recognition that they would go up in eyes of the public and get enough support to get federal matching funds.
There are however, two small problems with this new system. First, large population states would get more treatment, although they pretty much already do now so I can't say that we can necessarily fix that no matter what the system. Second, the two parties are so scared of third parties taking hold that they will never allow the constitutional amendment needed to make this system viable to come to a vote.
The answer? Petitions. Most people will sign any petition if it means changing how government officials get elected and party anger will be pretty high after this next election that the losing party might actually consider doing something to get themselves back in power again. Maybe it will work, maybe not. But we can at least try. After all, we're the ones who are supposed to be in control here.
The real problem is that because its an all or nothing system within each state, 33 states have been taken off the board. People in those states are told that their state is going for candidate X or Y and, subsequently, they decide not to go out and vote, especially if their candidate is the one not going to win that state. Meanwhile, those of us in the other 17 states get saturated with ads and become so disgusted with the process that we decide not to vote because we hate both guys.
Yet we can't go to a popular vote either because then the candidates would focus solely on large cities. You would get the same effect were the rural voters are told that their votes don't matter and the people in the cities become disgusted and don't vote.
So what's the solution? A fellow I work with had a fairly good idea. Keep the electoral college system, but modify it such that electors are awarded based on how each candidate does in the state.
Example: Candidates X, Y, and Z are vying for the election. The state of Florida has 25 electoral votes. On election night, Candidate X gets 51%, candidate Y gets 45%, and candidate Z gets 4% of the Florida vote. Under the old system, candidate X would get all 25 electoral votes. Under the new system, candidate X would get 13 electoral votes, candidate Y would get 11 electoral votes, and candidate Z would get 1 electoral vote.
Such a system would one, force the candidates to pay attention to all the races in all the states and two, would enable third parties to get enough recognition that they would go up in eyes of the public and get enough support to get federal matching funds.
There are however, two small problems with this new system. First, large population states would get more treatment, although they pretty much already do now so I can't say that we can necessarily fix that no matter what the system. Second, the two parties are so scared of third parties taking hold that they will never allow the constitutional amendment needed to make this system viable to come to a vote.
The answer? Petitions. Most people will sign any petition if it means changing how government officials get elected and party anger will be pretty high after this next election that the losing party might actually consider doing something to get themselves back in power again. Maybe it will work, maybe not. But we can at least try. After all, we're the ones who are supposed to be in control here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
