In The News

What a big night for Sen. John McCain. He locked down the Republican nomination and can now begin securing a conservative base. Big night. This morning, I bounced around among the cable news networks when I saw that Dubya invited McCain to the White House on Wednesday for a lunch and an endorsement.

“John McStraight-Talk in the White House?” I thought. I reflected some, and for the first time in this primary season, the thought of another Republican in the White House didn’t seem so abstract.

I intentionally haven’t posted a blog since Super Tuesday, now one month ago. In that time, Sen. Barack Obama won 12 consecutive contests. However, since THAT time, he’s lost three in a row (a streak that will end once the Texas caucus numbers are in, but you get the point). I planned on writing an Obama victory entry today, and that I am not is rationale for the utter normalcy I see in McStraight-Talk’s Rose Garden luncheon.

Two weeks ago it looked as though the Republican Party was in complete disarray. They were on the verge of nominating a candidate who many of party members did not want (who would also be the oldest ever president-elect), supported an unpopular war which has led to a grossly unconservative-like expenditure, were being out-fundraised by their Democrat counterparts by staggering amounts and had a less enthusiastic, less mobilized, generally smaller voting base. And did I mention that Dubya is still the President?

Nope, things did not look good. On the other hand, Obama Fever was in full force, he was picking up considerable momentum, both he and Hillary were raising boatloads of dollars and did I mention that Dubya is still the President? At that time, March 4 looked as though it might be the congealing moment for the Democrats, when a nominee would be selected and the Republicans would be caught looking at their feet wondering if the guy they picked was a guy they really wanted. Bang, Democrats (namely Obama) jump on him early, drive the war, the loose spending, the economy into the minds of voters, then November would be a foregone conclusion.

Wrong.

The New York Times got the ball rolling, doing more to unite the Republicans behind McCain than even a March 4 victory margin of 90-10 could. The Republican primary voters pushed it along with their convincing consent of McCain. And last, but not least, the Democratic voters pushed it into mach 5 with the decision to keep the Dem nominees chipping away at each other.

I’m not bashing the voters in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island or Vermont. They simply voted for who they thought could best lead this country (well, maybe that’s what they did; I’ll have an entry about that soon). But the talk now turns to a divided Democratic Party. The talk sounds an awful lot like what we heard during the pre-Super Tuesday analysis of the Republican race.

What this all means is that, to someone like me, another Republican going to the White House looks quite ordinary. I don’t even have a joke about it (i.e. “steal some of the china cause you ain’t gonna be back”). McStraight-Talk will be able to use this momentum to coalesce the Republican base, now that they’re all back to playing “follow-the-leader.” Much more worrisome for the Democrats is that he’ll be able to piggyback the arguments that they use against on another as he begins to form and implement his general election strategy. While the Dems bicker, McStraight-Talk will be allowed to set the terms and parameters for the presidential banter, similar to what happened to John Kerry in 2004 when he was slow to respond to the flip-flopper attacks. When the Democratic National Convention ends, the nominee will have to play on McStraight-Talk’s field.

After Hillary’s big March 4 victories, there is no certainty in which way the remaining 350 or so superdelegates will decide. With new questions concerning Sen. Obama’s integrity and record, the race looks to tighten from here out. If Clinton wins Pennsylvania, and thus all of the big states, then the Democrats have a real problem on their hands, one that will last until August.

In that time, McStraight-Talk will establish the rules for the general election. Then he’ll probably kick back and watch Hillary and Obama so his dirty work. I might use that time to warm up to the phrase, “President McStraight-Talk.”

Bertrand Russell once wrote, “And Man saw that all is passing in this mad, monstrous world, that all is struggling to snatch, at any cost, a few brief moments of life before Death’s inexorable decree.”

Russell wondered how one was to believe in hope in light of such an existence. “The savage, like ourselves,” he wrote, “feels the oppression of his impotence before the powers of Nature.” The power of nature, he thought, was extensive enough so as to cause any sense of our own power to evaporate. Our emancipation, thus, relies in our “own love of the good,” our dedication to peace, freedom and respect of beauty.

Mankind’s existence, in large part, has recognized only the power of nature as its guide, or perhaps more accurately put, as its sovereign. It is in the latest stages of human development that man has actively sought to lead man, not out of necessity or out of a concern for creed, but out of a desire to equate him or herself with the only absolute powers in the universe—those of nature. Personal glory, prestige and legacy now drive man’s need, as it were, to lead. This active pursuit of temporal power has embossed itself into the fabric of man’s modern existence to the extent that its place seems intuitive at the side of nature’s power.

Like the savage, we come to realize, whether through wisdom accrued throughout life or at the dictation of the universe’s undetermined gyrations, that any power man can hold or create is undeniably at the behest of nature’s authority.

Though we are slaves to the forces of the natural order of things, Russell always believed that man’s life was worth living. Once we recognize the forces that grip us (namely time, fate and death according to Russell), we can live freely in our appreciation for that which is beautiful, in our deliberations of our past and of our futures, in the releasing of momentary aspirations. But, we must believe in and appreciate the good. And while there is an individual acting on behalf of us, we must carry the belief that he or she shall act in appreciation of the good as well. One who will allow us not to dwell on the inevitable death, but who will allow us prance in the light of imagination and hope. Russell writes:

“United with his fellow men by the strongest of all ties, the tie of a common doom, the free man finds that a new vision is with him always, shedding over every daily task the light of love. The life of Man is a long march through the night, surrounded by invisible foes, tortured by weariness and pain, towards a goal that few can hope to reach, and where none may tarry long. One by one, as they march, our comrades vanish from our sight, seized by the silent orders of omnipotent Death. Very brief is the time in which we can help them, in which their happiness or misery is decided. Be it ours to shed sunshine on their path, to lighten their sorrows by the balm of sympathy, to give them the pure joy of a never-tiring affection, to strengthen failing courage, to instill faith in hours of despair. Let us not weigh in grudging scales their merits and demerits, but let us think only of their need—of the sorrows, the difficulties, perhaps the blindnesses, that make the misery of their lives; let us remember that they are fellow sufferers in the same darkness, actors in the same tragedy with ourselves. And so, when their day is over, when their good and their evil have become eternal by the immortality of the past, be it ours to feel that, where they suffered, where they failed, no deed of ours was the cause; but wherever a spark of the divine fire kindled in their hearts, we were ready with encouragement, with sympathy, with brave words in which high courage glowed.”

With those words, both Bertrand Russell and I officially endorse Barack Obama.

We’re in the midst of another award season, and with the Academy announcing their official Oscar nominations tomorrow night, I figured now would be a good time to post my long overdue entertainment (read: movies) blog. So, without further ado:

I’ll start by correcting the Golden Globes’ mistakes, that is selecting my own best movies and performances.

Best Picture: No Country for Old Men. The Globes went ahead made the expected pick, that is the overwhelming and boring Atonement. Don’t get me wrong, it was a wonderful movie, beautiful, stunning. And boring. I’m not gonna fall for the heart-wrenching sort-of love flick, and pick the year’s masterpiece in a year of fantastic variety and quality. I have to give a little nod to Juno, as well.

(On a side note: My desire to see No Country burned so hot that I didn’t even notice the sub-40 degree climate of the theater I saw it in. The heater broke, and I was warned I might not make it the whole way through alive. It was 7 degrees outside, but I would’ve sat through a lashing to see it.)

The Ryan Leaf Award for Disappointment: Rescue Dawn. The movie had so much potential. In theory the story (a U.S. pilot is captured by, then escapes from, the Vietcong), the actors (Christian Bale and Steve Zahn), the director (Werner Herzog), the location (jungle POW camp) adds up to an Oscar frontrunner. But somehow, the movie fails to register a pulse. There was so little excitement, such a mundane score, and shoddy editing that not even Bale and Zahn’s body transformation could save it.

Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis. Is there any question about this? Just build him another case for the awards he reels in when he decides to step in front of a camera again in 2013.

Best Actress: Angelina Jolie. If you have any doubts about Jolie’s acting chops, just watch her break down upon discovering her husband’s dead in A Mighty Heart. Heart-stopping.

The Mel Gibson Award (Overdramatic to the Extent of Lunacy in a Bad Performance): Gerard Butler. Save me this crap about how 300 was ground-breaking and how it pushed grandpa into cardiac arrest with its relentless excitement. It was ridiculous. End of story.

The Christopher Walken Scene-Stealer Award: Shaun Toub. The critics like Sacha Baron Cohen’s cameo in Sweeney Todd, and he was good for light laugh in a pretty dark movie. But anyone who saw The Kite Runner will remember Toub’s inspiring and sobering performance for year’s to come.

The Korean War Veterans Award (Forgotten/Overlooked Performances): Ethan Hawke and Don Cheadle. This should actually be called the Don Cheadle award. He might be the best actor of this generation, but doesn’t ever seem to get the press he deserves. That holds true again for Talk To Me. As for Ethan Hawke, I’ve been critical over the years. I was told he was a great actor, just to give him a chance. Well, after watching his gutsy performance in Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead, I’m a believer.

The Spike Lee Award for Ballsy-ness: Cate Blanchett. It’s one thing for an actor to take on the persona of the immortal Bob Dylan. It’s a completely different realm to imagine a woman doing it. Bravo, Cate. Bravo.

The Number 23 Award for Worst Movie of the Year: The Number 23

The “Change” Award for Most Overplayed Theme/Plotline: The Dance Crew. This extends beyond the last year, actually, but its putrid monotony deserves some kind of mention. So, take a guess. To which recent movie (Step Up 2: The Streets, How She Move, Step Up, Take the Lead, Stomp the Yard, You Got Served, etc.) do I refer: A timid newcomer moves to a new town and is immediately taken by the scores of professionally trained dance crews. To fit in and prove something relatively unimportant to their self, newcomer joins the crew, which just so happens to be in preparation for the biggest dance competition ever. Newcomer is rejected at first, only to prove that he/she can really “bring it” (one established member usually vouches for newcomer). Newcomer’s crew runs into their rival crew, which threatens to stomp them (a dance metaphor), and a training montage follows. The big day comes (accompanied by rain or fire or some dramatic element) and newcomer kicks ass. They win and everyone is happy.

After spending a few hours blowing time on YouTube or Wikipedia or any other number of sites that people blow time on, I like to take a shower. It makes me feel filthy. It makes me feel uncomfortably close to the losers who spend their time carousing porn sites and looking for videos of skateboarders falling off stair sets. In fact, I usually brush my teeth too. Or shave, or trim my hair. I feel that dirty.

After watching Benny Lava or Splinter for a few uncounted repeats, I’ll look at the time and notice that a few hours went by. I wonder what happened to my life. It just feels like time for a shower, just so I can get reset. Even after I act like a real pointer and watch Barack Obama’s keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I don’t feel any better than the jerks who die of malnutrition because they’ve been playing Warcraft for six consecutive days. It’s sick.

If, lying on my death bed, I could have back the hours I lost watching “Dan Marino Freak Out,” I’d have enough juice to run a half marathon and raise a family. For all the hours I’ve saved on research and writing for school assignments, the Internet sucks away more time than it saves. Let’s not even talk about my dignity, which is in tatters. If David Koresh came along today, the Branch Davidians wouldn’t have taken off and Waco wouldn’t have ever happened. Why get off my ass to travel to the cult meeting when I can just join their email list? Sure that’s positive, but look at my company. I’m not sure who’s worse: cult leaders or cult followers. If you can’t wrap your mind around that, try this: off-season, asswipe jocks who play Madden all day long or the off-season, asswipe jockstraps who watch them.

I thought this to myself as I walked home from Jerome Stafford’s house at 1:30 in the morning. My train of thought was interrupted by a black and white rabbit resting on the side of the road. It was a pet bunny, not something you see resting on the side of the road. It wasn’t going to burrow or run. It just looked at me for about 40 seconds. That bunny made me feel like the college dropout who frequents local high school parties to hit on sophomores.

I walked away. Then I realized that the bunny and the Internet made me feel the same way.

Just a quick observation.

As I punched in the MSNBC url on my browser (I certainly and unequivocally recommend Firefox), I skimmed over the big headline:

“Saddam’s Party Welcomed Back in Iraq”

Underneath that, in the related box:

“Bush: ‘Hope’ Returning to Baghdad”

I didn’t think about it at first. I just went along.

“Wait. What?!?” I thought to myself (I may have said it aloud, I was pretty shocked). “Bush regards the return of the Baath party as a sign of hope for Baghdad?” That seemed a bit counterintuitive, to say the least, so I read on.

Turned out Bush was talking about the so-called “surge” and the possible troop reduction by mid-year (we’ve got our fingers crossed). It wasn’t related to the Baath party at all, although Washington is pleased about that development. Just another lesson that headlines and layout can tell their own stories.

Days after crying forged the way to a victory in the New Hampshire primary for Hillary Clinton, President Bush decided he’d give it a try too. While touring the Holocaust memorial in Israel this week, George Bush switched on the waterworks a couple of times.

The difference between the tears (nearly) shed by the two is that Bush’s were genuine and not nearly as effective in swaying public opinion as Clinton’s. People with functioning hearts and minds ought to be emotionally moved by a ceremony like the one in Israel. This is why I’ll give Bush a pass on his statement about Auschwitz. In case you missed it, the President said that the U.S., back in 1939 or so, should have bombed the areas surrounding the notorious concentration camp. Damn you FDR.

Left: Bush in Israel

But, he was moved. I think we can respect that.

But Hillary. It was almost insulting, the depths to which she had to dig. It was a desperate Hail Mary heave into the end zone, and, Kordell Stewart and Doug Flutie aside, those never work. Then Hillary won.

Hillary won after being as many as 13 points behind Barack Obama in the polls—which are only hours old at any given moment. That’s a 16-point swing. I’ll be frank:  I’m an Obama supporter, so I suffered some personal angst. But, in the aftermath, it’s been fashionable for the enlightened media types to ask, “What happened?”

Bill Maher, from what I gathered watching the latest episode of Real Time, thought that the Republicans might have rigged the results so that Hillary would emerge victorious. His idea is that the GOP believe that, come the general election, they’d have a much better chance to beat Clinton than they do Obama.

Others (i.e. Dennis Kucinich) are looking into voter fraud on account of hackers or faulty voting machine tabulation by the corporations that manufacture the machines. Most pundits are examining the polls and the pollsters, looking for the faults and cracks in the methodology. Also very popular is the idea that the people of New Hampshire were fed up with the media coronation of Obama and “wanted to continue the debate,” bucking the idea that Hillary was finished. This one has heavy play on MSNBC particularly.

I thought about it for a while, all throughout the typical stages grieving. It was appealing to think that some hacker did it. However, none of it seemed intuitive to me. So I stopped thinking. Then, I figured it out. Hillary cried and people voted for her.

By “cried,” I don’t mean “found her voice” or that she finally let her hair down. If it took her “35 years” to “find her voice,” I don’t know that she has experience I trust. She pulled a hell of an act and tricked a lot of voters into thinking that she was somehow more genuine overnight. Voters get consumed by the character charades, swayed by persuasive, yet empty, rhetoric. Meanwhile, the issues are merely a conduit by which we get to see our favorite performers perform (see Fred Thompson).

I didn’t think Hill had it in her. I also didn’t think that voters would be swayed by the sham. Alas, that is what happened. So we turn to the future and ask, “Who’s next?” Let’s examine our glassy-eyed candidates for the answer:

Mike Huckabee has to be the leading contender in this category. He seems in touch with his feelings in a very un-Republican sort of way. He’s personable and affable. As such, can’t you just see the tears of recollection and joy as he talks about his diabetes diagnosis and subsequent rediscovery of bodily health? He’s my top choice.

Fred Thompson is an actor, so he has an inherent (unfair?) advantage. He’s a little behind the ball and looking for a big surge before February 5. If it worked for Bush and Clinton, he may be desperate enough to try too.

John Edwards said that he has never cried during a campaign—perhaps not in any political context. He has a stone cold limbic system, so emotional distress is out of the question. But a man as clean cut as he has vulnerabilities. Watch for the eye-faucets if a supporter runs a hand through that $400 hair-do.

Barack Obama is a young man, and he’s hip with the youth vote. Actually, he may be creating the youth vote in this election. The metro, 21^st century man is in touch with his feelings, and like Stevie Wonder, ain’t afraid to cry. Anyone backed by Oprah has access to the woman vote, but he’s beginning to lose his grip. A tear or two may remind the character voters why they liked him in the first place. But as the affirmed front-runner, he won’t want to rock the boat too much. Unless Oprah puts him up to it.

As for the rest, Rudy Guiliani is too tough to cry; libertarians just don’t; robots can’t; and elections don’t make war heroes do it. But in this primary season, surprises aren’t really all that surprising.

I’m currently taking bets.

This was going to be a four-part series. Then I saw this phrase chalked into the side of a brick wall on campus. I figured I didn’t need to make any smug remarks to explain its significance. In fact, I don’t need to respond in any way to this image. It makes my entire case for me. This person pays $40,000 a year for an education that they don’t want–at least one they don’t value. The legacy lives on.

Instead of bashing Hillary Clinton again, this is the first of a four part series on the American college student.

Part I - Graduation

We’ll start where it all is supposed to end. Graduation. Students accumulate grades and credits toward the goal of graduating. That’s the point for most students. It’s also one of the problems with how we perceive education.

The pitfall of the ubiquity of higher education in America is the presumption that it is a service expected to aid upper/upper-middle class kids. At my high school, as well as many others around the country, “college” wasn’t the obvious or most abundant answer to the question, “What are you gonna do after you graduate?” But it is for the kids whose parents can afford it, no questions asked. You just go to college because that’s what you do.

What you get, then, is a group of people who believe that college education is a logical and mundane step toward their maintenance of an upper-tiered lifestyle. Mundane, in this sense, refers to study, not so much social scene (which will be explored in consequent parts).

So what? So what if that’s why some people go to college?

Let’s look at the results. Logically, you have a generation that doesn’t value the education they receive as anything more than a means to an end. Ask graduates from generations past, and they’ll tell you that the education and the maturation of their beliefs was an end in itself. Getting into a school and a finishing a program, that is graduation, become menial functions.

This may be construed as a positive. Many American teenagers expect to participate in higher education. Of this fact, we ought to be proud. However, I wonder what is the value of a degree that isn’t fully valued by the people who own them? It is a useful weapon in assuring financial stability - that’s it. The inherent value of the education itself isn’t as important as the graduation ceremony.

What this means is that we have graduates who are very in-tune with the functional practices and channels by which to acquire work, but America’s predominance in the sciences and medicine has waned in worldwide comparison in recent decades. This coincides with higher enrollment levels nationwide. It’s not a difficult connection to make. (By the by, I gathered these tidbits from a science magazine I read during a recent hospital visit.)

What this all means is that from an academic standpoint, graduation is on the mind from day one. Not the process by which students acheive hightened enlightenment, just the degree that can help perpetuate the family name and creed. Graduation is all that’s necessary to keep Mom and Dad happy, not education.

Just a few notes on the things I’ve caught running through my head this past week:

I just saw an AP poll that revealed that minorities don’t go trick-or-treating as much as white kids. The numbers break down like this - 73% of whites said their kids trick-or-treat, compared to only 56% of minorities. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. Actually, I’m surprised that 56% of minority kids go out for Halloween. Government-supported real estate policies since 1946 have been pushing minorities into amenity deprived inner-city housing projects. No jobs, no maintenance, no government assistance, brutal crime both from criminals and police. Why the hell would you want to go trick-or-treating? No one has candy. Methinks this is how it works, unless you want to believe that black and Latino kids just don’t like to dress up in costumes and eat candy. I have similar thoughts regarding “Mischief Night,” which I had never heard of before this past week.

I can’t stand Boston sports fans - especially “Red Sox Nation.” Please, speak for yourselves. The whole nation isn’t behind the Sox. These people have this idea that if you don’t like the Yankees, naturally you pull for the Red Sox. They spew this absurdity such as, “No one hates the Red Sox,” or “We’re America’s team.” That’s baloney. I hate the Red Sox and their $143 million payroll, and one outside New England likes them either. It’s a big nation out there, and it doesn’t belong to the Red Sox. (For the record, I still hate the Yankees more.)

I’d like to comment on the fallout from Ellen’s “Doggate.” … Well, to be frank, I don’t think I have anything to say that hasn’t already been said.

I’m convinced that voters (at least the ones who are polled) don’t let their brains function once campaign commercials start hitting the airwaves, which is a real shame considering we’re forming opinions about who we’ll select to be our next President. Why do so many people still stand by Hillary? She’s not trustworthy, she’s tone-deaf, she’s never been accountable to any constituency and she has a shaky voting history (see Secure Fence Act). After vowing to fight for immigrants rights, she went ahead and voted to put up 700 miles of fence along the border. Make of that what you want. Take what you will from her reported eavesdropping from the book “Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton.” But my sense is that no one makes anything of anything, and that people continue to support Clinton because of her name, the fact that she is a woman and her poll numbers.

One final note relating to the above paragraph, can we please stop talking about “experience” in this campaign. Here’s the truth: no one running for President has experience as President, especially in the current culture of the world. How much does it matter that Barack Obama doesn’t have a lot of experience, year-wise, in the Senate? Why does experience equate effectiveness? Between Obama and Clinton, who really has more experience as an accountable representative of their constituents? Obama has been responsive and responsible, not to mention more personal, than has Clinton, whose move to New York was entirely political. She has done little to address the many concerns of the state and its people, while the same, thankfully, cannot be said of Obama. What kind of experience are we looking for?

Can someone explain to me why young liberals like Ron Paul?

In case you missed it, Paul has been all over various magazines; he’s been on The Daily Show (which he said he never saw before being on it); he has more MySpace friends than any other Republican candidate; he’s more viewed on YouTube than any candidates, even more than Barack Obama. And despite the fact that he trails far behind the Republican frontrunners, he’s managed to raise $5 million for his campaign.

The 72-year-old Texas congressman has gone from having the least name recognition at the beginning of the year to now, being one of the surprise sensations of the 2008 Presidential election.

How has he done it? He’s drawn support from both the (far far) right and the left, especially young people – as evidenced by his MySpace and YouTube success. That has happened because of his vehement opposition to the Iraq war since the beginning.

Over and over again he has begged the Bush administration to “open the Constitution” and to read it. Not only that, he has stated that he would issue a withdrawal from that disaster in an instant. Of course, he won’t support an action against Iran. In fact, Paul is against any international intervention of any kind.

When you also consider that Paul wants to eliminate the federal income tax, has always voted against the Patriot Act and its various renewals and would, in effect, legalize marijuana (among other drugs) if elected, well, we can begin to see why liberal, college-age people might take a liking to this guy.

This is where we begin to get into the murky waters of political ideologies, and just how unaware many people are of the divisions.

He’s against the so-called War on Drugs because he wants to abolish most federal agencies, including the ones that police federal drug law. Aside from withdrawing from the Middle East, Paul would just as soon have us withdraw from the UN, NAFTA and the irrelevant NATO. Paul doesn’t like gun control or abortion – hell he doesn’t even like the Federal Reserve, you know, the central banking agency in the United States. The ones who maintain the fiscal balance of the entire country.

Ron Paul doesn’t like the idea of immigrants, either. He does like free trade in its most unregulated sense, though. Anything that requires regulation on the part of the federal government, you’d probably be safe to bet that Ron Paul doesn’t like it.

Ron Paul is a libertarian – the most conservative of all the conservatives running on the Republican ballot. Why oh why would any remotely liberal person, specifically college students, support a libertarian for President? (Though, on a positive note, he is from the Pittsburgh area.)

I’m convinced that the War in Iraq has so completely skewed our political sense of up and down that we might as well all be diagnosed with vertigo. Liberals like Ron Paul because he is an outspoken critic of the war, missing the point of why he’s so outspoken altogether. College students may very well like him because he stands beside many of their interests, assuming that many students reside in the upper class. Or maybe they just like him because he’d legitimize street drugs.

He follows the Constitution to every single smear of ink, and he rides shotgun with freedom. Who doesn’t like the Constitution and freedom for all? Who likes anarchy?

Okay, he’s not an anarchist. Anyway, when push comes to shove, I imagine that people will come around and get a hold on their senses. Some ardent supporters may not be able to do that, but I trust that this odd left-wing support of Ron Paul will end.

Of course, I also trusted that we wouldn’t be stupid enough to give Bush another four years to prove himself.