Oh, I almost forgot why I started with Vermicious Knids. Lola found the real America.
Our Bedford-style suburb doesn't count. It's a bubble of million dollar shacks and luxury cars driven by teenagers. Now that Romney's out, the signs are all for Obama and Hillary.
But lo, last Friday, Lola was making an emergency Lightning McQueen run. Long story. But this took her to Target.
On a Friday night.
Oh yeah.
As she navigated the overweight mother/daughter pairs buying care packages for the troops - and Dr. Phil DVDs, she came upon the mack daddy. The large-ish woman (note: you don't have to be overweight to be considered a typical American overseas, but it helps) who was eating from the Fritos bag that she was in the process of purchasing and yelling at the cashier about the fact that the sticker said $1.98, but it rang up for $1.99 spewing out chunks of fried corn goodness onto the poor cashier.
It's good to be home.
Ok, but seriously: I suppose everywhere is like this, but I do feel that the US has become much more segregated than when I was younger. The racial segregation is still there (which it largely isn't in the UK), but the economic segregation has become much more blatant. (The UK doesn't have so much of that, though it, of course, exists, in the UK it's more about where you went to school, who you know, what your accent is. You can buy your way up, but not as much as in the US.)
Is it really that way, or am I just in a different part of the economic pile and am seeing it more?
Also had a thought this morning: given the weakening dollar and the loss of face around the world and the looming economic turmoil - are we leaving the 1950's and entering the 1960's and (more to the point) the 1970's? Are we at the twilight of the American century? Do empires fall faster now that everything seems to have accellerated?
No answers, just lots of questions.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Vermicious knids
Willy Wonka, the original is on, and I suppose it's troubling that I consider that to be a better Easter Eve movie than The Ten Commandments. Still, Gene Wilder is so good in that role.
Tomorrow's the younger's second birthday. I can't believe only two years have passed, but there you go.
I was noticing that we've gotten away from talking about American ways. So, here are a few observations:
Palo Alto/Menlo Park Parents Club is a newsletter to which Lola subscribes. Women (primarily) write in to ask questions of the community. The person who send the question then compiles the answers and send the summary to the listserve. It has been quite helpful for some things, but mainly for keeping Lola's sociology training current. Here are a couple of my favorites:
The woman who was checking to see what to do after catching her husband masturbating in the shower.
The 50 responses to the question of what to do with overripe bananas. (Ranging from "Banana pudding" to "Throw them out."
I had a certain amount of surprise on my part that almost no one in my office knew what the NCAA tournament was. That being said, they're mainly not from the US.
However, their not knowing about it is more surprising given that everywhere seemed to be offering NCAA tournament contests (hippie radio stations, supermarkets, libraries, convents).
Someone asked me when I was going to stop wearing button-down shirts to the office. So, I'm gonna start wearing sleeveless t-shirts. Show off the tattoo.
I feel like there's more, but can't think of it. Tomorrow is Easter, happy easter everyone.
Tomorrow's the younger's second birthday. I can't believe only two years have passed, but there you go.
I was noticing that we've gotten away from talking about American ways. So, here are a few observations:
Palo Alto/Menlo Park Parents Club is a newsletter to which Lola subscribes. Women (primarily) write in to ask questions of the community. The person who send the question then compiles the answers and send the summary to the listserve. It has been quite helpful for some things, but mainly for keeping Lola's sociology training current. Here are a couple of my favorites:
I had a certain amount of surprise on my part that almost no one in my office knew what the NCAA tournament was. That being said, they're mainly not from the US.
However, their not knowing about it is more surprising given that everywhere seemed to be offering NCAA tournament contests (hippie radio stations, supermarkets, libraries, convents).
Someone asked me when I was going to stop wearing button-down shirts to the office. So, I'm gonna start wearing sleeveless t-shirts. Show off the tattoo.
I feel like there's more, but can't think of it. Tomorrow is Easter, happy easter everyone.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Superheroes
At dinner last night, Cole started telling us about his new superhero - PooMan. PooMan throws (you guessed it) Poo at bad guys. His secret identity is John Robot Fighty.
Dad was proud. Mom giggled, but didn't really get it.
Dad was proud. Mom giggled, but didn't really get it.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Nose meet grindstone
Well, it appears that today is my last day before reentering the world of people who get paid to go to meetings and write emails and spend a lot of time getting other people to do their jobs.
Good thing I'm going in with a good attitude.
And, while I try to avoid studying for a little while longer (knowing that my time allotment for studying is going to be creamed in a few short hours), I sit down to write what I've learned during my most extended period of unemployment since I was 15.
1) I'm kind of a prick. (Actually, I knew that before, so strike that.)
2) My wife and my boys kick ass. (I kind of knew that before, but the little guys are becoming more fully formed every day, so I couldn't really know it before then. And Lola and I have never gone through anything like this before, so you never really know how great someone is until chips are down.)
3) I'm not sure I'm an entrepreneur. I am still working on some ideas, but I think I'm the kind of guy who requires a big idea to go off and start a company. I think an entrepreneur is someone who gets their charge from running the company, not from bringing anything in particular to life. If you need the idea, you're human, not an entrepreneur.
4) I'm really not funny. (Shhh, don't tell anyone.)
5) Someone said to always remove a piece of jewelry before leaving the house (I think it was Ugly Betty). I think that I need to do that with my speech - i.e., always stop one sentence short of what I was going to say. Those last sentences have a tendency of undoing a lot of good.
6) 5 miles is not that long to run every other day. The trick is to keep it up when I have to be in the office.
7) Finding a job is tough.
8) I know a lot of people. Many of them are friends. Many of them are acquaintances.In American English, we don't really differentiate (everyone is a "friend", some people graduate to "buddy", nobody is a "mate"). Where language does not make a distinction, life does. I'd like to thank my friends who may be reading this post.
This post is interrupted by a call from Lola from the car as she returns from a playdate. Quote: "Cole, put that window back up. I don't want it down because you're naked." Apparently, there was water at the park.
Interestingly, I'm realising that (in addition to still spelling many words in the British tradition) I haven't, I think, ever written about work stuff. I have to say, much of my days are taken up reading about the industry and general trends, but I haven't bothered to write about what's happening in the world of online business. I think that's good. If I find the time, I may start a new blog separate from this to discuss.
I'll also probably comment on working amongst Americans again here. Heck, I've got a commute again (at least a drive myself to work commute). I haven't had one of those in 6 years! Of course that does impact my ability to drink after work. Or during. Hopefully, I won't need it as much in this job.
A last question here: is anyone reading this blog? If so, any requests? Anything in particular you'd care for Lola and/or I to comment on?
Good thing I'm going in with a good attitude.
And, while I try to avoid studying for a little while longer (knowing that my time allotment for studying is going to be creamed in a few short hours), I sit down to write what I've learned during my most extended period of unemployment since I was 15.
1) I'm kind of a prick. (Actually, I knew that before, so strike that.)
2) My wife and my boys kick ass. (I kind of knew that before, but the little guys are becoming more fully formed every day, so I couldn't really know it before then. And Lola and I have never gone through anything like this before, so you never really know how great someone is until chips are down.)
3) I'm not sure I'm an entrepreneur. I am still working on some ideas, but I think I'm the kind of guy who requires a big idea to go off and start a company. I think an entrepreneur is someone who gets their charge from running the company, not from bringing anything in particular to life. If you need the idea, you're human, not an entrepreneur.
4) I'm really not funny. (Shhh, don't tell anyone.)
5) Someone said to always remove a piece of jewelry before leaving the house (I think it was Ugly Betty). I think that I need to do that with my speech - i.e., always stop one sentence short of what I was going to say. Those last sentences have a tendency of undoing a lot of good.
6) 5 miles is not that long to run every other day. The trick is to keep it up when I have to be in the office.
7) Finding a job is tough.
8) I know a lot of people. Many of them are friends. Many of them are acquaintances.In American English, we don't really differentiate (everyone is a "friend", some people graduate to "buddy", nobody is a "mate"). Where language does not make a distinction, life does. I'd like to thank my friends who may be reading this post.
This post is interrupted by a call from Lola from the car as she returns from a playdate. Quote: "Cole, put that window back up. I don't want it down because you're naked." Apparently, there was water at the park.
Interestingly, I'm realising that (in addition to still spelling many words in the British tradition) I haven't, I think, ever written about work stuff. I have to say, much of my days are taken up reading about the industry and general trends, but I haven't bothered to write about what's happening in the world of online business. I think that's good. If I find the time, I may start a new blog separate from this to discuss.
I'll also probably comment on working amongst Americans again here. Heck, I've got a commute again (at least a drive myself to work commute). I haven't had one of those in 6 years! Of course that does impact my ability to drink after work. Or during. Hopefully, I won't need it as much in this job.
A last question here: is anyone reading this blog? If so, any requests? Anything in particular you'd care for Lola and/or I to comment on?
Monday, March 10, 2008
After the hiatus
Ok, I'll try and keep this short, because - even though it's been forever since the last update - I'm supposed to be studying. And given update number 2, I'll have less time for it going forward. So, here, in no particular order, are the updates:
1) For those wondering how the boys are, I offer you some film evidence:
a) The elder
(thanks Conor for the link)
b) The younger
2) Johnny is employed again. No start date yet, pending a background check. Most importantly, I will be able to continue my MBA uninterrupted.
3) While I was happy for Hillary to do well last Tuesday (because I was concerned with the level of arrogance starting to come from the Obama campaign), I am now thoroughly aggravated with her again. Mainly, because it appears that she believes that her "victories" is a justification for the tactics that she's been employing, rather than understanding that her "losses" (which outnumber her victories) is a repudiation of those tactics. And for those of you who don't like Obama, let me offer the following:
a) If Obama were to suggest that Hillary should be the Vice President (which would be more rational, given that he has more delegates), would you consider that to be straight talk, or an effort to marginalize her?
b) Since you were so up in arms about the Obama advisor making comments to the Canadian government about Nafta, how do you feel about Hillary's campaign making a major noise about it (Hillary herself denouncing it), only to have her campaign do the same thing a week later?
So, I'm happy for a tight race because it brings out people and makes everyone focus on the issues, but I really think that a Hillary Clinton administration would be as divisive as a John McCain one, if not more so. And to be honest, the devisiveness (the just plain anger) is the biggest change I've seen in America since we left. And not for the better. The only thing I can think is that some people are just tired of having been on the losing side (as democrats) of this ungracious, bitter, feud and don't want to see the rules changed when its time for their team to take over.
Oh, I also think that Florida should just be counted (I'm not sure that HC's campaign abided by the rules of not campaigning - she just happened to be down there the night of the election?), but it was the Republican governor who moved the dates. Besides, the delegates don't change the distance to the nomination.
Argh. Lots more, but Statistics and Accounting are calling.
1) For those wondering how the boys are, I offer you some film evidence:
a) The elder
(thanks Conor for the link)
b) The younger
2) Johnny is employed again. No start date yet, pending a background check. Most importantly, I will be able to continue my MBA uninterrupted.
3) While I was happy for Hillary to do well last Tuesday (because I was concerned with the level of arrogance starting to come from the Obama campaign), I am now thoroughly aggravated with her again. Mainly, because it appears that she believes that her "victories" is a justification for the tactics that she's been employing, rather than understanding that her "losses" (which outnumber her victories) is a repudiation of those tactics. And for those of you who don't like Obama, let me offer the following:
a) If Obama were to suggest that Hillary should be the Vice President (which would be more rational, given that he has more delegates), would you consider that to be straight talk, or an effort to marginalize her?
b) Since you were so up in arms about the Obama advisor making comments to the Canadian government about Nafta, how do you feel about Hillary's campaign making a major noise about it (Hillary herself denouncing it), only to have her campaign do the same thing a week later?
So, I'm happy for a tight race because it brings out people and makes everyone focus on the issues, but I really think that a Hillary Clinton administration would be as divisive as a John McCain one, if not more so. And to be honest, the devisiveness (the just plain anger) is the biggest change I've seen in America since we left. And not for the better. The only thing I can think is that some people are just tired of having been on the losing side (as democrats) of this ungracious, bitter, feud and don't want to see the rules changed when its time for their team to take over.
Oh, I also think that Florida should just be counted (I'm not sure that HC's campaign abided by the rules of not campaigning - she just happened to be down there the night of the election?), but it was the Republican governor who moved the dates. Besides, the delegates don't change the distance to the nomination.
Argh. Lots more, but Statistics and Accounting are calling.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Bendy straw poll
So, Cole comes home from school today and is watching TV with Lola. The Patomac primary results were coming in and Cole said, "I like Barack Obama." He then proceeded to relate who all of the other kids in his class liked. Apparently, the teacher asked the kids which candidate they liked.
All the girls liked Hillary. All the boys liked Obama.
"What about the other candidates," Lola asked. "Did anyone mention McCain, or Huckabee, or Ron Paul?" (Ron Paul because she likes to be fair.)
"John McCain."
"Who liked John McCain?"
"Teacher."
And no, we shant be taking him out of the school because of that.
All the girls liked Hillary. All the boys liked Obama.
"What about the other candidates," Lola asked. "Did anyone mention McCain, or Huckabee, or Ron Paul?" (Ron Paul because she likes to be fair.)
"John McCain."
"Who liked John McCain?"
"Teacher."
And no, we shant be taking him out of the school because of that.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Et tu Princess Bride?
A moment on a Saturday morning. The boys waking up as I sit and watch the news. Lola is going to take a shower, so the boys come and sit on my lap. Griffin strangely cuddly.
Not wanting to subject them to yet another day of primary news, I look for something to keep them in my lap (books are a momentary distraction, as Griffin tends to tear the pages out). I find the Princess Bride, near the end.
Harmless. Or so I think.
The next day as the four of us sit down with Lola's parents to have lunch, Cole looks at me and says, "Daddy, prepare to die."
Damn that Inigo Montoya.
Though the look on Lola's mother's face was quite amusing.
Not wanting to subject them to yet another day of primary news, I look for something to keep them in my lap (books are a momentary distraction, as Griffin tends to tear the pages out). I find the Princess Bride, near the end.
Harmless. Or so I think.
The next day as the four of us sit down with Lola's parents to have lunch, Cole looks at me and says, "Daddy, prepare to die."
Damn that Inigo Montoya.
Though the look on Lola's mother's face was quite amusing.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Just some thoughts before I go (to sleep)
Well, this was intended to be more of a "real" posting, but I got caught up watching United 93. Like you, I am surprised that I haven't seen it before. But there you go. (I do think, still, that it was shot down and they revised the records once they realised that people on the ground had phone recordings of them going after the hijakers. Given the confusion of that day, it would be understandable, but Bush's White House couldn't let any shades of gray enter the conversation.)
But anyway . . .
So, I don't think that the Democratic candidate will be decided tomorrow (Super Tuesday), but the Republican will be. Given his performance in telling people unpopular truths, I was ok with John McCain (and relative to the other Republicans, I still am), but then Lola hipped me to this site where it compares candidates positions on Global Poverty. Frankly, it doesn't look like those issues have even occurred to him or anyone in his campaign. And if you don't deal with them, then you're creating a strong likelihood that we'll be fighting this war (on terror?) forever.
I should also amend my earlier comment that I wouldn't vote for Hillary even if she was the Democratic nominee. From a position standpoint, I agree with many of her stands. My disagreements are in the margins (and more closely aligned with Obama's stated positions.) So, if shes the candidate, I will vote for her.
Now, brother Mike says he intends to write in and tell me why Barak is" not, in fact, a diety." I have never said that he was. I do say that Hillary's "experience" will lead her down the path of "fighting the last war" (in this I am not being literal). By that I mean, I believe that her experience is that she can only get things done by operating in contrast to someone else. Bill struggled mightily for the first 2 years of his presidency (Gays in the military was a dumb first thing to take on. If Health Care was so central, why not start with that? If you fail, you've at least failed greatly.) It wasn't until he was met with a Republican congress that the image of President Clinton started to coalesce.
And while I really did like Bill Clinton as president, I can also distinguish between historical and purposeful. The peace and prosperity during his 8 years were not really the result of any policy. Rather, it was the interregnum after the fall of the Soviet Union and before China's muscle flexing. And it was the result of low oil prices and the rise of the internet. None of these things had anything to do with Bill.
That being said, he didn't screw it up.
Anyway, Hillary's not my first choice for reasons I've said before. Obama is because, whatever faults he may have (oh, and the latest is that Hillary's more electable because all her dirty secrets are out, unlike Obama), he has shown, I think, the ability to raise the tone of the national discourse, to get more people involved in the process and to challenge people to be more than millionaires.
Finally, some observations:
Lola's been keeping track of the Palo Alto sign wars. First came the Obama signs, usually on corner lots. (Some Romney, no McCain, but I've seen at least 1 Ron Paul.) Then Friday, a slew of Hiliary signs, usually clumped (at nicer looking houses). Then Monday, the Obama signs came back to surround the Hillary signs (literally, you'll see an Obama sign after almost every Clinton sign.)
We went to go see David Mamet's "Speed the Plow" in the city on Saturday (Christmas present). We dropped of the boys and went to the farmer's market first. The farmer's market was not packed (because it was raining pretty nastily), but there were dozens of Obama supporters out (mainly young, High School-looking), passing out pins and bumper stickers.
So, we took a couple of pins and went walking toward the theater.
Literally, people were stopping in the streets and we heard them saying to each other "Look, they're supporting Obama." At the restaurant, at the next table the woman turned around and asked us what our thinking was (her husband's voting for Obama, her daughter works for Hillary, she's undecided.)
I suppose I shouldn't have worn the button on my zipper.
Anyway, the point is, tomorrow will be very exciting. And, for the first time that I can recall, people actually seem to care.
For that, we should be grateful to Hillary and Barak.
If it keeps up like this, I may be able to take all those maple leaf patches off my jackets the next time I go to Europe.
PS - "Speed the Plow" was excellent, if short.
But anyway . . .
So, I don't think that the Democratic candidate will be decided tomorrow (Super Tuesday), but the Republican will be. Given his performance in telling people unpopular truths, I was ok with John McCain (and relative to the other Republicans, I still am), but then Lola hipped me to this site where it compares candidates positions on Global Poverty. Frankly, it doesn't look like those issues have even occurred to him or anyone in his campaign. And if you don't deal with them, then you're creating a strong likelihood that we'll be fighting this war (on terror?) forever.
I should also amend my earlier comment that I wouldn't vote for Hillary even if she was the Democratic nominee. From a position standpoint, I agree with many of her stands. My disagreements are in the margins (and more closely aligned with Obama's stated positions.) So, if shes the candidate, I will vote for her.
Now, brother Mike says he intends to write in and tell me why Barak is" not, in fact, a diety." I have never said that he was. I do say that Hillary's "experience" will lead her down the path of "fighting the last war" (in this I am not being literal). By that I mean, I believe that her experience is that she can only get things done by operating in contrast to someone else. Bill struggled mightily for the first 2 years of his presidency (Gays in the military was a dumb first thing to take on. If Health Care was so central, why not start with that? If you fail, you've at least failed greatly.) It wasn't until he was met with a Republican congress that the image of President Clinton started to coalesce.
And while I really did like Bill Clinton as president, I can also distinguish between historical and purposeful. The peace and prosperity during his 8 years were not really the result of any policy. Rather, it was the interregnum after the fall of the Soviet Union and before China's muscle flexing. And it was the result of low oil prices and the rise of the internet. None of these things had anything to do with Bill.
That being said, he didn't screw it up.
Anyway, Hillary's not my first choice for reasons I've said before. Obama is because, whatever faults he may have (oh, and the latest is that Hillary's more electable because all her dirty secrets are out, unlike Obama), he has shown, I think, the ability to raise the tone of the national discourse, to get more people involved in the process and to challenge people to be more than millionaires.
Finally, some observations:
Lola's been keeping track of the Palo Alto sign wars. First came the Obama signs, usually on corner lots. (Some Romney, no McCain, but I've seen at least 1 Ron Paul.) Then Friday, a slew of Hiliary signs, usually clumped (at nicer looking houses). Then Monday, the Obama signs came back to surround the Hillary signs (literally, you'll see an Obama sign after almost every Clinton sign.)
We went to go see David Mamet's "Speed the Plow" in the city on Saturday (Christmas present). We dropped of the boys and went to the farmer's market first. The farmer's market was not packed (because it was raining pretty nastily), but there were dozens of Obama supporters out (mainly young, High School-looking), passing out pins and bumper stickers.
So, we took a couple of pins and went walking toward the theater.
Literally, people were stopping in the streets and we heard them saying to each other "Look, they're supporting Obama." At the restaurant, at the next table the woman turned around and asked us what our thinking was (her husband's voting for Obama, her daughter works for Hillary, she's undecided.)
I suppose I shouldn't have worn the button on my zipper.
Anyway, the point is, tomorrow will be very exciting. And, for the first time that I can recall, people actually seem to care.
For that, we should be grateful to Hillary and Barak.
If it keeps up like this, I may be able to take all those maple leaf patches off my jackets the next time I go to Europe.
PS - "Speed the Plow" was excellent, if short.
Monday, January 28, 2008
What's so funny 'bout peace, love and Lenny Kravitz
On a non-political note (ok, quick aside, I have to say, for the first time, I'm actually proud that I went to American University: Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama took place there (luckily, they've since re-named the pace, it's no longer the Adnan Koshoggi center), I suppose in part because JFK gave a somewhat famous speech there.)
But I digress . . .
I was reading the NYTimes yesterday (overpaid liberal that I am) and was reading an article written by Lenny Kravitz in which he wrote about his favorite new music artists and it hit me - again, the fundamental question is: how to choose?
We are living in a world of ubiquity. The constraints of the past have mainly been narrowed down to one: can you pay for it? If you have the money, you can get almost anything you want. Now comes the question: what do you want?
You can't google for it: that just helps you find things that already exist. You have to have it recommended to you. But who should you listen to?
I had a debate the other week with Lola's former bosses (used to run a jury consulting firm, now write the ethics column for Money magazine and who- in their spare time - review movies for the local paper) about the value of "experts". Does one require an expert to find something of value? What does an "expert" know about wine or art or food, really? Doesn't it depend on us as to whether or not we'll like it? I mean, sure, I liked "3:10 to Yuma" (ok, I loved it), but I also watch "The Last Dragon" whenever I get the chance. Is there anyone in the world who can tell me that they both have the same intrinsic value? It's more that they both have an appeal to me.
Would I recommend "3:10 to Yuma" to everyone? I don't know. What I loved about it was the underlying premise that (and here I quote another movie that I saw on the airplane) "the only force more powerful than a son's need to be adored by his father, is a father's need to be adored by his son." That's a message for me. Would a 20 year old get that? Doubtful. Does that make the movie better or worse? The movie is a vehicle of value only in that it connects with its audience. So, for me the value was there. The 20 year old may just have enjoyed the shooting. It's about the viewer not about the view.
So, what's my point?
My point is this: watch the web. It's coming (I'm sure some would say with Last.FM, Pandora, Yelp and even Delver (yes, there are dozens more) that it's here.) But the thing is this: right now, the democratization of reviews allows for a greater "wisdom of the crowds" view - which in theory gives a more balanced view of the product. But it's all still focused on the product, as if a restaurant were a stable thing. Will I like the restaurant is a better question, but still only part of it. Will I like this restaurant if I take a date there after a scary movie when it's raining outside? Now that's a question that I'd like the answer to.
(Of course the date would be Lola.)
But now we get into the question of identity (identities) on the web and in the world. Which is more than I can spend time on right now, as I'm supposed to be studying.
But I digress . . .
I was reading the NYTimes yesterday (overpaid liberal that I am) and was reading an article written by Lenny Kravitz in which he wrote about his favorite new music artists and it hit me - again, the fundamental question is: how to choose?
We are living in a world of ubiquity. The constraints of the past have mainly been narrowed down to one: can you pay for it? If you have the money, you can get almost anything you want. Now comes the question: what do you want?
You can't google for it: that just helps you find things that already exist. You have to have it recommended to you. But who should you listen to?
I had a debate the other week with Lola's former bosses (used to run a jury consulting firm, now write the ethics column for Money magazine and who- in their spare time - review movies for the local paper) about the value of "experts". Does one require an expert to find something of value? What does an "expert" know about wine or art or food, really? Doesn't it depend on us as to whether or not we'll like it? I mean, sure, I liked "3:10 to Yuma" (ok, I loved it), but I also watch "The Last Dragon" whenever I get the chance. Is there anyone in the world who can tell me that they both have the same intrinsic value? It's more that they both have an appeal to me.
Would I recommend "3:10 to Yuma" to everyone? I don't know. What I loved about it was the underlying premise that (and here I quote another movie that I saw on the airplane) "the only force more powerful than a son's need to be adored by his father, is a father's need to be adored by his son." That's a message for me. Would a 20 year old get that? Doubtful. Does that make the movie better or worse? The movie is a vehicle of value only in that it connects with its audience. So, for me the value was there. The 20 year old may just have enjoyed the shooting. It's about the viewer not about the view.
So, what's my point?
My point is this: watch the web. It's coming (I'm sure some would say with Last.FM, Pandora, Yelp and even Delver (yes, there are dozens more) that it's here.) But the thing is this: right now, the democratization of reviews allows for a greater "wisdom of the crowds" view - which in theory gives a more balanced view of the product. But it's all still focused on the product, as if a restaurant were a stable thing. Will I like the restaurant is a better question, but still only part of it. Will I like this restaurant if I take a date there after a scary movie when it's raining outside? Now that's a question that I'd like the answer to.
(Of course the date would be Lola.)
But now we get into the question of identity (identities) on the web and in the world. Which is more than I can spend time on right now, as I'm supposed to be studying.
Elections and economy
Quick note on the democrats and then on to the republicans. If you haven't read them, you should look at the comments on the last post. I think Cindy has some very relevant points. However:
(1) in my viewing of the debates, I saw Barack being provoked and rising to the bait (note: Clinton's campaign even said that they though that Bill was was taking Barack "off message").
(2) I did not find Obama's wife's email compelling. I saw it being mentioned on the news in snippets and thought it would be informative for people to see the whole thing.
(3) I don't believe that Hillary stayed in the Senate because she made a commitment to the people of New York. I believe that she saw an unassailable lead by George Bush and decided to wait until the water was warmer (knowing that Chaney wouldn't be a contender for President.)
(4) The criticism of Barack's absenteeism is fair, but New York is falling apart as well (it's a national problem at this stage) and they've been left with one Senator as well.
As for Conor's comment. Will an idealist get eaten up by Washington? Actually, if he wins, I think it will send shockwaves through the Congress. If Hillary wins, it tells them that the voters can be convinced by means that they're familiar with. If Obama wins, it will scare the bejesus out of them, because 1 there are more people voting and 2 they're not voting out of fear or for name recognition.
Finally, I want to say this: one of the president's toughest jobs will be to restore America's place in the world. The mere election of Obama will go a long way to shaking some fundamentally held assumptions about America in the world. (And no, the election of Hillary will not.) It will fight the idea of a racist, fearful, inward people. The election of a woman is fairly well precedented event. The election of a minority is less so.
Now I've kind of been ignoring the republicans, because I am hoping they're unelectable. However, I just want to say: I find it funny that Romney is touting his economic knowledge after he told the people of Michigan that their automotive jobs will come back if he's president. If that's true, I guess we'll be moving back to Europe sooner than we thought.
I did want to go back to talking about something other than the elections, but that I think will have to wait for the next post.
(1) in my viewing of the debates, I saw Barack being provoked and rising to the bait (note: Clinton's campaign even said that they though that Bill was was taking Barack "off message").
(2) I did not find Obama's wife's email compelling. I saw it being mentioned on the news in snippets and thought it would be informative for people to see the whole thing.
(3) I don't believe that Hillary stayed in the Senate because she made a commitment to the people of New York. I believe that she saw an unassailable lead by George Bush and decided to wait until the water was warmer (knowing that Chaney wouldn't be a contender for President.)
(4) The criticism of Barack's absenteeism is fair, but New York is falling apart as well (it's a national problem at this stage) and they've been left with one Senator as well.
As for Conor's comment. Will an idealist get eaten up by Washington? Actually, if he wins, I think it will send shockwaves through the Congress. If Hillary wins, it tells them that the voters can be convinced by means that they're familiar with. If Obama wins, it will scare the bejesus out of them, because 1 there are more people voting and 2 they're not voting out of fear or for name recognition.
Finally, I want to say this: one of the president's toughest jobs will be to restore America's place in the world. The mere election of Obama will go a long way to shaking some fundamentally held assumptions about America in the world. (And no, the election of Hillary will not.) It will fight the idea of a racist, fearful, inward people. The election of a woman is fairly well precedented event. The election of a minority is less so.
Now I've kind of been ignoring the republicans, because I am hoping they're unelectable. However, I just want to say: I find it funny that Romney is touting his economic knowledge after he told the people of Michigan that their automotive jobs will come back if he's president. If that's true, I guess we'll be moving back to Europe sooner than we thought.
I did want to go back to talking about something other than the elections, but that I think will have to wait for the next post.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Who needs enemies?
So, a short word about the current state of the presidential campaign. I have to say that the Republican hate machine against Hillary put me in her corner a while back (though I have to admit the t-shirt with the eye, the heart, the picture of Hillary, the tree and the trebel cleff ("I love country music") was crude by clever) . I mean, you can tell something about the people who hate them.
But the last few weeks have really turned me off her. As you may or may not know, I was a Joe Biden supporter. I like Joe's understanding of International affairs and his view on the economy. But that's no longer a choice. So, as I look at the options before me, I consider: Obama, Clinton, Edwards (even Kucinic has left the stage, taking his hot wife away in his UFO).
Let's start with Edwards. As much as I liked his performance at the last debate ("How do these personal attacks help children or people without insurance?") and admire his passion - I have concerns about his ability to get anything done. He seems to have the impression that being "right" is enough. But - anarchist that I am - know enough to know that having the masses on your side may get you elected, but won't get laws passed.
Obama has risen in my estimation. He has shown intellect and passion and a desire (if not quite yet the proven ability - see next) to unite people. If people honestly believe that the country is in a hole after Bush's eight years of foreign and fiscal policy, do they think that we can get out of it through incremental measures? Can we get out the way we got in? Not to buy into the "Change" crap, but honestly, the world is different than 1992. The economy is different. International relationships are different. Interpersonal relationships are different. But politics isn't.
Except that I think Obama has the desire to tackle things differently. Not in a man of la mancha way, but in a profound and pragmatic way. Obama has the ability (which I think Edwards lacks) to convince everyone that his policies are winners. Since Americans love and follow a winner, I think he has the ability to change the way laws get made and to change the relationship between the government and the governed.
Except that now there's Hillary. Dragging down anyone who dares to get in her way. Where was she four years ago? If she's got 35 years of experience and Bush is so awful, why did she wait until 2008 to run? Now she's baiting Obama, forcing him down the path of politics as usual.
And maybe that's gonna happen anyway. Maybe when he got to be president, the overwhelming ugliness of bi-partisan behavior would kill all the dreams of better. Maybe Bill and Hillary think that they're saving us from ourselves. They certainly got creamed by the Republicans for the first two years of Bill's presidency.
But if you kill the dreams, you never have a chance of being better.
So, no. I can't support Hillary. The ugliness of her reaction when she lost Iowa. The arrogance of her tears (crying for the stupidity of people who didn't vote for her, couldn't they just see what was best for them). The ugliness of her lust for power. The pure Karl Rove-edness of South Carolina. (I'm putting Michelle Obama's letter below for those who haven't seen it.) You can't fix America's problems by being a liberal Bush. You've got to find a new way.
If she wins the nomination, I'm not sure that I could vote in November.
Or maybe I'll vote for Ralph Nader. Maybe it'll be time for a write in.
End Post
----------------------------
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: What we didn't expect
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:53:07 -0500
From: Michelle Obama
Reply-To: info@barackobama.com
To: Lola
Lola --
This Campaign Relies on You
We knew getting into this race that Barack would be competing with Senator Clinton and President Clinton at the same time.
We expected that Bill Clinton would tout his record from the nineties and talk about Hillary's role in his past success. That's a fair approach and a challenge we are prepared to face.
What we didn't expect, at least not from our fellow Democrats, are the win-at-all-costs tactics we've seen recently. We didn't expect misleading accusations that willfully distort Barack's record.
Barack Obama isn't relying on a former President of the United States to campaign for him.
He's relying on us -- you, me, and hundreds of thousands of people like us who are giving whatever they can afford to support this movement.
Please stand up in the face of these new attacks. Make your first online donation of $50 today and own a piece of this campaign:
*https://donate.barackobama.com/relyingonyou*
Barack's unwavering opposition to the war in Iraq, his outspoken support of women's rights, and his call for leadership that will transform our party and our country have all been mischaracterized in the past two weeks.
We've seen disingenuous attacks and smear tactics turn people off from the political process for too long, and enough is enough.
It's time for a change. It's time for a new kind of leadership and a new kind of politics in our party and in our country.
And while Senator Clinton has a former president in her corner, I'll put my faith in a movement of a whole lot of people who are ready for change.
South Carolina votes in 48 hours, and more than 20 states will make their voices heard in less than two weeks on February 5th. Now is the time for all of us to step up and take personal responsibility for making change happen.
Please make your first online donation of $50 now:
*https://donate.barackobama.com/relyingonyou*
Thank you,
Michelle
Donate
Paid for by Obama for America
But the last few weeks have really turned me off her. As you may or may not know, I was a Joe Biden supporter. I like Joe's understanding of International affairs and his view on the economy. But that's no longer a choice. So, as I look at the options before me, I consider: Obama, Clinton, Edwards (even Kucinic has left the stage, taking his hot wife away in his UFO).
Let's start with Edwards. As much as I liked his performance at the last debate ("How do these personal attacks help children or people without insurance?") and admire his passion - I have concerns about his ability to get anything done. He seems to have the impression that being "right" is enough. But - anarchist that I am - know enough to know that having the masses on your side may get you elected, but won't get laws passed.
Obama has risen in my estimation. He has shown intellect and passion and a desire (if not quite yet the proven ability - see next) to unite people. If people honestly believe that the country is in a hole after Bush's eight years of foreign and fiscal policy, do they think that we can get out of it through incremental measures? Can we get out the way we got in? Not to buy into the "Change" crap, but honestly, the world is different than 1992. The economy is different. International relationships are different. Interpersonal relationships are different. But politics isn't.
Except that I think Obama has the desire to tackle things differently. Not in a man of la mancha way, but in a profound and pragmatic way. Obama has the ability (which I think Edwards lacks) to convince everyone that his policies are winners. Since Americans love and follow a winner, I think he has the ability to change the way laws get made and to change the relationship between the government and the governed.
Except that now there's Hillary. Dragging down anyone who dares to get in her way. Where was she four years ago? If she's got 35 years of experience and Bush is so awful, why did she wait until 2008 to run? Now she's baiting Obama, forcing him down the path of politics as usual.
And maybe that's gonna happen anyway. Maybe when he got to be president, the overwhelming ugliness of bi-partisan behavior would kill all the dreams of better. Maybe Bill and Hillary think that they're saving us from ourselves. They certainly got creamed by the Republicans for the first two years of Bill's presidency.
But if you kill the dreams, you never have a chance of being better.
So, no. I can't support Hillary. The ugliness of her reaction when she lost Iowa. The arrogance of her tears (crying for the stupidity of people who didn't vote for her, couldn't they just see what was best for them). The ugliness of her lust for power. The pure Karl Rove-edness of South Carolina. (I'm putting Michelle Obama's letter below for those who haven't seen it.) You can't fix America's problems by being a liberal Bush. You've got to find a new way.
If she wins the nomination, I'm not sure that I could vote in November.
Or maybe I'll vote for Ralph Nader. Maybe it'll be time for a write in.
End Post
----------------------------
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: What we didn't expect
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:53:07 -0500
From: Michelle Obama
Reply-To: info@barackobama.com
To: Lola
Lola --
This Campaign Relies on You
We knew getting into this race that Barack would be competing with Senator Clinton and President Clinton at the same time.
We expected that Bill Clinton would tout his record from the nineties and talk about Hillary's role in his past success. That's a fair approach and a challenge we are prepared to face.
What we didn't expect, at least not from our fellow Democrats, are the win-at-all-costs tactics we've seen recently. We didn't expect misleading accusations that willfully distort Barack's record.
Barack Obama isn't relying on a former President of the United States to campaign for him.
He's relying on us -- you, me, and hundreds of thousands of people like us who are giving whatever they can afford to support this movement.
Please stand up in the face of these new attacks. Make your first online donation of $50 today and own a piece of this campaign:
*https://donate.barackobama.com/relyingonyou*
Barack's unwavering opposition to the war in Iraq, his outspoken support of women's rights, and his call for leadership that will transform our party and our country have all been mischaracterized in the past two weeks.
We've seen disingenuous attacks and smear tactics turn people off from the political process for too long, and enough is enough.
It's time for a change. It's time for a new kind of leadership and a new kind of politics in our party and in our country.
And while Senator Clinton has a former president in her corner, I'll put my faith in a movement of a whole lot of people who are ready for change.
South Carolina votes in 48 hours, and more than 20 states will make their voices heard in less than two weeks on February 5th. Now is the time for all of us to step up and take personal responsibility for making change happen.
Please make your first online donation of $50 now:
*https://donate.barackobama.com/relyingonyou*
Thank you,
Michelle
Donate
Paid for by Obama for America
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)