Edwards will Endorse Obama, CNN reports

This might be what does it for Hillary.

Or, it might just embolden her even more and keep going.

lhp

Hillary Supporter:"I can't vote for Obama...because he's muslim"

How unfortunate.  Maybe SNL was right, maybe Hillary's supporters are racists....

clinton muslim
by dollarsandsense123

lhp

Lollipop (And Other Refreshments)

By moi. But first by Lil Wayne, of course.

This is what happens when you have free time and restlessness.  When I heard this song it reminded me of the old concession stand commercials where the candy and hot dogs would talk to you.  Then I heard the lyrics, and noticed how much this song has to DO with hot dogs wink wink.




lhp

6 Ways To Sound Like A Film Snob

You are going on a date with a film lover...Or you are in a cocktail party conversation where things go from "Best movie you saw lately" to "That was really well made..."...Or you just want to impress your friends how snobbish you are now, and how their tastes in movie are only driven by explosions and kisses in the rain. All in all, you want to sound like a Film Snob.

Good for you. The delights of being a film snob are pretty much the same as being any other sort of snob, and they come with the same repercussions. You will often be called upon to recommend good movies, unknown movies, indie movies, and will have people listen to your criticisms as gospel. Of course, you will also be considered a tad elitist and preachy. But whatever, that is what they get for being film philistines.

Here are some ways you can sound like a Film Snob, and not need to add Bergman or Focus Feature movies to your Netflix que (but you should, really, now):

1. When describing a movie, use adjectives you would use for a person
For example, I might call a friend of mine "manipulative and self-indulgent". Guess what? I just gave you a great way of describing Rules of Attraction! How about "unsure of itself" or "showy" or "unengaging"? All great adjectives you can use for a movie.

"I felt that while the first Matrix kicked ass, the second and third were just showy and were completely unengaging"

Booya, an angel just got its wings.

2. Wiki a movie
Whenever you know what movie you are going to watch, go to www.wikipedia.org and look it up. Don't read the whole thing, you don't have time for that. Just look at the director, maybe read some stuff from the Criticism section, and see if there is anything in the References in Pop Culture section. Bingo, you just got enough snobbish fuel to light an elitist fire.

"Although Tarantino's work is very iconic, I thought Jackie Brown lacked the pop culture impact his other movies had. It might have to do with its overemphasis on dialogue and not so much on plot progression"

Makin' it rain!

3. Use only the director's last name
Martin Scorcese is just Scorcese. Wes Anderson is just Anderson. Robert Altman goes by Altman. Do not use their full names. Do not use their first names either, it makes you sound like a douche, not a snob.

4. Be negative a wee-bit
Sure, the movie was great, had everything, and it was like apple pie in your mouth. Whatever. In order to be taken seriously, you cannot ga-ga over the movie like everyone else. You are a SNOB, remember? Act like one.

Find flaws in the movie. There are always at least a couple. They can be stupid, miniscule flaws that make you sound like an anal-retentive asshole. But that is good. That means you must constantly be impressed.

Some examples?

The movie over-reached a bit (you don't have to know what that means)
The characters could've been developed into richer entities
Some of the director's shots were unfocused
When character X did this it seemed out of place
The actor who played X was not convincing throughout
The crew who did the grilling sound was lame
etc
etc

Be creative.

5. Show enthusiasm about the movie!
You may talk crap about movies, but remember, you also LOVE movies. This being said, show it. When you talk about a movie/actor/director/sound editor, show your enthusiasm by actually being into it. Understand their craft and appreciate them through your criticism. Deep inside, you should want to do what they are doing because you love it so much. Dig deep and find the point where you and the movie connects.

Or, if you can't do all that, just say stuff like this:
I loved the way yadayada
When that girl looked into his eyes, it was amazing how she captured the essence of the moment
The way King Kong cracked those T-Rex's jaws was unbelievably riveting
I crapped my pants when I found out he was dead the whole movie! Bruce!

And finally:
6. Build from here
You can talk the talk all you want, but it will makes things easier, and, in my humble personal opinion, more fun, if you actually watch movies and become engrossed in them.

Oooooh, see what I did..."Engrossed". Yeah, you can use that one, too.

lhp

What If: Obama Wins NC AND Indiana

The votes are still being counted, but that doesn't speculations are on hold also.  North Carolina is in the bag, with a wider than expected margin.  Obama obtained a new personal record, 92%, of African-American votes, and an improving working-class image.  

What about Indiana? Good question.  At the moment, the Clinton camp is counting on winning it, but by a rapidly dwindling margin.  At the moment, Hillary is winning 51 to 49%--an hour ago, she was winning 52 to 48%.  An Indiana win for Obama would be devastating to Clinton.  A sweep is still a possibility, and Lake County, bordering Illinois, in Indiana is what will decide if it happens or not.  

If it does, that would be the death of the Clinton campaign.  Believe that it will not be because she will voluntarily drop out.  She will continue to stay in the race, assure her supporters she is in it to win it, and will not hear any of the media pundits calling her campaign a sinking ship.  But she will drop out.  Democratic leaders will finally pressure her to drop out, if only tacitly.  Al Gore might finally speak, Dean will pressure superdelegates to decide, and Pelosi will ask them to follow the will of the people (i.e. who has the most pledged delegates...Obama).  If the pressure does not drop her out semi-graciously, the exodus of superdelegates from her camp to Obama's will do it.  Superdelegates do not want to be the first to make a decision, but they hate to be the last to abandon a bad decision.  They will flock to Obama and Obama's momentum will snowball as it did at the beginning of this primary season.

What about Hillary?  I honestly believe she has crossed the point of no return.  She has burned bridges, offended party faithful, and angered Obama supporters enough to make her an island within the Democratic party.  She will not get a VP spot, as Obama knows he would share the light with the ClintonS.  Bill's image is in probably worse shape than Hillary's, and Obama would be hurting his own chances bringing on both's bad PR.  Plus, no one wants TWO bossy Clintons to deal with.

A cabinet position? Possibly.  She is still respected in the party, but has essentially ruined years of friendships and connections in a few months, so she will have to work her way back up.  Secretary of State, possibly?

Whatever happens, Hillary will not be present during the Inauguration Ceremony.  An Indiana win for Obama will squelch any doubts about his working-class appeal, having weathered the worst set of storms in his campaign, on top of campaigning in a state similar to the ones he lost by wide margins to Hillary.  He would have proven his mettle.  He will look more presidential than ever before.

That ship sailed a couple of months ago for the Clintons.

lhp

Sign of the Apocalypse: Male Butt Enhancing Undies

Sigh.  Yet another sign that we are near the end: male butt enhancing underwear.  I do not think this is horrendous merely because it is for men.  I sigh for the female equivalent equally.  

I am enthusiastically anticipating brand-name rolled up socks for crotchial enhancement, for which at that point I will pray a rosary every day.

lhp

The Best (Short) Piece of Fiction You Will Read This Week

The plot: A lonely High School AP English teacher is proposed to by one of his students.

It is worth your 20 minutes: Read it.

Sidenote: This was written by a guy who was himself a HS English teacher. After its publication, he was given a tw0-book deal, became a full-time writer, and this piece, The Smoker, was bought out to make into a movie, which will come out next year with Natalie Portman as the bold student.

It is all about quality, not quantity, now aint it?

lhp

Dixie Chicks/Bluegrass=Good Running Music

I found out today that listening to upbeat Dixie Chicks tracks, or upbeat bluegrass of most kind, is awesome running music.

I figure it has to do with the fact that it makes you feel like you are in that Forrest Gump scene where he is running away from the pickup truck.  You know, it gives you that running in the middle of the field feeling.

Try it:

Dixie Chicks-Lubbock or Leave It

Lonesome Highway-Rain Please Go Away

Earl Scruggs & The Chieftains-Sally Goodin'

Will my manliness fall a few points for praising the Dixie Chicks? So be it.

lhp

Baracky: The Movie

Love this:

lhp

Hillary Clinton: In her own words

This is simply irrefutable.  Please spread this around.




lhp

American Politics 101 in 2008

Anyone following the primaries in both parties for at least a month can call themselves a political analyst.  If you have followed it the whole way through, you have just earned a masters in American politics.

The long, hard-fought slough in both parties, especially the still ongoing one on the Democratic side, has fleshed out in a few months what would take a year's course to cover.  Blue-states, red-states, proportional representation, delegates, political culture and history in each state, convention-speak, superdelegates, party rules, race in politics, public relations or 'spin', campaign finance, fundraising, etc etc.

McCain has shown us the importance of strategic campaigning; Guiliani showed us what a failed political strategy can do, even if you were perceived as the front-runner by default; Huckabee showed us the power of playing up your strengths; Edwards showed us populism is on the decline, and mostly shunned, in american politics; Obama is showing us the power of the 'outsider' and political momentum; Clinton is showing us what political connections can do and the risk with having a long political history. Oh yeah, Kucinich showed us you can't win if you are a vegetarian and your wife has her tongue pierced.

If anything will come out of this election, it will be a much more educated populace.  People will now have at least an idea of what is meant by 'pledged delegates' and 'party rules'.  They will be able to discuss momentum as anyone on CNN could.  In all, they will have received an honorary degree in Political Science.  And yes, it IS a science.

lhp

3DP: Gandhi Did It: Day 10

Gandhi was sure a big shot.

He went on doing what I am doing for over a month. That is just wrong. I mean, he is making me look like a jackass over here.

A few words on what I have observed thus far:
-Eating only what I have eaten makes you feel very "springy". You feel very light and that you can jump from one wall to the next. Unfortunately, you also feel like you want to eat the person next to you and that you would except for the fact that you are so so weak.

-Fruit and nuts make you smaller. My size, in just 10 days, has dropped. My body feels about 5 lbs lighter. Buuuut, it is not. I am actually about a pound over what I weighed before the 3dp started. Why? I am losing muscle and mass, but retaining fat. I am also losing water, so stubborn fat is disappearing. Because fruits have fructose (sugar stuff) in them, that raises your insulin level. This raise in insulin tells your body "Woa, woa there, you are in crisis here, body, so lock up the fat you got to get ready for winter". So it does. A raise in insulin level tells your body to retain fat. Muscle deteriorates basically because I am not getting a lot of protein in, or a lot of carbs in. Mass and muscle feed off both.

-You will be regular in no time doing this. I don't think I need to draw you a diagram, here.

lhp

The Life Aquatic: Too Much Wes In Wes Anderson

I love The Royal Tenenbaums. I love The Darjeeling Limited. I love Bottle Rocket, and of course, really like Rushmore. So when I came up with the chance to complete my Wes Anderson viewing experience, and watch the movie many of my friends just LOVE, I had high expectations.

Wes Anderson is like the Coen Brothers. You come to expect something from him. When his work is not up the Wes standard, you know it, he knows it, and everyone else will probably not get the difference. Take The Ladykillers, for example. It had mixed reviews amongst critics, calling it a stepback for the Coens. But because it was so un-Coen, because it lacked so much of their vivid storytelling abilities, their naturally quirky characters you have met time and again in your life, and because Tom Hanks was trying to replicate George Clooney in O, Brother, Where Art Thou?, the movie was decently received by the audiences. To most people, this movie was just like most of the movies they are used to: decent. It had decently funny dialogue, decently crafter characters, and decent plot twists. You could see it coming, and you could see the characters as just characters. A few quirks sprinkled in to make the movie 'different', but not too much to pigeonhole it as unique. That is so not Coen.

Now, The Life Aquatic. Wes Anderson is still not a profitable filmmaker (his movies so far have made as much as they have cost). People work with him and invest in his projects because they see him as something they want to be a part of, sort of like being part of the early punk rock wave in the late 70's, or buying Monet for the sake of having a Monet to show to friends. He uses many of the same actors in his films (Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman, Anjelica Houston, "Pagoda", Owen Wilson, Luke Wilson, etc.). He loves music and knows it well enough to enhance his movies by pairing them beautifully. The agonies and tragic comedies in families are his favorite subjects to explore. Oh, and his characters all smoke, pretty much.

He has crafter a world for himself and for his fans. I am one of them. I believe he is an amazing auteur director, and he style is immediately recognizable. However, then came The Life Aquatic. This movie is stamped all over with a 'Wes' rubber stamp. So much so that you can't get to see an actual movie. It is a movie that is so caught up in being the "It" thing, that it fails to engage audiences, elicit genuine laughs, or make us care about any of the characters. Wes turns himself to 11 in this movie, and for those who have watched his work, it feels very self-contrived.
I watched the featurette that came with the dvd, "Starz on the set". In it, Wes talks about how he has thought about this film for about 8 years. Ever since Rushmore, he says, was he pitching this idea to Murray. It definitely shows. The movie looks like it went through at least 4 runs of making it quirky and odd, just for the hell of it. Meanwhile, the genuine performance by Murray, Houston, and William Dafoe, are overshadowed, because end up just not caring about it. Owen Wilson and Cate Blanchett are not at the top of their game in this movie. It might have to do with the fact that they both feel out of place, even Wilson, a Wes-veteran. Wilson is pegged into a character that is not compelling and is pretty boring to even listen to, while Blanchett is trying to push out the one-dimensional reporter she was given to play. Even the music is felt forced. What would make even the music different? Hmm...let's have David Bowie songs played in Portuguese! That makes sense.

Why do more people love this, rather than the other four, far superior Wes productions? Many of them have never even heard of the other four, except for Rushmore. I believe it is because of the same reason studio executives like to invest in their own Monet, Wes Anderson. Audiences know this movie is different, but they don't see just how unnaturally different it is. They might say they like it, and make themselves believe it, because they want to reassure everyone that they too appreciate a Monet. The other four might be less immediate in making you feel you are watching something truly special, but they should be given a chance.

I am happy to know that Wes went back to better form with Darjeeling Limited after this stepback. It is also refreshing to see that the Coen Brothers made No Country For Old Men after their own stepback. Apparently, for these three geniuses, a slump lasts only as long as they let it. After they give themselves a swift kick in the crotch, they regain their composure. But please, next time, warns us you will kick us in the crotch also.

lhp

30 Day Project: Gandhi Did It.

So, the new 3DP is here. But before I delve into what this one will be about exactly, a few lessons learned from the previous.

I noticed that as soon as this became a 'commitment', the joy that came with it dropped exponentially. I am not sure if it is because it was forced, or maybe because it ended up taking a toll on me, with the fever and the cramped schedule. The mere fact that this became something I had to do, in a contract with myself, the joy that came with writing and swimming that I had felt before was replaced with lack of will.

On a positive note, I was able to do what I thought I couldn't physically and mentally. I could swim for a good amount of time, and felt only slightly tired, and I wrote on a whim more than I could 4 years ago with such little preparation. My self-assumed limitations were tested, and beaten.

Now, on to the new 3DP: Gandhi did it!

For the whole month of April, I will embark on the experiment Gandhi tried, and almost died trying: A fruitarian diet. For more than a month, Gandhi and some of his followers took upon a strict diet that made them all bed-ridden. Gandhi had to break his vow to never drink cow's milk after a doctor told him he had to, or he would die. He eventually drank goat's milk, but he knew, from what he wrote in his autobiography, that the vow had been broken.

Gandhi was a vegetarian most of his life. But he embarked on this dietary experiment as a part of his many experiments with his body when it came to food. He used to say that what we eat makes us into what we are. He noted that this diet made his more peaceful, removed almost all sexual desire, and clarified his mind like never before.

So, that I will do.

I can only eat:
-Fruits
-Nuts
-Water

And to avoid the bed-ridden outcome Gandhi had, I will add:

-Dairy

Ok. Since I actually want to finish this, I will add two more things that will make it livable for me, thereby giving me a better chance of making it through the 30 days:

-Coffee
-Alcohol.

I know these go against the purity of the diet, but they will be used sparingly, almost like rewards.

I did this Monday, Tuesday, and am still on it today. So far, three days down.

As far as it has gone, I haven't felt anything groundbreaking, other than I feel very hydrated from the 20 gallons of water I drink a day. I tend to make a swishing sound when I walk.

lhp

Debt, Presidents, Parties, and Falsities

'nuff said.

lhp

Tapes N' Tapes: Insistor

I dig. It nice.

Oh yeah, the 3DP is still going...quite swimmingly.  I make pun! Sexytime in your vageen.

lhp

3DP: Write Swimmingly: Day 10

OK, so I am sort of better now.  The nagging cough that was my bed fellow for almost a week, and the deathly fever that made me its bitch, are about gone.  So now back to the habit-making/breaking of this 3DP.

Starting tomorrow, back to the endeavor.  Since I have slacked, I will have to try to catch up.  Nothing too crazy, as I still want to make this 3DP legit.  Instead of 30 minutes of swimming, it will be 35.  Instead 1,000 words a day, it will be 1,100.  This should make up for some of the missed time, although not all, I know.

Give me a break, alright.  I was dead, dying and done less than a week ago.  Even Jesus took 3 days to come back from the dead.  Put it into perspective. (I might have been a little bit sacrilegious just now).

lhp

3DP: Write Swimmingly: Day 6

So I tempted the gods.  I said to them, "Hey gods.  I shake my finger at you...my index finger, for I am no. 1!"  I did not listen to them when they gave me a bit of a cough, a little itchiness in the throat.  No, I did not.  After my body was telling me chiiiiill on Day 3, after having finished my second straight day of doing my challenge justice, I decided to forget it.  So on to the pool I went.  Out I came.  Write, I did.  Sleep then wake, then work next day.

'Course fever I get.  It only surfaced fully on day 5.  Chills, sweats, hours and hours of daytime sleeping, about 4 movies, and many-a-pills and OJ-later, I faired much better.  I must give partial credit to my commendable DVD collection for helping out my immune system (thank you much Sideways and Anchorman...and you too, High Fidelity, you're a champ).

Now what?  Well, I am still halfway through death, but I am taking steps back rather than forth.  What is the lesson to be learned?  Just because you tell yourself illness is all in your head does not mean you convinced the rest of your body of that, too.  Unless you are one of those tibetan buddhists.  They are Superman-like.

lhp

3DP: Write Swimmingly: Day 1

The first day is gone, and so far so good. Yes, that is me up top, if you change my race, build, skill, and desire/or not to wear goggles and the swimmer's do-rag.

This first day served as a test of skill. I found out I CAN swim for 30 minutes straight, albeit with continually deteriorating form and increasingly girly whimpers. I also found out I can write 1,000 words on a whim, and even made a story out of it (it pretty much is a story about a drunk older lady who drinks too much wine, plays Credence Clearwater Revival really loud, tries to makeout with pizza delivery boy, and passes out only to wake up and ask for french toast from her startled grandsons). Yeah, it was a pretty moralistic story.

As of today, no six-pack yet. I also don't have that pretty bleached hair surfers sport. And I am also not great enough of a writer to find a better way of starting a sentence than with the forbidden "And." And that is all.

lhp

3DP: The 30-Day Project

After reading a very interesting article in Esquire, I have decided to embark on a journey. Well, many short journeys.

The article chronicles the times of a guy who decides to become a committed smoker for 30 days. By his second day, he smokes a full pack.

What a great idea! I will embark on a set of 30-day Projects, experiments if you will, as a means to expand my boundaries, tolerances, experiences, and reality. I will take up any suggestions that meet the following criteria:

-It can be seen as a way to improve myself, or at least open me to experiences that do not completely destroy my lifestyle (i.e. NO smoke weed for 30 days, get drunk for 30 days straight, beat myself up for 30 days straight)

-They can be done for a period of 30 days straight (i.e. NO getting drunk 30 days in a row, not sleeping for 30 days, etc)

-I am able to chronicle my experience on a consistent basis (i.e. NO living in a hospital for 30 days)

These examples seem far-fetched, but so far these are some options I am planning on acting on:

-Living off only vegetables, fruits, nuts, and water for 30 days

-Lifting weights for 2 hours a day everyday for 30 days/running 2 miles everyday for 30 days

-Smoking at least a cigarette for 30 days straight

-Read one book a day for 30 days

-Write 1000 words a day for 30 days

-Drink 2 drinks a day for 30 days

-Go without a car for 30 days

-Do not pick up a call for 30 days

-Go to a bar/club for 30 days straight

Etc etc

More than one 3DP can go on simultaneously.

WHY? Because I strongly believe limitations should be taken lightly. When you die, you remember what you didn't do, but you fondly remember what you did do.

I have heard that when you are old you finally have the time and pace to remember what you did, didn't do, and wish you did better. These memories fill up your time. I want my memories to be powerful and broad enough to entertain a cantakerous, wily, restless old man.

First 3DP:

Become a writing swimmer in 30 Days

Goal:

To write at least 1,000 words a day, on any topic, fiction or non-fiction, AND to swim 30 minutes a day for the rest of March. By the end of March, I hope to get my creative juices flowing, form a habit of writing constantly, and get re-acquainted with a taxing sport that I let go when I was younger. A published novel and six-pack abs wouldn't be bad either, y'know.

It will be hard to end up writing around 22,000 words by the end of the month, and swim for 10 hours, but it isn't supposed to be easy. It is also not supposed to be beneficial to me, but for this month, lets make it health-conscious.

Likelihood of me dying: 33%, by drowning or led poisoning.
Likelihood of me fully completing this 3DP: 75%. Writer's block, ADD, and ashy, chlorined skin, might turn me off.
Likelihood of me earning wicked stories out of this: 52%. Out of my own imagination, probably. Yes, 52% is not what some would call a vote of confidence, but I am honest. Now bugger off.

I will chronicle as much as I can and see where that goes.

Suggestions for future months?

lhp

ps No real names will be posted. Don't want to incriminate the many.

Vegas. Why Do You Seduce Me So?

It is settled.  I wasted four years getting a college degree.  Sigh.

lhp

Daft Punk Charleston

'nuff said

lhp

Wow

Wow.

lhp

Never Count A Clinton Out

I do not know her exact measurements, but Senator Clinton looks like a short woman. One of my father's favorite sayings is that 'there is no shortie that aint a mean, fighting son-of-a-bitch.' Senator Clinton is that shortie.

Many are counting Hillary out. They say her last statement at the Texas debate was a swan song, a graceful farewell. Bill Clinton has gone as far as telling crowds Hillary must win Ohio and Texas, otherwise she will lose. LOSE, MUST WIN, OVER, those are all very powerful, and rarely used words in American politics. Confidence, even arrogance, is the attitude politicians adopt like Jolie a Vietnamese baby. In politics, the saying goes, you need a big head and broad shoulders.

This applies to all candidates this year. Obama borders on cockiness, which many, including myself, find refreshing and invigorating. But what about Clinton? A Clinton does not put forget a Clinton legacy. They are one of the most powerful families in American history. Hillary is not far off in terms of delegates, support, or even fundraising. Sure, polls show her trailing nationally, in hypothetical match-ups against McCain, and her two 'givens', Texas and Ohio, are now a dead-heat and a slimming edge in the polls, respectively. But remember, she is still a Clinton. She is HILLARY Clinton. An icon, both famous and infamous, and a political figure that often shadows two presidents, one past and one current.

So why this change in mood, no pun intended. One word: Smarts. Oh, and another word: Manipulation. She is once again carving out a pity hole and waving a pink flag, neither conceding nor foaming at the mouth. She is simply reminding us she is human, and an emotional, poor little human, at that. Yes, she is trying to make us feel sorry for her. This would be called 'ridiculous' anytime, except for the victorious precedent it has. It worked after Iowa, it helped her before Super Tuesday, and now, in a fight that looks like one she never prepared for, she is going back to it again.

Crying before New Hampshire helped her win the state by rallying the "You GO Girl" vote. Getting weapy before Super Tuesday gave her big state wins. Now this time, it is a double whammy. Bill issues the ultimatums, while she plays the martyr. St. Hillary, patron saint to whiners and the capricious.

Will it work? So far, it does not show that it has. The polls still show a dead heat in Texas, and Ohio is now a single digit difference state. After Obama's 11 straight wins, I presume his momentum might have given him a slim lead in both states. Maybe this two-pronged act has slowed down the hemorrhage. Maybe this strategy all along has slowed down the hemorrhage.

Watching Hillary go against Obama in the last debate before the March 4th primaries, fending off her fate and Tim Russert, reminds me of a battered, veteran heavyweight trying to slow down the wily, cocky upstart. Sonny Liston v. Cassius Clay. She knows she is in her last few rounds. She is not focusing on skill, but on throwing upper cuts and hugging-down Obama, trying to go for the knockout, or at least tire him out. Will she land one in the end and upset the audience now chanting 'Obama! Obama!'. Around this time next week, I will be talking about a knockout or a split decision.

Michael Buffer...will you do the honors.

lhp

Mexican Music. True. True

Pablo Francisco.

lhp

Myanmar Feels the Pressure From India

The newest development in Myanmar's 'move' back to democracy comes from India, Myanmar's neighbor.  

According to Bloomberg, leaders in India are pressuring the National League of Democracy, Myanmar's ruling party/junta, to consider a revision in their constitution through a referendum in the near future.

How likely is this? Depends.  Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the opposition, thinks it is too early for an election to change national leadership. The sad truth is that even an election were to come, the guidelines that were drafted during a secretive convention between the junta leaders bar Aung San from even running.

Even if a democracy were to come back to this country filled to the rim with turmoil, it will be the equivalent to a platypus democracy: looks like a duck, walks like a duck, but it aint.  If Aung San, the most popular opposition figure (maybe even the most popular leader in the country) cannot run because she cannot even leave her house, how much of a democracy is that?

lhp

Mos Def, Cornell West, and Bill Maher: Not fair for Mos

I am a fan of Mos Def's work.  Today, I am just that.  This segment from Bill Maher's HBO show is quite revealing, not only of Mos Def's comedic timing, but of his evanescent ignorance and intelligence.  However, when he sounds ignorant, he rivals Rush and Buchanan.

Mos Def is trying to emulate Cornell West's constant brilliance by using often used and tired leftists arguments that make liberals look loony.

lhp

The Little Things: Coffee

If you ever get the chance of meeting me/talking to me/bumping into me/or looking in my general direction before I get a cup of coffee in the morning, all I say to you is: Run and call the cops!!! I morning person I am not, so no use in hiding it. However, the idea of being awake IN the morning is a good thing apparently, according to my boss or the California Highway Patrol. Bah. I oblige by injecting caffeine in my veins on a daily basis. You can see the track marks on my Starbucks gift card.

This little thing has such a long history that I need more coffee just to have energy to write about it. But I already had my cup in the morning, so I wont go at it to that extent. Coffee beans have been the cause for turmoil, rising and falling of nations/economies, and cultural change the like only a few things other entities can claim (Jesus, is one of those who can claim it, too). Most Central American countries live off the bean, and China is now being seduced by the sipping delight over tea. Colombia is known for java as much as it is for coca, and Starbucks is now as American as Uncle Sam and Led Zeppelin. Coffee is everywhere.

(Side note: In a battle of Americana supremacy, McDonald's is now challenging Starbucks on their turf, bringing premium coffee to their menus, right next to the Quarter Pounder AND the Quarter Pounder With Cheese).

A thing I find so intriguing about this little thing is how much of a message it carries with its use. An example that comes to mind is what the tradition of drinking coffee says about a country. Americans love to drink their coffee now that it is so customizable. Grande Mocha Soy Half-Caff Latte with a double shot of vanilla. Um, yeah. I have heard longer orders, but I didn't have a notepad with me at the time. There is also the enfatuation with Grande this and Venti that, when the sizes of our coffees are only so much bigger than in other countries, including old-school coffee sipping countries. And of course, the fact that you drank a cup of coffee in the morning is no reason to not drink another 3 hrs later, and then another, and another. What does this say about America? Hey-zeus, man, a whole lot. It is so interesting how much of our sense of individualism, love of uniqueness, proclivity toward excess, and pride in overworking ourselves, goes into our coffee lifestyle.

Mexico is another example. Ask any Chicano who knows a little bit about their heritage, or any Mexican who lived in Mexico for some time, and they will let you know what Cafe con Leche is.

Couldn't find any chicanos or mexico natives? Ok, fine, I will tell you: It means Coffee with Milk. But not just a little bit of coffee with milk. It should be more like Milk with Coffee: you add about an inch or two of coffe into your cup, and the rest is filled with milk. A ratio of 1:4 or so. The coffee is always had in a ceramic cup or mug of some sort. Only recently has the coffee on the go way set in, thanks in part to Starbucks growing in popularity over there. But usually coffee is served in small ceramic mugs, with way more milk than coffee, and only had at breakfast. So what? This can also be seen as a microcosm of Mexican culture:

-The coffee is diluted with milk, making it more of a pleasurable drink, rather than a utilitarian one that is meant to wake you up and get you going. It is actually a PART of the meal. --The easy-going attitude in Mexico.

-Mexicans use ceramic mugs rather than to-go coffee mugs, or buying their coffee in a fast-food fashion. They stay where they buy it, drink it, and then leave. --The more leisurely pace of the Mexican lifestyle.

-Coffee in Mexico is essentially reserved for breakfast, and is hardly ever had after. --Instead of focusing on constantly being on caffeinated and alert, Mexicans focus on getting a good start on the day and making the best they can out of it. The rural tradition to close up shop at an un-American hour (earlier than 4pm) is another example of this. The day was a productive one, now it is to relax and ENJOY it.

You can easily dismiss all these extrapulations as overreaching, or infering too much out of so little. But little things like this often fall in line with the greater cultural context it is a part of.

I am tired. I need more coffee. Git outta my way....

lhp

Matthew McConaug-HEY! Needs A Career Intervention

Peter Travers, the movie critic from Rolling Stone magazine, has taken the time, god bless him, to give Mr. McConaughey some advice: Quit being lazy!!!

The Texan with drawl that goes on for miles, and the pecs that are made of wood, is suffering what may be called Post-Bare Chested Lethargia. Ever since he has chosen to make the top half of himself be exposed bare in almost every movie, McConaughey has failed to show us he is actually using the very, very top of himself, his head. Picking lazy project after lazy project (The Wedding Planner, How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days, Fool's Gold), the sorta-gifted actor is making money off his boobs more than anything else. Let's call him Tomela Anderson from here on out.

Matthew, buddy, get back to work and pick your movies a bit more wisely. Just because you are allowed to be in a movie half-naked, acting as if stoned, and arguing with Kate Hudson through 3/4 of your movies, doesn't mean you should.

lhp

Red Campaign in the Red?

The NY Times reports that Project Red, or Red Campaign, which is dedicated to raising money to fight AIDS in Africa, is not doing so well.

According to their research, Red is actually spending much more in marketing than it is actually raising for the fund. Bono, the lead singer of U2, and one of the most active and outspoken supporters of the campaign, mentioned as early as last year that they had raised close to $50 million for the fund. Not so, apparently:

"In its March 2007 issue, Advertising Age magazine reported that Red companies had collectively spent as much as $100 million in advertising and raised only $18 million. Officials of the campaign said then that the companies had spent $50 million on advertising and that the amount raised was $25 million. Advertising Age stood by its article."

-nytimes.com

A sad truth: image outspends charity.

lhp

Marriage, Downhill From the Start

A new study we can easily add to the "You spent money to figure THAT out" column, 'revealed' today that marriage is doomed from the get-go. Spouses will only see their partners in starker, and more negative terms as the years pile on.

Duh.

I watched "American Beauty" for the first since the first time I saw it about 6 years back. Talk about perfect timing for cynics. The movie, in case you haven't seen it, is essentially a slap in the face to suburbia, yuppies, the American family, and our 'sedation', as the movie calls it, that takes over us once we grow up. There is really no reason to be pissed off, depressed, frustrated, or sexually lethargic, but we are. At least, we BECOME that once we start being successful. Please add your own sarcasm to that last word.

I do not want to spoil anything, for it is a very good movie that may hit home more than you would like, but here is the point in relation to this groundbreaking finding: Commitments kill joy. Not all commitments, especially not the commitments that enrich us and give us responsabilities to help us grow, yada yada, but unnecessary commitments, or, to put it more bluntly, commitments society tells us we should commit to.

Take, for example, the commitment of marriage. What changes when you are in love with someone and want to be with them for the rest of your life? Do you keep doing what you have and, indeed, live the rest of your life with that person, relying on nothing more than your affection for each other and how you enrich each other's lives? Of course not, because that is not what society says you should do. You gotsta get married. That makes things legit. It also makes things forced. No longer are you with that person because you cannot live without them and cherish their flaws and attributes, no, now you are with them because you HAVE to be with them. You signed the papers that said "I am not with you, and you are now with me. We will be the same people as before, but now we are letting the rest of society know that I am with you and you are with me, even though they already knew this. Really, this paper is just a contract that if broken will punish us. Oh yeah, but I love YOU xoxoxoxo."

When we commit, strange things happen: cheating, lack of communication, frustration with each other, nitpicking, insufficiency, etc. I am not sure why that happens, but it may stem from feeling in an artificial place. A commitment pressured by society does not feel natural, even for us who created society and lived in it for quite some time. You would think this would be 'natural' to us by now. But I feel it isn't. Playing the part we are supposed to play may make us rebel. It is as if we are playing Patrick Dempsey sidekick in an 80's teen comedy, when we really wanted to be in Dempsey's shoes picking up the girl, or maybe the bad boy trying to take the girl away from Dempsey, or maybe even the principal who bugs Dempsey day-in day-out....ANYONE but the dorky sidekick!

Living by your own accord is slowly killed as you commit through societal pressures and contracts, and thereby the joy dies also. This is very different from kids, family, or friends. You choose (to a certain degree) to have kids and keep your friends. Your mother, father, siblings, and extended family come NATURALLY to you. They were not forced down your throat by anyone, but are as much of you as you are of them. The same goes with children, also.

There is a good amount of joy in that.

What about other non-natural, non-binding commitments, like a job? Same thing, but with some caveats. You need money to live, and usually a job can get that for you--usually meaning you make enough money to buy something from the company you work for. I am sure I will not be alone, however, when I say that a job also kills joy. No brainer there. It sort of commits you to it, seeing that you need money to live and buy stuff you 'need', so it kills you that you are working somewhere you don't want to be. This point is also bruisingly explored in "American Beauty."

What then of marriage and the hill you roll down on after you take the plunge? Well, a big, fat "I told you so" wont cure anything. I can only suggest that you choose wisely, because unlike a job, you cannot give a two-notice, or unlike a friend, you cannot stop returning their calls. They will be there, day and night, good and bad, happy or sad, and they will not leave quietly. And if they do, well, damn, I bet she was cheating on you.

lhp

Romney Is Done!

The AP reports that Mitt Romney, Former Gov. of Massachussets, will suspend his campaign, and effectively give the nomination to John McCain.

Now, it is up to Huckabee to cozy up to McCain for a VP spot. A McCain-Romney ticket is too crazy to work--too much hate. The only other option would be take up the only other Republican with some well-known conservative credentials: Fred "Lazy Fox" Thompson.

Dun Dun.

Either that or go with America's Mayor.

lhp

Obama Raises Over 7m in <48hrs

Demonstrating his campaign's ability to ride momentum, the Obama camp has just announced that the Senator has received over $7m in small campaign donations since the polls closed on Feb. 5th! This goes down very hard for the Clinton campaign, as they just revealed that Hillary and Bill put in $5m of their own money into the campaign at the end of last month in order to stay competitive with Obama.

This is just another reason to add to the list of why Hillary should be worried right about now, written about quite adequately here by a Politico.com writer.

lhp

Super Tuesday In Bumper Sticker Form

There is a lot to learn from Super Tuesday.

And since there is so much, this will be in Bumper Sticker-form to minimize text and maximize POW-effect.

-Clinton Wins CA cuz of Latinos and Asians

-Obama Is Liked By Whites

-Obama: 14. Clinton: 8 (states)

-Hillary Wins Only Handful More Delegates Than 'O'

-McCain Wins Over Everyone, Just Not Conservatives

-Huckabee is Backabee

-Romney Needs His Own Exit Strategy

-McCain-Huckabee: 'We Fill Gaps'

-Obama: Delegate Rich, Bitch!


Up next: Obama-happy Hawai'i, Louisiana, Washington State, and Wisconsin.

lhp

Feminists and Clinton: Love and Hate

Before delving into the massive amount of information from Super Tuesday, and beginning to glean any sort of substantive meat for the upcoming dates to come, let me lightly tread on thin ice.

Feminism and Hillary. Two words that rile you up or turn you off. I am slowly tilting from one side to the other, like one of those old bobbing toys that dip into a glass of water and then back, and forth. Today, I am not getting near that water.

Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of Bill and Hillary, "sent" (it is still not confirmed by the campaign if she did or didn't) an email to all the Hillary email devotees. It linked the reader to an essay by Robin Morgan, an old school feminists, and considered one of the founders of the current wave of feminism. This essay is a part deux of an essay she wrote some decades back. It is apropriately called "Goodbye to All That (#2)."

It is a call to arms to all women to support Hillary, not because she is a woman, but because of everything else but that.

Some choice excerpts (the "he" in these selections is Obama):

"—Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.

—She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.” (Ever had labor pains?)

—When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.

—Young political Kennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.” (Personally, I’m unimpressed with Caroline’s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe’s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.) "

She calls attention to the Clinton-hate out there:

"Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.

Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame."

And the usual feminist arguments:

"Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless.

We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attempted gynocides.

We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and being extra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all.

We know that at this historical moment women experience the world differently from men—though not all the same as one another—and can govern differently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf."

Fair enough.

This is not about that, anymore. The same argument can be made for Obama: slavery, segregation, lynching, discrimination, rape, ridicule, regress, poverty, genocide, assimilation, and many more powerful, and equally true terms to send sirens and tempers flying. I will not dismiss one argument or the other. I believe both are equally important and will be an issue this election with those type of people that are either motivated to vote because of an opposition to all of this, or motivated to stop the candidate because of an approval (if only tacitly) of all of this.

Where she misses the point is that her arguments are not that, but hyperboles. And badly aimed hyperboles at that.

Those remarks, attacks, and opposition against Hillary cannot be classified as "hate against women," just as the remarks made by Joe Biden about Obama are not "hate against blacks." They are only there because a she is there. An issue would be raised also if Mitt Romney were the front-runner (ooooh, a Mormon!), or Huckabee (a crazy Southerner!), or Kucinich (a hippie!). They would be an issue in a lesser degree, but still an issue.

That attitude toward Hillary and women in power is not because of 'hate.' But because of 'fear.' Fear of change, mostly. Changing the status quo is a scary thought for many ingrained in their ways. This is different from what Obama has and will experience. Obama is going against fear AND hate. Even the 'hate' written about here is relegated to fringe groups on the extreme right. Sure, there will be uneasiness in the hearts of bigots across the country if they see Obama take the presidential oath, but it will be just that, an uneasiness with the change this country will undertake.

Back to Hillary, she is not going against a man, but a movement. Vernon Jordan, a Clinton faithful, mentioned this truth. Hillary is not going toe-to-toe with Obama, but with his movement. His movement is based on youthful idealism, hope, change, and centers around intangibles, rather than policies and wonkiness. This is exactly what the John F Kennedy movement was about. If feminists like Morgan believe Hillary is fighting against the old ways of America, they are wrong. Hillary is battling the new, the change in America. It is not because she represents the old America, but because she DOES NOT represent the new America.

This transcends gender or race. Culture,class, and expectations are motivating this battle on both sides. Feminists like Morgan cannot grasph this notion, apparently. It is all about voting because I AM this, and I AM that, not I WILL be this or I WILL be that.

lhp

At 9:05 pm PST: MSNBC Projects Hillary a Winner in CA

Too soon?

Missouri moves over to Obama's side.  

lhp

McCain: Winner and Loser

The tide is going well for the USS McCain.  However, a tempest looms.

Look at the states McCain has won thus far:

-Arizona

-New York

-Delaware

-New Jersey

-Connecticut

-Illinois

-Oklahoma

ALL of them, except Oklahoma, are NOT Republican strongholds.  He is not winning the typical Red state, or even the Red-leaning state, but Blue states.  This does not help his case with the GOP base.  Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and all the other right-wing loudmouths will love to hate him, and will have something to chew on with these wins.  A California win will cement his nomination, at least until the actual ceremony is held.  But he knows the real fight will come up.  Not with convincing some Dems and independents to vote for him, but to actually let Republicans know who the Republican candidate is.

lhp

Will the Latino Vote Bury Obama?

Based off exit polls in New York, New Jersey, Arizona, and New Mexico, one has to ask the very important question: Will the Latino vote take down Obama?

According to these exit polls, the Latino vote is flowing over to Hillary Clinton.  Why?

Two things:

-Bill Clinton

-Economy 

Latinos who are being asked why they had a 'favorable' or 'very favorable' view of Hillary mentioned the fact that Bill is her husband, and that they remember Bill's term as one of economic prosperity.  This notion, a healthy economy, is very important to Latinos and their families.

The polls in California have just closed.  The counting begins.  Clinton is ahead with the early voters.  This will soon diminish, but by how much?

"Clinton won six in 10 Hispanic voters."

-msnbc.com

Obama is ahead with white voters and black voters, a surprise and an expected outcome, respectively.  If Obama loses it will be because of the Latino surge for Clinton, and almost nothing else.

lhp

Update: MSNBC: Obama Getting Close in MA, CT

In two very important East Coast states, Obama has been bridging the gap between him and Clinton.

This is Clinton's backyard. If Obama can win, or at least be very competitive here, it says how much broad appeal he has.

lhp

Update: Clinton awarded TN by MSNBC; Ahead in MO

A key win for Clinton, if she can take MO, a swing state.

Clinton is currently ahead by a lot in NJ, but solid numbers wont come until an hour or so from now from East Coast states.

lhp

Update: NBC gives NJ to McCain

Jumping the gun over other media outlets, NBC is awarding New Jersey to McCain.

They also have Huckabee winning Georgia over McCain. With that outcome, Huckabee could be gaining some serious steam as the second-most powerful candidate in the GOP nomination run. Sorry, Romney.

For now, Romney MUST win CA in order to be viable, otherwise he is done.

Obama must wait and see what happens in NJ, NY, and CA. Hillary needs to win in CA to avoid becoming a follower rather than a co-leader in the race.

McCain, well, he just needs to go home and watch the results quietly.

lhp

Update within the Update: Clinton no longer clear winner of Oklahoma.

Update: Obama Wins Big in GA, IL

With a vote ratio of over 2:1, Obama is projected to win the state of Georgia, and his home state of Illinois, CNN reports.

Clinton has picked her first, Oklahoma, and is projected to win Alabama.

Romney has picked up his homestead, Massachussets; McCain has picked up Connecticut, Illinois, and possibly Alabama over Huckabee (!); Huckabee won the weird voting experiment called the West Virginia primary earlier today, along with a projected win in TN.

oooooh, boy. So far, few surprises. The biggest surprise might be McCain winning over Huckabee in Alabama. But overall, everything is where many (including myself) projected it to be at this point.

lhp

So far, so good: High Turnout

Turnout has increased dramatically this year compared to 2004's presidential primary, CNN reports.

"California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, the state's top elections official, said 700,000 more Californians were on voter rolls than during the 2004 presidential cycle."

lhp

Obama-Clinton Differences: Lobbyists

This pretty much reinforces the truth that Clinton will prolonge the past, while Obama will bring forth the future:

"Clinton took in $823,087 from registered lobbyists and members of their firms in 2007 and the second-biggest recipient was McCain, who took in $416,321, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based group which tracks political giving. Barack Obama, Clinton's rival for the Democratic nomination, doesn't take money from registered lobbyists, although he received $86,282 from employees of firms that lobby, according to the center"
-Yahoo News.

lhp

Deniro: Vote for Obama's Inexperience!

I love DeNiro. I love him as an amazing, courageous actor. I love him as a genuine, no-bullshit human being. And I now love him as a man who says little, but that little packs a punch.

DeNiro is endorsing Obama. How does he endorse him? In typical DeNiro way, which is to be atypical. "He had the inexperience not to support the Iraq War." Beautiful.

New Slogan:

Obama 08: Inexperience in Corruption

Obama 08: Inexperience in Arrogance

Obama 08: Inexperience in Politics-As-Usual

lhp

Momentum is a Bitch (in the Feminist sense)

'Bitch' has been a term the feminist movement has been trying to 'take back' (sense the lack of respect I have for language wars) for some time, similar to how the gay movement took back 'queer', or the african-american community changed the meaning--not definition--of the word 'nigga.'

A leading feminist magazine is Bitch. Some celebrate the word 'cunt', and even make a book out of it. Anyway...

Setting up a scenario where the first, truly viable female candidate is up for the nomination of a party that does not relegate their women to subservient roles (here is looking at you, Condi), you would think that women would embrace such a candidate. Especially feminists. Alas, momentum is a bitch (see, that is a pun). Momentum, and the fact that people are starting to see what this person is really all about--that goes for both Obama and Hillary.

Feminists in Hillary's foster home, New York, are saying Oh yes to Obama. Why? Mainly because Hillary is entrenched in the mess of the Iraq war, and because they see she really has no true convictions, only ones that pay off in votes. Obama is taking away the vote many thought was a no-brainer for Hillary only a few months ago: the New Yorkian feminist. What is next?

The downfall.

lhp

Why Obama Will Win Supah Dupah Tuesday. Yessir.

McCain is pretty much the bell of the ball. Romney is just watching the John McCain parade ride by, and all he can do is ask for a ride in the back. That is, of course, McCain pulls a Howard Dean "Yargggh".

That is to be determined...but not expected.

Leaving the Dark Side behind, what of the Democrats?

John Edwards is out, and at the moment, he has nowhere he would like to call home. He has not endorsed anyone, and only a matter of drama-queenery will make him endorse someone before Super Tuesday. I am putting my money on Obama, mostly because John Edwards ended making an ad-hoc alliance at the end of his campaign, pinning Hillary as the old hack, and them two as the faces (pretty ones, I might add) of change. We shall wait and see.

What about the other sorta-important Democrat who dropped out, Gov. Richardson of New Mexico? Obama. He has mentioned his respect for him. This little anecdote gives away the gist like a modern-day hollywood trailer. There goes some latinos for Obama.

So where does that leave us? Obama vs. Hillary in the most populous states yet to vote. You have Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey, Georgia, and New Mexico, among others, voting on Feb. 5th. Who wins big, who loses steam, or will it be a quagmire to be decided in Ohio (shiver)?

Obama will win big, and here is why: He will take his acropolis, Illinois, along with his new adopted home, Kansas. Georgia will be Obama purple, mainly because of his african-american following, and the support Edwards will bring to the Obama camp (hey, he wants to give the VP business one more run--and god knows Obama is no Kerry). Edwards brings Union support, working class-support, and the leftiest of the base left that scurried off the Kucinich and Gravel ship as it sank. This will secure Georgia (expect a decisive win there).

That leaves some giants: California, New York, New Jersey, and New Mexico. Clinton will get her own adopted home (yes, adopted), New York, but not by a large margin. Her lead has diminished there, and she has taken it for granted. New Jersey will be Obama! I know, I know, this is highly improbable, but so was the lead Obama has taken away from Clinton in almost every state she took for won. He will not win big...but win indeed. A slim margin will still make NJ Obama country.

That leaves California and New Mexico. Dare I say: Obama. New Mexico is not as much a certainty as California, but Richardson's endorsement will cement sufficient of a margin to give him the state--he is very respected there, and easily won re-election the last time he asked for it. California seems to be the prize of all prizes. It should be. The delegate-rich state bumped its primary up to Feb. 5th, making it as important as Ahnuld believed it should be, and I agree with him there. Hillary's lead is no longer an insurmountable hill. It is now a vision of dreams past.

Obama will win California, mainly because California has added the most amount of new voters (a very Obama-prone group) to the rolls since 2000 than any other state, close to three million. His african-american support, and growing (yet still weak) support among latinos will help. What will decide is the fact that independents can vote in the Dem. primary in CA...not in the Republican primary. Independents FLOCK to Obama and McCain. Obama is on the Democratic ballot, McCain is not. It is simple math.

Obama will win CA, NJ, NM, GA, and KS, among others. Hillary will have to settle for New York and Arizona (maybe). Obama will mark his territory and paint the town purple.

If this is not the case, no worries. Ohio comes up next, and thanks to the support of John Edwards and Teddy Kennedy, Obama will handedly win this Union friendly, working-class heavy state.

Oh yeah, and don't forget Oprah, who has left the shadows to once again bring the "You Go Girl" vote back to Barack.

Sorry, Hillary, you tigah now.

lhp

No Country For Old Men

Sure, the Oscars are just around the corner. Sure, I consider myself a movie buff.  Sure, this movie's buzz merits a viewing faster than you can say 'dixie.' So why did it take me so long for me to go see it? I blame society.

No Country For Old Men falls neatly after I just saw Juno and There Will Be Blood, because, in a sense, it is a bit of a mixture of both.  Juno is the unconventional comedy that works hard for a genuine chuckle, rather than a cheap gut laugh.  There Will Be Blood is the visually stunning, chilling drama that lingers...mostly for its brash approach and how it beckons people to choose to either love or hate some of its most intriguing moments.  NCFOM is somewhere in between, but above both. 

The direction of the Cohen brothers needs another round of applause like I need another reason to procrastinate.  But here it is, anyway: This is not as good as Fargo. It is better.  I know that is tantamount to being sacrilegious in the art of filmmaking, but I whole-heartedly believe it.  This movie is as if Fargo was stripped of all the quirks that quickly became part of the Cohen brand (which some people hate them for), and was left with only lean, fat-free raw meat. 

When the movie is meant to be funny, it is, but not right away.  The Cohen brand of humor is much more natural, as if you were joking around with a good friend when you are in your 50's, not when you are 15, as many movies try to get their laughs.  And the Cohen brothers have such a handle on pacing that it never feels as if the scene is lingering for too long or if the next scene was rushed.  This serves as a great way for them to make this movie a spectacular showcase of their talents.  While I felt that There Will Be Blood is a movie that you admire more than love, NCFOM is one you love for how admirable it is.  The suspense and thrill packed in this movie is razor-sharp.  If you have seen Fincher's Zodiac, then you might feel a bit of deja vu when you see some of the most tense scenes in NCFOM.  They both use great positioning of the viewer to maximize the tension, all the while taking the time necessary to make you want to squirm.

This movie is not just a celebration of the directors.  The ensemble cast deserves a hearty helping of praise.  The cast won the SAG's Best Ensemble Cast award, and I damn sure should have.  Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Tommy Lee Jones, Woody Harrelson, Kelly Macdonald, are all amazing.  Bardem has already won or been nominated for every award under the sun, probably including Best 4-star crash rating, Best Rap Video of the Year, and the toothpaste dentists recommend the most, but it is well deserved.  In my book, he is this year's Forest Whitaker, poised to win his Oscar.  His consistently unnerving and complex Chigurh is the embodiment of the Modern, or New, Man.  He has a ruthless code of ethics, that are really not that ethical.  His intentions surpass money, women, or fame.  He has no intentions, but to do what he wants and control the destiny of as many as he can.  His violent streak is ingrained in him.  It is not a part of him, it IS him.  He shows no emotion, except for a cocky smile every now and then.  The ending is a matter of much contention.  It should be.  But I believe it is really the best way to end the allegory that is NCFOM.  The New Man and the Old Man are in this world...what does that mean?  Where are we headed? Who will survive?

The Old Man is Tommy Lee Jones' Sheriff Bell.  He has his own code of ethics, and indeed they are ethical.  He is often surprised at how people can act so unhuman-like.  What happened to the humanity in humanity?  He is philosophical, he takes his time, and he cherishes the occasional banter with his wife and colleagues.  He is the Old Man.  This is no longer a country for him.  Tommy Lee Jones should be yelling and storming around, with the lack of respect he has received from the higher ups in Oscardom for his outstanding performance.  Just watching him ponder and philosophize is a treat.  You can see how much fun he is having with himself, and you can see how much he is empathizing with a man in his situation: a good man trying to make some good come out of this hellish mess between guys who are not Old, but New, and have no respect for the old ways of living.

The other New Man is Josh Brolin's Llewelyn Moss.  A hunter, a Texan, a man in the middle.  He is not Old like Bell, but he is also not New like Chigurh.  He has believes in doing good, but he also wants his own piece of the pie.  He smirks at life AND death, but only with a bit of displeasure coming with it.  His wife (Macdonald) is a great exposer of his rugged and soft side.  With her, he is kind, teasing, brash, old-school masculine, and new-school feminine.  He is brought to this hell because he was greedy enough to take the money, and because he was nice enough to help someone one out.  Where does that put him? It puts him in what Jones' Bell calls the "mess".

No Country For Old Men may not be a perfect movie, with the displeasure some of its scenes (especially its ending) and tones might cause in many, or the fact that it plays with the audience a bit, switching moods fast enough to make the weak hearted get queasy.  It is pretty close to perfection, though.  If you hold Fargo near and dear to your heart, then let me introduce you to its older brother.  

Burma Close to a Boil

Events have escalated, and so has the media coverage.  A part of the world that has suffered for longer than we have cared to acknowledge is finally receiving the attention it deserves...although it may be too late.

Burma's Junta is holding its saber steady above the heads of the protesting monks, whose respected position in society has kept them alive.  That, and the influence of neighboring China, who has tried to keep the peace, even though their own human rights record is more laughable than The Simpsons at its zenith.  Why has China, a country who worries more about amassing regional power than individual rights, become a champion of civil disobedience at this time?  Many believe it is all about geopolitics: a stable region is a profitable region.  It could also give China some brownie points with all the rich countries, and their 'Western' ideas on freedom and human rights.

Whatever the reason, the attention the event is now receiving may end up saving the monks and the region, or amplifying the ripple effect a massacre would create.  The call for a just end is increasing in pitch.  If we see a bloodbath or a dove on the 11 o'clock news will be a last minute call.

Want Me to Speak English? Pay Up!

I have about three minutes to write out an argument against all those who get pissed off when they encounter someone at a resturant/store/office who can't speak English. Here I go.

Pay for it! Language is a skill as much as being proficient at 10-key or making a Whopper. If someone applied at Burger King, but obviously is not proficient at speaking English, it is the duty of the employer to train them to do so. Do they not train them to understand the proper way of deep frying chicken nuggets? Did these un-Englished employees know how to do that beforehand? Unless they are professional fast foodeers, they probably did not. That is my point.

The nay sayers will say, But English is essential not just for working in the United States, but for LIVING in the United States. Negative. Depending on where you live, the prevalence of English is variable. California: Spanish trumps English in most of the state. Detroit, MI: Having the highest Muslim population in America, I am sure English is not the tounge of taste. English is not the official language of the US, and the Engli-philes have tried many times, and failed, to make it such.

Pizza is done.

Black or Female: Pick your Democrat

"I'm in", were the blunt words used by Hillary Clinton, letting the political world know she is a contender. Barack Obama, the other Democrat waiting to wage war against the Republican contender, came out of the closet last week. The stage is set for one of the most interesting presidential elections in our history. Who would you vote for: a black guy with a funny last name, or a woman with a controversial last name?

The pundits have noted for some time the obstacles a black or female Democratic candidate will face. If Obama ends up being the party's candidate, racism, bigotry, traditional roles, and racial tension will be in his way. If Hillary obtains the party label, her last name will be as much of an issue as her gender and her reputation of being a "career-oriented" woman. Both face uphill battles in the South, and considerable challenges in the other Red States. Like Borat, this race will reveal the prejudices our country loves to dismiss as nonexistent.

Besides the eminent obstacles these two candidates will face by the bigots in our country, are they worth voting for? Obama is a Senator with only 3 years under his political belt, a novice in comparison to other Congressmen. The Senator from Illinois has a record that makes labels stick very easily. Hillary is politician that has a Bush complex--you either love her or hate her. She is guilty by association because of former President Clinton, and has never fully recovered. Many see her as a feminazi, a calculating wife that manipulated the presidency to her whims. Of course, these are the same people who will have an issue with Obama's "color".

The lack of record in Congress can serve as an advantage for Obama. John Kerry, being the lifetime member of Congress that he is, saw how his voting record was a liability over Bush's blunt positions. Hillary is on similar ground. Her years in Congress have not been too many, and she has been able to maintain a steady record to avoid a "flip-flop" label. And although they are both considered liberal and to vote liberal, that is not a sufficient characterization of them.

Barack Obama is Pro-Israel, Hillary Clinton is gaining reputation as a bit of a war hawk. Her stance on national security is stern, his stance on Israel is not a typically liberal one. Although many will want to deny it, Hillary has been moving to the Right, becoming more of a Republican than a Democrat. She is reconsidering her position on abortion, and she has calmed down on Universal Health Care. Obama, on the other hand, has made himself to be a consistent lefty. He is stern on gun control, against the death penalty, and a committed pro-choicer. Who is the biggest boogey monster for the Republican? A notorious liberal, who is shedding her ideological scales, or a young liberal who has little record to pin him as such?

In the end, the battle will not be focused on voting records. The battle will be over what bugs the bigoted American the most, a black or a woman president? If Democrats win the White House with Obama and Clinton on the ticket, the greatest dilemma for a redneck/sexist will be presented: taking out a black/woman president will bring the black/woman vice-president to power. Racist and sexist, to be or not to be?

Democrats Face A Lose-Lose in ‘06

It is easy to put aside the immoral, corrupt, disgusting behavior of the Republicans as the good ol’ boys having their fun. And I will do just that. There is really no need to be concerned with the slow, stubborn, self-righteous Elephant anymore. They are as done as freshmen at Oasis. The only hope they have are the Democrats.
Winning by being the “other” party lies somewhere between sufficient and sad, but it seems to be the strategy of the Democrats for 2006. Do not expect any persuasive rhetoric, or courageous stands…just the minimal. The Democrats might end up winning big in November by watching the GOP go up in flames with us. When you have Matt “HrnyRep18” Foley, Tom Delay, Bob “Show Me The MoNey” Ney, among others, it guarantees a good fiery show. Unfortunately, this doesn’t cut it for me. As it looks right now, the Dems will win by being losers.
There are two likely scenarios to come up after these November elections, and both are not Donkey-friendly. The first scenario has the Democrats losing, literally, and thereby losing any credibility they had left as a party. Losing to the Republicans, at this point in time, when they are self-destructing in every way foreseeable would be the kiss of death. Goodbye Democrats, hello Tories. The second scenario has the Democrats losing, potentially, in 2008. If there is anything we have learned from the Republicans is that they fight back hard. Bill Clinton saw this when they took over in 1994 after decades out of congressional power. Democrats have let the Republicans go unchecked for too long, and they have gone accustomed to the taste of power. It tastes like chicken—and they looove their chicken (takes one to love one). Because of this, the Right will fight with all their might in 2008 for the big one: the presidency.
I cannot say I would not be happy if the Republicans lost both Houses in the election, because my religion does not allow me to lie. But the outcome must be seriously analyzed, and the possible long-term outcomes pondered. The Republicans have done their share (thanks, by the way), and now it is time for the Democrats to show some gravitas. They need to readjust their mentality, into one of a winning party. The results in ’06 don’t count, only the momentum. The only way the Democrats can win in November is to believe they can win in November…of 2008.

Manly Men

The recent barrage of uber-"manly" ads, books, and movies have made it clear that there is a movement afoot: one where no pansies are allowed. The effeminate or even the modestly sensitive man is no longer an acceptable model, according to the proponents of this new Mr. Macho Movement.

Consumer culture has once again become involved in this masculinity-shaping movement. Carl's Jr. has pointed out what is considered food appropriate for a man and what is "chick food" (hint: the more testosterone in the food, the more testosterone in you). Irish Spring has commanded men to "take back the shower," with their soap "for men." An Alphabet of Manliness is a bestseller that tells us what the proper form of a drop kick and the art of road rage. I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, gives us insight into the life of a misogynist, belligerent drunk who swings and clubs more often than Tarzan. These examples can even be seen at the highest levels of government.

These are signs of a new movement within an evolving one. In Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, Susan Faludi describes the ornamental conception of manhood that has evolved since the end of World War II. The old definition of masculinity focused on contribution in society for the general well-being. The post-WWII American man is no longer about substance, but about style. It is not "masculine" to do well, but to look good. Within this definition, I see a new stream of thought that is increasingly gaining momentum. Today, some think it is not only important to look good, but to look good being bad. The Neanderthal must now posses a club as well as a velvet blazer. This frat boy mentality has contempt for anything slightly weak.

Here is a pointer if you want to emulate that supposed masculinity: the more you act as if you have learned all your life lessons in a bar, the manlier you are.

I have a problem with this addition to the already flawed definition of masculinity. It puts too much importance on the appearance of things. It makes masculinity even more ornamental than it already is.

A man cannot prove himself one by supporting his community or lending his services for the common good, but instead must play a counterproductive role in the celebrity culture in this country: look goooood creating havoc. As Budweiser claimed, "man laws" must be established, in order to instruct men how to be "manly."

It appears I need to take note.

Boo the Loner

"Going to the movies by yourself is creepy," I once heard someone say. I, of course, told the movie theater cashier how wrong he was and took my ticket. The movie was a delight. Thank you very much.

This pervasive attitude in our society towards "loners" or those who participate in tasks we typically associate with more than one person is a bit confusing to me. Many Americans would rather stay at home, rather than enjoying a restaurant meal, going to a party or a ball game, or watch a movie by themselves.

Oddly enough, even these stay-at-home-and-pout people are also labeled "loners." Our culture sure has something against the citizen who buys TV dinners for one. Matchmaking services abound, reminding us our soulmate is out there, so go find them now! The lifelong bachelor is at times admired by men who wish for such relationship freedom, and swooned over by women who like the unattainable man, but more often felt pity by those who already have a partner. The bachelorette is even worse off, having to fend off pressures from many venues to get married and settle down-how it is supposed to be.

Loners in high school are shunned by the rest of the students. At the same time, people in the workplace see loners as the likeliest employee to go postal. Hardly ever do you see romantic comedies that end by leaving the single man and woman, well, single. It appears to be anathema to our culture to let people be lonely.

Of course, we human beings are social animals in the need of interactions with other beasts of our kind. Chatting or grinding it up with other people is perfectly human (and at times a bit graphic). But does this go against our homegrown idea of the American Dream? We, as a culture, are taught that the American Dream is what every citizen strives for, to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps.

The self-made man or woman is often the greatest figure of admiration. I have to figure that sometime during that triumphant voyage to the top this figure of admiration might have fit the "loner" status. I am sure these people did things by themselves, solved their own problems, motivated themselves, and probably went to a couple of restaurants by themselves to mull in their thoughts.

So then, why do they not suffer the wrath as does the guy who loves to read in the corner of Barnes and Noble? It might have to do with how they present themselves.

An air of confidence and success separates the self-made American from the loner. Nice slacks and a $100 haircut do not hurt either. If you win, you are no longer a loner, but the embodiment of the American Dream. If you do not succeed, then start dressing in black and pout.

This is unfair. There is no doubt. Your value as a person goes back to what you have or do, not what you are.

Shouldn't the loner be accepted as a part of the American Dream? Do these two ideas go well together? It is worth analyzing if this odd relationship is indicating: a) hypocrisies in our culture, b) the American Dream is actually a fabricated illusion, or c) All of the above. Of course, you can add d) none of the above, but I am afraid you would be by your lonesome on that one.