Wesley and Howard, up in a tree...
Salon had an article today about the 'civil-union' between Wesley Clark and Howard Dean. The article itself was OK, mostly about how the two front runners haven't really been attacking each other and the respect each one's activists have for the other, but it was really the cover picture that got me. :)
Monday, September 29, 2003
Three Movies
Saw three movies in the past couple of days, mostly in a desperate attempt to do anything other than study for my actuarial exam. I'm sure I'll find more creative uses of my time as the exam approaches, but for now this is what I came up with.
Thirteen
Good movie, probably an 8 or 9/10. Got into a discussion over a beer afterwards about what the role of the boys in the movie was. I argued that they were really secondary to the relationship between the two girls, but everyone else at the table (who just all happened to be female) disagreed, stating that the attention from boys was the prime mover of the movie. I'm still not convinced though -- there was just too much interaction between the girls where the guys weren’t even around, or just used as objects for sexual experimentation. The real emotional bond was between the girls and I think that's what drove the characters.
Had some great scenes, including one where the two girls first meet and there's a quick montage where they check each other out to see if they're wearing the appropriate clothes. The movie sold the relationship between the characters well to -- I found that despite the risqué and sometimes questionable nature of what most of them were doing, I still empathized with them and the crappy stuff that they had to go through, especially the mother who tried to walk the line between being 'cool' and being the protective mother.
The Quiet American
Probably the first movie I've seen where Brendan Fraser was OK. Playing opposite someone as talented as Michael Caine helps though. Overall I thought this was pretty good, although I think I'd have to give it a 7/10 because I felt that the story could have been better adapted to the screen. An interesting perspective of Vietnam during the late French colonial days when they were fighting the communists. Shows how American ideology (personified by Brendan Fraser) caused their eventual involvement. Isaac voted against this one because it didn’t have a ‘message,’ but I thought the story itself held up independently.
Solaris
Well, there had to be one movie I saw that wasn't all that good. I blame this one on Isaac, since he was the one who made the decision to rent it. A sci-fi flick starring George Clooney about a planet-star-thing that makes the dreams of people on an orbiting spacecraft come to reality, or more specifically, the person they dream about. Shot in a very minimalist style à la 2001, except here they couldn't pull it off. The result are piles of scenes where the action is slower than cold molasses, usually with George Clooney broodingly staring around. Opposing these scenes is the most strained dialogue I've possibly heard in a movie. It would have been better if this was shot as a parody, since at least then I could understand what they were trying to accomplish. Surprisingly, it good fairly good reviews from the critics, with the lead review in Rotten Tomatoes calling it a 'gorgeous and deceptively minimalist cinematic tone poem.' Maybe if you've smoked a gram or two beforehand.
Saw three movies in the past couple of days, mostly in a desperate attempt to do anything other than study for my actuarial exam. I'm sure I'll find more creative uses of my time as the exam approaches, but for now this is what I came up with.
Thirteen
Good movie, probably an 8 or 9/10. Got into a discussion over a beer afterwards about what the role of the boys in the movie was. I argued that they were really secondary to the relationship between the two girls, but everyone else at the table (who just all happened to be female) disagreed, stating that the attention from boys was the prime mover of the movie. I'm still not convinced though -- there was just too much interaction between the girls where the guys weren’t even around, or just used as objects for sexual experimentation. The real emotional bond was between the girls and I think that's what drove the characters.
Had some great scenes, including one where the two girls first meet and there's a quick montage where they check each other out to see if they're wearing the appropriate clothes. The movie sold the relationship between the characters well to -- I found that despite the risqué and sometimes questionable nature of what most of them were doing, I still empathized with them and the crappy stuff that they had to go through, especially the mother who tried to walk the line between being 'cool' and being the protective mother.
The Quiet American
Probably the first movie I've seen where Brendan Fraser was OK. Playing opposite someone as talented as Michael Caine helps though. Overall I thought this was pretty good, although I think I'd have to give it a 7/10 because I felt that the story could have been better adapted to the screen. An interesting perspective of Vietnam during the late French colonial days when they were fighting the communists. Shows how American ideology (personified by Brendan Fraser) caused their eventual involvement. Isaac voted against this one because it didn’t have a ‘message,’ but I thought the story itself held up independently.
Solaris
Well, there had to be one movie I saw that wasn't all that good. I blame this one on Isaac, since he was the one who made the decision to rent it. A sci-fi flick starring George Clooney about a planet-star-thing that makes the dreams of people on an orbiting spacecraft come to reality, or more specifically, the person they dream about. Shot in a very minimalist style à la 2001, except here they couldn't pull it off. The result are piles of scenes where the action is slower than cold molasses, usually with George Clooney broodingly staring around. Opposing these scenes is the most strained dialogue I've possibly heard in a movie. It would have been better if this was shot as a parody, since at least then I could understand what they were trying to accomplish. Surprisingly, it good fairly good reviews from the critics, with the lead review in Rotten Tomatoes calling it a 'gorgeous and deceptively minimalist cinematic tone poem.' Maybe if you've smoked a gram or two beforehand.
Thursday, September 25, 2003
The UN and Iraq
An article in the Christian Science Monitor today outlines what seems to be a resolution in the ongoing US/UN disagreement over Iraq. With Bush working with Germany and Russia again and things are looking good for having international troops in Iraq in next few months. I would argue, however, that the best strategy for the member nations of the UN who aren't the US or the 'coalition of the willing' would be to agree to a resolution, but hold off on any actually troop deployment for at least a half year, if not longer. This may seem like a strange strategy given the need to ensure the safety of the Iraqi people, but there is a larger fish to fry here, namely one from Crawfordsville Texas.
The longer that the United States remains the only power of influence in Iraq, the more money they will have to pour into the country to keep it stable and, and this is where the realpolitik part comes in, the more losses they will suffer to their armed forces. I have read in a couple of places that Americans don't mind casualties per say, but they don't like casualties while thinking that they aren't on the winning side of the strategy, i.e. that they are in a quagmire. The money spent, combined with a poor economy and the top-heavy tax cuts, will exacerbate the fiscal problems of the United States. This combined with ongoing casualties with no end in sight continue to sink GW's poll numbers so that in a year from now the Clark/Dean team rolls over him with promises for more international cooperation and fiscal sanity. Order that was taken away by this administrations unilateralism will then be restored to the international system and we can start making some real progress in dealing with the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. (you do remember Afghanistan, don't you?)
I don't really like the idea of facilitating increased casualties for anyone, and it is true that there needs to be some semblance of order restored to Iraq for the sake of the people living there. But the larger problem for the global community is dealing with an administration that disrespects the international community with it's cowboy-like antics, and holding out a little before helping might be the optimum strategy to kill two birds with one stone.
An article in the Christian Science Monitor today outlines what seems to be a resolution in the ongoing US/UN disagreement over Iraq. With Bush working with Germany and Russia again and things are looking good for having international troops in Iraq in next few months. I would argue, however, that the best strategy for the member nations of the UN who aren't the US or the 'coalition of the willing' would be to agree to a resolution, but hold off on any actually troop deployment for at least a half year, if not longer. This may seem like a strange strategy given the need to ensure the safety of the Iraqi people, but there is a larger fish to fry here, namely one from Crawfordsville Texas.
The longer that the United States remains the only power of influence in Iraq, the more money they will have to pour into the country to keep it stable and, and this is where the realpolitik part comes in, the more losses they will suffer to their armed forces. I have read in a couple of places that Americans don't mind casualties per say, but they don't like casualties while thinking that they aren't on the winning side of the strategy, i.e. that they are in a quagmire. The money spent, combined with a poor economy and the top-heavy tax cuts, will exacerbate the fiscal problems of the United States. This combined with ongoing casualties with no end in sight continue to sink GW's poll numbers so that in a year from now the Clark/Dean team rolls over him with promises for more international cooperation and fiscal sanity. Order that was taken away by this administrations unilateralism will then be restored to the international system and we can start making some real progress in dealing with the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. (you do remember Afghanistan, don't you?)
I don't really like the idea of facilitating increased casualties for anyone, and it is true that there needs to be some semblance of order restored to Iraq for the sake of the people living there. But the larger problem for the global community is dealing with an administration that disrespects the international community with it's cowboy-like antics, and holding out a little before helping might be the optimum strategy to kill two birds with one stone.
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
More John Kerry vs. Wesley Clark
I stated in a previous entry that since Wesley Clark is in the race, John Kerry might as well fold up his tent and go home. Slate today has an article on the whole Kerry/Clark sega, specifically detailing how similar the postions of the two men are, even though Kerry has spent many months getting beaten my Howard Dean and Clark has spent only a week in the race before jumping to the front of the pack.
I still believe that unless something completely unforeseeable happens (and that is possible) this race is now going to be between Clark and Dean. MSNBC is having the first debate between the candidates this Thursday at 3pm Central and then rebroadcasting during the evening. I, unfortunately, will be seeing Thirteen at the time, so I'll have to wait until CSPAN rebroadcasts it on the internet.
I stated in a previous entry that since Wesley Clark is in the race, John Kerry might as well fold up his tent and go home. Slate today has an article on the whole Kerry/Clark sega, specifically detailing how similar the postions of the two men are, even though Kerry has spent many months getting beaten my Howard Dean and Clark has spent only a week in the race before jumping to the front of the pack.
I still believe that unless something completely unforeseeable happens (and that is possible) this race is now going to be between Clark and Dean. MSNBC is having the first debate between the candidates this Thursday at 3pm Central and then rebroadcasting during the evening. I, unfortunately, will be seeing Thirteen at the time, so I'll have to wait until CSPAN rebroadcasts it on the internet.
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Wesley Clark
Well, Wesley Clark is now in the race, and although I'm waiting on him for some good words on domestic policy, I have to say that he wins for the best designed webpage. Every candidate has the flag on their page, but no one has the style that this page has. The font is great too. If they could only get a better picture of him -- it looks a little grainy.
I was talking to Brad the other day about Wesley Clark, and we both agree that this is going to make the leadership race much more interesting. John Kerry is now officially screwed, by the way. Just so that everyone knows, I'm still officially behind Howard Dean, but Gen. Clark is definitely someone to look out for, and I'm going to enjoy seeing them both at the next leadership debate.
Well, Wesley Clark is now in the race, and although I'm waiting on him for some good words on domestic policy, I have to say that he wins for the best designed webpage. Every candidate has the flag on their page, but no one has the style that this page has. The font is great too. If they could only get a better picture of him -- it looks a little grainy.
I was talking to Brad the other day about Wesley Clark, and we both agree that this is going to make the leadership race much more interesting. John Kerry is now officially screwed, by the way. Just so that everyone knows, I'm still officially behind Howard Dean, but Gen. Clark is definitely someone to look out for, and I'm going to enjoy seeing them both at the next leadership debate.
Saturday, September 06, 2003
Not looking as good for Bush anymore
In a recent poll put together by Zogby International, Bush is now in negative territory when it comes to job performance, with only 45% of respondents saying that he was performing at a 'good' or 'excellent' level. This should be the test coming up for the conspiracy theorists to see if there's another major attack soon to boost the numbers again.
On a serious note though, I watched the first Democratic debate over the internet (because the Chicago PBS stations aren't broadcasting it until Sunday), and I thought it went pretty well for Howard Dean. I know from reading his blog that many people were sort of upset that he didn't kick-ass as much as they wanted him to, but I think it's important to note that he was on the stage with several other very talented politicians and managed to hold his own. He didn't make any mistakes, and started to reiterate the more centrist message he's been moving towards in his stump speeches.
Besides, this is only the first debate out of many, so in many ways it's just a warmup for when the real media attention happens in the coming months. Also, in a field of 9 candidates it's difficult to build some sort of real presence and repoire with the audience when you get 1/9th of the time. I expect once people start dropping out, the real action will begin, and that's where it will be make or break time for Dr. Dean.
Overall, here's what I thought:
Howard Dean -- Good stuff, not spectacular, but solid. Could use a little more of the energy we saw before in the DNC winter meeting. I understand that it's a transition from needing to get any attention to being more 'presidential,' but don't completely loose all of it, it's what fires up the troops.
Dick Gephart -- Did better than most people I think expected. Has the problem of having given Bush the carte blanche for the war in Iraq, and now is trying to say it was all a big mistake.
John Kerry -- Definitely better than his announcement speech, which I thought was pretty bad. He's a Vietnam war vet, which we heard referenced several times. That's all respectable, but is it a reason to make him president 30 years later? Has the same Iraq issue as Dick Gephart.
John Edwards -- Most disappointing candidate for me. I keep thinking that he's going to be awesome, but instead he's mostly just vacuous. Keeps plugging his 'blue-collar' roots endlessly, as if people will forget than he's a wealthy trial lawyer.
Joe Lieberman -- My god, why does he even bother running? Had the worst Spanish I heard that night, and tried to attack Dean which led to Dean's rebuttal generating much more applause than the attack. Why don't you shoot yourself in your foot some more? Also has a Edwardsish issue with his name -- if you check out his website, it's big JOE, little Liebermann? His last name isn't even on his buttons (or at least the one displayed on the website). I can only surmise that he's trying to minimize the 'hey, I'm Jewish' thing, since I can't think of any other reason that you'd want to lose the last name that virtually everyone knows you by.
Dennis Kucinich -- For all the members of SI out there. To think I had to deal with people like him back in Nova Scotia working with the NDP. Shrill and irritating personified.
Carol Mosley-Braun -- No one expects her to win, but she did put in a classic statement about women's wages that probably no one else would have said.
Bob Graham -- It's somewhat unclear to me why he's running, except perhaps to get enough exposure to be a VP. However, if Howard Dean did win, I wouldn't pick him, I'd pick General Wesley Clark, who's former title 'NATO Supreme Allied Commander' is almost better than 'President of the United States.'
In a recent poll put together by Zogby International, Bush is now in negative territory when it comes to job performance, with only 45% of respondents saying that he was performing at a 'good' or 'excellent' level. This should be the test coming up for the conspiracy theorists to see if there's another major attack soon to boost the numbers again.
On a serious note though, I watched the first Democratic debate over the internet (because the Chicago PBS stations aren't broadcasting it until Sunday), and I thought it went pretty well for Howard Dean. I know from reading his blog that many people were sort of upset that he didn't kick-ass as much as they wanted him to, but I think it's important to note that he was on the stage with several other very talented politicians and managed to hold his own. He didn't make any mistakes, and started to reiterate the more centrist message he's been moving towards in his stump speeches.
Besides, this is only the first debate out of many, so in many ways it's just a warmup for when the real media attention happens in the coming months. Also, in a field of 9 candidates it's difficult to build some sort of real presence and repoire with the audience when you get 1/9th of the time. I expect once people start dropping out, the real action will begin, and that's where it will be make or break time for Dr. Dean.
Overall, here's what I thought:
Howard Dean -- Good stuff, not spectacular, but solid. Could use a little more of the energy we saw before in the DNC winter meeting. I understand that it's a transition from needing to get any attention to being more 'presidential,' but don't completely loose all of it, it's what fires up the troops.
Dick Gephart -- Did better than most people I think expected. Has the problem of having given Bush the carte blanche for the war in Iraq, and now is trying to say it was all a big mistake.
John Kerry -- Definitely better than his announcement speech, which I thought was pretty bad. He's a Vietnam war vet, which we heard referenced several times. That's all respectable, but is it a reason to make him president 30 years later? Has the same Iraq issue as Dick Gephart.
John Edwards -- Most disappointing candidate for me. I keep thinking that he's going to be awesome, but instead he's mostly just vacuous. Keeps plugging his 'blue-collar' roots endlessly, as if people will forget than he's a wealthy trial lawyer.
Joe Lieberman -- My god, why does he even bother running? Had the worst Spanish I heard that night, and tried to attack Dean which led to Dean's rebuttal generating much more applause than the attack. Why don't you shoot yourself in your foot some more? Also has a Edwardsish issue with his name -- if you check out his website, it's big JOE, little Liebermann? His last name isn't even on his buttons (or at least the one displayed on the website). I can only surmise that he's trying to minimize the 'hey, I'm Jewish' thing, since I can't think of any other reason that you'd want to lose the last name that virtually everyone knows you by.
Dennis Kucinich -- For all the members of SI out there. To think I had to deal with people like him back in Nova Scotia working with the NDP. Shrill and irritating personified.
Carol Mosley-Braun -- No one expects her to win, but she did put in a classic statement about women's wages that probably no one else would have said.
Bob Graham -- It's somewhat unclear to me why he's running, except perhaps to get enough exposure to be a VP. However, if Howard Dean did win, I wouldn't pick him, I'd pick General Wesley Clark, who's former title 'NATO Supreme Allied Commander' is almost better than 'President of the United States.'
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)