I see no way in which the Republicans can win this election. John McCain is a decent guy and if he was President I really wouldn't mind too much. Sarah Palin, however, is a complete idiot.
Check out this article from CNN.
In quick summary, the article states how Palin has been going against party advisers to further her own agenda, aiming for prosperity of her own in 2012. Not only that, but it mentions what I've thought about her SNL appearance but haven't been able to express so articulately:
"She's no longer playing for 2008; she's playing 2012," Democratic pollster Peter Hart said. "And the difficulty is, when she went on 'Saturday Night Live,' she became a reinforcement of her caricature. She never allowed herself to be vetted, and at the end of the day, voters turned against her both in terms of qualifications and personally."
Political figures go on talk shows all the time--no problem there. Not only is the Tina Fey impression getting monotonous itself, but Palin going on SNL was a new low point. It didn't relate a feeling of, "Oh that's funny, they're embellishing how I act for comedic value." Instead, it seemed more like she supported all of the exaggerations. Why fuel the fire?
In non-SNL related commentary, the article also points out how she went against the party's statements, for example she claimed robocalls were "irritating" while the campaign defended their use. Now, was she trying to be candid with us? Bond as a human being? Possibly. But if that's the case, at least make sure you and the rest of your party are on the same page. Apparently no one knew this was how she felt.
So either: A) She's deliberately going against Republican advisers, or B) she's just dumb and doesn't pay attention. Whichever way, I think she should stay as far from any political office as possible (maybe this is why she's out in Alaska and not in the continental U.S. Haaaaaaha).
10.25.2008
Sarah Palin is Done
10.24.2008
Palin Really Bugs Me
An article on Yahoo! says that Sarah Palin is getting a lot of attention because of $150,000 spend on her wardrobe and hair.
I'm not going to debate whether that is excessive or not -- whether it is or is not is up to you to decide.
But in the article, the first thing she says is:
"I think Hillary Clinton was held to a different standard in her primary race," Palin said in an interview with the Chicago Tribune posted on the newspaper's Web site Thursday night. "Do you remember the conversations that took place about her, say superficial things that they don't talk about with men, her wardrobe and her hairstyles, all of that? That's a bit of that double standard."
So her first point is that it's a double standard -- that we criticize women and not men on their wardrobe and hairstyle. Sure, maybe. But I guarantee you that if a male politician came to a debate in khaki pants and a polo instead of a suit, or his hair wasn't combed just right, he would get as much flak as Sarah Palin would. But yes, sure, no one pays attention to how much men spend on clothes. Fine.
But then Palin says:
"It's kind of painful to be criticized for something when all the facts are not out there and are not reported," Palin said.
Whoa! So first you want to pull out the double standard card, which basically admits that you did spend that much but so do men so people shouldn't attack you. Then you change the argument, saying that people don't have "all the facts." Really? What facts are we missing? Your hair and wardrobe is expensive.
What Sarah Palin is trying to do is play offense and defense. She's defending herself by saying that it's a double standard and she shouldn't be under the microscope on her spending, while playing offense and stating that your facts are WRONG! Not a bad tactic, except for the fact that claiming a double standard admits to the facts being correct. If they were incorrect you would have a bogus comparison and not care about the double standard -- also, you would correct them. Sarah Palin does neither.
10.18.2008
Sad Truth About the Digital Age
I'm sure I've been doing this for a while, but I just recently realized it: Sometimes I think in acronyms. Not 'lol' or 'rofl,' thankfully. But here are a couple popular ones:
I very often think 'idc' instead of 'I don't care.' Which is weird since I don't use it very often when I'm IMing/texting... or not near as much as 'idk,' but I never think 'idk,' I always think 'I don't know.'
Another common one is 'w/e.' And I do think the slash, so I think 'w slash e.' I admit that I think 'whatever' a lot more than anyone not in the film Clueless should.
This is not a good sign for the future of civilization.
More Blog Cleanup
I'm going to go through and un-publish some more posts. I think I'm slowly trying to phase out my college career and move into a more professional lifestyle.... Okay, not really. But some things are better left in the past, and some are better kept around as a history lesson. I'm going to draw another line of distinction.
10.17.2008
A Great Site
Yes, this site has been around for a while, but one can never overemphasize a helpful hand.
FactCheck.org gives details on current politics, and unlike news sites, FactCheck actually finds evidence to prove or disprove what a candidate says.
For example, here are some examples of discrepancies from Debate 3. And yes, both candidates exaggerated or misled the viewers--sometimes intentionally, no doubt, and sometimes probably because their own research was inaccurate.
Either way, when something big comes up in the political realm, before you take what someone says as a truth, run by this site to see if it holds water.
Obama is Eloquent
I finally got around to watching the presidential debate from two days ago. I'm only going to touch on one topic to avoid massive arguments: Two times during the night Senator McCain followed a statement from Senator Obama by pointing out how 'eloquent' he was in his word choice.
Since when is eloquence a bad thing? Sorry that Obama is specific in his terms and chooses his word carefully. Maybe he should watch some McCain speeches so he can study how to mix sentences and lose his train of thought.
Also, I don't even think eloquent is the correct word McCain was aiming for. Eloquent means fluent language that is very polished and proper. What McCain was trying to show was that Obama would be sure to use a phrase like 'looking at' instead of 'going to.' I can't off the top of my head think of a word that means specifically to choose one's words carefully to avoid commitment, but it's definitely not eloquent. This seems like a decent sized oversight from someone attempting to police grammar.
10.15.2008
Project Runway is Better
LeAnne won Project Runway. Score! I called that shit a few weeks ago, so again, I rule Bravo reality TV shows.
I was unimpressed by Korto and Kenley's shows. They had a few decent ones in each, but overall, meh.
What really bugs me is that LeAnne won but Karalyn (model) didn't win. Remember how she swapped Karalyn for Tia on a whim a while back? I'm still mad about that. I think I rant about this every post. I'm probably Karalyn's number one non-family fan.
Anyway, looks like we'll be back to Top Chef soon. Yay, Padma!
Kairi Gets Better Every Day
Hayden Panettiere, who I endearingly call 'Kairi' because her voice acting in Kingdom Hearts is better than anything else she's ever done, becomes more awesome by the day.
No, I don't watch Heroes (maybe someday).
No, I don't like getting into political arguments (except with my mom, because she'll love me no matter what [unless I vote non-Republican]).
Anyway, here's a video of Hayden pitching why McCain is a great candidate. There's mild use of the f-bomb, so don't watch this at work or school.
Oh, how I love sarcasm, satire, and parody. Sure, subtlety isn't very present here, but sometimes it's okay to be explicit. Video of the Month.
10.14.2008
Netflix and 30 Rock are Grand
Netflix is possibly the best investment one could make. Not only do you get DVDs straight to your doorstep (copyright?), you also get unlimited Watch Now time with all but the cheapest membership.
Watch Now? Yes, that's right, I can watch hundreds of movies on my computer. It's especially awesome since Starz just struck a deal with Netflix and hundreds more titles have been added.
I watched all of the first season of 30 Rock on Netflix Watch Now, and since the second season came out, I've been watching that as well. If the first season was good, the second season is great. Yes, Tina Fey is hilarious and I love her, but Alec Baldwin is easily the best part of the show (narrowly beating out Katrina Bowden, who gets second on a strictly looks basis).
I know I may be a bit behind the times with this, but hey, better late than never. And I know NBC puts their episodes online, but for 30 Rock (and maybe others) it's only the most recent few episodes. So does this mean I can get caught up and watch the show on television like everyone else? I hope not, because I hate commercials and I hate waiting seven days for a new episode.
Edit: Damnit, season 3 doesn't come back until October 30th. I'm stuck with everyone else.
10.09.2008
The Aging of Mysteries
For the sake of a short post title I have lumped the genres of film noir and mysteries together. Both genres are about crime, figuring out who a killer or thief was, and bringing the viewer through a maze of plot twists, turns, and red herrings. The difference is that film noir typically puts all of these elements in the dark. The stories are in the shadows and behind bars, the women have no qualms about killing for their own good (unique to this genre), and there are never happy endings (often because of a martyr).
Film noir, for the most part, hit its peak in the 1940s and 50s. Some of the greatest movies ever have come from this genre, including The Maltese Falcon, Double Indemnity, Sunset Blvd, The Lady from Shanghai, Touch of Evil, The Third Man, and that scene replayed a thousand times during The Shawshank Redemption from Gilda (where Rita Hayworth flips her hair). These films, when still watched today, grip the viewer until the last scene.
I try to watch old movies that aren't classics so I can have an appreciation for the gems that remain. Yesterday I watched I Wake Up Screaming, a 1941 film with a 7.4 rating on IMDb. Not bad, right? The only problem is that films like these, the ones that don't hold up well over time, have become the cliches. They aren't subtle enough, don't have enough twists, or are just plain lethargic.
I don't think anyone reading this is planning to go out and rent I Wake Up Screaming, so I won't bother avoiding spoilers.
When Betty Grable needs to pack up her things from her room, the downstairs clerk Harry Williams already has them packed. Right there, in that instant, I knew he was the killer. I would have liked to be proven wrong, but I wasn't. The problem was that this was maybe, maybe at the end of the first act. It's not that this is a bad film. In 1941 I'm sure the film was received very well. But today audiences are so stuck on plucking out the twists for themselves and claiming, afterward, that they "called it."
I try to avoid those "called it" situations. It's hard to avoid with bad movies, easy with good ones. If a movie is intelligent it will always be one step ahead of the viewer and they won't have time to figure it out -- if they pause to think they'll miss something that could either prove them wrong, or readjust their course. The Prestige was a good one. Ocean's 12 and 13, not so much (though fun movies).
What I'm trying to say is that there are two real distinctions in older films: those that hold up extremely well, and those that crumble. The middle ground is a small island. And it's not because of movie quality, but viewer expectations.
10.08.2008
Project Runway is Stupid
Last week on Project Runway it was down to the final four: Kenley, Jerell, LeAnne, and Korto. Jerell won, LeAnne got second, and the other two tied for last. Of course they tied. For a few seasons now Project Runway has been on this terrible gimmicky kick where they don't eliminate anyone in the pre-finale episodes, just fake us (and them) out.
So this week LeAnne did amazing (as expected), Kenley did well (though her wedding dress and bridesmaid dresses had no correlation), Korto's sucked a lot, and Jerell's were not his best... but had some redeeming qualities.
And Jerell got sent home. Even though he won last week and should have gone to Fashion Week to compete. And Korto and Kenley's were worse last week. And this dumb technicality screwed him over. The producers suck.
The Logistics of Reality TV
One thing has always bugged me about reality TV shows: How real can someone's reaction to a surprise be if the cameras are set up beforehand?
For example, tonight on Project Runway Tim Gunn was doing his visits to the designers' houses to check up on them. When he knocked on the door, we had a series of shots alternating from outside (behind Tim) and inside (the designer answering the door and acting surprised). Clearly they're faking their shock because those cameras don't just sit around for 2 months.
Though 'American Dreamz' was a mediocre movie at best, it was pretty funny when they made a joke about this very thing when Mandy Moore's character is told she gets to be on the show. "We need you to come out again, we didn't get a good reaction shot." Skip to 46 seconds into the trailer below to see what I'm talking about.*
* Thank you to Katie for reminding me about this scene. I dedicate 5.4% of this post to her.
10.03.2008
Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and Judd Apatow
I'm one of the few people in the 18-25 age range who did not see 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' in theaters. Fortunately, yesterday I watched it on DVD.
I'm going to begin with a small rant, and then progress into the actual movie.
Judd Apatow is one of the most overrated people in Hollywood. 'The 40 year-old Virgin' was amusing, but failed to be anything more than a traditional rom-com with more vulgar language. It lacked the wit that a movie like 'Clueless' would have. 'Knocked Up' followed pretty much the same format: Vulgarity as a substitute for classy humor. Oh, but humor does not have to be classy -- but all comedy derives from the same formats. Content is not as important as context. I won't lie and say I sat through those movies without laughing. Laugh, I did. But five years from now, or even today, both of those films are forgotten just as quickly as they were 'hits.'
Judd Apatow has helped jump-start a few actors' careers. Seth Rogen got 'Superbad' made into a film, but that was pretty much the high school version of '40 Year-old Virgin.' Same pony, same trick. Again, 'Superbad' has faded almost into obscurity, and it's only a year old. 'Pineapple Express,' a different kind of film, showed that Seth Rogen does know how to structure a story. He just doesn't know how to develop characters. The film was inferior to 'Harold and Kumar' in every aspect.
The worst tragedy coming up is Apatow's next film featuring stand-up comedy from Seth Rogen, Adam Sandler, and Jonah Hill. Jonah Hill? Are you joking? This kid is all kinds of awful. The film will be titled 'Funny People,' which I can only assume is intended to be ironic.
But there has been on real gem from all of this mess. In producing Forgetting Sarah Marshall it looks like Apatow stepped aside and let Jason Segal do all the work. And finally, after many movies, we get one that actually does work. [Review after the cut.]
What's so great about 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' (FSM from here on out) is that, while a romantic comedy of sorts, we feel comfortable that the film will not step into cliche. The first act is structured so well that we don't anticipate a cliche to surface, but can sit and enjoy these characters in what seems like a natural state. A prime example is toward the end: In too many movies the girl our hero is actually in love with walks in on the hero being pleasured (euphemism) by his ex-girlfriend, freaks out, doesn't want to take him back, they have a fight, and eventually make up. The walk-in is a cliche, and the film almost preps us for it with Rachel working at the hotel, but it's Peter himself that confesses.
Peter pins a key point of the movie for us when he's talking to Aldous, Sarah Marshall's new boyfriend. He says that he hates him because of the circumstances, and wants to dislike him, but that Aldous is really such a cool dude. It's true. Unlike in many other movies where the new guy is an antagonist, here the antagonist is our title character, Sarah Marshall. But even she is passive, propelled into situations by the other characters. It's an interesting scope here, the relationship between everyone. The aggressive, open, talkative males are the good in everything, whereas the quiet, catty Sarah Marshall is the cause of all the drama.
If there's one thing to gripe about, it's Mila Kunis' role in the film. Her character knows what she wants, is completely lovable, and makes Hawaii much more beautiful than it already is. Unfortunately, her past and troubled relationships with ex-boyfriends appears crammed in to cover some tracks. A slightly rethought history on her part would have benefited the movie, though a scene with her and Peter on top of an island cliff is close to perfection.
I don't know if this is Jason Segal's one hit wonder screenplay or not. From his anecdotes during press, it seems like it might be; however, I'm extremely curious to see what he can pen next. If it's any bit as good as FSM, I'll see it in theaters this time.
Posts
