I've been back in New York for a full week now. Getting back into my old routines of work, working out, etc. has been weird. Even though in the grand scheme of things three weeks is not that long, when I was back in California it felt as if I had never left in the first place.
My Northern California swing was extremely enjoyable. I had fairs in San Francisco, Turlock, Sonoma, Marin, Santa Clara and Hayward. It was incredibly busy since I had almost a fair per day which put a little bit of a damper on being able to stay at home the whole time. I did get to spend a lot of time with my family which was great, as well as Chris. Went to an A's game the first weekend with Chris, and a Giants game with Chris and the family, so I got my fill of baseball. I also got to spend a day in San Francisco just wandering around, visiting some sights that I hadn't been to in awhile, such as the Golden Gate Bridge. The best part though was going back to Saint Mary's and visiting all of the Admissions people there. I had forgotten what great people work in that office and how much fun I had there. It was just nice being back at Saint Mary's, period, I guess.
All in all, the whole experience made me miss California very much. No matter how much I love New York, home is home and Northern California will always be home to me. Still, coming back to New York was also exciting. I had forgotten how much I enjoy living here. In the end, New York is really my love affair. It's provides instant excitement, is always fun, and there's always something to do, but eventually I know that New York is not going to always be for me and that I will want to return home eventually.
I had also forgotten what New York City is like when it's not 35 degrees outside and the trees have their leaves back. It's nice.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Leaving Los Angeles
I think I'm officially over L.A. When I really think back on it, all the years I lived in California I always passed through L.A. - on the way to Disneyland, San Diego, etc. - but never really spent much time actually in L.A. The past three days I was in downtown Los Angeles and I wasn't all that impressed. Overall this past week and a half, being in Southern California reminded me of all the reasons why I prefer Northern California. L.A. and Vicinity is just so big and so crowded, and the smog is depressing.
What I've essentially decided is that I enjoy Southern California as long as its not L.A. County or Orange County. I love San Diego (and Oceanside - thanks Bex), and today I visited Ventura, which was also beautiful. I think in L.A. and Orange County the great weather and great scenery is almost ruined by the incredible amount of people there.
Also, L.A. people should learn how to drive in the rain. There was a moderate shower on Friday and the freeways were jammed from all of the accidents.
Am I a hypocrite for saying that L.A. is too crowded when I live in the most densely populated place in the United States (Manhattan)? I don't necessarily think so. New York seems to manage its population better. Yes the city can be a big place, but everyone is moving so fast and so in sync that it works. It's almost as if there is a controlled chaos with thousands of unwritten rules in New York that everyone knows and follows. Plus, the subway actually works. That helps a lot. L.A. will always win on weather though. Can't help that.
A quick recap of what the last week and a half has held for me. Six fairs: Ontario, San Diego, Santa Monica, Anaheim, L.A. and Ventura. I drove the L.A.-San Diego express about four or five times, which got old quickly. I rekindled my love for San Diego. I got to see Becky and spend a couple days with her in Oceanside. I got to see my family and spend a couple days with them in Anaheim (and Disneyland!). Got to see my brother's workshow in Irvine. While in L.A. I did spend some time going to Hollywood and being a tourist there, which was fun.
I'm looking very much forward to a week and a half in Northern California. No matter how much I love New York, the Bay Area is home. I have to get up in about 6 hours to catch my quick flight up to SFO so it's off to bed. So long, Southern California. It's been fun (except you L.A. - you're on notice).
What I've essentially decided is that I enjoy Southern California as long as its not L.A. County or Orange County. I love San Diego (and Oceanside - thanks Bex), and today I visited Ventura, which was also beautiful. I think in L.A. and Orange County the great weather and great scenery is almost ruined by the incredible amount of people there.
Also, L.A. people should learn how to drive in the rain. There was a moderate shower on Friday and the freeways were jammed from all of the accidents.
Am I a hypocrite for saying that L.A. is too crowded when I live in the most densely populated place in the United States (Manhattan)? I don't necessarily think so. New York seems to manage its population better. Yes the city can be a big place, but everyone is moving so fast and so in sync that it works. It's almost as if there is a controlled chaos with thousands of unwritten rules in New York that everyone knows and follows. Plus, the subway actually works. That helps a lot. L.A. will always win on weather though. Can't help that.
A quick recap of what the last week and a half has held for me. Six fairs: Ontario, San Diego, Santa Monica, Anaheim, L.A. and Ventura. I drove the L.A.-San Diego express about four or five times, which got old quickly. I rekindled my love for San Diego. I got to see Becky and spend a couple days with her in Oceanside. I got to see my family and spend a couple days with them in Anaheim (and Disneyland!). Got to see my brother's workshow in Irvine. While in L.A. I did spend some time going to Hollywood and being a tourist there, which was fun.
I'm looking very much forward to a week and a half in Northern California. No matter how much I love New York, the Bay Area is home. I have to get up in about 6 hours to catch my quick flight up to SFO so it's off to bed. So long, Southern California. It's been fun (except you L.A. - you're on notice).
Monday, April 16, 2007
Is it right to bear arms?
CNN"s Jim Cafferty was just speaking to Wolf Blitzer about the Virginia Tech shooting. He said that he's noticed that this seems to be a genuinely American phenomenon (mass shootings) and can't recall many times it is happened in other countries. He then said he couldn't figure out what that was.
Really, Jim? Maybe it's because we're one of the only Western countries to still allow ordinary citizens to carry weapons, and the NRA and Republicans continue to block any legislation to prevent semi-automatic and automatic weapons from being obtained by people who plan to go out and kill 32 people in one morning.
Just a thought, Jim.
Really, Jim? Maybe it's because we're one of the only Western countries to still allow ordinary citizens to carry weapons, and the NRA and Republicans continue to block any legislation to prevent semi-automatic and automatic weapons from being obtained by people who plan to go out and kill 32 people in one morning.
Just a thought, Jim.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Several updates for this post. It's been a long couple of weeks. This post really moves in three acts. First up is Easter weekend. Mary came to the city, and her brother Damien and his friend Steve flew in from California. We had a pretty busy weekend. Lunch in the East Village on Friday got things started. Saturday we got up early and took a cab to Brooklyn where Damien showed us around his own neighborhood. We then walked across the Brooklyn Bridge into lower Manhattan, making our way up through TriBeCa, Little Italy and Soho (which I had never been to before) before Mary and I called it a day and headed home for a bit. We met them and Zabala in the Upper West Side for dinner and drinks later. Sunday we celebrated the resurrection of our Lord by going to a Yankees game. Go Jesus. Sunday night was overpriced Mexican food, and Monday Mary went home, but not before surprising me by showing up at the college to meet me for lunch.
The second act is the incredibly long week I had at work. Tuesday night we had an event on campus. Wednesday we had our second accepted students day and I had a fair two hours away in New Jersey that night. Thursday I had another fair. I was essentially working (when not sleeping) from 9 a.m. Tuesday until about 9:30 p.m. Thursday. Needless to say, I was ridiculously exhausted come Friday night. It's such a shame that we don't get overtime. Or even comp time. At least the boss (apparently) doesn't really keep track of vacation days.
Finally, I'm writing this in a hotel in Southern California. I'll be on the West Coast for three weeks during my much-hyped and much-anticipated recruiting trip out here. Truth be told, I'm incredibly lucky to be out here at all. According to the news right now, over 500 flights to and from the Northeast have been cancelled because of the massive storm that's settled over New York City and the Eastern Seaboard. So the mere fact that my flight took off without a minute of delay and landed early is nothing short of miraculous.
I'll be in Ontario, Ca. until Tuesday when I make my way down to San Diego. Later in the week I'll head back north to Oceanside and Anaheim, then Los Angeles early next week. Thursday I fly up to the Bay Area where I'll be until the end of the first week of May. I'll try to post more often as I'm here because I'm sure (or rather, I muse) that I'll have things to post about.
The second act is the incredibly long week I had at work. Tuesday night we had an event on campus. Wednesday we had our second accepted students day and I had a fair two hours away in New Jersey that night. Thursday I had another fair. I was essentially working (when not sleeping) from 9 a.m. Tuesday until about 9:30 p.m. Thursday. Needless to say, I was ridiculously exhausted come Friday night. It's such a shame that we don't get overtime. Or even comp time. At least the boss (apparently) doesn't really keep track of vacation days.
Finally, I'm writing this in a hotel in Southern California. I'll be on the West Coast for three weeks during my much-hyped and much-anticipated recruiting trip out here. Truth be told, I'm incredibly lucky to be out here at all. According to the news right now, over 500 flights to and from the Northeast have been cancelled because of the massive storm that's settled over New York City and the Eastern Seaboard. So the mere fact that my flight took off without a minute of delay and landed early is nothing short of miraculous.
I'll be in Ontario, Ca. until Tuesday when I make my way down to San Diego. Later in the week I'll head back north to Oceanside and Anaheim, then Los Angeles early next week. Thursday I fly up to the Bay Area where I'll be until the end of the first week of May. I'll try to post more often as I'm here because I'm sure (or rather, I muse) that I'll have things to post about.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Yankees-Red Sox? Please!
Along with the thawing of the New York winter, the return of sunshine and the reblossoming of the trees, a new baseball season emerges from the storm that is the winter off season.
Yes, the American past time has returned once again to provide a sweet distraction for those of us who love to leave the stresses of the world to a place where nothing else matters but the game. It's time to return to the ballparks, the stats, the pennant races, and of course, baseball's premier rivalry.
No, I'm not talking about you, Boston and New York.
Despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that ESPN usually gives little credence to any sports happening west of the Mississippi and Yankee and Red Sox fans think little of the world in general west of the Hudson, the supposed penultimate rivalry in baseball, Yanks versus Sox, always overshadows all. This undoubtedly ignores the true best rivalry in baseball: the San Francisco Giants and the Los Angeles Dodgers.
The Giants and Dodgers are firstly the longest rivalry in baseball, stretching back to the early days of baseball in New York. The New York Giants and the Brooklyn Dodgers were New York's main two teams, and met in 1889 in baseball's then-World Championship series. The Dodgers moved to the National League the following year - predating the founding of both the Yankees and the Sox by 11 years - and the rivalry was on.
The battle was not just about baseball supremacy, but about regional pride as well. Brooklyn and New York were not officially the same city until 1898, and even today Brooklyn maintains a strong sense of "borough pride." The Giants-Dodger's rivalry was emblematic of the geographical rivalry between Manhattan and Brooklyn, dividing baseball loyalties in baseball's central city. For proof, read historian and Dodger-fan Doris Kearns Goodwin's excellent Memoir, Wait Till Next Year.
The Giants-Dodgers rivalry is not only the longer than Yankees-Red Sox, it's far more even. Through 2006, the series stands 1,054 to 1,035 in the Giant's favor, a window of just 19 games in over 100 years. In addition, each team has won five world championships. By contrast, the Yankees have almost a 200 game advantage over the Red Sox in all-time games played, and of course everyone knows about the Yankee's 26 to 6 advantage in World Series victories.
Sorry East Coast fans, if that's a rivalry, then so is a nail versus a hammer.
Then there's the pennant race drama. Perhaps baseball's most famous moment, the "Shot Heard 'Round the World," was a Giants-Dodgers moment. Even when knocked out of playoff contention, the Giants and Dodgers seem to find ways of ruining things for each other. The Dodgers have played "spoiler" for the Giants playoff hopes in five times since 1932. The Giants have returned the favor three times. Even a 103-win season by the Giants in 1993 wasn't good enough to be stopped by the spoilers from SoCal.
When the Dodgers decided to move West in 1957, the Giants came along too, for the sake of preserving the rivalry. And let's not forget that Jackie Robinson retired rather than be traded to the Giants.
I know it's tough medicine for you to swallow, New York and Boston fans, but your rivalry simply isn't in the top of the class. You're really more like the kid who gets all the attention simply because he yells the loudest and, on occasion, starts a few fights.
No, the top of the class lies West, where the San Francisco Giants and Los Angeles Dodgers simply play hard, tough baseball in the sport's best rivalry. Play ball!
Yes, the American past time has returned once again to provide a sweet distraction for those of us who love to leave the stresses of the world to a place where nothing else matters but the game. It's time to return to the ballparks, the stats, the pennant races, and of course, baseball's premier rivalry.
No, I'm not talking about you, Boston and New York.
Despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that ESPN usually gives little credence to any sports happening west of the Mississippi and Yankee and Red Sox fans think little of the world in general west of the Hudson, the supposed penultimate rivalry in baseball, Yanks versus Sox, always overshadows all. This undoubtedly ignores the true best rivalry in baseball: the San Francisco Giants and the Los Angeles Dodgers.
The Giants and Dodgers are firstly the longest rivalry in baseball, stretching back to the early days of baseball in New York. The New York Giants and the Brooklyn Dodgers were New York's main two teams, and met in 1889 in baseball's then-World Championship series. The Dodgers moved to the National League the following year - predating the founding of both the Yankees and the Sox by 11 years - and the rivalry was on.
The battle was not just about baseball supremacy, but about regional pride as well. Brooklyn and New York were not officially the same city until 1898, and even today Brooklyn maintains a strong sense of "borough pride." The Giants-Dodger's rivalry was emblematic of the geographical rivalry between Manhattan and Brooklyn, dividing baseball loyalties in baseball's central city. For proof, read historian and Dodger-fan Doris Kearns Goodwin's excellent Memoir, Wait Till Next Year.
The Giants-Dodgers rivalry is not only the longer than Yankees-Red Sox, it's far more even. Through 2006, the series stands 1,054 to 1,035 in the Giant's favor, a window of just 19 games in over 100 years. In addition, each team has won five world championships. By contrast, the Yankees have almost a 200 game advantage over the Red Sox in all-time games played, and of course everyone knows about the Yankee's 26 to 6 advantage in World Series victories.
Sorry East Coast fans, if that's a rivalry, then so is a nail versus a hammer.
Then there's the pennant race drama. Perhaps baseball's most famous moment, the "Shot Heard 'Round the World," was a Giants-Dodgers moment. Even when knocked out of playoff contention, the Giants and Dodgers seem to find ways of ruining things for each other. The Dodgers have played "spoiler" for the Giants playoff hopes in five times since 1932. The Giants have returned the favor three times. Even a 103-win season by the Giants in 1993 wasn't good enough to be stopped by the spoilers from SoCal.
When the Dodgers decided to move West in 1957, the Giants came along too, for the sake of preserving the rivalry. And let's not forget that Jackie Robinson retired rather than be traded to the Giants.
I know it's tough medicine for you to swallow, New York and Boston fans, but your rivalry simply isn't in the top of the class. You're really more like the kid who gets all the attention simply because he yells the loudest and, on occasion, starts a few fights.
No, the top of the class lies West, where the San Francisco Giants and Los Angeles Dodgers simply play hard, tough baseball in the sport's best rivalry. Play ball!
Friday, March 30, 2007
Quick updates
It was exciting to experience my first real winter (and snow!) but I can't wait for Spring to permanently arrive. The past couple weeks we have been teased early on (73 on Tuesday) but then the weather seems to settle back into the 40s later on. I've almost forgotten what it was like walking to work in the summer heat. The subway cars are always a source of repreive...in the winter from the cold and in the summer from the heat. How did people live here 100 years ago?
Been doing a handful of fairs these past couple of weeks. Mostly in NJ but last night in Queens. I'm really looking forward to two weekends from now, when I head out to California for three weeks. Oh, and I'm looking forward to next week when Mary (and her brother Damien) come to the city. New Jersey this weekend to see the Clark clan for the first time since Thanksgiving (wow). My next month and a half are going to be nuts.
Can't wait to see all the California people!
Been doing a handful of fairs these past couple of weeks. Mostly in NJ but last night in Queens. I'm really looking forward to two weekends from now, when I head out to California for three weeks. Oh, and I'm looking forward to next week when Mary (and her brother Damien) come to the city. New Jersey this weekend to see the Clark clan for the first time since Thanksgiving (wow). My next month and a half are going to be nuts.
Can't wait to see all the California people!
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The writing on the Harvard bathroom wall
Spent St. Patrick's Day in Boston. Very nice city, although I wish I had more time to walk around and enjoy it, and I wish it hadn't been as cold. I look forward to coming back sometime in the summer.Early Sunday morning Mary and I hopped on the T and headed over to Cambridge and Harvard Square. We walked around the campus a bit (which overall didn't impress me that much, but it was interesting to reflect on the history of the school) before ducking into a coffee shop in Harvard Square. I had to laugh when I went to use the restroom and noticed what was written on the walls. No plethora of "for a good time call.." or "I f--ked so-and-so here" for those Harvard kids. This was a classier bathroom wall with witty musings or meaningless phrases on life and philosophy (for example, "Immanuel Kant...and never could" - how clever). So yes, even the bathroom walls at Harvard are better than your bathroom walls.
Walking around the campus just made me start to think about my future. Maybe it was just the concept of potential that got me thinking. Students at Harvard have unlimited potential, and furthermore, greatness is expected of them. Obviously, I'm not Harvard-quality, but I feel like great things have always been expected of me (by myself and others) and am questioning whether where I am is where I really want to be. I have a good job and am going to grad school for free, but if I'm going to spend the time and effort shouldn't I make sure it's spent on something I truly want to do. I'm starting to feel less and less like education is a field that I ultimately want to end up in.
So I need to start exploring. I need to start writing more to keep my skills sharp. I need to start looking at graduate programs that interest me. I don't know if I'll pursue anything I find, but it's worth the look.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Has '24' jumped the shark?
Warning: Do not read this article if you are a "24" fan and have not watched through the February 26 episode ("4:00PM-5:00PM") or if you don't want a few spoilers from previous seasons.
For five time-ticking, heart-stopping, breath-taking seasons, FOX's hit drama "24" has been one of the smartest, most exciting series on television. Jack Bauer has become a household name. It's season premiere each January is a major television event. I have long been one of the shows biggest fans, and I still am. So now I find myself surprised to be asking this question: has "24" jumped the shark?
For those unfamiliar with the term, "jumped the shark" is used to describe a television show that has hit its creative peak. It is often used to decribe long-airing shows that tapered off during their final years. With five and almost a half seasons in the can, it's safe to ask this question for "24."
For years, "24" was the show that pushed the envelope. It seemed that each season brought a terrifying new threat, element or thrill. Season one debuted the season's defining elements: the real-time narrative and the fact that no major character, no matter how sympathetic, is safe. In season two the threat was escalated to a national level. In season three, the threat was partially carried out. Season four saw a completely reinvented and rejuvinated cast and a larger set of villians, and season five went as far as they could go by making the President himself a culprit in the plot.
It's almost as if "24" is sealing its own fate by trying to get bigger every season. By continually making the threats bigger and bigger, the bad guys badder and badder, and Bauer darker and darker, the writers of "24" have set a course that must inevitably end in failure because there comes a point at which bigger can no longer be better.
That point may well be this season. I won't recount all of it's events for the sake of brevity, but most of the shows plot elements have simply been repeats of prior episodes. A nuclear bomb explodes? Done in season two. Jack Bauer must somehow make a return to active duty? Done in seasons two, four and five. Inside plots in the White House? Two and five. It's all the same. Reed Pollack's plan to eliminate Wayne Palmer to put the V.P. in charge mirrors Mike Novick's plan to oust David Palmer in season two. Gredenko using the Arabs to take the fall for his plot is exactly what Peter Kingsley and Max have already done in season two.
The most exciting moment in the season so far - the nuclear explosion - has already been done, before and the show's next exciting moment was also a repeat. Sure, the bomb incapacitating Wayne Palmer this week so that the V.P. can take over was exciting, but we've already seen that, in season four when an attack on Air Force One put Charles Logan in charge.
There are also several, potentially intriguing plot elements that seem to just be ignored. How has the country been able to not rip apart admist 5 (now 6) different presidents in eight years, and a dozen terrorist strikes within that span? And why (besides producer Joel Surnow being an ultra-conservatve) does torture continue to always work for Jack Bauer? Why can Jack Bauer do anything, anytime? Think of the amazing plot twists that could be if the nation erupted into riots, if CTU followed a lead from a tortured suspect only to see that lead proven false, or if Jack somehow failed at something and collapsed under the weight of the past eight years?
But that's the problem with "24" this season. In place of innovative new ideas, they simply take old ones and make them bigger and bigger. In short, the creative spark that made "24" so good may be starting to leave.
What can they do to fix this? It's too late the adjust season six, so season seven needs a major overhaul. Instead of making everything "bigger and better," the writers should create a threat that is smaller, more acute. Shift the focus to the people making the decisions, make it a more character-driven show. Return the show to it's roots, season one, when the threat was smaller and not known to the public and suspense was created not by the amount of explosions, but by how the characters were forced to deal with the circumstances around them.
"24" is still one of the better shows on television. But even the best shows sometimes need to tweak their formulas, lest they risk becoming stale and uncreative or, in short, jumping the shark.
For five time-ticking, heart-stopping, breath-taking seasons, FOX's hit drama "24" has been one of the smartest, most exciting series on television. Jack Bauer has become a household name. It's season premiere each January is a major television event. I have long been one of the shows biggest fans, and I still am. So now I find myself surprised to be asking this question: has "24" jumped the shark?
For those unfamiliar with the term, "jumped the shark" is used to describe a television show that has hit its creative peak. It is often used to decribe long-airing shows that tapered off during their final years. With five and almost a half seasons in the can, it's safe to ask this question for "24."
For years, "24" was the show that pushed the envelope. It seemed that each season brought a terrifying new threat, element or thrill. Season one debuted the season's defining elements: the real-time narrative and the fact that no major character, no matter how sympathetic, is safe. In season two the threat was escalated to a national level. In season three, the threat was partially carried out. Season four saw a completely reinvented and rejuvinated cast and a larger set of villians, and season five went as far as they could go by making the President himself a culprit in the plot.
It's almost as if "24" is sealing its own fate by trying to get bigger every season. By continually making the threats bigger and bigger, the bad guys badder and badder, and Bauer darker and darker, the writers of "24" have set a course that must inevitably end in failure because there comes a point at which bigger can no longer be better.
That point may well be this season. I won't recount all of it's events for the sake of brevity, but most of the shows plot elements have simply been repeats of prior episodes. A nuclear bomb explodes? Done in season two. Jack Bauer must somehow make a return to active duty? Done in seasons two, four and five. Inside plots in the White House? Two and five. It's all the same. Reed Pollack's plan to eliminate Wayne Palmer to put the V.P. in charge mirrors Mike Novick's plan to oust David Palmer in season two. Gredenko using the Arabs to take the fall for his plot is exactly what Peter Kingsley and Max have already done in season two.
The most exciting moment in the season so far - the nuclear explosion - has already been done, before and the show's next exciting moment was also a repeat. Sure, the bomb incapacitating Wayne Palmer this week so that the V.P. can take over was exciting, but we've already seen that, in season four when an attack on Air Force One put Charles Logan in charge.
There are also several, potentially intriguing plot elements that seem to just be ignored. How has the country been able to not rip apart admist 5 (now 6) different presidents in eight years, and a dozen terrorist strikes within that span? And why (besides producer Joel Surnow being an ultra-conservatve) does torture continue to always work for Jack Bauer? Why can Jack Bauer do anything, anytime? Think of the amazing plot twists that could be if the nation erupted into riots, if CTU followed a lead from a tortured suspect only to see that lead proven false, or if Jack somehow failed at something and collapsed under the weight of the past eight years?
But that's the problem with "24" this season. In place of innovative new ideas, they simply take old ones and make them bigger and bigger. In short, the creative spark that made "24" so good may be starting to leave.
What can they do to fix this? It's too late the adjust season six, so season seven needs a major overhaul. Instead of making everything "bigger and better," the writers should create a threat that is smaller, more acute. Shift the focus to the people making the decisions, make it a more character-driven show. Return the show to it's roots, season one, when the threat was smaller and not known to the public and suspense was created not by the amount of explosions, but by how the characters were forced to deal with the circumstances around them.
"24" is still one of the better shows on television. But even the best shows sometimes need to tweak their formulas, lest they risk becoming stale and uncreative or, in short, jumping the shark.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Presidential primary history
The above article is just a little history lesson about the GOP and the Democrat's choosing of their presidential candidates. The gist of it is that Rudy Guiliani, being the front-runner for the GOP right now, has a good shot at being the nominee since Republican's tend to go with their front-runners. Hillary Clinton, however, could be vulnerable because the Democrats are not as decisive early on and front-runners tend to falter (i.e. Howard Dean in 2004).
My initial thoughts are that the Republican party is largely homogeneous: predoninantly white, middle to uppper-class, and Protestant. A GOP candidate can play to that base early on and cruise to victory. The Democrats, on the other hand, have a largely fractured base. A candidate must try to balance the competing pieces, such as the anti-war people, the gay community, the labor forces or the African-American community to name a few, and often times stumble along the way.
In 2000 George Bush was able to satisfy the Republican base early on with his "compassionate conservative" message, and never let go. In 2004, however, Howard Dean may have played too much to one part of the Democratic base, the anti-war part, leaving primary voters to go with the presumably safer choice of John Kerry.
There are a lot of factors, but that's just what I thought of when I saw this. I've always said that the GOP has been better at party discipline the last decade or so primarily because their party has less diversity of opinions in the base, allowing them to easily rally beind a single message. Thoughts?
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Message from the cold
Man its been cold here lately. The windchills have been below zero the past couple of days, which isn't as bad as I expected but certainly making me ready for spring more and more. Overall I'm enjoying the winter, but I wish there were more snow. Just not when I drive (more on that below).
Lately it's been a lot of the same old, same old. Work has become pretty routine in terms of just reading applications as they come. Some days I have a full 7.5 hours of work, while others I seem to idle around because I've gotten it all done. I was officially the first one out of the road for the Spring, thanks to a lone winter national fair in Pittsburgh last week. I foolishly thought that I'd rather just drive there (it's about 6 hours) than fly. The drive in was nice, but the drive back on Friday kicked my butt. It snowed/rained the entire way, which meant it took me longer, and it was draining - not something you want after 10 hours of college fair duty.
It was back to the office and routine yesterday. I don't travel much until March, when I have a few scattered fairs in New Jersey. April, however, get's really exciting. I'll be in SoCal for a week and a half and NorCal for another week and a half, which I'm way excited about. And yes, I do get to do the college fair at Saint Mary's so I'll hopefully get a chance to say hi to SMC folk while I'm there. I'm looking forward to going, although its created some complications...
...being that I've started taking classes in Counseling here at Manhattan. I've already had to drop one of my two classes due to my travel schedule, so I'm just kind of testing the waters right now in terms of this program. I don't even know if I want a degree in counseling, and even if I do, whether or not I'll be able to finish the program.
Anyways, between class and actually trying to work out, I've found myself with less free time, which I guess has been good.
On a final note, here's an interesting link I found: Manhattan Elsewhere. Some guy went to Google Maps and figured out what the island of Manhattan looks like, size wise, compared to other (mostly) major cities. I found the comparison to San Francisco intriguing. Manhattan looks so tiny by comparison: it fits between Oakland and S.F., S.F.'s financial district is easily as wide as Midtown Manhattan, and Golden Gate Park is bigger than Central Park. It's pretty weird, and if you've been to New York you might agree with me: Manhattan doesn't feel that small. It certainly doesn't feel smaller than San Francisco. Maybe its the taller buildings, maybe its the constant crush of people, maybe its the faster pace of life, but compared to San Francisco, Manhattan seems much, much, much bigger. Any thoughts?
Lately it's been a lot of the same old, same old. Work has become pretty routine in terms of just reading applications as they come. Some days I have a full 7.5 hours of work, while others I seem to idle around because I've gotten it all done. I was officially the first one out of the road for the Spring, thanks to a lone winter national fair in Pittsburgh last week. I foolishly thought that I'd rather just drive there (it's about 6 hours) than fly. The drive in was nice, but the drive back on Friday kicked my butt. It snowed/rained the entire way, which meant it took me longer, and it was draining - not something you want after 10 hours of college fair duty.
It was back to the office and routine yesterday. I don't travel much until March, when I have a few scattered fairs in New Jersey. April, however, get's really exciting. I'll be in SoCal for a week and a half and NorCal for another week and a half, which I'm way excited about. And yes, I do get to do the college fair at Saint Mary's so I'll hopefully get a chance to say hi to SMC folk while I'm there. I'm looking forward to going, although its created some complications...
...being that I've started taking classes in Counseling here at Manhattan. I've already had to drop one of my two classes due to my travel schedule, so I'm just kind of testing the waters right now in terms of this program. I don't even know if I want a degree in counseling, and even if I do, whether or not I'll be able to finish the program.
Anyways, between class and actually trying to work out, I've found myself with less free time, which I guess has been good.
On a final note, here's an interesting link I found: Manhattan Elsewhere. Some guy went to Google Maps and figured out what the island of Manhattan looks like, size wise, compared to other (mostly) major cities. I found the comparison to San Francisco intriguing. Manhattan looks so tiny by comparison: it fits between Oakland and S.F., S.F.'s financial district is easily as wide as Midtown Manhattan, and Golden Gate Park is bigger than Central Park. It's pretty weird, and if you've been to New York you might agree with me: Manhattan doesn't feel that small. It certainly doesn't feel smaller than San Francisco. Maybe its the taller buildings, maybe its the constant crush of people, maybe its the faster pace of life, but compared to San Francisco, Manhattan seems much, much, much bigger. Any thoughts?
Friday, January 26, 2007
The GOP's '08 enthusiam problem
Sure, its a bit early to take a look at the 2008 election. I personally thought it ridiculous when Wolf Blitzer was dedicating a segment of his show to analyzing polls for an election 21 months away.
So understanding that things will almost certainly change, I think one of the initial observations one can glean from the early, early stages of the campaign is what may turn out to be a huge problem for the Republicans: enthusiasm.
If there is one thing that is true about U.S. elections these days, it's that they're close. Bush 43's majority in 2004 was 51% to Kerry's 49%. He didn't win a majority (or a plurality) in the well-scrutinized 2000 election. Clinton never won a majority. Bush 41 won 53% in 1988. So for the past twenty years, the difference in elections has been mainly about two things: winning the independents and turning out your base.
Disregarding the fact that the 2006 election showed that independents are leaning Democrat these days, the GOP may be setting itself up for a large turnout problem in 2008.
If you look closely at the top three Democratic candidates right now - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards - along with the top three Republican candidates - Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney - an interesting pattern emerges.
All of the candidates have their flaws. On the Democratic side, Clinton is too cold and calculated, Obama too inexperienced, and Edwards has been out of office for two years. With the Republicans, Giuliani is too liberal, McCain too wrong on the war (at least currently), and Romney a Mormon - not a flaw of course but sadly more of a problem in the eyes of the evangelical Christian Republican base than, say, Clinton's being a woman or Obama's being black is to the Democratic base.
The difference comes down to the fact that despite their "flaws," each of the Democratic candidates seems to elicit an enthusiasm among the Democratic base that the Republican candidates do not. All of the Democratic primary talk is focused on how each of these candidates can overcome the overwhelming support of the other two. All of the Republican primary talk is focused on how each of these candidates can garner any Republican support at all.
Obama and Edwards voters may not support Hillary in the primary, but they will almost certainly vote for her in the general election should she be the candidate. If Giuliani wins the Republican primary, it's harder to see supporters of the more socially conservative Romney voting for him rather than just staying home, and visa versa.
Essentially we have a reversal of the 2004 election, magnified. John Kerry was not a candidate who could excite Democrats who would otherwise stay home to vote. Bush, on the other hand, rallied his conservative base to the polls and they carried him to victory. Bush was thus able to win despite even the fact that independents leaned slightly towards Kerry.
Again, it's important to remember that a lot can change in 21 months. But if enthusiasm continues to be a problem for the Republican candidates, give an early advantage to the Democrats in 2008.
So understanding that things will almost certainly change, I think one of the initial observations one can glean from the early, early stages of the campaign is what may turn out to be a huge problem for the Republicans: enthusiasm.
If there is one thing that is true about U.S. elections these days, it's that they're close. Bush 43's majority in 2004 was 51% to Kerry's 49%. He didn't win a majority (or a plurality) in the well-scrutinized 2000 election. Clinton never won a majority. Bush 41 won 53% in 1988. So for the past twenty years, the difference in elections has been mainly about two things: winning the independents and turning out your base.
Disregarding the fact that the 2006 election showed that independents are leaning Democrat these days, the GOP may be setting itself up for a large turnout problem in 2008.
If you look closely at the top three Democratic candidates right now - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards - along with the top three Republican candidates - Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney - an interesting pattern emerges.
All of the candidates have their flaws. On the Democratic side, Clinton is too cold and calculated, Obama too inexperienced, and Edwards has been out of office for two years. With the Republicans, Giuliani is too liberal, McCain too wrong on the war (at least currently), and Romney a Mormon - not a flaw of course but sadly more of a problem in the eyes of the evangelical Christian Republican base than, say, Clinton's being a woman or Obama's being black is to the Democratic base.
The difference comes down to the fact that despite their "flaws," each of the Democratic candidates seems to elicit an enthusiasm among the Democratic base that the Republican candidates do not. All of the Democratic primary talk is focused on how each of these candidates can overcome the overwhelming support of the other two. All of the Republican primary talk is focused on how each of these candidates can garner any Republican support at all.
Obama and Edwards voters may not support Hillary in the primary, but they will almost certainly vote for her in the general election should she be the candidate. If Giuliani wins the Republican primary, it's harder to see supporters of the more socially conservative Romney voting for him rather than just staying home, and visa versa.
Essentially we have a reversal of the 2004 election, magnified. John Kerry was not a candidate who could excite Democrats who would otherwise stay home to vote. Bush, on the other hand, rallied his conservative base to the polls and they carried him to victory. Bush was thus able to win despite even the fact that independents leaned slightly towards Kerry.
Again, it's important to remember that a lot can change in 21 months. But if enthusiasm continues to be a problem for the Republican candidates, give an early advantage to the Democrats in 2008.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Three strikes, Bonds is out!
Bonds reportedly failed amphetamine test - Baseball - MSNBC.com:
People on the East Coast have often asked me how I feel about Barry Bonds. I don't know how they know I'm a Giants fan. Could be the Giants calendar that's been in my office since August. Or the bobblehead that sits on my desk. Whatever. Anyway, I've always told them, "conflicted." I thought, I would say, that he was guilty of taking steroids. But then again, I would add, so were a good deal of other players and it was unfair to single Bonds out. Besides, he's on my team. Laker's fans root for Kobe, right? The French still adore Zinedine Zidane, right? Actually they could hate him. I didn't full fact check that one. I digress.
But as for Bonds and I, no more.
Apparently he tested positive for amphetamines. Strike one. Now, amphetamines aren't steroids. They're little pills that pep you up. Take them before a game, give you good energy. Like coffee, but without the peeing and upset stomach. Players have been using them for years. Even Willie Mays was known to have them. That doesn't make them right, but like the first strike, it's not too harsh of a count against a player.
He tested positive for them last season, after they were banned by MLB. Strike two. Bonds showed a flagrant disregard for the rules of baseball on this one. Taking the pills before they were banned is one thing. Taking them after they were banned, especially after one has denied any and all baseball wrongdoing before, is a sign of one who believes he is so great as to be above the rules.
Bonds was in a tough position here. An 0-2 count can be precarious. The public is willing to throw a few outside the zone, but one miss and its back to the dugout.
Bonds then proceeded to blame an innocent team mate, Mark Sweeney, for providing him with the pills. Ladies and gentlemaen, a big, BIG, swinging strike three. Barry could have gained back some of his lost respect by owning up to what he had done and facing the consequences. Maybe his career would have been done, maybe he wouldn't ever get Hank Aaron's all-time home run record, but he would still have a good shot at the Hall of Fame. Nothing counts more against a great player's entry into baseball's shrine than character. Ask Pete Rose.
No, instead of owning up to his mistakes, Bonds said that he stole a bottle out of Sweeney's locker and took what was inside without knowing what they were. You get the idea.
Dante reserves the lowest circle of hell for those who betrayed friends. Judas, Brutus, and the lot. Nothing is lower in sports than trying to turn your own team mate into a scapegoat. Few thought Barry could sink lower in terms of personal character. Barry just lowered the bar for them.
If someone asks me now what I feel about Barry Bonds, I think I have a more clear-cut answer. I want him out of baseball. I want him off my team. The Giants still haven't finalized their $16 million contract with him. If they have any respect for the integrity of the game, they'll end negotations and force Bonds to fruitlessly look elsewhere, effectively forcing him into retirement.
Bonds has had a long career, one full of more successes than most players dream of. He got a lot of cheers from me. But not anymore. He may have over 700 long-balls in his career, but this time he's struck out big time.
"NEW YORK - Barry Bonds failed a test for amphetamines last season and originally blamed it on a teammate, the Daily News reported Thursday.
When first informed of the positive test, Bonds attributed it to a substance he had taken from teammate Mark Sweeney%u2019s locker, the New York City newspaper said, citing several unnamed sources.
"I have no comment on that," Bonds' agent Jeff Borris told the Daily News on Wednesday night."
People on the East Coast have often asked me how I feel about Barry Bonds. I don't know how they know I'm a Giants fan. Could be the Giants calendar that's been in my office since August. Or the bobblehead that sits on my desk. Whatever. Anyway, I've always told them, "conflicted." I thought, I would say, that he was guilty of taking steroids. But then again, I would add, so were a good deal of other players and it was unfair to single Bonds out. Besides, he's on my team. Laker's fans root for Kobe, right? The French still adore Zinedine Zidane, right? Actually they could hate him. I didn't full fact check that one. I digress.
But as for Bonds and I, no more.
Apparently he tested positive for amphetamines. Strike one. Now, amphetamines aren't steroids. They're little pills that pep you up. Take them before a game, give you good energy. Like coffee, but without the peeing and upset stomach. Players have been using them for years. Even Willie Mays was known to have them. That doesn't make them right, but like the first strike, it's not too harsh of a count against a player.
He tested positive for them last season, after they were banned by MLB. Strike two. Bonds showed a flagrant disregard for the rules of baseball on this one. Taking the pills before they were banned is one thing. Taking them after they were banned, especially after one has denied any and all baseball wrongdoing before, is a sign of one who believes he is so great as to be above the rules.
Bonds was in a tough position here. An 0-2 count can be precarious. The public is willing to throw a few outside the zone, but one miss and its back to the dugout.
Bonds then proceeded to blame an innocent team mate, Mark Sweeney, for providing him with the pills. Ladies and gentlemaen, a big, BIG, swinging strike three. Barry could have gained back some of his lost respect by owning up to what he had done and facing the consequences. Maybe his career would have been done, maybe he wouldn't ever get Hank Aaron's all-time home run record, but he would still have a good shot at the Hall of Fame. Nothing counts more against a great player's entry into baseball's shrine than character. Ask Pete Rose.
No, instead of owning up to his mistakes, Bonds said that he stole a bottle out of Sweeney's locker and took what was inside without knowing what they were. You get the idea.
Dante reserves the lowest circle of hell for those who betrayed friends. Judas, Brutus, and the lot. Nothing is lower in sports than trying to turn your own team mate into a scapegoat. Few thought Barry could sink lower in terms of personal character. Barry just lowered the bar for them.
If someone asks me now what I feel about Barry Bonds, I think I have a more clear-cut answer. I want him out of baseball. I want him off my team. The Giants still haven't finalized their $16 million contract with him. If they have any respect for the integrity of the game, they'll end negotations and force Bonds to fruitlessly look elsewhere, effectively forcing him into retirement.
Bonds has had a long career, one full of more successes than most players dream of. He got a lot of cheers from me. But not anymore. He may have over 700 long-balls in his career, but this time he's struck out big time.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Tres holidays
It's been awhile since I've posted. I guess when you fall out of habit of blogging it's hard to get back into it. So what's happened to me the past five weeks? Mary's come and gone, twice. The LVs have come, the JVs have come. I've spent Thanksgiving in New Jersey, Christmas in California, and New Year's Eve in Brooklyn. Where to start?
Mary and I have certainly been spoiled by the holidays. We had five straight days together over Thanksgiving weekend and ten total days together over the Christmas break. I think being in a long-distance relationship that works can be, while painful, really good for the relationship in a sense. You don't really appreciate how much someone means to you until you have to live without them for weeks at a time. I don't know how long-distance relationships worked before cell phones, e-mail and instant messanger.
The same way goes, I feel, for home - both the loved ones at home and the place itself. I was amazed by how much I appreciated being "home" in the college sense. That is, you know you don't live there anymore but you still feel so comfortable there. I quickly forgot that I had an apartment, a job, and a whole life 3,000 miles away. Zach Braff described the seemingly haphazard plot of "Garden State" as being just like actually going home: there's no set order to what happens, you just seem to bounce from place to place to place without a plan. It's both saddening and comforting those brief hours (or minutes) you see old friends. Saddening to realize that you can only really connect with these people once or twice a year, comforting to know that the friendship is strong enough to suffer because of that.
Likewise, coming back to New York wasn't that big of a deal. Like going home, there was no "well, I'm home" or "I can't believe I live so far away" or anything like that. As small and cluttered my apartment is, it's my new home and I feel comfortable there as well.
I never thought I'd have a chance to experience New Year's Eve in Times Square. I never thought I'd pass it up to go to Brooklyn. I'm glad I did. The Jesuit Volunteers are a fun bunch, and I hope to get to know better the ones who live here in New York City. It was all so simple: some Chinese food, a few beers, and a rooftop with a clear view of the Manhattan skyline on a clear night were all that were needed to ring in 2007.
Besides, Mary and I decided to save Times Square for next year.
So after an eventful week and a half, it will be weird to start the normal routine again tomorrow. I really don't know how productive I'm going to be at work tomorrow (sorry Kevin). I'm going to try to post more often, but I want to get past this "here's what I did today" phase. Have any ideas on something to write about?
Mary and I have certainly been spoiled by the holidays. We had five straight days together over Thanksgiving weekend and ten total days together over the Christmas break. I think being in a long-distance relationship that works can be, while painful, really good for the relationship in a sense. You don't really appreciate how much someone means to you until you have to live without them for weeks at a time. I don't know how long-distance relationships worked before cell phones, e-mail and instant messanger.
The same way goes, I feel, for home - both the loved ones at home and the place itself. I was amazed by how much I appreciated being "home" in the college sense. That is, you know you don't live there anymore but you still feel so comfortable there. I quickly forgot that I had an apartment, a job, and a whole life 3,000 miles away. Zach Braff described the seemingly haphazard plot of "Garden State" as being just like actually going home: there's no set order to what happens, you just seem to bounce from place to place to place without a plan. It's both saddening and comforting those brief hours (or minutes) you see old friends. Saddening to realize that you can only really connect with these people once or twice a year, comforting to know that the friendship is strong enough to suffer because of that.
Likewise, coming back to New York wasn't that big of a deal. Like going home, there was no "well, I'm home" or "I can't believe I live so far away" or anything like that. As small and cluttered my apartment is, it's my new home and I feel comfortable there as well.
I never thought I'd have a chance to experience New Year's Eve in Times Square. I never thought I'd pass it up to go to Brooklyn. I'm glad I did. The Jesuit Volunteers are a fun bunch, and I hope to get to know better the ones who live here in New York City. It was all so simple: some Chinese food, a few beers, and a rooftop with a clear view of the Manhattan skyline on a clear night were all that were needed to ring in 2007.
Besides, Mary and I decided to save Times Square for next year.
So after an eventful week and a half, it will be weird to start the normal routine again tomorrow. I really don't know how productive I'm going to be at work tomorrow (sorry Kevin). I'm going to try to post more often, but I want to get past this "here's what I did today" phase. Have any ideas on something to write about?
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
What I've learned
Travel season is what probably drives most admissions counselors from this job after only a couple years. Oh, that and the extremely, extremely low pay.
A rolling suitcase probably would have been useful.
Washing my car is futile.
While New Jersey is known for Newark (the shitty place across the river from New York City) and Camden (the shitty place across the river from Philadelphia) the rest of it is actually quite nice.
Driving in New Jersey, however, always sucks.
Most guidance counselors are just people who are angry that they're guidance counselors.
Students need to have the following things beaten into them: 1) You can't major in football/basketball/etc., 2) 2.0 will not get you into college, and 3) just because we're in New York doesn't mean we have Fashion Merchandising or Interior Design as a major.
Sidenote: don't major in Fashion Merchandising or Interior Design. You'll simply lack a fallback when you don't get the job you want.
Parents need to have the following things beaten into them: 1) Stop asking questions for your kid, 2) stop asking questions for your kid, and 3) please, for the love of God, you're not going to college stop asking questions for your kid.
No matter what happened in "The Office," there is no Chili's in Scranton, PA.
Atlantic City is where Las Vegans must go if they want to feel sleazy.
High schools will apparently still let strange men in suits wander around the halls dragging an unmarked black rolling suitcase.
Do I sound jaded? More to come possibly...
A rolling suitcase probably would have been useful.
Washing my car is futile.
While New Jersey is known for Newark (the shitty place across the river from New York City) and Camden (the shitty place across the river from Philadelphia) the rest of it is actually quite nice.
Driving in New Jersey, however, always sucks.
Most guidance counselors are just people who are angry that they're guidance counselors.
Students need to have the following things beaten into them: 1) You can't major in football/basketball/etc., 2) 2.0 will not get you into college, and 3) just because we're in New York doesn't mean we have Fashion Merchandising or Interior Design as a major.
Sidenote: don't major in Fashion Merchandising or Interior Design. You'll simply lack a fallback when you don't get the job you want.
Parents need to have the following things beaten into them: 1) Stop asking questions for your kid, 2) stop asking questions for your kid, and 3) please, for the love of God, you're not going to college stop asking questions for your kid.
No matter what happened in "The Office," there is no Chili's in Scranton, PA.
Atlantic City is where Las Vegans must go if they want to feel sleazy.
High schools will apparently still let strange men in suits wander around the halls dragging an unmarked black rolling suitcase.
Do I sound jaded? More to come possibly...
Friday, November 10, 2006
Notes from all over
Just some notes about all sorts of things.
First, a non-partisan observation about Tuesdays election:
A lot of pundits are debating whether Democrats won on Tuesday or Republicans lost. They only need to look to the Northeast, to two of our smallest states, to get the answer to that question. Take Rhode Island and Connecticut. In Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee, the most moderate Republican in the Senate and the only Republican in the Senate to vote against the War in Iraq, was ousted from his seat. In Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, a strong supporter of the war and of President Bush, staved off a challenge from a farther-left Democrat, Ned Lamont. Even though Lieberman ran as an Independent, he is well known as the long-time Democratic Senator from Connecticut. Chafee, the more liberal of the two, was ousted because he is a Republican. Lieberman, a supporter of the war, was kept because he was a Democrat. The label mattered more than the voting record. So now, Republicans need to start questioning what made voters so angry at their party (maybe their ultra-extreme neoconservative, Christian Right agenda?), and Democrats need to realize that tuesday was less about them and more about George Bush and Republicans (Jon Stewart accurately decribed the Dems election strategy as "slowly leaving the room while your older brother is getting yelled at).
Recent albums that I'm listening to:
"Wincing the Night Away" by the Shins.
Technically not available until Jan. 23 (thank you Aman), The Shins third major release surpasses anything they've done before, and solidifies my impression that The Shins are possibly the "Arrested Development" of the rock world: highly critically acclaimed and loved by the fans that they have, but not widely listened to. By the way, if you've seen "Garden State," you've heard The Shins ("Oh my God, you have to hear this one song, it will change your life"). On "Wincing," lead singer and songwriter James Mercer explores darker themes than before, including a single about two lesbians from a small town that just can't understand them ("Phantom Limb," their first single off of the album available on iTunes Tuesday). Once again, I'm just taken aback by Mercer's lyrics, asking myself where in the hell he pulls this stuff out of, and realizing, as Aman said last year, that maybe it's just "poetry beyond our comprension." Some lines from my favorite song, Austrailia:
Dare to be one of us, girl,
Facing the Andrum's conundrum,
Ah, I feel like I should just cry,
But nothing happens every time I take one on the chin,
You’re humoring your cote,
You don't know how long I've been,
Watching the lantern dim,
Starved of oxygen,
So give me your hand,
And let's jump out the window.
Half the fun is figuring out what the hell the songs are about. Still working on that one, but if you want a good value for your 99 cents, buy "Phantom Limb" on iTunes Tuesday - and let me know what you think!
Some shorter reviews:
"Unfold" by Andrew Heringer
I was introduced to Heringer by my brother, mainly because Herigner attends the same college as my brother. Heringer's music is part jazz, part pop, part singer-songwriter, and part rock. Think John Mayer meets Billy Joel (because Heringer is adept at both piano and guitar) meets Dave Matthews Band (not as hard rock as DMB, but its the willingness to use nonconventional rock instruments such as violin and sax that counts). My impulses tell me that he's going to be huge someday, but music is such a tough business, you never know. Still, he's just as talented (or perhaps more so) than anything that's on any Adult Alternative radio station out there (think Alice, SF people). If you like rock or AC, check out Heringer. Also, on iTunes.
"The Last Five Years"
Another one that my brother gave me, this time a few months ago that I just got around to listening to. A musical about a couple, Jamie and Kathy, who meet, get married and divorce over the course of five years. Except Jamie tells the story forwards in time, starting at their first date, and Kathy tells it backwards, starting from the day Jamie moves out. Most of the show is in solliloquy form, and in fact the only time the two sing together or even appear together on stage is during their wedding, when the disjointed narratives connect for just a few moments. Overall, while the story itself is nothing too out of the ordinary, it's the way it is told that keeps you interested (as there are many facts about the relationship you don't find out until the last few songs). The music is very reminiscent of Steven Sondheim, which is a good thing.
Anyways, besides that:
Seeing Borat tonight!
Travel is almost over (a week and a half more!).
Looking forward to Thanksgiving.
My back hurts.
It gets dark on the East Coast way too early (like, 5:00 right now).
I'm happy it's the weekend.
First, a non-partisan observation about Tuesdays election:
A lot of pundits are debating whether Democrats won on Tuesday or Republicans lost. They only need to look to the Northeast, to two of our smallest states, to get the answer to that question. Take Rhode Island and Connecticut. In Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee, the most moderate Republican in the Senate and the only Republican in the Senate to vote against the War in Iraq, was ousted from his seat. In Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, a strong supporter of the war and of President Bush, staved off a challenge from a farther-left Democrat, Ned Lamont. Even though Lieberman ran as an Independent, he is well known as the long-time Democratic Senator from Connecticut. Chafee, the more liberal of the two, was ousted because he is a Republican. Lieberman, a supporter of the war, was kept because he was a Democrat. The label mattered more than the voting record. So now, Republicans need to start questioning what made voters so angry at their party (maybe their ultra-extreme neoconservative, Christian Right agenda?), and Democrats need to realize that tuesday was less about them and more about George Bush and Republicans (Jon Stewart accurately decribed the Dems election strategy as "slowly leaving the room while your older brother is getting yelled at).
Recent albums that I'm listening to:
"Wincing the Night Away" by the Shins.
Technically not available until Jan. 23 (thank you Aman), The Shins third major release surpasses anything they've done before, and solidifies my impression that The Shins are possibly the "Arrested Development" of the rock world: highly critically acclaimed and loved by the fans that they have, but not widely listened to. By the way, if you've seen "Garden State," you've heard The Shins ("Oh my God, you have to hear this one song, it will change your life"). On "Wincing," lead singer and songwriter James Mercer explores darker themes than before, including a single about two lesbians from a small town that just can't understand them ("Phantom Limb," their first single off of the album available on iTunes Tuesday). Once again, I'm just taken aback by Mercer's lyrics, asking myself where in the hell he pulls this stuff out of, and realizing, as Aman said last year, that maybe it's just "poetry beyond our comprension." Some lines from my favorite song, Austrailia:
Dare to be one of us, girl,
Facing the Andrum's conundrum,
Ah, I feel like I should just cry,
But nothing happens every time I take one on the chin,
You’re humoring your cote,
You don't know how long I've been,
Watching the lantern dim,
Starved of oxygen,
So give me your hand,
And let's jump out the window.
Half the fun is figuring out what the hell the songs are about. Still working on that one, but if you want a good value for your 99 cents, buy "Phantom Limb" on iTunes Tuesday - and let me know what you think!
Some shorter reviews:
"Unfold" by Andrew Heringer
I was introduced to Heringer by my brother, mainly because Herigner attends the same college as my brother. Heringer's music is part jazz, part pop, part singer-songwriter, and part rock. Think John Mayer meets Billy Joel (because Heringer is adept at both piano and guitar) meets Dave Matthews Band (not as hard rock as DMB, but its the willingness to use nonconventional rock instruments such as violin and sax that counts). My impulses tell me that he's going to be huge someday, but music is such a tough business, you never know. Still, he's just as talented (or perhaps more so) than anything that's on any Adult Alternative radio station out there (think Alice, SF people). If you like rock or AC, check out Heringer. Also, on iTunes.
"The Last Five Years"
Another one that my brother gave me, this time a few months ago that I just got around to listening to. A musical about a couple, Jamie and Kathy, who meet, get married and divorce over the course of five years. Except Jamie tells the story forwards in time, starting at their first date, and Kathy tells it backwards, starting from the day Jamie moves out. Most of the show is in solliloquy form, and in fact the only time the two sing together or even appear together on stage is during their wedding, when the disjointed narratives connect for just a few moments. Overall, while the story itself is nothing too out of the ordinary, it's the way it is told that keeps you interested (as there are many facts about the relationship you don't find out until the last few songs). The music is very reminiscent of Steven Sondheim, which is a good thing.
Anyways, besides that:
Seeing Borat tonight!
Travel is almost over (a week and a half more!).
Looking forward to Thanksgiving.
My back hurts.
It gets dark on the East Coast way too early (like, 5:00 right now).
I'm happy it's the weekend.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Shut Up and Sing
I really want to see this movie, "Shut Up and Sing." It documents the Dixie Chicks after they made their now-infamous comments about President Bush. I don't really listen to them a whole lot but it looks really interesting. And I didn't know it was coming out until just today (it opened in NYC) so I thought I'd spread the word. I've always found it amazing that the people who claim to be the most patriotic are the ones who are seemingly so willing to limit the reaches of free speech. Anyways, I think that's what the movie is about, and it is a very interesting debate.
Sorry for being so politicky lately. I promise once I finish travel season I'll move this stuff to another blog.
Out.
Sorry for being so politicky lately. I promise once I finish travel season I'll move this stuff to another blog.
Out.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
"What are you doing out here?"
That's by far the question I get most from other people (not college-related) throughout my travels. I guess it surprises people so much when they find out I'm from the West Coast. Most people go the other way, they say. Why would you leave California for here (especially now that temperatures haven't been out of the 50s in two weeks)? Then, since that's apparently the most interesting thing about me, the conversation about California begins. They'll talk about how they have a relative in LA ("No, that's nowhere near where I'm from), how they've visited in the past ("Why did you go to LA?") or how they'd like to visit ("Come to San Francisco, not to LA). Despite all of my vanities, I really don't like always talking about myself to everyone I meet. The joke goes that people don't like tourists but once they find out you're from California you're a god. I guess it's kind of true. Not the god extreme, but once they find out where I'm from it's hard to get them off of the subject.
Also, I should apologize to anyone who may have been offended by my comments about New Jersey (if any were). I should clarify that I do not enjoy driving so much in New Jersey, and my comments should be seen as in no way a reflection upon the people who live here. It can also be a quite pretty state in many places (mostly those where no one lives).
I'm back in New Jersey this week for travel in Central Jersey, if there is such a distinction (as opposed to North or South Jersey). The weather has been getting colder, but I've kind of enjoyed that. Fall on the East Coast is everything everyone said about it and more. The trees have been beautiful for the past few weeks, and I do enjoy the crisp air. There is something nice about putting on a sweater and a jacket and heading out. I probably won't be saying the same thing in two months when I need to put on several sweaters, a jacket, a scarf, a beanie, long underwear and boots just to head outside, but for now I've loved it. And call me crazy, but I'm looking forward to the first snowfall here (maybe this weekend!) - so long as I don't have to drive in it!
Where it was absolutely beautiful was Syracuse, which I visited for the first time this weekend. I got to see Mary, which in itself is worth any drive anywhere, but I also got to see where she lives and meet all of her roomates. Taking her words the first time she saw my apartment in the city, it made everything "real" for me. For two months as we talked on the phone she would talk about where she lived and who she lived with. Now I am able to visualize her life there. Friday night we had a great dinner and then went to a brewery in downtown Syracuse ($2 beers!). Saturday Mary and I went for a hike and then a nice drive through some very pretty areas. Saturday night was calm and relaxing, and it was sad to say goodbye on Sunday. I'm looking forward to Thanksgiving where we will have more than 2 days to spend with each other.
There were a few more things I wanted to post about but I can't really remember them right now. After the travel season I think I'll probably start a political blog to 1) speak my mind freely about current events, about which I am still passionate and 2) keep my writing skills honed should I ever try to return to journalism. For now, my current event is Barack Obama saying that he is considering running for president in 2008. I was quite excited to read that news. I think Obama, despite the lack of experience (although neither Abraham Lincoln nor Woodrow Wilson had much experience before being elected) represents the type of politics Americans are looking for. He is liberal, but there is more of a "common-man" liberalism about him. People seem to respect that he understands their concerns on a genuine level. He is also not a polarizing figure like Hillary Clinton or even John McCain. I just hope he pursues this goal.
Also, I should apologize to anyone who may have been offended by my comments about New Jersey (if any were). I should clarify that I do not enjoy driving so much in New Jersey, and my comments should be seen as in no way a reflection upon the people who live here. It can also be a quite pretty state in many places (mostly those where no one lives).
I'm back in New Jersey this week for travel in Central Jersey, if there is such a distinction (as opposed to North or South Jersey). The weather has been getting colder, but I've kind of enjoyed that. Fall on the East Coast is everything everyone said about it and more. The trees have been beautiful for the past few weeks, and I do enjoy the crisp air. There is something nice about putting on a sweater and a jacket and heading out. I probably won't be saying the same thing in two months when I need to put on several sweaters, a jacket, a scarf, a beanie, long underwear and boots just to head outside, but for now I've loved it. And call me crazy, but I'm looking forward to the first snowfall here (maybe this weekend!) - so long as I don't have to drive in it!
Where it was absolutely beautiful was Syracuse, which I visited for the first time this weekend. I got to see Mary, which in itself is worth any drive anywhere, but I also got to see where she lives and meet all of her roomates. Taking her words the first time she saw my apartment in the city, it made everything "real" for me. For two months as we talked on the phone she would talk about where she lived and who she lived with. Now I am able to visualize her life there. Friday night we had a great dinner and then went to a brewery in downtown Syracuse ($2 beers!). Saturday Mary and I went for a hike and then a nice drive through some very pretty areas. Saturday night was calm and relaxing, and it was sad to say goodbye on Sunday. I'm looking forward to Thanksgiving where we will have more than 2 days to spend with each other.
There were a few more things I wanted to post about but I can't really remember them right now. After the travel season I think I'll probably start a political blog to 1) speak my mind freely about current events, about which I am still passionate and 2) keep my writing skills honed should I ever try to return to journalism. For now, my current event is Barack Obama saying that he is considering running for president in 2008. I was quite excited to read that news. I think Obama, despite the lack of experience (although neither Abraham Lincoln nor Woodrow Wilson had much experience before being elected) represents the type of politics Americans are looking for. He is liberal, but there is more of a "common-man" liberalism about him. People seem to respect that he understands their concerns on a genuine level. He is also not a polarizing figure like Hillary Clinton or even John McCain. I just hope he pursues this goal.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Why I hate New Jersey
Why I hate New Jersey:
1) You can't make left turns (previously opined upon)
2) There is construction everywhere (which is ironic, because the roads are still horrible).
I'm just upset because these two facts combined for me tonight on the way home, as I was forced to drive five miles past my hotel because construction eliminated all of the u-turn spots near it.
Other ways the travel gods were against me tonight:
1) Torrential downpour of rain
2) Someone pulled the fire alarm at the school I was at tonight, forcing us to stand out in the rain for over half an hour
I just find it weird that the East Coast, with all of it's extreme weather, has really bad roads. Also, even their major roads and freeways don't have street lights.
I guess I'm just a little road weary. It's another marathon two-week go for me. More visits tomorrow and Friday, work on Saturday, fair on Sunday, and back at in on Monday.
1) You can't make left turns (previously opined upon)
2) There is construction everywhere (which is ironic, because the roads are still horrible).
I'm just upset because these two facts combined for me tonight on the way home, as I was forced to drive five miles past my hotel because construction eliminated all of the u-turn spots near it.
Other ways the travel gods were against me tonight:
1) Torrential downpour of rain
2) Someone pulled the fire alarm at the school I was at tonight, forcing us to stand out in the rain for over half an hour
I just find it weird that the East Coast, with all of it's extreme weather, has really bad roads. Also, even their major roads and freeways don't have street lights.
I guess I'm just a little road weary. It's another marathon two-week go for me. More visits tomorrow and Friday, work on Saturday, fair on Sunday, and back at in on Monday.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Left turn: next right
If you ever drive in New Jersey, remember this: if you want to turn left off of a major road, you must make a right turn. It's driving me crazy. All left turns on these streets are like freeway exits, so you have to make a right turn and loop around to the street you want to turn onto. Also, you can't turn left when there's not an intersection, so if your destination is on the left side of the road, you have to drive past it, turn right, loop around, make a left turn back onto the street you were just on in the direction you just came from, and then proceed to your destination. What is wrong with New Jersey?
I guess they make it up by not making you pump your own gas.
So my first consortium this week. It's great. Fifteen schools in the Red Bank area (about an hour south of NYC) in New Jersey get together, work out a college fair schedule all on their own, and all you have to do is show up. You get to meet more kids than a regular presentation and also you get to socialize with the other counselors.
The problem with that, however, is if you end up being, due to the alphabet, next to a really annoying counselor, you're stuck with them all week. The two counselors to the left of me have been great, but to the right of me has been an older (looks like late 50s) counselor who talks a lot and really doesn't seem to understand that what he says could be offensive. Very offensive. He's well intentioned - knowing I'm a rookie he's been giving me road tips - but still, can get annoying and uncomfortable - and racist. A few examples:
Today, my talking about living in California led to talk about Schwarzenegger, then Reagan, then Bush. This guy is as rabid of a Democrat as I am, but didn't seem to think that talking about politics might not be appropriate when trying to recruit students.
Consistently referring to some schools as "black schools." For example, saying that a school used to be good but now it has gone downhill since it has become a "black school" in a "black area." What he's trying to say, I think, is that the areas have become poorer, and generally consisting of more minorities, and thus the schools have become poorer. But how he says it just comes out as ignorant and racist.
At one of the "black schools," saying after a, shall we say, "well-endowed" and curvaceous young woman: "she's got a body."
When talking about Boston, saying it is a great city because they've kept the blacks in certain parts of the city, thus making the other areas safe to walk around it.
So needless to say, the next three days of standing next to this guy are going to be not fun at all.
After the fairs today went down to the beach for a while before it got too cold. It was the first time I had really been to the Atlantic Ocean. So I guess it's kind of cool that I've been to both oceans now. It was very nice - to the north you could see the skyscrapers of Manhattan, and to the south the shore disappeared in the distance. It was good to get out and see it, if not just to get out of the hotel room.
After getting my beach fix, I turned right and headed left, back to my hotel.
I guess they make it up by not making you pump your own gas.
So my first consortium this week. It's great. Fifteen schools in the Red Bank area (about an hour south of NYC) in New Jersey get together, work out a college fair schedule all on their own, and all you have to do is show up. You get to meet more kids than a regular presentation and also you get to socialize with the other counselors.
The problem with that, however, is if you end up being, due to the alphabet, next to a really annoying counselor, you're stuck with them all week. The two counselors to the left of me have been great, but to the right of me has been an older (looks like late 50s) counselor who talks a lot and really doesn't seem to understand that what he says could be offensive. Very offensive. He's well intentioned - knowing I'm a rookie he's been giving me road tips - but still, can get annoying and uncomfortable - and racist. A few examples:
Today, my talking about living in California led to talk about Schwarzenegger, then Reagan, then Bush. This guy is as rabid of a Democrat as I am, but didn't seem to think that talking about politics might not be appropriate when trying to recruit students.
Consistently referring to some schools as "black schools." For example, saying that a school used to be good but now it has gone downhill since it has become a "black school" in a "black area." What he's trying to say, I think, is that the areas have become poorer, and generally consisting of more minorities, and thus the schools have become poorer. But how he says it just comes out as ignorant and racist.
At one of the "black schools," saying after a, shall we say, "well-endowed" and curvaceous young woman: "she's got a body."
When talking about Boston, saying it is a great city because they've kept the blacks in certain parts of the city, thus making the other areas safe to walk around it.
So needless to say, the next three days of standing next to this guy are going to be not fun at all.
After the fairs today went down to the beach for a while before it got too cold. It was the first time I had really been to the Atlantic Ocean. So I guess it's kind of cool that I've been to both oceans now. It was very nice - to the north you could see the skyscrapers of Manhattan, and to the south the shore disappeared in the distance. It was good to get out and see it, if not just to get out of the hotel room.
After getting my beach fix, I turned right and headed left, back to my hotel.
Monday, September 18, 2006
First travel trip almost over
Tonight is my last night in Pittsburgh. I actually enjoyed my stay in the city quite a bit. Pittsburgh I think gets kind of a bum rap (kind of like New Jersey) but it's for the most part a nice city. It's extremely scenic, because it's so hilly (almost as much as San Francisco!). I did my one touristy thing today and went up the Duquesne Incline - technically a public transit method - which is a cable car that scales Mt. Washington and gives an amazing panoramic view of the Ohio, Allegheny and Monogahela Rivers, the "Golden Triangle" downtown at the covergence of the Three Rivers, the sports comlexes along the rivers, and the hills all around the city. I'll post a picture once I get home and can upload one.
Some interesting things about Pittsburgh: 1) despite the amazing amount of bridges and tunnels, there are no tolls to cross any of them (what a thought!); 2) it is the worst city I've ever driven in (yes, worse than New York) because there is no rhyme or reason to the streets, the lights are horribly timed, and there are few if any directional signs; 3) driving is further complicated by the fact that freeway onramps have stop signs, so you have to come to a complete stop before merging onto the freeway; 4) it gets very foggy in the mornings here; 5) there is construction on basically every road.
So what did I do today? Woke up at the crack of dawn to drive to a high school about 15 miles north of the city for a presentation, then a second high school about 15 miles east of the city, and then a third school about 15 miles northwest of the city (well-planned, I know). Despite my anxieties, the presentations went well, except for the last school, at which no one showed up. Tomorrow I have two more schools to visit, and then the long, long drive home.
At dinner tonight (TGI Friday's) I was listening to a conversation between the bartender and another person about Islam and the war on terror, etc. The bartender just kept saying things like "they want to kill you and your family and so we need to just blow them up before they blow us up or we won't win." It just blew me away how uninformed he was. If I was less disiplined maybe I would have cut in and said something like:
"You can't win. You can't win the war on terror. That's not the point. It's not meant to be won, it's meant to be perpetuated so that we'll spend more money on defense. There will always be people who hate us, and there will always be people who want to destroy us. That comes with being the most powerful nation in the world. But don't say that they hate us because they hate our freedom because that's not the case. They have wants and needs and desires and we better figure them out soon because right now we're not making any new friends by blowing up their poorest countries. We can't win, so we can either keep killing civillians in Iraq and Afghanistan, or we can start working to alleviate some of the problems that cause terrorism so that terrorist is less attractive to a young, rebellious 18-year-old Musilm man."
Do you ever get the feeling that you're just more clued in than almost everyone around you? That's how I feel these days.
Some interesting things about Pittsburgh: 1) despite the amazing amount of bridges and tunnels, there are no tolls to cross any of them (what a thought!); 2) it is the worst city I've ever driven in (yes, worse than New York) because there is no rhyme or reason to the streets, the lights are horribly timed, and there are few if any directional signs; 3) driving is further complicated by the fact that freeway onramps have stop signs, so you have to come to a complete stop before merging onto the freeway; 4) it gets very foggy in the mornings here; 5) there is construction on basically every road.
So what did I do today? Woke up at the crack of dawn to drive to a high school about 15 miles north of the city for a presentation, then a second high school about 15 miles east of the city, and then a third school about 15 miles northwest of the city (well-planned, I know). Despite my anxieties, the presentations went well, except for the last school, at which no one showed up. Tomorrow I have two more schools to visit, and then the long, long drive home.
At dinner tonight (TGI Friday's) I was listening to a conversation between the bartender and another person about Islam and the war on terror, etc. The bartender just kept saying things like "they want to kill you and your family and so we need to just blow them up before they blow us up or we won't win." It just blew me away how uninformed he was. If I was less disiplined maybe I would have cut in and said something like:
"You can't win. You can't win the war on terror. That's not the point. It's not meant to be won, it's meant to be perpetuated so that we'll spend more money on defense. There will always be people who hate us, and there will always be people who want to destroy us. That comes with being the most powerful nation in the world. But don't say that they hate us because they hate our freedom because that's not the case. They have wants and needs and desires and we better figure them out soon because right now we're not making any new friends by blowing up their poorest countries. We can't win, so we can either keep killing civillians in Iraq and Afghanistan, or we can start working to alleviate some of the problems that cause terrorism so that terrorist is less attractive to a young, rebellious 18-year-old Musilm man."
Do you ever get the feeling that you're just more clued in than almost everyone around you? That's how I feel these days.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)