Finding myself unable to settle on just one topic for the weekly entry, I’ve elected instead to offer up a smattering of news. While this week has presented an active cycle, I’m uncertain as to whether this idea demonstrates due diligence or a lack of decisiveness. Oh well.
The two stories dominating the spotlight are the primaries and their respective dramas (a recurring theme which I’ll get to) and the looming recession. downturn. slowdown. Opportunity for innovation.
I can’t say that I’m particularly worried about the economy. I have few (did I say few? I meant zero) investments that will be affected by the instability and my job is unlikely to be threatened. It looks like I won’t be riding the rails to greener pastures (a la The Great Depression) anytime soon (mixed emotions).
For those in different circumstances who find themselves feeling the pain: my condolences. I’ll offer two silver linings. One, President Bush and the House have agreed (Whaaat!?!) to a $150 billion fiscal stimulus package. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/washington/25fiscal.html?th&emc=th.
The plan, apparently, is to put anywhere from $300 to $1200 back in taxpayers pockets. Most readers of this blog are looking to get $600 apiece. While this is a very nice little gesture, I have sincere doubts about its expected goal. $600 is a great shopping spree, but if the government sends me a check my first instinct won’t be to cash it and head to the nearest mall. In the real world of bills, mortgages (rent in my case), insurance, etc., $600 simply doesn’t go all that far. I wouldn’t have much left over after a month of school loan payments. If the money doesn’t significantly increase each consumers overall spending (which it won’t in my case), thereby going directly back into the economy, what’s the point? I may be alone on this, and I’ll grant that my knowledge of economics is limited, but it seems that the government (and presumably the greatest economic minds) could come up with something better.
On the other hand, maybe I’ll get all $600 in quarters, rent a hot air balloon, take it to an elevation of 1,000 feet and subject the world below me to a $600 reign (note the pun) of monetary terror.
The other bright side of the economic stormcloud is a matter of relativity. At least you’re in better shape than Jerome Kerviel. This 31-year-old midlevel employee of Societe Generale (one of France’s largest banks) managed to lose $7 billion making bad bets on stocks. Ouch. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/business/worldbusiness/25bank.html?th&emc=th
Moving on.
I’ve discovered yet another reason to head to your respective district’s Democratic Caucuses and voice your support for Barack Obama: he advocates class-based affirmative action: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/14/AR2007051401233.html or http://www.slate.com/id/2165717/&#obamaaffaction
Looks like Obama’s taking a page out of the old Zizzle-Zot playbook (he’s wise beyond his years) and growing ever closer to getting the official Zot endorsement (which would win him exactly one vote in the upcoming Minnesota Caucuses).
Speaking of the Caucuses, here are the details: They’ll be held on Tuesday, February 5. Registration starts at 6:30, the main event starts at 7. Find your location here: http://caucusfinder.sos.state.mn.us/. I realize I’ve admonished the caucus system in the past (http://erikgruber.blogspot.com/2008/01/season-is-upon-us.html), but unlike the Iowa Caucuses, ours actually holds weight in the party nominations. Needless to say, we should all go; no excuses. More than a civic duty, it’s a tremendous opportunity to have a voice in the democratic process.
Late Night, don’t think I forgot about you. California has a primary, which is also on February 5. Find your voting location here: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_ppl.htm
While we’re on politics, let’s talk about the filth being slung in the Democratic race. With all the posturing, blatant lies and below the belt call-outs, these people are making professional wrestlers look downright genteel. Check out some of the down and dirty here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton-obama_slugfest.html.
My synopsis is that Edwards looks like the mature adult trying to focus on serious issues while the others bicker (which is exactly how he is positioning himself). Obama, as long as he can keep his cool (which he came dangerously close to losing in the South Carolina debate) will come out looking like the intelligent, composed and thoughtful individual that I hope he truly is. The Republicans, by comparison, look awfully civil.
Really, the only loser here is Hillary. Has this fracas given us a taste of her true character? Has the warm, personable Hillary of New Hampshire given way to the conniving, malicious and spiteful women we’ve feared from the onset? Is this what a President Hillary Clinton will look like? The prospect is even more frightening as she starts to look more and more like the front runner.
The one consolation is that I’ve been greatly amused by Bill Clinton consistently coming to the rescue of Hillary “ready on day one” Clinton: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080123235622.htsftt80&show_article=1. It’s terribly kind of him, but since when is the definition of “ready on day one” equivalent to “I let my hubbie fight my battles?”
To drive the point home, read this: http://www.slate.com/id/2182065.
Or if you just want more reasons to dislike the Clintons, check it out: http://www.slate.com/id/2182938/
Who caught the State of the Union address on Monday night? I found myself agreeing with much of what Bush said, which really only means he was vague enough to avoid offense. He was his usual charming, down-home self, and got me laughing with his discourse on tax relief: “Some people say they would want to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. The IRS takes checks or money orders.” This had the Republicans roaring and the Democrats squirming. There is an element of truth to the statement though. If we want to pay higher taxes to support social services, there’s nothing stopping us.
Really, most of Bush’s address was inconsequential. He’s become an impotent figure head. Bipartisan legislation with the democratically controlled Congress is virtually impossible due to the animosity. With only a year left, I imagine most of his peers have already written him off, and he’s officially irrelevant. The only thing I took from the speech was that most politicians shouldn’t be seen in HD.
In sporting news, I’m guessing many of us watched the New York Giants back there way into the Super Bowl by blowing two go-ahead field goals in the fourth quarter, losing the coin toss in overtime, and relying on Favre to throw a boneheaded interception (vintage 2006-2007 Favre) to give them the ball back. I was looking forward to a Packers-Patriots match-up. I’m by no means a cheesehead, but I had grown fond of the Pack over the course of the season and I have a level of respect for the aging Favre. Plus, the Patriots already beat the Giants. They never played the Packers during the regular season, and Green Bay was clearly amongst the top 5 teams in the league (a list which doesn’t include the Giants).
But the real reason I rooted for Green Bay is that I harbor a completely irrational hatred for Eli Manning. Is it his propensity to crumble at unpredictable and inopportune intervals? His sniveling, buck-passing demeanor after bad losses? Maybe his “I play the most high profile position for a team with a huge market, but I can’t handle the spotlight” whining?
Say what you will about his playoff performance, sooner or later the real Eli Manning will show up. The Eli Manning that throws four interceptions (three returned for TD’s) against a questionable Vikings secondary that most QB’s have their way with. The Eli Manning that yells at his teammates and pouts on the sideline. The Eli Manning that sucks at football and life. He is the embodiment of mediocrity. Born in any other era, to any other family and he would be spending his days working in a lumber yard. But he was born a Manning, and rode a wave of entitlement to the Super Bowl.
In the world of entertainment, Heath Ledger’s sudden death brought with it an onslaught of speculation: what went wrong? What could have been? Who is safe from the icy grip of mortality?
It’s a tragedy because he has a young daughter, and I’ll admit that I was caught off guard. He had the persona of a celebrity with a good head on his shoulders (they are few and far between), though it has since become apparent that he was a deeply troubled young man.
I won’t say I’ll miss him. I didn’t even know him. But to paraphrase film critic Dana Stevens: the movies will miss him dearly. He was a promising talent that had yet to explore his potential, and the few roles in which I saw him (most notably in the Todd Haynes directed Bob Dylan biopic I’m Not There) demonstrated a tremendous gift to embody a character.
As I’ve watched and read the various commentaries on Ledger’s life and the tributes to his excellent (if abbreviated) body of work, I’ve started to think about the oddity of American priorities. I’m not one to trample on a young man’s not-yet-covered grave, nor do I like to sound preachy or sanctimonious (I hate to be “that guy”), but why do we have such a penchant for dwelling on the deaths of our celebrities (however untimely, tragic or avoidable)?
Over the past week, hundreds of men, women and children have died in Kenya’s tribal conflicts. Many more in the Middle East, Congo, Darfur, etc. Are these people less important than Mr. Ledger? Less worthy? Do we truly know our celebrities any more than these people suffering overseas? More need not be written on the idol-worshipping tendencies of Americans or the media (it’s a point that has been trampled into the ground).
It’s just interesting is all.
Thanks for reading.
