I'm probably late to the party on this-- her debut album was released in May-- but Santogold is one of the best new acts out there. She's a Brooklyn singer-MC (I KNOW, but it's actually good despite the visual stereotype you probably have when I say "Brooklyn MC" which probably makes you want to jump off a very tall building). She sounds a little like she could be M.I.A.'s evil twin sister (I KNOW, but I swear to God, she's not just a re-play of other acts). She has a sound all her own -- each track is a genre-blurring discovery. Like these:
*"Creator": a weird-ass fast-paced street jam with overmodulated beats. You think all of her songs will be like this and she's just an M.I.A. clone until...
*"Lights Out": this is like if the Pretenders and the Cars had a child, and the child married hip-hop. I don't even know how to describe it (obviously)
*"I'm a Lady": sounds a lot like one of my favorite bands, TV on the Radio
*"Shove It": the best hip-hop Jamaican dancehall kiss-off to any ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend that I've heard this year (or any year)
Seriously, download her songs. She shuffles styles as matter-of-factly as your IPod would, and you'll love it.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Eight Things We Need To Stop Doing as a Society
1. Twitter-ing: Twitter is like the Golden Era for self-absorbed baby boomers and the (more) self-absorbed children that they brought into the world. A sight simply devoted to telling people where you are at any given time? That's not necessary, no matter how important you rank in the power sweepstakes. Plus, don't we have Facebook to already solve this problem? I don't understand the appeal of Twitter at all.
2. Referring to your Rock Band and Guitar Hero skills to impress others: seriously, everyone has played these two games. It originally had an ironic appeal to it (dorks, including myself, rocking out to Allman Brothers classics), but now playing either game is basically as common as sending an e-mail. It's still fun to play, but the need to talk about it is over.
3. Describing the weekend you spent with friends as "crazy!": unless you ended up in a psych ward with a straitjacket, this is not necessary. In all likelihood, you had a few too many tequila shots and gave the tattooed bartender your number, all of which is not "crazy!" but something that could just as easily occur in Kansas City.
4. Grown women in groups of four desperately trying to re-create "Sex and the City": I'm sick of my favorite event of the week (Sunday Brunch) being ruined by loud, obnoxious women discussing the intimate details of their sex lives. Usually, the stories are boring and predictable. I've even been at tables where the table next to me includes women actually categorizing themselves as characters on the show (like, "I'm totally the Carrie, and you're slutty so you're obviously Samatha!" etc.) God knows I'm no prude, but I wish these generally intelligent women would switch up the conversation a bit.
5. Wearing Che Guevara shirts or putting Guevara posters up in your apartment/dorm: Actually studying the basics of history and discovering the fact that Che killed thousands of innocent people on his way to undeserved stardom makes you look incredibly stupid. Throw away your t-shirt and stop trying to be "revolutionary"
6. Talking about Sarah Palin: Palin is totally running for President in 2012. She has already started a political action committee to raise funds. She has made about 100,003 media gaffes even after the election in November. The press continues to cover her like she's the second coming of Evita. To the press and loyal Democrats: Just ignore her, and she will go away.
7. Reading Star Magazine or other Tabloids: This is a hard habit to break. I'm totally guilty of buying them. It's like they have a gravitational pull towards me every time I see an article about "Sad, sad Jennifer Aniston is alone, can't find a man, and will be childless forever." BUT: these magazines are dumbing down America, so I guess it's time to break the habit. Bonus points for not spending money on frivolous trash and saving it during the Recession.
8. Giving a loved one a Blackberry or IPhone for Christmas/Birthday/Any Holiday: It SEEMS like a good idea at the time. Who doesn't love to upgrade their phone? But giving a Blackberry or IPhone is like giving someone a new puppy: it comes with responsibility. The recipient is in charge of upgrading his or her plan, which gets confusing and annoying and potentially pricey.
2. Referring to your Rock Band and Guitar Hero skills to impress others: seriously, everyone has played these two games. It originally had an ironic appeal to it (dorks, including myself, rocking out to Allman Brothers classics), but now playing either game is basically as common as sending an e-mail. It's still fun to play, but the need to talk about it is over.
3. Describing the weekend you spent with friends as "crazy!": unless you ended up in a psych ward with a straitjacket, this is not necessary. In all likelihood, you had a few too many tequila shots and gave the tattooed bartender your number, all of which is not "crazy!" but something that could just as easily occur in Kansas City.
4. Grown women in groups of four desperately trying to re-create "Sex and the City": I'm sick of my favorite event of the week (Sunday Brunch) being ruined by loud, obnoxious women discussing the intimate details of their sex lives. Usually, the stories are boring and predictable. I've even been at tables where the table next to me includes women actually categorizing themselves as characters on the show (like, "I'm totally the Carrie, and you're slutty so you're obviously Samatha!" etc.) God knows I'm no prude, but I wish these generally intelligent women would switch up the conversation a bit.
5. Wearing Che Guevara shirts or putting Guevara posters up in your apartment/dorm: Actually studying the basics of history and discovering the fact that Che killed thousands of innocent people on his way to undeserved stardom makes you look incredibly stupid. Throw away your t-shirt and stop trying to be "revolutionary"
6. Talking about Sarah Palin: Palin is totally running for President in 2012. She has already started a political action committee to raise funds. She has made about 100,003 media gaffes even after the election in November. The press continues to cover her like she's the second coming of Evita. To the press and loyal Democrats: Just ignore her, and she will go away.
7. Reading Star Magazine or other Tabloids: This is a hard habit to break. I'm totally guilty of buying them. It's like they have a gravitational pull towards me every time I see an article about "Sad, sad Jennifer Aniston is alone, can't find a man, and will be childless forever." BUT: these magazines are dumbing down America, so I guess it's time to break the habit. Bonus points for not spending money on frivolous trash and saving it during the Recession.
8. Giving a loved one a Blackberry or IPhone for Christmas/Birthday/Any Holiday: It SEEMS like a good idea at the time. Who doesn't love to upgrade their phone? But giving a Blackberry or IPhone is like giving someone a new puppy: it comes with responsibility. The recipient is in charge of upgrading his or her plan, which gets confusing and annoying and potentially pricey.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Meg Whitman: Former CEO, Candidate for California Governor, and Homophobe
So...Meg Whitman (former CEO of Ebay) is running for governor of California in 2010. Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run, since he faces state-imposed term limits, so the race is fairly wide open. Whitman has the potential to raise a great deal of money from Republicans in the state, who view her as a valued businesswoman and a potentially capable leader, so she's a formidable candidate.
Unlike most Silicon Valley Republicans, however, Whitman has focused her positions less on lower taxes and more on hot-button social issues like abortion and gay marriage. In fact, of all the Republicans seen as potential 2010 candidates, Whitman is the only one who publicly (and repeatedly) proclaimed her support for Proposition 8, which denied California gay and lesbians the right to marry.
This is not a smart move for Whitman. Many Ebay employees feel betrayed by her shift to the far right on social issues. In particular, her support for Proposition 8 has led Ebay sellers to organize a boycott against the website. Even Whitman's longtime executive assistant, Anita Gaeta, is an out lesbian who lives with her partner in San Jose. I wonder how SHE feels about Whitman's Prop. 8 support. Oh, and several current and former Ebay executives, including founder Pierre Omidyar, lent their support to opposition of Proposition 8 in a newspaper advertisement before last November's election. Will they support her candidacy or contribute to its fundraising now? Not likely.
California prefers its political leaders to be centrists. Schwarzenegger (who opposed Prop. 8, although not in a very public manner) is an example of this trend, along with Whitman's two top contenders, former Representative Tom Campbell and Steve Poizner, the state's insurance commissioner, who repeatedly opposed Proposition 8 before the election.
Let's hope that Whitman's loud support for Proposition 8 will lead to major problems for her campaign. Repealing Proposition 8 is a major goal for politically active gays and lesbians, and the idea of a governor who supports blatant discrimination is a nauseating thought.
Unlike most Silicon Valley Republicans, however, Whitman has focused her positions less on lower taxes and more on hot-button social issues like abortion and gay marriage. In fact, of all the Republicans seen as potential 2010 candidates, Whitman is the only one who publicly (and repeatedly) proclaimed her support for Proposition 8, which denied California gay and lesbians the right to marry.
This is not a smart move for Whitman. Many Ebay employees feel betrayed by her shift to the far right on social issues. In particular, her support for Proposition 8 has led Ebay sellers to organize a boycott against the website. Even Whitman's longtime executive assistant, Anita Gaeta, is an out lesbian who lives with her partner in San Jose. I wonder how SHE feels about Whitman's Prop. 8 support. Oh, and several current and former Ebay executives, including founder Pierre Omidyar, lent their support to opposition of Proposition 8 in a newspaper advertisement before last November's election. Will they support her candidacy or contribute to its fundraising now? Not likely.
California prefers its political leaders to be centrists. Schwarzenegger (who opposed Prop. 8, although not in a very public manner) is an example of this trend, along with Whitman's two top contenders, former Representative Tom Campbell and Steve Poizner, the state's insurance commissioner, who repeatedly opposed Proposition 8 before the election.
Let's hope that Whitman's loud support for Proposition 8 will lead to major problems for her campaign. Repealing Proposition 8 is a major goal for politically active gays and lesbians, and the idea of a governor who supports blatant discrimination is a nauseating thought.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Thomas Friedman Opinion Piece
I can't decide if this opinion post from Thomas Friedman makes a great deal of sense, or something he wrote after too many single-malt scotches. I'm on the fence. However, I guess it's worth reading:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/opinion/11friedman.html?em
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/opinion/11friedman.html?em
Monday, February 9, 2009
Unbelievable Corporate Malfeasance
One of the biggest questions in the past several weeks among the financial community is this: How did the Bank of America merger with Merrill Lynch collapse in such a short period of time?
In cases like this, there is always enough blame to go around. But the primary culprit of this disastrous marriage is John Thain, former CEO of Merrill Lynch. Thain seemed like a great choice to take over as CEO in 2006 -- he had previously risen through the ranks at Goldman Sachs, and had led the New York Stock Exchange. He was seen as slightly aloof by some coworkers, but his number-crunching mindset was categorized as brilliant at the time.
That was then. When Thain joined Merrill Lynch, he made several mistakes that would come back to haunt him, and lead to the collapse of his company. First, he brought in an entire group of New York Stock Exchange management employees to lead major divisions of Merrill -- thereby alienating long-time leaders of the company. The NYSE board members brought in to help did nothing of the sort, and expanded Merrill into mortgage areas that the company was ill-equipped to handle at the time. According to one source within the company, when Thain realized that his plans were not working and his second-quarter losses came in, he uncharacteristically threw a chair against the wall. Maybe that was a symbol of what was yet to come.
After the collapse of Lehman Brothers in October, the government was in a panic. Merrill Lynch could (and probably would) collapse, too, without outside intervention. Enter Bank of America, a bank who had expanded rapidly, with a strong cash flow (despite recently acquiring Countrywide Mortgages this summer, a risky move). Ken Lewis, BAC's CEO, agreed to acquire Merrill. At the time, Lewis was lauded as a hero: saving Wall Street from complete and utter chaos, and in the process, acquiring a well-known entity that would, in the long run, help his bank to expand.
Oops. Lewis had only 48 hours over the weekend in October after Lehman Brothers collapsed to fully examine Merrill's books. No one anticipated that Merrill would have enormous fourth-quarter losses, or that it retained "bad debt" of over $100 billion.
Thain was not forthcoming. In fact, his main objective? Immediately asking BAC for a $40 million bonus for himself, for putting together the merger that would eventually come to be seen as a financial disaster. As it became increasingly clear that Merrill was not in good shape, Thain lessened his demands for a bonus to $10 million. Finally, Ken Lewis made the wise decision to fire him from any board position at BAC. Thain also, incidentally, asked for a $3.2 billion bonus in total for his company's major management team for the year 2008. All while Thain was in the process of re-decorating his office for a price of $1.2 million. Are you getting the picture?
Thain very well knew that Merrill was in serious financial straits, and yet he didn't come forward and announce it to BAC. When BAC and Ken Lewis finally realized the extent of Merrill's losses in December, BAC made a frantic plea to the government to back out of the merger. However, the government and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson denied this request, fearing a serious amount of economic chaos that would echo the Lehman Brothers collapse in October and further destroy the stock market. Lewis has some blame to take in this matter: he has always been too quick to expand his bank, although most expansions have resulted in positive results. Perhaps if he had looked more closely at Merrill's books in October, he wouldn't have made the merger. But 48 hours is not enough time to properly examine a company the size of Merrill, and severe government pressure to make the merger happen influenced Lewis' haste.
John Thain is an egomaniacal liar, and I hope that he's subject to a federal investigation into his complete lack of corporate ethics. He has singlehandedly taken one of the strongest banks in America (BAC) and, while not destroying it, put it into serious financial trouble due to the aforementioned $118 billion in "bad debt" that Merrill carried with it. He failed to work with Merrill's long-time management team (who, incidentally, had made Merrill a great success prior to Thain's entrance as CEO and his installation of a new team of former NYSE friends).
John Thain should be burned at the stake. Bank of America's shareholders now have to pay for Thain's corporate malfeasance. Shareholders have lost their annual dividends, which was a major attraction to buying BAC stock in the first place. Thain: what a bastard.
In cases like this, there is always enough blame to go around. But the primary culprit of this disastrous marriage is John Thain, former CEO of Merrill Lynch. Thain seemed like a great choice to take over as CEO in 2006 -- he had previously risen through the ranks at Goldman Sachs, and had led the New York Stock Exchange. He was seen as slightly aloof by some coworkers, but his number-crunching mindset was categorized as brilliant at the time.
That was then. When Thain joined Merrill Lynch, he made several mistakes that would come back to haunt him, and lead to the collapse of his company. First, he brought in an entire group of New York Stock Exchange management employees to lead major divisions of Merrill -- thereby alienating long-time leaders of the company. The NYSE board members brought in to help did nothing of the sort, and expanded Merrill into mortgage areas that the company was ill-equipped to handle at the time. According to one source within the company, when Thain realized that his plans were not working and his second-quarter losses came in, he uncharacteristically threw a chair against the wall. Maybe that was a symbol of what was yet to come.
After the collapse of Lehman Brothers in October, the government was in a panic. Merrill Lynch could (and probably would) collapse, too, without outside intervention. Enter Bank of America, a bank who had expanded rapidly, with a strong cash flow (despite recently acquiring Countrywide Mortgages this summer, a risky move). Ken Lewis, BAC's CEO, agreed to acquire Merrill. At the time, Lewis was lauded as a hero: saving Wall Street from complete and utter chaos, and in the process, acquiring a well-known entity that would, in the long run, help his bank to expand.
Oops. Lewis had only 48 hours over the weekend in October after Lehman Brothers collapsed to fully examine Merrill's books. No one anticipated that Merrill would have enormous fourth-quarter losses, or that it retained "bad debt" of over $100 billion.
Thain was not forthcoming. In fact, his main objective? Immediately asking BAC for a $40 million bonus for himself, for putting together the merger that would eventually come to be seen as a financial disaster. As it became increasingly clear that Merrill was not in good shape, Thain lessened his demands for a bonus to $10 million. Finally, Ken Lewis made the wise decision to fire him from any board position at BAC. Thain also, incidentally, asked for a $3.2 billion bonus in total for his company's major management team for the year 2008. All while Thain was in the process of re-decorating his office for a price of $1.2 million. Are you getting the picture?
Thain very well knew that Merrill was in serious financial straits, and yet he didn't come forward and announce it to BAC. When BAC and Ken Lewis finally realized the extent of Merrill's losses in December, BAC made a frantic plea to the government to back out of the merger. However, the government and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson denied this request, fearing a serious amount of economic chaos that would echo the Lehman Brothers collapse in October and further destroy the stock market. Lewis has some blame to take in this matter: he has always been too quick to expand his bank, although most expansions have resulted in positive results. Perhaps if he had looked more closely at Merrill's books in October, he wouldn't have made the merger. But 48 hours is not enough time to properly examine a company the size of Merrill, and severe government pressure to make the merger happen influenced Lewis' haste.
John Thain is an egomaniacal liar, and I hope that he's subject to a federal investigation into his complete lack of corporate ethics. He has singlehandedly taken one of the strongest banks in America (BAC) and, while not destroying it, put it into serious financial trouble due to the aforementioned $118 billion in "bad debt" that Merrill carried with it. He failed to work with Merrill's long-time management team (who, incidentally, had made Merrill a great success prior to Thain's entrance as CEO and his installation of a new team of former NYSE friends).
John Thain should be burned at the stake. Bank of America's shareholders now have to pay for Thain's corporate malfeasance. Shareholders have lost their annual dividends, which was a major attraction to buying BAC stock in the first place. Thain: what a bastard.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Obama: The LGBT Community Is Watching...
Here's hoping that President Obama does not turn into Bill Clinton and throw the LGBT community under the bus, just because it "doesn't poll well in Iowa."
Not to be cynical, but his choice of Rick Warren for the invocation at his inauguration still infuriates me and most of my friends who are gay and lesbian. Reaching out to all sides of the political spectrum is fine, but allowing someone who compares gays/lesbians to pedophiles to swear you in at the most important event of your life is simply a disgusting and unnecessary messsage to send out to the public.
Let's review some promises Obama made on the campaign trail to the LGBT community:
1) Support for civil unions and full federal rights for gay and lesbian partners.
2) The repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military and the allowance of gay/lesbian soldiers who don't have to remain half-in-the-closet and constantly worried about being outed in order to serve their country
3) Legislation to prevent workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Will any of this actually come to pass, or will it simply just be thrown in the trash bin along with a number of other campaign promises that will not be followed up on? Let's face it, every presidential nominee makes promises he can't, or won't, keep when the polls come in and the nature of actually being president becomes a reality.
Obama: do not become Bill Clinton. The LGBT community is stronger and more focused since Proposition 8 passed in California. We are fighting the battle of our lives to receive basic civil rights. When I find a partner, I want the option to (if not marry him) at least be recognized with full legal rights like any married couple in the United States. I want the option to be treated like a family member and to be by his side if he is in a serious accident and in a hospital bed. I want to go to work every day without any cloud of discrimination hanging over my head and making me lose promotions, access, or fair treatment like a heterosexual male or female. If I were in the military, I would not want to live my life in fear that someone will destroy my career at any moment by outing me to my superiors.
The members of the LGBT community are watching closely. We're a much larger group than anyone can imagine, and only growing stronger each day. President Obama, don't let us down. It's time to step up and make LGBT rights part of your domestic agenda.
Not to be cynical, but his choice of Rick Warren for the invocation at his inauguration still infuriates me and most of my friends who are gay and lesbian. Reaching out to all sides of the political spectrum is fine, but allowing someone who compares gays/lesbians to pedophiles to swear you in at the most important event of your life is simply a disgusting and unnecessary messsage to send out to the public.
Let's review some promises Obama made on the campaign trail to the LGBT community:
1) Support for civil unions and full federal rights for gay and lesbian partners.
2) The repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military and the allowance of gay/lesbian soldiers who don't have to remain half-in-the-closet and constantly worried about being outed in order to serve their country
3) Legislation to prevent workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Will any of this actually come to pass, or will it simply just be thrown in the trash bin along with a number of other campaign promises that will not be followed up on? Let's face it, every presidential nominee makes promises he can't, or won't, keep when the polls come in and the nature of actually being president becomes a reality.
Obama: do not become Bill Clinton. The LGBT community is stronger and more focused since Proposition 8 passed in California. We are fighting the battle of our lives to receive basic civil rights. When I find a partner, I want the option to (if not marry him) at least be recognized with full legal rights like any married couple in the United States. I want the option to be treated like a family member and to be by his side if he is in a serious accident and in a hospital bed. I want to go to work every day without any cloud of discrimination hanging over my head and making me lose promotions, access, or fair treatment like a heterosexual male or female. If I were in the military, I would not want to live my life in fear that someone will destroy my career at any moment by outing me to my superiors.
The members of the LGBT community are watching closely. We're a much larger group than anyone can imagine, and only growing stronger each day. President Obama, don't let us down. It's time to step up and make LGBT rights part of your domestic agenda.
Obama: Come Down Hard on All Sides
So, it looks like the Republican party's current lack of direction is symbolized by the latest rise of Rush Limbaugh as some kind of unofficial party leader. He's gotten more publicity during the last two weeks than since his little "Vicodin problem" became public fodder several years ago. No one in the Republican party is stepping up to the plate, except for individual Congressmen who have made ominous statements like "leading an insurgency" against the Obama administration and openly hoping that Obama will fail. As if that's going to help our country out of the economic morass and increasingly crisis-like situation we face on a day-to-day basis. Republican calls for stripping down the stimulus package on several fronts -- health care, schools, and infrastructure being three very big examples -- are catastrophic. We will not be out of this economic mess until 2011, according to the most lenient projections, so it makes no sense to strip the stimulus of long-term plans that will need to be in place for upcoming years.
Obama has a very tricky game to play. He needs to win 60 votes in the Senate by forgiving Joe Lieberman, making nice with Republican senator Susan Collins, and even making amends with John McCain. He even helped McCain by appointing Janet Napolitano to his Cabinet, therefore taking away McCain's biggest potential opponent in his 2010 Senate campaign and allowing him to not have to immediately veer further to the right in his Senate votes. McCain owes him for it, and knows it. If Senate Republicans want to filibuster the stimulus package, it will only provoke public outrage. Obama won on the idea of fixing the economy with a stimulus package that immediately helped, as well as providing long-term relief. He may have Senate trouble, but hopefully he can work around it and get the necessary votes.
The other trick? Holding back the progressive left in the House from causing trouble. Now, I know Obama won the election on a much more progressive level than any candidate in the modern era (Clinton was NEVER this progressive, and Carter won by basically saying, "I'm an outsider and will never reproduce Watergate"), but some of Nancy Pelosi's strategy is simply out-of-touch and not helpful. The "Buy America" plan, for example, which Pelosi has advocated as a major part of the package, could touch off a protectionist trade war that would only cause further disaster to the American economy. Pelosi is also bitching about Obama's flip-flop on not immediately cutting back tax cuts, but this is not the right time to be eliminating said tax cuts, and Obama's campaign promise to do so was made at a vastly different time before the collapse of Lehman Brothers in October, and the subsequent events that have crushed Wall Street and led to the largest unemployment rates in decades. Pelosi needs to provide a bit of compromise if the stimulus package as a whole is going to succeed.
Let's hope that Obama can pull together and win both House and Senate support. He is dragged in two directions by Democrats who insist on too much, too soon, and Republicans who plan an "insurgency" against his plans at the peril of American citizens. Here's hoping that Obama's words can be translated into the right kind of action. If not, we could be facing an even bigger economic catastrophe.
Obama has a very tricky game to play. He needs to win 60 votes in the Senate by forgiving Joe Lieberman, making nice with Republican senator Susan Collins, and even making amends with John McCain. He even helped McCain by appointing Janet Napolitano to his Cabinet, therefore taking away McCain's biggest potential opponent in his 2010 Senate campaign and allowing him to not have to immediately veer further to the right in his Senate votes. McCain owes him for it, and knows it. If Senate Republicans want to filibuster the stimulus package, it will only provoke public outrage. Obama won on the idea of fixing the economy with a stimulus package that immediately helped, as well as providing long-term relief. He may have Senate trouble, but hopefully he can work around it and get the necessary votes.
The other trick? Holding back the progressive left in the House from causing trouble. Now, I know Obama won the election on a much more progressive level than any candidate in the modern era (Clinton was NEVER this progressive, and Carter won by basically saying, "I'm an outsider and will never reproduce Watergate"), but some of Nancy Pelosi's strategy is simply out-of-touch and not helpful. The "Buy America" plan, for example, which Pelosi has advocated as a major part of the package, could touch off a protectionist trade war that would only cause further disaster to the American economy. Pelosi is also bitching about Obama's flip-flop on not immediately cutting back tax cuts, but this is not the right time to be eliminating said tax cuts, and Obama's campaign promise to do so was made at a vastly different time before the collapse of Lehman Brothers in October, and the subsequent events that have crushed Wall Street and led to the largest unemployment rates in decades. Pelosi needs to provide a bit of compromise if the stimulus package as a whole is going to succeed.
Let's hope that Obama can pull together and win both House and Senate support. He is dragged in two directions by Democrats who insist on too much, too soon, and Republicans who plan an "insurgency" against his plans at the peril of American citizens. Here's hoping that Obama's words can be translated into the right kind of action. If not, we could be facing an even bigger economic catastrophe.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
True Desperation
So this is what recession fashion looks like? This looks like a top that was taken directly from the "Joan Collins Collection from Dynasty" circa 1985, with extra added shoulder pads, and....BOXER SHORTS? If you're going to scrimp and save, you cannot simply AVOID THE BOTTOM HALF OF THE OUTFIT and try to pass off boxer shorts as an acceptable alternative. Nor should you be considering wearing a gigantic ode to 1980s fashion in public. This makes me hate Gwyneth all the more, even more than her modern-day Yoko Ono problem.
Quote of the Day
"I'm not very popular for saying this, and the missus tells me to keep it on the QT, but the publicity is ridiculous for big, commercial movies. Here's a story: I was in Japan on the red carpet for 'Iron Man,' and I'm like, 'here's my walk of fame, right?' And then a Japanese robot shows up on the red carpet. He carries in a 500-pound bottle of sake. And I'm like, 'I've been sober 1,500 days and, like, I kind of have plans for Christmas, do you think you can keep that away from me?' They wanted me to smash the sake case open with the robotic "Iron Man." It was the equivalent of a really shitty ribbon-cutting ceremony"
---Robert Downey Jr.
---Robert Downey Jr.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Tom Daschle, Step Aside
When President Obama nominated former Senator Tom Daschle to become secretary of Health and Human Services, it seemed like a good match. Daschle has written a book on health care reform and made it his signature issue during his Senate tenure. He was also the former Senate majority leader, with first-hand knowledge of how to push a difficult bill through Congress.
Mr. Daschle is not the first politician to leave public service for cushy jobs in the private sector, or positions on the boards of major corporations. He is not the first to fail to disclose the extent of his taxes. But several troubling issues make the continuation of his Senate hearings and potential nomination a disaster.
First of all, Obama's administration has already confirmed one individual with tax issues, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Today, Obama's pick for chief performance officer of oversight (Nancy Killener) stepped down over $1,000 in back taxes she didn't pay on unemployed household help.
Daschle's tax issues go above and beyond the less serious violations of Geithner and Killener. It would send a terrible message to allow another tax evader to become an appointee. The tax system demands voluntary compliance by all American citizens, including top politicians. Daschle has admitted that he became concerned last June over $128,000 in back taxes and instructed his accountant to investigate, but the taxes were never paid. He failed to initially address this issue to Obama's transition team until his back taxes were flagged, and he admitted the problem. Bad choice.
Problem #2: Daschle's ties to major players in the health care industry could prove an even bigger problem to his nomination than the back taxes issue. He earned $5 million in recent years after his Senate tenure ended in 2004 from (you guessed it) law/lobbying firms, speeches made to to major health care interest groups, and a private equity firm. Although not a registered lobbyist, he provided advice to the UnitedHealth Group, a major insurance conglomerate, as well as serving as a trustee on the board of the Mayo Clinic. Ultimately, in many vital situations, Daschle would have to step aside from expressing his opinion or giving testimony because of a conflict of interest problem due to his industry ties.
Health care reform is possibly the most important domestic issue facing our country. The next Secretary of Health and Human Services needs to start with a clean slate, not with a potential cloud of back taxes and unsavory industry ties that will prevent him from achieving the radical changes that are needed in our health care system.
Obama: drop Daschle and find a replacement ASAP, before this becomes an ethics scandal that you can't control.
Mr. Daschle is not the first politician to leave public service for cushy jobs in the private sector, or positions on the boards of major corporations. He is not the first to fail to disclose the extent of his taxes. But several troubling issues make the continuation of his Senate hearings and potential nomination a disaster.
First of all, Obama's administration has already confirmed one individual with tax issues, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Today, Obama's pick for chief performance officer of oversight (Nancy Killener) stepped down over $1,000 in back taxes she didn't pay on unemployed household help.
Daschle's tax issues go above and beyond the less serious violations of Geithner and Killener. It would send a terrible message to allow another tax evader to become an appointee. The tax system demands voluntary compliance by all American citizens, including top politicians. Daschle has admitted that he became concerned last June over $128,000 in back taxes and instructed his accountant to investigate, but the taxes were never paid. He failed to initially address this issue to Obama's transition team until his back taxes were flagged, and he admitted the problem. Bad choice.
Problem #2: Daschle's ties to major players in the health care industry could prove an even bigger problem to his nomination than the back taxes issue. He earned $5 million in recent years after his Senate tenure ended in 2004 from (you guessed it) law/lobbying firms, speeches made to to major health care interest groups, and a private equity firm. Although not a registered lobbyist, he provided advice to the UnitedHealth Group, a major insurance conglomerate, as well as serving as a trustee on the board of the Mayo Clinic. Ultimately, in many vital situations, Daschle would have to step aside from expressing his opinion or giving testimony because of a conflict of interest problem due to his industry ties.
Health care reform is possibly the most important domestic issue facing our country. The next Secretary of Health and Human Services needs to start with a clean slate, not with a potential cloud of back taxes and unsavory industry ties that will prevent him from achieving the radical changes that are needed in our health care system.
Obama: drop Daschle and find a replacement ASAP, before this becomes an ethics scandal that you can't control.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Oscar Predictions
So it's not until the end of the month, but I thought since I've seen a lot of the movies nominated, I'd share my personal favorites to win Oscars this year:
BEST PICTURE:
*My pick: Slumdog Millionaire. A really hard choice between this and "Milk" but Slumdog is basically like an old Frank Capra movie, with all the loose ends tied up and a very, very happy feeling at the film's conclusion. It's a general audience movie with a great storyline dressed up as an indie movie, so I think it will win.
Milk: This movie is thrilling, and a great bio-pic. It's really hard for me to choose between this one and "Slumdog" but I think bio-pics win far too often. On the other hand, it would be nice to see the Hollywood community make it up to the gay community for its incredibly stupid choice of "Crash" for best picture the same year that "Brokeback Mountain" was nominated in 2005.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Boring. I've already seen "Forrest Gump" and am not impressed by a movie just because of special effects magic. Even Cate Blanchett couldn't save it.
Frost/Nixon: Great movie, but based on a play that already won a million Tony awards, so its adaptation to the screen was far too easy to merit a best picture award
The Reader: Kate Winslett aside (my female crush), this is a dressed-up artsy drama that voters wouldn't have glanced at twice without the amazing performance of its leading actress
BEST ACTOR:
*My pick: Sean Penn, "Milk": he gives the best performance of his life here, even better than his previous win for "Mystic River." He actually smiles and makes jokes in this one! It shows another side to an incredibly versatile actor, and even if he's won before and isn't due, his acting is just too good to ignore.
Mickey Rourke, "The Wrestler": God, so overrated. I'm tired of "comeback actors" winning awards for roles because an auteur director decided to pluck them out of the gutter.
Brad Pitt, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button": A joke. He was severely undermatched against Cate Blanchett and it showed in every scene they had together
Frank Langella, "Frost/Nixon": REALLY great performance, but he already won a Tony for the same role on Broadway, and basically repeats that role here, so he's not due for an Oscar.
Richard Jenkins, "The Visitor": I have no idea who this is. The Academy always nominates one little-known indie role for supposed credibility, and I guess he's this year's sucker.
BEST ACTRESS:
*My pick: Kate Winslett, "The Reader": Granted, I haven't seen the movie, but the reviews were mixed. However, Kate Winslett has been up five previous times for an Oscar. She should have won for "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind." She's the best actress of her generation. She's overdue
Angelina Jolie, "The Changeling": Um...
Melissa Leo, "Frozen River": Again, the Academy's indie slot. I have no idea who this woman is, but she probably sold one of her kidneys at the Sundance Film Festival to get funding for her movie.
Meryl Streep, "Doubt": I love her, but her over-acting in this movie is unbearable.
Anne Hathaway, "Rachel Getting Married": Too soon in her career for an Oscar, and the movie's storyline is totally hackneyed (rehab girl goes home for sister's wedding, family secrets are revealed, etc.)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:
*My pick: Robert Downey, Jr., "Tropic Thunder": The Academy never awards actors who play comedic roles, but this was HILARIOUS! Honestly, I had no idea RDJr. could be this funny, and he'd make a hell of an acceptance speech.
I won't discuss the other actors, because of course Heath Ledger is going to win for "The Dark Knight"
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
*My pick: Penelope Cruz, "Vicky Cristina Barcelona": She's just fantastic in this, and she's done such amazing work without being nominated in the past 10 years in Pedro Almodovar's films. She should win.
Viola Davis and Amy Adams of "Doubt" cancel each other's votes out, I don't know who Taraji P. Henson is (but I DO know how much I loathe "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button") and Marisa Tomei who is up for "The Wrestler" already won a Supporting Actress Oscar like 15 years ago.
So...that's my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
BEST PICTURE:
*My pick: Slumdog Millionaire. A really hard choice between this and "Milk" but Slumdog is basically like an old Frank Capra movie, with all the loose ends tied up and a very, very happy feeling at the film's conclusion. It's a general audience movie with a great storyline dressed up as an indie movie, so I think it will win.
Milk: This movie is thrilling, and a great bio-pic. It's really hard for me to choose between this one and "Slumdog" but I think bio-pics win far too often. On the other hand, it would be nice to see the Hollywood community make it up to the gay community for its incredibly stupid choice of "Crash" for best picture the same year that "Brokeback Mountain" was nominated in 2005.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Boring. I've already seen "Forrest Gump" and am not impressed by a movie just because of special effects magic. Even Cate Blanchett couldn't save it.
Frost/Nixon: Great movie, but based on a play that already won a million Tony awards, so its adaptation to the screen was far too easy to merit a best picture award
The Reader: Kate Winslett aside (my female crush), this is a dressed-up artsy drama that voters wouldn't have glanced at twice without the amazing performance of its leading actress
BEST ACTOR:
*My pick: Sean Penn, "Milk": he gives the best performance of his life here, even better than his previous win for "Mystic River." He actually smiles and makes jokes in this one! It shows another side to an incredibly versatile actor, and even if he's won before and isn't due, his acting is just too good to ignore.
Mickey Rourke, "The Wrestler": God, so overrated. I'm tired of "comeback actors" winning awards for roles because an auteur director decided to pluck them out of the gutter.
Brad Pitt, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button": A joke. He was severely undermatched against Cate Blanchett and it showed in every scene they had together
Frank Langella, "Frost/Nixon": REALLY great performance, but he already won a Tony for the same role on Broadway, and basically repeats that role here, so he's not due for an Oscar.
Richard Jenkins, "The Visitor": I have no idea who this is. The Academy always nominates one little-known indie role for supposed credibility, and I guess he's this year's sucker.
BEST ACTRESS:
*My pick: Kate Winslett, "The Reader": Granted, I haven't seen the movie, but the reviews were mixed. However, Kate Winslett has been up five previous times for an Oscar. She should have won for "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind." She's the best actress of her generation. She's overdue
Angelina Jolie, "The Changeling": Um...
Melissa Leo, "Frozen River": Again, the Academy's indie slot. I have no idea who this woman is, but she probably sold one of her kidneys at the Sundance Film Festival to get funding for her movie.
Meryl Streep, "Doubt": I love her, but her over-acting in this movie is unbearable.
Anne Hathaway, "Rachel Getting Married": Too soon in her career for an Oscar, and the movie's storyline is totally hackneyed (rehab girl goes home for sister's wedding, family secrets are revealed, etc.)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:
*My pick: Robert Downey, Jr., "Tropic Thunder": The Academy never awards actors who play comedic roles, but this was HILARIOUS! Honestly, I had no idea RDJr. could be this funny, and he'd make a hell of an acceptance speech.
I won't discuss the other actors, because of course Heath Ledger is going to win for "The Dark Knight"
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
*My pick: Penelope Cruz, "Vicky Cristina Barcelona": She's just fantastic in this, and she's done such amazing work without being nominated in the past 10 years in Pedro Almodovar's films. She should win.
Viola Davis and Amy Adams of "Doubt" cancel each other's votes out, I don't know who Taraji P. Henson is (but I DO know how much I loathe "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button") and Marisa Tomei who is up for "The Wrestler" already won a Supporting Actress Oscar like 15 years ago.
So...that's my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
The New Face of Public Education?
Later this month, the District of Columbia plans to release a long-awaited contract proposal for teachers. Generally speaking, this would not raise eyebrows. However, the outcome of the contract proposal and negotiations could change the face of American education.
To say that D.C.'s superintendent, Michelle Rhee, is a reformer is a huge understatement. Since her appointment fourteen months ago, Rhee has focused on improving the District's failing schools by suggesting weeding out less-than-average teachers and proposing a merit-based system to indicate which teachers should continue employment, and which should be let go. Of course, this type of plan immediately provoked outrage from teachers' unions, including the American Federation of Teachers and its president, Randi Weingarten.
You might ask: why does the District of Columbia's educational problem affect American education as a whole? Here's why:
1) Obama enjoyed heavy labor union support (including from teachers' unions) but also expressed a desire for radical new approaches to school improvement in his campaign. He may be in a political quandary, trying to help both sides reach a compromise.
2) The District's contract situation with its teachers only mirrors what's happening in large, urban cities across the country (or, for that matter, any school district). Teachers rely on teachers' unions for job security, and a merit-based system might remove this sense of entitlement.
3) Weingarten has proposed a much more lenient plan to evaluate and, if necessary, fire teachers who are not up to proper standards. However, if she loses this battle, the implementation of individualized rewards for teacher performance (Rhee's plan) will undermine or possibly destroy her union.
4) Rhee is kind of a bad-ass. In an interview last fall, she stated that "People tell me that unions are an inevitable part of school reform. My thing is, what has that gotten us so far? All the collaboration and holding hands and singing "Kumbaya?" This woman will not roll over for the teachers' unions.
5) Weingarten wants to modify the tenure system for teachers but not abolish it. She also wants any merit-based plan to include a variety of factors beyond test scores (class attendance and other vague factors). Rhee simply wants a plan that abolishes teacher tenure altogether, and bases all merit-based performance evaluation on student scores.
As a Democrat, I'm aware of how important teachers' unions and their support have been to the party over the years. As a former public school student, I know that a lot of teachers simply refuse to care for their students, treating them as numbers instead of individuals, and knowing that their jobs will be secure regardless of their students' ability to read and write. Those types of teachers disgust me, and I'd like to see them pack up their boxes and leave the classroom for good.
With the economic crisis in full force, education is on the back-burner in the mainstream media. However, regardless of how you feel on the issue, take a long look at what happens with Michelle Rhee and D.C.'s public school system -- it could be the first salvo fired in the new struggle for the future of American education.
To say that D.C.'s superintendent, Michelle Rhee, is a reformer is a huge understatement. Since her appointment fourteen months ago, Rhee has focused on improving the District's failing schools by suggesting weeding out less-than-average teachers and proposing a merit-based system to indicate which teachers should continue employment, and which should be let go. Of course, this type of plan immediately provoked outrage from teachers' unions, including the American Federation of Teachers and its president, Randi Weingarten.
You might ask: why does the District of Columbia's educational problem affect American education as a whole? Here's why:
1) Obama enjoyed heavy labor union support (including from teachers' unions) but also expressed a desire for radical new approaches to school improvement in his campaign. He may be in a political quandary, trying to help both sides reach a compromise.
2) The District's contract situation with its teachers only mirrors what's happening in large, urban cities across the country (or, for that matter, any school district). Teachers rely on teachers' unions for job security, and a merit-based system might remove this sense of entitlement.
3) Weingarten has proposed a much more lenient plan to evaluate and, if necessary, fire teachers who are not up to proper standards. However, if she loses this battle, the implementation of individualized rewards for teacher performance (Rhee's plan) will undermine or possibly destroy her union.
4) Rhee is kind of a bad-ass. In an interview last fall, she stated that "People tell me that unions are an inevitable part of school reform. My thing is, what has that gotten us so far? All the collaboration and holding hands and singing "Kumbaya?" This woman will not roll over for the teachers' unions.
5) Weingarten wants to modify the tenure system for teachers but not abolish it. She also wants any merit-based plan to include a variety of factors beyond test scores (class attendance and other vague factors). Rhee simply wants a plan that abolishes teacher tenure altogether, and bases all merit-based performance evaluation on student scores.
As a Democrat, I'm aware of how important teachers' unions and their support have been to the party over the years. As a former public school student, I know that a lot of teachers simply refuse to care for their students, treating them as numbers instead of individuals, and knowing that their jobs will be secure regardless of their students' ability to read and write. Those types of teachers disgust me, and I'd like to see them pack up their boxes and leave the classroom for good.
With the economic crisis in full force, education is on the back-burner in the mainstream media. However, regardless of how you feel on the issue, take a long look at what happens with Michelle Rhee and D.C.'s public school system -- it could be the first salvo fired in the new struggle for the future of American education.
An Athlete Who Uses Recent Fame to Party As Much As He Wants? NO WAY!!
Certainly doesn't look like Mikey has any trouble taking a massive hit off that water bong. Practice makes perfect, even with drug use. But what will happen to his Wheaties contract???
Back
So I haven't updated this in over two months, but now that things have settled down, I plan on writing more (and hopefully a post or two each day). I hope you'll read it and maybe even be entertained
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
