2008

There's nothing quite like a New Year's celebration to drive home the point that time is both absolutely essential and entirely arbitrary.

Benazir Bhutto is Dead

Along with twenty others, in a suicide bombing. I didn't pay close attention to the news report after it got a bit annoying and nationalistic (which, admittedly, is correct from a realist standpoint, but I am a Democrat at heart...). What intrigued me about the report on ABC news, though, was the propagandistic nature--the man described the bombers as 'cowards who hate democracy'--well, that or something equally inflammatory. Fascinating. The prevalence of the Cold War mindset here is deeply interesting to me; democracy is not an ideal government in a country where the majority of the people are not involved in international commerical enterprise as either consumers or traders and where the infrastructure--including, I suppose, things like communications towers and even Wi-Fi in this modern world--is not advanced.

At any rate, the societally aware part of me--the part that joined Amnesty International--abhors Musharraf; but at the same time, he is doing exactly what he needs to fulfill his individual goals--seemingly the control of Pakistan. So, while we can all rail about how he and Al-Qaeda "hate" democracy and the Western world, it's stupid to think those are the reasons for the destruction of his rival.

Though...Bhutto could become a martyr if her supporters move fast enough. With her as a symbol of outrage and with enough appeal, the people of Pakistan might be able to remove Musharraf. Revolution is sometimes the answer; though the question is, will a revolution really bring the people a leader who will do what is necessary for Pakistan to progress from a Western perspective? In politics, one never asks a question that one can't answer...Musharraf clearly isn't expecting enough outrage in Pakistan to depose him. Which demands either involvement from the West or even neighboring countries like India--more funding of revolutionaries--sorry, freedom fighters--or enough reassurances from Bhutto's party to cause a popular upheaval. I'd expect only the former to have a chance of working, as Musharraf isn't expecting the latter--either that, or he doesn't expect a second leader as charismatic and internationally successful as Bhutto to show up.

Legendary?

So...I saw "I Am Legend" yesterday and, since I enjoy reviewing movies--especially good, thought-provoking movies....

I really only initially wanted to see this because of a) Will Smith and b) explosions...which I was expecting more of on account of the trailer...so maybe this just goes to show that going to a movie with absurdly low expectations makes it that much better.

Anyway, I'd heard good things about the portrayal of New York City--and these were all confirmed beyond a doubt. The hours of computer work that must have gone into making the largest city in America look abandoned and in the process of being reclaimed by nature are unimaginable; while some of the CG is fairly evident, the scenery looked very believable (really, the obvious things were those that were moving; I think it was something about the textures and shadows that were off, but I'm a bit hyperattentive to these things). As for the 'darkseekers'--those vampire thingies Will Smith gets to fight off--the theatrical elements were a bit overdone to my scientifically biased mind, but there were certain believable aspects, especially behaviorally, that were fun to analyze.

Cinematography aside, the concepts and--if you're into that--emotions were well-played. While the movie drags at points, overall the humor, drama, and overwhelming sense of aloneness are timed very perfectly. There's food for thought, a bit of fanservice, action, amusing (and sometimes mildly disturbing) moments...overall, this movie is one of the more complete movies that seem to have come out this year.

Democrats & Debates

So...I finally read the transcripts for the April 27 (?) and December 13 Democratic debates. Due to interest, I really only read the answers offered by Clinton, Obama, and Edwards--but had the time to draw a comparison between the candidates' development. The April debate was better for general answers, although both debates are full of plenty of vague statements.

Clinton & especially Obama were already both solid speakers in April; Edwards' oratory skills have also advanced a bit, though the veneer occasionally slips away. While it was hard to glean as much useful information as the second debate focused on more rural and domestic, especially Iowan, issues that simply wouldn't affect me. Me = middle to upper middle class, college student, liberal, biologist.

Edwards: the man of the middle class, hates corporations and the way they're eating the lower middle class away. Some of his plans seem pretty solid, in particular his stance on education. But there are points where I question the validity of what he wants to do. I also didn't see much of his intentions for foreign policy beyond the generic war = bad, so...looks like he'll be good domestically and that the generic Democrat anti-war platform will dominate otherwise. Edwards' awareness of the importance of economy impressed me. I didn't initially think he would stand a chance against Clinton or Obama, but he fills in some of their gaps. Environmentally speaking, he was also on a bit sounder ground as he cared about the economic impact of green living. His expectations of a pre-K year seem a bit radical to one who escaped the new SATs and thinks that people who go to college admissions camp and, in general, pay money to do better on admissions tests & essays are giant fucking idiots.

Clinton: my least favorite because she's so dominated by her healthcare plan, which, when she kept referring to Medicare and to Social Secuirty, seems limited to the truly underprivileged. A lot of what she said that was actually concrete struck me as wishy-washy; paying money to pollute? Yes, it's nice to be able to invest in R&D, but seriously.... As a college student, Hillary as president wouldn't do me much good, especially since her plans for funding are...well, dubious. Transparency in government is cool, but it seems like Hillary has had too much experience being in government; her proposals come off as immediate negotiations, a problem because they offer more opportunities for Republicans to demand--I, for one, think plans should start off more liberal than the author knows they will end. As for foreign policy--reasonable

Obama: although his lack of experience disappoints--I'd hoped he would run in 2012--he's got some very solid, consistent opinions that I really hope to actually see turn into actions. Namely, the need for massive reform of how the government does things. And yes, Obama, too, focuses more on the genuinely unprivileged rather than the middle classes; however, his goals are more universal because he doesn't feel the need to limit as strongly. His foreign policy is consistent with his domestic--the government has to be reformed for things to truly work out; his goals are what I would like. But the problem is, are these things possible? Obama would need a fair amount of time and support in Congress.

Drinking & Genesis

It's amazing what one can learn simply from asking people the obvious questions--in this case, Why drink?

As a result of answers compiled from bunches of people over the past (calendar) year, I've decided that inebriation is the path to Eden--that is, to a state of innocence. Not only do people become much happier, relaxed, willing to do things they wouldn't normally do, but--here's the important bit--they can get away with it. There are some behaviors that are considered either the product of a disturbed mind or simply inexcusable--unless the person in question has an appreciably high BAC.

Also, drunks are honest. I think that's why the bar is considered both a semi-intimate setting--a good place to meet a potential partner--and a great setting for jokes. In a bar, no one lies--why would they? No one's going to remember what they were saying the next day anyway....