I've liked Weezer for a long time and I've enjoyed their transitions from the Blue Album, to the Green Album, and now to the Red Album, their latest. They seem to be able to seemless integrate new sounds and influences into a distinctly unique sound that is still Weezer. This album is more different than most of their other album maturations but it is still a decided Weezer album. When I get back to my apartment and buy a bunch of CD's this has got to go to the top. Almost as much for curiosity's sake as much as it is that I want to listen to the album. If that makes much sense.
The first single, Pork and Beans is pretty good - containing an even greater than usual amount of pop culture references among Rivers' lyrics and unexpected Weezer rifts (that are now paradoxically expected). It has a great sound but more importantly it has a really cool music video that seems to touch on a lot of the major viral experiences of the last few years. The video is fun and seems to lend even more heart to a song that already has the normal endearing feel of Weezer's usual songs.
Another song I really liked is "Heart Songs" which is already receiving a bunch of fan buzz. For a Weezer ballad it seems to stand out to me for a reason that I can't quite put my finger on yet. But it is worth checking out for sure. Clicking that link will take you to a youtube link with just the audio really which is also a place where you can listen to the whole album essentially. Before you buy the album of course.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Too Many Dresses
27 Dresses - Anne Fletcher - 2006 - 4/10
It’s never good to start anything on the defensive, but I have to say I saw this movie on an airplane, so give me some slack.
Summary:
The summary goes like this: that old HILLARIOUS phrase “always a bridesmaid never a bride” applies to our main character Jane (Katherine Heigl)! No way. But she does have this guy she’s crazy about, her boss, George (Ed Burns). But he’s just fallen for her super hot, super slutty sister Tess (Talin Akerman). No way. But since Jane is such an expert wedding planner she agrees to plan her sister’s wedding to her dream guy. Oh my God. Along the way she meets this guy who is falling all over himself to ask her out (James Marsden) but she keeps refusing, only relenting when she needs to vent about her sad marriage woes. But then as he starts to make her laugh and integrate himself into her life it turns out that he’s really this super sexy wedding-beat reporter whose writing Jane loves! No way! (Stiffles yawn). Make your own conclusions, most of which probably do not require seeing the movie, or after this summary, any of the preview.
Critique:
I don’t even know where to begin. I feel like I’m being pulled in all directions. On one hand my mom really liked it so I know it’s a chic flick that I’m obviously biased against. On another hand I think, as a chic flick, the movie was good at what it was. BUT the chic flicks Achilles heal – unoriginality and cliché cluttering comes out in strong force here. We’ve got the “best friend,” “the perfect guy,” “the perfect sister” (I love how a woman like Heigl is supposed to be jealous of Akerman, I mean really, they’re both freaking knock outs) and everything else. Nromally I wouldn’t dwell on the clichés so much but it really sucks a lot out of the movie, especially when Marsden looks like he’s actually acting without his Cyclops goggles for a change and Heigl is ALMOST likeable. One other glaring thing that popped into my head is that bosses like George don’t have assistants like Katherine Heigl for years on end and not sleep with them. I mean, that’s why they hire them! And he hasn’t noticed her? Or realized she worships him? Come on. I hate movies that can’t respect the viewer because we’re “stupid” or “fickle” and need to be force fed this crap.
Oh well. This review has left me feeling widely unfulfilled and like I poored out a nonsensical rant but hey, its just another rom-com chic flick.
It’s never good to start anything on the defensive, but I have to say I saw this movie on an airplane, so give me some slack.
Summary:
The summary goes like this: that old HILLARIOUS phrase “always a bridesmaid never a bride” applies to our main character Jane (Katherine Heigl)! No way. But she does have this guy she’s crazy about, her boss, George (Ed Burns). But he’s just fallen for her super hot, super slutty sister Tess (Talin Akerman). No way. But since Jane is such an expert wedding planner she agrees to plan her sister’s wedding to her dream guy. Oh my God. Along the way she meets this guy who is falling all over himself to ask her out (James Marsden) but she keeps refusing, only relenting when she needs to vent about her sad marriage woes. But then as he starts to make her laugh and integrate himself into her life it turns out that he’s really this super sexy wedding-beat reporter whose writing Jane loves! No way! (Stiffles yawn). Make your own conclusions, most of which probably do not require seeing the movie, or after this summary, any of the preview.
Critique:
I don’t even know where to begin. I feel like I’m being pulled in all directions. On one hand my mom really liked it so I know it’s a chic flick that I’m obviously biased against. On another hand I think, as a chic flick, the movie was good at what it was. BUT the chic flicks Achilles heal – unoriginality and cliché cluttering comes out in strong force here. We’ve got the “best friend,” “the perfect guy,” “the perfect sister” (I love how a woman like Heigl is supposed to be jealous of Akerman, I mean really, they’re both freaking knock outs) and everything else. Nromally I wouldn’t dwell on the clichés so much but it really sucks a lot out of the movie, especially when Marsden looks like he’s actually acting without his Cyclops goggles for a change and Heigl is ALMOST likeable. One other glaring thing that popped into my head is that bosses like George don’t have assistants like Katherine Heigl for years on end and not sleep with them. I mean, that’s why they hire them! And he hasn’t noticed her? Or realized she worships him? Come on. I hate movies that can’t respect the viewer because we’re “stupid” or “fickle” and need to be force fed this crap.
Oh well. This review has left me feeling widely unfulfilled and like I poored out a nonsensical rant but hey, its just another rom-com chic flick.
Indiana Jones and the Disappointing Cracked Skull
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - Steven Spielberg - 2008 - 4/10
I cant quite figure out if writing this review is really even close to worth it. I had enough Indiana Jones type hurdles of my own that stood in the way of me finally posting this: writing SaltyStix articles, studying for a test, general laziness…lots of things. But I decided that per Spielberg and Lucas’ dues ex machina of Indy, I had to find some unnatural power to finish the review.
The first thing that comes to mind is that the film was soo disappointing it was almost sad. I felt like crying. Sure I knew what Lucas does to sacred trilogies (defiles them) but I thought Spielberg’s directing and another writer would balance old George out. FALSE. Instead the movie is full of Lucas’ overindulgence – unnecessary special effects. While this movie just has monkeys to compare to Jar Jar, it still makes me wince – especially because the first movies did not seem to be cluttered with Lucas’ ILM crap. Jar Jar was annoying but by the end of the trilogy you saw the point of him – what was the need to swing from the vines? Or survive a nuclear blast?
Perhaps the movie was doomed from the start with the absence of Denholm Elliot (who unfortunately passed away in 1992) and Sean Connery (who stubbornly maintained he was ‘retired’). To fill the gaping hole of Elliot’s Dr. Marcus Brody the film inserts another character designed for comic relief: Ray Winstone. Winstone’s character is supposed to have this deep relationship with Indy which is supposed to yield deep humor as well as clever plot twists but fails in both because he is just too brand spanking new to the franchise. To make up for the comedy of Connery-Ford they try for Ford-LeBeuf and almost succeed but LeBeuf’s character is just so ridiculous.
The largest problem for me is more conceptual in that the movie moved away from the religious occult (the arch, pagan religions, and the grail) and into well, something else. Maybe they needed a new frontier and I understand that what they chose was based on 50’s era pulp-themed movies that they loved. I get that. It still sucked. The religious occult had a different feel to it as well as more history and more lore that gives an ephemeral feel. What we’re left with here seems forced and feels like you’re watching bad Sci-Fi reruns again. Chalk up that the “puzzles” and “clues” as well as the “answers” are dangerously close to modern pretenders like National Treasure and the like, and Indy quickly loses his mystique.
What helped saved the movie was Karen Allen’s character. I hope that isn’t really a spoiler because she IS in the movie. Once she hit the screen the Indy charm and humor seemed to replace the old-tired-act Harrison was sleepwalking through. Combined with the action in the last hour, the last half really shapes up to be pretty good. I will say that the story timeline liberties Spielberg and Lucas pulled a long time ago damaged the franchise here. Not many know that Temple of Doom was made as a prequel to Raiders which was then followed by Last Crusade. So events that happened in Raiders, say, socially, are not that far removed from Crystal Skull.
The best thing Spielberg and Lucas did was pay homage to the first part of the series with references to Raiders in the opening scene and good throwbacks to the value of Indy’s hat from nuclear explosions to chapels including some scenes that might have people thinking if “Mutt Williams” is going to take over the franchise.
I’ll close with the three things this movie needed to be really good – to give Last Crusade a run for it’s money. First, a younger Harrison Ford – which was quite possible if it hadn’t been for Lucas’ constant screen revisions and stubborn refusal to accept earlier story send ups – we’re talking a good seven to ten years here – Air Force One Harrison Ford instead of, well, Crystal Skull Harrison Ford. Second, the appearance of Sean Connery – which again, was possible if the film had been made earlier. It is curious that Connery’s part – supposedly a small cameo is SO small that Connery must have really thought the script was crap. Third, no CGI bullshit – this would probably have changed the whole opening scene and made the film a hell of a lot better. Maybe given us a classic intro where Indy is in the field looking for some treasure and bam! Cate Blanchett swoops in. But alas, no such luck.
I cant quite figure out if writing this review is really even close to worth it. I had enough Indiana Jones type hurdles of my own that stood in the way of me finally posting this: writing SaltyStix articles, studying for a test, general laziness…lots of things. But I decided that per Spielberg and Lucas’ dues ex machina of Indy, I had to find some unnatural power to finish the review.
The first thing that comes to mind is that the film was soo disappointing it was almost sad. I felt like crying. Sure I knew what Lucas does to sacred trilogies (defiles them) but I thought Spielberg’s directing and another writer would balance old George out. FALSE. Instead the movie is full of Lucas’ overindulgence – unnecessary special effects. While this movie just has monkeys to compare to Jar Jar, it still makes me wince – especially because the first movies did not seem to be cluttered with Lucas’ ILM crap. Jar Jar was annoying but by the end of the trilogy you saw the point of him – what was the need to swing from the vines? Or survive a nuclear blast?
Perhaps the movie was doomed from the start with the absence of Denholm Elliot (who unfortunately passed away in 1992) and Sean Connery (who stubbornly maintained he was ‘retired’). To fill the gaping hole of Elliot’s Dr. Marcus Brody the film inserts another character designed for comic relief: Ray Winstone. Winstone’s character is supposed to have this deep relationship with Indy which is supposed to yield deep humor as well as clever plot twists but fails in both because he is just too brand spanking new to the franchise. To make up for the comedy of Connery-Ford they try for Ford-LeBeuf and almost succeed but LeBeuf’s character is just so ridiculous.
The largest problem for me is more conceptual in that the movie moved away from the religious occult (the arch, pagan religions, and the grail) and into well, something else. Maybe they needed a new frontier and I understand that what they chose was based on 50’s era pulp-themed movies that they loved. I get that. It still sucked. The religious occult had a different feel to it as well as more history and more lore that gives an ephemeral feel. What we’re left with here seems forced and feels like you’re watching bad Sci-Fi reruns again. Chalk up that the “puzzles” and “clues” as well as the “answers” are dangerously close to modern pretenders like National Treasure and the like, and Indy quickly loses his mystique.
What helped saved the movie was Karen Allen’s character. I hope that isn’t really a spoiler because she IS in the movie. Once she hit the screen the Indy charm and humor seemed to replace the old-tired-act Harrison was sleepwalking through. Combined with the action in the last hour, the last half really shapes up to be pretty good. I will say that the story timeline liberties Spielberg and Lucas pulled a long time ago damaged the franchise here. Not many know that Temple of Doom was made as a prequel to Raiders which was then followed by Last Crusade. So events that happened in Raiders, say, socially, are not that far removed from Crystal Skull.
The best thing Spielberg and Lucas did was pay homage to the first part of the series with references to Raiders in the opening scene and good throwbacks to the value of Indy’s hat from nuclear explosions to chapels including some scenes that might have people thinking if “Mutt Williams” is going to take over the franchise.
I’ll close with the three things this movie needed to be really good – to give Last Crusade a run for it’s money. First, a younger Harrison Ford – which was quite possible if it hadn’t been for Lucas’ constant screen revisions and stubborn refusal to accept earlier story send ups – we’re talking a good seven to ten years here – Air Force One Harrison Ford instead of, well, Crystal Skull Harrison Ford. Second, the appearance of Sean Connery – which again, was possible if the film had been made earlier. It is curious that Connery’s part – supposedly a small cameo is SO small that Connery must have really thought the script was crap. Third, no CGI bullshit – this would probably have changed the whole opening scene and made the film a hell of a lot better. Maybe given us a classic intro where Indy is in the field looking for some treasure and bam! Cate Blanchett swoops in. But alas, no such luck.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Another month
I just got back from Europe and my head is chalk full of things I'll never get to blog about - basically detailing all of my adventurous exploits, commentary on the obama/clinton/2008 mess, and lots of other things that suddenly are not coming to me.
About books - all the ones I read toward the end of second semester that I thought would help me start posting book reviews here (mostly classics I never read in high school) or the ones I read on my trip (mostly Cormac McCarthy's The Road).
About all the gelatto I ate in Europe - my rankings of the cities (1. Rome, 2. Florence, 3. Trier, 4. Meersburg, 5. Lindau, 6. Venice, 7. Bregenz, 8. Munich, 9. Gindelwald, 10. Lux City, 11. Paris, 12. Kaysberg (Alsace), 13. Sion, 14. Zurmat
But I will start blogging again since its summer for whatever its worth.
About books - all the ones I read toward the end of second semester that I thought would help me start posting book reviews here (mostly classics I never read in high school) or the ones I read on my trip (mostly Cormac McCarthy's The Road).
About all the gelatto I ate in Europe - my rankings of the cities (1. Rome, 2. Florence, 3. Trier, 4. Meersburg, 5. Lindau, 6. Venice, 7. Bregenz, 8. Munich, 9. Gindelwald, 10. Lux City, 11. Paris, 12. Kaysberg (Alsace), 13. Sion, 14. Zurmat
But I will start blogging again since its summer for whatever its worth.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
The Kingdom...a crowning achievement
The Kingdom - Peter Berg - 2007 - 9/10
Summary:
A terrorist attack on U.S. citizens on Saudi Soil draws the personal attention of FBI Agent Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) who cuts every corner to make sure his team (Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman) gets on the ground despite the massive physical and political obstacles. Their liaison who has been tasked as more of a baby sitter, Colonel Faris Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom) tries to everything he can to help Fleury's team because he wants the men who killed his guards. The movie shows the different cultures that are strikingly similar as the team seeks to uncover the group responsible for the largest murder in modern Saudi history.
Critique:
I'll be honest - I had low expectations for the movie. It started off with an efficient, audio and visual history of western involvement with Saudi Arabia using real footage and real audio from the different times as well as powerful quotes to convey a complex story in a few words. I thought the movie would be downhill from there, but I was wrong. The name "Peter Berg" flashed, reminding me that the creator of Friday Night Lights was at the helm. Actually that was just a shameless plug for my favorite TV show, and while Berg IS the director of the movie, the movie itself showed how great it was. I will take the time to praise Berg now though. His style from FNL shines through loud and clear - his attention to small story detail as well as close camerawork is evident - he even shows similar musical choices. The small story detail is a pleasant bonus because it brings life and personality to every part of the movie - the family scenes on both sides of search show the similarities - and differences between our two cultures. The political scenes are unbiased, yet show the political tiptoeing that is necessary in these issues.
The acting - all around - was very good. Which says a lot coming from me because I went into the movie thinking most of these actors (minus Chris Cooper) weren't very good. Jamie Foxx always annoyed me as his general personality does. Here he chose to act for once and played a good part. There were definitely scenes were the Jamie I hate was trying to rise to the surface, but this acting Jamie kept him down and played a good role. Jennifer Garner was good in her limited scenes causing me to consider that I might have given her a harder rap than she deserved considering I've started to notice how good she is in a couple movies. Chris Cooper was great as always in his few scenes - not much more to say on him that I haven't already said elsewhere. Jason Bateman was pretty good - clearly the weakest link of those four because he overacted in some parts. But it is what it is. The real scene stealer was Ashraf Barhom who was GREAT as Colonel Ghazi. I have a feeling that in longer cuts his family scenes were longer and more numerous but beggars can't be choosers. I'd like to say I look forward to seeing him in more movies, but that seems unlikely.
Generally I really enjoyed the movie. It was tense, fast paced, and different in the sense that it wasnt the guns-blazing movie I thought it would be. Berg's "blockbuster" was much more of just a solid movie that really took pains to show the culture clash as well as the American influence in Saudi politics and Saudi oil as well as the repercussions of those actions. When I thought about the intro while the movie was just starting I smiled at the fact that they had used their title sequence and a handful of minutes to do what Syriana did - except better and in a more entertaining way. That held true for the whole movie because the style was very similar to Gaghan fast-camera, multi point storytelling with the pleasing difference that there was a clear central story (and set of characters). That Gaghan chose a macro-issue (oil) in our relationship with the Middle East was brave but fatal. It accomplished less that what a microcosm could do. The Kingdom's smaller story that accessed the big issue in everyone's mind - terrorism killing westerners (yes, cliche, but unfortunately true) seemed to be a better route. And to think that The Kingdom did it in about twenty minutes less and in a much easier way only made me enjoy the movie more.
When my brain was churning about what I would rate The Kingdom I had almost decided on an "8" because I thought the movie was pretty much as good as it could be yet it didnt have the 9 and 10 level power that the classics do. Then two amazing scenes at the end made me realize that giving the movie less than a 9 would be ridiculous. Two scenes at the end - between Jamie Foxx and a Saudi boy and a parallel scene that involved Foxx and his team really brought the movie together. The positive similarities of our culture and the importance of US-Saudi cooperation as well as the negative similarities of how our cultures are so similar. That the movie made such a pointed argument about how violent both of our cultures are - and how true it was - really pushed the movie over the top.
Verdict:
Buy it now!
If you liked this movie, see...
...Syriana
...Three Kings
Summary:
A terrorist attack on U.S. citizens on Saudi Soil draws the personal attention of FBI Agent Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) who cuts every corner to make sure his team (Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman) gets on the ground despite the massive physical and political obstacles. Their liaison who has been tasked as more of a baby sitter, Colonel Faris Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom) tries to everything he can to help Fleury's team because he wants the men who killed his guards. The movie shows the different cultures that are strikingly similar as the team seeks to uncover the group responsible for the largest murder in modern Saudi history.Critique:
I'll be honest - I had low expectations for the movie. It started off with an efficient, audio and visual history of western involvement with Saudi Arabia using real footage and real audio from the different times as well as powerful quotes to convey a complex story in a few words. I thought the movie would be downhill from there, but I was wrong. The name "Peter Berg" flashed, reminding me that the creator of Friday Night Lights was at the helm. Actually that was just a shameless plug for my favorite TV show, and while Berg IS the director of the movie, the movie itself showed how great it was. I will take the time to praise Berg now though. His style from FNL shines through loud and clear - his attention to small story detail as well as close camerawork is evident - he even shows similar musical choices. The small story detail is a pleasant bonus because it brings life and personality to every part of the movie - the family scenes on both sides of search show the similarities - and differences between our two cultures. The political scenes are unbiased, yet show the political tiptoeing that is necessary in these issues.
The acting - all around - was very good. Which says a lot coming from me because I went into the movie thinking most of these actors (minus Chris Cooper) weren't very good. Jamie Foxx always annoyed me as his general personality does. Here he chose to act for once and played a good part. There were definitely scenes were the Jamie I hate was trying to rise to the surface, but this acting Jamie kept him down and played a good role. Jennifer Garner was good in her limited scenes causing me to consider that I might have given her a harder rap than she deserved considering I've started to notice how good she is in a couple movies. Chris Cooper was great as always in his few scenes - not much more to say on him that I haven't already said elsewhere. Jason Bateman was pretty good - clearly the weakest link of those four because he overacted in some parts. But it is what it is. The real scene stealer was Ashraf Barhom who was GREAT as Colonel Ghazi. I have a feeling that in longer cuts his family scenes were longer and more numerous but beggars can't be choosers. I'd like to say I look forward to seeing him in more movies, but that seems unlikely.
Generally I really enjoyed the movie. It was tense, fast paced, and different in the sense that it wasnt the guns-blazing movie I thought it would be. Berg's "blockbuster" was much more of just a solid movie that really took pains to show the culture clash as well as the American influence in Saudi politics and Saudi oil as well as the repercussions of those actions. When I thought about the intro while the movie was just starting I smiled at the fact that they had used their title sequence and a handful of minutes to do what Syriana did - except better and in a more entertaining way. That held true for the whole movie because the style was very similar to Gaghan fast-camera, multi point storytelling with the pleasing difference that there was a clear central story (and set of characters). That Gaghan chose a macro-issue (oil) in our relationship with the Middle East was brave but fatal. It accomplished less that what a microcosm could do. The Kingdom's smaller story that accessed the big issue in everyone's mind - terrorism killing westerners (yes, cliche, but unfortunately true) seemed to be a better route. And to think that The Kingdom did it in about twenty minutes less and in a much easier way only made me enjoy the movie more.
When my brain was churning about what I would rate The Kingdom I had almost decided on an "8" because I thought the movie was pretty much as good as it could be yet it didnt have the 9 and 10 level power that the classics do. Then two amazing scenes at the end made me realize that giving the movie less than a 9 would be ridiculous. Two scenes at the end - between Jamie Foxx and a Saudi boy and a parallel scene that involved Foxx and his team really brought the movie together. The positive similarities of our culture and the importance of US-Saudi cooperation as well as the negative similarities of how our cultures are so similar. That the movie made such a pointed argument about how violent both of our cultures are - and how true it was - really pushed the movie over the top.
Verdict:
Buy it now!
If you liked this movie, see...
...Syriana
...Three Kings
I'm back - kind of
Wow - no posts since January 27th! Any readers I had probably abandoned this sorry rag ages ago. Three months passed without a single thing written. Then again, I did find that my last attempt at blogging about politics was not published but saved as a draft (I just published it if anyone cared about reading a non-topical political rant). In my defense - I did THINK about writing one of these "i'm back" segments. School piled up, laziness seized hold of me, and I was killing myself trying to keep SaltyStix afloat. Which was painful because I wanted to write about other things - so much sports stuff to talk about - especially on the home front with the Cubs surging and then slumping and Alfonso's woes as well as the Bears pathetic season followed only by a pathetic offseason marked by the signing of two quarterbacks - that we already had! And then the Bulls' season coming to a close in a sorry disappointment, the departure of Skiles and a crazy job hunt. Not to mention all the DVD's I saw that I wanted to write about! I would say there was music, but that's mostly a lie. The only new music I started listening to was Eric Shiveley. Although I could have written about how purchasing old records of new faves (Kimya, Stars, and more) was sadly anti-climatic.
And now I'm off again - a school trip to Europe will keep me from my computer for a whole month! But I wanted to touch base - say my say about the above and write ONE article about a DVD I saw that made me really happy. But its been so long since I reviewed one here on the site that I have to look to check my formatting!
And now I'm off again - a school trip to Europe will keep me from my computer for a whole month! But I wanted to touch base - say my say about the above and write ONE article about a DVD I saw that made me really happy. But its been so long since I reviewed one here on the site that I have to look to check my formatting!
Friday, March 14, 2008
Prepare for the worst
Yeah. I haven't blogged since the end of January. I've been REALLY busy. BUT this kind of got me out of hibernation and served as an impetus for a few comments I have wanted to write about for quite some time. Before getting to THE issue, I want to go into two of my main thoughts on Obama. My apologies for rambling nonsense - as usual I'm pretty much just writing as a stream of consciousness.
First and foremost, I'm really afraid that Obama is set to become our generation's Jimmy Carter. The parallels between the two are almost frightening. The obvious ones being that both are campaigning as Washington outsiders, both are considered young guns in the Democratic party and both are trying to ride general opposition to the previous Republican administration to victory in November. The less obvious ones involve their promises of shaking up the Department of Education (moving away from No Child Left Behind) and the Department of Health (health care reform/insurance, etc).
However the risks seem to be greater than any possible benefits. My general view of the office of the President is that the person who is most competent, and can get the most done should be elected. But also related to that is what is the damage that President will cause? And in that regard I fear that the foreign policy arena is one ripe for Presidential failures. Most presidents have so little foreign policy or executive experience that they make serious mistakes. Let us consider Carter, who sought to reduce troops in Korea, much like Obama wishes to reduce/withdraw troops from Iraq and they seem to generally stand for similar outlooks of how the US should act.
Then let me remind you of the Iran Hostage Crisis. Carter's blatant support for the Shah of Iran (admittedly not his burden) sparked backlash in Iran (again, not really his fault). What WAS Carter's fault is how he responded to the crisis. He pretty much choked. His ultimate course of action, Operation Eagle Claw, was not only a pathetic failure, but made the United States look terrible. It also did not occur until almost 6 months after the hostages were seized. Even if this WAS his "best" response, he took his time. The application of this example and perhaps how Carter handled the situation can be debated, but either way, Carter did not know how to handle Iran. This is a pressing issue of our times too as we fear Iran's nuclearization, their support of Hezbollah and Hamas, and their aid to insurgents in Iraq. How will Obama deal with them? The greater question is, how will he determine how to deal with them? What in his experience, his campaign, or much of anything does he have to offer that will help him choose the right course of action?
The implication of this is more nuanced than simply ruining the US' image. Taken in a big picture sense the Carter Presidency set up a decade of neoconservativism. Carter's failures abroad as well as his domestic ones (serious inflation) gave ammunition to neoconservatives who could say - we were right - liberal democrats spend spend spend and aren't hard on enemies. Do we want that today? Jeb Bush is waiting in the wings and he could be the most moderate of conservatives who could gain from a miserable Obama presidency.
The second issue I have is that Obama is going to change Washington. You have to have hope. Look. This is ridiculous. How do you change a system that has been embedded into our culture for two hundred years? How do you shake up a political system that is determined NOT to change. You want to challenge special interests? How do you distance politicians from special interests? Obama could probably handpick a majority of congresspeople in the midterm elections who he thought would support his political morality type spin/platform and get nowhere.
If his calls for change are more about the policies of the system (ie health care is flawed, education policy is flawed) then how do you work outside the system? It's like, how do you get the ACTUAL LEGISLATION passed if you refuse to use the system, and more likely considering Obama's inexperience, know how to USE the system? We sure as hell know Hillary knows how to use the system and we have seen, and listened to her, explain how she would change the system. This level of explanation, of what she is going to do, is far and away beyond any of the detail Obama has provided. Hillary's early claim that she is the candidate for change because she's been doing it longer is simply fact.
First and foremost, I'm really afraid that Obama is set to become our generation's Jimmy Carter. The parallels between the two are almost frightening. The obvious ones being that both are campaigning as Washington outsiders, both are considered young guns in the Democratic party and both are trying to ride general opposition to the previous Republican administration to victory in November. The less obvious ones involve their promises of shaking up the Department of Education (moving away from No Child Left Behind) and the Department of Health (health care reform/insurance, etc).
However the risks seem to be greater than any possible benefits. My general view of the office of the President is that the person who is most competent, and can get the most done should be elected. But also related to that is what is the damage that President will cause? And in that regard I fear that the foreign policy arena is one ripe for Presidential failures. Most presidents have so little foreign policy or executive experience that they make serious mistakes. Let us consider Carter, who sought to reduce troops in Korea, much like Obama wishes to reduce/withdraw troops from Iraq and they seem to generally stand for similar outlooks of how the US should act.
Then let me remind you of the Iran Hostage Crisis. Carter's blatant support for the Shah of Iran (admittedly not his burden) sparked backlash in Iran (again, not really his fault). What WAS Carter's fault is how he responded to the crisis. He pretty much choked. His ultimate course of action, Operation Eagle Claw, was not only a pathetic failure, but made the United States look terrible. It also did not occur until almost 6 months after the hostages were seized. Even if this WAS his "best" response, he took his time. The application of this example and perhaps how Carter handled the situation can be debated, but either way, Carter did not know how to handle Iran. This is a pressing issue of our times too as we fear Iran's nuclearization, their support of Hezbollah and Hamas, and their aid to insurgents in Iraq. How will Obama deal with them? The greater question is, how will he determine how to deal with them? What in his experience, his campaign, or much of anything does he have to offer that will help him choose the right course of action?
The implication of this is more nuanced than simply ruining the US' image. Taken in a big picture sense the Carter Presidency set up a decade of neoconservativism. Carter's failures abroad as well as his domestic ones (serious inflation) gave ammunition to neoconservatives who could say - we were right - liberal democrats spend spend spend and aren't hard on enemies. Do we want that today? Jeb Bush is waiting in the wings and he could be the most moderate of conservatives who could gain from a miserable Obama presidency.
The second issue I have is that Obama is going to change Washington. You have to have hope. Look. This is ridiculous. How do you change a system that has been embedded into our culture for two hundred years? How do you shake up a political system that is determined NOT to change. You want to challenge special interests? How do you distance politicians from special interests? Obama could probably handpick a majority of congresspeople in the midterm elections who he thought would support his political morality type spin/platform and get nowhere.
If his calls for change are more about the policies of the system (ie health care is flawed, education policy is flawed) then how do you work outside the system? It's like, how do you get the ACTUAL LEGISLATION passed if you refuse to use the system, and more likely considering Obama's inexperience, know how to USE the system? We sure as hell know Hillary knows how to use the system and we have seen, and listened to her, explain how she would change the system. This level of explanation, of what she is going to do, is far and away beyond any of the detail Obama has provided. Hillary's early claim that she is the candidate for change because she's been doing it longer is simply fact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
