Thursday, October 25, 2007

Are we going to war with Iran? (and other thoughts)

A few thoughts:

1) Are we trying to go to war with Iran? New sanctions today? I didn't even realize we traded anything with them! The markets aren't looking so good, the Canadian dollar is worth as much as the US dollar, we're entangled with Iraq and Afghanistan and now we're acting tough towards Iran? It seems like we're nearing a critical point these days where things can go totally south, really fast.

2) Looks like the Red Sox are going to win the World Series. I am completely envious of the Boston sports scene, and the fact that it's the Red Sox / Patriots makes it even worse. With the Red Sox, are they the "new Yankees?" I thought this the other day and then suddenly Bill Rhoden of the NY Times read my mind and wrote a column about it. Unfortunately I never wrote that thought down anywhere and have no proof that it happened first. But think about it - big payroll, recent success, low key manager, fans with unattainable expectations and national popularity... you get the picture.

2a) I never understood Mets fans who root for the Red Sox just to spite Yankees fans.

2b) I have also never understood the recent fad of rooting for the Red Sox because they're the anti-Yankees. That bugs me to no end - if you're going to be anti-mainstream, you can't root for the same team as everyone else!

2c) The Patriots are good, huh? They haven't scored less than 99 points in a game (give or take 70). They rely on a passing attack. The defense seems to allow relatively many points - I'm guessing that it's because they play a "prevent" style most of the time. Hmm. High scoring offense + passing attack = "finesse offense" right? I'd like to make that label stick. I suspect they will adjust to the cold weather well, but I think that might be their only challenge to going undefeated.

2d) Thinking about it the other day - it obviously pains me that the Red Sox are in the World Series and incredibly hot against Cleveland, the same team that shut down the Yankees. First, because I think the Yanks had a good shot at actually beating Boston, and second because it looks like they're on their way to another hot streak + title a la 2004. Here's hoping David Ortiz boots a few ground balls and Kevin Youkilis gets lost in the outfield while playing at Coors.

2e) You'd never realize the Yankee facial hair rule until you watch Boston on a regular basis. Even a hardcore fan has to admit that the Red Sox have their own roving police lineup. Goatees are the "official facial hair" of the Sox: Kevin Youkilis, Jason Varitek, Mike Lowell, Josh Beckett, Eric Gagne, Eric Hinske and JD Drew are all among the white dudes with goatees.

2f) I don't mind the Yankees being knocked out and the Jets stinking so much but the Knicks just add insult to injury. I have to admit, however, that last season was really entertaining off the court. I hadn't followed the Knicks so closely in years!

2g) Will the next Jets / Miami game be for the #1 pick overall? I suppose that's a bit of a stretch right now, but it could be. The Jets have actually been surprisingly close in every game. That sort of makes the misery worse.

3) Joe Torre got fired. Well, actually, he didn't get re-hired. Sort of a crummy way to end it all, huh? Too bad, I think it would have been nice to part ways with him on good terms!

4) Back to politics: a few words on the Presidential contenders...

4a) Rudy Giuliani - Can this guy go one minute without mentioning 9/11? Can he go 30 seconds without mentioning either 9/11 or Hillary Clinton?

4b) Mitt Romney - Just seems like such a businessman. The funny thing with him is he's changed positions on social issues as much as Giuliani (see: gun control) but for some reason he gets more flack for it (see: not involved with 9/11).

4c) Fred Thompson - That didn't last long, huh?

4d) John McCain - He goes to Bob Jones University after criticizing it, then says that Mitt Romney changes his mind too much. Once a maverick, now part of the establishment.

4e) Mike Huckabee - He seems like a nice person who I don't agree with very much. But he also lost a ton of weight, which has to be commended.

4f) John Edwards - Trying to offer a more liberal viewpoint than Obama or Clinton and comes up pretty flat. I think the group of people that were inspired by him back in '04 are now lined up behind Obama. My lasting memory of him is when he awkwardly mentioned Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter back in the 2004 VP debates.

4g) Joe Biden - I wonder why his campaign hasn't gained as much traction. He's always on the Sunday AM talk shows and has a ton of experience. It must be because he talks too much.

4h) Bill Richardson - Summary of his campaign: he said on Meet the Press that he roots for both the Red Sox and Yankees. Some would say Hillary did the same thing in her hypothetical "rooting for both sides" if the Cubs and Yankees made the World Series. Can someone tell politicians that nobody cares what teams they root for as long as they just stick to one? Rudy is a Yankees fan and I don't think it will cost him any Massachusetts votes.

4i) Barack Obama - I think this guy could actually bring some ideas to the table and take action if he got elected. At this point, however, seems more style over substance.

4j) Hillary Clinton - She's come a long way, but some people just absolutely hate her. Why? It's true, she doesn't seem like a very nice person, but most of these candidates don't. From what it seems like, she is one of the hardest working candidates in that she is always preparing and rehearsing and never makes a mistake while in a public appearance. As it turns out, back in 1993 she didn't shy away from introducing some pretty radical legislation. If you think about it, that sort of change rarely happens any more. My only fear is that the Republicans seem so eager to use her as a target, and that if she becomes the nominee, all the hate directed towards her will lead to another Republican President.

5) On flip-flopping. It's noted as such a negative, but people change their minds all the time - especially on non-moral issues. Consider that the popularity of the Iraq war has completely changed since it started. Does that mean most of the US public has flip-flopped on this issue? Or have we just received more information? Why is there a double standard for our leaders changing their minds? In fact, I would suggest that the best leaders do change their minds when confronted with overwhelming evidence against their original position.

6) While we're talking about the Presidency... Everyone says, "Whoever wins Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina will be a force to contend with." Why is this? The populations of these states are tiny and don't necessarily represent microcosms of the US in terms of opinions or priorities. Then with the primaries - all the jockeying for position on the political calendar is ridiculous. It's really pathetic how states like Michigan and Florida trying to move their primaries up so they can become relevant and reap the benefits of campaign dollars.

7) Fox News: I've watched about five minutes of it in the last week and can't stand it. Bill O'Reilly had a Democratic strategist on last night and they were talking about the California fires. O'Reilly was upset Democrats in Congress were trying to use Iraq as a reason that there was not enough National Guard support. He says, "I'm no expert, but there's enough support for the firefighters." Wait - if he's no expert, then how does he know if there's enough support? Then a week ago, Hannity and Colmes had family members of murder victims on and they were talking about how the convicted murderer needed a bone marrow transplant and how it was preposterous that the state would pay for his transplant and medical care (roughly $300,000). So instead we let him die in prison? At best, that's euthanasia and at worst that's cruel and uncivilized.

8) Full circle here. Would we actually attack Iran to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons? That seems a little scary to me. By the way, what do Osama bin Laden, nuclear weapons and military dictatorship have in common? They're all in Pakistan! Yay!

2 comments:

PJ said...

2c) Patriots offense doesn't often shy from contact (though I wish Welker would avoid a few shots), so not sure if "finesse" is accurate. But the heavy reliance on passing is pretty worrisome--we've seen too many high-powered offenses falter in the playoffs in recent years.

2e) Facial hair = evil. See the new 24 trailer for further evidence.

4j) Honestly, I think people dislike her because she is a woman embracing a role that is traditionally more masculine. I'm not sure if people are really ready for that. I don't dislike her as much as I am just afraid of what will happen if she's elected. She is quite a polarizing figure in American politics.

4k) I thought for sure you were going to mention Dennis Kucinich, if only to call attention to his hot wife.

Blogman said...

4j) Yes, except she has been hated even before running for President. She's attacked as a liberal, despite the fact that actually, she's relatively moderate/conservative. There's more to it than just her run for President. Maybe because at one point she seemed so bossy?

4k) That's weird, isn't it? He's so much older than her!

9) I hadn't seen that 24 trailer. No more CTU, but still we have an anti-terror agency so what's the difference? Tony is back and bad? This smells horrible. Apparently at the end of last season, one of the alternate endings was that Tony would come back.