Archive

Archive for January, 2010

iAmNotImpressed

January 28, 2010 Leave a comment

The big news today, aside from the State of the Union address which probably didn’t gain as much interest as this did anyway, was that Apple has released its next device: the iPad. As far as I can tell the device is just a bigger version of the iPhone with two more features that I guess Mac users have been clamoring for in the phone. The first is that it is blue tooth enabled so that you can connect a keyboard to it and the second is that it can emulate the “electronic paper” of devices like the Amazon Kindle. People have been anticipating the release of this thing for months now and I hope, really really hope, that they are unimpressed by this thing.

Seriously, it really just is a large iPhone. I’ve used the phone and while it was nice to use I wasn’t that impressed by the technology. It’s cool that I can flip through the real internet, as opposed to the modified pages that blackberry users can see, and a decent functioning touch pad. Which if you think about it, really was the big draw wasn’t it? It’s cool to flip through your photographs like you would do in a paper photo album…or at least you thought it was cool because it really wasn’t. All it did was give the user another way to brag about their device.

Which in the long run means that I will probably end up seeing a person working this new device while at the same time secretly pretending that they are not hoping someone will ask about it. Let’s do a spec run for the iPad based on what we know: 1.5lbs, 9.7″x7.5″x.5″ with the display being 9.7″, 1GHZ processor speed with the A4 chip, 16-32-64gb flash storage. Other features in include built in bluetooth 2.1, wireless internet connection, and the more expensive models will have 3g connectivity which adds about 135.00 to the cost.

Who is this being marketed toward with a minimum price of 499? None of the previous specs are anything extraordinary, well they are just not in the way that we usually mean the phrase. For 200$ less I can get a Dell net book that has a larger screen, 3x the memory, and the advantage of using an actual computer operating system (windows XP), and a 1.6ghz processor. So again I ask, what is the point of this new thing other than to suck the money off of Mac Users who get tumescent every time Steve Jobs releases a new, more expensive version of something that already exists?

Of course the answer is: the touch pad. Just as it was when the iphone was released because cell phones already possessed the following two features: music player and internet browsing. They also all possess the capability of having an infinite amount of memory due to the fact that even my old Chocolate phone that was a complete piece of shit had mini SD card ports. That phone, upon 1st generation, also had the ability to take videos something the iPhone would need THREE generations to accomplish. This thing is a vampire, it’s a niche product designed to suck away money and serve almost no purpose. Can it even make phone calls?

Decline and Fall

January 26, 2010 Leave a comment

Usually those two words are predicated by a rise, but in the case of radio station Air America, there really was never a rise. If anyone is surprised by the ending of the station (other than being surprised that it was still on the air until now) they should look at Air America’s charter and note the many problems that it had.

First off it was founded to combat the rise of Right Wing Conservative talk radio and their alleged dominance in the airwaves by personalities such as Rush Limbaugh. This was their first mistake, what is currently called Conservative talk radio didn’t start out that way. The radio stations hired certain people to fill up time slots and sought out those that would bring the best ratings therefore increasing ad revenue. It was audience first, and ideology second. Air America did this in reverse, which is why most people haven’t heard of them and those that did tuned out a long time ago.

They were started in 2004 with the goal of removing President Bush from power. Which they utterly failed at. Too ideological, and not enough business sense is what killed them just as much as it kills almost every ultra left winger who seeks to make a name for themselves. Various reports regarding the demise of the station have commented that most employees couldn’t tell if the station was a political campaign or a business. It tried to be both and that is why it failed. There’s a large suspicion, propagated by the Obama administration, that Fox News is a tool of the Republican party. That however is all that it is, a suspicion. Air America was admittedly a tool of the liberal camp and was so far to the left that moderates like myself couldn’t abide their pretentiousness.

Limbaugh at least reigns himself in once in awhile, and on the other end so does Ed Schultz. However when you have a station that is trying to make me think that Jeanine Garafolo has something interesting to say about politics it’s an uphill battle to begin with. This is the woman who flat out claims that anyone opposing Obama’s Healthcare Bill is a racist (Yeah Jeanine you don’t sound like a fascist at all), of course this is now.

Then, the entire station was claiming that a Bush voter is an idiot voter. Which is both impractical to your cause and patently false. Nothing gets people on your side like insulting them, claiming that their voice doesn’t matter because it’s too infused with Bud Light and NASCAR to be valid. Several of my Grad School professors were Bush voters as well and I seriously doubt that washed up comedians could engage them in rational debate.

Did we need Air America? No, enough liberal talk radio hosts have emerged that were operating completely outside of the station. The founders felt that they were too important to be ignored and thus wouldn’t need a valid business model, which is basically the definition of pretension.

Categories: politics, rant

An odd sound…(Twilight Ch. 3)

January 25, 2010 Leave a comment

I don’t know much about Stephanie Meyer, and I refuse to go to wikipedia to look certain things up as I am trying to do this project without any research into Twilight the book, the movie, or the author. What I do know though is that she isn’t very familiar with snow. I assume she’s from Utah, because I know that she’s a Mormon and I like to stereotype. Utah maybe in the desert but there is also some snow, and this would give us some of the description that we had in the previous section about melting snow and socks. According to the national weather center, Forks averages about a foot of snow a year. This means that the residents of the small town should be used to the dastardly white stuff that falls from the sky. I bring this us up because as Bella is going to school the day after her momentous pissing contest with Edward she notices that there are chains on her tires.

Chains, as in tire chains, not as in some weird post-apocalyptic steam punk decoration type of chain. But the kind of chains that people use in mountain or arctic environments for heavy snow. I find it odd because in a town that has that small an average snow precipitation they would even need chains. It reminds me of grad school when a student from California, Medesto to be exact, asked some of us what it cost to get chains on your tires when the snow started to fall. The Toledo and Michigan natives laughed as did I being from Buffalo. In all three locations we have never needed chains on the tires even though the average snowfall in Buffalo is almost 8 feet. However some regions of the country become so paranoid about snow that they mandate chains with a couple of inches, shut down the entire city from unnecessary travel, and then pray to their gods that the nightmare ends. In Buffalo we send them a nice letter asking them if they need warmer skirts sent (Atlanta, 2003).

This shows that Meyer is either unfamiliar with snowy regions or lives in a panic area, which I doubt considering that Utah’s elevation should inculcate them with handling the white stuff. What else is odd is that Bella seems to have the need to constantly remind us that she is worthless. I’m going to skip the part about her ruing the personal revelations that she had with Edward, as anyone that has had a crush on someone else will know that everything you say to the object of desire seems stupid. Even if you aren’t tongue tied, you look back and think, “X must think me to be a blathering idiot,” no matter how suave or witty you might actually have been. No, I’m talking about Bella’s need to remind us that she is clumsy, at this point in the story she has reminded us so frequently that it almost has to pay off in the long run. If it doesn’t, if her clumsiness either does not get her into more trouble or accidently discover the secret switch (a la Scooby Doo) to the Vampire’s hidden lair then hearing about it just makes the reader wish that she would stop whining. She reminds me of a girl I dated who before everything she did needed to remind me that she wasn’t good at anything. It’s a way of preparing someone for the worst, but all it does is make a person impatient wanting the person to just do something without qualification.

This time it precedes the accident, the accident which is such a transparent set up for the big reveal of Edward that you can see it a mile away. Here’s what happens, Bella gets out of her car, she hears an odd sound, sees an oncoming van about to pulverize her, then “I saw several things simultaneously, nothing was moving in slow motion, the way it does in the movies. Instead, the adrenaline rush seemed to make my brain work faster, and I was able to absorb in clear detail several things at once.”

Here’s the contradiction: if your brain is working faster, thus speeding up your perception then things do appear to happen slower. Things don’t actually move slower, in the movies it’s done for effect, it’s not like Neo in the Matrix ever emerged from a bullet time sequence sea sick from the spinning, to show us the perception of the character. Bella for all her supposed intelligence either takes the slow motion as being literal or she is just amazed at the pretty colors.

That aside the things she does notice is the Blue van coming at her quite fast, the impact point is the corner of her tank like truck, the fact that she is standing between the two, and the fact that Edward is standing four cars away. Don’t make fun of her for noticing him, he is devilishly attractive. Seriously though, when I was in my accident I remember the radio station playing (Detroit Talk Radio). Information does process quite quickly when that adrenaline is going, and it is horribly important that she notices where Edward is…after the fact. Looking back it becomes important for the book, but at the time I think it doubtful that she would notice where Edward was so specifically.

Edward saves her with his superman vampire powers. All she suffers is a bonk on the head from where he shoved her out of the way and then stopped the van. He hasn’t explained, and neither has the book, why he did it. But just being a remotely decent person should be all, he saw impending death and sought to stop it. Good enough? Well Bella wants more.

Bella remembers that he was too far away to stop anything. Edward, being far older than his looks, has to explain it without saying that he has Vampire superpowers. Here’s his brilliant explanation to Bella at the hospital, “I was standing right next to you.” She describes him as saying that with all of the tone and rehearsal of a seasoned liar. He isn’t a seasoned liar because if he were he would have come up with something better and he doesn’t rely on the fact that she hit her head.

Sure he brings it up, several times, but then he protests too much. A good lie needs the force of will from the liar, the more you try and prove it the more desperate it seems. The more desperate the least likely the audience is to believe it, just ask Kirk Cameron. Let’s follow Bella’s explanation for what happened, a car was about to hit her, Edward from over 10 yards away sped to her safety, and stopped a runaway van with his hands and was not injured. It’s a ridiculous story that Bella tells with no self doubt–something completely out of character for her. Of course that is what happened and Edward tries to spin a web of lies that states he was standing next to her. Given their verbal fencing the other day there’s no way this lie is remotely plausible. Edward should have just said he was closer, but not too close, and then walked away. Instead he gives up on the fake story and promises an explanation…yeah he’s a real seasoned liar.

The Year of Living Biblically

January 25, 2010 Leave a comment

Author A.J. Jacobs probably started this year long project as a joke to confirm his suspicions that it was impossible in the modern age to take the bible literally without running into the problem of conflicting laws. It was also probably meant to make fun of the ultra-religious who take the bible literally, putting the author as a “man out of time” showing the anachronistic positions that this version of the “word of god” would put a literal follower. If either of those suppositions were true then Jacobs missed the point entirely. If on the other hand, he just wanted to live the Bible to see what it was like then…eh, he still missed the point.

Jacobs, a writer for Esquire Magazine, previously wrote a book called “Know it All” in which he read the entire encyclopedia Britannica from A to Z, I’m not sure what exactly the point was of doing that* but this was the follow up book. The difference between the previous project and this one is that the encyclopedia is just a collection of knowledge, of facts, while the Bible has portions that are dedicated to dictating the way the reader is supposed to live. Everything from what kind of clothes a person should wear (Deut 19:19) to how a person is supposed to farm (Lev 19:19) so this project is going to be a tad different. He warns his wife in the beginning of the book that this could impact their lives in a not so insignificant way.

It’s well written, especially in the beginning as the sheer number of rules, prohibitions, and edicts he must memorize overwhelm him. He becomes self-conscious of the number of times that he breaks the rules as he lies almost constantly and works for Esquire which is an upper shelf men’s magazine. Of course those are the big rules, laws against bearing false witness and coveting thy neighbor’s goods/spouse (because in those days there wasn’t much difference). What about the little laws? He asks himself, or rather not the little ones but the obscure ones? The laws regarding cleanliness, animal sacrifice, and the aforementioned law about not mixing wool and linen. He seeks to follow those as well.

The cleanliness laws are particularly frustrating for his wife. See according to several spots in the Bible a woman is unclean the week after her menstrual cycle and the cleanliness laws state that a man can not touch her for that period, nor anything that she has touched in the most strict of readings. Being frustrated at the growing beard on Jacob’s face and this rather misogynistic rule she sits on every seat in their house which means that he has to buy a cane-stool for that week. I have to give him credit for sticking with that law though, even to the point that he avoids incidental contact with women he meets for fear that they might also be unclean as well.

Unfortunately the book goes kind of downhill. For research purposes Jacobs visits several different sects of Bible followers, Jews and Christians alike, to learn how to interpret certain troublesome passages like the Leviticus 18:22 which infamously states, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is an abomination.” A noble endeavor, but he doesn’t do this with every group that he sees. Instead he seems to do it only with the far right wing Christians, and then a group of “Red-Letter Christians” led by a homosexual theologian. The Jewish groups get to escape this, while Jacobs uses them instead as exhibitions of some of the more exciting and flagrant celebrations (I should note here that by descent Jacobs is Jewish although he considers himself a sellout agnostic).

Some way midpoint the book seemed to die off. The rules that he was following became more and more about the obvious ones and less about those petty obscure ones that most people don’t follow anyway, “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” is a good one as this is the rule that forces the Hasidics to seperate meat and dairy meals. However this rule, gets no play in the book aside from a brief mention. Same with “You shall not eat the blood with the flesh,” the rule that forces Orthodox (though not necessarily Hasidic) Jews from eating any meat that isn’t well done and also is the rule that compels Jehovah’s Witnesses from receiving blood transfusions. Again, it gets a mention from two witnesses but is then ignored by the author. These are rules that separate one sect of the Children of Abraham from another.

It was nice to hear the cop-outs of the various religious groups as to why they don’t perform the animal sacrifices anymore. For Jews, it is because the 2nd Temple no longer stands having been destroyed by the Romans while for Christians it is because Jesus’ death released the obligation of such necessities. In both cases there isn’t much biblical ground for either excuse. The concept that the sacrifices need to be held in the 2nd Temple is based on the idea that is where they were originally held so it’s kind of a flimsy excuse to begin with. While the Christian example doesn’t even have a Biblical precedent.

Which brings me to my biggest problem of his book. Jacobs originally tried to follow the bible literally, but then it devolved into following religious traditions, interpretations, and ancillary books instead. During his preparation he should have come up with his own rationale for how to follow some of the rules and if not his own logic for escaping them. Secondly I had a problem with how he treated the Christian New Testament. Since most of the Bible is Old Testament, he decided that he would follow that for 9 months while leaving the remaining 3 for the New Testament. His project was the bible so why not just take the whole thing and when two laws contradict write that out.

It was an interesting read, but I can’t say it was as groundbreaking as it could have been. It started off with promise but then became slow and drudging like the Watchmen movie.

*Other than just to do it as a friend of mine in Grad School did for War and Peace.

Categories: book reviews, reviews

The Year of Living Biblically

January 25, 2010 Leave a comment

Author A.J. Jacobs probably started this year long project as a joke to confirm his suspicions that it was impossible in the modern age to take the bible literally without running into the problem of conflicting laws. It was also probably meant to make fun of the ultra-religious who take the bible literally, putting the author as a “man out of time” showing the anachronistic positions that this version of the “word of god” would put a literal follower. If either of those suppositions were true then Jacobs missed the point entirely. If on the other hand, he just wanted to live the Bible to see what it was like then…eh, he still missed the point.

Jacobs, a writer for Esquire Magazine, previously wrote a book called “Know it All” in which he read the entire encyclopedia Britannica from A to Z, I’m not sure what exactly the point was of doing that* but this was the follow up book. The difference between the previous project and this one is that the encyclopedia is just a collection of knowledge, of facts, while the Bible has portions that are dedicated to dictating the way the reader is supposed to live. Everything from what kind of clothes a person should wear (Deut 19:19) to how a person is supposed to farm (Lev 19:19) so this project is going to be a tad different. He warns his wife in the beginning of the book that this could impact their lives in a not so insignificant way.

It’s well written, especially in the beginning as the sheer number of rules, prohibitions, and edicts he must memorize overwhelm him. He becomes self-conscious of the number of times that he breaks the rules as he lies almost constantly and works for Esquire which is an upper shelf men’s magazine. Of course those are the big rules, laws against bearing false witness and coveting thy neighbor’s goods/spouse (because in those days there wasn’t much difference). What about the little laws? He asks himself, or rather not the little ones but the obscure ones? The laws regarding cleanliness, animal sacrifice, and the aforementioned law about not mixing wool and linen. He seeks to follow those as well.

The cleanliness laws are particularly frustrating for his wife. See according to several spots in the Bible a woman is unclean the week after her menstrual cycle and the cleanliness laws state that a man can not touch her for that period, nor anything that she has touched in the most strict of readings. Being frustrated at the growing beard on Jacob’s face and this rather misogynistic rule she sits on every seat in their house which means that he has to buy a cane-stool for that week. I have to give him credit for sticking with that law though, even to the point that he avoids incidental contact with women he meets for fear that they might also be unclean as well.

Unfortunately the book goes kind of downhill. For research purposes Jacobs visits several different sects of Bible followers, Jews and Christians alike, to learn how to interpret certain troublesome passages like the Leviticus 18:22 which infamously states, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is an abomination.” A noble endeavor, but he doesn’t do this with every group that he sees. Instead he seems to do it only with the far right wing Christians, and then a group of “Red-Letter Christians” led by a homosexual theologian. The Jewish groups get to escape this, while Jacobs uses them instead as exhibitions of some of the more exciting and flagrant celebrations (I should note here that by descent Jacobs is Jewish although he considers himself a sellout agnostic).

Some way midpoint the book seemed to die off. The rules that he was following became more and more about the obvious ones and less about those petty obscure ones that most people don’t follow anyway, “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” is a good one as this is the rule that forces the Hasidics to seperate meat and dairy meals. However this rule, gets no play in the book aside from a brief mention. Same with “You shall not eat the blood with the flesh,” the rule that forces Orthodox (though not necessarily Hasidic) Jews from eating any meat that isn’t well done and also is the rule that compels Jehovah’s Witnesses from receiving blood transfusions. Again, it gets a mention from two witnesses but is then ignored by the author. These are rules that separate one sect of the Children of Abraham from another.

It was nice to hear the cop-outs of the various religious groups as to why they don’t perform the animal sacrifices anymore. For Jews, it is because the 2nd Temple no longer stands having been destroyed by the Romans while for Christians it is because Jesus’ death released the obligation of such necessities. In both cases there isn’t much biblical ground for either excuse. The concept that the sacrifices need to be held in the 2nd Temple is based on the idea that is where they were originally held so it’s kind of a flimsy excuse to begin with. While the Christian example doesn’t even have a Biblical precedent.

Which brings me to my biggest problem of his book. Jacobs originally tried to follow the bible literally, but then it devolved into following religious traditions, interpretations, and ancillary books instead. During his preparation he should have come up with his own rationale for how to follow some of the rules and if not his own logic for escaping them. Secondly I had a problem with how he treated the Christian New Testament. Since most of the Bible is Old Testament, he decided that he would follow that for 9 months while leaving the remaining 3 for the New Testament. His project was the bible so why not just take the whole thing and when two laws contradict write that out.

It was an interesting read, but I can’t say it was as groundbreaking as it could have been. It started off with promise but then became slow and drudging like the Watchmen movie.

*Other than just to do it as a friend of mine in Grad School did for War and Peace.

Categories: book reviews, reviews

Assassin’s Creed II

January 22, 2010 Leave a comment

Critically acclaimed the first Assassin’s Creed was a well developed story set against the backdrop of the Crusades and a conflict between the very real Knight’s Templar and the very real Hashshashin (from whom we derive the word “Assassin”). A well researched, well designed game that suffered several flaws that its detractors considered catastrophic while its fans were willing to overlook for the mysterious plot that unfolded concurrently in the 12th and 21st centuries.

The second game was going to be one of two things and thankfully it turned out to be a complete improvement over the high water mark set by the first game. The game is moved forward three hundred years and shifted from the Holy Land and the wars of the Crusades to the Italian Renaissance starting off in the city of Florence, the de facto economic and cultural center of the “rebirth.” I, personally was giddy with delight that the game was taking place in Florence at this time for some very specific reasons, but more on that later.

The character is no longer a Muslim Assassin, but Ezio Auditore da Firenze the eldest son of a clerk in for the powerful Medici banking family. He and his family are betrayed by the Gonfalinier (it would be like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) his father and two brothers are executed while Ezio finds himself a hunted man. It is revealed by his cousin that he is a member of the secret Assassins organization and he is to continue his father’s work trying to unravel the web of conspiracy that takes Ezio through some of the more pivotal moments of the Italian Renaissance.

Having read so much by Machiavelli concerning the history of Florence and the region I had an idea of what to expect in events and people that I would run into. In this respect the game did not disappoint as Leonardo Da Vinci makes your weapons, you receive assignments from Lorenzo De Medici, and you even get to take part in the Pazzi Conspiracy.* However there were some disappointments in this respect as well. The chief antagonist is Rodrigo Borgia, who would later become the infamous Pope Alexander the VI but you don’t deal at all with his son Cesare Borgia aka Duke Valentino even though you operate in the Romagna–his chief stomping ground. The other problem I had plot wise was the introduction of several characters that you either run into or are made mention of but then are completely dropped. The first is Caterina Sforza the duchess of Forli.

Caterina is an interesting woman, a warrior noble and a woman that suffered a plot by the Orsini. She was told to either surrender or they would murder her children. She walked to the battlements of her fortress hiked up her skirt and told them that they could kill her children for all she cared she still possessed the means to make more. You rescue her as she is stranded on a small hill surrounded by water but then she is dropped completely from the plot.

The other is my personal favorite, Niccolo Machiavelli. For being one of the geniuses of the Renaissance, and for having his reputation introducing him as an ally and then doing nothing with him seems like a crime. The man was the Ambassador to the Ten of Florence (equivalent to being the U.S. Secretary of State) and would have had dealings with almost every villain in the game. It’s odd, and not just because I’m a huge fan, that you don’t even deliver one of his letters. Although I do have to admit that I did get excited when a man fitting his portrait did mysteriously appear.

Other than that, having the game center on Florence was a great idea but then missing the upheavel of the late 15th century is queer as well. After Lorenzo becomes the unofficial ruler of Florence, deposing the Republic, Girolamo Savonarola establishes a fundamentalist state and ushers in the “bonfire of the vanities” where all items of excess are burned. Machiavelli would write of him that the unarmed prophet never succeeds as he is captured and executed by Pope Alexander. I think it would have been an interesting plot twist to contribute to this only to find out that you were being manipulated the whole time. Again, this is one of those things that is mentioned but then dropped.

The environment is just as good, if not better than the original. Standing in the Piazza della Signoria, it looks just as the pictures do as does the church at Santa Croce. The first game shined in the immersion into the world of the Crusades and it does not lack here as well. The developers also added a database feature that serves as an encyclopedia for the world. The aforementioned landmarks have entries that delve into the histories and architecture of them as well those of over 50 other landmarks in Italy. I’m not into art history as much as I should be but the game is a nice introduction.

Gameplay has changed significantly as it plays more like Grand Theft Auto: Florence than it’s predecessor. The first game was quite linear: you received your assignment, beat up two people for information, pickpocketed two more, eavesdropped then killed your target. This was repeated ad nauseum. Here there are quite a few options on how to proceed, greater variety in missions (you even get to fly Leonardo’s flying machine), with the more rote tasks relegated to being optional. The fighting system has changed as well with different weapons and styles but it is still inherently flawed. The original became way too easy when you learned the counter kill method. Now there is a disarm feature, which serves the same purpose because an unarmed guard is a corpse waiting to happen. Once you take their sword, mace, maul, axe, or pike it only requires one attack to put them down. They still stand around like dolts in an early 90s ninja movie waiting to attack one by one.

Another are of improvement is that the present missions are quick and serve more of a point than simple exposition. They also move faster rather than the slow, Desmond walks around and looks at the computer.

Finally, there are the puzzles. I called the last game “Lost-ish” in the way that it ended, giving more questions than answers. This game gives 20 clues called “The Truth” hidden throughout Italy which open up different puzzles. They are based on code breaking, art history, and picture deciphering ramping up the difficulty as each is found. Once cracked they lead to a one second video sequence that reveals the truth behind everything (I mean that literally, “everything”) I have yet to crack five of them but the promise they have keeps me looking where in lesser stories I simply would have given up.

This game is a significant improvement over what was already an incredible game to begin with. The drawbacks I have mentioned probably are minor to people that aren’t me, but even then I can overlook them as this game is quite remarkable both in scope and achievement.

*I’ll probably do an entry on the Pazzi Conspiracy in the future.

Categories: reviews, video game review

Fillibuster Proof?

January 20, 2010 Leave a comment

So I guess the referendum on President Obama passed, or failed…or whatever. I don’t buy the fact that this election was about that and not because I’m a fan of the president. I don’t buy it because it’s more about the fact that Democratic party can not get their shit together for anything ever. The talk radio, and news pundits are going to be all over this tomorrow so in an effort to preempt any commentary I’ll offer my reasons why this isn’t a big of a deal as people will certainly make it out to be.

1: Being filibuster proof never mattered and here’s why: the Democrats couldn’t pass a thing with it so how does anything change when they don’t have it? If they really wanted to get the healthcare bill passed they would have done so months ago before this election was even scheduled. They would have done it while Kennedy’s seat was still warm but they couldn’t do it. It’s a huge victory for the GOP but oddly it’s not a loss for the party that couldn’t use what they had to begin with.

2: The Republican party follows the famous order from Stalin in the siege of Stalingrad, “Not one step backwards.” While the Democrats seem to think that political capital can be gained by compromising with people who have this attitude. It will never work and they seem to be asleep at the switch.

3: I think it’s odd that one of the few states that has mandatory healthcare has just elected a senator that promises to block similar legislation for the rest of the country.

4: I agree with Deadmoneywalking, Brown seems to be the first GOP member in the spotlight who isn’t talking about a run in 2011. This is refreshing because it means he might actually concentrate on doing his damn job. If that’s the case then good for him.

5: Although I do disagree with him that we have just had 12 months of unstoppable one party rule, since everything the former super majority tried to do was hindered by the minority.

Why people even think that that the Donkeys (or Asses) have any authority or power is beyond me. Clearly they are being as irrelevant as the CD.

Categories: current events, politics