Well the trip to Penn State was full of awe and awesomeness, undoubtedly partially due to my presence. And yes, PSU is currently ranked as 6, but we all know that is crap, and they should be number 1. Oh well, BCS sucks anyway. Regardless, alot has happened since my departure and subsequent return.
--Phillies made the playoffs. Hells yeah. The Brewers have exactly one arm pitching for them, and he is on approximately negative pi days rest. I like those odds. As Kalas would sing, we got high hopes.
--Nancy Pelosi and John McCain are on a mission to ruin this country.
McCain touted his restless work on "fixing" the economy with the bill, before the bill could even pass. Needless to say, the bill did not pass. The economy is still in shambles. It likely would still have been, but the sooner any solution is used, the better. Why don't we just try Hoover's idea of volunteerism? God knows it worked for him. Word has it Hoover was a disciple of Senator John McCain.
Pelosi was key in getting the proper amount of democratic support (from within her own party, as she is majority leader) and also in negotiating to get the proper amounts of Republican votes. Sadly, she is an idiot, and did not get a very large part of her own party to vote for the bill. More importantly, in a speech she gave just moments prior to the vote for the bill, she blamed the Republican party for all the wrongs that created this current economic crisis. I think she may have even said they crucified Jesus and had tea with Hitler. Nevermind the specifics, whatever she did effectively pushed away a significant amount of Republican votes. So for the sake of her own personal vanity, and party vanity, she did not get the bill passed. Nevermind the fact that the law passed which created most of this mess was passed under Bill Clinton in 1999. Yeah, whoever was in charge then must have really screwed up (don't even pull the Republican Congress card, Dodd and Schumer, two VERY prominent Dems were VERY in favor of this bill). Let me just put it this way. For God's sake, be professional Nancy Pelosi. Now is the time to sit down and figure out a plan, not blame everyone but yourself.
Right now the country needs someone to man up and fix this. God knows it can't be McCain. Please, he's mister deregulation. His economic ideology is the one that got us into this position. It also can't be Obama. The man rose to power as a cog in the Cook County Democratic Party, and with his silky rhetoric and baritone voice, took it to the rest of the state. Taking on Wall Street may prove to be too large a task for him. The most viable third party candidate, Barr, would also prove to be disastrous, as he has even more deregulatory and hands off ideas about economics than McCain.
The worst part -- it's going overseas. If anyone paid attention in history, they would remember that the Great Depression in America ran concurrent with economic depressions across Europe. The only country that was salvaged was the newly founded USSR, forcing itself into the industrial age. Only later did it find out it had no place in the modern one.
We're screwed. Divine intervention is what everyone needs right now. The rise of globalization can only speed the effect to which this can affect the rest of the world. Logically speaking, not all of us will be screwed. That's practically impossible. But it's gonna be awfully hard to escape this wherever you are, regardless of your life choices or given position.
--Knuttel
9.29.2008
9.26.2008
Perhaps a change
When I first began writing this, I had the intention of letting ideas settle in my head before I write them down and post them on this log. I wanted a page that was not reactionary, like most are.
Unfortunately this has created the side-effect of little being written.
I am considering suspending said concept, at least temporarily. I want to wait until the economy recovers. Once that happens, I can go back to my merry ways of writing well thought out and formulated ideas. Until then, I think I may start spitting stuff out and throwing shit at the wall until something starts sticking.
First note of business -- USC sucks. They can't beat Oregon state? Wow.
I officially decree Penn State to be number 1 in all polls, as they crushed Oregon State, who beat the team who was thought to be number 1.
I also decree Ohio State and Michigan to tie for last place. I'm thinking maybe they should fight to the death, the surviving team winning the right to play football. It only seems fair.
On that note, I regretfully state I may be without capacity to write over the weekend, as I will be likely be in Happy Valley this weekend. So I guess I'm informally suspending my formal suspension.
Unfortunately this has created the side-effect of little being written.
I am considering suspending said concept, at least temporarily. I want to wait until the economy recovers. Once that happens, I can go back to my merry ways of writing well thought out and formulated ideas. Until then, I think I may start spitting stuff out and throwing shit at the wall until something starts sticking.
First note of business -- USC sucks. They can't beat Oregon state? Wow.
I officially decree Penn State to be number 1 in all polls, as they crushed Oregon State, who beat the team who was thought to be number 1.
I also decree Ohio State and Michigan to tie for last place. I'm thinking maybe they should fight to the death, the surviving team winning the right to play football. It only seems fair.
On that note, I regretfully state I may be without capacity to write over the weekend, as I will be likely be in Happy Valley this weekend. So I guess I'm informally suspending my formal suspension.
9.18.2008
The apparent downfall of John McCain
I understand that politicians of the two large parties must usually "pander" (for lack of a better word) to the interests of their party base in order to win a primary. This is especially true for national primaries, where in order to win the vote of the Nation (where one thinks a moderate would win), the candidate must appear further to his or her party "side" (I should mention the notion of left and right is complete and utter bullshit to me).
That is why John McCain pandering to the right in order to win the Republican nomination didn't bother me too much. It's just part of the national course of politics, and supposedly he would moderate his views once getting past that point.
Needless to say, this has yet to happen. But that is not why I am concerned.
I'm not really sure he is a man who runs his own campaign anymore. He seems to be a shell for the party mold, much like George Bush before him. George Bush is a different topic though. When he selected Palin as veep, I became concerned. It seemed uncharacteristic. Sure, she seems like a maverick, but it's easy to make enemies in a state in which it is virtually impossible to run a deficit. Regardless, in a strict sense, it eliminated his whole experience argument.
Alas, I digress.
Flipping opinions over the course of years happens in politicians. It's just a simple matter of fact that events and circumstances change, thus the politics surrounding them change as well. In recent weeks, McCain has flipped in the matter of hours, on reasons that are not relating at all to how one thinks a government should operate.
The fundamentals of the economy are sound
what i meant was the fundamentals are the workers, which are strong
-said the fundamentals were strong over and over and over, without any mention that these could be workers. Plus, to say the workers of America are strong is like saying the people of America are patriots. It's a statement that doesn't really say anything.
AIG should not be bailed out
Bailing out AIG was the only right choice
-Make up your fuggin mind.
The fact is the last few days leave me wondering who exactly this John McCain character is. I'm left more to the impression that the republican party is hiding behind an old maverick. I hate to see him used like this. I used to respect the man. Perhaps the republican party really does want to change, but winning more elections usually doesn't support the idea that change needs to happen.
--Knuttel
That is why John McCain pandering to the right in order to win the Republican nomination didn't bother me too much. It's just part of the national course of politics, and supposedly he would moderate his views once getting past that point.
Needless to say, this has yet to happen. But that is not why I am concerned.
I'm not really sure he is a man who runs his own campaign anymore. He seems to be a shell for the party mold, much like George Bush before him. George Bush is a different topic though. When he selected Palin as veep, I became concerned. It seemed uncharacteristic. Sure, she seems like a maverick, but it's easy to make enemies in a state in which it is virtually impossible to run a deficit. Regardless, in a strict sense, it eliminated his whole experience argument.
Alas, I digress.
Flipping opinions over the course of years happens in politicians. It's just a simple matter of fact that events and circumstances change, thus the politics surrounding them change as well. In recent weeks, McCain has flipped in the matter of hours, on reasons that are not relating at all to how one thinks a government should operate.
The fundamentals of the economy are sound
what i meant was the fundamentals are the workers, which are strong
-said the fundamentals were strong over and over and over, without any mention that these could be workers. Plus, to say the workers of America are strong is like saying the people of America are patriots. It's a statement that doesn't really say anything.
AIG should not be bailed out
Bailing out AIG was the only right choice
-Make up your fuggin mind.
The fact is the last few days leave me wondering who exactly this John McCain character is. I'm left more to the impression that the republican party is hiding behind an old maverick. I hate to see him used like this. I used to respect the man. Perhaps the republican party really does want to change, but winning more elections usually doesn't support the idea that change needs to happen.
--Knuttel
9.16.2008
A few sports related items
Back to this. Have a few ideas backed up, but here are some relatively fresh sports related ones.
--Ed Hoculi--
Ed Hoculi should be fired. It’s a simple statement with a mountain of truth. The fact of the matter is he blew a major call. Just as it appeared Denver had lost grip of its potentially tying or winning drive, and just as it appeared San Diego had gotten a hold of it, securing their own win, Denver just lost control for a second. The reason for this? Ed Hoculi saw a fumble as a forward pass. The chance of seeing this as a throw in real time is slim to none. So the ball hits the ground, and he blows the whistle. The thing is, everyone keeps moving. Sure, there are remarks from Cutler and gang that they stopped, just as any good boy scout would, but frankly that shouldn’t have mattered. The ball went securely into the hands of the San Diego defender, and he fell on it, getting tapped down. Even though the whistle had blown, the play had unofficially kept going. I know, it’s not official, but that’s how it should have been called. I know it’s easy for me to say it, and frankly that’s part of the reason why I’m doing it.
There are several counterpoints to this. One being San Diego still had an opportunity to stop them. And they did, really, they did. But the thing is, having something called like that against you, especially after it has time to sink in after the replay booth, is emotionally anti-climactic for the loser. It is such a huge loss of momentum. The player gets a feeling that no matter what they do, it will not matter because the system is against them. They could do everything right (like they did) and still end up the loser (uh, yeah). Besides, red zone stops usually rely on more luck than skill. That’s just the nature of the game. They also had a chance to stop the 2 pt conversion, as they probably should have, but again, I hate to hit the hammer of momentum,
Another counterpoint is San Diego had a chance to win it afterwards. Yeah, they did have a chance to score. They only had to go more than half the field. Let’s say they got it at their 40. That’s 60 yards for a touchdown, but you only need one point. There’s about half a minute left, and I think one timeout. It’s 20 yards to get to a 57 yard field goal. A field goal of that length is by no means a guarantee.
The last relevant counter point is that it is but one game in the season, and it is still very early yet. The other thing is, building early momentum is a great way to earn a playoff bid. The AFC West may come down to these two teams, the other two being lame ducks. This essentially gives Denver a leg up on the competition, while trying to bury San Diego alive.
And to everyone who says, well if they were really that much of a better team, they should have won by a bigger margin. Please, stop talking. These are the same people who claim the “patriots dynasty” as the greatest thing since sliced bread. News flash, every super bowl they have won was by exactly 3 points. The 60’s Packers, 70’s Steelers, 80’s 49ers, and 90’s Cowboys all found ways to bury their opponent eventually. Oh, but the salary cap. Yeah, every team has to deal with it. And before the salary cap, every team got to keep whatever player they wanted if they wanted to pay him. So that means, the best teams theoretically actually would have the most highly sought after and paid players. In a way, concentrating the talent at the top, I think, would make the feat of a dynasty more difficult, having to beat the best teams constantly in the playoffs.
I know, people have gushed over Hoculi. Sometimes I joke about people buying his jersey. But I look at it this way. Refs are like groundskeepers, their name only gets brought up when the job isn’t being done right. If the grass is shit, lets fire the groundskeeper, oh look, he has a name. Yeah, I know, refs have to make tough calls, but in general, what should be remembered about a game is the team, and the players, not that really awesome call the ref made. And besides, I never really saw anything special in the reffing abilities of Hoculi, just another zebra in stripes.
--Notre Dame--
Speaking of poor reffing, I’m still pissed about this. Last week, not this one which just passed, the one before, ND played SDSU, and for most of the game, SDSU was up. Yes, holy Notre Dame to lose to lowly San Diego State. Well, the stupid call is the SDSU running back ran the ball to about the goal line, some say he crossed, some say he didn’t, but around this time, he fumbled it, and the ball skirted forward and then back into the endzone. The call was this – The ball did not cross the goal line, therefore it was fumbled, and the defender got a touchback. So there’s two bad calls here. One, the non-touchdown; two, the non-safety. SDSU should have gotten one or the other, but got neither. Very next drive, Notre Dame scores quick and the game’s momentum quickly and abruptly shifts into ND’s hands. Wouldn’t it be a pity if Notre Dame honestly lost?
--Donovan McNabb--
Donovan McNabb, what has happened to you? I remember when you used to thrive in the second half. The running game wasn’t always there, and the defense kept us in it, so we had to throw to score, and you usually came up with what we needed. I specifically remember a certain Monday Night game, against the Giants. Up to this point, the Eagles had lost 9 straight games to the Giants, the last being an ugly playoff rout (before they themselves were routed by the Vikings). Down by more than 3 (I want to say the score was 3-9 at the time, but I don’t remember specifically, so I’m not going to commit to that) with less than five minutes to go, McNabb throws a perfect pass into the back corner of the end zone, receiver falling down, ball being drilled through the outer limits of coverage. I believe the receiver was tight end Chad Lewis, but I’m basing this on him being the only reliable receiver of the time. Plus, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t one of the wide outs of the time. But the point is, he has to win, and he does. I think the final was 10-9. The team needed him to carry the team then, and he had no problems shouldering the burden.
Somewhere along the lines, it fell apart. I personally think it was the NFC Championship game against the Bucs, the second one we went to. It was our first one at home, and everything, everyone, etc, said that the Eagles were not only going to win the game, but they were going to dominate. They almost came back to beat the Rams in the previous NFC Championship, who were almost at dynasty status, having one of the NFL’s all time great offenses. It was the last game at the Vet, the Bucs had done awful in cold weather (yeah, kind of an odd stat, but real) up to then, and had to face a particularly harsh Philly January. The team streak against the team was high, even containing then all pro Warren Sapp to simple amateur status. Everything changed. McNabb looked shell shocked. He didn’t know where to throw, or when. Sapp and Simeon Rice were in his face on an alternating basis, and cornerback Ronde Barber seemed to be all over the field. Despite all of that, it still was manageably close on the last Eagles possession. Then, Ronde Barber pick six.
I haven’t seen the same McNabb since then. He has good games here and there, and usually plays pretty well, if not great in the first 3 quarters. But when the game is on the line, nope, can’t do it. The man’s psyche had been shot. The man whom I imagined to be the next Elway when I was in high school, watching his comebacks as an early Eagle, and hearing of quite a few when he was backing the Syracuse Orangemen (a game against VT comes to mind), simply lost that comeback stuff. Up by 3 he fumbles a handoff to Westbrook, Cowboys score a TD on the ensuing drive. Next drive, only manages to complete a few short passes and get sacked. He even threw it short on 4th down (though I’m actually gonna blame this one on Reid, as it appeared that’s the way the play was designed). The end result, Eagles lose by 4, unable to fire last in the shootout.
--Ed Hoculi--
Ed Hoculi should be fired. It’s a simple statement with a mountain of truth. The fact of the matter is he blew a major call. Just as it appeared Denver had lost grip of its potentially tying or winning drive, and just as it appeared San Diego had gotten a hold of it, securing their own win, Denver just lost control for a second. The reason for this? Ed Hoculi saw a fumble as a forward pass. The chance of seeing this as a throw in real time is slim to none. So the ball hits the ground, and he blows the whistle. The thing is, everyone keeps moving. Sure, there are remarks from Cutler and gang that they stopped, just as any good boy scout would, but frankly that shouldn’t have mattered. The ball went securely into the hands of the San Diego defender, and he fell on it, getting tapped down. Even though the whistle had blown, the play had unofficially kept going. I know, it’s not official, but that’s how it should have been called. I know it’s easy for me to say it, and frankly that’s part of the reason why I’m doing it.
There are several counterpoints to this. One being San Diego still had an opportunity to stop them. And they did, really, they did. But the thing is, having something called like that against you, especially after it has time to sink in after the replay booth, is emotionally anti-climactic for the loser. It is such a huge loss of momentum. The player gets a feeling that no matter what they do, it will not matter because the system is against them. They could do everything right (like they did) and still end up the loser (uh, yeah). Besides, red zone stops usually rely on more luck than skill. That’s just the nature of the game. They also had a chance to stop the 2 pt conversion, as they probably should have, but again, I hate to hit the hammer of momentum,
Another counterpoint is San Diego had a chance to win it afterwards. Yeah, they did have a chance to score. They only had to go more than half the field. Let’s say they got it at their 40. That’s 60 yards for a touchdown, but you only need one point. There’s about half a minute left, and I think one timeout. It’s 20 yards to get to a 57 yard field goal. A field goal of that length is by no means a guarantee.
The last relevant counter point is that it is but one game in the season, and it is still very early yet. The other thing is, building early momentum is a great way to earn a playoff bid. The AFC West may come down to these two teams, the other two being lame ducks. This essentially gives Denver a leg up on the competition, while trying to bury San Diego alive.
And to everyone who says, well if they were really that much of a better team, they should have won by a bigger margin. Please, stop talking. These are the same people who claim the “patriots dynasty” as the greatest thing since sliced bread. News flash, every super bowl they have won was by exactly 3 points. The 60’s Packers, 70’s Steelers, 80’s 49ers, and 90’s Cowboys all found ways to bury their opponent eventually. Oh, but the salary cap. Yeah, every team has to deal with it. And before the salary cap, every team got to keep whatever player they wanted if they wanted to pay him. So that means, the best teams theoretically actually would have the most highly sought after and paid players. In a way, concentrating the talent at the top, I think, would make the feat of a dynasty more difficult, having to beat the best teams constantly in the playoffs.
I know, people have gushed over Hoculi. Sometimes I joke about people buying his jersey. But I look at it this way. Refs are like groundskeepers, their name only gets brought up when the job isn’t being done right. If the grass is shit, lets fire the groundskeeper, oh look, he has a name. Yeah, I know, refs have to make tough calls, but in general, what should be remembered about a game is the team, and the players, not that really awesome call the ref made. And besides, I never really saw anything special in the reffing abilities of Hoculi, just another zebra in stripes.
--Notre Dame--
Speaking of poor reffing, I’m still pissed about this. Last week, not this one which just passed, the one before, ND played SDSU, and for most of the game, SDSU was up. Yes, holy Notre Dame to lose to lowly San Diego State. Well, the stupid call is the SDSU running back ran the ball to about the goal line, some say he crossed, some say he didn’t, but around this time, he fumbled it, and the ball skirted forward and then back into the endzone. The call was this – The ball did not cross the goal line, therefore it was fumbled, and the defender got a touchback. So there’s two bad calls here. One, the non-touchdown; two, the non-safety. SDSU should have gotten one or the other, but got neither. Very next drive, Notre Dame scores quick and the game’s momentum quickly and abruptly shifts into ND’s hands. Wouldn’t it be a pity if Notre Dame honestly lost?
--Donovan McNabb--
Donovan McNabb, what has happened to you? I remember when you used to thrive in the second half. The running game wasn’t always there, and the defense kept us in it, so we had to throw to score, and you usually came up with what we needed. I specifically remember a certain Monday Night game, against the Giants. Up to this point, the Eagles had lost 9 straight games to the Giants, the last being an ugly playoff rout (before they themselves were routed by the Vikings). Down by more than 3 (I want to say the score was 3-9 at the time, but I don’t remember specifically, so I’m not going to commit to that) with less than five minutes to go, McNabb throws a perfect pass into the back corner of the end zone, receiver falling down, ball being drilled through the outer limits of coverage. I believe the receiver was tight end Chad Lewis, but I’m basing this on him being the only reliable receiver of the time. Plus, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t one of the wide outs of the time. But the point is, he has to win, and he does. I think the final was 10-9. The team needed him to carry the team then, and he had no problems shouldering the burden.
Somewhere along the lines, it fell apart. I personally think it was the NFC Championship game against the Bucs, the second one we went to. It was our first one at home, and everything, everyone, etc, said that the Eagles were not only going to win the game, but they were going to dominate. They almost came back to beat the Rams in the previous NFC Championship, who were almost at dynasty status, having one of the NFL’s all time great offenses. It was the last game at the Vet, the Bucs had done awful in cold weather (yeah, kind of an odd stat, but real) up to then, and had to face a particularly harsh Philly January. The team streak against the team was high, even containing then all pro Warren Sapp to simple amateur status. Everything changed. McNabb looked shell shocked. He didn’t know where to throw, or when. Sapp and Simeon Rice were in his face on an alternating basis, and cornerback Ronde Barber seemed to be all over the field. Despite all of that, it still was manageably close on the last Eagles possession. Then, Ronde Barber pick six.
I haven’t seen the same McNabb since then. He has good games here and there, and usually plays pretty well, if not great in the first 3 quarters. But when the game is on the line, nope, can’t do it. The man’s psyche had been shot. The man whom I imagined to be the next Elway when I was in high school, watching his comebacks as an early Eagle, and hearing of quite a few when he was backing the Syracuse Orangemen (a game against VT comes to mind), simply lost that comeback stuff. Up by 3 he fumbles a handoff to Westbrook, Cowboys score a TD on the ensuing drive. Next drive, only manages to complete a few short passes and get sacked. He even threw it short on 4th down (though I’m actually gonna blame this one on Reid, as it appeared that’s the way the play was designed). The end result, Eagles lose by 4, unable to fire last in the shootout.
9.04.2008
back to Degrassi/90210
Ok, I have by now pretty much watched the entire opening (2) episode(s) of 90210, and thus I can give a more fair and complete comparison between the two shows.
90210 gets the edge in re-introducing alum. Even if they are only small throw away parts, as there were in both, they seemed to flow much better in 90210. The opening double episode of Degrassi was based around a reunion for the members of the class of the old show. What that does is make a forced situation seem unforced. They want to show everyone, but how do they do it, simple. period. 90210 was more subtle, and for that reason, better. Hell, they even made a part for the castaway Shannen Doherty. While I was not a watcher of the original show, I recognized a few faces. It's apparent that some were going to be there, and others were going to quickly fade away. And frankly I had no problem with this. It was like they were genuinely trying to make a show that could stand on its own. There were roots in the old one, but they were really shallow and unneeded. Degrassi had its roots well established. It didn't really need them, for only a handful of original characters are meaningful (Radditch, Snake, Spike, Caitlin Ryan, Joey Jeremiah), but it wanted to show a clear(er, well there really was no comparison in 2001) connection to the old show. I suppose we will see later whether they are just going to hash together old plots with new characters, who are really old characters, or whether they are going to make an entirely new show, such as in Degrassi.
Enough about that. It is the only edge I give 90210.
The theme of the opening of the series, I think, was supposed to be about responsibility, but it was dealt with in such an immature and childish manner that it is much more about blame. And if this is serialized, as most dramas are, then all indications point toward a simple continuation of blame upon blame moving in circles upon itself.
A cheap way to get drama.
This show really is no Degrassi.
--Knuttel
90210 gets the edge in re-introducing alum. Even if they are only small throw away parts, as there were in both, they seemed to flow much better in 90210. The opening double episode of Degrassi was based around a reunion for the members of the class of the old show. What that does is make a forced situation seem unforced. They want to show everyone, but how do they do it, simple. period. 90210 was more subtle, and for that reason, better. Hell, they even made a part for the castaway Shannen Doherty. While I was not a watcher of the original show, I recognized a few faces. It's apparent that some were going to be there, and others were going to quickly fade away. And frankly I had no problem with this. It was like they were genuinely trying to make a show that could stand on its own. There were roots in the old one, but they were really shallow and unneeded. Degrassi had its roots well established. It didn't really need them, for only a handful of original characters are meaningful (Radditch, Snake, Spike, Caitlin Ryan, Joey Jeremiah), but it wanted to show a clear(er, well there really was no comparison in 2001) connection to the old show. I suppose we will see later whether they are just going to hash together old plots with new characters, who are really old characters, or whether they are going to make an entirely new show, such as in Degrassi.
Enough about that. It is the only edge I give 90210.
The theme of the opening of the series, I think, was supposed to be about responsibility, but it was dealt with in such an immature and childish manner that it is much more about blame. And if this is serialized, as most dramas are, then all indications point toward a simple continuation of blame upon blame moving in circles upon itself.
A cheap way to get drama.
This show really is no Degrassi.
--Knuttel
9.02.2008
So you want to be a maverick, John McCain?
So you want to be a maverick?
I remember there was one day when you were. There was a day when you reached across the aisles, when you stood against your party. There was a day when you were an independent, who happened to run as a Republican.
Those days are over.
John McCain, the year is not 2000, and you are no longer a maverick. In order to win this primary, instead of losing such as in 2008, you proved to your own party that you were a Republican through and through.
While some look to the Democrats to forget the past 8 years (I don't, the democratic congress of the past 2 years is a joke) practically no one is looking to the Republicans.
That's really why I don't understand it, and why I do understand why he wants that image back.
The thing about image though, is you have no control of how people perceive you. You can change your appearance, change this and that, try and lead them to a certain perception; but ultimately it is up to the eye to behold.
Try, McCain, try. In all honesty, I don't think it will work.
I'm not sure John McCain could ever again be a maverick.
I remember there was one day when you were. There was a day when you reached across the aisles, when you stood against your party. There was a day when you were an independent, who happened to run as a Republican.
Those days are over.
John McCain, the year is not 2000, and you are no longer a maverick. In order to win this primary, instead of losing such as in 2008, you proved to your own party that you were a Republican through and through.
While some look to the Democrats to forget the past 8 years (I don't, the democratic congress of the past 2 years is a joke) practically no one is looking to the Republicans.
That's really why I don't understand it, and why I do understand why he wants that image back.
The thing about image though, is you have no control of how people perceive you. You can change your appearance, change this and that, try and lead them to a certain perception; but ultimately it is up to the eye to behold.
Try, McCain, try. In all honesty, I don't think it will work.
I'm not sure John McCain could ever again be a maverick.
Degrassi - 90210
Having watched a portion of the 90210 premiere -- it is 2 hours you know, I'm not gonna watch the whole thing -- I can safely say one thing.
That one thing is really something that anyone who has seen the last season of Degrassi would already know. Bringing up a modern relation between the two revivals points immediately to one person -- Shenae Grimes.
The fact -- yeah, she can act. Well, this is true at least in the respect of teen dramas.
Now, I kinda want to see her thrown into an entirely different role, see if she'll sink or swim. Personally, I think she can do it. Personally, I don't see 90210 lasting very long beyond this season.
So now the Degrassi comparisons begin, as they are inevitable. The comparisons were there when both the originals begun in the late 1980's ("Degrassi Junior High" and "Beverly Hills 90210").
The reason I still prefer Degrassi to 90210 is simple, and really shows the difference between the originals as well. 90210 is too polished. Degrassi is raw and real.
To put it simply -- production values alone do not dictate success or quality. If they did, Waterworld may have been remembered as one of the greatest films of all time.
Degrassi attempts to portray much more realist situations, deal with them more realistically, and have more realistic characters and atmospheres. (If you didn't get the idea, the common theme is realism).
90210 is a much glossier world, with "prettier" problems. In short, it is really a world that I can't relate to in any way, oddly enough despite the fact that 90210 is at least set in the same country as I (Degrassi being set in Riverdale, Toronto). In addition, there are already current teen dramas with that glossy setting -- "Gossip Girl" and "Greek". Again, shows I don't watch, unable to relate entirely.
In any case, I do wish her the best. I may periodically watch the show from time to time to see what the actress who once played Darcy is doing. I also wonder if she was entirely written off Degrassi, or if she'll have a smaller role. I'm aware from promos that Darcy's sister, Clare, will be attending Degrassi this season, but I'm more unaware of what Darcy herself will be doing.
Btdub, I was partially distracted from 90210, as I was simultaneously watching the Phils/Nats game. Cole Hamels pitching pretty well, though it is the Nats. I do like to remind myself I have testicles, and take a break from Degrassi.
PS, does anyone know how one becomes a writer for Degrassi, seriously that would be a dream job for me. I have a wealth of knowledge (encyclopedic really) on the show, and I am quite a writer. So, I dunno, perhaps someone can pass word to Schuyler that the Knuttel would be an awesome addition to the writing staff of Degrassi, much obliged. (Also the fact that Emma will be attending Smithdale as a Political Science Major, and I am a recent graduate of Political Science (and English)).
That one thing is really something that anyone who has seen the last season of Degrassi would already know. Bringing up a modern relation between the two revivals points immediately to one person -- Shenae Grimes.
The fact -- yeah, she can act. Well, this is true at least in the respect of teen dramas.
Now, I kinda want to see her thrown into an entirely different role, see if she'll sink or swim. Personally, I think she can do it. Personally, I don't see 90210 lasting very long beyond this season.
So now the Degrassi comparisons begin, as they are inevitable. The comparisons were there when both the originals begun in the late 1980's ("Degrassi Junior High" and "Beverly Hills 90210").
The reason I still prefer Degrassi to 90210 is simple, and really shows the difference between the originals as well. 90210 is too polished. Degrassi is raw and real.
To put it simply -- production values alone do not dictate success or quality. If they did, Waterworld may have been remembered as one of the greatest films of all time.
Degrassi attempts to portray much more realist situations, deal with them more realistically, and have more realistic characters and atmospheres. (If you didn't get the idea, the common theme is realism).
90210 is a much glossier world, with "prettier" problems. In short, it is really a world that I can't relate to in any way, oddly enough despite the fact that 90210 is at least set in the same country as I (Degrassi being set in Riverdale, Toronto). In addition, there are already current teen dramas with that glossy setting -- "Gossip Girl" and "Greek". Again, shows I don't watch, unable to relate entirely.
In any case, I do wish her the best. I may periodically watch the show from time to time to see what the actress who once played Darcy is doing. I also wonder if she was entirely written off Degrassi, or if she'll have a smaller role. I'm aware from promos that Darcy's sister, Clare, will be attending Degrassi this season, but I'm more unaware of what Darcy herself will be doing.
Btdub, I was partially distracted from 90210, as I was simultaneously watching the Phils/Nats game. Cole Hamels pitching pretty well, though it is the Nats. I do like to remind myself I have testicles, and take a break from Degrassi.
PS, does anyone know how one becomes a writer for Degrassi, seriously that would be a dream job for me. I have a wealth of knowledge (encyclopedic really) on the show, and I am quite a writer. So, I dunno, perhaps someone can pass word to Schuyler that the Knuttel would be an awesome addition to the writing staff of Degrassi, much obliged. (Also the fact that Emma will be attending Smithdale as a Political Science Major, and I am a recent graduate of Political Science (and English)).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)