Thursday, January 31, 2008

Super Tuesday, Super Election

I know none of us can get away from the Presidential elections, but in all honesty, I have to pose this question: Has there been any election in the past decade (dare I say two decades?) that has garnered such coverage because we know that the Democratic party has made history by guaranteeing either a minority or female candidate in the final dash?

Let's face it, the election is starting to get somewhat exciting. There are candidates actively asking for my vote because I'm young (WASP-ish candidates never really cared for the young vote in times past - you always hear about the minority vote, the retired/elderly vote, and the female vote, even the working class vote, but no "youth vote.") As Super Tuesday approaches, and as I prepare to face the Republican poll machine, I'm already wrestling with this choice: How do I vote now if I decide to cross party lines in November?

I think this article in TIME shows that the primaries have changed, not only to make history for this country electing a minority or female President, but that there is someone in the election speaking specifically to the under-30 crowd. Someone who has Pennsylvania Ave. in their sights is telling me that my vote is important to them. No one's ever done that before. I feel so special!

All joking aside, though, I think this is also what Ron Paul had going for him on the Republican side, but he just doesn't have the star power that Obama does. He doesn't talk as smooth, either, but the man has appealed to youth by speaking with a fresh voice that doesn't use such politic-esque language, the same talking-head gibber-gabber that we've been accustomed to listening to since the discovery of newspaper, radio and television (and that's a freaking long time, dear readers.) Even when the words "gold standard" crept into references about Ron Paul, he was still able to raise startling amounts of money while clinging to the primaries, outlasting Rudy Giuliani and hoping to slough off some votes from the now-popular war hero McCain, smooth-coiffed Romney and conservative WASP-next-door Huckabee.

I remember in the 1980s my parents crossing party lines when they found out that Democrats were pro-choice, staunchly walking away from the liberal half and discovering that their once-liberal views weren't so liberal any more. I faced a similar decision once Bush was elected again and watched the body count tick higher and higher in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not because my once-conservative views weren't so conservative any more. Even after this election, I'm not so sure I want to be affiliated with either party.

But who did I have to choose from in the primaries since I was legally able to vote? Well, if I could have voted in 1996, I doubt I would have voted for Bob Dole, but that didn't matter, because there was the male Clinton, who was already in office when I turned 18, and was the sound favorite for reelection. After that, I've had the immense enjoyment of having to choose between Bush and, well, no one else in 2004; and McCain or Bush in 2000. To be honest, I have no clue who Alan Keyes was, and at 20 years of age, I had no interest in researching him, and so had crossed him off my list.

Perhaps this is why the youth vote has not been discovered until now. Presidential candidates and the under-30 crowd never were able to find a language they could speak together. If there was a campaign at a campus, they sure weren't at the one I was at, and I have an inkling that the only ones who cared were the ultra-conservative campus newspaper reporters and the college brass. But even I worked for the ultra-conservative newspaper and was more worried about securing pictures for the water polo match than figuring out who was getting my vote. But now, even if it's just a handful, there are Presidential hopefuls calling my name and telling me my vote is important to them - nay, that "we" are important and a crucial part of the election process. For Generation-Y, that's just the ego booster we need to begin caring about the elections.

Friday, January 25, 2008

The Child Victim

I've been really bothered by the kind of news that permeates the news that includes children dying or suffering at the hands of those who should know better. To wit, I did a search on January 11, and here is what I have found on CNN in the last five days before that date:

Man Killed Baby Daughter Because He Wanted Son
Pregnant Marine Dead
Killer's Parents Cry, Hug With Parents of 2 Slain Teens
Washington Mayor: City Failed 4 Slain Children (Related article here, and here, and here)
Dad Denies Throwing Kids off Bridge
Madeline Parents in Movie Talks
Court hears of Child Army Terror
Police: Teacher Exchanges Nude Photos with Freshman
12-year-old Beats Toddler To Death With Bat, Police Say
Cells, Texting Give Predators Secret Path to Kids

In November, I brought up the story of little Riley, whose mother and her mother's boyfriend confessed to killing the little girl because she refused to say "please" and "yes sir," and I wondered why Riley suffered at the hands of a man who she was not related to, and why her mother allowed him into their lives. When we all found out what Andrea Yates had done to her five children, and the life that Rusty Yates had to live after that, we scratched our heads wondering why five innocent souls had to suffer at the hands of a psychotic disease that took over their mother. How many other names can we think of? JonBenet Ramsey? How about the other nameless children out there who suffer at the hands of adults, lost forever in the continuum of being born in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Further, the fascination that the media has with children suffering makes the majority of mothers pull their children closer to bosom and probably help spawn ridiculous inventions such as the child leash. And when I refer to "media," it's not just the news outlets: Seen the movie "Ransom" lately? How about "The Ring" or "The Exorcist" or "The Sixth Sense"? Suffering children at the center of every movie. The movies themselves were wildly successful, and nothing makes someone's skin crawl more than watching a defenseless human dealing with some very adult-like situations.

There are even situations in which a child suffers, and there's no adult to blame. Then what? Bindi Irwin had one of the most lovable dads in television, with bravery and balls to match, and nature took its course when Steve Irwin died doing what he loved best. We all looked to Irwin's children and wondered what they'd do, and thankfully, Bindi picked up and, with a little help, is trying to start where her father left off.

But we don't hear as much about Bindi in the news as we hear about the Rileys and Madelines and JonBenets; child victims are a dime a dozen in the media industry, but still catch human attention every single time. I think those of us who are parents would love to see their child in the spotlight, but the chances of that being under good conditions are next to nothing. Some days, I do try to be careful what I wish for, because if I asked God for my child to be famous, what are the chances she'd be famous for her death rather than her life?

Thursday, January 24, 2008

A Frozen D.U.H.

It's freezing across the country (yes, even here in glorious California, where the temps are in the 30s at night and making people scurry for their parkas), so check out the brain freeze headlines I found:

Mysterious reptile deaths puzzle scientists
Amy Winehouse enters rehab
Parents crashing online party
Newspaper Web sites draw record viewers
It's official: mail is slow as snails
Too cold to walk for car thieves

P.S. To my fellow readership in PA and NY, don't worry. I don't think it's cold in California. (You've not felt cold until your tears freeze in wind chill...)

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Creepy Old Ads

Thanks to 2Spare and Mental Floss for providing this lovely bit of American truth-in-advertising history. *Shiver*

'Japan Today'

My husband loves the Japan Today website, especially because it throws light on unusual items of the news that involve things other than the GOP, Britney and bickering Democrats. Here's some headlines that caught my eye:

Drunk driver parks car on Utsunomiya tracks: The train was able to stop, but only seven meters from her car. Seven meters separating her from a grisly death! She was lucky there was someone alert operating the train.

Woman hospitalized after eating blowfish dies: This has always made me fascinated, the fact that there are special licenses to sell poisonous blowfish (called "fugu"). Because the Japanese, and many others, will still eat it if properly prepared; Wikipedia confirms that because of its potential toxicity, fugu has become a "celebrated" dish. Better if you find a chef who has the license to prepare it than trying it yourself, as this woman failed to do. The poison paralyzes your muscles, making it impossible to breathe, and you are conscious while you basically suffocate to death. How lovely.

Activists use 'stink bombs' to harass Japanese whalers: Hayden Panettiere should have used this instead of a surfboard. No telling what would have happened if the Japanese police made good on their issuance of an warrant for her arrest, though.

Prince lectures at women's college: That's crazy. Prince? The "Purple Rain" Prince? Goes to show you what American pop culture has done to my brain - I forgot there are still real princes on this planet.

16-year-old boy held after extravagant spree at Saitama bar: This shows how distrustful America has become of youths' ability to be active in their upbringing and maturation into society. This kid was able to get into the bar, not get carded, and carry himself in a way that fooled everyone. Do they have bouncers in Japan? Do they even card people? Who knows. It seems to me that, if every time we reported on how a minor was caught getting into a bar, we'd have nothing else to talk about. It happens all the time over here. But, yea, the kid did run up a tab of $4,000...

To top it off, here's two pictures that make me want to travel to Japan just to people watch. Some Japanese youth are so crazy and fun, and they dress the part. And, they know how to wear a pink wig.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Britney = Diana?

Rosie O'Donnell has had her share of hits in the past, what with being coined one of the most annoying celebrities ever, and her unforgettable sparring with La Hasselbeck on "The View." But I could not, for the life of me, find much wrong in Rosie's writing of this blog entry, in which she echoes the death of Princess Diana while painting a scene of insanity that took place at an LA courthouse yesterday.

People.com's headline proclaims that she is comparing Britney to the late Princess, but as usual, I think this is unfairly accurate. Why would Rosie would be dumb enough to take a Starbucks-addicted pop tartlet and compare her to a highly-esteemed woman who was a good mother and always associated with charity? Right now, it's generally agreed that Britney is not a good mother right now, and her face was never associated with charity, but only smooching the face of Madonna. Upon seeing this headline, I was incensed that Rosie would take this still-living Train Wreck and compare her to a woman of such natural beauty and grace with a huge heart for her two sons, as well as those who were less unfortunate than here. Alas: I have learned not to wholly trust misleading headlines, least of all from People.com, and read the blog entry myself.

There's no doubt that Diana and Britney are tied together by tragic consequences, although it seems to me that Diana at least held it together in the paparazzi swarm. Brit can't even get that far. They both did choose a life of publicity, Diana by marrying into the royal British family, and Britney dancing away on a Disney show (which, in all honesty, also demonstrates the carelessness that child stars' parents handle their children's rise to stardom, but that's for another day.) But Rosie's blog entry doesn't necessarily draw a direct comparison of Princess Diana and Princess of Pop - the sickening scene of the tunnel where Diana lost her life is used as a background to illustrate the crush of photogs when Britney finally arrived at the courthouse and then, apparently, at a church where Britney stopped at, apparently to find sanctuary for a few minutes, but also knowing that there is nothing sacred to the press.

I was impressed with the blog entry, all things considered. For all the weird things that she's doing, Britney seemed genuinely scared that she had to walk through the paparazzi to get to the courthouse. Rosie is rightfully empathetic with Britney's plight as a celebrity herself, what with this humble blogger being on a first-name basis already with these and other celebrities, as is the price to pay for a life of publicity: the right to free press tends to elucidate its prisoners.

Being some sort of free press myself, I wouldn't give it up for anything. There are soldiers overseas fighting for my right to blog in my jammies in this moment. But there are reasons why we don't know everything about other celebrities who are leading parts of their lives privately, and they've learned to play the game. With free press, they know the rules, written or unwritten, and learn to manipulate them: There's nothing like a dose of a real, boring life to make the camera flashes turn towards brighter targets. Victoria "Posh Spice" Beckham probably said it best: "I'm actually quite boring."

She's not, but boredom is certainly the poison that makes paparazzi scatter.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Whoops

Unknowing twins marry each other

During a debate in front of the British House of Lords, former British MP David Alton brought up the case while discussing donor conception. With better efforts at keeping adopted siblings in contact with each other, this probably won't happen again.

But two words gave me the willies: "Inevitable attraction." Can you imagine what the judge, who had to deal with their separation and annulment, had to listen to? I wonder what poor person had the duty of telling these folks they were sister and brother.

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Have my digits, Facebook!

I noticed that there are a lot of "Lost my Phone" groups on Facebook, which I think is a brilliant way to get your friends to send their digits to you ASAP if the phone goes on the fritz. But as I send a private message to the person who did lose their phone, with my number in it, I visited the group and found that people were putting their phone numbers on the group Wall. Just... digits. Essentially placing their phone numbers on a free public listing.

Is it me, or is that purely insane? I go so far as to tell the salespeople at stores that I'm unlisted (I only own a cell phone) because I don't want/need strangers calling my number. I've had enough wrong numbers coming in that I don't even introduce myself if someone asks "Who is this?!" Does anyone in the next generation realize the Internet is a public place? Granted, you have to be careful with what you put into any website, as I mentioned in my phising post last year. Who knows how these websites store data? Do they wipe it out every year, two years, three years?

I love the word flabbergasted, but I'm even beyond that right now. Either they don't know that some freak could get their number and harass them, or they just don't care. Is there an Internet Sensibility group on Facebook I could point them to?

Saturday, January 05, 2008

New Year D.U.H.

'Subprime' named Word of the Year
Spears loses custody of children
Cell phone users slow traffic, study finds

Home

Well, I didn't think it would happen, but we got home to California nearly on time and just after the year's biggest storm hit the West Coast. Personally, I don't remember the last time I have heard of anyone's airliner of choice holding their connection plane AND getting all their luggage on that flight, but that's exactly what happened to us after we were held up an hour late because of a window-defrosting problem in Pittsburgh. I thought we'd be stranded in Boston overnight because of either a canceled flight or missing it altogether, but I got to bed by 10 p.m. last night. (Not usually an early bird, but between a sick child, a sick me, Dramamine drowsiness, turbulence, and a decidedly unfavorable time of the month, it was the best to be expected.

As I wait to get my body clock back on West Coast time, I thought I'd share a headline that almost made me lose my sponge candy breakfast this morning (what?! I had a bowl of Life, too. Let the sick mommy have a day off from her diet.)

Justice Clinton?

Sweet canned Spam, now that's something I'd take as an equivalent to pigs flying: a female president with her husband eyeing up a Justice seat appointment. First, I still think most in this country would take a black President over a female one this year. Second, just yesterday, on my JetBlue flight back West, I saw the obligatory video shot of all the Supreme Court Justices talking with each other in their black robes, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had zoned out and focused on something behind the cameraman's shoulder, making me think that either she just was tired of the entire charade with the rest of her male counterparts, or that she really, really misses Sandra Day O'Connor; either way, I had the impression that Ginsburg was having a devil of a time being in the same room with her conservative counterparts, Justices Alito and Roberts. But wouldn't it be interesting if she were replaced first? It was Bill Clinton who appointed her to the Supreme Court in the first place. (Thank goodness Ginsburg gets her say in it, though- she can be there til she pops up daisies.)

All we have to do is make sure New York votes Chelsea in to take over her mother's Senate seat, and we'll have a downright Clinton trifecta in all three branches of the American government. Yee-ikes. Is it a bad thing to hope that Ron Paul throws a bigger wrench into the elections than fellow Texan Ross Perot ever did?
Photobucket
Powered By Blogger