Smackdown 2010?

Two days after his State of the Union, President Obama accepted an invitation to speak at the House Republican's conference in Baltimore, MD (Intro speech here and the Q&A Session here). It was a bold move to accept and in hindsight, it was a bolder move to offer.

I heard about this intergovernmental meeting of presumed opponents and it was described to me as a smackdown. Watch for yourself, but it was less that and more a careful refutation of partisan gridlock in Congress. Obama admitted to a mistake (not facilitating the public monitoring of the health care debate) but really he spent the time telling the House Republicans that they both needed to engage in a more constructive way. It was a nice follow up to the SOTU and it puts Republicans on their heels even more. They should never have allowed him into their lair.

Gettin' his mojo back

Article II Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says with regards to the President, "He shall from time to time perform Magic on the Congress and regain his lost popularity, thereby increasing the chances that his socialist agenda be advanced." Okay, I made most of that up, but he does have to give information on the State of the Union.

The key word being thrown around about the State of the Union is "Magic." Hmmm, magic. I thought it was a well-reasoned and skillful speech that reminded people of why he was elected and temporarily injected a long-term memory into the American people. Nope, he was reclaiming his magic that allowed the Republicans to steal the Sorcerer's Stone* from Massachusetts.

Ridiculous (in the sense of deserving ridicule, not in the sense of "I have an exaggeration to make and this is the only way I know how to make it") reporting aside, I think this was a brilliant speech. By refocusing on the economy he drew attention to the failed policies of Bush. I didn't like the references to "when I got here" because, frankly, when people think of the economy, they think of Bush, and it opens himself to "so when is it your economy, Mr. President" questions. BUT, I did like the reference to Clinton's budget surplus (hey, 'mericans, Democrats CAN reduce the budget) and the structured arguments of why health care and investing in green energy/technology (nuclear?) are crucial to the economy.

It was a broad speech and maybe it ran a little long. But, the politics of it were amazing. I waited until this morning to listen and purposefully avoided coverage to be able to consider without bias. However, I heard this line from President Obama on the radio before I could turn it off: "Just saying 'no' may be good short-term politics, but it is not leadership." Inyoface, obstructionists; you're failed leaders. AND, without saying "mandate" he reminded the Republicans that Democrats whooped them in the last election, hopefully inspiring some trepidation at refusing to go to rehab ("I said 'No, no, noooo.'"). I give it an A- only because it was long.

One funny thing to me is the "Jobs Bill." What a great name. "You sir, voted against, the Jobs Bill. All we need is a piece of legislation and jobs will appear." I'm not disagreeing with the logic and economics behind it, I just think its funny.

* The Philosopher's stone for you Brits.

My new show

I have loved Glee since I first saw the pilot. It is hands-down one of the greatest shows on television today. It is entertaining, funny at times, poignant at times, and not too serious. Its mass appeal made it 2009's best new show.

Glee, however, is not my favorite new show on TV. Community is far and away my favorite new show on TV. I think it is funny on multiple levels, poignant at times, and not too serious. Joel McHale brings the creative sarcasm, Danny Pudi (a completely underrated Abed, who I want to see more of outside of this show) brings the weird, often with Donald Glover who plays Troy, Chevy Chase is the snotty, clueless character you like to see brought down without feeling guilty, and the other provide ample space for hilarity to ensue. The writing is translucent in that it makes fun of sitcoms and situational drama, which allows for a lot of irony as well as crazy, hilarious twists. I really think you should check out the first 5-7 episodes*.

I don't know anyone else who watches this show and I think that is because they are turned off by Joel McHale. He is the main character, but not the only character, so Community should be given a chance.

The show that I am still trying out is Modern Family. I have had a couple of people tell me that it is funny and that I would like it. It has been called a mixture of "The Office" and "Arrested Development". I have watched the first two episodes with minimal enjoyment, but I will wait until I've seen the next 3 or 4 to make a decision.

*I say 5-7, because I think doesn't really pick a direction until after the first 4 or 6. It has been my experience that shows (sitcoms and dramas) will go in several different directions at the beginning of the season after a pilot in order to see what story lines and characters resonate the best. Not all shows do this, though: The Wire comes to mind.

The Change You Want in 2010

Near the end of the NY Times' front page story on the reorganization of the health care reform effort was this segment:

Senior Republicans showed little new willingness to collaborate with the Democrats. Asked where he might be willing to work across the aisle, the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, offered praise for Mr. Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan but not a single example on domestic policy.

Mr. McConnell was asked if the health care bill was dead. “I sure hope so,” he said.

So, there it is. People are satisfied with the health care system that is trending upwards in costs and downwards in enrollment numbers?

And if you were thinking that the Democrats would be playing ball with the Republicans now, it seems that the Republicans aren't stepping on the field until they have the majority again. So, there you go.

(Admittedly, the next paragraph is Susan Collins talking about bipartisanship. I'm not convinced she means it, so I did not include it.)

The midterms for the midterms

Last night Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate race by beating Martha Coakley. Coakley apparently decided that she did not need to campaign real hard or abstain from making fun of the Red Sox IN MASSACHUSETTS. (Source: The Daily Show)

According to the newspapers, this is a major rebuke of the Obama administration and the Democrats. Yeah, it probably is a little bit, though I think the crappy campaigning described above had a major influence. Massachusetts is labeled as one of the most liberal states in the country (mandatory health care for all and legalized gay marriage) and a Republican taking over Ted Kennedy's seat would seem impossible had it not just happened.

So, what can we learn from this? You've got to play all four quarters. No one is safe until they're raising the right hand in Congress.

I think that this defeat (minor or major, I'm not sure yet) puts the first half of the 111th Congress in a more realistic perspective. When you have a tent as big as the Democrats, you're not going to get the more/most liberal stuff passed because those pesky Blue Dogs (the ones who make your party the majority party) are going to demand abortion controls, opt-out provisions, and busts of Ronald Reagan in their capital building. Maybe next time, we should manage expectations a little bit and not think that CHANGE is going to happen by enthusiastic consensus or Presidential Fiat on the authority of his/her approval rating. Obama has not had the Congressional or party unity that Bush had in the wake of major national security concerns.

Maybe this isn't such a bad thing. Yes, Congressional politics will become more difficult, but I'm not sure that it will be SO different. Maybe the party will start getting its act together and focus on this year's midterms. Just like I said yesterday about Texas' loss, maybe losing some in the regular season can help you win the championship.

First Loss, Best Case?

Last night I watched ye old Texas Basketball lose their first game of the season against a riled (but amateur-ish) Kansas State team. First half- sucked. They pretty much owned us. Second half- sparked by Clint Chapman (somewhere above Brad Buckner on the Texas tall White Guy scale) they became more competitive. Ultimately, it was fouls that kept Bradley on the bench, our inside game was swarmed, and there was some awful decision-making.

I'm not going to mourn the loss of the #1 ranking for very long. Texas needs a competitive conference season to get into the kind of shape that makes championship teams. After shooting an abysmal 9-22 from the free throw line, do you think the players are gonna shoot some free throws in practice with a renewed intensity today? Do you think that the veterans are going to kick a little ass and bring a renewed intensity? Are these too cliche?

Of course you want your team to live the dream and go undefeated in a historic championship season. Frankly, though, it is time to make the mental transition from football to basketball and realize that the good basketball teams that lose during the regular season benefit from those losses. So, we will see where we stand at UConn on Saturday.

Industrial Food: The Movie

Embracing my winter vacation, I finally checked out Food, Inc. on the 'ol Netflix. The visuals are shocking and the subject matter is appalling. The two principal food experts are Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser, the authors of The Omnivore's Dilemma and Fast Food Nation, respectively. Having read both, this movie borrows heavily from those books. The original parts were the litigation and the food advocacy sections (which actually may be in FFN, it has been several years since I read it). Liking both books, I recommend those over the movie (FFN over The OD), but if you're pressed for time, the movie will do. Just don't expect to enjoy chicken that much any more.