Obama's Call to Action

Earlier this week, when President Obama delivered his address to Congress, the new President managed to squeeze in a topic that was held in high regard by many of his campaign followers during the election: the call to reward volunteer work. And in between the over-the-top clapping and applause served up by Congress, Obama seems to really have a solid notion of rewarding community work.

(Before continuing, I have to make a note of something real quick. Remember when Obama hit on the topic of healthcare and re-enforced an important notion that it is a tremendous weight that needs to be lifted immediately? Did anyone else think it was straight brass that any Congressional official had the moxie to stand up and applaud? Not that I disagree with Obama - I completely agree in fact. But these same politicians are standing up and applauding, nodding their heads, conveying a sense of "Yes, yes definitely. It's about time." Umm, riiiiiight.....and how long have you been serving in Congress? Ten, fifteen, thirty years? And what have you done concerning this issue since then? But you applaud anyway. Trust me, you're not fooling anyone.)

Back to Obama's plan: it's certainly time to reward good and honest work. Personally, I don't think there's any better way of restoring America's sense of integrity following an economic crisis caused by greed, profit-only thinking, and straight selfish activity, than a program which rewards the exact opposite. Plus, it'll likely reward the volunteer (if Obama was truthful during the speech) in the area of education by offering a tax credit or some other economic aid for higher learning.

Sometimes, although I don't like to admit that I ever give any politician a free pass or quick once over when scrutinizing his or her's intentions, it really does feel good to breathe a sigh of relief, sit back and marvel that Obama is truly serious about this program.

I would also hope that the overall popularity of this program (I have yet to see a poll on the topic but can't imagine it not being overwhelmingly popular) makes Rudy Giuliani and those at the Republican convention blush.

After all, it wasn't that long ago that the former New York Mayor made a "joke" about Obama being a community organizer. While on the surface, Giuliani was only calling Obama's resume thin at best, deep down - when combined with the historical context of the Republican party -the joke was much more than a simple jab. It was a "dis" towards honest work, helping those less fortunate, and the idea that a non-"me first" attitude is unuseful at best - a failure at worst.

Let's hope that rewarding volunteers leads our country into a new direction - a future where a jab like Giuliani's not only isn't funny (which is wasn't) but impossible. After all, in a society that helps each other and looks for other values other than money, the jab loses all context and is irrelevant. This program is a good start.

It's Tough to Be Jindal - Tougher to Be the GOP

My first thought watching Bobby Jindal's "reaction" speech tonight:

"Oh man, there's a teleprompter.....yea he's screwed."

My second: "Man, this is boring,"

"What were they thinking?" should have been my third but I'd already changed the channel.

OK listen, I get it. Throw Jindal out there, let'em give a speech, make it look Presidential and try to steal some of Obama's thunder. Give conservatives some hope!

But like so many Republican ideologies, tonight's tactic fell flat because it's outdated and ignores recent history. Remember Inauguration Day and what you were doing ten minutes after Obama's speech? Were you on the phone? Washing the dishes? Getting back to work? Writing a blog?

Who knows what you were doing? But I'll tell you what you were definitely not doing ..... watching the TV, marveling in the next speaker.

You know why? Because it wasn't gonna be Obama. And by some transitive property, that meant whoever was next was gonna suck (sorry poem lady). But honestly, it's the truth. And this isn't anything new.

It's why they put the crappy musicians in the opening set of a concert. Because there ain't no way in hell anyone's gonna sit around and watch if they come after the main event. They aren't as good and no one's pretending that they might be. It won't matter if they play the best concert of their life - compared to the popular and, well, better band, they suck. It seems like the GOP forgot to include this in their Jindal thinking.

But it gets worse....

To stick with the above example:

The Republican party basically slotted their relatively unknown artist in Jindal AFTER a multi-platinum selling, girls screaming in the aisles, Van Halen popular in the 1980's artist in Obama. AND, if that wasn't daunting enough, encouraged him to play the exact freakin' song that got him boo-ed off stage last week and dumped by his girlfriend after she realized he sucks as a musician and won't make it (read: the 2008 election).

I mean, how'd anyone think it was gonna work? What would be the best case scenario for Jindal? Assuming people were in the mood for another speech (which they knew wasn't gonna be as good) and assuming people forgot how empty and pathetic the Republican rhetoric has sounded in the past (which I'm not convinced they are) AND assuming that people would not heavily compare Obama's and Jindal's speech giving abilities and immediately become disinterested (come on, he was using a teleprompter!), wouldn't the best case scenario be something along the lines of: "Hmm, Jindal wasn't bad actually."

Is that the highest Republicans can shoot for these days?

Here's Hoping History Remembers

As the stimulus package passed through Congress this week, I couldn't help but think of the strong and stubborn Republican opposition to the bill. And as the bill was finally signed into law, I also couldn't help thinking: "I hope history remembers."

Mired in a deep economic recession, we find ourselves approaching a cliff, running full speed ahead. But that isn't our only concern - the world is still unsettled over key environmental regulations to curb global warming; our educational facilities are outdated, impairing America in this ever accelerating globalization race; the disastrous and immoral battle to insure millions of Americans; and the dangerous affairs in the Middle East, which aren't ending anytime soon. In other words, we've got some serious work to do.

And so "if", and it's a big "if", we're able to stomach all the massive problems on our dinner plate - we revive a broken economy, spawn a new "Green Revolution", reboot our entire education system to compete in a globalized world, unravel miles of red tape and lobbyist power grabs on the health care industry and solve ethnic and economic problems spanning decades (even centuries) - let history remember who guided the country to better times. More importantly, let's remember who stood in the way.

Remember when you were younger and learned about FDR, the New Deal, and the way all of America pulled together to starve off....well...starvation? Guess what? Some people (cough, cough) stood in the way of that legislation too. In fact, Republicans held such a grudge that the New Deal was passed, they continued to shout it from the hallways of Congress through the decades that followed, making it a party mission to undo most of Roosevelt's contributions. And they have certainly come close to succeeding.

Make no mistake - the unraveling of the New Deal programs and regulations done by Republicans and pushed forward by conservative think tanks has directly led to the current situation. But some are still out on news programs, echoing empty Republican mantras, some even claiming the New Deal was a failure. They yell "tax cuts" without historical perspectives - that tax cuts helped us dig ourselves even deeper into this economic mess.

So if fate allows it and sensible people win out in this partisan struggle (yes, all politicians only look to get re-elected but at least the Democrats are listening to economists and academics while trying to do so), and this country overcomes one of the most dramatic and dangerous time periods in American history, let's not lump everyone into the "hero" column. Instead, we should teach our kids what really happened, who stood for what and how the situation became so grave. Hopefully, we'll get the opportunity.

At Least Bush Didn't Pretend....

So it seems this is the way the Obama administration is going to play the economic issues.....

Step 1: Obama and administration take a populist stance on controversial issue

Step 2: Political supporters applaud and thank the heavens Bush isn't in office any longer

Step 3 : Obama team enacts legislation but leaves wiggle room to change mind

Step 4: Noam Chomsky laughs at political supporters

Step 5: Obama team reverses hard stance

So it goes with executive pay. News is being circulated that the Obama administration is looking for ways around limiting executive pay, even after the stimulus package has been signed into law. Obama's team wanted to only limit bonuses to banks that receive "exceptional assistance" from the government. The Democrats wanted (and got) limits on any banks that receive bailout money. Guess who's got the last say?

Obama = Robitussin?

I popped on CNN this morning and I happened to catch a segment asking whether President Obama has been in the public eye too much lately. He's been giving non-stop interviews on all the major networks, not to mention interviews for cable networks and tabloid magazines.

Besides laughing at the ridiculous irony of creating a news segment around whether someone has had too much exposure (and thereby giving him even more exposure), I began to think - "Am I getting sick of hearing about President Obama?"

Before the election, I'll admit, I couldn't get enough of the guy. I always watched him on TV, reveled in his campaign stops on Youtube, and even set a picture of him as my computer desktop background (Ok, the background only lasted for two days - by the second day I realized the creepiness of having a man stare at you while doing work. I opted for the Playboy pin-up instead).

But I'll admit, I'm getting a little tired of hearing about the guy. Now don't get me wrong - it's not his fault. I still respect the man, and hope he succeeds tremendously, and I'm still beyond excited that he's our President (still waiting for the first basketball game in the White House leaked to Youtube...). The media's been in overdrive with Obama and I'm beginning to worry about the over-saturation.

In fact, all I keep thinking about is Robitussin. As everybody knows, Robitussin cough syrup is easily one of the top 5 medicines of all time (# 1, of course, is Triaminic orange flavor - even with the recall scare). And one time when I had a little cough, I decided, since I loved it so much, I'd take a little bit extra Robitussin - Mom, of course wasn't watching. So, instead of filling the plastic cup half way, I pushed it to the max, pouring that delicious red liquid straight to the rim. Then I took it vertical.

The delight lasted about ten seconds, after which I ran to the bathroom and threw it all up. Gross, of course, but a valuable lesson as well. Too much Robitussin was a bad thing. I still love it in the correct dosage, but when I pour that red sweet nectar, I'm not going over the two teaspoon rule.

Same goes for Obama. Give me all the State of the Union's I can handle. Ditto for special emergencies. I think his new Internet videos have a retro-Rooseveltian touch. Nice. There's my two teaspoons.

But scrap the Matt Lauer's and the US Weekly's and even the Anderson Cooper's. The Obama team might deem them PR necessary for all the legislation about to be passed, but my "Obama Robitussin's" about to overflow. I've already cleaned the bathroom floors once and I'm not doing it again. Even for Obama.

Top Chef Season 5 - "Super"-ly Suspicious

The conspiracy theories have to be flying after tonight's episode.

Jeff, after a "Super-Bowl themed competition", was sent with his knives packin' back down to the Miami.

And here's why this bugs me.....

Do I think Jeff would eventually win? Certainly not - Jeff is a solid chef but he was too inconsistent and combined too many elements into dishes that didn't need to be complicated. But no way did he deserve to go home tonight. And tonight is all that matters.

Fabio, for starters, performed the cardinal sin of Top Chef - overcooking meat. Chefs have been sent to the chopping block time after time and usually eliminated when they overcook meat - especially when Tom, who has a particularly sore spot for "meats-cooked-poorly", called Fabio out on the spot for his error. Then, he tried to defend his poor cooking with eradicate and hard-to-believe reasons. The European looked set to go home.

After winning 5 straight challenges, Stefan and his arrogant yet brilliant cooking style found himself on the block as well. His dish was actually received the worst out of all of the contestants in the competition. This should have been enough to force Stefan home. After all, if we've heard one phrase repeated over and over again from the judges, it is the following: "The past means nothing. It is what you have done for me lately that matters." And certainly, Stefan's disappointing dish (you could see the blandness radiating off of his small portion dish) should have set the enigmatic chef home.

Now, in no means was Jeff's dish excellent. But the judge's appeared split on their decision at the actual tasting, much more than we can say about the judge's reactions to Fabio's and Stefan's respective dishes.

Was Jeff voted off because his cooking was the worst? Or, was Jeff sent packing because sending Fabio or Stefan home would kill off funny, interesting, controversial and television-sexy characters? Let the conspiracy theories begin......

Stewart Falls Flat

The other night on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, former President Jimmy Carter appeared on the talk show as the featured guest. The former President and Stewart discussed Carter's new book "We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land," and the conversation dove into the on-going Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the possible scenarios for a resolution.

The conversation between the two men was not only disappointing but very unintelligent as well.

For starters, Stewart appeared to serve "political batting practice" to Carter, offering light and overtly simplistic questions - a shame considering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of major importance and in need of necessary overdue debate.

Case in point: Stewart, asking whether it would be necessary for an Arab with "street-cred" to step up to the plate and rally people around the cause of peace, walked right into Carter's seemingly crowd pleasing but intellectually-light response. Said Carter: "We've got now a man that can bring peace to the Middle East...Barack Obama." Of course, to suggest that the election of an American man can bring about peace in a section of the world ripped apart by death, war and destruction is overly simplistic and misleading. But it's also another thing to suggest that Obama can bring peace when his campaign rhetoric suggested nothing of the sort - in fact, his rhetoric towards Israel has mirrored Presidents before him (and peace hasn't exactly soared in the Middle East these last few decades).

But the triviality of the conversation didn't end there. Stewart asked Carter why it was important for the United States to lead in the peace efforts. Perhaps if Stewart had inquired with any vigor, his answer would have been self-evident. But, alas, there is the mention of the United States' annual economic and military aid to Israel; nor is there any mention of previously failed peace agreements; nor is there a discussion on the United States' role in the peace process both now and in recent decades.

Instead, Carter, sounding ever like a politician, described a dire situation where, without a strong US influence and US pressure, the ultimate goal of peace may never be reached.

Again, to agree or disagree with Carter's statement or any other foreign policy decision is important, but another point entirely. My point is that Stewart's inquiries into the situation did little to inform the public, mirroring his exact complaints against his media counterparts. The fact that the Israel-Palestinian conflict gets such little actual debate on other media networks makes Stewart's lost opportunity only more disappointing. It is even worse to consider that Stewart's entertainment niche is (correctly) identifying media obsession with the trivial, and the damaging effects it can have on a public in need of relevant information.

Hopefully, Stewart devises a montage mocking his own interview with President Carter for an opening act this week. Because that was all this conversation was good for.