presidential debate

tonight was the first of three presidential debates for the election in november. for a transcript of the debate if you missed it, or want to read it to better understand the candidates position, can be found at cnn.com and probably will be complete by the end of the night.
jim lehrer from pbs' newshour, was the moderator. the rules for the debate were laid out in a 32 page booklet written by the commission for presidential debates. but, lehrer wrote the questions and had the ability to administer discretionary "follow-up" time.
it's only fair going into this, to say that i'm not a fan of bush, and am one of millions of americans that feel the 2000 elections were stolen, so that he could be president. (you think i'm kidding about the number? check out thestolenelection.com, democrats.com, or citizen's for legitimate government.) with that said, i can't say that i was initially a supporter of kerry, either. i fall pretty much in the middle of the "anybody but bush" camp.
jim lehrer came out in a black suit with a red power tie. everything about his look said that he was in charge, and the way the debate played out left no questions that he was. he explained the rules to the audience and was clear to point out that he had nothing to do with deciding the format, but no one told him which questions to ask. but, i was just thinking about his tie. i expected both candidates to have a take charge look.
i'm not sure if bush and kerry were supposed to enter at the same time, but the president was out about 15 or 20 seconds before the senator. both were in dark suits. both wore conservative ties. kerry's tie was a dark red affair, at first i thought it was maroon, which would have been a mistake (too odd a color for a presidential debate), but once he got to the podium, you could see that it was clearly dark red. bush's tie was a medium to medium-dark blue that would have been perfect except that it had small dots or designs of a lighter color that didn't come across very well on television, and i was distracted the first couple of times the camera was on him. i don't blame him for this minor guffaw, this was something his staff should have taken care of.
i won't bore you or myself by rehashing the whole debate. i just have observations to make. so much to-do has been made about this debate "making or breaking" the campaign, that i was more interested in the debate than in the content of the debate.
both candidates used their hands well in the initial questions. by the last 30 minutes, however, bush was doing something i've seen him use time and time again; he would occasionally lean on the podium, trying to be folksy, but in my opinion coming across as arrogant- saying with body language, "i am so cocky that i don't need to stand up straight and show the respect that other men and women need to."
this podium-leaning wasn't as decisive to me as to when the camera showed the candidate not speaking. each time senator kerry was shown while president bush was speaking, kerry was either jotting down notes or attentively listening. president bush, on the other hand, spent the first half hour stareing straight ahead.
as to the actual speaking, i thought both men did a good job. in fact, i think they both did better than their respective reputations would have lead us to expect. kerry did not come across as the stuffed-shirt intelectual, and bush did not come across an idiot.
lehrer had announced at the beginning that he may allow discretionary time, and bush was really the only one to utilize it. after the second time, he didn't wait for lehrer to give him a go ahead if he wanted to say more, he just took it. while some might point this out as an annoying trait, i would disagree. the president probably got close to four or five minutes more "allowed" speaking time than his opponent. plus, it allowed him to look like he was in control of the debate, not lerher and certainly not kerry.
content-wise, the only thing that i thought worth mentioning, because it's the first time i've heard the candidate do this, was kerry's use of colin powell against the bush. on two occasions, kerry said that powell was doing the right thing and then bush did a reversal, making matters worse. instead of denying that he was contradicting his secratary of state, all the president did was say at a point late in the debate, "on this colin and i agreed".
my final conclusion is that there wasn't really a winner. the president didn't win. the senator didn't win. and if we are to believe nbc news, undecided voters didn't win (there panel of six undecided voters before the debate, was a panel of six undecided voters after the debate). but, nobody lost either. it's too bad that there are only going to be three debates. the country needs more head-to-head discussion on important topics not less.
i thought bush did surprisingly well, but i thought that kerry came across as very firm and stayed on message the whole time. this election is a lot closer than i wish it were.

team america: world police

i just saw the trailer for the newest movie by south park creators, matt stone and trey parker, team america: world police. my initial reactions are mixed. i think these two can be hilarious at their best, yet i have a preternatural dislike, almost fear, of marionette style puppets that look this way- like the old british kids show, thunderbirds.
every once in a while, you've got to watch some comedy that appeals to your more basic, pre-teen self. i can't think of anyone who does fart and poop jokes better than these two. stone and parker do voices in the movie, and to be honest, some of the puppets look like them. (or is it that they look like scary marionettes?) the film pokes fun at the united states and our foreign policies. the current administration is of course the main target of their lampooning. but, i suspect that the satire is really aimed at the country as a whole. i mean, how hundreds of millions of dollars have the rambo movies made? or how about schwarzenegger's commando? americans love to see this type of film. not to mention, there is a scene that shows a puppet version of michael moore getting blown up.
now, the whole fear of marionettes thing- it's a little embarassing. when i was a child, did i have nightmares after seeing friday the 13th or poltergeist? no. it was after i watched thunderbirds for the first time. fast forward 20 years, and while i might not have bad dreams about them any more, these marionettes just make me feel uncomfortable.

oregon again

i have finally escaped the land of the mosquito and returned to the land of the duck; traded snow for rain; and the great lakes for the pacific ocean.
moving from minnesota to oregon, is like coming home from a long summer camp. i had fun, but i'm glad to be back.

good friday

"how do vegetarians celebrate easter?" i'm not a vegetarian. my girlfriend is. for as close as people at my work have ever come to a vegetarian, you might as well substitute 'lesbian', 'communist' or 'shiite'. the people i work with live in and around the twin cities in minnesota. most of them group ni the area or in a foreign country. if you've ever heard garrison kieller's prairie home companion, these are the people he's making fun of, not the people sitting in the audience laughing at his drole sense of humor.
the asker of the question is a 57 year old woman who describes herself as either from new orleans or chicago depending on how you ask her, but she's lived in minnesota longer than i've been alive. her educational background ranges from dropping out of high school and getting her g.e.d. to completing two years of college, from which she left because in her mind higher education had nothing left to offer her. her children are grown and have families of thier own. and, when she's not complaining about work, she talks constantly about shopping, reality television or bowling, sometimes in such a way that i can't quite tell which.
for the last couple of hours, she and some of the other women in my area have been discussing what they are going to eat on easter and whether or not they are going to be the ones preparing the meal. all of the younger gals are cooking, all of the older gals are going to eat meals prepared by thier daughters or daughter's in law. they never ask me, probably because i'm a guy, but maybe because they suspect that i am a better cook than they are, which from the conversations i've overheard, i most likely am.
i take only a second or two in formulating my answer. i don't consider myself christian, and not having kids don't buy into the commercial side of easter either. but, still i manage to answer with a straight face, "they get all dressed-up and go to church just like everybody else. then, when the service is over, they go looking for easter eggs."

caucus 2004

i just participated in my first political caucus this evening. wow! it was pretty darn cool. let me explain- i am from a state that utilizes the primary system, so the notion of "grassroots" politics has always been just that, a notion. i'd participated in and with political groups in college and for a couple of years after college. they were movements, but not grassroots as they were lacking the sense of community necessary for something to be grassroots.

tonight, it was literally exciting to go into the room for my precinct and see it filled to the brim with my neighbors. sure, i only recognized a couple of folks, but the idea that people had turned off the television for one evening to come down to the school where the caucus was held, is beautiful. and, that so many of the people were young people was nice to see.

so, my candidate didn't win in my precinct. turns out it didn't matter, since he had all but conceded the race as the caucus was starting unbeknownst to all of us...the important thing is people were talking and laughing and meeting and shaking hands and discussing. we chose delegates and alternatives for various upcoming comventions. i just kept thinking the whole time- these people are going to vote in november.