The good news is, it looks like I'll be moving back to Paris as soon as I can find a room there. And yes, that really is good news. I have missed that town.
The bad news is, the reason why I'm moving back is that I have to take care of yet another wrinkle in my coursework that will require all my attention until halfway through April. While I will probably have some free time between now and then, I don't want this space to turn into a self-pitying fest like I know it can sometimes. Let's face it, there's no nice way of saying "the past six months have handed me one disaster after another and every time I think I see a light at the end of the tunnel things somehow get even worse." But that is pretty much the way it is, and there's no chance of that changing before April. I've always believed things do get better if you never give up, but I have come to question that lately. I'm sure my friends don't want to hear that again and again over the next two months, and I don't want to be the one to say it either.
Thanks, everyone, for your companionship and such. If I make it through this latest challenge (yes, if I make it through), I look forward to sharing happier times.
See you in April.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
My take on NH, and do I have one?
I don't know what to make of the unexpected results any more than anybody else does. My favorite theory so far is that the spike in support for Clinton was a backlash against the predictably sexist clucking from the media about her not-quite-crying jag. I hope that's the case, anyway, I really do. She's still not my first choice (Edwards is, but I don't think he'll be in the running much longer), but the catty media coverage she's been getting is just disgusting. Speaking of which, I don't buy into the argument that the Dems shouldn't nominate her because she'll attract so much venom from the Republicans and some parts of the media. That will be true of whomever gets the nomination. If anything, it makes me more uncomfortable to think any of the other Dems might think they're not in for the same treatment.
On the Republican side, I'm a bit less surprised - but just a bit. I'll give McCain credit where it's due for an impressive comeback, but it's interesting how we're still seeing the most support for those who are least popular within the party. The talking heads on CNN have been saying the religious right will still sink McCain like they did in 2000, and I think that's probably right. I'm not going to go into which Republican I hope gets the nomination, to the extent that I even have any preference. I keep thinking of that old cliche about how the Democrats couldn't wait to run against Reagan and the Republicans were thrilled at the chance to run against Bill Clinton.
On a more personal note...nothing has really changed. Just about everything is still up in the air. A sixteen-month MBA seemed like such a great idea, and it does have its benefits, but at this point I wouldn't mind having a class or two to keep me busy while I wait for the job applications to be sorted out!
On the Republican side, I'm a bit less surprised - but just a bit. I'll give McCain credit where it's due for an impressive comeback, but it's interesting how we're still seeing the most support for those who are least popular within the party. The talking heads on CNN have been saying the religious right will still sink McCain like they did in 2000, and I think that's probably right. I'm not going to go into which Republican I hope gets the nomination, to the extent that I even have any preference. I keep thinking of that old cliche about how the Democrats couldn't wait to run against Reagan and the Republicans were thrilled at the chance to run against Bill Clinton.
On a more personal note...nothing has really changed. Just about everything is still up in the air. A sixteen-month MBA seemed like such a great idea, and it does have its benefits, but at this point I wouldn't mind having a class or two to keep me busy while I wait for the job applications to be sorted out!
Monday, January 7, 2008
But the life and the telling are both real to me...
I'm selling my memoirs,
I'm writing it down
If no one will pay me
I'll burn down the town!
-Procol Harum, "A Rum Tale"
As you can see on the right, the oldest of the archives are back. I also have all the posts from the first part of 2007 saved, and will be adding those later on. Regrettably, most of the entries from 2005 and 2006 are lost, but I do have a few I saved, which I'll also add in whenever I get around to it. Really, the oldest and the newest are the best anyway.
I must admit, it was rather bittersweet to read some of those old entries, particularly the ones about John Kerry's chances in the election and about Trina's arrival in Taiwan. (I haven't kept in touch with her, but we did part as friends more or less. Still...) But it's all part of the story, and now it's there for my newer readers who might have missed it the first time around.
Also, since I've been known to wax nostalgiac about the big move to Taiwan, and since I haven't really stopped moving since then, and since that's what the blog started out to be all about, I've added a rather lengthy collection of memories from the big trip. I wrote it about two years ago in Denver (i.e. about two years after the events actually happened), but I've filed them under February 2004 for the sake of simplicity. Hope you like it, but be warned, it's long!
Friday, January 4, 2008
Iowa
So the caucuses have finally come and gone, conveniently while I was asleep thanks to the time difference. Seeing all the clips on CNN really takes me back. I was especially pleased to see the various reps from the Iowa Democratic Party who were interviewed. Not a single familiar face, and that's a good thing. I worked for the IDP a few lifetimes ago and the entire operation was an absolute disgrace. There's a reason why the Republicans won almost everything in the state throughout the '90s. Be that as it may, I do love being on the ground in the thick of a campaign, and I miss that life somewhat. Not much, but a bit. Seeing all the excitement was a nice reminder.
And the results?
First, I'm glad to hear Dodd is dropping out and going back to DC to continue the fight on FISA. Word on the blogosphere has been that the leadership of both parties expected him to stop "grandstanding" on the whole thing once the wheels came off his campaign, but he at least says that's not going to happen. Here's hoping he sticks to that.
Second, I'm very pleased with Edwards' second-place finish, even if it's completely symbolic. Clinton actually won one more pledged delegate than he did, but that's really not what matters. Perhaps it should be, but it isn't. What does matter is that he beat expectations, and in absolute numbers he also beat Clinton. So he gets a ticket to New Hampshire that it was looking an awful lot like he might not get. It'll be interesting to see if the big three all do well enough there to stay in. I'm still thinking it'll be a two person race after next week - but it's not yet.
Third, I have to admire Richardson's spirit, claiming he made the top tier by grabbing fourth place. That's one pleasant way of rephrasing "I got 2% and no delegates," I concede. I wonder if he'll hang in there through the convention with that attitude; somebody usually does in one party or the other.
Fourth, while you know where my sympathies lie, the Republicans had the more fascinating contest this time. I had a feeling all the talk about McCain's big comeback was just cheerleading from his friends in the media, and it looks like that's just what it was. He almost beat Thompson, which would be impressive if not for the fact that Thompson has tossed out every clue imaginable that he doesn't really care about running at all. It's got to hurt to run that hard for that long and then lose - even if it is just by 200 votes - to a guy who doesn't even want the job.
Fifth, I'm also surprised but, to put it bluntly, pleased to see the two most controversial candidates come out on top. Huckabee and Romney have been getting more bad press from fellow Republicans than from Democrats lately...so of course they get almost 60% of the caucus votes together! Unbelievable.
Sixth, while I'm tremendously relieved to see Giuliani go down in flames (oops, I guess it's in bad taste to use that phrase about a guy who's been running on being the Mayor Of 9/11), I'm very surprised too. I really thought that whole stern father figure motif would go over better with the party that lionized Reagan. But then, he's pro-choice and pro-gay rights, which means a lot of wingnuts will chortle about the diversity of the field relative to the Democrats but then vote en masse against him. While Iowa is a fairly purple state, its Republicans are very conservative socially. I thought that might sink Saint Rudy.
Final thoughts...I would really love to see a Romney vs. Clinton race in the fall. Neither is my first choice for their respective nominations, of course. I don't really have a favorite on the Republican side, but if I had to choose one, well, they're not all as slimy as Romney is. As for Clinton, I probably would support her if she really were as left-wing as the right likes to pretend, but that's not even close to the truth. So why would I like to see them go head to head? Because of the past fifteen years of screaming about how Clinton lacks any convictions and cares only about getting power. Of course I don't think too many Republicans really believe that about her. I think it's just something they settled on after Whitewater and the Vince Foster issue proved not to hold any water, and they woke up to the fact that "she's a b***h" would serve only to alienate suburban Republican women without gaining any votes they didn't already have. But that's beside the point. They've been howling about her lack of convictions for all this time, so I'd love to see how they'd react to having a nominee of whom anybody can see that really is the case - not to mention that he's from a state many hardcore Republicans don't even think is really part of the USA*.
Think about it - it would be almost like if they ranted for eight years about Bill Clinton being a draft-dodger, dishonest businessman, playboy, etc...and then nominated a guy who really was all those things. How do you think they'd have reacted if that happened?! The inconsistency would probably make their heads explode, don't you think?
Oh, wait a minute...never mind.
*I've run into that attitude occasionally over here, too. When a group of Europeans asks what state I'm from and I say New Hampshire, typically they don't all know where that is. One of them will then explain that "it's one of those little states up in the corner that aren't really American." But then, since they're French, they probably mean it as a compliment.
And the results?
First, I'm glad to hear Dodd is dropping out and going back to DC to continue the fight on FISA. Word on the blogosphere has been that the leadership of both parties expected him to stop "grandstanding" on the whole thing once the wheels came off his campaign, but he at least says that's not going to happen. Here's hoping he sticks to that.
Second, I'm very pleased with Edwards' second-place finish, even if it's completely symbolic. Clinton actually won one more pledged delegate than he did, but that's really not what matters. Perhaps it should be, but it isn't. What does matter is that he beat expectations, and in absolute numbers he also beat Clinton. So he gets a ticket to New Hampshire that it was looking an awful lot like he might not get. It'll be interesting to see if the big three all do well enough there to stay in. I'm still thinking it'll be a two person race after next week - but it's not yet.
Third, I have to admire Richardson's spirit, claiming he made the top tier by grabbing fourth place. That's one pleasant way of rephrasing "I got 2% and no delegates," I concede. I wonder if he'll hang in there through the convention with that attitude; somebody usually does in one party or the other.
Fourth, while you know where my sympathies lie, the Republicans had the more fascinating contest this time. I had a feeling all the talk about McCain's big comeback was just cheerleading from his friends in the media, and it looks like that's just what it was. He almost beat Thompson, which would be impressive if not for the fact that Thompson has tossed out every clue imaginable that he doesn't really care about running at all. It's got to hurt to run that hard for that long and then lose - even if it is just by 200 votes - to a guy who doesn't even want the job.
Fifth, I'm also surprised but, to put it bluntly, pleased to see the two most controversial candidates come out on top. Huckabee and Romney have been getting more bad press from fellow Republicans than from Democrats lately...so of course they get almost 60% of the caucus votes together! Unbelievable.
Sixth, while I'm tremendously relieved to see Giuliani go down in flames (oops, I guess it's in bad taste to use that phrase about a guy who's been running on being the Mayor Of 9/11), I'm very surprised too. I really thought that whole stern father figure motif would go over better with the party that lionized Reagan. But then, he's pro-choice and pro-gay rights, which means a lot of wingnuts will chortle about the diversity of the field relative to the Democrats but then vote en masse against him. While Iowa is a fairly purple state, its Republicans are very conservative socially. I thought that might sink Saint Rudy.
Final thoughts...I would really love to see a Romney vs. Clinton race in the fall. Neither is my first choice for their respective nominations, of course. I don't really have a favorite on the Republican side, but if I had to choose one, well, they're not all as slimy as Romney is. As for Clinton, I probably would support her if she really were as left-wing as the right likes to pretend, but that's not even close to the truth. So why would I like to see them go head to head? Because of the past fifteen years of screaming about how Clinton lacks any convictions and cares only about getting power. Of course I don't think too many Republicans really believe that about her. I think it's just something they settled on after Whitewater and the Vince Foster issue proved not to hold any water, and they woke up to the fact that "she's a b***h" would serve only to alienate suburban Republican women without gaining any votes they didn't already have. But that's beside the point. They've been howling about her lack of convictions for all this time, so I'd love to see how they'd react to having a nominee of whom anybody can see that really is the case - not to mention that he's from a state many hardcore Republicans don't even think is really part of the USA*.
Think about it - it would be almost like if they ranted for eight years about Bill Clinton being a draft-dodger, dishonest businessman, playboy, etc...and then nominated a guy who really was all those things. How do you think they'd have reacted if that happened?! The inconsistency would probably make their heads explode, don't you think?
Oh, wait a minute...never mind.
*I've run into that attitude occasionally over here, too. When a group of Europeans asks what state I'm from and I say New Hampshire, typically they don't all know where that is. One of them will then explain that "it's one of those little states up in the corner that aren't really American." But then, since they're French, they probably mean it as a compliment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
