tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-201521642024-03-07T01:15:29.432-08:00Lost in San FranciscoMPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.comBlogger353125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-18671884259969882182008-02-18T14:18:00.000-08:002008-02-18T14:20:26.100-08:00MovingNo offense to blogger, but I wanted a new look for my blog and I'm going to head over to WordPress for a bit. I've already ported the contents of this site over there, so you can read my going forward at my new address:<br /><a href="http://michaelppreston.wordpress.com">michaelppreston.wordpress.com</a><br /><br />Thanks for reading!MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-3416839698082413162008-02-06T08:28:00.001-08:002008-02-06T08:30:20.346-08:00Fret NotTwo good takes on last night. Below some excerpts. First up, <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/177259.php">Josh Marshall</a>:<br /><blockquote>But I think all these competing scenarios make one point clear. The only arguments for one side or the other being a winner here come down to airy and finally meaningless arguments about expectations. And the result tells a different tale. It's about delegates. It's dead even. You've got two well-funded candidates who've demonstrated an ability to power back from defeats. And neither is going anywhere.<br /><br />The flip side of the proportional representation in delegates is that not only does it allow a challenger like Obama not to get put away early, it also makes it difficult to put away an opponent late. The conventional wisdom is that Obama will do well in this weekend's and next Tuesday's contests. But if he does, proportionality will reign there too. It's hard to see where this doesn't go all the way to the convention. </blockquote><br /><br />And <a href="http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=9626">John Cole</a>:<br /><blockquote>Obama won more states, won more delegates, improved his numbers with key groups, widened his lead among minority voters, and over-all, outperformed Hillary. Period. The fact that the Clinton established machine has not been able to pull ahead should be a real clear sign of how much trouble they are in right now. This race was Hillary’s to lose, and last night she may have started doing just that. You will hear the Clinton camp talking repeatedly about winning the big prize- California. Winning California is irrelevant, as a Democrat is going to win Cali in the general regardless who it is.<br /><br />Obama now has a clear financial lead, momentum, and the delegate lead, and we are heading in to a number of states where he can compete. I am not drinking the kool-aid, folks, I think I have a pretty clear grasp of where we are right now. Obama is surging and the Hillary camp is worried. You will be able to see it in their faces over the next few days.</blockquote>MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-91575073426527311042008-02-05T22:12:00.000-08:002008-02-05T22:18:09.787-08:00Standoff<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper937/stills/43219f2b5f57d-49-1.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px;" src="http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper937/stills/43219f2b5f57d-49-1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />Regardless of the spin that comes out of the campaigns tomorrow, Super Tuesday, at least for the Democrats, was a draw. Yes, Clinton got the big ones (NY, CA, and, in a sharp rebuke of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, Mass), but Obama got crushing wins in all parts of the country, stole a state in Clinton's back yard (Conn.) and scored a come from behind win in Missouri.<br /><br />This thing is going to keep going for awhile. I had a bad feeling when the early numbers started rolling in, but things didn't get out of hand. With some states coming up for Obama that look good, I think he's got to be happy with tonight's results.<br /><br />On the Republican side...can we call it already? McCain is going to be the nominee. He got big wins in NY, CA, and Missouri and Mike Huckabee cut Mitt Romney's legs out from under him.MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-7487278787350940582008-02-04T19:04:00.000-08:002008-02-04T19:23:08.663-08:00Super TuesdayIt's like Christmas Eve for political junkies. 22 states go to the polls tomorrow on a day that might end with the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees basically decided. Since my preferred candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, is still behind Sen. Hillary Clinton in <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/176989.php">most of the polling</a>, I am just hoping for the equivalent of a draw tomorrow. Clinton's vast name recognition, her long standing in Democratic politics, her formidable campaign machine and, yes, Bill, have helped her maintain a strong lead in most of the big states voting tomorrow (the biggest prizes being California and her home state of New York). Obama has been riding a huge wave that started last weekend with the Kennedy family endorsements, and continued into this week with endorsements from the <span style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-dem3feb02,0,3530861.story">Los Angeles Times</a></span> and <span style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003705966">La Opinion</a></span>, an influential Latino newspaper. The Obama family was all over California with a star-studded this past weekend, as John Kerry and Ted Kennedy rallied in Nor Cal while <a href="http://www.knx1070.com/Maria-Shriver-Endorses-Obama/1587784">Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Caroline Kennedy, and Maria Shriver spread the message in Southern California.</a> There was <a href="http://www.dipdive.com/">this viral ad</a> that is still burning up the interwebs. And if visible canvassing the day before an election means anything, I saw LOTS of Obama folks out after work today in Palo Alto and back in San Francisco. <br /><br />And yet I fear it's all too little, too late. If Obama comes out of the day down by 100 delegates or less, I'd consider it a victory. But the polls have been off so much so far and I think the closing of the gap might prove to be an illusion. We'll see. I would hate to see the dream fade tomorrow, but I'm worried.MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-72306107270080348662008-01-29T21:59:00.000-08:002008-01-30T08:17:52.099-08:00Back From NowhereLoyal (all three) readers...here, an update!<br /><br />Journalism grad school applications: They're done! In the end, I applied to Berkeley, City University of New York, Columbia, Texas and Medill (Northwestern). I suspect that I'll start to get "yea" or "nay" letters in late March/early April. As I've said throughout the process, I've got no expectations about what will happen here; I could end up being rejected by all five (or six if I apply to either American or Maryland) or I could get into all of them (not bloody likely), or I could end up getting into one or two and then end up with a decision to make. All that is down the road, though, so, as this point, I'm just glad I actually went through the process. I should also thank the wonderful and beautiful REF (and her dad), Rubes, a certain Miami Hurricane and mom (hi mom!) for proofing the many versions of my admissions essays and for their support and advice.<br /><br />Professionally: Things are in a (mostly) positive state of flux. Due to some personnel shifts, starting in early February, I'll be the acting Alumni Relations Officer handling Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington D.C. It's going to be quite the boost to my work load, but it should give me some great opportunity for growth. Faculty speaker events in Boston and Washington, D.C. are on the agenda for the spring, so some travel might be on the docket.<br /><br />Politically: Can I just say fuck it and get it over with? I've grown increasingly disappointed with the race to the bottom that the Democratic primary has become. Like a great many people, I'm quite enamored with Barack Obama's campaign, but I am worried. The last few weeks have been, in a word, dispiriting. The increasingly nasty racial attacks being hurled at Obama by Clinton surrogates, the twisting of words by the Clinton campaign...it sickens me, doubly because I used to have a pretty deep reservoir of support for Bill and Hillary. I should also say Obama hasn't been completely clean in this, and I am equally disturbed by that.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Update</span>:<br />I started writing this post originally on January 24, and obviously a lot's changed since then. <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/livecoverage/2008/01/democrats_face_off_in_south_ca.html">Obama trounced Clinton in South Carolina last Saturday</a>, and followed up on Sunday by getting a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin">strong endorsement</a> from Caroline Kennedy (JFK's daughter). He kicked this week of with a big coup, securing the <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4204881&page=1">endorsement of liberal icon (and JFK's brother), Ted.</a> The race and gender phase of the campaign seems to have died down, but <a href="http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2008/01/spirit_and_letter_of_the_flori.php"> this kind of dirty pool from the Clinton's</a> isn't going to help should Hillary win the nomination and she is in a position where she has to court Obama's supporters.<br /><br />So, while my mood is much improved from last week, it's still an uphill battle for the Obama campaign. A week from today is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Tuesday">"Super Tuesday"</a>. 22 states will either hold a primary or caucus. Clinton holds sizable leads in delegate rich states (including my adopted home of California) but maybe Obama can ride out the big wave that he's caught. The excitement around his campaign, no, <span style="font-style:italic;">movement</span>, is palpable. Like Buffalo Springfield sang, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJV44YV69z0">"something's happening here"</a>. Or, since I already was heading toward a surfing reference, I'll let the immortal Bodhi say it best:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/O1ud7EnrZHQ&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/O1ud7EnrZHQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object><br /><br />"But look at it Johnny. Look at it! This is a once in a lifetime opportunity, man. Just let me out there, let me get one wave before you take me. One wave".MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-70044273787511238262008-01-08T08:35:00.000-08:002008-01-08T08:36:46.761-08:00How Did Obama Win in Iowa?Contrary to popular belief, independents didn't push him over the top. <a href="http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3121">Liberals did.</a>MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-21261781949620255982008-01-03T23:02:00.000-08:002008-01-03T23:03:11.369-08:00Fired Up! Ready to Go!<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/us/politics/04elect.html?ref=politics">Yes!</a><br /><br /><object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yqoFwZUp5vc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yqoFwZUp5vc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-70640213095340234252008-01-02T09:27:00.000-08:002008-01-02T09:33:17.494-08:00I Reply in Comment SectionsAs has been the way of things lately, he's a <a href="http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011631.php">long post by eriposte</a> at <span style="font-style:italic;">The Left Coaster </span>attacking Barack Obama for "running to the right" of the Democratic field in Iowa.<br /><br />Rather than excerpt the parts of the post I disagreed with, I posted in the comments over there.. Here's what I said:<br /><br /><blockquote>Sigh.<br /><br />I don't even know what to say about this post. I mean, it's been well thought out for sure, but I disagree with virtually all of it.<br /><br />I think that, in Iowa, Obama has to run a little DLC'ish (if by that one means running a centrist campaign) because of the general conservative tilt of the state (if Edwards wins this week, then it will definitely have proven to be the wrong strategy). Since the Democratic front runners are generally close in their stances, one has to distinguish him or herself in some manner, and Edwards has done so by running left and Obama is doing so by running right. However, if you look at Obama's past and voting records to this point, it seems pretty clear that he's a progressive (certainly more so than Hillary and probably more so than Edwards, who has only become a netroots darling since leaving elected office and being freed from the accountability that being a U.S. senator demands).<br /><br />I think what Obama might be able to do in the general is being played out in Iowa; lots of progressives are freting because they think Obama is eager to attack Dems and speak like a Republican. Well, if speaking like a Republican in a conservative state peels some independents and light Republicans into the Democratic party tent, then I think that's a good thing...more people in the tent. It's clear from his background that Obama knows he will get attacked for a variety of things and I think it speaks to the vanity of the lot of the netroots that they think he can't see what's coming. Do the (mostly white progressive bloggers) think that an African-American man (even one with the credentials that Obama has) thinks he's going to have smooth sailing against the Republicans? Please. You might not like him, but the man isn't dumb and he isn't naive. Which, of course, goes to the other things lots of netrooters don't like, which is Obama's rhetoric. He certainly speaks in lofty tones and I generally agree that partisanship is needed to keep people interested in politics...but we also have to recognize that the netroots and the Republican media machine are perhaps not representative of our larger society. There are millions of Americans who, I would bet, have never heard of Atrois or Digby. Those are the Americans for whom politics probably only really matters during a presidential election year and perhaps when they have matters of local import to vote on. Otherwise, politics may not make up a significant portion of their identity. They are, by definition, "loose partisans" and I think Obama is appealing to those people with his "post-partisan" rhetoric. I agree that "High Broderism" sounds hokey (and might be hokey) but if it pulls people into the Democratic Party, let's be hokey then.<br /><br /><br /></blockquote>MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-40534565081579166162008-01-01T23:19:00.000-08:002008-01-01T23:40:45.498-08:00No Country for Old MenSaw it tonight...wow. It's tremendously atmospheric...there are long, silent shots of the dry and dusty Texas landscape, light and shadow are used to great affect, and the sound is haunting.<br /><br />The three leads, Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, and Josh Brolin are all excellent (Bardem's character, Anton Chigurh, an unassuming psychopath with a bad haircut and a love for games of chance, is one of the most scary screen villains in recent times). The movie, for all its darkness, has some genuinely funny moments. The ending will leave some people angry, probably, as there appears to be no real resolution. However, the movie is faithful to the book (and life) in that way; things don't always end cleanly (indeed, the movie's tagline is, "There Are No Clean Getaways"). <br /><br />It certainly won't affirm your faith in humanity, but it is a harrowing and thought provoking meditation on the casual creep of depravity into our society. Definitely a great film and one that will have me checking door locks to make sure they're intact for a long time.MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-37387595511484286272007-12-31T16:09:00.000-08:002007-12-31T16:21:23.113-08:00Count Basie Orchestra & Ledisi at Yoshi's, San FaanciscoQuick take...the band cooked and Ledisi is just an amazing talent. I was familiar with her earlier R & B work, but she worked it out last night. Her phrasing and timing (and scatting) were fantastic and her voice...she blew people away, and rightly so. Her range is fairly large and her clarity is just...wow. I can't wait to see her again in a venue like that. You could also tell she was clearly excited to work with a band like the Basie orchestra (she even had her high school jazz teacher conducting them while she sang)! <br /><br />The acoustics in the concert hall are great, definitely built for jazz. The crowd was petty good...thankfully, people were actually into the music and there was not a lot of talking going on during the performance. <br /><br />Downsides were the seating (packed in too tightly) and the drink service (not attentive). I think our server was either drunk or stoned (or a coke fiend)...she came around right after we got seated and it took her probably 15-20 minutes to bring the drinks out. Next time she came around was with our bill as the last song was about to start (two drink minimum and we only had one). I'll blame that on it being the holidays and the place probably being a tad understaffed. <br /><br />Overall, a great experience and I can't wait to see some more shows there.MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-3920791622977979022007-12-30T18:28:00.001-08:002007-12-30T19:12:33.730-08:00A Weekend of FirstsFriday night: Early evening cocktails at <a href="http://www.sirfrancisdrake.com/sfddini/bar_drake.html">Bar Drake</a>, dinner at <a href="http://www.nopasf.com/">Nopa</a>, post dinner libations at the <a href="http://www.grandcafe-sf.com/">Grand Cafe</a> and the <a href="http://www.beresford.com/beresford/restaurant.htm">White Horse</a>.<br /><br />And, oh yeah...a 15th floor room <a href="http://www.ichotelsgroup.com/h/d/ic/1/en/hotel/sfoha?firstpoint=dcb1&_requestid=618772">at this place</a>.<br /><br />Tonight, my first show at the brand, spanking new <a href="http://sf.yoshis.com/sf/jazzclub">Yoshi's in San Francisco</a>.MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-72100914792985671582007-12-27T22:33:00.000-08:002007-12-27T22:34:42.434-08:00The 50 Most Loathsome Americans - 2007<a href="http://buffalobeast.com/122/50mostloathsome2007.html">Spectacular.</a>MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-67742300048396423922007-12-27T18:24:00.000-08:002007-12-27T18:34:34.765-08:00JunoJust <a href="http://www.foxsearchlight.com/juno/">checked it out</a> at the new (and very cozy) <a href="http://www.sundancecinemas.com/kabuki.html">Sundance Kabuki</a>. Ellen Page is pretty much perfect as the title character. She's hilarious as is the rest of the cast (Jennifer Garner is kind of scary the obsessive/compulsive yuppie adoptive mother). It's a very cute movie with a great low-fi soundtrack.MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-40419233648172766152007-12-26T20:16:00.000-08:002007-12-26T20:18:10.181-08:00Pro Sports & Race in BostonGreat read from <span style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/playing_through_the_pain/page1">Boston Magazine</a></span> about the problems black athletes have experienced while playing in Boston.MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-61616794529860613492007-12-25T23:09:00.000-08:002007-12-25T23:13:27.279-08:00Are You Experienced?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070112/070112_hillary_vmed_7a.widec.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px;" src="http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070112/070112_hillary_vmed_7a.widec.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html?pagewanted=1&ref=todayspaper">Not as much as she'd like you to think she is.</a><br /><br />Again, let's be real. Barack Obama has held elected office longer than Hillary Clinton.MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-43819918300754432162007-12-25T10:41:00.001-08:002007-12-25T10:42:10.857-08:00Merry Christmas!Happy Holidays to everyone out there! Posting will be light between now and mid-January (4 grad school applications due) but enjoy the rest of the holidays and have a fantastic new year!MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-66089855963202986652007-12-19T20:05:00.000-08:002007-12-20T08:34:17.630-08:00Jonathan Alter on Krugman vs. ObamaThis is probably the <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/80882/page/1">single best retort</a> to Krugman's column from yesterday. Alter, who might <a href="http://jonathanalter.com/">know his Roosevelt</a> just a bit better than Krugman, points out that while populism might sound good in the ear, it doesn't win the White House: <br /><blockquote>Krugman is a populist. He writes that if nominated, Obama would win, "but not as big as a candidate who ran on a more populist platform." This is facile and ahistorical. How many 20th Century American presidents have been elected on a populist platform? That would be zero, Paul. You could even include Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000. Instead of exploiting the peace and prosperity of the 1990s, Gore ran on a "people vs. the powerful" message. It never ignited.<br /><br />Krugman says that pundits like me who reject sharp anti-corporate rhetoric and prefer cooperation are "projecting their own desires onto the public." We'll see. But last time I checked, millions of Americans still work for corporations or aspire to do so and bashing them wholesale is a loser politically. It works sometimes in Democratic primaries with a heavy labor vote (though not for Dick Gephardt). But not in general elections. The last two Democrats elected president-Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992-also campaigned during recessions. Both were smart enough to reject populism in favor of a responsive but upbeat message.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Alter goes on to make a pretty obvious point that Krugman continues to blithely dismiss, and that is you simply can't steamroll interests as entrenched and as powerful as the health care and pharmaceutical industries:<br /><blockquote>The Edwards alternative-to simply overrun them-is unrealistic. Even a 1932-style mandate at the ballot box (highly unlikely) wouldn't make them capitulate. Look what happened when New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, elected in 2006 with a huge mandate, tried to "steamroll" a bunch of hacks in Albany. He got his head handed to him.<br /><br />To call Obama "anti-change," as Paul Krugman does, is anti-common sense. Leadership requires a mixture of confrontation and compromise, with room for the losers to save face. "They have to feel the heat to see the light," LBJ liked to say. That heat is best applied up close. In public. Across the big table.</blockquote><br /><br />Well worth the time to read.MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-9029905465185068322007-12-18T21:19:00.000-08:002007-12-19T11:05:16.688-08:00Restaurant Review: 1300 on FillmoreThe lower Fillmore is experiencing something of a renaissance at the moment. Seeking to reclaim some of the magic of its earlier years, the neighborhood is humming as the live music scene got a recent jolt with the opening of the 400 seat <a href="http://sf.yoshis.com/sf/jazzclub">Yoshi's San Francisco </a>which is going to serve as a catalyst for revitalizing the entire area. Along with the <a href="http://www.livenation.com/venue/getVenue/venueId/1259">Fillmore</a>, <a href="http://www.rasselasjazzclub.com/">Rasselas</a>, and the <a href="http://www.boomboomblues.com/">Boom Boom Room</a>, there's something here for music fans of all stripes. Combine that with the recent opening of the new <a href="http://www.sundancecinemas.com/kabuki.html">Sundance Kabuki Cinemas</a>, and some notable new restaurants, such as <a href="http://www.spqrsf.com/">SPQR</a>, and the forthcoming <a href="http://www.tablehopper.com/2007/12/chatterbox-december-11-2007.html">Long Bar</a> (taking over the old Fillmore Grill space) and the second outpost of <a href="http://www.pizzeriadelfina.com/">Pizzeria Delfina</a> coming and you have the makings of something good.<br /><br />One of the other new restaurants of note is <a href="http://www.1300fillmore.com/">1300 on Fillmore</a>, which is located in the other end of the Fillmore Heritage Center from Yoshi's. The sign for the restaurant is a bit hard to find (it's lurking 3/4 of the way up a post on the corner of Fillmore and Eddy), but there's ample parking in the public garage located under the center (which is a good thing because parts of the neighborhood are still a bit rough).<br /><br />The space is, in a word, gorgeous. Done up in beautiful dark wood and complemented with soft blue tones on the walls and chocolate leather backed banquettes, it's sophisticated and old school (in the best possible sense). The lighting is appropriately dim and a rotating parade of black and white pictures of the glory days of the neighborhood flash silently over the bar. Off the main entrance is a petite lounge and a three piece jazz trio was set up there in the corner, swinging the night away. The crowd was a colorful melange...older black couples out for a night on the town, post work Financial District types, and jazz heads getting a bite before hitting a show next door.<br /><br />As to the meal...well, it's simply one of the best I've had in San Francisco in quite some time (see the menu, sans desserts, <a href="http://www.1300fillmore.com/menu.pdf">here</a>). There is, to me at least, a clear nod to the south, specifically New Orleans in the cuisine. We stared with the fresh water shrimp hush puppies with an ancho chili remoulade. The shrimp did taste a little fishy, but nothing to really complain about. The complimentary homemade corn bread served with honey butter and a red pepper jam was fantastic. The corn bread was warm and crumbly, just how I like it.<br /><br />For my entree, I had the house brine grilled pork chop with caramelized chicory, Calvados apples, and apple cider sauce. The pork chop was served atop whipped mashed potatoes. Everything about this dish worked. The chop was served medium and the meat was juicy and extremely flavorful. The apple sauce was a great touch to go with the pork and the potatoes were very creamy and rich (perhaps too rich for some). <br /><br />My dining companion had the bouillabaisse, which was a lobster mash, mussels, crab meat, snapper, Andouille sausage and rouille served in a broth with some spices we couldn't identify. I only had a piece of the lobster, but the portion was sizable and buttery.<br /><br />We also ordered the buttermilk chive potatoes for the table. The potatoes were a little less whipped than the one's served with the pork, but no less tasty.<br /><br />We finished with benigets (another nod to the Big Easy) served with a chocolate sauce and a coffee soda. The benigets were light and the sauces were perfect accompaniments.<br /><br />This was truly a great meal and I both highly recommend it and can't wait for my next visit.MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-82035945517365232007-12-17T19:21:00.000-08:002007-12-19T11:05:33.026-08:00Paul Krugman vs Barack ObamaSigh. This is going to be my first post of substance in awhile and it is one I that I'd rather not pen at all, but considering my first application for <a href="http://journalism.berkeley.edu/">journalism school</a> has been submitted, I need to get used to writing even when I'm not in the mood (or when I'm unsure of my total grasp of the material...or both).<br /><br />Anyway, at the outset, I should say I am a huge <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/">Paul Krugman</a> fan. He's been the most vocal liberal pundit at the nation's most influential newspaper for some time now, and he (generally) presents timely, devastating and factually accurate critiques of the Bush administration and its policies. He's not afraid of being called a liberal (perish the thought!) and he's not afraid of a fight. Given how polarizing the last seven years have been, this is all very good and Krugman should be celebrated for taking strong stands in support of some policy positions long before they became popular with the masses.<br /><br />I should also note that I am in the bag for Obama. Should he get the nomination, I will certainly be voting for him.<br /><br />So having said all that, it pains me to see the repeated swipes that Krugman and Obama have been taking at each other. In his <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/opinion/16krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin">November 16th op-ed</a> in the <span style="font-style:italic;">New York Times</span> (entitled, "Played for a Sucker"), Krugman began to advance the idea that Obama was buying into conservative talking points by <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/opinion/16krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin">labeling social security in "crisis".</a> Whether one believes that to be true or not (I agree with Krugman that social security is not among the top issues facing the country at the moment), Krugman's take was especially harsh in its judgment of Obama's desire to move the nation in a "post partisan" political environment:<br /><br /><blockquote>He is, however, someone who keeps insisting that he can transcend the partisanship of our times — and in this case, that turned him into a sucker.</blockquote><br /><br />Next, in his November 30th column, Krugman comes after Obama again, this time on health care. Krugman, who generally likes Obama's health plan, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html">criticizes it because it lacks a mandate</a> (both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have released health care plans with an individual mandate). Krugman again makes the charge that Obama is echoing right wing talking points, much like he did on social security:<br /><br /><blockquote>Mr. Obama, then, is wrong on policy. Worse yet, the words he uses to defend his position make him sound like Rudy Giuliani inveighing against "socialized medicine": he doesn't want the government to "force" people to have insurance, to "penalize" people who don't participate.<br /><br />I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a Social Security "crisis." Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health care.<br /><br />What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama's caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that "my plan begins by covering every American," it didn't — and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true.<br /><br />Now, in the effort to defend his plan's weakness, he's attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform. </blockquote><br /><br />The social security spat didn't merit a real response from team Obama, but the health care column did, and Obama's campaign website quickly posted a <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/07/fact_check_krugman_didnt_alway.php">"fact check"</a> contesting Krugman's previously announced affinity for the plan. This was followed up by unsourced (and as of now, unproven) claims by Chris Bowers at OpenLeft that Obama's team <a href="http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/obama_campaign_denies_collecting_oppo_research_on_progressive_bloggers.php">was collecting "oppo research" </a> on progressive bloggers. That in turn led to a host of liberal bloggers (many of whom I greatly admire and try to emulate, like <a href="http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=12&year=2007&base_name=obama_v_krugman">Ezra Klein</a> and <a href="http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/payback.php">Matt Yglesias</a>) denouncing Obama for attacking, in Klein's words, "arguably the most progressive voice in American media."<br /><br />Yesterday, Krugman came out with his <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin">strongest attack</a> on Obama yet. With health care once again the backdrop, Krugman removes the gloves and calls Obama "naïve" for his continual belief that we can have something other than our current divisive political atmosphere. He goes on to call Obama "unrealistic" for thinking that he could actually get drug and insurance companies to sit down and agree to constructively aiding the health care reform process. And then we come to the heart of the matter once again...Krugman's dislike of Obama's message of change:<br /><br /><blockquote>As health care goes, so goes the rest of the progressive agenda. Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world.<br /><br />Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate.<br /><br />There's a strong populist tide running in America right now. For example, a recent Democracy Corps survey of voter discontent found that the most commonly chosen phrase explaining what's wrong with the country was "Big businesses get whatever they want in Washington."<br /><br />And there's every reason to believe that the Democrats can win big next year if they run with that populist tide. The latest evidence came from focus groups run by both Fox News and CNN during last week's Democratic debate: both declared Mr. Edwards the clear winner.<br /><br />But the news media recoil from populist appeals. The Des Moines Register, which endorsed Mr. Edwards in 2004, rejected him this time on the grounds that his "harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."<br /><br />And while The Register endorsed Hillary Clinton, the prime beneficiary of media distaste for populism has clearly been Mr. Obama, with his message of reconciliation. According to a recent survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Mr. Obama's coverage has been far more favorable than that of any other candidate.<br /><br />So what happens if Mr. Obama is the nominee?<br /><br />He will probably win — but not as big as a candidate who ran on a more populist platform. Let's be blunt: pundits who say that what voters really want is a candidate who makes them feel good, that they want an end to harsh partisanship, are projecting their own desires onto the public.<br /><br />And nothing Mr. Obama has said suggests that he appreciates the bitterness of the battles he will have to fight if he does become president, and tries to get anything done. </blockquote><br /><br />The above section is where it comes off the rails for me in terms of Krugman's arguments and I think there's a lot wrong there. First off, the "strong populist tide" that's sweeping the nation is apparently not as strong as Krugman thinks. If it is indeed so strong, why is John Edwards, the most unabashedly populist candidate in the race, stuck in 3rd in Iowa? Throwing red meat to the unions during the primary season is a smart move as far as it goes, but these aren't the unions of your parent's youth; they account for only 12% of the American workforce and have been in decline since the first Reagan inauguration. Michael Cohen at Democracy Arsenal takes this further:<br /><br /><blockquote>Krugman seems to believe that Democrats need to run a populist campaign that takes on big business and the influence of corporate America. This is a familiar refrain from liberal Democrats; if only Democrats were true to their Rooseveltian legacy and played up their populist roots they would win every election.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">It's a nice tale; it's also one that has virtually no historical precedent and is almost certainly wrong. With a few notable exceptions, Truman in 1948, possibly FDR in 36 and Wilson in 1912, populism, or us vs. them, rhetoric, simply doesn't work in American presidential politics.</span><br /><br />Krugman argues the John Edwards view that "America needs another FDR, a polarizing figure" who will take on the "economic royalists." Krugman claims that recent focus groups run after the last Democratic debate show that John Edwards was the big winner - hence populism works! Not only is that, how shall we say, a small sample size on which to base an argument, but if Edwards strategy was so effective then why is he still running third in Iowa? Krugman blames the media for blunting populist appeals and in particular, the Des Moines Register, which recently attacked Edwards "harsh anti-corporate rhetoric." One would think that for a populist, Krugman would give Iowa voters a little more credit. Voters may respond viscerally to populist appeals, but in the end they usually choose the guy with the more positive message (just ask George Wallace and Ross Perot).<br /><br />But even worse, Krugman's "FDR argument" ignores the fact that in FDR's first race for the White House he ran a very tepidly populist campaign (even in the throes of the country's worst economic downturn). Yes, FDR attacked big business, but not to the extent that Edwards is today and frankly most of his venom was directed at government inaction. "Bold experimentation" was the catchword of the campaign not us vs. them - that would come in 1936 and even then was far more tame then the radical populism of Huey Long and others. For anyone who thinks Roosevelt ran on liberalism and big government in 1932 go back and read his campaign speeches where he attacks Hoover for failing to cut government spending.<br /><br />Since Harry Truman slash-and-burn populist campaign of 1948, one is hard pressed to think of a single Democrat who has won on with a populist message (possibly Carter in 76, but his populism was directed more at post-Watergate Washington rather than big business). <span style="font-weight:bold;">In fact, the most embarrassing defeat by a Democrat in recent memory, Al Gore in 2000, came because of his misplaced "the people vs. the powerful" campaign theme. In recent years, it has been Republicans, not Democrats that have been the most effective populists, utilizing the us versus them argument of big government versus the people.</span></blockquote> (Emphasis mine)<br /><br />I think that's a pretty through demolishing of that particular line of attack. I think Krugman here has been stricken with a case of the <a href="http://www.jargondatabase.com/Jargon.aspx?id=990">pundit's fallacy</a>. <br /><br />Next is the idea that Obama isn't going to be enough of a fighter to champion progressive ideas if elected (an argument which is picked apart pretty well by <a href="http://www.samefacts.com/archives/barack_obama_/2007/12/obamas_toughness.php">Mark Kleiman</a> and <a href="http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2007/12/anticorporate_populism_and_cha.php">Ed Kilgore</a>). Here again Krugman is projecting (odd considering he's talking about pundits projecting in this passage):<br /><br /><blockquote>Let's be blunt: pundits who say that what voters really want is a candidate who makes them feel good, that they want an end to harsh partisanship, are projecting their own desires onto the public.</blockquote><br /><br />As <a href="http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003635.html">Dan Drezner notes</a>, this shows a lack of self-awareness on Krugman's part. Drezner also says that:<br /><br /><blockquote>Matt Yglesias thinks that the Obama campaign is "poor[ly] handling... its relationship with the country's highest-profile liberal columnist," but I have to wonder if Obama is calculating that the long-term benefits outweigh any short-term costs.<br /><br />As Krugman acknowledges at the beginning of his column, "Broadly speaking, the serious contenders for the Democratic nomination are offering similar policy proposals." Therefore, he's going to broadly support whichever Dem is nominated.<br /><br />Obama, on the other hand, is not going to be hurt in the general election from a pissing match with Paul Krugman. Indeed, dust-ups like this provide Obama with the kind of perceived independence that plays well with... er... independents. </blockquote><br /><br />That last point is also aired in Clive Crook's latest <span style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3389fa18-abf6-11dc-82f0-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1">Financial Times</a></span> column:<br /><br /><blockquote>But progressives have been under the Republicans’ hammer too long. Rapprochement is the last thing they want. What they want is their turn. They come not to work with Republicans, but to bury them. If Mr Obama believes he can come to useful compromises with those people, many liberal activists believe, he is either far too innocent for this kind of work or a traitor in the making.<br /><br />A parallel springs to mind: Tony Blair’s love-hate relationship with Britain’s old Labour party. The country’s class-warriors never liked their most successful leader for decades and in the end you could say their fears were realised: he was indeed, as a cover of The Economist once put it, “the strangest Tory ever sold”. On the other hand, you cannot capture the centre without appealing to the centre.<br /><br />Mr Blair often used the hard left’s barely veiled hostility as a means to entrench his power – for example, picking fights with the unions to prove his muscular pragmatism whenever his popularity flagged. The Obama campaign may be weighing the same strategy, for use if not now then after his hoped-for victory in the primaries. Angry progressives are as repellent to the centre that Mr Obama aims to recruit as the Republican fundamentalists at the other extreme. If the centre counts – and there lies the gamble – then the squirmings of the Democratic base are an asset to be exploited.</blockquote><br /><br />So far throughout this campaign, you've had folks like Krugman and Kos who are either dismayed or digusted with Obama's "above the fray" mentality and rhetoric. Those two guys, along with a lot of other Dems and progressives are in no mood to sit at at a table and talk turkey with a conservative movement that has been griding its boots into the face of the larger progressive movement for almost three decades. They see this election as one in which liberals can push through one of its last sacred cows (universal health care) and usher in a <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/11/the-50-year-strategy.html">new progressive era </a>. However, what if the pugilist mentality is wrong? One of the supposed strengths of Hillary Clinton is that she's a fighter, that her time as First Lady (which, by the way, should not count as "experience" as it relates to her own run for the White House) prepared her for the nasty battles and smears that she would have to face from the conservative noise machine. While it's certainly true that there is something to <a href="http://www.polimom.com/2006/09/05/pds-president-derangement-syndrome/">PDS</a>, we may be moving to a time where our political class is <span style="font-style:italic;">more</span> partisan, but the citizenry is <span style="font-style:italic;">less</span> so. For awhile now, I've thought that the more strident liberals and progressives have misread the zeitgeist, and it appears there some <a href="http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/70714/">truth to that notion</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>After debacles in Iraq and New Orleans and mushrooming scandals that exposed much of Congress and the Cabinet as a low-rent crime family hired to collect protection money for the likes of Halliburton and Pfizer, people simply do not trust the politicians they vote for to be anything less than an embarrassment. You get the sense they approach the upcoming election with the enthusiasm of a two-time loser offered a selection of plea deals.<br /><br />People hate the mechanized speeches, they hate the negative ads, and they especially hate venomous news creatures, myself included. It's now so bad that a poll last month found that fifty-six percent of all likely voters agreed with the phrase that the presidential race is "annoying and a waste of time" -- a shocking number, given that it excludes the forty to fifty percent of Americans who already don't vote in presidential races.<br /><br />People don't want to feel this way, but the attitude everywhere is the same: What choice do these assholes give us? And it's that grim prejudice that has pervaded this process for a generation, forcing the public to choose from an endless succession of lesser evils and second- raters of the Kerry-Dole genus, stuffed suits who offered nothing like a solution to the main problem of feeling like shit about the American civic experiment.<br /><br />Until now. Emphasizing that this is not necessarily a reflection of who or what Obama really is, he unmistakably and strikingly attracts crowds that, to a person, really seem to believe that his election will fundamentally change the way they feel about their country.<br /><br />"I just want to see if there's going to be a difference with this cat," says Richard Walters, a forty-three-year-old New Yorker, who had come to hear Obama give a speech at Harlem's famed Apollo Theater. "Because if there's something different, we need it -- now."<br /><br />"At this point, I'd be glad if he recited the alphabet correctly," says Xiomara Hall, another New Yorker. Laughing, she and her friend add, "We got hope. Change is goood!"<br /><br />"I just want to see if he can do something, anything, to change things," says Shirley Paulino, another visitor to the Apollo event. "See if he is what he says he is. We just -- we need it, you know?"<br /><br />Normally the sight of prospective voters muttering platitudes about "hope" and "change" would make any reporter erupt with derisive laughter, but at Obama events one hears outbursts of optimism so desperate and artless that I can't help but check my cynical instinct. Grown men and women look up at you with puppy-dog eyes and all but beg you not to shit on their dreams. It's odd to say, but it's actually moving.<br /><br />An important component of this phenomenon is that the Obama crowds are surprisingly free of the usual anti-Republican venom. As much as anything, his rise is a reflection of the country's increasing boredom with partisan hatred.<br /><br />"I'm so tired of the president just talking to one part of the country, or one group," says Malia Scotch-Marmo. "I was in my twenties with Reagan, but I felt he talked to me, even though we were all Democrats. It would be great to have a black president. It would be great for kids to see. It would be a nice mind shift." </blockquote><br /><br />After a combined sixteen years of rancorous political battles under Bill Clinton and George W Bush, many Americans are tired of the fighting, the partisan sniping, the combative rhetoric. While I can certainly see why some might see Obama's inclusive rhetoric a bit hokey, it's also pretty clear that it's speaking to a lot of people at the moment. Simply attacking corporate interests as part of a populist message campaign as Edwards is doing (which, let's remember, didn't work in '04 either) or going negative by engaging in race baiting (like the <a href="http://acepilots.com/mt/2007/12/18/the-lynching-of-barry-o/">odious recent attacks</a> by the Clinton campaign) isn't moving people. Obama's message of change and hope <span style="font-style:italic;">is</span>. Andrew Sullivan tends to wax a bit poetic when he <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama">writes about Obama</a>, but on one thing, he is surely right; there is <span style="font-style:italic;">something</span> different about this candidate, something that is exciting a host of Americans of all political stripes like never before. Will it be enough to put Obama over the top? We'll know if a few short weeks.MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-62541028209007429412007-12-12T11:51:00.000-08:002007-12-12T11:53:51.065-08:00An excellent way to look at the "surge" in IraqFrom Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings:<br /><br /><blockquote>Fourth, noting that political reconciliation has not happened is not the "equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "La la la la la la la I can't HEAR you!"" It's more like this: suppose I had a friend who insisted that he couldn't kick his crack habit because he was under too much financial pressure, so I agreed to pay his bills for a few months, on condition that he use that time to actually try to quit. Liberal bloggers thought this was a bad idea: my friend had no apparent interest in kicking his crack habit, and thus it seemed pretty likely that I was just throwing my money away. No, I assured them: I have made it clear that my commitment is not open-ended. I've said: it's time for you to perform, and I will judge you now less on your words and more on your performance. I'm not just giving this money blindly; my friend has adopted benchmarks for success, and I plan to hold him to them, though I won't say how.<br /><br />Now suppose that while I paid my friend's bills, to no one's surprise, his financial problems got better, but he made no effort to stop smoking crack. Liberal bloggers said: well, of course it's good that your friend isn't feeling as much financial pressure, but the fact remains that the whole point of this was to let him kick his crack habit, and not only has he not done that, he hasn't even tried. That would not constitute sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting "La la la la la la la I can't HEAR you!", or refusing to take yes for an answer. It would just be basic common sense.</blockquote><br /><br />That's just one portion of the post and the entire thing is fantastic. <a href="http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/12/facing-facts.html">Read the whole thing.</a>MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-23170835003058709282007-12-11T19:35:00.000-08:002007-12-11T19:52:13.516-08:00What's for dinner?Pasta Carbonara, courtesy of a recipe in <span style="font-style:italic;">GQ</span>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Ingredients:</span><br /><ul><br /><li>1/2 box of spaghetti<br /><li>Hunk of pancetta (or slab bacon, or proscutio)<br /><li>Extra virgin olive oil<br /><li>2 eggs<br /><li>Parmigiano-Reggiano<br /><li>Salt and freshly ground black pepper<br /></ul><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Directions:</span><br />1> Put the pasta into lightly salted boiling water.<br />2> Put a handful of pancetta, cut into quarter-inch matchsticks, into a frying pan over medium-high heat. Add a tablespoon of olive oil.<br />3> While the pancetta and the spaghetti are cooking, break the eggs into a mixing bowl. Pick a good bowl, since you'll be using it both to prepare and serve the spaghetti. Add half a handful of freshly grated Parmigiano-Reggiano and a pinch or two of black pepper. Beat the mixture together, only enough to combine everything evenly.<br />4> Since the pancetta will take only about five to ten minutes until it's nicely browned, turn down the heat to low until you're ready to assemble the dish. When the spaghetti is done, strain it and add it to the egg mixture in the bowl. Add a small handful of cheese and toss the mixture well with a couple of forks until the spaghetti is coated. A lot of people put the pasta in the pan with the pancetta, but that can ruin the flavor.<br />5> Immediately turn the heat back up on the pancetta for 30 seconds, until it's sizzling, then pour off half of the fat. Dump the pancetta and the remaining fat onto the pasta and sprinkle with more cheese and some pepper. Let it sit for about 30 seconds before mixing - if the pancetta's too hot, the sauce won't blend as well.<br />6> Serve yourself in a clean bowl and give the bowl the pasta was mixed in to your guest - this is the <span style="font-style:italic;">originale</span>, which has the good stuff at the bottom and is considered good luck.<br /><br />Considering I ate alone and there's two ways I could have screwed it up (what with the eggs being raw and the potential of undercooking the meat), if you happen to read this in the next few days and you haven't heard from me, you'll know why.MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-27927746210610354602007-12-07T13:24:00.000-08:002007-12-07T13:25:24.708-08:00More Like This, PleaseA major news magazine <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html">debunks a dangerous claim about taxes</a>. Let's have a lot more of this kind of thing!MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-43859948326601381562007-12-03T18:56:00.000-08:002007-12-03T19:04:09.767-08:00Quick Notes-Dropped my first grad school application in the mail on Saturday morning. Cal's Graduate School of Journalism...you know what to do. Texas, Northwestern, Columbia and CUNY are on deck.<br /><br />-<a href="http://dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP/MGArticle/CDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173353711478&path=">My Hoos are going to the Gator Bowl!</a><br /><br />-It's a party week! My first Channukah party party on Thursday, my office party on Friday and then <a href="http://madeit.com/event.php?guid=bbb323d1116d6ef58685fa2eb968dc415fba01d6">this little shindig </a>on Saturday night.MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-14490275796902414212007-11-27T08:14:00.000-08:002007-11-27T08:15:57.609-08:00R.I.P. ST 21<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/27/AR2007112700538.html?hpid=topnews">Ugh. Seriously...WHAT. THE. FUCK? So senseless!</a>MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20152164.post-67439395546308827902007-11-24T09:50:00.000-08:002007-11-24T17:04:22.568-08:00Commonwealth Cup Day13-7 Hokies at the start of the second quarter. This is stressing me out so much.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Update</span>: Sigh...33-21 Hokies. Just couldn't keep them out of the endzone on a crucial drive or two. We'll get 'em sooner or later. I'm not going to be upset about a 9-3 season though...but playing in Jacksonville next week would have been pretty sweet.MPPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00457450258431719306noreply@blogger.com0