Here is Stephen Colbert’s opening statement during today’s hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration. Hilarious.
Mourning in America?
I guess–if I had a complete disregard for history and/or context–I could agree with this Ronald Reagan “Morning in America” spin-off ad:
Of course, I don’t. I find it hard to believe that most Americans have reason to mourn when we are still the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world. I find it even less reasonable to suggest that the Obama administration is to blame when it comes to our long-time-a-comin deficit problems. Two years ago, before Obama was elected, what I appreciated most about him as a politician was the fact that he balanced his idealism with a healthy dose of pragmatism. A pragmatism that understood, how, in our democracy, change has always happened slowly, and the politics that leads to change has always been messy. While, these days, Obama may be stuck in mirky political waters, I still believe that he is a President who does not lose sight of the most important issues we face–the ones that take time and patience to fix, and plenty of context to understand. So lets cut down on the “Obama’s grand experiment=the end of America” rhetoric, especially when he has yet to finish his second year in office. Because the creators of “Mourning in America” surely know that Reagan didn’t—as Obama put it, “change the trajectory of America”—in his first two years in Office.
Filed under Uncategorized
Five Reasons Europeans Care More About Food
Five dishes I ate when I was in Europe this summer:
Bratwurst at the Biergarten
Fresh seafood in Nice
Brats, with Sauerkraut this time!
Curry Gnocchi
A french desert plate...
Okay fine, 6 dishes, I gotta add my favorite:
Nutella Crepes!
Filed under Uncategorized
Take a free Harvard Philosophy course
I recently discovered that Michael Sandel’s famous “Justice” course at Harvard had been video taped and produced for a WGBH television series. The 12-episode series is available to view online, along with suggested readings (from Bentham to Kant) for free! As a philosophy addict, I quickly fell in love with “Justice”, and if you like the concept behind my blog, I’m guessing you’ll love it just as much. Here is a preview:
Many of my friends claim they don’t like philosophy. In reality, though, we all know that basic philosophical questions are a part of life. Can you go through life without asking Sandel’s question, “what’s the right thing to do?” Even if you “don’t like philosophy,” it’s impossible to go through life without tackling such a question. I think what many of us really don’t like about philosophy is it’s lack of resolution. As we heard in the preview; the fact that there is still no definite answer to the questions that Plato and Aristotle asked so many years before us makes philosophy seem impossible. But while it may seem impossible, it is also inescapable, and in many ways beautiful. So I hope you enjoy the series as much as I have, and, in the mean time, I’ll do my best to continue blogging with Sandel’s closing thought in mind: ”We live some answers to these questions every day.”
Filed under Uncategorized
I posed naked in ’85 too
Actually I wasn’t born in ’85 but that was our trivia team name tonight. Other teams: “Martha CHOKEley,” “Cock Brown,” and “I didn’t want universal health care anyway.”
Seriously though, along with the Massachusetts I thought I knew I was pretty bummed yesterday when I watched the previously unthinkable outcome of our special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s senate seat. Yes, I know it’s not “Ted Kennedy’s seat, it’s the people’s seat.” None the less, the people elected Ted Kennedy–the liberal lion of the senate–to sit in that seat for a long time. I was never a huge Coakley fan (I voted for Capuano… though I wasn’t obsessed with him either), but I am a huge Obama fan and I was pretty sure that a republican win in Massachusetts would pretty much spell disaster for his agenda. So, I proudly voted for Coakley–who’s campaign I never really got excited about–as a way of supporting Obama. Plus, she could have been the first female senator from Massachusetts, which would have been exciting as well. Obviously, things did not go down that way, but while I was initially devastated I am starting to see things differently.
After a night of taking a step back and thinking about what really happened I’ve come to two simple conclusions. First, contrary to my initial reaction, it is unclear what this will do to the Health Care bill. There seems to be a possibility that a “stripped down” “bipartisan” bill could still pass. While such a bill would not represent “sweeping” health care reform, it would still count as a first step, which is more than the last bunch of presidents were able to accomplish. Second, while many see this outcome as a political disaster for President Obama (my first reaction as well), I think it may actually present him with some big political opportunities. As he has already acknowledged in his interview on ABC today (which I thought was a great first step), “The people of Massachusetts spoke… the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office.” Instead of teaming up with the democrats who want to rush a health care vote before Brown is sworn in, Obama is doing what great leaders do: taking a step back, acknowledging what the people had to say, re-evaluating the situation and looking for a way to move forward. This election result, which seems to be a referendum on health care, the democrats, and Obama, could represent an opportunity for a change in Obama’s agenda. Now that the super majority is gone, Obama may have to really “reach across the isle” and become a more compromising president, which won’t help him with the left wing of the democratic party, but could help him with independents and maybe some republicans. In other words, if the democrats had him on some sort of “leash,” that leash is no longer there because “the people have spoken,” and the democrats can no longer claim a public “mandate” to pass whatever they want. Maybe, just maybe, they’ll be forced to be a little more creative in their bill writing and a little more bipartisan in their approach to the issues we face. That’s not necessarily bad, right? Of course, I’m being somewhat naive, but Obama already seems to be heading in that direction.
As always, David Brooks wrote a great analysis of the situation at NYTimes.com today.
Filed under Uncategorized
I’m back, and Fox News is still thriving
It’s about time for me to return to the blogging thing. Incase you were wondering, I am now graduated, working at the Apple store in Boston, living in Brighton, hanging out in Allston, and thinking about going to graduate school next year. Now that we got that out of the way, what better way to kick off my return to blogging with some of the most ridiculous Fox News clips I’ve seen in a while.
They usually just make me laugh but this one got my blood boiling a little:
Lastly, here’s Media Matters with a great recap of Glenn Beck in 2009:
More posts coming. I swear.
Filed under Uncategorized
How Bank of America screwed me
What’s wrong with this picture?
First of all, when I went online to check my account balance on 7/24 there was no “-$135.00″ for Check 123, which means everything was just dandy. But, apparently, when someone cashes a check of yours it may not be posted for several days AND when it eventually does post it can show up earlier on the timeline, at the time the person cashing the check brought it to the bank. So when I checked my account on 7/27 there was a mysterious check, which, though it slipped into the timeline at 7/24, did not show up on my online banking account until 7/27. This means that everything I spent on and after 7/24 is now slapped with a–gasp–$35.00 overdraft fee. Yes, okay, this only happened because I stupidly forgot about a check that I had written out earlier that month, but, way to capitalize on my slip-up Bank of America. Is that customer service?
Furthermore, if you look closely you’ll notice that the payment subtractions are neatly ordered from highest to lowest amount, as opposed to the natural timeline in which they occured. This ensures that Bank of America can slap you with the maximum number of overdraft fees. For instance, if you have $500 on your account, and these four charges: $490, $11, $5, and $4, they can give you three overdraft charges if they charge them in that order—never mind whether that was the order in which you actually used your card. For example, say you bought something for $4, then $11, then $5, and then $490. That should only give you one overdraft fee, because you didn’t go into the negative until your last purchase. But if you made all those purchases in one day, “customer-friendly” Bank of America will neatly rearrange the payments to give you three overdraft fees. At $35.00 per fee, that’s a $105.00 slap in the face.
So, that’s how they screwed me. Yes, I screwed up first… but, still, is it fair? Is it even legal? It certainly isn’t good customer service. In the end, they hit me with $245.00 in overdraft fees for one weekend.
And, oh yea, when I went to check my account on 7/25 the Bank of America website was experiencing technical difficulties and I couldn’t see my pending items. The customer service lady later told me on the phone that I should have called and checked my balance over the phone because “you shouldn’t just expect the online banking system to work all the time.”
Lastly, check this out.
Filed under Uncategorized
