Quantum of Solace

So I saw the new Bond movie (Quantum of Solace, for those of you who live under rocks) and I really liked it. It isn't as good as Casino Royale was, but its still very entertaining. The new Bond girl is incredibly good looking, the entire movie is fast and lots of fun.

I did have a couple issues with it. First, it needed an extra 10-15 minutes, sometimes it was too fast, and Dominic Greene is never really developed to the same level as other Bond villains were. Second, sometimes it needed to slow itself down. The opening scene was very good, but if it had been a little slower and easier to follow, it would have been incredible. But probably my 2 biggest problems with the movie was that the theme song and its animation were kind of lame, they dragged and sapped the energy that came out of the opening chase. Also there was a rediculous scene involving planes, i'll leave it at that.

My favourite part (besides Olga Kurylenko as Camille) has to be the opera scene, I'll try not to ruin it, but it is incredible cinematography. (Fun fact, apparently the opera playing in the scene is about a woman who betrays her lover. Vesper anyone?).

Daniel Craig has another excellent performance as Bond.

Overall, it's a worthy movie, and an excellent way to spend 105 minutes. It's fun, but it is no Casino Royale. See it.

It's Done!

It's finally over!
Obama's the man.
Right on.
Good stuff America.
Thanks for not fucking it up.

Why do all the CNN.com Live reporters have English accents?

Can The Election Be Over, Please?

Well, the American election is tomorrow, and hopefully we'll know the winner before December. Now, I have to say, I have been pretty unhappy with a whole lot about this campaign. First off, both candidates swore that they would rise above the politics off division, and keep this a campaign clean. Now, maybe I was naïve to even have a flutter of hope for such a possibility, but it was a letdown nevertheless to see the campaign degenerate into what was seen in September and October. Both campaigns spent unprecedented amounts of money on negative adds, many of which were extraordinarily dishonest. And the media didn't help in the least, instead of pouncing on both campaigns and condemning the bullshit, they jumped to every rumour as if it needed verifying, no matter how outlandish the claim. In fact, it seemed like the media felt an obligation to investigate any claim whatsoever, regardless of the source.

Next, Joe the Plumber. I never want to hear about Joe the Plumber again. I don't care about his back taxes, being unlicensed, who he's voting for and why, I just don't care. This guy has been flaunted by the McCain campaign, pranced in front of the media, hell he's given more interviews than Sarah Palin. And what are his political credentials? He disagreed with Obama. To his face. On camera. Apparently that is all it takes to become a political expert in the United States these days. Not to mention an expert on tax policy. No, every time he's pulled out in front of the cameras, I can't help feeling bad for the guy. Because, every time, he just shows that he doesn't understand tax policy, or foreign policy, and each time looks more and more like a knee-jerk republican. Now, I don't want to say that he's dumb, in fact I'd say he isn't (hell, he can run a plumbing business successfully, licensed or not). What I want to say is that he has no business being a pseudo political commentator.

I also can't stand Sarah Palin. She is a perfect example of everything that has gone horribly wrong with the Republican party. Seriously, how the hell did they get to the point where someone so incredibly uninformed (and probably scarier, so uninterested) about how the world works manage to become a Vice Presidential candidate? It scares me when I see videos of her supporters saying they like her because "she's full of the holy spirit". Frankly, I don't see how the Republican Party got sucked into the 'values at any cost' crowd, but it did, and Palin is proof of this. As soon as she was announced as the candidate, anyone who didn't lower the bar of what is acceptable, or bend over backwards to accommodate her incompetence was "sexist". That's right, Sarah Palin made it sexist to hold female politicians to the same standard as male ones. She also, more recently, showed an incredible misunderstanding of first amendment rights. She said that media criticism of the crazy things she says is a violation of her first amendment (freedom of speech) rights. Basically implying that the media shouldn't be allowed to criticize people in positions of power. For reference, here is a quick synopsis (which I borrowed from www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html, emphasis mine) of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances".

Now for those of you who aren't morons, it might look like that handy little amendment assures the media (or "press") the right to say whatever the hell it wants, including having negative coverage of statements made by people in positions of power, and who are trying to get into a position of greater power. Seems reasonable if you live somewhere where the citizens are allowed to have information regarding the beliefs of their government officials. But in Palin-land, that amendment means that she can say whatever she wants, and the media shouldn't tell us that its all crazy-talk. Until the Republicans can get rid of the loony religious fringe as a major force in their party, they will have a lot of trouble.

Palin also likes to run her mouth about things that she should be called on. Like the whole "pallin' around with terrorists" thing. If she makes such a big deal about an incidental acquaintance, then someone should be making an even bigger deal about her (much closer) ties to the Alaskan Independence Party. But if they did, it would be all "liberal media" this and "bias" that. Also, how can she call Obama a marxist when 1)Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism, advocated a graduated income tax; and 2)She redistributes wealth all the time in Alaska. You know, with that whole windfall tax on the oil companies that she has? Yeah, the one that she uses to send a cheque to every Alaskan for a couple thousand dollars. And they don't have to do anything for it, they get it just for being alive and in Alaska (though one might argue that those are mutually exclusive). If that isn't way closer to marxism than a regular income tax, I don't know what is.

And the last thing that I hate about this election (that I'm going to write about right now) is swing states. I understand their political importance with the whole electoral college thing they have (woohoo winning without the popular vote!), they just got mentioned way too much, and nobody ever says anything interesting about them. Always sort of like this: "Well, it could really go either way, and that would have an effect on the general election". Thanks, Captain Obvious. Just tell us that once, either at the beginning, or near the end, and be done with it. I don't need to hear about swing states for 65 consecutive days.

And what's my favourite thing about this election?

It's almost over.

Just on the end, I would like to point out that there are universities with more students in residence than Wasilla has residents. Or even residents and polar bears combined.

I Was Right.

I would just like to brag a little that the (fucking pointless) Canadian election went exactly as I predicted. Conservatives win a large minority, Liberals down a bunch, NDP up. Greens still non-existent. I'm still bothered by this election though, for several reasons. First, seeing as there were no issues (except that the Conservatives started like 10-15 points up in the polls) was it really worth spending over 200 million dollars (the cost of the 1997 & 2000 elections) to maintain the status quo? We are still dealing with a minority government (though, if the last time is any indication, it will be able to act as a majority). Second, why are us Canadians so apathetic that we gave such a strong minority to one of the least transparent and accountable governments in the last 40 years? Third, why was it never made an issue that the Conservatives violated their own election law (for fixed elections, next one due in 2009) to call this election?
Oh well, like I said, it was a nothing changes election.
In important news, there's a new "Hockey Night in Canada" theme song. Also Apple brought out new MacBooks and they look awesome. Already my 2 month old white one is looking a little inadequate.

Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Not much else to say, I'm just enjoying a long weekend back home in Toronto.

P.S. All you Canadians better remember to vote on Tuesday. Even though new MacBooks are coming out.

A Tale of Two Debates

After careful reflection, I've decided that the Canadian leader's debate was a much more informative debate than the American V.P. debate. The Canadian debate allowed its viewers to get a much better view of the candidates than the American one. Instead of the rigid, timed presentation of topics of the American debate, the Canadian debate had a more fluid, free rolling structure. Let's be honest, for most of the American debate, only the person speaking really had to be there. There was very little opportunity to refute, rebut, or just plain argue. It allowed both debaters to stick to scripted responses and a small set of talking points. The Canadian debate forced the participants to think on their feet and react immediately to what was being said. The participants had the opportunity to challenge statements made as they were being said, not wait patiently for the moderator to let them talk. This meant that they also had to defend their positions, not merely state them.

Just for anyone who doesn't know how the formats were different, the American debate had Biden and Palin standing at podiums, pretty much ignoring each other while they threw out prepared talking points, only occasionally taking one another to task, and always having to wait for the moderator to let them speak. In the Canadian debate, all the major party leaders were sitting around a round table, and the moderator was really only there to make sure everyone got a turn, and to intervene if it got too heated (though at one point near the end he was yelling too). The debate was guided by a series of 8 questions, and as long as everyone got the chance to state their position on a question, the conversation/argument was allowed to flow naturally. Of course it led to yelling, finger pointing, leaning across the table and such, but it let viewers get a good feeling of the ability of each participant, as well as a good measure of how articulate they are. Also, if any one of the leaders had any sort of weakness in their knowledge of a topic, it was quickly, and brutally exposed and exploited. A wonderful contrast to the American debate where Palin managed to "hold her own" despite appearing very poorly knowledgeable about pretty much everything.

Debatable

So, I watched part of both the Canadian and the American debates last night. I have to say, the Canadian one was way more entertaining, they had kind of a round table, so everyone was facing each other, and the format allowed them to get into spirited arguments. The American vice presidential debate, on the other hand, was so dull as to be almost painful to watch at times.

Coming out of the Canadian debate, here is what I think of the leaders:

Elizabeth May: more competent than I expected, but sort of waffling between supporting and opposing the Liberals.

Jack Layton: Spirited and interesting to watch, but he's moved his party to far to the centre to really distinguish them from the Liberals on anything except knee-jerk issues. And the Liberals get elected sometimes.

Gilles Duceppe: Again, spirited, but he is struggling to keep his party relevant. And not quite managing to.

Stéphane Dion: Smarter and better organized than he gets credit for, but his thick accent, and mild speech impediment hindered his performance. He was very energetic though.

Stephen Harper: Still not convinced that he's not a robot. When someone criticized how he handled various situations, he looked like he was counting the ways he could kill them with whatever was in arms reach. Not including his built-in weapons systems.

All the leaders (except Harper, who was born without emotions) did appear to be very spirited and intense. Overall, I was impressed.

I'm still not really interested in this election, however. Nothing has really changed in the political climate since the last election. This is not an "issues" election, or even a "culture war" election. This is an apathy election. Harper threw a hissy fit, called an election, and the public doesn't care. The Conservatives are going to win a minority, picking up a little ground in Quebec and Ontario. The Liberals will lose a little ground, NDP will gain, Bloc will lose, Greens will win one seat. Tops. I think the election after this one will be much more interesting.

As for the American debate, my quick opinion is this:

Biden: Jesus, this guy was sharp, he answered all the questions, he hammered his opponent, and he stayed on message without getting flustered.

Palin: Did far better than I expected, but mostly because the format of the debate allowed her to get away with not actually answering anything. She was fluid, funny, and energetic, but she rarely actually answered a question. She would change topics (back to energy), even if the new topic had nothing to do with the old one.

I noticed this morning some people were calling the debate a win for Palin, because she managed to hold her own. That is bullshit. I'll give credit where credit is due, Biden did a great job, and Palin managed not to get steamrolled. Is my opinion of Palin better? No. In all honesty, it seemed like she had a few static talking points, and key words that she managed to stick to, even if they didn't really relate to the question. She frequently made points that were easily countered or disproven by Biden. The only time she said something that he couldn't respond to is when she got the last word on a question. She dodged issues, discounted Bush's policies, only to promote them later, made mistakes. She got flustered, sometimes her sentences just did not make sense. It was not a strong debate showing, but somehow the Republicans and the media have managed to convince people that it is ok to have expectations so low that her performance was better than expected. Sometimes when she spoke it sounded more like she was running for a high school student council than for vice FUCKING president. Doggoneit. It also bothers me how anyone who criticizes her is going to get hammered for being too "hard" on her. If honest criticism is being to hard on someone, they are not prepared to be vice president. If asking policy related questions is too hard on someone, they are not prepared to be vice president. Let's face it, Sarah Palin has no business being a heartbeat away from the presidency. However it is true,  she does get more adorable when she's cornered in a question.