Archive - Feb 2008

The media but in particular U.S. media loves to talk about Hugo Chávez only when they can conceivably spin the issue it make it seem that he is dictator like. But what happens the other 365 days that Chávez is acting President of Venezuela. Well, as the New York Times was able to relay . . . he is doing good things that President Bush does not care to comment about. According to the New York Times, "Latin America’s largest rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, freed three men and a woman, all former members of Congress, held in captivity for more than six years after negotiations led by President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela." This also came after he was able to get two hostages earlier in the year.

This should be something that the media informs the general public about, but that is not in their agenda. Their role is to make Chávez look like a person that is up to no good. What does this say about U.S. backed Columbian President Uribe who can not even get negotiations done in his own country. Perhaps, the media does not want to talk about his incompetency or is it that he has no interest in these matters. Whatever it is, you sure do not hear about Chávez . . . when it isn't in the intrest of the U.S.

Yesterday, I was bored so I decided to check out a movie that I found intresting based on previews. The movie was Jumper which is based on a novel conceived in the 90s but other then the character names and novel title it shares no similarities. Nonetheless, I felt I could share my opinion since it just came out.

For 90 minutes it was decent brain candy. This movie was nothing to write home about. No need to rush to rent it either when it makes it that far. I was not expecting much from Jumper, just worthwhile entertainment. It lacked all of this. The movie was too short first of all. Comedy's are typically 90 minutes, not science-fiction thrillers. The reason is that the latter needs to build rapport and a depth in the characters role so that viewers may empathize with the protagonist. The movie did none of this. It was a movie on speed that didn't excite when action scenes occurred and only left one hungry to understand what the heck was going on. The relationships between character's seemed non-existent and lacked any true connection.

The only thing that one can surmise from concluding the movie is that there has to be a sequel in the plans. There were many unresolved issues that leaves the viewer wanting to learn more. The movie though fails miserably to relay this feeling with its lackluster performance. At the end of the day, I do not recommend anyone to watch this movie. Perhaps if they come out with a sequel and that one is great . . . then maybe you should watch this one to gain some background information. Until that happens, don't hold your breath on it.

What is that is making Obama successful? Is it the charisma or his poise? Perhaps, it is how erudite he is or his impeccable orator skills? It is actually quite simple . . . he has branded himself quite well and he is selling the product like hotcakes.

I studied Political Communication during college and one thing we understand when you sell is that you have to keep your product fresh in your target audience's mind. Why is Obama getting so many youth voters? Because he understands how they operate. If you go to his YouTube page he has over 700 videos that are less than 2 minutes. Quick and easy! He knows that today's youth want to see the video and move on. The message is the same and it is working.

Clinton falls short with just 200 videos and a weak web presence. Obama and his advisers understand the power of social networks and they are implementing a great strategy to expose themselves to a large media market. I have seen more ads by Obama in Texas then Clinton. I have heard more Obama ads on the radio then Clinton. I have interacted with more ad banners on websites then Clinton. He is making it easy for people to become acquainted with his agenda.

The most insightful item though was how he gets people to caucuse. As political junky I did research on how the Texas caucus works. With one click on an Obama ad that showed me where I can vote early, he explained to me in a video how to caucus for him. I attempted the same for Clinton and I was lost. At least she offered to train me as a Precint Captain. The lesson learned is that he is interacting with his viewers causing them to interact back. The ads of the past that only stated facts are over. Obama has capitalized on this scavenger hunt type approach of adverts. He makes it easy to his base to understand how to vote but more importantly why to vote.

Intresting enough, a day later after talking about how I think Obama and his branding has helped him out. Folks around the blogosphere are commenting as well. I did not go so detailed as others may have but at least I noticed the correlation. Check out what Steve Benen has to say.  

The Boston Globe recently wrote an article entertaining the ethics of "borrowing" an item and use it accordingly then for the particular purpose and then return it within its return policy.

Confused yet? It's quite common actually. More in women when it comes to clothes or shoes for a big event such as Prom or a Wedding. They love a dress or a pair of high heels but feel like they do not want to spend all that money in order to purchase it. So . . . they buy it and return it the next day. It is something that is practiced by celebrities all the time except Armani or Gucci wants them to wear that dress (so it is a little different).

Men had recently picked up on the practice and apply it to electronic goods. For example someone might be need a TV for the night for a party or small DVD player for a long road trip over the weekend.

Is there something morally wrong with this practice though? Retailers have caught on and entering into evasive policy returns that make it hard to return the item even for a real consumer. For more on this, check out the article here and entertain the issue . . . at the end of the day we are all consumers.

When I am in Austin I like to read John Klesko's column on the American-Statesman in the Metro/State section. He is like our version of Ken Hoffman (Houston Chronicle) yet much older but just as funny. This Sunday, he wrote a piece about his reflections on immigration. I loved the satire he used. If you are from Austin or have been here in the last few months you may have noticed all the new condos springing up near the downtown/78704 area. Well, Klesko has noticed and he gives his two cents.

Klesko claims, "I've come up with a more attractive way to keep the Mexicans out of
Texas. Instead of putting up an ugly wall, why not build a solid wall of really tall, expensive condominiums right next to one another all along the Texas-Mexico border?"

You may wonder why, right? Well he states that, "building beau coup condominiums would provide work for the potential immigrants. Instead of sneaking across the border and continuing on to, say, the day labor corner on Interstate 35 in North Austin, they'd stop at the border for condo construction jobs and stop driving some Americans crazy."

Just in case you thought he was a crazy right wing minuteman gun toting American he delivers the punchline. "As tense as the immigration situation is now, I can hardly get any sleep at night from worrying about Mexican immigrants sneaking into my neighborhood and trimming my hedges. Or mowing my lawn at a reasonable price."

Nonetheless, I am glad that some peope are getting tired of the fear that certain politicians attempt to engrain on people about immigration. Folks . . . there is no invasion from the South. About 1 million people immigrate "illegally" to the U.S. every year. 50% of those folks come here legally but overstay their work/student visa so they then become illegal immigrants. The other half come through the South. Quite an invasion huh? It's like we never saw it coming. If you wish to read the entire commentary then click here and you will be redirected the Austin American-Statesman.

It's "Do or Die" for Clinton now. The way that Obama has consistently beat her in the last 10 elections but in particular in the proportion she has been suffering the losses (at times 75-25%) has taken its toll. I predict that if Obama is able to pull off Texas then she will end up losing the nomination come convention time. I will also go on a limb and claim that if Obama upsets her with a 6 to 3 voter difference then her camp will call it quits shortly after.

It isn't that Clinton is not qualified. She is, perhaps better qualified then Obama but she is not the change the majority of people voting in the primaries want. Clinton represents change but it is Obama that has been able to capitalize on it.

One would hope that her camp can persuade her to concede if she were to have no hope. The Democratic for the first time in a few years had two attractive candidates that has made it hard for the people to unite behind one. As the primaries continue though, it seems Obama is the one that is getting the nod from the people.

What does this mean for Clinton? It means that if it comes close and she continues to battle it and win, she may undermine her support come November. She may stir up the Evangelical Conservative Bloc to show up in numbers to counter her. This predicament is not unlikely and it is unfortunate I believe that she would lose due to this scenario.

What does this mean for Democrats but in particular Obama? It means that he will be winner if it comes to a tie. Party members know that if Clinton does not beat him then anything that gets her foot in the door due to a tie will be looked at suspiciously. The media has already speculated that "men in smoked filled rooms" will be deciding the candidate come convention time. This folks is not an option for those that will feel the party has sabotaged the nomination. They may retaliate by not voting for that person, in this case Clinton.

Thus, it is quite clear. All Obama has to do in Texas is win either by a large or a small percentage or lose by a small percentage to get the nod. On the other hand Clinton has to pull one of the greatest upsets in Primary history. This can be done . . . but it is quite unlikely.

I love politics. In fact that’s why I dedicated 3 years of my undergraduate degree towards studying and researching contemporary social/political issues in the global spectrum. As I concluded my studies I came to the self-realization that people are not politically educated.

Now, don't get me wrong, I already knew this. In fact, I just did not accept it until I understood how much dedication and reading one must engage in before they can be informed about domestic/foreign policies.

Watching political shows is not like watching your favorite sports team. I am sorry but it isn't that simplistic. Now hear me out, because most folks out there will assume that I am talking about them. In fact, in the contrary I am not. Anyone that is dedicated to following the political scene and know each players stats is fair game. I am talking about the masses that like to tune into their favorite talk show host that spits rhetoric that these parrots seem to pick up and regurgitate. Stop repeating the talking points of your favorite show!

I love baseball and I follow it as closely as I follow politics. I know the roles of each team member and who is who. I know stats of the superstars and know who to put in the cleanup spot or at least who is more appropriate. When it comes to basketball, I love to watch it but I am not as polish as I am in baseball.

The same principles apply to politics. Half the people that think they know what the best strategy is to conduct the war in Iraq do not have a clue who the Secretary of Defense is or perhaps just the Press Secretary. They think they know what we should do at the borders but they don't even know what district they live in. They think they know how are health care system should be like or in most cases not be like but they have no clue what "socialized" or "socialized medicine" means. People think they know politics but they do not.

I dislike when people claim to be [insert political identification] but they do not know why. At least tell me you like the person's tie; because your family has voted along this party does not justify your reasoning. And if for some reason you are proud to boast this reason . . . I feel bad for you and our society.

The real sad thing though is that my vote counts the same as that ignorant person. Even though I dedicate countless hours to research and inform myself about our political situations . . . it can all be sabotaged by a majority of ignorant voters. All it takes is a few demagogues placed in the right regions to stir up the pot and get the blissful masses to make their vote count. Thus, folks there goes the illusion of politics . . . change can only truly occur if it is not undermined by a select few.