Monday, January 30, 2012

may the odds be ever in your favor


this is a post about those young adult books, the Hunger Games trilogy, that i read in less than 72 hours, a couple of years ago. i was so hooked on them from the moment i started reading. i could honestly talk about the politics, the society and the love triangle from these book for hours. pathetic. 

well, a year and a half ago i blogged whom i thought should play the particular characters in the imminent movies. as i had anticipated, i ended up being way off. but my choices just reflect that i am not a teeny bopper, which i think the movies are appealing to. and thus the actual actors chosen to play the characters are much younger/newer to acting than the people i chose. but good for the cast. 

im not sure if its because the actors are younger and unknown to me, but i am not at all excited for this movie. i hate to be a cynic, but i think i can finally relate to star wars fanatics who (obnoxiously) complain about the prequel movies not living up to the original three movies. CALL ME, DWEEBS. lets talk! ...because i dont think the movies are going to do the books justice. 

the trailer for The Hunger Games, is below. and i couldnt be more disappointed. im trying to figure out why...  

so the hunger games is a futuristic science fiction series, and it establishing a lot of "new" (read: made up) concepts, terms and really just a new society. While mot sci-fi books/movies do this as well, i think there are usually a lot of parallels to our modern world, in other sci-fi works. i dont watch a lot of Star Trek, but from what i can see, it seems to be our world, and its social/racial/political institutions and conflicts, just relocated in space, and with aliens (i hope there arent any trekkys who read my blog). but the hunger games books, in my opinion, are establishing such a different order that much of the plot needs to be set up very explicitly for movie-goers to understand (especially if they didnt read the books)... and from what i gather from this trailer and others is that setting up the social and political norms is as clumsy as it is imperative. 

im being crazy. but it is annoying to me that "its your first year Prim, your name is only in there once, they arent going to pick you" is dialogue in this movie. this bit of script establishes that in the future, once all children turn 12 their names are put into a lottery--and every year after your 12th year your name is entered again. thus an 18 year old has their name in the lottery 7 times and the 12 year old just once.(PS the "lottery" is a death match, so lottery in the pejorative sense)...  so that lame piece of dialogue establishes that Prim, Katniss's little sister, is very unlikely to be chosen AND WOULDNT IT BE INSANE IF HER NAME WAS DRAWN?!  im being very picky, here. i guess this is just something that happens when you take a book and turn it into a movie.. also, i want to be Katniss. jealousy is ugly, you guys. k, ill still see the movie, RELAX. and i hope i love it. IM SIXTEEN YEARS OLD, BYEEE!!


Saturday, January 28, 2012

Monday, January 23, 2012

wedding date

this is bennett! i went to college with both beth and chris, and this is their little (huge!) 6 month old baby boy. he was my date to a wedding this weekend!


on the right is their little 3 year old, Charlotte, with libby.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

A BORING POST ABOUT POLITICAL PRIMARIES/CAUCUSES AND DELEGATES, woo

the last time i blogged about the current GOP primary that is currently dominating the news, facebook, and the twittersphere was in september. i had suggested Romney would win the nomination due to name recognition and resource$.. turns out it also has had a lot to do with the insanity and mental instability of his competition. this primary has been exceptional in that respect.

thus far, Romney has won the first caucus in Iowa and the first primary in New Hampshire. the difference between a caucus and a primary is WHO CARES. another distinction that varies by state is whether the primary results are binding or non-binding. if the state is bound by the results than the victor takes the states' delegates without exception; states that are not bound by the results actually allow the delegates to decide who they will cast their vote for... gotta love our 2-step representative democracy, where we do not actually vote for the candidates, but for who we want our delegates to vote for. while my snarky sarcasm may have been thick just then i actually think the distribution of delegates in this primary stage is one of the more democratic features of our elections; while the number of delegates for each state varies, the distribution of the delegates is based on percentage of popular vote won (especially in binding primaries). thus, although huntsman finished 3rd in NH he is still awarded some delegates, and thus individuals who cast their vote for him didn't wholly waste their vote. wholly. this type of distribution of delegates is not applied in the general election (with the exception of nebraska and maine). once we are in the general election, 48 states use a "winner-take-all" system of delegate distribution. so if California supports Obama over Romney 51% to 49%, Obama will be awarded all of the delegates/electoral votes, despite the closeness of the race. this is the distinction that is often made between "popular" vote and electoral votes. and how Gore can win the popular vote, while Bush takes the electoral college (2000!).

something i have actually been uninformed on is the number of delegates per state at the primary/caucus stage. for the general presidential election in november the formula is simple: a states delegates (electoral college votes) are determined by adding the number of the state's senators to the number of house of reps members; so california has 55 delegates (2 senators + 53 HORs).

the number of delegates per state at the primary/caucus stage is a similar calculation but much more onerous given the number of state and local and community governing bodies... thus, ARE YOU READY FOR THIS... it's from wiki, like i am going to type this up, myself...
The size of delegations to the Republican National Convention are determined by Rule 13 of the party’s national rules, which as of 2008 indicate the following:[1]

  1. Ten delegates at large from each of the fifty states.
  2. The national committeeman, the national committeewoman and the chairman of the state Republican Party of each state, American Samoa, the District of ColumbiaGuamNorthern Mariana IslandsPuerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
  3. Three district delegates for each member of the United States House of Representatives from each state, sixteen from D.C., twenty from Puerto Rico, and six each from American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
  4. From each state having cast at least a majority of its Electoral College votes for the Republican nominee in the preceding presidential election, four and one-half delegates at large plus a number of the delegates at large equal to 60 percent of the number of electoral votes of that state, rounding any fraction upwards.
  5. one additional delegate at large to each state for any and each of the following public officials who is a member of the Republican Party elected in the year of the last preceding presidential election or at any subsequent election held prior to January 1 of the year in which the next national convention is held (this provision rewards those states where the state GOP has been successful in electing candidates):
    1. governor
    2. at least half of the state's representatives in the United States House of Representatives
    3. a majority of members of any chamber of the state legislature, if also presided over by a Republican
    4. a majority of members of all chambers of the state legislature, if also presided over by a Republican
    5. any and each Republican United States Senator elected by such state in the six-year period prior to January 1 of the year in which the next national convention is held.
  6. in addition, if the District of Columbia shall have cast its electoral votes, or a majority thereof, for the Republican nominee for President of the United States in the last preceding presidential election, it shall be permitted four and one half delegates at large plus the number of delegates at large equal to thirty percent (30%) of the 16 delegates at large allotted to the District of Columbia, rounding any fraction upward

kill me.

last, there are super-delegates--extra delegates awarded to certain states, are never "bound" and can support whomever they wish. super delegates were an issue in the 2008 Democratic primary because the race between Obama and Clinton was pretty close. at times like those you start calling in favors and hope you are well connected/liked. if you want to know the number of delegates for each state, go here.  there are over 2,000, and as of now Romney has 25 and Paul has 10, followed by Santorum with 8. so although Romney has the ROmentum, dont count on Paul and the rest of the white guys to drop out anytime soon. DEMOCRACY, YOU GUYS. PUNS PUNS PUNS!

one final note, i am teaching campaigns and elections this spring at Occidental College. it will be my first time teaching this course, and i fully expect to jumble up the way our electoral system works in the US. SO PLEASE, COME SIT IN ON MY CLASS. with popcorn. roflmao. x






the bachelor: ITS BACK!!!

okay, so i am totally embarrassed by how serious i take the bachelor! but more so i take prediction seriously!, and being right. so please excuse what is overly serious analysis of the first episode of THE BACHELOR, below.

this season's bachelor is last season's wine-making, scoobie-do impersonating, heartbroken Ben F.



alright, so i think there is threshold of sanity that isn't met by those who would submit themselves to the torture that is being one of 25 women fighting for the attention of 1 man... . but this season IS exceptionally INSANE. WHAT IS GOING ON?!?!  ... And they are REALLY drunk. words are slurring, early and often.

with ABSOLUTELY no cheating (like blogs, which already report whats going to happen!), here are the girls i think will be ben's final 6.

JAMIE, 25, Registered Nurse
sad story. her dad died young, and her mother was found unfit to raise her kids, so jamie had to raise her siblings.!
when she introduced herself to ben she was straight forward--no gimmicks. i like her!! this isnt the best picture of her, unfortunately. regardless, i suspect ben will be too "taken" by the models, though, and overlook her. what a tragic story. also, she had just about ZERO airtime in the first episode. so things arent looking good but i like an underdog.




LINDZI, 26, Business Development, Stupid Name Spelling Girl
FIRST IMPRESSION ROSE GETTERRRRR. she rode in on a horse in jockey cap and all. the other women already have her in their sights--they are going to destroy her. when she went inside he said "i guess they saved the best for last." plus, shes funny, so i like her chances.



KASIE, 24, Admin. Asst. Tennessee
she seems nice.

 


Rachel, 27, Fashion
if i was going to pick someone, i would pick her. shes pretty and smart and isnt taking this too seriously.



Courntey, 28, Model, NYC
She seems like a real jerk. but he said it already: "that is a pretty girl." but then she was like "im a model. ima model? ima MODELLLL." MODELLLL. ben is going to be all about her. what a dummy.




Emily, 27, PhD Student, North Carolina
she already kissed him, HA! im partial to her bc shes a phd student--though in epidemiology BORING.
but then SHE RAPPED ABOUT IT--EPIDEMIOLOGY. IT WAS SO PAINFUL. I WANTED TO DIIIIIE. but i think she will stay around for a while.





alright, SO this is my top 6. KILL ME NOW!










Monday, January 2, 2012

happy anniversary

today is my parents's 36th wedding anniversary. quite an accomplishment that i can now appreciate, especially given that my longest romantic relationship is 1.5 years. eesh!

they were married in pingree, idaho. they met at boise state university 3 years prior, so its only natural that their wedding colors were orange and blue... right??

january 2nd, 1976
my dad's tux is awesome. it was a rental. look at that bow tie! my mom made her awesome dress, complete with hood and pockets. quite the fancy couple, wouldnt you say?

may, 2011

HAPPY 36TH ANNIVERSARY!