A Thing for Vampires

I don't get it. I really don't. Since when did vampires go from being Transylvanian to teens suffering more angst than Harry Potter? I suppose everything goes through a cycle of being popular and then falling out of popularity but I guess I kind of missed that point in time when vampires became 'cool' again. I mean let's face it, vampires or vampire lore has been around for generations but it's certainly not the same time of lore that we grew up with. I mean there are times when I feel that the 'true' vampire lore that I always think of (like Count Dracula) when imagining vampires and what they're up to.

I guess these days when you mention vampires the first thing that pops to mind is the pale guys from "Twilight" or "True Blood" or even the guys in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". No longer are they Europeans with a flair for accents or the desire to 'velcome' you into their castle keeps. They'll hang around in abandoned homes or live with their parents or even set up bases that would make Batman jealous but the fact remains that this change in understanding has changed the face of vampirism for me. I guess for many teens it's a way for them to deal with feelings of being misunderstood as they go through adolescence (I mean let's face it, vampires are as far from the norm as you could expect). In the 1960's it could have been fantasy's of being part of the "X-Men" but now it's vampires.

I suppose there are far worse things that teens could choose to follow but honestly, I just think that this new twist on vampirism is taking the lore and twisting it all around and dumbing it down from a horror element to a teen romantic element. I have read many of Anne Rice's Vampire books which kind of changed the tone of vampire stories for a long time ago itself. But at the time it still maintained some of those elements that typefied for vampires for so long. Basically Euro-trash type vampires who lived miserable lives while struggling to maintain some part of their humanity. Yet it was different than the current trend. There was always a romantic element but now it comes down to the formulaic teen romance. Boy likes girl, girl is curious about boy, they fall in love but a bully tries to come between them and the boy steps up and defends girl. Romance ensues and everyone is happy.

But many vampire books or stories from the past didn't have that 'hopeful' element to them. There was always a little bit of sorrow that you felt for these vampires for their situation. Before they became tragi-romantic characters at their root they were always scary characters and the sad thing is that they are slowly losing that characteristic. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing; it's probably a good thing that there is a resurgence in vampire fiction but still, you can't help but wonder what Count Dracula must be feeling about the fact that his 'people' are now the stuff of teen romances.

Stay with the Family

Is it hypocrisy or something else entirely? Coverage of President Obama's trip to Russia was sidelined a bit this week seeing as how the funeral for the late Michael Jackson took up much of the early part of the week. Still, those who follow the political news front fairly regularly seem to be having a field day of sorts with the fact that Obama took his family along with him for his trip. And if one is to read the comments section of an article (any article) covering this trip then you'll see just how much voice and partisanism exists out there. Maybe I'm just noticing it because it appears to have become a major talking point for all politicians in the last eight years but partisanism isn't something I noticed to this degree in years past but it's certainly alive and well in the American public as well as in the government.

In case you're wondering what I mean it has to do with the fact that Obama took his wife and daughters along with him to Russia for his meeting with President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin. What appears to be the issue is that Republicans (or Conservatives or Right wingers as they are often referred to in comments sections) are claiming hypocrisy on Democrats (or Dems, or leftists, or socialists as they are often referred to in comments sections) for condemning Sarah Palin when news of her taking her kids along on visits around the nation while praising Obama for taking his children along on a trip to Russia. In addition, many who hate Obama see him as flagrantly spending taxpayer money in order to take his family along while 'hard working Americans' are homeless and jobless.

For those sad people I would simply say that if you have the time to post such comments to news articles online in the comfort of anonymity afforded by the internet then you aren't part of the 'hard working Americans' that are suffering from joblessness or homelessness. If you were then I don't think you'd be spending time on the internet trolling the news articles to post such detremental comments. This lashing applies to supporters of both parties. What difference does it make in the end what your opinion is on the matter. If you want to make it then put your name out there and make it, don't hide behind some random letter or ambiguous title condemning the person you don't support. Put your name out there and tell people what your opinion is. You'll see how fast people end the posting of such complaints.

But that's not the issue; the issue here is whether Obama was right in taking his daughters along with him or not and whether it was hypocritical of people who condemned Palin to praise Obama. I don't believe it is and I'll explain why. According to news reports made by most media outlets, Palin had her children accompany her on trips on occasion and this was taken care of by Alaskan taxpayers; where the issue comes up is that she took them along (and expected taxpayers or her hosts) to pay for her children when they weren't even invited to the event in the first place. In this case the Russian government has made arrangements to show the girls parts of Russia as well while their parents were going around and making political meetings.

What's wrong in that? I don't think there's anything wrong in it. Now some claim that Obama is simply using his children as publicity items meant to generate further support in the polls. Well is that any different than Palin who paraded her loving family on stage with her at most major poltical rallies that were shown on television or in the media? Didn't they have their time in the spotlight as well? But why stop at Palin; she's no longer even Governor and is now among Joe Six-Pack. Hasn't every President in recent history paraded their children around the world with them as ambassadors of goodwill? I don't think anyone can claim that they haven't.

It's a slippery slope that the President runs; and I mean any President, not just the current or former President or Presidents well in the past. They are expected to be in the public's eye but they are also expected to maintain some level of family connection. Now didn't the scion of the Republicans in the last decade (George W. Bush) spend enough time with his family? How many trips were made to the ranch in Crawford, Texas or how many times was he seen spending time with his family? Isn't it a good thing to keep a person grounded? I mean after all, although these people have been President, aren't they at the end of the day, just like you and me? Don't they want to kick back with their families as well?

To me the issue isn't whether or not taxpayer money is being 'wasted' but rather what sort of image it is sending to the world. By taking his children to Europe, Obama is exposing them to the world as a whole. Didn't it inspire Barbara Bush (W's daughter) to write a book that was appreciated in many circles dealing with AIDS in Africa? It's a slippery slope because to the world will either see him as someone with good family values in wanting to expose his children to the other parts of the world or he will be seen as someone who is only interested in pushing his own agenda. Whatever the case may be or whatever side you tend to support, all I know is that the schism that has occurred between what people see as good family values has degenerated into what political party you tend to support.

Happy Trails

Love her or hate her, it's imposible to deny that Sarah Palin has impacted American politics and will likely continue to do so as long as the public and the media continue to give her importance on some issue or the other. As she approaches the end of her Gubernatorial term as Governor of the state of Alaska, Palin has decided not to run for re-election and has decided to resign her office prior to the end of her term. While this strikes many as odd, I think that she's continuing to play a political game like only she can play it. But if the reports coming in from former McCain-Palin campaign aides is any indication, it may be yet another wrongly made decision that could hurt her chances rather than help her chances.

At the tail end of the 2008 elections there was already strong outcry and support for Sarah Palin in 2012 as a potential frontrunner for the Presidency. Now some people may gag on that statement or proclamation but I for one believe that there is quite a bit of truth to it. I do believe that Palin has higher aspirations when it comes to the American political scene but for better or for worse, I think she may end up hurting her chances more than helping them. But before you hit the mail button and inundate me with spam regarding my low IQ or the fact that Palin is the future of this nation, allow me to explain why I think she's making a mistake that could potentially cost her success in the future.

Palin would certainly not be the first GOP governor to go from the Governor's mansion to the White House. In the last three decades at least three of our President's were former Governors and at least two of them were from the Republican Party. That's certainly one thing in Palin's favor since the stats are on her side. However I think one thing that was different between Palin and the rest of the pack was that by some means or the other, the three other former Governors all had some exposure to the world by some means or the other. In other words, they had passports before they stepped onto the world stage. Sure not every one of those candidates could correctly identify countries of the world or what was going on in those countries despite their being featured so prominently in the news (case in point, George W. Bush appearing rather clueless when asked about his thoughts on General Musharaff and his coup in Pakistan shortly before one of the debates leading up to the 2000 elections).

Nonetheless, given that Bush's father, Senior Bush, had served in the government so long and was the former head of the CIA his exposure to the world appeared to be more than what Palin's has been. Of course one can certainly see Russia from Alaska and they 'share airspace' but is that enough to justify being leader of the world's most prominent nation? I don't think so. But so what? Some may argue that it doesn't matter that she's not well travelled or that she doesn't know about world events. What impact will it have on her running for higher office. That's true but what about the other factors going against her given her decision to resign?

Resigning from office, Palin claimed that she had accomplished all that she wanted to accomplish in her term as Governor. So as many have asked before, does that mean that Alaska is in perfect shape now? I don't think any state or territory in the union can make that claim but perhaps Alaska (being so far to the north) is fine and we just don't know it down here in the contiguous United States. But even if that were the case, if someone was doing such a fine job shouldn't that be all the more reason to stay in office and at least run for re-election to continue to do great things and build up one's reputation?

Maybe she's following the philosophy of 'leaving on a high note' which says that you leave when you're on top. Maybe she's on top of her game in Alaska and people are thrilled to pieces but then why again would you resign before your term finishing up? Why not just finish out your term? Is it because of criticism or comments in the media? If that's the case then what would happen if she were President? I saw bumper stickers calling for Obama's impeachment even before he had taken the oath of office. In the face of all that, what if Palin (and stranger things have happened) is elected President and the opinion of everyone is so low that she feels stymied and then wants to resign again? Is that the mark of a responsible or forward-thinking leader? I don't think so. To me is seems like more the case of someone making a pre-emptive CYA move. In other words, covering your ass.

To Drink or Not to Drink

With the amount of conflicting information being put out there by doctors, scientists and researchers, it's no wonder that many of us out there are bordering on insanity when it comes to figuring out what's good for us and what isn't. The latest? Well it's a subject that's fairly near and dear to my heart and something that many people have accused of being my fallback subject when I have nothing else to blog on but there's just something about coffee that interests me and that keeps intriguing scientists as well. The latest study indicates that consumption of coffee may be beneficial in warding off the effects of Alzheimer's Disease.

Tests done on lab rats (does anyone else find it funny that tests of potential effects to humans are most often conducted on rats?) showed that memory was positively affected with the introduction of the rat equivalent of 500 miligrams of caffeine. What this meant was that inflammation of the brain which typefies Alzheimers was staved off and memory improved. Now of course the proof of this was that the rats probably kept hitting the button for more food rather than the button that would shock them with a 'mild' electric charge but the principle still applies nonetheless. Regardless, I think it's probably both a good and a bad thing that this result came out.

It's good because for many of us coffee devotees it's one more thing for us to point to and say "Ha! Coffee is good for you." while I think it's bad for what it's potentially going to lead to. Most people who frequent Starbucks or a similar coffee chain will probably be able to tell you that amount of coffee you usually get at such places is well in excess of what you'd get in a normal coffee mug. That being said, we are probably consuming the equivalent (if not more) of the required dosage of caffeine to see these effects. What people often don't think about though is the fact that in doing so, they are also probably increasing the amount of fat they consume.

What do I mean? Well most drinks at Starbucks can be high in terms of fat content and caloric content if you go with the 'default' ingredients. This can include whole milk, whip cream, various syrups and accoutrements which serve to make the coffee tasty but also serve to bump up the amount of bad things in the coffee. I'm not saying that people shouldn't indulge in such drinks but I can already hear people who have gained tremendous weight arguing that they were drinking coffee because doctor's said it could help stave off Alzheimers. Then these same obese coffee drinkers would in turn sue Starbucks for millions in health endangerment simply because they didn't label their drinks or coffees with the calories it contained or how much fat it has. Not that most people look at these labels anyways but that's another matter.

So then what's the solution? Simple. Everything in moderation. Most anything out there is good for you in small controlled quantities but it's when we start abusing these quantities that we start seeing negative effects. A few years ago I remember that scientists came out and said that popcorn was good for you. People then started consuming record quantities of popcorn at the movies or elsewhere. What the doctor's then had to do was caveat what they said. They meant plain popcorn that wasn't doused in butter or nacho cheese or loaded with salt. It wasn't too long after that that the same doctors released a study that said excessive consumption of 'bad' popcorn could lead to negative health effects. Again it came down to abuse of a good thing. I suppose in a few more weeks or months we'll hear of another study that shows that while coffee helps stave off some effects of Alzheimers it helps promote ulcers. Won't that be wonderful?

Who Says Mens Tennis is Boring?

It seems like only a few weeks ago (well it literally was only about three weeks ago) that everyone was talking about Roger Federer and the fact that he finally managed to win the French Open; the one tournament that had evaded his grasp for so long. With that victory, he joined a group of only six other men who have managed the career Grand Slam (which means winning all four majors) in the span of their tennis playing careers. That in and of itself could be considered a major accomplishment but Federer was apparently not content to rest upon his laurels and thus broke yet another record by winning a record breaking 15th major victory. His match at the 2008 Wimbledon final against friend and rival Rafael Nadal was one that will long be remembered but I think it will be this final that will exemplify Roger Federer.

I began watching the match and knew that it would be a good one given the fact that the first set went to a tie breaker. For a long time I had always thought that Federer's opponent for the final, American Andy Roddick, was a little bit impatient. I remember seeing matches where I could see the impatience building in him until such a time that it would literally cause him to explode and begin messing up his own game. But the Roddick that played with Federer yesterday was a completely different man. He was sharp and focused and gave Federer a true run for his money. Put aside was the fact that Federer's win-loss record against Roddick was 18-2, Roddick wasn't going down without a fight and neither was Roger. By the mid point of the second set though that outcome was in doubt.

I couldn't believe that two hours into the match we had only completed barely two sets. From then on Federer began his fight back. Holding off Roddick to force tie-breakers in both the second and third sets, Federer appeared to be gaining ground and returning to form. And admittedly, I have to say that I was happy to see Roddick showing more than enough signs of having matured as a player to see that he wasn't getting impatient. Frustrated perhaps but certainly not aggravated or impatient as he would have in years past. So much so that I was taken by surprise (as I'm sure many were) that he took the fourth set so easily to set up the decisive and deciding fifth set. Those of us who saw last year's final know that there is no tie-breaker in the fifth set at Wimbledon and the game will continue until there is a clear two game advantage in the final set. Last year that meant a total of 16 games being played which ended with Nadal winning 9-7.

This year was to be no different. With the speed the previous sets had been played, it didn't appear that the final set would last long enough to touch the record setting duration of the match played at the final last year. I was wrong. Although the duration record wasn't broken again, I think the final set was what typefied and exemplified the whole match. Two players, so evenly matched and so equally driven to win played their hearts out. It wasn't the safe 'you-volley-I-volley' type tennis either. It was played with the same intensity as the early sets and made for some very, very entertaining tennis. In the end, Federer managed to hold on a little longer in the 30 games they played for the final set.

And although some would claim that Federer has won enough with his five previous victories at Wimbledon (as Roddick so rightfully pointed out during Federer's speech) it is nonetheless commendable that he managed to fight back and win. Some have said that it would have been a different scenario if Nadal had not lost at the French this year or if he hadn't withdrawn from Wimbledon before it began but be that as it may, luck plays a factor as well and it's quite clear that luck was on Federer's side. Maybe some would say that he didn't 'deserve' to win but I think he proved that he did by playing with his heart and his head and making sure that he didn't lose either in his quest to win. Maybe he'll keep quiet during the US Open in a few weeks in New York though I doubt it. Though he's broken records already I don't think he'll be content to kick back and relax. Like the names he took as inspirations during interviews, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan and Michael Schumacher. Each was or is a pinnacle in their respective sport and didn't give up until they were ready to. I'm sure Federer will be the same way.

Movies as 'History'

Most of my regular readers know that among two of my great passions ranks watching movies and reading up on history. I would be hard pressed to admit which is ranked higher than the other but suffice it to say that they are both rather up there in rank. One would therefore think that when movies seek to combine the two subjects of my passion, I would be ecstatic and for the most part that may be true but there are often occasions where I have been a bit disappointed in what Hollywood has managed to put out. I bring this up because as you may have guessed from the photo accompanying this blog, there is a new movie being released entitled "Public Enemies" which deals with the FBI hunt for gangster John Dillenger (portrayed by Johnny Depp).

The film is directed by Michael Mann whose list of films include "Heat", "Miami Vice", "Collateral", "The Insider" and "The Last of the Mohicans" to name a few. Save for "The Insider" there weren't really any movies in that lot that could be considered historical in nature though "The Insider" did deal with the real life case of Jeffery Wiggand who was a whistle-blower for the tobacco industry. While many critics believe that the portrayal of this real-life incident were fairly accurate, it is safe to say that not everything shown in the film was realistic. But then again that's what we expect isn't it? Most moviegoers these days don't have the attention span to concentrate more than two hours. Any movie going over that time is often looked at with some derrision.

But how can one encompass the life and legacy of someone famous in so short a time? It's next to impossible actually. So what does one do? Simple. Edit and consolidate. Often times for the sake of dramatic purposes, writers and directors will consolidate events and incidents or meetings to encompass a longer duration in a much shorter time. The unfortunate side effect of this practice is that when people look to use movies as an authority on how certain events in history played out then there is bound to be misrepresentation or frustration over the way certain events are portrayed or how they play out.

For example when the movie "300" came out several years ago, one of the main complaints against it was the portrayal of the Persians. Now I won't argue whether the depiction of the Persians were accurate or not but I will say that it helped bring to light the fact that many people don't realize that Persia is now known as Iran. The reason I say this is because many critics and fans of the film were confused as to why the Iranian government (including President Ahmedanijad) were protesting the film. Sad as it is, even a movie that may have stretched the truth may have helped provide a little bit of education to people.

But sometimes what happens is that the license to dramatize 'certain events' can often go overboard and results in more dramatization than historical fact. Certainly it makes for more interesting movie making but then many people accept it to be the truth. This can be both a good and a bad thing. I have always been one who believes that if a movie on history stirs my interest on a subject, I will seek out information and educate myself on the film before accepting what I see blindly. With the case of "Public Enemies" I'm sure there is some artistic license taken but one would think that with Michael Mann being the director there would be more attention to the truth than action. I would simply ask that before you think of Johnny Depp as being the representative of John Dillenger, read a book on the subject too. It can make watching movies on history that much more enjoyable.

All Play and No Work?

Many people (like I myself for a number of years) were completely unaware of the existance of the Chain Bridge connecting Virginia and Maryland until traffic in the area suddenly got a whole lot worse when construction on the bridge began. Basically this three lane bridge adjusts the number of lanes into our out of DC/Maryland based on the time of day. In the morning there are two lanes towards the city and in the afternoon it is the opposite. Although this mini bridge tucked away down the river between the American Legion Bridge and the Key Bridge (closer to DC) are probably the bigger and better known bridges connecting the two states across the mighty Potomac River, not many people use it who don't have to.

Now I'm one of those who doesn't use the bridge on a regular basis but I have used it as an alternate route across the river when traffic is bad but with the closures on the bridge due to maintenance work expected to last many months, the residual effect on the neighboring roads and surrounding areas has been tremendous. Maintenance is something that can't be avoided, especially on older bridges like this one and I'm sure that these bridges need (and deserve) the maintenance they are receiving but what vexes me (and many other drivers in the area) is why there appears to be nothing going on on the bridge other than lane closures. Drive on the bridge most any day and you'll find the bridge devoid of workers or equipment.

The transportation department responded to claims in the media that no work is going on by explaining that much of the work is currently going on underneath the bridge but for those of us crawling along on the road it's sometimes disheartening to sit in traffic for something we don't know the cause of and then see nothing but empty road with no work being done. I mean as mean as it may sound, when you know you're stuck in traffic for miles and miles for some accident or other reason that you can't quite see, you begin to hope in some small portion of your brain that the incident that has caused the delay will be 'worth it'. And by 'worth it' I don't mean necessarily death and destruction but at least finding something of significance to help you justify why you sat in slow traffic for so long.

Similarly when you're sitting in traffic with the signs of construction posted all over the place, you assume that there must be some significant work being done. I think the unfortunate thing is that by the time many of us drive past these sites, the construction crews are either finishing for the day or haven't started on the night shift and they're all just sitting around shooting the breeze which can lead one to believe that there's no work being done whatsoever. Then is when you start getting frustrated and begin wondering what all the fuss is about. The Chain Bridge is no exception. Though work is going on underneath and will make it safer for people driving it every day, I sometimes wish we could see what was happening to make our commutes so Hellish from time to time.