We are a YouTube Nation, so it would seem (suck it, Red Sox). I'd estimate that I'm sent an average of five or six YouTube links a day, on various subjects (thanks, Hendrick!). So over the past couple of years, I've become intimately familiar with a number of personalities, be they Tay Zonday , Kelly , Tunak Tunak Tan , Miss South Carolina , and various others.

What's funny is that these personalities, and their antics, have in a way embedded themselves in my generation's culture, in a way. Catchphrases (Chocolate Rain! The Iraq!) abound, and everybody is at least somewhat familiar with some character from one of these clips.

There's also another trend I've noticed, and it is much more disturbing: despite the cautions of any philosophical/religious material that was embedded in all of us from birth--we are increasingly judgmental and obsessed with our own self-images. These days, what sells is what succeeds. OK, so that's almost always been the case, but it's gotten worse, especially with the current "mainstream" generations.

That, in a way, is why some of these YouTube clips are so popular: because they go against that grain. They're unconventional, and they touch us in unexpected ways because of that. They provide a refreshing reminder that our happiness does not depend on conventionality and marketability or fitting into one mold or another. (Then again, as we once asked an anti-trendy classmate in high school: what happens if being unconventional or anti-trendy becomes anti-trendy?)

Case in point is the new Weezer video, to their latest single "Pork and Beans." The video brilliantly incorporates some of the most popular YouTube personalities into a commercial-defying message that speaks for itself.



Or there's Montgomery-Gentry's more "direct" way of getting the message across (did I mention I'm increasingly a Country fan?):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QytPoRLEhF0

I'd like to take a moment to talk about the 2008 election. For various reasons I generally try to avoid discussing politics on this blog (despite, ironically enough, the original intention of this blog), but for an event this momentous, I think writing some thoughts is warranted.

I've fluctuated a lot over my choice in this election so far. I first started thinking seriously about 2008 in 2006, before the majority of candidates had declared themselves as such. At the time, I'd just finished reading Barack Obama's The Audacity of Hope and had been quite impressed: here was a man, it seemed, who was relatively moderate in his ideas. He offered no "quick fixes" but potential short and long term solutions to various issues and recognized the complexity of the current political climate. In his discussion of affirmative action, for example, he described how in order to effectively move forward it would be necessary for both "sides" to recognize the deep-seated feelings of relative ill-will harbored by their opposites. Obviously this is a somewhat bland and generic "solution," but it was nevertheless refreshing to me to see a politician who was able to avoid falling into another needless repetition of talking points and cliches.
I've generally continued to be impressed by Senator Obama--the only thing that bothered me, at first, was that Audacity also came off as a trial-balloon style "hey look at me I'll make a great presidential candidate"-style tome, albeit a very down-to-earth one. It was no surprise, then, when Obama announced his candidacy in early 2007.
As time has gone on, though, I've found a few more reasons to be concerned. While Obama's critics are wrong to state that he has no experience--he's been a very well-respected constitutional law professor at one of the best law schools in the United States, a community organizer, a state senator, and finally a U.S. Senator, thus giving him fairly extensive experience at all three major levels of government (local, state, and federal)--he does come off at times as naive and, well...innocent. Senator Obama clearly has his head around domestic issues, but I'm just not convinced that he has what it takes in terms of foreign policy--that is to say, he has proved time and again that he can bring both sides of the aisle together at home, but exactly what good is this going to accomplish abroad? No doubt Obama will help to restore the United States' international reputation, but what beyond that? I, for one, am certainly not convinced that pulling out of Iraq should be a number one priority at this point--in fact, I think it would be foolish.
Yet I cannot fully support Hillary Clinton. From late 2006, I initially felt Barack Obama would be the better Democratic choice by "mere" electability, anticipating the type of Rove-ian attack the GOP would/will be likely to launch against the Democratic nominee. There is an incredible amount of hatred for Bill Clinton among the right (and even some moderates), and "commentators" such as Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter have been chomping at the bit since at least 2004 for Hillary to run so they can vilify her--so for the past four years they've been sowing seeds of hatred and fear against Clinton among an otherwise relatively unaware (to put it nicely) base. Should Clinton get the nomination, all the old Bill-bashing and Monica Lewinsky debates will come about again. Hillary will be portrayed as a ruthless power-monger (which she is, to a degree), and come November she will likely go down to a sweeping defeat. Should Barack Obama get the nomination, however, the attacks would necessarily be more racially based--and in an increasingly post-racial society (results in West Virginia's primary to the contrary) this simply won't do in the minds of voters. Obviously this sort of thing hasn't come up yet, and likely will not be a major factor in the general election (so long as Jeremiah Wright returns to the background).
Elect-ability issues aside, however, I have increasingly liked Clinton in some respects. She is confident in her abilities and appears to have her head on her shoulders a bit more tightly than Obama at times. She's also certainly articulate. But beyond this, her refusal to drop out the race thus far signals an intense disconnect from the party and the country at large. It seems to me that if Clinton were truly interested in what's best for this country instead of what's best for her career, she would have long ago bowed out and started backing Obama.



The other part of me, however, believes that she would make the "right decisions" if elected.

And that's what this election comes down to. The fact is that I, and we as a nation, are tired of "sameness." We are tired of what the Bush administration has to offer, and the GOP has done nothing to distance itself from their message. I am tired of seeing the interests of the oil companies and Wall Street come first. I am tired of Americans having to needlessly suffer through illness because they cannot afford health coverage. I am tired of profits coming before ethics, of tax cuts for the wealthy coming before social responsibility.
John McCain had a very clear opportunity to completely distance himself from Bush. Indeed, his actions over the past eight years indicated a willingness and desire to do so. But when the time came for John McCain to stand up and tell us that he does not support the administration and that he stands for something different, he chose party loyalty. He stood up for the administration's stance on torture and countless other issues. This belies a fundamental dishonesty in his claims of "straight talk" and independence. I almost considered voting for McCain. I still might, if Clinton gets the nomination and he does something to convince me that he is, in fact, the better candidate.
In the end, I know that what the Democratic party once stood for and still seems to stand for in the forms of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton--to put it crudely, justice, responsibility, and a fair shot for all Americans regardless of background of privilege--must carry the day come November.

Although it would be nice to have a president who could tell us all about the cute things the cat did.

My sister has rightly pointed out that this is me riding in a car (though not while driving!):

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/04/29/vo.thailand.dozing.bear.cnn

Also, I'm now on YouTube!

Out of tragedy comes motivation and resolve, if only as a means to distract the brain. Bigger questions are at hand, but we are not the ones to answer them. Where, now, might be G-d's grace?

About eight months ago, our priest mentioned in his homily that one of our parishioners plays for the Angels. At the time I thought this was kind of cool but couldn't imagine to whom he was referring.

Fast-forward a bit.

Today I arrived at the 5:00P.M. Mass a bit late, so instead of trying to find a place at the front, I sat towards the back in one of the side aisles. As I'm sitting down, I notice the guy in front of me looks somewhat familiar. Kind of built like Kevin James but a bit thinner. Dark hair on top, fringed with gray at the sides. Hmm. Could it be...? Then we get to the part of the Mass in which parishioners shake hands and wish each other Peace, and I shake the guys hand. My suspicions are 90% confirmed now. It's Mike Scioscia!

On my way out I see another familiar figure and, not being too familiar, think naw it couldn't be who I think it might be (have fun following that one). I'm later informed that as his wife is Catholic, Kobe Bryant does, in fact, regularly attend our church.

All these years of no celebrity-sightings and suddenly I get two major ones--in church, too.

I wasn't sure whether I should ask about where to get the best big screen appliances or where I could get the best deals on $4 million rings...