Thats right - I have a fresh news update from hell. Mariah Carey has now trumped Elvis Presley's previous record for #1 singles.

The thing is, I don't appreciate Mariah Carey for her singing voice - I appreciate the fact that at 40 years old she looks amazing and I'd pretty much do anything to her that she asked me to do. A woman like Mariah Carey makes me realize how naughty I actually am.



As a music fan I'm concerned, but as a horny single guy I say, "congratulations!"

But - I can appreciate and acknowledge the place in American history and culture that Yankee Stadium holds. This year, after 85 years of operation, Yankee Stadium will be closing its doors. This may not mean a whole lot to many people who would otherwise read this journal, but I know how intellectually curious you lot are. You may be surprised when a well of nostalgia gets dredged up after checking this out - ESPN really did a great job with this timeline. Click on the "timeline" link below the picture.



Many iconic moments in sports and civic matters that have ended up transcending American culture have occurred at this very place - from Babe Ruth in 1923, Lou Gehrig making his emotional announcement in 1939, countless iconic boxing matches, the place where Knut Rockne gave his "win one for the Gipper" speech at halftime, NFL championships that pre-date the league as we know it now, Roger Maris and his 61th home run, two papal visits (Paul VI and John Paul II) attended by 80,000 parishoners, a speech by Nelson Mandela after he was released from prison, to an interfaith memorial service after 9/11. Mets fans may have chosen to forget that for two years, while the crumbling Yankee Stadium underwent renovations, the Yankees played their home games at Shea Stadium!

Typically when you mention the New York Yankees to baseball fans they look like they want to stick their finger down their throat. Its hard to blame them. For many the Yanks represent everything wrong with American sports. Their home, however, should be appreciated for what it is - an American cathedral by another name.

I'm not a Yankees fan... but I'll be sad when they turn the lights out.

I just mentioned this in a comment that I left Mr. Beatty, but I think it is so awesome that it deserves its own journal entry. Plus, I wanted to do my part in the effort to bloat the journal count to 23,000 with more frivolity!

A little background - this is a microroaster from San Francisco called Blue Bottle Coffee. I heard about them 2.5 months ago when I was in town after reading the food section of the SF Chronicle. They are part of a growing coffee culture that is looking for the next level of quality in coffee by selecting very carefully the beans that they buy, and roasting is done in small batches. Organic is assumed - where the hairs split is whether or not we are talking about wet or dry processed, shade grown, melange roasted etc. but freshness is paramount. If the coffee was roasted longer than 48 hours ago they generally won't serve it. They also will not grind your beans for you, since they strictly adhere to grinding before use and insist that you do too. Blends are only mixed after each coffee has been separately blended - you'd be amazed at how lazy some roasters are and the difference in quality can be drastic. This is why I will not buy Mexican Chiapas anywhere but Blue Bottle.

They make blends for some of SF's best restaurants, who do serve Blue Bottle Coffee only under the agreement that they do so using a french press or ceramic drip filter (a fancier version of what I use and 4x more expensive, but functionally identical). They do a great mail order business as well - I pay $17-$18 a pound (including shipping) and my coffee comes roasted no later than 8 hours prior to shipment. Once I find a local microroaster that I like (yet to find even one, honestly) I will be happy to recommend them.

For locals to SF - I would find it hard to believe if you haven't at least thought about checking out their new cafe! Their kiosk in Hayes Valley is small but supposedly serves lattes that only dreams are made of and they are equally anal about the espresso drinks in general, but where the really interesting stuff happens is the cafe. They are the only US owners of an incredible machine from Japan. Reading about what it took for the owner of Blue Bottle to get one of these machines makes it seem like he was getting a black belt in jujitsu or something.

Slideshow -



Corresponding article -



All those cafes who bought that Clover machine and thought they were sweet have been put to shame!

See? I was at Dyngus Day.



I also wanted to debut the Michael McDonald limited edition iPod 4GB Nano -



Josh

Wow - first Rasmussen and now Reuters/Zogby.



For me polls only signify trends... it is too imperfect of a science to rely on the numbers as if they are statistically accurate. Still, in this instance looking at the polls it cannot be denied that Barack Obama got smoked this past month.

Oh - and some of the more reliable elements of the media deep throats Barack Obama after the speech, just as I predicted. We all know the media has generally handled Barack Obama like an innocent child rather than a presidential candidate, but comparing him to JFK could have an unintended irony in the sense that JFK was a president whose fame largely rests on a cult of personality rather than tangible accomplishments. Nobody, not even Reagan, brought our country closer to nuclear war than JFK and his brother did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But hey, let the comparisons fly. This article was borderline embarrassing in its gushing approval.



This is in the minority, however. I think many of you may be interested in know that most of what I've read today - and that includes several traditionally liberal editorials and news magazines like Newsweek - that while they generally thought it was a good (even great) speech the enthusiasm is tempered. Its as if they are holding their breath to see what happens, which I suppose is a rare shot of pragmatism in the media.

I've read in the LA Times today a writer highlighting a blatant contradiction in what Obama has said concerning his former pastor - he had previously stated that he never personally heard inflammatory stuff while "sitting in the pews," but during his speech he directly admits that he's heard the negative stuff in person. If Hillary were smart she'd seize on that. Honestly, if the Clintons can't find a way to seize momentum here, then she'll never find a way to seize momentum.

Maureen Dowd, a woman who is serially annoying, wrote what I consider a short but devastating piece.

She writes, "The candidate may have staunched the bleeding, but he did not heal the wounds. His naïve and willful refusal to come to terms earlier with the Rev. Wright's anti-American, anti-white and pro-Farrakhan sentiments - echoing his naïve and willful refusal to come to terms earlier with the ramifications of his friendship with sleazy fund-raiser Tony Rezko - will not be forgotten because of one unforgettable speech."

If Maureen Dowd can see it and writes about it, then I'm afraid for Obama's chance at sweeping this episode under the rug and moving on without skepticism heading his way.

I'm even more astounded by my having read groups of Democrats commenting on LA Times articles, and I swear if I'm lying I'm dying on this one... actually agree with Rush Limbaugh when he highlighted that we do not live in the 50's and 60's anymore and that Barack Obama can't credibly pretend as if we still live in those times... and neither can a 20-year confidante, even if he lived through that divisive, incredibly wrong and racially heated time.

They also both agree, apparently, that Obama is missing the distinction between the private fears in his grandmother's mind of black guys as she walks down the street and the quite public and radical anti-american, anti-white rhetoric of his former pastor. There is also an assumption of large scale ignorance concerning those not in absolute blind love of Obama regarding how black churches conduct their sermons that nobody really buys when looking at the example that has been provided.

That is a very good point - you cannot excuse suggestions that the government created AIDS to kill blacks or that we live in the US of KKKA today by saying that it was because of how he was treated yesterday, because in the end its not justifiable under any conditions. I'm not sure people are going to buy it, and Obama and the media are wondering about that exact same thing. People are still going to wonder about why he stuck with such an obvious America hater for 20 years - I can't see one element in his speech that would persuade the people that his critics are wrong about the issue of how he exercises his judgment. Personally, I think this is one of the reasons why the media isn't jumping for joy over the speech.

I haven't read any conservative punditry yet (I do have to work today...) but you can imagine how that is leaning. I found out about the Rush stuff from the article itself, although if anybody wants to get Rush's opinion on the matter in his own words (highly unlikely here) you can visit his site and read the transcripts.

I am not sure that the criticisms about his judgment or character are going to change much, and if you look at the polls Obama hasn't just flatlined but has fallen backwards.

I think all of this is immaterial to his suitability as a potential president. In the end he's going to have to defend his character while trying to sell America on his lack of experience, as well as the pursuit of tax hikes and punitive measures for businesses during a recession, spending increases and expanded government... aka classic liberalism. Still though, it continues.

In the Boston Globe today I read an article that dared to mention the seemingly superficial nature of his candidacy and that supporters hoped that this speech would add gravitas. The irony in the Globe article is that if Obama's candidacy is indeed superficial, the media can take a huge chunk of the blame for having facilitated it all this time. Based on what his own supporters say, I'm not sure. Here is an example -

"To say that the man is outlining a great opportunity in the history of our age is recognizing the truth about this moment charged with so much potential - so much possibility - that we can move mountains if we come together to embrace our diversity as the cause for our strength. To say that he is the most eloquent orator of our time is stating the obvious. I hope and I pray, from my heart of hearts, that he becomes president of this great land, and leads it to the greatness that is ours to loose."

This is nonsense, guys, and people that do not support Barack Obama are lampooning it all - even Democrats. Its simply not good enough when weighing who should be the most powerful politician on earth.

Exploring our limitless potential because of our diversity, embracing each other, and hoping for the ubiquitous but yet-to-be-defined-for-the-American-public-in-a-major-speech change isn't going to solve our deepening economic problems, bring a conclusion to the Iraq war in a way that we can all support or stabilize the middle class. This is why when he says he is a unifier I suspect that he is not - I think we all agree that we should come together and have more honest discussions about things, but the logical conclusion of that agreement IS NOT the establishment of a liberal, socialist style governmental scheme.

Its too bad - I admire his ability to move people with words. Still though, it is what he doesn't say that interests me and will interest the rest of us when the formalities are over and the real campaign begins.