Dining review

Around 3:00 in the afternoon on Monday I got an e-mail from Talisha, who is in my column writing class, to meet up with her at Ink Eats and Bar at four for the dine-in review column that was due Tuesday. It's located at the corner of 27^th Street and N Street in downtown Sacramento, so leaving from around Jefferson Blvd in West Sacramento at 3:15, I arrived and parked around 3:40. Taking a short walk, since I parked a block away, I came up to the place we were to meet. Outside, there was an artsy-looking bench in front of the entrance, made of metal and painted over with black, yellow, and red hues. I sat down on one side of the bench and felt an immediate wetness, realizing I sat in some water that had not evaporated, which resulted in my having a “soggy bottom”. I chided myself a little for forgetting about the rain the night before, and sat further down on the bench while waiting for about ten to fifteen minutes for the others, all the while writing down my experience up to that point. Looking at the bench further, I was really impressed with the detail put into it. There were two stars at the end where I sat in water, and the other end was missing a back and was rounded, like a table. In the middle of that end of the bench was a metal sunflower, which looked pretty cool. At about five minutes to four, I went inside to see if some of the others had arrived before me. They hadn't, so I talked with a woman with jet black hair and artful tattoos who was working behind the bar counter, telling her I was meeting up with some classmates from a column writing class, and that we would be writing about eating here. She told me that I could sit wherever while I waited, and doing so, I took in some of the surroundings in the bar. On the ceilings, there seemed to be carnival-looking posters, one showing a “tiger woman” from the looks of it. There were four flat-screen TVs positioned around the bar, two of them directly behind the bar, one to the left of the bar, and the last one in the opposite corner from that TV, allowing clear views of a TV from most spots in the bar. I figured from this that they get a decent number of guys coming in to watch sports and have a good time. 1980's rock, pop, and a little bit of R&B played over the speakers during my time in the bar, and I distinctly remember hearing the songs “I Wanna Be Sedated” and “Cruel Summer”. About five minutes after four, Talisha arrived with her boyfriend, Will, and told me one other person might be coming, but probably not. She was right, in that that person never came. We chatted a little bit before we were given menus, we ordered drinks (I just got a Diet Coke, but Will and Talisha got a couple Cherry Mohitos, and Talisha herself got a Diet Coke as well. We went over the menus, with a few items popping out at me (Pulled Pork Sandwich, Triple Cheese Grilled Sandwich, and meatloaf caught my eye, while Talisha's eye caught crab cakes), and after five minutes, we finalized our picks, myself having the Pulled Pork sandwich with the crispy onion straws on the side, Talisha having the same but with the onions on, and Will had the triple grilled cheese sandwich. The three of us talked some more after we made our orders, talking about how we grew up, whether or not we were only children or had siblings, and Talisha made mention of how she wants to take her career in journalism to become a fashion editor. I remarked that if she pursued it, she could eventually give critique on fashion and styles of dress at major events like the Oscars, which Will seemed to get a kick out of. About ten minutes later, we got our sandwiches with fries. We all agreed: they were pretty damn good. I'd give the pulled pork sandwich itself an eight out of ten, but the fries were a little average. We ate and chatted some more, also taking pictures of the place, before saying we'd have to come here again. Good food, and at ten dollars a sandwich it didn't break the bank, although five dollars a drink was kind of high. Still Ink Eats and Bar is a good place to take your friends or family for lunch or dinner.

Why bother with mid-terms? Also: predictions for Cali.

Many say that we are on the verge of a monumental shift in political change. Others say it's more of the same, just a different political party. And still many more are fed up with the game of politics. Welcome to mid-term elections, where up-and-comers face off against incumbents, and the voter turnout is lower than that of presidential elections. So, what's different now? Why get excited this year?

The reasons are three-fold in this case. Before you start calling me out on trinities and numerology, let me at least list them out. The three reasons happen to be quite relevant.

First, our President. Barack Obama, the man who promised change, did follow through on that promise. From the major bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and many other banks, in which all of these companies had major financial and corruption issues; to the stimulus bill that has shown little effect compared to what was promised, to the unpopular (a 65% disapproval rating by some estimates) Healthcare bill that was rushed through Congress by congressional Democrats and Obama's urging, the President has increased the power of the Federal government to control approximately one sixth of the economy. Many in talk radio, the internet, and even in your own grocery store have shown such dissatisfaction with Obama's policies and actions, that his approval rating is nearing 30 percent only two years into his first term.

Secondly, Congress. From Harry Reid's apparent disregard of his duties as a congressman of Nevada and it's economy, to Nancy Pelosi being the cheerleader for the Democratic Party, to the lock-step actions that the majority of the Democrat-controlled Congress has made in unison to President Obama's administration, it is little wonder that Congress's current approval ratings have been under 20%. That's less than one of of five people who think Congress has done an acceptable job.

Last, the wild card in this equation: the Tea Party. Its founding can be traced to the middle of 2009, as a result of the passing of Obama's stimulus bill. Today, it has become a considerable political force of over ten million people, and shows signs of growing further. Vehemently opposed to the changes that President Obama's administration has enacted so far, the message that the Tea Party rallies around is an interpretation of a return to the principles that founded the United States: fiscal responsibility, traditional family values, an adherence to an exacting interpretation of the Bill of Rights, constant supervision of the Federal government, and a shrinking of the Federal government's power to its bare minimum, with state governments taking care of most issues. With three candidates of their own in the running at key states, the Tea Party is in the throes of becoming either a major political power, or merely a large minority group that the Republican party will reach out to for votes.

But enough of my political ranting. Many want to know who will be elected Governor/Senator/Congressman/etc., or have their hopes validated in whom they voted for or against. Living in California, I'm narrowing my focus to three heated races.

For Governor: Jerry Brown vs. Meg Whitman. Up to October, the race was heated, but with the scandal around Whitman's firing of a hired housekeeper whose status as a legal immigrant was called into question, Whitman's actions showed signs of ruthlessness, putting off voters, and resulting in Jerry Brown expecting a 44% turnout, while Whitman is expected to only get a 32% turnout. Adding to this the negative ads that Whitman has failed to quash quickly, as well as the state's irritation with Schwartzenegger, a Republican governor, and I expect Brown to win this race.

For Senator: Carly Fiorina vs. Barbara Boxer. This race will be the one to watch, as both candidates have been getting effective punches in on the other with every ad they've released. I personally feel that Fiorina may come out on top due to a desire for new blood, but that's just my interpretation. With the margin of error, Boxer only leads Fiorina by 2% in many polls, which means that this race could go either way.

For Congress: Dan Lungren vs Ami Bera. From my perspective, a candidate with little to no background in business or politics will have no chance in getting elected, although this was proven wrong with Barack Obama getting elected as president. However, Ami is not Obama, and does not have the campaign or oratory prowess that got Obama his position. Adding to this is that Lungren has laid the floor with Bera in regards to ad campaigns, and most would see this bout going to Lungren, even with his flings with ethics violations.

Columnist profile

It took me a while, but I finally picked one.  Unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to lengthen this post any further than five hundred words.  *sigh*

One of the many assignments my column writing class has been given is to do a profile column on a columnist that is in a major publication. Either a newspaper that distributes throughout the majority of a state, a national newspaper, or a nationally published magazine. I chose to do my assignment on Newsweek columnist Andrew Romano.

Personally, I can't stand his opinions, but I'm willing to put up with it due to the professional manner he maintains. Primarily a political writer, his political slant tends to be more left-leaning, but he still provides insightful analysis into both Republican and Democratic bases, and has given criticism about major Democratic figures. In addition, Mr. Romano also does the occasional column about society, giving his opinion on matters. A recent example would be his article on “re-imagining masculinity”, in which he argues that masculinity needs to be re-assessed for modern times.

To best summarize Andrew Romano, look no further than his author page on Newsweek's website. The summary reads:

“Andrew Romano was named Senior Writer in December 2008. He reports on politics, culture and food for the print and web editions of the magazine. Recent articles include a dispatch from Princeton on "postracial" America, a story on the country's first viral restaurant, an essay on millennial attitudes towards sex and in-depth profiles of potential 2012 presidential contenders Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford.

From October 2007 to November 2008, Romano traveled with the 2008 presidential candidates and filed four or five items a day—reportage, analysis and humor—to "Stumper," his Newsweek campaign blog, while continuing to write political stories for the weekly magazine (a musical profile of Mike Huckabee, an analysis of Ron Paul's "long tail" candidacy, a personal take on Barack Obama's appeal to young Americans). Thanks to Stumper, which won MINOnline's Best Consumer Blog award and was cited as one of the cycle's best news blogs by both Editor & Publisher and the Deadline Club of New York, Romano was Newsweek.com's most-read author for 2008.

Prior to Stumper, Romano was a reporter in Newsweek's New York headquarters contributing to the magazine's National Affairs coverage. In that capacity, he profiled Al Franken, interviewed Paul McCartney, revealed how MySpace and police officers are working together to solve crimes, pieced together the story of a cannibalistic New Orleans murder-suicide, discovered the U.S. military recruiting at paintball events and memorialized the Virginia Tech victims. Romano joined Newsweek as an intern in June 2004 after working as a stringer for New Jersey's Trenton Times. He went on to cover the 2004 presidential campaign as a reporter-researcher in the magazine's Information Graphics department.

Romano graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton University in 2004 with an A.B. in English and a certificate in American Studies. A native of Medford, N.J., he lives in Brooklyn, N.Y.”

You can read more of his articles at http://www.newsweek.com/authors/andrew-romano.html.

Of particular importance in movie-making

So, a couple of weeks ago, I saw Inception on Friday, and then Resident Evil: Afterlife the day after.

For those of you who don't follow box office trends, Inception has been the most successful movie this Summer in terms of box office sales and reviews.  As for Resident Evil: Afterlife, it's topped the box office for the weekend it came out.  Both of these movies are wildly different in many regards, save for a few.  Among these few similarities is something that has been common in movie-making for many decades now.  What I refer to is special effects; a key part in the movie-making process.

Special effects aren't solely limited to computer animation (also known as Computer Graphic Imaging, or by its abbreviated form, CGI).  Among the varying effects you'll see in a movie are explosives and pyrotechnics (think of any Arnold Schwarzenegger film); wirework, which most have seen in movies such as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and the Matrix trilogy; as well as sound, which entails more than you would think. Cleaning up an actor's voice, as well as any sounds of crashes, punches, gunshots, screaming, and more, in order for the sounds and voices to be heard in excellent quality.  You wouldn't want to watch a movie where the actor is interrogating someone, and his voice is muffled as if speaking into a pillow.

Since the beginning of the millennium, most movie-goers have become accustomed to more special effects in the movies they see. Even live-action comedies have incorporated computer animation into the finished product. However, this wasn't always the case. Going back as far as twenty years ago, computer animation was a technical breakthrough, and pyrotechnics, stunt doubles, explosives, puppeteering, and mechanical props all increased the amount of time and money put into making a movie, usually pushing the boundaries of creativity and that picture's budget. Such examples of big budget movies that followed this formula are Jaws, ET, Back to the Future, and Tron. It wasn't until 1993, when Jurassic Park was released in theaters, that audiences saw what computer animation could bring to a movie-going experience.

Interestingly enough, there's evidence that, if not for one man's vision, special effects and movie-making in general, would have turned out quite different. Back in 1976, a young film maker who just graduated from film school named George Lucas worked alongside a dedicated production crew, as well as noteworthy and young actors in an effort to make a sci-fi epic called Star Wars. Dealing with constraints from the British Screen Actors Guild, budgetary problems due to financing from 20^th Century Fox, as well as expenses for props, filming locations, and the normal issues of film-making, he created a movie that was expected to fail, due to competing in the Summer movie bracket of 1977 with “Smokey and the Bandit” and “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”.

Yet, perhaps due to the subject matter of good versus evil and self-discovery, or the appeal to all ages, or because of technical and special effects work, or even due to being an upbeat movie after the end of the Vietnam War, it not only was a huge success, it spawned two sequels over the next six years, as well as a line of toys, commercial success, and gaining instant recognition for the actors playing the main characters.

During the making of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi, George Lucas and his production crew refined techniques and utilized new ways of stage setup, sound and rigging, and special effects that ultimately became the effects studios Industrial Light & Magic and Skywalker Sound. After 1983, these two effects studios were involved in virtually every film being made by major Hollywood studios, and their influence has been seen in such ground-breaking movies as Tron, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Jurassic Park, Toy Story, Independence Day, up to recent special effects powerhouses, such as Transformers, Cloverfield, Iron Man, and Avatar.

First Week

Last Monday, I began my first semester over at Sacramento State, of which one of my classes is requiring me to write a personal blog.  The class eventually agreed for our first entry to be on each person's individual first week of this semester.

Mine could be considered standard, with a few humorous moments in between.  Just for reference, my schedule goes like this: Monday and Wednesday- Metaphysics at the Library from 11am to 11:50.  Then I have to hustle across campus over to Mendocino Hall for the Journalism class that this blog is an assignment for, which is from Noon to 1:15pm.  Tuesday and Thursday, I have a class on Shakespeare at Douglass Hall from 10:30 to 11:45, and after that, Astronomy at Mendocino from Noon to 1:15.  Friday I also have Metaphysics, since it's a MWF class.

Now that I have that out of the way, let's begin.  Monday started off with me hopeful to make it early to both classes; said hope would be quickly dashed in less than an hour.  The instructor of my Metaphysics class, by appearance, struck me as "average college professor", by way of semi-formal suit, glasses, balding gray hair.  Fairly soon, however, I found out his demeanor was a little manic.  Let me be more precise.  He was the good kind of crazy, as in, "haha, this guy's nuts".  Class continued until 11:55, which panicked me.  Add to that I had no map to navigate the campus, and I wound up late for Journalism about ten to fifteen minutes late, which was irritating.  I'll hold judgment on the instructor for this class until the end of the semester.  The class itself is engaging enough, and we were given our first assignment, which was sending an e-mail to the instructor. 

Tuesday was more relaxed in that my classes took place close to each other, so I didn't have to hustle between them.  The instructor for the Shakespeare class was friendly enough, and covered the syllabus well.  She also needed volunteers for a practice routine that would be in class in a week, which would be on "The Taming of the Shrew", so I volunteered to play a major part, having enjoyed that particular story.  As for Astronomy, the classroom was packed.  Think a lecture auditorium with a good projector in the middle.  Now picture that all the 120 seats, save one or two, were filled.  That's how looking for a seat to sit down in was.  The instructor was pretty direct in manner of how he taught, and taking notes was easy since he used a power-point presentation alongside his lecture.

Wednesday turned out a bit better in regards to getting from one class to another quickly.  In addition, I got a little bit more insight into the mannerisms and behavior of my instructors.  Once again, the instructor for Metaphysics was amusing, as he was lecturing on Plato's Beard and Ockham's Razor, which surprisingly to me, came up in the textbook for the Journalism class.

Thursday followed a similar mold to Tuesday, with an in-class quiz in Shakespeare and a bit more seating in Astronomy changing the flow.  After Astronomy, however, I went over to Calaveras Hall to speak with the Shakespeare instructor, along with another classmate, over the roles we would be playing for the practice routine, as well as a rough reading of the scene we'd be doing.

Friday, I only had Metaphysics, but it was probably the most entertaining one yet, due to the class getting engaged and asking some good questions of the instructor, as well as some funny interjections.  He jokingly mentioned after one part of his lecture how he sometimes thought a dictatorship would be better than what we had as a government.  I chipped in with, "Are we talking Darth Vader, Force choke kind of dictatorship or what?", to which he replied, "Your hate makes you strong"  Me and about eight other people in the class really got the joke, judging by the laughter.

Nerd humor is greatly underappreciated.