Figured I'd drop a quick note to end out the year. I'll drum in the year 2003 with a thrown-together "Best of 2002" list:
Best List of 2002:
The Onion AV Club's Least Essential Albums of 2002


Best Albums of 2002:
Bright Eyes -- Lifted or The Story Is In The Soil, Keep Your Ear To The Ground
Beck -- Sea Change
Coldplay -- A Rush of Blood To The Head
Doves -- The Last Broadcast


Best Films of 2002 --
The Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers
The Bourne Identity
Catch Me If You Can (with the exception of Tom Hanks' horrible Boston accent)
(I haven't seen Punch Drunk Love, Adaptation, or Confessions of A Dangerous Mind yet, so bear that in mind)

Just some opinions to get the ball rolling on next year. I'll soon put out a far more exhaustive list.

I went to see The Two Towers yesterday at 11 a.m. Do I have my nerd credientials in order or what?
Seriously, it was great. Because it was the first show of the day (with the exception of the midnight screening), we got to choose our seats about a half-hour early and sit and watch the slides over and over. No standing in line for us!
But there were some serious, big-time nerds in the hizzy. I overheard someone say, "Guys, we should form our own fellowship!" Plus there were some people dressed as Frodo, a few cloak-wearers, and various other scarily dedicated folks.
But the movie itself was magical. Never have I sat so rapt in a theater for three-plus hours, except for maybe the first installment. I agree with the AV Club's Keith Phipps when he says that director Peter Jackson makes filling three hours of film so effortless. Not having read the trilogy in its entireity, I wondered before seeing the first one if I would get what all the fuss was about. I got it, and I still get it. The Two Towers simply blew me away. The best movie since Goodfellas.

Is it a strange, albeit positive personal development when you'd rather read about TV shows than actually watch them?
Sure, when I actually watched all the shows I would still read about them, but it was more of a timewasting device than anything else. Now, I find most TV shows (network and selected cable shows, mostly) so preachy, pedantic, and otherwise pathetic (!) that I can hardly watch.
Oh, there are exceptions. I watch 24, mainly because Keifer Sutherland is on it. I have warm fuzzies for him because of movies like Young Guns, Stand By Me, and other celluloid from my youth; also, I think he fills the small screen pretty well. Maybe he can't hack it in movies anymore, but he towers head and shoulders above most TV stars.
I used to watch a ton of TV, in my lonely big-city livin' days. The list, at its peak, included such dreck as Dawson's Creek (giving props to hometown girl Katie Holmes), Boston Public (dear God!), Survivor(which has, like The Real World, become a parody of itself), Friends (can hardly bear to look anymore), and various other crap.
When I lived in Chicago, I didn't have cable, so I had to make do with network TV. Perhaps that's why I watched so much junk. Now that I have cable, I tend to watch more History Channel, Discovery, and (gulp) Court TV.
But I'll still tune in for Law and Order. Doesn't hurt that, in its various incarnations, it's on almost 24 hours a day.
As you can see from the links above, I like Television Without Pity. Good writing, funny people, and they don't pull punches. Their motto (hope I don't get in trouble for printing this)? "Spare the snark, spoil the networks."
Classic.

Yeah, it's official, I guess. John Snow, Bush's nominee forTreasury Secretary, is from Toledo!
Hella props for Northwest Ohio! Read all about it here.
OK, so we here in the wasteland get excited when one of our own gets some elevation. It's easy to be from some place cool, like New York, LA, Boston, or what have you. It takes real work to get and stay cool when you're from, say, Topeka, Saskatoon, Indianapolis, or Toledo.

The best music top ten list (and then some) of the year is up over at The Onion AV Club.
The guys (and gals) over at the AV Club are the warmest, most responsible, and most accurate film, music, and book reviewers writing today. And they're damn funny, which is a plus.

Confidential to Mike: Happy now, you smug...ah, forget it.

Here's a question for all you movie buffs out there:
In Darren Arronofsky's Requiem For A Dream, who is supposed to be the most sympathetic character? Or, to put it another way, which character's life works out the best? Is it Jennifer Connelly, because she gets her fix, even though she has to do unspeakable things to get it? Or is it Tyrone, because he's only in jail, not the nuthouse or the hospital, down most of an arm?
Who, then, gets the shortest end of the stick?
Anyway, what a powerful film.
The first time I saw, I think my jaw hit the floor. I saw it on Thankgiving Day, 2000, at the UA Cinema at Union Square. It was the first Thanksgiving I didn't spend with my family (couldn't get the next day off work, so couldn't go home to Ohio from NYC), so needless to say I was depressed. The movie did not lift my spirits. Plus I felt bad for my friend Tiffany, because she came with me and I didn't know the last half-hour or so would be so brutal. It was like the time a girlfriend saw A Clockwork Orange sitting on my shelf and asked to watch it. She had heard that it was good. I said, "Well, it IS good (my favorite of all time, in fact, except for Empire Strikes Back), but I'm not sure you'll like it." Sure enough, after 15 minutes, she left sobbing, me chasing after her explaining myself. But I digress.
But, as I am sometimes wont to do, I saw it again, just to see what my not-initial reaction would be. I have a theory on movie-watching: if you're an astute filmgoer who pays attention, etc., your first reaction to a film is probably the one the director wants you to have. You need to view it again (and again) if you want to think objectively about it.
Anyway, I saw it again a year or so ago (still alone), and liked it quite a bit more, or at least wasn't bummed out by it. At first, I thought, "Wow, what a depressing drug movie. At least Trainspotting gave the viewer some folks to pull for. This is just a bummer." On second viewing, I thought it looked great and did the anti-glamorization thing well.
On third viewing (just last night), I got all philosophical and shit. I figured out that the "dream" was that great summer, and the "requiem" was the hellish slide thereafter. I didn't loathe the characters anymore -- in fact, my reaction to them as people/characters was perhaps as sympathetic as one could feel. I felt something the first time, but mostly it was, "Well, I guess they got what they deserved."
But no. I was moved this time. Plus the DVD extras are great.
Anyway, just a thought.

National Review's Rod Dreher makes this sleepy guy laugh with this assessment of the new Bond movie. The really funny part, though, is his prediction for Scorsese's Gangs of New York.

I know what you might be thinking...how can someone so learned and urbane as I be into high school and college football. Well, let's just say the love didn't exactly come naturally, but had to develop over, say, 20 or so years.
Speaking of football, check out this movie. It's an entertaining watch, but it didn't expose enough of the seamy underbelly of the subject as all documentaries should. Otherwise, what's the point of making the damn thing? A documentray either exposes something intentionally or unintentionally. That's just the way it's supposed to work.
Minor complaints aside, it's a good film about a town that has its values way out of whack and puts a little too much pressure on its kids. Hmmm...maybe it DID expose all it was supposed to. I just felt there was a certain...visceral elemsnt lacking.
It showed football, it showed parties, but it didn't show any rumbles or anything. I went to high school in Ohio, and no sports season is complete without a scrum or two.

I don't have too much to talk about at 1:00 A.M. on a Monday morning, but I felt I should post something, since I'm sitting here, staring slack-jawed at the computer. A couple things of note, though...
I'd entitle this picture (click on the top picture, ya dummies!) "Heartbreak."
I was at the game, in that stinkhole known as Lima, Ohio. I saw a ball, punted by one team and handled by another roll into a end zone, get recovered by the kicking team, and get called a touchback. Huh? Exactly.
The dejected young man of note is one Eric Wisneiwski, who happens to be my little sister's boyfriend. He's the one who recovered the kick for the non-touchdown, causing an entire region of Ohio to scratch its collective head in wonder.
Breaks my heart, I tell you.
But a great article by Don Emmons, who I happen to know. I'm big time!
Speaking of great, how about that OSU-UM game on Saturday? Can't say enough about it, because all that matters is that the record is 13-0 for the season. No Big 10 team's done it since 1979.

It's a beautiful fall day here in Northwest Ohio (armpit of civilization), and what do I have to do? In between articles and subimssions, I have to rake damn leaves!
Well, not rake. Does anyone do that anymore? No, I use the ol' leafblower.
It blows, all right.

Na na na na na NAH NAH! You say it's my birthday!
Well, it was, anyway. I turned 26 over the weekend, and boy, are my arms tired.
It came not with a bang, but a whimper. It doesn't feel any different, but I suppose it marks the slow slide into 30.
What can I expect from this age?

Yeah, right.

My friend and fellow Bridge crony Bill wrote this for a New York-based sports Web site. If you like hockey (or Bill), you'll like this.
By the way, have I told you how great it was writing for BridgeNews? Ask Bill -- it was like Xanadu!
Lousy Brits at Reuters...taking away our sweet gravy-laden train.

I just discovered that some charlatan(s), dressed up as a community organization (they got the .org!) has stolen my name! I won't provide a link, because I don't link to thieves, but rest assured this will not stand. Perhaps I'll engage the services of my lawyer neighbor.


"Heads On Fire is an organization dedicated to bridging the Digital Divide through the means of community based media arts programs. Technoliteracy is increasingly becoming the arbiter that separates the skilled worker from the unskilled, the adequately paid from those whose wages will not sustain a decent standard of living. Heads On Fire seeks to play a crucial role in preventing distressed populations from being flattened beneath the wheels of this revolution, by linking artists, communities, and technology."


Oh, please! I invented the name, and I want all the rights to it!
You want the story? The year was 1999 (or 1998 -- college was a hazy time) and my friends and I were driving to Lake Baw Beese in semi-beautiful Hillsdale, Michigan. I believe we were hung over or something, because as we drove by a woman pushing a stroller, someone remarked "What if you flicked your cig out the window, and found out too late that some wino had spilled some potent and flammable alcohol on that stroller? What would that woman say?
I, of course, responded with the now-famous expression, "My baby's head's on fire!"
And thus, a phrase was coined. For punctuation purposes I changed it to "HeadsonFire," but the genesis is all mine (and Jhoda's).
Case freakin' closed!

Geez, this ambulance-chasing lawyer guy who lives across the street must be up to no good, because he's pulled in and out of his driveway six times in the past three minutes.
Yeah, dude, I see your Corvette, and I don't care. A Civic is where it's at!

Has everyone seen David Frum's Political Diary on NRO? It's only a few days old, but I'm hooked. I like this guy.
Frum, as many of you probably know, is a former writer for The Weekly Standard and speechwriter for Bush. Came up with the whole "axis of evil" speech if I'm not mistaken. So he's cool, I'm sure.
Oh, a bit of news about someone with whom I'm acquainted. A high school friend's fiancee (congratulations, Carrie and Steve), just recently got a job as a Bush speechwriter! Wow...must be cool.
Anyway, you may know Steve Hayes as a writer for The Weekly Standard, but he got some attention recently for getting all up in Scott Ritter's face in the Wall Street Journal and on TV.
Got up in his face...just like many of us, I'm sure, have wanted to do.

Of course, if you were to tune into CSPAN right now, you'd find the not-in-any-way-irrelevant UN debating the current US/UK resolution regarding Iraq. I can't believe we still think we have to run things by these namby-pamby, mealymouthed Eurodorks.
Don't get me wrong, I like Europeans themselves. I love their culture...hell, I studied it in school. However, the current course of European diplomacy and public policy does nothing but confuse and anger me. It's like they assume that we (as the world's preeminent nation) are likely to follow the same imperialistic course they did, beginning about 200 years ago.
Check yourselves before you wreck yourselves, Europe. We're different, and don't go thinking otherwise. We have a little thing called the rule of law (which is a pretty new concept over there, but we've gotten good at it). I mean, Europe has been imperialistic as recently as a half-century ago!
I think (and this is just my opinion) that Europe's attitudes are somewhat influenced by nostalgia (for their own glorious past, and I say that with no irony) and resentment that they've been reduced to marginal players on the world stage.
There, I said it. But don't get me wrong...I think that the UK is on the right track to coming back around to a sensible and less shrill way of doing things, and Europe still has time to board that trolley.

I awoke uncharacteristically early for me today, just to watch CSPAN the ever-dry but entertaining Washington Journal). What a freakin' dork I must be!
No, really. My two favorite Brits, Hitch and Sully, went head to head with each other and a gaggle of University of Denver and Colorado State University students (must've been j-school kids, because they had waaay too many questions).
Anyway, it's fun to watch those two...
My favorite line? When Hitch said, by way of prefacing an answer to a student's question, "I'm going to be rather harsh with these students..."
Bwah!
No link to a transcript available yet, but stay tuned...

What did I tell you about Homestar Runner and his friends? The world is noticing.

To redirect the conversation slightly, I'm looking at my semi-new (well, just rediscovered it -- kind of like when you throw in "It's a Shame About Ray" after not listening to it for years) Adidas sweatshirt and thinking "Man, have I been having great luck at the thrift store lately!"
Seriously. And that great luck has carried over to the regular stores too. And to my life in general. Finding all sorts of great stuff. I found a pair of Nike Cortez for $35. I found my favorite shades in my storage unit (sure, I was looking for my voice recorder, but hey -- there were a lot of boxes in there). Found that Adidas sweatshirt. Found my heart in San Francisco. Found out about you. Found Found Found.
If anyone can tell me about that last sentence, I'll hook you up with a prize.

Not too much to say from this guy about the election. I'm sure anyone who reads this blog knows how I feel about it, and I'm sure it's all been said before by someone who can say it better.
Cool. I'm glad we've reached an understanding about it.
What I've really been thinking about lately is where I want to go from here. Obviously, I don't plan on sticking around here much longer, but I haven't nailed down yet where I actually want to go. Of course, the whole "how to get there" part can be a troublesome as well, but we need a location first.
To start it off, I guess, I want to go someplace dangerous. That's right, dangerous. Kirachi. Beirut. Islamabad. Phnom Penh. Someplace like that.

Another great article courtesy of Andrew Sullivan (like it's even a surprise anymore),
I promise, when Sullivan stops knocking 'em out of the park, I'll pick up the slack.

I've got a new favorite site that I'll soon add to the list, but I just had to put it out there. I've spent a great deal of time recently (outside of work hours, of course!)snorting with laughter at this site.
No, it's not The Nation! It's "HomestarRunner.com!"
Seriously, it's great. SO hilarious.
Highlights include "Strong Bad's Email" and the intro sequence.

It's nice to see -- that is, if I'm interpreting my so-called "sitemeter" correctly -- that so many of the same people come back every few days to check up on how Blue is doing and if he's updated the blog. I appreciate that, and would like it even more if those same people would comment on the site. After all, you're practically the paying public.
I know who you are in all but name...remember that.
Well, maybe not...but I do know your ISP!
That doesn't do me a lot of good, does it?

Hot damn! back after an enjoyable weekend!
Why was it enjoyable? Because I went to a Halloween party that wasn't a complete wash. It was actually fun. Some creative costumes (mine included, if I do say so myself), some OK grub, and a couple of humorous anecdotes, which I will now relate to you, gentle readers.
OK, so the link above? Wasn't my costume. But that one was good. My friend Zach (party host) dressed up as a Price Is Right contestant; his friend Tony did the "Magnum, P.I." thing (see above link); and I, your humble narrator, dressed up as what I like to call "1980's Broadway/Solid Gold male dancer at rehearsal."
OK, now just think about a guy dressed up like Jennifer Beals. I had 'em rolling.

If you haven't been reading Andrew Sullivan's pieces that appear in Salon, I recommend you do so. They're great -- especially this one.
Here's the money shot, for me:

Because the essence of bigotry is to reduce the complex, varied, human individuality of a human being into a racial cipher. It is to smelt the irreducible complexity of a person into a racial caricature. It is to deny individuality; it is to give someone no space to think for him or herself, to free to be a person, and not a mere member of the group.

To me, this freedom is an irreducible core of what liberalism should be. It is about a person's right to think for herself with dignity and respect. It doesn't mean that you can't disagree vehemently with such a person, subject her views to withering scrutiny, rhetorical barbs or logical dissection. What it does mean is that you do not play the race card or any other card when engaging that person's views. And one of the key signs that much of today's left is actually, demonstrably illiberal, intolerant and reactionary, is the way in which this is now a common feature of leftist discourse.

Wow.

I've done some interesting stuff in the past couple of weeks, though. Want to sit through it? OK!
I went on a little "round the Great Lakes" trip. Went to visit a friend in Chicago, went to a concert in Toronto, and then, to top it all off, went to a wedding in Philadelphia. OK, so I suppose technically Philadelphia isn't on the Great Lakes, but the other two places are.
Oh, and I also went to see J Mascis in Detroit.
Full weeks. Am brain dead.

Man, have I been busy!
I've been volunteering for a political campaign, making enemies at work, and...well, that's about it, I suppose. I don't get it...I sit down at the computer every day, and yet I can't find the time, or really even bring myself to update this site.
I may be fresh out of ideas, kids. Just maybe.

So again it's been some time since I posted anything up in here. What, something like ten days, right? What possibly could have happened in that time?
Well, for one thing, I guess Robert Torricelli dropped out of his Senate race, placing the 'Publicans perhaps in prime position for a power push. How's that for alliteration? Only took me three minutes!
But wait, what's this? The New York Times thinks that, in order to "do what's right," New Jersey Republicans must allow a suitable replacement to run (link requires registration.
I like Andrew Sullivan's take better. What a simpering, cynical, finger-pointing mess the Torch must be, and what a load of crap in the Times.

Ok, does anyone else think that Stephanie Zacherek doesn't make "The Banger Sisters" sound like a good movie, even though she wants to? Not saying Zacherek is a bad writer (although I've pretty much disagreed with all her movie assessments), but the whole "finding out Mom has a past" movie is dumb anyway, but "finding out Mom has a past as a groupie" is just sick!
And how precious is it that Goldie Hawn plays an aging groupie? Her daughter played a groupie too! Do you see the connection? Get it? Ha!

OK, so it's been a week or so since I posted. So sue me! I'm sure everything I wanted to say between then and now has been said, but let's just see...
1) Bush's speech to the UN was great...
2) Ben Affleck's new TV show sucks...
3) And despite whatever Scott Ritter might say, even the New York Times has its doubts (link requires registration) about weapons inspections...
Guess that about covers it. Goodnight.

Just a quick clarification:
FoxToledo, which I praised yesterday for running a program other than the live coverage of the weepfest, was running the same program as Fox5 in NYC.
And, lest anyone think that the FoxToledo station is bold or anything like that, remember that Fox doesn't have a network news anchor like Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw to shepard us and our feelings through tragic events.
Thank God, and may God protect us from those who tell us what is OK to feel. Just like he protects us from those who know best.

So here we are -- a year removed from 9/11/01, and what's the status? Isn't that the question all the networks, media outlets, and news organizations are trying to answer? Have we changed? How should we have changed? And so on...
Judging by much of the media coverage today, I would say not much has changed. Part of me cringed slightly at the three-hour "hug-a-thon" that was the name-reading at Ground Zero. Part of me understands it, and ALL of me certainly goes out to those that lost loved ones there. However, I think in the hazy mists of maudlin displays we've lost our focus on what September 11 really was.
In my mind, it wasn't just a tragedy, like a train wreck, plane crash, or when a carload of kids on their way home from prom gets plowed into by a drunk driver. Yes, the deaths of 3,000 people on American soil IS tragic, but the act, the EVENT itself was a dastardly act of aggression. It was an attack, and therefore something to be responded to, not simply mourned.
We've lost sight, I think, of what really happened on that day which, if not for what happened, would be remembered for its azure sky and unseasonable warmth. The United States was attacked -- the reason why isn't really important. On another day the U.S. was attacked -- December 7, 1941 -- I doubt anyone wanted to know why. That was a question not asked in those days, because it simply wasn't important. Attacking another sovereign state -- whether because you wanteded its land, want to install your brother on its throne, or because you thought its oil embargo against you was unfair and itself an act of war -- was a no-no, and if it was done it meant war. Japan understood that, and they did it anyway. But, more importantly, we understood that the only response to an attack is a war. End of story.
But, in our touchy-feely culture, I guess we want to know why. We want to connect and begin the healing process.
Not me. I don't care if I ever understand the mentality and motivations of Islamist radicals hell-bent on purifying their religion and making sure all infidels are taken care of. I don't care if they understand me or my way of life, and I certainly don't demand they modify their practices and policies to my liking.
I'm rambling here, but you might get my point.
I just wanted to say "bravo" to FoxToledo, which during the weepfest was the only channel to cut away and show the images that have the power to remind us of what actually happned, not just the results of what happened (Here's what happened: terrorists attacked and brought down my favorite buildings in the world. Here was the result: thousands died.)
It was sad and tragic that so many lost husbands and wives, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers. But it would be truly tragic if those who inspired, perpetrated, and facilitated the act weren't dealt with in the harshest possible manner.

Just a quick update before I dash off to the office...
The weekend flew by, not enough time, there's never enough time, etc... (see "Jessie's Song" and remember fondly).
No flaming wreckage at the Air Show, but it was as hot as I've always imagined Hades to be. People were sitting under the wings and fuselages of the static aircraft, just trying to catch some shade. Boy, that blacktop really makes you cook.
By the way, in response to some queries, the "Stars" link is a song by the band Hum. I highly recommend picking up one of their two full-length albums; however, I believe they are now defunct, so if someone offers you concert tickets, they're fake.

Oops, must go to get my press pass for the Air Show. I believe it's all access, including some limited flying privileges.

My stars!
A busy weekend for yours truly. Must cover many things, and as an intrepid but incompetent (intrepidly incompetent?) small-town journalist, I'm balking at the prospect.
Actually, not really. I need the bucks, and it's all fun stuff. The Toledo Air Show is in town, and high school football is as pure as the sport gets. I used to think college football was exciting -- I still do, of course -- but get thee to a D1 (see #86) or D2 (click on SportsDesk link) high school game if you want reall blood-and-guts football.
Go team.

But, I suppose since summer is over, it's time to turn our attention to less childish things...
Item! The weekly newspaper I work for is now online! You can check us out at The Mirror's website! Not too much content up there yet, but Dan the Web Guru is nothing less than a miracle worker, so stuff will be coming up regularly.
I have no actual news or feature stories up there yet, but I do have a sports article if you click on the "sports" link.

Well, it happened. I lost my Dennis Haskins voice-mail message! Damn it all!
Like Icarus, I flew too close to the sun on waxen wings. I showed off one too many times, and forgot to resave the message to my archive. Damn it all again!
Well, I suppose I can relate the story of how I actually met TV's Mr. Belding -- I was in Brighton, Michigan for a friend's bachelor party. We returned from an evening of carousing and whatnot to the Courtyard by Marriott, at which was being held a "Hawaiian Tropic" pageant. And, near as I can figure, Haskins was the emcee or judge or something.
He was hanging in the lobby when we met him. He had a mustache, which sort of threw me, but other than that he was the same lovable Mr. Belding I grew up with.
The message he left on my phone was "Hey hey hey hey! What is going on here, BLUUUUE?"
I thought I was going to weep tears of purest joy...

I haven't hit up the ol' blog recently, but I've been so damned busy! Writing, covering events and whatnot, reveling, laughing, hoping and dreaming...it's been a real rollercoaster.
One thing of note did happen to me, though. I met Dennis Haskins, who is perhaps better known as Mr. Belding from TV's Saved By The Bell!
As someone who spent much of high school watching at least three consecutive episodes of said show (you know, it was on after school -- we'd snack, go outside for a covert smoke, etc.), I must say it was a thrill.
Haskins even left a message on my voicemail, so I could prove it to those who would be naysayers.
Priceless...

So anyway, I went up to Mackinac Island for a friend's wedding this past weekend, and what a remarkable place (to a certain extent). I don't much care for touristy things, but I was slightly impressed at the geography of the island, as well as its historical significance. For example, I can just picture the British (who held the fort during the War of 1812) shelling American ships as they went through the Straits.
However, I didn't care for the overpowering smell of horse dung and urine. Call me delicate if you must, but it was pretty foul. It sort of reminded me of turn-of-the-century Lower East Side in NYC, when rivers of raw sewage ran free in the gutters.
Ah, history. It ain't pretty, but I love it anyway.

Thank God the ol' Billster pointed out my spelling errors. So I was all like, "Sorry, Your Majesty, but where I come from, "Bill" has three L's!"
His words: "I wish I never angled to get on your site."

My friend Bill points out today that, in the face of such carnage and destruction, Israel is showing remarkable restraint. You know, I can think of another Western-style democracy known for its remarkable restraint in the face of heinous acts. That's right, I'm talkin' 'bout the U.S. Many nations, I'm sure, would have levelled as many Arab nations as possible in the wake of September 11, if they had the capabilities to do so. We, on the other hand, proceeded slowly but surely towards the nation that harbored the enemy, took them out, and stopped while we studied what our next move should be.
All the more reason why we support Israel. They are the U.S., except smaller, a few thousand miles away, and surrounded on all sides by people who want them dead.

Anyone who doubts that the U.S. is right in methodically (or slowly, depending on your view) planning to take out Saddam Hussein should read this Economist article. It's a thoughtful, painstaking look on why, simply put, Saddam Hussein is the worst leader in the world today. My favorite line is this: "But wishful thinking in the face of mortal danger is bad policy."

Hm, let's see...
I saw Road to Perdition the other day. It looked great, was well acted, and held me rapt in my seat. However, it was pretty predictable -- maybe not so much as American Beauty, in which the protagonist announced in the first minutes of the movie that he would die, but one generally still could figure out what was going to happen to ol' Tom Hanks.
Also, it was definitely in the same vein as American Beauty, in that it was a predictable chronicle of a family's decline, due to the sins of generations past. It's like "OK, Sam, we know families are screwed up, and they often disintegrate over the years. We've all read a Faulkner book or two." In fact, I said to my friend as we were leaving, "If that were a Faulkner book, it would have been called "As I Stood Shooting."
Get it? Haw!
Anyway, it was good and looked great. I recommend it, but you won't be surprised how it all turns out.

God, reading a Mareen Dowd column is painful. Especially this one (link requires registration).
I don't even know where to begin on dissecting this piece of drivel. I guess first and foremost would be to examine her motivations for this column. I'm guessing she's laying in bed, watching FX last night (like I was), and she saw a commercial for the new RFK movie. Then, she remembered "that thing about that study that says women are emotional."
Then I'm sure it was a simple matter of tracking down some jerk who has a stupid idea about women in politics ("I probably deep down believe that women are the superior sex," Mr. Kelley told TV critics gathered here for a fall preview. "And when I see all that's going on in the world, in the Middle East . . . if the United Nations just said that women had to run countries, I don't think this would be going on in any of them."), mix and stir, and VOILA! A New York Times Op-Ed is born!
Seriously though, an FX biopic is probably a pretty poor basis for a theory that claims to explain "modern American history."
Maureen Dowd is a "biscuit" writer in my opinion (biscuit=bad). This column cements it for me.

Whoo-hoo! Back in the game!
Has anyone been following the Joel Mowbray/State Department saga? Boy, I have, and I'll tell you why. It's because I wish I were Joel Mowbray. Look at that cat, in there, mixing it up with the bigwig spinmeisters in State. That's the kind of reputation I want as a journalist -- a troublemaker for bigwigs. It's tough to get that rep covering school board meetings and village council meetings, though. Oh well -- maybe a bit further down the pike, no?

Well, it doesn't appear that Blogger is allowing me to post to my site, so by the time these posts make it on I'll have given up, like the quitter that I am.

One question for Zed -- why, sir, do you like Mark Ruffalo so much?
I'll admit, I don't think I've seen any movies he's been in. Haven't seen The Last Castle, nor have I seen You Can Count on Me. Guess I might have to see those, if for no other reason than to have something to discuss.

Something's going on with Blogger today, so I'm not sure if these posts will show up on the site. I've got some things to say, though, and I'm forging ahead anyway.

Going back to the so-called "Star Wars controversy" we were discussing a while back, a friend of mine writes this gem:
" But the nature of cult film-making is found in its specific emotional (usually) attachment to a particular social demographic within the context of an even more specific film genre. Lucas struck the proverbial gold when he embarked on the successive Star Wars counterparts precisely because they are a genre that flirt with the latest movie 'magic.' The draw for people our age is not the fact that those movies refused to give in to the most advanced form of special effects; it is precisely that they did. And they did it in a "Schoolhouse Rock" type of way which made it socially preferrable to hail what is vintage and disregard and villify that which is cutting edge. It is selfish to expect the new trilogy to cater to our generation. For that to be the case, Lucas would actually be forced to prostrate and undermine his advanced special effects mechanisms. So. The reason the new trilogy will ultimately lack the meaning and pervasiveness of the first is that we are no longer the demographic. Isn't it strange that we (yes, you and me) appreciate The Matrix for its cutting edge special effects, but not Attack of the Clones? Both are just about equal in terms of meaning, durability, and import. Our mindset is different towards each. There is our failure, not Lucas'. One more thing. Lucas actually once addressed this very issue, saying, that the entire field of film is one large special effect. It is true. The Brothers Lumiere were the original special effects artists. If you agree, the Star Wars controversy becomes nothing more than a search for nostalgia...."

Well said, Michael. Well said...

I also wanted to give a shout-out to Zed, if he is indeed reading this. You see folks, Zed lambasted me via email, and I appreciate that. In fact, he was one of the first people I don't know to comment on the site.
Prickly tone aside, his email was right on in a couple of respects. First, I have been going at this site rather half-heartedly for the past few months, Don't know why, just have. Actually, I do know why -- it's because I now have a writing job, and that PAID writing is taking up more of my time and creative energy. When I started the site, I was working in inside sales, and needed to get something down to feel like I was still a writer. Now that I have the job with a paper...well, I don't need to draw my smart readers a map, do I?
I know, Andrew Sullivan has many paid writing gigs and still posts to his site daily. Well folks, hate to say it, but I'm not Andrew Sullivan. There's a reason he makes the big bucks and I don't. He's got a work ethic!

I just had to write today. Wanted to let everyone know that Toledo made it unscathed through the holiday, even though the rumor swirling around town was that small cities such as ours were being targeted. You know what I say to that? Pshaw!
That being said, I'm awfully glad nothing happened, although I wasn't exactly holding my breath.

At the suggestion of my friend Pedro del Owen, I have to put this up (with his dialogue, of course).
"Looking for a good, cheap fock?"

I was e-chatting with a friend this morning, and I asked him if he had seen any good movies lately. He answered, "Well, Star Wars, but I lower my standards for movies in the Star Wars franchise."
Don't we all?
But should we? Does the nostalgia of all us Gen Xers (and those slightly younger than us) give George Lucas a free pass to make movies replete with cheesy one-liners, undeveloped characters, and virtually no heart? I mean, the original three were something completely different from the latest two -- they were live action more than CGI, they had great characters (granted, with some wince-inducing dialogue), and they were a bit overwrought, but who honestly could say that The Phantom Menace is better than The Empire Strikes Back?
Well, I suppose they could say it, but they'd better not say it front of me. I might actually lose it. But see, it's that kind of slavish dedication to the original three that gives Lucas his green light. And Lucas has no problem cashing in on subpar work. It's almost like he's a college student who got one really good grade on a paper in a class, and turns in crap the rest of the semester, hoping to coast through. The prof shouldn't let a student get away with that, and we, the true Star Wars fans, shouldn't let Lucas get away with making movies like Episodes 1 & 2.
Moreover, the magic is missing from the latest Lucas fare. Magic, heart, soul, whatever you want to call it -- I don't think I'm the only person suggesting that Lucas is phoning it in.
Then again, maybe just Han Solo and Chewie are missing...

Want to talk some more about movies? OK, you've convinced me!

Anyway, back to The Bourne Identity...
There are several parts of the Times article that I don't like, but for the most it accurately points out what I liked in the movie. I liked the lack of corny one-liners (Minority Report had lots), I liked the expressions on the actors' faces (confusion, horror, disgust), and I liked the movie's unflashy style. There didn't seem to be much CGI; instead, much of the work seemed to be on location. What? A movie not shot in front of a blue screen? Amazing in this day and age...

A pretty decent article in Sunday's New York Times (link requires registration) makes some good points about a pretty cool movie, The Bourne Identity. I saw it and certainly liked it, but I couldn't quite put my finger on what made it better than Minority Report, which I also recently saw.
Well, that's not entirely true. I knew that Minority Report was a Spielberg movie, and that with it would come some sort of heroic resolution -- that is, a resolution towards the good, happy way. You know, the kind of ending where Things Just Work Out. However, if 20 minutes or so had been lopped off that movie, it would have been GREAT film noir.
I don't know how much I should give away, in case any HeadsHeads haven't seen it yet. After all, it did only just come out.
Tell you what: go see it, and email me to tell me what you thought. I'll give my (and Mike J.'s) theory later.

I was extremely pleased this morning to read that my hombre, Victor Davis Hanson (VDH, to his homies) has been announced as the winner of the 2002 Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Journalism! Thanks to Kathryn Lopez at National Review for pointing me in the right direction.
Man, is there anything VDH can't do? Let me answer that question: no. He's a professor of classics, so he's obviously proficient in Greek and Latin; he's a military historian (seems to focus on Ancient Greece); and yet, he's unbelieveably adept at applying lessons from ancient Greek battles to current situations. Kind of reminds me of my late mentor, Dr. Alex Shtromas, who somehow managed to explain the Peloponnesian War to all us boneheads by comparing it with Indepependence Day. Now that's a teacher!
Think about it: here's a guy (Shtromas, not VDH) who's in his sixties, lived under Hitler and Stalin, studied and practiced law in Moscow, expelled from the U.S.S.R. for dissent, relocates first to Britain then to the U.S., teching at Hillsdale...and still has time, while watching the bright-lights/oooh-ahhh of Independence Day, to draw parallels with one of the first recorded major conflicts.
No wonder I want to be a professor.

I'm the kind of guy who has difficulty finding a happy medium. For example, I'm sitting at my computer, knowing I have to write an article for the paper. But, as I sit here, I think to myself "Must...get...back..into...habit..of writing...on site...daily!" So I can either a) post to my site, or b) write my article....maybe I'll try to do both simultaneously.
Don't laugh, because I've done more difficult things in my day.

The accidentally inimitable Toledo Blade -- self-described as "One of America's finest newspapers" -- printed this gem of a headline Tuesday: "Gun Victim Described As Fun-Loving, Outgoing."
What's wrong with that, you may ask? Well, the kicker comes in the seventh paragraph:


A Columbus police spokesman said Mr. Slater was shot while a passenger in a vehicle near 22 East 16th Ave., less than a block from the OSU campus.
Witnesses told police some type of disagreement occurred between Mr. Slater and at least one other person before the shooting.


Whoa. Turns out that said guy was more like a "murder victim" than a "gun victim." That's like saying a guy who was pushed out of a window is a "gravity victim."

Let's talk for a moment about what I've been up to...
After leaving Chicago for Toledo (long story, folks, but maybe we'll get into it someday), I foundered for a bit. Couldn't find a job as rapidly as I wanted to, but all's well now. I'm working again -- bartending, reporting -- and I feel the need to write for myself again. Plus, my father has somehow managed to sound disappointed -- via email, no less -- that I haven't been posting, so I figured I wouldn't let the Old Man down.
I got a pretty cool job a few weeks back, and it's just now kicking into high gear. I'm writing for a small-town weekly called The Mirror, and I gotta admit that I like it. Sure, I occassionally have to cover zoning meetings and local festivals, but I get to take photos and the pay is decent. So I'm not complaining, you know?
I think, however, my photos would turn out a lot better if I had one of those cool photographer's vests. Just a thought...

My work ethic has obviously taken a turn for the worse. Here I am, living in a place with a super-speedy internet connection and cable TV, and I can't put together a single coherent thought to send out to the masses. Hmmm....I've let you down. I'll go now.
Whoa! Kidding! Gonna try to start posting to this mother again. So, thanks to all those who are bearing with me, and many thanks to those who have commented on the site.

Geez, what's kept me from posting to the site? Am I busy? No, I'm not working currently. Is there no news? Again, not really. So what's the deal, my faithful may ask?
Guess it's a combination of a few things. First, I'm back in my hometown, where all my longtime friends are, and I've been hanging about with them. Secondly, the job search -- frustrating under the best of circumstances -- keeps me quasi-busy and fully depressed. And finally, I guess I've just had very little to say that I feel others should take note of. Maybe I've been selfishly saving all my bons mots for people I'm trying to impress.
Anyway, here I am, back with the program (Green Eggs and Ham? Yosemite Sam!). I'll try to keep things more regular from this point on, but Lord knows I'm not about to make any promises. Still looking for that job, by the way. The DC thing didn't pan out (Promoting from within? Why make me fly out there, then?), and funds are quickly drying up.
But I...I will survive. As long as I know how to write, I know I'm still alive. I've got all my words to give and...ah, you know the rest.

By the way, The Arab News is chock-full of stories that drip with anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. Wander over if you dare. But don't expect to read stories about rescuing kitties from trees -- actually, since it's published in Saudi Arabia, you're more likely to read a story about a kitten being shoved back into a burning tree for not wearing its headdress.

Another (as always) fun little piece from The Arab News, which describes Powell leaving the Middle East with his head hanging in shame, which no doubt stems from his inability to get Palestinians to stop murdering Israelis and themselves.
But, the fact that this article made me realize how the word "humiliation" is thrown around made me take a second look. Jonah Goldberg wrote yesterday about the Middle East being a "shame-based society" -- the ultimate goals in such a society are gaining honor and avoiding humiliation.
It's funny how, in order to denigrate the USA's efforts in the Middle East -- which, ironically enough, would benefit the Palestinians the most (since, let's face it, Israel can take care of itself as long as we're not asking it not to) -- the Arab community ascribes to it the ultimate insult it can muster. And all Powell was doing there in the first place was trying to help, and ultimately, the Palestinain people will suffer the most as a result of Arafat's (and other Arab leaders') knotheaded policies which seek to chase Israel from its land.

As the once-popular rock song says, "It's been a while."
Boy howdy, ain't that the truth? My trip to our nation's capital was rousing, however; I'd have to chalk it up as time well spent. Had a couple of interviews, did a bit of sightseeing (especially around the Capitol), and attended the Israel Rally(read about it here), which pretty much blew me away. It was stirring to see that many people brave some sweltering heat in support of a state that really needs as much support as it can get -- especially since those who vilify Israel are louder, more violent, and more persistent than those who do, and therefore pro-Palesetinan demonstrations get more attention.
A thought struck me while milling about the crowd: Why, I wondered, is everyone so orderly and so positive here at this rally? Where are the professional agitators who go in, get the people riled up, and incite the smashing of things? And then it struck me -- there are none of those types (or very few) that support this particular cause.
Why? Well, I think for a few reasons. First, it's certainly not a cause celebre, like the environment, PETA, or anti-WTO, and therefore doesn't attract as many poseurs who just want attention for themselves and not the cause. Second, and maybe the main reason, is that those who support Israel's right to exist, and its right to be free from constant terror attacks, are necessarily law-and-order type folks. If they (we) weren't, they'd have a much harder time trying to explain why suicide bombing isn't an OK thing to do.
There was no anger, no rage, no stone-throwing, no tire burning, no looting, no smashing, and no fights. The counterprotestors were treated civilly or ignored. There was passion, informed argument, civilized disagreement, and a remarkable feeling of hope, beauty, and kinship in the air. It was the kinship between those from all over the world who support freedom, security, and human life. And, except for some Europeans, most of the attendees were Americans -- white Americans, Jewish Americans, black Americans...hell, just Americans. It was enough to make any American proud.

I'm off to our nation's capital this weekend for a job interview, as well as, I hope, some general merriment. But it won't all be fun and games -- no, it certainly won't.
Flying in on Saturday, so I have that night for fun, as well as Sunday. I have my interviews on Monday, but splitting them is an event that I will luckliy be able to attend.
Many thanks to NRO's The Corner for pointing this out. I'll be there. If you're in DC AND you support democracy, please throw your weight behind the only Middle Eastern nation that does too.

James Taranto extends his streak to 1,347 (rough estimate) consecutive days on which he's made astutue observations and straight-to-the-heart-of-it analyses with this gem:

"'Violence of whatever form, whether one would call it an act of terrorism or an act of resistance, at this point is counterproductive.' That's Secretary of State Colin Powell, commenting on this morning's suicide bombing near Haifa, in which a Palestinian Arab hit man murdered eight Israelis.
Is Powell speaking for the Bush administration here? Is it not the administration's position that the deliberate slaughter of civilians is terrorism, and that it is not merely "unproductive" but evil and intolerable?"

Ouch, James. Ouch. And this is only the first item on today's BOTW, and the only one I've read yet. Can't wait to read the rest.

The Arab News, Saudi Arabia's English-language daily, is a hoot to read -- well, it's a hoot if you find rabid anti-Semitism, willfull mendacity, and utterly insane theories funny.
Here's a tidbit from the Opinions section:


"We are witnessing a great tragedy as it unfolds in Palestine. The Israelis are attacking our brothers there with unspeakable brutality and cruelty. And we seem powerless to do anything but look on with feelings of sorrow, hopelessness and desperation.
The single most dangerous thing that can befall the Muslim nation is hopelessness — the feeling that we are unable to do anything to save these wronged and oppressed people.
The main goal of the Zionist American plan is to instill into us a feeling of desperation so that we remain submissive and servile beneath their feet. We must not give in to desperation because those who believe in God’s mercy and blessings can never be hopeless."


And here's the "War on Palestinians" section, complete with pictures and letters, including some from Americans.
The fair and balanced Arab media at its finest, folks...

Martin Peretz unloads on The New Republic's web site -- unloads in a poetic, moving kind of way. It's a real breath of fresh air; almost as fresh as seeing his name on William Kristol's "Open Letter to President Bush." I don't know, I just get a bit of a tingle when I see support for such an important issue come from the Right and the Left.
And don't talk to me about campaign finance reform. This is real, inspired, across-the-board support for an important issue -- actually, the word "issue" does the situation in the Middle East no justice at all. It's a war on democracy going on over there, led by those who embrace fascism, totalitarianism, and oppression.
I mean, how often does one see the names "Martin Peretz," "Rich Lowry," and "James Woolsey" all in a row? There's gotta be an element of absolute truth to it if all these guys are on board!

Wow. A fiercely argued, finely tuned, and ultimately spot-on piece by Rich Lowry today. Of course, as Lowry states, he didn't have to stretch too far to prove his point -- a Saudi prince did most of the work for him.

I was settling in for a relaxing evening of cable television when I relaized that if my site meter is accurate, more people seem to be stumbling across my site. And, even though cable TV was a much-missed commodity during my yearlong sojurn in Chicago, I was drawn to the computer by what could only be described as a sense of duty. I thought to myself, "It's been a week, and you've relaxed enough. Get to steppin'!"
So, here I am...

So I'm back in a certain Midwestern city (south of Detroit, west of Cleveland, northwest of Columbus), and not a moment too soon, apparently -- the people here need a local blogger. Why, you may ask? Because our esteemed Congresswoman, Marcy Kaptur, has been making some pretty silly remarks lately. (Thanks to James Taranto's Best of the Web for pointing it out).
Well, I guess "silly" isn't the right word -- spacy is more like it. And, to add insult to injury, her remarks were made in a Saudi paper. Read it yourself if you don't believe me...
A funny story about Marcy Kaptur. She came to speak at my high school, and a good friend of mine was removed from the auditorium for challenging her anti-Gulf War stance. Guess she wasn't accepting questions (or, more accurately, disagreements) that day.

It sure has been some time since I last posted, but I was moving, and you know how THAT is...

And Andrew Sullivan, of course, does not let me down.
Yes!

Has Paul Krugman (link requires registration) completely lost it? He sounds a bit delusional.
Don't know about everyone else out there, but I'm waiting for Sullivan to get ahold of this one.
Matthew Hoy is not exactly Sullivan, but he's good. He savages the Krugster a bit here (thanks to InstaPundit for pointing it out).
Nothing like using your column in America's best-known newspaper to point out how sorry you feel for yourself.

As the terror attacks continued Thursday night, the Israeli Cabinet called up some reserves and declared Arafat the enemy. It's about time, really.
For a second, however, it seemd to jar Arafat into action:
"Facing possibly the most extensive Israeli military strike so far in the current confrontation, Arafat said Thursday he was ready for an immediate, unconditional cease-fire. But he stopped short of formally declaring a cease-fire."
Thankfully, Israel said that the PA's "condemnation" (wink, wink) of the attacks were not enough.
So, Arafat has tried to call "time, guys," when Israel starts to move in force against him and his whole hypocritical organization? Too little, too late, it seems to me.
Excuse my hyperbolic tone. I'm trying to get on Alterman's list (see link below) of those who support Israel reflexively. Yeah, I'll tend to do that when we're talking about supporting a liberal democracy over decrepit autocracies and brutal religious dictatorships.
I'm shallow like that.

Well, today is an interesting day for yours truly.
First, it's my last day here at work. If I were a cop, I'd be either a) drawn into a convoluted, sickening, unsolveable case, or b) shot.
Second, I'm moving tomorrow, back into the loving arms of my hometown. I like to call it "Stinktown." See if you can figure out which medium-sized, Midwestern city to which I'm referring.
Third, as I have no new position lined up, I've got a healthy case of the fear going on. But, the whole reason for this move is to shake things up and find a new job. The fear is my friend.
On the upside, I no longer have the ol' day job to lame for keeping me from posting...
If anyone out there in "Media Land" needs a staff writer or editor with dubious ethics, pig-headed, shortsighted viewpoints, and the work ethic of a drunken lemur, I'm your guy.
Just kidding. About those bad things, I mean. I'm a freakin' bulldog. Email me for my resume, if you like.

Should this MSNBC column by Eric Alterman be filed under news, opinion, or sheer idiocy?
And you gotta like how he includes himself, as if to say, "Look, I have faults too! I DON'T know everything...just most things! But I, unlike most, am at least fair."
Please.

The Grand High Sultan of Non-Insane Arabists, Daniel Pipes, says this in The New Republic:


"The plans on the table--Mitchell, Tenet, Abdullah--are superficial solutions to a deep problem. These proposals all assume that the great underlying issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict--Arab rejection of Israel's very existence--has been resolved, leaving only secondary issues like borders, Jerusalem, refugees, water, and arms. But if the Arab rejection of Israel was not self-evident during the glory years of the Oslo process, it has been ever since September, 2000, when Palestinians began the current round of violence. The issue today, as the issue throughout Israel's fifty-four years, concerns the existence of a sovereign Jewish state in the Middle East: The Palestinians seek to destroy this polity even as Israelis seek to win its acceptance."


This article is outstanding. What better person to trust on this matter than Pipes? Edward Said, who says in CounterPunch that Tom Friedman is a Zionist? I think Said is whipping himself up into a frenzy here; I've always found Friedman a bit left on the issue, but at least he's fair. Also, he seemed very thoughtful and almost correct on Meet the Press recently. Almost.
Here, though, is perhaps the best line from Pipes' article: "The Abdullah Plan is a non-starter." Here's what he says about it:


"Once Israelis may have believed that giving up substantial chunks of territory in exchange for signed pieces of paper by their enemies made sense. No longer. Having seen the minimal utility of the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan (in both cases, these spurred anti-Zionist sentiments rather than dampen them) and the actual harm done by the Oslo accords, it is hard to see Israelis going this route again. They will surely demand something deeper and more meaningful than a piece of paper.

Specifically, this means two things from their neighbors: a change of heart and a change of regime. The former means a full-fledged acceptance of Israel's existence, as shown through a willingness to have human contacts--trade, tourism, and the rest. The latter implies a turn toward political participation, so that a treaty means more than one man's whim."


I concur, Dan. I concur.

The Economist has an informative and correct article on the situation in the Middle East after the Netanya terror bombing. The alarmingly accurate title? Shattered.

According to CNN, Arafat is "ready to implement a U.S. cease-fire plan 'without any conditions.'"
Hmm, I wonder if that has anything to do with the IDF tanks circling Ramallah as we speak.
However, I'm doubtful that there really will be no conditions put forth by Arafat. We'll see, I guess.

James Taranto has some great points about the ongoing Arab League summit today on Best of The Web. Great points. As always.

So Boston Public is an exceptionally preachy show, but it might not rise to the level of The West Wing. I don't know -- it might be close between the two of them. One is overtly political, obviously, but the other hides behind a guazy "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?" veil. They're burkas and veils, respectively.
Gee, think a show like The West Wing can be used to skirt campaign finance reform? There's no limit on inane TV shows spouting liberal sentiments right up to an election, and I'm betting that as an election -- even the 2002 Election -- draws near, The West Wing will address current issues.
And people will eat it up, no doubt. It's the soft-core equivalent of the "attack ad," which we all know is the scourge of modern politics. It was incredible -- I watched a debate here in Chicago between Rod Blagojevich and his opponent in the Democratic opponent for Illinois governor, and the first six questions asked had to do with negative commercials. I guess I'd just call that free speech. If the ads weren't accurate, then legal action could be taken -- but it rarely is.

MORE TERROR -- If Bush doesn't call off Zinni and cut off so-called "truce talks" after this latest terror attack, then I truly have no hope for the Administration's response to the Middle East question. 15 dead, 100 wounded, and on the eve of Passover, no less. Horrible.

Did anyone see the VSE (Very Special Episode) of Boston Public Monday night? If you didn't, don't lament your bad fortune - it was crap. Let me lay it down for you: remember, I keep track of this stuff so you don't have to.

First, the episode was billed as "the episode that sparked a national debate," when it more accurately could have been described as "the episode that came to the national debate about an hour late." That rhymes, and you know it does! Admit it!

So the episode was about the use of a well-known racial invective, described on the show as "the ugliest word in the English language." Funny, I thought "Whoopi" was the ugliest word in the...oh, never mind.

Anyway, to get the full scoop on what actualy happened in the episode, you can check here. I won't recap the full episode here; rather, I'll let the good folks at Television Without Pity do that while I bore you with what I thought about it.

And, really, it seems fitting in light of the disproportioately huge deal made over race at the recent Oscars. As far as that goes, I'm throwing my weight in with those who say that Halle Berry describing herself as a "vessel" tends to diminish her own performance. Bet that's the first time you'll see an actress drawing attention away from herself. I didn't see Monster's Ball, but I did hear she was excellent -- that's why it seems a shame to even give any weight to the fact that she migh thave gotten the Oscar due to her race, which, it seems, is what the Academy tried to prove. John Podhoretz (sorry, no link) says that the Academy looked like they were working pretty hard to turn her and Denzel into "tokens," which takes away from the excellent work that they can do. I mean, Denzel's been nominated for 3 Best Actor awards, and won a Best Supporting Actor award (for Glory, an all-time favorite of mine). It's not like he's been ignored; he just hadn't won until this time. Now Jim Carrey -- he's been ignored. Both Berry and Washington won because they were good -- hell, Denzel was fantastic in Training Day -- so why make the race thing such a big deal?

But I digress. What were we talking about? Oh, right -- Boston Public's ham-fisted promotion of Randall Kennedy's book. Like it needed some lame show like BP to get it noticed...it's excellent, from what I hear. The show didn't contribute anything new to the debate, surprisingly -- it just rehashed tired old arguments. Like when Marla, the fiery black teacher, exclaims that "the word needs to go, and so does [Michael Rapaport] for using it!"

OK, here's the thing: discussing something is not the same thing as advocating it. The show missed this point. Just because I'm talking about race here doesn't mean I'm a racist -- hell, just because I disapprove of affirmative action doesn't make me racist either. But, according to some voices on the VSE, white people are not allowed to talk about matters of race with the same candor as black people are.
I guess what it boils down to for this guy is that nobody should be allowed to dictate what other people are allowed to say -- not the government, not co-workers, not interest groups, NOBODY. Now, we all have to accept the consequences of what we say -- for example, if I hurl a racial slur at somebody, I should expect to get the crap kicked out of me. however, I shouldn't be arrested for saying it --maybe for disturbing the peace or something, but there should be no law that says I can't say some word just because others don't like it.

That being said, I think we all know that the "n-word" IS an ugly word, and it has no place in modern society. Come on, we're not stupid -- but why does David E. Kelley think it's his job to tell us that? Randall Kennedy -- OK, he's qualified, but not because he's black. He's qualified because he's an educated man who knows what he's talking about.

Maybe my problem is with these celebrities thinking that their fame is a replacement for education or rationality -- like someone's qualified to be an authority on a subject because they're on TV or in movies. No way -- but I think we all, deep down, know that. It's time, then, that we stop LISTENING to these celebs. They know nothing -- probably less that Joe-on-the-street.

That's all, I guess. The VSE just got me thinking about that.

As my upcoming move looms over my head like some cartoon anvil, I realize that I'm probably disappointing my fan(s) by not posting very much. Well, jeez, sorry! I'm only one man! Hopefully, my not-too-far-in-the-future (sextuple hyphen word score!) hiatus will make up for it. I promise, I'll be the best ever. Or at least better than I have been...
Want to hear something annoying? The "B" key on this keyboard doesn't work so well; it usually doesn't take the first time I strike it, and I have to go back and fill in all the "b-words." It's especially tough when your name is Blue.
When, O Lord, will my trials end???

I'm sure I don't have to keep linking to Victor Davis Hanson's articles every time NRO posts one, but I will anyway. In fact, someone like me pointing out the fact that he's right seems silly -- kind of like that line in The Thin Red Line, when Nick Nolte's Col. Tall says to Elias Koteas' Capt. Staros, "Oh, and Staros? It's not necessary for you to ever tell me I'm right. We'll just assume it."
Best. War. Movie. Ever. Quite moving, but unfortunately overshadowed by Saving Private Ryan, which was good, but nowhere near the level of The Thin Red Line.

On the upside, I'm finally getting out from under the oppressive thumb or Mr. McArnickle, my oafish boss. I'm sure there will be another soon, but for a couple of glorious weeks, I'll be self-employed. Or, to put a more accurate spin on it, unemployed. Help!

I'm currently gearing up for a move, so I may not be posting as much as I want to over the next week. I'll try, however, to provide my dozen of readers with the subtle wit, artful jabs, and insouciant viewpoints to which they've become accustomed -- or, failing that, I'll just write like I normally do.
Heh.

Good ol' InstaPundit points out that at the The Nation, disagreement equals censorship. In fact, I think that sort of jibes with what the Times writes about college students. That's what liberalism (in all its insidious guises) has beaten into the heads of kids today. "If you disagree, you don't respect my opinion, and my opinion deserves respect! No matter what!"
Pshaw...

An interesting article (link requires registration) in today's New York Times cuts to the quick of what I was trying to point out yesterday about free speech. A quote:

"Much the opposite of boomers at the same age," the authors write, "millennials feel more of an urge to homogenize, to celebrate ties that bind rather than differences that splinter."

These are gross generalizations, of course, but a student's article titled "The Silent Classroom," which appeared in the Fall 2001 issue of Amherst magazine, suggested that upperclassmen at that college tend to be guarded and private about their intellectual beliefs. And in this writer's own completely unscientific survey, professors and administrators observed that students today tend to be more respectful of authority — parental and professorial — than they used to be, and more reticent about public disputation.

"My sense from talking to students and other faculty is that out of class, students are interested in hearing another person's point of view, but not interested in engaging it, in challenging it or being challenged," Joseph W. Gordon, dean of undergraduate education at Yale, said. "So they'll be very accepting of other points of view very different from their own. They live in a world that's very diverse, but it's a diversity that's more parallel than cross-stitched."

The students' reticence about debate stems, in part, from the fact that the great issues of the day — the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the war in Afghanistan — do not engender the sort of dissent that the Vietnam War did in an earlier era. It also has roots in a disillusionment with the vitriolic partisanship that held sway in Washington in the 1990's: the often petty haggling between right and left, Republicans and Democrats, during President Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings and the disputed presidential election of 2000, and the spectacle of liberals and conservatives screaming at each other on television programs like "Crossfire."

"Debate has gotten a very bad name in our culture," Jeff Nunokawa, a professor of English at Princeton University, said. "It's become synonymous with some of the most nonintellectual forms of bullying, rather than as an opportunity for deliberative democracy." He added that while the events of Sept. 11 may well serve as a kind of wake-up call, many of his students say that "it's not politic or polite to seem to care too much about abstract issues."

"Many of them are intensely socially conscientious, caring and committed," he said. "It's just not clear precisely what they wish to commit themselves to."

Now, I'm no boomer, but that's not the way I remember college -- I graduated from Hillsdale in 1999, and I remember an especially heated debate with some of my best friends over the bombing of Kosovo. Have things changed so much in three years that kids aren't willing to argue anymore?
Really, I don't think that's the reason. Rather, I think kids at college have been beaten into submission by multiculturalism, sensitivity trainers, and the notion of lockstep acceptance of everyone else's beliefs, no matter how wacky, illogical, or just plain wrong. I know that if getting shouted down and being called a "fascist," "bigot," or other such liberal argument-enders was par for the course at my college, I probably wouldn't have been so eager to debate my fellow students.
The kicker here is that Hillsdale College, my alma mater, is a very conservative college. And, while the administration can get a bit prickly when challenged, the students absolutely love to argue, debate, and otherwise challenge others' views. They don't call names or scream obscenities; rather, Hillsdale students calmly debate each other. And supposedly, conservatives are the ones who are intolerant towards people different from them.
Again, that's just not the case. Conservatives seem to be less inclined to yell or baselessly accuse those with different views than liberals, and that's becuase we so value free speech. I, for one, love hearing about different points of view, but I also want to be free to take issue with them. I don't seek to hang out only with those who share my beliefs, nor do I endlessly harangue those who disagree. If people don't want to debate, I'll stop -- I don't push my beliefs down people's throats. That's more than I can say for liberals.
And I love being challenged. Bring it on.

I won't even get into why the Democrats are unsuited to blast the loss of personal freedom. Anyone who knows anything about "Newspeak" -- AKA the elimination of words that can be used to offend, criticize, or question anything -- will realize how hypocritical the Dems are being.
I think Democratic pet projects like making "hate speech" a crime or hyper-regulation of all the niggling aspects of life should concern us a little more than video cameras in DC or the sharing of our medical histories with employers.
Are these things a pain sometimes? Yes. Do they making us any less free than other government policies? Not really. Lest some forget, we are at war here, and while that doesn't really have anything to do with the medical history thing, it IS important to remember that terorrists try to blend in with the local populace, and therefore extraordinary measures are sometimes required to combat them. Even video cameras at national monuments are worth it, I think, and as someone on the news said, "No one has any expectation of privacy at the Lincoln Memorial."

It's pretty absurd that Democrats such as Ted Kennedy are up in arms about the so-called "potential privacy violations" posed by the rule changes in the sharing of medical information. I'll let Jonah Goldberg (see link below) explain why; he's better at it than I am. However, what's even more absurd is the person that NBC Nightly News profiled as a "victim" of such a privacy violation. Apparently this woman lost her job because the insurance company told her boss that a disease the woman had would cost the employer more than $4000 a month in medical costs.
Well, I guess she's a victim of some sort of discrimination -- the discrimination that's inherent in and frankly necessary to run a successful business. Is it really that outlandish to expect an employer to hire someone who won't cost him so much money? Moreover, how is that unfair. My view is that such prohibitive costs far exceed the "reasonable accomodations" companies are expected to make for handicapped ("handicapable," as they used to say at my middle school) under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Another excellent article by Jonah Goldberg, as well as an excellent point.

Does this headline from Reuters fill anyone else with a sense of the futility of the whole thing? I mean, how can the peace process be put back on track after two days in which two suicide bombings occured?
Israel seems to be holding up its end of the bargain, but the Palestinians have surprisingly opted not to. Like I said yesterday, it seems that Arafat is powerless to stop this -- although it's not clear that he wants to. But you'd think that he would, since putting a stop to the terror attacks is his only hope in maintaining what little credibility he has left.

A pretty amazing (but frightening)story today from Serge Schmemann in today's New York Times. Thank God he's OK. However, that's more than can be said for the so-called "truce."
Thanks to Rod Dreher for pointing this one out.

I really want to visit Israel.
No, really. I want to go there and see for myself how strong the Israeli people must be to live in conditions such as the current ones. I want to voice my support for Israel; I want to try to convince them that a young, up-and-coming group of conservatives, libertarians, and neocons (presumably) support them in their struggle. I want to show them the future of American conservatism, and the resolve which we can be counted on to muster against terror.
I think younger conservatives such as myself are seeing the futility in dealing with the PA. I hope that our voices will continue to be heard -- blogs are a great way to ensure that -- and the Israelis will understand that we're not planning on being wishy-washy in our support for them when it becomes our turn to lead the country. The day is coming sooner rather than later, I think.
I mean, even someone like Bush, who has in the past made pretty clear his resolve to support Israel, wavers in the face of the Arab world, the State Department (insanely pro-Palestinian!), and the more liberal elements of American society -- the element that says Israel is wrong to defend itself. Why does Bush waver, wobble, and otherwise backtrack? If he takes a tough stand on Israel, conservatives will support him, and New Republic-esque libs will too. It's win-win, and yet he places his Israel policies in the hands of Colin Powell, who never met a concession he didn't like. Powell apparently hasn't heard that once you start giving in to terrorists, you might as well give up the game, because that's when they've got you. They think, "Hmm. Violence got me what I wanted. What happens if I keep it up, and keep pushing?"
I think that's what happened when Arafat walked away from Camp David during the Clinton administration. He saw how much Barak and Clinton were willing to give him, and he thought he could get it all by walking away.
Hopefully, a line will be drawn.
"Across this line, YOU DO NOT...Also, Dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please."
Ha. A little Lebowski to lighten the mood.

I guess this is what the Palestinian Authority means by a denounciation of the suicide attack that killed seven people:
"A Palestinian Authority spokesman denounced the Bus 823 attack. PA officials stated in a series of media interviews that such attacks harm Palestinian national interests because they furnish "extremist Israelis with a way to cover up their attacks against the Palestinian people (emphasis added -- ed.)." Officials also noted that the PA's efforts to bring an end to the IDF siege on Palestinian villages requires all Palestinians to "refrain from military acts against civilians in Israel." The PA leadership suggested that such attacks are liable to delay the implementation of a cease-fire agreement and of the Tenet and Mitchell plans."
And maybe the attacks should be denounced because they kill innocent civilians.
Really, I think what the PA meant to say is that the attacks harm Palestinian interests because no sane country likes to negotiate with or otherwise placate a group of muderous thugs. Oh well. At least the PA only blamed Israel once whilst they "denounced" the attacks. Progress is being made, I suppose. Still, the latest bombing proves, I think, just how willing the Palestinians are to follow through on the peace plans.
I'm not sure Arafat could stop the terrorists at this point even if he wanted to. The situation just keeps getting worse.

I know, we're waaaay overdue for a site overhaul here, but my design and HTML skills are lacking at best. Luckily for all you Heads Heads (ha!), my friend Brock has promised to help me jazz up the ol' site in a week or two. I'm gonna take him up on it, too.

Does anyone else out there think Subway shill Jared's new wife is kinda cute? Hey, me too -- a little too cute to be married to a dork like Jared. Sorry, man...I'm proud of you for losing all that weight, but you're still kind of goofy-looking.

If anyone out there in the world of academia -- be you professor or student -- reads this site, you should get in contact with Josh Mercer. Josh, a fellow Hillsdale alum, has answered Stanley Kurtz's call and set up a sort of "meeting place" blog for campus conservatives. True, it's designed for students who start conservative publications (even though it's gotta be discouraging to do so on many campuses), but I'm sure anyone who's into seeing academia trip over itself to bash America will enjoy it.

I'm currently locked in a fierce battle for washer/dryer rights here in my apartment building. In fact, I think I must be going up against M.C. Escher or something, because whoever I'm dueling with has a very unique perspective on washer/dryer usage. Or maybe there are more people trying to horn in on it, and I've rolled them all into one mighty, seemingly invincible foe. It's tough to tell.

That's all for now. Am quite tired, and I want to read a bit more of Sam Tanenhaus' biography of Whittaker Chambers before I sack out.
I've read it once before, but noticed it the other day (noticed, fell over, whatever) and picked it up again and now...can't...put...it...down!

The Hindustan Times also has a very interesting cricket section. Informative, quirky, confusing...everything you've come to love about cricket.

So I guess that settles it then. Bin Laden didn't do it.
Wait a minute...can I get a source on that? Oh, it was Osama Bin Laden's half-brother that said that.
Maybe I'm a little quick to debate this point, but I think we should still at least bring OBL in for questioning. We can hold him for 24 hours on some trumped-up traffic violation, all the while working him over with the ol' rubber hoses.
I know where we can get the hose...

If anyone is looking for a Web site that provides a decent amount of links to newspapers, both foreign and domestic, then check out World Net Daily's selection. The site links to a whole shmear of great sites -- a fun way to see how much the rest of the world dislikes the U.S.
But you know what? I guess being liked isn't as important (or shouldn't be, anyway) as being safe from random, muderous acts. Just my opinion.

For reasons on why Boston Public sucks so bad, please visit Television Without Pity. It's one of my favorite sites in the whole world.
This just in -- in a promo for next week's show, the announcer claims it's "the episode that sparked a national debate." That's right, it's the episode where the dreaded "n-word" was used.
Funny, I thought the show dealt with it because rational, educated people were already discussing it. You know, like in that one book, by that one smart guy -- the book they used on the show. Randall Kennedy must be getting a nice chunk of change for the publicity among the dim-witted Boston Public viewership. Which is OK, since I'm guessing that most people in BP's key demographic didn't happen to pick up The New Republic issue where it was reviewed -- or any other serious publication in which it was reviewed.
Jeez, this show has a high opinion of itself if it thinks that it was the show that got the ball rolling on the topic. I'm ashamed that I've spent any amount of time watching it.

And for cryin' out loud, a character just said "We can't be social workers. Just teach!"
And yet, next Monday, each teacher will have his or her own little project to solve in 50 minutes or less.
I will bet any reader a bright, shiny quarter that David E. Kelley and his writers will have forgotten that extremely insightful (and correct) admonition -- just teach, don't indoctrinate, meddle, or otherwise pester -- in about two minutes.

Man, is Boston Public the preachiest show ever or what? Well, maybe it's second, right behind The West Wing.
In truth, I think the show is sort of a soapbox for David E. Kelley's political beliefs. Activist teachers who horn in on every aspect of the kids' lives, a KGB-esque Social Services Department, and so forth.
I don't remember high school being so...surreal. I certainly don't remember kids having panic attacks from being pushed too hard by teachers or teachers being so damned concerned. Don't get me wrong -- I had pretty good teachers in high school. However, they weren't so nosy as they are this show.
I guess that's why it's a TV show, though. My high school experience probably wouldn't have made for good watchin'.

The local FOX channel just ran a spot for the news tonight -- and I quote:
"Do 'quick mops' really work? We put them to the test!"
Wow, that's hard-hitting, incisive local news. I almost forgot the primaries for the election were this week.
Call me a news snob if you must, but I'd think they could run some stuff about that.

Back after a brief hiatus...

Sorry I've been fairly sporadic in posting. It's St. Patrick's Day weekend here in Chi-town, and I have guests in from out of town. I'll be more regular soon.
Also, the NCAA Tournament is on, and I'm riveted.
Stupid Ohio State, losing to a 12th-seeded team!

Anyone want to lay odds on which side is the first to break the cease fire?
I suppose it's a fair-ish deal, in some sort of bizarro world. Just like this is a fair and balanced article.

"Zinni arrived during the bloodiest period yet in 18 months of fighting. In March alone, 192 people have been killed on the Palestinian side and 62 people on the Israeli side. March also saw the largest Israeli military operation since the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, with Israel deploying 20,000 troops in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in response to a string of Palestinian bombings and shootings.

And the death toll continued to rise. Witnesses and Palestinian security officials said Saturday that Israeli soldiers shot and killed a taxi driver driving through central Hebron in an area under curfew. The army said it was unaware of the incident.

In Gaza, a man shot when Israeli troops entered Jebalya Camp last week died of his wounds Saturday.

In Nablus, Palestinian militia executed two men convicted of collaborating with Israel. The two men had already been sentenced to death in a Palestinian security court, but escaped from prison a week ago after Israeli shelling. It was the third instance this week of militia killing collaborators."

Does anyone see anything strange in the above passage, as quoted from the MSNBC article?
Notice this implication: Israelis kill cab drivers and random refugees. Palestinians kill collaborators who are averse to their noble cause.
I also like how it doesn't mention the Israeli civilians that the Palestinians not only kill, but actually target.
The article also by noticing a fairly surprising turn of events. It seems that the EU has reaffirmed its support for a Palestinian state. I guess it was the nonstop terror bombings that finally convinced them that the Palestinian deserved a state.
It kind of reminds me of an Onion "Our Dumb Century" headline: "Hinckly, Foster to Wed: Foster 'Very Impressed' by Lone Nut's Attempted Assassination of President Reagan."

Another great article by my man Victor Davis Hanson.
VDH, I have some questions for you, too:
1) Can I call you Vic?
2) Where do you "profess?"
3) Can I go to grad school there?
and
5) Will you be my mentor?

And hey, while we're on the subject, what's the deal with The New Republic anyway? I thought this was supposed to be a liberal magazine, and yet they're right in line with me on most things. They support the war, they support Israel -- it's great!
I think I've mentioned before that conservatives seem to regard The New Republic as the architect of the New Deal, and therefore it should be condemned, castigated, or at best ignored. I disagree -- while that may or may not be true (and as far as I know it is), I think that's OK. I don't get all worked up about disparities between conservatives' and liberals' respective economic policies. I'm more of a libertarian about such things anyway, but that's all personal preference. I like how The New Republic seems to base itself in reality, whereas another liberal rag, The Nation, obviously doesn't. In fact, I propose that those two magazines never be mentioned in the same breath again. The Nation is downright embarassing now, but I have more respect for The New Republic as each day passes. Kudos!

Lawrence Kaplan has a great article in The New Republic about the Army's new-found morale and sense of purpose. He talks about how the Battle of Gardez (AKA Operation Anaconda) finally exorcised the "ghosts of Vietnam," a term which frankly makes no sense to me anyway.
Kaplan talks about the so-called "Powell Doctrine," in which ground forces' main priority is force protection. What an idea! Use the troops whose sole reason for existing is to get on the ground and move in a coordinated, strategic fashion to do act as a sort of rear-echelon guarding force.
I don't get why this mentality came from the Army; specifically, as Kaplan notes, from the post-Vietnam officer corps. In my estimation, it wasn't the Army that failed in Vietnam -- it was an obvious failure of policy. If the politicians -- and no party, neither Republicans or Demcrats is innocent here -- had let the Army do what it needed to do, Vietnam would have ended differently. There's little doubt in my mind of that. But instead the Army was handcuffed and hamstrung at every term, and were essentially limited by problems at home -- the politicians directed the Army based on the public's perception of the war. I doubt that this is what von Clausewitz had in mind when he noted the relationship between force and politics.
But now, it seems, the Army has a bit more faith in the tried-and-true science of ground troop-based combat. As Kaplan notes, the success at Gardez should indicate that ground troops get the job done. Bombing, using proxy armies, and that sort of thing work up to a certain point, but nothing works like ground forces. I've said it myself -- the only way, I think, to win a war is by use of an overwhelming ground force, followed by military occupation of the vanquished country. Trust me, it works.