Ah, J.Lo...totally still "from the block."
I'll admit it. I actually used to like Jennifer Lopez the Actress (you know, before she became "J.Lo the Multi-talented Wonder.") She was wonderful in Out of Sight and decent in U-Turn. But you know why she was OK in those movies? It was before she became J.Lo, and therefore she was actually playing the part the script called for, not some stupid star-vessel.
And I still think the engagement to Ben Affleck is a mere cover for Ben's budding "confirmed bachelorhood," if you catch my meaning. Sort of a Nicole Kidman/Tom Cruise-type agreement.
P.S.: Heads On Fire is now owned by Tom Cruise Entertainment. The above comments do not reflect the views of Tom Cruise Entertainment. Blue Derkin has been forever silenced.
OK, luckily I managed to wrest control of this site away from Tom Cruise Entertainment. Whew.
Speaking of Tom Cruise, you know who sucks as an actress? I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, but Penelope Cruz is freakin' terrible! Just awful. I saw Blow again the other night. I've been defending that movie since it came out as "not that bad," but I think I may have to abandon that position as untenable, just like I had to with Orca. Penelope Cruz stinks and the story goes off the deep end in portraying George Jung as "the good drug dealer." You know, I think I may have liked that movie simply for the drug-related story line. What? Stop looking at me like that!
All I'm saying is that while it strives to be Goodfellas 2: The Revenge, I think we can all agree that it ain't no Goodfellas. I mean, if Scorsese can't make Casino into Goodfellas 2, how the hell can Ted Demme expect to make it?

I wrote a really good post about this article in The Weekly Standard, but Blogger boned me and didn't allow a posting.
Anyway, I regret that David Skinner's article on Chris Martin of Coldplay is true. Calls him "StarDumb." But Skinner also notes that it's an isolated incident, unlike, say Susan Sarandon, Barbra Streisand, or whoever else thinks they are qualified to talk about it.
It's odd, because my friend Eastern European Mike and I were talking about Coldplay the other day. He mentioned how it's too bad that bands like Coldplay and Radiohead are so damn liberal, because we both really like the Brit-rock vibe. Oh well...I'm sure the guys from Radiohead and Coldplay vote Labour, but then again, Tony Blair is in the Labour Party. There's hope, I guess.
Another thing: Kathryn Jean Lopez points to some more Helen Thomas idiocy in The Corner.
I'm no age-ist or anything, but I think Helen Thomas' press card needs a revokin'. I heard she thinks Adlai Stevenson is most viable Democratic candidate in the upcoming election.

There are a number of blogs (and of course, the obligatory weeping family on TV as soldier gets shipped off by big bad Bush) out there saying things like this:
"Some of me best friends are in the military and I can't bear the thought of losing them if we go to war."
"My son is a Marine and I don't want him dying for oil."
"U.S. troops shouldn't be forced to fight this unjust war."
And so on...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the U.S. military an all-volunteer force? Perhaps the aforementioned soldiers slipped through the cracks and got conscripted, but failing that, I'm thinking they joined up on their own. And why wouldn't they? The military is where all sorts of people have traditionally sought to better themselves and improve their stations in life.
My point is this: I don't want any more American soldiers to die than necessary, but let's face it -- when soldiers joined the military, they knew that something might thrust our nation into war, and they would be the ones called on to fight.
And don't go thinking that I don't know anyone in the military, because I do. A dear friend from college is a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army (shipping off to Germany next week to take command of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle); an acquaintance works in the chemical warfare division of the Ohio Air National Guard; and so on. I'm proud of them, but I don't think they want our tears. They want support; that is, they want to know they're carrying out the political aims of our nation.
So let's have no more of the weepy goodbyes -- at least the ones where the anti-war parent or spouse or whatever accuses the government of putting their soldier in harm's way. Joining the military, becoming a policeman or firefighter, and joining the circus are about the only sure-fire ways to get put in harm's way.

As pertains to my post below, I'd be interested in hearing anyone's war stories re: the difficulties of being a young conservative, Republican, libertarian. etc. Maybe I'll cull together the best responses and post them on the site.

An interesting and surprisingly thoughtful article in Salon, of all places, about Michael Savage, the bigoted and hysterical talk-show host-cum-author.
See, here's what I don't like -- we conservatives (libertarians et al included -- I know I'll get some flak on that statement, but I'm more libertarian than conservative, and I support the Republicans. Let's face it, Lib. candidates ain't gonna win a notional election anytime soon, and I wouldn't have had my vote help out Al Gore in 2000) have the Congress and the Presidency. We don't need any more validation. And yet here's Savage, spewing in his book about all the cultural phenomena that are bringing the conservatives down. Huh?
We won, dude. In case you didn't know. Sure, it's not a permanent victory, and we've had to toss some bones to the Dems, but that's politics, innit?
Savage leaves a bad taste in my mouth for several reasons. Number one, he for all intents and purposes lends credence to the conservative notion of victimhood. Nothing is OUR fault; it's the media, or the feminists, or this or that lobby that's bringing us and the country down. Well, Savage, much of the bad press that conservatism gets is because of people like you, who don't even try to be civil, thoughtful, or even factually correct. I agree with Andrew Sullivan here -- Savage is a cancer on conservatism. And I don't need anyone besides myself making me look bad.
See, Savage is one of the reasons why young conservatives have almost a knee-jerk apology mechanism. We get guff, sure, but a lot of the guff we get is from our peers who don't understand that all conservatives aren't like Savage. If there weren't people like him out there purporting to speak for us, we might not have to begin every politically-oriented conversation with "Yeah, I'm pretty much a...ahem, Republican, BUT..." By the way, I DON'T count Rush Limbaugh as part of this group. He's smart, thoughtful, etc...sure, he's bombastic, but not in the same way as Savage.
I knew I didn't like Savage when I saw him on Greta Van Sustern's show defending Scott Peterson (husband of the missing Laci). Savage said (and I'm paraphrasing from memory here), "It's the feminist lobby that have convicted this guy before he's even a suspect."
Guh? Sorry, it's Peterson's unwillingness to answer questions, bullshit (and frankly eye-rubbingly unbelieveable) alibi, and a mountain of other facts that are causing the public to pre-judge him. I'm no friend of the feminist lobby, but I stil think the guy did something bad, not to mention killed his pregnant wife. And here Savage is, taking the controversial stand just for the sake of controversy and using it to defend against the mother of all crimes (killing your pregnant wife, by the way).
Anyway, that's why I can't stomach Savage. He blows. And he makes us look bad, and I say we drum him out to the fringes like we did with Buchanan.

I came across this list a few years ago, and I laughed heartily then. I stumbled across it again a few minutes ago, so here it is for everyone's enjoyment (scroll down to see the list).

Again, I feel it necessary to explain a little something to those who come to this page following the Google (what up, new master!) link to the picture of the Honda Civic.
First, I'm not an expert on Honda Civics. I merely own one.
Second, I put the picture on the site merely to show what my new-ish car (a Honda Civic, by the way) looks like.
Third, I don't know where you can get one just like it. I got lucky and saw it sitting out with a "For Sale" sign on it along the side of the road. The woman who owned it had just bought a brand new Mini Cooper. I did, however, get a great deal on the Honda Civic.
I am, however, thinking about putting some bling-bling into my car to make it a litte faster and more furious.
That being said, I'd like it if you car folks kept coming around to the site. I appreciate the traffic, but know that I really don't have many answers when it comes to Honda Civics.
I feel like Homer Simpson when asked a difficult question. "Honda Civics? Mine is silver."

I also wanted to relate a fun little adventure undertaken by me and some friends a couple of weekends past. We went up to The People's Republic of Ann Arbor (tm Dad) to catch a show -- well, actually, friend Nick and a couple of others had tickets for the show, while friend Jason and I just went to hang out in A-squared. You know, to break the bonds of Toledo, if only for one night.
Anyway, the show in question -- indie darlings and NYC stalwarts Luna, by the way -- was sold out, so after dinner Jason, Nick, and I went down to the Blind Pig. Nick went in and Jason and I went downstairs to the...well, the downstairs bar, I guess. We were hanging out, had a couple of beers, and decided to troll the town. Jason stopped off at the restroom and apparently ran into Nick. Seems the Blind Pig and DownstairsBar shared a pisser, so Jason sneaked upstairs. Nick and I proceeded to follow, whereupon we were stopped by a security guard asking to see out show wristbands. Nick flashed his and I, not having one, just pulled down my sleeve and exposed my wrist as if I did. The guy looked at me (I never broke eye contact with him and kept walking) and turned away. Score! Free show! It was decent, too -- they played Donovan's "Season of The Witch" and there was no second-guessing the expenditure, since it was free.
It was one of my best fakeouts ever. I'm not usually inclined to go sneaking into shows, and when I've seen it done it's come at a terrible price. Some dudes sneaked into a Radiohead show at Blossom and had nothing but half a set of Radiohead, cut-up elbows, and torn clothing to show for it.

I howled with laughter at this Onion article. Anyone who's read any David Foster Wallace should too.
Oh, he's good, but man, is he long-winded or what? I think he's good in short form -- magazine articles and whatnot -- but I just could not, for the life of me, finish Infinite Jest. I wanted to, but just couldn't slog through it. First, the book is physically huge -- at 1,079 pages it was a real bitch to haul around on the El. Second, what's with the damn footnotes? Sure, they were funny and whatnot, but way to break up the continuity of the book, DFW. Flipping back and forth with my finger holding place is not my idea of a good read.
I'll finish Infinite Jest when I break my leg skiing and am laid up for months in traction. Until then, I'll be content to read A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again (his article on the 7-day Carribbean cruis is priceless) or his other magazine stuff.
By the way, if you ever get a chance to read his article "The Weasel, The Shrub, and The Twelve Monkeys," I suggest you do so. It was originally published in Rolling Stone, but you can find it in various collections. The article describes his experience on the McCain 2000 Straight Talk Express. It's great -- even moving at times.

I don't know how it was for everyone else, but Blogger was down today; hence, I was unable to post. And you can bet I had some good ones lined up, too. Oh, they're all forgotten by now. Sorry.

I've been getting a little grief lately, so I feel the need to modify some of the comments I've made in regard to the French and Eastern Europeans.
First, I've only known a few French people. One was this guy Phillipe who lived next door to me freshman year in college. He sucked. Off to a bad start.
Second, I met a groups of les francais when I lived in New York. One, Marion, was an au pair on the Upper West Side; the other, Jerome, worked for some French venture capital firm. Both were cool enough, and both had no disdain towards me, my fellow Americans, or to the US in general. They were a bit clueless as to music, movies, and whatnot, but hey -- that's acceptable. I went to a party with Jerome -- I was the only American there. My god, the women were attractive. It was strange being the exotic one.
Anyway, my point here is that if I based my feeling on the French on only those that I've met, I would have to say it would be favorable (minus Phillipe). But we don't base geopolitical matters on whether or not some person invited you to a party.
The French as a nation are maddening, but in a sense, they act the way I wish the US would sometimes act. They don't care about multilateralism and they make no bones about the fact that they're looking out for France first and foremost. They're just tiresome, that's all. What can they really do to us? Nothing. What should we care about their opinion? Nothing. When you think about it, we should deal with the rest of the world like we WANT to deal with France -- brush them aside and go about our business.
The international community, in the body of the United Nations, is a corrupt, anti-American apologia for dictators. I say screw 'em.
Now, as far as Eastern Europeans are concerned, I don't want anyone to think that I dislike them because they still think Michael Jackson is a huge star. I mock them for that, but I think Eastern Europeans (and I include Baltic folks therein) are really pretty great.
They used to live under the Soviet bootheel, so they know what oppression really is. They also know what appreciation is, and they know that the US was looking out for them. Now they want to be on the winning team. Can you blame them?
Eastern Europe knows that Western Europe thinks they're rubes; that they're backwater slobs who don't really count when taking stock of Europe. They also know that Western Europe has repeatedly sold Eastern Europe down the river. They know the US, when it's been able to, hasn't done that.
Plus, the contact I've had with Eastern Europeans has been overwhelmingly positive. There's no Phillipe in the bunch.
One of my favorite professors in college was Lithuanian (I say was because he's now dead). One of my best friends in the world is Polish. I'm down with the former Warsaw Pact.

I've been thinking a lot about words these past few days; specifically, the American reliance on the word "tragedy." See, I've heard that word applied to so many different and disparate situations, I'm not sure I know what it means anymore. Let's list a few: the Columbia disaster, 9/11, Columbine, earthquakes, tornados, and so on.
But which of the aforementioned events really qualify as tragedies? I guess it applies to the Columbia disaster, since it could be most accurately described as a "tragic accident." But 9/11? I call that "an attack" or an "act of aggression." Certainly not a tragedy, since at least in my mind a tragedy is something that is a) unitended and b) unawarranted and undeserved.
The Columbia 7 knew their mission was dangerous (traveling into space? Still dangerous after all these years, and don't you forget it.), and yet, backed by bravery, fortitude, and spirit they went anyway. Their deaths are tragic because a horrible accident caused them.
The terrible day of 9/11 should never be called a tragedy. The needless deaths of 3,000 civilians are certainly a tragic component to the whole thing, but as a whole, the event should not be referred to as a tragedy. An outrage? Sure. An attack? You bet. A tragedy? Never. We shouldn't get angry about tragedies, because there's not much we can do to stop them. We can stop future attacks.

This is hilarious. Thanks to Jonah Goldberg for for linking to it. Makes sense, though -- it's right up his alley. In fact, I'd be surprised if he didn't make it, or at least commission it.

I make no apologies for my position regarding Michael Jackson. His freaky-deeky behavior has even affected my enjoyment of his Jackson 5 tunes, as well as the Thriller album. The way I got it figured, I owe him some verbal abuse.

Well, I missed the Michael Jackson documentary shown last night due to work. I don't know if could have forced myself to watch it, as I despise Michael Jackson, but it sounds like it was pretty harrowing. Some reactions express sympathy, others, nothing but disgust. I imagine I'd fall in line with Rod Dreher on this one.
We enjoy making fun of my best friend's girlfriend -- we'll call her Chazzwozzer -- for many reasons, most of which stem from the fact that she's Australian (hey, it's all in good fun). Turns out, though, that we can legitmately mock her and her country because, as she tells us, Michael Jackson is HUUUGE over there. And here I just thought he was big in Eastern and Southeastern Europe.
You know what I mean. Every time one sees concert footage (complete with fans crying and passing out, with young girls going absolutely bonkers over this weirdo), it takes a minute but you finally realize that something doesn't look right. Everything looks like a Mentos commercial or DeGrassi Junior High. Then you find out the concert was held in Warsaw, Budapest, Sofia, or Skopje. Hey, I love those kids in Eastern and Southeastern Europe (What up, Mike! What up, Nikolay!), but they still think Michael Jackson is the shizz-nit.
Yeah, I don't think MJ could fill Detroit's State Theater these days. Sick freak.

My eye feels funny following an insidious suggestion dropped by Dr. Mom. I think I have pink eye.
Sure, it's psychosomatic. But nothing sucks like an eye infection.

I'm totally deep, right? Nah. Just tired.

Well, I'm convinced. There are a TON of great blogs out there!
Many of them are blogs by girls that detail the daily sprawl of their lives. What fascinating insights into the lives of women!
You'd think having three sisters I would know more about them. Nope. Less. I'm at a disadvantage, I think. What I know about girls (sorry -- women) is that you're not allowed -- nor should ever want -- to hit them in anger and that you have to pick them up when they need a ride or have broken down somewhere. Also, that if they start yelling, you should shut up and let it wash over you like a shorebreaking wave -- loud and awe-inspiring, but essentially harmless. Open doors. Let have bathroom first. Don't yell.
All these things I learned by having three sisters. I learned to defend them if something happened and I learned that it's unwise to play board games with them.
But I've discovered that I don't know a whole lot about the inner workings of the minds of women. I've only ever thought about the rules governing interactions with women instead of the motivations -- indeed, the emotions -- that guide them.
It's a new day. My assault on the world starts now.
By the way, those links are Breakup Babe and What Is Really Going On In My Head.
Like I said, fascinating reading for me, perhaps the least "with it".

Don't get me wrong: as a people, the French are great. They're cultured, attractive, and they smoke like fiends, which is a plus in my book. I don't want anyone to think I'm insulting the French. Hell, I'm somthing of a francophile myself. Took years of French in school, studied hella French history, and so forth. However, I do think that as a nation-state they're quickly losing their relevance in a bizarre attempt to regain past glories. Example? How about when DeGaulle refused NATO the use of French bases, and then pulled out of the military command altogether? Why did he do this? To re-assert French sovereignty, of course. OK, I'm a big history nerd.
For a better explanation of this phenomenon, check out this book. It's by Richard Bernstein, who used to write for The New York Times. Had to read it in HST 415S (France Since 1815) and enjoyed it immensely. Check it out.

Two outstanding articles by my friend Steve Hayes (ok, we've only met a couple of times, but he is marrying an old high school friend. Shut up!) in The Weekly Standard. In the first Hayes details Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda, and in the other he mocks the French. He's a funny guy. And the French are such an easy target.

Here's the text to that Powell UN speech. Just in case any of my faithful readers were foolish enough to rely on me for that.

OK, not then, but now.

It looks like a go! Comment away!

OK, here we go again...
Comments test number 2. ...And GO!!

Some thoughts about Colin Powell's address before the UN Security Council (for the most comprehensive coverage, short of a transcript, peep here):
1) Germany holds the presidency of the Security Council?? I thought the UN was essentially designed to protect the world from a resurgent Germany! How short are our memories...
2) Powell kicks motor booty. He's not the cowboy that France, Germany, et al think GWB is, so this flies in the face of the European theory. No, he's the calm, multilateralist one in the administration, but I think being used (as sort of an anti-Bush) by the Euros really honked him off, and their dithering put him into the fold with Rumsfeld and the others.
3) Amazing. Russia and China (both permanent members of the Council, so they have the veto) want more inspections and such. Didn't Powell just provide proof that they aren't working? The UN continues its lurch towards irrelevancy...
4) Think liberals are giving the administration a fair shake to prove how dangerous Iraq is, or do you think that they won't listen to anything because it's a Republican administration? If you still are fooling yourself into thinking the former, check The American Prospect's blog, TAPPED. Last I checked, they had nothing on Powell's speech. They're just ignoring it. They'd rather insult Jonah Goldberg than deal with pressing issues. The Corner, on the other hand, is kicking booty commenting on the whole thing. As is NRO. I mean, they have Mark Bowden commenting on it, for crying out loud! How cool is that?
More in a bit. Need to go have a smoke. Am sated.

Still working on the comments feature. Growing angrier...

OK, so if you'll direct your attentions slightly to your left (under my email address), you'll see a comments link. I'm interested to see how this works, since nothing happens when I click on it. In fact, I'm not sure it's doing what it's supposed to be doing, but I do like the heading. Five bucks to whoever gets back to me first with where I lifted that saying from. Hint: it's a book.

I'm trying to set up a "comments" feature through these folks here, but can't seem to get it to go up. Of course, my HTML and web design skills are rudimentary at best, so the fault might lie on this end. I know, it seems so unlikely!

A reader writes me and says, "Nerds and politics make the internet go round."
I'm not sure if truer words were ever spoken.

OK, sorry to get so hyped up about political things. I know there are a ton of blogs out there that cover this stuff, but hey -- I like politics too, and I have an opinion. Hell, I went to one of the most politicized colleges in the country.
I guess what I'm saying is that you're going to sit there and like it!
Kidding. Please don't leave. I'll go back to ragging on Toledo soon.

I really had to rub my eyes a few times when I read this article in Salon by Michelle Goldberg. It's simply dripping with hate, venom and ridicule.
When was the last time anyone saw any coverage this harsh of an antiwar march? Sure, Salon is a liberal mag, but this really takes the cake. Not only does she imply that everyone in attendance at the CPAC conference was a narrow-minded hatemonger, but she insults their looks, the way they dress -- everything. Peep this, y'all:

"Held at Gateway Marriott in Crystal City, Va. from January 30 to February 1, CPAC drew a crowd of 4,000, 1,700 of them college students. Most of the action took place in a ballroom on the second floor, where speakers lambasted liberals from a stage draped in red, white and blue and backed by 18 American flags and two enormous video screens. It was like a right-wing version of a Workers World rally, with one crucial difference. Workers World is a fringe group with no political power. CPAC is explicitly endorsed by people running the country. Its attendees are Bush's shock troops, the ones who staged the white-collar riot during the Florida vote count and harassed Al Gore in the vice presidential mansion. Bush may not want to embrace them in public, but they are crucial to his political success and he has let them know, in hundreds of ways, that their mission is his."

Look, honey, if you disagree with the politics, just say so. Don't resort to the ol' liberal saw of ad hominem attacks too. Cheapens the argument, don't you think?
Oh, and when was the last time a conservative was invited to a liberal conference? Goldberg glosses over the fact that Nat Hentoff, of all people, spoke at the damn thing. Nat Hentoff! Of Village Voice fame! That's like having Reagan give the keynote address at a Berkeley graduation.
This is in fact the only positive graf of the whole thing:

"Yes, CPAC explored some crucial questions. [Gee, thanks Michelle! .ed]One panel asked, "Islam, Religion of Peace?" (Short answer: no.) There was a 40-minute talk on tort reform and 35 minutes on "Safeguarding Civil Liberties in a Time of War," which included a speech by veteran lefty civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, who was treated respectfully by an audience that largely fears big government and holds its privacy sacrosanct."

Of course, she follows it with this:

"Yet Hentoff aside, one theme overwhelmed all others: a quaking, obsessive hatred of the liberals who are still believed to rule the world. CPACers exemplify what historian Richard Hofstadter called "the paranoid style in American politics" in the 1964 essay of the same name. "Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated -- if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention," Hofstadter wrote. "Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes." And George W. Bush has harnessed their obsession and rage for his own political gain."

God. How hysterical can an article be?