I write to you today for two simple reasons. Our world is changing, and is becoming increasinlgy unstable, unsettling. And I, as an individual at least topically aware of current political climates and motives, am compelled to speak.
The issue here is just war. It has to do with the UN and the United States, the world community and collective security, democracy and despotism, and good and evil. Times are troubled because issues at hand are so convoluted, so complicated, so counter-factual. I desire moral clarity, though I am no moralist. World opinion says we are 'alone'. But being alone doesn't mean you're not right.
Of course, 'just war' is a Christian theoretical construct, first introduced by Augustine. We all know the basics of this theory, of this disposition towards war. Today we call it simply Christian pacifism. Even though it is honorable, it is effectively suicide. Particularly applicable amongst Christian nations, 'just war' theory simply fails in reality. Justification is based on individual perception, and perceptions amongst individuals tend to vary - drastically. But it is today a guideline, serving merely to justify military action against modern opinion, which, needless to say, is secular, progressive, and relativistic.
So let us leave theory for the scholars and philosophers amongst us. We will be a war generation within hours. The time for theoretics is over, made basically irrelevent by the events of 11 September.
The issue is our pre-emptive attack against Iraq. I will approach it in two ways. First, I will consider the 'just war' theory as our moral purpose, as our legitimate authority. Then, (for all you secular post-moderns out there), I will face the reality of this military action comparatively and relatively, being as non-moral as I can. We must all realize that it is in vogue to be skeptical, if not altogether hostile, towards religion. Though it is a disappointing fact, social will relies more on pragmatic assertions than on issues of morality. Sadly, moral imperatives are least convincing these days.
Without question Iraq has been a rogue regime, a wrongdoer, developing weapons of mass destruction in violation of UN resolutions, attacking one neighbor and seeking to annex another. There is considerable evidence of Saddam's individual support for terrorist activity. The question in front of us, though, is whether the US must await a direct attack by Iraq before acting (obviously, in self-defense).
In days of more conventional warfare, this might have been reasonable if not completely appropriate. Weapons of mass destruction and nuclear development programs made it no longer necessary. September 11 made it difficult, if not suicidal. And our invasion of Iraq hours from now will have made it anachronistic, dead to our world. Just as many wonder why diplomatic actors did not stand up to Adolf Hitler earlier and prevent mass atrocities, we should not leave historians to ask why no one pre-empted an evil man and an evil regime like Saddam's from using its illegal arsenal. We must learn lessons from history. This is not to say that our current situation is analogous to Abyssina, 1935, Munich, 1938, or Suez, 1956. It isn't. History is not dates and facts. It is the study of human action, interaction, and conflict. We can see trends, then and now, and gauge our actions against the successes or failures of the past. If nothing else, realize that atrocities will always happen. And realize that records are made to be broken. Six million, I am afraid, will one day seem insignificant.
And then there is the UN. A breeding ground for anti-Americanism, tyranny, petty rivalry, anti-Semitism, and relativism. Yet, public perceptions which are usually misinformed or just plain ignorant actually seek the unanimous approval of this political body as a justification for war. Those who feel the US must await UN approval forget what Margaret Thatcher or even Daniel Patrick Moynihan have said repeatedly years ago: The United Nations is a political body, not a moral one. It is an idealistic construct, which fails immeasurably under the weight of reality. It has, for all intents and purposes, discredited itself since its inception, or when it resolved (as in passed a resolution) that Zionism was a form of racism. Libya heads the Human Rights Commission, recently replacing Syria. The US has had more human rights violation than China. So are we to understand that three thousand dead and the World Trade center gone is less a justification for war than the raised hand of the UN ambassador from the Gambia, or Zimbabwe, or the Sudan, or Iran? Or France? The UN pushes for diplomacy at all costs because it cannot enforce anything without the US, or more precisely, US military might. And the UN hates that, and hates us because of that. To be effective, it must respect the US. Because it hates the US, it has become completely ineffective.
But the UN agreed with us as to the nature of the Iraqi regime. They passed a resolution. So if Saddam is a menace, a wrongdoer, an evil dictator, it is the moral duty and authority of the UN to act against him. If for nothing else but respect for the oppressed Iraqi people. But they won't because they are not moral. Some member states have been pacified domestically (Belgium or Sweden), some have been scarred historically by war (Germany), some have heaps of investments and economic interests with Saddam's despotic regime (France), and some can't decide whether George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein is the greater menace (Syria, Iran). I apologize, but if you really have to think about who is a better man, or a better leader, please stop reading this. You are not worth the semi-involuntary electric impulses guiding my fingers along this keyboard.
Surely it would be preferable to have UN support, for political reasons alone, but it is not necessary strategically or tactically. And it is certainly not necessary morally. You see, we are alone in this matter. We have a coalition of sorts, but this is America's war. We have waited twelve years for diplomacy to work, for Iraq to disarm, for the UN to act upon its charter, for world opinion to realize that Saddam is a threat, a liar, an Iago who pits allies against allies and never fails to keep his thugs two steps ahead of even the most observant or well-equipped UN Weapons Inspector. Saddam can manipulate the UN precisely because he knows that allegiance to its charter is based only on good faith with no real means of enforcement. I imagine he laughs at our willingness to debate, discuss, and deliberate. He laughs because he knows he can use our blind idealism to divide the Western world and secure another five years for himself. If still capable of rational introspection, I imagine Saddam laughs at France because he knows what we say about him is true. And he can't believe that France doesn't realize it. No. France does realize it, and that makes him laugh even more.
We have national security objectives. We are targets for terrorists. We are hated or resented by our allies. American travelers are at more risk today than they were ten or twenty years ago. World opinion sees America's ability to decapitate a regime at will as a threat to world peace. But they are wrong. Simply. They see American might as a threat because they no longer have a moral compass, no longer are capable of tackling issues of moral clarity. It is all relative and quantifiable to them. We have the most weapons, we must be the most evil. Politics and morality are disparate concepts, but at certain times under certain conditions, they are truly one and the same. When diplomacy fails, war is its omega.
We can no longer be simply reactive, or passive. The conditions of the world today, and America's place in it, demand us to be pro-active, literally for the sake of our survival.
Today, we adapt ancient moral principles to modern realities. This war is just. We will fight it humanely and energetically. We will liberate the Iraqi people. The post-Saddam body politic will echo what dissidents have been telling us for years, that this needed to be done. World opinion will wait to see the outcome before it condemns or congratulates. Typical behavior for 'useful idiots' (read Lenin). The global protesters will probably escalate their efforts by moving towards civil agitation. And increasingly, we will depart on our own course alone, with fewer and fewer allies as the years go by. There will be failure and success, and perhaps our generation will be the first to witness the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Perhaps even worse. Realize that history placed the US in this position of hegemony. Our responsibilities to others are immense, their gratitude toward us is negligible.
But we are right. And that is why we are, and shall probably remain, alone.
Sobering thoughts for such an ill-prepared generation as ours. Nonetheless, we will press on, in one way or another. This does demand vigilance, patience, temperance. But mostly it demands will, which unfortunately, can only wane over time. Perhaps even a change in political party leadership, or a new Administration, will impede America's course. You see, we are indeed a country divided, diverse in its opinions. There are those who see the US as a sovereign nation which was attacked on 9/11, whose only real global motive is others' political stability and economic prosperity. And there are those who see the US as a member of the world community, equal to any other country, with no exceptional attributes, which brought terrorism upon itself via globalization and moral paternalism. Little do they realize that there are still many places on this Earth where they would be killed for such ideas.
So I fear a lack of resolve. And I fear the ever-expanding schism between Americans and the World, and even Americans and Americans. Our beliefs are minority ones, so it seems. Maybe I am wrong. I hope I am.
These days do mark drastic and immensely significant global changes, geo-political realignments. These days require tough choices between shades of good and evil. These days require what I unfortunately think our generation lacks: a memory. Things move so fast these days that we forget the significance of certain events far too soon. In our effort to understand what happened and why, we end up forgetting what did happen and when.
But let us realize again these last things. The US is the greatest political experiment in the history of human development. The quality of life here is better than in any place, anywhere, any time. We should be proud that we are alone against a world gone upside-down. And we should rest assured that no matter what happens, to me or to you, we did the best we could in the name of civilization. Yes, this is a generalization practically dripping with visceral rhetoric. But generalizations can also be true. That is why they exist.
And for you post-moderns out there, post-Saddam Iraq will certainly be a better place for the average Iraqi than it is today. Yes, people will die, resentments will mature, factions will cleave for power. But the quality of life will finally improve, men and women will vote, and perhaps people will eat lobster somewhere else than in the Presidential Palace. For better or for worse, Iraq will be a nation of Iraqis, and not of one man.
Again to each of you, thanks for the time. This is therapeutic for me, probably selfish, and most assuredly wrong on a number of points. We will all see.
A few days ago, I heard someone throw around the idea that we are a 'ghost generation'. I don't know exactly what that means but maybe its the idea that we've inherited so much, and done so little. We can be perceived, but do we really exist? Are we as unreliable or fickle as our contrived senses? Perhaps.
Here is our chance to prove that we exist... for a reason.
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
My friend Mike the Pole writes this:
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
Thursday, March 13, 2003
I do love me the Beastie Boys -- Paul's Boutique is one of my favorite albums of all time -- but they should shut the hell up. Why, you may ask? It's a free country, you'll say. They have a right to speak their minds, right?
Sure they do. But it must have been difficult to learn all the incredibly complex nuances of American and world policy while on tour, dousing girls with honey in the back rooms of venues.
I know, I know...they've changed from the hell-raisin' rich boys they once were. They arranged the Tibetan Freedom Festival, etc, etc. In fact, I've seen them speak out against so-called American prejudices against Arabs before.
I just hope these nice Jewish boys know a few things: first, that the Arab world wants them dead. Second, that a US war against Iraq is not unjustified, nor is it "bullying" (a term I've seen more than once recently). Third, it takes a pretty detailed understanding of the US's role in the and its foreign policy aims and objectives to understand the true scope of the situation, and I ain't seeing it here in the lyrics.
I'm going to speak directly to Mike D, Adrock, and MCA right now. Fellas, please -- shut up. You're out of your collective depth here. Go back to the days of "Pass The Mic," "Shake Your Rump," "Hey Ladies," and "Egg Man." The new, serious Beastie Boys give me the willies.
Sure they do. But it must have been difficult to learn all the incredibly complex nuances of American and world policy while on tour, dousing girls with honey in the back rooms of venues.
I know, I know...they've changed from the hell-raisin' rich boys they once were. They arranged the Tibetan Freedom Festival, etc, etc. In fact, I've seen them speak out against so-called American prejudices against Arabs before.
I just hope these nice Jewish boys know a few things: first, that the Arab world wants them dead. Second, that a US war against Iraq is not unjustified, nor is it "bullying" (a term I've seen more than once recently). Third, it takes a pretty detailed understanding of the US's role in the and its foreign policy aims and objectives to understand the true scope of the situation, and I ain't seeing it here in the lyrics.
I'm going to speak directly to Mike D, Adrock, and MCA right now. Fellas, please -- shut up. You're out of your collective depth here. Go back to the days of "Pass The Mic," "Shake Your Rump," "Hey Ladies," and "Egg Man." The new, serious Beastie Boys give me the willies.
Had we all forgotten about this one? It came, of course, during last summer's "rash of kidnappings" and multiple Amber Alerts, but at least this one has a happy ending.
I was actually thinking to myself just the other day, "Wonder what happened to that Smart kid?" And look at that -- she's found, alive and well.
I don't want to take all the credit, but...
I was actually thinking to myself just the other day, "Wonder what happened to that Smart kid?" And look at that -- she's found, alive and well.
I don't want to take all the credit, but...
Monday, March 10, 2003
Christopher Hitchens gives a firm "how's your father Fisking" to the religious anti-war crowd. Jimmy Carter's ears are burning.
Man, will I ever leave poor Maureen Dowd alone? Probably not, as long as she keeps writing columns like this one.
I find this section particularly odius, not to mention curious:
"William Greider writes in The Nation, "As a bogus rallying cry, `Remember 9/11' ranks with `Remember the Maine' of 1898 for war with Spain or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964. . . ." A culture more besotted with inane "reality" TV than scary reality is easily misled. Mr. Greider pointed out that in a Times/CBS News survey, 42 percent believe Saddam was personally responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and in an ABC News poll, 55 percent believe he gives direct support to Al Qaeda."
Here's Greider's article.
I can't believe this. I may be close to speechless. I find that 42 per cent figure extremely hard to believe. More than that, 42 per cent of what? The American people? French poodles? Sailors?
When you someone cite figures that don't seem to point anywhere, it's a good bet that there's a reason for the omission.
Even more astounding is the contempt dripping from both Dowd's and Greider's articles. Contempt for the American people, who according to them are so stupid that they actually think Saddam Hussein commssioned the 9/11 attacks! You people are all idiots, according to these two. Being taken for a ride by the Washington Post, the paper that has consistently struggled to keep a lid on scandals in the Federal Government, if only to keep warmongering Presidents in power.
Oh, you didn't know that the Post has been in the government's pocket for a long time, and they all vote Republican?
Geez. If you're feeling adventurous, try typing "William Greider" into Google. Check out the kind of stuff he's written. Not exactly a paragon of objective journalism, methinks.
I find this section particularly odius, not to mention curious:
"William Greider writes in The Nation, "As a bogus rallying cry, `Remember 9/11' ranks with `Remember the Maine' of 1898 for war with Spain or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964. . . ." A culture more besotted with inane "reality" TV than scary reality is easily misled. Mr. Greider pointed out that in a Times/CBS News survey, 42 percent believe Saddam was personally responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and in an ABC News poll, 55 percent believe he gives direct support to Al Qaeda."
Here's Greider's article.
I can't believe this. I may be close to speechless. I find that 42 per cent figure extremely hard to believe. More than that, 42 per cent of what? The American people? French poodles? Sailors?
When you someone cite figures that don't seem to point anywhere, it's a good bet that there's a reason for the omission.
Even more astounding is the contempt dripping from both Dowd's and Greider's articles. Contempt for the American people, who according to them are so stupid that they actually think Saddam Hussein commssioned the 9/11 attacks! You people are all idiots, according to these two. Being taken for a ride by the Washington Post, the paper that has consistently struggled to keep a lid on scandals in the Federal Government, if only to keep warmongering Presidents in power.
Oh, you didn't know that the Post has been in the government's pocket for a long time, and they all vote Republican?
Geez. If you're feeling adventurous, try typing "William Greider" into Google. Check out the kind of stuff he's written. Not exactly a paragon of objective journalism, methinks.
Good words on a good weekend from yours truly. Actually, to be honest, it wasn't all that great, but it seemed as though it was. Went out. Watched some college basketball on Saturday, saw a kick-ass art exhibit, and saw Old School.
Wow. Looking at those three things side-by-side is strange. Sort of runs the high-brow/low-brow gamut.
"Yeah, I watched some f**king HOOPS!"
"Indeed, I pondered the mystery and majesty of nature as I strolled through the museum, taking in Van Gogh's pastoral landscapes. Ah, Arles. Auvers. C'est magnifique!"
"Movie funny. Man fall down, catch on fire."
I'm a bundle of contradictions.
Wow. Looking at those three things side-by-side is strange. Sort of runs the high-brow/low-brow gamut.
"Yeah, I watched some f**king HOOPS!"
"Indeed, I pondered the mystery and majesty of nature as I strolled through the museum, taking in Van Gogh's pastoral landscapes. Ah, Arles. Auvers. C'est magnifique!"
"Movie funny. Man fall down, catch on fire."
I'm a bundle of contradictions.
Wednesday, March 05, 2003
How proud are we here in Ohio's Ninth District that this woman is our Representative to Congress? The headline, though, is a little misleading. It should read "Nutjob She-Politician Couldn't Possibly Be More Wrong."
On the upside, the local paper (not the one I work for, by the by) DID get a link on Drudge. Toledo hits the political big time!
On the upside, the local paper (not the one I work for, by the by) DID get a link on Drudge. Toledo hits the political big time!
This article never addresses this simple issue: if actors have a right to express their views, don't others have a right to express theirs, whether by boycotts, petitioning, or otherwise?
The New York Times republishes Stalin's obituary to mark the 50th anniversary of his death -- he died March 5, 1953. The Times also carries this story, pointing to new evidence that Stalin was poisoned.
I'm a little disappointed in the American press today. I can't really find any articles that take up the difficult task of examining Stalin's lasting legacy, not to mention any articles that point to his heinous crimes or his gangsterism. And don't get me started on the absence of articles comparing the machinations and methods of his regime to the still-existing Stalinist states in the world today. The Independent publishes this gem today (thanks to Andrew Sullivan for pointing to the link), the Financial Times published a great special section on Stalin over the weekend (can't find it on the Web), and several other European papers have articles on Stalin's legacy. So whither the U.S. press' commentary?
Like I said, I'm disappointed. Doesn't the 50th anniversary of the death of the 20th Century's most prolific killer warrant a little coverage? Guess not. It's disturbing because there are so many adherents to Stalin's ideas today still influencing policy today. Even more disturbing is the fact that some people still don't think the man did the things we know he did. Yes, folks, there are still Stalin apologists out there.
Stalin was a monster. That's it. End of discussion. He killed some 30 million of his own people (purges, show trials, forced starvations, and the like), he threatened the world at large, and he (and those who came after him) held half a continent hostage for nearly 50 years. And yet, Americans seem to want to forget all this. Well, maybe we don't want to forget, but we do.
You can't exaggerate Stalin's crimes. Nor can you exaggerate the lengths to which some people went to deny the atrocities of the Stalin regime. This is an important juncture, people -- the specter of Communism doesn't haunt the world as it once did, but it's still out there, lurking around. Moreover, Stalinism in particular -- if not the all the socialist aspects of his regime, then the devotion to violence and brutality -- still has its loyal adherents. Castro, Hussein, Kim Jong Il -- they're all crazy about "Uncle Joe," and would do anything to weild the kind of power he did. But if we forget about Stalin's crimes, methods, and madness, we may not notice that his disciples are still eagerly rubbing their hands, waiting for their chance to become Stalin. We need to be aware that Stalin, not Hitler, was the real prototype for a dictator. Hitler, though awful and brutal, lasted only for 12 years. The world found out about him, made up its collective mind, and dispatched him. Stalin, on the other hand, wielded power of some sort for 36 years, and total power for 25! And there are still people who won't believe the truth about the man or his regime. They didn't believe it when it was happening, and they don't believe it now, even as the archives are opened and the body count is plain to see. That's dangerous, and what's even more dangerous is that some of us still can't identify the Stalins in our midst today.
I'm a little disappointed in the American press today. I can't really find any articles that take up the difficult task of examining Stalin's lasting legacy, not to mention any articles that point to his heinous crimes or his gangsterism. And don't get me started on the absence of articles comparing the machinations and methods of his regime to the still-existing Stalinist states in the world today. The Independent publishes this gem today (thanks to Andrew Sullivan for pointing to the link), the Financial Times published a great special section on Stalin over the weekend (can't find it on the Web), and several other European papers have articles on Stalin's legacy. So whither the U.S. press' commentary?
Like I said, I'm disappointed. Doesn't the 50th anniversary of the death of the 20th Century's most prolific killer warrant a little coverage? Guess not. It's disturbing because there are so many adherents to Stalin's ideas today still influencing policy today. Even more disturbing is the fact that some people still don't think the man did the things we know he did. Yes, folks, there are still Stalin apologists out there.
Stalin was a monster. That's it. End of discussion. He killed some 30 million of his own people (purges, show trials, forced starvations, and the like), he threatened the world at large, and he (and those who came after him) held half a continent hostage for nearly 50 years. And yet, Americans seem to want to forget all this. Well, maybe we don't want to forget, but we do.
You can't exaggerate Stalin's crimes. Nor can you exaggerate the lengths to which some people went to deny the atrocities of the Stalin regime. This is an important juncture, people -- the specter of Communism doesn't haunt the world as it once did, but it's still out there, lurking around. Moreover, Stalinism in particular -- if not the all the socialist aspects of his regime, then the devotion to violence and brutality -- still has its loyal adherents. Castro, Hussein, Kim Jong Il -- they're all crazy about "Uncle Joe," and would do anything to weild the kind of power he did. But if we forget about Stalin's crimes, methods, and madness, we may not notice that his disciples are still eagerly rubbing their hands, waiting for their chance to become Stalin. We need to be aware that Stalin, not Hitler, was the real prototype for a dictator. Hitler, though awful and brutal, lasted only for 12 years. The world found out about him, made up its collective mind, and dispatched him. Stalin, on the other hand, wielded power of some sort for 36 years, and total power for 25! And there are still people who won't believe the truth about the man or his regime. They didn't believe it when it was happening, and they don't believe it now, even as the archives are opened and the body count is plain to see. That's dangerous, and what's even more dangerous is that some of us still can't identify the Stalins in our midst today.
Ah, jeez...Maureen Dowd is at it again. I guess I shouldn't be surprised -- if I had a platform like The New York Times, and my job never made me back up any of my wild assertions, I might go a little nuts too. Drunk with power and all that.
I just don't get where everybody's favorite tart-tongued trollop is going with this column. Her money shot -- and indeed the teaser for the column -- doesn't seem to have anything to do with the rest of the column. She writes "As the brazen Bush imperialists try to install a new democracy in Iraq, they are finding the old democracy of our reluctant allies inconvenient." Now, maybe I didn't read the article fully (I do that occassionally), but I didn't see much talk about our allies up to this point. Remember, the above quote is the last sentence of the column. I mean, Dowd spends the bulk of the article comparing Donald Rumsfeld et al to Genghis Kahn, talking about how the Defense Department commissioned some study to glean lessons from ancient empires; then she compares the so-called "Bushies" to empire builders. Nowhere does she mention anything about "reluctant allies" -- she tosses that in as an afterthought. Or maybe she wrote that part first, like some sort of hack mystery writer.
Whatever Dowd was trying to get across, the column makes about as much sense as snowshoes in Bali.
I just don't get where everybody's favorite tart-tongued trollop is going with this column. Her money shot -- and indeed the teaser for the column -- doesn't seem to have anything to do with the rest of the column. She writes "As the brazen Bush imperialists try to install a new democracy in Iraq, they are finding the old democracy of our reluctant allies inconvenient." Now, maybe I didn't read the article fully (I do that occassionally), but I didn't see much talk about our allies up to this point. Remember, the above quote is the last sentence of the column. I mean, Dowd spends the bulk of the article comparing Donald Rumsfeld et al to Genghis Kahn, talking about how the Defense Department commissioned some study to glean lessons from ancient empires; then she compares the so-called "Bushies" to empire builders. Nowhere does she mention anything about "reluctant allies" -- she tosses that in as an afterthought. Or maybe she wrote that part first, like some sort of hack mystery writer.
Whatever Dowd was trying to get across, the column makes about as much sense as snowshoes in Bali.
Friday, February 28, 2003
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'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?
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
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.
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.
Thursday, February 20, 2003
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.
"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.
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.
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).
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
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."
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 18, 2003
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.
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.
Thursday, February 13, 2003
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.
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.
Monday, February 10, 2003
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.
Friday, February 07, 2003
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.
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.
Sure, it's psychosomatic. But nothing sucks like an eye infection.
Thursday, February 06, 2003
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".
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".
Wednesday, February 05, 2003
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 04, 2003
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!
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 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?
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?
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Andrew Sullivan gushes about the the State of The Union address. I love reading Sullivan when he gets like this. So much for the ol' British "stiff upper lip."
So I get home last night after covering another game -- nearly deaf from being sat right next to the "pep band" -- and I see all this political commentary all over the television. What gives? Did something happen last night?
Oh well...I suppose I'll find out about whatever it was later.
Seriously though, I really dislike missing the State of The Union address. All the people, the gala spectacle, the red carpet, who's wearing what...oh, right. That's The Oscars.
I do enjoy seeing the Pres speak, but I gotta wonder how the SOTU (as the pudits call it) evolved into what it is today. Presidents used to send a letter to Congress. Now it's the Super Bowl of political events.
Besides, doesn't the Constitution just say that the President is required to "report on the State of the Union from time to time?" Last time I checked it didn't say, "The president must give an address for at least an hour that will picked clean by pundits and politicians until the very words make no more sense."
Ah, whatever. For opposing commentary, I suggest you hit up National Review and The New Republic. No specific links, but if you get to those pages and can't find anything, call me up. I'll come over and rap you on the bean for being a big dummy.
Oh well...I suppose I'll find out about whatever it was later.
Seriously though, I really dislike missing the State of The Union address. All the people, the gala spectacle, the red carpet, who's wearing what...oh, right. That's The Oscars.
I do enjoy seeing the Pres speak, but I gotta wonder how the SOTU (as the pudits call it) evolved into what it is today. Presidents used to send a letter to Congress. Now it's the Super Bowl of political events.
Besides, doesn't the Constitution just say that the President is required to "report on the State of the Union from time to time?" Last time I checked it didn't say, "The president must give an address for at least an hour that will picked clean by pundits and politicians until the very words make no more sense."
Ah, whatever. For opposing commentary, I suggest you hit up National Review and The New Republic. No specific links, but if you get to those pages and can't find anything, call me up. I'll come over and rap you on the bean for being a big dummy.
Monday, January 27, 2003
A fellow Toledo native was kind enough to mention yours truly on his blog, so I figured the least I could do was mention his. Apparently he's a turncoat -- leaving Toledo for the hipper Columbus instead of sticking it out where cool goes to die -- but that's OK, since he likes The Smiths. I left too, but Toledo's siren song drew me inexplicably back.
Anyway, thanks for the props, Nala, and I'll try to keep pointing out Toledo's fun but depressing foibles. It's really not that hard.
Anyway, thanks for the props, Nala, and I'll try to keep pointing out Toledo's fun but depressing foibles. It's really not that hard.
I see by my SiteMeter (which tracks visits to where you've arrived -- that is, HeadsOnFire) that many people are coming by because of a picture of a Honda Civic that I posted. All I can say about that is...HA! That car looks exactly like mine, and I posted it to show my dozen of fans (yeah, I know...singular) what yours truly drives these days. I don't feel bad at all about all you other folks wandering in, thinking we talk about Honda Civics all the time here.
Hey, stick around, why don't you? You might learn something. About what? How about more conspiracies! Or maybe mid-80's English mope-rock, like The Smiths or Echo & The Bunnymen.
Hey, stick around, why don't you? You might learn something. About what? How about more conspiracies! Or maybe mid-80's English mope-rock, like The Smiths or Echo & The Bunnymen.
A funny link (courtesy of Snopes) for all you conspiracy theorists out there.
In fact, if you enjoy conspiracy theories (as I do), then you should check out Surfing The Apocalypse, which is sort of a clearinghouse for conspiracy sites (lotsa links, etc.). It's good stuff...scroll down and look to the left for the links column. But don't say I didn't warn you when you find a theory that mkaes you mad.
Also, for those who don't know, Snopes is an invaulable resource, even if you use it for nothing else than debunking the crap that gets forwarded to you via email. Whether it's a money hoax, a petition to end the barbaric practice of putting kittens in jars, or a claim that AOL will pay you $4,000 to forward an email, Snopes will tell you the truth. I send the link to all those who send me junk email. And then I mock that person.
Oh, and one more thing...I need your account information so I can place my Nigerian millions in an American bank account.
In fact, if you enjoy conspiracy theories (as I do), then you should check out Surfing The Apocalypse, which is sort of a clearinghouse for conspiracy sites (lotsa links, etc.). It's good stuff...scroll down and look to the left for the links column. But don't say I didn't warn you when you find a theory that mkaes you mad.
Also, for those who don't know, Snopes is an invaulable resource, even if you use it for nothing else than debunking the crap that gets forwarded to you via email. Whether it's a money hoax, a petition to end the barbaric practice of putting kittens in jars, or a claim that AOL will pay you $4,000 to forward an email, Snopes will tell you the truth. I send the link to all those who send me junk email. And then I mock that person.
Oh, and one more thing...I need your account information so I can place my Nigerian millions in an American bank account.
I've got to admit it -- I'm excited.
That's a tough admission for someone like me. My best friend says my schtick is "classic cool" -- that is, nothing people do or say interests you unless it's about you. Wait -- that sounds like an insult! Make that my ex-best friend!
My best friend's Dr. Phil-esque determinations aside, I'm extremely excited today, as I'm going to see Johnny Marr in Detroit in a few hours. You may remember Johnny Marr as the guitarist from a little band known as The Smiths -- coincidentally, my favorite band ever!
It should be a righteous event. It's at The Magic Stick, a favorite dive on Woodward Avenue. It's such a dive that Rolling Stone (like anyone cares) featured it in a recent issue. Ooohhh, faux-dive trendsetters love it, and therefore you should too!
Seriously, it's a good place to see a show, not least because it's sponsored by Camel cigarettes and they usually hand out smokes. Also, it's tiny, so if you want to yell something particularly insulting, the artist can usually hear you.
That's a tough admission for someone like me. My best friend says my schtick is "classic cool" -- that is, nothing people do or say interests you unless it's about you. Wait -- that sounds like an insult! Make that my ex-best friend!
My best friend's Dr. Phil-esque determinations aside, I'm extremely excited today, as I'm going to see Johnny Marr in Detroit in a few hours. You may remember Johnny Marr as the guitarist from a little band known as The Smiths -- coincidentally, my favorite band ever!
It should be a righteous event. It's at The Magic Stick, a favorite dive on Woodward Avenue. It's such a dive that Rolling Stone (like anyone cares) featured it in a recent issue. Ooohhh, faux-dive trendsetters love it, and therefore you should too!
Seriously, it's a good place to see a show, not least because it's sponsored by Camel cigarettes and they usually hand out smokes. Also, it's tiny, so if you want to yell something particularly insulting, the artist can usually hear you.
Thursday, January 16, 2003
Anyone who knows me can't help but know that I love Communism.
OK, back up.
I don't love Communism as a political system. I think it's the worst. But I DO love studying it, reading about it, and collecting things (i.e. propoganda) that are associated with it. In fact, I think I may write my Master's thesis on the Paris Commune of 1871.
So, anyway, anyone who...oh, already said that.
So I'm covering a village council meeting for the newspaper I write for, and I hear the term (vaguely, since I wasn't paying attention. What? I was taping it!) "five year plan." Naturally, my ears perk up, only to fall down again when I hear that the plan refers to recycling.
"Ohhh," my heart says, sinking. "They're not referring to the infamous Five Year Plans under one Mr. Josef Stalin."
But, as I listened further, I thought that it was indeed possible that the inspiration for the Five year Recycling Plan actually WAS culled from ol' Stalin.
Examples? Sure, right here!
--First, the plan sought to educate...nay, REeducate the children of the local elementary school. As in the Komsomol, or Young Pioneers, or what have you.
--Second, the plan sought to expand the current curbside recycling program using the schoolkids as tools of the system; i.e. narc-ing on those parents who aren't recycling. OK, maybe "narc-ing" is a strong term, but they said, and I quote, "Maybe the kids will go home and say 'We recycle at school. Shouldn't we recycle at home too?'"
Maybe I've got 1984 on the brain here, but wasn't one of the key aspects of the regime detailed therein the fact that kids would turn in their parents for being enemies of the people?
I'm being tongue-in-cheek of course, but my point should be clear. You may say, "But Blue, compliance with recycling programs isn't compulsory; therefore, who cares if kids rat out their non-recycling parents?" I say, "But what if it were (or will be)?" Then what?
I suppose, I guess, that the Stalinist overtones in the council chambers might have been of my imagining. It could have just been a boring meeting. It was, in fact, a boring meeting. But I can't help thinking that I might get tossed in the Gulag for disputing the commisariat.
OK, back up.
I don't love Communism as a political system. I think it's the worst. But I DO love studying it, reading about it, and collecting things (i.e. propoganda) that are associated with it. In fact, I think I may write my Master's thesis on the Paris Commune of 1871.
So, anyway, anyone who...oh, already said that.
So I'm covering a village council meeting for the newspaper I write for, and I hear the term (vaguely, since I wasn't paying attention. What? I was taping it!) "five year plan." Naturally, my ears perk up, only to fall down again when I hear that the plan refers to recycling.
"Ohhh," my heart says, sinking. "They're not referring to the infamous Five Year Plans under one Mr. Josef Stalin."
But, as I listened further, I thought that it was indeed possible that the inspiration for the Five year Recycling Plan actually WAS culled from ol' Stalin.
Examples? Sure, right here!
--First, the plan sought to educate...nay, REeducate the children of the local elementary school. As in the Komsomol, or Young Pioneers, or what have you.
--Second, the plan sought to expand the current curbside recycling program using the schoolkids as tools of the system; i.e. narc-ing on those parents who aren't recycling. OK, maybe "narc-ing" is a strong term, but they said, and I quote, "Maybe the kids will go home and say 'We recycle at school. Shouldn't we recycle at home too?'"
Maybe I've got 1984 on the brain here, but wasn't one of the key aspects of the regime detailed therein the fact that kids would turn in their parents for being enemies of the people?
I'm being tongue-in-cheek of course, but my point should be clear. You may say, "But Blue, compliance with recycling programs isn't compulsory; therefore, who cares if kids rat out their non-recycling parents?" I say, "But what if it were (or will be)?" Then what?
I suppose, I guess, that the Stalinist overtones in the council chambers might have been of my imagining. It could have just been a boring meeting. It was, in fact, a boring meeting. But I can't help thinking that I might get tossed in the Gulag for disputing the commisariat.
Tuesday, January 14, 2003
I saw Adaptation the other day, and besides it being hilarious and whatnot, I was just so pleased that it actually played in Toledo, a city not known for its knee-jerk acceptance of art films.
I loved it. Sure, it got a little out of control near the end there, but I thought it was great. Laughed a million times -- that is, in between glares to the couple seated behind us. You know the ones -- who discuss each and every aspect of the movie (as it happens, of course) in full voice. Grrr. I actually had to say something to them -- don't worry, friends, I kept my cool.
As far as my dis on Toledo vis a vis art films is concerned, let me give you a spate of recent examples:
--Toledo's only art cinema (located at a prime example of a "dirt mall") was closed for lack of interest. I think the same 40 people kept going there, but apparently it wasn't enough to sustain it. Sure, there's a theater now that shows an arty flick or two in addition to its regular fare, but it's not the same.
--This anecdote comes secondhad, but as it's from my best friend, I have no reason to doubt its veracity: When Punch-Drunk Love was showing at the aforementioned, still-existing, semi-art house, a disclaimer was apparently run before the movie. It said (and I'm paraphrasing here), "This film is not typical of Mr. Sandler's work. The theater guarantees the presentation of the film, not its content. No refunds will be given." Wow. This disclaimer suggests, to me at least, that so many bozos went into the theater thinking they were going to see Happy Gilmore (which is a damn funny movie, I might add), were pissed at the fact that it wasn't and walked out to demand refunds. 'Nuff said about that. in fact, the reason i haven't seen Punch-Drunk Love is because I didn't want to see it at a theater here in Toledo. Bad attitude about one's hometown? Maybe, but developed out of necessity. You should talk to my ex-girlfriend. She hates this place.
I loved it. Sure, it got a little out of control near the end there, but I thought it was great. Laughed a million times -- that is, in between glares to the couple seated behind us. You know the ones -- who discuss each and every aspect of the movie (as it happens, of course) in full voice. Grrr. I actually had to say something to them -- don't worry, friends, I kept my cool.
As far as my dis on Toledo vis a vis art films is concerned, let me give you a spate of recent examples:
--Toledo's only art cinema (located at a prime example of a "dirt mall") was closed for lack of interest. I think the same 40 people kept going there, but apparently it wasn't enough to sustain it. Sure, there's a theater now that shows an arty flick or two in addition to its regular fare, but it's not the same.
--This anecdote comes secondhad, but as it's from my best friend, I have no reason to doubt its veracity: When Punch-Drunk Love was showing at the aforementioned, still-existing, semi-art house, a disclaimer was apparently run before the movie. It said (and I'm paraphrasing here), "This film is not typical of Mr. Sandler's work. The theater guarantees the presentation of the film, not its content. No refunds will be given." Wow. This disclaimer suggests, to me at least, that so many bozos went into the theater thinking they were going to see Happy Gilmore (which is a damn funny movie, I might add), were pissed at the fact that it wasn't and walked out to demand refunds. 'Nuff said about that. in fact, the reason i haven't seen Punch-Drunk Love is because I didn't want to see it at a theater here in Toledo. Bad attitude about one's hometown? Maybe, but developed out of necessity. You should talk to my ex-girlfriend. She hates this place.
Monday, January 06, 2003
It is my duty, I think, as one who studies and enjoys history, to point out a wonderful new blog, called The Diary of Samuel Pepys. It's fascinating reading -- an actual diary from 17th Centruy London. The historical record contained therein is great.
Tuesday, December 31, 2002
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.
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.
Thursday, December 19, 2002
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 11, 2002
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 10, 2002
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.
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.
Monday, November 25, 2002
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.
Sunday, November 24, 2002
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 20, 2002
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.
Well, not rake. Does anyone do that anymore? No, I use the ol' leafblower.
It blows, all right.
Monday, November 18, 2002
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.
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.
Friday, November 08, 2002
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.
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!
"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!
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.
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.
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...
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...
Thursday, November 07, 2002
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
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 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.
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?
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?
Monday, October 28, 2002
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.
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.
Friday, October 25, 2002
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.
Wow.
Here's the money shot, for me:
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.
Wednesday, October 23, 2002
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 01, 2002
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.
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.
Friday, September 20, 2002
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!
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.
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.
Thursday, September 12, 2002
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 11, 2002
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 10, 2002
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.
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.
Friday, September 06, 2002
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.
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.
Thursday, September 05, 2002
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.
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...
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...
Monday, August 26, 2002
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...
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...
Tuesday, August 13, 2002
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.
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.
Monday, August 05, 2002
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.
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
