Questions for Ronald P. Reagan: The Son Also Rises
Now that the Reagan nostalgia is done, his son is talking--and it won't make George W. Bush happy. Or Dick Cheney, who the younger Reagan says isn't a "mindful human being." Ouch.
Anyhow...
This was quite a weekend. Carissa visited, and we spent Friday treating Chicagoland like some kind of tourist paradise. We went to the Strawberry Festival in Long Grove, where we feasted on confectioner's chocolates, drank strawberry wine, and devoured grilled chicken on a stick that tasted better than any meat I've ever eaten. Then we headed to Oak Park, where we toured the Frank Lloyd Wright house and studio and took a walk past the birthplace of Ernest Hemingway. (I've decided I want to live in beautiful Oak Park. Anyone interested in loaning me a million dollars to make this dream come true can contact me.) From there, we hopped on the Green Line and headed downtown for the Taste of Chicago, where $21 bought us 11 different treats, including some breaded ravioli, pierogies, Italian ice, waffle-cut fries, nachos, a cheeseburger, a hot dog, fried dough, and garlic-cheese bread. On the way home, we completed our tourist trip by stopping at IKEA, quite possibly Schaumburg's top attraction these days.
Saturday we saw Fahrenheit 9/11, a brief review of which I'll provide now because I don't know if I can say anything lengthy about it. I really enjoyed the movie, of course, and it has many moments that are great cinema: Al Gore stopping one representative after another from contesting the election results that would make George W. Bush the president, Bush sitting with a befuddled look on his face for seven minutes after finding out about the World Trade Center, Prince Bandar saying things on TV that directly contradict what he says today about flights out of the country for relatives of Osama bin Laden, and Moore turning the Bush administration's key figures into characters on Bonanza to great comedic effect. But Moore also has a tendency to hit you over the head that can get jarring--and despite this, he fails to hit us over the head with what appears to be the thesis of his film, that Bush and his ilk used 9/11 to consolidate power and money for themselves and their allies while inflicting the damages of that consolidation on an unwitting American public and especially on those who can least afford the damage, the working class folks who make up much of the active military and reserves that has been asked to serve an unjust cause in Iraq. The movie has the goods to make this point, but Moore seems to get distracted from stating the logic behind his point, showing us how he got from A to B to C, by his loathing for Bush and his desire to use all the great footage he has. I understand the logic, but I understood it before I sat down in the theatre. He could have made it more clear for everyone. Then again, considering the likely audience for the film, he probably doesn't need to sell the "Bush is BAD" message. We bought that with the movie ticket.
A question to close this long post: Do you think, if they had known that Bush would be this vulnerable, the Democrats would have run someone else against him? Nothing against John Kerry, but would they have recruited Hillary or someone of her high profile to give Bush a star-powered beating?
Monday, June 28, 2004
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Trek Theory
Court Won't Order Cheney Papers Released
Today's news that the Supreme Court won't be forcing Dick Cheney to turn over the records of his energy task force has me thinking that the Court may work a bit like the Star Trek movies. You know the theory, right? That the even-numbered movies are good, while the odd ones are terrible?
I think it works in reverse for the Court; in odd-numbered years, the members are inspired to do good work, while even-numbered (election) years bring with them some rulings we could do without. To wit: In 1957, the Court produced the Brown decision that mandated desegregation; in 1973, it produced Roe v. Wade; in 2003, it gave us the victory of Lawrence v. Texas. Meanwhile, in 2000 we got Bush v. Gore; in 1986 we had Bowers v. Hardwick (which Lawrence overturned); in 1896 we had Plessy v. Ferguson (which Brown overturned); in 2004 we have the Pledge case and this nonsense with Cheney.
I know there are huge holes in this theory, but it's amusing to me this morning to think that most of the cases I consider major victories have happened in odd years, while the ones that hurt progress tend to happen in even years.
Today's news that the Supreme Court won't be forcing Dick Cheney to turn over the records of his energy task force has me thinking that the Court may work a bit like the Star Trek movies. You know the theory, right? That the even-numbered movies are good, while the odd ones are terrible?
I think it works in reverse for the Court; in odd-numbered years, the members are inspired to do good work, while even-numbered (election) years bring with them some rulings we could do without. To wit: In 1957, the Court produced the Brown decision that mandated desegregation; in 1973, it produced Roe v. Wade; in 2003, it gave us the victory of Lawrence v. Texas. Meanwhile, in 2000 we got Bush v. Gore; in 1986 we had Bowers v. Hardwick (which Lawrence overturned); in 1896 we had Plessy v. Ferguson (which Brown overturned); in 2004 we have the Pledge case and this nonsense with Cheney.
I know there are huge holes in this theory, but it's amusing to me this morning to think that most of the cases I consider major victories have happened in odd years, while the ones that hurt progress tend to happen in even years.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Good Man, Bad Book
The Condensed Bill Clinton - Slate reads My Life so you don't have to
I thought I'd rush out yesterday to buy the new Bill Clinton book; I don't think my positive feelings about him are a secret to anyone who reads this site. But the almost savagely negative reviews and the awful writing in the excerpts I've seen have convinced me to hold off for now. After all, 957 pages is a rather big commitment. (It didn't help Bill's cause that Hillary's book still sits, unfinished, on my bookshelf.) Fortunately, the link above digs out some of the most interesting information from the book. Enjoy!
I thought I'd rush out yesterday to buy the new Bill Clinton book; I don't think my positive feelings about him are a secret to anyone who reads this site. But the almost savagely negative reviews and the awful writing in the excerpts I've seen have convinced me to hold off for now. After all, 957 pages is a rather big commitment. (It didn't help Bill's cause that Hillary's book still sits, unfinished, on my bookshelf.) Fortunately, the link above digs out some of the most interesting information from the book. Enjoy!
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
How do they do it?
Fantasia, "I Believe"
You'd never guess that they rushed this single out. The muddy-sounding rendition we heard on television is eclipsed by this recording, which presents Fantasia at her best--her voice sounds strong and her attitude shines through. "I Believe" has new verses, which add to the depth and meaning of the song, and the backing vocals, provided by a choir and, according to the liner notes, by Tamyra Gray, (who also co-wrote the song) add a dramatic tone to the song. "Chain of Fools" reminds us why Fantasia won: she can take any song, by any artist, and make it her own. And as for the third song, "Summertime," there are no words of praise better than those of Randy Jackson, who called Fantasia's rendition the best Idol performance ever. Simon called Fantasia the best Idol contestant in the history of the competition. Her first single leaves little doubt that Randy and Simon were right.
You'd never guess that they rushed this single out. The muddy-sounding rendition we heard on television is eclipsed by this recording, which presents Fantasia at her best--her voice sounds strong and her attitude shines through. "I Believe" has new verses, which add to the depth and meaning of the song, and the backing vocals, provided by a choir and, according to the liner notes, by Tamyra Gray, (who also co-wrote the song) add a dramatic tone to the song. "Chain of Fools" reminds us why Fantasia won: she can take any song, by any artist, and make it her own. And as for the third song, "Summertime," there are no words of praise better than those of Randy Jackson, who called Fantasia's rendition the best Idol performance ever. Simon called Fantasia the best Idol contestant in the history of the competition. Her first single leaves little doubt that Randy and Simon were right.
Boston Public
Ryan Vows to Stay in Illinois Senate Race
Very public, apparently. Now I understand why Jack Ryan wanted to keep his divorce records sealed. I don't care about his sexual quirks--I wouldn't vote for the guy anyway. But he's a Republican, and those folks seem to have a code among themselves: We keep our perversions to ourselves. Jack was just trying to honor the code, judge! Why'd you have to unseal his public divorce records to the public so we could find out he's a public pervert?
Please, Jack, stay in the race; Obama was going to bury you anyhow. Now that you're a liar--you said there was nothing of interest in your divorce papers--and would be considered depraved by most members of your own party, you're pretty well sunk.
Prediction: We're going to see this get ugly quickly. Jack Ryan won't do it--even he's not fool enough to attack his ex-wife's character after she released a statement of support for him--but henchmen will say that she was in love with someone else when they split up and call her the liar. Just stay quiet, Barack. Unless the GOP uses this as an excuse to get Jim Edgar on the ballot, you're home free.
Very public, apparently. Now I understand why Jack Ryan wanted to keep his divorce records sealed. I don't care about his sexual quirks--I wouldn't vote for the guy anyway. But he's a Republican, and those folks seem to have a code among themselves: We keep our perversions to ourselves. Jack was just trying to honor the code, judge! Why'd you have to unseal his public divorce records to the public so we could find out he's a public pervert?
Please, Jack, stay in the race; Obama was going to bury you anyhow. Now that you're a liar--you said there was nothing of interest in your divorce papers--and would be considered depraved by most members of your own party, you're pretty well sunk.
Prediction: We're going to see this get ugly quickly. Jack Ryan won't do it--even he's not fool enough to attack his ex-wife's character after she released a statement of support for him--but henchmen will say that she was in love with someone else when they split up and call her the liar. Just stay quiet, Barack. Unless the GOP uses this as an excuse to get Jim Edgar on the ballot, you're home free.
Monday, June 21, 2004
Sigh of Relief
Nader Taps Green Activist As Running Mate
On one level, I should be disappointed that Nader's VP pick makes it more likely that he'll get the help of the Green Party. As someone whose actual political sentiments border on Green, I think the party should endorse Kerry, who isn't perfect but does have a number of positions that would make him the best president the Greens could hope for in the current political climate and structure.
But a report out of Washington this morning that Nader was meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus and announcing his running mate this morning made me nervous enough that Nader's choice makes me happy. Nader has said his candidacy will help Kerry, and while this is a dubious claim at best, he may believe it in his heart. But choosing a black running mate, which the article seemed to suggest he might, would have been a divisive move, one that clearly would have aimed to peel away black voters from the coalition of Democratic voters who, I admit, tend to have more in common because they disagree strongly with parts of the Republican platform than because they agree strongly on the contents of the platform of the Democrats.
There is a time and a place for a reexamination of what holds the Democratic Party together; there is a time and a place for the same consideration of what constitutes a Republican. Clearly, the two major parties both hold together a collection of voters whose interests are very different. Nader's belief that the system needs a heavy dose of change is probably right.
This is not the time to try to make a point about that need. It's not the time to consider how both parties--or several parties, all with realistic opportunities to win seats in the places where decisions are made--can develop platforms that focus on positives rather than negatives. It is the time to stop and start over with someone different, whose positions may not perfectly embody the beliefs of the people who vote for him but who will put a stop to the wholesale and unmandated reinvention of what America means that George W. Bush has undertaken since he was thrust into office. Kerry isn't perfect, and the boat he's commanding on this electoral mission has a few more holes in it than the one he piloted in Vietnam and the one he sailed during his Nantucket vacation this weekend. But this is the boat we've got right now, and the mission is too important to waste time trying to build another one--or vainly attempting to drain all the water from the sea and refill it with another substance, which approximates the level of quixoticness in Nader's quest this year. Nader says he's going to help Kerry. Thank goodness he didn't do something that would have proven, disastrously, that he didn't mean it.
On one level, I should be disappointed that Nader's VP pick makes it more likely that he'll get the help of the Green Party. As someone whose actual political sentiments border on Green, I think the party should endorse Kerry, who isn't perfect but does have a number of positions that would make him the best president the Greens could hope for in the current political climate and structure.
But a report out of Washington this morning that Nader was meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus and announcing his running mate this morning made me nervous enough that Nader's choice makes me happy. Nader has said his candidacy will help Kerry, and while this is a dubious claim at best, he may believe it in his heart. But choosing a black running mate, which the article seemed to suggest he might, would have been a divisive move, one that clearly would have aimed to peel away black voters from the coalition of Democratic voters who, I admit, tend to have more in common because they disagree strongly with parts of the Republican platform than because they agree strongly on the contents of the platform of the Democrats.
There is a time and a place for a reexamination of what holds the Democratic Party together; there is a time and a place for the same consideration of what constitutes a Republican. Clearly, the two major parties both hold together a collection of voters whose interests are very different. Nader's belief that the system needs a heavy dose of change is probably right.
This is not the time to try to make a point about that need. It's not the time to consider how both parties--or several parties, all with realistic opportunities to win seats in the places where decisions are made--can develop platforms that focus on positives rather than negatives. It is the time to stop and start over with someone different, whose positions may not perfectly embody the beliefs of the people who vote for him but who will put a stop to the wholesale and unmandated reinvention of what America means that George W. Bush has undertaken since he was thrust into office. Kerry isn't perfect, and the boat he's commanding on this electoral mission has a few more holes in it than the one he piloted in Vietnam and the one he sailed during his Nantucket vacation this weekend. But this is the boat we've got right now, and the mission is too important to waste time trying to build another one--or vainly attempting to drain all the water from the sea and refill it with another substance, which approximates the level of quixoticness in Nader's quest this year. Nader says he's going to help Kerry. Thank goodness he didn't do something that would have proven, disastrously, that he didn't mean it.
Friday, June 18, 2004
Amalgam
Love Actually
If you enjoy romantic comedies, it's hard to imagine that you won't enjoy this one. If you're an Anglophile, it's even harder: Hugh Grant, Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman, Colin Firth, and Liam Neeson take turns on screen throughout the movie. So if you're just looking for a pick-me-up, or a romantic movie night, search no more. Here it is.
With that said, Richard Curtis goes a bit overboard here--and the DVD extras reveal that he wanted to go even further. The movie juggles at least eight subplots; is it any wonder Curtis had a hard time cutting it down to two hours and 15 minutes? A few subplots are clearly meant as comic relief of a sort; I particularly liked the couple that met while working as body doubles for a movie, an occupation that required them to spend long periods of time simulating all manner of sex acts with one another; when they finally fall for one another (this gives away nothing in this movie, by the way--the plots are pretty much telegraphed to the audience in the first ten minutes) they experience awkwardness just kissing. It's a sly commentary on culture and a funny moment at the same time.
Other subplots are sadder; Liam Neeson's wife dies at the start of the film, and he deals with his own grief and that of his stepson mostly on his own. And while it's clear that Alan Rickman will eventually succumb to the temptation of his secretary--even Emma Thompson, who plays his wife, warns him about her--it isn't clear until the end that he'll do so in a way that raises and then devastates his wife.
Which brings us to the primary fault with the film: the ending. There are a great many happy moments, including the wrap of the Colin Firth subplot (another one that starts out sadly), but there are also many loose ends left untied. After witnessing the devastation of Emma Thompson, we get a 15-second outro from her subplot that tells us nothing about how she and Alan Rickman dealt with his infidelity. A subplot involving Keira Knightley wraps clumsily, with Curtis asking us to accept that one kiss from a married woman can quell an obsession and make everything right. The whole thing races to close within the allotted time, as if Curtis is fearful his audience will have to leave for the bathroom if he lingers any longer.
This should have been a high-profile mini-series. Really. There's nothing about it that demands the movie theatre screen, and Curtis clearly had enough plot to fill six or seven hours if he tried. The footage he left out and shows on the DVD would have made for a better movie, and the loose ends he leaves could have been wrapped up more effectively given more time.
Alas, that's not what happened. Don't get me wrong: you'll enjoy this movie. The airport scenes at the start and end of the movie, showing ordinary people embracing their loved ones as they arrive at the gate, will make you smile at the beginning and probably prolong your happy tears at the end. But when you stop to think about it afterward, you'll wish you could have stayed with these characters longer and known more about them. Curtis could have given you that, too.
If you enjoy romantic comedies, it's hard to imagine that you won't enjoy this one. If you're an Anglophile, it's even harder: Hugh Grant, Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman, Colin Firth, and Liam Neeson take turns on screen throughout the movie. So if you're just looking for a pick-me-up, or a romantic movie night, search no more. Here it is.
With that said, Richard Curtis goes a bit overboard here--and the DVD extras reveal that he wanted to go even further. The movie juggles at least eight subplots; is it any wonder Curtis had a hard time cutting it down to two hours and 15 minutes? A few subplots are clearly meant as comic relief of a sort; I particularly liked the couple that met while working as body doubles for a movie, an occupation that required them to spend long periods of time simulating all manner of sex acts with one another; when they finally fall for one another (this gives away nothing in this movie, by the way--the plots are pretty much telegraphed to the audience in the first ten minutes) they experience awkwardness just kissing. It's a sly commentary on culture and a funny moment at the same time.
Other subplots are sadder; Liam Neeson's wife dies at the start of the film, and he deals with his own grief and that of his stepson mostly on his own. And while it's clear that Alan Rickman will eventually succumb to the temptation of his secretary--even Emma Thompson, who plays his wife, warns him about her--it isn't clear until the end that he'll do so in a way that raises and then devastates his wife.
Which brings us to the primary fault with the film: the ending. There are a great many happy moments, including the wrap of the Colin Firth subplot (another one that starts out sadly), but there are also many loose ends left untied. After witnessing the devastation of Emma Thompson, we get a 15-second outro from her subplot that tells us nothing about how she and Alan Rickman dealt with his infidelity. A subplot involving Keira Knightley wraps clumsily, with Curtis asking us to accept that one kiss from a married woman can quell an obsession and make everything right. The whole thing races to close within the allotted time, as if Curtis is fearful his audience will have to leave for the bathroom if he lingers any longer.
This should have been a high-profile mini-series. Really. There's nothing about it that demands the movie theatre screen, and Curtis clearly had enough plot to fill six or seven hours if he tried. The footage he left out and shows on the DVD would have made for a better movie, and the loose ends he leaves could have been wrapped up more effectively given more time.
Alas, that's not what happened. Don't get me wrong: you'll enjoy this movie. The airport scenes at the start and end of the movie, showing ordinary people embracing their loved ones as they arrive at the gate, will make you smile at the beginning and probably prolong your happy tears at the end. But when you stop to think about it afterward, you'll wish you could have stayed with these characters longer and known more about them. Curtis could have given you that, too.
New Goal
The Secret Life of Newt Gingrich
As the article above explains, Newt Gingrich has something of a new career on his hands these days: he's ranked number 488 among Amazon reviewers. As far as I can tell, I currently have no ranking; a friend who has written six reviews and received 39 helpful votes is ranked number 23447. Newt's 137 reviews have received more than 2,000 helpful votes. Folks in the top 25 have written hundreds or even thousands of reviews; number one, Harriet Klausner, has written more than 7,000 reviews and garnered more than 40,000 helpful votes.
Where is all this leading, you ask? To my new life goal, of course: to crack Amazon's top 1000. Right now this would require over 700 helpful votes. My 19 reviews have attracted a measly 7 helpful votes, but many of them are only a day old. (Curious about what I've reviewed? You can find it all here. Dedicated readers of this site will probably recognize quite a few reviews.) Given time, I'm sure the current group of reviews will garner more votes for me. Meanwhile, you'll probably notice a lot more reviews being posted here in the future; I've always meant to review every book or movie I consume, but I'm hoping the motivation of that little "Top 1000 Reviewer" symbol next to my name will motivate me to new levels of dedication.
And don't worry: my primary goal in public life is still to boot Bush out of office, and my primary goals in my own life are still my relationship, my job, my family, and starting grad school next winter. This is just a bit of icing for the cake.
As the article above explains, Newt Gingrich has something of a new career on his hands these days: he's ranked number 488 among Amazon reviewers. As far as I can tell, I currently have no ranking; a friend who has written six reviews and received 39 helpful votes is ranked number 23447. Newt's 137 reviews have received more than 2,000 helpful votes. Folks in the top 25 have written hundreds or even thousands of reviews; number one, Harriet Klausner, has written more than 7,000 reviews and garnered more than 40,000 helpful votes.
Where is all this leading, you ask? To my new life goal, of course: to crack Amazon's top 1000. Right now this would require over 700 helpful votes. My 19 reviews have attracted a measly 7 helpful votes, but many of them are only a day old. (Curious about what I've reviewed? You can find it all here. Dedicated readers of this site will probably recognize quite a few reviews.) Given time, I'm sure the current group of reviews will garner more votes for me. Meanwhile, you'll probably notice a lot more reviews being posted here in the future; I've always meant to review every book or movie I consume, but I'm hoping the motivation of that little "Top 1000 Reviewer" symbol next to my name will motivate me to new levels of dedication.
And don't worry: my primary goal in public life is still to boot Bush out of office, and my primary goals in my own life are still my relationship, my job, my family, and starting grad school next winter. This is just a bit of icing for the cake.
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Done Deal
Kerry Gets Advice on Running Mate, No Decision Yet
Memo to John Kerry:
Just pick Senator John Edwards already. So what if he might upstage you during the campaign? He'll connect with more voters than any other possible choice, help you in a few states in the South, help a couple Senate candidates in the South, and bring with him the love of a fawning media. (See Eric Alterman for more on this last point.)
Besides, he can only overshadow you until November. After that, you get to be the president! How can Edwards beat that? So calm your swelling ego, finish having these base-thrilling meetings with Gephardt and Clark and Graham, and do what you know you have to do: Give us John-John. We've been waiting since February.
And in case you missed it, The Note had this to say today:
The Kerry campaign has used Edwards so effectively as a surrogate that they may have boxed themselves into the corner of having to explain to the Democratic world why they DIDN'T choose him after all.
Even aides to several leading contenders admit that the Edwards boomlet is real. They believe that Senator Kerry has seen polls that show how Edwards helps him in states like Wisconsin and Florida. Those Democrats with close ties to the Senate and House races think an Edwards on the ticket could enhance the prospects of an Erskine Bowles victory in North Carolina and help Inez Tennenbaum in South Carolina.
No other contender can be said to have such a broad-based constituency of elite supporters, and a second ring of "enthusiasts," such as Walter Mondale and Hillary Clinton, both of whom have been heard of late making the case for why Edwards would be a strong pick.
Memo to John Kerry:
Just pick Senator John Edwards already. So what if he might upstage you during the campaign? He'll connect with more voters than any other possible choice, help you in a few states in the South, help a couple Senate candidates in the South, and bring with him the love of a fawning media. (See Eric Alterman for more on this last point.)
Besides, he can only overshadow you until November. After that, you get to be the president! How can Edwards beat that? So calm your swelling ego, finish having these base-thrilling meetings with Gephardt and Clark and Graham, and do what you know you have to do: Give us John-John. We've been waiting since February.
And in case you missed it, The Note had this to say today:
The Kerry campaign has used Edwards so effectively as a surrogate that they may have boxed themselves into the corner of having to explain to the Democratic world why they DIDN'T choose him after all.
Even aides to several leading contenders admit that the Edwards boomlet is real. They believe that Senator Kerry has seen polls that show how Edwards helps him in states like Wisconsin and Florida. Those Democrats with close ties to the Senate and House races think an Edwards on the ticket could enhance the prospects of an Erskine Bowles victory in North Carolina and help Inez Tennenbaum in South Carolina.
No other contender can be said to have such a broad-based constituency of elite supporters, and a second ring of "enthusiasts," such as Walter Mondale and Hillary Clinton, both of whom have been heard of late making the case for why Edwards would be a strong pick.
Delusional
Bush Disputes al Qaida-Saddam Conclusion
Well, there's a shocker: a group collects the evidence, judges it, and determines that Bush was wrong. Does Bush then acknowledge his error? No--he insists he was right, all evidence to the contrary be damned. Frankly, this attitude is so commonplace in the Bush White House it's surprising it's considered news anymore.
I guess that means this buried gem isn't news, either, but it does confirm that Bush is not just delusional, but pretty much insane:
Asked whether he was disappointed that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had improperly held an Iraqi prisoner in secret for more than seven months in violation of the Geneva Conventions, Bush replied: "The secretary and I discussed that for the first time this morning. ... I'm never disappointed in my secretary of defense. He's doing a fabulous job and America's lucky to have him in the position he's in."
Yeah, that's right--we're lucky. Lucky that Rumsfeld helped the Administration make mincemeat of the Geneva Conventions and put American soldiers who are captured at great risk of being tortured. Lucky that Rumsfeld had no apparent plan for post-war Iraq. Lucky that Rumsfeld has aided and abetted Bush in decimating our international stature. Remind me to send him a thank-you card.
Well, there's a shocker: a group collects the evidence, judges it, and determines that Bush was wrong. Does Bush then acknowledge his error? No--he insists he was right, all evidence to the contrary be damned. Frankly, this attitude is so commonplace in the Bush White House it's surprising it's considered news anymore.
I guess that means this buried gem isn't news, either, but it does confirm that Bush is not just delusional, but pretty much insane:
Asked whether he was disappointed that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had improperly held an Iraqi prisoner in secret for more than seven months in violation of the Geneva Conventions, Bush replied: "The secretary and I discussed that for the first time this morning. ... I'm never disappointed in my secretary of defense. He's doing a fabulous job and America's lucky to have him in the position he's in."
Yeah, that's right--we're lucky. Lucky that Rumsfeld helped the Administration make mincemeat of the Geneva Conventions and put American soldiers who are captured at great risk of being tortured. Lucky that Rumsfeld had no apparent plan for post-war Iraq. Lucky that Rumsfeld has aided and abetted Bush in decimating our international stature. Remind me to send him a thank-you card.
Surreal
Elephant (2003)
Not many people saw this movie in theatres, which is probably a shame; I think the mood of the film would be enhanced by being trapped in your seat the entire time. Gus Van Sant takes advantage of the fact that you already know what his movie is about: a high school shooting. He uses your knowledge to his advantage by playing on the tension you inevitably feel as you wonder, "Will it happen now? Now? Now?" Framing his shots to limit your view, he lets you wonder, all through the movie, what is going on just outside the frame--and eventually forces you to think about how, if many of the kids you're watching would do the same and think about things outside of their own small worlds, the tragic end of the movie might never arrive. But the movie doesn't offer solutions nearly as neat and tidy as that; it simply allows a day to unfold before your eyes, lets you see the world as it's experienced by both the killers and their victims, and shows both how hard it is to see the signs that someone is capable of such a massacre and how easy it might be if people would only pay attention.
And then there's the kiss, which has caused Van Sant no small amount of frustration. Without ruining the tension for those of you who choose to give 80 minutes to this movie, I can tell you that at one point the two killers, about to head for school to act out their plan, get in the shower together--or does one ambush the other? I'm really not sure if the first occupant of the shower knows the second will join him; I don't think we're meant to think that this has happened before. But he walks in, joins his only friend, and says, "Today's the day we're going to die...I never even kissed anyone, did you?" Then the two friends, alienated by the rest of the world, are kissing; the shot lingers long enough to make it clear this is more than a quick kiss goodbye--more like an extended, naked make-out session in the shower.
And then it's over, and the rest of the movie unfolds, including one event, which I'd love to discuss with anyone who sees it, that made me reinterpret the whole friendship between the two killers and their individual reactions to what happens in the shower.
I've made this movie sound like it's filled with action, which isn't fair to those who might consider watching it; much of the 80-minute length of the film is ordinary stuff, like walking down long hallways and playing football and developing film and playing the piano, and much of this plays out without dialogue. I was proud of myself at the end for not speeding up the movie to get down those hallways or get that film developed and clipped; the slight boredom I felt gave my dread an opportunity to build. In the end, this is not an easy film; it won't tell you what you should think about it, and you may not be able to decide on your own what to think, either. I know I haven't. But I'm thinking about it, and that's got to count for something.
Not many people saw this movie in theatres, which is probably a shame; I think the mood of the film would be enhanced by being trapped in your seat the entire time. Gus Van Sant takes advantage of the fact that you already know what his movie is about: a high school shooting. He uses your knowledge to his advantage by playing on the tension you inevitably feel as you wonder, "Will it happen now? Now? Now?" Framing his shots to limit your view, he lets you wonder, all through the movie, what is going on just outside the frame--and eventually forces you to think about how, if many of the kids you're watching would do the same and think about things outside of their own small worlds, the tragic end of the movie might never arrive. But the movie doesn't offer solutions nearly as neat and tidy as that; it simply allows a day to unfold before your eyes, lets you see the world as it's experienced by both the killers and their victims, and shows both how hard it is to see the signs that someone is capable of such a massacre and how easy it might be if people would only pay attention.
And then there's the kiss, which has caused Van Sant no small amount of frustration. Without ruining the tension for those of you who choose to give 80 minutes to this movie, I can tell you that at one point the two killers, about to head for school to act out their plan, get in the shower together--or does one ambush the other? I'm really not sure if the first occupant of the shower knows the second will join him; I don't think we're meant to think that this has happened before. But he walks in, joins his only friend, and says, "Today's the day we're going to die...I never even kissed anyone, did you?" Then the two friends, alienated by the rest of the world, are kissing; the shot lingers long enough to make it clear this is more than a quick kiss goodbye--more like an extended, naked make-out session in the shower.
And then it's over, and the rest of the movie unfolds, including one event, which I'd love to discuss with anyone who sees it, that made me reinterpret the whole friendship between the two killers and their individual reactions to what happens in the shower.
I've made this movie sound like it's filled with action, which isn't fair to those who might consider watching it; much of the 80-minute length of the film is ordinary stuff, like walking down long hallways and playing football and developing film and playing the piano, and much of this plays out without dialogue. I was proud of myself at the end for not speeding up the movie to get down those hallways or get that film developed and clipped; the slight boredom I felt gave my dread an opportunity to build. In the end, this is not an easy film; it won't tell you what you should think about it, and you may not be able to decide on your own what to think, either. I know I haven't. But I'm thinking about it, and that's got to count for something.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Game Afoot
Kerry Gets Early Newspaper Endorsement
Is it really only June? Ask the Philadelphia Daily News, which has already endorsed John Kerry for president, calling on voters in Philadelphia to encourage their friends to register to vote so the heavily-Democratic area can tilt the swing state of Pennsylvania into the Kerry column. I appreciate the sentiment, but I worry that it leaves the paper open to charges of ABB--Anybody But Bush. And while I think that's a perfectly plausible reason to endorse Kerry, after the convention I'm sure he'll have a more defined platform on which to run--and on which to be endorsed. I hope this doesn't start a trend. Encourage people to register, definitely; that much should be automatic. But an endorsement will do Kerry a lot more good in October.
Is it really only June? Ask the Philadelphia Daily News, which has already endorsed John Kerry for president, calling on voters in Philadelphia to encourage their friends to register to vote so the heavily-Democratic area can tilt the swing state of Pennsylvania into the Kerry column. I appreciate the sentiment, but I worry that it leaves the paper open to charges of ABB--Anybody But Bush. And while I think that's a perfectly plausible reason to endorse Kerry, after the convention I'm sure he'll have a more defined platform on which to run--and on which to be endorsed. I hope this doesn't start a trend. Encourage people to register, definitely; that much should be automatic. But an endorsement will do Kerry a lot more good in October.
Missing the Point
Reads, Chortles, & Smirks - Why nobody's learning anything from Lynne Truss
I agree with most of what Timothy Noah has to say today about Eats, Shoots & Leaves. It's true that I learned a bit of publishing history from the book, but very little that I didn't already know about the rules of punctuation and grammar. And it's true, probably, that the most compelling reason to read the book is that it makes the punctuation-savvy reader feel good about him- or herself. If the simple rules being extolled in the book are news to you, you probably won't enjoy being insulted for your abuses of the English language, right?
But Noah goes on to suggest that readers would be better off picking up a different book, about something they know nothing about. I have to ask: Aren't the people reading Lynne Truss also the folks most likely to be reading any book? Don't you think they--we--read plenty of books about subjects we know little or nothing about? I'd like to think the reading list on the sidebar shows me to be a reader willing to learn more about a variety of topics, from sociology to autism to the history of science to media criticism to more sociology--not to mention all the new avenues of learning fiction brings into my life.
I don't think this pattern is atypical for people like me, the sort of people who are reading Truss and laughing. The book was a two-day indulgence amid a sea of learning about new topics, and Noah should acknowledge that it's a harmless and quick read for the people he's hoping will direct their reading toward topics in which they have less expertise. A 204-page book that reads as breezily as a magazine article--Noah uses the book's short stature against it--is hardly going to block me from other pursuits. Is it so terrible to, once in a great while, read something that makes me feel good about the fact that I know a lot about something?
I agree with most of what Timothy Noah has to say today about Eats, Shoots & Leaves. It's true that I learned a bit of publishing history from the book, but very little that I didn't already know about the rules of punctuation and grammar. And it's true, probably, that the most compelling reason to read the book is that it makes the punctuation-savvy reader feel good about him- or herself. If the simple rules being extolled in the book are news to you, you probably won't enjoy being insulted for your abuses of the English language, right?
But Noah goes on to suggest that readers would be better off picking up a different book, about something they know nothing about. I have to ask: Aren't the people reading Lynne Truss also the folks most likely to be reading any book? Don't you think they--we--read plenty of books about subjects we know little or nothing about? I'd like to think the reading list on the sidebar shows me to be a reader willing to learn more about a variety of topics, from sociology to autism to the history of science to media criticism to more sociology--not to mention all the new avenues of learning fiction brings into my life.
I don't think this pattern is atypical for people like me, the sort of people who are reading Truss and laughing. The book was a two-day indulgence amid a sea of learning about new topics, and Noah should acknowledge that it's a harmless and quick read for the people he's hoping will direct their reading toward topics in which they have less expertise. A 204-page book that reads as breezily as a magazine article--Noah uses the book's short stature against it--is hardly going to block me from other pursuits. Is it so terrible to, once in a great while, read something that makes me feel good about the fact that I know a lot about something?
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Undue Influence
Kerry: Bush's Vatican appeal 'inappropriate'
You're damn right it's inappropriate. Asking the Catholic Church to bring itself to bear on the issues in an election, and complaining that bishops aren't supporting his agenda of discrimination against gays and stripping choices from women, is beyond what even I would expect from George W. Bush. I knew he wasn't a smart man. I didn't know he was so thoroughly without principles.
I predict this will not cause middle-of-the-road voters to look kindly on Bush. Regardless of their position on the issues, I don't think many swing voters believe America should be lectured by the Vatican.
You're damn right it's inappropriate. Asking the Catholic Church to bring itself to bear on the issues in an election, and complaining that bishops aren't supporting his agenda of discrimination against gays and stripping choices from women, is beyond what even I would expect from George W. Bush. I knew he wasn't a smart man. I didn't know he was so thoroughly without principles.
I predict this will not cause middle-of-the-road voters to look kindly on Bush. Regardless of their position on the issues, I don't think many swing voters believe America should be lectured by the Vatican.
Professionalism
Bitter at the Top
I scoffed when I started reading today's David Brooks column, but--despite the partisan slant he buries in the writing--I think he may be on to something as he contemplates the thinking behind the great political divide among college-educated folk. If he is, though, these divisions run deeper than any policy issue--perhaps too deep to be overcome. Too bad Brooks offers only the observation. I'd like to see his idea for a solution.
I scoffed when I started reading today's David Brooks column, but--despite the partisan slant he buries in the writing--I think he may be on to something as he contemplates the thinking behind the great political divide among college-educated folk. If he is, though, these divisions run deeper than any policy issue--perhaps too deep to be overcome. Too bad Brooks offers only the observation. I'd like to see his idea for a solution.
Monday, June 14, 2004
Gracious
President Bush Welcomes President Clinton and Senator Clinton
Kind words all around this morning in Washington as Bill Clinton returned to the White House to see his portrait unveiled. I may not like 43, but he is occasionally capable of gracious behavior and a humorous line or two.
Note that even the news coverage points out the disconnect between's Bush's "restore honor and dignity" rhetoric during the 2000 election and his message today.
Kind words all around this morning in Washington as Bill Clinton returned to the White House to see his portrait unveiled. I may not like 43, but he is occasionally capable of gracious behavior and a humorous line or two.
Note that even the news coverage points out the disconnect between's Bush's "restore honor and dignity" rhetoric during the 2000 election and his message today.
Wimps
Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge
I should be happy; the pledge doesn't impact my life, while the fate of John Kerry's bid for the presidency does, and a ruling against the pledge would surely hurt Kerry as Bush comes out swinging for God. But I can't help feeling disappointed in the Court. To dismiss a case of such controversy and importance on a technicality--that Michael Newdow's complicated custody status vis-a-vis the child whose pledging the case concerned meant that he lacked standing to bring the case--is the kind of "prudence" that usually goes by another name: cowardice.
Perhaps Breyer and Ginsburg and Stevens and Souter felt that pouncing on the opportunity to decide such an important case without Scalia would be in bad form; perhaps they, like me, believe excising two words from the pledge could cut two points--or more--from John Kerry's support in November, and they want to retire under a Democrat. At least I can revel in this: only three justices put their names to the separate opinion that the words "under God" are constitutional. That means that five didn't. And that means that, one day, this is a winnable fight.
I should be happy; the pledge doesn't impact my life, while the fate of John Kerry's bid for the presidency does, and a ruling against the pledge would surely hurt Kerry as Bush comes out swinging for God. But I can't help feeling disappointed in the Court. To dismiss a case of such controversy and importance on a technicality--that Michael Newdow's complicated custody status vis-a-vis the child whose pledging the case concerned meant that he lacked standing to bring the case--is the kind of "prudence" that usually goes by another name: cowardice.
Perhaps Breyer and Ginsburg and Stevens and Souter felt that pouncing on the opportunity to decide such an important case without Scalia would be in bad form; perhaps they, like me, believe excising two words from the pledge could cut two points--or more--from John Kerry's support in November, and they want to retire under a Democrat. At least I can revel in this: only three justices put their names to the separate opinion that the words "under God" are constitutional. That means that five didn't. And that means that, one day, this is a winnable fight.
Watching the Wheels
Hitting on all cylinders, Pistons 1 win from title
Is it just me, or did the wheels come off the Lakers last night? Even in the postgame interviews, Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson said the right things, but you could see in their posture and hear in their voices that they have an inkling that they're about to discover a new sensation: watching another team hoist the trophy right in their faces.
Of course, the Lakers could make history and come back from being down 3-1, as no team has ever done in the NBA Finals. But considering that Detroit has outplayed the Lakers in every game of the series, only losing game two because Kobe hit a fluke shot with two seconds left in regulation and owned the five-minute overtime, it's hard to imagine how Phil gets their old bones moving in a new direction that results in three straight wins. It's much easier to imagine the Pistons closing this thing out on Tuesday. My fingers are crossed.
Is it just me, or did the wheels come off the Lakers last night? Even in the postgame interviews, Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson said the right things, but you could see in their posture and hear in their voices that they have an inkling that they're about to discover a new sensation: watching another team hoist the trophy right in their faces.
Of course, the Lakers could make history and come back from being down 3-1, as no team has ever done in the NBA Finals. But considering that Detroit has outplayed the Lakers in every game of the series, only losing game two because Kobe hit a fluke shot with two seconds left in regulation and owned the five-minute overtime, it's hard to imagine how Phil gets their old bones moving in a new direction that results in three straight wins. It's much easier to imagine the Pistons closing this thing out on Tuesday. My fingers are crossed.
Friday, June 11, 2004
Remembrance
A widow's heartfelt farewell
I've clubbed Ronald Reagan's legacy into the ground all week, and I could go on; Fred Kaplan's piece in Slate demonstrates yet another important area in which Reagan was short-sighted. But today I'd like, instead, to say how sad I am for Nancy Reagan, whose body language this week shows how devoted she was to her husband and how devastated she is to be going on without him. When I see her standing there, touching the casket that holds the man she loved for half a century, I can't help but imagine the pain I would feel in a similar circumstance. We don't agree about much, Nancy--though I'm looking forward to your advocacy for stem-cell research. But today, my heart is with you.
I've clubbed Ronald Reagan's legacy into the ground all week, and I could go on; Fred Kaplan's piece in Slate demonstrates yet another important area in which Reagan was short-sighted. But today I'd like, instead, to say how sad I am for Nancy Reagan, whose body language this week shows how devoted she was to her husband and how devastated she is to be going on without him. When I see her standing there, touching the casket that holds the man she loved for half a century, I can't help but imagine the pain I would feel in a similar circumstance. We don't agree about much, Nancy--though I'm looking forward to your advocacy for stem-cell research. But today, my heart is with you.
Music Mania
The power of a Columbia House membership is a frightening thing. It allows whim-buying of an order that I rarely achieve even in a used-CD shop; witness today's order for proof:
Modest Mouse: The Moon & Antarctica
Mandy Moore: Coverage
Billy Bragg/Wilco: Mermaid Avenue
Tori Amos: Tales Of A Librarian: A Tori Amos Collection
Alison Krauss & Union Station: Live
Stereolab: Emperor Tomato Ketchup
Toad the Wet Sprocket: P.S. (A Toad Retrospective)
Björk: Greatest Hits
Neil Young: Decade
By my count, that's nine albums and eleven discs of music, all purchased to combine the benefits of reduced shipping, a buy-two-get-five-free offer (though somehow, I'm buying two--one of which is a double album--and getting seven), and the need to complete my membership requirements after using the initial offer to get all the Bob Dylan SACDs.
Want to get in on the madness? Drop me a line and I'll even let you have some of the free CDs they'll give me when you join.
Modest Mouse: The Moon & Antarctica
Mandy Moore: Coverage
Billy Bragg/Wilco: Mermaid Avenue
Tori Amos: Tales Of A Librarian: A Tori Amos Collection
Alison Krauss & Union Station: Live
Stereolab: Emperor Tomato Ketchup
Toad the Wet Sprocket: P.S. (A Toad Retrospective)
Björk: Greatest Hits
Neil Young: Decade
By my count, that's nine albums and eleven discs of music, all purchased to combine the benefits of reduced shipping, a buy-two-get-five-free offer (though somehow, I'm buying two--one of which is a double album--and getting seven), and the need to complete my membership requirements after using the initial offer to get all the Bob Dylan SACDs.
Want to get in on the madness? Drop me a line and I'll even let you have some of the free CDs they'll give me when you join.
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Reciprocity
Cooking Up Excuses With the Pentagon - How to torture alleged terrorists and get away with it
This article, by former U.S. Army officer Phillip Carter, is a good follow-up to a recent post, Least Among Us. If we stop taking things like the Geneva Conventions seriously, it will only hurt us in the end.
This article, by former U.S. Army officer Phillip Carter, is a good follow-up to a recent post, Least Among Us. If we stop taking things like the Geneva Conventions seriously, it will only hurt us in the end.
Communion
DURBIN, OTHER CATHOLIC SENATORS RELEASE CATHOLIC ISSUE ANALYSIS FOR U.S. SENATE
I'm quite disappointed that the national media haven't picked up on this effort by Catholic Senators to clarify how their positions correspond to the Church's official stances on a variety of issues. As Senator Dick Durbin explains, "Unfortunately, recent media attention has focused on one or two priorities of the Catholic Church, while obscuring others. This has made it more difficult for Catholic voters to understand the full range of issues that have been identified by the USCCB as priorities for public life. What we have done today is to use the criteria established by the U.S. Catholic Bishops to give voters an insight into the voting records of Catholic senators." Considering the cloud of coverage about this issue as it relates to Catholic John Kerry we've seen recently, you'd think this would merit a mention, wouldn't you?
Aided by a media that presents their words to a national audience, bishops and cardinals in recent months have happily declared that they will not offer communion to politicians who support a woman's right to choose; some have also said that any politician who supports gay marriage or anything like it should not be allowed to receive the sacrament. One went so far as to tell parishioners they should not present themselves for communion if they planned to vote for such a politician. Yet these bishops say nothing about politicians who support wars, the death penalty, and policies that hurt the world's poor; all of these issues are also supposed to be crucial to one's Catholic faith. Bishops of the Church have vocally supported a position that puts it distinctly on the side of Republicans when, in fact, the stated positions of the Church would favor neither party. The media should be willing to examine this fact and the reasons behind it, whatever they are. To continue to report the statements of these leaders as if they're important but treat them as unimportant by failing to do the background work they demand is not only sloppy journalism--it's an abdication of a Constitutionally-protected responsibility.
I'm quite disappointed that the national media haven't picked up on this effort by Catholic Senators to clarify how their positions correspond to the Church's official stances on a variety of issues. As Senator Dick Durbin explains, "Unfortunately, recent media attention has focused on one or two priorities of the Catholic Church, while obscuring others. This has made it more difficult for Catholic voters to understand the full range of issues that have been identified by the USCCB as priorities for public life. What we have done today is to use the criteria established by the U.S. Catholic Bishops to give voters an insight into the voting records of Catholic senators." Considering the cloud of coverage about this issue as it relates to Catholic John Kerry we've seen recently, you'd think this would merit a mention, wouldn't you?
Aided by a media that presents their words to a national audience, bishops and cardinals in recent months have happily declared that they will not offer communion to politicians who support a woman's right to choose; some have also said that any politician who supports gay marriage or anything like it should not be allowed to receive the sacrament. One went so far as to tell parishioners they should not present themselves for communion if they planned to vote for such a politician. Yet these bishops say nothing about politicians who support wars, the death penalty, and policies that hurt the world's poor; all of these issues are also supposed to be crucial to one's Catholic faith. Bishops of the Church have vocally supported a position that puts it distinctly on the side of Republicans when, in fact, the stated positions of the Church would favor neither party. The media should be willing to examine this fact and the reasons behind it, whatever they are. To continue to report the statements of these leaders as if they're important but treat them as unimportant by failing to do the background work they demand is not only sloppy journalism--it's an abdication of a Constitutionally-protected responsibility.
Fever Pitch
Memorializing Ronald Reagan
If this article from The Hill is to be believed, there's nothing that can stop Ronald Reagan from peering out of your wallet at you by next year. Finding an easy target in Alexander Hamilton, Reaganites have decided the $10 bill is the place for their man.
Frankly, this is good news; I don't use much cash anymore, but when I do, the ten is the bill I use the least. ATMs deliver stacks of twenties--emblazoned with Andrew Jackson, a founding Democrat with whom I also have issues related to the Trail of Tears--and if I need change for a twenty, it's likely I'm looking for fives (Lincoln--no problem there) or ones (Washington--hard to argue against him, too). Who needs a ten?
Still, Hamilton doesn't deserve this disgrace. It's bad enough he died at the hands of Aaron Burr--though being involved in a duel today would probably disqualify a man from ending up on currency. We're talking about a giant in the creation of our country, whose belief in a strong central government and a firm fiscal footing for the nation guided the nascent republic through its formative years and provided it with the structure that one day allowed it to become a world power. To replace such a man--a thinker and a doer, whose legacy as Treasury Secretary alone would be enough to warrant his inclusion in the monetary canon, to say nothing of his contributions to the Constitution's eventual shape--with a man whose basic message was that "government is bad" would be an injustice to our nation's history and a victory in a current political battle that should never be fought on such common ground as the currency we carry in our pockets. Name a highway after Reagan; name an airport, too. All presidents deserve such honors, no matter their politics, because they have served the nation in a job that takes years off of lives. But paper money is a place where we honor those who history has deemed the giants of the republic. History has not yet had time to make that decision about Reagan--and there are many of us who believe that, given time, it will not view him in the same rarefied light as the other men whose faces peek from our wallets. In a year that has seen the politics of the nation dragged ever further into the depths of ill will and distrust--witness the breaching of a gentleman's agreement in Texas to limit redistricting to once a decade, for example--let's remember that some things are rightfully kept off the table out of common decency and a recognition that we ought not do to others what we would not want done to us by our opponents if they should one day take power. (That's the basis of the Geneva Convention, too--and we've seen what some of our leaders think of that.) Would Republicans like to see Bill Clinton on money anytime soon? I think not. Don't shove Reagan into our back pockets, either.
If this article from The Hill is to be believed, there's nothing that can stop Ronald Reagan from peering out of your wallet at you by next year. Finding an easy target in Alexander Hamilton, Reaganites have decided the $10 bill is the place for their man.
Frankly, this is good news; I don't use much cash anymore, but when I do, the ten is the bill I use the least. ATMs deliver stacks of twenties--emblazoned with Andrew Jackson, a founding Democrat with whom I also have issues related to the Trail of Tears--and if I need change for a twenty, it's likely I'm looking for fives (Lincoln--no problem there) or ones (Washington--hard to argue against him, too). Who needs a ten?
Still, Hamilton doesn't deserve this disgrace. It's bad enough he died at the hands of Aaron Burr--though being involved in a duel today would probably disqualify a man from ending up on currency. We're talking about a giant in the creation of our country, whose belief in a strong central government and a firm fiscal footing for the nation guided the nascent republic through its formative years and provided it with the structure that one day allowed it to become a world power. To replace such a man--a thinker and a doer, whose legacy as Treasury Secretary alone would be enough to warrant his inclusion in the monetary canon, to say nothing of his contributions to the Constitution's eventual shape--with a man whose basic message was that "government is bad" would be an injustice to our nation's history and a victory in a current political battle that should never be fought on such common ground as the currency we carry in our pockets. Name a highway after Reagan; name an airport, too. All presidents deserve such honors, no matter their politics, because they have served the nation in a job that takes years off of lives. But paper money is a place where we honor those who history has deemed the giants of the republic. History has not yet had time to make that decision about Reagan--and there are many of us who believe that, given time, it will not view him in the same rarefied light as the other men whose faces peek from our wallets. In a year that has seen the politics of the nation dragged ever further into the depths of ill will and distrust--witness the breaching of a gentleman's agreement in Texas to limit redistricting to once a decade, for example--let's remember that some things are rightfully kept off the table out of common decency and a recognition that we ought not do to others what we would not want done to us by our opponents if they should one day take power. (That's the basis of the Geneva Convention, too--and we've seen what some of our leaders think of that.) Would Republicans like to see Bill Clinton on money anytime soon? I think not. Don't shove Reagan into our back pockets, either.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Back in the Game
Six Feet Under just as dark as last year
The Sopranos, too, can apparently kill off someone every week--witness Adriana and Tony B.--but there's nothing quite like Six Feet Under. After seeing a bad review in EW, I'm encouraged by this more positive outlook for the season. Here's hoping that David and Keith find a way to work it out and Nate and Brenda rekindle the flames of their weird brand of love. I have no idea where the show will go this season, but I'm ready for the ride.
The Sopranos, too, can apparently kill off someone every week--witness Adriana and Tony B.--but there's nothing quite like Six Feet Under. After seeing a bad review in EW, I'm encouraged by this more positive outlook for the season. Here's hoping that David and Keith find a way to work it out and Nate and Brenda rekindle the flames of their weird brand of love. I have no idea where the show will go this season, but I'm ready for the ride.
Great Beyond
Many Still Troubled by Reagan's Legacy
This article reminded me just how deep bad feelings against Ronald Reagan run in some places. If there is an afterlife, I wonder what Ronnie will have to say to all the people who died of AIDS during his presidency while he stood by and pretended nothing was happening because he thought doing so would help him politically.
Anyhow, here's an even deeper indictment of the man, as if you need my help finding them by now. If they don't bury Reagan soon, he's liable to be buried in the avalanche of paper being used to remind people just what he did while he was president--and why very little of it deserves our praise.
This article reminded me just how deep bad feelings against Ronald Reagan run in some places. If there is an afterlife, I wonder what Ronnie will have to say to all the people who died of AIDS during his presidency while he stood by and pretended nothing was happening because he thought doing so would help him politically.
Anyhow, here's an even deeper indictment of the man, as if you need my help finding them by now. If they don't bury Reagan soon, he's liable to be buried in the avalanche of paper being used to remind people just what he did while he was president--and why very little of it deserves our praise.
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Penny Pinching
Republicans Mull Putting Reagan on Money
They had his name on a building, a ship, and an airport before he died, so it's no surprise that Republicans want Ronald Reagan's face on money now that he's gone.
Here's a surprise: I agree. Put his face on the penny. Lincoln has the five-dollar bill already, and Illinois would surely submit to having another "favorite son" on the penny. Besides, what could be more appropriate? As future generations are reduced to hoarding small change to pay their bills in the face of a national debt that will be left to them to pay off, they can look into the stacks of coins they've accumulated and see the smirk of the man whose fiscal recklessness put them in that position.
They had his name on a building, a ship, and an airport before he died, so it's no surprise that Republicans want Ronald Reagan's face on money now that he's gone.
Here's a surprise: I agree. Put his face on the penny. Lincoln has the five-dollar bill already, and Illinois would surely submit to having another "favorite son" on the penny. Besides, what could be more appropriate? As future generations are reduced to hoarding small change to pay their bills in the face of a national debt that will be left to them to pay off, they can look into the stacks of coins they've accumulated and see the smirk of the man whose fiscal recklessness put them in that position.
Warranted Praise
'Harry Potter' Box Office Tally Raised
I'd like to think I had a little bit to do with the $93.7 million haul for the latest Harry Potter film this weekend. At $12 a pop, a pair of IMAX tickets must really help the gross.
The movie was worth every penny. There's been a lot of hype surrounding the fact that Alfonso Cuaron directed this film, replacing Chris Columbus; the change--and its success--are evident from the opening shot of the movie, as Cuaron dives through the Warner Brothers symbol and rushes into the action. The suggestive first flicks of the wrist we see as Harry casts spells beneath his bedsheets mark a new tone for the film, and that tone carries through the film; this is still an epic fantasy series, but it now has undercurrents of seriousness and meaning, particularly as we watch Harry come to terms with who he is by learning to face the Dementors. Hermione also weaves quite a spell onscreen, both literally and figuratively. Emma Watson has the character down cold, and while Daniel Radcliffe experiences the most character growth and a fair amount of acting improvement, she's the real scene-stealer. Watch the look of recognition on her face during the time-shifting scene before she tosses the stone through the window, or the look she gives to Harry and Ron when she appears midway through a class thanks to Dumbledore's assistance. Without digging into the whole film, I think it's fair to say this is the best installment of the series so far.
A quick question: am I crazy, or did Cuaron compare Lupin's plight as a werewolf to being gay? Cuaron has explored issues of sexuality before--the threesome scene in Y Tu Mama Tambien, for instance--so I regarded Lupin's words and actions as he left Hogwarts carefully. He talked about letters flooding the school from parents who don't want their parents taught by such a "monster," and said he's used to it. He was exposed for his nighttime behavior, the content of which is something he was born with and has to make serious effort (an elixir, for one thing) to undermine. And that suitcase he was packing had some pretty fancy shoes in it. This wouldn't be the first time Harry Potter's saga has been interpreted to include a gay-related theme; A.O. Scott reads it as resembling a story of growing up gay and confused (as Harry does) and suddenly discovering that there's a whole other world filled with people like you (the wizarding world, for Harry). I wonder if Cuaron knew of this interpretation and thought it would be sly to include his own show of sympathy in the film?
I'd like to think I had a little bit to do with the $93.7 million haul for the latest Harry Potter film this weekend. At $12 a pop, a pair of IMAX tickets must really help the gross.
The movie was worth every penny. There's been a lot of hype surrounding the fact that Alfonso Cuaron directed this film, replacing Chris Columbus; the change--and its success--are evident from the opening shot of the movie, as Cuaron dives through the Warner Brothers symbol and rushes into the action. The suggestive first flicks of the wrist we see as Harry casts spells beneath his bedsheets mark a new tone for the film, and that tone carries through the film; this is still an epic fantasy series, but it now has undercurrents of seriousness and meaning, particularly as we watch Harry come to terms with who he is by learning to face the Dementors. Hermione also weaves quite a spell onscreen, both literally and figuratively. Emma Watson has the character down cold, and while Daniel Radcliffe experiences the most character growth and a fair amount of acting improvement, she's the real scene-stealer. Watch the look of recognition on her face during the time-shifting scene before she tosses the stone through the window, or the look she gives to Harry and Ron when she appears midway through a class thanks to Dumbledore's assistance. Without digging into the whole film, I think it's fair to say this is the best installment of the series so far.
A quick question: am I crazy, or did Cuaron compare Lupin's plight as a werewolf to being gay? Cuaron has explored issues of sexuality before--the threesome scene in Y Tu Mama Tambien, for instance--so I regarded Lupin's words and actions as he left Hogwarts carefully. He talked about letters flooding the school from parents who don't want their parents taught by such a "monster," and said he's used to it. He was exposed for his nighttime behavior, the content of which is something he was born with and has to make serious effort (an elixir, for one thing) to undermine. And that suitcase he was packing had some pretty fancy shoes in it. This wouldn't be the first time Harry Potter's saga has been interpreted to include a gay-related theme; A.O. Scott reads it as resembling a story of growing up gay and confused (as Harry does) and suddenly discovering that there's a whole other world filled with people like you (the wizarding world, for Harry). I wonder if Cuaron knew of this interpretation and thought it would be sly to include his own show of sympathy in the film?
Fire With Facts
MSNBC - Altercation
As the lovefest for Reagan enters a third day, there's a clear undercurrent; historians have had a chance to take a look back and realized that much of the Reagan worship portrayed in the media runs contrary to reality, and that his stated ambitions as president failed to match his actions on a regular basis. While there are plenty of articles about this to choose from--apparently every newspaper, knowing this day would come, has been getting ready to offer a somewhat balanced picture of the Reagan years--Eric Alterman's blog today marshals some nice facts, including the fact that Bill Clinton--who, time will show, history will judge the more successful president--was more popular than Reagan. Republicans, it turns out, aren't more prevalent, or more popular--they're just louder.
As the lovefest for Reagan enters a third day, there's a clear undercurrent; historians have had a chance to take a look back and realized that much of the Reagan worship portrayed in the media runs contrary to reality, and that his stated ambitions as president failed to match his actions on a regular basis. While there are plenty of articles about this to choose from--apparently every newspaper, knowing this day would come, has been getting ready to offer a somewhat balanced picture of the Reagan years--Eric Alterman's blog today marshals some nice facts, including the fact that Bill Clinton--who, time will show, history will judge the more successful president--was more popular than Reagan. Republicans, it turns out, aren't more prevalent, or more popular--they're just louder.
Monday, June 07, 2004
Unpatriotic
Not Even a Hedgehog - The Stupidity of Ronald Reagan
Is it unconscionable that I wasn't terribly sad to hear that Ronald Reagan--the President who replied to my letter when I was eight years old by sending a glossy mini-magazine about the White House--died on Saturday? For all the worship he receives from the general public, most pundits seem to acknowledge that he was in many ways inept and that he created the modern-day, deficit-spending, government-averse Republican party. (William Saletan's explanation of "Reagan's Law" is brilliant.)
So I pretty much think the guy was a buffoon, but that's not why I wasn't especially sad; I'm patriotic enough that I'd be sad to see even our current buffoon drop dead. I'm just glad that Reagan was able to die without suffering any longer, and hopeful that he didn't really know what was happening anymore when he passed on. On a more cynical note, his timing is better than I expected; I thought he would die sometime in October, three or four days after they parade Bin Laden out of the Oval Office and two weeks before the election, just in time to cancel a couple of the debates. (Howard Fineman argues that Reagan's death is good for Bush, but it would have been almost inarguably better for him to give the eulogy at an October 30 funeral. Can you imagine a better way for Bush to suddenly appear to rise above the fray of the campaign and invoke his ties to a man who, right or wrong, some folks believe belongs on Mount Rushmore?)
Republican revisionists aside, history will not be kind to Reagan; in the right place at the right time to watch the Cold War end, he accomplished precious little else during his eight years in office--unless ballooning the debt or lying to Congress about selling weapons to revolutionaries counts as achievement. I hope his soul lingers this week, suddenly restored to the lucidity he possessed back when he was president (of the Screen Actors Guild, not the United States--he surely wasn't with it by then), able to hear the kind words that will be heaped on him by those who fetishize him because he seemed able to smile through anything. And I hope, out of kindness, that his soul flees the scene on Saturday. This campaign season will see his ideas excoriated for the fluff and pandering they were during his presidency and remain as carried on by Bush, and teachers in future classrooms will no doubt heap something quite unlike praise upon the man as they explain to their pupils how he started the chain reaction that allowed them to be born indebted for the sins and spending of their fathers. It already worked that way in the Bible. Reagan made sure it worked that way in America, too.
Is it unconscionable that I wasn't terribly sad to hear that Ronald Reagan--the President who replied to my letter when I was eight years old by sending a glossy mini-magazine about the White House--died on Saturday? For all the worship he receives from the general public, most pundits seem to acknowledge that he was in many ways inept and that he created the modern-day, deficit-spending, government-averse Republican party. (William Saletan's explanation of "Reagan's Law" is brilliant.)
So I pretty much think the guy was a buffoon, but that's not why I wasn't especially sad; I'm patriotic enough that I'd be sad to see even our current buffoon drop dead. I'm just glad that Reagan was able to die without suffering any longer, and hopeful that he didn't really know what was happening anymore when he passed on. On a more cynical note, his timing is better than I expected; I thought he would die sometime in October, three or four days after they parade Bin Laden out of the Oval Office and two weeks before the election, just in time to cancel a couple of the debates. (Howard Fineman argues that Reagan's death is good for Bush, but it would have been almost inarguably better for him to give the eulogy at an October 30 funeral. Can you imagine a better way for Bush to suddenly appear to rise above the fray of the campaign and invoke his ties to a man who, right or wrong, some folks believe belongs on Mount Rushmore?)
Republican revisionists aside, history will not be kind to Reagan; in the right place at the right time to watch the Cold War end, he accomplished precious little else during his eight years in office--unless ballooning the debt or lying to Congress about selling weapons to revolutionaries counts as achievement. I hope his soul lingers this week, suddenly restored to the lucidity he possessed back when he was president (of the Screen Actors Guild, not the United States--he surely wasn't with it by then), able to hear the kind words that will be heaped on him by those who fetishize him because he seemed able to smile through anything. And I hope, out of kindness, that his soul flees the scene on Saturday. This campaign season will see his ideas excoriated for the fluff and pandering they were during his presidency and remain as carried on by Bush, and teachers in future classrooms will no doubt heap something quite unlike praise upon the man as they explain to their pupils how he started the chain reaction that allowed them to be born indebted for the sins and spending of their fathers. It already worked that way in the Bible. Reagan made sure it worked that way in America, too.
Saturday, June 05, 2004
Enlightened Philosophy
Bushido:The Way of the Armchair Warrior
This week's Shouts and Murmurs in the New Yorker is priceless. Who knew that there was a coherent philosophy behind everything the Bush Administration does? Once we all learn to think like armchair warriors, we'll understand that anything is possible--once you abandon reason, logic, and basic math.
This week's Shouts and Murmurs in the New Yorker is priceless. Who knew that there was a coherent philosophy behind everything the Bush Administration does? Once we all learn to think like armchair warriors, we'll understand that anything is possible--once you abandon reason, logic, and basic math.
Thursday, June 03, 2004
Least Among Us
It's Not the American Way
There's so much going on in Washington these days--George Bush is even hiring a lawyer to help him fend off the investigators looking into who leaked Valerie Plame's name, while CIA head George Tenet is resigning--that it's easy to ignore the recent release of more information about the case against Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen--like me and, more than likely, you--who has been held without trial for two years and who allegedly confessed to several terrorist plots under these conditions--without a lawyer present, because until this March, he wasn't allowed to have one. Fortunately, Richard Cohen is paying attention in the article linked above.
As Dahlia Lithwick points out, it no longer matters what Padilla did or did not do. The government cannot bring his case to court using the evidence it has because that evidence was obtained unconstitutionally--under duress, without a lawyer present, without informing the "defendant" of his right to remain silent.
In the mania that followed September 11, a lot of things happened that would never have taken place in saner times. The Patriot Act's privacy-invading provisions, random searches of old women in airports, and unlimited detention of prisoners without formal charges or even information about their whereabouts for loved ones--these are not hallmarks of the American system. Timothy Noah may be right: "Let America be America again" may be a dud of a slogan for John Kerry's campaign. But in the face of these sorts of affronts to our constitution--and that is what they are, as Cohen and Lithwick clearly show--it's hard not to appreciate the sentiment.
There's so much going on in Washington these days--George Bush is even hiring a lawyer to help him fend off the investigators looking into who leaked Valerie Plame's name, while CIA head George Tenet is resigning--that it's easy to ignore the recent release of more information about the case against Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen--like me and, more than likely, you--who has been held without trial for two years and who allegedly confessed to several terrorist plots under these conditions--without a lawyer present, because until this March, he wasn't allowed to have one. Fortunately, Richard Cohen is paying attention in the article linked above.
As Dahlia Lithwick points out, it no longer matters what Padilla did or did not do. The government cannot bring his case to court using the evidence it has because that evidence was obtained unconstitutionally--under duress, without a lawyer present, without informing the "defendant" of his right to remain silent.
In the mania that followed September 11, a lot of things happened that would never have taken place in saner times. The Patriot Act's privacy-invading provisions, random searches of old women in airports, and unlimited detention of prisoners without formal charges or even information about their whereabouts for loved ones--these are not hallmarks of the American system. Timothy Noah may be right: "Let America be America again" may be a dud of a slogan for John Kerry's campaign. But in the face of these sorts of affronts to our constitution--and that is what they are, as Cohen and Lithwick clearly show--it's hard not to appreciate the sentiment.
Weekend Agenda
Lightning Strikes
It's only Thursday morning, but thanks to a "flexible schedule," my thoughts are turning toward the weekend--and toward finally seeing the third Harry Potter movie. Can the hype be true? Early reviews indicate that Alfonso Cuaron (of Y Tu Mama Tambien fame) has brought an adult touch to the film, with details like the one mentioned in the first paragraph of the linked article showing the ways that our heroes are growing up and a darkness that makes the third film more exciting and action-packed than the first two. Something tells me this isn't going to be the feel-good romp that the first movie was, but I anticipate leaving the theater more thrilled than by either of the first two films. It sounds like someone has finally captured the breathless feeling of reading the books and translated it to the screen, and that should make for a memorable weekend indeed.
It's only Thursday morning, but thanks to a "flexible schedule," my thoughts are turning toward the weekend--and toward finally seeing the third Harry Potter movie. Can the hype be true? Early reviews indicate that Alfonso Cuaron (of Y Tu Mama Tambien fame) has brought an adult touch to the film, with details like the one mentioned in the first paragraph of the linked article showing the ways that our heroes are growing up and a darkness that makes the third film more exciting and action-packed than the first two. Something tells me this isn't going to be the feel-good romp that the first movie was, but I anticipate leaving the theater more thrilled than by either of the first two films. It sounds like someone has finally captured the breathless feeling of reading the books and translated it to the screen, and that should make for a memorable weekend indeed.
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Dark Lining
The Onion | Gay Couple Feels Pressured To Marry
Leave it to the Onion to find the dark lining to the silver cloud of legalized marriage for gays and lesbians. Even I have been on the receiving end of some of the questions posed in this article since the Massachusetts revolution last November. Which is all fine and dandy and makes me feel good, but still--who knew not answering nagging questions like "When are you going to get married?" was a side benefit of being gay?
Leave it to the Onion to find the dark lining to the silver cloud of legalized marriage for gays and lesbians. Even I have been on the receiving end of some of the questions posed in this article since the Massachusetts revolution last November. Which is all fine and dandy and makes me feel good, but still--who knew not answering nagging questions like "When are you going to get married?" was a side benefit of being gay?
Land of Lincoln
Abolish the Penny
Finally, William Safire and I agree about something. The man who has spent months attempting to persuade us all that everything is wonderful in Iraq finally takes a break today to say something that makes sense: It's high time we stop making pennies. I don't know if his inspiration was a West Wing rerun or a bad experience in line at 7/11; either way, he's right about several things, including these two: (1) We'd save a great deal of time if we didn't have to wait in line behind people fishing their pockets and purses for pennies, and (2) We'd save a great deal of money when all the prices set a penny below the dollar ($9.99 and the like) dropped to a nickel below the dollar ($9.95 and such).
Of course, I view the elimination of the penny as a stopgap on the path toward a cashless society, which I hope I live to see. But all great change starts small--except the penny, which used to be worth a piece of gum and today isn't worth much of anything. It's time to change our change.
Finally, William Safire and I agree about something. The man who has spent months attempting to persuade us all that everything is wonderful in Iraq finally takes a break today to say something that makes sense: It's high time we stop making pennies. I don't know if his inspiration was a West Wing rerun or a bad experience in line at 7/11; either way, he's right about several things, including these two: (1) We'd save a great deal of time if we didn't have to wait in line behind people fishing their pockets and purses for pennies, and (2) We'd save a great deal of money when all the prices set a penny below the dollar ($9.99 and the like) dropped to a nickel below the dollar ($9.95 and such).
Of course, I view the elimination of the penny as a stopgap on the path toward a cashless society, which I hope I live to see. But all great change starts small--except the penny, which used to be worth a piece of gum and today isn't worth much of anything. It's time to change our change.
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Reversal of Fortune
Dooh Nibor Economics
If only you could argue like Paul Krugman does and get away with it, John Kerry. You'd win this election in a walk! Today's Krugman column offers a sound bite that could really resonate with the public--Robin Hood in reverse--if only the Republicans wouldn't cry out, "Class warfare!" However true it may be, you don't often gain points in an election by shouting, "He started it!" Nevertheless, this is a point that needs to be made: the Bush policies pit the rich against the rest and undermine the fiscal and political stability of the country. Deficits as far as the eye can see and a vast class of the citizenry developing a deep (and increasingly warranted) disdain for those who control the machinery of capitalism--what does that sound like a recipe for to you?
If only you could argue like Paul Krugman does and get away with it, John Kerry. You'd win this election in a walk! Today's Krugman column offers a sound bite that could really resonate with the public--Robin Hood in reverse--if only the Republicans wouldn't cry out, "Class warfare!" However true it may be, you don't often gain points in an election by shouting, "He started it!" Nevertheless, this is a point that needs to be made: the Bush policies pit the rich against the rest and undermine the fiscal and political stability of the country. Deficits as far as the eye can see and a vast class of the citizenry developing a deep (and increasingly warranted) disdain for those who control the machinery of capitalism--what does that sound like a recipe for to you?
Monday, May 31, 2004
Slaughter Rule?
Obama gets early boost from voters
Democrat leads Ryan by 22 points
Clearly it's too early to call any race over, but if you had to bet on any supposedly competitive Senate race, I think you'd have to pick Illinois. With a 52-30 lead, Barack Obama looks destined to take the place that national media--including, this week, the New Yorker--have chosen for him, as only the third African-American Senator since Reconstruction. This early in the election cycle, a quarter of Illinois voters already have a bad impression of Republican Jack Ryan, compared to only a tenth who view Obama unfavorably. And in a race where 18% of voters didn't choose either candidate, Obama still checks in over 50%. Good luck, Jack Ryan. I hope you kept your day job.
Democrat leads Ryan by 22 points
Clearly it's too early to call any race over, but if you had to bet on any supposedly competitive Senate race, I think you'd have to pick Illinois. With a 52-30 lead, Barack Obama looks destined to take the place that national media--including, this week, the New Yorker--have chosen for him, as only the third African-American Senator since Reconstruction. This early in the election cycle, a quarter of Illinois voters already have a bad impression of Republican Jack Ryan, compared to only a tenth who view Obama unfavorably. And in a race where 18% of voters didn't choose either candidate, Obama still checks in over 50%. Good luck, Jack Ryan. I hope you kept your day job.
Summer of Slinging
Bush campaign accents the negative
Mudslinging, that is. According to scholars, no incumbent has ever run as negative a campaign as Bush/Cheney this time out--and they get high marks for deceit as well. Here's the best section of the article:
Incumbent presidents often prefer to run on their records in office, juxtaposing upbeat messages with negative shots at their opponents, as Bill Clinton did in 1996.
Scott Reed, who ran Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign that year, said the Bush campaign has little choice but to deliver a constant stream of such negative charges. With low poll numbers and a volatile situation in Iraq, Bush has more hope of tarnishing Kerry's image than promoting his own.
"The Bush campaign is faced with the hard, true fact that they have to keep their boot on his neck and define him on their terms," Reed said. That might risk alienating some moderate voters or depressing turnout, "but they don't have a choice," he said.
Back to me: Should it come as any surprise that Bush and Cheney are campaigning the same way they've governed? More importantly: Are the American people really going to be fooled by this? Can you win a second term by going almost exclusively negative to avoid your own nonexistent record of success?
Mudslinging, that is. According to scholars, no incumbent has ever run as negative a campaign as Bush/Cheney this time out--and they get high marks for deceit as well. Here's the best section of the article:
Incumbent presidents often prefer to run on their records in office, juxtaposing upbeat messages with negative shots at their opponents, as Bill Clinton did in 1996.
Scott Reed, who ran Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign that year, said the Bush campaign has little choice but to deliver a constant stream of such negative charges. With low poll numbers and a volatile situation in Iraq, Bush has more hope of tarnishing Kerry's image than promoting his own.
"The Bush campaign is faced with the hard, true fact that they have to keep their boot on his neck and define him on their terms," Reed said. That might risk alienating some moderate voters or depressing turnout, "but they don't have a choice," he said.
Back to me: Should it come as any surprise that Bush and Cheney are campaigning the same way they've governed? More importantly: Are the American people really going to be fooled by this? Can you win a second term by going almost exclusively negative to avoid your own nonexistent record of success?
Friday, May 28, 2004
Back in Fashion
To Tell the Truth
As Paul Krugman points out today, it's finally back in fashion to question the president's actions. The normally gun-shy press has been leaping all over the administration lately, uncovering more and more evidence that those of us who never trusted Bush and his cronies have been right all along.
For all of us, I'd like to just say this: We wish we hadn't been so right about this, because it would have been better for the country--but we were, OK? So can we finally do something about it and get rid of this bozo in November?
(While you're reading the Times today, check out Bob Herbert's column on Al Gore's speech this week--and why we should be paying attention.)
As Paul Krugman points out today, it's finally back in fashion to question the president's actions. The normally gun-shy press has been leaping all over the administration lately, uncovering more and more evidence that those of us who never trusted Bush and his cronies have been right all along.
For all of us, I'd like to just say this: We wish we hadn't been so right about this, because it would have been better for the country--but we were, OK? So can we finally do something about it and get rid of this bozo in November?
(While you're reading the Times today, check out Bob Herbert's column on Al Gore's speech this week--and why we should be paying attention.)
Thursday, May 27, 2004
2003 Revisited
Now that Fantasia Barrino has captured the 2004 American Idol crown, it's time to look back to 2003 and begin reconsidering the top 10 albums list from that year. (To refresh your memory, the old list is on the sidebar.) Below is a list of all the albums of new material (no greatest hits or live albums) that came out in 2003 and have, so far, made it onto my CD rack. It's only 41 albums, so picking 10 or so to honor as the best shouldn't be hard, right? Albums that I didn't have when I made the list are in italics. But before I narrow the list, I'd like you to tell me what albums from 2003 I'm missing. It's never too late to consider one more great album.
A Mighty Wind: The Album
Ryan Adams: Love is Hell (Pt. 1 + 2)
Ryan Adams: Rock N Roll
Clay Aiken: Measure of a Man
Belle & Sebastian: Dear Catastrophe Waitress
Death Cab For Cutie: Transatlanticism
Dido: Life for Rent
Kathleen Edwards: Failer
Everclear: Slow Motion Daydream
Flaming Lips: Fight Test
Fleetwood Mac: Say You Will
Fountains of Wayne: Welcome Interstate Managers
Guster: Keep It Together
Jayhawks: Rainy Day Music
The Jealous Sound: Kill Them With Kindness
Jet: Get Born
Annie Lennox: Bare
John Mayer: Heavier Things
The Minus 5: Down With Wilco
New Pornographers: Electric Version
OutKast: Speakerboxx/The Love Below
Liz Phair: Liz Phair
The Postal Service: Give Up
Radiohead: Hail to the Thief
Rooney: Rooney
The Shins: Chutes Too Narrow
Spymob: Sitting Around Keeping Score
Sting: Sacred Love
The Strokes: Room on Fire
Matthew Sweet: Kimi Ga Suki * Raifu (Japan-only album)
The Thorns: The Thorns
The Thrills: So Much for the City
Train: My Private Nation
Travis: 12 Memories
Rufus Wainwright: Want One
White Stripes: Elephant
Lucinda Williams: World Without Tears
Robbie Williams: Escapology (US)
Yeah Yeah Yeahs: Fever to Tell
Pete Yorn: Day I Forgot
Zwan: Mary, Star of the Sea
A Mighty Wind: The Album
Ryan Adams: Love is Hell (Pt. 1 + 2)
Ryan Adams: Rock N Roll
Clay Aiken: Measure of a Man
Belle & Sebastian: Dear Catastrophe Waitress
Death Cab For Cutie: Transatlanticism
Dido: Life for Rent
Kathleen Edwards: Failer
Everclear: Slow Motion Daydream
Flaming Lips: Fight Test
Fleetwood Mac: Say You Will
Fountains of Wayne: Welcome Interstate Managers
Guster: Keep It Together
Jayhawks: Rainy Day Music
The Jealous Sound: Kill Them With Kindness
Jet: Get Born
Annie Lennox: Bare
John Mayer: Heavier Things
The Minus 5: Down With Wilco
New Pornographers: Electric Version
OutKast: Speakerboxx/The Love Below
Liz Phair: Liz Phair
The Postal Service: Give Up
Radiohead: Hail to the Thief
Rooney: Rooney
The Shins: Chutes Too Narrow
Spymob: Sitting Around Keeping Score
Sting: Sacred Love
The Strokes: Room on Fire
Matthew Sweet: Kimi Ga Suki * Raifu (Japan-only album)
The Thorns: The Thorns
The Thrills: So Much for the City
Train: My Private Nation
Travis: 12 Memories
Rufus Wainwright: Want One
White Stripes: Elephant
Lucinda Williams: World Without Tears
Robbie Williams: Escapology (US)
Yeah Yeah Yeahs: Fever to Tell
Pete Yorn: Day I Forgot
Zwan: Mary, Star of the Sea
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Kindred Spirit...Sort Of
The Declaration Online
There were few greater joys during my first year as the editor of my college newspaper than puzzling my way through movie reviews written by the author of the article linked above, Neil Hultgren. Despite the fact that he sometimes left me with the feeling that he had some sort of disdain for my existence, I enjoyed reading Neil's work because he'd find a creative way to express his opinion and always approached a problem from a unique vantage point.
Fast forward four years and we've got Neil arguing passionately, not for the virtues of American Beauty, but for fair treatment of the gay community at his new school, the University of Virginia. And once again, his solution to being treated like his kind of love is invisible is creative: he suggests that he'll return the favor, feigning a lack of understanding of any of the conventions of heterosexual love and marriage, including weddings and the rings that go with them. So kudos, Neil, on coming out and on engaging in the same sort of creative thinking about this new subject that you've always given to your old ones. And if that disdain I felt from you was just some sort of pre-outing self-loathing turned outward, feel free to drop me a line sometime.
There were few greater joys during my first year as the editor of my college newspaper than puzzling my way through movie reviews written by the author of the article linked above, Neil Hultgren. Despite the fact that he sometimes left me with the feeling that he had some sort of disdain for my existence, I enjoyed reading Neil's work because he'd find a creative way to express his opinion and always approached a problem from a unique vantage point.
Fast forward four years and we've got Neil arguing passionately, not for the virtues of American Beauty, but for fair treatment of the gay community at his new school, the University of Virginia. And once again, his solution to being treated like his kind of love is invisible is creative: he suggests that he'll return the favor, feigning a lack of understanding of any of the conventions of heterosexual love and marriage, including weddings and the rings that go with them. So kudos, Neil, on coming out and on engaging in the same sort of creative thinking about this new subject that you've always given to your old ones. And if that disdain I felt from you was just some sort of pre-outing self-loathing turned outward, feel free to drop me a line sometime.
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Decisive
In 'American Idol' Showdown, Fantasia Holds Decisive Edge Over Diana, According to New Knowledge Networks Survey
It's all over but the crying. After tonight's show, there can be no doubt. I won't dwell on Diana, who clearly felt the pressure and saw her voice give out on her during both the new Idol single and her last song, which she had knocked out of the park only a week ago. She'll have a nice career for herself. But Fantasia--well, what can I say that Simon hasn't said already? The finale offered the first opportunity to hear what the same song would sound like being sung by each of the two finalists, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who didn't think Fantasia tore that song up. She felt it and she showed it. And while I didn't like the idea of bringing back songs from earlier in the competition, Fantasia both showed that she would take a risk with a new song on a night that Diana took no risks at all AND brought back what was at once her best and her most obscure song, "Summertime."
I've been taken to task for using such strong language in talking about the show, but there's no shame, I think, in using it here: If Fantasia Barrino isn't crowned the next American Idol tomorrow night, it will be a travesty the likes of which music hasn't seen since Steely Dan won the Grammy for Best Album instead of Eminem, and a travesty of a similar kind--the choice of safety instead of a mind-bending creativity and talent that can sometimes make you nervous. I doubt that the results will be as clear-cut as the survey linked above, which shows Fantasia walloping Diana 61-39; the text messaging effect and the limited number of calls that can go through for either contestant will bring it closer, I'm sure. But Fantasia has earned this. It'll be a real shame if she doesn't get it.
It's all over but the crying. After tonight's show, there can be no doubt. I won't dwell on Diana, who clearly felt the pressure and saw her voice give out on her during both the new Idol single and her last song, which she had knocked out of the park only a week ago. She'll have a nice career for herself. But Fantasia--well, what can I say that Simon hasn't said already? The finale offered the first opportunity to hear what the same song would sound like being sung by each of the two finalists, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who didn't think Fantasia tore that song up. She felt it and she showed it. And while I didn't like the idea of bringing back songs from earlier in the competition, Fantasia both showed that she would take a risk with a new song on a night that Diana took no risks at all AND brought back what was at once her best and her most obscure song, "Summertime."
I've been taken to task for using such strong language in talking about the show, but there's no shame, I think, in using it here: If Fantasia Barrino isn't crowned the next American Idol tomorrow night, it will be a travesty the likes of which music hasn't seen since Steely Dan won the Grammy for Best Album instead of Eminem, and a travesty of a similar kind--the choice of safety instead of a mind-bending creativity and talent that can sometimes make you nervous. I doubt that the results will be as clear-cut as the survey linked above, which shows Fantasia walloping Diana 61-39; the text messaging effect and the limited number of calls that can go through for either contestant will bring it closer, I'm sure. But Fantasia has earned this. It'll be a real shame if she doesn't get it.
Behind the Times
What Bush Should Have Said - His Iraq speech was only a year late
Disclaimer: Where President Bush's smirking chimp appearance and clearly befuddled delivery once aroused angry passion when he spoke, they now lull me to sleep, acting as a sort of lullaby on the notion that anyone, no matter their skills, can one day become the leader of the free world. So while I watched his obscenely long address last night, it would be fair to say that I didn't absorb every nuance, if you can refer to such a thing when the speaker is so wholly without a sense of nuance in the first place.
With that said, I think Fred Kaplan's assessment of the address, and of Bush's position now, is a fair one. Maybe this was the perfect thing to say a year ago, but that ship has sailed. Today there is an emerging consensus among Americans and Iraqis: a whole lot of people in both countries think that America should get out of Iraq as soon as we can, and a whole lot of people in both countries agree that President Bush is thoroughly inept at handling this situation. With our credibility shot, it's time for new leadership of Iraqi operations. That starts with an increased role for the international community, ought to continue with a bit of regime change here in the United States this winter, and will hopefully, one day, result in an Iraq that Iraqis control. If that happens, at least this wayward adventure will have a happy ending for someone. But even if Bush had been right to invade Iraq--and I still think, on balance, he made a mistake, no matter how much good the invasion could potentially achieve in some far-off, unimaginable future--he's clearly bungled every opportunity since. American involvement in Iraq and in the international community as a whole will only improve when Americans send a statement to Bush and to the world that we won't stand for this kind of "leadership" and demand a new way.
If this sounds like a bit of ABB--Anybody But Bush--well, it is. There are many good reasons to vote for Kerry; I've outlined many of them, including the ways he would change the tax code, his more enlightened social values, and his commitment to making health care affordable and available for many more Americans. (You can surely find more by visiting his website, www.johnkerry.com, and taking a look at some of his detailed plans.) But the single best reason to vote for John Kerry is (and will probably continue to be until this election is over) because he is not George W. Bush, whose categorical incompetence cannot be tolerated any longer. If we want to function in the world--if we want to function, as a nation, at all--it's time to drop the monkey and elect a higher form of primate.
Disclaimer: Where President Bush's smirking chimp appearance and clearly befuddled delivery once aroused angry passion when he spoke, they now lull me to sleep, acting as a sort of lullaby on the notion that anyone, no matter their skills, can one day become the leader of the free world. So while I watched his obscenely long address last night, it would be fair to say that I didn't absorb every nuance, if you can refer to such a thing when the speaker is so wholly without a sense of nuance in the first place.
With that said, I think Fred Kaplan's assessment of the address, and of Bush's position now, is a fair one. Maybe this was the perfect thing to say a year ago, but that ship has sailed. Today there is an emerging consensus among Americans and Iraqis: a whole lot of people in both countries think that America should get out of Iraq as soon as we can, and a whole lot of people in both countries agree that President Bush is thoroughly inept at handling this situation. With our credibility shot, it's time for new leadership of Iraqi operations. That starts with an increased role for the international community, ought to continue with a bit of regime change here in the United States this winter, and will hopefully, one day, result in an Iraq that Iraqis control. If that happens, at least this wayward adventure will have a happy ending for someone. But even if Bush had been right to invade Iraq--and I still think, on balance, he made a mistake, no matter how much good the invasion could potentially achieve in some far-off, unimaginable future--he's clearly bungled every opportunity since. American involvement in Iraq and in the international community as a whole will only improve when Americans send a statement to Bush and to the world that we won't stand for this kind of "leadership" and demand a new way.
If this sounds like a bit of ABB--Anybody But Bush--well, it is. There are many good reasons to vote for Kerry; I've outlined many of them, including the ways he would change the tax code, his more enlightened social values, and his commitment to making health care affordable and available for many more Americans. (You can surely find more by visiting his website, www.johnkerry.com, and taking a look at some of his detailed plans.) But the single best reason to vote for John Kerry is (and will probably continue to be until this election is over) because he is not George W. Bush, whose categorical incompetence cannot be tolerated any longer. If we want to function in the world--if we want to function, as a nation, at all--it's time to drop the monkey and elect a higher form of primate.
End Game
Fantasia should win American Idol
In 48 hours it will all be over--and I couldn't be happier. While I want very much to see Fantasia Barrino crowned the next Idol, I think I want, even more, to have my Tuesday and Wednesday nights back.
In any case, the article above offers several reasons why Fantasia ought to win; as most of you know, that's been my opinion pretty much from the moment she sang "Something to Talk About" and earned a place among the finalists. But for contrarians, here is an article with reasons Diana should win; they seem a bit soft to me.
Either way, Fantasia is set; according to this article, Missy Elliott already wants to work with her, and Clive Davis is getting ready to work on the album. All that remains is to win the crown, if only to ensure that the show remains a talent competition in future years.
In 48 hours it will all be over--and I couldn't be happier. While I want very much to see Fantasia Barrino crowned the next Idol, I think I want, even more, to have my Tuesday and Wednesday nights back.
In any case, the article above offers several reasons why Fantasia ought to win; as most of you know, that's been my opinion pretty much from the moment she sang "Something to Talk About" and earned a place among the finalists. But for contrarians, here is an article with reasons Diana should win; they seem a bit soft to me.
Either way, Fantasia is set; according to this article, Missy Elliott already wants to work with her, and Clive Davis is getting ready to work on the album. All that remains is to win the crown, if only to ensure that the show remains a talent competition in future years.
Monday, May 24, 2004
Open and Shut
The False Controversy of Stem Cells
Leave it to Michael Kinsley to make an issue that's been controversial for years seem simple. In this week's Time, Kinsley starts by offering a recap of how thinking on the issue has evolved in the three years since President Bush severely restricted stem-cell research. In short, Bush is out of step; even Nancy Reagan wants him to change his policy.
After summing up the developing public feeling on the issue, Kinsley proceeds to demolish any supposed rationale for the Bush policy. If you support the existence of fertility clinics, he says, you can't oppose stem-cell research--and, though it's never seemed this simple before, Kinsley is right. It is this simple. The end result for the vast majority of the embryos created in a fertility clinic is the same whether or not stem-cell research is allowed: they're destroyed. The question we should be asking isn't whether it's OK to destroy embryos; we apparently decided that a long time ago, judging by all the in vitro quintuplets being born, and the thousands of destroyed embryos their existence implies. We should be asking whether it's moral to restrict access to something that will be destroyed anyway when that something can be used to do research that has the potential to improve life for millions of people. If the answer to that question is controversial, this country is in worse shape than even Justice Scalia imagines.
Leave it to Michael Kinsley to make an issue that's been controversial for years seem simple. In this week's Time, Kinsley starts by offering a recap of how thinking on the issue has evolved in the three years since President Bush severely restricted stem-cell research. In short, Bush is out of step; even Nancy Reagan wants him to change his policy.
After summing up the developing public feeling on the issue, Kinsley proceeds to demolish any supposed rationale for the Bush policy. If you support the existence of fertility clinics, he says, you can't oppose stem-cell research--and, though it's never seemed this simple before, Kinsley is right. It is this simple. The end result for the vast majority of the embryos created in a fertility clinic is the same whether or not stem-cell research is allowed: they're destroyed. The question we should be asking isn't whether it's OK to destroy embryos; we apparently decided that a long time ago, judging by all the in vitro quintuplets being born, and the thousands of destroyed embryos their existence implies. We should be asking whether it's moral to restrict access to something that will be destroyed anyway when that something can be used to do research that has the potential to improve life for millions of people. If the answer to that question is controversial, this country is in worse shape than even Justice Scalia imagines.
Running Quickly
Exit Strategy - How to leave Iraq in three simple steps
This humorous piece oversimplifies the situation in Iraq, but it still does a good job of shedding light on the Iraqi predicament: as long as they keep killing us, we're forced to stick around and defend ourselves, but the moment they stop killing us--the moment they'll actually be ready to accept our help in making a better life--we're going to run like hell. Anyhow, it's pretty clear that Saunders is about as serious as Swift was about eating babies, but that doesn't mean the article isn't relevant--and rib-tickling.
This humorous piece oversimplifies the situation in Iraq, but it still does a good job of shedding light on the Iraqi predicament: as long as they keep killing us, we're forced to stick around and defend ourselves, but the moment they stop killing us--the moment they'll actually be ready to accept our help in making a better life--we're going to run like hell. Anyhow, it's pretty clear that Saunders is about as serious as Swift was about eating babies, but that doesn't mean the article isn't relevant--and rib-tickling.
End of the Innocence
Death of a Mafia bride-to-be
So close, now so far away. Last night's Sopranos brought Adriana within minutes of escaping the tangled web of deceit that has surrounded her since the day the government began pushing her to be an informer--in a brief daydream sequence, we even saw her leaving--only to bring an end to her life instead. As the article above points out, the impact on the show of this death is enormous. Christopher has chosen--apparently on the basis of his preference for a Hummer over a very used Chevy, if the scene preceding Adriana's death is to be believed--to be loyal to Tony despite his recent fury over perceived slights. Tony has chosen to kill someone who was practically a family member, several steps beyond having Meadow's wayward boyfriend (Jackie Aprile, Jr.) killed last season.
All this happens just as Tony was coming around, reconciling with Carmela and moving back into the house after a very long season of living in his mother's old house and, last week, at the Plaza. On a show that performs an amazing trick each week--making the audience care about people who are pretty despicable in their thievery and illicit killing--it will be hard to make people forget that Christopher betrayed his own soon-to-be bride, or that Tony Soprano could come down so hard and so quickly on someone he appeared to love like a daughter. As the Sopranos go to war with Johnny Sack and New York, as it appears they will, it's going to be hard not to root for Johnny.
So close, now so far away. Last night's Sopranos brought Adriana within minutes of escaping the tangled web of deceit that has surrounded her since the day the government began pushing her to be an informer--in a brief daydream sequence, we even saw her leaving--only to bring an end to her life instead. As the article above points out, the impact on the show of this death is enormous. Christopher has chosen--apparently on the basis of his preference for a Hummer over a very used Chevy, if the scene preceding Adriana's death is to be believed--to be loyal to Tony despite his recent fury over perceived slights. Tony has chosen to kill someone who was practically a family member, several steps beyond having Meadow's wayward boyfriend (Jackie Aprile, Jr.) killed last season.
All this happens just as Tony was coming around, reconciling with Carmela and moving back into the house after a very long season of living in his mother's old house and, last week, at the Plaza. On a show that performs an amazing trick each week--making the audience care about people who are pretty despicable in their thievery and illicit killing--it will be hard to make people forget that Christopher betrayed his own soon-to-be bride, or that Tony Soprano could come down so hard and so quickly on someone he appeared to love like a daughter. As the Sopranos go to war with Johnny Sack and New York, as it appears they will, it's going to be hard not to root for Johnny.
Saturday, May 22, 2004
Paul Collins, Not Even Wrong: Adventures in Autism
Not Even Wrong : Adventures in Autism
Those who know me will understand the depth of the following compliment: This book made me care deeply about a child and about parenting. As a person whose imagined future plans have almost never included children, my threshold for empathy with a memoir of parental experiences is pretty high--to me, you had a choice and you made it, knowing full well that your kid, like all kids, would one day be a bratty teenager. Maybe that's why this book works--because Paul Collins and his wife didn't have a choice about their son, Morgan, being born autistic.
The way that Collins blends a momentous year in the life of his family with a variety of stories about the history of autism and notable autists (including many whose conditions have been diagnosed posthumously, because autism wasn't understood at all until recently) works, too. We feel his pain and his growth, and laugh and cry with him, even as he gently gives us a textbook education in the development of society's understanding of the condition, from Peter the Wild Boy to Rainman and beyond.
Quietly, deftly, Collins also seeks to reshape the way we think about autism. For instance, he says, "Autists are described by others--and by themselves--as aliens among humans. But there's an irony to this, for precisely the opposite is true. They are us, and to understand them is to begin to understand what it means to be human. Think of it: a disability is usually defined in terms of what is missing. A child tugs at his or her parents and whispers, 'Where's that man's arm?' But autism is an ability and a disability: it is as much about what is abundant as what is missing, an overexpression of the very traits that make our species unique. Other animals are social, but only humans are capable of abstract logic. The autistic outhuman the humans, and we can scarcely recognize the result."
And then, of course, we have the moment when Collins sees an adult version of his son at a fast food restaurant and watches the reaction of people around him, then walks a few blocks, stops, sits down on the stoop of a church, and cries. "I can't bear the thought that someday, somehow, someone will be cruel to my child. Or pretend that he is not even there." His pain is palpable; you can't help but care about him and empathize with his struggle.
Destined to be a comfort to parents of autistic children, this most recent Paul Collins book is a worthwhile and exceptionally enjoyable read with or without such a personal stake. Even more than Sixpence House, this book perfects the genre of personal history and intense research into the arcane that Collins is creating for himself. Give him 200 pages of your time.
Those who know me will understand the depth of the following compliment: This book made me care deeply about a child and about parenting. As a person whose imagined future plans have almost never included children, my threshold for empathy with a memoir of parental experiences is pretty high--to me, you had a choice and you made it, knowing full well that your kid, like all kids, would one day be a bratty teenager. Maybe that's why this book works--because Paul Collins and his wife didn't have a choice about their son, Morgan, being born autistic.
The way that Collins blends a momentous year in the life of his family with a variety of stories about the history of autism and notable autists (including many whose conditions have been diagnosed posthumously, because autism wasn't understood at all until recently) works, too. We feel his pain and his growth, and laugh and cry with him, even as he gently gives us a textbook education in the development of society's understanding of the condition, from Peter the Wild Boy to Rainman and beyond.
Quietly, deftly, Collins also seeks to reshape the way we think about autism. For instance, he says, "Autists are described by others--and by themselves--as aliens among humans. But there's an irony to this, for precisely the opposite is true. They are us, and to understand them is to begin to understand what it means to be human. Think of it: a disability is usually defined in terms of what is missing. A child tugs at his or her parents and whispers, 'Where's that man's arm?' But autism is an ability and a disability: it is as much about what is abundant as what is missing, an overexpression of the very traits that make our species unique. Other animals are social, but only humans are capable of abstract logic. The autistic outhuman the humans, and we can scarcely recognize the result."
And then, of course, we have the moment when Collins sees an adult version of his son at a fast food restaurant and watches the reaction of people around him, then walks a few blocks, stops, sits down on the stoop of a church, and cries. "I can't bear the thought that someday, somehow, someone will be cruel to my child. Or pretend that he is not even there." His pain is palpable; you can't help but care about him and empathize with his struggle.
Destined to be a comfort to parents of autistic children, this most recent Paul Collins book is a worthwhile and exceptionally enjoyable read with or without such a personal stake. Even more than Sixpence House, this book perfects the genre of personal history and intense research into the arcane that Collins is creating for himself. Give him 200 pages of your time.
Friday, May 21, 2004
Hope for Politics
Race Against History
Barack Obama's campaign for Senate in Illinois is getting national attention--and for good reason. He's a unique candidate, with impressive qualfications and the ability to deliver convincing speeches rather than simple sound bites. And if the opinions being voiced by every expert in the nation have any basis in reality, he's a shoo-in; after winning a seven-candidate primary with 53% of the vote, and running against a weak candidate in Ryan, in a state that keeps tilting more and more Democratic, do you really think Obama will lose? Politics today often inspires cynicism. Take pleasure in the fact that, at least in Illinois, we have someone to make us feel hopeful.
Barack Obama's campaign for Senate in Illinois is getting national attention--and for good reason. He's a unique candidate, with impressive qualfications and the ability to deliver convincing speeches rather than simple sound bites. And if the opinions being voiced by every expert in the nation have any basis in reality, he's a shoo-in; after winning a seven-candidate primary with 53% of the vote, and running against a weak candidate in Ryan, in a state that keeps tilting more and more Democratic, do you really think Obama will lose? Politics today often inspires cynicism. Take pleasure in the fact that, at least in Illinois, we have someone to make us feel hopeful.
Fair Fight
Kerry Considers Delaying Nomination
Bravo, John Kerry. I've been worried about the month after the Democratic Convention, when George Bush will still be raising unlimited funds from donors and you'll be stuck with your federal financing. If Kerry delays accepting the nomination for a month--until Bush accepts his--he can continue to raise and spend money in the same fashion as Bush rather than spending a month getting pummeled. Kerry promised when he was running in the primaries that he would take the fight to Bush every day, and this kind of bold move is a great way to show that he meant it.
Bravo, John Kerry. I've been worried about the month after the Democratic Convention, when George Bush will still be raising unlimited funds from donors and you'll be stuck with your federal financing. If Kerry delays accepting the nomination for a month--until Bush accepts his--he can continue to raise and spend money in the same fashion as Bush rather than spending a month getting pummeled. Kerry promised when he was running in the primaries that he would take the fight to Bush every day, and this kind of bold move is a great way to show that he meant it.
Zero Tolerance
A Dash of Comma Sense
As I doubt many of you have been inspired by my excitement to read a book about grammar, here's George Will's column for today, which condenses a great deal of the message and humor of Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots & Leaves into a few pages. But I still recommend the book...
As I doubt many of you have been inspired by my excitement to read a book about grammar, here's George Will's column for today, which condenses a great deal of the message and humor of Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots & Leaves into a few pages. But I still recommend the book...
Thursday, May 20, 2004
TV timeout
The next 'Idol': Fantasia or Diana
It was a television marathon last night. How would The West Wing wrap up its fifth--and weakest--season? (Pretty badly, despite potential Josh-Donna progress.) How would my beloved Timberwolves fare in their first game seven? (Well enough to win and move on to face the Lakers in the Western Conference Finals, thanks to the MVP.) Would Jasmine Trias finally go home to Hawaii? (Oh, yes!)
At long last, American Idol is down to its final two. Only four more hours for Fox to stretch the limits of the advertising to programming ratio, though at this point I think we've learned that the limit is 1.00, since the entire show is dedicated to selling something, whether it's the new Tamyra Gray CD--didn't she knock it out of the park, by the way, on "Raindrops Will Fall?"--or the upcoming debuts of the two finalists. The only time during the show and the commercial breaks that isn't meant to sell a product is time spent selling other Fox programming. By the way, that four hours only includes the performance and results shows, while Fox is running two more hours of audition footage tonight and an hour special Sunday on the "Idol phenomenon." Maybe they really didn't learn anything from Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.
But I digress from the more important point: This competition should now belong to Fantasia. I don't know the format of next week's competition--last year it involved picking songs out of a hat and singing the new single, but who can guess how they'll fill two hours?--but knowing that Fantasia gets to sing last means I know she has the chance to bring the house down, and after the way she stepped up this week, you've got to believe she'll come through on Tuesday. I know there are all sorts of demographic reasons why Diana can win, from the fact that she's a bubbly teen to the disdain Fantasia's supposed arrogance inspires to the concerted effort by the Christian Right to prevent a teen mother from winning the competition, but I've got to believe that America as a whole is a place that recognizes and rewards talent and excellence. This season has had bumps--it should be Jennifer or La Toya facing Fantasia in the finale. Here's hoping Simon's final comment to Fantasia proves prescient, though.
Simon: "What does it say behind you?"
Fantasia: "American Idol."
Exactly.
It was a television marathon last night. How would The West Wing wrap up its fifth--and weakest--season? (Pretty badly, despite potential Josh-Donna progress.) How would my beloved Timberwolves fare in their first game seven? (Well enough to win and move on to face the Lakers in the Western Conference Finals, thanks to the MVP.) Would Jasmine Trias finally go home to Hawaii? (Oh, yes!)
At long last, American Idol is down to its final two. Only four more hours for Fox to stretch the limits of the advertising to programming ratio, though at this point I think we've learned that the limit is 1.00, since the entire show is dedicated to selling something, whether it's the new Tamyra Gray CD--didn't she knock it out of the park, by the way, on "Raindrops Will Fall?"--or the upcoming debuts of the two finalists. The only time during the show and the commercial breaks that isn't meant to sell a product is time spent selling other Fox programming. By the way, that four hours only includes the performance and results shows, while Fox is running two more hours of audition footage tonight and an hour special Sunday on the "Idol phenomenon." Maybe they really didn't learn anything from Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.
But I digress from the more important point: This competition should now belong to Fantasia. I don't know the format of next week's competition--last year it involved picking songs out of a hat and singing the new single, but who can guess how they'll fill two hours?--but knowing that Fantasia gets to sing last means I know she has the chance to bring the house down, and after the way she stepped up this week, you've got to believe she'll come through on Tuesday. I know there are all sorts of demographic reasons why Diana can win, from the fact that she's a bubbly teen to the disdain Fantasia's supposed arrogance inspires to the concerted effort by the Christian Right to prevent a teen mother from winning the competition, but I've got to believe that America as a whole is a place that recognizes and rewards talent and excellence. This season has had bumps--it should be Jennifer or La Toya facing Fantasia in the finale. Here's hoping Simon's final comment to Fantasia proves prescient, though.
Simon: "What does it say behind you?"
Fantasia: "American Idol."
Exactly.
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
Foregone Conclusion?
Poll: Edwards Makes Kerry Viable in N.C.
He won CNN's Veepstakes, and today he's lifting Kerry to a dead-heat in a state Democrats haven't won since Carter ran in 1976. Now that John Edwards has the total package--name recognition, boyish charm, phenomenal stage presence, southern credibility, and the ability to potentially wrestle a state out of Bush's grasp--is there any question about who Kerry will choose? Unless John McCain relents and joins the "unity ticket" proposed by Andrew Sullivan and Joe Biden last week, I think we're on a crash course for Kerry-Edwards. Which is good, because we need someone out there who makes sense when he talks. Check out Slate's new feature: Kerryisms.
He won CNN's Veepstakes, and today he's lifting Kerry to a dead-heat in a state Democrats haven't won since Carter ran in 1976. Now that John Edwards has the total package--name recognition, boyish charm, phenomenal stage presence, southern credibility, and the ability to potentially wrestle a state out of Bush's grasp--is there any question about who Kerry will choose? Unless John McCain relents and joins the "unity ticket" proposed by Andrew Sullivan and Joe Biden last week, I think we're on a crash course for Kerry-Edwards. Which is good, because we need someone out there who makes sense when he talks. Check out Slate's new feature: Kerryisms.
Irresponsible
GOP Takes a Chance on Weakened Tax Cuts
It's official: The GOP doesn't give a damn about balancing the budget. Here's Tom Delay explaining why every Republican should vote with him:
"The moderates need to read the Republican philosophy," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, told a reporter when asked why moderate GOP senators should support the plan. "What we believe is you don't have paygo for tax cuts."
Paygo, of course, means finding money in the budget to pay for something before you start doing it, whether that something is a new program or a new tax cut. Which forces me to ask: Is DeLay right? Is this the new central tenet of the GOP? I could have sworn growing up they were the party of fiscal responsibility, or at least that was the claim they made. Can you make statements like this one and still claim to be serious about cutting the deficit? Can you read quotes like this and not vote for a Democrat this fall?
It's official: The GOP doesn't give a damn about balancing the budget. Here's Tom Delay explaining why every Republican should vote with him:
"The moderates need to read the Republican philosophy," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, told a reporter when asked why moderate GOP senators should support the plan. "What we believe is you don't have paygo for tax cuts."
Paygo, of course, means finding money in the budget to pay for something before you start doing it, whether that something is a new program or a new tax cut. Which forces me to ask: Is DeLay right? Is this the new central tenet of the GOP? I could have sworn growing up they were the party of fiscal responsibility, or at least that was the claim they made. Can you make statements like this one and still claim to be serious about cutting the deficit? Can you read quotes like this and not vote for a Democrat this fall?
Idol Fantasy
In light of Tuesday night's performances on American Idol, allow me to make this public proclamation: if tonight's results show sees the end of Fantasia's run, I will not watch this season's finale. If the voting procedures aren't changed, I will never watch the show again. I tried to vote probably 100 times last night and succeeded exactly once. Either Fantasia was getting so many votes she didn't need mine, or this system is even more fatally flawed than it already appeared.
I wasn't sure if I was overhyping Fantasia in my mind, so I brought a Whitney Houston CD in the car this morning and listened to "The Greatest Love of All," the third song Fantasia sang last night. Clive Davis said last night--to Jasmine, after her botched rendition of "Saving All My Love For You"--that no one can be better than Whitney, but he was wrong. Fantasia's rendition of "Greatest" had more passion, more emotion, more heart, and more excitement than Whitney's. She does more than hit the right notes; she hits the feelings in a song in a way that makes her younger competition look and sound like a couple of virginal robots.
Speaking of which, making Jasmine sing "All By Myself" was a cruel joke. For one thing, La Toya sang the same song earlier in the season (it's available on idolonfox.com, I think) and nailed it. For another thing, lines about when "making love was just for fun" don't sound right coming from her. She's just a kid, plain and simple. Sweet and nice, perhaps, but probably only the sixth or seventh best singer this season. As Simon said, it has to end tonight.
But with folks like this guy around, Fantasia will probably go home tonight. Don't worry, Fantasia. I'll buy your record the day it comes out; so will a million other people. How many people will really want to sit through a whole CD of Jasmine or even Diana?
I wasn't sure if I was overhyping Fantasia in my mind, so I brought a Whitney Houston CD in the car this morning and listened to "The Greatest Love of All," the third song Fantasia sang last night. Clive Davis said last night--to Jasmine, after her botched rendition of "Saving All My Love For You"--that no one can be better than Whitney, but he was wrong. Fantasia's rendition of "Greatest" had more passion, more emotion, more heart, and more excitement than Whitney's. She does more than hit the right notes; she hits the feelings in a song in a way that makes her younger competition look and sound like a couple of virginal robots.
Speaking of which, making Jasmine sing "All By Myself" was a cruel joke. For one thing, La Toya sang the same song earlier in the season (it's available on idolonfox.com, I think) and nailed it. For another thing, lines about when "making love was just for fun" don't sound right coming from her. She's just a kid, plain and simple. Sweet and nice, perhaps, but probably only the sixth or seventh best singer this season. As Simon said, it has to end tonight.
But with folks like this guy around, Fantasia will probably go home tonight. Don't worry, Fantasia. I'll buy your record the day it comes out; so will a million other people. How many people will really want to sit through a whole CD of Jasmine or even Diana?
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Andrew Sean Greer, The Confessions of Max Tivoli
The Confessions of Max Tivoli
In attempting to find words to describe Andrew Sean Greer's new novel, I discover none, so I refer you to the words of the New York Times and of John Updike in the New Yorker. For its portrayal of pre-earthquake San Francisco, its deft weaving of history with the tale of a man aging backwards, and its unique meditation on the endurance and importance of loving someone no matter the circumstances, I have little doubt that this book will make many year-end best-of lists and not a few prize shortlists as well. This is a remarkable reminder of the power of fiction.
In attempting to find words to describe Andrew Sean Greer's new novel, I discover none, so I refer you to the words of the New York Times and of John Updike in the New Yorker. For its portrayal of pre-earthquake San Francisco, its deft weaving of history with the tale of a man aging backwards, and its unique meditation on the endurance and importance of loving someone no matter the circumstances, I have little doubt that this book will make many year-end best-of lists and not a few prize shortlists as well. This is a remarkable reminder of the power of fiction.
Battleship Sunk
Locked in Abu Ghraib - The prison scandal keeps getting worse for the Bush administration
It looks like it's game over for the Bush presidency. As Fred Kaplan reports in Slate, if the investigations coming to light this week are true--and it sure looks like they are--then the horrific images of abuse we've been treated to these last few weeks were the result of a program that the administration not only knew about, but ordered. It doesn't matter that what the United States has done pales in comparison to daily life under Saddam. We're supposed to be better than this, whether Senator Inhofe thinks so or not--and most of America agrees. And as the revelations about Bush's refusal to go after Zarqawi when he had the chance, and Zarqawi's subsequent string of violence, including the beheading of Nicholas Berg, make clear, it's hard not to see Bush's hands and imagine the blood dripping from them.
As Kaplan points out, there's precious little Bush can do to stop the onslaught that he has created. Firing Rumsfeld would make Bush the flip-flopper; there goes not only his negative ad campaign against Kerry, but also the only real reason--his resoluteness in the face of circumstances that would make others reconsider--that people, other than his loyal fundamentalist base, still support him.
The last time a presidency crashed and burned, in 1992, most of us were too young to appreciate the spectacle. The time before that, 1980, many of us, including me, were too young even to know who the president was. Take time out, this time, to watch the flames dance. And hope--pray, if you're so inclined--that we never witness a train wreck like this again.
It looks like it's game over for the Bush presidency. As Fred Kaplan reports in Slate, if the investigations coming to light this week are true--and it sure looks like they are--then the horrific images of abuse we've been treated to these last few weeks were the result of a program that the administration not only knew about, but ordered. It doesn't matter that what the United States has done pales in comparison to daily life under Saddam. We're supposed to be better than this, whether Senator Inhofe thinks so or not--and most of America agrees. And as the revelations about Bush's refusal to go after Zarqawi when he had the chance, and Zarqawi's subsequent string of violence, including the beheading of Nicholas Berg, make clear, it's hard not to see Bush's hands and imagine the blood dripping from them.
As Kaplan points out, there's precious little Bush can do to stop the onslaught that he has created. Firing Rumsfeld would make Bush the flip-flopper; there goes not only his negative ad campaign against Kerry, but also the only real reason--his resoluteness in the face of circumstances that would make others reconsider--that people, other than his loyal fundamentalist base, still support him.
The last time a presidency crashed and burned, in 1992, most of us were too young to appreciate the spectacle. The time before that, 1980, many of us, including me, were too young even to know who the president was. Take time out, this time, to watch the flames dance. And hope--pray, if you're so inclined--that we never witness a train wreck like this again.
Monday, May 17, 2004
Jubilation
It's the happiest day of the year today, even if John Kerry wins on Election Day. Click here to read Howard Dean's op-ed regarding gay marriage, and click here for Andrew Sullivan's op-ed about the importance of this day. Tomorrow there will be legal challenges, battles in the other 49 states, and backlash; today, we celebrate.
Friday, May 14, 2004
He Knew
The Buck Stops … Where?
The image of George Bush as an incurious oaf is disturbing enough, isn't it? Now we find out that he knew about the abuse in Iraq months ago and did nothing about it. Worse, he had several chances to take out Zarqawi--the guy who cut off Nicholas Berg's head on camera--before the war in Iraq ever started. Can you guess why he didn't?
That's right: Bush didn't go after the only terrorist camp in Iraq because eliminating it would have undermined his case for war there, and he was bound and determined to have that war no matter what. An attack on the camp in 2002 would have eliminated a dangerous threat--and potentially saved thousands of lives by allowing us to avoid war in Iraq.
Until now, I thought it would be appropriate for Rumsfeld to resign because he failed to recognize the importance of the abuse taking place in Abu Ghraib and had failed in so many other important ways during the run-up and aftermath of this war. Today, I'm forced to strengthen my position: President Bush, the blood of thousands of Americans and Iraqis is on your hands. You have failed the American people by your judgment and by your lack of judgment. You have lost our confidence. The time has come for you and Vice President Cheney to step down. And take Rumsfeld with you for good measure.
The image of George Bush as an incurious oaf is disturbing enough, isn't it? Now we find out that he knew about the abuse in Iraq months ago and did nothing about it. Worse, he had several chances to take out Zarqawi--the guy who cut off Nicholas Berg's head on camera--before the war in Iraq ever started. Can you guess why he didn't?
That's right: Bush didn't go after the only terrorist camp in Iraq because eliminating it would have undermined his case for war there, and he was bound and determined to have that war no matter what. An attack on the camp in 2002 would have eliminated a dangerous threat--and potentially saved thousands of lives by allowing us to avoid war in Iraq.
Until now, I thought it would be appropriate for Rumsfeld to resign because he failed to recognize the importance of the abuse taking place in Abu Ghraib and had failed in so many other important ways during the run-up and aftermath of this war. Today, I'm forced to strengthen my position: President Bush, the blood of thousands of Americans and Iraqis is on your hands. You have failed the American people by your judgment and by your lack of judgment. You have lost our confidence. The time has come for you and Vice President Cheney to step down. And take Rumsfeld with you for good measure.
As Ohio Goes...
Kerry Edges Ahead of Bush in Ohio
So goes the nation. Kerry leads by seven points in Ohio--with or without Nader in the race. Considering the onslaught of negative ads from Bush, for Kerry to be tracking around 50 percent is remarkable. If he can win Ohio...well, I'd be willing to bet that if Kerry wins Ohio, he'll be the president in January. Yes, it's still early, but Bush is hemorrhaging support.
Jasmine Trias isn't, though. Every media outlet in Hawaii is doing its best to keep her on American Idol, as this article details. Fox may not be willing to release the details of voting, but the numbers from Verizon, Hawaii's phone company, don't lie: When Hawaii has the third-highest call volume in a big portion of the nation, something is up. It may take a tsunami in the Pacific next Tuesday night to prevent Miss Trias from claiming the crown.
So goes the nation. Kerry leads by seven points in Ohio--with or without Nader in the race. Considering the onslaught of negative ads from Bush, for Kerry to be tracking around 50 percent is remarkable. If he can win Ohio...well, I'd be willing to bet that if Kerry wins Ohio, he'll be the president in January. Yes, it's still early, but Bush is hemorrhaging support.
Jasmine Trias isn't, though. Every media outlet in Hawaii is doing its best to keep her on American Idol, as this article details. Fox may not be willing to release the details of voting, but the numbers from Verizon, Hawaii's phone company, don't lie: When Hawaii has the third-highest call volume in a big portion of the nation, something is up. It may take a tsunami in the Pacific next Tuesday night to prevent Miss Trias from claiming the crown.
Thursday, May 13, 2004
More Regime Change
OK, the old comments will be gone sooner than I originally said. In fact, they're gone--now. Hope you like the new site.
Test
Apparently Blogger is now offering comments. This post should let us find out what they look like...and now that we know, let's use the Blogger comments from now on. I'll keep the old ones around for a while for reference.
Regime Change
Dancing Alone
OK, now even Thomas Friedman is convinced: It's time for Bush to go. Utterly lacking achievements on any other front, this administration's signature issue and accomplishment was supposed to be its success at waging war. But an utter lack of humility, and of willingness to listen to the opinions of anyone not in lockstep with its vision of the world, has caused Bush, Inc., to botch even the one thing it looked like it might do right. The willingness to pander to your base above any other concern may win you an election; it may even help you in the mid-terms. But Bush's poll numbers are in the toilet; you can't spit without finding someone who's run the numbers and noticed that nobody with approval numbers this low at this point in his term has ever been re-elected. I know, I know: Bush is special because he never got elected in the first place. But as long as Kerry can cling to the mantle of acceptability, it's hard to imagine that a plurality of American will decide they should let Bush keep his job when he's done so much to make it harder for them to keep theirs.
Of course, elections turn on who turns out, which could explain why Jasmine Trias wasn't even in the bottom two last night despite two wretched performances on Tuesday. Were all the adults too busy getting ready for the Frasier finale to watch and vote for La Toya and Fantasia? Check out this article; at the bottom of the page you'll see voting on who should go and who will win. Diana has a good shot now. One thing seems certain: people will vote again next week. Everyone I've talked to about the show thought this week was a given--Jasmine was going home. No one will be taking that for granted again next week.
OK, now even Thomas Friedman is convinced: It's time for Bush to go. Utterly lacking achievements on any other front, this administration's signature issue and accomplishment was supposed to be its success at waging war. But an utter lack of humility, and of willingness to listen to the opinions of anyone not in lockstep with its vision of the world, has caused Bush, Inc., to botch even the one thing it looked like it might do right. The willingness to pander to your base above any other concern may win you an election; it may even help you in the mid-terms. But Bush's poll numbers are in the toilet; you can't spit without finding someone who's run the numbers and noticed that nobody with approval numbers this low at this point in his term has ever been re-elected. I know, I know: Bush is special because he never got elected in the first place. But as long as Kerry can cling to the mantle of acceptability, it's hard to imagine that a plurality of American will decide they should let Bush keep his job when he's done so much to make it harder for them to keep theirs.
Of course, elections turn on who turns out, which could explain why Jasmine Trias wasn't even in the bottom two last night despite two wretched performances on Tuesday. Were all the adults too busy getting ready for the Frasier finale to watch and vote for La Toya and Fantasia? Check out this article; at the bottom of the page you'll see voting on who should go and who will win. Diana has a good shot now. One thing seems certain: people will vote again next week. Everyone I've talked to about the show thought this week was a given--Jasmine was going home. No one will be taking that for granted again next week.
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Long Flight Home
Was this the last dance for Jasmine?
By this time tomorrow, Jasmine Trias will be on a flight back to Hawaii, or Simon Cowell's head will have exploded. She's snuck through to this point, but last night Jasmine was outclassed by such a large margin by all three of her competitors that seeing her stay on the show would cause a bigger outcry than the ouster of Jennifer Hudson. (Speaking of J-Hud, wouldn't she have been great last night?)
At the end of the show last night, I was left saying to myself, "Wow. Diana could actually win this thing." I think I've gotten so used to the week-after-week competence of La Toya and Fantasia that Diana's emergence is more exciting to me. Nevertheless, I hope Fantasia and La Toya survive to the final two--but check back with me this time next week. You never know.
By this time tomorrow, Jasmine Trias will be on a flight back to Hawaii, or Simon Cowell's head will have exploded. She's snuck through to this point, but last night Jasmine was outclassed by such a large margin by all three of her competitors that seeing her stay on the show would cause a bigger outcry than the ouster of Jennifer Hudson. (Speaking of J-Hud, wouldn't she have been great last night?)
At the end of the show last night, I was left saying to myself, "Wow. Diana could actually win this thing." I think I've gotten so used to the week-after-week competence of La Toya and Fantasia that Diana's emergence is more exciting to me. Nevertheless, I hope Fantasia and La Toya survive to the final two--but check back with me this time next week. You never know.
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Fallout
That's the Ticket
Andrew Sullivan explains why recent atrocities in Iraq make a Kerry-McCain ticket more likely than ever--though still, he's quick to say, a stretch. Is Sullivan right? Would Kerry-McCain win in a romp? I think so: Kerry, despite his lackluster campaign thus far, has a 50/50 shot right now as it is. Adding McCain would bring Kerry droves of independent voters, fire a symbolic shot across the Republican bow, and energize people who have been holding out for a more credible alternative to Bush-Cheney. They'd surely take such swing states as McCain's home state of Arizona, lock up the Pacific Northwest, and likely put to rest any Bush ambitions in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. Incumbents tend to win big or lose big. With McCain on the Kerry ticket, I think we can assume it would be the latter.
Speaking of Republicans helping good causes, Nancy's Reagan's plea over the weekend is a promising development in the battle over stem cell research. I can't imagine it will make any difference in Bush's policies, but I'm betting it will remind a few people that Bush doesn't always make policy decisions based on what's best for the country, instead choosing to look inward and ask himself what his strikingly conservative version of Jesus would do. Let's hope they remember that in November.
Andrew Sullivan explains why recent atrocities in Iraq make a Kerry-McCain ticket more likely than ever--though still, he's quick to say, a stretch. Is Sullivan right? Would Kerry-McCain win in a romp? I think so: Kerry, despite his lackluster campaign thus far, has a 50/50 shot right now as it is. Adding McCain would bring Kerry droves of independent voters, fire a symbolic shot across the Republican bow, and energize people who have been holding out for a more credible alternative to Bush-Cheney. They'd surely take such swing states as McCain's home state of Arizona, lock up the Pacific Northwest, and likely put to rest any Bush ambitions in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. Incumbents tend to win big or lose big. With McCain on the Kerry ticket, I think we can assume it would be the latter.
Speaking of Republicans helping good causes, Nancy's Reagan's plea over the weekend is a promising development in the battle over stem cell research. I can't imagine it will make any difference in Bush's policies, but I'm betting it will remind a few people that Bush doesn't always make policy decisions based on what's best for the country, instead choosing to look inward and ask himself what his strikingly conservative version of Jesus would do. Let's hope they remember that in November.
Monday, May 10, 2004
Hit Me Up
John Kerry for President
I could have sworn this was supposed to be the week John Kerry didn't ask for money. Obviously I was wrong: this morning I got a call asking me if I could pledge $100 to the campaign. Do they know what I bring home? I finally settled on (another) $25 contribution; feel free to join me above.
That was the second weird phone experience of my morning. The first came at 4:45 when my voice mail chime went off. No one calls at 4:45 unless it's important, I thought, so I checked the message. Suddenly, eerily, I was hearing my own voice: the message was from me to my landlord, from more than a month ago. How did that end up coming back to me--and in the pre-dawn hours of Monday morning?
We went downtown again this weekend to hear the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. It was a night of firsts--first symphonies, that is, as the orchestra played Mahler 1 and Prokofiev 1. The performance was phenomenal, but the highlight of the night was this: on our way to Italian Village last weekend, Brad and I ran into a security guard who needed $6.75 to take the train home; he had lost his wallet. The guy was dressed in uniform and he had a badge--plus, with Brad there, I couldn't pretend I didn't hear him. The guy even said that if we gave him a business card, he'd send the money when he got home, so I gave him one. Fast forward to this weekend: we're headed down Monroe to Italian Village, hoping this time we'll get a table with enough time to eat before the concert (we did, and it was great!), and who do we see? He started his story again, but we cut him off. After insisting that he wasn't the same guy (to which I responded, "You've even got the same badge number"--thank goodness for my freaky memory), he finally grinned and blessed us, caught and grateful that we were able to laugh about it rather than calling over one of the nearby police officers. As we walked away, Brad and I agreed that it was worth seven bucks to catch the guy in his lie.
I could have sworn this was supposed to be the week John Kerry didn't ask for money. Obviously I was wrong: this morning I got a call asking me if I could pledge $100 to the campaign. Do they know what I bring home? I finally settled on (another) $25 contribution; feel free to join me above.
That was the second weird phone experience of my morning. The first came at 4:45 when my voice mail chime went off. No one calls at 4:45 unless it's important, I thought, so I checked the message. Suddenly, eerily, I was hearing my own voice: the message was from me to my landlord, from more than a month ago. How did that end up coming back to me--and in the pre-dawn hours of Monday morning?
We went downtown again this weekend to hear the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. It was a night of firsts--first symphonies, that is, as the orchestra played Mahler 1 and Prokofiev 1. The performance was phenomenal, but the highlight of the night was this: on our way to Italian Village last weekend, Brad and I ran into a security guard who needed $6.75 to take the train home; he had lost his wallet. The guy was dressed in uniform and he had a badge--plus, with Brad there, I couldn't pretend I didn't hear him. The guy even said that if we gave him a business card, he'd send the money when he got home, so I gave him one. Fast forward to this weekend: we're headed down Monroe to Italian Village, hoping this time we'll get a table with enough time to eat before the concert (we did, and it was great!), and who do we see? He started his story again, but we cut him off. After insisting that he wasn't the same guy (to which I responded, "You've even got the same badge number"--thank goodness for my freaky memory), he finally grinned and blessed us, caught and grateful that we were able to laugh about it rather than calling over one of the nearby police officers. As we walked away, Brad and I agreed that it was worth seven bucks to catch the guy in his lie.
Friday, May 07, 2004
Dumberer Than Dirt
The Misunderestimated Man
How Bush chose stupidity
It's Friday, so here's something fun: an article that considers whether President Bush's well-chronicled troubles with the English language are really indicative of a larger problem. The answer, of course, is yes, but there's more to it than that, according to Jacob Weisberg: Bush wears his stupidity like a shield, deflecting difficult charges by appearing not to know what's going on. This, strangely, makes it very difficult to stop him, and hard to criticize him without also feeling sorry for him. Enjoy.
How Bush chose stupidity
It's Friday, so here's something fun: an article that considers whether President Bush's well-chronicled troubles with the English language are really indicative of a larger problem. The answer, of course, is yes, but there's more to it than that, according to Jacob Weisberg: Bush wears his stupidity like a shield, deflecting difficult charges by appearing not to know what's going on. This, strangely, makes it very difficult to stop him, and hard to criticize him without also feeling sorry for him. Enjoy.
Thursday, May 06, 2004
Countdown
Just Drop By - How Friends became palatable after the ironies of Seinfeld
If you thought I'd be writing today about Bush's speeches to the Arab world yesterday (Thomas Friedman's column on that general topic is great, by the way), or about the fact that American Idol has become a diva-fest (and rightly so, I've decided, after George's bland performance of "Cheek to Cheek" last night--though I'll miss him), you must not have been paying attention to me these last, oh, ten years. I woke up this morning dreading the fact that in a few hours, one of my favorite shows--a show I started watching before I could drive--will be over tonight.
Of course, I'm not the only one writing about this topic today.
The previews are, as usual, both promising and confusing--how can we see the door to the jetway close before Ross catches Rachel, but also see him talking to her in the airport and telling her not to get on the plane? And what of the scene, shown for weeks during teasers, where Rachel tells Ross she's sorry as she heads for the jetway door? Judging by these scenes, and the apparent chronology they would have to follow--Ross chases Rachel, tells her not to go, she says she's sorry, she walks away, the door closes--we're being led to believe that she gets on the plane for Paris, and once that jetway door closes, what can she do? Cry all the way to France?
With all this evidence, I'm left fearing the worst--an unhappy ending for Ross and Rachel's ten-year relationship--while believing that the show's creators would never close the story that way. In any case, my hopes for tonight:
* Monica and Chandler get to hold their baby before the end of the show. The look on her face--and his--would be priceless.
* Joey's move to L.A. is explained in advance of his spinoff show.
* Phoebe's husband, Mike (Paul Rudd) makes one last appearance on the show. His presence on the show during the ninth season kept it afloat when a lot of the plot was pretty serious stuff.
* Gunther makes one last appearance. If Janice can get a final moment in the sun, why not Gunther? He's been hanging around for ten years. (Which is pretty unbelievable, when you think about it--how many people work in one coffee shop for a decade?)
* Ross and Rachel end up together. I don't care if the show ends with a wedding, a kiss in a hotel in Paris, Rachel deciding to stay in New York--as long as the writers find a way to make it clear that these two have chosen one another, I'll be satisfied.
If you thought I'd be writing today about Bush's speeches to the Arab world yesterday (Thomas Friedman's column on that general topic is great, by the way), or about the fact that American Idol has become a diva-fest (and rightly so, I've decided, after George's bland performance of "Cheek to Cheek" last night--though I'll miss him), you must not have been paying attention to me these last, oh, ten years. I woke up this morning dreading the fact that in a few hours, one of my favorite shows--a show I started watching before I could drive--will be over tonight.
Of course, I'm not the only one writing about this topic today.
The previews are, as usual, both promising and confusing--how can we see the door to the jetway close before Ross catches Rachel, but also see him talking to her in the airport and telling her not to get on the plane? And what of the scene, shown for weeks during teasers, where Rachel tells Ross she's sorry as she heads for the jetway door? Judging by these scenes, and the apparent chronology they would have to follow--Ross chases Rachel, tells her not to go, she says she's sorry, she walks away, the door closes--we're being led to believe that she gets on the plane for Paris, and once that jetway door closes, what can she do? Cry all the way to France?
With all this evidence, I'm left fearing the worst--an unhappy ending for Ross and Rachel's ten-year relationship--while believing that the show's creators would never close the story that way. In any case, my hopes for tonight:
* Monica and Chandler get to hold their baby before the end of the show. The look on her face--and his--would be priceless.
* Joey's move to L.A. is explained in advance of his spinoff show.
* Phoebe's husband, Mike (Paul Rudd) makes one last appearance on the show. His presence on the show during the ninth season kept it afloat when a lot of the plot was pretty serious stuff.
* Gunther makes one last appearance. If Janice can get a final moment in the sun, why not Gunther? He's been hanging around for ten years. (Which is pretty unbelievable, when you think about it--how many people work in one coffee shop for a decade?)
* Ross and Rachel end up together. I don't care if the show ends with a wedding, a kiss in a hotel in Paris, Rachel deciding to stay in New York--as long as the writers find a way to make it clear that these two have chosen one another, I'll be satisfied.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Gregory Maguire, Wicked
Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West
The title of this wonderful book should probably include a question mark--Wicked? Because that’s the question we’re meant to ask ourselves as we read this chronicle of the life of the Wicked Witch of the West. Was she really wicked? Or did we just catch her at her worst, last moment in The Wizard of Oz?
Beyond being compulsively readable, filled with moments of recognition as the Witch moves steadily toward an end we’ve already seen on film, this book tackles serious issues on many levels. The Witch’s father is a preacher, fighting to protect “unionism” from the new “pleasure faith” while also balancing it with the pagan tendencies and folklore of Oz culture. The presence of talking animals in Oz—remember the Cowardly Lion?—gives Maguire the makings of a civil rights struggle dedicated to fair treatment of these high-functioning beasts, as well as raising questions about the proper dividing line between man and animals and whether either has a soul. Maguire’s Oz is filled with political intrigue and romantic tensions, re-imagining the Yellow Brick Road as a tool in the Wizard’s assault on the freedoms of Munchkinland and the Good Witch of the North as a spoiled noblewoman, wooed by many, who started out as the Wicked Witch’s college roommate. The magical shoes, the flying monkeys, and even the Witch’s green skin all have fascinating explanations.
It is a measure of the book’s success that I want to watch the movie again with all this back story in mind. Maguire has used one classic to create another, and in doing so, he has amplified both.
The title of this wonderful book should probably include a question mark--Wicked? Because that’s the question we’re meant to ask ourselves as we read this chronicle of the life of the Wicked Witch of the West. Was she really wicked? Or did we just catch her at her worst, last moment in The Wizard of Oz?
Beyond being compulsively readable, filled with moments of recognition as the Witch moves steadily toward an end we’ve already seen on film, this book tackles serious issues on many levels. The Witch’s father is a preacher, fighting to protect “unionism” from the new “pleasure faith” while also balancing it with the pagan tendencies and folklore of Oz culture. The presence of talking animals in Oz—remember the Cowardly Lion?—gives Maguire the makings of a civil rights struggle dedicated to fair treatment of these high-functioning beasts, as well as raising questions about the proper dividing line between man and animals and whether either has a soul. Maguire’s Oz is filled with political intrigue and romantic tensions, re-imagining the Yellow Brick Road as a tool in the Wizard’s assault on the freedoms of Munchkinland and the Good Witch of the North as a spoiled noblewoman, wooed by many, who started out as the Wicked Witch’s college roommate. The magical shoes, the flying monkeys, and even the Witch’s green skin all have fascinating explanations.
It is a measure of the book’s success that I want to watch the movie again with all this back story in mind. Maguire has used one classic to create another, and in doing so, he has amplified both.
College Try
2-for-1 Voting
Thank you, Bruce Ackerman, for giving me at least one reason to like the Electoral College. In his piece today, Ackerman suggests that if Ralph Nader is serious about wanting to unseat George W. Bush, but insists on running for president himself, the responsible thing for him to do is choose the same slate of electors as John Kerry. If he did this, Nader and Kerry's votes would be pooled together for the purposes of choosing each state's electors, who would then cast electoral votes for whichever of the two (Kerry, of course) got more votes in the state.
Since America refuses to make it easier for third parties through, say, runoff voting, this would be a good way for Nader to make a respectable showing without hurting the nation. It would probably increase his numbers because people would be able to vote for him and know they'd be voting against Bush at the same time--heck, I might even vote Nader if I knew my vote would help Kerry as well. (Of course, Republicans protesting Bush's socially reactionary positions who can't quite pull the lever for Kerry, including members of my family, might not feel as comfortable voting Nader.)
As Ackerman points out, this is pretty much the way the Electoral College system was meant to work. If you don't like that...well, maybe you should join me in calling to have the thing abolished. In the meantime, I hope Nader is paying attention today. This suggestion could bring his campaign relevance and excitement while guaranteeing that he doesn't spoil another election.
Thank you, Bruce Ackerman, for giving me at least one reason to like the Electoral College. In his piece today, Ackerman suggests that if Ralph Nader is serious about wanting to unseat George W. Bush, but insists on running for president himself, the responsible thing for him to do is choose the same slate of electors as John Kerry. If he did this, Nader and Kerry's votes would be pooled together for the purposes of choosing each state's electors, who would then cast electoral votes for whichever of the two (Kerry, of course) got more votes in the state.
Since America refuses to make it easier for third parties through, say, runoff voting, this would be a good way for Nader to make a respectable showing without hurting the nation. It would probably increase his numbers because people would be able to vote for him and know they'd be voting against Bush at the same time--heck, I might even vote Nader if I knew my vote would help Kerry as well. (Of course, Republicans protesting Bush's socially reactionary positions who can't quite pull the lever for Kerry, including members of my family, might not feel as comfortable voting Nader.)
As Ackerman points out, this is pretty much the way the Electoral College system was meant to work. If you don't like that...well, maybe you should join me in calling to have the thing abolished. In the meantime, I hope Nader is paying attention today. This suggestion could bring his campaign relevance and excitement while guaranteeing that he doesn't spoil another election.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Undeniable
Simon finally said it: La Toya and Fantasia are in a different league. After the last two nights of American Idol performances, including Monday's reprise of everyone's best song, it's hard to fathom that the upcoming bottom three could be anyone but Jasmine, George, and Diana. It's hard to imagine that Jasmine wouldn't be the one to leave the show, too. George and Diana weren't perfect tonight, but they were interesting; Jasmine was the performer whose songs fell the flattest. She's out of her depth now.
Grace From Will
Time for Bush to See The Realities of Iraq
There are few greater joys than watching conservatives splinter against themselves. George Will, one of the most sensible and well-spoken of conservatives, today questions whether there is real thought behind the Bush policy in Iraq, and offers up these money quotes:
"This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts."
"Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice. "
I think he could have left out the word "political" in the second sentence of the second quote, but otherwise, bravo, George.
There are few greater joys than watching conservatives splinter against themselves. George Will, one of the most sensible and well-spoken of conservatives, today questions whether there is real thought behind the Bush policy in Iraq, and offers up these money quotes:
"This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts."
"Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice. "
I think he could have left out the word "political" in the second sentence of the second quote, but otherwise, bravo, George.
Monday, May 03, 2004
And CBS stands for Country's Best Sitcoms, too...
Acronymble - KFC tries to put one over on us. Again.
John Kerry's going to war against the attacks on his biography. Kevin Garnett is the league MVP. Thank goodness someone is focusing on what's really important. Seth Stevenson tackles the switch to "Kitchen Fresh Chicken" in the article linked above; I've been wondering for months when someone would write about this change.
John Kerry's going to war against the attacks on his biography. Kevin Garnett is the league MVP. Thank goodness someone is focusing on what's really important. Seth Stevenson tackles the switch to "Kitchen Fresh Chicken" in the article linked above; I've been wondering for months when someone would write about this change.
Police State
Fighting for Free Speech Means Fighting for . . . Howard Stern
Last week we saw the Supreme Court consider whether prisoners have the right to a public hearing regarding the reason they're being held; this week we see that prisoners are hardly the one folks whose rights have been reinvented under the gaze of the Bush White House. Howard Stern may be, at times, disgusting, but his on-air ramblings represent freedom of speech perfectly--we have a right to say things that others may not like. Today the F.C.C. is after Howard, and his right to talk about flatulence and sex may seem like an unnecessary frivolity. As I said Thursday, "Give up one right or freedom, though, and they'll be back for more. We can't wait until they come for ours to defend the rights and freedoms of others."
Last week we saw the Supreme Court consider whether prisoners have the right to a public hearing regarding the reason they're being held; this week we see that prisoners are hardly the one folks whose rights have been reinvented under the gaze of the Bush White House. Howard Stern may be, at times, disgusting, but his on-air ramblings represent freedom of speech perfectly--we have a right to say things that others may not like. Today the F.C.C. is after Howard, and his right to talk about flatulence and sex may seem like an unnecessary frivolity. As I said Thursday, "Give up one right or freedom, though, and they'll be back for more. We can't wait until they come for ours to defend the rights and freedoms of others."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)