Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Angelina Not An Obama Fan
Huh.
and
"Angie isn't Republican, but she thinks Obama is all smoke and mirrors," the source says.
Interesting.
(0) comments
Huh.
"She's into education and rehabilitation and thinks Obama is all about welfare and handouts. She thinks Obama is really a socialist in disguise," adds the source.
and
"Angie isn't Republican, but she thinks Obama is all smoke and mirrors," the source says.
Interesting.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Language, Language
And this is exactly what I was talking about in my last post:
How can it be said you own a home if you owe more money to the bank than it's worth. That's like saying you own a credit card with thousands of dollars of debt on it. In these instances, the card and house own YOU, not the other way around.
(0) comments
And this is exactly what I was talking about in my last post:
1 IN 4 BORROWERS UNDER WATER: Home sales may have risen in October, but this ought to damp any celebration: The proportion of U.S. homeowners who owe more than their homes are worth rose to 23 percent. With nearly 10.7 million households having negative equity in their homes in the third quarter, a sustained housing recovery is unlikely.
How can it be said you own a home if you owe more money to the bank than it's worth. That's like saying you own a credit card with thousands of dollars of debt on it. In these instances, the card and house own YOU, not the other way around.
Obama's Katrina
Arianna Huffington wonders if unemployment will be Obama's Katrina.
The vacuous slogans of Hope and Change from the Obama campaign are revealing themselves right now. Has Hope or Change created jobs? Has it sorted out Afghanistan? Has it created a better healthcare system or pose any reasonable shot at doing so? Can we reasonably say the economy is back on track? Can we reasonably say there seems to be a plan to get the country back on track? Can we reasonably say there is a philosophy or overall approach to getting the country back on track?
What we have instead is a grab bag of compromises, superficial attempts for "everyone to get along", random decisions that do not seem rooted in a philosophical approach or outlook, and big displays of overcompensation that are out-of-sync with the realities on the ground.
We have beer summits and cash for clunkers and extended unemployment benefits a half-hearted stimulus, a half-hearted commitment to Afghanistan, and a ridiculous and overly ambitious healthcare debate.
JOBS. While the Obama administration is talking about Healthcare, Economic Recovery, and boasting about how the stimulus and bank bail out worked, people are out of work and don't know when or how jobs are coming back. We keep hearing about stimulus this, stimulus that, and it sounds to me like the check is in the mail. The stimulus was designed to bring back jobs. It hasn't. They argue, it has helped saved jobs that might have been otherwise lost. Maybe. Who knows. Many economists think the stimulus wasn't large enough. Others, like myself, am more worried about the massive debt and moral hazard created by the bank bailout. The Obama Administration seems to be toeing the compromise line - not spending big enough to fix it or not being committed enough to lower deficits in order to ride out the storm. I could honestly get behind either choice if were laid out to me and this is why we are doing this and why it's going to work and here are the drawbacks. Instead, I feel like we're getting juked stats and mission accomplished banners. "1 Million Jobs Saved" headlines, meanwhile half of my friends can't find work and the other half are worried about losing their jobs which they're already overqualified for.
AFGHANISTAN. He committed on the campaign to fighting there because it was the "good" war and created a nice (but false) narrative split between Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't know what the Obama Administration actually thinks about this issue. I know their "position," but I don't know what they actually feel in their gut. I don't get the sense he believes in winning the war the same way Bush believed in winning Iraq. I know people on the left criticize the very notion of winning and believe it impossible and irrelevant and unadult. I don't know...I guess I'm just old fashioned in that I think that if we start something, we ought to finish it or if the situation has changed or we learned more, figure out our interests and either cut our losses, continue the status quo, or just take some sort of position. I mean, from what I can tell, Obama is just following Bush's policies exactly except now he's bending over the generals and going to make a half-hearted commitment to Afghanistan with more troops to say he tried with the intention of pulling out in a couple of years regardless of what happens. To borrow from Chris Rock, it's sort of like the guy who goes out to the club, feebly asks one girl to dance, gets rejected, and then gives up and goes to the titty bar.
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. In the words of Zabotka in season 2 of the Wire, "we used to be a country that made things, now we just have our hands in the other guys pocket." We need to stop juking the stats and start making things again. It is the only road to real recovery - both financial and spiritual. Because the spirit of Americans right now is in dangerous, dangerous territory. We are down and don't see the fix. And the fix isn't in jigging the unemployment numbers to make them look better. It isn't falsely propping up housing prices again or borrowing against the future to pay for more entitlement programs. It can't be. Wealth does not come from inflated housing prices or tech stock booms. Real wealth comes from making stuff that is useful selling it to people. I don't see why everyone thinks various pyramid schemes are going to work. I know Healthcare costs are expensive. But how does it make sense that we are going to pay for this stuff with a government mandated program to cover the uninsured? How is the answer to rising healthcare costs expanding healthcare coverage? We already know Medicare has a 30 billion dollar unfunded liability. That means, we don't have the money to pay for it. And sure, Medicare is good for some people. If the government just gave me a million bucks to be paid back later by someone else, it would be good for me. No doubt. But don't pretend it makes any sense or is sustainable.
All of this would be change no one wants to believe in. Everyone just wants entitlements, easy money to cover their risk, and to be taken care of by someone else. We've all got our hands in each other's pockets and it's all turning American life into a game of hustlers and spinsters and phonys and beggars. And these people are the easiest to please.
(1) comments
Arianna Huffington wonders if unemployment will be Obama's Katrina.
Just as Katrina exposed critical weaknesses in the priorities and competence of the Bush administration, the unfolding unemployment disaster is threatening to do the same for the Obama White House.
The vacuous slogans of Hope and Change from the Obama campaign are revealing themselves right now. Has Hope or Change created jobs? Has it sorted out Afghanistan? Has it created a better healthcare system or pose any reasonable shot at doing so? Can we reasonably say the economy is back on track? Can we reasonably say there seems to be a plan to get the country back on track? Can we reasonably say there is a philosophy or overall approach to getting the country back on track?
What we have instead is a grab bag of compromises, superficial attempts for "everyone to get along", random decisions that do not seem rooted in a philosophical approach or outlook, and big displays of overcompensation that are out-of-sync with the realities on the ground.
We have beer summits and cash for clunkers and extended unemployment benefits a half-hearted stimulus, a half-hearted commitment to Afghanistan, and a ridiculous and overly ambitious healthcare debate.
JOBS. While the Obama administration is talking about Healthcare, Economic Recovery, and boasting about how the stimulus and bank bail out worked, people are out of work and don't know when or how jobs are coming back. We keep hearing about stimulus this, stimulus that, and it sounds to me like the check is in the mail. The stimulus was designed to bring back jobs. It hasn't. They argue, it has helped saved jobs that might have been otherwise lost. Maybe. Who knows. Many economists think the stimulus wasn't large enough. Others, like myself, am more worried about the massive debt and moral hazard created by the bank bailout. The Obama Administration seems to be toeing the compromise line - not spending big enough to fix it or not being committed enough to lower deficits in order to ride out the storm. I could honestly get behind either choice if were laid out to me and this is why we are doing this and why it's going to work and here are the drawbacks. Instead, I feel like we're getting juked stats and mission accomplished banners. "1 Million Jobs Saved" headlines, meanwhile half of my friends can't find work and the other half are worried about losing their jobs which they're already overqualified for.
AFGHANISTAN. He committed on the campaign to fighting there because it was the "good" war and created a nice (but false) narrative split between Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't know what the Obama Administration actually thinks about this issue. I know their "position," but I don't know what they actually feel in their gut. I don't get the sense he believes in winning the war the same way Bush believed in winning Iraq. I know people on the left criticize the very notion of winning and believe it impossible and irrelevant and unadult. I don't know...I guess I'm just old fashioned in that I think that if we start something, we ought to finish it or if the situation has changed or we learned more, figure out our interests and either cut our losses, continue the status quo, or just take some sort of position. I mean, from what I can tell, Obama is just following Bush's policies exactly except now he's bending over the generals and going to make a half-hearted commitment to Afghanistan with more troops to say he tried with the intention of pulling out in a couple of years regardless of what happens. To borrow from Chris Rock, it's sort of like the guy who goes out to the club, feebly asks one girl to dance, gets rejected, and then gives up and goes to the titty bar.
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. In the words of Zabotka in season 2 of the Wire, "we used to be a country that made things, now we just have our hands in the other guys pocket." We need to stop juking the stats and start making things again. It is the only road to real recovery - both financial and spiritual. Because the spirit of Americans right now is in dangerous, dangerous territory. We are down and don't see the fix. And the fix isn't in jigging the unemployment numbers to make them look better. It isn't falsely propping up housing prices again or borrowing against the future to pay for more entitlement programs. It can't be. Wealth does not come from inflated housing prices or tech stock booms. Real wealth comes from making stuff that is useful selling it to people. I don't see why everyone thinks various pyramid schemes are going to work. I know Healthcare costs are expensive. But how does it make sense that we are going to pay for this stuff with a government mandated program to cover the uninsured? How is the answer to rising healthcare costs expanding healthcare coverage? We already know Medicare has a 30 billion dollar unfunded liability. That means, we don't have the money to pay for it. And sure, Medicare is good for some people. If the government just gave me a million bucks to be paid back later by someone else, it would be good for me. No doubt. But don't pretend it makes any sense or is sustainable.
All of this would be change no one wants to believe in. Everyone just wants entitlements, easy money to cover their risk, and to be taken care of by someone else. We've all got our hands in each other's pockets and it's all turning American life into a game of hustlers and spinsters and phonys and beggars. And these people are the easiest to please.
"Kick a Ginger Day"
Ohhh Middle School...how I miss thee...one of my absolute funniest, laugh out loud moments of my life was one morning in homeroom, there was an announcement over the loudspeaker:
"We would like to announce there is a game being played at lunchtime called Chewy's Prison Camp that will no longer be allowed."
Chewy's Prison Camp was exactly what it sounds like - an eight grader named Chewy would "trap" random 6th graders and force them to do all sorts of humiliating things, like push ups or eating grass or running wind sprints, etc. Not coincidentally, we were learning about WW2 in history class at the time... In any case, I remember the game's peak when Chewy somehow managed to lock two kids into the batting cage and demanded they fight. They were actually locked in - someone grabbed a lock off a locker and they were trapped. Kids were climbing all over the batting cage and yelling "Fight, fight, fight," like a scene out of Max Max Beyond Thunderdome. It was hilarious and surreal and cruel.
Facebook is being blamed for getting a redhead beaten up at school for spreading the rumor of "kick a ginger" day.
Now I hate Facebook as much as anyone, but even I can't really blame Facebook for the cruelty of 12 year old boys. This stuff happened before Facebook and will happen after Facebook. Although, I suppose there is that whole issue of making cruelty easier...
(0) comments
Ohhh Middle School...how I miss thee...one of my absolute funniest, laugh out loud moments of my life was one morning in homeroom, there was an announcement over the loudspeaker:
"We would like to announce there is a game being played at lunchtime called Chewy's Prison Camp that will no longer be allowed."
Chewy's Prison Camp was exactly what it sounds like - an eight grader named Chewy would "trap" random 6th graders and force them to do all sorts of humiliating things, like push ups or eating grass or running wind sprints, etc. Not coincidentally, we were learning about WW2 in history class at the time... In any case, I remember the game's peak when Chewy somehow managed to lock two kids into the batting cage and demanded they fight. They were actually locked in - someone grabbed a lock off a locker and they were trapped. Kids were climbing all over the batting cage and yelling "Fight, fight, fight," like a scene out of Max Max Beyond Thunderdome. It was hilarious and surreal and cruel.
Facebook is being blamed for getting a redhead beaten up at school for spreading the rumor of "kick a ginger" day.
Now I hate Facebook as much as anyone, but even I can't really blame Facebook for the cruelty of 12 year old boys. This stuff happened before Facebook and will happen after Facebook. Although, I suppose there is that whole issue of making cruelty easier...
Ahhhh....Yeah
Megan McCardle breaks down the healthcare bill -
The argument Matt Miller often offers is the old "bending the cost curve," argument, that by getting more people under the Medicare or Public Option or Govt Paid For Healthcare umbrella, you begin to cut costs. I don't know why this is assumed...I've heard this argument before in a lot of contexts - and it kind of boils down to "if I only had some money, I could make some money." And well, usually the exact opposite is true - "If you could make some money, you'd have some money."
(0) comments
Megan McCardle breaks down the healthcare bill -
I have to say, I'm woefully underimpressed with the argument that I am now hearing to the effect that "Medicare will bankrupt America anyway if we can't cut health care costs, so we might as well do health care reform."
Anyone who has dated a manic-depressive has heard some version of this argument. "I can barely make ends meet now, so I might as well use my tax refund check to buy a boat! After all, if I can't figure out a way to fix my budget, I'm going to go bankrupt anyway."
The argument Matt Miller often offers is the old "bending the cost curve," argument, that by getting more people under the Medicare or Public Option or Govt Paid For Healthcare umbrella, you begin to cut costs. I don't know why this is assumed...I've heard this argument before in a lot of contexts - and it kind of boils down to "if I only had some money, I could make some money." And well, usually the exact opposite is true - "If you could make some money, you'd have some money."
I'd See It
Lil' Wayne movie being blocked by Lil' Wayne even though he likes it.
And for some reason, this makes sense.
(0) comments
Lil' Wayne movie being blocked by Lil' Wayne even though he likes it.
And for some reason, this makes sense.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Anything Worse?
A New York Times Magazine article about when DNA testing reveals the father isn't the real father.
Not a lot things worse than discovering something like that.
(0) comments
A New York Times Magazine article about when DNA testing reveals the father isn't the real father.
Not a lot things worse than discovering something like that.
He Was Just Pondering All His Options
Interesting op-ed on a WW2 blunder by Eisenhower.
It is obviously silly to Monday Morning Quarterback 65 years after the fact and impossible to know the outcome or Eisenhower's logic. But this author thinks it pretty certain the War in Europe could of ended much sooner with a more aggressive southern campaign. 80,000 American men died in the Battle of the Bulge. Today, we'd have pundits calling Eisenhower a war criminal. I don't see why Americans love to fondly remember WW2 as a good war. It was an awful war. A genocidal war on multiple fronts. Morally offensive beyond our imagination on numerous sides. It was necessary only because it wasn't prevented. The fact that we long for the clear black and white stakes presented in WW2 is somewhat disturbing.
(0) comments
Interesting op-ed on a WW2 blunder by Eisenhower.
Eisenhower was also a cautious, some would say indecisive, commander who favored a “broad front” strategy with all Allied armies moving in tandem on a solid front. His military objective was Germany’s main industrial area to the north, the Ruhr. Devers was operating too far south to help that effort.
True, the Germans knew the Ruhr was vital to them and fiercely defended it. But, as we know from several of their generals’ postwar memoirs, what they really feared was an incursion across the Rhine, which would have been a military catastrophe and a devastating symbolic blow to the German people.
The Rhine wasn’t crossed until March 1945. Had Eisenhower let Devers make his attack, we might now be celebrating the 65th anniversary of a cross-Rhine attack that quickly ended the war in Europe. Instead, we will soon mark the anniversary of the costliest battle in American history, the Battle of the Bulge.
It is obviously silly to Monday Morning Quarterback 65 years after the fact and impossible to know the outcome or Eisenhower's logic. But this author thinks it pretty certain the War in Europe could of ended much sooner with a more aggressive southern campaign. 80,000 American men died in the Battle of the Bulge. Today, we'd have pundits calling Eisenhower a war criminal. I don't see why Americans love to fondly remember WW2 as a good war. It was an awful war. A genocidal war on multiple fronts. Morally offensive beyond our imagination on numerous sides. It was necessary only because it wasn't prevented. The fact that we long for the clear black and white stakes presented in WW2 is somewhat disturbing.
Obama and Foreign Policy
Andrew Sullivan likes to say Obama's approach differs from Bush because he behaves like an adult when it comes to foreign policy. This well may be true. But I would counter, much of the rest of the world treats foreign policy like petulant teenagers, and behaving like an adult won't always get you anywhere when dealing with teenagers.
Haven't these people seen Children of the Corn?
(0) comments
Andrew Sullivan likes to say Obama's approach differs from Bush because he behaves like an adult when it comes to foreign policy. This well may be true. But I would counter, much of the rest of the world treats foreign policy like petulant teenagers, and behaving like an adult won't always get you anywhere when dealing with teenagers.
There are many indications that the man in charge at the White House will take a tougher stance in the future. Obama's advisors fear a comparison with former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, even more than with Bush. Prominent Republicans have already tried to liken Obama to the humanitarian from Georgia, who lost in his bid to win a second term, because voters felt that he was too soft. "Carter tried weakness and the world got tougher and tougher because the predators, the aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators, when they sense weakness, they all start pushing ahead," Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker in the House of Representatives, recently said. And then he added: "This does look a lot like Jimmy Carter."
Haven't these people seen Children of the Corn?
Breaking Up Banks
Per the Huffpo, the WSJ Editorial Board calls for a return to splitting up commercial and investment banks.
I admittedly know nothing, but the premise of lowering the moral hazard of bailing out banks for taking heavy risks seems sound. And I'm a person who likes risk. I like gambling. I like aggressive play. But not with the rent and the safety net. And not with the country.
(0) comments
Per the Huffpo, the WSJ Editorial Board calls for a return to splitting up commercial and investment banks.
I admittedly know nothing, but the premise of lowering the moral hazard of bailing out banks for taking heavy risks seems sound. And I'm a person who likes risk. I like gambling. I like aggressive play. But not with the rent and the safety net. And not with the country.
Who Is The Worst NFL Quarterback?
After watching Jay Cutler's performance last week, I found myself wondering "is anyone worse than this guy?"
The nominees are:
JaMarcus Russell
Derek Anderson/Brady Quinn
Mark Sanchez
Kerry Collins
Jay Cutler
Brett Farve
Kerry Collins is bad, but I think can be removed from the list because he no longer starts. Derek Anderson no longer starts as well, although with a passer rating of 36.2 an exception might be in order. In Anderson's defense, the Browns are such an awful organization right now, it is hard to get a fair evaluation of his contribution to the awfulness. Cutler sucks at times, but also dangerous and plays for an organization who seems to be handicapped at the quarterback position. That leaves JaMarcus Russell, Brett Farve, and Mark Sanchez.
I vote for Sanchez. Here's why: everyone knows Russell sucks and he plays on a team without much potential. The Jets on the other hand, have a tough defense and a good running game and by the sheer awfulness of Sanchez have turned into one of the worst teams in the league. I also particularly like this fall from grace, as he ditched out on USC and was getting hyped all over ESPN and New York the first three weeks of the season and I heard chicks at the bar saying he was the cutest quarterback in the league even thought I knew he wasn't any good.
(0) comments
After watching Jay Cutler's performance last week, I found myself wondering "is anyone worse than this guy?"
The nominees are:
JaMarcus Russell
Derek Anderson/Brady Quinn
Mark Sanchez
Kerry Collins
Jay Cutler
Brett Farve
Kerry Collins is bad, but I think can be removed from the list because he no longer starts. Derek Anderson no longer starts as well, although with a passer rating of 36.2 an exception might be in order. In Anderson's defense, the Browns are such an awful organization right now, it is hard to get a fair evaluation of his contribution to the awfulness. Cutler sucks at times, but also dangerous and plays for an organization who seems to be handicapped at the quarterback position. That leaves JaMarcus Russell, Brett Farve, and Mark Sanchez.
I vote for Sanchez. Here's why: everyone knows Russell sucks and he plays on a team without much potential. The Jets on the other hand, have a tough defense and a good running game and by the sheer awfulness of Sanchez have turned into one of the worst teams in the league. I also particularly like this fall from grace, as he ditched out on USC and was getting hyped all over ESPN and New York the first three weeks of the season and I heard chicks at the bar saying he was the cutest quarterback in the league even thought I knew he wasn't any good.
Palinoia
From Megan McCardle:
It kind of disturbs me that I can't talk about Palin without adding a disclaimer such as, "I'm not a fan, but..." or "I don't like her, but..." for fear of getting my eyes scratched out. So f--- it. No more disclaimers. There is an unhealthy obsession with tearing her down.
(1) comments
From Megan McCardle:
There seems to be an unhealthy obsession with tearing her down. And really, guys, if you'll just back off a little, she'll do the job for you. Have you seen that resignation speech? How about we all act like she's a former governor and vice presidential candidate, rather than Public Enemy #1?
It kind of disturbs me that I can't talk about Palin without adding a disclaimer such as, "I'm not a fan, but..." or "I don't like her, but..." for fear of getting my eyes scratched out. So f--- it. No more disclaimers. There is an unhealthy obsession with tearing her down.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Yikes
The ladies take on Obama. And they aren't very nice.
Should we face facts? Americans are sick of being hated by everyone around the world. And yes, we are hated. Why? Because the world is a bunch of assholes. Americans are tough, but like all people, want to be liked. And we're used to being liked. But something happened and I don't know when, some tide shifted shortly after the Cold War. There were always American haters, but this charge of "arrogance," caught on. A simple euphemism for resentment of power. It is charge we cannot refute and it is a charge not meant to be debated. The only thing that alleves the charge is becoming the victim. The only time the world felt sympathy for America was after 9/11 and it didn't last. The world hates being less powerful.
Now I'm going to make an opposite point - one that is factually true - whereas my above point is emotionally true: Most people don't hate America, but the ones who do, are highly motivated and therefore disproportionately loud and in some ways, powerful. Hate is highly, highly motivating. (see the number of my facebook and anti-Kobe posts). Hate and fear are incredible driving forces for human beings. And are preferable to powerlessness, futility, and exhaustion.
When you are hated, how do you react? How does a decent country react? They try to make themselves more likable. Which is why we voted for Obama. Because he is LIKABLE. Why is he likable? Because he was the underdog. He was the underdog because his profile was relatively low. His experience level relatively low. And because he was black. We want to be liked by the world and so we voted for a likable guy. We didn't care about his policies. Or who he was as a person, what he accomplished, or any of those things. We voted for him because we want to be liked.
(0) comments
The ladies take on Obama. And they aren't very nice.
Obama's admirers have loved his thoughtful thinkiness, his cerebreality. But that's getting old and cold.
Dither, dither, speech. Foreign trip, bow, reassure. Seminar, summit. Shoot a jump shot with the guys, throw out the first pitch in mom jeans. Compromise, concede, close the deal. Dither, dither, water down, news conference.....
Where is the animal fire inside the clammily cool Prez? Maureen wants to know. Was it ever really there?
The animating spirit that electrified his political movement has sputtered out.
The animating spirit...
Whose animating spirit provided the electricity back then? Did it come from him, or did we generate it from within as we looked at him and fell in love?
You know, I think what Obama seems to have become, he always was. Shake him all you want, Maureen, but you're like some Star Trek extra (in tights and a tunic) trying to coax heat out of the body of Mr. Spock. I'm afraid these earnest efforts are futile.
Should we face facts? Americans are sick of being hated by everyone around the world. And yes, we are hated. Why? Because the world is a bunch of assholes. Americans are tough, but like all people, want to be liked. And we're used to being liked. But something happened and I don't know when, some tide shifted shortly after the Cold War. There were always American haters, but this charge of "arrogance," caught on. A simple euphemism for resentment of power. It is charge we cannot refute and it is a charge not meant to be debated. The only thing that alleves the charge is becoming the victim. The only time the world felt sympathy for America was after 9/11 and it didn't last. The world hates being less powerful.
Now I'm going to make an opposite point - one that is factually true - whereas my above point is emotionally true: Most people don't hate America, but the ones who do, are highly motivated and therefore disproportionately loud and in some ways, powerful. Hate is highly, highly motivating. (see the number of my facebook and anti-Kobe posts). Hate and fear are incredible driving forces for human beings. And are preferable to powerlessness, futility, and exhaustion.
When you are hated, how do you react? How does a decent country react? They try to make themselves more likable. Which is why we voted for Obama. Because he is LIKABLE. Why is he likable? Because he was the underdog. He was the underdog because his profile was relatively low. His experience level relatively low. And because he was black. We want to be liked by the world and so we voted for a likable guy. We didn't care about his policies. Or who he was as a person, what he accomplished, or any of those things. We voted for him because we want to be liked.
Port of Call
Every now and then a movie drops out of no where and explodes like a bomb into the cinema. Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans is one of those movies. It demands being written about, but I am at a loss of what to say.
There are moments in sports when a player you know is really, really good does something similar to what he's done before, but on a little higher level, and it becomes transcendent. Most recently, Peyton Manning winning against the Pats kinda sorta falls into that category. Peyton did what he's known to do, but his performance was upped by getting into Belichick's head about it.
Anyhow, Bad Lieutenant is this for Herzog. He explores his theme of ecstatic truth within a remake of procedural cop movie with a crazy-ass bad lieutenant. And it goes to a level beyond what I imagined Herzog being able to pull off. And pull it off, he did.
Is this Herzog or Cage's movie, though? The slate review:
Cage is unbelievable in this film. You don't even realize the shades of madness until about midway through the movie. At some point, and I can't pinpoint it, I realized - holy shit - this guy has gone though like 20 different levels of insanity and he's still going. The build is remarkable both in the degree and subtly. I buy Cage in every single scene. There isn't a moment when he feels unreal. And yet, the places his performance goes are unknown to me as a human being. I can't imagine 75% of things he does or thinks or feels nor I have experienced those emotions. But it seems as if Nic Cage has. And he turned them into this energetic, mad performance. I swear to god he lost all his money for this role. Or this role caused him to lose all this money.
Thank you Herzog and Cage - you've washed the sour taste of Where the Wild Things Are, The Box, and The Informant from my mouth.
(1) comments
Every now and then a movie drops out of no where and explodes like a bomb into the cinema. Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans is one of those movies. It demands being written about, but I am at a loss of what to say.
There are moments in sports when a player you know is really, really good does something similar to what he's done before, but on a little higher level, and it becomes transcendent. Most recently, Peyton Manning winning against the Pats kinda sorta falls into that category. Peyton did what he's known to do, but his performance was upped by getting into Belichick's head about it.
Anyhow, Bad Lieutenant is this for Herzog. He explores his theme of ecstatic truth within a remake of procedural cop movie with a crazy-ass bad lieutenant. And it goes to a level beyond what I imagined Herzog being able to pull off. And pull it off, he did.
Is this Herzog or Cage's movie, though? The slate review:
For all the terrible career choices he's made—his drive to succeed as an action hero seems to come from someplace even deeper than the desire for a huge paycheck—Nic Cage is unparalleled when it comes to playing self-destructive loons, men so uncomfortable with life they want to shed their own skin. As in Leaving Las Vegas and Adaptation, Cage's performance is funny, haunting, and genuinely bizarre. He hunches. He winces. He cackles explosively. As his character gets more and more strung out, his voice changes, growing louder, more pinched and nasal. (Mercifully, he never attempts a New Orleans accent.) He's forever inventing weird little bits of stage business: Before interrogating a witness, he takes an electric razor from his pocket and gives himself a five-second shave. Cage clearly enjoys the chance to play a role this over-the-top. "Right now I'm working on about an hour and a half's sleep," he warns a wheelchair-bound old woman before blocking off her breathing tube to maximize the effectiveness of his interrogation. But he also invests this doomed character with real pathos and never goes for deliberate camp. Whatever sick joke this movie's telling, Cage is in on it.
Cage is unbelievable in this film. You don't even realize the shades of madness until about midway through the movie. At some point, and I can't pinpoint it, I realized - holy shit - this guy has gone though like 20 different levels of insanity and he's still going. The build is remarkable both in the degree and subtly. I buy Cage in every single scene. There isn't a moment when he feels unreal. And yet, the places his performance goes are unknown to me as a human being. I can't imagine 75% of things he does or thinks or feels nor I have experienced those emotions. But it seems as if Nic Cage has. And he turned them into this energetic, mad performance. I swear to god he lost all his money for this role. Or this role caused him to lose all this money.
Thank you Herzog and Cage - you've washed the sour taste of Where the Wild Things Are, The Box, and The Informant from my mouth.
Sundays
Long bike ride + bloody mary = afternoon nap.
(0) comments
Long bike ride + bloody mary = afternoon nap.
Re-Watching THE OFFICE
Andy's line is actually much better than I even remembered:
"I was hoping Erin would ask me out, but things have not panned out on that front. So it's time for the nard-dog needs to take matters into his own paws."
(0) comments
Andy's line is actually much better than I even remembered:
"I was hoping Erin would ask me out, but things have not panned out on that front. So it's time for the nard-dog needs to take matters into his own paws."
Saturday, November 21, 2009
A Dish Served Cold
Everyone knows the studios are reigning in the cash on talent. It pervades the industry and Hollywood is in a quiet (or maybe not so quiet) panic. A career writer who used to share office space with us dropped by the other day. I asked him - is what I hear real? How are your colleagues feeling about work right now? What is the word on the street?
"Apocalyptic."
"Seriously?"
"I used to have work booked 2 years in advance. Now, it's just job to job. And I'm lucky."
My prying ears also overhear other conversations and who knows if it is true. The studios are orchestrating the reigning in of talent cost. They resent the grudge fuck of the writers strike from a couple years ago and started plotting their revenge. And here it is. From their POV - you don't want to work with us to share in the future risk? You going to grudge fuck us for the DVD deal made years ago? Okay. Go ahead. You have the power now. But there will be a comeuppance.
So here we are. The studios are starving the talent. We'll see what happens.
(1) comments
Everyone knows the studios are reigning in the cash on talent. It pervades the industry and Hollywood is in a quiet (or maybe not so quiet) panic. A career writer who used to share office space with us dropped by the other day. I asked him - is what I hear real? How are your colleagues feeling about work right now? What is the word on the street?
"Apocalyptic."
"Seriously?"
"I used to have work booked 2 years in advance. Now, it's just job to job. And I'm lucky."
My prying ears also overhear other conversations and who knows if it is true. The studios are orchestrating the reigning in of talent cost. They resent the grudge fuck of the writers strike from a couple years ago and started plotting their revenge. And here it is. From their POV - you don't want to work with us to share in the future risk? You going to grudge fuck us for the DVD deal made years ago? Okay. Go ahead. You have the power now. But there will be a comeuppance.
So here we are. The studios are starving the talent. We'll see what happens.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Expanding My Social Networking Hate
I did not like (or join) Friendster or MySpace. My dislike only blossomed into full on hate with Facebook - specifically - when it started a fake page of me.
But my hate is expanding at a rapid pace. I decided I couldn't be a full on hater without dipping my toes into the water. I sought out the least-worst social networking sites: linkedin and goodreads. I figured linkedin was under the guise of professional networking and goodreads would be people who read books and would be simple and low impact and I wouldn't have to know they guy I sat next to in 9th grade geometry was taking a shit right now.
But alas, it turns out both these sites are awful as well, just not as glaringly awful as Facebook. First of all, I was attacked on goodreads for writing about a book I read (the entire point of the site). I'd prefer getting jumped in the streets by attackers so I could face them down than the anonymous wails and cackles of random voices from the internet. They accused me of awful things - not actually reading the book, trying to sabotage the book, etc, etc. No actually, I just read it and thought it sucked so I was trying to save the world's time from one more pointless book. But no, the only people who read my post were people invested in the book itself. Anyway, I stopped doing goodreads after that.
LinkedIn is annoying. I get more requests from names I kinda-sorta-recognize but really aren't sure who they are. Was that a make-up person on a thesis film I worked on? Was that the guy who worked for a PG&E group from eight years ago? Was that guy in my Pomona seminar class? Is that an intern from two years ago? I mean, what is the point, really? Honestly. If you want to keep in touch, write me an email. If I want to keep in touch, I'll respond. That's it, dudes and ladies. Otherwise, leave me alone. Thanks.
(2) comments
I did not like (or join) Friendster or MySpace. My dislike only blossomed into full on hate with Facebook - specifically - when it started a fake page of me.
But my hate is expanding at a rapid pace. I decided I couldn't be a full on hater without dipping my toes into the water. I sought out the least-worst social networking sites: linkedin and goodreads. I figured linkedin was under the guise of professional networking and goodreads would be people who read books and would be simple and low impact and I wouldn't have to know they guy I sat next to in 9th grade geometry was taking a shit right now.
But alas, it turns out both these sites are awful as well, just not as glaringly awful as Facebook. First of all, I was attacked on goodreads for writing about a book I read (the entire point of the site). I'd prefer getting jumped in the streets by attackers so I could face them down than the anonymous wails and cackles of random voices from the internet. They accused me of awful things - not actually reading the book, trying to sabotage the book, etc, etc. No actually, I just read it and thought it sucked so I was trying to save the world's time from one more pointless book. But no, the only people who read my post were people invested in the book itself. Anyway, I stopped doing goodreads after that.
LinkedIn is annoying. I get more requests from names I kinda-sorta-recognize but really aren't sure who they are. Was that a make-up person on a thesis film I worked on? Was that the guy who worked for a PG&E group from eight years ago? Was that guy in my Pomona seminar class? Is that an intern from two years ago? I mean, what is the point, really? Honestly. If you want to keep in touch, write me an email. If I want to keep in touch, I'll respond. That's it, dudes and ladies. Otherwise, leave me alone. Thanks.
Bizarre
There are a series of books out by prominent bloggers all with the same premise -
How Obama is ruining fill-in-the-blank.
Look at all the covers. Exactly the same. Bizarre.
(0) comments
There are a series of books out by prominent bloggers all with the same premise -
How Obama is ruining fill-in-the-blank.
Look at all the covers. Exactly the same. Bizarre.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Less Upset
A short, but relatively good explanation of what is going on legally with the KSM trial.
At first, I was taken aback by the decision of the Obama Administration to bring KSM to trial for a criminal act. Why would you bring to trial someone who already has admitted his his guilt and wants to be executed? Why would you bring a military prisoner who is a soldier in a war against the US to a US Federal Court to be tried on criminal charges? Why would KSM and a few other Guantanamo Detainees be held criminally liable, but the large majority remain in military court? What if he is found "not guilty" or "criminally insane" - are we really going to let KSM go? The whole idea seemed puzzling at first - and partisan - a way to reopen the waterboarding issue and indict the Bush Administration's handling of terrorism. Am I being a paranoid right winger? I don't know. Also related - what is the point of closing Gitmo in the way we are doing it? First of all, the legal standing of the detainees whether they are in Gitmo or elsewhere will be the same. Secondly, it just looks silly promising to close Gitmo and then not actually doing it.
But the above article explains the strategy of the Obama administration - try the easy cases in Fed Court and the tough ones in military court. All of it seems to be about sending a message...what exactly the message is...well...
(0) comments
A short, but relatively good explanation of what is going on legally with the KSM trial.
At first, I was taken aback by the decision of the Obama Administration to bring KSM to trial for a criminal act. Why would you bring to trial someone who already has admitted his his guilt and wants to be executed? Why would you bring a military prisoner who is a soldier in a war against the US to a US Federal Court to be tried on criminal charges? Why would KSM and a few other Guantanamo Detainees be held criminally liable, but the large majority remain in military court? What if he is found "not guilty" or "criminally insane" - are we really going to let KSM go? The whole idea seemed puzzling at first - and partisan - a way to reopen the waterboarding issue and indict the Bush Administration's handling of terrorism. Am I being a paranoid right winger? I don't know. Also related - what is the point of closing Gitmo in the way we are doing it? First of all, the legal standing of the detainees whether they are in Gitmo or elsewhere will be the same. Secondly, it just looks silly promising to close Gitmo and then not actually doing it.
But the above article explains the strategy of the Obama administration - try the easy cases in Fed Court and the tough ones in military court. All of it seems to be about sending a message...what exactly the message is...well...
No Mas
Why do I get breakfast burritos from taco trucks? A good 60% or more make me sick. No Mas.
(0) comments
Why do I get breakfast burritos from taco trucks? A good 60% or more make me sick. No Mas.
