Talent vs. Persistence
Interesting article about education refuting a claim by Charles Murray that college is worthless to about 60% of the people who attend because basically, they aren't smart enough to get anything out of it. There's a whole host of reasons why this is untrue, mostly because college doesn't just offer education, it forms networks and helps people "get ahead" in life (hence - people still attend). But there is certainly something to his notion from a strict educational perspective...there does seem to be a bunch of wasted resources out there.
But that's not what really piqued my interest in this article. This did:
There is a role for practice and dedication. A New York Times Magazine article by Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt reports on research by Anders Ericsson and colleagues on expert performance.
Their work, compiled in the "Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance," a 900-page academic book that will be published next month, makes a rather startling assertion: the trait we commonly call talent is highly overrated. Or, put another way, expert performers — whether in memory or surgery, ballet or computer programming — are nearly always made, not born. And yes, practice does make perfect.
I love those Freakonomics Guys. And in my experience - they are right. I've witnessed it in academics, sports, art, in nearly everything I've spent a lot of time doing, talent plays a role but is almost always overrated. The other factor that needs to be considered is luck. Luck and circumstance play a tremendous role. BUT, putting yourself out there, ie persistently trying stuff puts you in the position to "get lucky."
Sunday, January 21, 2007
I Didn't Leave the Left, It Left Me
A powerful condemnation of the Left from the Guardian.
"Consistent anti-fascism added enormously to the left's prestige in the second half of the 20th century. A halo of moral superiority hovered over it because if there was a campaign against racism, religious fanaticism or neo-Nazism, the odds were that its leaders would be men and women of the left. For all the atrocities and follies committed in its name, the left possessed this virtue: it would stand firm against fascism. After the Iraq war, I don't believe that a fair-minded outsider could say it does that any more."
What made me liberal...when I came of age to decide for myself rather than just follow my parents...was a passionate hatred for bossiness, bullies, and certitude - qualities I saw in the Right more than the Left. In political-speak I hated totalitarianism, I hated Fascists, I hated tyrants. And I that's what I thought the Left stood for.
Imagine my sadness the day Leftists poured out onto the streets of San Francisco, right in front of me, to protest the removal of a Fascist Dictator? And to learn they were joined by millions in London and Paris.
And now I have to degrade myself by defending a guy like George Bush...
A powerful condemnation of the Left from the Guardian.
"Consistent anti-fascism added enormously to the left's prestige in the second half of the 20th century. A halo of moral superiority hovered over it because if there was a campaign against racism, religious fanaticism or neo-Nazism, the odds were that its leaders would be men and women of the left. For all the atrocities and follies committed in its name, the left possessed this virtue: it would stand firm against fascism. After the Iraq war, I don't believe that a fair-minded outsider could say it does that any more."
What made me liberal...when I came of age to decide for myself rather than just follow my parents...was a passionate hatred for bossiness, bullies, and certitude - qualities I saw in the Right more than the Left. In political-speak I hated totalitarianism, I hated Fascists, I hated tyrants. And I that's what I thought the Left stood for.
Imagine my sadness the day Leftists poured out onto the streets of San Francisco, right in front of me, to protest the removal of a Fascist Dictator? And to learn they were joined by millions in London and Paris.
And now I have to degrade myself by defending a guy like George Bush...
Riddle Me This
Nate correctly mentions the anti-war (and pro-war) folks don't just fall into a binary and there's all sorts of nuance to a lot of people's position. What I've never quite understood, however, are the all the folks (and there are many - smart ones) who initially supported the war and then turned against the idea at various points when things got ugly - concluding the war was completely mismanaged, perhaps even criminally.
Frankly, I don't understand this position. Almost all wars are criminally mismanaged since stupid choices result in the death of innocent people and soldiers, as opposed to say, making a bad movie or losing a client. The Civil War was completely mismanaged by the North for several years before Lincoln promoted Grant. And then, we only managed to finally win the war by the scorched earth warmaking of Sherman's March through the South - a crime by any modern standards. Furthermore, the war gave birth to organizations like the KKK and Jim Crow laws. Certainly many people of the South preferred the good 'ole days of slavery. And yet, the "mismanagement" and potentially illegal warmaking didn't make the endeavors wrong.
Nate correctly mentions the anti-war (and pro-war) folks don't just fall into a binary and there's all sorts of nuance to a lot of people's position. What I've never quite understood, however, are the all the folks (and there are many - smart ones) who initially supported the war and then turned against the idea at various points when things got ugly - concluding the war was completely mismanaged, perhaps even criminally.
Frankly, I don't understand this position. Almost all wars are criminally mismanaged since stupid choices result in the death of innocent people and soldiers, as opposed to say, making a bad movie or losing a client. The Civil War was completely mismanaged by the North for several years before Lincoln promoted Grant. And then, we only managed to finally win the war by the scorched earth warmaking of Sherman's March through the South - a crime by any modern standards. Furthermore, the war gave birth to organizations like the KKK and Jim Crow laws. Certainly many people of the South preferred the good 'ole days of slavery. And yet, the "mismanagement" and potentially illegal warmaking didn't make the endeavors wrong.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Genius of the Founding Fathers: Jury Duty
I just completed my first jury duty assignment. It's amazing I've been able to skate by for ten years of being eligible and never needed to attend. I got assigned to a criminal case and the jury selection was taking forever, and this afternoon I was sure I was going to be stuck for several more days and blam - the case got resolved by a plea bargain. Anyhow, jury duty mostly consists of waiting and it's a real pain in ass pretty much for everyone. But there is a certain genius in getting together with different members of community who you would otherwise have little interaction with and getting to wait around with the possibility of performing a civic duty. It sparks conversations about larger things and gives people a space to wax a little philosophical and to think about the justice system. The judge performs a big role in the jury process, generally giving jurors a little bit of a civics class recap and doing a little reminder of why we have the system we do and challenging people to perform a civic duty.
Being a slow and arduous process affords the opportunity to observe how different people behave. I developed opinions about some of my fellow jurors....
People I liked:
Old black man who complained about his adult children still being on the dole. We talked about USC, church, and basketball.
Cute, well dressed hispanic girl who laughed at jokes.
Incredibly well spoken and articulate black judge.
Middle aged hispanic man with moustache who befriended a group of older ladies.
Middle aged hispanic lady truck driver supporting three children on her own who dealt with sexual harassment at work.
Old white dentist whose father was an LA defense attorney.
Old asian lady who would run to the jury room to be on time only to sit around for the next hour and a half.
People I didn't like:
Young white guy with a BMW who only talked to the cute white girls.
Middle aged lady with a Marc Jacobs bag who insisted she could never find anyone guilty.
Young asian guy who would have trouble following a law he didn't believe was right. (The judge hammered him on this saying he didn't think the guy realized how radical a statement he was saying - that we are a nation ruled by law, not of men, and this is a system we all live under and ask to benefit from...)
Fat chick who talked too much.
Hippy chick who weaseled out of the second day of jury duty claiming she couldn't be unbiased in a sexual assualt case.
Middle aged hispanic guy who kept trying to get a special weasel out for financial hardship. (note: nearly everyone had a financial hardship)
Old man who kept complaining about everything and who yammered about weird things and kept trying to talk to me.
The defendent who was missing a lot of teeth and was being accused of raping and sodomizing a homeless woman.
I just completed my first jury duty assignment. It's amazing I've been able to skate by for ten years of being eligible and never needed to attend. I got assigned to a criminal case and the jury selection was taking forever, and this afternoon I was sure I was going to be stuck for several more days and blam - the case got resolved by a plea bargain. Anyhow, jury duty mostly consists of waiting and it's a real pain in ass pretty much for everyone. But there is a certain genius in getting together with different members of community who you would otherwise have little interaction with and getting to wait around with the possibility of performing a civic duty. It sparks conversations about larger things and gives people a space to wax a little philosophical and to think about the justice system. The judge performs a big role in the jury process, generally giving jurors a little bit of a civics class recap and doing a little reminder of why we have the system we do and challenging people to perform a civic duty.
Being a slow and arduous process affords the opportunity to observe how different people behave. I developed opinions about some of my fellow jurors....
People I liked:
Old black man who complained about his adult children still being on the dole. We talked about USC, church, and basketball.
Cute, well dressed hispanic girl who laughed at jokes.
Incredibly well spoken and articulate black judge.
Middle aged hispanic man with moustache who befriended a group of older ladies.
Middle aged hispanic lady truck driver supporting three children on her own who dealt with sexual harassment at work.
Old white dentist whose father was an LA defense attorney.
Old asian lady who would run to the jury room to be on time only to sit around for the next hour and a half.
People I didn't like:
Young white guy with a BMW who only talked to the cute white girls.
Middle aged lady with a Marc Jacobs bag who insisted she could never find anyone guilty.
Young asian guy who would have trouble following a law he didn't believe was right. (The judge hammered him on this saying he didn't think the guy realized how radical a statement he was saying - that we are a nation ruled by law, not of men, and this is a system we all live under and ask to benefit from...)
Fat chick who talked too much.
Hippy chick who weaseled out of the second day of jury duty claiming she couldn't be unbiased in a sexual assualt case.
Middle aged hispanic guy who kept trying to get a special weasel out for financial hardship. (note: nearly everyone had a financial hardship)
Old man who kept complaining about everything and who yammered about weird things and kept trying to talk to me.
The defendent who was missing a lot of teeth and was being accused of raping and sodomizing a homeless woman.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
I Know Who I'm Rooting For
Does the fact that the Islamist Extremists truly hate Bush's foreign policy suggest at the very least - that it isn't all that bad?
Does the fact that the Islamist Extremists truly hate Bush's foreign policy suggest at the very least - that it isn't all that bad?
Keep Your Eye Out For...
Everyone is talking Obama, Hillary, Gore, McCain, Guiliani, Romney...but pay attention to Newt Gingrich. Very quietly this guy has been talking calmly, candidly, and seriously about Iraq.
While Hillary can do nothing more than oppose Bush's troop surge (so what does that mean - she supports the status quo?), Ginrich is talking candidly about the cost of losing, strategies for winning, mistakes that were made, and how to move forward.
Here are some sample articles, speeches, interviews, etc.
I never cared all that much for Ginrich, but I'll give him this: he's smart as hell, experienced, and has the tone of a man who no longer cares what opinion polls think of him. He rose to the top and came crashing down. Now he's rising again and with that, you get wisdom. My dad said something smart in 1996 - he said the Republicans were stupid to run Bob Dole because their soul was Ginrich. They may have beaten Clinton that year. But the old school Republican party prided themselves on decency and it was Dole's turn to run. That Republican party doesn't seem to exist anymore. That should not be construed as remorse - which would be completely phony because I never liked those guys to begin with. So onto other matters...
Of course we all like Obama - what's not to like? But I don't like how everyone treats him as some sort of political messiah. I don't believe in angels, I don't believe in being rescued or being saved by some magical person coming over the hill in majestic backlight. And it feels to me everyone (dems, i mean) want Obama to be that person. This time around, we need to err on the side of wisdom and not hope.
Hillary strikes me more and more as a political opportunist like her husband. I mean when you take away the brains and the connections and the experience, what are these two people? Does Hillary have...I hate to say it without a sense of irony...any character? I mean, what does she stand for? What does she believe in? She is smart. She is tough. I like her. But I guess this sickly feeling about her that she sold her soul somewhere along the line to keep herself in the game. But that's probably something we all do. I guess I don't imagine that for her it was a very hard decision. Which makes me suspect that deep down, there just isn't much there.
On other news, I started reading Kevin Drum the other day. Has a couple of interesting posts about the anti-war movement prior to the war.
He takes up the issue of anti-war liberals and pro-war liberals - the anti-war position of "I told you it was a mistake the whole time," versus the pro-war liberal position of, "Iraq is a mess, but for none of the reasons the anti-war liberals predicated."
He seems to think the anti-war liberals ought to be given the benefit of the doubt, because, well, they were MORE right or in his words, they got the big questions right. I, of course, disagree because I think it is a stupid game to get too invested in American failure. The anti-war was more broadly, a movement rooted in constraining the use of American power around the world and opposing a democratically elected American president because they didn't like his vibe. They filled in the blanks with reasons why Iraq would fail and the reasonable ones were worried the day Iraqis dipped their fingers in purple ink. I think they're on the wrong side of history and mistake our enemies for our friends. But anyway, Drum looks at the issue more consisely and better than I do...
Everyone is talking Obama, Hillary, Gore, McCain, Guiliani, Romney...but pay attention to Newt Gingrich. Very quietly this guy has been talking calmly, candidly, and seriously about Iraq.
While Hillary can do nothing more than oppose Bush's troop surge (so what does that mean - she supports the status quo?), Ginrich is talking candidly about the cost of losing, strategies for winning, mistakes that were made, and how to move forward.
Here are some sample articles, speeches, interviews, etc.
I never cared all that much for Ginrich, but I'll give him this: he's smart as hell, experienced, and has the tone of a man who no longer cares what opinion polls think of him. He rose to the top and came crashing down. Now he's rising again and with that, you get wisdom. My dad said something smart in 1996 - he said the Republicans were stupid to run Bob Dole because their soul was Ginrich. They may have beaten Clinton that year. But the old school Republican party prided themselves on decency and it was Dole's turn to run. That Republican party doesn't seem to exist anymore. That should not be construed as remorse - which would be completely phony because I never liked those guys to begin with. So onto other matters...
Of course we all like Obama - what's not to like? But I don't like how everyone treats him as some sort of political messiah. I don't believe in angels, I don't believe in being rescued or being saved by some magical person coming over the hill in majestic backlight. And it feels to me everyone (dems, i mean) want Obama to be that person. This time around, we need to err on the side of wisdom and not hope.
Hillary strikes me more and more as a political opportunist like her husband. I mean when you take away the brains and the connections and the experience, what are these two people? Does Hillary have...I hate to say it without a sense of irony...any character? I mean, what does she stand for? What does she believe in? She is smart. She is tough. I like her. But I guess this sickly feeling about her that she sold her soul somewhere along the line to keep herself in the game. But that's probably something we all do. I guess I don't imagine that for her it was a very hard decision. Which makes me suspect that deep down, there just isn't much there.
On other news, I started reading Kevin Drum the other day. Has a couple of interesting posts about the anti-war movement prior to the war.
He takes up the issue of anti-war liberals and pro-war liberals - the anti-war position of "I told you it was a mistake the whole time," versus the pro-war liberal position of, "Iraq is a mess, but for none of the reasons the anti-war liberals predicated."
He seems to think the anti-war liberals ought to be given the benefit of the doubt, because, well, they were MORE right or in his words, they got the big questions right. I, of course, disagree because I think it is a stupid game to get too invested in American failure. The anti-war was more broadly, a movement rooted in constraining the use of American power around the world and opposing a democratically elected American president because they didn't like his vibe. They filled in the blanks with reasons why Iraq would fail and the reasonable ones were worried the day Iraqis dipped their fingers in purple ink. I think they're on the wrong side of history and mistake our enemies for our friends. But anyway, Drum looks at the issue more consisely and better than I do...
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
You Want Cynical Realism?
Say the realists are right and Iraq is a disaster... My question: for who?
Some say, most Americans haven't sacrificed anything.
Some say, this has created a whole new generation of jihadists.
Some say it's ruined our reputation around the world.
Some say it's weakened our position in the Middle East.
Some say it's ruined our moral standing.
And on and on...these are the arguments from the realists (now) and the moonbats (who we won't don't even really need to bother with anymore).
So say - as the realists do - that all that matters is American interests and those interests have been damaged. How so?
Our economy is strong. Sadly, we can afford to blow hundreds of billions on failure and still buy cars and houses and send our kids to college. Our armed services are tied down - who cares? Was there something else we were hoping to use them for in the meantime? Is Hitler taking over Europe? Nope. I don't see anything more pressing -- except perhaps Iran, but even that's a stretch.
Most Americans haven't sacrificed anything - good. That shows it hasn't cost us much.
It's caused a new generation of jihadists? Who cares? Just more guys to kill - they've proved how easy that is.
Our reputation is ruined. Who cares? Does it affect our wallet? Does it affect our ability to project power? Nope. Does it affect us getting what we want? I don't see any evidence of it, four years later.
Position in the middle east weakened? Are you kidding? Whose the biggest, badest militia in the region? Not Hezbollah, not Al Queda, not Iran Revolutionary Guards, not the Republican Guard, not even the IDF...sorry folks, we swing the biggest stick and everyone knows it.
Our moral standing. Pfft. This is the realist position, remember?
But what about the Iraqis? Who gives a shit? Seriously...in the realist argument we didn't care about them for the past 27 years...why should we care now. Maybe we don't.
The surge, pullout - what's the difference? It's all change to us...like pondering over whether to tip the guy at the Coffee Bean.
Getting played by Iran? Yeah right. They know as well as we do, if they push us once too many times we blow up their oil facilities and bankrupt their state. Or better yet, fund the Sunni insurgents to get bold and start attacking the Shiia in Iran. Or even better yet - just allow the Saudis to fund the Sunni insurgents. It won't even cost us anything. They get really out of line, we let the Israelis nuke them. Still no skin off our back. The fact is, Iran can't even do anything to us to provoke a direct response. That's how uneven this relationship is. We don't even need to deal with them - we just let others do it for us. Our assistants handle it.
New set of thoughts....
What does the events of post-9/11 mean to the cynical realist? It means we can get hit with an enormous surprise attack - that we can lose Al Queda's "all in" bet and five years later feel little to no long term affect to our country. Shit, we can even make money off it by making movies and mini-series. Al Queda basically provided us with a lot of serious entertainment. They haven't changed our lives a single, remote, tiny bit.
Meanwhile, Al Queda's leadership hides in caves and now considers the ability to release a video on youtube a success. They can do what every 12 year old in America with a Mac is able to do. Congrats. They basically have a lot of time to pray and worry about if anyone is going to betray them.
And not only that...to hammer down the point...we invade a pinnacle country in the heart of the Middle East - not because they had anything to do with 9/11 - but simply because they were in the damn region and looked at us goofy, we went in with one hand and one leg tied behind our backs...without even raising taxes and thumped Saddam and his sons and let the pesky, annoying little militias on all sides spend the rest of the time killing one another while we got suntans in the greenzone or worked on screenplays or bought condos while living in the greatest country on earth.
The lesson - don't fuck with us or we'll turn your country into a civil war zone and play all sides against each other while we read about it on weblogs.
The burden of power. Ha. Pass me a bloody mary. I'm a cynical realist now.
Say the realists are right and Iraq is a disaster... My question: for who?
Some say, most Americans haven't sacrificed anything.
Some say, this has created a whole new generation of jihadists.
Some say it's ruined our reputation around the world.
Some say it's weakened our position in the Middle East.
Some say it's ruined our moral standing.
And on and on...these are the arguments from the realists (now) and the moonbats (who we won't don't even really need to bother with anymore).
So say - as the realists do - that all that matters is American interests and those interests have been damaged. How so?
Our economy is strong. Sadly, we can afford to blow hundreds of billions on failure and still buy cars and houses and send our kids to college. Our armed services are tied down - who cares? Was there something else we were hoping to use them for in the meantime? Is Hitler taking over Europe? Nope. I don't see anything more pressing -- except perhaps Iran, but even that's a stretch.
Most Americans haven't sacrificed anything - good. That shows it hasn't cost us much.
It's caused a new generation of jihadists? Who cares? Just more guys to kill - they've proved how easy that is.
Our reputation is ruined. Who cares? Does it affect our wallet? Does it affect our ability to project power? Nope. Does it affect us getting what we want? I don't see any evidence of it, four years later.
Position in the middle east weakened? Are you kidding? Whose the biggest, badest militia in the region? Not Hezbollah, not Al Queda, not Iran Revolutionary Guards, not the Republican Guard, not even the IDF...sorry folks, we swing the biggest stick and everyone knows it.
Our moral standing. Pfft. This is the realist position, remember?
But what about the Iraqis? Who gives a shit? Seriously...in the realist argument we didn't care about them for the past 27 years...why should we care now. Maybe we don't.
The surge, pullout - what's the difference? It's all change to us...like pondering over whether to tip the guy at the Coffee Bean.
Getting played by Iran? Yeah right. They know as well as we do, if they push us once too many times we blow up their oil facilities and bankrupt their state. Or better yet, fund the Sunni insurgents to get bold and start attacking the Shiia in Iran. Or even better yet - just allow the Saudis to fund the Sunni insurgents. It won't even cost us anything. They get really out of line, we let the Israelis nuke them. Still no skin off our back. The fact is, Iran can't even do anything to us to provoke a direct response. That's how uneven this relationship is. We don't even need to deal with them - we just let others do it for us. Our assistants handle it.
New set of thoughts....
What does the events of post-9/11 mean to the cynical realist? It means we can get hit with an enormous surprise attack - that we can lose Al Queda's "all in" bet and five years later feel little to no long term affect to our country. Shit, we can even make money off it by making movies and mini-series. Al Queda basically provided us with a lot of serious entertainment. They haven't changed our lives a single, remote, tiny bit.
Meanwhile, Al Queda's leadership hides in caves and now considers the ability to release a video on youtube a success. They can do what every 12 year old in America with a Mac is able to do. Congrats. They basically have a lot of time to pray and worry about if anyone is going to betray them.
And not only that...to hammer down the point...we invade a pinnacle country in the heart of the Middle East - not because they had anything to do with 9/11 - but simply because they were in the damn region and looked at us goofy, we went in with one hand and one leg tied behind our backs...without even raising taxes and thumped Saddam and his sons and let the pesky, annoying little militias on all sides spend the rest of the time killing one another while we got suntans in the greenzone or worked on screenplays or bought condos while living in the greatest country on earth.
The lesson - don't fuck with us or we'll turn your country into a civil war zone and play all sides against each other while we read about it on weblogs.
The burden of power. Ha. Pass me a bloody mary. I'm a cynical realist now.
Damn
A pretty good op-ed about Beckham and Posh and why me and so many others love living in LA.
The author makes a nice point - because LA is shallow, it doesn't make us shallow...but let's face it - who would be more fun to see at coffee shop, Paris Hilton or Malcom Gladwell?
Enough said.
A pretty good op-ed about Beckham and Posh and why me and so many others love living in LA.
The author makes a nice point - because LA is shallow, it doesn't make us shallow...but let's face it - who would be more fun to see at coffee shop, Paris Hilton or Malcom Gladwell?
Enough said.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Does That Mean I'm Pregnant?
Last night before falling asleep I craved pancakes with syrup and butter. This has not happened in years. I don't even like pancakes.
My theory is that it has something to do with my body after a soccer game. These soccer games, even at this really low level, absolutely knock me out. I am unable to do any work - whatsoever - afterwards. I can barely read. All I can do is either nap or watch TV or talk on the phone.
Often, I have penciled in my planner - write Sunday night. See movie, whatever...some sort of plans for the five or six hours free after the soccer game. And never am I able to do much other than watch football highlights.
I must be getting old.
Last night before falling asleep I craved pancakes with syrup and butter. This has not happened in years. I don't even like pancakes.
My theory is that it has something to do with my body after a soccer game. These soccer games, even at this really low level, absolutely knock me out. I am unable to do any work - whatsoever - afterwards. I can barely read. All I can do is either nap or watch TV or talk on the phone.
Often, I have penciled in my planner - write Sunday night. See movie, whatever...some sort of plans for the five or six hours free after the soccer game. And never am I able to do much other than watch football highlights.
I must be getting old.
I Could Have Told 'Em That
"Contrary to what almost everyone has maintained for years - that the solution to the problems of the Middle East lies in the resolution of the Israel-Palestinian problem - the present civil war in Palestine proves that no one cares about the Israel-Palestinian problem. The so-called Palestinian issue has been subsumed into the broader problem of containing Persian imperialism, and the Palestinians have been left to fend for themselves, rather like the Kurds - but without the Kurds' language, 3,000-year history, and success in creating institutions of self-rule."
Palestinians should know that no one really gives a shit about them - Israel, the Arab World, the Europeans, or the United States...everyone uses their suffering for their own benefit - the Arabs more than anyone else.
"Contrary to what almost everyone has maintained for years - that the solution to the problems of the Middle East lies in the resolution of the Israel-Palestinian problem - the present civil war in Palestine proves that no one cares about the Israel-Palestinian problem. The so-called Palestinian issue has been subsumed into the broader problem of containing Persian imperialism, and the Palestinians have been left to fend for themselves, rather like the Kurds - but without the Kurds' language, 3,000-year history, and success in creating institutions of self-rule."
Palestinians should know that no one really gives a shit about them - Israel, the Arab World, the Europeans, or the United States...everyone uses their suffering for their own benefit - the Arabs more than anyone else.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Seeking Advice From Tom Cruise
According to Beckham, he is "a really wise man."
Any bets on how long it takes Beckham to embrace Scientology?
According to Beckham, he is "a really wise man."
Any bets on how long it takes Beckham to embrace Scientology?
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Damn NBC
As if the Tracy Morgan meat machine was not enough, NBC has added a new show - online only - and it's quickly become my favorite viewing pastime: Poker After Dark. It is so simple, but incredibly relaxing...a perfect thing to watch before going to bed.
On top of that, they have ideas for a great reality TV idea: this Grease audition show which will follow the process of casting and making this broadway show and then of course, the kicker, is that if the show is a hit a ton of people will go to broadway to see these personalities perform Grease. Incredible idea. This could be the shot in the arm the theater needs. Who knows if the people will be watchable, but I actually think it could be GOOD.
This Poker After Dark show is really good. It's like the Maysles Bros meets the World Poker Tour.
Reality TV has several different styles - documentary, sports, and game shows. I think what so many people respond negatively to are the game shows...but there's still a lot of unrealized potential in this form as some producers and networks seem to be willing to explore - Dog Whisperer, Poker After Dark, and Grease. Keep your eyes open.
As if the Tracy Morgan meat machine was not enough, NBC has added a new show - online only - and it's quickly become my favorite viewing pastime: Poker After Dark. It is so simple, but incredibly relaxing...a perfect thing to watch before going to bed.
On top of that, they have ideas for a great reality TV idea: this Grease audition show which will follow the process of casting and making this broadway show and then of course, the kicker, is that if the show is a hit a ton of people will go to broadway to see these personalities perform Grease. Incredible idea. This could be the shot in the arm the theater needs. Who knows if the people will be watchable, but I actually think it could be GOOD.
This Poker After Dark show is really good. It's like the Maysles Bros meets the World Poker Tour.
Reality TV has several different styles - documentary, sports, and game shows. I think what so many people respond negatively to are the game shows...but there's still a lot of unrealized potential in this form as some producers and networks seem to be willing to explore - Dog Whisperer, Poker After Dark, and Grease. Keep your eyes open.
What's So Civil About War, Anyway?
Someone is starting to make a lot of sense.
Rather that fighting over whether Iraq is in civil war or not - maybe the question is better posed: So what if Iraq has a civil war? Is leaving catastrophic? Will it give Al Queda reason to cheer? (I hope they do publically, so we can see them blown to bits).
How bad would the Civil War really be? Would it affect us at all? Certainly we wouldn't want to see a Taliban like safe haven develop. What makes us think it would?
Finally a prosed opposition to Bush's policies that makes some sense. What took so long, I wonder?
Our country needed a bloody Civil War that killed 600,000 people to resolve differences that couldn't be settled in the compromises over the Constitution. Maybe Clemenza is right - a war needs to happen every now and then to clean out all the bad blood between the families.
Someone is starting to make a lot of sense.
Rather that fighting over whether Iraq is in civil war or not - maybe the question is better posed: So what if Iraq has a civil war? Is leaving catastrophic? Will it give Al Queda reason to cheer? (I hope they do publically, so we can see them blown to bits).
How bad would the Civil War really be? Would it affect us at all? Certainly we wouldn't want to see a Taliban like safe haven develop. What makes us think it would?
Finally a prosed opposition to Bush's policies that makes some sense. What took so long, I wonder?
Our country needed a bloody Civil War that killed 600,000 people to resolve differences that couldn't be settled in the compromises over the Constitution. Maybe Clemenza is right - a war needs to happen every now and then to clean out all the bad blood between the families.
BEWARE: Film School Grads
A bit of a scary statistic...
My friend from high school has an older brother who attended the USC MFA Production program (like me), he graduated in 2000 and reports that 90% of his classmates, including the very talented ones, are still "trying to figure out what to do." Many of them are yet to write their first script. Scary thoughts...
A bit of a scary statistic...
My friend from high school has an older brother who attended the USC MFA Production program (like me), he graduated in 2000 and reports that 90% of his classmates, including the very talented ones, are still "trying to figure out what to do." Many of them are yet to write their first script. Scary thoughts...
Poker At Night
One thing I notice about Jerry Buss, the only non-professional at the table, he folds a lot of winning hands regardless whether he's in position or not. The other guys seem to fold very early, and fold almost anything when not in position.
Doyle Brunson is bluffing at a lot of pots and winning most of them unless he runs up against the nuts. I'm guessing it's because he figures the other guys think he's going to play conservative.
One of my favorite bits is when they start talking about who's going to be the democratic nomination for President. Doyle mentioned that he thought Obama was an atheist. Negranu insists he isn't. The way they discuss who the nominee will be - awesome, it's all in better terms and odds - true poker players.
One thing I notice about Jerry Buss, the only non-professional at the table, he folds a lot of winning hands regardless whether he's in position or not. The other guys seem to fold very early, and fold almost anything when not in position.
Doyle Brunson is bluffing at a lot of pots and winning most of them unless he runs up against the nuts. I'm guessing it's because he figures the other guys think he's going to play conservative.
One of my favorite bits is when they start talking about who's going to be the democratic nomination for President. Doyle mentioned that he thought Obama was an atheist. Negranu insists he isn't. The way they discuss who the nominee will be - awesome, it's all in better terms and odds - true poker players.
Goals For Going Into Iraq
Note, these were my personal goals and the reasons I supported the war and not necessarily reflective of other war supporters reasons, ie the President's plan.
1. Kick Saddam Hussein's Ass [DONE]
2. Tech Lesson to Dictators: Don't thumb nose at world. [?]
3. Do Not Allow Iraqi WMDs into Terrorist Hands [DONE - albeit in a round about way - we thought Saddam had them, or might have them, and we were getting our hands on them first. Turns out, he didn't have them...but we still achieved the goal. It's debatable whether it was worth the cost.]
4. Bring Model Democracy To Region to counterbalance dictators and religious extremists [NOT DONE]
5. Ensure Iraq will not be a terror state for another generation with Uday and Qusay [NOT DONE - yes, the Tikrit brand of Sunni terror is gone but there could be another form, that of Shiite religious fanatics taking over]
6. Kill Lots of Al Queda [?]
this post isn't done, but I need to think about it more...
Note, these were my personal goals and the reasons I supported the war and not necessarily reflective of other war supporters reasons, ie the President's plan.
1. Kick Saddam Hussein's Ass [DONE]
2. Tech Lesson to Dictators: Don't thumb nose at world. [?]
3. Do Not Allow Iraqi WMDs into Terrorist Hands [DONE - albeit in a round about way - we thought Saddam had them, or might have them, and we were getting our hands on them first. Turns out, he didn't have them...but we still achieved the goal. It's debatable whether it was worth the cost.]
4. Bring Model Democracy To Region to counterbalance dictators and religious extremists [NOT DONE]
5. Ensure Iraq will not be a terror state for another generation with Uday and Qusay [NOT DONE - yes, the Tikrit brand of Sunni terror is gone but there could be another form, that of Shiite religious fanatics taking over]
6. Kill Lots of Al Queda [?]
this post isn't done, but I need to think about it more...
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Oh My, Iraq
Okay, let's talk options first because that seems to be how these things get framed. We'll do a second section on goals, which should be first...but anyway.
Option #1 - The President's Speech: Send in 20,000 more troops to secure Baghdad. Send gunships towards Iran, opening the possibility of a new front of the war if Iran acts any more provacative. Force the Iraqi government to take measurable steps towards providing their own security - presumably meaning taking on the militias.
Option #2 - The Democrat's Response: Start drawing down troops into friendlier places than Baghdad. Keep a smaller, mobile force ready to hit Al Queda when we can.
Option #3 - The Andrew Sullivan Plan: Double-down and send 50,000-100,000 more troops to bring brutal stability to country. Disarm the militias ourselves (ie not working with the elected govt)...I guess.
Option #4 - Stay the Course: Keep troop levels the same, continue to support the elected government. In the current case, this means allowing the militias to stay armed and fighting the Sunni Insurgency and Al Queda. Negotiating with tribes in Anbar to give up Al Queda.
Option #5 - The Arianna Huffington Plan: Pull out all troops, acknowledge Iraq was a tactical and strategic failure. Ask forgiveness from the world and Iraq.
Option #6 - Widen the war. Ask Americans to volunteer (draft, if necessary) and take down the Mullah regime in Iran before they get nukes and because they are helping the insurgency kill American troops.
**Note: I am unclear on who Iran is helping. Are they helping the Sunni insurgents and Al Queda? This seems to be an odd pairing, only because the Sunnis hate the Iranians so much. Are they helping the Shiite death squads? Sadr? I'm just confused on this...
Option #7 - Take a side.
7a - Broker some argeement with the Shiite's and Kurds to completely empower the Shiite's and leave the Kurds autonomy and big oil check and help them eliminate the Sunni insurgency
7b - Assist the defanged Sunni insurgents to keep the country unstable and provide a counterweight to Shiite (Iranian) power in the region.
Option #8 - Break up the country. I'm not even sure we could do this if we wanted, but basically break it into Kurdistan, Shiiastan, and Sunnistan. Leave the oil with who sits on it - the Kurds and the Shiia and screw the Sunnis.
That's all I can think of right now. Each different option has ups and downs and could be done for varying costs. Although scaling back troops would presumably cost less than increasing troops, this would not be the case if scaling back meant we'd be there longer or if it caused an escalation of some sort.
Okay, let's talk options first because that seems to be how these things get framed. We'll do a second section on goals, which should be first...but anyway.
Option #1 - The President's Speech: Send in 20,000 more troops to secure Baghdad. Send gunships towards Iran, opening the possibility of a new front of the war if Iran acts any more provacative. Force the Iraqi government to take measurable steps towards providing their own security - presumably meaning taking on the militias.
Option #2 - The Democrat's Response: Start drawing down troops into friendlier places than Baghdad. Keep a smaller, mobile force ready to hit Al Queda when we can.
Option #3 - The Andrew Sullivan Plan: Double-down and send 50,000-100,000 more troops to bring brutal stability to country. Disarm the militias ourselves (ie not working with the elected govt)...I guess.
Option #4 - Stay the Course: Keep troop levels the same, continue to support the elected government. In the current case, this means allowing the militias to stay armed and fighting the Sunni Insurgency and Al Queda. Negotiating with tribes in Anbar to give up Al Queda.
Option #5 - The Arianna Huffington Plan: Pull out all troops, acknowledge Iraq was a tactical and strategic failure. Ask forgiveness from the world and Iraq.
Option #6 - Widen the war. Ask Americans to volunteer (draft, if necessary) and take down the Mullah regime in Iran before they get nukes and because they are helping the insurgency kill American troops.
**Note: I am unclear on who Iran is helping. Are they helping the Sunni insurgents and Al Queda? This seems to be an odd pairing, only because the Sunnis hate the Iranians so much. Are they helping the Shiite death squads? Sadr? I'm just confused on this...
Option #7 - Take a side.
7a - Broker some argeement with the Shiite's and Kurds to completely empower the Shiite's and leave the Kurds autonomy and big oil check and help them eliminate the Sunni insurgency
7b - Assist the defanged Sunni insurgents to keep the country unstable and provide a counterweight to Shiite (Iranian) power in the region.
Option #8 - Break up the country. I'm not even sure we could do this if we wanted, but basically break it into Kurdistan, Shiiastan, and Sunnistan. Leave the oil with who sits on it - the Kurds and the Shiia and screw the Sunnis.
That's all I can think of right now. Each different option has ups and downs and could be done for varying costs. Although scaling back troops would presumably cost less than increasing troops, this would not be the case if scaling back meant we'd be there longer or if it caused an escalation of some sort.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Poker After Dark
On the NBC website they have an exclusive Texas Hold 'Em game with six players: Mattesau (sp?), Gabe Kaplan, David Grey, Doyle Brunson, Jerry Bust, and Daniel Negranu (sp?). They play low blinds and so not too many hands, but it's an incredibly relaxing game to watch. It's also very subtle and you have to pay a little closer attention than the high pace and stakes of the World Series. Me likey.
On the NBC website they have an exclusive Texas Hold 'Em game with six players: Mattesau (sp?), Gabe Kaplan, David Grey, Doyle Brunson, Jerry Bust, and Daniel Negranu (sp?). They play low blinds and so not too many hands, but it's an incredibly relaxing game to watch. It's also very subtle and you have to pay a little closer attention than the high pace and stakes of the World Series. Me likey.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Down Syndrome
This is an odd article. Since we can now discover fetus' with down syndrome, speculation is that 90% are aborted.
I personally find it frightening. I don't have much experience with down syndrome people, but I did work with one actress named Marcy on a project and she was an absolute delight to work with - her parents were sweet and nice and she was open, receptive, and way smarter than I imagined.
I imagine it is incredibly difficult on parents to raise a child with down syndrome, as if raising a child isn't hard enough. But it's still scary.
This is an odd article. Since we can now discover fetus' with down syndrome, speculation is that 90% are aborted.
I personally find it frightening. I don't have much experience with down syndrome people, but I did work with one actress named Marcy on a project and she was an absolute delight to work with - her parents were sweet and nice and she was open, receptive, and way smarter than I imagined.
I imagine it is incredibly difficult on parents to raise a child with down syndrome, as if raising a child isn't hard enough. But it's still scary.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Child Molester Sting
While flipping channels during an NFL playoff commercial, I turn on MSNBC and see a program where they've set up sting operations for child molesters who contacted fake 13 year olds on the internet. They've got an elaborate set up with cops, etc, and when these perverts who think they are meeting a 13 year old boy come into the house, the host of the show comes on with cameras shoved in these guys faces.
I've never felt more sympathy for child molesters. This program was one of the most awful things I've ever seen. One guy is sitting there getting peppered questions by the self-righteous host "WHAT are you DOING here?"
The molester says, "Look, I know I'm in trouble you know I'm in trouble, I don't want to get in any more."
The host says, "You're on a national television program."
The man almost collapsed. He weakly held up his hand to his face, but there were about 5 hidden cameras and he was already exposed. He stood up and started to go after the host - weakly - this was not a tough guy and was pleading, "You can't do that. You can't." He almost started to cry. It was the fact that he would be on TV. He looked like a normal guy and it turned out he was a rabbi.
Everyone is rightfully worried about child molesters, particularly parents and so forth, but it's pretty clear what the problem with these people are - they were mostly victims themselves when they were little and have severe problems. We treat them like monsters of society, but it's pretty clear of all the type of criminals, these are the ones that would be most worth rehabilitating because they are generally normal, functioning members of society otherwise.
I just can't believe they would do this on TV. Really awful.
While flipping channels during an NFL playoff commercial, I turn on MSNBC and see a program where they've set up sting operations for child molesters who contacted fake 13 year olds on the internet. They've got an elaborate set up with cops, etc, and when these perverts who think they are meeting a 13 year old boy come into the house, the host of the show comes on with cameras shoved in these guys faces.
I've never felt more sympathy for child molesters. This program was one of the most awful things I've ever seen. One guy is sitting there getting peppered questions by the self-righteous host "WHAT are you DOING here?"
The molester says, "Look, I know I'm in trouble you know I'm in trouble, I don't want to get in any more."
The host says, "You're on a national television program."
The man almost collapsed. He weakly held up his hand to his face, but there were about 5 hidden cameras and he was already exposed. He stood up and started to go after the host - weakly - this was not a tough guy and was pleading, "You can't do that. You can't." He almost started to cry. It was the fact that he would be on TV. He looked like a normal guy and it turned out he was a rabbi.
Everyone is rightfully worried about child molesters, particularly parents and so forth, but it's pretty clear what the problem with these people are - they were mostly victims themselves when they were little and have severe problems. We treat them like monsters of society, but it's pretty clear of all the type of criminals, these are the ones that would be most worth rehabilitating because they are generally normal, functioning members of society otherwise.
I just can't believe they would do this on TV. Really awful.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Hmmm...Maybe This No School Thing Is Going to Work Out
Without school and without any social obligations today, I actually managed to get a lot done. Imagine that. Things I accomplished:
1. Re-worked and wrote a few scenes for a spec script.
2. Drafted a tutorial outline for my game project.
3. Went to the doctor.
4. Returned all my library books.
5. Bought discount movie tickets.
6. Emailed a friend of a friend in the industry.
7. Contacted a music rights owner about a song.
8. Watched the latest Friday Night Lights and 30 Rock
9. Went to the grocery store.
10. Bumped into a few folks and did a teeny bit of socializing.
It's the only day for a long time I finished everything on my "To do" list. Guess if I don't goof around, go to school, or blog, I can get a lot done.
Without school and without any social obligations today, I actually managed to get a lot done. Imagine that. Things I accomplished:
1. Re-worked and wrote a few scenes for a spec script.
2. Drafted a tutorial outline for my game project.
3. Went to the doctor.
4. Returned all my library books.
5. Bought discount movie tickets.
6. Emailed a friend of a friend in the industry.
7. Contacted a music rights owner about a song.
8. Watched the latest Friday Night Lights and 30 Rock
9. Went to the grocery store.
10. Bumped into a few folks and did a teeny bit of socializing.
It's the only day for a long time I finished everything on my "To do" list. Guess if I don't goof around, go to school, or blog, I can get a lot done.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Would I Come Back?
Duke spat in the face of a couple of their students, presuming they were guilty, canceling lacrosse and kicking them out of school for a year. If they treated me like that, I wouldn't be all that excited about returning.
Duke spat in the face of a couple of their students, presuming they were guilty, canceling lacrosse and kicking them out of school for a year. If they treated me like that, I wouldn't be all that excited about returning.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Why The Good shepherd is a Bad Movie
Nate poses a good question - what makes The Good shepherd a bad movie? The politically correct answer is that if you enjoyed it, you enjoyed it, and that's all that really matters. As a consumer product, which movies are, this is true. And for movies in general, people have different tastes and some people will enjoy movies that others don't. But I'm not a fan of political correctness and I have developed a point of view about filmmaking perhaps not consistent with the layperson. This is what 7 semesters of film school hath bought:
Point 1: Taste is objective. That means there is such thing as good and bad taste - and hence good and bad movies.
Point 2: As a human being, I enjoy many things that are in bad taste and often don't enjoy things that are in good taste.
My point here is that enjoyment does not equal good. To illustrate:
I enjoy the movie Commando, but it is not a good movie.
I enjoy the movie Predator, and it is a good movie.
I do not enjoy The Deer Hunter, but it is a good movie.
I do not enjoy Garden State and it is not a good movie.
Okay. That's a fairly simple round up. The second issue is what makes a movie well-directed vs. well-written. This is certainly a tough, but not impossible, distinction because - at least under the autuer theory - writing is simply one component of a directors vision, others of which are casting, performance, production design, camera choices, and editing choices.
BUT, on a basic nuts and bolts level, writing=characters+structure+dialog. Directing = casting+performance+camera choices. There are other elements such as pacing, locations, production design, and sound, all of which are huge and technically fall under directing...but for the sake of the Good shepherd, we'll try to keep it simple (and I'm only going from memory of the film, which I've seen once).
From a writing perspective, the Good shepherd had some pretty huge structural holes - which are more glaring in spy thrillers than say, a comedy where it doesn't matter as much. But how in the hell did Matt Damon's son end up in Africa or wherever the fuck he was with his "wife." Hunh? All of a sudden this kid shows up giving key secrets away to some girl when the last time we saw him he was in college. It made no sense whatsoever. And why did Damon fly all the way there for his wedding only to have the girl killed? I understand he did it for emotion and tension (what's going to happen?), but the structural stupidity had me scratching my head. Also, what was the point of Matt Damon's wife? It was as if she were tossed in under the mad lib blank: Obstacle #1: Girl gets pregnant. This is a problem with character. Now, it wasn't all bad - some characters were good/decent and the structure wasn't a total mess, and the dialog was fine...but you can't compensate for the few bad choices because no really bold or good choices were made, they failed to examine Damon's psychological complexity, the flashing forward and back was pretty blah, and there just wasn't anything to cheer about writing-wise. So the bad writing in the Good shepherd amounts to : bad structure + a few bad characters + mediocre dialog = bad.
Now the Damon wife topic is a good segway into the directorial failures - casting Angela Jolie? Are you kidding me? What guy in the world wouldn't be home every night shagging the living shit out of Angela Jolie? Come on. Does anyone become this morally complicated, dark human being when you've married into total wealth and managed to snag the hottest girl on the block. No. You thank your lucky stars, take a plush board room job, and have lots and lots of children. No actress in the world could've done much with the part as written. It was crap. But to compound the mistake, you hire the hottest, sexiest actress around to play the women he's trying to stay away from? Come on. That's bad casting.
Now onto performance. It's interesting because on the top level, you're getting great actors, you don't really need to worry about what beginning directors can't always get - and that's believable performances. It is one reason why student films are so poor because we can't get good actors in them. So at this high level, of course, you're going to get pretty good performances. But what you have to look at is what are you getting out of the talent you've got. Check Matt Damon in The Talented Mr. Ripley. Creeeeepy. That's a performance. That's Minghella. See Baldwin in The Departed. That's a performance. Scorcese. Check William Hurt in a History of Violence. None of these guys are playing their "A" game. They are Kobe scoring 18 and dishing 5 assists. Iverson scoring 20 with 4 assists. They aren't up to speed. The best performances of the movie, I thought, were DeNiro and Billy Crudup - BUT a big thing about those parts - great characters...well written characters. So all this stuff ties together, but nonetheless, they can be broken into component parts.
And so lastly - at least on my above list - is camera choice. (position, lens, and format) DeNiro doesn't make an interesting camera choice in the entire movie. It is again, competent. I mean, how can you make a huge Hollywood movie and make incompetent choices (although Coppola famously did in the Godfather and they had to compensate with sound in some scenes...which ironically contributed to its brilliance). But merely making competent choices at this level, I believe, is not enough. One needs to make strong, decisive choices (see Clint) or bold creative choices (see Children of Men). For example - the silhouettes of Clint in Million Dollar Baby in the boxing ring. Unbelievably simple, crisp, decisive, and powerful. Or Children of Men, just watch the opening shot of the movie or the car chase scene, with really long single takes capturing action sequences. Bold.
Which brings up an interesting movie - Miami Vice (those who knew me would probably predicted I'd figure a way to work it in). Miami Vice, to me, was neither bold nor strong and decisive, but rather experimental in the HD shooting mixed with Michael Mann's own camera operating style. This is one reason why many people dislike the film...because experimental takes a certain mindset to enjoy and tends to take upon a difficult quality, generally throwing more power to the audience to get some meaning from the movie, rather than washing over you with images and sound and story as most Hollywood movies tend to do. Experimental filmmaking tends toward reevaluation and makes you either never want to hear, speak, or talk about a movie again, or perhaps, if something touched you - to see it again and again and discover something new.
Anyhow, that's the short analysis (wink) off the top of my head of the Good shepherd. Attack away, ye readers....
Nate poses a good question - what makes The Good shepherd a bad movie? The politically correct answer is that if you enjoyed it, you enjoyed it, and that's all that really matters. As a consumer product, which movies are, this is true. And for movies in general, people have different tastes and some people will enjoy movies that others don't. But I'm not a fan of political correctness and I have developed a point of view about filmmaking perhaps not consistent with the layperson. This is what 7 semesters of film school hath bought:
Point 1: Taste is objective. That means there is such thing as good and bad taste - and hence good and bad movies.
Point 2: As a human being, I enjoy many things that are in bad taste and often don't enjoy things that are in good taste.
My point here is that enjoyment does not equal good. To illustrate:
I enjoy the movie Commando, but it is not a good movie.
I enjoy the movie Predator, and it is a good movie.
I do not enjoy The Deer Hunter, but it is a good movie.
I do not enjoy Garden State and it is not a good movie.
Okay. That's a fairly simple round up. The second issue is what makes a movie well-directed vs. well-written. This is certainly a tough, but not impossible, distinction because - at least under the autuer theory - writing is simply one component of a directors vision, others of which are casting, performance, production design, camera choices, and editing choices.
BUT, on a basic nuts and bolts level, writing=characters+structure+dialog. Directing = casting+performance+camera choices. There are other elements such as pacing, locations, production design, and sound, all of which are huge and technically fall under directing...but for the sake of the Good shepherd, we'll try to keep it simple (and I'm only going from memory of the film, which I've seen once).
From a writing perspective, the Good shepherd had some pretty huge structural holes - which are more glaring in spy thrillers than say, a comedy where it doesn't matter as much. But how in the hell did Matt Damon's son end up in Africa or wherever the fuck he was with his "wife." Hunh? All of a sudden this kid shows up giving key secrets away to some girl when the last time we saw him he was in college. It made no sense whatsoever. And why did Damon fly all the way there for his wedding only to have the girl killed? I understand he did it for emotion and tension (what's going to happen?), but the structural stupidity had me scratching my head. Also, what was the point of Matt Damon's wife? It was as if she were tossed in under the mad lib blank: Obstacle #1: Girl gets pregnant. This is a problem with character. Now, it wasn't all bad - some characters were good/decent and the structure wasn't a total mess, and the dialog was fine...but you can't compensate for the few bad choices because no really bold or good choices were made, they failed to examine Damon's psychological complexity, the flashing forward and back was pretty blah, and there just wasn't anything to cheer about writing-wise. So the bad writing in the Good shepherd amounts to : bad structure + a few bad characters + mediocre dialog = bad.
Now the Damon wife topic is a good segway into the directorial failures - casting Angela Jolie? Are you kidding me? What guy in the world wouldn't be home every night shagging the living shit out of Angela Jolie? Come on. Does anyone become this morally complicated, dark human being when you've married into total wealth and managed to snag the hottest girl on the block. No. You thank your lucky stars, take a plush board room job, and have lots and lots of children. No actress in the world could've done much with the part as written. It was crap. But to compound the mistake, you hire the hottest, sexiest actress around to play the women he's trying to stay away from? Come on. That's bad casting.
Now onto performance. It's interesting because on the top level, you're getting great actors, you don't really need to worry about what beginning directors can't always get - and that's believable performances. It is one reason why student films are so poor because we can't get good actors in them. So at this high level, of course, you're going to get pretty good performances. But what you have to look at is what are you getting out of the talent you've got. Check Matt Damon in The Talented Mr. Ripley. Creeeeepy. That's a performance. That's Minghella. See Baldwin in The Departed. That's a performance. Scorcese. Check William Hurt in a History of Violence. None of these guys are playing their "A" game. They are Kobe scoring 18 and dishing 5 assists. Iverson scoring 20 with 4 assists. They aren't up to speed. The best performances of the movie, I thought, were DeNiro and Billy Crudup - BUT a big thing about those parts - great characters...well written characters. So all this stuff ties together, but nonetheless, they can be broken into component parts.
And so lastly - at least on my above list - is camera choice. (position, lens, and format) DeNiro doesn't make an interesting camera choice in the entire movie. It is again, competent. I mean, how can you make a huge Hollywood movie and make incompetent choices (although Coppola famously did in the Godfather and they had to compensate with sound in some scenes...which ironically contributed to its brilliance). But merely making competent choices at this level, I believe, is not enough. One needs to make strong, decisive choices (see Clint) or bold creative choices (see Children of Men). For example - the silhouettes of Clint in Million Dollar Baby in the boxing ring. Unbelievably simple, crisp, decisive, and powerful. Or Children of Men, just watch the opening shot of the movie or the car chase scene, with really long single takes capturing action sequences. Bold.
Which brings up an interesting movie - Miami Vice (those who knew me would probably predicted I'd figure a way to work it in). Miami Vice, to me, was neither bold nor strong and decisive, but rather experimental in the HD shooting mixed with Michael Mann's own camera operating style. This is one reason why many people dislike the film...because experimental takes a certain mindset to enjoy and tends to take upon a difficult quality, generally throwing more power to the audience to get some meaning from the movie, rather than washing over you with images and sound and story as most Hollywood movies tend to do. Experimental filmmaking tends toward reevaluation and makes you either never want to hear, speak, or talk about a movie again, or perhaps, if something touched you - to see it again and again and discover something new.
Anyhow, that's the short analysis (wink) off the top of my head of the Good shepherd. Attack away, ye readers....
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Hollywood is Stupid, But...
Smarty pants pundits and politicos from DC rightfully criticize Hollywood for generally having moonbat liberal ideas when it comes to politics. Actors don't tend to be the best and the brightest. And movies are hardly a high art form - if art at all.
I just caught some of Fox News (yes, it's one of my guilty pleasures and how I, unlike most lefty hollywood types stay in touch with the common MAN!) and O'Reilly guests were Michelle Malkin and some lady with the last name Power, two youngish fairly attractive young pundits. I'm thinking - okay, these folks are fairly smart and are decent looking, but both women were dressed kinda frumpy and wore too much make-up and deep red lipstick (yuck!) and I realized that these smarty pants politicos don't have any style. I've commented on it before, but there is something rather tacky about the DC establishment, a tackiness I noticed when I lived there, but continue to notice on TV.
So criticize away nerds about how stupid us Hollywood people are. We're better looking and I'll take that anyday.
Smarty pants pundits and politicos from DC rightfully criticize Hollywood for generally having moonbat liberal ideas when it comes to politics. Actors don't tend to be the best and the brightest. And movies are hardly a high art form - if art at all.
I just caught some of Fox News (yes, it's one of my guilty pleasures and how I, unlike most lefty hollywood types stay in touch with the common MAN!) and O'Reilly guests were Michelle Malkin and some lady with the last name Power, two youngish fairly attractive young pundits. I'm thinking - okay, these folks are fairly smart and are decent looking, but both women were dressed kinda frumpy and wore too much make-up and deep red lipstick (yuck!) and I realized that these smarty pants politicos don't have any style. I've commented on it before, but there is something rather tacky about the DC establishment, a tackiness I noticed when I lived there, but continue to notice on TV.
So criticize away nerds about how stupid us Hollywood people are. We're better looking and I'll take that anyday.
Origins of the French Revolution
My resume search got me in the caves of my own work. Who knew I wrote about the origins of the French Revolution when I studied in Europe? This blog, lest I forget, is an archive.
Origins of the French Revolution
Until the 1960’s scholars widely recognised the French Revolution as a social upheaval, a displacing of the monarchical feudal system in favor of a bourgeois capitalist society. This Marxist interpretation of the French Revolution attributes deep-seeded social and economic inequalities to the events of 1789. However, the last thirty years have seen an academic re-evaluation of the causes of the French Revolution, preferring to view the Revolution as a political, rather than a social event. Financial difficulties during the 18th century revealed severe systematic problems with the French monarchy. Politically, the Old Regime could not accommodate the complexities of a large and modern nation. Accompanied with political infighting between figures and factions, the Old Regime collapsed under its own weight leaving a huge void of power. The events of 1789 to 1799 were the struggle to control the power previously held by the monarchy.
A re-examination of France before the revolution, in response to a backlash against Marxist versions of history, questioned the validity of the claim that the social and economic inequalities triggered the French Revolution. In fact the 18th century saw an increasingly unclear distinction between the privileged and unprivileged because of an influx of “new” nobles into French society. More importantly, there was no clear distinction between revenue acquired between commoners and nobles. Thus, economic policies did not significantly favor either nobles or commoners. As such, the nobles and commoners had no specific quarrels during the years preceding the Revolution that led to the collapse of the monarchy. The battle for power between the nobility and the third estate came as a result of the vacancy of power previously held by the monarchy. This battle occurred as a result of the monarchy’s failure and not as a result of deep seeded social inequalities. “ ‘Interest,’ as a principle of differentiation, is a symbolic and political construction, not simply a pre-existing social reality.” (Baker, 6)
The abandonment of the Marxist model necessitates an alternative explanation of the events of 1788-1789, the collapse of the monarchy and the ensuing struggle for power. The collapse of the Old Regime took a series of events that collectively built an inflexible monarchical system that could not accommodate the financial crisis of 1786.
The Financial Situation
The 18th century was financially rough for France. Debt incurred through a series of wars with Britain was problematic, not necessarily in the size but rather the relative rates of interest the French promised compared to the British and Dutch. This was a result of the lack of a publicly supported bank in France.
During the 1770’s all of Europe was stretched financially. To counteract shaken public confidence, Louie XVI appointed a well-known banker, Necker, to be in charge of royal finances. In the latter half of the decade, French support of the American Revolution proved too tempting to resist because of the potential financial benefits of a damaged Britain. To this end Necker was able to raise 520 million livres, much of it on high interest, short-term loans. By the time Calonne had taken over and closely examined the royal finances, it was too late. In 1786 he showed the king the dire financial situation of France and the problems with any simple solutions. Cutting military spending was not an option because of the instability of Eastern Europe after the death of Fredrick the Great. The recent number of indirect taxes targeting nobles already had the nobles upset and prevented the option of levying more new taxes. Merely chipping away at the debt was not possible because many of the loans were short-term and demanded full payment within a couple of years. (Doyle)
Calonne understood the extent of the crisis and the need for reforms. With the approval of Louie XVI, he introduced financial reforms with three major parts. The first reform was an overhaul of the tax system that would tax equally in proportion to land holdings. Secondly, he proposed a plan of economic stimulation, eliminating internal custom barriers with the hope that it would lead to more tax revenue. Lastly, he wanted to eliminate government controls over the grain trade. These reforms would each take time to have an effect, but with the confidence that long-term adjustments were being made, Colonne felt justified in borrowing more money to circumvent the immediate crisis. (Doyle)
Although these proposed reforms came from some of the best minds in France and the notables were aware something needed to be done about the financial situation, they met opposition in the Assembly of Notables in February 1787. The clergy, a small and determined faction, was persistent in their attempts to stop the land tax and any part of the plan that would effect them. But the clergy alone were not sufficient to dismantle the reforms, more opposition came from Colonne’s rivals in the ministry and other notables determined to restore Neckor to his former position. This political infighting damaged the already dire financial situation. Colonne’s power was weakened and the king began to lose faith in his ability and his proposed reforms. Colonne had mistakenly assumed that the notables would accept his reforms without conflict.
In a final effort to enact his reforms, Colonne appealed to the recent phenomenon of public opinion. He released the previously secret text of his proposals to the public. Priests were encouraged to read the reforms to the people. Again Colonne failed to present his reforms in a manner to garner support, as the public displayed no reaction. At this point the situation had become worse and Louie XVI replaced Colonne and added other new ministers. The notables had lost faith in Louie XVI’s ability to resolve the financial crisis and began a call for the Estates-General. “Having run out of money, the old monarchy and its servants had also run out of ideas.” (Doyle, 114)
Rising Importance of Public Opinion
Plagued by war, political division, and social unrest, centralisation of the king’s power in 17th century France was necessary to effectively use the resources of society. The idea was that by centralisation, the monarchy could co-ordinate the activities of communities and corporations for the common good. Thus, the traditional order of the monarchy changed, reducing the power of local government and of parlements. Louie XIV went so far as to, “systematically close off channels of communication between society and the state (such as the Estates General, the remonstrance’s of the parlements, the municipalities and the town councils).” (Furet, 36) After the reign of Louie XIV, parlements remained unrepresentative of the people because of their conservative policies and perhaps due to their diminished role under Louie XIV. Thus, 18th century French society sought a new form of representation or spokesman, in the form of the men of letters or philosophers.
Tocqueville understood that, “by abolishing the ancient liberties and destroying the political function of the nobility without also permitting the formation of a new ruling class on a different basis, the monarchy unwittingly set up the writers as imaginary substitutes for that ruling class.” (Furet, 36) The people sought a spokesman and writers filled the void. The problem with the growth of political power of writers was the lack of connection with the traditional structure. The structure failed to incorporate the political wills expressed by the people through writing; or looking at it another way, failed to incorporate the political will that influenced people through writing. Thus, two competing claims for political power were acting in complete isolation. First, the monarchy, already confounded with internal financial and political problems, had a self-perceived claim of legitimate political power. And secondly, political philosophers a la Rousseau (among others) expressed ideas that legitimate political power was rooted in the consent of the people. The claims of philosophers, journalists, etc. were expressed by the formation of sociétés, cafés, salons, and Masonic lodges. Since the traditional structure had no means to incorporate the new form of popular expression, it was unconscious of the extent to which public opinion mattered. Perhaps more importantly, it was also unconscious as to the shaping of public opinion, an art perfected by the writers, pamphleteers, and journalists of the time.
18th century France was a sophisticated country. By the time Louie XVI was king public opinion had become a political force that everyone, including the monarchy, recognised as important. However, the monarchy’s lack of influence over public opinion and lack of systematic incorporation of public opinion into policy severely impaired the power of the Old Regime.
Conclusion
Coupling the internal financial and political problems of the monarchy with the alternative sources of political power supplied by writers of public opinion the collapse of the Old Regime became imminent. Furet denominates the summoning of the Estates General, the (re) appointment of Necker, the recall of the parlements, all in the summer of 1788, as the surrender of Louie XVI’s power and the first major step of the French Revolution. The vacancy of power opened up numerous possibilities, the results determining the fate of the French nation and more broadly, the entire world.
“The reorientation (of the French Revolution) can best be characterised as a shift from Marx to Tocqueville, from a basically social approach to the subject to a basically political one.” (Baker, 1) The more modern understanding gives greater credence to the problems with the French monarchy as causes of the Revolution than the social inequalities focused upon by Marxist scholars. Thus, the worldwide shift from feudalism to capitalism was more a product of the French Revolution than the French Revolution was a product of the shift from feudalism to capitalism.
My resume search got me in the caves of my own work. Who knew I wrote about the origins of the French Revolution when I studied in Europe? This blog, lest I forget, is an archive.
Origins of the French Revolution
Until the 1960’s scholars widely recognised the French Revolution as a social upheaval, a displacing of the monarchical feudal system in favor of a bourgeois capitalist society. This Marxist interpretation of the French Revolution attributes deep-seeded social and economic inequalities to the events of 1789. However, the last thirty years have seen an academic re-evaluation of the causes of the French Revolution, preferring to view the Revolution as a political, rather than a social event. Financial difficulties during the 18th century revealed severe systematic problems with the French monarchy. Politically, the Old Regime could not accommodate the complexities of a large and modern nation. Accompanied with political infighting between figures and factions, the Old Regime collapsed under its own weight leaving a huge void of power. The events of 1789 to 1799 were the struggle to control the power previously held by the monarchy.
A re-examination of France before the revolution, in response to a backlash against Marxist versions of history, questioned the validity of the claim that the social and economic inequalities triggered the French Revolution. In fact the 18th century saw an increasingly unclear distinction between the privileged and unprivileged because of an influx of “new” nobles into French society. More importantly, there was no clear distinction between revenue acquired between commoners and nobles. Thus, economic policies did not significantly favor either nobles or commoners. As such, the nobles and commoners had no specific quarrels during the years preceding the Revolution that led to the collapse of the monarchy. The battle for power between the nobility and the third estate came as a result of the vacancy of power previously held by the monarchy. This battle occurred as a result of the monarchy’s failure and not as a result of deep seeded social inequalities. “ ‘Interest,’ as a principle of differentiation, is a symbolic and political construction, not simply a pre-existing social reality.” (Baker, 6)
The abandonment of the Marxist model necessitates an alternative explanation of the events of 1788-1789, the collapse of the monarchy and the ensuing struggle for power. The collapse of the Old Regime took a series of events that collectively built an inflexible monarchical system that could not accommodate the financial crisis of 1786.
The Financial Situation
The 18th century was financially rough for France. Debt incurred through a series of wars with Britain was problematic, not necessarily in the size but rather the relative rates of interest the French promised compared to the British and Dutch. This was a result of the lack of a publicly supported bank in France.
During the 1770’s all of Europe was stretched financially. To counteract shaken public confidence, Louie XVI appointed a well-known banker, Necker, to be in charge of royal finances. In the latter half of the decade, French support of the American Revolution proved too tempting to resist because of the potential financial benefits of a damaged Britain. To this end Necker was able to raise 520 million livres, much of it on high interest, short-term loans. By the time Calonne had taken over and closely examined the royal finances, it was too late. In 1786 he showed the king the dire financial situation of France and the problems with any simple solutions. Cutting military spending was not an option because of the instability of Eastern Europe after the death of Fredrick the Great. The recent number of indirect taxes targeting nobles already had the nobles upset and prevented the option of levying more new taxes. Merely chipping away at the debt was not possible because many of the loans were short-term and demanded full payment within a couple of years. (Doyle)
Calonne understood the extent of the crisis and the need for reforms. With the approval of Louie XVI, he introduced financial reforms with three major parts. The first reform was an overhaul of the tax system that would tax equally in proportion to land holdings. Secondly, he proposed a plan of economic stimulation, eliminating internal custom barriers with the hope that it would lead to more tax revenue. Lastly, he wanted to eliminate government controls over the grain trade. These reforms would each take time to have an effect, but with the confidence that long-term adjustments were being made, Colonne felt justified in borrowing more money to circumvent the immediate crisis. (Doyle)
Although these proposed reforms came from some of the best minds in France and the notables were aware something needed to be done about the financial situation, they met opposition in the Assembly of Notables in February 1787. The clergy, a small and determined faction, was persistent in their attempts to stop the land tax and any part of the plan that would effect them. But the clergy alone were not sufficient to dismantle the reforms, more opposition came from Colonne’s rivals in the ministry and other notables determined to restore Neckor to his former position. This political infighting damaged the already dire financial situation. Colonne’s power was weakened and the king began to lose faith in his ability and his proposed reforms. Colonne had mistakenly assumed that the notables would accept his reforms without conflict.
In a final effort to enact his reforms, Colonne appealed to the recent phenomenon of public opinion. He released the previously secret text of his proposals to the public. Priests were encouraged to read the reforms to the people. Again Colonne failed to present his reforms in a manner to garner support, as the public displayed no reaction. At this point the situation had become worse and Louie XVI replaced Colonne and added other new ministers. The notables had lost faith in Louie XVI’s ability to resolve the financial crisis and began a call for the Estates-General. “Having run out of money, the old monarchy and its servants had also run out of ideas.” (Doyle, 114)
Rising Importance of Public Opinion
Plagued by war, political division, and social unrest, centralisation of the king’s power in 17th century France was necessary to effectively use the resources of society. The idea was that by centralisation, the monarchy could co-ordinate the activities of communities and corporations for the common good. Thus, the traditional order of the monarchy changed, reducing the power of local government and of parlements. Louie XIV went so far as to, “systematically close off channels of communication between society and the state (such as the Estates General, the remonstrance’s of the parlements, the municipalities and the town councils).” (Furet, 36) After the reign of Louie XIV, parlements remained unrepresentative of the people because of their conservative policies and perhaps due to their diminished role under Louie XIV. Thus, 18th century French society sought a new form of representation or spokesman, in the form of the men of letters or philosophers.
Tocqueville understood that, “by abolishing the ancient liberties and destroying the political function of the nobility without also permitting the formation of a new ruling class on a different basis, the monarchy unwittingly set up the writers as imaginary substitutes for that ruling class.” (Furet, 36) The people sought a spokesman and writers filled the void. The problem with the growth of political power of writers was the lack of connection with the traditional structure. The structure failed to incorporate the political wills expressed by the people through writing; or looking at it another way, failed to incorporate the political will that influenced people through writing. Thus, two competing claims for political power were acting in complete isolation. First, the monarchy, already confounded with internal financial and political problems, had a self-perceived claim of legitimate political power. And secondly, political philosophers a la Rousseau (among others) expressed ideas that legitimate political power was rooted in the consent of the people. The claims of philosophers, journalists, etc. were expressed by the formation of sociétés, cafés, salons, and Masonic lodges. Since the traditional structure had no means to incorporate the new form of popular expression, it was unconscious of the extent to which public opinion mattered. Perhaps more importantly, it was also unconscious as to the shaping of public opinion, an art perfected by the writers, pamphleteers, and journalists of the time.
18th century France was a sophisticated country. By the time Louie XVI was king public opinion had become a political force that everyone, including the monarchy, recognised as important. However, the monarchy’s lack of influence over public opinion and lack of systematic incorporation of public opinion into policy severely impaired the power of the Old Regime.
Conclusion
Coupling the internal financial and political problems of the monarchy with the alternative sources of political power supplied by writers of public opinion the collapse of the Old Regime became imminent. Furet denominates the summoning of the Estates General, the (re) appointment of Necker, the recall of the parlements, all in the summer of 1788, as the surrender of Louie XVI’s power and the first major step of the French Revolution. The vacancy of power opened up numerous possibilities, the results determining the fate of the French nation and more broadly, the entire world.
“The reorientation (of the French Revolution) can best be characterised as a shift from Marx to Tocqueville, from a basically social approach to the subject to a basically political one.” (Baker, 1) The more modern understanding gives greater credence to the problems with the French monarchy as causes of the Revolution than the social inequalities focused upon by Marxist scholars. Thus, the worldwide shift from feudalism to capitalism was more a product of the French Revolution than the French Revolution was a product of the shift from feudalism to capitalism.
Absolutely Fascinating
I'm working on my resume today and I was trying to find some super old copies with my script reading internship information. I ended up going back to an old hotmail account to look up old messages. I couldn't find the resume, but I took a look at some old email folders I had created at one time to try to organize my emails. The titles were things like: Friends, Film School, Investments, Foreign Service, Job Search, Soccer, LA Housing, etc. Each of them have a few scattered messages that are absolutely fascinating to read. One was a conversation with a film professor from San Fran State about High Noon as a metaphor for the Iraq War. Another was from 2000, I was seeking job and life advice from a girl a couple years older than me who I worked with at the DOJ. Another was a scattered group of emails right before I moved to LA after a long cross country road trip with old coworkers at my consulting job. Funny stuff. These email accounts are going to be brilliant to read 25 years from now looking back upon life.
I'm working on my resume today and I was trying to find some super old copies with my script reading internship information. I ended up going back to an old hotmail account to look up old messages. I couldn't find the resume, but I took a look at some old email folders I had created at one time to try to organize my emails. The titles were things like: Friends, Film School, Investments, Foreign Service, Job Search, Soccer, LA Housing, etc. Each of them have a few scattered messages that are absolutely fascinating to read. One was a conversation with a film professor from San Fran State about High Noon as a metaphor for the Iraq War. Another was from 2000, I was seeking job and life advice from a girl a couple years older than me who I worked with at the DOJ. Another was a scattered group of emails right before I moved to LA after a long cross country road trip with old coworkers at my consulting job. Funny stuff. These email accounts are going to be brilliant to read 25 years from now looking back upon life.
Nate Responds!
Nate returns from hiding to poke holes in the seemingly irrefutable logic here at Public Musings. Nate's criticism of Blair and Bush is that they err on the side of ideology rather than pragmatism, which has contributed to the continuing problems in that country. He is surely correct to some degree. Right now I'm almost finished with the Assassin's Gate, a Christmas present and a must read for those with a curiousity about Iraq. It starts by following the policy battles in Washington, about the curious group everyone loves to hate known as the neoconservatives and how their arguments were able to win the day after 9/11 and how they became fascinated with Iraq. The book goes into chapters about Iraqi exiles and their plans, American troops on the ground and their experiences, Kurdish, Sunni and Shia men and women in Iraq and their perspectives. Now I'm in the Chapter appropriately entitled Civil War?
The book is a monster. Packard goes in with a ferocity trying to find truth and make sense of a situation that for all intents and purposes is unknowable and almost incapable of understanding. The people of Iraq are curious creatures and one feels equal parts sympathy and frustration with their deliberations, hopes, and suspicions.
But one thing remains clear to me in reading this book, a single man like Saddam can ruin and psychologically batter an entire generation of 20 million plus people in the relatively short historical time frame of 30 years. His policies were all geared towards subjugating the majority of the population underneath a terror government which benefited no one - not even the Sunnis in power. He had an odd layered system, a pyramid scheme of power in which no one benefited and everyone lived in fear. His sons were monsters of their own system. It was sick.
Knowing this helps explain the difficulties today. The ethnic fighting makes more sense when you know that Saddam had a policy "Arabizing" Kurdish areas by moving Arabs into Kirkuk and taking land and space away from the Kurds, who now want it back.
I know this: If you have credit card debt, you can keep paying off the minimum and get by. But one day, you're going to have to pay the whole thing at a massive interest rate. Iraq had gotten to a point where the balance was so huge, it was paying more interest than the principal. One day, someone was going to need to pay this debt - maybe it wasn't us in 2003, but some day someone was going to have to deal with Iraq and it was never going to be pretty. Maybe we weren't suited to. In fact, surely we weren't...and aren't suited to. But then again, who else is there?
Nate returns from hiding to poke holes in the seemingly irrefutable logic here at Public Musings. Nate's criticism of Blair and Bush is that they err on the side of ideology rather than pragmatism, which has contributed to the continuing problems in that country. He is surely correct to some degree. Right now I'm almost finished with the Assassin's Gate, a Christmas present and a must read for those with a curiousity about Iraq. It starts by following the policy battles in Washington, about the curious group everyone loves to hate known as the neoconservatives and how their arguments were able to win the day after 9/11 and how they became fascinated with Iraq. The book goes into chapters about Iraqi exiles and their plans, American troops on the ground and their experiences, Kurdish, Sunni and Shia men and women in Iraq and their perspectives. Now I'm in the Chapter appropriately entitled Civil War?
The book is a monster. Packard goes in with a ferocity trying to find truth and make sense of a situation that for all intents and purposes is unknowable and almost incapable of understanding. The people of Iraq are curious creatures and one feels equal parts sympathy and frustration with their deliberations, hopes, and suspicions.
But one thing remains clear to me in reading this book, a single man like Saddam can ruin and psychologically batter an entire generation of 20 million plus people in the relatively short historical time frame of 30 years. His policies were all geared towards subjugating the majority of the population underneath a terror government which benefited no one - not even the Sunnis in power. He had an odd layered system, a pyramid scheme of power in which no one benefited and everyone lived in fear. His sons were monsters of their own system. It was sick.
Knowing this helps explain the difficulties today. The ethnic fighting makes more sense when you know that Saddam had a policy "Arabizing" Kurdish areas by moving Arabs into Kirkuk and taking land and space away from the Kurds, who now want it back.
I know this: If you have credit card debt, you can keep paying off the minimum and get by. But one day, you're going to have to pay the whole thing at a massive interest rate. Iraq had gotten to a point where the balance was so huge, it was paying more interest than the principal. One day, someone was going to need to pay this debt - maybe it wasn't us in 2003, but some day someone was going to have to deal with Iraq and it was never going to be pretty. Maybe we weren't suited to. In fact, surely we weren't...and aren't suited to. But then again, who else is there?
Movie Thoughts
Last night I saw one of the best movie previews - ever. I actually don't want to describe the preview because describing it will ruin in. But let's just say, the filmmaking and camera use is incredible. The funniest (and oddest) part about the preview is when the title comes up - The Hills Have Eyes Part 2. No joke.
A holiday movie and dvd roundup.
The Good Shephard - Lousy directing, bad writing. So much talent not used property. All the other new spy movies coming out look stupid as well. Thank goodness. It means there is still space for the Janissary.
Rocky Balboa - Bad. A few good moments when I got pumped up like the Rocky of old, but this one was just bad. Not as bad as Rocky V, but still bad. To put it in perspective, Rocky IV was on the other day on television and I watched the entire thing on TNT because it's so damn engrossing and fun to watch. You couldn't pay me to see Rocky Balboa again. Seriously, where were the music video montages to Eye of the Tiger? I miss that gay cheese.
Children of Men - I really liked it. I was surprised how much I enjoyed it and how emotion I felt during parts of the film. The politics and the cheese can be talked about, but I got washed over by the pace of the story, quality acting, and exciting filmmaking.
Freaks and Geeks - A show on TV for one season around 2000 or 2001. It was a one hour comedy (rare) about a group of freshmen geeks and junior freaks. The show is great and a lot of the creators and directors of the show have gone on to much bigger things - Jud Apatow, Mike White, Jake Kasdan, Gabe Sachs. This is a pretty awesome high school show, but I thought the second half of the season lost it's steam and it made sense to me why the show didn't find an audience large enough to sustain itself. In constrast, there are shows like Arrested Development, which inexplicably, couldn't find an audience.
The Office Season 2 - The American version is good entertainment, what can I say?
Babel - I saw this over Thanksgiving and thought it was really great, although all the stories ended weaker than they. The filmmaker obviously has big ideas and thoughts but hasn't quite figured out how to put it together cohesively into a tidy narrative. But then again, maybe he's not interested. And frustratingly to me, talented enough to get away with it.
I feel as though I'm missing something, but there are still a bunch of movies to see: Little Children, Volver, Letters from Iwo Jima, just to begin with.
Last night I saw one of the best movie previews - ever. I actually don't want to describe the preview because describing it will ruin in. But let's just say, the filmmaking and camera use is incredible. The funniest (and oddest) part about the preview is when the title comes up - The Hills Have Eyes Part 2. No joke.
A holiday movie and dvd roundup.
The Good Shephard - Lousy directing, bad writing. So much talent not used property. All the other new spy movies coming out look stupid as well. Thank goodness. It means there is still space for the Janissary.
Rocky Balboa - Bad. A few good moments when I got pumped up like the Rocky of old, but this one was just bad. Not as bad as Rocky V, but still bad. To put it in perspective, Rocky IV was on the other day on television and I watched the entire thing on TNT because it's so damn engrossing and fun to watch. You couldn't pay me to see Rocky Balboa again. Seriously, where were the music video montages to Eye of the Tiger? I miss that gay cheese.
Children of Men - I really liked it. I was surprised how much I enjoyed it and how emotion I felt during parts of the film. The politics and the cheese can be talked about, but I got washed over by the pace of the story, quality acting, and exciting filmmaking.
Freaks and Geeks - A show on TV for one season around 2000 or 2001. It was a one hour comedy (rare) about a group of freshmen geeks and junior freaks. The show is great and a lot of the creators and directors of the show have gone on to much bigger things - Jud Apatow, Mike White, Jake Kasdan, Gabe Sachs. This is a pretty awesome high school show, but I thought the second half of the season lost it's steam and it made sense to me why the show didn't find an audience large enough to sustain itself. In constrast, there are shows like Arrested Development, which inexplicably, couldn't find an audience.
The Office Season 2 - The American version is good entertainment, what can I say?
Babel - I saw this over Thanksgiving and thought it was really great, although all the stories ended weaker than they. The filmmaker obviously has big ideas and thoughts but hasn't quite figured out how to put it together cohesively into a tidy narrative. But then again, maybe he's not interested. And frustratingly to me, talented enough to get away with it.
I feel as though I'm missing something, but there are still a bunch of movies to see: Little Children, Volver, Letters from Iwo Jima, just to begin with.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Like the Quest For Bin Laden
My quest to find a new Member's Only Jacket has thus far failed. I've looked in hipster stores, used stores, and online. I really don't want to buy a grungey old jacket. I feel like I won't wear it. I want a new member's only - beige, light blue, or grey. But I don't think I can find it other than used and even that, only online. I find it very difficult to purchase clothes online because how do you know if they will fit?
The quest will continue, however, I am not going to spend much extra time on it.
My quest to find a new Member's Only Jacket has thus far failed. I've looked in hipster stores, used stores, and online. I really don't want to buy a grungey old jacket. I feel like I won't wear it. I want a new member's only - beige, light blue, or grey. But I don't think I can find it other than used and even that, only online. I find it very difficult to purchase clothes online because how do you know if they will fit?
The quest will continue, however, I am not going to spend much extra time on it.
The Dog Whisperer
Some of these dogs have the most bizarre problems. One dog tonight couldn't walk on any shiny surfaces because he had injured himself months before by running around on shiny surfaces and slamming into a glass wall. The dog was huge - 160 lbs and absolutely refused to enter this school with linoleum floors. The owner needed to take the dog to school on certain days and so in comes the dog whisperer. As usual, the dog whisperer spends a little bit of time with the dog, becomes the "pack leader" and shows the dog how to behave and the dog gets over his phobia.
I realized in watching this show...we should should send the dog whisperer to Iraq. He could, probably in a short amount of time, figure out the psychological dysfunction of the country and get in back on track. Anyway, he could probably do a better job than the current situation.
Don't scoff. This isn't the worst idea.
Some of these dogs have the most bizarre problems. One dog tonight couldn't walk on any shiny surfaces because he had injured himself months before by running around on shiny surfaces and slamming into a glass wall. The dog was huge - 160 lbs and absolutely refused to enter this school with linoleum floors. The owner needed to take the dog to school on certain days and so in comes the dog whisperer. As usual, the dog whisperer spends a little bit of time with the dog, becomes the "pack leader" and shows the dog how to behave and the dog gets over his phobia.
I realized in watching this show...we should should send the dog whisperer to Iraq. He could, probably in a short amount of time, figure out the psychological dysfunction of the country and get in back on track. Anyway, he could probably do a better job than the current situation.
Don't scoff. This isn't the worst idea.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Man of the Year
Since I (and everyone else) won Time's Man of the Year this year, I would like to donate my award to Tony Blair. He hasn't been in the news much this year, but it's a long overdue award for the most articulate politician of our time and one of the few politicians I honestly admire.
For those with an interest in the Iraq and the war on terror, he has a must read piece in this Foreign Affairs.
Money quote:
Imagine how easy it would be for Blair to come out against the Iraq war and to criticize Bush. If he used his incredible articulation AGAINST the American project in Iraq he would be lionized as a hero - both in Europe and in the United States, by liberals and "realist" conservatives. But he hasn't. Because he's got courage and conviction. And that's why he's my man of the year. Close second: Frank Gore, running back on the 49ers.
Update: Another money quote...
The debate in America centers around the idea of "interest." Both sides claim Iraq is either not in our immediate interest or is key to our interests. But Blair frames the debate differently. He says clearly foreign policy should be dictated by values which are inseparable from interests.
I love American pragmatism. It is the greatest (and maybe only) addition to Western philosophy by America. We are a nation of pragmatists and I think it has a large part to do with our riches and our upstanding image in the world. But I think we give our values, at times, short shrift. American's won't stand for injustice and lies. And we forget that in some societies - particularly those in the Middle East - we are dealing with places where 2+2=5. Lying is embedded in the political culture. It is why so many Iraqis initially did not believe Uday and Qusay were dead. Now they know they are. As is Saddam.
It's hard to be happy about seeing a man die. But I hope it gives pause to Mubarack, Ahminijabad, Assad, and company, who can now see an alternative to their flimsy grasp of power. I hope they add the calculus of Saddam's fate into their own decision making. And I hope it makes Iraq heal.
Since I (and everyone else) won Time's Man of the Year this year, I would like to donate my award to Tony Blair. He hasn't been in the news much this year, but it's a long overdue award for the most articulate politician of our time and one of the few politicians I honestly admire.
For those with an interest in the Iraq and the war on terror, he has a must read piece in this Foreign Affairs.
Money quote:
This ideology has to be taken on -- and taken on everywhere. Islamist terrorism will not be defeated until we confront not just the methods of the extremists but also their ideas. I do not mean just telling them that terrorist activity is wrong. I mean telling them that their attitude toward the United States is absurd, that their concept of governance is prefeudal, that their positions on women and other faiths are reactionary. We must reject not just their barbaric acts but also their false sense of grievance against the West, their attempt to persuade us that it is others and not they themselves who are responsible for their violence.
Imagine how easy it would be for Blair to come out against the Iraq war and to criticize Bush. If he used his incredible articulation AGAINST the American project in Iraq he would be lionized as a hero - both in Europe and in the United States, by liberals and "realist" conservatives. But he hasn't. Because he's got courage and conviction. And that's why he's my man of the year. Close second: Frank Gore, running back on the 49ers.
Update: Another money quote...
In my nine years as prime minister, I have not become less idealistic or more cynical. I have simply become more persuaded that the distinction between a foreign policy driven by values and one driven by interests is wrong. Globalization begets interdependence, and interdependence begets the necessity of a common value system to make it work. Idealism thus becomes realpolitik.
The debate in America centers around the idea of "interest." Both sides claim Iraq is either not in our immediate interest or is key to our interests. But Blair frames the debate differently. He says clearly foreign policy should be dictated by values which are inseparable from interests.
I love American pragmatism. It is the greatest (and maybe only) addition to Western philosophy by America. We are a nation of pragmatists and I think it has a large part to do with our riches and our upstanding image in the world. But I think we give our values, at times, short shrift. American's won't stand for injustice and lies. And we forget that in some societies - particularly those in the Middle East - we are dealing with places where 2+2=5. Lying is embedded in the political culture. It is why so many Iraqis initially did not believe Uday and Qusay were dead. Now they know they are. As is Saddam.
It's hard to be happy about seeing a man die. But I hope it gives pause to Mubarack, Ahminijabad, Assad, and company, who can now see an alternative to their flimsy grasp of power. I hope they add the calculus of Saddam's fate into their own decision making. And I hope it makes Iraq heal.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
My Next Script
I am finishing my spy thriller, starting my suburban thriller comedy, but after that, my next big budget script will be about private security firms.
Put it up on IMDB.
I am finishing my spy thriller, starting my suburban thriller comedy, but after that, my next big budget script will be about private security firms.
Put it up on IMDB.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Whoa
If she were a really good Miss USA she'd say, "I don't apologize about drinking - I'm Miss USA for goddsake and the drinking age being 21 is ridiculous."
And you know what? Most people would agree with her.
If she were a really good Miss USA she'd say, "I don't apologize about drinking - I'm Miss USA for goddsake and the drinking age being 21 is ridiculous."
And you know what? Most people would agree with her.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Don't Kid Yourself
The Saudi's are not and never will be our friends. Our relationship with them is for mutual convenience, but they are not to be trusted - ever.
This is why. It is an article written by Aayan Hirsi Ali in the LA Times Oped entitled: Why the deny the Holocaust.
She asks a perfectly reasonable question:
"What's striking about Ahmadinejad's conference is the (silent) acquiescence of mainstream Muslims. I cannot help but wonder: Why is there no counter-conference in Riyadh, Cairo, Lahore, Khartoum or Jakarta condemning Ahmadinejad? Why are the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference silent on this?
Could the answer be as simple as it is horrifying: For generations, the leaders of these so-called Muslim countries have been spoon-feeding their populations a constant diet of propaganda similar to the one that generations of Germans (and other Europeans) were fed — that Jews are vermin and should be dealt with as such? In Europe, the logical conclusion was the Holocaust. If Ahmadinejad has his way, he shall not want for compliant Muslims ready to act on his wish."
I don't think the contemporary Muslim world quite reflects Germany circa 1933. First off, not a single Muslim country is a world military power like Germany. Even Pakistan is a second or third tier army...as is Turkey. But the current world situation is no less scary if only because it's just as hard to play. Fighting Germany is like a poker opponent with a little smaller stack. Playing against Germany and Japan would be like playing against two fairly rational opponents with medium sized stacks. Playing against Islamic fundamentalists is like playing against twently crazy men who barely know the rules each with a small stack. You can beat most of them, but the odds tell you that some of them will win sometimes.
The Saudi's are not and never will be our friends. Our relationship with them is for mutual convenience, but they are not to be trusted - ever.
This is why. It is an article written by Aayan Hirsi Ali in the LA Times Oped entitled: Why the deny the Holocaust.
She asks a perfectly reasonable question:
"What's striking about Ahmadinejad's conference is the (silent) acquiescence of mainstream Muslims. I cannot help but wonder: Why is there no counter-conference in Riyadh, Cairo, Lahore, Khartoum or Jakarta condemning Ahmadinejad? Why are the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference silent on this?
Could the answer be as simple as it is horrifying: For generations, the leaders of these so-called Muslim countries have been spoon-feeding their populations a constant diet of propaganda similar to the one that generations of Germans (and other Europeans) were fed — that Jews are vermin and should be dealt with as such? In Europe, the logical conclusion was the Holocaust. If Ahmadinejad has his way, he shall not want for compliant Muslims ready to act on his wish."
I don't think the contemporary Muslim world quite reflects Germany circa 1933. First off, not a single Muslim country is a world military power like Germany. Even Pakistan is a second or third tier army...as is Turkey. But the current world situation is no less scary if only because it's just as hard to play. Fighting Germany is like a poker opponent with a little smaller stack. Playing against Germany and Japan would be like playing against two fairly rational opponents with medium sized stacks. Playing against Islamic fundamentalists is like playing against twently crazy men who barely know the rules each with a small stack. You can beat most of them, but the odds tell you that some of them will win sometimes.
Chocolate Truffles
I forgot the gluttony that goes on at regular offices. I drop by work today to find a little bag of gourmet truffles. I'm bored and I take one. I'm not really a big candy fan. Or sweets in general. I liked them fine, but wouldn't even really spend the money to buy myself sweets because to me, they generally aren't worth the cost. (Although a good chocolate croissant is a nice afternoon snack - heated up). I take candy only when it's offered for free.
So, case in point...I snag a truffle. Mmm. Good. No surprise. Truffles are yummy. I go back to my seat. Maybe I should get another. I go back to the little kitchen and grab two more. I eat them as I walk away. Goddammit man, if this isn't the best truffle I've ever eaten. My fingers are dark brown with truffle powder and I lick them.
I go back again.
An office mate sees me. "Are these the best truffles you've ever had?" I ask.
"They're good."
"Damn right."
I eat two more and am thinking of going back for more.
I forgot the gluttony that goes on at regular offices. I drop by work today to find a little bag of gourmet truffles. I'm bored and I take one. I'm not really a big candy fan. Or sweets in general. I liked them fine, but wouldn't even really spend the money to buy myself sweets because to me, they generally aren't worth the cost. (Although a good chocolate croissant is a nice afternoon snack - heated up). I take candy only when it's offered for free.
So, case in point...I snag a truffle. Mmm. Good. No surprise. Truffles are yummy. I go back to my seat. Maybe I should get another. I go back to the little kitchen and grab two more. I eat them as I walk away. Goddammit man, if this isn't the best truffle I've ever eaten. My fingers are dark brown with truffle powder and I lick them.
I go back again.
An office mate sees me. "Are these the best truffles you've ever had?" I ask.
"They're good."
"Damn right."
I eat two more and am thinking of going back for more.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Palestinian Civil War
We read a lot about Iraq decending into civil war, but after Israel left Gaza, Palestinians have been killing each other for control.
But it's not as newsworthy because Palestinian lives aren't an issue to anyone unless Israel is the perpetrator. Okay, fine, that was a cheap shot. But is it wrong?
We read a lot about Iraq decending into civil war, but after Israel left Gaza, Palestinians have been killing each other for control.
But it's not as newsworthy because Palestinian lives aren't an issue to anyone unless Israel is the perpetrator. Okay, fine, that was a cheap shot. But is it wrong?
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Smith and Gore
Gore looked worn out and tired from a long season until the 4th quarter, when the beast came alive and rushed for 104 yards...most of which were done on while holding a slim lead. I've never in my life seen a Niners team that's been able to take care of a slim lead by ball possession. Even in our glory days, it was all about the pass attack and we always had trouble putting away teams in close games. This is a first.
Smith played like a man tonight. The best play was a scramble he made to the end zone that ended up getting called back on a penalty. This guy dives shoulders first like a RB, not a QB.
He looked like a leader and winner tonight. I'll take him.
Gore looked worn out and tired from a long season until the 4th quarter, when the beast came alive and rushed for 104 yards...most of which were done on while holding a slim lead. I've never in my life seen a Niners team that's been able to take care of a slim lead by ball possession. Even in our glory days, it was all about the pass attack and we always had trouble putting away teams in close games. This is a first.
Smith played like a man tonight. The best play was a scramble he made to the end zone that ended up getting called back on a penalty. This guy dives shoulders first like a RB, not a QB.
He looked like a leader and winner tonight. I'll take him.
Are They Kidding?
Do they really think Al Queda needs an excuse to attack us. If they could, they would.
Do they really think Al Queda needs an excuse to attack us. If they could, they would.
Goody
This is a pretty good analysis of what we're involved with. Iraq was an attempt to prevent it and right now it's looking like failure. Cooler heads will not prevail. What reason do have to believe it anymore.
Oh well.
This is a pretty good analysis of what we're involved with. Iraq was an attempt to prevent it and right now it's looking like failure. Cooler heads will not prevail. What reason do have to believe it anymore.
Oh well.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Tennis
I like Wilson Racquets a lot and here is fun site to read about their line of racquets.
Here is fun site to find the Wilson racquet that fits you.
Sorry for the Wilson ad here....but hell, Federer uses them.
I was getting my racquet restrung today and I was telling the guy I really like my racquet but was thinking of getting the new version (so I could have two for friends and when I break a string), he pointed it out to me but said the version I have is the best version Wilson ever made of the racquet - it was the perfect weight he said, afterwards they made the newer versions too light. Cool.
I like Wilson Racquets a lot and here is fun site to read about their line of racquets.
Here is fun site to find the Wilson racquet that fits you.
Sorry for the Wilson ad here....but hell, Federer uses them.
I was getting my racquet restrung today and I was telling the guy I really like my racquet but was thinking of getting the new version (so I could have two for friends and when I break a string), he pointed it out to me but said the version I have is the best version Wilson ever made of the racquet - it was the perfect weight he said, afterwards they made the newer versions too light. Cool.
Reasonable
Sullivan is a much better writer and thinker when he's calm.
Hell, maybe we all are.
***A side note - what drives one to write? I've read that anger fuels comedy. What fuels writing? I suppose having something to say...but what fuels having something to say? I know most writers talk about how writing isn't so much a choice, but an urge. It might be said of a writer, it is someone who cannot NOT write.
And although I've always hated that notion - because it is absurd - from a scientific or biological standpoint (what if say, you were never taught to read?), it makes some sense.
Sullivan is a much better writer and thinker when he's calm.
Hell, maybe we all are.
***A side note - what drives one to write? I've read that anger fuels comedy. What fuels writing? I suppose having something to say...but what fuels having something to say? I know most writers talk about how writing isn't so much a choice, but an urge. It might be said of a writer, it is someone who cannot NOT write.
And although I've always hated that notion - because it is absurd - from a scientific or biological standpoint (what if say, you were never taught to read?), it makes some sense.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Gone Too Far
The conservative blogosphere has gone too far. They're making fun of Alec Baldwin. I won't accept it. He is the greatest actor working today.
The conservative blogosphere has gone too far. They're making fun of Alec Baldwin. I won't accept it. He is the greatest actor working today.
What's Worse?
That this is a headline on CNN or that I've blogged about it.
Headline: Lohan: I haven't had a drink in a week.
No wonder Al Jazeera is so popular.
That this is a headline on CNN or that I've blogged about it.
Headline: Lohan: I haven't had a drink in a week.
No wonder Al Jazeera is so popular.
More Racism
"Contemporary racism is not conscious, and it is not accompanied by dislike, so it gets expressed in indirect, subtle ways," he said.
This article reminds me of the Seinfeld episode when Kramer gets a deli slicer. He says to Elaine, "I once sliced a piece so thin, I couldn't even see it."
We're all racist, we just don't know it or show it.
"Contemporary racism is not conscious, and it is not accompanied by dislike, so it gets expressed in indirect, subtle ways," he said.
This article reminds me of the Seinfeld episode when Kramer gets a deli slicer. He says to Elaine, "I once sliced a piece so thin, I couldn't even see it."
We're all racist, we just don't know it or show it.
More Racism
"Contemporary racism is not conscious, and it is not accompanied by dislike, so it gets expressed in indirect, subtle ways," he said.
It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode when Kramer gets a deli slicer. He says to Elaine, "I once sliced a piece so thin, I couldn't even see it." Elaine replies, "How did you know you sliced it?"
"I just assumed."
We're all racist, we just don't know it or show it.
"Contemporary racism is not conscious, and it is not accompanied by dislike, so it gets expressed in indirect, subtle ways," he said.
It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode when Kramer gets a deli slicer. He says to Elaine, "I once sliced a piece so thin, I couldn't even see it." Elaine replies, "How did you know you sliced it?"
"I just assumed."
We're all racist, we just don't know it or show it.
Monday, December 11, 2006
The Niners
I really like watching them this year because they express so much potential. Gore and Smith are in their second year. Davis is a rookie. Are you kidding? These guys have the potential to be awesome. But as a team, they are no good. Without a pass rush, an NFL team sucks. And the Niners defense, which plays with heart at times, fundamentally sucks.
And the offense is interesting. It's one of the few offenses that I don't think is very good, but has a running game. Usually, with a running game, an NFL team is good. But the Niners don't seem able to string it all together. Once in awhile, they do, and I'm like - these guys belong in the playoffs. But 75% of the time, they look like shit.
Anyhow, this is the first time in years I can watch because there is hope.
I really like watching them this year because they express so much potential. Gore and Smith are in their second year. Davis is a rookie. Are you kidding? These guys have the potential to be awesome. But as a team, they are no good. Without a pass rush, an NFL team sucks. And the Niners defense, which plays with heart at times, fundamentally sucks.
And the offense is interesting. It's one of the few offenses that I don't think is very good, but has a running game. Usually, with a running game, an NFL team is good. But the Niners don't seem able to string it all together. Once in awhile, they do, and I'm like - these guys belong in the playoffs. But 75% of the time, they look like shit.
Anyhow, this is the first time in years I can watch because there is hope.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Now This Is A Reason To Move to Canada
When it's not a time of war, I don't have such a huge problem with idiots in the government...I should...but I don't.
But when it is a time of war and we have idiots heading our Intelligence committees in congress. Eeee, gawd...
Let me repeat: the new head of the intelligence committee in the house does not know whether Al Queda is a Sunni or Shia organization.
I'm over democracy...
When it's not a time of war, I don't have such a huge problem with idiots in the government...I should...but I don't.
But when it is a time of war and we have idiots heading our Intelligence committees in congress. Eeee, gawd...
Let me repeat: the new head of the intelligence committee in the house does not know whether Al Queda is a Sunni or Shia organization.
I'm over democracy...
Racist
Ah, yes, Battleship can bring out the worst in people.
Chapelle is a genius..."If you're an American, you're a racist. I'm a racist. You know how I know? Because the other day, I found myself being racist against myself. It's true. Somebody was complaining about a department store not having a black Santa Claus and I agreed with the department store. I wasn't ready for a black Santa Claus. It's too much. We wouldn't be getting our Christmas presents 'til the 28th, 29th..."
He's too funny.
Ah, yes, Battleship can bring out the worst in people.
Chapelle is a genius..."If you're an American, you're a racist. I'm a racist. You know how I know? Because the other day, I found myself being racist against myself. It's true. Somebody was complaining about a department store not having a black Santa Claus and I agreed with the department store. I wasn't ready for a black Santa Claus. It's too much. We wouldn't be getting our Christmas presents 'til the 28th, 29th..."
He's too funny.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Classic Films
A schedule of classic films in LA this next month.
Must see: Rules of the Game at the Nuart, Nick Ray night at Egyptian.
Awesome.
A schedule of classic films in LA this next month.
Must see: Rules of the Game at the Nuart, Nick Ray night at Egyptian.
Awesome.
Iraq Study Group
Okay, so I've read most of it now. What I don't understand is why the study group believes that Iran and Syria have an interest in a stable Iraq. They rightly point out both Iran and Syria are currently de-stabilizing Iraq. If they had an interest in a stable Iraq, why are they currently de-stabilizing it?
It's called wishful thinking.
UPDATE: All right, well this makes a little bit of sense.
Okay, so I've read most of it now. What I don't understand is why the study group believes that Iran and Syria have an interest in a stable Iraq. They rightly point out both Iran and Syria are currently de-stabilizing Iraq. If they had an interest in a stable Iraq, why are they currently de-stabilizing it?
It's called wishful thinking.
UPDATE: All right, well this makes a little bit of sense.
Friday, December 08, 2006
The End of the Old World
Melissa sees this as a sign of the apocalypse.
I'm more inclined to be worried about this statistic: no civilization has ever recovered from a birth rate being lower than 1.3 children per woman. That is to say, in the course of human history, any civilization whose birthrate got lower than 1.3, has never had a demographic recovery and been able to replace itself. Over time, the math works itself out and the population ceases to exist when people don't replace themselves with children.
Right now, in 17 European nations, the birthrate has dipped to below this rate.
Now, I am not a europhile. I mock the French, didn't have a great experience in England, got mugged in Prague, found Spanish food gross, and don't like the sound of German. But I'm not so sure I'm excited about a future without any French people. Sure, France, the landmass will exist...but France is more than that, it is a culture with a history. These people invented brie for chrissake. Brie. And fellatio. I've yet to see similar accomplishments from a Muslim country. And right now, on the streets of France at nighttime, it is the young Muslims who populate. This is the future. Now, this wouldn't be an inherent problem if it wasn't for the trouble with Muslim assimilation in Europe and if we didn't care about French culture.
And maybe it's a little embarassing to admit being a freedom fry lover and all, but I don't want to see the French go away. I like Paris, dammit. And this country produced Jean Renior, Andre Bazin, and Jean Luc Godard.
So if you need a reason to have children...here it is: to preserve Western Civilization.
Thanks Alice and Kevin for beginning to do your part.
Update: In the Netherlands, native Dutch people have a net emigration rate. That is, more native dutch are leaving the country than being born. Of course, they can't come to the US because our legal immigration process doesn't work, so they go to New Zealand and Australia.
Melissa sees this as a sign of the apocalypse.
I'm more inclined to be worried about this statistic: no civilization has ever recovered from a birth rate being lower than 1.3 children per woman. That is to say, in the course of human history, any civilization whose birthrate got lower than 1.3, has never had a demographic recovery and been able to replace itself. Over time, the math works itself out and the population ceases to exist when people don't replace themselves with children.
Right now, in 17 European nations, the birthrate has dipped to below this rate.
Now, I am not a europhile. I mock the French, didn't have a great experience in England, got mugged in Prague, found Spanish food gross, and don't like the sound of German. But I'm not so sure I'm excited about a future without any French people. Sure, France, the landmass will exist...but France is more than that, it is a culture with a history. These people invented brie for chrissake. Brie. And fellatio. I've yet to see similar accomplishments from a Muslim country. And right now, on the streets of France at nighttime, it is the young Muslims who populate. This is the future. Now, this wouldn't be an inherent problem if it wasn't for the trouble with Muslim assimilation in Europe and if we didn't care about French culture.
And maybe it's a little embarassing to admit being a freedom fry lover and all, but I don't want to see the French go away. I like Paris, dammit. And this country produced Jean Renior, Andre Bazin, and Jean Luc Godard.
So if you need a reason to have children...here it is: to preserve Western Civilization.
Thanks Alice and Kevin for beginning to do your part.
Update: In the Netherlands, native Dutch people have a net emigration rate. That is, more native dutch are leaving the country than being born. Of course, they can't come to the US because our legal immigration process doesn't work, so they go to New Zealand and Australia.
Economics of Take Out
I hardly ever cook. A friend of mine and my sisters express surprise. Aren't you a poor grad student? How can you afford to eat out all the time?
Today is a perfect example. I went to the store the other day and bought food. This morning, I was running a bit late, but since I had the food, decided to make myself a quick breakfast. Toasted sourdough, avocado, and bacon sandwich. I ate it with a glass of OJ and read news on the internet.
Normally, when I come to the temp job, I pick up a breakfast sandwich or bagel from the place downstairs and eat it when I come up to work. I'm guessing, all things considered, making the breakfast caused me to lose 1/2 hour coming here, but saved me $5 or so.
Since I get paid $17 an hour, I ended up losing $8.50 for my 1/2 hour to save $5 (minus the sunk cost on buying the food - although my bfast sandwich was better than the one downstairs). So I actually lost money by making my own breakfast, according to my calculations.
When you make your own hours, which 90% of my current jobs allow me to do, you really start to realize the value of your time.
I hardly ever cook. A friend of mine and my sisters express surprise. Aren't you a poor grad student? How can you afford to eat out all the time?
Today is a perfect example. I went to the store the other day and bought food. This morning, I was running a bit late, but since I had the food, decided to make myself a quick breakfast. Toasted sourdough, avocado, and bacon sandwich. I ate it with a glass of OJ and read news on the internet.
Normally, when I come to the temp job, I pick up a breakfast sandwich or bagel from the place downstairs and eat it when I come up to work. I'm guessing, all things considered, making the breakfast caused me to lose 1/2 hour coming here, but saved me $5 or so.
Since I get paid $17 an hour, I ended up losing $8.50 for my 1/2 hour to save $5 (minus the sunk cost on buying the food - although my bfast sandwich was better than the one downstairs). So I actually lost money by making my own breakfast, according to my calculations.
When you make your own hours, which 90% of my current jobs allow me to do, you really start to realize the value of your time.
Gimme A Break, Sullivan
I'm really annoyed with the self-righteousness of habeaus corpus and rights of terrorism suspects. Sullivan is the king of it. In above linked post a reader talks about the founders crying in heaven.
Do you remember what happened to Loyalists during the American Revolution? Tarred. Feathered. Lynched.
Captured traitors? Strung up on trees. No trials. No judge. No jury. Alex Hamilton, the founder most wary of the mob, expressed great admiration for George Washington's swift justice he handed down at the end of a rope upon discovered traitors in the Continental Army.
We all rightly fear an Orwellian state, but lots not kid ourselves about terrorism suspects. They are the enemy. They are people who are trying to kill us and we caught them before they succeeded. Will some innocent people be suspects? Yes. Will it be unfair? Yes. But welcome to the world. Innocent people get convicted of crimes. Does that mean we disband the police and the justice system?
Get a grip and read a little history and let's figure out how to win, not how to lose.
I'm really annoyed with the self-righteousness of habeaus corpus and rights of terrorism suspects. Sullivan is the king of it. In above linked post a reader talks about the founders crying in heaven.
Do you remember what happened to Loyalists during the American Revolution? Tarred. Feathered. Lynched.
Captured traitors? Strung up on trees. No trials. No judge. No jury. Alex Hamilton, the founder most wary of the mob, expressed great admiration for George Washington's swift justice he handed down at the end of a rope upon discovered traitors in the Continental Army.
We all rightly fear an Orwellian state, but lots not kid ourselves about terrorism suspects. They are the enemy. They are people who are trying to kill us and we caught them before they succeeded. Will some innocent people be suspects? Yes. Will it be unfair? Yes. But welcome to the world. Innocent people get convicted of crimes. Does that mean we disband the police and the justice system?
Get a grip and read a little history and let's figure out how to win, not how to lose.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
The Dentist
Riffing off of Alice's trip to the dentist...
It was my second trip to my new LA dentist, but the first time I met the dentist herself and got the full check up.
Something very unnerving about visiting a new dentist, especially because Dr. Bellinger is the only dentist I've ever had. Tear. Needless to say, I was very comfortable with him, despite the fact that he didn't use gloves sometimes. (He washed his hands, okay, and he was old, and I trusted him).
So I'm checking out the digs of this new dentist, trying gauge whether I've wandered into some phony dentist who more rightly belonged in Little Shop of Horrors. The hygenist acted as though she knew what she was doing and used the water spik instead of the scraper. She did not compliment my teeth (like my old dentist used to) and instead said I needed to floss more because my gums bled a lot. They had lots of high tech stuff computer stuff, like a dvd player and digital xrays and a computerized scheduling system all right in the office. Of course, all this high tech stuff made me suspicious - my old dentist didn't need this and he did just fine. These nuevo-dentists and their fancy gadgets. What happened to just good old braces and polishing?
So I'm getting my teeth scrubbed away thinking there's no way I'd be able to handle torture and another hygenist comes in reminding my current hygenist that she needs to take pictures of my teeth.
"Oh, no." I think. "I don't want to be one of the pictures on the wall. Pleeease, no."
But I have no say in the matter. I am escorted into another room and asked to hold these plastic contraptions to stretch my lips and expose my teeth. I do so while this other hygenist snaps a digital photo of my teeth. I see myself in the mirror holding my lips open and this weird lady taking photos and me and suddenly realize I must have stumbled into some fake dentist internet company who publishes fetish pictures of mouths on the internet. I am scared.
The "dentist" comes in because the hygenist is having some type of trouble with the digital camera and starts to assist her. Meanwhile, my mouth is stretched open. The next set of shots require a mirror being shoved into my throat to get an angle on my teeth. Because I must breathe, the mirror fogs, but not so long as the hygenist uses her can of cool spray to counteract my breathing on the mirror. Imagine me, holding my lips wide open, a women shoving a mirror down my throat and spraying some type of cool, compressed air on the mirror, and the third women acting like a set photographer and you get the idea.
What kind of perverse world had I fallen into? This is unnecessary. My old dentist never took digital pictures of my teeth. I remember Andy's story of his childhood soccer coach who took pictures of all the players on the team to "remember names." Later, he was convicted of child molestation.
Could I take these two women if had to? Certainly not with the mirror shoved down my throat. One strong punch and it would've been death for Greg.
Finally the picture session was over and common sense got ahold of me. Why would these people go through this elaborate set up to take pictures of my teeth and put them on the internet? They are probably legit. You've been in LA too long. You're going crazy. You need to trust people more. That's why you don't have a girlfriend.
"Okay, so now we need to take you picture in our picture studio."
"What?"
"Stand up there against the wall."
"Why?"
"For our file."
I stand up against the wall. Next to me is a movie poster for a Hepburn and Tracy movie. I smile crookedly.
"You've got nice teeth."
Riffing off of Alice's trip to the dentist...
It was my second trip to my new LA dentist, but the first time I met the dentist herself and got the full check up.
Something very unnerving about visiting a new dentist, especially because Dr. Bellinger is the only dentist I've ever had. Tear. Needless to say, I was very comfortable with him, despite the fact that he didn't use gloves sometimes. (He washed his hands, okay, and he was old, and I trusted him).
So I'm checking out the digs of this new dentist, trying gauge whether I've wandered into some phony dentist who more rightly belonged in Little Shop of Horrors. The hygenist acted as though she knew what she was doing and used the water spik instead of the scraper. She did not compliment my teeth (like my old dentist used to) and instead said I needed to floss more because my gums bled a lot. They had lots of high tech stuff computer stuff, like a dvd player and digital xrays and a computerized scheduling system all right in the office. Of course, all this high tech stuff made me suspicious - my old dentist didn't need this and he did just fine. These nuevo-dentists and their fancy gadgets. What happened to just good old braces and polishing?
So I'm getting my teeth scrubbed away thinking there's no way I'd be able to handle torture and another hygenist comes in reminding my current hygenist that she needs to take pictures of my teeth.
"Oh, no." I think. "I don't want to be one of the pictures on the wall. Pleeease, no."
But I have no say in the matter. I am escorted into another room and asked to hold these plastic contraptions to stretch my lips and expose my teeth. I do so while this other hygenist snaps a digital photo of my teeth. I see myself in the mirror holding my lips open and this weird lady taking photos and me and suddenly realize I must have stumbled into some fake dentist internet company who publishes fetish pictures of mouths on the internet. I am scared.
The "dentist" comes in because the hygenist is having some type of trouble with the digital camera and starts to assist her. Meanwhile, my mouth is stretched open. The next set of shots require a mirror being shoved into my throat to get an angle on my teeth. Because I must breathe, the mirror fogs, but not so long as the hygenist uses her can of cool spray to counteract my breathing on the mirror. Imagine me, holding my lips wide open, a women shoving a mirror down my throat and spraying some type of cool, compressed air on the mirror, and the third women acting like a set photographer and you get the idea.
What kind of perverse world had I fallen into? This is unnecessary. My old dentist never took digital pictures of my teeth. I remember Andy's story of his childhood soccer coach who took pictures of all the players on the team to "remember names." Later, he was convicted of child molestation.
Could I take these two women if had to? Certainly not with the mirror shoved down my throat. One strong punch and it would've been death for Greg.
Finally the picture session was over and common sense got ahold of me. Why would these people go through this elaborate set up to take pictures of my teeth and put them on the internet? They are probably legit. You've been in LA too long. You're going crazy. You need to trust people more. That's why you don't have a girlfriend.
"Okay, so now we need to take you picture in our picture studio."
"What?"
"Stand up there against the wall."
"Why?"
"For our file."
I stand up against the wall. Next to me is a movie poster for a Hepburn and Tracy movie. I smile crookedly.
"You've got nice teeth."
Using our Power
My biggest problem with the War on Terror is that we don't seem to be using a lot of our potential power. We're spending money, that's clear. And our military is stretched thin. But America, as a whole, isn't sacrificing. There are no comprehensive programs to allow us to do so.
I don't have any proposals.
My biggest problem with the War on Terror is that we don't seem to be using a lot of our potential power. We're spending money, that's clear. And our military is stretched thin. But America, as a whole, isn't sacrificing. There are no comprehensive programs to allow us to do so.
I don't have any proposals.
Lindsay Lohan
Another Blackberry message gone public. I knew all this written communication was going to come back to haunt people. Imagine the first time a president of our generation gets elected and they go back and read his/her old email. Yipes!
I've made the public offer to help Lindsay Lohan on her quest to refocus people's energy onto the real problems of the world. I just don't have her email address or phone number or anything. But just so she knows, she can feel free to contact me via my blog comment section anytime.
Another Blackberry message gone public. I knew all this written communication was going to come back to haunt people. Imagine the first time a president of our generation gets elected and they go back and read his/her old email. Yipes!
I've made the public offer to help Lindsay Lohan on her quest to refocus people's energy onto the real problems of the world. I just don't have her email address or phone number or anything. But just so she knows, she can feel free to contact me via my blog comment section anytime.
And What If That Doesn't Work?
Sullivan says get out or double down. Okay. At least it's a proposal. And what will he say if the double down doesn't work? He will say Bush is incompetent.
Sullivan says get out or double down. Okay. At least it's a proposal. And what will he say if the double down doesn't work? He will say Bush is incompetent.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Candidate For President?
All from one man:
"I don't know anything about a lot of things, but I would ask somebody and try to make a fair, honest decision for the majority of the people. Not the rich, not the poor, not the black, not the white. When you get elected to public office, you're supposed to represent everybody. Your job is not to take care of the rich or the poor or the black or the white. Your job is to take care of everybody."
"The Republicans are full of it. The Democrats are a little less full of it."
"You shouldn't belong to a political affiliation. Everybody should be an independent. The way it is now you're hamstrung to a particular party. That's not right."
"Well, the thing that's interesting to me -- and this is like my biggest complaint with the whole political process and anybody. I'm trying to figure out -- they throw these words around like liberal, moderate, conservative. And we are like idiots. We sit here and choose sides. Man, I don't care what it is. Let's just solve these problems."
On his 17-year old daughter not dating yet: "Thank goodness. I just hope she doesn't start before I go in the Hall of Fame. That way, I won't have to kill anybody before I get inducted."
A classic '92 Dream Team quote, after the USA played Angola and Charles had elbowed an Angolan national team member in the chest. When asked about it, he responded: "I shouldn't have done that. He probably hasn't eaten in weeks."
More where came fromhere. He could put up a serious fight with Rudy.
All from one man:
"I don't know anything about a lot of things, but I would ask somebody and try to make a fair, honest decision for the majority of the people. Not the rich, not the poor, not the black, not the white. When you get elected to public office, you're supposed to represent everybody. Your job is not to take care of the rich or the poor or the black or the white. Your job is to take care of everybody."
"The Republicans are full of it. The Democrats are a little less full of it."
"You shouldn't belong to a political affiliation. Everybody should be an independent. The way it is now you're hamstrung to a particular party. That's not right."
"Well, the thing that's interesting to me -- and this is like my biggest complaint with the whole political process and anybody. I'm trying to figure out -- they throw these words around like liberal, moderate, conservative. And we are like idiots. We sit here and choose sides. Man, I don't care what it is. Let's just solve these problems."
On his 17-year old daughter not dating yet: "Thank goodness. I just hope she doesn't start before I go in the Hall of Fame. That way, I won't have to kill anybody before I get inducted."
A classic '92 Dream Team quote, after the USA played Angola and Charles had elbowed an Angolan national team member in the chest. When asked about it, he responded: "I shouldn't have done that. He probably hasn't eaten in weeks."
More where came fromhere. He could put up a serious fight with Rudy.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
On Friendship, the Grim Trigger Strategy, and My Nagging Wife Theory of the Anti-War Movement
I woke up today thinking about Iraq. It still burns me that France did not support us in the UN. Aren't they supposed to be our friend? And shouldn't a friend follow a friend into a fight even if it's the wrong fight? We can get into all the nuance and details of the actual situation (and the side theory that Bush wanted to go at it alone), but when it boils down to it, France should have stood by us no matter what. Because by not, they provided cover for every other country who didn't want to get their pants dirty, for Russia, China, and the entire Middle East. (did we do the same in the 1956 Suez Crisis - maybe)
Would things be different? Who knows? It might still be a mess, but it would have felt like we were in it together, rather than in it alone, and it would give us (and Iraqis) strength.
The Grim Trigger Strategy is a term from game theory when a player cooperates with his co-player until the co-player defects a single time from their cooperation. After that, the original player will never cooperate with the player again. As a real life example, if a husband cheats once, the wife leaves forever.
And speaking of spouses...my current theory of the anti-war left is they adopted tactical strategies used by awful, nagging wives. Imagine coming home every night to someone who points out all your small failures, your inconsistencies, your problems, your weaknesses. Once in awhile, they'll treat you well, or make an aside, to appear fair or evenhanded. But in the end, it's a psychology of failure, designed to slowly wear down your confidence, goodness, and courage. The awful wife wants the husband to completely submit to her, knowing he is miserable and it is only she that can save him or stand him. They do it through a long, careful, arduous process of belittling, and undermining. A lifelong castration. You see men worn into little nubs after living a lifetime with a nag.
The Michael Moore's and Cindy Sheehan and Daily Kos crowd are the nagging wives of this country. They are the people who cleverly point to our failures and inconsistencies and weaknesses. "Who they hell do you think you are?" Is their favorite thing to say.
I will not submit to a nagging wife nor allow Western Civilization to do so.
I am off to watch Miami Vice, the unrated directors cut. Thank you.
QUICK UPDATE: Evidence of my nagging wife theory and the role of the news media as the shitty sister of the nagging wife who whispers ideas to the nagging wife, but pretends to be neutral.
I woke up today thinking about Iraq. It still burns me that France did not support us in the UN. Aren't they supposed to be our friend? And shouldn't a friend follow a friend into a fight even if it's the wrong fight? We can get into all the nuance and details of the actual situation (and the side theory that Bush wanted to go at it alone), but when it boils down to it, France should have stood by us no matter what. Because by not, they provided cover for every other country who didn't want to get their pants dirty, for Russia, China, and the entire Middle East. (did we do the same in the 1956 Suez Crisis - maybe)
Would things be different? Who knows? It might still be a mess, but it would have felt like we were in it together, rather than in it alone, and it would give us (and Iraqis) strength.
The Grim Trigger Strategy is a term from game theory when a player cooperates with his co-player until the co-player defects a single time from their cooperation. After that, the original player will never cooperate with the player again. As a real life example, if a husband cheats once, the wife leaves forever.
And speaking of spouses...my current theory of the anti-war left is they adopted tactical strategies used by awful, nagging wives. Imagine coming home every night to someone who points out all your small failures, your inconsistencies, your problems, your weaknesses. Once in awhile, they'll treat you well, or make an aside, to appear fair or evenhanded. But in the end, it's a psychology of failure, designed to slowly wear down your confidence, goodness, and courage. The awful wife wants the husband to completely submit to her, knowing he is miserable and it is only she that can save him or stand him. They do it through a long, careful, arduous process of belittling, and undermining. A lifelong castration. You see men worn into little nubs after living a lifetime with a nag.
The Michael Moore's and Cindy Sheehan and Daily Kos crowd are the nagging wives of this country. They are the people who cleverly point to our failures and inconsistencies and weaknesses. "Who they hell do you think you are?" Is their favorite thing to say.
I will not submit to a nagging wife nor allow Western Civilization to do so.
I am off to watch Miami Vice, the unrated directors cut. Thank you.
QUICK UPDATE: Evidence of my nagging wife theory and the role of the news media as the shitty sister of the nagging wife who whispers ideas to the nagging wife, but pretends to be neutral.
Monday, December 04, 2006
That's What I Call Irony
I finally got around to reading Rumsfeld's proposals about Iraq, the memo he sent two days before resigning.
At the risk of sounding like a complete idiot, they are actually the best concrete proposals I've read for how to deal with the obviously shitty situation.
I finally got around to reading Rumsfeld's proposals about Iraq, the memo he sent two days before resigning.
At the risk of sounding like a complete idiot, they are actually the best concrete proposals I've read for how to deal with the obviously shitty situation.
There Is No Exit Strategy
There's no need for one. We should fight these people until they're all dead or surrender. The only question is how we can maximize the damage to them and their organizations and the people that help them. That's it. End of story.
There's no need for one. We should fight these people until they're all dead or surrender. The only question is how we can maximize the damage to them and their organizations and the people that help them. That's it. End of story.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
An Old Post
It's an old essay, but the despair is genuine and the point right.
I was reading Winston Churhill quotes this evening, trying to find a title or inspiration for a title. One that caught me, "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." It seems to fit. A few other good ones:
"A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him."
"I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me."
"Clement Attlee is a modest man who has a good deal to be modest about."
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
"It is a fine thing to be honest, but it is also very important to be right."
"Let our advance worrying become advance thinking and planning."
"My most brilliant achievement was my ability to be able to persuade my wife to marry me."
"Perhaps it is better to be irresponsible and right, than to be responsible and wrong."
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
It's an old essay, but the despair is genuine and the point right.
I was reading Winston Churhill quotes this evening, trying to find a title or inspiration for a title. One that caught me, "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." It seems to fit. A few other good ones:
"A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him."
"I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me."
"Clement Attlee is a modest man who has a good deal to be modest about."
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
"It is a fine thing to be honest, but it is also very important to be right."
"Let our advance worrying become advance thinking and planning."
"My most brilliant achievement was my ability to be able to persuade my wife to marry me."
"Perhaps it is better to be irresponsible and right, than to be responsible and wrong."
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
So What If I Watched the Tyra Banks Show?
You got a problem with that!
Beyonce was on talking about Dream Girls, JayZ, etc. Tyra asked her a good question: "What do you miss most about your life before being famous?"
Beyonce said she missed shopping at Target.
The universal pleasure of shopping at Target. A couple of my favorite shirts were purchased from Target. They're so cheap and look good. And there's something about cheap clothes that are more fun and relaxing to wear because who gives a shit what happens to them.
You got a problem with that!
Beyonce was on talking about Dream Girls, JayZ, etc. Tyra asked her a good question: "What do you miss most about your life before being famous?"
Beyonce said she missed shopping at Target.
The universal pleasure of shopping at Target. A couple of my favorite shirts were purchased from Target. They're so cheap and look good. And there's something about cheap clothes that are more fun and relaxing to wear because who gives a shit what happens to them.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Now That's News!
The Iraqi Prime Minister swiveled his head and shot our President an incredulous look.
CRAAAazy.
The Iraqi Prime Minister swiveled his head and shot our President an incredulous look.
CRAAAazy.
Celebrate
Because they're white males, they must be guilty of something.
At the very least, getting a stripper.
Because they're white males, they must be guilty of something.
At the very least, getting a stripper.
Please
I sure hope they take out the bits of J-Lo's sex life from this memoir, because otherwise, it sounds really interesting.
I sure hope they take out the bits of J-Lo's sex life from this memoir, because otherwise, it sounds really interesting.
No, This Is Hate Speech
Gloria Allred is a fat, worthless, whore. She is a bottomfeeder, a tourist, a poseur, a pig.
I think hell might need to create a new level for whatever she is.
I'm beginning to rethink the legal concept of "hate" speech. When do the costs start outweighing the benefits?
Gloria Allred is a fat, worthless, whore. She is a bottomfeeder, a tourist, a poseur, a pig.
I think hell might need to create a new level for whatever she is.
I'm beginning to rethink the legal concept of "hate" speech. When do the costs start outweighing the benefits?
Say What I Will
Lately, I disagree and make fun of Andrew Sullivan a lot, mostly because I think he whines about foreign policy.
But the guy is a great writer, and that to me, will keep me going back to his blog. That, if it isn't clear, is one of the highest compliments I can give someone.
He talks a lot about gay issues as well, and periodically delves into a personal discussion about his generation of gay men, the generation cursed with AIDS.
I, of course, was young when AIDS first became big news and was raised open-minded enough to know it wasn't a gay disease, nor anything to be ashamed of, but simply a horrible human health issue that we should all rightly fear.
But truthfully, I've never thought too much about it because frankly, I don't know anyone whose suffered from AIDs or HIV. But when Sullivan talks about it, I understand what a horrific thing this was for a rather small community of men. This was a community forced together in large cities because there wasn't a place for gay people in small towns around the world. We all have our little communities, and these communities are vital to our human experience. I can't imagine my own personal community having to go through something like the early spread of the AIDS virus. Imagine what - a third, half, some really high percentage of your friends, your peers, all the people you know and love, walking around with this disease for which there is no cure.
Thankfully, awareness grew, and later generations of gays and straights haven't suffered as much. But there remains that generation, the city dwelling, out of the closet, gay men in early 80s, a generation cursed.
Lately, I disagree and make fun of Andrew Sullivan a lot, mostly because I think he whines about foreign policy.
But the guy is a great writer, and that to me, will keep me going back to his blog. That, if it isn't clear, is one of the highest compliments I can give someone.
He talks a lot about gay issues as well, and periodically delves into a personal discussion about his generation of gay men, the generation cursed with AIDS.
I, of course, was young when AIDS first became big news and was raised open-minded enough to know it wasn't a gay disease, nor anything to be ashamed of, but simply a horrible human health issue that we should all rightly fear.
But truthfully, I've never thought too much about it because frankly, I don't know anyone whose suffered from AIDs or HIV. But when Sullivan talks about it, I understand what a horrific thing this was for a rather small community of men. This was a community forced together in large cities because there wasn't a place for gay people in small towns around the world. We all have our little communities, and these communities are vital to our human experience. I can't imagine my own personal community having to go through something like the early spread of the AIDS virus. Imagine what - a third, half, some really high percentage of your friends, your peers, all the people you know and love, walking around with this disease for which there is no cure.
Thankfully, awareness grew, and later generations of gays and straights haven't suffered as much. But there remains that generation, the city dwelling, out of the closet, gay men in early 80s, a generation cursed.
Pot
I just wish it was a little weaker or something. I've never really been into pot, it makes me all weird and paranoid and I can't sleep.
I just wish it was a little weaker or something. I've never really been into pot, it makes me all weird and paranoid and I can't sleep.
Bush
I've always said I'm not a big fan...but I'll give him credit for pissing off assholes. I can't stand people who want to be liked by everyone. And in particular I can't stand people who want to be liked by assholes as much as decent people.
So while it seems Bush is disliked by both decent people and assholes, that is no better, in my eyes than being liked by both. It's not a popularity content. Or wait a second...
I've always said I'm not a big fan...but I'll give him credit for pissing off assholes. I can't stand people who want to be liked by everyone. And in particular I can't stand people who want to be liked by assholes as much as decent people.
So while it seems Bush is disliked by both decent people and assholes, that is no better, in my eyes than being liked by both. It's not a popularity content. Or wait a second...
Friday, December 01, 2006
The Best 30 Rock Yet
As a follow up to the below post, 30 Rock may be viewed online.
The episode was the best overall I've seen, addressing all the same issues brought up in the prior blog post...although the total, laugh out loud, one genius moment was not in this show. Perhaps the steady, consistent show is not as able to generate the single moment of genius in the same way the so-so show is...
As a follow up to the below post, 30 Rock may be viewed online.
The episode was the best overall I've seen, addressing all the same issues brought up in the prior blog post...although the total, laugh out loud, one genius moment was not in this show. Perhaps the steady, consistent show is not as able to generate the single moment of genius in the same way the so-so show is...
What?
Our problems didn't go away? But I thought the Democrats won congress and Rumsfeld is out?
So what does Andrew Sullivan now rant about? A psychoanalysis of Bush. Fine, fair, whatever, I still don't know how he proposes to actually win the war. But he's found plenty of people to blame for losing it.
Our problems didn't go away? But I thought the Democrats won congress and Rumsfeld is out?
So what does Andrew Sullivan now rant about? A psychoanalysis of Bush. Fine, fair, whatever, I still don't know how he proposes to actually win the war. But he's found plenty of people to blame for losing it.
I Would Like An Apology As Well
I'm offended, I'm hurt, I'm a victim, lemme get an apology and some cash, please.
I'm offended, I'm hurt, I'm a victim, lemme get an apology and some cash, please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)