Remove All Doubt

Inauguration Day

2009-01-22T15:43:00.000-08:00

I usually waste time on set-up and then tell the story in two paragraphs. Straight to it this time.

We had initially been given Silver tickets, located behind the reflecting pool, and including the front of the mall. Awesome tickets.

Right before we left Christi’s office for the night on Monday, a good friend in the office handed us Blue (South Standing on the House of Representatives side) tickets. I was psyched for this. The 2008 election was the first time the candidate I voted for had won. Had I voted in 2000 (I was unable to vote due to job requirements), this would have been the second time. That said, I would have been excited to attend ANY Inauguration, and would have been energized to go see Senator John McCain become president. But maybe not this energized.

We spent the night at my brother-in-law's place. He and his girlfriend Jill live less than a mile from where Mark and Beth lived in northern VA. We would have stayed with the Skubis’ had they not ditched us for Europe a few years back! I did not get to sleep until 1:30 AM, because I was excited. I woke up at 4:30 AM, and got dressed. Thermal shirt, thermal pants, jeans, tennis shoes, sweatshirt (Navy, of course), gloves, cold weather beanie, single pair of socks (I regretted that later), and my winter coat (which I never buttoned). I wanted to leave at 5 AM, but we didn’t leave until 5:20 AM. Family, you know. I expected crowds, and boy was I right.

We stopped by Best Buns (local bakery) for some box lunches and breakfast and hit I-95 towards the city. Thanks to Christi’s job that day (drive her boss’ daughter home after the Parade), we had been given a special pass allowing vehicular access to some major roads. Of course, once across the 14th Street bridge, roads that were expected to be open were not, so we diverted to South Capitol street (by the new baseball park in SE). The crowds were already very large, and we followed some taxis until we got near Independence. I popped out and quizzed a Capitol Police officer, who was very helpful for the first and last time that day. We got onto the “special roads” and parked in Christi’s office building. Which was on the Senate side, and not particularly close to our Blue Gate. We dropped the lunches and junk in her office area, ate breakfast, used the “facilities”, and started the long walk to the Gate (located right next to the DHHS – Health and Human Services – building) at about 6:15 AM. Crowds were massive already, and we started the walk in pre-dawn light, and finished as the sun was coming up. We followed the line for the Blue Gate for about 4 blocks until we found the end.

The Capitol Dome was on the other side of the US Botanical Gardens building, which was a nice picture. It would be a LONG wait. Gates were set to open at 8 (or 9, depending on who you believed). We chatted with some of our neighbors, and the temperature stayed about 20 degrees. With wind. I started to need to pee at about 7:30, finally asking a CP officer where restrooms were. Either blocks away at a McD’s (which I’m sure would be empty), or in a port-o-potty on the other side of security. Tough crap for me. I’ll wait.

The line finally started moving a bit after 8. Unfortunately (and I could write a tome about this), the line was uncontrolled, and some people just ran to the gate, later complicating the process immeasurably. We stayed in line, because it was the “right thing to do”, and we eventually paid for that decision. We slowly wrapped about the HHH building (DHHS – Hubert Humphrey) until we could see the gate. But it appeared that a LOT more people were going towards the gate that just our single line (about 8 people across). In between buildings, it was colder than usual, probably just below 20 with the wind chill. But we were all still optimistic. Though we were moving slowly, and the clock was not. We got slightly separated from JD and Jill (Christi’s brother and his girlfriend), and that distance grew as we got closer.

We inched closer to the front, and by about 10:30 AM, I accepted the very distinct possibility that we might not make it in. It became clear that the line was a sucker’s bet, but that epiphany went unformed until we were well into the scrum heading into the single entrance to the Blue metal detectors. By about 11 AM, we were still about thirty feet from the entrance and hardly moving at all. We couldn’t see JD and Jill anymore, and no cell phones were working. Spirits were STILL high, but I was nervous. I wanted to be there. Rumors flew that the gate would shut at 11:30 AM. Come to find out, random barriers were up, funneling some people sideways, while enabling others much faster access. Only a handful of USCP (US Capitol Police) could be seen, and NONE were directing traffic or facilitating traffic. They were simply ensuring no one was hurt (and to their credit…barely… no one was hurt). Entrance was a free-for-all. Honestly, no one was hurt because the crowd was peaceful and happy. The CP had little to do with it. The gate was literally two normal doors wide. On the other side were the detectors, and we knew we could not make it before 11:30 AM.

Christi asked what I wanted to do, and I love her very much for staying with me and letting me decide. She was cold and tired, and our feet were killing us, and we might miss the whole damn thing sitting here. But I wanted to stay in that line until they shut the gate in my face or until we made it. It was 11:30 now, and we were still in the line, though we could see the exit. It was snaking around at one point, while people were piling in one section at another. But I managed to muscle Christi and I through to the final line by 11:40 AM. Security was a breeze, and there were the crappers, right in front of the Botanical Gardens. Christi again waited, while I whizzed for 90 straight seconds. And then we ran towards the Capitol. We found a spot where the jumbotron was beneath the Dome and we had a good view, watching as VP Biden was sworn in. Aretha sang her bit (in a crazy hat, but what can you say to Aretha) and Rev. Warren gave the Invocation, but maybe not in that order. I did tear up a bit during Aretha’s rendition of “My Country ‘Tis of Thee”. Warren’s comments were OK, but he went on too long. At some point President Bush was announced, and he did not get booed where we were, but I’m certain he did elsewhere on the Mall. He didn’t get many claps either. He looked exhausted.

And then it was time. The crowd roared, and Chief Justice Roberts swore in President Obama. Our audio was hosed, so it was not clear that CJ Roberts bumbled it a bit at the time. But it was done, and the crowd was deafening. We had a new president. It was still cold, but the sun was shining, and it was a pretty clear day. I kept looking the other way at the crowd, and often the jumbotron showed how many people were actually there. I could not tell from where we stood. The view from the podium must have been glorious.

And finally, what I really wanted to be there for. The Inaugural Address itself is very meaningful, because it sets the stage for the country under the new President’s leadership. As with the Inauguration itself, it is the exact moment our country fought for. The ability to choose our own leader. And for our president to tell the people how he was going to lead, and where he was going to lead them. President Obama spoke for 18 minutes, and the audio wavered a bit, and I enjoyed his address. The Washington quote touched me deeply, and overall I thought it was a good first address. I didn’t agree with every sentiment he expressed, but I agreed with where he said he would be going together. Later, I’d reread it and find a lot more to like. A lot more. It wasn’t a great address, because the proof is in the pudding and not the recipe. I’d love for time to prove me wrong. I still am not sure many in our country are willing to do everything that is asked of them, to take that responsibility. A lot of people want to push the “Obama” button and have him fix everything. But his conviction won me over. On a superficial level, the man is a brilliant orator. Even better than he is a writer. He has a dazzling smile, and a voice that join wisdom and warmth.

As it ended, Christi wanted to head back to find her brother and Jill, so we missed the poem and the convocation. But who wants to follow President Obama’s first speech anyway? I didn’t come for those.

The walk back was easier. We essentially retraced our steps. We were able to cut right behind the Capitol, and as we were nearly centerline with the Dome, we saw a crowd cheering lustily. Marine One was revving those blades, and the new President and First Lady were saying goodbye to the old. I got a picture for my friends, since I know they will treasure this image. I am a bit torn myself. I too was more than ready for President Bush to be Former President Bush. I wanted a new leader, and a new vision. For a moment though, I remembered that President Bush served in good faith. I remembered that he endured a lot of unjustified criticism, albeit along an even larger amount of justified criticism. The tenor of that criticism near the end disturbed me, though. I remembered how unwavering he was after 9/11, and I appreciated that. There was a time when he was almost as loved as President Obama was that day. But that time was long past, and so was our faith in him. I was happy to see him go. I would do anything, however, to have looked into him as the helicopter lifted off. I am almost jealous of the power of the emotions he was feeling at that moment, probably very, very similar to those that our new President must have faced as he finished the oath less than an hour before.

The helicopter looped over Washington DC twice, and then he was gone.

We finished our walk to Christi’s building, meeting JD and Jill. They had gotten in at 11:20, and so we were happy they were able to see it. We went up and rested our feet, warmed up, and took in some overwhelmingly fawning coverage. A few hours later (still at the office), I finally sat down and read the Inaugural Address, and it actually spoke to me quite a bit. Nuances that were lost thanks to crappy audio became apparent. It was an address that spoke directly to the source of my patriotism. Even more importantly, it was the most inclusive political speech ever given. There was no them. There was only “us”, at every turn. Many of the audience (some quite near me) were wrapped up in the racially historic nature of the day, and I understand that. I was wrapped up in the universality of the man.

This is a man I will be proud to have speak for the country. This is a man that promises to resist the petty partisan temptations, and remember how America has succeeded. In my head, I know we will fall pretty short of many of his lofty goals. But it won’t be because of President Obama. So in my heart, I believe him anyway.

(If you look at the bottom image, the very bottom left is the US Botanical Gardens. About a half-inch up and an inch over is a small covered building casting a shadow north. Directly to the northwest of it, there is a small circle. That is a raised garden spot (all dead now) where Christi and I stood.)

Independence

2009-01-21T11:20:00.000-08:00

It was easy to be an Independent during the past 8 years

The President wasn't a very good speaker and inspired (very) little confidence, his administration seemed to trip over themselves at nearly every turn, and together they presided over catastrophe after catastrophe. But they were not alone. Paired with an ignorant or ineffectual Congress for both terms (regardless of political make-up), the nominally accepted bipolar political parties moved farther and farther apart. The rhetoric began to sear into the permanent areas of my brain. I eventually defaulted to abject horror when subjected to seeing any national politician on television.

As the media began to lean on Former President Bush (and yes, it is nice to say that...I will eventually provide some defense for this beleaguered sin-eater), I eventually rejected their facile condemnations and constant barrages. Often I push against conventional wisdom until I find a place I can be happy with it, and suspect many do the same. Conventional wisdom decided Fmr President Bush (FPB, I'll never type that out again) was the worst president EVER, and this was/is our worst crisis EVER, and time will tell. I'm happy to say good riddance, but not ashamed to say that I wish he and his family well. I own up to my part of the sins of the country, and do not merely thrust them upon him and walk away. But I'll save any understanding or consideration of the Bush presidency for another time. At it stands, it is a failure.

So lets get to my "point". Yesterday was a swirling conflict of emotions for me. Being independent is nice. Instead of a single political party to deride, you are blessed with two. By removing your affiliation, you enable yourself to navigate the good and the bad of both partisan prisms; to be your own person, so to speak. This does not come without price. And it came due on a momentous day.
I happened upon the simplest analogy ever late last night. Being politically independent is like being unable to love. There was such passion and energy yesterday, such rampant enthusiasm...it was new love. It was a requited crush writ impossibly large.

And it certainly stirred in me, and swept me up often (and rightly so), before my hard heart yanked me earthward, time and again. It was not the crowd that fueled me. I thrilled at the outpouring of patriotism and yearning, for certain, though I do wonder at the permanence of it, the commitment towards it.

So I don't get to revel in the day with the same fervor as my friends on the left. It is a bit sad being left out; all the more because I think their joy towards the new President is justified. I'll share my thoughts on the new President (as if anyone cares...everyone has an opinion, and most are similar). But perhaps the engine of my enthusiasm for him will be intriguing!

Return of the King

2009-01-21T11:14:00.000-08:00

I reactivated this specifically to share my thoughts and pictures from the Inauguration of our 44th President with my friends. I might even try to keep it up after that, because it is cathartic and pleasant, though I regret having less interaction with the 4 people who would potentially read this. So give me a few hours, and we'll make this happen.

Until then:

Clark (age 5) reminding me why I do not kill him:

I look forward to sharing the adventures of an independent during a Democratic administration!

UNITED 93

2006-05-09T17:12:00.000-07:00

Before:

I thought I wouldn't see United 93, but after a discussion with my father I felt compelled to see it. My father, who likes generic action and sci-fi pictures, felt obligated to go see it. That surprised me. I thought I might wait until the DVD, but decided I couldn't wait. I love movies, and this is a movie that should be seen.

That said, I was not looking forward to it. I DON'T think it's too soon. I DO completely trust the director and the studio to get it as right as possible. It doesn't affect my personal or political feelings either way. I just know how badly it's going to hurt. The only relatable film is The Passion, which was a soul-draining and exhausting affair. But 9/11 is etched into my memories, the cruxifiction. I'm fairly laid back, but I couldn't get through the opening section of the 9/11 Commission Report. I was bawling. So, I dreaded seeing the film.

Day of:

I'm not going to actually review United 93, so please bear with me. The film is unbearable, and gets more and moreso approaching the conclusion. But in the end, it provided a clarity long since lost in the 4.5 years since the day. I had a knot in my stomach, and it grew and grew, and I simply couldn't cry it away, though I certainly tried. In the middle of the film, it was enough that I found myself looking at the margins of the images...not quite looking away, but having a hard time concentrating.

1) It's very well-made.
2) There is no party line or slogan.
3) There is no overt audience manipulation in the direction or editing.

It's been a long time since 9/11. We've had 2 elections since then, and countless reminders, and new (and reshuffled) Departments, and thousands of "news" stories to dull the memory a bit, to gloss it, to put it in the backseat. And rightfully so...you can't live with that horror every day. Humans endure with such tricks. But a solid reminder every now and then is a very good thing. There are two stories in the film...the morning unfolding for the FAA and the military, and the events on Flight 93. One informs the other, but the stories never cross.

It reminded me of the uncertainty of that day...no one knew the seismic shift that had occurred, and we were all very scared. It was valuable to see that again, without the government and media bywords we've used to distance ourselves from how we felt. I felt like shit, and I feel like shit now. It's not closure. It's not a silly call to arms. It's just a call to remember how we felt, and why we felt that way, and how we responded.

It doesn't stack up as a film. There is no narrative plot, no characterization, and no "flair". It's fly on the wall. The sets were exceptional, the performances were good, not great. It felt workmanlike, but there is no razzle dazzle.

I thought it was all for the better. The story needs no enhancing, no directorial flourishes. It is not Hollywood at all.

Today:

I can't live with it every day. It's simply too much, and my heart goes out to all the families that lost a loved one to 9/11, to the conflicts that followed, to the USS Cole and earlier (mostly forgotten) attacks. But I can feel those emotions closer to the surface. It's makes me both more intolerant and more forgiving of the government. But the film isn't about assigning responsibility. It's not about fake hero-building. It's not swelling music and a last stand. It's a window to a horrible emotional state. It does have heroism and courage. But it's earned and real.

I will buy it, and I might even watch it again, because I don't want to forget that emotional state. I don't need the film for it (and neither do many of you), but it's a nice focus. The images, the confusion, the overwhelming unreality of it all was captured. And that's my impression. It's overwhelming.

If you dig around, you can find the names of everybody on United 93.

Immigration

2006-04-29T06:22:00.000-07:00

I saw United 93. It's deserving of a thoughtful and measured post, so I plan on saving it and letting the film sink in. I will say it's excruciatingly painful to watch. To say it as quickly as possible, it made me feel the way I felt September 11th, 2001 all over again. In many ways, that's a GOOD thing.

Back to immigration:

I don't get nearly as hot and bothered about this as many people. As usual, I end up in the middle. I definitely supported the Kennedy-McCain bill that Reid allowed to be shot down for political advantage, even if it was the best possible outcome. But that's neither here nor there. The key word in illegal immigrant (not undocumented*) is not immigrant. I love immigrants. Except for 100% Native Americans, we're all immigrants, some even forced. The key word is illegal. There is a right way, a wrong way, and a legal way to enter the country. Unfortunately, the right way hasn't been made yet, thanks to our politicians. but until then, the answer is the legal way.

This might be seen as highly conservative, but I think English should be our national language. Our communication unifies us, forces assimilation, breaks down barriers. It still allows citizens to treasure their culture, and speak whatever at home. But a national language would assuage many of those who fear we are losing our national identity and culture as the melting pot spills over. Other cultures strengthen us, enhance us, make us better. But only when they assimilate with society. Language is the biggest barrier of all. Voting, driving tests, etc...English. This would require funding to support English language teaching as a part of the process. I don't want a financial burden on new immigrants...just a cultural one. I want it to unite, not divide.

More on United 93 later. But see it if you think you can handle it. Please.

Happy Easter

2006-04-16T09:32:00.000-07:00

I promised a while back to discuss The Passion of the Christ. I thought it was arguably the best film of 2004, though it was woefully ignored at the Oscars for forces beyond the actual film itself. Today is NOT the best day to post about it, of course...Good Friday is. But I missed that, so you get my thoughts on Easter.

I've only seen the film once, pulled to a showing the day after it was released. I love movies. I have my favorite genres and themes, but great movies come from everywhere, and some movies simply HAVE to be seen. I don't regularly attend church. I find a convergence between philosophy and spirituality, and that's where I let my mind wander. I consider myself just barely on the dividing line between Christian and agnostic, interested in the intent and message moreso than the concept of being saved. It was argued by many that The Passion was intended for converts only. It does not discuss the life of Jesus, his virgin birth, his Apostles, or anything else outside of the events of the Passion itself. The title is an accurate depiction of the film. But I think the film does have some value for the atheist. But it does need the viewer to know the story at least.

There is not a defined narrative. I considered it experiential, like Black Hawk Down or the opening of Saving Private Ryan. It goes for a simple "you are there" approach to historical events. It assumes you know about the life of Jesus, his purpose, and the Biblical background of the most important event in Christiandom. Thanks to some Sunday school, I knew a little bit. I did not feel a strong connection as a Christian, but I did as a human. The notion of the Passion is that an innocent human suffers for his fellows, to spare them, to save them. That theme has endured since well before Christianity, and it permeates all great storytelling. Gibson's camera is unflinching, and he simply demonstrates a horrific, barbaric act...meaningful to me because it was done, not just to Jesus (though he suffers greatly, moreso most than most who are crucified), but to countless people, guilty and innocent alike. So, in effect, Jesus does represent all of us, children of God, whether you buy the mystical aspects or not. And that is why the film worked for me. In a nutshell.

The direction is beautiful. As the events on-screen get unbearable, Gibson allows a safety valve to pop, and a flashback occurs...to the Last Supper, to the speech at Galilee, to Jesus and his mother (who acts as a sort of surrogate for his Father as well - the most spiritual of relationships -- parent to child). These respites are necessary for the audience. The scourging and crucifixion, the demeaning and hostility is an mirror to the worst excesses of human nature.

The criticism is a charge of anti-semitism. To use another film analogy, The Passion is like the dark force tree on Dagobah in Empire Strikes Back. It only possesses what you take in with you. Anti-semitism is there subjectively, if you look for it and interpret it. but the deeper message is far beyond such petty failings. Gibson ensured it was his hand that nailed Jesus to the cross (that was his appearance), as a symbolic point that the Jews (if you'll excuse my informality) are no more responsible than every other person. The entire point of the Christian faith demands all are guilty. Foolish religious leaders have used some biblical history to blame Jews for their own purposes, but it is immaterial to this story. The interpretation is there...but you have to make it. The director said it was not anti-semitic. Mel Gibson is many things, but he's not a liar. He's very direct and honest, and I believe him when he says the film is not anti-semitic. Beyond that, a culture war raged in America in 2004, with two polarizing films. This was the "red state" film, as designated by the media and bloggers. They were wrong, short-sighted, ignorant, and petty. But that's their interpretation...see the dark side cave analogy.

Why, two years later, am I talking about it. The film resonates. Jesus represents minorities, gays, the poor, the down-trodden, the marginalized. The power of the film is the strength and conviction of it's subject. He is not just willing to die to save those he loves. He is willing to have God turn his back, and suffer to the limits of what humans can suffer. I can ignore the spirituality of it, the biblical connections, and understand the purity of that.

Another note, the film itself is beautiful to watch. Caleb Deschanel was the cinematographer, and the film looks like a Carvaggio painting. Keep in mind...this director also won an Oscar once.

That said, it's an atypical film...very demanding of the audience. There is precious little context in the film...you must provide it. And it is excruciating to watch (which is why I've only seen it once). If you've stayed away for political reasons...maybe give it a shot. Just remember Yoda's message :)

And why do we celebrate Easter with jelly beans and chocolate bunnies?!?! What frigging sense does that make??

Long Time No Blog

2006-04-12T16:29:00.000-07:00

You'd think I have a lot to say...immigration continues to illustrate the realities of our country's economic system, the Duke rape case is illuminating some far deeper class issues, and some great movies just came out on DVD.

I have had random thoughts here and there, but nothing worth anyone's time. So I have spared the rod and spoiled the children.

But even without much to say, I wanted to say it. I considered dropping some chauvinism, but that's my go-to. No need, as it's usually ignored :) So I am going to MSNBC blind, picking a random story, and commenting on it.

Stand by...most of these look like dogs.

1) Google defends supporting some censure in China, which is apparently news because they won't cooperate in the US. Part of me is angry, because cooperation could be key support in actual national security. But that's their call. It is totally consistent because Google is a BUSINESS. They have no wiggle room in China. Expecting them to be the bastion of free speech is ridiculous. They either comply, or they lose millions of dollars. Does it make them hypocritical? No...it makes them a business. A self-interested, profit driven business.

2) Muslim hardliners attack the Playboy HQ in Indonesia. Scratch another country off of my visit list. Why do I care? Because these fundamentalists are psychopathic dark agers. Didn't they read the articles?!?!?

3) Famed Indian actor dead...RIOTS IN THE STREETS!! Another scratch off.

4) As for sports, it's all Bonds, all the time. Baseball is the worst TV sport in the world. They've been juicing for years, and cheating was rampant before them. In a sport built on stats, cheating sort of destroys the myth...but no one cares. Neither do I.

Well, it's something...

V for Vicious Cycle

2006-03-20T17:43:00.000-08:00

Went to see V twice this weekend. I had promised both people trips, they did not overlap, and I was happy to pay the money twice. In turning the film over in my mind, I stumbled across a new paradigm that may be old hat to my illustrious readers, but it struck me as true and deep.

Some want to paint the film as American Liberals vs. American Conservatives. The film certainly draw some auspicious connections, but in reality strays quite a bit down the path.

I wrote this Sunday morning:

The filmmakers upgraded the war (from the graphic novel), and used some ties to current situations, but nothing more involved than that which could be used as a framework. The political framework of the government was not representative of any major political party in power in any major First World country. It was an extreme, taken to extremes, to prove a point. Any serious connection to current events would have to be made by the viewer, and would lead to a discussion far beyond the point of the film. Political discussions inevitably devolve into partisan corners and pointless bickering, because such conversations (like religion, the other taboo topic) are deeply personal, and woefully inadequate over the faceless and anonymous internet.

[b]Why I loved the film is that it points out that an imbalance in the system (of human interaction), which is ALWAYS dynamic...the system is never settled...will find a way to correct itself. Too much freedom (the opposite of V) leads to anarchy and chaos, and forces the people to find a viable social contract to prevent the excesses from destroying innocent lives. But that's not what the film is about. V is about the pendulum on the other side...too little freedom, too much control...and the effects on the human psyche and soul. As before, an opposite reaction occurs, and humanity finds a way.[/b] I found the film hopeful. It certainly keeps to the philosophical underpinnings of the Matrix trilogy. I loved that the film celebrated the individual, through art, through expression, through outrage.

I was happy I wrote that before I read an interview today where the author validated my opinion, stating that V (the novel at least) is about anarchu vs. fascism. Two ends of the spectrum. It did teach me that I know very little about the history of societal contracts and the psychology that drives them. The film did explicitly state the universal law...for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This applies to much more than physics.

As Martin Luther King stated...hate can not drive out hate. It merely multiples it, breeds it. Only love can drive out hate. Love begets love.

Sappy, but I appreciate any film that allows me a glimpse of the divine.

For what it's worth, the film is also very well made, features two awesome performances (Stephen Rea and Hugo Weaving), and a good one from Natalie. It is ballsy and wears it's intentions on it's sleeve. With some sweet action scenes :)

N for Needed

2006-03-15T17:56:00.000-08:00

V for Vendetta opens on Friday. The right is going nuts because the hero is a terrorist, and some on the left are praying that maybe a B-movie based on a mid-80's graphic novel can do what their party can't...galvanize some disaffected youth into, uhhh, something.

I think V is bigger than that. I read it for the first time last year, having known about it a lot longer. Comics have few masterpieces, and even fewer geniuses. V is one such masterpiece, and it's author is Alan Moore. On the list of brilliant minds in comic books, his name is at the top. It's a short, but meaningful, list.

V was written as a response to the Thatcher administration. Not as it was...but as it could be. Some fools will say it parallels us now, but that is a hollow, facile comment. We are not a fascist country, but some of what drives our beloved country now are the seeds of V's future. What it does preach is discourse. Communication of ideas, the importance of the individual. It is more timeless than a simple screed of anger.

Please give it a chance. Ignore the commercials. V is not an action movie, but an idea movie.

Nothing to see here

2006-03-08T07:32:00.000-08:00

Just a new entry, without a lot of drive behind it. But I might as well get some words on the ethernet, to prove I am still alive. I stayed up for the entire Oscar ceremony (again), but didn't have a lot to show for it. Jon Stewart's monologue was so-so, but I imagine that is where most of his assistance from the "Hollywood" writers cam ein (vice his own TDS writers). After that, he was fine. Better than fine, but you wouldn't know it from the audience. Most actors and actresses seem to have a hard time laughing at themselves. Tools.

Long ago, I learned not to really care what won. If a few films you like get nominated, awesome. Snubs happen at nomination time. I air grievances at nomination time. Once it leaves that point, it's a crapshoot. A few thousand voters (with actors making up the largest percentage) get to decide what wins the big prize. But we the audience gets to decide what lives beyond that. Seriously, who has Chicago (a fine musical, I might add) as a favorite film? A Beautiful Mind? How many of these films stand the test of time?

But what matters is that if you got nominated, you "deserve" to win as much as any other film. As the immortal Clint said in Unforgiven, "deserve has got nothing to do with it". But it's hard to get invested in a film and then have a major group tell you another film is better. But it's also healthy. Most of my favorite films have gone through a sort of crucible, where I had to defend them (or my appreciation of them) from others, sometimes intensely. It did not diminish my love for the films, it increased it. Yes, flaws were pointed out, but even perfect films (like perfect people) have flaws.

Brokeback was an emotional favorite for a lot. It stood for something bigger than the film. But voters didn't vote on that...they just voted on the film. And a film about sheepherders in Wyoming (starring all up and comers) doesn't resonate as well as a film set in the Bowl, starring a dozen established actors (let's be frank, some voters vote for their friends) that is about the Holy Land of Los Angeles? Brokeback will be remembered LONG after Crash has become a trivia answer. That's the truth. And Brokeback wasn't even the best film of the year :) It was close, though.

Definitely Bottom 5

2006-02-22T18:45:00.000-08:00

I thought this before I read this article. South Dakota.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11510472/

This is nothing unexpected or shocking. I am firmly in the camp that does NOT consider abortion "settled law", because it's clearly not settled; and it won't be until it's taken up by elected officials (hahahahahahahahah!). I think the nation needs to drag it out of the courts, decide what fits our beliefs and the law, and brand that into the Constitution if needs be. For the record, I support abortion as a choice, but only as a last resort. Unfortunately, few care about the resorts before the "last one", so until those are robust, women are forced to make the decision with much less support than they deserve.

Anyways, this isn't about abortion or women's rights (to hell with those).

This is about the notion that someone actually thinks the best direction for this country is going to come from South Dakota. Hey, there are a lot of states. Ranking them would be tough, figuring out which ones are the best would be tough. But like most rankings, one thing is always easy. The BOTTOM. I won't name the five worst states now, but I assure you South Dakota is among them. I am a proud American, and I love all 50 states because I am a good citizen. But in what demented universe should South Dakota be determining the legal and moral direction of this country? Let's not pretend all states are equal. In short, allowing South Dakota to drive a national debate is like asking the family illiterate (or drunkard, whichever applies) to make all financial decisions for everyone. It's not gonna start well, it's going to end disastrously, and everyone is going to laugh at you.

I'm not going to take the easy shot of stating I'd rather live in some third world shithole than South Dakota. I wouldn't. Any place in America is better than the best places in the third world. But I am comparing South Dakota to the rest of America. And it dwells in the basement.

Long story short, if your state doesn't rank in the top 40 for education, your politicians and citizens votes should only count as 1/3. Give those bottom 10 something to think about.

Shame is a great motivator.

But I am off-topic. I should credit them that they are taking a stand, even if it is ill-guided, ignorant, backwards, and dangerous. I support a real debate on the issue, which we'll never get, because our elected politicians are spineless bastards, scared of real issues. But let's at least do something before South Dakota gets on the international stage.

Please.

Winner Issue for the Dems - Port Security

2006-02-20T18:18:00.000-08:00

Control of United States ports. The security of the thousands of ships that come in and out.

It gets outsourced, as a matter of business. The administration is currently pushing to allow a company funded by the UAE (United Arab Emirates), home-located in Dubai, to control security in 6 or 7 major US ports. This is a terrible idea, and speaks direvtly to what motivates the current "war on terror". Often recently, thanks to this cartoon mess, I see that we are in a bit of a culture war. More than a bit. But the long-held myth that Saudi Arabia (not the people, but the rich rulers) is an ally is starting to lose steam with the public. I understand (well, recognize) our crack addiction to their oil, but they foment and cultivate the opinions of their people to ensure the citizens aren't quite clear that their rulers are living in obscene luxury. They seem to be playing both sides, and our government is held hostage by some financial realities.

But now this? How do you think the public, even the hard right fans of the neo-cons, are going to react? Not well, and neither are lawmakers on both sides. Now is an opportunity for the left to make a National Security issue their own, and illustrate that the neo-cons care about security as long as it does not affect their bottom line. It has to be done carefully, because we are not at war with the UAE (or Islam, or many Middle Eastern countries). But it should be made clear that national security should stay within the borders...hence the term NATIONAL security.

It's an interesting day when Barbara Boxer and Lindsey Graham agree, and even more interesting when I agree with them.

It doesn't even require much of a spine or brain to go after, so the Dems should be safe. It might even increase their backbone. You can't outsource or focus group cajones.

More importantly than merely a political opportunity...it *IS* national security. It's moronic to even consider outsourcing port security when terrorism is such a major international concern.

The New Experience

2006-02-13T15:00:00.000-08:00

My #1 film of the year was a surprise to me. My internal monologue wasn't about placing the film in context in the solid year of 2005, but about it's place in the decade, my personal favorites, and even all-time. But it's not an easily recommended film, because it eschews so many standards that make people comfortable watching movies. It was hard to review, and it's hard to discuss, unless you are talking with other people that have seen it.

The New World
My initial reviews: 1/28/06
I loved the film, much more than I even thought I would. It was more intimate and focused than The Thin Red Line, and I was ready for it. I had no idea what to expect in 1998, and that distorted my viewing. This time, I knew what set the director apart. What made him, and his films, special. I was still struck again and again, and the simplicity with which Malick creates beauty. He makes simple shots into something much richer, much more layered. But as much as I want to talk about why Malick is so special, I'd rather talk about how incredible this film is.

None of the artifice or pretense that is a staple of filmmaking seems apparent in the film. The viewer is directly coupled to the story, and is never cheated or manipulated. As a film lover, it's almost liberating. The imagery is second to none. The film never relies on large vistas or impossible camera shots. In doing this, the viewer always feels he is there, not that he is watching, but that he is connected. What is remarkable is that the imagery still moves the audience, often in ways they never expected.

The acting is fantastic. Not every character has an arc, but each delivers a brilliant performance. I'll admit to being worried about Farrell. I think he is very talented, but his spins with the tabloids and poor script choices lately had me worried. No need. Bale has a smaller, but equally critical, role. Very little dialogue, he acts with his warmth and presence. The film itself belongs to Q'Orianka. And she delivers in spades. The heart of the story, the film, and the themes presented, she is always luminous. I was touched by her "transformation" in the second and third acts. More importantly, the cheap and easy theme of "caged bird" is never even hinted at. It's far more transcendant than that, and that surprise is what really hit home with me. Yes, watching her walk in shoes for the first time is hard. It's a great scene, done without a hint of judgement by the camera. Her final scenes in England are among the best I've ever seen.

The battle scene is among the best ever filmed. As before, the camera is never in a place that a person couldn't be. The viewer is in the battle, and emotionally invested on both sides. It's a fairly sober and sad fact that such battles are part and parcel of our national history.

I could just sit here and call out shots or scenes or beats all day long. I want to praise Malick over and over and over for what he has accomplished. I would be thrilled to get a longer cut of this or The Thin Red Line as a gift on HD, Blu-Ray, or standard this year...any way I could.

I know this sounds pretentious, but it's just my excitement talking. Film has quite a few directors who elevate the medium. Malick redefines it, makes the medium something new and pure.

Like The Thin Red Line, the film is an experience, and not something you can watch on the fly. It demands more of the viewer, and gives more back. I look forward to my next viewing, whenever it may be. One of the best of the year, one of the gems of the decade.

Now...the real feeling of awe this film inspires in me is based on the complete lack of "filmmaking" in the storytelling. There is no judgement, no pushing the audience this way and that. Zero manipulation. While that sounds simple, it's not. The New World operates on a level most filmmakers can't dream of. It's hard to explain, but not to exalt. The New World is the best film I have seen in years. It's one of the best films ever.

And so ends my list for the year 2005.

For my next trick, I'd like to denigrate NBC for their abysmal, self-serving, inundated with ads coverage of the Olympics. But I'll save that bile for a little later. Just know that it's coming :)

Top Five Continued...

2006-02-09T17:40:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the week delay. Computer trouble, followed by laziness. My apologies.

My #2 is the worst film in the top 5. It's so high because it's strengths are unbelievable. It's a gorgeous film to look at, and it has a huge heart.

My morning after the midnight show review:
December 14, 2005

Three hour midnight movies always kill me. But lately, they have been worth the misery, and for that I am extremely grateful. KONG is a bit of a tough review (aren't they all), especially after one midnight showing and not much sleep. I might as well start with the nits, and I have a few. The films uses a huge chunk of time from the excellent opening credits to the thrilling arrival at Skull Island. Some of it is critical, much of it is interesting, but not all of it is necessary. I'm sure they could have found 10 minutes to squeeze out (and save for the EE, which WILL come, Universal bean counters be damned). In another scalpel move, I would have noticeably shortened the Brontosaurus sequence on the Island. It had the weakest effects and some of the most implausible, lucky events for the characters (physically). And there is plenty of action to come. One more minor concern when I speak of PJ.

And I'm done with nits. The film is a little too *full*. The good news is at the halfway point, all of the excess have been shown...no more bloat. A film can get away with some excess, but not near the finale. As a note, I would not cut one minute of Naomi Watts from the film. Speaking of Naomi Watts, she's as luminous an actress as I've ever seen. I was in love with her from her first appearance, and I stayed that way through the credits. In between long periods of running and screaming, there is a brilliant performance there...almost all with her eyes. No other actors are nearly her equal, but each shine here or there. Jack Black was top notch, as I expected. Colin Hanks and Jamie Bell were also much better than their limited screen time would lead you to expect. They exude likeability. A shame Jamie disappears after Skull Island. Adrien is a fine actor without a lot to do, but he makes the most of his screen time. It's a tough position to be in, playing second male lead to KONG but he does it.

Technically, the film is a marvel to behold. It is as big screen as big screen gets. This is the first theatrical MUST SEE since Titanic in 1997. And I am aware that the LOTR trilogy, the SW PT, the Matrix Trilogy, the superhero renaissance, and Pixar have all displayed brilliant reasons to hit the big screen. Those films are enhanced by the big screen. KONG is a step beyond that. If you love films, see this on the big screen. You may not like it (more on that later), but you won't regret it.

I usually do the direction/director last, but I'll do PJ next to last. I loved PJ's direction of the LOTR trilogy (and Heavenly Creatures and The Frighteners). I knew he was skilled, and LOTR showed him to be uniquely talented. But that was Tolkien. He had A+ material to work with, and one of the best casts ever assembled. But KK is a work of such extraordinary heart that PJ instantly joins the small fraternity of directors who have become legends. My last nit: PJ sometimes needs a little more restraint in the scenes he loves (not the dramatic ones, his eye there is flawless - but the action scenes). Once or twice, he upped the ante a bit TOO MUCH. As strongbad said (paraphrased):

Too much of a good thing is awesome, but too much of an awesome thing can be stupid.

PJ doesn't give too much. The cup doesn't overflow, but it leaks from the top sometimes. Some will think that it does overflow. I don't, but it skirts the line more than once. That is part of the charm...I know. From the intimate to the epic, his camera is sure, he wears his heart on his sleeve, and it's clear he loves movies and love his audience. KK is a love letter to film fans. Whether or not the film earns a BP nod is frankly secondary to PJ getting a BD nod. I can launch superlatives all day long, but the same zealousness that lead to any excess also led to sheer brilliance. I'll take the excess to keep the magic any day of the week.

I didn't do PJ last, because that is for KONG himself. Simply put, I've never been more emotionally attached to a character in a film before. I have loved and believed in a lot of film characters. That is the magic of cinema. Indiana Jones, Luke Skywalker, Gandalf the Grey, Andy Dufresne, Sully and Mike, and countless other small and large characters are a part of my consciousness. Thanks to Naomi Watts, Andy Serkis, the editing, the design, the small touches, and the flawless effects, I identified with and loved KONG almost immediately. It's easy to identify with his loneliness and his hard life. But the direction, acting, and decisions made it a primal connection for me. Beyond even that.

The love story between Ann and KONG is beautifully told, and it makes perfect sense. It defies any typical connection, free from everything that makes our own relationships hard: sex, ambition, regret, jealousy, anger, miscommunication. Ann loves him because she doesn't have to practice anything with him. She doesn't have to be guarded. And he loves her back for the same reason. The closest I can come to is the unconditional love of a parent for a child, but translated to equals. It's hard to explain, but easy to see. And because she truly sees KONG, the audience does as well. It's hard to not love someone once you've truly, TRULY seen them, flaws and all.

Spoiler for KK the story...not this particular film:
I sobbed when he was captured, and that was nothing compared to his last moments with Ann. I found myself thinking I would never have taken the role of a pilot in this film, because I simply couldn't do it. At three in the morning, a grown 31 year old watching an epic fantasy, and all I can do is pray that KONG lives, and wish death upon those that would harm them.Not wanting to be an ACTOR in the biplane...that's emotional investment.

That is based on my recollection this morning. This review grew far too long, but was a bit cathartic. I may seem foolish for such an attachment...so be it. I know some will identify with my feelings. I could care less about the Visual Effects Oscar. Kong himself should receive a special achievement award, for all of the artists involved, for Andy, for PJ, even for Naomi. Even over PJ getting a BD nom. The effects were merely the window to the character. A means, not an end. And what an end it was.

Detective Work

2006-02-01T16:47:00.000-08:00

Some 2006 Oscar Stats for you stat whores:

There are six categories with no BP nominees: Actress, Costumes, Sound Mixing, VSX, SFX, Makeup. This is the highest since 1952.

The lack of a BP nominee in Sound Mixing has only previously happened in 1958.

Editing matched up 2/5. That last happened in 1983. Michael Kahn has tied the record for most Editing noms. Brokeback has no editing nom. Nine films have won BP without one: It Happened One Night, The Life of Emile Zola, Hamlet, Marty, Tom Jones, A Man for All Seasons, The Godfather Part II, Annie Hall, Ordinary People. So don't worry Brokebackers.

The overall nomination tally for BP nominees is 30. Since 1967, only 1989 was lower.

For only the second time in AMPAS history all Five BP nominees have Directing and Writing nominations. The only other time was 1964.

Song has three nominees (usually has five). This has also happened in 1934, 1935 and 1988.

Keira Knightley is the third youngest nominee ever in Best Actress.

This is the first time since '98 that four of the nominees were R, and the first time since '95 that there weren't any PG-13 movies nominated (Of course, that year 3 of them were PG and Babe was G).

It's also eighth time that none of the Best pictures got best actress nom.Previously: 2003, 1994, 1990, 1963, 1962, 1952, 1931.

The Best movies have only 30 nominations. This is sixth lowest number of nominations for Best Pictures in history (when we have only 5 best pictures nominations, I don't count the times where there was 10 best pictures nominations)for:
1946 (19 academy awards) - 28 nominationsfor
1947 (20 AA) - 27 nominations
1949 (22 AA) - 28 noms
1952 (25 AA) - 29 noms
1989 (62 AA) - 29

It's the first time that 5 BP have 30 noms.This is also the first time since 1981 that the best picture nominees and best director nominees matched 5 for 5.

This is the first time in Academy history that a nominee in the Directing category - George Clooney, for Good Night, and Good Luck. - is also nominated in one of the acting categories for a different film.

John Williams’ two nominations this year in the Original Score category are his 44th and 45th Academy Award nominations, putting him in first place in total nominations in the Music categories, breaking a previous tie with Alfred Newman. He also moves into second place in terms of nominations overall, his total individual nominations now second only to Walt Disney’s 59.

14 of the acting nominees are first-time nominees. Of the other six who previously received nominations, four are Oscar winners: William Hurt, Judi Dench, Charlize Theron and Frances McDormand.

Onto my 2005 rankings:

My next two films are personal faves. #3 is especially dear to me for numerous reasons.

#3 Batman Begins

Review: dated 15 June 2003

I've been following this project (though not the story thankfully) for quite some time. I remember actually feeling giddy when Christian Bale was cast. Not just to have his talent and dedication as a part of the film, but because it eschewed the Batman decisionmaking of old. No Hollywood stars (or make-a-star) needed. They clearly wanted a film to be taken more seriously. The remainder of the cast list was met with a huge smile. It's not off the mark to say Batman Begins boasts one of the finest ensembles ever put together.

I had high expectations for the film. But reasonable ones, I thought. I merely expected a very good film. But I got a great one. A GREAT film. With surprising (and not so surprising) performances. I won't get into the nitty gritty like I usually do. I'll just point out some things I liked, or that surprised me.

- Michael Caine played Alfred one half of the conscience of Bruce Wayne. It was a fantastic take on the confidante.

- Cillian Murphy was a real treat. Incredible blue eyes as well...my wife will be pleased.

- Katie Holmes played the other half of the conscience, and while the film needed her the least, she was a plus, not a minus. That surprised me.

- Gotham City was a character. Not because it was overdesigned, as in the other four (which are now resigned to the dustbin of film history), but because it was given a geography, a heart, and a past. Batman needs Gotham to work.

- The origin was smooth and intriguing, and most importantly, elements of it pay off in interesting ways.

- Linus Roache brought a tremendous presence to his few moments. And by tremendous, he brought an emotional weight that I did not expect when I was watching the film. The most tragic moment in Bruce's life hit home, because previous moments had shown what he truly lost. I was surprised, elated, and moved by this sequence.

- I appreciated the look at the themes of the character and his "family". The film never forgot the central character for the action.

- Christian Bale

The other outstanding actors were excellent as expected. I do have minor nits, but further excursions into Gotham should fix that. I'll discuss more in that thread. I can't wait. In short, I expected to find a film that I would like and respect. I ended up finding a movie that will ease into my Top 20 comfortably, thanks to a director, crew, and cast that respect the American Myth that is Batman.

Written now: To be perfectly fair, in hindsight, I would tie Batman with my #2 film. Part of that is emotional attachment, but part of that is being a film in love with the craftsmanship of the film. Not many action films get cinematography nods, but Batman did. It was very well-directed, very honest with the audience, and took the themes seriously without being overwrought or pretentious. For once, I am not crazy, as many film fans I know rate Batman among the best films of the year. So it's not the comic geek talking, but the film lover who loved Batman as a film as much as a character. If only every (or one in every 5) blockbuster was made with this much care and love.

#4 2005, and Background

2006-01-31T15:04:00.000-08:00

My #4 is probably the second best film I saw in 2005. I'm honest like that. Before I talk about it (I have no old review to cut and paste...not a decent one at least), I'll include a list of films I'd like to see from 2005, but never did. They could affect this list, but I find that doubtful. More likely, they'd kick off my 8-10. My 1-7 is pretty rigid. But you never know.

Haven't seen, but want to:
Syriana
Good Night, and Good Luck
Capote
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Narnia: LWW

I have also not seen Crash, but could care less. Heard great and terrible things, which means it's at least ballsy. But I just don't care.

#4: The Constant Gardener

This was an emotionally devastating film. Made moreso by the location shooting and gritty reality glimpsed just behind the main characters. At it's heart, it's a magnificent love story after the fact. It features some great performances, an interesting and (awfully) topical thriller story, and some of the best direction you'll ever see. It also features one of the most singularly devastating scenes I've ever seen, and it's out of nowhere. I don't want to give anything away, but it involves a brother's courage at a funeral, and occurs near the middle of the film.

While the topical thriller material would (and could) drive most films...this is far more personal. This is: how far would you go just to find out what could be a painful truth, even knowing the cost? How much does love mean to you?

At the time I saw it, I considered it the best film of the year (and it was). My #1 film is better, but not by a huge amount. In many years, this would be the best film of the year.

Tomorrow, I'll do my #3 film, plus my favorite film from 2004: The Passion of the Christ :)

No Politics

2006-01-30T15:36:00.000-08:00

Not today. It's not even February of an election year and the rhetoric is sky high.

On to movies. I'll be counting down my top 5 over the next few days.

Today is #5. Review was written on January 3rd.

Brokeback Mountain:

Heavy weekend...started with Munich and ended with Brokeback Mountain.

I found the film constantly beautiful and engaging. Ang Lee is extraordinarily skilled. This is very delicate material, and he gets excellent performances out of every single person in front of the camera. Special kudos to Ledger, of course, but each character had a moment (or more) to really control a scene.

Regarding Lureen:
I think she certainly knew Jack was gay. And I believe she is having trouble coping with his death. She looks hard and angry on the phone, but every few moments, her breath catches as she fights back real tears. It was a subtle sound cue, but I heard it a few times. Great performance by Anne in that scene.

I think what is important about the movie is that it *isn't* important. It's not presented as them against the world, or making aomw critical culture "stand". It's simply about the connection between them and the reality that such a connection carries significant baggage. As a straight male, I was never uncomfortable with scenes of physical love (or emotional vulnerability). I think the film is remarkably accessible for mainstream audiences. Almost all of my favorite films this year are about loss and emotional connections. Weird.

Ang Lee made a great film.

Written today: December and January have yielded 3 of my top 5. BBM was tough to place. It's probably a better film than my #2 and #3 choices, but they are deeply sentimental to me. I am willing to guarantee Best Picture and a Best Director for Ang Lee. No chance anything else gets close. The film itself is deserving, AND it's riding a zeitgeist. Impossible to beat.

I &%!#ing LOVE Nuclear Power

2006-01-23T14:35:00.000-08:00

My wife watched The West Wing last night. Their boogeyman of the week was a staple of the 70's...nuclear power. As a nuclear engineer (of sorts), I was appalled at the horrific misrepresentations thrown around in the show. I shouldn't be...Hollywood gets 99% of everything, from lawyers to the military to science to the weather wrong, all in the name of entertainment. But this issue is a particular thorn, because what most people know about nuclear power comes from Sci-Fi Channel movies, and a few early 80's films. Not content to look at the possible legit consequences of nuclear power, they chose to ignore how US Nuclear plants are designed, run, and monitored in this country.

Here are a few actual truths:

1) Our plants will never explode.
2) Our plants provide an immense amount of energy, with minimal waste, and a safety record everything else in the world would literally kill for.
3) Nuclear power is also critical to our military, powering our forward power projection...carriers and submarines.
4) The people employed by the NRC, the Navy, and civilian plants are smarter than you. A lot smarter. Unless you work for NASA.

Nuclear power has the potential for horrific misuse and danger. Just like an airplane, a fire, or a knife. They can do immense harm...but never have. They can also do immense good. But most citizens are misinformed to the extent that we ignore nuclear power as a viable form of energy. They are misinformed because they think Hollywood is right on this topic.

They are wrong. Hollywood is wrong, willfully so. Nuclear power requires the best minds, the best designs, the best operators, and the best safety programs. And they have them.

The record speaks for itself.

Nuclear power has the potential for great value or great danger. It depends on the discipline used to harness it. It is not inherently evil, bad for the environment, or malicious. Or even unsafe. It is simple science.

Which isn't simple in our ignorant country anymore.

Living in the Courtroom

2006-01-10T13:21:00.000-08:00

Judge Garrett: In this courtroom, Mr.Miller, justice is blind to matters of race, creed, color, religion, and sexual orientation.
Joe Miller: With all due respect, your honor, we don't live in this courtroom, do we?

- Philadelphia

Joe Biden, a man I would vote for, began his statement during the Alito hearings yesterday with something that troubled me greatly...until I thought about it. He spent significant time discussing the great Sandra Day O'Connor. That didn't bother me. But he discussed the confiormation hearings for Alito as an extension of that. There is no "swing seat" on the Court. No O'Connor seat. No "female" seat. Yet Biden discussed greater scrutiny for Alito because he was replacing O'Connor and because he was replacing a woman, dropping the number of woman on the SC to ONE. I thought to myself...that's not fair. That's un-Constitutional. The same standard should be applied to all nominees, male, female, conservative, liberal, progressive, straight, gay, old, young. And I believe that.

Sort of. I kept being reminded of something I tell everyone about my wife being pregnant. The greatest thing for pregnancy were the first female doctors. They brought a perspective males just DON'T HAVE. When I talk about my love for Peter Jackson films, I always have to remember both of his co-writers are women...and they bring significant heart and compassion to his work. When are we unfair to be more fair? Why is there only one woman on the SC? They make up 50-51% of our population. Contrary to PC beliefs, men and women are NOT the same, and can often be very complimentary. Losing a female voice on the SC does matter. My initial gut, while noble, also ignored human nature and one of the truths of America. We don't live in the Constitution. We live in a country where it is filtered through our own weaknesses.

I joked with Beth that I was a humanist. I believe in equality as best as it can be...never balanced, because we aren't, but as close as we can get it. My dislike of minority watchdog groups is that very often, it seems they don't want that at all...just for rules that favor them. Which is easy to say on my side of the fence as a white male. I take no notice of original sin, or white male guilt. I care little for the past, but the present. Do we have to be unfair (as affirmative action and Joe Biden's comments are, in my opinion) to be fair? As long as we are flawed, I think we do have to play a few favorites. The deck is stacked, like it or not. I may hate that reality, but pretending it isn't stacked is lying to myself.

So I feel a bit less contempt for many of those groups. In going uphill, they may overshoot sometimes, but can I really blame them? Not at all.

BREAK

As for SC hearings, as a sarcastic note, I think you actually hear Alito's voice less than a quarter of the time. Just long-winded policy speeches by tired warhorses (more Republicans than Democrats, if you can believe it). STFU already...find out what the guy thinks. His prospective job is way more important than yours. I do love the hearings though. Honest debate over the meaning and direction of our country is outstanding. I'll take it any way I can get it.

Piss on THAT

2006-01-09T15:12:00.000-08:00

I had a few paragraphs, trying to discuss some disparate themes. My POS computer dicked the dog and here I am with a blank page again. So I'll be brief and use someone else's words.

Regarding Gene Shalit and GLAAD's rush to be offended...too much of a rush apparently.

"Dear Damon [Romine], and Neil [Guiliano],
Peter Shalit here—Gene Shalit's son. I have been a member-supporter of GLAAD for years. I assume you were not aware of that, but I am disappointed that you did not do a little background research on my dad, or try to contact me, or attempt to reach my dad through me, before issuing your press release this past week calling him homophobic because of his review of Brokeback Mountain. I did notice the "editor's note" which mentioned that he has a gay son, i.e. myself.

By way of background, I am a gay man, a physician, serving a mostly gay patient population in Seattle, and author of Living Well, the Gay Men's Essential Health Guide, which is a guide to gay health for gay men. I frequently comment to people that I can't imagine having another job that would immerse me in the gay community as much as the one I have. The gay community is my life.

I say this because it's important background for understanding that my dad has always been completely loving and supportive of me, my life, my partners, and my choices. He wrote a piece about me in 1997 for The Advocate (currently posted on their home page)—and agreed to have his picture on the cover of the magazine—because what the piece says is true about how he feels and how he has always acted.

I spoke with my dad yesterday about the issues with his review. He had no idea that his review of a movie, and his reaction to a particular character, would be seen as homophobia. Of course he is not homophobic. Actually the truth is the opposite. Agreed, he didn't particularly seem to like Brokeback Mountain, and he found the character of Jack unsympathetic. But his negative response to a particular character is not "defamation" and had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the character. The interpretation-generalization of this as "homophobic" is unfortunate and incorrect. It is precisely because my Dad is not homophobic that he felt free to criticize the move as he saw it, and not anticipate that he would be accused of homophobia for doing so.

(Incidentally, I loved the movie—and it sure isn't the first time I have disagreed with my dad about one of his reviews. I was sorry he didn't like it, but hey, these things happen. I have always felt that he was entitled to his opinion and I leave it at that.)

When I first saw your press release a few days ago my reaction was "goodness, this is silly" and I decided to sit tight and hope it would blow over. But it hasn't, judging by the e-mails I have received from friends, and the buzz I have seen online. People are concerned about these accusations about my dad, and some bloggers are talking about him as if he is an enemy of gay people. I decided to contact you because there could have been better ways to handle this situation, and I am hurt by your mischaracterization of my father, a man who does not have a molecule of hate in his being. It does not speak well for GLAAD, and it is not helping our community.

We are all really on the same side—you, my Dad, me, my family, our community. The gay community has enough enemies that we should not be attacking or alienating those who, such as my Dad, are part of our family and are our true friends. We may disagree with his opinion of a movie and his interpretation of a particular character, but that is his job as a critic to give his opinion. He may have had an unpopular opinion of a movie that is important to the gay community, but he defamed no one, and he is not a homophobe. It is you who have defamed a good man, by falsely accusing him of a repellent form of bigotry. It is ironic and sad that an organization whose mission is to combat defamation has committed such an act itself, an act which amounts to character assassination with so little consideration of the repercussions.

I am happy to discuss this further with you by e-mail, or you can feel free to phone me... Sincerely, Peter Shalit"

My gut feel (admittedly thanks to general disrespect towards the politics most special interest [right and left]) is that GLAAD wanted the media attention.

They just were willing to ignore good sense and their beliefs to get it. They performed an uneducated character attack on a crappy reviewer (Shalit is 100% wrong about the film...factually wrong I might add).

Power Corrupts

2006-01-07T06:32:00.000-08:00

And money is power. Right now, Abramoff is going to torch some politicians, probably only a fraction of those that have truly entrenched themselves in the system. But still, a little housecleaning is never a bad thing. Someone on C-Span called this a congressional problem, not just a Republican one. Sounds like something I'd say. But not in this case. Abramoff is directly linked to the Republicans, and they will rightly bear the brunt of his revelations. Do I believe this is merely one set of corruptions in the House and/or Senate? Certainly. Do I believe the same percentage of Democrats are also gaming the system. Certainly. But the Republicans rule the roost, and overstepped even the extremely wide latitude the law allows them; their hubris should cause them to pay. With luck, perhaps the brutal vice money and lobbying holds in the District will be broken. With luck, I'll win the lottery without buying a ticket, too.

Shockingly, this isn't getting the traction it most certainly should, but maybe the people merely expect such a double standard in their extremely well-paid, elected leaders. Maybe as humans, we're ingrained to expect and forgive the dark specter of graft and illicit dealings from our leader. Or at least pretend it's business as usual.

BREAK.

I had an interesting discussion on feminism last night with Beth. What are the goals of the movement in 2006? The laws are as they should be. The letter of the law at least. What is the next step? How to achieve it? Our discussion ended at an impasse, as we (and people in general) do not fundamentally have the same definition of what fair means. There was too much to cover in a short little blog, but suffice it to say, there are no easy answers. Why do people continue to look for them :)

Longer Time No Blog

2005-12-31T06:37:00.000-08:00

It's tougher these days. My best thinking is at work. But I can't look at or post to blogs at work. That, and the holidays. And most importantly, I need feedback to be useful.

But feedback follows new entries, so I best hold up my end of the bargain.

It's the holidays, though I worked most of the week.

Abramoff is the big news. While it's always good to see a stone unturned, I can't help thinking the lesson learned will be "don't get caught", not "don't commit treason against the Constitution by putting your interests ahead of your station". More worriedly, how many stones aren't unturned?

I hope everyone reading this had a peaceful and meaningful Christmas, Hannukah, or just holiday. My son officially entered his twos, so I await the onslaught.

Should be fun!

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Hail to the King

2005-12-15T17:33:00.000-08:00

Lot's of Kings in Hollywood.

The King and I
All The King's Men
The Once and Future King
King Arthur
King Cobra
King Ralph
Lion King
The Scorpion King
Return of the King
The Fisher King
King of New York
King Solomon's Mines

But none of those kings matter. I love movies. All sorts of movies. I like to transported. I like to be entertained. I like to be inspired. I like to be moved. I like to be awed.

Peter Jackson, of zombie movie and Lord of the Rings fame, has written a three hour love letter to movies and movielovers. He's remade the most famous monster of all. And the biggest thing about this King is his heart. It's not a perfect film, and sometimes goes a little overboard, but three of the best cinematic experiences in my life occured in this film, and you'd be remiss to skip it on the big screen. Scratch that. You would be a complete fool. If you love movies at all, in any way shape or form, you owe yourself the three hours of KING KONG.

I could go on and on and on about this scene or that shot, or this actor or THAT ACTRESS, but you know the score. Admittedly I've seen better films in my life, but not many. And none were quite so heart-on-their-sleeve, unabashedly B-movie monster masterpieces.

Parenting...and the best TV show in years

2005-12-12T16:50:00.000-08:00

Hey, Mary replied, and therefore set the genie in the bottle loose! It’s been a bit, so maybe I’ll cover a few topics, and try and stay away from politics. It’s easy to get consumed in that fire, and rarely does anything of value come from it. It’s also exceedingly boring.

My son is turning 2 on Christmas. Two years, and I can’t remember but a few months back. Seeing the baby in my arms in pictures just under two years old is like looking at someone else. He changes so much, so quickly, that my memory is having trouble keeping up. I don’t blog about parenthood too much, because my few and far between readers are most likely not parents. But this is about being a child as much as a parent, so I wanted to share a few thoughts. In the Christmas season, and in life itself, it is often remarked that giving is a greater gift than receiving. I am certain there are psychological reasons for this, as well as spiritual lessons, but it’s a true maxim. Parenthood is a major expression of that. It hasn’t been easy. I dearly miss the freedom I had without such responsibility. You lose a bit of that when you get married, so many here can appreciate the sentiment. Gaining a child is exponentially more restricting. At the same time, it is a bit more liberating. But I’ll cover that another time. One of the most critical things Clark has given me is perspective on my own parents. The efforts, the fears, the sheer WORK involved in raising a child are astronomical. I understand them now better than I did before, thanks to the simple paradigm shift. I might also mention that I have a pretty easy kid. I’m very lucky in that respect. Fear is what changes your daily life, I suppose. Fear of failure. Fear of losing him. It’s not crippling, but it’s ever present. My wife and I were watching Angel Season 3 (S3…S? is always Season ? of some show) for my son’s first month or two. Please recall that Buffy S2 stated if Angel had a moment of perfect bliss, he would lose his soul. My wife wondered if having his child would give him such a moment, but I immediately recognized that Angel would NEVER be perfectly happy again. More happy than before, certainly. But never perfectly happy. I don’t think a parent can ever be truly content, given the nature of life and parenthood. Not unless they can disconnect happiness from worry completely. I can’t. I’ll be on my deathbed a little worried for my son.

Scrubs is coming back in early January. Yes, the TV show. Not many people watch it, though it has a smart and dedicated fanbase. It’s about a million times ballsier and funnier than most of NBC’s recent sitcoms, and everyone should watch two or three episodes. You’ll fall in love. It’s not something the ads can sell. Much like another brilliant work of comedy – Galaxy Quest. I cringed at the trailers, and was forced to see it by my sisters. Well, a broken clock is still right twice a day (my sisters and I don’t see eye to eye on entertainment choices), as it was quite a gas. It gets funnier every time I see it. The mark of a great comedy. Anyways, Scrubs. Probably the last season, as NBC has no idea what they are doing, and the creators see the writing on the wall.

More, much sooner. I get better with feedback, even if miniscule.

2005-12-06T18:12:00.000-08:00

I enjoyed C-SPAN this morning. Two sharp lawyers on either side of the military recruiting at law schools debate. I’ve made my biases clear…I’m very pro-military. I ‘d like to explain that more clearly…that does not mean I am pro-USE OF military, or pro-military across the board. My love of soldiers et al. usually dies right around when they achieve flag rank (General, Admiral) and become politicians. I love the dogfaces, the young men and women who work in the front without complaint (and oftimes without support). I am sensitive to situations where they become proxies for a war, or an administration, or a sensitive issue. Such is the case here.

I know I am going to get lambasted (as I have a dear friend who is a homosexual and a lawyer and will probably skewer me), as the crux of this argument is the policy (for the schools at least) is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” My problem is that the law schools are punishing the military for a policy IMPOSED on them by the government. By a democrat named Bill Clinton. Do the law schools prevent the government itself from recruiting? No...just the military. My personal opinion is that this stems from a bias many in academia feel against the military. It’s not enough that you get your students to listen 24-7. You are taking away ONE DAY for the military to make a pitch to INTERESTED students.

And yes, I’m being disingenuous. The schools are doing it to protest the discriminatory policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Yes, Bill put it in, because it was the best he could get from the military. Yes, it is a shitty policy, and not Constitutional to boot. And I disagree with it personally. BUT…it is the accepted law, and there are solvent intelligent reasons for it...because the military is NOT a law firm. As bastions of intellectual morality and ethical behavior, the law schools are saying they don’t agree with the LAW OF THE LAND, and they are punishing the military for it. Frankly, the military should get special consideration from law schools, but career professors who labor under the artificial world of academia have it all figured out apparently (until the Supreme Court finds against them…as it is certain to do). Long story short, they can refuse the government aid (public dollars) and do as they wish. But they want the money, and the right to refuse entry as well. They want the government money, but the means to prevent government access in the form of military recruitment. Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. One comes with the other, in my opinion.

Gays in the military is a hot topic. It should be. But the military is a poor test tube; it is not governed by the same moral drivers as is the regular world. Watching clueless yuppies and/or their kids take issue with the military under the guise of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is insulting. As is the policy itself (I READILY ADMIT), but take that up with the government, not the military. They should have access equal to that of any law firm. Feel free to criticize the policy. I certainly do. But until then, it’ll cost schools to have such impeccable standards. They have the choice. They seem to not have the courage of their convictions. Much like the Virginia Military Institute, which was dead set against females being admitted. Until the specter of public money being removed was dangled in front of them. Then they became perfectly happy to accept women; so much for their moral arguments.

Take the fight to Congress…where it belongs. It's a dated, poor policy. It's easy for a law school (often ones that get most of their students from upper class families, I'd bet) to make sweeping moral judgements, but the reality is not that simple. I do not defend the policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Nor do I defend military recruiters in general. Some of them are scum. But not the ones they send to law schools (or med schools, for that matter). Law schools allow firms that defend some of the most despicable citizens of our nation access with open arms...they defend those people because it's their duty...it's the law. Don't ask, don't tell...it's the law. That, and these rights are protected by many who could never see the inside of one of these schools. They deserve good lawyers. The military has the right to recruit, whether the faculty like it or not. Whether the students like it or not. The students may always choose to not go.

I'd like to tackle the existing anti-military feeling amongst the intelligentsia later.

To FM, I still love you. Don't hate...participate :)

Us vs. Them politics

2005-11-30T10:13:00.000-08:00

I am aware that I exist in a vague, hallucinatory middle-ground of political opinion. I recognize and respect the fundamental difference in the beliefs of the two major American parties. But you get what you inspect, not what you expect. When push comes to shove, both parties value campaign funding and political capital more than anything else. And it is so entrenched as to obliterate the philosophical differences between the two. There is nothing inherently greedy about Republicans. There is nothing unpatriotic in criticisms made by Democrats. My rule of thumb before I jump on a political party...what would I do if the roles were reversed?

Us vs. Them politics has two winners: incumbents and money. It's easier to blame the other party. And even better, more money pours in as you up the invective and innuendo. In short, intelligent debate is bad business. This really got out of hand when Bill Clinton won the White House. The Republicans began their character assassinations almost immediately which grew more and more furious, any real dialogue shut down, and we were left with Rush Limbaugh claiming that America was "under siege". I guess it is the way of the minority party...the system prevents any real voice in government (more now than ever, thanks, neo-cons). All you have left is attacks and criticism.

Us vs. Them politics has lots of losers...primarily the citizens. People get ratcheted up to such a degree...many have a religious fervor to their beliefs, and treat them as such. Believer or non-believer. Moral or immoral. Right or wrong. In such a complex world (growing moreso every second), actual dilemmas are distilled down into easily digestible (and dangerously simplistic) views. I can feel myself start to ramble here, so I'll cut it off.

More political parties would work wonders for the country, but that is one thing the Republicans and Democrats always agree on...two parties, splitting the money (and citizenry) and keeping the opposition to a known quantity of 1. Spirited debate is a fantastic thing. We've lost it to a system that exists to perpetuate itself.

I am in the middle because I believe strongly in some of the things the progressives want, and in some of the things the conservatives want. I am in the middle, because any critical view of the failings of either political party illuminates flaws in the system far more readily than flaws in a political philosophy. Actual reform is off the radar.

Long time no "blog"

2005-11-28T09:21:00.000-08:00

Well, I took a week off, surrounded by two sweet lazy weekends. I can see the world ended when I failed to drop in a new thought, so I'll return to my audience, which has no doubt deserted me at this point. I learned a new word today that will serve me well for the rest of my life: ass cancer. How awesome is that?

Pretty awesome.

My wife overheard the following exchange in some crappy mall store:
"Happy Thanksgiving!"
"I am a Native American...I don't celebrate Thanksgiving"

No $#!+. I have a little NA blood myself (but not enough to get casino winnings) which I use to lord over my blue (and thin) blooded eurotrash friends, but I always considered Thanksgiving to be a pro-Native American holiday. Yes, there is the whole aftermath of the whities screwing the Natives, but I doubt such events affected whatever trog complained about Thanksgiving. Guess they celebrate Capitalism at least.

Anyways, I'm back. I'll eat my fiber and try to be regular.

Disasters in History

2005-11-17T07:59:00.000-08:00

The Greatest Blog of ALL TIME

2005-11-16T11:22:00.000-08:00

...is not contained anywhere near this post. I am enjoying the process, but my pleasure at turns of phrase and hitting the right level of verbose idiocy is not what I anticipated. And there is an easy answer why. I'm much better responding to an existing thought or discussion, popping in with the requisite asshattery. Reactionary, not initiating. But no fear, I'll simply try and get better. Also I've been much too serious.

Humor is the great thing, the saving thing. The minute it crops up, all our irritations and resentments slip away and a sunny spirit takes their place. - Twain

Well, piss on that. It's better to go down in flames, trailing debris and dignity, than it is to be smug and serious. Now I can be different...like everybody else.

Back in high school, a few friends and I used to try and think of the worst possible thing to say in any situation. We rarely had the stones to say them, but the formulation of such a perfectly rude, crude, and belligerent response was almost an artform. I don't remember any of our results, and I doubt they were that funny - teenage boys have their humor meter stuck at dipshit for a few years. But it's still an art form I pursue, even if usually only in my head. It has served me quite well in the verbally cutthroat world of the educated and bitter. Try being stuck in a tin can for 6 months underwater with some mean-spirited and angry young men. No women to soften the blows or force good behavior. Unlike other military branches, we have all the smart, caustic ones, sharpened to a fine edge. It thickens the skin and quickens the mind.

In other news, I tend to make a farting sound when I am the last person on an elevator, and the doors are just closing between me and the last few riders who exited. It's stupid and juvenile, but I derive a "no harm, no foul" pleasure from it. It's like the honk and wave, taught to me by a good friend. If you honk and wave at a stranger, often you get a puzzled and clueless expression from some maladroit on the street. Then you get a good laugh at their puzzlement. Sometimes they just wave back, and what is meant as cruel sport becomes a friendly passing. No harm, no foul. It's only cruel if you are a tool.

Don't be a tool.

Playing the game

2005-11-15T07:45:00.000-08:00

It's always fun to start one of these and not know where I plan on finishing. A confluence of disjointed events have led to this particular entry. A dear liberal (and not a moderate) made note of her distaste with McCain for his comments on ID, I read a John Cusack blog entry at Huffington's site, and read through some comments about McCain at another liberal site. As a huge fan of McCain, I decided to go through it for myself. In doing so, I look at the "charges" as objectively as I can. One of the reasons I love Senator McCain is principle. He is willing to fight his party. Or is he? Is this the calculated game he is playing? Is he the guy at the bar trying the "nice guy" schtick to fool the girls? It may be a more gentle schtick, but a schtick nonetheless. Is he really a party man, who cares more for his standing than for his beliefs.

I took someone the other side loves, and looked at their actions through the eyes of McCain's accusers. The major blog concerns with McCain were that he stood by and supported Bush in 2004. He did not stand up, cry corruption, graft, and shenanigans, and scream that the administration was wrong. Cusack did make note that Hagel and McCain were not neo-cons. But McCain was complicit with his "support" in 2004. Other die-hard liberals at message boards simply stated that because he didn't speak out on Bush in 2004, he was a party guy and could not be TRUSTED. To them, his words on courage (his book) meant nothing...they were tainted by his actions. In Cusack's defense (the blog was quite well written, though merely a tired collection of blame on the Dem's, the American people, and the usual attacks on the motives of the neo-cons), he went after the Dems as well, though some of them (who voted the way McCain voted) got a pass.

So I looked at Hillary, who voted for the war and said she would vote the same way again. Do I really believe that? Or is she, savvy and competent, playing the game while maintaining her dignity? Hillary's name used to be mud in the Armed Services. Seen as weak on national security, she has become a bit of a hawk, getting on the SASC (Senate Armed Services Committee), touring installations, and speaking very highly of the military. She's asked for MORE troops. Why is she doing that? She has still been quite critical of this administration, but she has left the histrionics to those who have a ceiling over their political future. Hillary knows what it will take for a woman to win the vote. She is playing the game. Without betraying her core values.

John McCain has stood up to the power brokers in his party more than any other member of the Senate. He doesn't do it on every single issue. To do so would be political suicide...ask Hillary. He would have politically perished by not supporting the Republican candidate in 2004. While popular opinion is swaying a bit (and I'll do a future blog on why hiding the war hurts the soldiers and our national resolve later), McCain does support an unpopular position. So he is either a party guy, or he is saying what he believes for apolitical reasons. McCain spoke well of Kerry, but perhaps he actually believed that this administration was better than the alternative (at least on the foundation issue).

So do I trust a man who was a POW for years when he talks about courage and security and torture? Do I look for ulterior motives in every thing he does? Do I believe he is politically expedient over principle?

I don't. I won't. It does not pass Occam's Razor. He still plays the game, just like everyone else. Just like Rove, just like Kerry, just like Hillary, just like Frist. But when and how he plays are key distinguishers from the rest of Washington. He plays where he can and not violate his principles. He supported Bush in 2004 because he believed in the war (and still does). That's a dealbreaker for many on the left, and rightly so, for their beliefs. But don't pretend it's because he is just currying favor or has no integrity. McCain has weathered things that would crush most politicians and idealogues, on both sides. He is beyond such contempt. He is not a saint. But in his actions, he indicates a willingness to fight for principle. So does Biden. And Lieberman. And Chuck Hagel. There ARE politicians on both sides who don't subscribe to the politics of Us vs. Them. They do care about the country and it's direction. And whether I agree with them or not, they at least make me willing to listen.

Coming soon:

ID (but only a little). I simply don't think it's as pernicious a threat as the left is making it. I think it's a mistake by the right, and I'll fight it locally, but I don't consider it the end of the Dream.

Us vs. Them politics

And a little Harry Potter.

Veteran's Day - 11th Day, 11th Month, 11th Hour

2005-11-11T11:28:00.000-08:00

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. - Teddy Roosevelt

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." - Thomas Paine

I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. - Abraham Lincoln

I'll finish with a letter that became famous in 1998, when it was quoted in Saving Private Ryan. Lincoln is a great hero of mine for many, many reasons. Major reasons include his courage, empathy, and resolve, and a minor reason is his mastery over the English language. This letter was in a book I loved in high school: 101 Famous Poems. It is NOT a poem, clearly, but the authors included it to represent one of the finest examples of writing in the language. Here it is:

Executive Mansion,Washington,November 21, 1864.
Mrs. Bixby,Boston, Massachusetts:

DEAR MADAM:

I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant-General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,
Abraham Lincoln

"If Americans would just wake up..."

2005-11-10T10:59:00.000-08:00

Most of the 4 people who read this have probably read some spewings of mine in the past. If not, it may have become clear that I am neither fixed on the right or the left. I grew up in a conservative home, went to a more conservative school, and popped out somewhat of a moderate. I learned a nasty lesson right after college about truth in the media, and so I have tried to read the between the lines whenever I hear the grand claims or accusations of either major party in the media.

My favorite quote on the subject (which does encompass me - I am an idiot, just like you):

In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination. - Mark Twain

I am not nearly as informed or as well read as I would like to be, but I do try and keep an open mind about new information. I love C-SPAN, though it attracts nuts like flies to a river of honey. Literally, every day, someone on the fringes of their spectrum screams out the title of this particular blog entry. Which is a hugely self-aggrandizing statement. More than anything, I like being an amateur psychologist (with zero formal training). I love to hear how callers phrase things. Inevitably, the caller(s) who use the quote above are smug a-holes. It is inconceivable (!) to them that another point of view (either more limited in information than theirs, but just as often, more INFORMED) could have merit. Small minds are easily filled, I suppose. In many cases, right and left motivated callers alike, I disagree to some extent with the person making such a claim, and have to reconcile that with my professed open mind and education. And even if I agree, I want to kick them in the taint and scoff at their pretentious BS. The inability of the human mind to entertain and analyze a concept that does fit into pre-conceived notions is truly one of our greatest weaknesses.

B-R-E-A-K

I wanted to mention our government's pretense at the oil execs yesterday, but what's the point? They weren't under oath, they flew to their mansions on private jets after the session, and the politicians will take their money in an election year. It's a bit late to shut the cage door after the tiger has gotten out. It was a waste of their time. Posturing at best. In other news, look at the profits made by the oil companies. Understand that the US government made MORE than that on gasoline tax (the percentage of gas price that is pure profit is less than that of taxation). The government needs to get serious about corporate accountability. But that's tough when there is little accountability in government.

Give Life

2005-11-09T10:39:00.000-08:00

I do very little in my life that has actual meaning. I play video games, I read books, I watch movies, I go to work (which is something), and I am a husband and a father (which is my responsibility). I give a little money each month to http://www.stjude.org/, but not enough. Every 8 weeks, I get the chance to give blood. It's fairly painless, pretty quick, and I get a free t-shirt. None of that really matters, but I like to give blood. It costs me nothing, and it's actually meaningful. Interested? http://www.redcross.org/

Late last night, a family friend called. Years ago, my wife picked one of my groomsmen for me, a dear friend of hers named Dan Morgan. No objections from me. His wife called last night. Her husband just started his second deployment with the very famous 101st Airborne(http://www.campbell.army.mil/division.htm) in Southwest Baghdad. They lost 9 people in the last week, ranging from a First Sergeant with 19 years who had just put in his retirement papers to a PFC who joined the army in January, in a rush to get to the 101st and serve his country. She is at home, raising two children, 3 and 5, while serving the wives of the 101st. She was so tired. And it's a long time until he comes home again. I love soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen (and airwomen) and their families. Like America, some of them are shit, but most of them are truly special. I doubt my donated blood will make it that far, but there are plenty of people who need it here.

I wish we took better care of each other.

Americans always try to do the right thing- after they've tried everything else. - Winston Churchill

Election Day

2005-11-08T10:40:00.000-08:00

But who cares? VA - CA - NJ. Change one letter and you get vacant, which will be the polls this fine day. A lot of recent media attention has been drawn to the excitement of the Democratic Party in getting ready for 2006 and 2008. They, lacking any real policies and unable to put forth some cogent solutions, have relied on the tried and true "let the other party implode". And it has finally worked beautifully, through no actual effort on the left's part. Content to be reactionary, they now have hope for 2006.

But it is a fool's hope to a large extent.

1) It assumes the headlines today will be the headlines in 11 months.

2) It assumes the voters are paying attention and can be counted on to vote their conscience (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!).

3) It assumes the Republicans won't simply air their dirty laundry now, find a few scapegoats, and ride out the storm.

4) It assumes things won't be getting better in October of 2006.

But things might. This administration is a dreadful failure, but major events have gone their way at the right time (election time). They could do so again. The Republicans failed to consolidate the moderate/centrist element of this country in November 2004, through hubris or stupidity. Hilary herself is making a play for that center, while her party stares at her vacuaously. She's a savvy and competent politician. There are a lot of moderate conservatives who are exceedingly displeased with the current Republican agenda. They want fiscal restraint, states rights, and measured foreign policy. They want effective taxes, cheaper gas, and honest politicians (dare to dream). They don't like Tom DeLay, and they don't care that much about the culture of "life". Affirmative action and abortion are not going to get them to the polls. They have a lot in common with what the Democrats want. FIND COMMON GROUND. You don't even have to move your position. See where positions overlap and pound them, treat them with a little respect (something the right hasn't done, unless you are a corporation), and the margin of victory will be yours.

I know the left has good ideas. Air them. Solutions work better than veiled accusations. Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Don't expect the neo-con Republican administration to do your job at election time for you. It's one year to go and the belief that things are "progressing" for the Dems is a red herring. Mary recommended some new faces, and she is right. Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin...that's a sucker bet. Obama, Clinton (the female), and Lieberman (but not Gore). They are popular with the avergae citizen. They are smart and speak well. Hilary carries a lot of baggage, but she's twice as smart as most of these clowns. Barack is the great left hope. Attractive, honest, moral, smart, and warm. He should be the face of the party.

The neo-cons excel at elections. You don't dance with the champ...you knock him out.

90-9

2005-11-07T08:54:00.000-08:00

That was the vote in the Senate. Why is Cheney fighting it? The American people are disgraced by the actions of an untrained few, so why fight it? Because you don't understand the public sentiment.

I have unpopular opinions of prisoner mistreatment. I'm a pragmatist. I believe in human rights. Like porn, torture is not so well-defined. I have a looser (though I'd argue, more honest and realistic) opinion of what constitutes torture. However, the downside of public disgust and shame at ANY possibility of the crime outweighs the potential gains of doing it. The easy tack is to say "Don't do it at all, ever, period!"

But I don't. My answer is "Leave interrogation to the professionals." Why on earth would you allow basic soldiers and reservists to be responsible for such a critical and sensitive duty? Truly skilled and trained experts (who know the law and the chinks) to address the problem. There are lines. And they should very rarely be crossed, and never by amateurs. Almost every rule is made to be broken, but let's not leave that judgement in the hands of kids out to impress some fat retired intel guys in cammies. Leave it to the unsentimental, professional, dispassionate hardasses. That won't be a popular opinion. I recognize and accept that. Torture should never be acceptable, but high stress situations should be applied to certain individuals in the interests of our troops, our allies, and innocent lives. It's not a clear line at all...that's why you need qualified interrogators. In the immortal words of Bob Sugar: It's not show friends...it's show business.

But in our own government, there should be no ambiguity. International law (and UCMJ) is clear. It is demeaning work for soldiers, it is demeaning to our country and citizens, and insulting to boot. 90-9, you jackass. The people have spoken.

You monkeyed up the investigations at Abu Ghraib, you've monkeyed up handling the aftermath, and now you are monkeying up the proper course corrections.

Hope everyone had a great weekend!

So What's It All About Then

2005-11-04T10:24:00.000-08:00

Whatever I want it to be, I suppose. If the news gets me riled up, then the news. If it's something funny I read, I'll share it. If in doubt, I'll drop back to movies, a longtime passion.

I had a discussion with my friends about different films. I psotulated there were three types: revenge, boy meets girl, and giant monkey. I have amended that to FOUR types: comedy, revenge, boy meets girl, and giant monkey. They whined and whined, but that's it. And when in doubt...revenge works.

Without further adieu, http://movies.apple.com/movies/universal/king_kong/king_kong-tlr_h640w.mov

Right clicking will allow you to enjoy the file at your leisure. Tenacious D, Naomi Watts, the only guy with energy at any recent Oscars telecast, and the aforementioned giant monkey. If you enjoy movies, it's tough to not be excited about KING KONG. Even if you are the Yentl/English Patient kind of film lover.

No major motivations today, so you get pablum. My apologies. I did sit through Access Hollywood last night to see this trailer, and it was among the worst 20 minutes of my TV viewing life.

Naomi Watts is hotter than Nicole Kidman ever was...

A Little Background

2005-11-04T05:44:00.000-08:00

Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash. - Winston Churchill

Now that I am well on the road to fame and fortune (the dream of all start-up bloggers, for their voice to MATTER...and to get rich doing nothing), I think a little background is in order. In truth, about 10 people will read this thing ever, and about 4 of them regularly, so I need to keep my audience in mind. You are here for one reason, for me to entertain you. I am here for several reasons (the aforementioned fame and fortune which is awaiting me when this is picked up Mad Magazine): to release the stress of daily life, to collect some cogent thoughts in one place, to learn how to actually write, to elicit some feedback from open-minded a-holes, and of course, to entertain the unwashed masses that sit at my feet.

I will endeavor to keep this clean, but I will fail at times. I will endeavor to keep this regular, but some days are busier than others. I will endeavor to make you laugh, but some of you are bitter husks. And I'll try and change it up. As my mood takes me, so this blog will take you.

I have good news and bad news. And they are both the same. As this is a "welcome" post, it doesn't count for today. So some random thoughts will float down later, once I get my noodle in gear.

By the by, I will be presumptuous and say that this is a brother blog to my female friends at:

http://everythingcounts.blogs.com

and

http://fascinatingmary.blogspot.com/

Both are nutty liberal women, so you take your manhood in your hands when you visit.

As usual.

Quotes

2005-11-02T12:52:00.000-08:00

I love quotes. The title of my newly established Blog comes from one of my favorite quotes. I will, of course, provide a more complete picture of the point of this Blog on Friday. But it has been a long time coming.

The quote in full: It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain

These musings will exist to prove that principle. Shall we...?