Thursday, February 28, 2008

William F. Buckley Jr.


Weird week. Two annoying conservatives expired (Mecham and Buckley). While sympathetic to their families, it's not necessarily a time to sugercoat their influence.

William F. Buckley Jr. as a Progressive Role Model by Matt Zeitlin
William F. Buckley Jr, who died today, was mostly known for founding and editing National Review and being a leading conservative intellectual, journalist and thinker for more than 5 decades. But before founding National Review, he wrote God and Man at Yale. He was in many ways the original conservative critic of the academy. God and Man was a polemic against the liberal atheism, or at least agnoisticism, among Yale faculty. Buckley anticipated those right wing critics who today think that college campuses are much too liberal, except he was doing it 50 years ago.

But more importantly, Buckley should be a model to all of us young writers looking to influence the political scene. Buckley wrote God and Man when he was 25, and founded the most influential political magazine of the last half-century when he was 29. And even though he was a conservatives’ conservative, he still appreciated youthful vigor and energy in his movement that he did some much to shape. He was an enthusiastic Goldwater supporter and helped found Young Americans for Freedom in 1960 so as to channel youthful energy into movement conservatism. In modern liberal blog terms, he was some freaky combination of Matt Yglesias, Markos Moulistas and Rick Perlstein – except conservative.

There's a whole lot anyone can learn from Buckley the man - he was kind, urbane, sensitive, intelligent and an amazing stylist. But we liberals and progressives rightly are repulsed by his politics. But there's also Buckley the institution builder. And he was greatly responsible for turning conservatism into the institutional force it is. And he was able to do it by providing ideological coherence and also by energizing and deploying young people to be proud, excited conservatives. But he also viewed conservatism as distinct from the Republican party and was ready to abandon the party when he thought it wasn't conservative enough. He should be the model for what we self-styled progressives are doing today - building a set of institutions to make progressivism a lasting force in American politics. And while many of us are supporters of the Democratic party, we recognize that our movement has to be more than a partisan one. In short, we need to be like Buckley to reverse the gains him and his movement have chalked up in the last 50 years.

I wouldn't quite go as far as Zeitlin to compliment Buckley. Buckley wasn't quite as kind as he makes out. Bill was even known to have lit into Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky pretty good on occasion. But Zeitlin does show some of the areas where Buckley can give us a lesson:

- the need to build permanent institutions and publications that further the progressive movement

- the need to remember that erudition and activism are not the sole territory of the left

- the need to not necessarily tie your idealogy to a certain political party

- the need to be a good writer and intelligent advocate for your cause

The passing of Buckley reminds me of the importance of not only reading people you agree with but also those you disagree with. I've read books by Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity, Buchanan, Ralph Reed, Goldwater, etc. ... and Buckley. Besides being amazed that the first four I listed were even capable of reading, let alone writing a book, it gives one a sense of what you are up against. A little Sun Tzu-ish, I grant you ("Know thy self, know thy enemy"). But smart.

And lastly, it's comforting to know that not all effete Ivy League snobs are liberals.

Friday, February 22, 2008

By the Time I Get to Arizona


It might be tactless to speak ill of the recently deceased, but I couldn't just let the passing of former Arizona Governor Evan Mecham yesterday go by without comment.

After all, Mecham is another in a long line of corrupt and pathetic Republican governors in Arizona. Two of the last three GOP governors here have had to be forcibly removed from office (Fife Symington being the other).

Mecham had a lot to be proud of:
"As governor, Mecham was plagued by controversy and became the first U.S. governor to simultaneously face removal from office through impeachment, a scheduled recall election, and a felony indictment ...

While governor, Mecham became known for statements and actions that were widely perceived as insensitive to minorities. Among these actions were the cancellation of the state's Martin Luther King Day, attributing high divorce rates to working women, and his defense of the word "pickaninny." In reaction to these events, a boycott of Arizona was organized, damaging the state's tourism industry by the cancellation of multiple conventions." (from Evan Mecham on wikipedia)


At least he got a song written about him:

Public Enemy - By the Time I Get to Arizona

I'm countin' down to the day deservin'
Fittin' for a king
I'm waitin' for the time when I can
Get to Arizona
'Cause my money's spent on
The goddamn rent
Neither party is mine not the
Jackass or the elephant
20.000 nig niggy nigas in the corner
Of the cell block but they come
From California
Population none in the desert and sun
Wit' a gun cracker
Runnin' things under his thumb

Starin' hard at the postcards
Isn't it odd and unique?
Seein' people smile wild in the heat
120 degree
'Cause I wanna be free
What's a smilin' fact
When the whole state's racist
Why want a holiday F--k it 'cause I wanna
So what if I celebrate it standin' on a corner
I ain't drinkin' no 40
I B thinkin' time wit' a nine
Until we get some land
Call me the trigger man
Looki lookin' for the governor
Huh he ain't lovin' ya
But here to trouble ya
He's rubbin' ya wrong
Get the point come along
An he can get to the joint
I urinated on the state
While I was kickin' this song
Yeah, he appear to be fair
The cracker over there
He try to keep it yesteryear

The good ol' days
The same ol' ways
That kept us dyin'
Yes, you me myself and I'ndeed
What he need is a nosebleed
Read between the lines
Then you see the lie
Politically planned
But understand that's all she wrote
When we see the real side
That hide behind the vote
They can't understand why he the man
I'm singin' 'bout a king
They don't like it
When I decide to mike it
Wait I'm waitin' for the date
For the man who demands respect
'Cause he was great c'mon
I'm on the one mission
To get a politician
To honor or he's a gonner
By the time I get to Arizona

I got 25 days to do it
If a wall in the sky
Just watch me go thru it
'Cause I gotta do what I gotta do
PE number one
Gets the job done
When it's done and over
Was because I drove'er
Thru all the static
Not stick but automatic
That's the way it is
He gotta get his
Talin' MLK
Gonna find a way
Make the state pay
Lookin' for the day
Hard as it seems
This ain't no damn dream
Gotta know what I mean
It's team against team
Catch the light beam
So I pray
I pray everyday
I do and praise jah the maker
Lookin' for culture
I got but not here
From jah maker
Pushin' and shakin' the structure
Bringin' down the babylon
Hearin' the sucker
That make it hard for the brown
The hard Boulova
I need now
More than ever now
Who's sittin' on my freedah'
Opressor people beater
Piece of the pick
We picked a piece
Of land that we deservin' now
Reparation a piece of the nation
And damn he got the nerve
Another niga they say and classify
We want too much
My peep plus the whole nine is mine
Don't think I even double dutch
Here's a brother my attitude hit 'em
Hang 'em high
Blowin' up the 90s started tickin' 86
When the blind get a mind
Better start and earn while we sing it
Now
There will be the day we know those down and who will go

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Tropic Thunder

I had an interesting experience Tuesday night. The last time Michelle and I went to a movie, a couple of theater personnel came in handing out passes for a free movie. The free movie was an advanced screening for the Ben Stiller directed film, Tropic Thunder. I'd always wanted to be part of a test audience but had not idea how you got into these things. Now, I knew.

So stoked to be part of a test screening, I feared that I might lose my objectivity. Would my brush with fame cloud my vision? I needn't have worried. Tropic Thunder is a turd ... albeit an ambitious one. We were asked to fill out surveys before and after and our every guffaw was dutifully noted by studio types. A bit about the movie:

Ben Stiller says "Tropic Thunder" is a "a comedy about five actors who go on location and find themselves relying on their boot camp experiences when they get stuck in a real war-like situation." Black will play Jeff "Fats" Portnoy, an overweight gross-out comedian, who's forced to kick his drug addiction while filming on location in the jungle. Downey Jr. will play Kirk Lazarus, the greatest actor of his generation and a four-time Oscar winner ... and Stiller plays Speedman.

The movie-within-a-movie turned real premise has been done before (and better) but in a different setting, Galaxy Quest.

This was first experience with an advanced screening. This was actually the first audience viewing of this movie anywhere. Lucky us. At this rate, we'll be the last.

It's trying to be too much. Is it a comedy? Is it a satire? Is it a spoof? Is it an action movie? Is it a drama? It has no idea what it wants to be. It makes fun of movies like Apocalypse Now, Rambo and Platoon and in the same breath celebrates them with vulgar language, violence and gore. All that it manages to do is show why those movies are better than Tropic Thunder. There are as many F-bombs in this movie as any Judd Apatow movie (40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up). But there the similarity ends. Apatow is good at the laughs and heart coming organically out of a natural scene. Every attempt at a laugh or profanity in Tropic Thunder seems forced.

The movie also mocks the insecurities and foibles of Hollywood actors (which is not a bad idea for a premise) ... but then those very same actors are in the movie - Tom Cruise, Matthew McConaughey, etc. Is that supposed to be ironic? If it was a better made movie, that would seem clever. But instead, it seems like Stiller is trying to have it both ways. There's a point past which you can't go and still claim any kind of artistic high ground. For example, clips of a movie made by Stiller's character seek to show how he chose to play a mentally handicapped person so he'd be nominated for an Oscar (like Forrest Gump or I am Sam). That would certainly be a valid criticism of a lot of real actors. But then Tropic Thunder milks those same scenes for laughs.

Or another instance is Downey's character who is acting in the movie within a movie in blackface. Wow. That sure was hilarious for C. Thomas Howell in Soul Man ... not. Somehow I can't see Spike Lee being happy about this role.

Again, I understand the point that Stiller is trying to make - that a lot of actors go through ridiculous physical transformations just so that they will be viewed favorably come Oscar time. But I really feel that this film goes too far and celebrates those actual things that it is trying to mock.

There are a lot of cameos in the movie (Nolte, Jon Voight,etc.), most notably Cruise - bald, hairy and in a fat-suit. And played way over-the-top. Think of his master-of-the-muffin character in Magnolia if the guy was 20 years older and had let himself go a bit. It's funny for a minute or two but then you start to get the feeling that this character is really just a part of Cruise's real personality.

Stiller's brand of humor just seems to be dated and tied to the era from which he was first popular - the early 90's. He's obviously got a lot of high-profile friends, but even they can't save this.

I know this movie will probably be edited and tightened up and tweaked before release (Aug 11 last I heard), but I don't think there is anything that they could do that would make me change my view of it. I'm not saying there are not laughs. I think Downey and Black are pretty funny a lot of the time. Just not enough. The movie has already had it's share of troubles - Owen Wilson was originally slated for the McConaughey role. And the movie has been bumped from it's original July release date.

I'm sure I'm violating some kind of protocol reviewing a movie that hasn't came out. But I'll forget about this film if I don't commit my thoughts to digital paper now. As far as I can tell, my review is the first review of this movie anywhere. Though, you will certainly find plenty of self-congratulatory blurbs like this from dubious sources (MTV):

With a cast including Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, and Matthew McConaughey (subbing in for Owen Wilson), it certainly has the pedigree to become a thunderous success. And if a rumored cameo comes together, the film could just cruise to classic status.

"... It’s about a bunch of movies stars, and a rapper/actor, who get cast in this Vietnam War movie and get sent over to Vietnam to make this film," grinned box-office heavyweight Ben Stiller, who directs and stars in the flick.

"Thunderous success", "classic status" ... yeaahhhhhh. Not a whole lot of objectivity there for a film the writer had not even seen. I noticed a couple of commenters on IMDb's page that had saw the same screening as I did ... and loved the movie. Obviously they went drinking before seeing the movie.

If you go see Tropic Thunder in August and hate it, you can't say that I didn't warn you.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Charles Barkley

You gotta love Chuck. He might say some dumb things sometimes, but he's always brutally honest. The contrast between Barkley and a wet noodle like Wolf Blitzer is painfully obvious here:


I absolutely detest people like Wolf Blitzer. In their futile attempts to look impartial and play it safe, they manage to stand for absolutely nothing.

Barkley, however, as a prominent black man living in a largely conservative state, is not afraid to say he's for gay marriage and is pro-choice. Good for you Charles.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Going Green - Update

I haven't updated you lately on our attempts to reduce our ecological footprint, but it's been going well. We've always watched the electricity we used - setting the thermostat lower in winter, higher in summer; having high-efficiency appliances, using CFL's, etc. - so it was a big surprise when we received our year-end electrical usage statement for '07:


For 11 out of 12 months, we had reduced usage from the year before despite the fact that we were already well below the average usage for a house of our size going in. It goes to show you that if you think you are already conserving enough, there is always more room for improvement.

We're in month 3 of having just one car and we are settling into a groove with it. It has us seriously debating whether we need to replace the 2nd car at all. Our fuel costs have went down by about $50 a month, and our car insurance costs by the same amount. And there's been no harmful effect on either of our jobs, or Alex's school. But it's still up in the air. We'll probably give it about another month and will decide for good what we'll do.

Just around the house, our use of cloth napkins and the purchase of bulk, concentrated and good for the environment products has progressed to the point that when we set out our garbage and recycle bins for pick-up each week, the garbage is about a fifth full and the recycle bin is overflowing. Two of our favorite products -- Mrs. Meyer's Dish Soap and Shaklee Get Clean Fresh Laundry.

Alex's fragile little mind has been so warped by our treehugger ways that he is quick to call us on any of our missteps and encourage us back on to the path. It would have been ironic if we had spawned a miniature Republican (a la Family Ties and a different Alex), but it looks like we are safe.

Next up is probably exterior solar screens before the heat of summer. Hopefully, we'll reduce our costs even more in the next year.

Doing what's right doesn't have to be expensive. It can and should be the opposite. Those people that waste and pollute and proudly drive around their huge SUV's because they think it makes them look "American" and "free" will go the way of the dinosaur. They don't want to be perceived as weak or environmental or European. But society will eventually weed out their kind of stupidity.

The Police - Walking In Your Footsteps

Fifty million years ago
You walked upon the planet so,
Lord of all that you could see
Just a little bit like me,

Walking in your footsteps ...

Hey Mr. Dinosaur
You really couldn't ask for more.
You were God's favorite creature,
But you didn't have a future,

Walking in your footsteps ...

Hey there mighty brontosaurus
Don't you have a message for us.
You thought your rule would always last
There were no lessons in your past.
You were built three stories high
They say you would not hurt a fly
If we explode the atom bomb,
Would they say that we were dumb.

Walking in your footsteps ...

Fifty million years ago
They walked upon the planet so
They live in a museum
It's the only place you'll see 'em.

Walking in your footsteps

They say the meek shall inherit the earth....

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Scalia -- Worst Person in the World

With a complimentary nod to one of my heroes, Keith Olbermann, I give you my nomination for Worst Person in the World, Antonin Scalia. (ed. note -- after completing my blog entry, I noticed that Keith actually did choose Scalia as his worst person in the world today. Great minds think alike.)

In a recent interview with the BBC, Scalia gives us the specious ticking time bomb argument. This is a classic straw man argument. He's setting up an unrealistic situation that would never happen just so that he can justify torture. And he knows this. It's a high school rhetorical device that will convince a moron -- by moron, I mean any conservative that actually buys this bull. His words:

"Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to find out where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited under the Constitution? Because smacking someone in the face would violate the 8th amendment in a prison context. You can’t go around smacking people about.

Is it obvious that what can’t be done for punishment can’t be done to exact information that is crucial to this society? It’s not at all an easy question, to tell you the truth.

... Seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say that you can’t stick something under the fingernails, smack them in the face. It would be absurd to say that."

I'll tell you what my definition of torture is -- having to listen to people who try to use this tired argument. Stop watching 24 and wake up to the real world.


It's odd that the right seems to rail against "judicial activism" by liberal judges, yet Scalia is the very definintion of judicial activism. His rulings are driven by his idealogy, not the constitution as he purports. If he was just some regular joe or some pundit that had these crazy ideas, I wouldn't care much. But he's on the frickin' Supreme Court!! Scalia and Clarence Thomas are right of Attila the Hun. And Roberts and Alito are barely better. This court was stacked by Republican presidents and will curse this country for the next 20 years. yay.

"The healthy man does not torture others - generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers." -- Carl Jung

Saturday, February 09, 2008

Child of Watergate

Now, I'm reluctant to discuss directly who some of my clients are. I don't think it's really because of some lofty or noble client privilege garbage - I'm a frickin' computer tech after all, not a doctor or lawyer - but rather I feel that my clients didn't necessarily sign on for me using their lives as blogger fodder when they hired me.

But I write what I know. I'm not afraid to jeopardize my trained-monkey nerd status in the interest of a story. I'd gladly sacrifice the former for the latter. A new client this week had an interesting enough background that I felt I had to write about it.

Upon reading the invoice that I had written up for her, my client commented that she was surprised that I had spelled her last name correctly. She said that I must be German. I replied in the affirmative and left it at that, thinking it was some ancestral intuition that guided me. There was a familiarity in her name that was eluding me, but I couldn't quite place it.

After I got home, I googled her name and found the following article and it became obvious to me why I knew the name:

Watergate Kids

Anne is another honest-to-goodness child of Watergate, the daughter of _____, who had the bad luck of taking a job as Nixon's attorney general five days before the bungled Watergate break-in. ... the younger _______ (she's practiced corporate law in Phoenix for years) was deeply affected by Watergate. She was in college at the time, old enough to really see her father suffer, even though he was never charged with a crime.

... To this day, people still hear her name and ask about her relationship to Watergate. She doesn't like it, but it's a part of life. She's 46, happily married and involved in local Republican politics, although she says she'd never run for office. Years ago, someone asked her to consider it, and she did, but ultimately decided against it.

"I felt that I had already sacrificed enough of my personal life and I didn't want to take any chances that I would sacrifice any more."

You can read the article if you want to know her name. I'd rather not have her do a google vanity search for her name and end up here, so I'm not going to name her in my post.

Watergate was a formative experience for me. Not when it actually happened, mind you, as I was only 4 or 5 years. But later in high school when I discovered All the President's Men (I actually remember arguing with my government teacher about the identity of Deep Throat). This was my introduction into the world of politics and journalism. The curtain was pulled back and a world was revealed to me that showed that not all those who go into public service do so for the noblest of reasons - which I had been naive enough before to not fully realize. It was probably because I didn't really think about politics up till that point. My parents weren't really the type to discuss world affairs at the dinner table and small-town Iowa was not exactly the hotbed of political activism. the President's Men led to me purchasing just about every book written about Watergate and devouring them. Like a lot of people who read these books and saw the movie of the same name, it made investigative journalism into a sexy profession and I'm sure it encouraged a lot of young people to pursue those careers. I had certainly entertained the idea at the time. Sadly, journalists have fallen from the lofty perch, perhaps through no fault of their own, because of the pressures of corporate America. But that's a subject for a different time.


So, while I consider myself a "child of Watergate" for the feelings and thoughts that it provoked in me, my client is literally a child of Watergate. Just one of those odd convergences that happen from time to time in my life. In hindsight, I'm glad that I didn't recall at the time why I knew how to spell her name. I can see it now -- me, in all my liberal political glory, blurting out something like, "I knew how to spell your name because it's exactly like that loser Attorney General under Nixon." That would have been awkward. But it certainly wouldn't have been the first time I'd put my foot in my mouth.

Sunday, February 03, 2008

Atheists on MySpace


Personally, I don't use MySpace and think it is the refuge of teenage skidmarks and twentyish people who are trying to be teenage skidmarks. Most of the posters are morons that don't know anything about computers and infect their sites with spyware and in turn infect all of their moron friends. Whatever. It keeps me in business.

Maybe I'm being snobby. Maybe the same criticisms could be lobbed at blogger.com.

But as a social networking site, I understand MySpace's scope and usefullness. And to limit who can participate seems wrong and against the whole concept:

It isn't easy being godless online.

For the third time in three years, what may be the largest group of organized atheists in the world is struggling to stay on MySpace, said a Cleveland State University assistant professor who founded the site for nonbelievers.

MySpace deleted the 35,000-member "Atheist and Agnostic Group" on Jan. 1, a little more than a month after hackers broke in and renamed the group's site "Jesus Is Love," Bryan Pesta said Wednesday.

MySpace has ignored repeated requests to restore the group's site, including an online petition with more than 500 signatures, said Pesta, who was the group's moderator.

"These actions send a clear message to the 30 million godless people in America that we are not welcome on MySpace," Pesta said.

A MySpace spokeswoman did not return calls seeking comment.

Pesta started the group in 2004 as a social networking site "specifically for godless people." Atheists are more likely to be geographically spread out, and the online group provided a sense of community, he said.

"We're regular people, just like Christians, Muslims and Jews," he said. "We like to network."

The site grew by about 10,000 people a year to just under 35,000 members by the end of 2007, Pesta said.

But it was never without controversy. Two years ago, Pesta said, MySpace deleted the group after an organized campaign from Christians opposing the site. MySpace restored it and promised it would be protected, Pesta said.

Last Thanksgiving, hackers broke into the group's site, deleting material and renaming it "Jesus Is Love." MySpace restored the site three weeks later but then shut it down this year, Pesta said.

The group was an important resource for nonbelievers, supporters said.

Hollis Geary, a group member from Lyndhurst, said she appreciated having a site where nonbelievers could meet and bounce ideas off each other amid the freedom and anonymity of the Web.

"We're a pretty quiet minority," she said. "There's just a lot of people that are atheist, agnostic or curious" who don't come out publicly.

Hackers for God ... that's admittedly pretty funny. But I digress. I don't know if there is anything insidious or if there is some great conspiracy to keep atheists off of MySpace. But it is worth noting who owns MySpace - News Corp and Rupert Murdoch. That's not exactly "fair and balanced".

Dr. Strangelove

To all those who think a McCain presidency would be a good thing:



McCain's the general, but he's also the Slim Pickens character, the gung-ho military type that doesn't know quit. Being a hero in a long line of military heroes is an admirable thing. But it has also imbued him with a sense that war is always justified, that all sacrifices are worth it, and that America always needs to be in a war.

Do yourself a favor and watch the best political satire ever, Dr. Strangelove, by the best director ever (IMHO).

Edwards


I don't like talking too much about who I intend(ed) to vote for in the Super Tuesday primary in Arizona. It doesn't really matter what I think about a candidate. It matters what you think when you are choosing. And if we get beholden too much to one candidate, we have a tendency to see all the faults in the other candidates and none in our own. And that's not an objective way to decide who'll be your president.

Since the candidate I was leaning toward just dropped out, I figure it's safe to talk about him a bit. Marc Cooper on the Huffington Post sums up my feelings pretty good:

John Edwards exits the presidential race having done the right thing -- the right thing in having run the way he did and the right thing in leaving when he does.

The Democratic race has been, for better or for worse, a two candidate race since New Hampshire primarily because the voters so deemed it. As we go into Tsunami Tuesday, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are locked in a death struggle to redefine the past and the future, respectively, of American politics and the debilitated Edwards would enter the fray only as unpredictable wild card -- if not a spoiler.

His decision to exit comes, therefore, at the precise moment that demands absolute clarity among Democratic voters. The stakes are stark and so must be the choices. Kudos to Edwards for getting out of the way as that moment arrives.

Kudos also to Jon Edwards for the worthy campaign he ran and for the positive effect it had on all the other campaigns. We can speculate all we want -- and really to no end -- how and why the multi-millionaire one-time moderate Southern Democrat somehow transformed himself into a firebrand populist. But examining motivation in politics is usually a pretty worthless exercise.

More importantly, Edwards' boldly stated and sharply argued positions helped drive and shape the entire Democratic presidential race, exercising a significant gravitational pull on all of the campaigns. It was crucial that for a solid year Edwards was up there unabashedly apologizing for his vote to authorize the war in Iraq, that he was the first -- and very early -- to put forward a comprehensive health care program, that from the presidential stump he raised the profile and celebrated the role of organized labor, that he fearlessly and more relentlessly than any other major presidential candidate in recent history denounced the corporate stranglehold on both our economic and political life. Most importantly, Edwards showed no hesitation in highlighting the otherwise unspeakable in American politics -- the forgotten poor.

The positions taken by Edwards forced all of the candidates to at least recognize these issues and better address them and for that he deserves a special place in the history of the already remarkable Campaign 08.

As to what effect his exit will have is anybody's guess -- at least until next Tuesday. The Conventional Wisdom is that Edwards staying in would have siphoned off white voters from Clinton and would have helped Obama -- that dropping out now indirectly aids Hilary.

This could be the case, but frankly I doubt it. The pollsters have gotten much of this contest wrong and this perhaps is one more stumble. I have no numbers, no surveys no stats to prove my hunch. I only have my experience as a reporter attending myriad Edwards rallies and events starting back more than a year again. And all I can say is that I don't have the impression that these voters somehow belong to Clinton as a second choice. The message of promise change, of a change-over of a historic transition in American politics as now embodied in Obama resonates much deeper among them then the conventional frame of the Clinton campaign.

Nor do I believe that there is much goodwill inside the Edwards campaign to give any support to Clinton. As I write this, I hear Edwards' top rural advisor, Dave "Mudcat" Saunders saying on MSNBC: "I will do everything in my power so he doesn't endorse Hillary Clinton."

John Edwards leave the race in the same noble posture with which he entered it thirteen months ago.

I was an Edwards guy. As a CNN commentator indecorously mentioned, he was the adult in the race. That's a bit harsh, but Edwards did bring some civility. But with him gone, I believe we still have two candidates that would both bring America to a better place.

So, where does that leave me? I'm not the Hillary-hater that an alarming amount of Dem bloggers seem to be. The virtriole aimed at her by those in her own party is approaching Bush level. It's actually funny to me that the apparent leading Democrat is not supported by the Democratic establishment and the apparent leading Republican (McCain) is not supported by his establishment either. Maybe that's a good thing. The days of king-making by the outgoing administrations may be over.

That being said, pollsters and pundits that think the majority of Edwards voters have Hillary as their 2nd choice are also off the mark. Those that have supported Edwards are generally looking for some kind of change. And Hillary doesn't exactly represent that. It's sad, but I'm sure most of the pollsters think what they do because they are assuming racist tendencies for southern democrats. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm a little more optimistic about most democrats. Iowa is nothing but church-going, whitebread America (I should know) and they voted for Obama.

I've pretty much made my decision for Tuesday and I won't bore you with it. But if you vote on Tuesday, objectively look at the candidates (Dem or Repub) regardless of who you have been supporting before and then make your decision.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

There Will Be Blood


There Will be Blood is a brilliant title that effectively ties together the themes of a fantastic movie by Paul Thomas Anderson - the blood of family, oil as blood, and literal blood.

Daniel Day Lewis, as oilman Daniel Plainview, is absolutely brilliant. So over-the-top, it may not be true to life but says more in it's excess than a more subtle performance would. I can't remember the reviewer or even the movie he was talking about, but I recall the review of a movie in which the reviewer stated it wasn't the job of a movie necessarily to be hyperrealistic. The use of color, camera angles, music, acting - they all there to evoke a certain emotion or feeling. And that evocation often does a better job of putting you in a certain time period or situation than a movie that tried to emulate reality.

There Will Be Blood, loosely based on Upton Sinclair's "Oil!" , follows Plainview's ascension to pinnacle of California oil discovery. To get there, he will sacrifice anything - friendships, happiness, even his family. To gain the trust of a town, he will feign religiousity. Dishonest, for sure, but in this action he also reveals the dishonesty of the supposedly pious man of God, Eli Sunday, played by Paul Dano.

Some of the film is darkly funny - uncomfortably so. And that's probably the point. Just such one of the ocassions is Lewis' "milkshake" outburst, cleverly mashed with Kelis here:

"Milkshake"

The music is dissonant and uncomfortable. A lot has been made about the soundttrack by Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead. It's neither as bad as some make it out to be or as brilliant as others do. The way in which it contrasts with the action on screen is intentional and ocassionally effective. But at other times, I really felt it was drawing too much attention to itself and detracting from the film.

The cinematography and pacing are great. It's a long movie but doesn't seem so.

It's not as topical as some of the films of this year. It's made that much more universal and timeless because of it. If there is any movie of this year that it is similar in tone and theme to, I would say No Country for Old Men. It shares with No Country the themes of greed and fate and also a sparseness in look.

Though, the subject matter is the early days of oil exploration in our country, there are no attempts to tie it in to any contemporary oil issues. Oil is merely the conduit for the character's greed and ambition. I highly recommend this movie. Grade: A

Friday, January 25, 2008

Stimulate this


Dumb, dumb, dumb. In typical Republican fashion, the President thinks the best way to get out of a problem is to spend your way out of it. The proposed economic stimulus plan suggests just that. That was his response to 9/11 and it's his response to an economic downturn. To be fair, it appears to also be the answer of our leading Democrats.

The people that will get the most are the ones that need it the least and that are likely to just save it. So, you've rewarded the rich, done nothing to help the economy and have effectively handed off a larger deficit to the incoming administration. Brilliant.

I'd gladly give every bit of refund that we would get if it would help move us closer to universal healthcare or to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Instead of attacking the real causes of why people can't make ends meet, they've done a blatant attention-grabbing stunt to mollify the electorate and make the Republican candidates look better.

When are these idiots going to get it through their thick fucking heads that trickle-down doesn't work? We need a trickle-up policy. Until you lift people out of poverty, you are going to have an increasingly two-class society.

Now, someone I like a lot, Paul Krugman, has said all this better than me:

Published on Friday, January 25, 2008 by The New York Times
Stimulus Gone Bad
by Paul Krugman


House Democrats and the White House have reached an agreement on an economic stimulus plan. Unfortunately, the plan - which essentially consists of nothing but tax cuts and gives most of those tax cuts to people in fairly good financial shape - looks like a lemon.

Specifically, the Democrats appear to have buckled in the face of the Bush administration’s ideological rigidity, dropping demands for provisions that would have helped those most in need. And those happen to be the same provisions that might actually have made the stimulus plan effective.

Those are harsh words, so let me explain what’s going on.

Aside from business tax breaks - which are an unhappy story for another column - the plan gives each worker making less than $75,000 a $300 check, plus additional amounts to people who make enough to pay substantial sums in income tax. This ensures that the bulk of the money would go to people who are doing O.K. financially - which misses the whole point.

The goal of a stimulus plan should be to support overall spending, so as to avert or limit the depth of a recession. If the money the government lays out doesn’t get spent - if it just gets added to people’s bank accounts or used to pay off debts - the plan will have failed.

And sending checks to people in good financial shape does little or nothing to increase overall spending. People who have good incomes, good credit and secure employment make spending decisions based on their long-term earning power rather than the size of their latest paycheck. Give such people a few hundred extra dollars, and they’ll just put it in the bank.

In fact, that appears to be what mainly happened to the tax rebates affluent Americans received during the last recession in 2001.

On the other hand, money delivered to people who aren’t in good financial shape - who are short on cash and living check to check - does double duty: it alleviates hardship and also pumps up consumer spending.

That’s why many of the stimulus proposals we were hearing just a few days ago focused in the first place on expanding programs that specifically help people who have fallen on hard times, especially unemployment insurance and food stamps. And these were the stimulus ideas that received the highest grades in a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

There was also some talk among Democrats about providing temporary aid to state and local governments, whose finances are being pummeled by the weakening economy. Like help for the unemployed, this would have done double duty, averting hardship and heading off spending cuts that could worsen the downturn.

But the Bush administration has apparently succeeded in killing all of these ideas, in favor of a plan that mainly gives money to those least likely to spend it.

Why would the administration want to do this? It has nothing to do with economic efficacy: no economic theory or evidence I know of says that upper-middle-class families are more likely to spend rebate checks than the poor and unemployed. Instead, what seems to be happening is that the Bush administration refuses to sign on to anything that it can’t call a “tax cut.”

Behind that refusal, in turn, lies the administration’s commitment to slashing tax rates on the affluent while blocking aid for families in trouble - a commitment that requires maintaining the pretense that government spending is always bad. And the result is a plan that not only fails to deliver help where it’s most needed, but is likely to fail as an economic measure.

The words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt come to mind: “We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics.”

And the worst of it is that the Democrats, who should have been in a strong position - does this administration have any credibility left on economic policy? - appear to have caved in almost completely.

Yes, they extracted some concessions, increasing rebates for people with low income while reducing giveaways to the affluent. But basically they allowed themselves to be bullied into doing things the Bush administration’s way.

And that could turn out to be a very bad thing.

We don’t know for sure how deep the coming slump will be, or even whether it will meet the technical definition of a recession. But there’s a real chance not just that it will be a major downturn, but that the usual response to recession - interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve - won’t be sufficient to turn the economy around. (For more on this, see my blog at krugman.blogs.nytimes.com.)

And if that happens, we’ll deeply regret the fact that the Bush administration insisted on, and Democrats accepted, a so-called stimulus plan that just won’t do the job.

Paul Krugman is Professor of Economics at Princeton University and a regular New York Times columnist. His most recent book is The Conscience of a Liberal.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

MLK


Pride (In the name of love) by U2

One man come in the name of love
One man come and go
One man come, he to justify
One man to overthrow

In the name of love
What more in the name of love
In the name of love
What more in the name of love

One man caught on a barbed wire fence
One man he resist
One man washed on an empty beach.
One man betrayed with a kiss

In the name of love
What more in the name of love
In the name of love
What more in the name of love

(nobody like you...)

Early morning, april 4
Shot rings out in the memphis sky
Free at last, they took your life
They could not take your pride


In the name of love
What more in the name of love
In the name of love
What more in the name of love
In the name of love
What more in the name of love...



Happy Birthday, Dr. King.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Tinfoil Hat

"Why are you so paranoid, Mulder?"
"Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's because I find it hard to trust anybody."
- Scully & Mulder, The X-Files, "Ascension"


I seem to have a habit of using either my clients or my wife's friend as anecdotes on my blog. It's a potentially dangerous habit if either were to read my blog. But, I don't use names and I don't know of any of my clients who are actually aware that I have a blog. And at this point in my life, and with me having my own business, even if a client somehow did figure out they were being ridiculed and took offense, losing their patronage would not bother me that much.

Usually, I use them to illustrate some right-wing or religious nuttiness. Well, I'm going to draw from the well once again, but this time it's on the other end of the spectrum. I used to frequent Democratic Underground, especially in the days around the last couple of elections ('04 an '06). There are discussion groups on the site for different areas of the country and I would occassionally lurk in the Arizona group. Sometimes I would join in. On one occassion, a poster asked for a computer consultant and I ever so humbly offered my services. It worked out well for that client and they have referred me to other friends on and off the Dem Underground site.

Now, I consider myself very liberal, but I'm friggin' Ronald Reagan compared to the few that I've met. They mean well, are very kind and active in their communities, but they all seem to have an unhealthy paranoia. I have a general mistrust of our current administration and do feel that our civil rights are being infringed upon. But my leftist friends are X-Files/black-helicopter/conspiracy-theory kooky. We're talking break-out-the-tinfoil-hat kooky.

One called me today to set up an appointment for this week. She believed that her internet connection wasn't working because her boyfriend had started a petition seeking to recall Sheriff Joe Arpaio and this was the Sheriff department infiltrating their computers. I calmly explained that in my 15 years and thousands of computers that I've worked on, I've never seen such a thing. I'm not saying that the technology doesn't exist to facilitate it, but rather that if Sheriff Joe took the time to chase down and hassle everyone that has said anything negative about him, he'd never get a minute of sleep and would spend billions of dollars making it happen. One of my best friends used to work in the Maricopa County Sheriff's IT department and knew Joe well (she even got me this swell autographed poster). He was much more concerned with getting his mug on national talk shows than with anything important.


The lesson here is - it's good to have a healthy mistrust of your leaders. Don't take them at face value. Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you. The last few years have certainly shown that to be true. But don't let that paranoia cripple you and temper it with some common sense.

"I was walking home one night and a guy hammering on a roof called me a paranoid little weirdo. In morse code." -- Emo Phillips

Monday, January 14, 2008

I am Legend


Will Smith, Sci-fi, apocalyptic - that's all I needed to hear. I was sold on going to this movie. So, why did I come away a little disappointed? I think it's because I just felt I'd been there before. For example:

  • It's got that Cast Away parlor trick feel to it. Like a one man play. Just substitute Wilson with mannequins.

  • The ending (which I won't ruin for those who haven't seen it) reminded me way too much of Children of Men.

  • The CGI of some of the animals and of the zombies is not as good as it could have been.

What DID I like about it?

I thought the scenes of a New York overran by nature looked good. It's a valid topic right now and has been posited in a more scientific sense just this year by Alan Weisman in The World Without Us. The movie, and Weisman's book, show how quickly nature would take back what humans have claimed over a very small part of the Earth's history. It does a good job of giving one a sense of humility. We're barely a hiccup in the grand scheme of things and the planet couldn't give a shit whether we're here or not. It's really a misnomer to say that we are "saving the planet". We're trying to save ourselves. The planet will be here regardless.

The movie also brings up some valid philosophical points. What are our ethical responsibilities as scientists? Do we really know the consequences of our actions when we re-engineer nature? Will we be the instruments of our own demise?

Favorite scene:

It's gut-wrenching, especially for those who have pets, but the scene in which he has to take his pet's life choked me up a bit. Smith is very effective at showing the anguish of a pet owner that is making a decision for the better of the pet but that is made no less difficult by that fact.

Overall, I think it's a very good movie and despite its shortfalls, I recommend it. Grade: B

Laura liked I am Legend quite a bit and did a great review here about a month ago. Check it out.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Magic Pony


courtesy Bill Watterson, UPI

From the latest Sierra Club magazine:

Magic Ponies
Everyone wants an easy solution


A useful import from the blogosphere is the concept of the magic pony. Originating in an old Calvin and Hobbes strip (Suzie wishes Calvin were nicer and for a pony too), the magic pony is a miraculous but not-yet-extant solution to a problem--a solution so awesome that it would be foolish to waste one's time with partial, more immediate fixes. Such steeds run wild in the fields of environmentalism. In their recent book Break Through, for example, critics Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger argue that doom-and-gloom environmentalists are wasting their time trying to regulate carbon dioxide and that our only hope is to pour money into clean-energy technology in hopes of finding a complete replacement for coal and oil. A pony! When affecting concern for the environment, President George W. Bush finds magic ponies irresistible. Rather than promote higher fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks, for instance, Bush decided to pursue still-elusive hydrogen-fuel-cell vehicles. A pony! Fueling these cells, in Bush's plan, would be largely as-yet-unproven "clean coal." Another pony! And how would that clean coal be burned? In plants using not-ready-for-prime-time carbon sequestration. His plan, in effect, is the Triple Crown of magic ponies. The profusion of magic-pony plans prompted Grist's David Roberts to lay down a challenge: "Unless you also describe practical steps for how we can achieve your Magical Pony Plan . . . then you are not, in fact, arguing on behalf of the Magical Pony Plan. You are arguing that we should reject the incremental advance in favor of doing nothing." ... Lacking a magic pony, we're left with the advice a veteran Alaska bush pilot gave to a visitor worried about what to do if approached by a grizzly: "Son, do the best you can." —Paul Rauberr


I hadn't heard the term "magic pony" before and in this instance it's applied to the environmental issue ... quite aptly. Bush will always bring out hydrogen powered cars as the solution because he knows he doesn't really have to deliver. Hydrogen cars are so far removed from being production cars that Bush will be long out of office before they provide any kind of help. So, they serve the purpose of making him look like he cares about the environment without actually having to do anything.

It's not just Bush. It's a whole segment of naysayers that will argue against any incremental advancement that moves us in the right direction. And it's not just with the environment. Let's "fight terrorism" and "spread democracy" they say. They're spreading something, alright. It's all talk. They don't really want to do the hard work that will make those things happen. Long term fostering of relationships, working to lessen our dependence on oil, helping to lift people out of poverty, giving people an actual homeland, debt-forgiveness, curing disease, etc. -- those aren't as sexy as saying, we're "fighting terrorism".

The sad thing is, our society has shown over and over the last few years that they'll buy that "magic pony".

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Nano

"The car has become a secular sanctuary for the individual, his shrine to the self, his mobile Walden Pond." -- Edward McDonagh



I think I've found my new car:

From Good News Network

India's Tata Motors has unveiled what is being called the world's cheapest car — the $2,500 Nano. The four-person sedan, also called the People's Car meets all safety and environmental requirements, said the company's founder, even getting 50 mpg with lower emission levels than modern scooters of India.


I'm serious. If I could buy this car in the states, I would.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we haven't quite decided what our ultimate transportation plan is. We've successfully navigated through the last few weeks sharing one car. And there have been no major logistical problems so far. But I do think we'll have to get something here fairly soon. We're trying to weigh the options of buy or lease, hybrid or not, etc.

Sharing a car has certainly made us think more about the trips that we make and how we can most efficiently make those trips that are necessary. Considering how annoyingly liberal and environmental we already were, that's an accomplishment.

"It wasn't the Exxon Valdez captain's driving that caused the Alaskan oil spill. It was yours." -- Greenpeace ad

Friday, January 11, 2008

... No Sacred Truths

Two takes on religion that I've seen this week, basically saying the same thing, but from disparate sources and with distinctly different tones. The first, from the book I'm reading right now, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, one of my favorite people:

"Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? There isn't a religion on the planet that doesn't long for a comparable ability - precise, and repeatedly demonstrated before committed sceptics - to foretell future events. No other human institution comes close. Is this worshipping at the altar of science? Is this replacing one faith by another, equally arbitrary? In my view, not at all. The directly observed success of science is the reason I advocate its use. If something else worked better, I would advocate the something else. Does science insulate itself from philosophical criticism? Does it define itself as having a monopoly on the `truth'? Think again of that eclipse a thousand years in the future. Compare as many doctrines as you can think of, note what predictions they make of the future, which ones are vague,which ones are precise, and which doctrines - every one of them subject to human fallibility - have error-correcting mechanisms built in. Take account of the fact that not one of them is perfect. Then simply pick the one that in a fair comparison works best (as opposed to feels) best. If different doctrines are superior in quite separate and independent fields, we are of course free to choose several - but not if they contradictone another. Far from being idolatry, this is the means by which we can distinguish the false idols from the real thing.

Again, the reason science works so well is partly that built-in error-correcting machinery. There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths ..."


And the second by Bill Maher on Conan O'Brien:



Wow ... pretty gutsy to say on network television. I'm not disagreeing with anything he said, but most people don't have the cojones to lay it out like he did. You could sense Conan's and the audience's discomfort. But, why shouldn't he be able to criticize religion publicly? Truly, there should be "no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths". The generally accepted leader of Christianity, the Pope, recently seemed to have no problem laying all the problems of the world at the door of atheism:

Pope Benedict states atheism is responsible for some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" in history ...

Well, if that's isn't the pot calling the kettle black. Hypocrisy, thy name is Pope Benedict.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

The Accidental Blogger

Nine days between posts? What the hell? Sometimes, you just don't know what to blog about. I've been slammed by work lately and haven't had a lot of extra time to do anything but eat and sleep. I can pay attention to all your blogs, but mine gets neglected.


In what spare time I've had, I've ducked out to catch a few hockey games (go 'Yotes ... on a 5 game winning streak) and I took in a rock and mineral show with the family. Alex is as much of a rock hound as I am and enjoys these type of things. My wife ... not so much. My personal faves are fossils of various kinds:


The coolest thing about them is that God took the time to put them inside of rocks 6,000 years ago, just so some random prospector could find them, cut and polish them and sell them to me at a rock show. Yeah. If your belief system relies on you ignoring every bit of fact, logic and practical experience, then maybe you should get a new belief system.

Between Christmas and New Year's, we made a trip up to the folks near Kingman, stayed in Laughlin for a day and took the scenic route back to Phoenix, traveling through Lake Havasu City - home of conservative retirees, crazy spring breakers who show their hoo-hoo's, and the London Bridge.


Here, Alex tries to escape the vicious tourist trap by using the TARDIS


I didn't have the heart to tell him it wasn't real. If it was real, I might have tried to use it to escape the innane, incessant and often incorrect news coverage of the political primary season.

I've watched very little of it on TV, though I do follow everything online. This is not my favorite time in the political schedule. Pretty much everybody irritates me in one manner or another right now, but topping my annoying list would the disingenuous aw-shucks populism of John McCain and Ron Paul. McCain will profess to be a man of the people and a 'maverick' when it suits him but will then toe the party line when it doesn't. Ron Paul rightly attracts widespread support through his anti-war views. But, I wonder if those same people would be so likely to support him knowing of the racist and violently anti-government rhetoric published under his name?

TV obviously blows in general with the writer's strike, but I'm reading a lot. Just finished U2 by U2. It's a narrative of their career culled from 150 hours of interviews with everyone in the band. There are a lot of insights into the songwriting that I did not know. They are much more Christian than I ever gathered. Definitely not in an annoying fashion. But rather their faith informs their songwriting choices quite a bit.

So, that's what's been happening in my boring life. I'm going to try and blog every day for a least a week just to get myself back in the swing of things. Lucky you. I'll probably be talking about what I ate for breakfast.

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Top 10 Movies/Performances of 2007



These are the top 10 (OK ... 11) movies that I saw in 2007. It was a very good year for American cinema.

(1) Into the Wild -- By far, my favorite movie of the year. Breathtaking scenery, heartbreaking true story, great acting and a sublime soundtrack by Eddie Vedder (my favorite album of the year, BTW). As good as an actor Sean Penn is, he may be an even better director.

(2) 3:10 to Yuma -- A dream pairing of two actors who take their roles pretty seriously (some may say too seriously). I believe it's the best western since Unforgiven.

(3) Michael Clayton -- Yet another in the outstanding string of political dramas that Clooney has made. A great performance by Clooney perhaps only surpassed by co-star Tom Wilkinson.

(4) Children of Men -- Very early in the year but still in '07. I said then that it would be in my To 10 ... and here it is. Modern science fiction that's scary because we're not that far off from the ideas presented here. Science fiction works because you can put contemporary problems in a fantasy setting and they are more palatable to people than if you just had a dry condescending polemic.

(5) No Country for Old Men -- Typically (for them) great grasp of setting and dialogue by the Coens. A worthy addition to their body of work and in the same conversation as Fargo. It would have rated even higher for me if I had been smart enough to understand the ending.

(6) Bourne Ultimatum -- Action movies don't get much better than this. Plus, actors Matt Damon, David Straithairn, and Joan Allen and director Paul Greengrass give it an intelligence absent in most action movies.

(7) Breach -- A surprisingly credible acting performance by Ryan Phillipe in a taut spy thriller. Who knew? More cerebral than Bourne, but no less thrilling. Laura Linney and Chris Cooper are solid.

(8) 300 -- Glossy, loud, unapologetic pulp entertainment. Not much for subtlety but perhaps the most visually unique movie of '07.

(9) Sicko -- Michael Moore tones down his bombast a bit and thus attracts a bigger audience. He makes a well-made, well-received documentary on our pathetic health-care system

(10) Pan's Labyrinth/I am Legend - tie -- One very early '07, one very late. Ditto my appraisal of Children of Men. Both of these movies have flaws. I didn't like either as much as I went expecting to. But, still, two well-made science fiction films with things to say about current society. I'll give a more extensive review of I am Legend in a day or so.


Honorable mention:

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Transformers
Ocean's 13
Enchanted

and the following two that are from '06 but I saw in '07

Pursuit of Happyness (released in December '06 but didn't see till '07)
Jesus Camp (opened end of '06 but never had a wide theatrical release - saw on video in '07)

I haven't seen Atonement or There Will Be Blood, both of which I've heard great things about. Charlie Wilson's War, Sweeney Todd and Juno are all highly praised also, but I haven't had the chance to see.

My Top 10 movie performances of '07 - no special order, no differentiation between lead or supporting, male or female:

Hal Holbrook and Emile Hirsch in Into the Wild
Javier Bardem, Kelly MacDonald and Josh Brolin in No Country for Old Men
George Clooney and Tom Wilkinson in Michael Clayton
Russell Crowe and Ben Foster in 3:10 to Yuma
Amy Adams in Enchanted

It's a mystery to me
we have a greed
with which we have agreed

You think you have to want
more than you need
until you have it all you won't be free

... there's those thinking more less
less is more
but if less is more
how you keeping score?

Means for every point you make
your level drops
kinda like its starting from the top
you can't do that...

Society -- performed by Eddie Vedder

Friday, December 21, 2007

On the subject of religious hypocrisy

Why is there such a big gap between what we say and what we do?

My wife is going to hate me for again using one of her best friends as an anecdote, but I can't help it. She's a living, breathing object lesson. This friend, an evangelical, had a conversation with my wife yesterday lamenting that Jesus is the "reason for the Season" (if someone says that to my face, I'm going to punch them in the neck ... or I would if I wasn't non-violent). In the same conversation she talked about how she's getting a thousand dollar gun safe for her husband and spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars on their already spoiled son. Plus, she complained that her husband probably wasn't going to get her anything good for Christmas.

In the later course of the conversation, my wife mentioned to her that we had tried to cut down on presents this Christmas and had given $400 to our son's school. Before you nominate us for sainthood for doing so, realize that we did it because it was smart, not because we're Warren frickin' Buffet. You can donate to Arizona public schools ($200 for one person or $400 for a couple filing jointly) and get a dollar-for-dollar credit. This is way better than a deduction in that it is money directly off of your tax liability. Plus, you can direct into which programs that it goes. In this case, we told them to use it for any arts-based extracurricular activities.

My wife's friend said that sounded interesting but they just couldn't afford to do that ...... wah? This is the same person who 10 minutes earlier was talking about the thousand-dollar gun safe. For someone to say something like that with no apparent sense of irony is incredible. And, unfortunately, it is not rare. Talking out of both sides of one's mouth is an art that I'm having less and less patience for. Being "Christian" seems to be more about a political movement than a religious one. The bible is selectively touted to justify your prejudice but ignored when it comes to the passages about caring for your neighbor and the poor.

--------------------------------------------------



On leaving one of my clients this week, she commented "Merry Christmas ... I AM going to say "Merry Christmas" regardless of what anyone says." She had worked herself into a lather ... not at me, but at "them"." She'd obviously must have just watched the O'Reilly Factor or had received some action item e-mail from Focus on the Family.

This was another of those instances where I just wanted to scream. If I have one more person complain about the "War on Christmas", I may just have to renounce my vow of non-violence. Have you ever complained about someone saying "Merry Christmas" to you? Who has ever known someone who complained about someone saying "Merry Christmas" to them? No one. It's a nonexistent controversy. People can say "Merry Christmas", "Happy Hanukkah", "Happy Holidays", "go piss up a rope", whatever. It won't bother me, because I know, generally, that they are all meant as a kind greeting. But this lady, and others who are so weak-minded as to believe anything they hear, are using "Merry Christmas" as a rallying cry. You'd think they were blacks marching in Alabama in the 60's or were breaking down the Berlin Wall. They can't accept they are the pampered majority so they have to make martyrs out of themselves. But I didn't say any of this to the lady. It would have just reinforced her martyrdom. So, I just said, "Taqabbala Allahu minna wa minkum" and "Joyous Yule" ... OK, I didn't, but I should have.

--------------------------------------------------

I think if the true message of Christ was followed by Christians, you wouldn't have screwed-up stories like I just recounted. But people believe what they want to believe. If they don't want to be giving, they'll think up a way to justify that. If they don't want to be tolerant of other religions, of gays, of minorities, they'll think up a way to justify that. And there will be focus groups and pundits who will be more than happy to create controversies that reinforce their beliefs. Because they have a vested financial and egotistical interest in a stoked-up culture war. It's political, not religious. It's not about religious freedom - it's about freedom to shove your particular belief down everyone's throat. Why don't you worry about real injustices in the world instead of creating fake ones?

"That's the true spirit of Christmas; people being helped by people other than me." -- Seinfeld

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

The Golden Compass

I'm really torn between the evisceration of this movie that it has been getting by some critics and the general approval of the same by CK. I see the valid points of both. The movie does take a lot of liberties with the source material, most notably the order of things and omission of the last few chapters.

And I don't know if my approval is just a product of me being happy to see the transfer to screen of a story that I like. I'm not like a lot of sci-fi fans who bitch about how movies mangle the stories they are based on. I actually liked David Lynch's Dune, though I have to admit it's an ambitious mess. I was just thrilled to see the visualization of one of my favorite novels of all time.


I cannot criticize the look of the movie. I think they did a good job with the daemons, with the bears, with the witches, etc. I cannot criticize the casting - cherry-picking from Casino Royale (Daniel Craig, Eva Green) and LOTR (Ian McKellan, Christoper Lee) and Sam Elliot playing ... well, Sam Elliot. But he's very likable and it's fitting for the role.

Another criticism of the movie by others is that it waters down the message of the books by not calling out the church by name. I don't agree with this criticism. Watching the movie, you'd have to be a moron not to understand what they are really talking about. Generously sprinkling terms such as "free inquiry" and "free will", the point is still made.

Illustrating complicated plot points from the book in a two hour movie is also a problem. So you have characters awkwardly explaining those plot points. This makes the movie a bit talky but I don't know how you can get around that short of having some kind of narration.

I'm not saying that the movie couldn't have been better. It would have been interesting to see what a director like Alfonso Cuaron or Guillermo del Toro could have done with this material. But I still liked it. Grade: B-

==============================

Good news on the fantasy/sci-fi front - the rumored Hobbit movie IS going to happen. Peter Jackson will be involved in one way or another. And even better, there will actually be 2 movies. One covering the Hobbit and another, I imagine, spanning the time difference between the Hobbit and the start of Lord of the Rings. For a lot more info on all this, check out Reel Fanatic's write-up

I'm going to try and post my year-end top 10 movies and top 10 acting performances of the year tomorrow.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

She was a good truck ...



She lived a long hard life -

- 3 major accidents

- 210,000 miles, 12 years

- helped dozens of friends move

- went fishing in Minnesota, went tubing on the Salt River

Gone is my out-dated Janet Napolitano for governor and Jim Pederson for Senate '06 stickers (which are stuck on even older Kerry/Edwards '04 stickers). Gone is my Iowa State and Sierra Club stickers.

I hate cars, but I hated this one less than most.

Taken from me before I was ready because of a bonehead hitting me from behind. Oh well. Hopefully, from this very blog you'll hear of me getting something cool like a Prius or Smart Car. Or maybe you'll hear of me forsaking my driving ways altogether and doing something that doesn't require me to flit about Phoenix all the time and endanger myself and the planet. Who knows. For now, we'll see how long that we can share a car and still do our jobs. Stay tuned.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Short Attention Span Theater

Since I seem to be unable to give a bunch of time to any one subject lately, I'll give a little time to several:



Atheism for Kids? -- I haven't finished the book yet and have yet to see the movie, but I'm diggin' the controversy of 'The Golden Compass'. Articles lead with the scary title - "Golden Compass - Atheism for Kids?". Ooh, I hope so. As usual, Christians create a mountain out of a mole hill. Pullman's stories are more anti-Catholic than anti-Christian. But if these stories and movie get a few kids to question blindly following any doctrine, then I'll be happy. I know full well that most of the people making a big deal have not read the books or seen the movie.


I hate cars -- Now, I hated them before the last couple of weeks but getting unceremoniously rear-ended at a stop light two weeks ago cinches it. It screwed up my truck and I'm playing the always enjoyable insurance company dance. Did I mention that I also hate insurance companies? They deserve their own special circle of hell.


Movies -- There are a lot of good movies out there right now. I've yet to see 'American Gangster' and I want to see 'Juno', 'Sweeney Todd', 'Charlie Wilson's War', 'I am Legend',etc. when they come out. I'm going to try and go on a cinematic binge in the next couple of weeks so that I can have some good ammo for a year-end Top 10. Count on the following movies that I've already seen this year probably being in that list: 'Into the Wild', 'No Country for Old Men', 'Michael Clayton', '3:10 to Yuma'. 'Into the Wild' leads in nominations for the just announced The Critics Choice Awards.


I don't heart Huckabee - I truly, deeply feel sorry for anyone that thinks the future of our country should reside with a religious nutjob who thinks that AIDS patients should be quarantined and that 'wives should graciously submit to their husbands' . I vote for quarantining these zealots - an evangelical Ava Maria, if you will.


Books -- Writers should go on strike more often. I am getting a lot more read lately because I'm not parking myself mindlessly in front of the TV as much. Recent reads: 'Golden Compass' by Phillip Pullman (in progress), 'Death of a Revolutionary: Che Guevara's Last Mission' by Richard L. Harris, 'Into the Wild' by Jon Krakauer, and 'Neverwhere' by Neil Gaiman.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Safe from what?

A few years back, we were looking at new housing developments and we had narrowed it down to two locations. The first location was a gated area, the 2nd was not. That first property was on our list not because of being gated, but rather, despite it. Ultimately, it was one of the deciding factors in us choosing against it. How we looked at it is not the norm, however. A recent article by Barbara Ehrenreich of the Nation has an interesting take on gated areas:


McMansions Meet the Mortgage Crisis
by Barbara Ehrenreich


Another utopia seems to be biting the dust. ... the paranoid residential ideal represented by gated communities may be in serious trouble. Never exactly cool–remember Jim Carrey in The Truman Show?–these pricey enclaves of privilege are becoming hotbeds of disillusionment.

At the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Washington last week, incoming association president Setha M. Lowe painted a picture so dispiriting that the audience guffawed in schadenfreude. The gated community residents Lowe interviewed had fled from ethnically challenging cities, but they have not managed to escape from their fear. One resident reported that her small daughter has developed a severe case of xenophobia, no doubt communicated by her parents:

We were driving next to a truck with some day laborers and equipment in the back, and we stopped beside them at the light. She [her daughter] wanted to move because she was afraid those people were going to come and get her. They looked scary to her.

...gated communities are no less crime-prone than open ones, and Gopal Ahluwalia, senior vice president of research at the National Association of Home Builders, confirms this: “There are studies indicating that there are no differences in the crime in gated communities and non-gated communities.” The security guards often wave people on in, especially if they look like they’re on a legitimate mission ... Or the crime comes from within ...

Most recently, America’s gated communities have been blighted by foreclosures ... So, for people who sought, not just prosperity, but perfection, here’s another sad end to the American dream, or at least their ethnically cleansed version thereof: boarded-up McMansions, plastic baggies scudding over overgrown lawns, and, in the Orlando case, a foreclosure-induced infestation of snakes. You can turn away the Mexicans, the African-Americans, the teenagers and other suspect groups, but there’s no fence high enough to keep out the repo man.

All right, some gated communities are doing better than others, and not all of their residents are racists. The communities that allow owners to rent out their houses, or that offer homes at middle class prices of $250,000 or so, are more likely to contain a mixture of classes and races. The only gated community I have ever visited consisted of dull row houses protected by a slacker guard and a fence, and my host was a writer of liberal inclinations. But all these places suffer from the delusion that security lies behind physical barriers.

Before we turn all of America into a gated community, with a 700-mile steel fence running along the southern border, we should consider the mixed history of exclusionary walls. Ancient and medieval European towns huddled behind massive walls, only to face ever-more effective catapults, battering rams and other siege engines. More recently, the Berlin Wall, which the East German government described fondly as a protective “anti-fascism wall,” fell to a rebellious citizenry. Israel, increasingly sealed behind its anti-Palestinian checkpoints and wall, faced an outbreak of neo-Nazi crime in September–coming, strangely enough, from within.

But the market may have the last word on America’s internal gated communities. “Hell is a gated community,” announced the Sarasota Herald Tribune last June, reporting that market research by the big homebuilder Pulte Homes found that no one under fifty wants to live in them, so its latest local development would be un-gated. Security, or at least the promise of security, may be one consideration. But there’s another old-fashioned American imperative at work here, which ought to bear on our national policies as well. As my Montana forebears would have put it: Don’t fence me in!

It seems that in our fear-mongering society, we try to achieve security through building fences instead of engaging our community. In the world community, we are making the same mistakes - building fences and failing to engage our world neighbors. The places where I have felt the safest were those where neighbors knew each other - where if you had a problem with someone, you'd go talk to them civilly.

Are people wrong for wanting safety for their family? No. Are they wrong in thinking that ethnic and economic homogeny produce this desired safety? Yes. People are looking for "safety" from immigrants, from low-income people. They are using security concerns to justify xenophobia and racism. Again, they are taking their cue from our country's leaders who do the same on the world stage.

The post-war suburbanization of our society gave us the illusions of security, privacy and space. But it took away our connectedness. War, the environment, poverty - it's all connected. We overvalue material things and undervalue people and nature. Instead of building walls, we should be knocking them down.

"As long as our civilization is essentially one of property, of fences, of exclusiveness, it will be mocked by delusions." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Monday, December 03, 2007

Reviews

I keep thinking I'm going to have a bit of time to write extensive reviews for some recent movies I've seen (and albums I've bought) but it just ain't gonna happen. So, here are the Cliff Notes versions:


No Country for Old Men I love the Coen brothers and they are probably my 2nd favorite directors behind Kubrick. Fargo has always been my favorite of their movies(Raising Arizona and O Brother, Where Art Thou? after that). Add No Country for Old Men to that group. It's sparseness, lack of dialog and great cinematography is evocative of Fargo but this movie is definitely it's own animal. While on the surface it's a crime drama involving a triad of great actors (Jones, Bardem and Brolin) chasing each other, it's really about us and what we value and how screwed-up values can ruin people's lives. The great thing about the movie is that it works on both levels mainly because of the strength of those actors and the deft hand of the Coens. Kelly McDonald (Trainspotting), Stephen Root (NewsRadio, Office Space) and Woody Harrelson all give great supporting performances. Grade: A-

For a much better review of the movie than mine, check out Wunelle's blog:

No Movie for Sissies


Raising Sand - Robert Plant/Alison Krauss - Putting the lead singer of "the" definitive rock band together with a bluegrass legend doesn't seem logical or a recipe for success. But producer T Bone Burnett doesn't follow trends, he creates them. He was the genius behind the O Brother, Where Art Thou? soundtrack and pretty much singlehandely made bluegrass cool. Well, he's struck gold again. Picking a mixture of old rock songs and country songs that are thematically dark, Krauss and Plant both step outside of their comfort zone and create a great album. I've heard they are going to tour in the spring and will even dust off some Zep songs. Count me in. I love Krauss and Led Zeppelin and would pay money to see her put her spin on some classics.


Bee Movie - Oddly, the start of the movie made me think of Into the Wild. Having just graduated from Bee school, the title character, voiced by Jerry Seinfeld, seeks to break out of the expectations that his family and society have placed on him. Granted, he doesn't hitchhike around the southwest and die of starvation in a bus. But other than that, it's the same.

I didn't expect much of this movie and mostly just went because I wanted to go to a movie with the kid and this one was the only appropriate one. But I liked the movie. Sting and Ray Liotta give funny cameos and all the main voice actors (Seinfeld, Zellweger, Broderick, Rock) do a good job. By no means high art, but an entertaining movie with a decent message. Grade: B (get it? I gave it a "bee". hoo-hoo, I kill me)