Wednesday, April 30, 2003

Is the War over or what?

Talk about strange days. It was only a few weeks ago when the nation's televisions were blaring war stories non-stop, when speculation about Hussein's death ran rampant, when the entire nation was bracing for the "final drive to Baghdad", as if it were the last quarter of a ghoulishly bloody football game.

Now what? According to my sources, the Prez will address the nation this evening to tell us that the War is over and that all is well, etc, etc, blah blah blah. Move along people, there's nothing to see here, it's all over. Welcome to 21st century warfare, United States-style. My fear is that there are literally millions of Americans thinking "Hey, that wasn't so bad. We might as well kick some more 'Axis of Evil' butt while we're on a roll!"

Yep, that's just what this country needs. A worldwide killing spree, all in the name of whatever reason we can come up with...freedom comes at a price, and dadgummit, we're willing to pay!

Remember the old TV series "Kung Fu", starring David Caine as the butt-kicking Shaolin monk from China? He was quiet and unassuming, and he never started any fights, but boyohboy could he finish them! I remember when our country was like that monk...well-armed and extremely capable of defending itself, but never, NEVER the aggressor.

All of a sudden, I feel a twinge of nostalgia coming on...

More later...
Paul

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

Another Senator self-destructs.

Apparently foot-in-mouth disease, while not getting as much media attention as SARS, is still a deadly ailment affecting some of our leaders on Capitol Hill. The latest Senatorial gaffe was made by Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum, who conveniently happens to be the Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. In other words, he is the third-highest ranked leader in the Republican Party. According to an article I read in the Washington Post, the senator was being interviewed by the Associated Press and, during a discussion about a Texas sodomy law currently being considered by the Supreme Court (boy, those Supremes must get some interesting reading material!), Santorum basically equated homosexuality with bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. Here's the quote:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." (here's the article: Washington Post)

Hmmm.

Any surprise that there was an immediate outcry by nearly all of the Gay rights organizations? Well, I wasn't surprised. But it gets me that Santorum and his people were. So he issued a statement, claiming that the AP article was misleading and he even goes on to compare himself to other "constitutional scholars" and implythat his quote was taken out of context.

Okay. "Scholar", eh? Maybe he should go back to school and consult a dictionary and compare the definitions of those words he used.

Here's a bit from his statement: “When discussing the pending Supreme Court Case Lawrence v. Texas, my comments were specific to the right to privacy and the broader implications of a ruling on other state privacy laws.’

“In the interview, I expressed the same concern as many constitutional scholars, and discussed arguments put forward by the State of Texas, as well as Supreme Court justices. If such a law restricting personal conduct is held unconstitutional, so could other existing state laws.’

“Again, my discussion with the Associated Press was about the Supreme Court privacy case, the constitutional right to privacy in general, and in context of the impact on the family. I am a firm believer that all are equal under the Constitution. My comments should not be misconstrued in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles.”
(full text of statement)

Hmmm, again.

I get, from his statement, that Santorum was merely using those words to illustrate a point, the point being that if the Supreme Court says behavior H is okay in the privacy in one's home, then behaviors B, P, I and A have to be considered okay, as well. Well, I call bullshit on his analogy and bullshit on his statement. Of course, I don't claim to be a "constitutional scholar", so maybe I'm not qualified to comment. Bullshit.

Why don't these guys get it? Why is it so hard for them to understand that all they have to do is apologize, retract the statement, and all will be well? What's so hard about saying "Sorry, didn't mean to go THERE"? Like Lott, Santorum insists on taking the hard road, asserting that what he said, whether it offends a million Americans or not, is fine and dandy. Take it or leave it. He must not have been paying attention when Lott got booted. The same boot is headed for his rear end.

More to the point: I predict that in less than 2 weeks, Senator Santorum will relinquish his position in the Republican Party, for the good of the Party of course, and someone more aligned with Frist and Bush will take his place, just in time for the kickoff of the '04 re-election campaign.

Wow. This is almost as exciting as the NBA Playoffs!

More later...
Paul
We've got visitors!

The more observant among you have already noticed that we've added links to "The Onion" to our page. Check them out, they're right at the top.

I think "The Onion" is one of the most consistently funny parody newspapers in existence today, and I just wanted to share it with you. So there. You can thank me later...!

More later...
Paul

Wednesday, April 16, 2003

Irreversible.

It has been a long time since a scene in a film caused me to audibly gasp. Plenty of films have made me laugh out loud, and a few made me jump or shield my eyes. But this French import, directed by Gaspar Noe, portrays a few violent scenes in such an unflinching, realistic way that I feel compelled to issue a warning to all whom might be interested in seeing it.

Ironically, I urge those of you who love good cinema to make the effort to see this film. It is very unique and much more complex than it’s simple plot suggests. According to the Internet Movie Database the plot can be described thusly: When a woman is raped by a stranger, her friend and ex-husband decide to take justice into their own hands. Well, okay, that’s the basis for this movie in a nutshell, but it doesn’t begin to describe what you’ll see on the screen. And feel in your head.

Like “Memento”, “Irreversible” uses a reversed timeline. We see the end first, then we work backwards to the beginning. More than a gimmick, this device serves the purpose of reminding us that our actions don’t always have the effect we want them to. In the film, we get to see the effect first, and while we’re speculating on the cause, we find out that it is something totally unexpected.

But what was it that made me involuntarily cry out in the theater? It was a bit of violence so realistic that I still cannot figure out how they pulled it off…and this particular bit was definitely not the nastiest thing that occurs in this film. Much has been already written about the rape scene in this film, and I found it to be very disturbing. However, it was the “revenge” beating that literally took my breath away. I long ago learned how to deal with nightmarish images in films by always keeping in mind the fact that they are constructed pictures. Manufactured fantasies. How the filmmakers of “Irreversible” accomplished their special effects is nearly beyond my own understanding of latex and prosthetics and horror-movie makeup. I kept asking myself “Is this real? How did they do that?” Although it’s not a horror movie, it represents a stunning achievement in horror effects.

“Irreversible” is a fantastic, but disturbing movie. I recommend it only to the most mature movie-goers, and I again must warn you: if you have an aversion to intense, unrelenting violence and gore, don’t see it.

More later…
Paul

Wednesday, April 09, 2003

So the War is Over?

What, are you kidding? We took over the capital of Iraq, gathered videotape of the desecration of a statue of Hussein (similar to burning an effigy), and suddenly headlines are screaming about victory. Well, except for that one headline that says the President warns that the War isn't over yet.

Does anyone even remember what the objectives of this War are?

More later...
Paul