NADER
Yesterday I got a call from by buddy Lliam, telling me that Ralph Nader was going to speak at our local Vroman’s bookstore (the same store, incidentally, that hosted Hilary Clinton for her book signing last year) in a few minutes. Coincidentally, I was headed into the area of that particular book store at the time, and for some reason, I decided to go hear what Mr. Nader had to say.
First off, let me tell you that I am extremely unhappy with the current set of so-called “candidates” we have to choose from for the upcoming Presidential election. As far as I’m concerned, Mr. Kerry is no better than Mr. Bush, seeing how they are both members of the same secret society (Yale’s Skull and Bones). Regardless of what their “platforms” say, these guys both answer to the same corporate interests, and I am convinced that even if Kerry were elected, the changes to this country would be minimal.
Yet at the same time, I was wary of the potential “spoiler” role that some say Nader is determined to play. I have a lot of intelligent friends who sing the “Anybody but Bush” song loud and clear, and they are truly concerned that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, in that it takes away another much needed vote for their man John Kerry. They may have a point.
But I decided to see for myself what Ralph had to say. I arrived to see a fairly large crowd (not Clinton-esque by any standard, but still large), and I immediately scanned the room for free food and drinks. No deal. Just as I was about to complain to my friend, a hush settled over the room as four tall men walked through the crowd to the podium. Dang, Ralph Nader is taller than me! I don’t know why this matters, but it was pleasant surprise number one. Warm, sustained applause greeted Ralph Nader’s Pasadena appearance.
After quickly thanking the crowd, Ralph got right down to business, making a very moving and eloquent case for a third party candidate. He correctly pointed out that growing apathy among progressive voters is leading to their acceptance of substandard presidential candidates, the whole “lesser of two evils” mindset that many of my pro-Kerry friends have firmly adopted. Nader focused on the fact that the duopoly that currently governs the country is fully funded and controlled by big business interests, and that’s why important issues like health care and a decent living wage for all Americans has been totally ignored by the Democrat and Republican rivals.
Pleasant surprise number two: Ralph Nader made me think. And that’s a whole hell of a lot more than what Kerry/Bush make me do, with their clever speech snippets and carefully orchestrated campaign stops. As I mentioned earlier, I am already unhappy with what we have to choose from in November. In fact, I was seriously considering beginning a write-in campaign, urging other similarly-frustrated voters to write-in “I demand a better choice” on their ballots. Yes, I realize that is in essence throwing away my vote, but my conscience will not allow me to just pick one because he’s not as bad as the other. Say you were traveling across country, and during a particularly long stretch across the wilderness you stop in the only diner for miles, and the choice for dinner is rat or maggot soup. What would you do? Would you really try to convince yourself that there are appetizing qualities when none actually exist? Or would you choose to leave without eating, and let your stomach growl and boil for the rest of the night?
I won’t vote for Bush. I can’t vote for Kerry. I am independent of either party, and I support an alternative choice. I will vote for Ralph Nader in November, because I think he’ll make a better President than either Kerry or Bush.
More later…
Paul
Friday, July 16, 2004
Friday, July 09, 2004
Beating up on 6 year olds?
Former L.A. Mayor Richard Riordan, in a PUBLIC APPEARANCE, called a six-year-old student a "stupid, dirty girl": sacbee.com -- Politics -- Furor grows over Riordan's remark to girl.
Hey, I'm trying to stay positive here, but these guys keep throwing softballs!
Read that crazy article. It goes on to state that a black assemblyman gets so up in arms about it, he schedules some type of NAACP press conference...only to cancel it when he learns that the little girl is white! Naturally, all outrage is now focused on the assemblyman, while Riordan stumbles along, with Arnold's full support and confidence. Unbelievable.
Shouldn't the man just apologize to the kid?
Hold the phone! I've just seen the video of the entire event, and while it was an ill-advised comment (to say the least), it was reasonably clear to the little girl and her classmates that Riordan was just teasing her. According the The Smoking Gun website, he even apologized later on...so I guess I got caught up in the media hoopla, passing judgement before I understood the whole deal.
Dick, I'm sorry...
More later...
Paul
Former L.A. Mayor Richard Riordan, in a PUBLIC APPEARANCE, called a six-year-old student a "stupid, dirty girl": sacbee.com -- Politics -- Furor grows over Riordan's remark to girl.
Hey, I'm trying to stay positive here, but these guys keep throwing softballs!
Read that crazy article. It goes on to state that a black assemblyman gets so up in arms about it, he schedules some type of NAACP press conference...only to cancel it when he learns that the little girl is white! Naturally, all outrage is now focused on the assemblyman, while Riordan stumbles along, with Arnold's full support and confidence. Unbelievable.
Shouldn't the man just apologize to the kid?
Hold the phone! I've just seen the video of the entire event, and while it was an ill-advised comment (to say the least), it was reasonably clear to the little girl and her classmates that Riordan was just teasing her. According the The Smoking Gun website, he even apologized later on...so I guess I got caught up in the media hoopla, passing judgement before I understood the whole deal.
Dick, I'm sorry...
More later...
Paul
Monday, July 05, 2004
The Rocket’s Red Glare
It was the second of July in Altadena, California (year of the lord 2004, etc, etc), one hour after sunset, when I was rousted from watching motocross DVD by the sounds of cannons going off a few blocks away.
Well, not really cannons…I know, after four decades of experience, what recreational artillery sounds like. Some of my fondest memories of growing up in the Nation’s Capital, Washington, D.C., involved a yearly visit to the fireworks street vendors.
The vendors always seemed like mysterious gypsies to me, a semi-organized cult that would suddenly appear to spread cheap fireworks across the city, pawning boxes of explosives to kids young and old, out of rickety, hastily-thrown-together plywood shacks.
But the Fourth of July in D.C., as far as fireworks were concerned, was all about seeing (and hearing and FEELING) the Nation’s Fireworks Extravaganza on the Mall (I’m not sure if that’s trademarked)….40 years of that and one gains the ability to discern the subtle differences in the audio signatures between a Glorious Golden Shower Sparkler shell and a howitzer (or maybe not).
My point, though, was that there were fireworks going off in my neighborhood. REAL recreational artillery. At first I thought it was just some crazy neighbors a few blocks away, blasting off a few consumer grade shells. After a particularly extended fusillade, though, I reconsidered: either I had more crazy neighbors than I first thought, or perhaps something else was going on.
I stepped out on my porch just as another barrage began. Coming from what was probably the Altadena Country Club’s golf course was the real deal. Fireworks. The show continued, the “whumps” occasionally becoming “WHUMPS” and even a few “WHUMPS!!!”, the night skies lighting up in luminous colors as the gunpowder ignited and spread burning remnants through the atmosphere. And I began to think about the fact that it was the start of the Fourth of July weekend in American, again…and here I was, watching a fireworks display, again. And here we go, again, as all over this fine country, Americans will celebrate the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence…by shooting off a whole hell of a lot of rockets.
We love rockets. Americans love rockets. And explosions. But we especially love rockets that explode. We even wrote a song about a rocket and made it our National Anthem. Okay, “The Star Spangled Banner” is really a song about a flag…a flag that the songwriter could see only because it was illuminated by an exploding rocket, accompanied by a violent soundtrack of “bombs bursting in air.” During a war, of course. Americans love war, too, and it’s fitting that we do so, because of our love of exploding rockets. However, we prefer shooting these rockets AWAY from us, sometimes just up in the air, sometimes just at people we don’t like. The latter usually meaning during a war.
How many displays of artfully burning powdered chemicals will exist as the centerpiece and/or climax of the Nation’s 2004 Independence Day festivities? The count has to be in the thousands, maybe even hundred thousands. It looks like my annual renewal of retina-tracing by fire streaking across the sky occurred two days early…and it had the added “benefit” of having a large red “Jack In The Box” sign (I’m pretty sure that IS trademarked) in my direct field of view during the entire display. At one point in the bombardment, the fiery bursts created a sort of “halo” effect around the huge advertisement, further strengthening, I’m sure, a subliminal argument in favor of that particular brand of fast fried food (I ate there the following afternoon. Coincidence?).
I gotta tell you, it all came together for me as I watched this scene. I recalled some of the more vividly gruesome scenes from our country’s current war (scenes that I had to pay to see in a commercial movie theater because the Nation’s “free” media refuse to air them), and I wondered if Iraqi people have the same view of recreational artillery that we Americans do? I wondered if they respond to the sound of cannons in their neighborhoods the way we Americans respond? Of course, this was all rhetorical wondering; I knew the answer. We all know the answer.
I count myself lucky to have been born in a country where I was able to grow to middle age without ever having the experience of being on the receiving end of military grade bombs and rockets. In fact, I am quite proud that I live in a country that lets us choose for ourselves if we want to experience such things. This country goes so far as to give us the opportunity to feel what it’s like to be targeted by bullets, grenades, mortars, rockets and missiles among other things, while we give people who live in other countries the very same opportunity. That, I’m not so proud of.
So this Fourth of July, as the news readers and newspapers and talking heads continually remind us to give thanks and warm thoughts to our troops as they put themselves in harm’s way in order to preserve our exploding-rocket-loving way of life, do not let yourself lose sight of the FACT that our wonderful fellow citizen-soldiers do NOT have to be at war. This proud Nation NEVER need be at war, with any country, cult, tribe or substance. We CHOOSE to be at war, because we love our rockets and what they do for us.
More later…
Paul
It was the second of July in Altadena, California (year of the lord 2004, etc, etc), one hour after sunset, when I was rousted from watching motocross DVD by the sounds of cannons going off a few blocks away.
Well, not really cannons…I know, after four decades of experience, what recreational artillery sounds like. Some of my fondest memories of growing up in the Nation’s Capital, Washington, D.C., involved a yearly visit to the fireworks street vendors.
The vendors always seemed like mysterious gypsies to me, a semi-organized cult that would suddenly appear to spread cheap fireworks across the city, pawning boxes of explosives to kids young and old, out of rickety, hastily-thrown-together plywood shacks.
But the Fourth of July in D.C., as far as fireworks were concerned, was all about seeing (and hearing and FEELING) the Nation’s Fireworks Extravaganza on the Mall (I’m not sure if that’s trademarked)….40 years of that and one gains the ability to discern the subtle differences in the audio signatures between a Glorious Golden Shower Sparkler shell and a howitzer (or maybe not).
My point, though, was that there were fireworks going off in my neighborhood. REAL recreational artillery. At first I thought it was just some crazy neighbors a few blocks away, blasting off a few consumer grade shells. After a particularly extended fusillade, though, I reconsidered: either I had more crazy neighbors than I first thought, or perhaps something else was going on.
I stepped out on my porch just as another barrage began. Coming from what was probably the Altadena Country Club’s golf course was the real deal. Fireworks. The show continued, the “whumps” occasionally becoming “WHUMPS” and even a few “WHUMPS!!!”, the night skies lighting up in luminous colors as the gunpowder ignited and spread burning remnants through the atmosphere. And I began to think about the fact that it was the start of the Fourth of July weekend in American, again…and here I was, watching a fireworks display, again. And here we go, again, as all over this fine country, Americans will celebrate the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence…by shooting off a whole hell of a lot of rockets.
We love rockets. Americans love rockets. And explosions. But we especially love rockets that explode. We even wrote a song about a rocket and made it our National Anthem. Okay, “The Star Spangled Banner” is really a song about a flag…a flag that the songwriter could see only because it was illuminated by an exploding rocket, accompanied by a violent soundtrack of “bombs bursting in air.” During a war, of course. Americans love war, too, and it’s fitting that we do so, because of our love of exploding rockets. However, we prefer shooting these rockets AWAY from us, sometimes just up in the air, sometimes just at people we don’t like. The latter usually meaning during a war.
How many displays of artfully burning powdered chemicals will exist as the centerpiece and/or climax of the Nation’s 2004 Independence Day festivities? The count has to be in the thousands, maybe even hundred thousands. It looks like my annual renewal of retina-tracing by fire streaking across the sky occurred two days early…and it had the added “benefit” of having a large red “Jack In The Box” sign (I’m pretty sure that IS trademarked) in my direct field of view during the entire display. At one point in the bombardment, the fiery bursts created a sort of “halo” effect around the huge advertisement, further strengthening, I’m sure, a subliminal argument in favor of that particular brand of fast fried food (I ate there the following afternoon. Coincidence?).
I gotta tell you, it all came together for me as I watched this scene. I recalled some of the more vividly gruesome scenes from our country’s current war (scenes that I had to pay to see in a commercial movie theater because the Nation’s “free” media refuse to air them), and I wondered if Iraqi people have the same view of recreational artillery that we Americans do? I wondered if they respond to the sound of cannons in their neighborhoods the way we Americans respond? Of course, this was all rhetorical wondering; I knew the answer. We all know the answer.
I count myself lucky to have been born in a country where I was able to grow to middle age without ever having the experience of being on the receiving end of military grade bombs and rockets. In fact, I am quite proud that I live in a country that lets us choose for ourselves if we want to experience such things. This country goes so far as to give us the opportunity to feel what it’s like to be targeted by bullets, grenades, mortars, rockets and missiles among other things, while we give people who live in other countries the very same opportunity. That, I’m not so proud of.
So this Fourth of July, as the news readers and newspapers and talking heads continually remind us to give thanks and warm thoughts to our troops as they put themselves in harm’s way in order to preserve our exploding-rocket-loving way of life, do not let yourself lose sight of the FACT that our wonderful fellow citizen-soldiers do NOT have to be at war. This proud Nation NEVER need be at war, with any country, cult, tribe or substance. We CHOOSE to be at war, because we love our rockets and what they do for us.
More later…
Paul
Friday, July 02, 2004
Get Down, Bill!
I can't vouch for CNN's sense of fairness or balance, but I did like this particular article:CNN.com - Bill Cosby has more harsh words for black community - Jul 2, 2004.
I think it's very interesting, not that Bill Cosby has something to say and is not afraid to say it, but that the mainstream press considers it "news". Here is a guy who is NOT an elected official, nor is even considered to be a so-called "black leader" (e.g. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton), but just a normal black person who happens to be a well-liked international celebrity. And when asked to speak, he speaks the truth as he sees it. Why is it "news"? It's more like gossip: "oooh, didja hear what Cosby said the other day? He said black people are stupid!"
On the face of things, as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Cosby was telling it like it is. I love hip hop, but despise rap songs that insist on using the "n" word, or tell degrading stories of women, or glorify immoral behavior...unfortunately, that describes most rap that's heard on the radio these days. I am also concerned by the illiteracy rate in the black community, and the social problems that are caused by poverty, joblessness and ill health. I also agree that it all comes down to personal choice...which is a matter of personal responsibility. And I think that's what Cosby is getting at. However, this article, and the ones that will surely follow, are signaling much more.
Look at the first sentence of the article: "Bill Cosby went off on another tirade against the black community..." Note the words chosen by unnamed Associated Press reporter (if I had written that, I wouldn't want my name on it, either). "Went off" is an implied negative; bombs "go off". "Another", implying that he's done it many times before, even though the article admits that he's done it only once before. "Tirade" means "a speech of violent denunciation". The subliminal message of this line: well-known black man violently denunciates his own community, again and again. The supporting quotes that follow strengthen and verify Cosby's statements.
So what's wrong with that? On the face of it, nothing at all. It's no secret that there are problems in the black community. Heck, there are problems in every ethnic community. Gangsterism, illiteracy, alcohol-, drug- and spousal-abuse are problems not limited to the black community. But the subliminal message in this news story is the suggestion that many if not most blacks are inferior, and they do it to themselves and then try to blame it on others. Since it's subliminal, it secretly reinforces a mistaken societal impression...a prejudice, if you will. The opposite, of course, is true.
That explains why the Associated Press/CNN/and all the other mainstream news outlets that will run with this "ball" display it as "news": to use subliminal messaging to reinforce negative impressions.
What? You don't think they would do something like that? Please, wake up.
More later...
Paul
I can't vouch for CNN's sense of fairness or balance, but I did like this particular article:CNN.com - Bill Cosby has more harsh words for black community - Jul 2, 2004.
I think it's very interesting, not that Bill Cosby has something to say and is not afraid to say it, but that the mainstream press considers it "news". Here is a guy who is NOT an elected official, nor is even considered to be a so-called "black leader" (e.g. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton), but just a normal black person who happens to be a well-liked international celebrity. And when asked to speak, he speaks the truth as he sees it. Why is it "news"? It's more like gossip: "oooh, didja hear what Cosby said the other day? He said black people are stupid!"
On the face of things, as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Cosby was telling it like it is. I love hip hop, but despise rap songs that insist on using the "n" word, or tell degrading stories of women, or glorify immoral behavior...unfortunately, that describes most rap that's heard on the radio these days. I am also concerned by the illiteracy rate in the black community, and the social problems that are caused by poverty, joblessness and ill health. I also agree that it all comes down to personal choice...which is a matter of personal responsibility. And I think that's what Cosby is getting at. However, this article, and the ones that will surely follow, are signaling much more.
Look at the first sentence of the article: "Bill Cosby went off on another tirade against the black community..." Note the words chosen by unnamed Associated Press reporter (if I had written that, I wouldn't want my name on it, either). "Went off" is an implied negative; bombs "go off". "Another", implying that he's done it many times before, even though the article admits that he's done it only once before. "Tirade" means "a speech of violent denunciation". The subliminal message of this line: well-known black man violently denunciates his own community, again and again. The supporting quotes that follow strengthen and verify Cosby's statements.
So what's wrong with that? On the face of it, nothing at all. It's no secret that there are problems in the black community. Heck, there are problems in every ethnic community. Gangsterism, illiteracy, alcohol-, drug- and spousal-abuse are problems not limited to the black community. But the subliminal message in this news story is the suggestion that many if not most blacks are inferior, and they do it to themselves and then try to blame it on others. Since it's subliminal, it secretly reinforces a mistaken societal impression...a prejudice, if you will. The opposite, of course, is true.
That explains why the Associated Press/CNN/and all the other mainstream news outlets that will run with this "ball" display it as "news": to use subliminal messaging to reinforce negative impressions.
What? You don't think they would do something like that? Please, wake up.
More later...
Paul
Monday, June 21, 2004
I Know, I Know...
I said I would be positive from here on out, but then I read this today:Greenspan sworn in to fifth term as Fed chief.
I mean, c'mon! The man is 78 years old! You mean to tell me that after four long terms, the Fed has STILL failed to come up with a succession plan for their chairman?
And why was he sworn in on a Saturday at the home of Gerald Ford in Colorado of all places?
I wonder if Greenspan is a Bonesman?
More later...
Paul
I said I would be positive from here on out, but then I read this today:Greenspan sworn in to fifth term as Fed chief.
I mean, c'mon! The man is 78 years old! You mean to tell me that after four long terms, the Fed has STILL failed to come up with a succession plan for their chairman?
And why was he sworn in on a Saturday at the home of Gerald Ford in Colorado of all places?
I wonder if Greenspan is a Bonesman?
More later...
Paul
Friday, June 11, 2004
Here We Go: Good Job, Pistons!
Those of you that know me, know that I'm a fair-weather Lakers fan. And I'm on record (so to speak) for predicting a runaway championship for Los Angeles. Well, with results like these (Yahoo! Sports - NBA - Pistons 88, Lakers 68), it appears that I could be mistaken.
But in the spirit of staying positive, instead of pointing out the Laker's inconsistencies, I want to give credit where credit is due: the Pistons are playing as if they really want to win this championship. Who would have guessed that Rasheed Wallace would calm down enough to be effective? Who knew that Chauncey Billups (who?) would be a scoring machine? Who, other than his father, expected Richard Hamilton to be so...Kobe-esque?
Perhaps the credit should really go to Larry Brown, who was defeated in the finals by the Lakers a couple of years ago, even though he had the magical Allen Iverson in his toolbox. Looks like Larry has figured out the triangle.
And how about that Detroit defense holding L.A. to 68 points? The Lakers are used to scoring 68 points in a half!
Here's the problem for L.A.: they HAVE to win this championship, or their entire season, what with the Malone/Payton experiment, will be deemed an abject failure. Karl, at least, has an injury to blame for his poor performance. Gary "The Glove" has yet to appear in this series...c'mon Payton, put it in place!
More later...
Paul
Those of you that know me, know that I'm a fair-weather Lakers fan. And I'm on record (so to speak) for predicting a runaway championship for Los Angeles. Well, with results like these (Yahoo! Sports - NBA - Pistons 88, Lakers 68), it appears that I could be mistaken.
But in the spirit of staying positive, instead of pointing out the Laker's inconsistencies, I want to give credit where credit is due: the Pistons are playing as if they really want to win this championship. Who would have guessed that Rasheed Wallace would calm down enough to be effective? Who knew that Chauncey Billups (who?) would be a scoring machine? Who, other than his father, expected Richard Hamilton to be so...Kobe-esque?
Perhaps the credit should really go to Larry Brown, who was defeated in the finals by the Lakers a couple of years ago, even though he had the magical Allen Iverson in his toolbox. Looks like Larry has figured out the triangle.
And how about that Detroit defense holding L.A. to 68 points? The Lakers are used to scoring 68 points in a half!
Here's the problem for L.A.: they HAVE to win this championship, or their entire season, what with the Malone/Payton experiment, will be deemed an abject failure. Karl, at least, has an injury to blame for his poor performance. Gary "The Glove" has yet to appear in this series...c'mon Payton, put it in place!
More later...
Paul
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Time to turn a New Leaf.
I've been thinking, and I know that may alarm some of you, but I've been thinking that my posts have been too negative. I mean, I'm just responding to the wackiness in the world, and a lot of this so-called wackiness is just bad stuff. So it would seem that a negative comment or two would be called for. But I don't think it helps the world to continue to put negative energy out there. So I have decided it's time for a change.
From this date forward, I am going to focus on positive events, people and places. Instead of a scathing review of a P.O.S. moview, I'll try to write about whatever good I can find in the film, and if I can't find any good, then I'll forego the review entirely.
From now on, if I can't say something good about President Bush, then I won't say anything at all. You can count on not reading much about Bush here, then.
This change in approach started when I was feeling inundated with the Reagan funeral coverage. I am not, and have never been, a fan of Ronald Reagan, so you can imagine that I have plenty of negative things to say about the man. But I will leave that to others. The best thing that I can say about the former President is "a lot of people seemed to like him." I'll just leave it at that.
Let's see where this new philosophy takes us.
More later...
Paul
I've been thinking, and I know that may alarm some of you, but I've been thinking that my posts have been too negative. I mean, I'm just responding to the wackiness in the world, and a lot of this so-called wackiness is just bad stuff. So it would seem that a negative comment or two would be called for. But I don't think it helps the world to continue to put negative energy out there. So I have decided it's time for a change.
From this date forward, I am going to focus on positive events, people and places. Instead of a scathing review of a P.O.S. moview, I'll try to write about whatever good I can find in the film, and if I can't find any good, then I'll forego the review entirely.
From now on, if I can't say something good about President Bush, then I won't say anything at all. You can count on not reading much about Bush here, then.
This change in approach started when I was feeling inundated with the Reagan funeral coverage. I am not, and have never been, a fan of Ronald Reagan, so you can imagine that I have plenty of negative things to say about the man. But I will leave that to others. The best thing that I can say about the former President is "a lot of people seemed to like him." I'll just leave it at that.
Let's see where this new philosophy takes us.
More later...
Paul
Friday, June 04, 2004
Pope: "I'll give ya 15 minutes, tops"
The headlines are blowing up about Bush meeting the Pope (Yahoo! News - Pope Calls for Free Iraq, Deplores Prisoner Abuse), but hidden in the middle of these stories is the fact that the two guys only talked for 15 minutes!
Wonder how much of that was small talk?
Pontiff: "Make it snappy, Bush. I'm a busy man."
Prez: "Me? YOU asked for this meeting?"
Pontiff: "Geez, I SAID I'll make it snappy. What, are you both deaf and dumb?"
Prez: "Wha...?"
Pontiff: "Whaddya got cameras in prisons for? What the heck are you guys thinking? Leave that amateur porn to the Mormons..."
(My apologies to the Mormons, the Catholics and everybody else. I got carried away!)
More later...
Paul
The headlines are blowing up about Bush meeting the Pope (Yahoo! News - Pope Calls for Free Iraq, Deplores Prisoner Abuse), but hidden in the middle of these stories is the fact that the two guys only talked for 15 minutes!
Wonder how much of that was small talk?
Pontiff: "Make it snappy, Bush. I'm a busy man."
Prez: "Me? YOU asked for this meeting?"
Pontiff: "Geez, I SAID I'll make it snappy. What, are you both deaf and dumb?"
Prez: "Wha...?"
Pontiff: "Whaddya got cameras in prisons for? What the heck are you guys thinking? Leave that amateur porn to the Mormons..."
(My apologies to the Mormons, the Catholics and everybody else. I got carried away!)
More later...
Paul
Friday, May 21, 2004
What the heck...?
This article was brought to my attention today, but note that this happened twenty days ago. Did you hear about it? Bush Cites Racism in Remarks On Iraq (washingtonpost.com)
Bush said, "There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern."
Same as "ours"? Who the heck is he talking about? America or just white people?
Well it becomes quite clear later in the article that he meant white people. And here I was thinking that the President of the United States of America represented all Americans, not just the caucasians. Silly me.
And why won't he identify those "people in the world", especially since there's a "lot" of them? Maybe the War on Terrorism needs to be expanded?
More later...
Paul
This article was brought to my attention today, but note that this happened twenty days ago. Did you hear about it? Bush Cites Racism in Remarks On Iraq (washingtonpost.com)
Bush said, "There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern."
Same as "ours"? Who the heck is he talking about? America or just white people?
Well it becomes quite clear later in the article that he meant white people. And here I was thinking that the President of the United States of America represented all Americans, not just the caucasians. Silly me.
And why won't he identify those "people in the world", especially since there's a "lot" of them? Maybe the War on Terrorism needs to be expanded?
More later...
Paul
Monday, May 10, 2004
What he said.
One of my favorite comic strips has weighed in on this Iraqi prison nonsense: Yahoo! News - Boondocks.
Bush should reconsider his refusal to read newspapers...
More later...
Paul
One of my favorite comic strips has weighed in on this Iraqi prison nonsense: Yahoo! News - Boondocks.
Bush should reconsider his refusal to read newspapers...
More later...
Paul
Friday, May 07, 2004
My bad: Bush finally comes clean.
Or does he?
Per the following story, our President said "I can't tell you how sorry I am to them and their families for the humiliation".
Is that really an apology? If I said "I can't tell you how much I want to pay you back this loan" does that mean I am actually going to pay the money back? How about "I can't tell you how much I love you"...is it "CAN'T" or "WON'T".
I guess if the President had better control of the English language, this particular "apology" wouldn't seem so vague. But obviously that's just asking too much of the Nation's top leader.
Even stranger is that Bush went on to say that times are tough for the United States in the Middle East because "people don't really understand our intentions."
Well then, please explain our intentions Mr. President. You have the microphone in your face, USE IT!
Read it for yourself:Yahoo! News - Bush Again Apologizes for Abuse of Iraqis
More later...
Paul
Or does he?
Per the following story, our President said "I can't tell you how sorry I am to them and their families for the humiliation".
Is that really an apology? If I said "I can't tell you how much I want to pay you back this loan" does that mean I am actually going to pay the money back? How about "I can't tell you how much I love you"...is it "CAN'T" or "WON'T".
I guess if the President had better control of the English language, this particular "apology" wouldn't seem so vague. But obviously that's just asking too much of the Nation's top leader.
Even stranger is that Bush went on to say that times are tough for the United States in the Middle East because "people don't really understand our intentions."
Well then, please explain our intentions Mr. President. You have the microphone in your face, USE IT!
Read it for yourself:Yahoo! News - Bush Again Apologizes for Abuse of Iraqis
More later...
Paul
Bush needs to take lessons from Rumsfeld.
Whether he's being sincere or not, no one will ever know. But at least he's apologizing, AND he's doing it to the right people:Yahoo! News - Rumsfeld Apologizes to Iraqi Prisoners.
Rumsfeld even goes on to say he takes "full responsibility". Wow, and here I was, thinking that the buck stopped with the Commander in Chief. I guess if you have enough lieutenants willing to fall on their own swords for you, you never have to get dirty with blame, eh Mr. President?
More later...
Paul
Whether he's being sincere or not, no one will ever know. But at least he's apologizing, AND he's doing it to the right people:Yahoo! News - Rumsfeld Apologizes to Iraqi Prisoners.
Rumsfeld even goes on to say he takes "full responsibility". Wow, and here I was, thinking that the buck stopped with the Commander in Chief. I guess if you have enough lieutenants willing to fall on their own swords for you, you never have to get dirty with blame, eh Mr. President?
More later...
Paul
Thursday, May 06, 2004
Tell me this doesn't sound fishy...
I think a lot of strange things happened on September 11, 2001, and the strangest events were the ones that involved the air traffic controllers, the FAA and NORAD (NORth American Air Defense). Supposedly indestructible "black boxes" were destroyed, bodies and huge sections of planes "disappeared"...and now this:Newsday.com: Tape of 9/11 Controllers Was Destroyed.
I believe that when the TRUTH of this story finally comes to light, it will be a dark, dark day in American History.
More later...
Paul
I think a lot of strange things happened on September 11, 2001, and the strangest events were the ones that involved the air traffic controllers, the FAA and NORAD (NORth American Air Defense). Supposedly indestructible "black boxes" were destroyed, bodies and huge sections of planes "disappeared"...and now this:Newsday.com: Tape of 9/11 Controllers Was Destroyed.
I believe that when the TRUTH of this story finally comes to light, it will be a dark, dark day in American History.
More later...
Paul
Crocodile Tears.
Big news today: The President said "I was sorry" Bush Sorry for Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners.
I haven't even read this entire article, and already I wanted to share it with the world. Why? Because no matter how ridiculous he seems when he does something, no matter how bad it gets, it can still get worse. President Bush has the uncanny ability to fall to the bottom of the barrel...and keep on falling. It's like he dug a hole in the barrel and is now burrowing underground. Lower than low.
He apologized to King Abdullah II of Jordan. Why? Did we torture some of his relatives or something? Seems like he should be apologizing to the prisoners that suffered the abuse, don't you think? You dent the car of the man across the street, and then you go apologize to his neighbor? HOW STUPID IS THAT?
HOW MUCH MORE INSINCERE CAN ONE MAN BE?
Bush speaks of being "sick to his stomach" from seeing the images. My god, what happens to his stomach when he sees the recon photos after we've dropped several hundred tons of bombs on a village?
More later...
Paul
Big news today: The President said "I was sorry" Bush Sorry for Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners.
I haven't even read this entire article, and already I wanted to share it with the world. Why? Because no matter how ridiculous he seems when he does something, no matter how bad it gets, it can still get worse. President Bush has the uncanny ability to fall to the bottom of the barrel...and keep on falling. It's like he dug a hole in the barrel and is now burrowing underground. Lower than low.
He apologized to King Abdullah II of Jordan. Why? Did we torture some of his relatives or something? Seems like he should be apologizing to the prisoners that suffered the abuse, don't you think? You dent the car of the man across the street, and then you go apologize to his neighbor? HOW STUPID IS THAT?
HOW MUCH MORE INSINCERE CAN ONE MAN BE?
Bush speaks of being "sick to his stomach" from seeing the images. My god, what happens to his stomach when he sees the recon photos after we've dropped several hundred tons of bombs on a village?
More later...
Paul
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
This is Chickenshit, plain and simple.
First, the president doesn't want a commission investigating what happened on 9/11. Then he begrudgingly accepts it, but underfunds it. Then he approves decent funds, but doesn't agree to appear before the commission, nor let his National Security Adviser testify. Then he agrees to give them ONE HOUR of his time, and let's the NSA testify. Then he says he'll only testify in concert with his Vice President.
NOW, they're saying that the testimony will be 1) private 2) not recorded (!), no transcriptions will be taken and finally 3) the President and Vice President will NOT BE UNDER OATH! Yahoo! News - Bush, Cheney Coached for 9/11 Questioning
This is the Sham of all Shams. Mr. President, you should truly be ashamed of yourself. What are you hiding? Why do you need to be "coached"? Why does your Vice President need to be there with you? WHY WON'T YOU GO ON RECORD? WHY WON'T YOU TESTIFY IN PUBLIC?
This is an outrage.
More later...
Paul
First, the president doesn't want a commission investigating what happened on 9/11. Then he begrudgingly accepts it, but underfunds it. Then he approves decent funds, but doesn't agree to appear before the commission, nor let his National Security Adviser testify. Then he agrees to give them ONE HOUR of his time, and let's the NSA testify. Then he says he'll only testify in concert with his Vice President.
NOW, they're saying that the testimony will be 1) private 2) not recorded (!), no transcriptions will be taken and finally 3) the President and Vice President will NOT BE UNDER OATH! Yahoo! News - Bush, Cheney Coached for 9/11 Questioning
This is the Sham of all Shams. Mr. President, you should truly be ashamed of yourself. What are you hiding? Why do you need to be "coached"? Why does your Vice President need to be there with you? WHY WON'T YOU GO ON RECORD? WHY WON'T YOU TESTIFY IN PUBLIC?
This is an outrage.
More later...
Paul
Friday, April 23, 2004
Military 'R' Us.
These are very strange days, indeed. A mysterious war in Iraq, famous athlete-turned-soldier killed in military action in Afghanistan, Israel assassinating opposition leaders, bombs going off in other countries, and the U.S. election mud-slinging in full swing.
With all that, Godspeed Pat Tillman. I didn't know you or anything about you until you were killed in action and the media decided to make you a hero. Thank you for your service; I'm only sorry your life and talent were wasted in what I think are fairly meaningless actions in Afghanistan; I hope you disagree with me.
As we get swept up in the inevitable media whirlwind about this young man's unfortunate demise, let us not forget those soldiers who were NOT professional athletes, but still volunteered to leave their families and communities to serve...and die. War is, without a doubt, hell.
My more conservative friends and others on the extreme right want to constantly remind us of the "fact" that we owe everything we have in America to the brave men and women who serve in the armed forces. I find that idea very sad. If it were true, it means that the sole reason America exists, and continues to exist, is because we have a strong successful army that protects us from a world of people who would otherwise control us and deny us our current lifestyles.
People want to "take" our freedom? Do we still believe this? Who are these people?
People want to "take" our land, our belongings, our "things"'; are we still equating material goods with freedom?
Yes, there are crazy, murderous people out there who want to kill Americans and westerners. They want to deprive us of life, remove us from this world...but not necessarily contain our right to pollute our own country...or curtail our right to hunt animals...or many, many other rights. They don't want us to exist at all. Lucky for us, they are a microscopically small minority, and they only matter because the media is coerced into (or is willingly) blowing them out of proportion.
As far as those "superpowers" that actually have armies....which of them wants to deprive Americans of their rights? China, our trillion-dollar trading partner? Crazy North Korea, the pimple on the butt of Southeast Asia? Of course not.
More later...
Paul
These are very strange days, indeed. A mysterious war in Iraq, famous athlete-turned-soldier killed in military action in Afghanistan, Israel assassinating opposition leaders, bombs going off in other countries, and the U.S. election mud-slinging in full swing.
With all that, Godspeed Pat Tillman. I didn't know you or anything about you until you were killed in action and the media decided to make you a hero. Thank you for your service; I'm only sorry your life and talent were wasted in what I think are fairly meaningless actions in Afghanistan; I hope you disagree with me.
As we get swept up in the inevitable media whirlwind about this young man's unfortunate demise, let us not forget those soldiers who were NOT professional athletes, but still volunteered to leave their families and communities to serve...and die. War is, without a doubt, hell.
My more conservative friends and others on the extreme right want to constantly remind us of the "fact" that we owe everything we have in America to the brave men and women who serve in the armed forces. I find that idea very sad. If it were true, it means that the sole reason America exists, and continues to exist, is because we have a strong successful army that protects us from a world of people who would otherwise control us and deny us our current lifestyles.
People want to "take" our freedom? Do we still believe this? Who are these people?
People want to "take" our land, our belongings, our "things"'; are we still equating material goods with freedom?
Yes, there are crazy, murderous people out there who want to kill Americans and westerners. They want to deprive us of life, remove us from this world...but not necessarily contain our right to pollute our own country...or curtail our right to hunt animals...or many, many other rights. They don't want us to exist at all. Lucky for us, they are a microscopically small minority, and they only matter because the media is coerced into (or is willingly) blowing them out of proportion.
As far as those "superpowers" that actually have armies....which of them wants to deprive Americans of their rights? China, our trillion-dollar trading partner? Crazy North Korea, the pimple on the butt of Southeast Asia? Of course not.
More later...
Paul
Some folks have guts.
Got to give it up to Gary Trudeau for bringing the War in Iraq home to the comics page in a realistic way: Yahoo! News - Doonesbury
Currently, the strip is showing how long time character BD, a college football coach and the strip's classic right-wing warhawk, has been ambushed in Iraq and had lost his leg. Not your normal funny papers storyline. Yet there's still humor and empathy to be found...this story is gonna get bigger.
More later...
Paul
Got to give it up to Gary Trudeau for bringing the War in Iraq home to the comics page in a realistic way: Yahoo! News - Doonesbury
Currently, the strip is showing how long time character BD, a college football coach and the strip's classic right-wing warhawk, has been ambushed in Iraq and had lost his leg. Not your normal funny papers storyline. Yet there's still humor and empathy to be found...this story is gonna get bigger.
More later...
Paul
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Yeah, but...
So the big news today is the release of some of the testimony made by senior administration officials to the so-called 9/11 Panel. Yahoo! News - Rumsfeld Counters 9/11 Panel Findings
What I'm reading so far is a bunch of hoohah about Afghanistan and Al Quaida. What about New York City? It seems that the panel is digging into the lapse in critical intelligence that led up to the tragedy. I wonder if they're ever going to address the issue of the slow response to the attacks while they were actually happening? Like, why NORAD was unprepared to intercept relatively slow-moving airliners? Why did it take so long to scramble fighter jets, and why did they send them from bases far from the target areas? And why did Bush insist on staying in the elementary school classroom AFTER he was notified of the attacks, instead of acting like the Commander in Chief that he is and taking responsibility for our Nation's immediate response?
Yeah, like they'll ever answer THOSE questions...
More later...
Paul
So the big news today is the release of some of the testimony made by senior administration officials to the so-called 9/11 Panel. Yahoo! News - Rumsfeld Counters 9/11 Panel Findings
What I'm reading so far is a bunch of hoohah about Afghanistan and Al Quaida. What about New York City? It seems that the panel is digging into the lapse in critical intelligence that led up to the tragedy. I wonder if they're ever going to address the issue of the slow response to the attacks while they were actually happening? Like, why NORAD was unprepared to intercept relatively slow-moving airliners? Why did it take so long to scramble fighter jets, and why did they send them from bases far from the target areas? And why did Bush insist on staying in the elementary school classroom AFTER he was notified of the attacks, instead of acting like the Commander in Chief that he is and taking responsibility for our Nation's immediate response?
Yeah, like they'll ever answer THOSE questions...
More later...
Paul
A Tale of Two Films.
First, “The Passion of the Christ.”
I finally went to see this one, and it has taken me a few days to gather some coherent thoughts to write about it. I assume that if you’re reading this, you’ve probably already seen the film, or by this time you’ve decided that you’re NOT going to see it. So please forgive me, as I intend to give a few plot points away in this essay.
Of course, even if you are only remotely religious, you already KNOW the story of Jesus’ crucifixion, so it’s not like I’m blowing any “surprise” endings. But this film, like many other films based on true events, is built on the filmmaker’s interpretation of the events, and it’s the little details that make the story come to life, so to speak. Unfortunately, it is Mel Gibson’s interpretation that I have the most problems with.
Actually, truth be told, the biggest problem for me is the limited scope of the film. It is literally the last day of the life of Jesus the Christ, and by focusing on that one fateful day, Mel and his co-writer give very short shrift to the rest of Jesus’ rather significant life. If you are Christian, you know that Jesus did a lot of very amazing things in his short 33-year life, but Mel has seen fit to leave that part of the story to other filmmakers. So “The Passion” is basically two hours of watching a man get brutally beaten and murdered, and we’re barely shown WHY Jesus is hated so much by his captors. Because of that, this is a deeply flawed film.
In an attempt to bring the gospels to life, Mel and his co-writer felt the need to exercise a little artistic license and add even more drama to the proceedings. However, I was repulsed by their attempts to make “sense” of the story. For example, some of the gospels note that after betraying Jesus, the apostle Judas committed suicide. What the gospels DON’T do is describe the suicide, or Judas’ descent into suicidal depression. So Mel took a shot at it, and instead of showing a man racked with guilt and remorse for cowardly and greedily betraying his close friend, they showed Judas as a man tormented and tortured by demonic children (!), who chase him out of town and cause him to…what? Go crazy?
This was part of a disturbing trend that the filmmakers chose to follow. It was apparently not enough to depict the brutal last day of Jesus’ life, but they also wanted to show that Satan exists and was a part of the entire proceedings, always broodily watching from the sidelines. Satan (or the devil, if you prefer) was depicted as a hooded, eyebrow-less albino. For shock value, Mel showed a maggot slowly crawl in and out of Satan’s nose. Whoa, now THAT’S evil!
Strangely enough, when Jesus finally died, Satan was shown to be mourning…or at least he was very, very disappointed. But there were no overt explanations of what that was all about…only “true believers” need apply.
Another strange “artistic license” taking was one of the too-few flashbacks to Jesus’ life. In this particular flashback, Jesus was shown “inventing” the normal-height table…! Beg pardon? When he demonstrates this new-fangled thing to his mother, Mary even quips, “It’ll never catch on…” See, God has a sense of humor…or is that Mel? It was such a jolting bit that I never could really catch on to what the filmmaker was trying to say with it. One of the frustrating things about the Bible, at least to me, is that the gospels of Christ have nothing to say about Jesus’ life as a young adult. The Good Book tells the story of his birth, a few stories of him as a pre-teen, and then there’s NOTHING until he’s in his thirties. So I guess Mel thought there would be no harm in portraying the Christ as the inventor of the modern table. Who knew?
Then there’s the controversy: Does this movie portray Jews as the murderers of Jesus? Oh yeah it does. Sure, it was the sadistic Roman guards that beat the shit out of our man, and it was the Roman guards who nailed him to the cross, and it was even the Roman ruler Pontious Pilate who, albeit reluctantly, condemned Jesus to death. But the film clearly placed the blame on the shoulders of the high Jewish priests and their Klingon-like henchmen. But isn’t that the way it’s written in the Bible? Mel’s defense has always been that his film is true to the word. Personally, I don’t see how this particular issue is controversial…but then, I was raised Catholic.
However, if truth was what the filmmakers were really after, how did they end up casting very-Anglo-looking Jim Caviezel as Jesus? Why didn’t they go with an actor that actually looked like he might have grown up in Galilee, as opposed to Western Europe? I wasn’t surprised that Mel made the decision to have a Western, instead of Middle Eastern, Jesus. But Mel, you can’t have it both ways, bro. You can’t claim historical accuracy on one hand, then willfully distort the facts on the other.
Ultimately, there have been better movies made about the life of the Christ. “The Passion” was just a voyeuristic exercise in cinematic evangelism. And a damn bloody one at that.
Then yesterday I returned to the cinema and took in a truly enjoyable little film, “Eternal Sunshine for the Spotless Mind”, Jim Carrey’s latest movie. This movie is a huge departure from the normal Carrey goofiness, and it was co-written by the fantastically inventive screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (“Adaptation”, “Being John Malkovich”).
This film is a treat for both the eyes and the mind. It is actually a romantic comedy, and a pretty funny one too, but it’s not like “When Harry met Sally”. It’s more like “Punch Drunk Love”, another great film that takes a normally goofy guy (that time Adam Sandler), and makes him ACT. Carrey did a great job anchoring a very challenging script, and making us care about his relationship with Clementine, a firebrand of a free spirit, wonderfully played by Kate Winslet.
Basically what happens in this film is that Joel (Carrey) discovers that there’s an obscure Doctor in New York City (well, somewhere on Long Island, actually) that is able to erase specific people and events from one’s memories. How Carrey makes this discovery, and what it means to his relationship with Clementine (among other people) is what makes this movie so much fun. And for me to describe any part of it is to give too much away. This is definitely one of those “oh, you just GOTTA see it!” type of movies, similar to “Memento” and “American Beauty”. There are plenty of plot twists and turns, and since the movie is dealing with memory (actually, memory LOSS), there are a lot of flashbacks (or what look like flashbacks…I can’t tell you any more than that)!
Accordingly, the visuals in this movie are extremely surreal and nothing short of fantastic. The special effects never seem gratuitous, and rarely intrude. They just do their not-so-easy job of depicting a life that is slowly losing some of it’s most cherished memories.
One of the best lines in this movie is an exchange between the Doctor and Joel, just before they begin the procedure. Joel asks if it’s a dangerous procedure and if there’s any chance that it will cause brain damage. The Doctor calmly replies, “Well, it actually IS brain damage…”!
“Eternal Sunshine” is a great movie, one that demands repeated viewing and will definitely be one to occupy a place in my growing DVD collection. I think it demands too much thinking for it to ever become a popular blockbuster, but for those who like to think before they laugh (and cry), this is the movie for you. And it was really nice to see a good movie again, especially after sitting through the (literal) torture that was “The Passion of the Christ”.
More later…
Paul
First, “The Passion of the Christ.”
I finally went to see this one, and it has taken me a few days to gather some coherent thoughts to write about it. I assume that if you’re reading this, you’ve probably already seen the film, or by this time you’ve decided that you’re NOT going to see it. So please forgive me, as I intend to give a few plot points away in this essay.
Of course, even if you are only remotely religious, you already KNOW the story of Jesus’ crucifixion, so it’s not like I’m blowing any “surprise” endings. But this film, like many other films based on true events, is built on the filmmaker’s interpretation of the events, and it’s the little details that make the story come to life, so to speak. Unfortunately, it is Mel Gibson’s interpretation that I have the most problems with.
Actually, truth be told, the biggest problem for me is the limited scope of the film. It is literally the last day of the life of Jesus the Christ, and by focusing on that one fateful day, Mel and his co-writer give very short shrift to the rest of Jesus’ rather significant life. If you are Christian, you know that Jesus did a lot of very amazing things in his short 33-year life, but Mel has seen fit to leave that part of the story to other filmmakers. So “The Passion” is basically two hours of watching a man get brutally beaten and murdered, and we’re barely shown WHY Jesus is hated so much by his captors. Because of that, this is a deeply flawed film.
In an attempt to bring the gospels to life, Mel and his co-writer felt the need to exercise a little artistic license and add even more drama to the proceedings. However, I was repulsed by their attempts to make “sense” of the story. For example, some of the gospels note that after betraying Jesus, the apostle Judas committed suicide. What the gospels DON’T do is describe the suicide, or Judas’ descent into suicidal depression. So Mel took a shot at it, and instead of showing a man racked with guilt and remorse for cowardly and greedily betraying his close friend, they showed Judas as a man tormented and tortured by demonic children (!), who chase him out of town and cause him to…what? Go crazy?
This was part of a disturbing trend that the filmmakers chose to follow. It was apparently not enough to depict the brutal last day of Jesus’ life, but they also wanted to show that Satan exists and was a part of the entire proceedings, always broodily watching from the sidelines. Satan (or the devil, if you prefer) was depicted as a hooded, eyebrow-less albino. For shock value, Mel showed a maggot slowly crawl in and out of Satan’s nose. Whoa, now THAT’S evil!
Strangely enough, when Jesus finally died, Satan was shown to be mourning…or at least he was very, very disappointed. But there were no overt explanations of what that was all about…only “true believers” need apply.
Another strange “artistic license” taking was one of the too-few flashbacks to Jesus’ life. In this particular flashback, Jesus was shown “inventing” the normal-height table…! Beg pardon? When he demonstrates this new-fangled thing to his mother, Mary even quips, “It’ll never catch on…” See, God has a sense of humor…or is that Mel? It was such a jolting bit that I never could really catch on to what the filmmaker was trying to say with it. One of the frustrating things about the Bible, at least to me, is that the gospels of Christ have nothing to say about Jesus’ life as a young adult. The Good Book tells the story of his birth, a few stories of him as a pre-teen, and then there’s NOTHING until he’s in his thirties. So I guess Mel thought there would be no harm in portraying the Christ as the inventor of the modern table. Who knew?
Then there’s the controversy: Does this movie portray Jews as the murderers of Jesus? Oh yeah it does. Sure, it was the sadistic Roman guards that beat the shit out of our man, and it was the Roman guards who nailed him to the cross, and it was even the Roman ruler Pontious Pilate who, albeit reluctantly, condemned Jesus to death. But the film clearly placed the blame on the shoulders of the high Jewish priests and their Klingon-like henchmen. But isn’t that the way it’s written in the Bible? Mel’s defense has always been that his film is true to the word. Personally, I don’t see how this particular issue is controversial…but then, I was raised Catholic.
However, if truth was what the filmmakers were really after, how did they end up casting very-Anglo-looking Jim Caviezel as Jesus? Why didn’t they go with an actor that actually looked like he might have grown up in Galilee, as opposed to Western Europe? I wasn’t surprised that Mel made the decision to have a Western, instead of Middle Eastern, Jesus. But Mel, you can’t have it both ways, bro. You can’t claim historical accuracy on one hand, then willfully distort the facts on the other.
Ultimately, there have been better movies made about the life of the Christ. “The Passion” was just a voyeuristic exercise in cinematic evangelism. And a damn bloody one at that.
Then yesterday I returned to the cinema and took in a truly enjoyable little film, “Eternal Sunshine for the Spotless Mind”, Jim Carrey’s latest movie. This movie is a huge departure from the normal Carrey goofiness, and it was co-written by the fantastically inventive screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (“Adaptation”, “Being John Malkovich”).
This film is a treat for both the eyes and the mind. It is actually a romantic comedy, and a pretty funny one too, but it’s not like “When Harry met Sally”. It’s more like “Punch Drunk Love”, another great film that takes a normally goofy guy (that time Adam Sandler), and makes him ACT. Carrey did a great job anchoring a very challenging script, and making us care about his relationship with Clementine, a firebrand of a free spirit, wonderfully played by Kate Winslet.
Basically what happens in this film is that Joel (Carrey) discovers that there’s an obscure Doctor in New York City (well, somewhere on Long Island, actually) that is able to erase specific people and events from one’s memories. How Carrey makes this discovery, and what it means to his relationship with Clementine (among other people) is what makes this movie so much fun. And for me to describe any part of it is to give too much away. This is definitely one of those “oh, you just GOTTA see it!” type of movies, similar to “Memento” and “American Beauty”. There are plenty of plot twists and turns, and since the movie is dealing with memory (actually, memory LOSS), there are a lot of flashbacks (or what look like flashbacks…I can’t tell you any more than that)!
Accordingly, the visuals in this movie are extremely surreal and nothing short of fantastic. The special effects never seem gratuitous, and rarely intrude. They just do their not-so-easy job of depicting a life that is slowly losing some of it’s most cherished memories.
One of the best lines in this movie is an exchange between the Doctor and Joel, just before they begin the procedure. Joel asks if it’s a dangerous procedure and if there’s any chance that it will cause brain damage. The Doctor calmly replies, “Well, it actually IS brain damage…”!
“Eternal Sunshine” is a great movie, one that demands repeated viewing and will definitely be one to occupy a place in my growing DVD collection. I think it demands too much thinking for it to ever become a popular blockbuster, but for those who like to think before they laugh (and cry), this is the movie for you. And it was really nice to see a good movie again, especially after sitting through the (literal) torture that was “The Passion of the Christ”.
More later…
Paul
Friday, March 19, 2004
I swear I'm not inherently anti-Bush, but...
...the more he talks, it seems, the worse it gets. And this President has some of the finest speechwriters money can buy. Remember his address to the Nation after the attacks on 9/11? If they gave out Academy Awards for Presidential speeches, that one would have been sure to bring George the Oscar.
In stunning contrast, look at some of his words from his speech given today(Yahoo! News - Bush Marks First Anniversary of Iraq War), on the one-year anniversary of the start of the Iraq War:
"It is the interest of every country and the duty of every government to fight and destroy this threat to our people," the president said.
Now, is he REALLY saying that every other country has a duty to protect the American people? Isn't that what he means by "our people"? Or do his speechwriters not care about proper grammar? Damn, put the period after "threat" and call it a sentence.
Or how about this obfuscating gem:
"There is no neutral ground...no neutral ground...in the fight between civilization and terror, because there is no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery, and life and death," Bush said.
Since when was the so-called "war on terror" a "fight between civilization and terror"? Since when is warfare "civil"? And since it's apparently such an important term, what the heck does he mean by "neutral ground" anyway? Isn't he basically saying "if you ain't with us, you're against us?" Hell, he already said THAT a year ago...back when he was insisting that we were in imminent danger from Hussein's WMDs.
I guess he's saying "you're either civilized, or a terrorist"; "you're either good or evil"; one can only be free or enslaved. One can only be either alive or dead. Well that last one I can agree with, but there are certainly shades of gray for the other examples. Let's take a Boeing 757 for instance; it can be both good and evil, depending on who's doing the flying, right?
It may seem that I'm nitpicking the President's figures of speech, but hey, my original point is that he has the best screenwriters in the world on his payroll, and THIS is the best they can do?
Finally, how about this conundrum:
"The war on terror is not a figure of speech," he said. "It is an inescapable calling of our generation."
What the hell...? You mean this is an actual War? Well then, what are the objectives of this "War"? About a year ago, Bush said his intention was to rid the world of evil. No one in their right mind would set, and expect to achieve, such an absurd objective. If the presence of evil is good enough for God, who are we to try to eliminate it? He couldn't possibly be serious, could he?
In this "War", who and where are the combatants? How will we know if we are, in fact, achieving our objectives? These major questions have NEVER been addressed in any meaningful public forum or document. Someone must know the answers to these questions, right?
Look, as long as this administration continues to sell us an unwinnable war, they will also continue to resort to rhetoric like that sentence. And now he asserts that this "war" is "inescapable". Bush and his speechwriters must take their lines from the George Orwell guidebook to mass hypnotism. They believe that if they say it long enough, it will eventually be believed by the masses.
If we don't bounce this clown in November, we deserve him.
More later...
Paul
...the more he talks, it seems, the worse it gets. And this President has some of the finest speechwriters money can buy. Remember his address to the Nation after the attacks on 9/11? If they gave out Academy Awards for Presidential speeches, that one would have been sure to bring George the Oscar.
In stunning contrast, look at some of his words from his speech given today(Yahoo! News - Bush Marks First Anniversary of Iraq War), on the one-year anniversary of the start of the Iraq War:
"It is the interest of every country and the duty of every government to fight and destroy this threat to our people," the president said.
Now, is he REALLY saying that every other country has a duty to protect the American people? Isn't that what he means by "our people"? Or do his speechwriters not care about proper grammar? Damn, put the period after "threat" and call it a sentence.
Or how about this obfuscating gem:
"There is no neutral ground...no neutral ground...in the fight between civilization and terror, because there is no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery, and life and death," Bush said.
Since when was the so-called "war on terror" a "fight between civilization and terror"? Since when is warfare "civil"? And since it's apparently such an important term, what the heck does he mean by "neutral ground" anyway? Isn't he basically saying "if you ain't with us, you're against us?" Hell, he already said THAT a year ago...back when he was insisting that we were in imminent danger from Hussein's WMDs.
I guess he's saying "you're either civilized, or a terrorist"; "you're either good or evil"; one can only be free or enslaved. One can only be either alive or dead. Well that last one I can agree with, but there are certainly shades of gray for the other examples. Let's take a Boeing 757 for instance; it can be both good and evil, depending on who's doing the flying, right?
It may seem that I'm nitpicking the President's figures of speech, but hey, my original point is that he has the best screenwriters in the world on his payroll, and THIS is the best they can do?
Finally, how about this conundrum:
"The war on terror is not a figure of speech," he said. "It is an inescapable calling of our generation."
What the hell...? You mean this is an actual War? Well then, what are the objectives of this "War"? About a year ago, Bush said his intention was to rid the world of evil. No one in their right mind would set, and expect to achieve, such an absurd objective. If the presence of evil is good enough for God, who are we to try to eliminate it? He couldn't possibly be serious, could he?
In this "War", who and where are the combatants? How will we know if we are, in fact, achieving our objectives? These major questions have NEVER been addressed in any meaningful public forum or document. Someone must know the answers to these questions, right?
Look, as long as this administration continues to sell us an unwinnable war, they will also continue to resort to rhetoric like that sentence. And now he asserts that this "war" is "inescapable". Bush and his speechwriters must take their lines from the George Orwell guidebook to mass hypnotism. They believe that if they say it long enough, it will eventually be believed by the masses.
If we don't bounce this clown in November, we deserve him.
More later...
Paul
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)