Much talk in the news about the President's "surprise" visit to Iraq. The Administration is spinning this as some daring act of heroism on the President's part. I suspect most of America is responding in the manner my mom did. To paraphrase, "Damn right he should be going over there after he's had all of those people risk their lives for him."
My mom was a big supporter of the bombing or Afganistan. As was I, actually. Indeed, as was most of the international community. But like me, and most of the international community, she's never seen the connection to the War on Terror and the War on Iraq. A couple years ago, my mom was being down right jingoistic, but now she's been completely put off by Bush. I guess it just goes to show its not just the good will of the world he has squandered as he has turned attention away from an increasingly active Al quieda and to the hardly imminently threatening Iraq. So, upon hearing that he was visiting the troops, she thought it was literally the least he could do.
Of course, he's also facing some pretty tough questions from the White House Press Corps over this. Mostly because he just pissed them all off by lying to most of them for weeks and hand-picking a select group of reporters who got to tag along. It reminds me of Valentine's Day in elementary school when it was made very clear to me and my class mates that we had to get Valentine's for everyone, lest anyone feel left out. I guess they didn't touch such lessons in sensitivity to other's feelings back when Bush was in grade school. The greater concern is whether those invited were chosen because they were especially friendly with the White House. And, of course, the President does himself no favors when he basically tells the left out and lied to reporters that they should be thanking him.
This is not to say that a level of secrecy wouldn't have been warrented. Regardless of my personal feelings about his job performance, I certainly can acknowledge that a great deal of care is needed when visiting a war zone. And while it certainly has hints of his grandstanding habits, I am sure the troops appreciated it in a way that the crew of the Air Craft Carrier the White House placed just out of sight of San Diego wouldn't.
Still, it all just feels so over the top. Like W. realized he could live out his spy fantasies as he sneaks around "undercover" posing as a couple with Condi Rice. And of course, his paternal instincts kept kicking in as he threatended to turn Air Force One around if the reporters didn't behave. Seems like this all could have been accomplished if the President planned to have Thanksgiving Dinner at a military base in Germany but was really bound for Iraq. Then you can get a full press contingent who just don't know the scope of their visit until they find themselves getting off the plane in Baghdad.
The other thing is, it doesn't seem like it was all that safe. I mean, he did fly one of the two planes outfitted as Air Force 1. Even with a fighter patrol and AF1's impressive defense measures, seems like that would be a pretty noticable target. They actually were spotted by a British Airways pilot. I'm not expert, but you have to think that some Iraqi with a beef against the US might have noticed it, too.
But, they felt it was secure, so I'll go with their judgement. I'm more concerned by their typical stand-offish response. I'd be more impressed with this sort of thing if it wasn't always so overtly orchestrated or if they weren't premptively defensive. It is reminding me of the minor out-cry over Bush's plane hopping on September 11. A lot of people were fairly upset that our President was not providing visible leadership in one of the darkest hours of American history. But the Secret Service were also fairly concerned about safe-guarding the President's safety. The nation hoping made sense, even if the risk was slight. A few people would find issue, but they really weren't being fair. And yet, the White House still felt compelled to lie about it and make up a story about how they knew Air Force One was being targeted and they had to evade attack. It was all fantasy. They had no such information. Now, they didn't have any reason to lie. They had a reasonable explanation and an understanding public, but they still were making up stories. That's really disturbing all on its own.
11.29.2003
11.27.2003
happy thanksgiving
Sorry for the last post, but I just had to say it. Funny way two months of daily personal insults can take their toil.
I hope everyone's Thanksgiving is going well. Turkey Day has never been a big deal to me, probably because I'm a vegetarian. My Thanksgiving memories are of being at relatives and feeling uncomfortable at everyone trying to accomidate me. That's the thing that sucks the most about being a veggie is other people feeling bad about not accomidating you. I genuinely don't mind. Obviously, its something I'm used to and completely understanding about, but it makes me feel bad that they are feeling bad, and its all just a big vicious cycle.
So, the last two years, I've just stayed by myself all day. Actually, I did that the previous two years when I lived with my ex, but that was mostly because I wasn't allowed to see her family so the option of spending the day with her was out of the question. BUT ANYWAY... I've just kept to myself the last two years and I really don't mind. Its kinda nice. I'm making some Salmon Mignon, got myself one of those little Frisbee pies so I've got that covered, and am just going to chill out. Watch some parade, watch some football, and just relax. I actually have to work on Friday (and Sunday, for that matter) so the little break will come in handy. Might even catch up on some email I've been long delinquent on and maybe right some posts I keep meaning to. Maybe if I toss them all out at once, my cyber stalker won't know what to insult! Now there is an idea.
But, until then, my best wishes for a happy holiday to you all, and special good wishes to Kell and her progress with NaNoWriMo. Happy Thanksgiving!
I hope everyone's Thanksgiving is going well. Turkey Day has never been a big deal to me, probably because I'm a vegetarian. My Thanksgiving memories are of being at relatives and feeling uncomfortable at everyone trying to accomidate me. That's the thing that sucks the most about being a veggie is other people feeling bad about not accomidating you. I genuinely don't mind. Obviously, its something I'm used to and completely understanding about, but it makes me feel bad that they are feeling bad, and its all just a big vicious cycle.
So, the last two years, I've just stayed by myself all day. Actually, I did that the previous two years when I lived with my ex, but that was mostly because I wasn't allowed to see her family so the option of spending the day with her was out of the question. BUT ANYWAY... I've just kept to myself the last two years and I really don't mind. Its kinda nice. I'm making some Salmon Mignon, got myself one of those little Frisbee pies so I've got that covered, and am just going to chill out. Watch some parade, watch some football, and just relax. I actually have to work on Friday (and Sunday, for that matter) so the little break will come in handy. Might even catch up on some email I've been long delinquent on and maybe right some posts I keep meaning to. Maybe if I toss them all out at once, my cyber stalker won't know what to insult! Now there is an idea.
But, until then, my best wishes for a happy holiday to you all, and special good wishes to Kell and her progress with NaNoWriMo. Happy Thanksgiving!
fed up
Some folks over at the BFB may have noticed that I've been hounding a particular poster and I thought I'd explain my actions fully. "Mary" is the same person who has posted here under a number of nick names, most recently as "Timmy the Troll". In addition to posting a host of bigoted and hateful things here on a daily basis for over two months, he/she also encouraged others at a hate site to troll my site. And yes, they ARE the same person, even if Mary sneaks in a post pretending otherwise. She posted as Timmy and as herself with the same IP address on the same day while she was also posting at the BFB. And it is an absolute certainty that she encouraged others to join in harassing me. Sorry, but I don't find her claim of innocence to be remotely true. You don't get to round up people to attack someone, and they act like you had nothing to do with. He/she is a pathetic liar and just a sick excuse for a human being.
No, I don't play nice with a person like that. Funny thing happens when you viciously insult someone on a daily basis for two months.
Moreover, his/her pattern of posts on the BFB have been textbook trolling. No, not of the outrageous variety, but rather of the kind who tries to change the subject from advancing the civil rights of fat people at every turn. His/her posts are uniformly counterproductive, but in a subtle enough manner that it may not be apparent unless you knew what he/she is up to. I'm hardly clairvoyant. I just know who was responsible for organizing a troll attack on this site. I also know that she used the same MO at NAAFA's site where she tried to make an issue out of a non-issue just to change the subject and put fat activists on the defensive for something they didn't even do.
No, I don't appreciate that. I'm sick of it. I'm fed up with people like that. You folks don't see the effects of his/her attacks on this site. You might see an occassional post before I can delete it, but I doubt you understand the scope of what he/she has been up to. I'm not kidding when I say his/her harrassment has been a daily affair. Indeed, it's contributed to a drop-off in my posting because I am just so sick of having to deal with their personal insults every time I post. I'm frankly more sick to see that person posting at a site that should be a valuable resource, and I'm not just not going to stay quiet about it. I'm not going to play nice with some cyberstalker. I'm just not.
No, I don't play nice with a person like that. Funny thing happens when you viciously insult someone on a daily basis for two months.
Moreover, his/her pattern of posts on the BFB have been textbook trolling. No, not of the outrageous variety, but rather of the kind who tries to change the subject from advancing the civil rights of fat people at every turn. His/her posts are uniformly counterproductive, but in a subtle enough manner that it may not be apparent unless you knew what he/she is up to. I'm hardly clairvoyant. I just know who was responsible for organizing a troll attack on this site. I also know that she used the same MO at NAAFA's site where she tried to make an issue out of a non-issue just to change the subject and put fat activists on the defensive for something they didn't even do.
No, I don't appreciate that. I'm sick of it. I'm fed up with people like that. You folks don't see the effects of his/her attacks on this site. You might see an occassional post before I can delete it, but I doubt you understand the scope of what he/she has been up to. I'm not kidding when I say his/her harrassment has been a daily affair. Indeed, it's contributed to a drop-off in my posting because I am just so sick of having to deal with their personal insults every time I post. I'm frankly more sick to see that person posting at a site that should be a valuable resource, and I'm not just not going to stay quiet about it. I'm not going to play nice with some cyberstalker. I'm just not.
11.24.2003
for all of my bald gay readers
Some very positive news out of the Bay State this weekend. While Massachusetts has tended to poll in favor of gay marriage, the numbers have always been close. Back in April, it was 50% supporting and 44% opposing, and that was before the jump in opposition that was seen in national polls after the Lawrence decision from the Supreme Court and Canada's move to legalize gay marriage. One might have suspected a surge in opposition after last week's court ruling.
Actually, it was the opposite. Well, kinda.
Support stood firm at 50% but opposition took a steep drop. Also, opposition to a Constitutional Ammendment banning gay marriage was even stronger, sitting at 53% opposed. That has to be a positive sign that the Commonwealth can hold the line on this, even if the politicians try to dump an Ammendment in our laps. Especially since the soonest it would be on the ballet would be during a mid-term election year with a Governor race to boot. A high turn-out would reduce the chance for a bill with marginal poll numbers to sneak through.
When asked about affording the legal rights and responsibilities, some polls saw the numbers climb very high, in fact. Up past 70% support, actually. This offers more reason to suspect that if this issue can be framed properly, that support will jump. If people know this discussion is about the civil institution and nothing to do with their personal religious beliefs, I think a lot more people would be uncomfortable opposing gay marriage. All interesting signs. One negative, though, is that the state's Governor and Attorney General and blatently misinterpreting the rulling as permiting Vermont-style civil unions instead of marriages, when almost all legal scholars and observors have noted how emphatic it was they were talking about marriage and that "seperate but equal" wouldn't remedy their concerns. But, I suspect the politicians are intent on calling the court's bluff on this one, and the court could well back down. I'd be comfortable with a seperate system, as long as it was called marriage, too. Either that, or start calling all civil marriages, civil unions and be done with it.
In non-gay marriage related news, I'm increasingly pissed off with these anti-baldness ads. It seems like once or twice a year, some baldness "cure" puts out an ad which is just out-right mean-spirited, and that time is now. Honestly, I can't think of a better case of someone promoting a stigma to promote their product. Not to say that there isn't stigmatization of baldness in our culture, but there is still something uncomfortably annoying about the way they are trying to promote those prejudices. I regard baldness cures in pretty much the same light as diet products to begin with, but outside of the dreck from Stacker 2 or, apparently, Amstel Light, they usually aren't just mean when promoting stigmas. Still, I'm not sure their faux emotional promotion of the same stigmas is any better. In a lot of ways, I can see how the mother who tells a story of how their child hated them for being fat doing a lot more damage than the gleeful cruelty of of an actress portraying a girlfriend bashing the boyfriend's formerly receeding hairline by means of praising his hairied self. But, lesser of two evils style discussions like this are always dramatically uninspiring. (yeah, i know that makes no sense, but it sounds nice) But the cruelty of the baldness cure ads increasingly seem to be more interested in promoting stigmatization than in just taking advantage of it.
Actually, it was the opposite. Well, kinda.
Support stood firm at 50% but opposition took a steep drop. Also, opposition to a Constitutional Ammendment banning gay marriage was even stronger, sitting at 53% opposed. That has to be a positive sign that the Commonwealth can hold the line on this, even if the politicians try to dump an Ammendment in our laps. Especially since the soonest it would be on the ballet would be during a mid-term election year with a Governor race to boot. A high turn-out would reduce the chance for a bill with marginal poll numbers to sneak through.
When asked about affording the legal rights and responsibilities, some polls saw the numbers climb very high, in fact. Up past 70% support, actually. This offers more reason to suspect that if this issue can be framed properly, that support will jump. If people know this discussion is about the civil institution and nothing to do with their personal religious beliefs, I think a lot more people would be uncomfortable opposing gay marriage. All interesting signs. One negative, though, is that the state's Governor and Attorney General and blatently misinterpreting the rulling as permiting Vermont-style civil unions instead of marriages, when almost all legal scholars and observors have noted how emphatic it was they were talking about marriage and that "seperate but equal" wouldn't remedy their concerns. But, I suspect the politicians are intent on calling the court's bluff on this one, and the court could well back down. I'd be comfortable with a seperate system, as long as it was called marriage, too. Either that, or start calling all civil marriages, civil unions and be done with it.
In non-gay marriage related news, I'm increasingly pissed off with these anti-baldness ads. It seems like once or twice a year, some baldness "cure" puts out an ad which is just out-right mean-spirited, and that time is now. Honestly, I can't think of a better case of someone promoting a stigma to promote their product. Not to say that there isn't stigmatization of baldness in our culture, but there is still something uncomfortably annoying about the way they are trying to promote those prejudices. I regard baldness cures in pretty much the same light as diet products to begin with, but outside of the dreck from Stacker 2 or, apparently, Amstel Light, they usually aren't just mean when promoting stigmas. Still, I'm not sure their faux emotional promotion of the same stigmas is any better. In a lot of ways, I can see how the mother who tells a story of how their child hated them for being fat doing a lot more damage than the gleeful cruelty of of an actress portraying a girlfriend bashing the boyfriend's formerly receeding hairline by means of praising his hairied self. But, lesser of two evils style discussions like this are always dramatically uninspiring. (yeah, i know that makes no sense, but it sounds nice) But the cruelty of the baldness cure ads increasingly seem to be more interested in promoting stigmatization than in just taking advantage of it.
11.20.2003
what to write, what to write...
Been debating topics to write about for a few days. I've been really burned out all month from work and haven't been writing as much as I'd like. Thank goodness I abandoned NaNoWriMo, because I'd be in no shape to write anything. But, this isn't a whine about work blog. Not that I think my superiors are web saavy enough to find me anyway, but I *really* am not interested in either boring you with that or dwelling on work on my own time.
Been thinking about writing a follow up to the gay marriage debate. For all my hand-wringing over worries of a back-lash, I've also found two reasons to look more optimistically at the situation. For one, gay marriage in Massachusetts is inevitable. Its gonna happen, that's pretty clear right now. That means any move to ban gay marriage is going to be a move to revoke people's rights, a move to end happy marriages. I'm not sure that will sit well with a lot of people. Arguing for the status quo is always easier, and in 6 months, gay marriage is going to be the status quo in the Commonwealth. The debate of gay marriage is dominated by moderates who currently disagree with gay marriage, but not that strongly. It may really challenge those people when real faces are put on this issue.
Also, I'm encouraged that the GOP wants to make an issue out of gay marriage in 2004. I think they are radically overestimating how much this means to that vast expanse of moderates. The people in the middle are precisely the type to be motivated by discouragement over the jobless "recovery", massive budget deficits, and the lack of focus in the Iraqi occupation. Abortion never ignited these people. Why is gay marriage going to? The real kicker is I think a lot of those people actually would support gay marriage if they thought about it too long. Especially since the GOP seems ill-prepared to keep the gay-hating attack dogs at bay, which will really put off the moderates. The hyperbole employed by even Republican leaders is going to annoy people. This maybe a deciding issue in 2004, but only if the GOP is hanging themselves with it.
But that's about all I have to say about that.
Thought about doing my second random thoughts post, but I really only have one random thought. How long will it take Ashton Kutchner to get washed-up enough to be doing Old Navy commercials?
Oh, and White Chocolate Reese's Peanut Butter Cup Miniatures freaking rule. I wish they'd make that a perminant variation. Its easily the best of the Reese's limited editions this year. I hated the Honey Roaster ones. Bleck!
And did you know Bloom County is (kinda) coming back? Opus anyway. Really, this is too important for a random thought. I loved Bloom County and Outland back in the day when I was too young to understand all of it. Its due back in the form of Sunday only strip starting this Sunday. Expect it to join Boondocks and Get Fuzzy among my linked comics. I've always loved the funny pages, especially the artists who really respect the medium. I'm still a little annoyed that we don't get any more Calvin and Hobbes. I'd also LOVE to be able to own all of the Peanuts strips over the years. Schultz *made* comic strips what they are. To paraphrase Get Fuzzy's aritst, all comics are either rip offs of Peanuts or rip offs of Far Side. (Darby Conley actually said that all comic strip artists fall into two categories: those who started out ripping off Far Side, and those who won't admit they started out ripping off Far Side because they still are).
Have two longer posts I want to write, but I suspect they'll bore the heck out of my readers. Well, except the troll who can always be depended upon to read very closely to find out the best way to misrepresent something to justify his/her obsession with me. With the impending release of X-Men 2 on DVD, I kinda want to talk a bit about my super-hero fandom. You see, its funny because I hate comic books, but love comic book movies. That's pretty much the jist of the considered post, except I also bitch about why Warner Brothers is planning a new Superman movie instead of trying to build on their already successful Superman property, Smallville.
I also wanted to write a bit about my thoughts about being a moderate progressive (which in non-progressive circles means a solid progressive) but I think I've overdone it with politics in the last couple of days.
So, I write about nothing much. Just be glad I'm not discussing the latest episode of Angel or something horribly bloggish like that. hehe
Been thinking about writing a follow up to the gay marriage debate. For all my hand-wringing over worries of a back-lash, I've also found two reasons to look more optimistically at the situation. For one, gay marriage in Massachusetts is inevitable. Its gonna happen, that's pretty clear right now. That means any move to ban gay marriage is going to be a move to revoke people's rights, a move to end happy marriages. I'm not sure that will sit well with a lot of people. Arguing for the status quo is always easier, and in 6 months, gay marriage is going to be the status quo in the Commonwealth. The debate of gay marriage is dominated by moderates who currently disagree with gay marriage, but not that strongly. It may really challenge those people when real faces are put on this issue.
Also, I'm encouraged that the GOP wants to make an issue out of gay marriage in 2004. I think they are radically overestimating how much this means to that vast expanse of moderates. The people in the middle are precisely the type to be motivated by discouragement over the jobless "recovery", massive budget deficits, and the lack of focus in the Iraqi occupation. Abortion never ignited these people. Why is gay marriage going to? The real kicker is I think a lot of those people actually would support gay marriage if they thought about it too long. Especially since the GOP seems ill-prepared to keep the gay-hating attack dogs at bay, which will really put off the moderates. The hyperbole employed by even Republican leaders is going to annoy people. This maybe a deciding issue in 2004, but only if the GOP is hanging themselves with it.
But that's about all I have to say about that.
Thought about doing my second random thoughts post, but I really only have one random thought. How long will it take Ashton Kutchner to get washed-up enough to be doing Old Navy commercials?
Oh, and White Chocolate Reese's Peanut Butter Cup Miniatures freaking rule. I wish they'd make that a perminant variation. Its easily the best of the Reese's limited editions this year. I hated the Honey Roaster ones. Bleck!
And did you know Bloom County is (kinda) coming back? Opus anyway. Really, this is too important for a random thought. I loved Bloom County and Outland back in the day when I was too young to understand all of it. Its due back in the form of Sunday only strip starting this Sunday. Expect it to join Boondocks and Get Fuzzy among my linked comics. I've always loved the funny pages, especially the artists who really respect the medium. I'm still a little annoyed that we don't get any more Calvin and Hobbes. I'd also LOVE to be able to own all of the Peanuts strips over the years. Schultz *made* comic strips what they are. To paraphrase Get Fuzzy's aritst, all comics are either rip offs of Peanuts or rip offs of Far Side. (Darby Conley actually said that all comic strip artists fall into two categories: those who started out ripping off Far Side, and those who won't admit they started out ripping off Far Side because they still are).
Have two longer posts I want to write, but I suspect they'll bore the heck out of my readers. Well, except the troll who can always be depended upon to read very closely to find out the best way to misrepresent something to justify his/her obsession with me. With the impending release of X-Men 2 on DVD, I kinda want to talk a bit about my super-hero fandom. You see, its funny because I hate comic books, but love comic book movies. That's pretty much the jist of the considered post, except I also bitch about why Warner Brothers is planning a new Superman movie instead of trying to build on their already successful Superman property, Smallville.
I also wanted to write a bit about my thoughts about being a moderate progressive (which in non-progressive circles means a solid progressive) but I think I've overdone it with politics in the last couple of days.
So, I write about nothing much. Just be glad I'm not discussing the latest episode of Angel or something horribly bloggish like that. hehe
11.18.2003
wow.
The top court in Massachusetts just tossed out a ban on gay marriage in Massachusetts and have ordered the legislature to fix it within 180 days. The kicker is, they specifically stated that Vermont style Civil Unions would not satisfy the court's concerns with the law. Simply put, seperate but equal ain't enough. Hawaii and Alaska both saw the same thing, but each were able to get amendments passed. Although an amendment to the State Constitution would probably pass, it also seems like there is enough support in the state Senate to prevent it from getting out of convention. What's more, procedures in Massachusetts would prevent such an amendment from taking effect until 2006, at which point the genie will be decidedly out of the bottle.
I'm frankly stunned at this. It's been hanging for about 6 months as the Court considered the case, a really extraordinary length of time for deliberation. Moreover, I was expecting the court to take the stance lower courts did, that this is an issue that is best left to the legislature. I kinda agreed with that, too, but never very strongly. I am deeply concerned about what damage could be done to the movement for gay rights by too much coming too soon. I mean, the Supreme Court only recently decided that having consentual gay sex was a protected activity, and even THAT caused an outrage. I worry that more mainstream unease with homosexuality could be ignited if the marriage thing came too quickly. At the same time, it is impossible to ignore how many extraordinarily important changes took place in this country because the courts stepped in. Indeed, the only important change in civil rights that took place without the courts was the abolishing of slavery, which the Supreme Court got very, very wrong. They got segregation wrong, too, but they also took the opportunity to fix that. Sometimes, that is the only way for change to take place.
I guess my concern is that I don't think this is the only way to break down bans on gay marriage. I think it is increasingly clear that things are moving overwhelmingly in the direction of supporting gay rights, and it may well have happened within a decade or two on its own. If, however, constitutional ammendments are passed, that will make things MUCH more difficult. Especially in the thankfully unlikely event that a federal ammendment gets passed. But, even gay marriage opponents don't think that's a good thing. A few of them aren't as hypocritically conservative as others.
Former Rep. Bob Barr, for instance, is at least consistant to his philosophy. Hardly a friend to the gay lobby, he is the guy who spearheaded the stupid fight for the Defense of Marriage act. But, he's at least being consistant. The DOMA allowed states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed out of the state and denied federal benefits to gay partners. Seemed like a much ado about nothing, at the time, but it seems Barr has a soft touch. He's an ardent federalist, and doesn't like the idea of meddling with the constitution to either restate what the DOMA already does or more importantly, forbid states from setting their own marriage laws as they sit fit. He is, it seems, one Republican who really means it when he says "State's Rights". He doesn't just want it when it serves his idealogy. I still think the guy is dead wrong, but I do admire ideaological consistancy like that.
But, for now, a huge victory for gay marriage may be 180 days away. I just hope it isn't a prelude to a lot of huge setbacks.
I'm frankly stunned at this. It's been hanging for about 6 months as the Court considered the case, a really extraordinary length of time for deliberation. Moreover, I was expecting the court to take the stance lower courts did, that this is an issue that is best left to the legislature. I kinda agreed with that, too, but never very strongly. I am deeply concerned about what damage could be done to the movement for gay rights by too much coming too soon. I mean, the Supreme Court only recently decided that having consentual gay sex was a protected activity, and even THAT caused an outrage. I worry that more mainstream unease with homosexuality could be ignited if the marriage thing came too quickly. At the same time, it is impossible to ignore how many extraordinarily important changes took place in this country because the courts stepped in. Indeed, the only important change in civil rights that took place without the courts was the abolishing of slavery, which the Supreme Court got very, very wrong. They got segregation wrong, too, but they also took the opportunity to fix that. Sometimes, that is the only way for change to take place.
I guess my concern is that I don't think this is the only way to break down bans on gay marriage. I think it is increasingly clear that things are moving overwhelmingly in the direction of supporting gay rights, and it may well have happened within a decade or two on its own. If, however, constitutional ammendments are passed, that will make things MUCH more difficult. Especially in the thankfully unlikely event that a federal ammendment gets passed. But, even gay marriage opponents don't think that's a good thing. A few of them aren't as hypocritically conservative as others.
Former Rep. Bob Barr, for instance, is at least consistant to his philosophy. Hardly a friend to the gay lobby, he is the guy who spearheaded the stupid fight for the Defense of Marriage act. But, he's at least being consistant. The DOMA allowed states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed out of the state and denied federal benefits to gay partners. Seemed like a much ado about nothing, at the time, but it seems Barr has a soft touch. He's an ardent federalist, and doesn't like the idea of meddling with the constitution to either restate what the DOMA already does or more importantly, forbid states from setting their own marriage laws as they sit fit. He is, it seems, one Republican who really means it when he says "State's Rights". He doesn't just want it when it serves his idealogy. I still think the guy is dead wrong, but I do admire ideaological consistancy like that.
But, for now, a huge victory for gay marriage may be 180 days away. I just hope it isn't a prelude to a lot of huge setbacks.
i hate the music industry
Have I mentioned how much I hate the music industry? Because I really hate the music industry. They are destroying music, running their business like idiots, and then they blame their fans for their troubles. I've never downloaded an album I could have bought. I have bought albums because I had downloaded tracks, though. I'm not alone, either. Downloading has, at times, made me more motivated to be interested in music.
I'm lucky that my favorite band, R.E.M., is astonishingly downloader friendly. Although in this day and age that's really just being fan friendly. I'm amazed at what they do for their fans interested in their work, and it has managed to increase my interest in one the handful of acts I'm really interested in. A while back, they released an entire album online. Not new stuff, granted, but it was an album of remixes from their most recent album. A mixed bag, but it was just plain awesome that they did it. Even offered album art to download. They've also offered their explicit endorsement to a fan downloading site which fosters trading in bootlegs and B-Sides among their fans. They even got better when they recently offered access to ALL of their videos and some live video to boot. Yes, ALL of their music videos. How cool is that? I mean, this is a band known for their cutting edge and creative videos, and they've got it all there. This is an act doing things right. They've also got the clout to do that. Most artists are too busy being stuck in the disturbingly unfair contracts that are standard in the music biz. Any time the music companies claim they are doing things to protect the poor artists, they are lying. Its that simple. Did you know a musician whose music is sold online as a download is still charged in their royalties the cost of damaged CD's? Do you know how many pennies an artist receives from those low-overhead music downloads? Do you know the music companies aren't even bothering to PAY the artists for the download services they set up?
I recently bought an MP3 player. Well, okay, not really. Its one of those CD players that can play CD's burned with MP3's. A cool comparmise from a real MP3 player. But, it requires blank CDs, which I've started using a lot. I stocked up on them years ago when I first got a CD burner because they were dirt cheap. And I mean CHEAP. I got 250 blank CD's without paying a cent through really generous rebates. Now, I wouldn't expect that forever, but the regular price was still good. Now, they cost a ton. And why? Because they are secretly taxed and the proceeds go directly to the music companies. Its supposed to also go to artists, but guess who isn't paying the artists their share of these taxes? The tax is secret because its built into the retail price of the blank CD's, much like blank cassette tapes. The theory is that it is to pay for the music downloading that goes. But, you pay whether you use the CDs to back up files or to burn music. Doesn't matter. Everyone pays.
Which is pretty much when I stopped feeling remotely sorry for the music industry. Why shouldn't I steal music when I've already been fined just in case I steal music? Honestly, how am I supposed to think what I'm doing is wrong when I'll be punished for it whether I do it or not.
What's frustrating is that the companies are sitting on a goldmine in their back catalogs. This is stuff they aren't making a red cent on, but absurdly get to control. Dump all of that great old stuff on a site, charge a low monthly or yearly fee, and allow unlimited downloading. And don't handicap the files, either. Allow them to be used however the buyer pleases. Fair use is protected in the US, even if the music comapnies don't like it. I can tell you I'd sign up for that. I remember a Mama Cass special a while back (check my post from 9.20.2003) and I kept thinking that I'd love to hear more of her early folk stuff. But I'm no idiot. That stuff is non-existant on CD. I'd have loved to have been able to just jump online and download it. I can think of tons of stuff I'd love to have. Yes, it'd cost money to set up, but this is stuff they aren't earning a dime on that could definetly bring in some cash. Plus, it'd work to preserve culture, which ought to be an obligation of the Music Industry. But, as we've seen with the attacks on copyright limits, the entertainment biz doesn't much care about advancing the arts and sciences.
Ah, screw it. I know that this is vitriol. No solution, spleen-venting, but I feel better having screamed. Don't you?
(Major brownie points to anyone who can identify that without googling)
I'm lucky that my favorite band, R.E.M., is astonishingly downloader friendly. Although in this day and age that's really just being fan friendly. I'm amazed at what they do for their fans interested in their work, and it has managed to increase my interest in one the handful of acts I'm really interested in. A while back, they released an entire album online. Not new stuff, granted, but it was an album of remixes from their most recent album. A mixed bag, but it was just plain awesome that they did it. Even offered album art to download. They've also offered their explicit endorsement to a fan downloading site which fosters trading in bootlegs and B-Sides among their fans. They even got better when they recently offered access to ALL of their videos and some live video to boot. Yes, ALL of their music videos. How cool is that? I mean, this is a band known for their cutting edge and creative videos, and they've got it all there. This is an act doing things right. They've also got the clout to do that. Most artists are too busy being stuck in the disturbingly unfair contracts that are standard in the music biz. Any time the music companies claim they are doing things to protect the poor artists, they are lying. Its that simple. Did you know a musician whose music is sold online as a download is still charged in their royalties the cost of damaged CD's? Do you know how many pennies an artist receives from those low-overhead music downloads? Do you know the music companies aren't even bothering to PAY the artists for the download services they set up?
I recently bought an MP3 player. Well, okay, not really. Its one of those CD players that can play CD's burned with MP3's. A cool comparmise from a real MP3 player. But, it requires blank CDs, which I've started using a lot. I stocked up on them years ago when I first got a CD burner because they were dirt cheap. And I mean CHEAP. I got 250 blank CD's without paying a cent through really generous rebates. Now, I wouldn't expect that forever, but the regular price was still good. Now, they cost a ton. And why? Because they are secretly taxed and the proceeds go directly to the music companies. Its supposed to also go to artists, but guess who isn't paying the artists their share of these taxes? The tax is secret because its built into the retail price of the blank CD's, much like blank cassette tapes. The theory is that it is to pay for the music downloading that goes. But, you pay whether you use the CDs to back up files or to burn music. Doesn't matter. Everyone pays.
Which is pretty much when I stopped feeling remotely sorry for the music industry. Why shouldn't I steal music when I've already been fined just in case I steal music? Honestly, how am I supposed to think what I'm doing is wrong when I'll be punished for it whether I do it or not.
What's frustrating is that the companies are sitting on a goldmine in their back catalogs. This is stuff they aren't making a red cent on, but absurdly get to control. Dump all of that great old stuff on a site, charge a low monthly or yearly fee, and allow unlimited downloading. And don't handicap the files, either. Allow them to be used however the buyer pleases. Fair use is protected in the US, even if the music comapnies don't like it. I can tell you I'd sign up for that. I remember a Mama Cass special a while back (check my post from 9.20.2003) and I kept thinking that I'd love to hear more of her early folk stuff. But I'm no idiot. That stuff is non-existant on CD. I'd have loved to have been able to just jump online and download it. I can think of tons of stuff I'd love to have. Yes, it'd cost money to set up, but this is stuff they aren't earning a dime on that could definetly bring in some cash. Plus, it'd work to preserve culture, which ought to be an obligation of the Music Industry. But, as we've seen with the attacks on copyright limits, the entertainment biz doesn't much care about advancing the arts and sciences.
Ah, screw it. I know that this is vitriol. No solution, spleen-venting, but I feel better having screamed. Don't you?
(Major brownie points to anyone who can identify that without googling)
11.13.2003
wes clark loses me
This is what you get for pandering to the jingoistic American Legion. I wanted to like Wesley Clark, I really did. But I cannot support a candidate who believes in meddling with the first amendment. We have never passed a repeal of our First Amendment rights, and we never should. Freedom of expression is perhaps our most important liberty. It is supremely American and it is an insult to all that our flag stands for to suggest we roll-back those rights. This is a liberty our founders took very seriously, and it is something every American should be proud of.
I got to sit through a day long American Legion propaganda session when I did Boy's State in high school trying to pressure us to support their effort to re-write freedom of expression. Their lack of a coherant point was breath-taking. It was pure jingoism meant to indoctronate 16 and 17 year olds. Indeed, the whole flap over flag burning is a much-ado-about-nothing scenario. It's a fake issue. Flag burnings happen so infrequently as to further make a mockery of the supposed justification of re-writing the constitution. This just doesn't deserve such attention. Its an issue being exploited by people. This is no reason to undermine the Constitution.
America is more than a symbol. It is more than 13 bars, 50 stars, and a field of blue. What makes our nation is justice, liberty, freedom. That is what our soldiers fight for when the fight under our flag. This is what my father and my grandfather fought for. Not for the flag itself, but for what it means. Frankly, I think it represents a massive failure in teaching civics that this is not just understood. That people don't understand that the flag is nothing compared to what this nations really stands for. We, as a nation, clearly have not adequately informed our citizenry of what it means to be an America. Our Constitution ought to be much more sacred than our flag. Even if you don't think people ought to be burning flags, how can you think it merits meddling in such a genuinely sacred symbol of America.
I don't like it that people burn the flag to make a point. I think it is callous and unproductive. But that is their right. If it is okay for someone to promote horrible racism, how can we say that burning some fabric is the more heinous crime? Both are bad, but also are proof of the resiliency of the American nation and the American spirit. Someone burning our flag is no threat to our nation. How dare we repeal the first amendment to outlay such an unimportant issue. We should not embarass the generations to come with the specticle of a crossed out amendment. We made a mistake once in our history, and it remains a national shame that we abused our Constitution over such a trivial issue as alcohol. There are important reasons to ammend the Constitution. Flag burning is most decidedly NOT it.
Some say that this amendment is intended to be for our veterens. Rather than tamper with a liberty those veterens served in defense of, why not provide more health care for those have performed duty for the armed forces? Why not shore up the benefits our injured soldiers can recieve. A former POW who was shot twice in the line of duty was offered a paltry 30% disability. That is respect for our veterens? Effort that could be spent protecting those who risk life and limb for all that that this nation stands for is instead spent pursuing a silly perversion of our Constitution.
So, I have lost a great deal of respect for Wesley Clark. He was pandering to an American Legion audience. He should know better. As should Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich who have also consistantly supported repealing a freedom of expression. Howard Dean has gone the route of attacking the first ammendment but not clearly stating that HE wants to attack the first ammendment. I don't get it, either, but thus far he hasn't had the power to actually make this issue a problem. And much credit must be given to John Kerry, John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman who have defended the sanctity of our Constitution in the US Senate, as did Carol Moseley-Braun when she served as Senator. I can't find what Al Sharpton thinks, but I guess he doesn't support amending the Constitution. I still single out the Senators who have made a real contribution to defending our Constitution and am especially ashamed of the Representatives who made a contribution to meddling with it.
I got to sit through a day long American Legion propaganda session when I did Boy's State in high school trying to pressure us to support their effort to re-write freedom of expression. Their lack of a coherant point was breath-taking. It was pure jingoism meant to indoctronate 16 and 17 year olds. Indeed, the whole flap over flag burning is a much-ado-about-nothing scenario. It's a fake issue. Flag burnings happen so infrequently as to further make a mockery of the supposed justification of re-writing the constitution. This just doesn't deserve such attention. Its an issue being exploited by people. This is no reason to undermine the Constitution.
America is more than a symbol. It is more than 13 bars, 50 stars, and a field of blue. What makes our nation is justice, liberty, freedom. That is what our soldiers fight for when the fight under our flag. This is what my father and my grandfather fought for. Not for the flag itself, but for what it means. Frankly, I think it represents a massive failure in teaching civics that this is not just understood. That people don't understand that the flag is nothing compared to what this nations really stands for. We, as a nation, clearly have not adequately informed our citizenry of what it means to be an America. Our Constitution ought to be much more sacred than our flag. Even if you don't think people ought to be burning flags, how can you think it merits meddling in such a genuinely sacred symbol of America.
I don't like it that people burn the flag to make a point. I think it is callous and unproductive. But that is their right. If it is okay for someone to promote horrible racism, how can we say that burning some fabric is the more heinous crime? Both are bad, but also are proof of the resiliency of the American nation and the American spirit. Someone burning our flag is no threat to our nation. How dare we repeal the first amendment to outlay such an unimportant issue. We should not embarass the generations to come with the specticle of a crossed out amendment. We made a mistake once in our history, and it remains a national shame that we abused our Constitution over such a trivial issue as alcohol. There are important reasons to ammend the Constitution. Flag burning is most decidedly NOT it.
Some say that this amendment is intended to be for our veterens. Rather than tamper with a liberty those veterens served in defense of, why not provide more health care for those have performed duty for the armed forces? Why not shore up the benefits our injured soldiers can recieve. A former POW who was shot twice in the line of duty was offered a paltry 30% disability. That is respect for our veterens? Effort that could be spent protecting those who risk life and limb for all that that this nation stands for is instead spent pursuing a silly perversion of our Constitution.
So, I have lost a great deal of respect for Wesley Clark. He was pandering to an American Legion audience. He should know better. As should Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich who have also consistantly supported repealing a freedom of expression. Howard Dean has gone the route of attacking the first ammendment but not clearly stating that HE wants to attack the first ammendment. I don't get it, either, but thus far he hasn't had the power to actually make this issue a problem. And much credit must be given to John Kerry, John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman who have defended the sanctity of our Constitution in the US Senate, as did Carol Moseley-Braun when she served as Senator. I can't find what Al Sharpton thinks, but I guess he doesn't support amending the Constitution. I still single out the Senators who have made a real contribution to defending our Constitution and am especially ashamed of the Representatives who made a contribution to meddling with it.
11.12.2003
oh, me of little faith (and ability)
Not long after I "gave up" on my novel, I started reconsidering what my issues were. I largely decided that my concept was the primary problem and it was just too weak for what I wanted to do with it. Now, when I first thought about doing NaNoWriMo, I had an idea pop into my head right away but I dismissed it as too science fiction-ish. This wasn't entirely fair, as the idea was really a sort of post-modern after-life mythology, but it seemed close enough. When I gave up on the college story, though, I reconsidered my original idea. In about 6 hours of thinking about it, I had a very fully formed plot, a strong cast of characters, two alternative endings, and a very good understanding for the physical reality of the novel. I was feeling very secure, and very silly for my prior defeatism. But, I continued to procrastinate the actual writing.
I finally sat down today to work on it, and I tossed off 1,000 words in about an hour. Problem is, I hated it. So, I'm back where I was before, only with a better idea now. I'm still thinking overly visually. I'm seeing the story, but that doesn't mean I'm translating it well at all. I still have the basic problem that I don't know how to write fiction. Based in no small part to me not reading much fiction. I'd like to get back to it, so I'm thinking of the project on hiatus, but I have no illusion that I'll be able to do anything this month. But, I'm really excited about the idea which leaves me a little creatively frustrated.
Ah, well. For another day, I suppose.
I finally sat down today to work on it, and I tossed off 1,000 words in about an hour. Problem is, I hated it. So, I'm back where I was before, only with a better idea now. I'm still thinking overly visually. I'm seeing the story, but that doesn't mean I'm translating it well at all. I still have the basic problem that I don't know how to write fiction. Based in no small part to me not reading much fiction. I'd like to get back to it, so I'm thinking of the project on hiatus, but I have no illusion that I'll be able to do anything this month. But, I'm really excited about the idea which leaves me a little creatively frustrated.
Ah, well. For another day, I suppose.
11.11.2003
movie review- elf
I saw the new holiday comedy Elf over the weekend and was quite amused. It worked on just about every level and had quite a few laugh out loud moments, which is saying a lot for me. I like my comedy, but I'm usually amused inwardedly, you know? But there were more than a few moments when I just burst out laughing.
Will Ferrell as Buddy the Elf is used to perfection. He carries the movie but manages to not get old. He threatens at a couple points, but the director held firm and rode through the rough waters. This is what Ferrell does best, without a doubt, and his given the room to do what he does, but not more than is needed. This is best accomplished by an outstanding supporting cast that is more than capable of holding their own with the sceen stealing Ferrell. James Cann is very suited to the role of Buddy's Naughty List residing father. He's bad, but not so bad that his redemntion seems inappropriate. Zooey Deschanel is a revelation as Buddy's object of affection. Its a too small part, but Zooey's work makes it hold its own. She was really so good that I was surprised I hadn't seen her in much. Especially when I realized what I recognized her from were from two great films, Almost Famous and The Good Girl, I was stunned that I haven't seen more from her. She was really spot on. I can't even quite explain the effect she created, but it was that kind of awkward, counter-culture cute that seems to go over well in Hollywood and I didn't really see what seperated Zooey from, say, Maggie Gyllenhaal who seems a lot more recognizable. There's also some other actresses doing this sort of thing that I can't remember right now. ANYWAY, the supporting cast also featured some great turns from Faizon Love, Mary Steenburgen, Amy Sedaris, and especially Bob Newhart as Buddy's adoptive father and Ed freakin' Asner as Santa Claus. How cool is that?
ANYWAY, the story is really held together by excellent writing. A lot of time is taken up in setting up the story, which means they do kind of rush the resolution. This bothered me at first, but the more I thought about it, the more I saw this as a good trade-off. Setting up the North Pole so well allowed them to go where they did with Buddy's character. It had to be understood that he really wasn't an idiot, just very very earnest. It wasn't just him, after all. We saw it. It really gave them a lot of freedom to do a lot of funny stuff. It also made the quick resolution make some sense, as we could understand what an honest and genuine person Buddy was, we could understand how he could change these people so quickly.
But, that's reading a lot more than is necessary into what aspires to nothing more than being a fun Christmas movie. Good for adults, good for kids, and quite possibly a holiday classic in the making in the mold of Scrooged.
(I'm always amazed at how an agnostic like myself can get into Christmas every year, but I guess that's just a testament to what a secular holiday it has become.)
Will Ferrell as Buddy the Elf is used to perfection. He carries the movie but manages to not get old. He threatens at a couple points, but the director held firm and rode through the rough waters. This is what Ferrell does best, without a doubt, and his given the room to do what he does, but not more than is needed. This is best accomplished by an outstanding supporting cast that is more than capable of holding their own with the sceen stealing Ferrell. James Cann is very suited to the role of Buddy's Naughty List residing father. He's bad, but not so bad that his redemntion seems inappropriate. Zooey Deschanel is a revelation as Buddy's object of affection. Its a too small part, but Zooey's work makes it hold its own. She was really so good that I was surprised I hadn't seen her in much. Especially when I realized what I recognized her from were from two great films, Almost Famous and The Good Girl, I was stunned that I haven't seen more from her. She was really spot on. I can't even quite explain the effect she created, but it was that kind of awkward, counter-culture cute that seems to go over well in Hollywood and I didn't really see what seperated Zooey from, say, Maggie Gyllenhaal who seems a lot more recognizable. There's also some other actresses doing this sort of thing that I can't remember right now. ANYWAY, the supporting cast also featured some great turns from Faizon Love, Mary Steenburgen, Amy Sedaris, and especially Bob Newhart as Buddy's adoptive father and Ed freakin' Asner as Santa Claus. How cool is that?
ANYWAY, the story is really held together by excellent writing. A lot of time is taken up in setting up the story, which means they do kind of rush the resolution. This bothered me at first, but the more I thought about it, the more I saw this as a good trade-off. Setting up the North Pole so well allowed them to go where they did with Buddy's character. It had to be understood that he really wasn't an idiot, just very very earnest. It wasn't just him, after all. We saw it. It really gave them a lot of freedom to do a lot of funny stuff. It also made the quick resolution make some sense, as we could understand what an honest and genuine person Buddy was, we could understand how he could change these people so quickly.
But, that's reading a lot more than is necessary into what aspires to nothing more than being a fun Christmas movie. Good for adults, good for kids, and quite possibly a holiday classic in the making in the mold of Scrooged.
(I'm always amazed at how an agnostic like myself can get into Christmas every year, but I guess that's just a testament to what a secular holiday it has become.)
11.06.2003
arnold and the private dick
Governor Elect Schwarzenegger is hiring a private investigator to investigate allegations of Arnold's wide-spread groping.
Um, huh?
His hiring a private eye to find out if he, himself, has done anything wrong?
I feel bad for the people who didn't vote for Arnold, because you got stuck with a REAL piece of work.
Um, huh?
His hiring a private eye to find out if he, himself, has done anything wrong?
I feel bad for the people who didn't vote for Arnold, because you got stuck with a REAL piece of work.
11.05.2003
casual day in the presidential race
Right in my own proverbial backyard, we had 8 of the 9 remaining candidates for the Democratic nomination appearing at a Rock the Vote forum/debate at Fanuial Hall. I missed the debate, both in person and on TV, but have been checking on the stories to find out what the deal with Howard Dean's confederate flag comments were. Now understanding the context, I have to say that I do think Edwards and Sharpton were wrong to attack him for it BUT that Dean did an embarassingly bad job defending himself. If you're going to take the route of a defiant defense, you should be able to put up a good one, and Dean didn't. The shame is, he did have a good point, but even I didn't get it until his last remark. And his initial comment didn't provide ANY of the context which made the remark a statement in support of racial diversity rather than pandering to racial tension.
The other thing I noted in the candid photographs of the event is how all of the candidates were clearly getting along, inspite of the bickering that went on in the debate. That is a powerful image that the Democratic Party NEEDS to use. Primarily elections need to be divisive, but we also need to show a unified front. I trust that is the belief of everyone in the race (though I have concerns about Sharpton due to past behavior, and Kucinich due to current remarks) and this needs to be stressed. The primaries are important, but do not show a lack of resolve on the part of Democrats. It better not, anyway. Any progressive who tries to claim there is no difference between a Democrat and George W. is going to look like a damn idiot now. They did back in 2000, mind you, but Nader was able to sway enough people with his false advertising. We mustn't let this happen again.
The other big issue, of course, is what they were wearing. To appeal to young voters, the candidates went casual to varying degrees. Mosley Braun, um, well she looked normal. So did Lieberman and Sharpton who came in wearing jackets which they both shed for the forum. Which actually left Sharpton looking kinda silly since his was a three-piece suit and he kept on an unbuttoned vest. Meanwhile, John Kerry lost a jacket, but he was already tie-less. Dean had no jacket, it seems, but he did have his sleeves rolled in a manner even I (a compulsive sleeve roller-upper) found goofy. And finally we had the turtleneck twins, Clark and Kucinich who just seemed out of place. Clark had on a black suit with a black turtleneck, which was really forboding on camera. I think Kucinich did the same, but lets face it, he will never look forboding.
Other then that, I have no idea what happened. Eh, I'll find out tomorrow on The Daily Show. I really need to pick a horse soon, though. I was really high on Kerry, but I'm still quite open to Clark and Edwards. Massachusetts' primary elections are early enough that they might still matter, but late enough to lose the non-starters.
The other thing I noted in the candid photographs of the event is how all of the candidates were clearly getting along, inspite of the bickering that went on in the debate. That is a powerful image that the Democratic Party NEEDS to use. Primarily elections need to be divisive, but we also need to show a unified front. I trust that is the belief of everyone in the race (though I have concerns about Sharpton due to past behavior, and Kucinich due to current remarks) and this needs to be stressed. The primaries are important, but do not show a lack of resolve on the part of Democrats. It better not, anyway. Any progressive who tries to claim there is no difference between a Democrat and George W. is going to look like a damn idiot now. They did back in 2000, mind you, but Nader was able to sway enough people with his false advertising. We mustn't let this happen again.
The other big issue, of course, is what they were wearing. To appeal to young voters, the candidates went casual to varying degrees. Mosley Braun, um, well she looked normal. So did Lieberman and Sharpton who came in wearing jackets which they both shed for the forum. Which actually left Sharpton looking kinda silly since his was a three-piece suit and he kept on an unbuttoned vest. Meanwhile, John Kerry lost a jacket, but he was already tie-less. Dean had no jacket, it seems, but he did have his sleeves rolled in a manner even I (a compulsive sleeve roller-upper) found goofy. And finally we had the turtleneck twins, Clark and Kucinich who just seemed out of place. Clark had on a black suit with a black turtleneck, which was really forboding on camera. I think Kucinich did the same, but lets face it, he will never look forboding.
Other then that, I have no idea what happened. Eh, I'll find out tomorrow on The Daily Show. I really need to pick a horse soon, though. I was really high on Kerry, but I'm still quite open to Clark and Edwards. Massachusetts' primary elections are early enough that they might still matter, but late enough to lose the non-starters.
11.03.2003
well, that didn't take long
I don't like my novel. Its got no plan and no point. I should have planned more. I might try to plot it out a bit more, but I'm considering it on semi-perminant hiatus.
Not that I'm completely undaunted. My greatest flaw here was haphazard planning. I may try to do some reading of appropriate books for inspiration, a bit of research, some actual planning for the plot, and maybe a whole change of outlook on the project. As I'm pretty sure it won't be done this month, maybe I'll drop the novel concept and move back to my old idea for writing a graphic novel. We'll see.
See, this is why I didn't think I was going to go through with this. hehe.
Not that I'm completely undaunted. My greatest flaw here was haphazard planning. I may try to do some reading of appropriate books for inspiration, a bit of research, some actual planning for the plot, and maybe a whole change of outlook on the project. As I'm pretty sure it won't be done this month, maybe I'll drop the novel concept and move back to my old idea for writing a graphic novel. We'll see.
See, this is why I didn't think I was going to go through with this. hehe.
10.31.2003
my library
I referenced my odd library of fiction a while back, so I thought it would be interesting for you all to see just what that library is. Everything but the Coupland books was bought for college. A nice selection of masterworks, but I'm not too hopeful that they'll be of much help for my meaningless little novel. One day to go.
The Diary of a Country Priest by Georges Bernanos
The Martian Chronicles by Raymond Bradbury
The Infernal Desire Machines of Doctor Hoffman by Angela Carter
Generation X by Douglas Coupland
Microserfs by Douglas Coupland
Madame Bovery by Gustave Flaubert
Neuromancer by William Gibson
The Power and the Glory by Graham Greene
Dune by Frank Herbert
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce
Visions of Gerard by Jack Kerouac
The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin
Death in Venice by Thomas Mann
Therese by Francois Mauriac
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
The White Hotel by D.H. Thomas
Written on the Body by Jeanette Winterson
Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf
The Diary of a Country Priest by Georges Bernanos
The Martian Chronicles by Raymond Bradbury
The Infernal Desire Machines of Doctor Hoffman by Angela Carter
Generation X by Douglas Coupland
Microserfs by Douglas Coupland
Madame Bovery by Gustave Flaubert
Neuromancer by William Gibson
The Power and the Glory by Graham Greene
Dune by Frank Herbert
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce
Visions of Gerard by Jack Kerouac
The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin
Death in Venice by Thomas Mann
Therese by Francois Mauriac
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
The White Hotel by D.H. Thomas
Written on the Body by Jeanette Winterson
Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf
10.28.2003
back to writing
Or rather, whining about writing.
I'm not getting nearly as far into sketching out my NaNoWriMo novel as I wanted to be by now. It hasn't helped that I've been either stressed or sick or both since Columbus Day. I haven't even had the time to write long overude responses to the wonderful Aimee, to whom I owe about a million emails.
So, just get myself thinking about my novel, I'm going to tempt fate and write about what I'm planning on writing. I always find it dangerous to get ahead of myself, but what the hell. I always do it anyway, so no need to keep up the pretense.
I had a few ideas before I zeroed in on the one I've been "preparing". Two sci-fi kinda stories and one not. I'm going with the one not, in large part because the idea was so small. The novel is meant to take place over one day, in fact. That's part of the gimmick I mentioned in an earlier post. Every chapter will be an hour and their will be 24 chapters. Basically, its the day in the life of a college dorm. I always remember this one day my freshmen year when everything got turned upside down. I was actually sick that day and slept through most of it and was just weirded out when I woke up in the middle of the night to find everything was screwed up. Long-time couples had broken up, friends were hooking up, couches were stolen. So, the idea of a day of hell has always interested me. Plus, I figured, I could use the large base of characters to flesh out the plot when the gimmick proved more of a liability than asset.
Not that I'll really be writing a novel with 50 equal characters. There will be three primary characters who begin the story and then end it. They are the core of it. Then, there will be 2 or 3 secondary plot lines to flesh things out. Most of it will be intentionally light but thoughtful, though I'm heavily tempted to do a heavy story out of nowhere in the last few chapters. It'll probably depend on where I am with my word count when I get to the wee hours of the morning.
My problem is that I've got very little planning on who the cast of characters will be. I mean, I know the central trio very well, and I have a loose idea of what will go on around them, but its all the side stuff that I'm lost on. Especially what I'm going to have everyone do and how they will get there. I want to eventually set up a hook-up between two of the leads, but I'm not sure how to get them there. The 24 hour idea makes that tough. I have to establish these relationships in the coarse of this day, after all. And it isn't helping that I have no conception of how long it will take to tell this story. Sometimes, I'm worried about making the word count. Other times, I'm worried about writing too much.
I'm inclined to just take it easy, though, and do the whole fly by the seat of my pants thing. Just dive right in and see what happens. I have such phenomenally low expectations, after all, that I can hardly end up disappointed if it doesn't go anywhere. But, we'll see. Maybe, in spite of myself, I can write something with a purpose and quality narative. I'm not betting on it, though, but stranget things have happened.
I'm not getting nearly as far into sketching out my NaNoWriMo novel as I wanted to be by now. It hasn't helped that I've been either stressed or sick or both since Columbus Day. I haven't even had the time to write long overude responses to the wonderful Aimee, to whom I owe about a million emails.
So, just get myself thinking about my novel, I'm going to tempt fate and write about what I'm planning on writing. I always find it dangerous to get ahead of myself, but what the hell. I always do it anyway, so no need to keep up the pretense.
I had a few ideas before I zeroed in on the one I've been "preparing". Two sci-fi kinda stories and one not. I'm going with the one not, in large part because the idea was so small. The novel is meant to take place over one day, in fact. That's part of the gimmick I mentioned in an earlier post. Every chapter will be an hour and their will be 24 chapters. Basically, its the day in the life of a college dorm. I always remember this one day my freshmen year when everything got turned upside down. I was actually sick that day and slept through most of it and was just weirded out when I woke up in the middle of the night to find everything was screwed up. Long-time couples had broken up, friends were hooking up, couches were stolen. So, the idea of a day of hell has always interested me. Plus, I figured, I could use the large base of characters to flesh out the plot when the gimmick proved more of a liability than asset.
Not that I'll really be writing a novel with 50 equal characters. There will be three primary characters who begin the story and then end it. They are the core of it. Then, there will be 2 or 3 secondary plot lines to flesh things out. Most of it will be intentionally light but thoughtful, though I'm heavily tempted to do a heavy story out of nowhere in the last few chapters. It'll probably depend on where I am with my word count when I get to the wee hours of the morning.
My problem is that I've got very little planning on who the cast of characters will be. I mean, I know the central trio very well, and I have a loose idea of what will go on around them, but its all the side stuff that I'm lost on. Especially what I'm going to have everyone do and how they will get there. I want to eventually set up a hook-up between two of the leads, but I'm not sure how to get them there. The 24 hour idea makes that tough. I have to establish these relationships in the coarse of this day, after all. And it isn't helping that I have no conception of how long it will take to tell this story. Sometimes, I'm worried about making the word count. Other times, I'm worried about writing too much.
I'm inclined to just take it easy, though, and do the whole fly by the seat of my pants thing. Just dive right in and see what happens. I have such phenomenally low expectations, after all, that I can hardly end up disappointed if it doesn't go anywhere. But, we'll see. Maybe, in spite of myself, I can write something with a purpose and quality narative. I'm not betting on it, though, but stranget things have happened.
10.26.2003
the moscow theater tragedy
WARNING. This is some heavy stuff and I don't really go anywhere with it. Just be warned.
60 Minutes is doing a powerful story on the Theater seige in Moscow last year. It is very illuminating. It is drawn from an HBO documentary, "Terror in Moscow" which will be re-run next week.
The most important message that it delivers is a reminder of why there cannot be a knee-jerk condemnation of terrorism. Although the methods are deplorable, they can be understandable. There is a world of difference between a group who is suffering extreme abuses from a ruling power resorting to these actions, and those who are just doing it to advance an ideology. Simply put, there is a difference between the Timothy McVeigh's and Osama Bin Laden's of the world and the Palestinians, North Ireland Catholics, Chechens, and other such groups. I deplore their tactics, but I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't sympathetic. I can write off the terrorists who are fueled by hate. But those fueled by a sense of self-preservation are much more challenging. These are people who are involved in a genuine struggle which is taking the lives of so many around them. Their tactics are wrong, don't mistake me. But these aren't impossibly evil people. They are humans and that is something we need to confront.
The Russians didn't do themselves any favors, either, in trying to get the terrorists portrayed as impossibly evil. All the more so now that we can see some of the film from inside the theater during the seige. Although the terrorists were completely prepared to die for the cause (and completely expecting to) they were also clearly ready for a dialogue. The Russians tried to claim that their attack occured because the terrorists started killing hostages, but that was a blatent lie. Although a hostage was killed, it was about as accidental as it could get in that kind of situation. It certainly wasn't an assasination. The Russians knew this. They had already planned to attack the hostages after tricking them into thinking the Russians wanted to talk. Then, the Russians pumped in a gas to incapacitate, well, everyone. The lead terrorists understood what was happening and left to another position where they put up a final fight with the Russians. Left in the theater were the so-called "Black Widows". These were female terrorists who had bombs strapped to them which they were prepared to set off. Except, they didn't. They could have killed everyone, including the Russians who raided the building after the gas took effect, but it didn't happen. Instead, once they were all unconcsious, they were all killed by the Russian soldiers. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that, really, but I'm also not going to condemn it. The women could have killed a lot of people if they were playing possum, and I'm not sure the Russian army made the wrong choice there. But, its still killing someone in cold blood. Do you risk the killing a lot of people or do you kill a defenseless person just to be safe? It seems like a complicated question. Except for one thing.
The Russians killed a lot of people all on their own.
Now, just to be clear, NO hostage was killed in the process of raiding the building. No hostage in the building when the Russians started gassing the building was killed by a hostage taker. Not a single one. They were all killed by the "recovery" opperation. A whopping 129 of them. For a variety of reasons, too. Some were killed because they were left unconscious laying face-up in the rain and they choked to death. Others never recovered from the gas because the authorities have never admited what was in them and they waited days before even giving doctors a clue of what was killing these patients. To be sure, it was the terrorists who put the hostages in harms way, but that should not remove responsibility on the Russian authorities to seek to protect them. Yes, they saved hundreds, but 129 people is still 129 people. I just think of the scrutiny given the US government over the seige at Waco. There is an example where I'm not sure we did things right and I think lives were lost because of how our government acted. And there has been considerable media, judicial, and legislative scrutiny of those actions. Indeed, a quick study to refresh my memory revealed an overwhelming majority of sites which are extremely (excessively, I would say) critical of the government's action. And here, there is a legitimate arguement that the deaths of the people in the compound are the responsibility of people inside the compound. No such arguement can exist in the Moscow Theatre case, yet the international reporting is largely deferential in some measure. The Russians have been brazenly lying about the seige from the begining, but the facts aren't as easily covered up as they were in the Soviet Union. 2 people were killed by the terrorists. 129 were killed by the Russians. (and no, I'm not counting the dozens of hostages killed in that number)
In America, it is easy to see terrorism in terms of black and white, good and evil. That is what our experience with terrorism has been. It has been 9/11. It has been Oklahoma City. It has been the Trade Center bombing. So, it can be easy to view other struggles with terrorism around the world in the same light, but this would be grave mistake. We mustn't give oppressive government's a blank check to do whatever they want in the name of combating terrorism. Its just not that simple. And we sully our nation's good name when we rubber stamp some of the brutal efforts around the world. The real crime is, its not just England, Russia or Israel that we're talking about. Although in each country, I feel they have committed horrible acts but I don't see them in good/evil terms either. They are complex issues on both sides and both can elicit sympathy and condemnation. Though I'm annoyed at our silence in the face of some of the shamefully haphazard attacks that have been launched on Palastinian civiliains (I'm sorry, but no one can justify sending missles into residential areas to carry out political retribution assinatiations), I'm more troubled at the way we are rubber-stamping the actions of governments we know damn well are being oppressive. Nations we can see in black/white, good/evil. Because we're letting them get away with murder, literally, as long as they say they are acting in the interest of homeland security against "terrorists".
Sorry, I know you guys the light stuff, and I half-considered switching gears half-way through and instead commenting on the 60 Minutes story on Undercover Marketing, but I just wanted to get this out and its my blog so I get to do that. hehe. Just be glad I'm not talking about Baseball.
60 Minutes is doing a powerful story on the Theater seige in Moscow last year. It is very illuminating. It is drawn from an HBO documentary, "Terror in Moscow" which will be re-run next week.
The most important message that it delivers is a reminder of why there cannot be a knee-jerk condemnation of terrorism. Although the methods are deplorable, they can be understandable. There is a world of difference between a group who is suffering extreme abuses from a ruling power resorting to these actions, and those who are just doing it to advance an ideology. Simply put, there is a difference between the Timothy McVeigh's and Osama Bin Laden's of the world and the Palestinians, North Ireland Catholics, Chechens, and other such groups. I deplore their tactics, but I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't sympathetic. I can write off the terrorists who are fueled by hate. But those fueled by a sense of self-preservation are much more challenging. These are people who are involved in a genuine struggle which is taking the lives of so many around them. Their tactics are wrong, don't mistake me. But these aren't impossibly evil people. They are humans and that is something we need to confront.
The Russians didn't do themselves any favors, either, in trying to get the terrorists portrayed as impossibly evil. All the more so now that we can see some of the film from inside the theater during the seige. Although the terrorists were completely prepared to die for the cause (and completely expecting to) they were also clearly ready for a dialogue. The Russians tried to claim that their attack occured because the terrorists started killing hostages, but that was a blatent lie. Although a hostage was killed, it was about as accidental as it could get in that kind of situation. It certainly wasn't an assasination. The Russians knew this. They had already planned to attack the hostages after tricking them into thinking the Russians wanted to talk. Then, the Russians pumped in a gas to incapacitate, well, everyone. The lead terrorists understood what was happening and left to another position where they put up a final fight with the Russians. Left in the theater were the so-called "Black Widows". These were female terrorists who had bombs strapped to them which they were prepared to set off. Except, they didn't. They could have killed everyone, including the Russians who raided the building after the gas took effect, but it didn't happen. Instead, once they were all unconcsious, they were all killed by the Russian soldiers. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that, really, but I'm also not going to condemn it. The women could have killed a lot of people if they were playing possum, and I'm not sure the Russian army made the wrong choice there. But, its still killing someone in cold blood. Do you risk the killing a lot of people or do you kill a defenseless person just to be safe? It seems like a complicated question. Except for one thing.
The Russians killed a lot of people all on their own.
Now, just to be clear, NO hostage was killed in the process of raiding the building. No hostage in the building when the Russians started gassing the building was killed by a hostage taker. Not a single one. They were all killed by the "recovery" opperation. A whopping 129 of them. For a variety of reasons, too. Some were killed because they were left unconscious laying face-up in the rain and they choked to death. Others never recovered from the gas because the authorities have never admited what was in them and they waited days before even giving doctors a clue of what was killing these patients. To be sure, it was the terrorists who put the hostages in harms way, but that should not remove responsibility on the Russian authorities to seek to protect them. Yes, they saved hundreds, but 129 people is still 129 people. I just think of the scrutiny given the US government over the seige at Waco. There is an example where I'm not sure we did things right and I think lives were lost because of how our government acted. And there has been considerable media, judicial, and legislative scrutiny of those actions. Indeed, a quick study to refresh my memory revealed an overwhelming majority of sites which are extremely (excessively, I would say) critical of the government's action. And here, there is a legitimate arguement that the deaths of the people in the compound are the responsibility of people inside the compound. No such arguement can exist in the Moscow Theatre case, yet the international reporting is largely deferential in some measure. The Russians have been brazenly lying about the seige from the begining, but the facts aren't as easily covered up as they were in the Soviet Union. 2 people were killed by the terrorists. 129 were killed by the Russians. (and no, I'm not counting the dozens of hostages killed in that number)
In America, it is easy to see terrorism in terms of black and white, good and evil. That is what our experience with terrorism has been. It has been 9/11. It has been Oklahoma City. It has been the Trade Center bombing. So, it can be easy to view other struggles with terrorism around the world in the same light, but this would be grave mistake. We mustn't give oppressive government's a blank check to do whatever they want in the name of combating terrorism. Its just not that simple. And we sully our nation's good name when we rubber stamp some of the brutal efforts around the world. The real crime is, its not just England, Russia or Israel that we're talking about. Although in each country, I feel they have committed horrible acts but I don't see them in good/evil terms either. They are complex issues on both sides and both can elicit sympathy and condemnation. Though I'm annoyed at our silence in the face of some of the shamefully haphazard attacks that have been launched on Palastinian civiliains (I'm sorry, but no one can justify sending missles into residential areas to carry out political retribution assinatiations), I'm more troubled at the way we are rubber-stamping the actions of governments we know damn well are being oppressive. Nations we can see in black/white, good/evil. Because we're letting them get away with murder, literally, as long as they say they are acting in the interest of homeland security against "terrorists".
Sorry, I know you guys the light stuff, and I half-considered switching gears half-way through and instead commenting on the 60 Minutes story on Undercover Marketing, but I just wanted to get this out and its my blog so I get to do that. hehe. Just be glad I'm not talking about Baseball.
10.23.2003
wait, that was about what?
Actually took until 1987 to get into watching I Love the 80's Strike Back on VH1. Man, I could comment about just about everything. I mean, Wesley freakin' Snipes was the guy threatening Michael Jackson in the "Bad" video? But, what I want to comment on today is something which took me entirely by surprise.
"Flowers in the Attic" was about incest? Seriously?
Man, was I oblivious when I was 9.
And, I want to thank everyone for their encouragement in my novel post. I was really too overwhelmed to know what to say, but thank you all. Really means a lot to have such supportive comments when I really wasn't looking for anything. I mean, I was just whining without purpose, but thanks everyone.
"Flowers in the Attic" was about incest? Seriously?
Man, was I oblivious when I was 9.
And, I want to thank everyone for their encouragement in my novel post. I was really too overwhelmed to know what to say, but thank you all. Really means a lot to have such supportive comments when I really wasn't looking for anything. I mean, I was just whining without purpose, but thanks everyone.
10.21.2003
the mediocre american novel
I've been strongly considering joining my readers Aimee and Kell in participating in the National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo). After all, I started this blog as a means of getting back into the habit of writing. It seems only fitting to jump into such a bold challenge and see where it leaves it me.
There is one problem, though. I suck at fiction. Poems? Cool. Editorializing? I'm there. Plays/screenplays? All over it. Stories? Now, there is my problem. Its never something I've gotten the hang of. My writing is too dialogue heavy. Too self-consciously unconventional. Too visually oriented. And, there is the added problem that I don't read fiction. I'll be posting my personal library of novels soon, and its just down right amusing. I own two novels that I didn't buy for school. Well, not counting the Hitchhiker's Trilogy, anyway. The closest thing to a favorite writer is Douglas Coupland, and I've only read two of his books. I like reading quick stuff, not long stories. Even the novels I bought for school, I mostly skimmed with a couple notable exceptions. (I love D.H. Thomas' The White Hotel) Who am I to think I can write a novel?
Well, for the most part, I'm playing to those insecurities. For one, I'm not going to sign up for the competition until I'm at least half-way through and with good reason to think I'll be able to finish it. I'm employing a literary gimmick which should give the novel more structure and thus easier for me to write. I'm also writing a broad story without pretense. I'll save my good writing for when I think I'm a good writer. Just doing a silly little story for now.
I'm going radically between feeling unprepared and over-eager to get started. I like the idea of the challenge and I am interested to see where it takes me. Also, I'm debating discussing my ideas here, for fear of jinxing myself by talking about it. We'll see, I suppose.
There is one problem, though. I suck at fiction. Poems? Cool. Editorializing? I'm there. Plays/screenplays? All over it. Stories? Now, there is my problem. Its never something I've gotten the hang of. My writing is too dialogue heavy. Too self-consciously unconventional. Too visually oriented. And, there is the added problem that I don't read fiction. I'll be posting my personal library of novels soon, and its just down right amusing. I own two novels that I didn't buy for school. Well, not counting the Hitchhiker's Trilogy, anyway. The closest thing to a favorite writer is Douglas Coupland, and I've only read two of his books. I like reading quick stuff, not long stories. Even the novels I bought for school, I mostly skimmed with a couple notable exceptions. (I love D.H. Thomas' The White Hotel) Who am I to think I can write a novel?
Well, for the most part, I'm playing to those insecurities. For one, I'm not going to sign up for the competition until I'm at least half-way through and with good reason to think I'll be able to finish it. I'm employing a literary gimmick which should give the novel more structure and thus easier for me to write. I'm also writing a broad story without pretense. I'll save my good writing for when I think I'm a good writer. Just doing a silly little story for now.
I'm going radically between feeling unprepared and over-eager to get started. I like the idea of the challenge and I am interested to see where it takes me. Also, I'm debating discussing my ideas here, for fear of jinxing myself by talking about it. We'll see, I suppose.
10.17.2003
generic what i'm reading post #2
Well, didn't take long to do that again.
I highly recommend checking out Tish's commentary on Average-size Privilege over at Fatshadow. It is extremely well-worth reading and contributing to the discussion and I highly recommend any of my readers who haven't yet seen it to go and check it out. Look for her entry on October 15.
The other thing I've been reading today is about the scary views of a Christian extremists in a very high level post in the Defense Department. Because his cronies are keen to bump him up the ranks, they are down-playing statements which aside from being profoundly bigoted, are putting men and women in uniform in very real danger by inciting Muslums to respond with the same level of righteous violence he exposes. Thus is the story of Lt. General Jerry Boykin. Check out the report from the L.A. Times, or from NBC News, or from Salon. It is some pretty disturbing rhetoric this guy has been saying to churches. Some of it, he even says in uniform. Despite many complaints, the Defense Department refuses to do anything about it, saying he didn't break any "rules." Yeah, because aparently judgement calls aren't made at the Pentagon. I guess someone endangering our foreign policies and our soldiers on the ground is okay, because it technically doesn't violate any rules. Its all very disturbing, indeed. But, it seems, Boykin has the answer to how we got stuck with W. as our President, according to Salon's Joe Conason. He reports the general as once commenting, "George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the United States. He was appointed by God." This level of religious extremism has no place in our government or the military. Its no wonder Muslum nations doubt our intentions when the hatred of this nutcase is so easily tolerated.
I highly recommend checking out Tish's commentary on Average-size Privilege over at Fatshadow. It is extremely well-worth reading and contributing to the discussion and I highly recommend any of my readers who haven't yet seen it to go and check it out. Look for her entry on October 15.
The other thing I've been reading today is about the scary views of a Christian extremists in a very high level post in the Defense Department. Because his cronies are keen to bump him up the ranks, they are down-playing statements which aside from being profoundly bigoted, are putting men and women in uniform in very real danger by inciting Muslums to respond with the same level of righteous violence he exposes. Thus is the story of Lt. General Jerry Boykin. Check out the report from the L.A. Times, or from NBC News, or from Salon. It is some pretty disturbing rhetoric this guy has been saying to churches. Some of it, he even says in uniform. Despite many complaints, the Defense Department refuses to do anything about it, saying he didn't break any "rules." Yeah, because aparently judgement calls aren't made at the Pentagon. I guess someone endangering our foreign policies and our soldiers on the ground is okay, because it technically doesn't violate any rules. Its all very disturbing, indeed. But, it seems, Boykin has the answer to how we got stuck with W. as our President, according to Salon's Joe Conason. He reports the general as once commenting, "George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the United States. He was appointed by God." This level of religious extremism has no place in our government or the military. Its no wonder Muslum nations doubt our intentions when the hatred of this nutcase is so easily tolerated.
10.16.2003
generic what i'm reading post #1
You know, I don't post enough about just what I'm reading. I usually feel that unless I have at least something to offer, I should just keep it to myself. But, I keep thinking I should do more of that, so here we go...
Last month, Slate ran an illuminating two-part story on how the majority of people in the draft Hillary for President movement were actually conservative Republicans who were just salivating at the mere thought of getting to attack a Clinton some more. There is actually a book writen by some GOP idealogue laying out her "scheme" to run for the White House. All this in-spite of her continually consistant "I'm not running" stance. Its all a funny little portrait of the single-minded obsession of many of the kind of folks Al Franken talks about.
I guess they didn't think they were funny enough.
Seems they are now attacking Hillary for running a bad campaign. You can't write a joke like that. I mean, what can you do but laugh. Meanwhile, Hillary continues to establish herself as an entirely competiant and effective representative of the people of New York. No reason I can see for her to stop doing something she's clearly very good at.
Last month, Slate ran an illuminating two-part story on how the majority of people in the draft Hillary for President movement were actually conservative Republicans who were just salivating at the mere thought of getting to attack a Clinton some more. There is actually a book writen by some GOP idealogue laying out her "scheme" to run for the White House. All this in-spite of her continually consistant "I'm not running" stance. Its all a funny little portrait of the single-minded obsession of many of the kind of folks Al Franken talks about.
I guess they didn't think they were funny enough.
Seems they are now attacking Hillary for running a bad campaign. You can't write a joke like that. I mean, what can you do but laugh. Meanwhile, Hillary continues to establish herself as an entirely competiant and effective representative of the people of New York. No reason I can see for her to stop doing something she's clearly very good at.
you, all right. i learned it by watching you.
I guess it shows just how straight-laced I am that I still have no fucking clue what was in the cigar box in the 1987 anti-drug PSA where the dad confronts his kid only to learned that his son learned drug use from him, all right. It was always a silly commercial as the kid keeps trying to answer his dad but the father keeps intereupting him to shut him. Daddy was probablly doped up, though, so what are you gonna do. But, I'm still mystified by that drug paraphonalia. It looked so scary and, well, complicated. I mean, this kid didn't look like someone who was into hard drugs. Maybe a joint with friends, but what was that stuff? Heroin? Cocaine? I still don't know.
But, I guess I'll be doing this kind of flash-back shit a lot because VH1 will start airing their sequel to "I Love the 80's" next week. Appropriately named, of course, "I Love the 80's Strikes Back". Hell, I even watched "I Love the 70's" and I genuinely wasn't there for that. I really hope the release it on DVD, though. I love this sort of meaningless pop-culture nostalgia.
But, I guess I'll be doing this kind of flash-back shit a lot because VH1 will start airing their sequel to "I Love the 80's" next week. Appropriately named, of course, "I Love the 80's Strikes Back". Hell, I even watched "I Love the 70's" and I genuinely wasn't there for that. I really hope the release it on DVD, though. I love this sort of meaningless pop-culture nostalgia.
10.14.2003
playing ball
I seemed to have surprised at least one of my blog readers when I went off about ESPN a few days ago. Yes, I like sports, and I keep meaning to write an entry on my thoughts about the major sports in the US, but I keep not getting around to it. Ah, well. I do want to at least get out my thoughts on the baseball playoffs as I've been a baseball fan the longest and this year's playoffs are some of the best in recent memory. The games have been close and well played with a lot of history around all of the teams. But, I just want to discuss the four remaining teams. I will probably completely bore most of you, so be warned.
MARLINS
I'd like to root against the Marlins because their 1997 World Series championship is one of the low points in baseball history. It was probably the only time a team genuinely bought a championship, and they promptly dumped the team in the off season. It was horrible to watch and awful for the sport.
But, you have to appreciate the way the team has managed to rebuild itself and get back to this place. They are a fun young team, there is no denying that. Still, they are young team with little fan support, so its tough to pull of them. Especially with who they are facing in the National League Championship Series.
CUBS
You have to like the Cubs. They are the classic underdog. Their fans have been waiting nearly 100 years for a World Series victory. For much of that time, they weren't a contender, either. They've had some great players and even better fans who are some of the most loyal in baseball. The current team are a great bunch of players, including one the game's best ambassadors, Sammy Sosa. Yeah, I know the cork incident, but he built up enough good will before and since that he deserves some lee way. The Cubs are just a good baseball team that's handled a lot of ups and downs in recent years and a lot of downs in their history. But, the fans stick through it. Hey, I know they aren't perfectly loyal and their are a lot of fair weather Cubs fans, but with what they've been through, I'll allow it. It would be great to see them make it to the series, and given that I'm a National League fan (I'm old school, like that) I'll happily root for them there.
Plus, they have the benefit of having Dusty Baker as their manager. Dusty was shoved out of San Francisco after taking the Giants to the World Series last year. He's one of the best managers in the game, and the Giants didn't show him proper respect. Now, the Giants lost in the first round of the playoffs, and Dusty is still there. I'd love to see him back in the series and take it home, too. I can be very loyal to players and managers in sports who I think do a good job and aren't respected by their teams. I love the idea of them sticking it to their detractors, and I would love to see Dusty go all the way.
YANKEES
Fans of the Yankees are some of the most spoiled in baseball. The Yankees are never far from a World Series and consistantly field a solid team. So, its easy to root against them. Especially given the idea most people have that they buy their championships.
But you know what? The Yankees don't buy championships. The win because they spend their money well. A lot of their money is spent keeping players, not buying them. Plenty of teams have money and go no where. Plenty of teams have no money and win. Yeah, the Yankees have money and that sure helps, but they also spend it right. They don't have a flashy team of super stars. They have solid players who play well as a team and pick up the slack for their team mate when needed. They also have a great manager in Joe Torre. I may not want to root for the Yankees, but I have to respect them.
RED SOX
Ah, the cursed Red Sox. Given that I live in Boston, you'd think I'd be a big Sox fan shouting "Cowboy Up" (long story, which I don't really get) at every opportunity. But no. Yeah, I know they are a hard luck story like the Cubs. But the Cubs fans were loyal through the lean years. The Red Sox never really had lean years. They weren't loyal out of devotion. They kept rooting because they LIKE losing. They like having something to complain about. I know that's getting cliche to say, but its damn true. Trust me, I'm hear. Red Sox fans are the most impatient, whiny, ungrateful, self-important fans in all of sports. And that's saying a lot given the sense of entitlement that you find in Yankees fans. They don't express their loyalty through fierce devotion, but rather through knee-jerk hatred of anything that isn't Red Sox approved. We are seeing that clearly now after the absurd antics at Fenway Park for Game 3 of their series with the Yankees. We saw Red Sox players act like complete morons as Pedro Martinez threatens Yankees and Manny Ramerez gets nutty paranoid and starts a brawl over NOTHING. But is that the story? Nope. They are blasting a 72 year old Yankee coach, who has apologized, for charging Pedro after Pedro taunts him. Oh, and they are also obsessed over the story about how two Yankees allegedly beat up a grounds crew worker who was behaving horribly unprofessionally by rooting against the Yankees from the Yankees own bullpen. I say allegedly, because the Yankees players insist they just asked him to stop taunting them and the guy picked the fight. Frankly, I believe them, because I know what dicks Red Sox fans are. But its important that I say allegedly because NO ONE ELSE IS. I swear, all of the media outlets around here are treating this as fact. Just another thing to add to the collective persecution complex found in Red Sox fans.
The Sox fans don't deserve a winner. They don't want one, either. I'm hoping they don't get it. So, weird as it is for me, GO YANKEES!
Okay, I'll try to avoid sports for a few days so I don't piss off all of my readers. hehe.
Oh, and a special shout out to my blog reader Aimee, who I hung out with yesterday. Woo hoo!
MARLINS
I'd like to root against the Marlins because their 1997 World Series championship is one of the low points in baseball history. It was probably the only time a team genuinely bought a championship, and they promptly dumped the team in the off season. It was horrible to watch and awful for the sport.
But, you have to appreciate the way the team has managed to rebuild itself and get back to this place. They are a fun young team, there is no denying that. Still, they are young team with little fan support, so its tough to pull of them. Especially with who they are facing in the National League Championship Series.
CUBS
You have to like the Cubs. They are the classic underdog. Their fans have been waiting nearly 100 years for a World Series victory. For much of that time, they weren't a contender, either. They've had some great players and even better fans who are some of the most loyal in baseball. The current team are a great bunch of players, including one the game's best ambassadors, Sammy Sosa. Yeah, I know the cork incident, but he built up enough good will before and since that he deserves some lee way. The Cubs are just a good baseball team that's handled a lot of ups and downs in recent years and a lot of downs in their history. But, the fans stick through it. Hey, I know they aren't perfectly loyal and their are a lot of fair weather Cubs fans, but with what they've been through, I'll allow it. It would be great to see them make it to the series, and given that I'm a National League fan (I'm old school, like that) I'll happily root for them there.
Plus, they have the benefit of having Dusty Baker as their manager. Dusty was shoved out of San Francisco after taking the Giants to the World Series last year. He's one of the best managers in the game, and the Giants didn't show him proper respect. Now, the Giants lost in the first round of the playoffs, and Dusty is still there. I'd love to see him back in the series and take it home, too. I can be very loyal to players and managers in sports who I think do a good job and aren't respected by their teams. I love the idea of them sticking it to their detractors, and I would love to see Dusty go all the way.
YANKEES
Fans of the Yankees are some of the most spoiled in baseball. The Yankees are never far from a World Series and consistantly field a solid team. So, its easy to root against them. Especially given the idea most people have that they buy their championships.
But you know what? The Yankees don't buy championships. The win because they spend their money well. A lot of their money is spent keeping players, not buying them. Plenty of teams have money and go no where. Plenty of teams have no money and win. Yeah, the Yankees have money and that sure helps, but they also spend it right. They don't have a flashy team of super stars. They have solid players who play well as a team and pick up the slack for their team mate when needed. They also have a great manager in Joe Torre. I may not want to root for the Yankees, but I have to respect them.
RED SOX
Ah, the cursed Red Sox. Given that I live in Boston, you'd think I'd be a big Sox fan shouting "Cowboy Up" (long story, which I don't really get) at every opportunity. But no. Yeah, I know they are a hard luck story like the Cubs. But the Cubs fans were loyal through the lean years. The Red Sox never really had lean years. They weren't loyal out of devotion. They kept rooting because they LIKE losing. They like having something to complain about. I know that's getting cliche to say, but its damn true. Trust me, I'm hear. Red Sox fans are the most impatient, whiny, ungrateful, self-important fans in all of sports. And that's saying a lot given the sense of entitlement that you find in Yankees fans. They don't express their loyalty through fierce devotion, but rather through knee-jerk hatred of anything that isn't Red Sox approved. We are seeing that clearly now after the absurd antics at Fenway Park for Game 3 of their series with the Yankees. We saw Red Sox players act like complete morons as Pedro Martinez threatens Yankees and Manny Ramerez gets nutty paranoid and starts a brawl over NOTHING. But is that the story? Nope. They are blasting a 72 year old Yankee coach, who has apologized, for charging Pedro after Pedro taunts him. Oh, and they are also obsessed over the story about how two Yankees allegedly beat up a grounds crew worker who was behaving horribly unprofessionally by rooting against the Yankees from the Yankees own bullpen. I say allegedly, because the Yankees players insist they just asked him to stop taunting them and the guy picked the fight. Frankly, I believe them, because I know what dicks Red Sox fans are. But its important that I say allegedly because NO ONE ELSE IS. I swear, all of the media outlets around here are treating this as fact. Just another thing to add to the collective persecution complex found in Red Sox fans.
The Sox fans don't deserve a winner. They don't want one, either. I'm hoping they don't get it. So, weird as it is for me, GO YANKEES!
Okay, I'll try to avoid sports for a few days so I don't piss off all of my readers. hehe.
Oh, and a special shout out to my blog reader Aimee, who I hung out with yesterday. Woo hoo!
10.11.2003
movie review: kill bill, volume 1
I saw the new Quentin Tarrentino film last night, Kill Bill. It is a far more challenging and difficult movie than anyone seems to be giving it credit for. The movie is very disturbing, and I think that is the intent. Rather than movies which desensitize us to violence, Tarrentino seemed interested in RE-sensitizing people to violence by letting it be horrible, graphic, and shocking.
The risk when trying to do something like this, of course, is that you can get two unintended responses. You can disturb people too much. That's certain a fair reaction to this film. The violence is pretty awful and it is tough to take because the volume of it is just so beyond comprehension. The flip side is you get people who still see it as entertainment, even though that is what the director is deconstructing.
Or is it? I'm not completely sure. Which is why the movie is difficult on the viewer. Is it gratuitous violence, or is he exposing the entertainment of violence. Is it over the top to lessen the effect or heighten it? Tough to say. I do want to learn more about the director's intent and when I do, I may comment more, but I want to post some quick thoughts now.
Aside from the violence question, it is a brilliant work of art. Agressively bold and daring and with a total understanding of the film and the motifs in play. He wields his deep awareness of the film to heighten the experience. Some fight scenes are played sans musical soundtrack, allowing their brutal nature to be alone on screen. Indeed, the sound effects are amped to jar the audience. When the music does come in, it is either disquieting or operatic. The irreverence of some of the music is made more obvious with the contrast to the music-less scenes, but others are played as a stylish ballet. And really, that is all movie violence ever is. It is a choreography, and Tarrentino delves deeply into wire-fu techniques for a surreal take on the viciousness images flying by. Everything is played out in its own way to make the contrast and distinctions more apparent. The violence is made all the more graphic because so much of it comes from the blade rather than the usual method of movie body counts, the gun. Vastly more. I can only recall one gun death off-hand. The effect of this is to personalize the violence and limit the audience's ability to disconnect. We're used to seeing movies where the "hero" mows down countless villains with a machine gun. Here, she holds a sword and the impact is not distant but intimate.
The question of the nature of violence as entertainment is a very relevant one. Movies often let us off the hook when they ram a massive body count into our open eyes. Its okay, they are aliens. Its okay, they are zombies. Its okay, they are terrorists. Its okay, she's a robot. Kill Bill doesn't seem to want us to get away with that disconnect. It is a daring and risky move, to be sure, and some people will not be able to handle the violence, and specifically the knowledge that some people are being thrilled by it. I don't blame them at all for that response, but I do think the movie is more than that and though I caution you to be aware of what you are getting into, I would certainly recommend the film.
The risk when trying to do something like this, of course, is that you can get two unintended responses. You can disturb people too much. That's certain a fair reaction to this film. The violence is pretty awful and it is tough to take because the volume of it is just so beyond comprehension. The flip side is you get people who still see it as entertainment, even though that is what the director is deconstructing.
Or is it? I'm not completely sure. Which is why the movie is difficult on the viewer. Is it gratuitous violence, or is he exposing the entertainment of violence. Is it over the top to lessen the effect or heighten it? Tough to say. I do want to learn more about the director's intent and when I do, I may comment more, but I want to post some quick thoughts now.
Aside from the violence question, it is a brilliant work of art. Agressively bold and daring and with a total understanding of the film and the motifs in play. He wields his deep awareness of the film to heighten the experience. Some fight scenes are played sans musical soundtrack, allowing their brutal nature to be alone on screen. Indeed, the sound effects are amped to jar the audience. When the music does come in, it is either disquieting or operatic. The irreverence of some of the music is made more obvious with the contrast to the music-less scenes, but others are played as a stylish ballet. And really, that is all movie violence ever is. It is a choreography, and Tarrentino delves deeply into wire-fu techniques for a surreal take on the viciousness images flying by. Everything is played out in its own way to make the contrast and distinctions more apparent. The violence is made all the more graphic because so much of it comes from the blade rather than the usual method of movie body counts, the gun. Vastly more. I can only recall one gun death off-hand. The effect of this is to personalize the violence and limit the audience's ability to disconnect. We're used to seeing movies where the "hero" mows down countless villains with a machine gun. Here, she holds a sword and the impact is not distant but intimate.
The question of the nature of violence as entertainment is a very relevant one. Movies often let us off the hook when they ram a massive body count into our open eyes. Its okay, they are aliens. Its okay, they are zombies. Its okay, they are terrorists. Its okay, she's a robot. Kill Bill doesn't seem to want us to get away with that disconnect. It is a daring and risky move, to be sure, and some people will not be able to handle the violence, and specifically the knowledge that some people are being thrilled by it. I don't blame them at all for that response, but I do think the movie is more than that and though I caution you to be aware of what you are getting into, I would certainly recommend the film.
10.09.2003
need toys?
Head on down to KB Toys before October 14 to get 30% off your purchase of $30 or more. Is this some great sale? Nope. Settlement of a class action lawsuit. I'm actually part of the class, so I'm quite interested in people taking KB for whatever they can get.
10.07.2003
damn californians
Well, let the Recall Arnold campaign begin.
Oh, love the non sequiter at the end of The Daily Show. "This has been a presentation of ABC Sports". I don't get that, but I still thought it was funny. I missed the first few minutes, though, so maybe it wasn't much of a non sequitar as it seemed.
Not sure which time I got "non sequita/er" spelled correctly, so I'll leave them both.
Oh, love the non sequiter at the end of The Daily Show. "This has been a presentation of ABC Sports". I don't get that, but I still thought it was funny. I missed the first few minutes, though, so maybe it wasn't much of a non sequitar as it seemed.
Not sure which time I got "non sequita/er" spelled correctly, so I'll leave them both.
dreading california
I don't think I even want to know how things turn out in Cali. I'll watch The Daily Show but I'm just really dreading the notion that this scum bag is going to get elected in what is a farce to begin with. All the more so if fewer people vote for Arnie than voted against the recall. This isn't Democracy. It's a joke. I half-want Davis to resign right now, thus ensuring the recall becomes a moot point. But, I know that would blow up in the face of the Democratic Party, but it may be worth it to avoid Governor Terminator. His supports have no idea what they are doing. Literally! I mean, they don't know what he believes what he stands for or anything. Just that he's a good "leader". Really took it to those machines, after all. This was all funny a while back, but the wave of stupid is continuing unabated. I have to worry that people just won't wake up to this once he gets into office. I can't console myself with the notion that he'll kill himself, because there is no reason he should have gotten this far. I can respect a Republican candidate I disagree with. Its the system. I can deal with McClintock winning (he won't) but Arnie is another thing entirely. He's mocking politics. Mocking Government. Mocking all that our forefathers worked to ensure. And the fact that he doesn't get to make crappy movies for a few years is very little consolation, either.
Ugh. And I don't even live there. Cali has problems, but Grey Davis is WAY down on the list. How about reforming that disgustingly unfair property law? Man alive. California has what might be the most immoral tax code in the history of tax codes. Even worse than taxation without representation, because that had no pretense. How is this not more of an issue? It can be reformed WITHOUT raising overall taxes. But, of course, the people who'll pay are the wealthiest and greediest. Arnie included.
I just don't want to look. It's like a great big car wreck. At least the baseball playoffs have been interesting.
Ugh. And I don't even live there. Cali has problems, but Grey Davis is WAY down on the list. How about reforming that disgustingly unfair property law? Man alive. California has what might be the most immoral tax code in the history of tax codes. Even worse than taxation without representation, because that had no pretense. How is this not more of an issue? It can be reformed WITHOUT raising overall taxes. But, of course, the people who'll pay are the wealthiest and greediest. Arnie included.
I just don't want to look. It's like a great big car wreck. At least the baseball playoffs have been interesting.
the worst governor in the state's history
I was considering posting on the Arnold situation, since I know several of my readers are Californians. At some point, I wanted to make the point of how Cali is at risk of electing the worst governor in US History. It took about a second for me to realize that was a dangerous overstatement. I was mostly thinking about Reagan and Ventura. As nutty as them running for office seemed, both had political experience before running for Governor. Ventura was a mayor, after all, and Reagan was (rather improbably) a union president which is essentially a lobbying job. They weren't political novices, in spite of their colorful backgrounds.
Arnold, however, falls into the recent category of political newbies who are impossibly wealthy and just go straight for the big prize. He's got a lot of company. My current governor is one of those types. Jumped right into running for Senate, lost, and then went on to win the governor's office. Inevitably, the think and campaign on the notion that since they were successful in business, they must naturally be successful in government. The Perot arguement. Of course, its bullshit, but especially so in Arnold's case. I can at least understand the point when a person built a business from nothing. But Arnold? His fame is because he has muscles. That's it. I mean, I don't mean to knock acting, but any notion that this work prepares a person for government is downright bizarre.
So, basically, I just wanted to point out unprepared Arnold is for office. And, of course, his widespread problem with sexual harrassment/assault (which, for all the Arnold supports, is NOT the same thing as "womanizing" so you can stop comparing him to Clinton, or Kennedy, or whoever). But, I immediately realized that it was just silly hyperbole to say he's the worst governor ever. I mean, surely we've elected some real nutcases in the last 200 years. Probably more than a few people who were criminally corrupt, maybe even a murderer or two. And I think it took me about 30 seconds to remember the horrible leaders of segregation who have a lock on all of the "worst governor" slots in recent memory.
Which got me curious, who is the worst governor in US History. When I researched my article on the Democratic Presidential candidates, I came upon references to Kucinich being selected as one of the worst mayors in US history by an academic panel. Surely, such information would be available for our nation's governors with a simple google search.
Nope.
Pretty much ever reference to "worst governor" was a partisan attack directed at whoever is currently in power or recently in power. Much of it was directed at Grey Davis, but I found references to most of the states in the union where the sitting Gov has been described by political opponants as the "worst governor" in the state's history. Democrat, Republican, whatever. Even the genuinely courageous and Nobel Peace Prize nominated George Ryan of Michigan. No acadmeic information at all. Ah, well.
Arnold, however, falls into the recent category of political newbies who are impossibly wealthy and just go straight for the big prize. He's got a lot of company. My current governor is one of those types. Jumped right into running for Senate, lost, and then went on to win the governor's office. Inevitably, the think and campaign on the notion that since they were successful in business, they must naturally be successful in government. The Perot arguement. Of course, its bullshit, but especially so in Arnold's case. I can at least understand the point when a person built a business from nothing. But Arnold? His fame is because he has muscles. That's it. I mean, I don't mean to knock acting, but any notion that this work prepares a person for government is downright bizarre.
So, basically, I just wanted to point out unprepared Arnold is for office. And, of course, his widespread problem with sexual harrassment/assault (which, for all the Arnold supports, is NOT the same thing as "womanizing" so you can stop comparing him to Clinton, or Kennedy, or whoever). But, I immediately realized that it was just silly hyperbole to say he's the worst governor ever. I mean, surely we've elected some real nutcases in the last 200 years. Probably more than a few people who were criminally corrupt, maybe even a murderer or two. And I think it took me about 30 seconds to remember the horrible leaders of segregation who have a lock on all of the "worst governor" slots in recent memory.
Which got me curious, who is the worst governor in US History. When I researched my article on the Democratic Presidential candidates, I came upon references to Kucinich being selected as one of the worst mayors in US history by an academic panel. Surely, such information would be available for our nation's governors with a simple google search.
Nope.
Pretty much ever reference to "worst governor" was a partisan attack directed at whoever is currently in power or recently in power. Much of it was directed at Grey Davis, but I found references to most of the states in the union where the sitting Gov has been described by political opponants as the "worst governor" in the state's history. Democrat, Republican, whatever. Even the genuinely courageous and Nobel Peace Prize nominated George Ryan of Michigan. No acadmeic information at all. Ah, well.
10.06.2003
four in one
Fourth post of the day! Woo hoo! A quickie this time around, though.
Just wanted to say that my boy, Alton Brown is getting parodied in a Burger King commercial. You know you've made it when a fast food franchise thinks you're an appropriate subject for a commercial. Its kind of annoying, since its such a stupid ad, but its pretty much the definitive proof of pop culture status, so big ups to Alton for the parody. You've made it!
(yeah, I know I just called a tv host my "boy". Just trying to mix it up a bit and bring bad use of slang from 3 years ago to the blog)
CORRECTION
Well, turns out I was seeing what I wanted to in the Burger King commercial. They had another ad which featured Food Network's Rachel Ray which made me re-examine my assumpsion that the ad was a mimic of Alton. Turns out, the chef included is a Rick Bayless, a well-known chef and author from Chicago who has a show on PBS which basically does the whole take you through a market thing. Which is hardly Alton's trademark or something unheard of for a food show.
d'oh!
So, my apologies for jumping the gun on this one. Although, am I the only one who thinks its a little unseemly for TV chefs to be endorsing a fast food restaurant?
Just wanted to say that my boy, Alton Brown is getting parodied in a Burger King commercial. You know you've made it when a fast food franchise thinks you're an appropriate subject for a commercial. Its kind of annoying, since its such a stupid ad, but its pretty much the definitive proof of pop culture status, so big ups to Alton for the parody. You've made it!
(yeah, I know I just called a tv host my "boy". Just trying to mix it up a bit and bring bad use of slang from 3 years ago to the blog)
CORRECTION
Well, turns out I was seeing what I wanted to in the Burger King commercial. They had another ad which featured Food Network's Rachel Ray which made me re-examine my assumpsion that the ad was a mimic of Alton. Turns out, the chef included is a Rick Bayless, a well-known chef and author from Chicago who has a show on PBS which basically does the whole take you through a market thing. Which is hardly Alton's trademark or something unheard of for a food show.
d'oh!
So, my apologies for jumping the gun on this one. Although, am I the only one who thinks its a little unseemly for TV chefs to be endorsing a fast food restaurant?
cult of jared gets more obvious
You know, I'm actually glad that Subway sandwiches suck, because otherwise I might be pissed off at their continually insulting ad campaign featuring Jared. The series has built him up as a literal cult figure with worshipers and everything. That's why I've identified them as the "Cult of Jared" ads. The obsessive adoration of Jared has just been really disturbing, but obviously with the general adoration of weight loss in our society, most people don't see that.
It'll be tough to miss it now.
The latest duel campaign from Subway makes the religous nature of their product unmistakable. For starters, there are the "It's okay, I had Subway" ads. I didn't really see this as much until I found an article at Slate that was seeing this the same way I was. I know I found the ads vaugely objectionable and stupid, but frankly Slate is right. They are treating their product as a redemption. Sure, its a joke, but how much of one? You have to wonder after seeing the ads Jared is staring.
What Would Jared Do?
You know, like Jesus.
Ugh. Yeah, its played for laughs, but after years of their Adoration of the Dieter, I have to wonder. When we start seeing stained glass windows at Subway, I think we really need to start worrying.
It'll be tough to miss it now.
The latest duel campaign from Subway makes the religous nature of their product unmistakable. For starters, there are the "It's okay, I had Subway" ads. I didn't really see this as much until I found an article at Slate that was seeing this the same way I was. I know I found the ads vaugely objectionable and stupid, but frankly Slate is right. They are treating their product as a redemption. Sure, its a joke, but how much of one? You have to wonder after seeing the ads Jared is staring.
What Would Jared Do?
You know, like Jesus.
Ugh. Yeah, its played for laughs, but after years of their Adoration of the Dieter, I have to wonder. When we start seeing stained glass windows at Subway, I think we really need to start worrying.
giant inflatable cartoon character balloon season
I have another thing to add to the list of things I don't get. These big, front yard, holiday balloons. Just started last year, didn't it? With those big ugly pumpkins on Halloween followed up by Santa's and reighndeer and snowmen for Christmas. It was cute the first time I saw one. Significantly less so the next 50 times.
But, they're back. And it seems the valuable cartoon character liscences are getting in on the action. On my way to work, I saw an 8 foot tall Winnie the Pooh dressed up as Dracula with his arms stretched out and his cape unfurled.
Yeah, I don't get that.
I mean, I have issues with Disney properties, anyway (although the REAL owners of Winnie and friends are about to put some legal smackdown on Eisner and friends) but who puts down $50 to $100 (sorry, its apparently $80. $80!) for one of these monstrocities? Its just scary, but not in a Halloween kind of scary but more Governor Terminator kind of scary. I just don't get it. I mean, other holiday fads have come and been played out before the next holiday arrives. Icicle Lights, for instance. Remember how awe-inspiring those were at first site and how fast you were sick of them? But at least I understood them. Inflatable lawn ornaments just scare me.
But, they're back. And it seems the valuable cartoon character liscences are getting in on the action. On my way to work, I saw an 8 foot tall Winnie the Pooh dressed up as Dracula with his arms stretched out and his cape unfurled.
Yeah, I don't get that.
I mean, I have issues with Disney properties, anyway (although the REAL owners of Winnie and friends are about to put some legal smackdown on Eisner and friends) but who puts down $50 to $100 (sorry, its apparently $80. $80!) for one of these monstrocities? Its just scary, but not in a Halloween kind of scary but more Governor Terminator kind of scary. I just don't get it. I mean, other holiday fads have come and been played out before the next holiday arrives. Icicle Lights, for instance. Remember how awe-inspiring those were at first site and how fast you were sick of them? But at least I understood them. Inflatable lawn ornaments just scare me.
definitely have to post. definitely.
The scum bags from the hate site are making it MUCH easier to laugh at them. Aside from their ever present hypocritical blather ("How dare you not think what I think" followed quickly upon by "How dare you not let me think what I think") their personal attacks against me are getting increasingly bizarre.
It started over at the hate site with mocking some poem I think I wrote when I was 16 which I would be the first to admit was bad. Took about a second for their arguement to devolve into spelling flames, long the last refuge of the moronic. They also started trolling this blog for "proof" of what an awful person I was. Like how I was obsessing about junk food in my first post. Well, actually, it was my second post but I'm sure it seemed much more dramatic to lie and say it was my first. Of course, I also brought up DVD's and action figures in that post and it was intentionally frivelous to begin with, but I guess it "proves" that I'm a gluttonous monster of some sort when I really present myself as eating healthy all the time. You'd think I would have known better than to betray such a lie in my own blog. Well, if I ever claimed to eat health all the time, that is. I've usually be honest to a fault about my eating. Am I perfect? By no means, but I can still see that the numbers just don't add up. By strict formula, I shouldn't be the weight that I am. And that's as someone who admittedly doesn't eat "right" all of the time and isn't really all that fat. When I see much greater challenges to the math than what I even see in my own life, I am quite rightly skeptical of that. But, that's too much to respond to, I guess, so the rewrote my position so they could respond to it in a pity manner.
Things got really funny over here, though, when one of the most obnoxious and violent of the hate mongers tried to "expose" my hypocracy. Now, strictly speaking, he was pointing out an inconsistancy of fact, which is not hypocritical by any definition. He seemed to have spent quite a lot of time digging through Usenet postings and elsewhere and was apparently quite proud of himself for exposing me. You see, he found one instance where I said I was thin, and then another instance where I said I was fat. Goodness, what a hypocrite I am!
Of course, the statements were made a good 6-7 years apart. And both were 100% accurate when they were made. Basically, his "hypocracy" was akin to saying that in 1996 I claimed to be 18 years old, yet today I claim to be 25 and then accusing me of lying.
The funniest thing, though, is the discovery, much to my surprise, that I suffer from Asperger's syndrome, a disorder likened to autism. After all, they think they read it somewhere, so that makes it an appropriate topic of discussion.
I must be quite the success story, then. Asperger's is identified by poor social skills, an extreme discomfort in social situatins, a general lack of social awareness or nuance in language, limitations in imagination and creativity, physical awkwardness, difficulty in writing and math, obsessive compulsice, etc.
Funny that being socially inept hasn't kept me from holding a job which involves public speaking 20 times a year. Funny that it didn't keep me from being elected to national office in a student organization covering the only national system of colleges and universities. Difficulty in math didn't keep me from taking two years of calculus in high school. Difficulty with creativity hasn't kept me from singing at the White House, staring in school plays, or writing a play. My problem certainly isn't that I am obsessive compulsive, but a classic "Jack of all trades, master of none". I was a chronic underachiever in college, hardly the brilliant eccentric classified by Asperger's. And though I admit that I suck at athletics, my physical akwardness hasn't kept me from holding my own in a dance number or two in my time. And my job is hardly the kind of obsessive, literal work that a person with Asperger's can excell at. My job is primarily creative in nature.
But, this guy read it somewhere, so I guess its true. Just wish someone bothered to tell me at some point in the last 25 years. You'd think that I'd have known if I was autistic, but I guess not.
It started over at the hate site with mocking some poem I think I wrote when I was 16 which I would be the first to admit was bad. Took about a second for their arguement to devolve into spelling flames, long the last refuge of the moronic. They also started trolling this blog for "proof" of what an awful person I was. Like how I was obsessing about junk food in my first post. Well, actually, it was my second post but I'm sure it seemed much more dramatic to lie and say it was my first. Of course, I also brought up DVD's and action figures in that post and it was intentionally frivelous to begin with, but I guess it "proves" that I'm a gluttonous monster of some sort when I really present myself as eating healthy all the time. You'd think I would have known better than to betray such a lie in my own blog. Well, if I ever claimed to eat health all the time, that is. I've usually be honest to a fault about my eating. Am I perfect? By no means, but I can still see that the numbers just don't add up. By strict formula, I shouldn't be the weight that I am. And that's as someone who admittedly doesn't eat "right" all of the time and isn't really all that fat. When I see much greater challenges to the math than what I even see in my own life, I am quite rightly skeptical of that. But, that's too much to respond to, I guess, so the rewrote my position so they could respond to it in a pity manner.
Things got really funny over here, though, when one of the most obnoxious and violent of the hate mongers tried to "expose" my hypocracy. Now, strictly speaking, he was pointing out an inconsistancy of fact, which is not hypocritical by any definition. He seemed to have spent quite a lot of time digging through Usenet postings and elsewhere and was apparently quite proud of himself for exposing me. You see, he found one instance where I said I was thin, and then another instance where I said I was fat. Goodness, what a hypocrite I am!
Of course, the statements were made a good 6-7 years apart. And both were 100% accurate when they were made. Basically, his "hypocracy" was akin to saying that in 1996 I claimed to be 18 years old, yet today I claim to be 25 and then accusing me of lying.
The funniest thing, though, is the discovery, much to my surprise, that I suffer from Asperger's syndrome, a disorder likened to autism. After all, they think they read it somewhere, so that makes it an appropriate topic of discussion.
I must be quite the success story, then. Asperger's is identified by poor social skills, an extreme discomfort in social situatins, a general lack of social awareness or nuance in language, limitations in imagination and creativity, physical awkwardness, difficulty in writing and math, obsessive compulsice, etc.
Funny that being socially inept hasn't kept me from holding a job which involves public speaking 20 times a year. Funny that it didn't keep me from being elected to national office in a student organization covering the only national system of colleges and universities. Difficulty in math didn't keep me from taking two years of calculus in high school. Difficulty with creativity hasn't kept me from singing at the White House, staring in school plays, or writing a play. My problem certainly isn't that I am obsessive compulsive, but a classic "Jack of all trades, master of none". I was a chronic underachiever in college, hardly the brilliant eccentric classified by Asperger's. And though I admit that I suck at athletics, my physical akwardness hasn't kept me from holding my own in a dance number or two in my time. And my job is hardly the kind of obsessive, literal work that a person with Asperger's can excell at. My job is primarily creative in nature.
But, this guy read it somewhere, so I guess its true. Just wish someone bothered to tell me at some point in the last 25 years. You'd think that I'd have known if I was autistic, but I guess not.
10.05.2003
i can watch tom jackson again!
Can't say how pleased I was to be able to leave on ESPN this morning to watch the Sunday NFL countdown. I haven't watched it all season for one very offensive reason who finally got himself into enough trouble to get himself fired. Oh, sorry, I mean offered his resignation in a way which had absolutely nothing to do with him being fired and humiliating him and going for the usual save face offered his resignation thing.
Yep, Rush is off ESPN.
I'm surprised it took him this long to stick his foot into his mouth. He said something VERY predictably racist. His defenders keep insisting its not racist, but bullshit. Oh sure, he was "really" attacking the liberal sports media. (Liberal sports media?!?) Yeah, right. He assumed that the accomplishments of a black man couldn't possibly be true and had to be the result of some big conspiracy that desires a successful black quarterback. He injected race into a situation it had NO business being brought up, for the purpose of discrediting the accomplishments of a black man. Damn right, that's racist.
The object of his attacks, Donovan McNaab, had responded with utter civility. He has handled himself remarkably well after having his ability question in such a disgusting manner. I've watched Donavan since college when he played for my alma mater's conference rival, Syracuse. The guy has the goods, and has put together more than a few MVP caliber seasons in his still young career. Might he be overrated? Maybe, but it sure as hell isn't because of his race. He's also consistantly impressed as a man of great dignity and sincerity and he's impressed us all with his actions this past week. He's a class act, unlike Rush.
The actual Football experts who shared the show with Rush were attacked several times this past week for not standing up to Rush's vile remarks. Appropriately, they opened the show with a sincere apology and explanation. Simply put, they were focused on doing their job and commenting on football. Rush's social commentary didn't really register. I can understand that. I got the impression that none of them were happy with Rush's inclusion on the show, but they were repeatedly reassured that he's keep his social agenda off ESPN. They heard him say McNaab was overrated and started thinking how to respond to that. They just didn't grasp the complete point he was making until they'd already set themselves to refuting his basic point. Afterwards, they were rightly disgusted and probably had a lot to do with ESPN asking Rush to leave.
I was skeptical from the start that Rush wouldn't keep his mouth shut, but besides that, I was deeply offended that ESPN would hire someone who expresses such contempt and hatred for people who have the same ideas and values as myself. With him on the show, I wanted no part in it. I'm glad to be able to return, but still very disgusted with ESPN. This is very much like MsNBC's past situation with hate-monger Michael Savage when they were stunned that he did all the things he did before they hired him. Rush's remarks are NO surprise, and the people at ESPN and its parent company, Disney, should be ashamed of themselves. But he's gone, and has the duel embarassment of being investigated for rather massive and serious charges of drug abuse. Couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow.
But, I'll stop talking about sports now. Its one of my quirks. In spite of being an artsy type (though not quite a metrosexual), I've always enjoyed watching some sports. Mostly baseball, as football is too obviously cheering for clothes, but its not like much else is on Sundays.
Yep, Rush is off ESPN.
I'm surprised it took him this long to stick his foot into his mouth. He said something VERY predictably racist. His defenders keep insisting its not racist, but bullshit. Oh sure, he was "really" attacking the liberal sports media. (Liberal sports media?!?) Yeah, right. He assumed that the accomplishments of a black man couldn't possibly be true and had to be the result of some big conspiracy that desires a successful black quarterback. He injected race into a situation it had NO business being brought up, for the purpose of discrediting the accomplishments of a black man. Damn right, that's racist.
The object of his attacks, Donovan McNaab, had responded with utter civility. He has handled himself remarkably well after having his ability question in such a disgusting manner. I've watched Donavan since college when he played for my alma mater's conference rival, Syracuse. The guy has the goods, and has put together more than a few MVP caliber seasons in his still young career. Might he be overrated? Maybe, but it sure as hell isn't because of his race. He's also consistantly impressed as a man of great dignity and sincerity and he's impressed us all with his actions this past week. He's a class act, unlike Rush.
The actual Football experts who shared the show with Rush were attacked several times this past week for not standing up to Rush's vile remarks. Appropriately, they opened the show with a sincere apology and explanation. Simply put, they were focused on doing their job and commenting on football. Rush's social commentary didn't really register. I can understand that. I got the impression that none of them were happy with Rush's inclusion on the show, but they were repeatedly reassured that he's keep his social agenda off ESPN. They heard him say McNaab was overrated and started thinking how to respond to that. They just didn't grasp the complete point he was making until they'd already set themselves to refuting his basic point. Afterwards, they were rightly disgusted and probably had a lot to do with ESPN asking Rush to leave.
I was skeptical from the start that Rush wouldn't keep his mouth shut, but besides that, I was deeply offended that ESPN would hire someone who expresses such contempt and hatred for people who have the same ideas and values as myself. With him on the show, I wanted no part in it. I'm glad to be able to return, but still very disgusted with ESPN. This is very much like MsNBC's past situation with hate-monger Michael Savage when they were stunned that he did all the things he did before they hired him. Rush's remarks are NO surprise, and the people at ESPN and its parent company, Disney, should be ashamed of themselves. But he's gone, and has the duel embarassment of being investigated for rather massive and serious charges of drug abuse. Couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow.
But, I'll stop talking about sports now. Its one of my quirks. In spite of being an artsy type (though not quite a metrosexual), I've always enjoyed watching some sports. Mostly baseball, as football is too obviously cheering for clothes, but its not like much else is on Sundays.
10.03.2003
you mean, they don't die at 35?!?
So I am back from a concert featuring two dynamic, extraordinary, energetic sopranos.
Oh, and they were also 70 year old fat women.
Just wanted to say that.
Oh, and they were also 70 year old fat women.
Just wanted to say that.
10.02.2003
movie review: lost in translation
On to happier subjects. And yes, I know more people urged the novel subject, but I didn't want to do it while the trolls are still bothering us. But, yes, I am considering NaNo, although I have deep concerns about my ability to write fiction. But I do want to talk it out a bit, and I'll get to that eventually.
So, I went to see Lost in Traslation over the weekend. I actually really liked Sofia Copella's first film, The Virgin Suicides. I really liked the subtle and sure way she tells the story. Most directors, even good ones, feel the need to be horribly blunt in their films. Basically, they've been taught to assume their audience is painfully stupid. Which sucks for those of us who managed to get past 1st grade. The worst of them are just completely insecure in their ability to tell a story that they keep pausing to reiterate points that probably could have been left unsaid to begin with. They don't feel like anything can be left for question. Sofia is clearly well versed in the genre of film and has a lot of courage and conviction to tell her stories in such a subtle and often unstated manner. I don't know if some people are annoyed with some of the quiet, often silent, scenes in her movie, but I loved it. It created a really beautiful atmosphere that allowed the characters to become very real. I loved that not every scene was a slave to plot. I loved that the "plot" itself was prefectly clear. Even when it was doing things that could be cliche, it didn't conclude the way it might seem. The cliches became deconstructed. The movie was both slow and frenetic, creating a real sense of the spark between the two lead characters but having patience to show their affection and frame it with the swiftness with which they take to each other. They let the relationship not fall into any preassumed concepts, while touching on them all. Its not quite a friendship, not quite a love affair, not quite a father/daughter thing. It does all this without falling into any of the traps of those concepts, while still getting to explore elements of them. It shouldn't have worked. I mean, as a rule I'm very disinterested with these older man, VERY younger woman deals, but this just worked for me.
I was quite impressed with Scarlet Johansson playing Charlotte. I liked her in The Man Who Wasn't There but this film obviously gives her more to work with. She's got a very natural charm and she plays off other actors so well. Really looking forward to seeing a lot more from her, especially since she's really young.
In the supporting cast, Giovanni Ribisi does a really good job playing Charlotte's husband. He really found the right balance, matching Bill Murray's unseen wife in being unsympathetic and sympathetic at the same time. You understand the lead character's disenchantment without hating their respective spouses, which I thought was a very daring but effective choice. It made me respect the story a lot more to not just demonize the spouses. You've also got Anna Faris playing a thinly valied send-up of Cameron Diaz. Her ditzy and oblivious actress was very well done. She wasn't just a dumb blonde. I mean, she was dumb and a blonde, but it wasn't a one-note thing. At her best, she was harmlessly oblivious. At her worst, moronically self-important. It was a nice little dynamic, but I was puzzled a bit that her movie star had no significant interaction with Bill Murray's movie star.
Ah, Bill Murray. Great work. Perfect balance between comic and staight-man. Murray is really an underrated straight-man, and it really shines here. He doesn't do that fuction as a befuddled type of straight man who just sets up the joke. Rather, he acts as a kind of eye of the hurricane, remaining calm while a lot of absurd stuff goes on around him. But, not as if he was overwhelmed by it all, but rather confident and bemused. He also flashes his comic skills at a number of points. He's got a great dead-pan delivery that really sells the character rather than concentrating on the joke to the expense of his portrayal. He manages this all with ease. He also shows a lot of sincerity and depth in his interaction with Charlotte. Murray is also a very underrated actor, and I hope he gets a richly deserved Oscar nod with this role. He was robbed for Rushmore, which probably was a better chance since it was a supporting role, but I do think his performance is better here and I hope he can power out some notice.
I really strongly recommend this film. The visuals are wonderful and the story is refreshingly intelligent and quietly told. I really enjoyed it and am looking forward to Sofia Coppela establishing herself as one of the great American writer/directors. It does seem funny, though, that she may well be the talented one in her family.
So, I went to see Lost in Traslation over the weekend. I actually really liked Sofia Copella's first film, The Virgin Suicides. I really liked the subtle and sure way she tells the story. Most directors, even good ones, feel the need to be horribly blunt in their films. Basically, they've been taught to assume their audience is painfully stupid. Which sucks for those of us who managed to get past 1st grade. The worst of them are just completely insecure in their ability to tell a story that they keep pausing to reiterate points that probably could have been left unsaid to begin with. They don't feel like anything can be left for question. Sofia is clearly well versed in the genre of film and has a lot of courage and conviction to tell her stories in such a subtle and often unstated manner. I don't know if some people are annoyed with some of the quiet, often silent, scenes in her movie, but I loved it. It created a really beautiful atmosphere that allowed the characters to become very real. I loved that not every scene was a slave to plot. I loved that the "plot" itself was prefectly clear. Even when it was doing things that could be cliche, it didn't conclude the way it might seem. The cliches became deconstructed. The movie was both slow and frenetic, creating a real sense of the spark between the two lead characters but having patience to show their affection and frame it with the swiftness with which they take to each other. They let the relationship not fall into any preassumed concepts, while touching on them all. Its not quite a friendship, not quite a love affair, not quite a father/daughter thing. It does all this without falling into any of the traps of those concepts, while still getting to explore elements of them. It shouldn't have worked. I mean, as a rule I'm very disinterested with these older man, VERY younger woman deals, but this just worked for me.
I was quite impressed with Scarlet Johansson playing Charlotte. I liked her in The Man Who Wasn't There but this film obviously gives her more to work with. She's got a very natural charm and she plays off other actors so well. Really looking forward to seeing a lot more from her, especially since she's really young.
In the supporting cast, Giovanni Ribisi does a really good job playing Charlotte's husband. He really found the right balance, matching Bill Murray's unseen wife in being unsympathetic and sympathetic at the same time. You understand the lead character's disenchantment without hating their respective spouses, which I thought was a very daring but effective choice. It made me respect the story a lot more to not just demonize the spouses. You've also got Anna Faris playing a thinly valied send-up of Cameron Diaz. Her ditzy and oblivious actress was very well done. She wasn't just a dumb blonde. I mean, she was dumb and a blonde, but it wasn't a one-note thing. At her best, she was harmlessly oblivious. At her worst, moronically self-important. It was a nice little dynamic, but I was puzzled a bit that her movie star had no significant interaction with Bill Murray's movie star.
Ah, Bill Murray. Great work. Perfect balance between comic and staight-man. Murray is really an underrated straight-man, and it really shines here. He doesn't do that fuction as a befuddled type of straight man who just sets up the joke. Rather, he acts as a kind of eye of the hurricane, remaining calm while a lot of absurd stuff goes on around him. But, not as if he was overwhelmed by it all, but rather confident and bemused. He also flashes his comic skills at a number of points. He's got a great dead-pan delivery that really sells the character rather than concentrating on the joke to the expense of his portrayal. He manages this all with ease. He also shows a lot of sincerity and depth in his interaction with Charlotte. Murray is also a very underrated actor, and I hope he gets a richly deserved Oscar nod with this role. He was robbed for Rushmore, which probably was a better chance since it was a supporting role, but I do think his performance is better here and I hope he can power out some notice.
I really strongly recommend this film. The visuals are wonderful and the story is refreshingly intelligent and quietly told. I really enjoyed it and am looking forward to Sofia Coppela establishing herself as one of the great American writer/directors. It does seem funny, though, that she may well be the talented one in her family.
fat acceptance in life
Sorry, I know I promised a reader's choice, and I will get to that later (movie review of Lost in Translation, by the way, and yes I know I am creatively counting the votes) but I just wanted to discuss a little more fat acceptance before moving on.
Something that bothers me the most about the trolls who are going after NAAFA is that they make out NAAFA to be in intolerant. Why? Because we believe differently than them. That's it. That is what they twist into hatred of them. Because we believe differently. They feel we shouldn't be allowed to have our own site to discuss our beliefs. They think we have to constantly be forced to justify ourselves to the people who disagree with us, and naturally no justification will suffice. After all, we're wrong. We can't justify ourselves. We are promoting "lies".
So, what they are saying is that WE can't have our opinion. They show no respect for our beliefs. They insult them in the harshest of language, and then act like the problem is that we aren't open to different ideas. It is a sickeningly hypocritical position, and rightly earns the anger of those they are telling to shut up.
Then the respond by saying that we "hate" them. The people who call us liars, who insult our intelligence, who say we have no right to our beleifs, and we are the ones who hate them. But, every fat activist has to go through every day of their life with countless people who don't agree with us. How could we possibly get by if we were so intolerant to disagreement?
The truth is, we accept disagreement. We understand it. I mean, if their weren't people to disagree with us, their would be no us. But, most people who disagree with us at least respect that disagreement on some basic level. They may not like what we believe. No more than we like what they believe. But, they won't act like we don't have a right to our beliefs. They won't act condesending and obsessive about the fact that we disagree with them. And we don't do so in return. If someone doesn't like my beliefs, that's fine. I don't like dieting, after all. I find it really sad that some people feel they have no option but to lose weight. I think it is sad that they think this is the answer, because I know they will be disappointed and I know their is a better way. But they don't have to agree with me, any more than I should have to agree with them. All I ask is for respect for the disagreement.
Some, however, cannot offer that. And that's where the trolls come from. They cannot accept that people have different opinions than they do. They cannot tolerate this disagreement. That's really sad, but it also makes me angry. My committment to fat acceptance has been a profoundly positive force in my life and the lives of many others. How dare they say that we have no right to this. They don't have to agree. They can disagree with all the passion I show. But don't come to our sites just to condemn us for having these opinions and try to shame us for not endorsing weight loss. My problem with the trolls isn't that they believe differently from me, although they like to pretend that is the case. Its that they cannot let me believe differently from them. I've never gone to a weight loss support group to bash its participants for wanting to lose weight. I know what they are feeling. I don't like it, but I won't condemn them. But, when you come to my support forum to take cheap shots at my beliefs, that is just unacceptible and intollerant and I can't accept that.
None of us goes through life seething with rage against dieters. We are committed to fighting the culture of dieting and those who promote it and those who wish to destroy us for believing differently. But, we've all had to make our peace with dealing with such individuals. I have plenty of friends trying to lose weight. They know how I feel about it. I don't bother them about it, and they don't bother me. Its just respect. And when someone doesn't offer that, you're damn right I'll get mad. Respect our right to our beliefs. That doesn't mean you have to like them, but respect that we get to have them. Don't act like we committ some great offense by having come to different conclusions than you. If you do act like that, you have no right to act all stunned. What you should be is ashamed of yourselves. Not for the difference of opinion, but for your hypocritical intolerance for us just having a different opinion. We all get along just fine with weight loss supporters every day of our lives. Its really just YOU who we have a problem with.
All right, I've said my peace. Now, on to Bill Murray.
Something that bothers me the most about the trolls who are going after NAAFA is that they make out NAAFA to be in intolerant. Why? Because we believe differently than them. That's it. That is what they twist into hatred of them. Because we believe differently. They feel we shouldn't be allowed to have our own site to discuss our beliefs. They think we have to constantly be forced to justify ourselves to the people who disagree with us, and naturally no justification will suffice. After all, we're wrong. We can't justify ourselves. We are promoting "lies".
So, what they are saying is that WE can't have our opinion. They show no respect for our beliefs. They insult them in the harshest of language, and then act like the problem is that we aren't open to different ideas. It is a sickeningly hypocritical position, and rightly earns the anger of those they are telling to shut up.
Then the respond by saying that we "hate" them. The people who call us liars, who insult our intelligence, who say we have no right to our beleifs, and we are the ones who hate them. But, every fat activist has to go through every day of their life with countless people who don't agree with us. How could we possibly get by if we were so intolerant to disagreement?
The truth is, we accept disagreement. We understand it. I mean, if their weren't people to disagree with us, their would be no us. But, most people who disagree with us at least respect that disagreement on some basic level. They may not like what we believe. No more than we like what they believe. But, they won't act like we don't have a right to our beliefs. They won't act condesending and obsessive about the fact that we disagree with them. And we don't do so in return. If someone doesn't like my beliefs, that's fine. I don't like dieting, after all. I find it really sad that some people feel they have no option but to lose weight. I think it is sad that they think this is the answer, because I know they will be disappointed and I know their is a better way. But they don't have to agree with me, any more than I should have to agree with them. All I ask is for respect for the disagreement.
Some, however, cannot offer that. And that's where the trolls come from. They cannot accept that people have different opinions than they do. They cannot tolerate this disagreement. That's really sad, but it also makes me angry. My committment to fat acceptance has been a profoundly positive force in my life and the lives of many others. How dare they say that we have no right to this. They don't have to agree. They can disagree with all the passion I show. But don't come to our sites just to condemn us for having these opinions and try to shame us for not endorsing weight loss. My problem with the trolls isn't that they believe differently from me, although they like to pretend that is the case. Its that they cannot let me believe differently from them. I've never gone to a weight loss support group to bash its participants for wanting to lose weight. I know what they are feeling. I don't like it, but I won't condemn them. But, when you come to my support forum to take cheap shots at my beliefs, that is just unacceptible and intollerant and I can't accept that.
None of us goes through life seething with rage against dieters. We are committed to fighting the culture of dieting and those who promote it and those who wish to destroy us for believing differently. But, we've all had to make our peace with dealing with such individuals. I have plenty of friends trying to lose weight. They know how I feel about it. I don't bother them about it, and they don't bother me. Its just respect. And when someone doesn't offer that, you're damn right I'll get mad. Respect our right to our beliefs. That doesn't mean you have to like them, but respect that we get to have them. Don't act like we committ some great offense by having come to different conclusions than you. If you do act like that, you have no right to act all stunned. What you should be is ashamed of yourselves. Not for the difference of opinion, but for your hypocritical intolerance for us just having a different opinion. We all get along just fine with weight loss supporters every day of our lives. Its really just YOU who we have a problem with.
All right, I've said my peace. Now, on to Bill Murray.
feeling sick
I've been feeling sick pretty much all day, for all the wrong reasons. You might get an idea if you see my altered request below. The violent hatred some people feel towards people who don't agree them just stuns me. I'll agressively disagree with someone, but I generally try to keep on the ideas, or the tactics of the person. I'm not saying I've never gone personal, but usually only after being fed up with someone else's personal attacks. But I can't stand people who demand I accept their opinion, and when I don't, they accuse me of forcing my opinion on them. Its tough, because those kinds of actions just are outside any concept of logic. Hypocritical people are impossible to deal with rationally, because they've already decided their ideology overrules even basic consistancy. They bash my beliefs but then they accuse me of being "intolerant" for not appreciating them coming into a forum for something they hate to bash my beliefs. I mean, I know these people have to rationalize their actions somehow, but whatever perverted logic is employed is just beyond me. But it frustrates me that I put myself out in the line of fire for an organization that has no interest in preventing even the most violent haters from participating.
The only good thing is the I know join the select company of Jennifer Portnick and Marilyn Wann as people who've had their death's fantasized about at a certain anti-fat hate-mongering board that's been set up. It may have hurt to see such hatred directed at me, but as Marilyn is fond of pointing out, it must mean I'm doing something right.
Sorry if this didn't make sense to any of you, but it was necessarily meant to. I just wanted to ramble on a bit. Thanks for listening. Oh, and any genuinely interested new readers I get in the next few days (not that I'm expecting any) you'll have to take my apology in advance if I get trigger happy and delete your comments. Please, just try again and be patient with me. This site address was posted at the same site where someone was fantasizing about my death, so I'm inclined to think some trolls might come this way. I, for one, have no tolerance for people using my site to attack me. They want to waste their time making up stories and hating me, they can do it on their own damn site. So, if I do get any innocent folks in the crossfires, please accept my apology and I hope you can be patient with me. Hatred is a bitch, but as disenchanted as I may be right now, I'm still not about to back down to people who just cannot tolerate someone having an opinion which isn't theirs.
Okay, enough ranting. I have to get ready to watch The Daily Show anyway. Thanks to all the good people out blog-land. I love ya! Seriously, now more than ever.
Oooh, and just to go out on a positive note, I've had some posts running around my head the last through days, so everybody leave your pick for my next topic in the comment field, and I will endeavor to oblige. The choices are:
Television Review of the NBC Sitcom, "Couplings"
Movie Review of "Lost in Translation"
Why male riders on mass transit suck
My thoughts on writing a novel
So, reader's choice! Lets get this puppy back on track.
The only good thing is the I know join the select company of Jennifer Portnick and Marilyn Wann as people who've had their death's fantasized about at a certain anti-fat hate-mongering board that's been set up. It may have hurt to see such hatred directed at me, but as Marilyn is fond of pointing out, it must mean I'm doing something right.
Sorry if this didn't make sense to any of you, but it was necessarily meant to. I just wanted to ramble on a bit. Thanks for listening. Oh, and any genuinely interested new readers I get in the next few days (not that I'm expecting any) you'll have to take my apology in advance if I get trigger happy and delete your comments. Please, just try again and be patient with me. This site address was posted at the same site where someone was fantasizing about my death, so I'm inclined to think some trolls might come this way. I, for one, have no tolerance for people using my site to attack me. They want to waste their time making up stories and hating me, they can do it on their own damn site. So, if I do get any innocent folks in the crossfires, please accept my apology and I hope you can be patient with me. Hatred is a bitch, but as disenchanted as I may be right now, I'm still not about to back down to people who just cannot tolerate someone having an opinion which isn't theirs.
Okay, enough ranting. I have to get ready to watch The Daily Show anyway. Thanks to all the good people out blog-land. I love ya! Seriously, now more than ever.
Oooh, and just to go out on a positive note, I've had some posts running around my head the last through days, so everybody leave your pick for my next topic in the comment field, and I will endeavor to oblige. The choices are:
Television Review of the NBC Sitcom, "Couplings"
Movie Review of "Lost in Translation"
Why male riders on mass transit suck
My thoughts on writing a novel
So, reader's choice! Lets get this puppy back on track.
10.01.2003
making nixon look good
The Bush Administation must be loving how the absurd election in California is distracting the public. They must be worried that the election is next week. Why? Because of the continued lack of WMD in Iraq? Because of the massive debt we're piling up? Because the tax cuts aren't working? No. There is actually something far more pressing than such problems.
A scandal.
You see, scandals inevitably get more attention that failings because they are easier identify and quantify. They are generally VERY straight-forward, and thus can be very damaging. And the White House has stepped in one that could make Watergate look like kid's play. Indeed, John Dean himself has suggested this is much worse than Nixon's dirty tricks, because Nixon never called out a hit on a political opponant's wife.
The Joesph Wilson affair is starting to really boil over. About damn time. This is the scandal where top White House officials leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent to punish her husband who was going public with how he had debunked the infamouse Iraq buying Uranium from Africa thing. The greatest irony is that the agent seemed to have worked in the field of WMD.
So, just to step back for a moment, the White House blew the cover of a CIA opperative as an act of political revenge. They have identified a covert agent, using her maiden name, who dealt with one of the most sensitive issues the CIA deals with. They've put her life at risk, and more significantly, the lives of countless people who worked with the CIA on this important issue. Everything she ever worked on is now shot to hell. Just because the White House was angry that someone exposed their reliance of incorrect intelligence. If this breaks open, it will be huge. If they circle the wagons, though, it could easily go away.
It shouldn't. I sure hope it doesn't, too. Not just because I don't agree with the Administration in general, but because I am so disgusted that anyone in the White House could have done something THIS wrong. Yes, its criminal, but it also extremely immoral and even traitorous. The Administration is quick to attack its critics for being treasonous for being critical, yet they go and break federal law and put US Intelligence opperations in direct risk. This isn't some convuluted, "the enemy wants us to disagree" garbage. They broke the cover a CIA agent!
I'm not the best person to talk about this. I'd strongly suggest Talking Points Memo, as well as Slate and I'm sure countless other sites to learn more about what this all is about.
A scandal.
You see, scandals inevitably get more attention that failings because they are easier identify and quantify. They are generally VERY straight-forward, and thus can be very damaging. And the White House has stepped in one that could make Watergate look like kid's play. Indeed, John Dean himself has suggested this is much worse than Nixon's dirty tricks, because Nixon never called out a hit on a political opponant's wife.
The Joesph Wilson affair is starting to really boil over. About damn time. This is the scandal where top White House officials leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent to punish her husband who was going public with how he had debunked the infamouse Iraq buying Uranium from Africa thing. The greatest irony is that the agent seemed to have worked in the field of WMD.
So, just to step back for a moment, the White House blew the cover of a CIA opperative as an act of political revenge. They have identified a covert agent, using her maiden name, who dealt with one of the most sensitive issues the CIA deals with. They've put her life at risk, and more significantly, the lives of countless people who worked with the CIA on this important issue. Everything she ever worked on is now shot to hell. Just because the White House was angry that someone exposed their reliance of incorrect intelligence. If this breaks open, it will be huge. If they circle the wagons, though, it could easily go away.
It shouldn't. I sure hope it doesn't, too. Not just because I don't agree with the Administration in general, but because I am so disgusted that anyone in the White House could have done something THIS wrong. Yes, its criminal, but it also extremely immoral and even traitorous. The Administration is quick to attack its critics for being treasonous for being critical, yet they go and break federal law and put US Intelligence opperations in direct risk. This isn't some convuluted, "the enemy wants us to disagree" garbage. They broke the cover a CIA agent!
I'm not the best person to talk about this. I'd strongly suggest Talking Points Memo, as well as Slate and I'm sure countless other sites to learn more about what this all is about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)