Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Finally saw this on DVD. If you've seen it or not, you probably know there are a lot of twists, some of which I saw coming--and was glad to see they weren't presented as great big "gotchas" saved for the end.

One of the things I liked about it is that I think it is, in a way what they call "pure cinema." That is to say: It uses the fact that it's being told as a film as a way of telling its story. If you get where I'm coming from. I don't do that; not so far anyway.

All my stories can be told on stage, on screen, or in a book. I don't think that makes them lesser than; so can a lot of peoples. I hope not anyway. I hope so anyway.

It is, in the end, moving. I probably would have ended it a beat or two before they did, but that's due to glitches of my own that need not necessarily concern you or anyone else. Speaking of glitch, I know Charlie Kaufman is generally considered to the bees knees of screenwriters right now...and this is the point where I admit that I haven't seen anything else he's written.

Nope, nada, nothing. Not Malkovich, not Adaptation, not Confessions of A Dangerous Mind. And certainly not Human Nature. Another one of my little glitches is that sometimes I resist whatever the "hip & cool" thing of the day is.

Anyway, that's more or less everything I want to say, except that I continue to like Jim Carrey more in movies like this or The Truman Show than the comedies like Liar, Liar and The Mask that made him a star.

Kate Winslet is, as always, scrumptious. And Kirsten Dunst has a very pretty face (for those of you who haven't heard). They're both also very good in this, he added, so no one would accuse him of misogynism.

Jesus.

I was up early this morning and saw the breaking news on CNN about the huge quake in Pakistan. And I thought, as one does, about what a terrible tragedy it was, and I said a silent prayer of gratitude to whomever it is that I pray to that I don't know anyone there.

I also felt that I knew with a sickening sense of certainty what the reaction of some of the pro-Bush bloggers would be. And I was right.

Sean Hackbarth (who, I grant you, has a cool name) asks:

When will President Bush be blamed and when will Halliburton be accused of reaping profits from the dead?

If it turns out he is in any way responsible, and if that corporation does, in fact, start reaping profits from the dead, Sean. That's when. So far as I know, there is as yet no reason to think either of those things are true.

ETA: Although, it's worth reporting that within a few hours, the UK had aid teams on the way. Which, if we've done yet, I haven't seen it.

Meanwhile, someone whose blog in no way suggests he has issues about his manhood, "Big Dog" expands on Hackbarth's satirical point above.

In a related story Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy want to know why George Bush did not respond before this disaster. They claim many lives would have been saved if the US federal government had acted more quickly. FEMA, already under the gun for its response to hurricane Katrina, was also fingered as a responsible party.

Said Pelosi, “If this administration can not handle natural disasters in a more efficient manner to save lives, how can we trust them to do anything?”

Ted Kennedy reported that George Bush was too busy giving a speech to oil executives to put together a plan before this happened and Harry Reid is calling for the head of FEMA to be fired.

Senator Hillary Clinton has called for an investigation like the 9/11 Commission to find out what the President knew and when he knew it (sort of like that book about her).

Yeah, I know the reference to the widely-discredited book about Hillary Clinton doesn't quite make sense. You have to understand. I mean, I don't know "the Big Dog," but I'm guessing he saw a chance to take a swipe at so many people that he despises in one go. He just got a little overexcited. I'm sure he appreciates your understanding, and the knowledge that it happens to all bloggers at some time or another.

Oh, and by the way

Nine more American soldiers have been killed in something like the last 24 hours in Iraq. 21 soldiers have been killed in the last week. Since, as Blogs for Bush told us, the war is "The only actually important issue before the American people," I'd like to suggest a trip to Daily Kos.

There you can read excerpts from two or three blogs by current or former soldiers who actually served or are serving in Iraq. I especially recommend the comments posted on a blog called Fight to Survive. I may or may not agree with all of them, but I can't argue with the guy's passion. And he does have the advantage of actually having "been there."

I'm also impressed by the way he retains his sense of humor in the face of criticism:

I must admit that your frequent use of the word "sedition" both surprises and humors me. That must be a big word for you. Did you happen to read it somewhere, or was its terrorist connotation ever so monotonously drilled into your head in boot camp? Perhaps you removed a "seditious" leader in Level 7 of your new Tom Clancy shoot'm up video game. Whatever the case may be, perhaps you have a valid point. Webster's defines the act of sedition as "rebellion or incitement: actions or words intended to provoke or incite rebellion against government authority." If what you are saying means that I am accused of opposing this current and criminal regime, and desperately hope for swift and drastic change, well...at least you used the word right.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

You know, just when I think I can stop making those "guess which prominent right-winger is pissed off at Bush's choice of Miers now" posts...they give me something like this:

Robert Bork - whose nomination to the high court was rejected by the Senate in 1987 - called the choice of Miers "a disaster on every level."

"It's a little late to develop a constitutional philosophy or begin to work it out when you're on the court already," Bork said Friday on MSNBC's "The Situation with Tucker Carlson." "It's kind of a slap in the face to the conservatives who've been building up a conservative legal movement for the last 20 years."

Via AmericaBlog.

Because they're exactly the same thing.

From Media Matters for America:

Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson predicted on his radio program that allowing same-sex marriage in the United States would lead to "group marriage," "marriage between daddies and little girls," or "marriage between a man and his donkey." Dobson called this vision of the future "more or less a prophecy," though, he stressed, not a "divine prophecy, but a prediction." He said that his specific examples, as well as "anything allegedly linked to civil rights," will be "doable, and the legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed."

As ever, what continues to amuse me about statements like this from people like Dobson, ole' "man on dog" Santorum and Bill O'Rielly is not the homophobia. It's the unbelivable twists and turns people will make to avoid saying: I don't think of homosexuals as people.

I mean, there might be something--not much, but something--to be said for a honest homophobe who said this is what I believe and this is how I feel. But no, we gotta dress it up in "concern for marriage" and "religion."

If you don't think two people of the same sex who are in love should be entitled to exactly the same right to get married as anybody else, guess what? You're a homophobe. Accept it. Embrace it. I'm pretty sure there are places where you can still get little hats, and someone will be along to teach you the words to the songs and tell you when the next meeting is.

Welcome to the party, pals

Evangelicals, Republican women, Southerners and other critical groups in President Bush's political coalition are worried about the direction the nation is headed and disappointed with his performance, an AP-Ipsos poll found.

That unease could be a troubling sign for a White House already struggling to keep the Republican Party base from slipping over Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Gulf Coast spending projects, immigration and other issues.

All together: Got a feeling 2006 is gonna be a good year...

The "wisdom" of Solomon

The following news item by Associated Press writer John Solomon seems to me a perfect example of the kind of bad writing and reporting we've seen too much of in recent years. I'm not talking conservative or liberal bias, I'm just talking bad.

Let's start with the headline, which, to be scrupulously fair, I won't blame Solomon for because I don't know if he wrote it. It is:

Rove Says He Wasn't Involved in CIA Leak

And yeah, I know what you're thinking. He said that? Oh, really? Well, what possible reason would he have had to lie? But then we get into the meat of the story itself...

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told President Bush and others that he never engaged in an effort to disclose a CIA operative's identity to discredit her husband's criticism of the administration's Iraq policy, according to people with knowledge of Rove's account in the investigation.

They said Rove's denial to Bush occurred during a brief conversation in the fall of 2003, a few months after media reports revealed that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked as a covert CIA operative.

So in other words, a more accurate version of that headline would have been, Rove Told Bush He Wasn't Involved In CIA Leak In 2003. Before he testified before a grand jury four times about something he wasn't involved with, was a likely candidate for indictment for something he wasn't involved with and had an axe hanging over his head for something he wasn't involved with.

Moving on, we find this little two-line paragraph buried a little deeper in the story:

Wilson, Plame's husband, went public on July 6, 2003, with criticism of Bush administration officials, suggesting they manipulated intelligence to justify the Iraq war.

Now, I suppose it would be Bush bashing of me to expect this to be followed with something like:

This later proved to be true.

But wouldn't it be considered good writing and reporting to add something like:

"Later evidence, including what is called The Downing Street Memo, tended to support this suggestion."

You know, the more I look at the things Rove, Bush at all have been doing over the past week, the more convinced I am: Everything they are doing is about giving Bush the smoothest early exit they can. That's what Miers is about-trying to make sure he has a lifeboat. That's what Rove's extra testimony is about, I betcha. Giving Bush what's called "plausible deniability".

They don't think he's going to finish out his term.

Maybe those stories about Bush falling off the wagon in the wake of Katrina are accurate. Maybe somebody (Laura?) put their foot down and said find this man a way out that evades prison.

Of course, even if he should resign in disgrace as did Nixon, I'm sure we can rely upon Cheney (or Hastert, come to that) to do for him what Ford did for Nixon.

I can look deep into your eyes and shout Hold me, hold me...

Shakespeare's Sister has a good entry on "outing" today. I especially agree with this part:

I always find it interesting that people to whom I’ve spoken who dislike the practice inevitably agree that they would argue with “outing” other aspects of a politician’s life that would expose hypocrisy, but remain uncomfortable with outing someone on the basis of his or her being gay. I think it reveals an entrenched discomfort with homosexuality that some people are unwilling to admit to themselves, even as they champion gay rights.

I don't have chapter and verse, but that last bit goes along with something I've long suspected is true. I think there are people who are not, shall we say, quite so "enlightened" as they would like us to believe. Or as they may believe themselves to be.

It's one thing to express sympathy for a minority...but acceptance is another kettle of fish alltogether.

Preach on

Anne from Peevish adds some things in response to that report that alleges

Democrats can't win with liberal voters?

Just let them get some real leadership with a liberal platform and some candidates we believe in, and we'll see whether or not that's true.

Exactly; this is what I've been thinking for a long time. How would we know if a real liberal leader can or can't attract enough votes--when was the last time we nominated one? Carter? Mondale? No, I said leader.

If we'd had a campaign in which one party was conservative, and made their case, and one party was liberal, and made their case? And the country said you know what, we'll go with the conservatives, then, then I might believe the "experts" who say we have to moderate.

But until I see the Democrats really try to win with a truly liberal leader, all those so-called experts are is the people who brought us Kerry in '04 and Gore in 2000.

Oh, really now

To anyone who remembers some of the shit the republicans pulled before and during the Clinton impeachment, the following can only be seen as karma:

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's legal team asked a court Friday to throw out his indictment, arguing that a Texas district attorney "attempted to browbeat and coerce" grand jurors into filing criminal charges.

Ronnie Earle "and his staff engaged in an extraordinarily irregular and desperate attempt to contrive a viable charge and get a substitute indictment of Tom Delay before the expiration of the statute of limitations," DeLay's attorney Dick DeGuerin said in a court filing alleging prosecutorial misconduct.

Now, for some reason, I'm inclined to disbelieve any argument Tom Delay's legal team makes. But you know what? Even if they're right, I don't care. It's called what goes around, comes around.

You harassed my president and impeached him on a point of trivia (in terms of his job). You browbeat a young girl--who yeah, had made a regrettable choice--into cooperating with you. And you did it all because a multi-billion-dollar investigation led a by a special prosecutor who was, to say the least, motivated, lasted years and found our guy had done nothing illegal.

And now you want the big mean prosecutor to stop hurting your poor wittle feewings. Uh-uh. The chickens are coming home to roost.

Maggie, bring in the standard forms. I'm getting married.

Part two in what's looking like it's going to be a continuing feature on blogs I find through the wonders of Site Meter. A blogger calling herself introvert182 was kind enough to put Dictionopolis in Digitopolis in her sidebar of "blogs [she] adore[s]."

I'm her chosen representative of blogs on current events. I know, I'm scared too.

But, in checking out the blogs I'm hanging out with in her adoration, I found Lisa. Lisa, who has a blog devoted to discussing all things '80s. Lisa, who makes lists of annoying celebrities that I can't argue with 98% of. Lisa, who writes:

Boobs are not meant to be strapped down with duct tape and squashed into place. Breasts are supposed to look natural and move a little bit when you walk.

Lisa, who shares at least one of my big pet peeves (not introducing two people to each other). Lisa, whose boyfriend--okay, so she's not perfect--"once said I reminded him of a young Virgina Madsen."

Sigh. It can't be just a coincidence that she has the same name as the Kelly LeBrock character in "Weird Science". I couldn't love her more if another guy and I had made her up sitting around with bras on our heads.

It takes a whole lot of medicine, darlin', for me to pretend to be somebody else

I suppose it's the masochist in me but I've been taking a little tour of the pro-Bush right-wing blogs reaction to the president's speech yesterday. Hoo boy. First, this from Blogs for Bush...

While we are arguing about nominees and indictments, the war goes on. The war: The only actually important issue before the American people.

Ah yes, the war. The one the American people now think was a mistake, is being badly fought, and want ended as soon as possible. That the one you mean?

Among the many things in the speech which impressed me was this bit, which refutes the critics who say that our liberation of Iraq caused more problems than it solved:

Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001 -- and al Qaeda attacked us anyway.

Um, okay, call me dense, but from where I'm sitting that doesn't refute such critics at all. It's just another attempt to muddy what has been crystal clear for years: Iraq had no connection to 9/11.

It doesn't even make sense; so, if we'd been in Iraq before 9/11 they wouldn't have attacked us?

We didn't "cause" or "trigger" the rage of radicals: We enabled it. By attacking a nation that was of no threat to us whatsoever, by sanctioning torture and other abuse of prisoners of war, we have given a whole lot of people around the world reason to say well, maybe al Qaeda is right.

By acting like the great Satan they've already been told we were, we have given, in a very real sense, aid and comfort to the enemy. That's what people mean when they say our invasion of Iraq has caused more problems than it's solved.

Meanwhile, John Hindrocket (and this is the last time I'm going to tell you this: he chose that nickname for his own self, we godless heathens just enjoy shoving it down his throat) writes:

I was talking with a liberal the other day, who tried to explain to me that democracy in Iraq is impossible because of that country's religious and ethnic diversity. Only civil war can result from such conditions, he said. Oh, great, now they tell us--multiculturalism is impossible!

Bwa ha, bwa ha, ha! because you see..Iraqi culture is exactly the same as American culture! So if their religious and ethnic diversity can only result in civil war, that means Geena Davis should get out of The White House and into a body stocking, where she belongs! Bwa ha, bwa ha, ha! Stupid liberals don't know what they're talking about!

And then there's Mr. Bush himself, who said:

Recently our country observed the fourth anniversary of a great evil, and looked back on a great turning point in our history. We still remember a proud city covered in smoke and ashes, a fire across the Potomac, and passengers who spent their final moments on Earth fighting the enemy. We still remember the men who rejoiced in every death, and Americans in uniform rising to duty. And we remember the calling that came to us on that day, and continues to this hour: We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity

We still remember a president who froze like a deer in headlights, sitting in a schoolroom, reading a book called My Pet Goat. We still remember the way the real heroes of that day who were fortunate enough to survive had their benefits cut. We still remember who dressed up in a pilot suit and strode manfully across the deck of a battle carrier and gave a speech in front of a banner that said "Mission Accomplished."

Almost two years ago. Two years of apparently neverending battles and mounting U.S. casualties. We still remember. But here's where I started to get angry.

We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won.

How was that five-week vacation, you sanctimonious little turd?

We don't know the course of our own struggle — the course our own struggle will take — or the sacrifices that might lie ahead. We do know, however, that the defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice.

I'm sorry, whose sacrifice? Barbara and Jenna finally joining up, are they? My god. And to think they called his father a wimp.

Say what you will about Bush Sr, he does have that whole "shot down durning WW2" thing going for him. All Bush Jr. has is the blood of innocents.

It's the Great Pumpkin, Karl Rove

This may turn out to seem meaner than I at first intended it

Esquire magazine has named Jessica Biel their 'Sexiest Woman Alive' for 2005. I'm not going to make a list of women I think are sexier than Biel, just a few words about why she wouldn't be at the top of such a list.

Granted, she is beautiful, but frankly...really only in a sexist-appealing way. Let me see if I can explain what I mean. I'd be a hypocrite if I said that I don't appreciate women's bodies; I do.

And, as previously blogged about here, I enjoyed Biel's bouncing tits in the otherwise unecessary Texas Chainsaw remake as much as the next heterosexual male or lesbian.

So yes, it's possible for a woman to turn my head by appealing to no more than that "monkey" part of my brain. The problem is that to appeal to the other part, the human brain, to keep me looking at her?

She has to eventually be seen to be, well, sort of, no offense to Ms. Biel who I'm sure is a perfectly nice person, well...smart. That is to say, I've seen her interviewed, and I've seen her work.
I can't see spending 15 minutes talking to her while thinking about anything other than how to get her dress off.

Hey, yeah...

In Sioux Falls, some parents are up in arms because of some new textbooks...

"There's some drawings of the whole entire frontal of the male," said Karla Wornson, who is home schooling her middle school daughter but has sons who attend public high school. "My 12-year-old daughter would probably crawl under the desk."

One Odd Goose points out the flaw in that argument...

This woman has high school age sons and thinks her daughter has never seen a penis?

Well, she is home schooled. Maybe they keep her upstairs in a big, plastic bubble.

The Last McBain

As I noted at the the time, the prolifc author of the 87th Precinct novels and others, Ed McBain, died earlier this year. His last book, Fiddlers, has now been published.

The last McBain is probably not the best McBain (for me that would be either Lightning or Let's Hear It for the Deaf Man). But it improves greatly over last years Frunious Bandersnatch and Hark! And is a fitting "end of the bookshelf.".

The knowledge that this will be the last "Novel of the 87th Precinct" is impossible to dispel. But McBain, in their "farewell appearance" is too much of a professional to let his characters get so out of character as to be maudlin.

This is, finally "just" another character-driven McBain police procedural. Except that it isn't. Without giving anything away, it seems safe to assume he felt a certain kinship with his final villain.

McBain may or may not have invented the form, but he made it his. He created characters that, over the course of almost 50 years, readers came to care about, and all while sketching them in with only the sparsest of lines. How much do we know about Steve Carella outside his "almost Oriental" eyes and his deaf wife, Teddy? The answer is not a lot...and yet everything. Because we've been living with him on the job for years.

His chronicler, Ed McBain (AKA Evan Hunter), has given him and his colleagues a fitting send-off.

TalkLeft Is Right

Here's the whole post, excerpts follow.

Two "intellectuals" from the Clinton centrist era have issued a new report saying the only way Democrats can win is to abandon liberalism and take a centrist position like Clinton did in 1992. As an example, they give this:

They suggest that Democratic presidential candidates replicate Clinton's tactics in 1992, when he broke with the party's liberal base by approving the execution of a semi-retarded prisoner, by challenging liberal icon Jesse L. Jackson and by calling for an end to welfare "as we know it."

Who cares whether Democrats win if they are just Republicans in sheep's clothing? Why be a member of a party if its values aren't your values?

The radical right is not a majority in this country. It is a relatively small group with very loud preachers. The radical right is running this country because Karl Rove figured out how to energize the evangelicals and get them to the polls.

Our voters are out there, we just have to give them something worth voting for, and centrism and Republican-lite won't do.

My, my.

Wasn't it just yesterday I was saying how interesting it should be to see Bush's next round of polling numbers? Well, guess what. They're in.

CBS News. 10/3-5. MoE 3.5% (9/9-13 results)

Bush approval ratings, Overall:

Approve 37 (41)

(Via Daily Kos)

37%, y'all. My god, this parachute is a napsack!

Hay una discoteca por acqui?

I don't speak the language
I can't understand a word...
--Pet Shop Boys, "Discoteca"

About 10 days ago, I added Site Meter to this blog. Among other things, this means that I now get a log of referring URLs. As in, if someone came here because they found my blog on a Google blogsearch, I know that.

I just found in that log the URL to a blog belonging to someone calling themselves Mariano. What text there is is in Spanish, which I don't understand, but in fact there's little text there at all.

It seems completely devoted to showing pieces of artwork. I assume "Mariano" painted them him-or-herself, but again, I have no way of knowing.

But as the saying goes, I may not know about art, but I know what I like. And I like these. I encourage you to click on the link above and stroll down the page; whoever "Mariano" is, he-or-she has a gift.

(Again, assuming this is his-or-her own work. I don't think I've ever wished quite so hard I spoke Spanish)

I kind of threw a reference to this away earlier

But it is, apparently, a really big deal that Rove is testifying in the CIA leak case a fourth time.

Presidential confidant Karl Rove will testify for a fourth time before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA officer's identity even though prosecutors have warned they can no longer guarantee he will escape indictment, lawyers said Thursday.

Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, said that it was unusual for a witness to be called back to the grand jury four times and that the prosecutor's legally required warning to Rove before this next appearance is "an ominous sign" for the presidential adviser.

"It suggests Fitzgerald has learned new information that is tightening the noose," Gillers said. "It shows Fitzgerald now, perhaps after Miller's testimony, suspects Rove may be in some way implicated in the revelation of Plame's identity or that Fitzgerald is investigating various people for obstruction of justice, false statements or perjury. That is the menu of risk for Rove."

Anybody else starting to feel like a kid at christmas?