Random Flickr-blogging 5019

There's no connection between these photos, and you'd be a fool and a Communist to make one.


Source


Source


Source


Source


Source


Source

That was a piece of shit.

As most of you know, I am a fan of Amber Benson, the actress who played Tara on Buffy. Unfortunately, being a fan of Amber Benson carries with it certain penalties. Much as my interest in Anne Hathaway has led me to sit through some pretty terrible films (three words: Princess Diaries 2), just for the chance to look upon her beautiful visage.

Case in point: The TV movie Gryphon, premiering this month on the Sci-Fi channel, in which Benson stars.

Even simple editoral matchup seemed to be beyond this movie. In one scene, I swear the position of Amber's hair changes about three times depending on which setup they're using.

And a few words about costuming. I can accept that Amber's character invented the off-the-shoulder tunic look centuries before the filming of Flashdance. I can accept that because I like Amber's shoulders and anything that exposes them to camera is ok by me.

However, there were also a couple of alleged "witches," in this film who dressed much like porno actresses. How much like porno actresses? Let me put it this way. I had no idea fake red leather had been invented in the middle ages. To say nothing of the fishnets.

Re acting, okay, again, I admit I'm biased, but Amber did seem to be trying harder than most of the rest of the cast. But even she looked like she'd lost her heart for it a couple of times.

I can't blame her. There's only so much you can do with a script that asks you to deliver lines like "Let us return them to the hell from whence they came!" with a straight face.

However, all is not lost. Should you wish to watch this movie, I have come up with a way to make it bearable. I give you: The Gryphon drinking game.

It works like this. Every time they rip-off The Lord of the Rings, you take a sip.

Every time a character delivers a line that is nothing but exposition, you take a shot. You know, the kind of dialogue that makes you think the characters are going to turn to camera and say "Everybody got that?"

Every time the exposition is something they've already established more than three times (did we mention the prince has "the sight?") you take a big swig.

Every time a character speaks to another and identifies his-or-her relationship to them in the dialogue, like this-

"The hordes are coming, father!"
"Go now, daughter, and be swift!'
"Look, my leige!"
"I will have my vengence on you, sorceror!"
"Do not worry, my friend."

--and so on, you chug.

You should start to see the room spinning within 10 minutes.

Enjoy!

Ain't we a wonderful species

So I sign on to Earthlink a few minutes ago, and on the "Welcome" screen I'm greeted with this headline: Gray Wolves To Leave Endangered List. Score! I think. I like wolves, and I took this to mean that enough restoration of the species had been done by committed conservationists we could now all take a breath. Secure in the knowledge that there would be chances to see them for years to come.

Wrongo.

Wolves in the northern Rockies will be removed from the endangered species list within the next year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Friday, a move that would open the population up to trophy hunting.

Emphasis mine. Get it? The wolves are leaving the endangered list so to make it okay for Dick Cheney-types to kill them again. I had to read it three, four times to make sure I had it. And even then...well, here's another place where my liberal tendency to try to see things from another's POV gets me in trouble, and even shows up my naiveté.

See, I like wolves. But I'm not so moony about them that I can't imagine their being a threat to livestock or even, in extremly rare occasions, human life. So I wondered: Is there some surplus of wolf population, or have they become a threat to anyone's livelyhood or even life?

No, no there is not, and no they have not. This really is just about the fact that some people think it makes them more of a man to hunt animals for sport.

People like (I am not making this nickname up) Idaho Gov. C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter.

["Butch"] told The Associated Press that he wants hunters to kill about 550 gray wolves. That would leave about 100 wolves, or 10 packs, according to a population estimate by state wildlife officials.

I think the nickname says it all.

Otter complained that wolves are rapidly killing elk and other animals essential to Idaho’s multimillion-dollar hunting industry.

Again, Emphasis mine.

Suzanne Stone, a spokeswoman for the advocacy group Defenders of Wildlife in Boise, said Otter’s proposal would return wolves to the verge of eradication.

‘‘Essentially he has confirmed our worst fears for the state of Idaho: That this would be a political rather than a biological management of the wolf population,’’ Stone said. ‘‘There’s no economic or ecological reason for maintaining such low numbers. It’s simple persecution.’’

Don't mess with my Gray Wolves, man...

A very silly joke about something that isn't very silly at all

The Iraqis hate Paul Weller. And/or the Justified Ancients Of MuMu.

$10, 000 to the first reader who can understand a word of this*

Good afternoon. A few days ago, I suggested you watch a CNN program with Christianne Amanpour investigating British Muslims both extremist and moderate. This attracted the attention of a not-at-all-cowardly mystery poster named "purpleXed" who has no blog but does have a Blogger account. Presumably for the purpose of leaving comments on blogs like this one.

Well, being a liberal, I'm hung up on fairness. I actually try to respect all points of view and be tolerant. So I was looking forward to enaging this guy/gal in a civilized debate, seeing what they had to say, then making my reply.

But I'll be damned if I can understand a ##$@&&%$#$ word of this, enough to get hold of for a reply. Excerpt:

It is the media that retains the rants on the oxygen mask of publicity when it accords them undeserved and unjustifiable attention on prime time without which the rantagogues are more weak than a fish without water.

Any suggestions for what I should say to this apparently deeply involved person on an issue so precious to them that they took time out of their busy day? Speaking out like this should be encouraged and rewarded, it shows they're paying attention.

I just wish I was.













*Payable at the exact instant I have $10, 000 to give away, of course.

Reload 2

Being the reposting of linked videos I've posted that no longer work; just 'cos I like them. This is Eurythmics - Shame: IMO, the best video the two ever made (I believe Dave was the director).

As for the song, it's a beautiful rebuke to the idea of "the glamourous life." Now, normally I get prickly about the notion that it's always multi-billionaire rock stars like Sting and John Lennon who are telling us to "live here and be happy with less" or "Imagine no possessions."

So why do Dave and Annie get away with saying

Shame

In the dancehalls and the cinema
On the TV and the media

-for promoting a lifestyle which, they say, "don't exist?" Well, maybe it's because they don't leave the bromides and bands upon which they were raised out of their finger-pointing.

Shame
And they said all need is love...
With the Beatles and the Rolling Stones

This probably explains why the job at the video store didn't work out

Your Movie Buff Quotient: 48%

You are well on your way to becoming a movie buff. You've seen many of the great films, and you have even probably developed an expertise in a few genres.

Are You a Movie Buff?

Well, that oughta do it

The things Friends will do for Friends. Via The Jennifer Aniston Center (what? I read it for the articles):

You already know that when Jennifer Aniston guests on the March 27 season finale of Courteney Cox's FX drama Dirt, she'll be playing her bosom buddy's archenemy, a rival tabloid editor. But what I've learned — muahaha, exclusively! — is that Aniston's character is a lesbian. What's more, she won't just mouth off to Cox's tightly wound counterpart, she's going to share a liplock with her.

On a semi-related, if meaningless note, it occured to me recently that it's at least mildly interesting how many of the ex-Friends cast have chosen "backstage in Hollywood" projects as their follow-ups. Cox with Dirt, Lisa Kudrow with The Comeback, Matthew Perry Studio 60. You could even count Joey.

I guess you don't spend as much time as hot as they were without forming a few opinions about the kitchen staff...

Just the news you want to get before you deliver the State of the Union

"Bush’s overall approval rating has fallen to just 28 percent, a new low, while more than twice as many (64 percent) disapprove of the way he's handling his job."

I'm going to repeat a prediction: It is by no means certain that the Bush administration will make it to 2008 intact.

A few quick words about last night's "24."

Spoilers ahoy.

Okay. I fully expect that this mystery tech wiz that the mercenary who's now driving around L.A. with Beth Huffstodt's would-be lesbian lover needs to find will turn out to be Chloe. Or, given her little "why do people I know keep dying?" whimper, Morris. That's fine.

Jack and his brother's wife having a history, still, a-okay. Jack's brother turning out to be bald-headed mystery man who was pulling all the strings last season, that's okay too.

But if that kid of his turns out to be Jack's previously unknown son...I'm throwing my TV set away.

This seems like a good place to put a terrific David Mamet comment:

"If we watch any television drama long enough... we will see the original dramatic thrust give way to domestic squabbles."

Why I am Pro-Choice

Kirsty MacColl as "Our Beloved Revolutionary Sweetheart."

(Hat tip-or perhaps I mean a jaunty snap of the panties-to Blue Gal.)

Because being Pro-Choice leads to Communism, and Communism is sexy.

Okay, the "Grey's Anatomy fight" thing

I don't know if you guys have been following this, but a few months ago there was a big fight on the set of Grey's Anatomy when one of the cast called another, a gay man, a faggot. After the flames from this had died down, the same actor opened his big, apparently homophobic idiot mouth again at the Golden Globes and repeated the slur. Even more intelligently, he did it while denying he'd ever said that about the other actor, who replied by going on the Ellen DeGeneres show and saying yes, yes he did.

USA Today has a good article about the state of things, with quotes from a couple of other actors and musicans. Including Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip's Sarah Paulson, who is beautiful, talented, and let's face it, my current lesbian crush. Must be the Keitha in me.

Anatomy's Patrick Dempsey, who was involved in the October confrontation, presented the TV comedy award to NBC's The Office but otherwise kept a low profile, confining himself to the backstage green room. But Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip's Sarah Paulson had no problem speaking out: "If someone said that about me and outed me that way, it would be really hard. I appreciate that (Grey's co-star) Katherine Heigl stood up for T.R. because it's our job to protect each other."

Some are calling for the actor, Isaiah Washington's, dismissal. I've been of two minds about it. On the one hand, I dislike bigmouthed homophobic idiots and I like seeing them get a cold hard smack of reality right back in the face.

But on the other, I dislike the idea that a man could be fired from a job that he supposedly does well because he expressed an opinion. Albeit one with which his castmates and producers (and me) disagree. (Granted, the ability to get along with your castmates and producers might be considered just as big a part of his job as good acting.)

My problem is, if I smugly say that this is okay, what do I say if Fox decides to fire Hugh Laurie from House because he won't make a pro-Bush speech in character? Niether of those things would ever happen, I don't think, I'm just looking for an analogy.

Fortunately, I found a solution to this moral dilemma, and in the most unlikely of places. I've rarely thought I'd ever find myself agreeing with John Mayer about anything (he liked the second season of Huff, for crying out loud), but he's got a great idea:

Other celebs have been chiming in, too: Neil Patrick Harris of CBS' How I Met Your Mother told People.com, "I was just sort of stunned that anyone would want to rehash any of that again." And singer John Mayer, on his blog, says Washington's character should have to come out as gay on Grey's. "What better way for an actor to get to the roots of his discrimination than by portraying the very subject of his own ire for the remainder of his contract?"

That's brilliant.

Random Flickr-blogging 3776

What every young man hopes to find under the tree...(well, at least 90% of them)

Credit.

Here we go again.

Another year of "24," another round of Muslims upset over their portrayal as terrorists:

"The overwhelming impression you get is fear and hatred for Muslims," said Rabiah Ahmed, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations. She said Thursday she was distressed by this season's premiere. "After watching that show, I was afraid to go to the grocery store because I wasn't sure the person next to me would be able to differentiate between fiction and reality."

In a written statement issued late Wednesday night, the network said it has not singled out any ethnic or religious group for blame in creating its characters.

"24 is a heightened drama about anti-terrorism," the statement read. "After five seasons, the audience clearly understands this, and realizes that any individual, family, or group (ethnic or otherwise) that engages in violence is not meant to be typical.

They go on to list the different ethnic and/or religious groups who have been bad guys on previous seasons of "24." You know I'm not necessarily one to reflexively jump to the defense of the "24" producers, let alone the Fox network, but in this case I think they are correct. They might also have pointed out past storylines that pretty starkly implied the dangers of scapegoating and racial profiling.

Or that the new season already includes at least two positive (...thus far) Middle Eastern and/or Muslim characters. More if we're counting the currently ambiguous Assad, or Ahmed's father who we were told was innocent of his son's bad intentions.

But at the risk of sounding overly self-referential, I think I said my piece on this about as well as I'm going to on my old blog, last time it cropped up. In part:

Well, that kind of "Of course, I'm smart enough to know the difference...it's the rest of you potato eaters..." thing never flies very far with me. I don't buy it when it's about using Spongebob Squarepants to promote gay marriage, and I don't buy it about this.

ETA: CNN is airing as the debut episode of their new series "CNN: SIU" a documentary called "The War Within." Christiane Amanpour investigates Muslims in the U.K., both extremist and moderate.

It's excellent, and there's no stretch of the imagination required to see how it applies to the States. Keeping an eye out for rebroadcasts (there'll be at least one tomorrow, I imagine more) is highly recommended.

What is hip?

To recap: Last June, I posted about the upcoming movie, "Sex and Death 101," which Daniel Waters wrote and is directing.

Ah, Dan Waters. For me, one of the big question marks among writers. I mean...he wrote "Heathers," one of the more perfect movies of the past 15-20 years. He then spent the rest of the '90s writing (or at least having his name attached to) varying degrees of crap (Two words: "Hudson Hawk").

I have not seen his direct-to-video directorial debut, "Happy Campers" but perhaps I should.

Well, now I have, thanks to the Sundance Channel's frequent airings. Here's the premise: The sole adult counselor at a summer camp for boys and girls just entering puberty is struck by lightning. The college-age counselors therefore turn the camp into a pit of sexual anarchy.

Not a bad launching place, I hope you'll agree. Lot of places you could go. Unfortunately, it doesn't work.

The biggest problems, it seems to me, are these:

1. The film tries too hard to be hip-as opposed to "Heathers" which was effortlessly so.
2. It's too smart to be the sex/grossout comedy it sometimes wants to be.
3. But not smart enough to be the incisive critique of young relationships it also wants to be.
4. Not enough of the jokes connect. One or two of those that do connect nicely, though.
5. After intruiging starts for all of them, the characters never really pay off.

It's not without its charms-chiefly an attractive cast that shows they deserve better movies than they usually get (we're talking about the stars of the films "New Best Friend," "The Rage: Carrie 2," "Cherry Falls" and "Crossroads" in the same movie here).

Still, though. On balance, this fucks my hopeful "Daniel Waters is still a good writer, he's just been screwed over by talentless hack directors" theory all to hell.

The stars of "Happy Campers," reading their script and wishing it were better.

(Brief aside: "Cherry Falls" is remarkably similar to "Happy Campers" in that it squanders an idea with a lot of potential for "pushing the envelope" in teen sexuality: Local teens realize a serial killer is preying on the virgins among them; they decide there's only one way to take themselves off his list. Unfortunately, they didn't make much more of it than "Happy Campers" does with its premise.)

Okay, the "Hillary Clinton is-officially-running for president" thing

I don't have too much to say about it. Fortunately, Mark has a few thoughts on the subject, and he's right. I think choosing favorites is meaningless till next year, but if you asked me right now what ticket I'd like to vote for, I'd say Edwards/Obama.

But:

...[I] don't think Obama, Biden, Kucinich and the rest of the announced or presumed contenders have that much more appeal than Ms. Clinton. The shallowness of the Talent Pool is evident when the Democrat who looks the most like presidential material is Al Gore. And some of that will just be a matter of voters wanting to turn back the clock, wipe out the previous eight years and vote for the guy they now think they really wanted in the first place. Gore was right on the Iraq War and it's now becoming near-fact (sadly) that he's right about Global Warming. In politics, if you're right about two important things, you're way ahead of the average. Like, by about two things.

And in your dreams whatever they be

Denny Doherty, of the '60s pop group the Mamas & the Papas, has died.

When I was writing this review of a Mamas & Papas collection a handful of years ago I read a few books by and about the members of the group and I came to the conclusion that Doherty was probably the best of them, as a person.

For all that I've no wish to make some plaster saint of him, he would appear to have been, at core, just a guy who liked to sing. John & Michelle Phillips come off as miserable, fickle people even in their own memoirs and Cass Elliot seems a mostly-beautiful spirit to whom fate decided to be cruel.

In that review, I said,

Boy oh boy, if ever there was a band that was a template for VH1's Behind the Music series, this is it -- and, in fact, they were the subject of a popular episode. Partner changing, unrequited love, dying young, drinking and drugs, early success followed by early burnout.

Doherty had his part in most of that. He had an affair with the wife of his groups chief songwriter (and his best friend) while the other woman in the group was in love with him. And as for drinking and drugs...it was L.A. in 1966, for god's sake.

Yet somehow: Just a guy who liked to sing. And for a few years there, he did it in as a lovely a way, in as lovely surroundings, as most anybody ever has. He'll be thought of any time anyone listens to "California Dreaming," "Monday Monday"...

PS: To my knowledge, Doherty never wrote a book, though he did contribute to an oral history of the group. Cass, of course, didn't live to write one. But Doherty did put together, perform in and write a show that gave his version of the Mamas & the Papas story. Much if not all of the text is available at his web site and is recommended for the curious.

Congrats to Sherman

...whose blog made it onto Shakespeare's Sister's Friday Blogroll today.

It would be the act of a small, petty man to point out that I myself was listed in September 2005.

Half-wishing I could "Scrub" my mind clean

I was going to say that tonight's "big musical episode" of Scrubs killed that little sub-genre of television dead. Till I remembered that if it could survive the That '70s Show unpleasantness it could survive anything.

Scrubs at least was not as bad as That '70s Show, where the mistake the writer/producers made was not checking to see whether any of their cast could sing. The Scrubs cast can sing well enough, trouble is, most of the songs they were given were crap.

I wasn't expecting brothers Gibb or Lindsey Buckingham-calliber popcraft, or even Trey Parker, but these songs would have been cut out of The Simpsons, Drew Carey, Buffy, or Xena's musical episodes.

Ladies to listen to.

Amanda and Deborah both have entries up commenting on a recent article at American Prospect. The article argued that yet another reason why setting kids on an abstinence-only sex education course doesn't work is, As Amanda writes,

...abstinence-only education is not only damaging to kids’ health and mental well-being, but it’s also not helping the problem of rape, and may be even making it worse.

...teaching that men want sex and women want love but don’t want sex means that young men figure there’s no such thing as an enthusiastic “yes” to sex. If men think all women are reluctant to have sex at all points in time, then that means that they think sex is basically always rape. If you think all sex is rape because women never reallly want sex—as this abstinence-only curricula subtly teaches—then you think that rape is socially acceptable.

Deborah expands on that point.

That’s vitally important, and it’s an essential element of date-rape and of disbelieving rape victims. “No” only means “no” if “yes” means “yes.”

Both entries have too many good paragraphs to excerpt here. Read the whole thing(s).

Oh, lord.

I can't decide if I think this is more offensive, funny, or just fucking stupid. I just got an email in my inbox promoting an all-male heavy rock quartet from Seattle, the city where I live, or at least exist.

The band's name is LESBIAN. Because it's name evokes pure, sexually-charged freedom -- and that's what rock is all about.

But of course it is.

The CD name? Power Hör (get it, get it, huh?). Including a song called "Loadbath."

I also note that they seem to have taken the webpages-

www.lesbianwitch.com & www.myspace.com/lesbianwitch

-which seems wrong, somehow.

I gave a little listen to the clip they have at their MySpace site. It sounds godawful to me. But it's so not my kind of music-I'm a Beatles fan, among other things-you might not want to go by me on that.

I may not be able to watch Bill O'Reilly on The Colbert Report tonight

I mean, I imagine a lot of bloggers are looking forward to seeing Stephen rough him up in his inimitable satirical fashion. And I was too, being as I think O'Reilly's a lying idiot who pisses me off, and it's usually fun to watch such people make asses of themselves. As he almost certainly will.

That was before I read Media Matters latest clip on him.

On the January 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly said of Shawn Hornbeck -- who was abducted at the age of 11, held for four years, and recently found in Missouri -- that "there was an element here that this kid liked about this circumstances" and that he "do[esn't] buy" "the Stockholm syndrome thing." O'Reilly also said: "The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents.

"I'm not buying this. If you're 11 years old or 12 years old, 13, and you have a strong bond with your family, OK, even if the guy threatens you, this and that, you're riding your bike around, you got friends. The kid didn't go to school. There's all kinds of stuff. If you can get away, you get away. All right? If you're 11."

Abridged version: It's the kids fault. Or, it's his parents fault. Anything but...it's the fault of the person who abducted him. I'm sorry, isn't it supposed to be we Democrats who are more concerned about the rights of the accused than the victims?

So, Bill O'Reilly just moved for me from national embarassment to actual living, active danger. There's nothing funny about thinking a pubescent boy should have been enough of a big, strong man to get away from someone who was holding him captive. And that is O'Reilly's unmistakable implication.

I don't want to laugh at someone who thinks that. I want them jailed and then I want them smacked upside the back of their head a few times.

I'm funny that way.

ETA: Shakespeare's Sister expands on the point.

When some of his viewers criticized O'Reilly for this horseshit, he then said on the following day's broadcast: "I actually hope I'm wrong about Shawn Hornbeck. I hope he did not make a conscious decision to accept his captivity because Devlin made things easy for him. No school, play all day long."

So, apparently, Bill O'Reilly hopes that Devlin terrorized a child so thoroughly that he stayed against his will. What. The. Fuck.

He then continued: "But to just chalk this up to brainwashing and walk away is turning away from the true danger of child molesters and abductors. All American children must be taught survival skills, must be prepared to face crisis situations. That is the lesson of the Shawn Hornbeck story."

The lesson of this story is that American children must be taught survival skills. Uh-huh. Because if an 11-year-old boy has "survival skills," then presumably he can escape with no problem from a 6'4", 300-pound man who's fucking with your head and your body. How fucking stupid is Bill O'Reilly? ...I guess it would be far too much for his puny little brain to engage the thought that adaptability is not only one of humankind's greatest attributes, but also one of our strongest survival strategies—and kids especially manage to adapt to all kinds of grotesquery if they can be convinced their survival depends on it.

"...we can all go on the Internet and find people to say mean things..."

Aaron Sorkin bristles at criticism of Studio 60.

Excerpts:

Citing Los Angeles Times writers Maria Elena Fernandez and Scott Collins, [Sorkin] admitted that he took great issue with some of their stories, along with the piece by Deborah Netburn on Christmas Day that suggested most comedy writers in Hollywood don't take kindly to the show. "She interviewed [a member of the Los Angeles improv group] Employee of the Month, and if you look at their web site, you'll find that most of them are unemployed," he insists. "And we were nominated for a Writer's Guild Award as well.”

"We live in the age of amateurs, and we can all go on the Internet and find people to say mean things about any show," he says. "But everybody's voice ought not to be equal."

I have to admit I take some exception, for pathetically obvious reasons, to his implication that if you are an unemployed writer or a blogger, your opinion means virtually nothing.

I'm suddenly reminded of when James Cameron chose to go after, in print, one of the only critics who didn't think Titantic was a triumph. Here he was, he'd made this big movie that was both staggeringly popular and praised by most of the critics, and he'd won the Academy Award. He just looked like a thin-skinned whiner sniping at a minority opinion.

Similarly, I think Sorkin, if not demeans himself, then certainly shows himself in a less than good light when he stoops to flinging mud at people who don't have his opportunities (or, probably, his talent).

I know at least some (if not most) of his ire is directed not at the unemployed and/or blog writers, but at mainstream reporters who cite them as sources. But my larger point is this: The more my faith that anything will ever happen for me as a writer wavers, the lower my tolerance drops for people like Cameron.

Or, you'll understand how much it bums me to say, Sorkin.

They get to tell their stories to a larger audience than Charles Dickens ever knew, they have financial security and creative independence.

What the fuck do they have to whine about?

Are there no men left...in England?

Shakespeare's Sister has an entry about how most modern TV talk shows are so strictly formatted they don't allow for a genuine character like Peter O'Toole to be shown at their best. She illustrates this with a link to his recent appearance on The Daily Show.

I thought that appearance was reasonably satisfactory-given the constraints of the format. But like SS I'm an O'Toole fan, and I'd be glad to lie at his feet just listening to him telling stories for hours.

She contrasts it with his appearance on the David Letterman show the night before (again, the clip is available) and she's right, he was better and funnier. Because he was allowed more time and in general, she's right, most shows just aren't willing to take that time any more.

I've watched the DVD releases of some of Dick Cavett's old shows recently, and there's just no shows like them any more. Ninety minutes, sometimes with just one guest, or in the case of a Katherine Hepburn, two 90-minute episodes with one guest.

You got something approaching actual conversation, and maybe even got a glimpse of what these "living legends" were like as people. The closest we've had to it recently was Bob Costas' version of Later. His show wasn't as long, but like Cavett's, the atmosphere was relaxed and lent itself to thoughtfulness over zany comedy antics.

By the way, Letterman has always been good for O'Toole-I still remember a story he told about Richard Harris several years ago there. It may surprise you to learn that it involved drinking. Ask me about it sometime.

Saints and sinners, welcome all

Let's face it-if it were up to me, all music would be like this.

Speaking of "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip"...

Heads up: This Sunday and Monday afternoon and evening, Bravo is going to be running a marathon of seven episodes from the season so far. Apparently the idea is to give potential newbies a chance at a refresher course before the first new episode after the Christmas/New Year's hiatus. That episode will air Monday night on NBC.

I won't do a hard sell now, I assume most of you reading this who are ever likely to watch the series are already watching the series. But just in case you're not, or like me are curious to see how the show stacks up several episodes at a time...

I'll just say this: Come see something a lot like the life I should be living. Not that I particuarly want to write a live sketch comedy show (I'd probably be fired for being too political, as Matt was).

But still. Something a lot like the life I should be living.

Well it's not such a wicked awesome good time

(This post contains spoilers for the first four hours of the new "24")

So far, I'm not loving the new season. Besides the political train wreck I fear it's turning into, and the inevitable descent into formuliac decadance, it occurs to me that perhaps I have another reason for my shifting allegance.

The producers much-vaunted policy of being willing to kill off their supporting characters has had, for me, a perhaps unintentional backlash: I'm no longer willing to invest myself emotionally in them.

Frankly, in retrospect Tony Almeida was what I think of as a "click" moment. It's the moment when a TV series or movie pushes me just that one step too far and seems to be saying to me, "fuck you." After a click moment, it's hard for me to care.

But there's one exception to this emotional disengagement from the characters that I have at the moment and it's Jack Bauer. My breath wasn't taken away when Curtis got killed; I knew he was toast once I saw that Roger Cross was getting "guest star" billing.

Curtis being killed didn't surprise me, the fact that it was Jack who had to do it did. And that they spent some time showing the toll that all of this is taking on him. That worked for, and interested me, more than the big terrorist victory at the end.

This year, I find my mind wandering when Jack's not on the screen. The office politics at CTU? Seen it! Political macinations with the President? Ditto! I don't care, it's just this year's model-right down to Buchanan and Karen Hayes being positioned as the new Tony and Michelle (Not to me, they're not).

But Jack? Jack, I care about. Jack, I want to see what's going to happen to him.

If there is any suspense left in this series for me it is not how he is eventually going to triumph over the terrorist threat. It's what he's going to have to do, and what that's going to do to him, to do it. I hope they're going to continue to explore that.

I always loved the scene at the end of day three (possibly my favorite) where they showed Jack all but breaking down from the events of the day. I think one of the reasons that Kiefer Sutherland's so good is that in the hands of a lesser actor, Jack Bauer could be about as belivable as Batman or James Bond. (I like Batman and James Bond, but I said belivable.)

Jack, you could actually believe these things are happening to a human being.

Oh, one thing, then I promise I'll drop this particular thread forever. Remember how I've complained once or twice about that stupid Fox promotional slogan, "America doesn't negotiate with terrorists. Neither does Jack?"

I'd just like to point out that not two hours of the new "day" had gone by before Jack was, in fact, negotiating with a terrorist.

And Assad, the possibly reformed (I'm sure we won't know for a few hours yet) terrorist Jack's been negotiating with is the most interesting of the new characters so far. That is to say he's the only interesting one of the new characters so far, thanks in large part to a charismatic performance by newcomer (to me) Alexander Siddig.

Seeing is believing And what I see Is a woman's face

Sarah Paulson didn't get a Golden Globe for Studio 60 tonight; but she looked beautiful not getting it. And during the quick shots of each of the nominees, she gave a wink to the camera that thrilled me to my toes.

It's kind of pathetic the way that a woman's face, even televised, can make me forget my troubles even for a moment...but that's exactly the way it works. And for that I am grateful. Tonight it was Sarah Paulson and next week her show is on.

It would be overdramatic to say persons and objects of beauty are the only thing keeping my head out of the muck and mire. But then, as Oscar Wilde, I believe, said, we are all in the gutter-but some of us are looking at the stars.

Random Flickr-blogging 4616

Source

"I can't go home unless I know where it is."

--Teddy, Huff, "Is She Dead?" written by Bob Lowry

This is a post I'll probably regret in the morning but fuck it. I want to go home and everything's wrong in my life and I don't know how to fix it and I'm getting old and I'm finding fucking grey hairs.

Grey hairs (!) on my temples and I'm so scared, I'm so fucking scared that nothing's ever going to happen with...I can't even type it because it makes me cry. But if you know me you probably know what I'm scared is never going to happen.

I feel like I'm not good at showing how much help I think I really need. Because when I'm around people or when I'm writing, as in this blog, for an "audience" I'm too well-trained at being witty and smart.

I can do all sorts of cool things, but I don't know how to live.

(PS: By the way it has nothing to do with the two guys-who I didn't even see when I found the picture-and everything to do with the Golden Gate)

Psyched out

Spent the afternoon and early part of the evening watching USA's marathon of the first seven episodes of their phony psychic series, Psych. I'd meant to catch the series first run, but with one thing and another had let it pass me by.

I didn't miss the next House or anything, but it was extremely enjoyable and often genuinely funny, with a large share of the credit going to the two leads, James Roday (who has got to be Jonathan Silverman's younger brother) and Dule Hill, formerly the remarkable Charlie on West Wing. The scripts aren't always as good as the performances, but what the hell.

Also spent the first episode or so trying to place where I'd seen the actress playing the police chief before it hit me: She's Kirsten Nelson, who played the young Mrs. Landingham in the flashback sequences of "Two Cathedrals," one of the best West Wings ever.

I get a kick out of the idea that, in an odd way, Mrs. Landingham and Charlie are working together again...

Poetry Corner

There is nothing worth reaching for
There's nothing to gain
There's nothing in the world outside
Won't make me go insane.

--Anon.

Oh, happy day

Most of you probably know by now that I'm a great fan of Roger Ebert's skills as an essayist, and I've been checking in on his health periodically. The reasons for this are not entirely altruistic. An artist wanting to please a critic is like a NASCAR driver wanting to please the walls of the track. But he is a critic I would like to please one day, and I want him to live long enough that there might at least be a chance of his picking up one of my works.

A couple of years ago on my old blog I wrote about his book

I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie, an invaluable collection of reviews he's written about bad films.

His review of "A Lot Like Love" is a sure candidate for a sequel to this volume (hey, his Great Movies II just came out this year...). He really putts the movie into the water hazard.

"A Lot Like Love" is a romance between two of the dimmer bulbs of their generation. Judging by their dialogue, Oliver and Emily have never read a book or a newspaper, seen a movie, watched TV, had an idea, carried on an interesting conversation or ever thought much about anything. The movie thinks they are cute and funny, which is embarrassing, like your uncle who won't stop with the golf jokes."

Later that same year, but after I'd already switched to this blog, I was driven to an out-and-out declaration of love by his review of of Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo, in which Roger said:

[Rob] Schneider retaliated by attacking [reporter Patrick] Goldstein in full-page ads in Daily Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. In an open letter to Goldstein, Schneider wrote: "Well, Mr. Goldstein, I decided to do some research to find out what awards you have won. I went online and found that you have won nothing. Absolutely nothing. No journalistic awards of any kind ... Maybe you didn't win a Pulitzer Prize because they haven't invented a category for Best Third-Rate, Unfunny Pompous Reporter Who's Never Been Acknowledged by His Peers."

...Schneider is correct, and Patrick Goldstein has not yet won a Pulitzer Prize. Therefore, Goldstein is not qualified to complain that Columbia financed "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" while passing on the opportunity to participate in "Million Dollar Baby," "Ray," "The Aviator," "Sideways" and "Finding Neverland." As chance would have it, I have won the Pulitzer Prize, and so I am qualified. Speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks.

You may well wonder: Why am I telling you all of this? I'm telling you all of this because, earlier tonight, strolling over to Ebert's web page as I do a couple of times a week, I found a New Year's Message from Roger containing this nice surprise:

I am working on the follow-up to "I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie," tentatively called, "Your Movie Sucks."

He read my diary!

Where mistakes have been made in this blog, the responsibility rests with me

Wanted to recomend a couple of good if moderately heavy posts on the subject of Iraq. Plus make a light, but, I hope, stinging remark at the expense of a favorite punching bag of the left. I'll divide them up.

The first is from Mark Evanier, who answered an e-mail from a reader of his site, in part, thusly...

Frankly, Greg, I don't know if we should just pull out of Iraq right now. Knowing that is not my job. But I do think that those keeping us there should be open to a possibility being suggested by a lot of folks experienced in military actions and/or geopolitics. It's that our options are coming down to (a) pulling out now and having a certain level of disaster descend on Iraq...or (b) pulling out at some point in the future, having the same or worse level of disaster hit Iraq then, and a staggering number of American lives and dollars lost unnecessarily in the interim. Those who oppose this war now may not have a proposal to make everything in Iraq hunky-dory...but I don't see that those who favor staying having any plan beyond "Let's keep trying all those things that haven't worked at all the way we predicted."

Then I see via Media Matters that the aforementioned Sean Hannity said

Ted Kennedy won't be "happy until" we have "mass slaughter" in Iraq

Which begs the question: What the hell does he think we have now?

Finally we have a post that Mark recommended from one Robert J. Elisberg. This takes on the notion that The President admitted any mistakes in his recent speech, as some are apparently eager to believe he did.

Some excerpts:

Were this in any other context, said by anyone other than the President of the United States who famously once refused to acknowledge any error at all, then hearing someone say -

"Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."

- wouldn't even register on the "Admit-a-Mistake-o-Meter." It would be a cartoon moment, where a balloon comically whooooosed past our head, and we'd comment, "Sorry, did you say something?"

When a normal, everyday human says -

"Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."

- it's the equivalent of when someone spits out something horribly obnoxious to you, and only after everyone gangs up on him finally begrudges, "If I said anything that offended you, I'm sorry." You want to respond, "There is no 'if' about it, bucko. You did offend me. Now, apologize correctly or go skulk off into the dark hole from which you came."

See, the basic thing about "admitting a mistake" is that it involves three core features: 1) recognizing the mistake, 2) saying you're sorry, and 3) doing your best to make sure it doesn't happen again. Anything else is just puffery.

President Bush did not "admit a mistake." Period. We all know - all of us - that admitting a mistake requires at least consequence. And you can pick through the President's speech one nit at a time and not find a single consequence. (And I don't mean for the 20,000 soldiers he wants to send to Iraq.) No one was fired in his "admission," no one reprimanded, nobody even sent to their room without dessert. There wasn't even the least sense of personal shame and repentance. The only shocking thing was that the entire Bush War Brain Trust didn't get awarded the President Medal of Freedom. Perhaps they've run out of papier-mâché.

I want to be Stephen Sondheim when I grow up.

Take me to the world that's real,
Show me how it's done.
Teach me how to laugh, to feel
Move me to the sun.

Just hold my hand whenever we arrive,
Take me to the world where I can be alive.

--Stephen Sondheim, "Take Me to The World," from Evening Primrose.

Stop the presses.

An actress (Renée Zellweger) who actually reads. New miracles, new miracles. Maybe I should give that Miss Potter film a look.

Its all right, it's all right, you dont have to change your ways

Tara Reid. Don't ask me why, but of all our, shall we say, "troubled" young actresses, she's the one I'd most like to see veer away from turning into a train wreck. Maybe it's because I continue to feel-and it's almost a blind faith at this point-that given a role whose challenges fit her particular abilities, she can meet them. Especially with a sympathetic director.

Still, maybe I'm kidding myself. Certainly she's a beautiful woman, and it's a flaw(?) of mine that I tend to want to give beautiful women the benefit of the doubt.

I did feel a bit sorry for her when she fell into the "women who have had plastic surgery when by no reasonable standard did they need any" trap. And I suppose I've forgiven her for the whole Carson Daly unpleasantness.

There's probably no use pretending she's ever been the brightest bulb in the box. Though I gotta wonder just how bright she was before she spent six years getting high in other ways than swimming with dolphins (there I go, giving the benefit again)...

The pretty blonde also confessed that swimming with dolphins represented the fulfilment of a life-long ambition. "It's so funny because in America everyone has dreams of what they want to do," she explained. "That's one of the things I've always wanted to do in my life and never accomplished. I just did now - I'm on a high!"

Emphasis mine. Ms. Reid, honey, having dreams of what you want to do is kind of a world-wide phenomenon...

You what love?

A new poll says Kylie Minogue is the greatest gay icon of all time.

The Aussie songstress bounced back last year after receiving the all clear from her cancer battle and is firmly back in the hearts of her gay fans.

Runner-up in the poll was another diminutive dame - Country and Western legend Dolly Parton.

Busty Dolly won the admiration of an army of gay fans with camp anthems like ‘9 to 5’ and ‘Jolene’.

Over 5,000 gay men and women took part in the poll by global market research specialists Onepoll.com which revealed Sweden’s biggest export - ABBA - came in third place.

The top 50 list is availible by following that link. Me, I'm no longer surprised by just how many gay icons are in my record collection, etc. I not only own a Liza Minnelli album, I own the Liza Minnelli album written and produced by Pet Shop Boys, for fuck's sake.

I was, however, slightly taken aback to see The Human League at #46. I never knew they were considered gay icons. Synth-pop icons, to be sure. Maybe all synth-pop icons are by extension also gay icons, and I'm just in a surprising amount of denial.

Sean vs. Sean.

Okay, so we know that Sean Hannity is an ideologue with anger management problems. That's a given. But did you know that he's also a master of absurdity on par with Dan Aykroyd at the height of his powers? Observe.

On the January 7 inaugural broadcast of Fox News' Hannity's America, host Sean Hannity named actor Sean Penn, who Hannity described as an "actor, activist, and all-around very angry man," as his first "Enemy of the State" for, among other offenses, calling Hannity a "whore," and for "call[ing] for the impeachment of just about everybody in the Bush administration and call[ing] them 'bastards.' " Despite designating Penn an "Enemy of the State," Hannity then said, "Now, Penn can say whatever he wants." Hannity then invited Penn to appear on Hannity's America "to sit in the hot seat and defend his outlandish comments." Hannity also wondered: "Who does this guy speak for? Who does he represent, other than other bad actors?"
-via Media Matters

Other "bad" actors. Sean Penn. Other "bad" actors. Mystic River. Fast Times at fucking Ridgemont High, for chrissakes. Casualties of War. Carlito's Way. Taps (which has been on cable lately, and held up amazingly well over the years).

That Sean Penn.

Sean Penn, bad actor.

What?

Sean Penn, bad poet, absolutely ("my partners and me are/fired to fight/so bloody unchristmas/is the violent night"). Though he turned out to be not so much of a bad essayist, at least. I haven't seen any of the films he wrote or directed so I can't speak to them.

Sean Penn, bad husband? Quite possibly, based on what you hear in the media, but I've never been married to him.

Sean Penn, bad person to try to take a photograph of? Yes, once, but he's doing much better now.

Sean Penn, bad driver? See above.

But he's a fucking phemomenal actor by most standards. He even won the Academy Award for Mystic River.

With critical perception like that, Sean Hannity's next move is assured. He should be sitting across from Richard Roeper any time now, filling in for the still-recovering Roger Ebert. For god's sake, Roger, get well soon, to insure I'm only kidding.

How to tell when your obsessive love of eighties artists has turned into a problem.

What we have here is a short piece of political comedy. Maybe not as rave-worthy as Doonesbury at its best, or The Daily Show or Colbert Report, or a movie like The Candidate, but still perfectly enjoyable on that basis.

Or even if you don't think it's particuarly funny or acute politically, it does involve a couple of reasonably attractive people simulating fucking. And I'm not too proud to admit I can enjoy watching that kind of thing now and again.

But no. All I'm thinking about in watching the first half of this...



...is how the background music sounds like a version of Wham!/George Michael's classic "Careless Whisper," as done by Kenny G.

The first step is admitting it...

(Clip via Shakespeare's Sister, sometimes a pretty smart-mouthed political comedian herself)

Okay, the "George W. Bush's speech tonight" thing

Mark Evanier says it about as well as I could.

George W. Bush is going to address the nation this evening, reportedly to tell us that he's going to ignore the wishes of most of the nation (and a surprisingly high percentage of our military leaders and Republican members of Congress) and proceed with "The Surge." It may not be much of a surge because we don't have enough troops for that. And it may take quite some time to surge properly...but damn it, we're going to surge. Okay, so it'll mean a lot more of our soldiers getting killed. Isn't that ever so much better than Bush having to admit he screwed up?

I'm also wondering how long it's going to be until we start seeing the perhaps-inevitable political cartoons depicting Bush as Slim Pickens at the end of Doctor Strangelove. Or some Jimmy Cagney-like criminal, snarling, "If I'm going down, I'm taking all of you with me!"

Alas.

All bets are off

This is Madonna having a bad hair day.



This is Floyd, from The Electric Mayhem.

That's all I'm saying.

(A less subtle man would have made some sort of a joke about hands between their legs, but no, not me. I go the classy route.)

Or, "Why less than 10% of this blog is political these days (if that)"

At American Prospect Online, Matt Yglesias has an article that's worth at least skimming. I'll give you the top and bottom paragraphs so you can decide for yourself if you want "the meat," as it were.

Americans are, fundamentally, optimistic people. Hence, every now and again we're treated to some variant of the story about how America's national security policy is going to be okay again, because George W. Bush is bringing some grownups onto the team. When considering this pattern, it's perhaps worth recalling that in its first formulation the savior/hero figure was ... Dick Cheney.

That's the problem with having a bad president put into office and then re-elected -- he keeps doing bad things no matter how many personnel shifts get made. And he'll be there for two more years. It's a frightening thought, and it's more pleasant to imagine some cadre of sensible Republicans riding to the rescue. But even though the truth is hard to bear, it's better to face reality: Nothing will change until a new president is in office.

And that's why I'd rather post videos of the Beatles, Charlie Brown.

apropos of nothing, here is something to make you smile

You can't not smile watching this, it's impossible.

In a related story, The World Has Gone Wet.

John Lennon's hit "Imagine" has topped a new magazine poll to find the best 99 songs ever written. The 1971 peace anthem beat Hoagy Carmichael's standard "Stardust" and Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On" to claim the top spot in Performing Songwriter magazine's hitlist.

Lennon also claimed the number four spot for hit credit, alongside Paul McCartney, on the Beatles' "Yesterday."

Of course, as any Beatles fan worth his salt knows, he claims that credit in name only. McCartney wrote (and played) that song without any of the other Beatles. For that matter, Marvin Gaye didn't write "What's Going On" alone...

Meanwhile, 1971 stands out as a great 12 months in pop music - three of the top 10 tunes were composed that year - "Imagine," Carole King's "It's Too Late" and The Who's "Behind Blue Eyes."

I was also composed that year...

You just can't do stuff like this to the English language

Ok, quick backstory. A church diocese in Los Angeles has decided to reach out to the gay community by creating a "rainbow" version of the famous fish symbol. I know-you and I, being kind, compassionate people, say who could possibly say anything is wrong with that?

I mean, the one thing I'd say is that it looks to me more like a sideways necktie than a rainbow-colored fish. But nevertheless the spirit of openness and inclusion is quite heartening in these times. And yes, some people are pissed about it.

Most specifically, Phil Magnan, the Director of Biblical Family Advocates. Not for the first time in an instance like this, I find myself more offended not by the homophobia, which sadly I've come to accept too many self-proclaimed "church believers" think is a color that looks good on them, but by the tortured, awkward speechmaking.

"To actually put the rainbow colors on such a sacred symbol for the Christian is an affront to the faith of not only the early church believers, but those of us who know that homosexuality and its colors have no place representing historical Christianity that upholds holiness and morality, very highly."

Sheesh. This guy's lost. Maybe he should try Hare Krishna.

(Anybody-besides Corey-who gets that reference, write in)

Tip o' the hat to Shakespeare's Sister, who allows as how

Doodz, we totally need to start a band. Homosexuality and Its Colorettes.

This reminds me of one of my favorite observations from the hippest book in the world, Bubblegum music is the naked truth, wherin is contained the fact that New Wave is music for geeks, girls and gays.

Ever since reading that, I have wanted to form a New Wave trio with a girl and gay just to call ourselves that.

The world is a very, very, very, very strange place

A little more than an hour ago, somebody found this blog by doing a Google search for:

nancy pelosi nipple shots

For the record, there are nonesuch here.

There's an obvious pun to made on the name "Germain," fortunately, I'm better than that

...so I'll just point you to this top 10 TV Shows of '06 list by critics named Germain Lussier & Robin A. Rothman

Obviously, I agree with their number one choice-hello, "Studio 60!"-while disagreeing somewhat with this assertion:

Sure, many people who talk about this "dramedy" refer to Bradley Whitford as "Josh" ("West Wing") and Matthew Perry as "Chandler" ("Friends").

I really hope that's not true, though I'll concede in the case of Whitford's character they haven't done as much to define him. We know he likes Jordan & he's a recovering drug addict. But, who, really, is he? I hope we'll get a chance to find out.

But Perry, as I think I've mentioned, has really impressed me on this show with the way he's made me, not exactly forget Chander, but believe in Matt as a seperate fictional entity. Even if he is another example of Sorkin's weakness for creating Sorkin-surrogate writer characters, who are insecure about their sex appeal, and then casting the likes of Matthew Perry or Rob Lowe.

Their number three, "Friday Night Lights" I continue to find paradoxically one of the most watchable, yet missable, shows of the season. When I'm home and it's on, I will often zap over to it several times in an hour, and I almost always find something rewarding. Yet it's missing, for me, that feeling of "I can't miss a single second!" that you get when you're really hooked into some characters or storyline. But as I said many times at the beiginning of the season, any show about high school football that manages to hold even that muhc of my interest must be doing something right.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that last year's "24" was their best yet. After renting the DVD's last week, I have to say, I don't think it holds together as well as the other "days" do. There were one or two more "wait a minute...did they ever explain how..." moments than I remember from the others.

That's quite aside from my continuing qualms about the George W. Bush loving' producers. But I'll still be back for this season, especially after reading a (spoiler-free) review of the first four episodes by Stephen King in the new Entertainment Weekly. I'll probably even have fun.

Oh, and I'm going to make a prediction. This is not a spoiler since it's based on no insider knowledge whatsoever: This is the year they ice Chloe.

Random Flickr-Blogging: IMG_1847: Robert Crawford can lick my ass edition

A word of explaination. Robert Crawford, AKA "Jurassicpork," recently asked me--

why don't you go back to writing stupid little captions for Random Flickr blogging and leave the political commentary for the big boys and girls, OK, bubba?

--in reaction to a comment I posted to one of his blog entries. Well, not so much one of his blog entries, because, like most of his blog, it consists of quoting someone else's writing vebatim without comment or original thought. But nevertheless: This one's for you, buddy!

Original source.

Although the fact is, I don't have a "stupid" little caption for this, I just like the photo. It's a boathouse. I like the feeling I get from the picture of approaching something. I like the dreamy feel I get from it too.

My first, and first-produced, play is called The Girl in the Boat, but that probably isn't why I like it. As I've discussed before, I've always liked water and related imagery. I've always imagined that if I were a fisherman, I'd be the kind who doesn't give a damn whether he catches anything. And may not even have a worm on the hook. But to spend a few hours rocking in the sea, and otherwise messing around in boats, to quote Wind in the Willows? That I could go for.

I also have that sense of disconnect that I think a lot of people have that a house, or a home, is something they're trying to get to. A couple of my favorite songs are about, or at least refer to that. I was listening to one just the other day--No Place Like Home by Squeeze.

So maybe it's not so terribly farfetched to intuit that what I like about this picture is that it represents both the way I'd like to take the journey, and my hoped-to-be-arrived-at destination.

Which may not be all that weighty of an observation, but at least I can guarantee you that more thought went into it than any 10 Jurassicpork posts.

"I'm a writer," [Moss] said quietly. "If we're going to get into this territory, I can do it a good deal better and more cruelly than you can."
--Steven Bach, Dazzler, The Life And Times Of Moss Hart

The world has gone insane.

When this is considered a "bad" ass. (For those of you playing at home, that's Rose McGowan, in keeping with my theme this week of paying tribute to women that Marilyn Manson couldn't keep satisfied.)

Thasright!

This morning on CBS’s Face the Nation, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced that Congress may refuse to authorize funding for an escalation of U.S. forces to Iraq if President Bush cannot justify the strategy.

Pelosi stated clearly that Congress will fully support all U.S. forces currently in Iraq. “But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it,” Pelosi said. “This is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions, and we have gone into this situation, which is a war without end, which the American people have rejected.”

--Via Think Progress.

Favorite lines

...you do not put yourself into what you write, you find yourself there.

--Alan Bennett, Untold Stories: Art, Architecture And Authors

Out of the mouths of babes

Went to my nephew's fifth birthday party today. I gave him a yellow, Nerf-style soccer ball. We were out together one day and he told me he wanted to learn to play and be on a team. I noted with some satisfaction that it was one of the only presents he got with which he could reasonably be expected to play.

His gramma gave him a snow globe with some penguins in it, and he also got some stickers and books and things. You know I'm all for giving children books-especially Roald Dahl's Charlie & the Chocolate Factory, which his father gave and is going to read to him.

But he's going to play with my present. This is what Uncles are for.

Besides my nephew, the other kids there were a slightly older boy, a slightly younger girl, and one girl who was, as she told me, "almost seven." She was a sweet but tough little girl. Her jeans were festooned with pink embrodiery, but when the boys started roughhousing she was right in the middle of it and giving as good as she got.

One of the boys (not my nephew, I am kinda proud to say) decided that the way for him to gain the advantage was to take off his shoes and drop-not to say throw-them on her. Her response?

"Don't make me get my high heels."

I like this kid.

John McCain, the conservative's conservative

Glenn Greenwald has a good post in which he starts with the latest manure John McCain is spreading to try to "prove" that Americans do not, in fact, oppose the war. I won't tell you the extremely tortured logic McCain is using, better you should see for yourself. But Greenwald is both right and has facts on his side (funny the way that works) when he says that McCain

...should not be permitted to continuously claim with impunity that Americans have not turned against the war, or that they do not "want us out of Iraq," because that is just demonstrably and factually false. Journalists ought to make clear that his claims in this regard are factually false. The latest CBS public opinion poll (h/t Media Matters), like virtually all others which preceded it, simply leaves no doubt about that.

This latest poll was conducted between January 1 and January 3 -- after the Glorious Execution of Saddam Hussein -- and revealed that Americans oppose the war by a 67-31% margin -- a gap of 36 points. Only 11% favor the McCain/Lieberman plan of sending more troops to Iraq -- 11%. Directly contrary to McCain's repeated statements, a majority of Americans -- 54% -- favor withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

I also recommend following the link at the end of that post, to Greenwald's

article in the current edition of American Conservative concerning the dishonesty of pro-war and pro-Bush pundits, specifically the way in which they simply ignore or outright lie about their history of false and misleading claims. The article features the illustrative examples of Michael Ledeen, Charles Krauthammer, Peggy Noonan, and Ralph Peters.

First recorded instance of my hoping Fox News is right about something

Via News Hounds, this real Fox News Banner on Nancy Pelosi:

Poetry Corner

I want to listen to a woman speak
I don't know what it means
A voice that glistens, makes me weak
And let's loose all the seams

--Anon

Proof positive that Marilyn Manson is not a man.

1. His wife is divorcing him.
2. This is his wife (the girl on the left).

I'm sorry, but if you're not working your ass off to keep that satisfied, god help you...

Ladies and gentlemen, a cheap shot

In response to this post from Media Matters:

On the January 2 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Michael Savage declared that the "homosexual dance of death" and the "homosexualization of the West" are the "seminal issue[s] of our time," and later added that the "homosexual mafia" is responsible for "control[ing] virtually everything that you read, everything that you see, everything that you hear, [and] everything that you wear."

Keitha: Hey, Colley! He's seen you dance!

It's theatre, you gotta get over all those qualms

Here's a clip sent along by my friend Corey with the comment, "gay guys get all the girls." It's from a popular BBC reality series, "How Do You Solve A Problem Like Maria?"

This dealt with the casting of the lead role in an Andrew Lloyd Webber revival of "The Sound Of Music" in London's West End. Which means these Maria candidates are would-be West End G-no, I can't, I can't...

Acting as...facilitator, is John Barrowman, AKA Captain Jack, AKA this blogs designated man-crush.

I believe his behavior in this segment is what's generally meant by "and eating it too."

Earth shall be fair and all her people one

(Click to see big picture.)

(If only it were that easy...)

All of a sudden not so proud

What type of person do you attract? Your Result: You attract geeks! Your stunning intellect and love of sci-fi and video games allures the geeks like nothing else. Maybe it is the sparkle in your eye that makes them want to text you, who knows. Geeks make good partners, but tend to be arguementative. If you are a TRUE geek magnet, you will know if that was spelled correctly, and actually care. If it is a bad-boy/bad-girl you are seeking, you are barking up the wrong tree, unless they are just 'bad' behind a PS2 console.
You attract models!
You attract Yuppies!
You attract artsy people!
You attract unstable people!
You attract rednecks!
What type of person do you attract? Quizzes for MySpace

On the other hand, my second highest result is models...

This is the proudest moment of my life

This blog is the number one result if you do a search for "Carlson Tucker weasel" on Google.

That's the most frightening thing I've ever seen

Pam Anderson goes wild signing autographs

In fact, I think I just turned gay. This is going to require listening to a lot of Kirsty MacColl music to cure. Or, looking at pictures of the Deschanel sisters...



Ah, that's better.

(And the first one of you who said "just turned?"...why you, I oughta...)

I prefer to think of it as the "blood from a stone" strategy.

From the BBC:

US President George W Bush intends to reveal a new Iraq strategy within days, the BBC has learnt.

The speech will reveal a plan to send more US troops to Iraq to focus on ways of bringing greater security, rather than training Iraqi forces.

The BBC was told by a senior administration source that the speech setting out changes in Mr Bush's Iraq policy is likely to come in the middle of next week.

Its central theme will be sacrifice.

The speech, the BBC has been told, involves increasing troop numbers.

The exact mission of the extra troops in Iraq is still under discussion, according to officials, but it is likely to focus on providing security rather than training Iraqi forces.

The proposal, if it comes, will be highly controversial.

Already one senior Republican senator has called it Alice in Wonderland.

You have no idea the nausea it brings me to picture George W. Bush talking about sacrifice. Because we know that the people who are going to be asked to sacrifice are the poor, not Bush or anyone like him.

If he really wanted to talk about sacrifice for the good of his own country, let alone Iraq, he'd demand Dick Cheney's resignation before giving Nancy Pelosi his own. Since he's not going to do that, nothing he could possibly propose is going to make the slightest bit of difference for the good.

And all this talk of "extra troops," as always, brings me back to the same question: Where you gonna get em, George? Republicans like Bush and McCain seem to think that soldiers are like Tribbles.

Oh, good. John Rocker is back.

Via No More Mister Nice Blog:

Former Major League Baseball pitcher John Rocker is starting a campaign to encourage English-speaking Americans to start demanding respect from legal and illegal immigrants who do not speak English.

In a news release, Rocker said the "'Speak English' campaign is to encourage people to promote and support the sustainment of the American heritage and the American culture. This campaign is in no way intended to degrade or demean the cultures or heritages of others' nationalities or races, but instead to bolster American nationalism and promote pride in the American culture."

In the past, Rocker has been called a racist and anti-homosexual for comments made during interviews and drawn heavy fire from New York Mets fans after comments about the city of New York....

* On ever playing for a New York team: "I would retire first. It's the most hectic, nerve-racking city. Imagine having to take the [Number] 7 train to the ballpark, looking like you're [riding through] Beirut next to some kid with purple hair next to some queer with AIDS right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It's depressing."

* On New York City itself: "The biggest thing I don't like about New York are the foreigners. I'm not a very big fan of foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get in this country?" ...

Casey: ...whether you're a Mets fan, a Yankee fan, a Dodger fan or a Red Sox fan, the one thing we can all agree on is what, Danny?

Dan: John Rocker's a doofus.

Casey: John Rocker's a big honkin' doofus.
-Sports Night, "La Forza del Destino," written by Aaron Sorkin

Maybe now they'll stop misusing that Peter Gabriel song in the ads

Caught the opening episode of Courteney Cox's much-hyped new FX series, "Dirt" last night. Cox is very sexy in it, more beautiful here (IMO) than she was in the last few seasons of "Friends" when she had that Skeletor thing going on. Becoming a MILF, it seems, has agreed with her.



I've thought for a whole now she was the most underrated actor, certainly among the women of her old show, and maybe among the whole cast.

Next time you watch an episode of "Friends", watch Cox's face when she listens to the other characters. She looks as though she's actually hearing them and is not just waiting for her next joke, which is a trap into which some sitcom actors fall.

"Dirt" gives her a chance as an actress to show some of the layers that no sitcom was made for, even one good as hers often was.

That's the good news. The bad news is that the rest of the pilot was a lot more uneven. The first time I heard about this series I figured it was going to be a celebrities revenge fantasy. Getting back at the people who make them just hate making millions of dollars a year.

It's a lot better, and a little more ambivilent, than that and it does explictly acknowledge the gossip trade's place in the Hollywood ecology. But still, a real problem point of entry (at least for me) is the old "why exactly should I care?" question. Oh, the beautiful people's lives are so hard!

However, the performances by Cox & others were good enough, and the writing and overall production shows enough promise, that I'll probably be back, for at least another episode or two. To see if they can explain to me why I should care.

It's no new years resolution, It's more than that

For what it's worth, this is my favorite new years song, and also one of my all-time favorites period. As I've said, I always think of it as "our song" for a girlfriend I had once. Partly because our anniversary fell on on new years, but mostly because of the lines about

No more empty self-possession
Vision swept under the mat
It's no new years resolution
It's more than that

No there's nothing quite as real
As a touch of your sweet hand
I can spend the rest of my life
Buried in the sand.

I think of that time as the last, really, that I thought I might be able to lead a simple life and run from my artistic inclinations.

Aside from that I just love hearing the song with its sweet lushness, so different both from most Split Enz and Crowded House hit singles. All of which I also have high regard for, by the way-everybody knows what really good songwriters Neil Finn & his brother Tim were/are. It's just that to my knowledge this doesn't sound like anything else they ever did.

"Random" Flickr-Blogging: IMG_0101 (first of the new year)

Did you ever have the feeling you were being watched?

Source.

Nathan Lane, ladies and gentlemen.

With thanks for recommending the link to Mark Evanier, who has some qualms.

I shouldn't link to this because I don't want to give even tacit approval to the secret and illegal videotaping of live performances but it's just too good...This is seven minutes from the recent Broadway production of The Odd Couple starring Mr. Lane and Matthew Broderick. It's shot poorly and unethically from the balcony but it's still funny.

I understand Mark's hesitation. But I have to admit that in the case of something like this that most of us were never going to get a chance to pay to see...

Well, right or wrong, if it's a choice between watching an illegal videotape of a hilarious, amazing and otherwise unpreserved performance or not, my personal ethical bar is set a little lower.

The scene is comedy gold, BTW, and has been done by dozens of actors both pro and amateur, in full productions and acting class scenes. Including, incidentally, yours truly in the latter. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Lane is funnier than I was.

Call it a hunch.

I've seen it, it's rubbish

Continuing my new tradition of late night cable TV viewing reviews, this morning I finally managed to sit through the film version of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It was uphill work.

There are reasons why it took 30 years or whatever to bring Hitchhiker's to the big screen, and one of them is that it does not lend itself to a couple hours length or a dramatic format. It's not a drama, it's a comedic yarn, a great one, and trying to make it confrom to the rules of drama (such as they are) could only ever have ended in tears.

The "laid-back," sprawling quality of the aural, TV and book versions accounts for a great deal of their charm, and trying to squeeze so much of it in can't have pleased many. People like me who are familiar with the original will be aggravated by some of the seemingly random changes, and I wonder if those who weren't followed it at all

Yet the words that come to my mind are "noble failure." I'm satisfied that most if not all of those concerned were honestly trying to do justice to Douglas Adams' novel, etc, without being a slavish imitation of the previous versions.

There were plenty of little touches along the way (the use of the original theme "Journey of the Sorcerer" by the Eagles, the TV series Marvin getting a look in, etc) to assure me of that. The trouble is it didn't work, and sometimes when it didn't work, it really didn't work.

Sometimes it only almost, but not quite, completely didn't work.

Worst of all was Sam Rockwell's Zaphod. He was either directed or chose to play the part as a lampoon of George W. Bush. Which is a "reimagining" that is both out of character and will date the film horribly in the unlikely event anyone tries to watch it in 30 years.

On the other arm, Zooey Deschanel's Trillian was probably the most improved considering her character's always been one of the weakest parts in the series. In the film, she's the most interesting character and the only one I could see spending an evening talking to.

And it's not just because she's pretty. As Adams himself found in later books, most of his characters aren't really "heroic" in the traditional dramatic sense, which works fine for the rambling narrative it originally was, but not so much for a two-hour movie.

Trillian is the only one who goes out and actually does anything for any reasons that seem inward-directed, and therefore she's the only one who could possibly have engendered much audience sympathy.

And I found myself strangely respecting Mos Def for finding a new way to approach Ford Prefect, one of my favorites. You can see him trying to find a way to approach his lines that suggest a true alien, for whom Earthling, let alone English, is not a first language.

The trouble is, he's not terribly funny in the role (though still, paradoxically, funnier than anybody else). And Ford, once he's served his individual and sole plot purpose of rescuing Arthur from the exploding Earth, really needs to be funny. Or else the character's just going to disappear into the landscape, as Def, sadly, does.

On the direction/adaptation front, I was astonished at how many of the biggest ideas of the story were treated as throwaways. This may have seemed droll in the filmmaking, but from my POV it made the movie duller and harder to understand.

Speaking of POV, one of the new elements in the film is something called a POV gun, the idea of which is that if you shoot someone with it, they instantly see things from your point of view. It's used as a quick-and-clean way to expose a character's innermost feelings, leading me to dub it "the exposition gun."

This makes for a scene which for me perfectly encapsulated the failure of the new HGttG as drama. In the words of the Robot Devil on Futurama (the best SF satire since the original Hitchhiker's):

"You can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!"

At the end, I'm forced to the conclusion that the problem may not have been with the performances, the direction or the adaptation (though all could have been better). The problem is inherent with the source material.

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy didn't really need to be a movie, it's not best served by the form. I'm assuming most of you who are reading this have seen the 1981 TV series, heard the records, and/or read the books, and if you haven't, I urge you to do so.

This movie is perhaps a third, at best, of what Hitchhiker's, at it's best, really is.