Mon - February 14, 2005
It Figures
It doesn't surprise me when Yglesias tells me
that Bush's federal budgets will
likely blow up in 2009. Bush pulled the same number in Texas, passing
a couple of huge tax cuts in a state that's already low-tax/low-service, and
leaving the hapless Rick Perry (or Governor Goodhair as Molly Ivins calls him)
to flail around in the mess when the deficits started exploding in 2001. Texas
still hasn't recovered from their train wreck and likely won't for a good long
time. It beats me why Texans put up with it. I guess they really like being
Republicans down there.
But we'll all be Texans soon--broke-ass, poor, sick, polluted Texans. Bush of course won't give a shit, because, as it was in Texas, as it was with his businesses, it's all other people's money. Why do we continue to let him get away with it? I don't know. I guess he's a lot like Tom in The Great Gatsby who, along with Daisy, "smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their vast carelessness...and let other people clean up the mess they had made." Tom always got away with it. No crime was too horrid for him to dodge.
Fitzgerald warned us about George W. Bush thirty years before the Shrub was born. Sadly, most people in this country don't read. In 2009 Bush will move away from us, like Tom, leaving no forwarding address. If it weren't for the nightmares he'll leave behind, I could almost welcome that.
But we'll all be Texans soon--broke-ass, poor, sick, polluted Texans. Bush of course won't give a shit, because, as it was in Texas, as it was with his businesses, it's all other people's money. Why do we continue to let him get away with it? I don't know. I guess he's a lot like Tom in The Great Gatsby who, along with Daisy, "smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their vast carelessness...and let other people clean up the mess they had made." Tom always got away with it. No crime was too horrid for him to dodge.
Fitzgerald warned us about George W. Bush thirty years before the Shrub was born. Sadly, most people in this country don't read. In 2009 Bush will move away from us, like Tom, leaving no forwarding address. If it weren't for the nightmares he'll leave behind, I could almost welcome that.
Posted at 01:53 PM
Sun - February 13, 2005
Raider Wish Lists
The free agent signing period will begin in a
couple of weeks, and I want to spend just a moment on those players who might
draw Raider interest during this
period.
RB: Travis Henry (Buffalo), Lamont Jordan (New York Jets), Edgerrin James (Colts), Sean Alexander (Seahawks), Anthony Thomas (Bears)
The word is that the Colts will franchise James and that Buffalo will demand a lot for Henry, but Lamont Jordan looks great. He's got the size and strength to function in Norv Turner's system. (His system calls for a large, Stephen Davis-type back). It's possible, however, that Norv will zig rather than zag and pick up Sean Alexander from the Seahawks. A bargain choice out there might be Anthony "A-Train" Thomas, who could be a Tyrone Wheatley type.
WR: Jerry Porter (Raiders), Plaxico Burress (Steelers)
If Porter leaves, and it's possible he will, the Raiders will need a #1 receiver. Plaxico Burress has the size and speed to fit the bill, and if the Steelers decide against signing or franchising him, he could be an excellent vertical threat when combined with Ronald Curry and whoever among the current Raider WRs (Morant, Whitted, Francis) step up for the #3 spot.
LB: Julian Peterson (49ers), Ian Gold (Steelers), Kendrell Bell (Steelers), Morlon Greenwood (Miami)
This is a fairly thick class. It seems to me that the Raiders have good inside talent in Napoleon Harris and Danny Clark, but need more on the outside--Tyler Brayton really, really shouldn't play outside linebacker in a 3-4. While Sam Williams may be a good linebacker, he's never been healthy enough to show us more than a few flashes of brilliant play. Obviously, bagging Julian Peterson would be huge for the Raiders. He's young and preternaturally gifted, and he could make the Raider linebacking corps as dangerous as it was in the Ted Hendricks era. There is the possibility that the 49ers will franchise him, as they did a year ago, but for Peterson the question is pretty basic. Would he like to be on a team willing to spend the money it takes to win, or would he prefer to remain a big fish in a small, polluted pond? It doesn't necessarily follow that he'd jump across the bay to the Raiders, but it would tempt him to a change of scenery. Kendrell Bell hasn't fully developed yet, but could do well in Robb Ryan's system if given a chance, as could Morlon Greenwood. Ian Gold is another player who could work out well for us, and he'd have the added advantage of being a former high pick of the Denver Broncos.
DE: Zip
The Raiders will likely draft here, perhaps in the first round (assuming they get their RB target in free agency). The free agent market here is thin, especially now that the Jets have franchised John Abraham.
S: Adrian Wilson (Cardinals), Sammy Knight (Dolphins)
Fine players both, they could fill the hole left by Rod Woodson (though they could never replace him). Marques Anderson and Stuart Schweigert showed some playmaking skills, but leadership is needed back there, especially if Charles Woodson leaves and Nnamdi Asamougha has to take over one of the corner spots.
CB: Gary Baxter (Ravens), Charles Woodson (Raiders), Ken Lucas (Seahawks)
A move at corner would allow Nnamdi Asamougha to move to a more natural position as a free safety (the position he played in college). Charles Woodson may not be back next year. The Raiders are reportedly losing patience with him and feel his skills are declining. Gary Baxter would be an excellent substitute for Woodson if the Raiders could somehow pry him from the clutches of the Ravens. Ken Lucas is another playmaking possibility in this position. It is also possible that the Raiders will spend a first day pick here, looking for someone they can develop over the long term.
QB: Kerry Collins may not be the answer, but damned if I can think of a better solution than him right now. I'm sure Rich Gannon will retire and perhaps take the Raiders' QB coach position vacated when Sarsarkian moved back to USC. (He did a lot of that job last season.) Marques Tuiasosopo should get into the film room and the practice facility if he wants to beat out Collins in camp or pre-season next year. In many ways his position mirrors that of Matt Hasselbeck when he had to take the job from Trent Dilfer. He had to study and do the work off the field to succeed on it. There aren't any free agents out there who'll pop the Raiders' cork, and drafting a quarterback in the early rounds who won't start for a year or two makes very little sense when the Raiders have pressing needs elsewhere. I expect the Raiders to draft someone on the second day to fill the third quarterback slot.
RB: Travis Henry (Buffalo), Lamont Jordan (New York Jets), Edgerrin James (Colts), Sean Alexander (Seahawks), Anthony Thomas (Bears)
The word is that the Colts will franchise James and that Buffalo will demand a lot for Henry, but Lamont Jordan looks great. He's got the size and strength to function in Norv Turner's system. (His system calls for a large, Stephen Davis-type back). It's possible, however, that Norv will zig rather than zag and pick up Sean Alexander from the Seahawks. A bargain choice out there might be Anthony "A-Train" Thomas, who could be a Tyrone Wheatley type.
WR: Jerry Porter (Raiders), Plaxico Burress (Steelers)
If Porter leaves, and it's possible he will, the Raiders will need a #1 receiver. Plaxico Burress has the size and speed to fit the bill, and if the Steelers decide against signing or franchising him, he could be an excellent vertical threat when combined with Ronald Curry and whoever among the current Raider WRs (Morant, Whitted, Francis) step up for the #3 spot.
LB: Julian Peterson (49ers), Ian Gold (Steelers), Kendrell Bell (Steelers), Morlon Greenwood (Miami)
This is a fairly thick class. It seems to me that the Raiders have good inside talent in Napoleon Harris and Danny Clark, but need more on the outside--Tyler Brayton really, really shouldn't play outside linebacker in a 3-4. While Sam Williams may be a good linebacker, he's never been healthy enough to show us more than a few flashes of brilliant play. Obviously, bagging Julian Peterson would be huge for the Raiders. He's young and preternaturally gifted, and he could make the Raider linebacking corps as dangerous as it was in the Ted Hendricks era. There is the possibility that the 49ers will franchise him, as they did a year ago, but for Peterson the question is pretty basic. Would he like to be on a team willing to spend the money it takes to win, or would he prefer to remain a big fish in a small, polluted pond? It doesn't necessarily follow that he'd jump across the bay to the Raiders, but it would tempt him to a change of scenery. Kendrell Bell hasn't fully developed yet, but could do well in Robb Ryan's system if given a chance, as could Morlon Greenwood. Ian Gold is another player who could work out well for us, and he'd have the added advantage of being a former high pick of the Denver Broncos.
DE: Zip
The Raiders will likely draft here, perhaps in the first round (assuming they get their RB target in free agency). The free agent market here is thin, especially now that the Jets have franchised John Abraham.
S: Adrian Wilson (Cardinals), Sammy Knight (Dolphins)
Fine players both, they could fill the hole left by Rod Woodson (though they could never replace him). Marques Anderson and Stuart Schweigert showed some playmaking skills, but leadership is needed back there, especially if Charles Woodson leaves and Nnamdi Asamougha has to take over one of the corner spots.
CB: Gary Baxter (Ravens), Charles Woodson (Raiders), Ken Lucas (Seahawks)
A move at corner would allow Nnamdi Asamougha to move to a more natural position as a free safety (the position he played in college). Charles Woodson may not be back next year. The Raiders are reportedly losing patience with him and feel his skills are declining. Gary Baxter would be an excellent substitute for Woodson if the Raiders could somehow pry him from the clutches of the Ravens. Ken Lucas is another playmaking possibility in this position. It is also possible that the Raiders will spend a first day pick here, looking for someone they can develop over the long term.
QB: Kerry Collins may not be the answer, but damned if I can think of a better solution than him right now. I'm sure Rich Gannon will retire and perhaps take the Raiders' QB coach position vacated when Sarsarkian moved back to USC. (He did a lot of that job last season.) Marques Tuiasosopo should get into the film room and the practice facility if he wants to beat out Collins in camp or pre-season next year. In many ways his position mirrors that of Matt Hasselbeck when he had to take the job from Trent Dilfer. He had to study and do the work off the field to succeed on it. There aren't any free agents out there who'll pop the Raiders' cork, and drafting a quarterback in the early rounds who won't start for a year or two makes very little sense when the Raiders have pressing needs elsewhere. I expect the Raiders to draft someone on the second day to fill the third quarterback slot.
Posted at 03:12 PM
I'm Back Baby
Had a grand old time in the Big Easy. I saw
some relatives I haven't seen in years and rode in the Mardi Gras parade. (Only
one woman flashed me during the entire parade route. It was a very difficult
angle but when she chose to do that I decided it would have been ungallant to
hold onto my beads, so I stepped into my throw and hit her right in the
hands.)
I'm not feeling well. I picked up some kind of miserable illness from the plane last week and it kicked in just as my Dad and I were starting back this morning, so posting will continue to be light for a while. If you like, you can amuse yourselves with this photo album , or this one, from my adventures in New Orleans, or you can read this article by Frank Rich in The New York Times which covers Eastwood versus Medved and includes reaction from Clint. If Iraq is more your speed, go check out Juan Cole's post-election analysis (warning, it's depressing). I'll have more to say about Iraq, Bush, Social Security, The Raiders offseason, and movies once I recover and catch up.
I'm not feeling well. I picked up some kind of miserable illness from the plane last week and it kicked in just as my Dad and I were starting back this morning, so posting will continue to be light for a while. If you like, you can amuse yourselves with this photo album , or this one, from my adventures in New Orleans, or you can read this article by Frank Rich in The New York Times which covers Eastwood versus Medved and includes reaction from Clint. If Iraq is more your speed, go check out Juan Cole's post-election analysis (warning, it's depressing). I'll have more to say about Iraq, Bush, Social Security, The Raiders offseason, and movies once I recover and catch up.
Posted at 03:54 AM
Fri - February 4, 2005
Business Before Pleasure
Before I leave for a week in New Orleans
(blogging will be light-to-non-existent until February 12th), for Mardi Gras,
bead throwing and merry making, I have to bust on Nicholas Kristof just one more
time. (Nicholas Kristof, the speed bag of
New York Times
columnists). This week, he's abandoned the
South Asian sex trade and its discontents to scold
Democrats about their reaction to Bush's absurd Social Security
proposal (by which I mean his proposal to take our retirement money and hand it
over to people who will make fortunes off of it whether we gain or
lose).
Essentially, Kristof takes the view that the Democrats are acting irresponsibly because they won't haggle with George W. Bush over how to pay for Social Security over the next forty years. Never mind that attempts by Democrats to negotiate with George W. Bush in years past have produced Jack Squat thanks to Bush's patented "I will keep an open mind and listen to anyone with good ideas that happen to coincide with whatever I want to do" method of negotiation. (See the tax cuts, medicare, Iraq.) No Democrat with a lick of sense would bring any proposal to Bush's table because they know they'll get screwed by the administration and shunned by their own party. Ask Charlie Stenholm what helping Bush did for his career. (Just don't bother looking in his old office, which belongs to a Republican now.)
Also, agreeing to negotiate with Bush doesn't suggest that you think there may at some point be a problem paying for Social Security. It suggests that you agree there may be problem and that the solution to that problem involves borrowing trillions of dollars in hopes that the stock market will someday earn it all back. (And in hope that the rest of the world won't be spooked by the massive debt into calling in all those I.O.Us.) Only by agreeing to both propositions will any Democrat be allowed into the room. Bush doesn't want to save Social Security. He wants it dead. Is a Democrat supposed to go into the negotiating room and say, "Okay, we'll agree to kill it, but could we kill it just a little less dead?"
And Nicholas, we all hope our life expectancies will grow over the century. Really, really hope. But the gains in the last century were largely thanks to advances in treatments of childhood ailments. Life span remains where it's been for a long time, 85-95 years barring disease or injury. And so far we haven't seen any biotech devices that have been shown to extend life by one week. You're talking about biotech as if the breakthrough for longevity is just around the corner when, if you think of it in computer terms, they haven't even reached the vacuum tube stage yet. Science may lengthen our life spans over the next hundred years, but it may not. And if I were betting I'd bet on "not". If biotech devices come out, I suppose it means we'll be around long enough to think of real solutions to the problem. Until then, I don't think it's wise to base our financial calculations on the possible emergence of future technology, anymore than I think it's wise to worry about all those guys who've had themselves cryonically frozen suddenly thawing and demanding benefits. Let's worry about the problems we have, not the problems we might have.
Seeing as Social Security isn't projected to start manifesting problems until the 2040s or 2050s, I think the best strategy for the Democrats is to wait Bush out. He's only got four more years, and when he's done, we might be able to elect a President who makes sensible proposals about which people can quibble in good faith. But gainsaying George W. Bush's proposals isn't irresponsible, Nicholas. Given the past results of the Democrats' dealings with him, it's a moral imperative.
Update: You can read more about this from Kevin Drum.
Essentially, Kristof takes the view that the Democrats are acting irresponsibly because they won't haggle with George W. Bush over how to pay for Social Security over the next forty years. Never mind that attempts by Democrats to negotiate with George W. Bush in years past have produced Jack Squat thanks to Bush's patented "I will keep an open mind and listen to anyone with good ideas that happen to coincide with whatever I want to do" method of negotiation. (See the tax cuts, medicare, Iraq.) No Democrat with a lick of sense would bring any proposal to Bush's table because they know they'll get screwed by the administration and shunned by their own party. Ask Charlie Stenholm what helping Bush did for his career. (Just don't bother looking in his old office, which belongs to a Republican now.)
Also, agreeing to negotiate with Bush doesn't suggest that you think there may at some point be a problem paying for Social Security. It suggests that you agree there may be problem and that the solution to that problem involves borrowing trillions of dollars in hopes that the stock market will someday earn it all back. (And in hope that the rest of the world won't be spooked by the massive debt into calling in all those I.O.Us.) Only by agreeing to both propositions will any Democrat be allowed into the room. Bush doesn't want to save Social Security. He wants it dead. Is a Democrat supposed to go into the negotiating room and say, "Okay, we'll agree to kill it, but could we kill it just a little less dead?"
And Nicholas, we all hope our life expectancies will grow over the century. Really, really hope. But the gains in the last century were largely thanks to advances in treatments of childhood ailments. Life span remains where it's been for a long time, 85-95 years barring disease or injury. And so far we haven't seen any biotech devices that have been shown to extend life by one week. You're talking about biotech as if the breakthrough for longevity is just around the corner when, if you think of it in computer terms, they haven't even reached the vacuum tube stage yet. Science may lengthen our life spans over the next hundred years, but it may not. And if I were betting I'd bet on "not". If biotech devices come out, I suppose it means we'll be around long enough to think of real solutions to the problem. Until then, I don't think it's wise to base our financial calculations on the possible emergence of future technology, anymore than I think it's wise to worry about all those guys who've had themselves cryonically frozen suddenly thawing and demanding benefits. Let's worry about the problems we have, not the problems we might have.
Seeing as Social Security isn't projected to start manifesting problems until the 2040s or 2050s, I think the best strategy for the Democrats is to wait Bush out. He's only got four more years, and when he's done, we might be able to elect a President who makes sensible proposals about which people can quibble in good faith. But gainsaying George W. Bush's proposals isn't irresponsible, Nicholas. Given the past results of the Democrats' dealings with him, it's a moral imperative.
Update: You can read more about this from Kevin Drum.
Posted at 11:56 PM
Tue - February 1, 2005
Death's A Bummer--Donald Rumsfeld
I've said that I've tuned out the Bush
administration because I've reached my bullshit saturation threshold. (I'm
bracing for another tsunami of weapons grade bullshit tomorrow, gathering my
DVDs and thinking of other places I can be during the speech and the news
coverage that will follow.) It is occasionally useful, however, to go back and
remind ourselves just how much fatuous rhetoric the administration has slung at
us over the years. James
Wolcott has done us this service. Some of the
highlights:
Re: WMDs
Richard Perle: We don't know where to look for them and we never did know where to look for them. I hope this will take less than two hundred years.
Re: Mission Accomplished
G.W. Bush, in the flight suit, on the carrier: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on 11 September 2001.The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al-Qaida, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offence. We have not forgotten the victims of 11 September: the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.
Re: Dead Civilians
General Kimmitt: "There was no evidence of a wedding. There may have been some kind of celebration. Bad people have celebrations, too."
Donald Rumsfeld: Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war.
Yeah, Don, people are funny that way.
Re: WMDs
Richard Perle: We don't know where to look for them and we never did know where to look for them. I hope this will take less than two hundred years.
Re: Mission Accomplished
G.W. Bush, in the flight suit, on the carrier: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on 11 September 2001.The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al-Qaida, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offence. We have not forgotten the victims of 11 September: the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.
Re: Dead Civilians
General Kimmitt: "There was no evidence of a wedding. There may have been some kind of celebration. Bad people have celebrations, too."
Donald Rumsfeld: Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war.
Yeah, Don, people are funny that way.
Posted at 04:18 PM
Bravo Mr. Wallace
From the Detroit Free Press:
What will Rasheed Wallace and President
George W. Bush talk about when the Pistons visit the White House at 3 p.m.
today? Foreign policy? Defense strategy? Try nothing.
When asked what he would say to the
president, Wallace said: "I don't have (expletive) to say to him. I didn't vote
for him. It's just something we have to
do."
I may even become an NBA fan again.
I may even become an NBA fan again.
Posted at 04:01 PM
Tired of Drug Advertising? Ask your Doctor about...
...Pharmahaze. Clinical trials prove that
Phramahaze reduces sensitivity to medical advertisements in print, on the radio,
even on television. With Pharmahaze you can enjoy your favorite drug messages
without risk of indignation, channel switching, or irksome letters to
congressmen. Pharmahaze has been shown to be 50% more effective than the leading
medications in increasing your receptivity and reducing bothersome critical
thought. Call, write, fax, or break into your doctor's house to get him to
provide you with a sample of award winning, critically acclaimed, FDA approved*,
easy-to-swallow, credit-terms-arranged, low calories, low carb, high fiber,
pretty colored Pharmahaze.
*FDA approval pending. Offer-they-can't-refuse not yet made.
Pharmahaze may cause the following symptoms: headaches, light fever, uncontrollable flatulence, unbreakable erections, dizziness, rib breakage, brain tumors, poverty, Republican sympathies, slick and greasy bowel movements, anal leakage, kidney and liver failure, alcoholism, coronary thrombosis, addiction to painkillers, an urge to watch the WB network or Bush's State of the Union address, corporate slavery, and massive debt.
*FDA approval pending. Offer-they-can't-refuse not yet made.
Pharmahaze may cause the following symptoms: headaches, light fever, uncontrollable flatulence, unbreakable erections, dizziness, rib breakage, brain tumors, poverty, Republican sympathies, slick and greasy bowel movements, anal leakage, kidney and liver failure, alcoholism, coronary thrombosis, addiction to painkillers, an urge to watch the WB network or Bush's State of the Union address, corporate slavery, and massive debt.
Posted at 03:03 PM
Give me a head with hair. Long Beautiful Hair.
I guess that Kim Jong Il has finally come to
grips with the problem that inevitably bedevils a state where a group of vicious
autocrats take control of a nation in the name of seizing the mode of production
for the masses: long hair. Apparently
Kim wants every male in North Korea to get a Hank Hill style do, to
conform with what he calls the "socialist style". Yeah, tell it to
Marx:
Oddly, I don't remember Mao, Stalin, Castro, or Lenin proscribing hairstyles. According to the article, South Korea had similar restrictions on mop tops and other heinous styles during the 1970s. Maybe it's a Korean hang-up. Though I wonder if Kim Jong Il will destroy all the archive pictures of himself and his father when they sported longer hair styles--so as to suppress the notion that their long hair had weakened their brains for all those years.
I guess if shorter hair will make Kim Jong Il less belligerent, isolated, and weird, it's all to the good. Somehow, though, I don't think it will help.
Oddly, I don't remember Mao, Stalin, Castro, or Lenin proscribing hairstyles. According to the article, South Korea had similar restrictions on mop tops and other heinous styles during the 1970s. Maybe it's a Korean hang-up. Though I wonder if Kim Jong Il will destroy all the archive pictures of himself and his father when they sported longer hair styles--so as to suppress the notion that their long hair had weakened their brains for all those years.
I guess if shorter hair will make Kim Jong Il less belligerent, isolated, and weird, it's all to the good. Somehow, though, I don't think it will help.
Posted at 02:48 PM
Mon - January 31, 2005
Star Trek DVDs and the Fate of "Enterprise"
I've been absorbing the "Star Trek" original
series DVDs since I got the first two seasons for Christmas, and I find them to
be not only a delight but also a rediscovery. All of my life, I've been watching
"Star Trek" on television, and the versions I've seen were all edited by local
stations so that they could stuff an extra four to seven minutes of commercials
into the hour. The deletions those stations made hurt the pacing of the episodes
and in many cases removed important moments that built both character and mood.
I just watched "Wolf in the Fold", an episode from the second season. It was one
of the great Robert Bloch's three horror stories for "Star Trek". In its
unedited state, it's a wonderful thriller, with a surprising performance from
character actor John Fiedler (known for playing Juror #2 in
12 Angry
Men and Gordy Spangler, the medical
examiner, in The Night
Stalker). But the edits that TV stations
made for the purpose of selling soap and used cars damaged key moments and
disrupted the episode's moves to build suspense.
Of course, you could get "Star Trek" on DVD and VHS uncut, but those earlier versions came one or two episodes at a time, making any attempt to collect them an expensive proposition. Now they're in one place, and I'm grateful.
Now, as to "Enterprise".
IMDB reports that "Enterprise" may be in its last year. I can't say I'll miss it. It never did much to keep me. The tense relationship between humans and vulcans might have been more intriguing if the humans weren't always right and the vulcans always a) wrong and b) devious. I also thought that they spent way too much time going where we'd already been before, telling us why Klingons look the way we do and blah, blah, blah. And let's not forget all the early episodes where they had to find excuses to "decontaminate" the sexy vulcan woman. With three seasons of the original series, four or five good seasons from "The Next Generation" and six good movies to watch, why bother with "Enterprise"?
Paramount would do well to give "Star Trek" a rest, to give us all a little time to miss it, then bring in someone who can make it new. Nostalgia won't bring in new viewers, and it certainly won't return "Star Trek" to the heights it reached in its first season when it was nominated for Emmys in the Best Dramatic Series and Best Supporting Actor categories. I have my own thoughts on how to make that happen, which I will not share because Paramount isn't paying me to develop them. (I have my own work to do.) But fans should spend less time trying to save bad series and more time saying to Paramount, "We know the difference between good and bad. We've had good before. We want it again, and if you won't deliver it then we'll take our time and money elsewhere."
Of course, you could get "Star Trek" on DVD and VHS uncut, but those earlier versions came one or two episodes at a time, making any attempt to collect them an expensive proposition. Now they're in one place, and I'm grateful.
Now, as to "Enterprise".
IMDB reports that "Enterprise" may be in its last year. I can't say I'll miss it. It never did much to keep me. The tense relationship between humans and vulcans might have been more intriguing if the humans weren't always right and the vulcans always a) wrong and b) devious. I also thought that they spent way too much time going where we'd already been before, telling us why Klingons look the way we do and blah, blah, blah. And let's not forget all the early episodes where they had to find excuses to "decontaminate" the sexy vulcan woman. With three seasons of the original series, four or five good seasons from "The Next Generation" and six good movies to watch, why bother with "Enterprise"?
Paramount would do well to give "Star Trek" a rest, to give us all a little time to miss it, then bring in someone who can make it new. Nostalgia won't bring in new viewers, and it certainly won't return "Star Trek" to the heights it reached in its first season when it was nominated for Emmys in the Best Dramatic Series and Best Supporting Actor categories. I have my own thoughts on how to make that happen, which I will not share because Paramount isn't paying me to develop them. (I have my own work to do.) But fans should spend less time trying to save bad series and more time saying to Paramount, "We know the difference between good and bad. We've had good before. We want it again, and if you won't deliver it then we'll take our time and money elsewhere."
Posted at 02:26 AM
Sun - January 30, 2005
Briefly on the Iraq Elections
I don't have much to add to what Juan Cole says
here.
The key questions for me remain. Can the new government, which will probably
look a lot like the old one, even begin to provide security without a continuing
U.S. presence? (This election required extraordinary security measures which
cannot be sustained indefinitely. The bombers will be back, and will find fresh
recruits among Sunnis who are bound to be disappointed in the election's
outcome.) Will the U.S., or the new government, or anyone else, ever bring
electricity and basic services back? While the new Iraqi government will
undoubtedly assert the right to ask the U.S. to leave, would they ever do that,
seeing as we're the source of their power and their only, admittedly weak,
protection against the insurgents? And assuming that we do leave, how long do we
really expect this state, carved among three ethnic groups who have little use
for one another, to last before it breaks into various factions seeking
sovereignty?
Iraq was an artificial state from the beginning, held together to this point by those ruthless and violent enough to suppress tribal, religious, and ethnic ambitions. As we saw from the quick disintegration of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, these ambitions can be checked, but can never be truly quelled. We are currently holding this country together through massive applications of violence against the local population (particularly the Sunnis). Our presence also gives Iraqis unity insofar as they dislike us even more than they dislike one another. My biggest question is whether a state that must be held together in this way should be held together at all, because right now it doesn't seem like a political arrangement that's doing the Shiites, Sunnis, or Kurds a damn bit of good (well, maybe the Kurds, but only because they reserve the right to ignore everyone else and claim a sort of quasi-sovereignty anyway).
Hmm, I guess I had more to add than I thought. Anyway, to the people of Iraq, best of luck. You're going to need it.
Iraq was an artificial state from the beginning, held together to this point by those ruthless and violent enough to suppress tribal, religious, and ethnic ambitions. As we saw from the quick disintegration of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, these ambitions can be checked, but can never be truly quelled. We are currently holding this country together through massive applications of violence against the local population (particularly the Sunnis). Our presence also gives Iraqis unity insofar as they dislike us even more than they dislike one another. My biggest question is whether a state that must be held together in this way should be held together at all, because right now it doesn't seem like a political arrangement that's doing the Shiites, Sunnis, or Kurds a damn bit of good (well, maybe the Kurds, but only because they reserve the right to ignore everyone else and claim a sort of quasi-sovereignty anyway).
Hmm, I guess I had more to add than I thought. Anyway, to the people of Iraq, best of luck. You're going to need it.
Posted at 01:59 PM
Sat - January 29, 2005
Million Dollar Baby
One of the reasons that I love Eastwood's
directorial work is that I never feel as though he extorts emotions from me. He
gives his characters the space they need to tell their stories in their own
ways. I love that he allows his characters to behave questionably, to make
mistakes and wrong decisions, to be at one moment brilliant and in the next
perverse. His movies are too busy contemplating their characters' natures to use
them to score cheap authorial points. It was this that I loved about
Million Dollar
Baby. I don't know whether I agree with the
decisions the characters make in this film. (I won't spoil things. If you've
seen the movie and want to talk to me about it, you can email me at
jimmy1071@yahoo.com. And Roger Ebert has an essay about it at his site that I'll
be talking about in just a second.) But I will say that these decisions flow
naturally from who these characters are, the wounds that shaped their
characters, and their desire to negotiate the yearning for peace and the
responsibilities of friendship.
Watch the movie. It'll stay with you.
Of course, not everyone appreciates this kind of filmmaking. Some don't want to contemplate how the characters' pasts shaped their decisions in the present. They want the characters to do what they would do, or even better, what Jesus would do. Michael Medved, Rush Limbaugh, and Pat Robertson are, according to Ebert, deliberately spoiling the ending of Million Dollar Baby in a naked attempt to harm its box office performance. Apparently forgetting Reagan's 11th commandment--thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican--these boys are doing, well, Ebert tells it nicely:
The decision of Maggie and her trainer is not a surprise to the readers or listeners of two right-wing commentators, Michael Medved and Rush Limbaugh. They have revealed every secret of the plot. Limbaugh even chortled as he "apologized" for an earlier broadcast. Just as the movie was opening, Medved appeared on Pat Robertson's "700 Club" to describe the plot in great detail. The outcome of the movie does not match their beliefs. They object to it. That is their right. To engage in a campaign to harm the movie for those who may not agree with them is another matter.
I've lacked patience with fundies ever since I was an editor of my high school literary magazine and my teacher told me that publishing science fiction or fantasy would get me in trouble with the local clergy. I and my co-editors replied "So? And they will do what exactly?" (Actually, they'd been very successful in keeping KCPQ, the local Fox affiliate, off our cable system, even though it was in every neighboring town, because it showed "The Tracey Ullman Show" and "Star Trek".) We went on and published what we wanted to, and never heard a peep--probably because we never found our way onto the fundie radar screen. Still, the threat always pissed me off. I wondered why the hell turning the channel, or putting the magazine down, wasn't good enough for these people.
The fundies have their own TV stations. They have their own publishing companies producing both fiction and non-fiction. They have record labels and concert tours and all that assorted crap. Hell, they produced their own movie a few years ago: The Omega Code. I hear it sucked, but they produced it. They can be Ned Flanders singing "Bringing in the Sheep" 24-7. Nobody's stopping them. What's up with spoiling everyone else's enjoyment?
I guess that's what it comes down to, really, spoiling things for others. Their ideology compels them to ruin other peoples' good times; it is here that the fundies find both their mission and their pleasure. That's why Limbaugh "chortled" when he revealed Million Dollar Baby's ending. It gave him all the fun such a person could derive from standing outside a movie theater saying "the butler did it" without the risk of patrons taking turns punching him in the mouth. There may be some envy at work here as well. All the fundie movies, all those direct-to-video monstrosities starring Kirk Cameron and Casper Van Dien have the same ending, run through the same by-the-numbers-Syd-Field-with-a-crucifix-it's-in-Revelations-people plot, give us the same characters making the same decisions and arriving at the same points. It's stuff too formulaic even for Jerry Bruckheimer, but that's what they've got. We've got something better, and deep down in their miserable, benighted hearts they know it, so like spoiled children they attack what they want but can't have. They're a bunch of motherfuckers.
So, in addition to the aesthetic pleasure you will derive from watching Million Dollar Baby, go see it because it'll piss off Michael Medved. Then write Medved an e-mail every hour telling him how much you loved the movie and how you told ten friends to watch it. Then, just for good measure, tell him the ending of the next Christian film--"Satan did it."
It'll kill him.
Watch the movie. It'll stay with you.
Of course, not everyone appreciates this kind of filmmaking. Some don't want to contemplate how the characters' pasts shaped their decisions in the present. They want the characters to do what they would do, or even better, what Jesus would do. Michael Medved, Rush Limbaugh, and Pat Robertson are, according to Ebert, deliberately spoiling the ending of Million Dollar Baby in a naked attempt to harm its box office performance. Apparently forgetting Reagan's 11th commandment--thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican--these boys are doing, well, Ebert tells it nicely:
The decision of Maggie and her trainer is not a surprise to the readers or listeners of two right-wing commentators, Michael Medved and Rush Limbaugh. They have revealed every secret of the plot. Limbaugh even chortled as he "apologized" for an earlier broadcast. Just as the movie was opening, Medved appeared on Pat Robertson's "700 Club" to describe the plot in great detail. The outcome of the movie does not match their beliefs. They object to it. That is their right. To engage in a campaign to harm the movie for those who may not agree with them is another matter.
I've lacked patience with fundies ever since I was an editor of my high school literary magazine and my teacher told me that publishing science fiction or fantasy would get me in trouble with the local clergy. I and my co-editors replied "So? And they will do what exactly?" (Actually, they'd been very successful in keeping KCPQ, the local Fox affiliate, off our cable system, even though it was in every neighboring town, because it showed "The Tracey Ullman Show" and "Star Trek".) We went on and published what we wanted to, and never heard a peep--probably because we never found our way onto the fundie radar screen. Still, the threat always pissed me off. I wondered why the hell turning the channel, or putting the magazine down, wasn't good enough for these people.
The fundies have their own TV stations. They have their own publishing companies producing both fiction and non-fiction. They have record labels and concert tours and all that assorted crap. Hell, they produced their own movie a few years ago: The Omega Code. I hear it sucked, but they produced it. They can be Ned Flanders singing "Bringing in the Sheep" 24-7. Nobody's stopping them. What's up with spoiling everyone else's enjoyment?
I guess that's what it comes down to, really, spoiling things for others. Their ideology compels them to ruin other peoples' good times; it is here that the fundies find both their mission and their pleasure. That's why Limbaugh "chortled" when he revealed Million Dollar Baby's ending. It gave him all the fun such a person could derive from standing outside a movie theater saying "the butler did it" without the risk of patrons taking turns punching him in the mouth. There may be some envy at work here as well. All the fundie movies, all those direct-to-video monstrosities starring Kirk Cameron and Casper Van Dien have the same ending, run through the same by-the-numbers-Syd-Field-with-a-crucifix-it's-in-Revelations-people plot, give us the same characters making the same decisions and arriving at the same points. It's stuff too formulaic even for Jerry Bruckheimer, but that's what they've got. We've got something better, and deep down in their miserable, benighted hearts they know it, so like spoiled children they attack what they want but can't have. They're a bunch of motherfuckers.
So, in addition to the aesthetic pleasure you will derive from watching Million Dollar Baby, go see it because it'll piss off Michael Medved. Then write Medved an e-mail every hour telling him how much you loved the movie and how you told ten friends to watch it. Then, just for good measure, tell him the ending of the next Christian film--"Satan did it."
It'll kill him.
Posted at 04:47 PM
Dick Cheney in '08! He's Grim, Pasty, and Ready!
Matt
Yglesias wonders why people think Cheney is too old to run for
President when they didn't think the same about Ronald Reagan. (Actually, I do
remember people talking about Reagan's age in the '80s, talk which got louder
when he flubbed the first debate with Walter Mondale.) Well, if we buy into the
saying "You're as old as you feel", Dick Cheney must be about Yoda's age by now.
He's always had that pallor, as if his nature will not permit him to sit out in
daylight. His countenance suggests Mr. Burns crossed with Ebeneezer Scrooge
crossed with severe colonic spasms (with a demeanor to match). He's the kind of
guy who, when he saw that picture of Nixon stalking the beach in his suit and
wing tips, wondered how he could copy that look.
Reagan always managed to evoke Grandpa, a slightly bewildered buy largely amiable soul who'd pull quarters from behind your ears. (He wasn't really like that, by most reliable accounts, but that's how he appeared to white people who didn't know him.) Cheney brings to mind that miserable son of a bitch at every Rotary meeting who grabs the boy of the month by his arm and orders him to get a haircut. He's the old bastard that kids are afraid of because he'll sick his dog on them if they try to retrieve their frisbees from his lawn. When people hear how old he really is, they think, my God, what must that man have done to himself? My father appears younger than Dick Cheney, and he'll be 85 next month.
This:
is an old, old man.
Reagan always managed to evoke Grandpa, a slightly bewildered buy largely amiable soul who'd pull quarters from behind your ears. (He wasn't really like that, by most reliable accounts, but that's how he appeared to white people who didn't know him.) Cheney brings to mind that miserable son of a bitch at every Rotary meeting who grabs the boy of the month by his arm and orders him to get a haircut. He's the old bastard that kids are afraid of because he'll sick his dog on them if they try to retrieve their frisbees from his lawn. When people hear how old he really is, they think, my God, what must that man have done to himself? My father appears younger than Dick Cheney, and he'll be 85 next month.
This:
is an old, old man.
Posted at 03:37 PM
Thu - January 27, 2005
Why Does Apple Need the Right?
From Majikthise:
Republican pollster David Hill is
smitten with the Mac Mini, but he predicts that Apple will need "Republican
help" to get the scheme off the ground. The $500 Mini is supposed to be a
computer for the everyman--but in Hill's opinion, the average Republican
consumer is simply too blinkered and spiteful to see his own
self-interest.
Hmm. The iPod seems to be doing swimmingly without wingers on Apple's board; and because Apple currently holds about 3% of the PC market, if they were able to get Democratic and Moderate PC users away from their Dells and Gateways, they could control a larger share of the PC market than any other manufacturer ever has. (I don't think anyone in PC history has held over 50% of the PC market. Commodore held a percentage in the high thirties during the Commodore 64 era. Where are they now?)
So, sorry, Mr. Hill, we could use you, but I don't think we need you, at least not badly enough to put Rush Limbaugh on the board of anything.
Posted at 03:28 PM
No Statuettes for Fahrenheit 9/11
Conservatives
are crowing because of Fahrenheit
9/11's failure to secure an Academy Award
nomination. They figure liberal Hollywood is gunshy about the film after losing
the November election. They're wrong, of course.
Fahrenheit
9/11 wasn't nominated for an Oscar because
Michael Moore didn't put it up in the Best Documentary category, and didn't
campaign especially hard for Best Picture or Best Director. (Submitting
Fahrenheit
9/11 for Best Documentary would have
precluded Moore from showing the film on television before the November
election, and the studio probably wouldn't have committed to campaigns in the
other two categories because of the extremely long odds of a documentary winning
Best Picture or Best Director.) Moore doesn't need the Oscar. He has one for
Bowling For Columbine,
and the movie doesn't need additional
hype.
Besides which, and I don't speak for all liberals, I don't take Oscar nominations all that seriously. Bitterspice said once--and I don't remember if she was quoting someone else or if this was her line--that either movies are a joke, or the Oscars are a joke. Movies aren't a joke, therefore... I mean, when Titanic and The English Patient can win the Oscar at all, or when Forrest Gump tops Pulp Fiction, or when How Green Was My Valley can beat out Citizen Kane, or when the Academy hands the Best Actor Oscar to Paul Scofield from A Man For All Seasons over Richard Burton from Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf (not that Scofield wasn't good, but Burton was better in a harder role), Oscar's credibility is blown. The Academy Awards night can be a fun show, a memorable evening, often silly, occasionally moving, but if you're looking for the best picture of the year, forget it. Million Dollar Baby may well be the best picture of the year, but my guess is that the Oscar will go to The Aviator because it's Scorsese's turn--just as it was Paul Newman's turn to win when he took the acting award for The Color of Money. Eastwood has already won twice--for Mystic River and Unforgiven. He may get the acting Oscar this time as compensation, but I'll bet on Scorsese for Director and Picture.
Oh, and Mr. Geraghty, speaking as a man whose girlfriend is more attractive than he is by a good margin, go fuck your mother.
Besides which, and I don't speak for all liberals, I don't take Oscar nominations all that seriously. Bitterspice said once--and I don't remember if she was quoting someone else or if this was her line--that either movies are a joke, or the Oscars are a joke. Movies aren't a joke, therefore... I mean, when Titanic and The English Patient can win the Oscar at all, or when Forrest Gump tops Pulp Fiction, or when How Green Was My Valley can beat out Citizen Kane, or when the Academy hands the Best Actor Oscar to Paul Scofield from A Man For All Seasons over Richard Burton from Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf (not that Scofield wasn't good, but Burton was better in a harder role), Oscar's credibility is blown. The Academy Awards night can be a fun show, a memorable evening, often silly, occasionally moving, but if you're looking for the best picture of the year, forget it. Million Dollar Baby may well be the best picture of the year, but my guess is that the Oscar will go to The Aviator because it's Scorsese's turn--just as it was Paul Newman's turn to win when he took the acting award for The Color of Money. Eastwood has already won twice--for Mystic River and Unforgiven. He may get the acting Oscar this time as compensation, but I'll bet on Scorsese for Director and Picture.
Oh, and Mr. Geraghty, speaking as a man whose girlfriend is more attractive than he is by a good margin, go fuck your mother.
Posted at 03:08 PM
Good Takedown, but did you really need to go that far?
Soundbitten
rakes Payola #2 Maggie Gallagher over the coals, then turns her on the spit,
then sticks her in the microwave, and in all other ways, manners, and forms,
cooks her for taking money from the Bush administration to have opinions. (Dear
Leader has now told his administration to stop giving payola to pundits, which
means that the administration will now donate its payola money to foundations
who will see that it is disbursed to pundits.) I do think Soundbitten went too
far with this:
Ah, well, perhaps if I were married instead of single, I wouldn't get so depressed over such shenanigans. And, frankly, you have to give credit where credit is due. It seems that marriage has done everything for Maggie Gallagher that she says it's capable of doing. She looks happy. She looks healthy. She's certainly seems to be making lots of money. And while I’m sitting here, unmarried and alone, getting poorer and sicker by the minute, Gallagher and the mysterious Mr. Gallagher are probably romping on fluffy piles of foundation cash, giggling and moaning and screaming in ecstasy as they drive each other toward the kind of sheet-soaking simultaneous orgasms which, as all the research has shown, wealthy married people enjoy far more often - and far more intensely! - than their doomed single counterparts. [bold is mine}
Arrrh, that'll be replacing the white whale in me nightmares.
Ah, well, perhaps if I were married instead of single, I wouldn't get so depressed over such shenanigans. And, frankly, you have to give credit where credit is due. It seems that marriage has done everything for Maggie Gallagher that she says it's capable of doing. She looks happy. She looks healthy. She's certainly seems to be making lots of money. And while I’m sitting here, unmarried and alone, getting poorer and sicker by the minute, Gallagher and the mysterious Mr. Gallagher are probably romping on fluffy piles of foundation cash, giggling and moaning and screaming in ecstasy as they drive each other toward the kind of sheet-soaking simultaneous orgasms which, as all the research has shown, wealthy married people enjoy far more often - and far more intensely! - than their doomed single counterparts. [bold is mine}
Arrrh, that'll be replacing the white whale in me nightmares.
Posted at 12:37 PM
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Archives
Categories
XML/RSS Feed
Permanent Links
My Fiction
No Room In the Margin
Josh Marshall
Daily Kos
Gadflyer
Juan Cole
Eric Alterman
Matt Yglesias
Donkey Rising: The Emerging Democratic Majority
Tapped
The Chicago Cubs Website
The Seattle Mariners Website
The Oakland Raiders Website
ESPN
Pro Football Weekly
The Internet Movie Database
Rotten Tomatoes
Bitterspice
Charles Keating's Perversity (part 1)
Charles Keating's Perversity (part 2)
The Anal-Retentive's Guide to Nuclear War
Political Blogs
Sports News
Movies
Other Blogs
Funny, Shocking and Disturbing Video
Webring
Polls
| |
Links by Blogroll
Search the Omnibus (or the Web)
|
|
Online Status (Yellow Guy=Active)
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Published On: Feb 14, 2005 01:53 PM
Published On: Feb 14, 2005 01:53 PM