--- Check this out. Interesting.
But part of American law is the principle that unconstitutional laws
are not laws at all. This principle isn't always taken to its logical
conclusion, but generally it is understood to be the principle. As I
understand it, Mayor Newsom's position is that California's
male-female-only marriage law -- which is only a statute, albeit one
that was implemented by a voter initiative -- violates the California
Constitution. If he's right, then refusing to marry same-sex couples
(thus complying with the invalid state statute) would be violating the
law, because it would be denying people the equal treatment that the
constitution allows them; agreeing to marry same-sex couples (thus
violating the invalid state statute) would be upholding the law,
because it would be complying with the constitutional command. His
actions are, I suspect, partly calculated to create a test case that
would lead the California Supreme Court to decide the matter.
I've been watching this whole thing come to a head on CNN. It's
honestly been amazing. Who would have thought someone would actually
stand up and say, hey, we're going to marry gay couples over the long
weekend of court closure to push this argument to the forefront? Not
me, certainly. And certainly not all of the judges who took off for an
early weekend. And for what? What does everyone have their knickers in
a twist over? Something that probably won't be happening by the
beginning of next week---same sex marriages. A marriage, that because
of other laws in place, will not have the full force of the law behind
it. Essentially---an exercise in futility. Everyone, every single
couple that stood in line, knew that their marriage would probably be
declared null and void by some judge, but they wanted to be married
anyway. Good for them. Now, in my opinion, it's a matter of how it
should be resolved which is at issue here, and which will ultimately
cause the most uproar if it comes down to a 9th Circuit or Supreme
Court ruling. The issue itself is clear: how do you define marriage?
Now this is something that the framers could never have ever
thought would be an issue. But while they may not have recognized the
circumstance, they did provide a number of remedies: Congress can pass
a law; they can hand it over to the states to handle; or there can be
judicial review. These are the three ways we as a country choose to
govern ourselves. Legislators have worked on number one and number two:
they've passed laws banning same sex marriages; they've defined
marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman. They've done
everything they could to keep this matter out of the courts because
they learned their lesson with Roe v. Wade. They declared abortion
illegal; the Supreme Court decided differently, and now, thirty some
years later, it's a matter of judicial usurpation and activism that
cheeses Republican congressmen like no other. They claim the issue was taken out of the people's hands!
They had their say; the judiciary reviewed the matter and said they
were wrong; that their laws were unconstitutional. It happens. This is
why we have three branches of government---each fact checks the other.
Sometimes the courts get it right and push things forward. Sometimes
they don't. That's what Congress is for: they're supposed to go back
and rewrite the law if it's declared unconstitutional---so, you know,
they can get it right the second time. Judicial review is one thing
when it's a matter of how government functions. For example, how many
baby steps the FBI can take when they bust a drug dealer. That's an
essential funtion of government---to keep the peace. It's another
matter entirely when you're dealing with social policy---because
everyone has different views on social policy. We're the melting pot,
for chrissakes, of course we're going to have different views on what
is and is not appropriate in the realm of social policy. This is why I don't believe government should be involved in social policy
I mean, honestly, what business does the government have saying what
should be promoted as healthy behavior and what isn't? It's so tiring.
The libertarians, if they were better organized and kicked that freak
Lyndon LaRouche out, could cull some serious support from the GLBT
community. But I digress. Where was I? Oh, social policy. That's right.
Anyway, government should not be in the business of promoting social
policy, but they do anyway. Whomever's in power pushes, like a drug
dealer, their version of what America should be. In my view America
should be a place where people should be able to get married, no matter
if the person they're marrying has the same plumbing as they do. Anyone
who's against this should realize that they're the ones who have
hamstrung themselves on this puppy. When people took the Roe v. Wade
result so seriously, they inadvertently pushed the matter before the
Supreme Court. They're efforts will be paid in spades in the form of
"judicial activism." Because that's where this is headed, kids. Like it
or not. I'm not fond of having the courts come in and decide matters
like this. But Congress is lazy. They pass bad laws. They try and
promote what they see as acceptable social policy. So, when Congress
drops the ball and hamstrings the states from handling it effectively
by trumping them with stupid laws like "The Defense of Marriage Act,"
what exactly does anyone expect the outcome to be? What other remedy is
there? Judicial review is one of the three remedies available: the
other two aren't available. It's up to the third to sort this out. I
never thought I would be a supporter of the idea of gay marriage.
Never. In. My. Life. Why would I, as a married person without kids,
support this idea? Gays and Lesbians had it reasonably good, I thought.
They didn't get screwed on their taxes because they couldn't get
married. And that was as far as I went in the argument. Then I met ML
and The Doctor. They're two lesbians. They had a commitment ceremony
last year. I told everyone they "got married," because in my mind, they
did
get married. They had a minister. The only difference between their
marriage and mine is that they have kids and we don't. I just don't see
the difference anymore and the reason I got over the hump is that I got
my head out of their bedroom. Now, I wasn't thinking about what was
going on behind closed doors, but that's what I figure everyone is so
hung up on: what happens in gay and lesbian bedrooms. Oooh, there's sodomy. That's in the BIBLE as being a bad thing! There's no conception! There are no children. Aiieeeee. .
It's bullshit, to put it simply. What goes on in anyone's bedroom is of
no concern. I'll stay out of your bedroom. You stay out of mine. It's
that simple. But this is not what the anti-gay marriage activists say.
The tame ones say marriage was essentially founded to protect the children of the union. It's all about children!. The zealots say that they're
committing unnatural acts! It would taint the institution of marriage
to even think about giving gays and lesbians the right to marriage.
It's all ridiculous. News flash: there are any number of straight
couples that practice sodomy. News flash: they also practice
contraception. But they have the right to get married, nonetheless. Do
you think they ask straight couples at the marriage license bureau if
they're going to have kids? Or if one of the partners takes it up the
ass? No. None of that is germane to allowing people to get married.
They certainly didn't ask the husband or I any of those questions when
we applied for our marriage license. So, if it's not relevant for
straight people, why would it be relevant for those who aren't?
When you take your mind out of the bedroom, you realize it's a simple
matter of rights: what rights are gays and lesbians denied simply
because of who they are? One of the lawyers in the Massachusetts case
last week put it very simply: you cannot write discrimination into the
constitution. And look at the historical precedent of that same action.
We don't have slavery anymore. It was written into, and subsequently
out of, the constitution. We don't have Jim Crow laws anymore. We don't
have segregated schools anymore. We don't have an Equal Rights
Amendment, but there are any number of laws regarding sex based
discrimination. Every time America's legislators have written
discrimination into the constitution, they've been struck down. The
track record is not good. If the definition of insanity is to keep
trying the same thing over and over while expecting a different result,
well, what exactly is this?
This is a personal thing for me. I have rights because I married a man
that two of my best friends do not because they choose to partner with
someone of the same sex. I feel VERY bad about this. The guilt reeks
from me. It's not fair. I think of them as married. They've made a
lifetime commitment to each other; they got up in front of all their
friends, family and in front of a minister no less, pledged to spend
their lives together. The husband and I did the same thing. What's the
difference? They, if you're using the standards that the anti-gay
marriage activists have established---that marriage is about protecting
children of a union---they've technically adhered to the rules better
than I have. We don't have kids. They do. Three of them. They're from
ML's marriage, but the doc couldn't have custody of them if something
happened to ML. Why? Because she's not a legally recognized spouse.
ML's ex's new wife, if the situation were reversed, would. Where's the
equity in that? How is this protecting the children they're responsible
for? It's not. But people will get their knickers in a twist over it
when it's struck down. And it will be. Maybe not this time around, but
we can hope, right? I can understand religions saying no, we won't
marry you because of this, but the state?
What the hell harm could it do? There are more heterosexuals who get
divorced every year than there are gays and lesbians who will apply to
get married. The statistics demand this to be the case. There's no
reason to get twisted up about this. That comes in the "hearts and
minds" stage. We have to get through this before we can
actually discuss the issue of homosexuality in a rational light. Right
now we're not on the same level. Acceptance simply is not possible when
the opposing sides aren't equal in the eyes of the law. Make the fight
fair.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rep. John McHugh are picking a fight
with the fictional ``West Wing'' over a scene aired Wednesday night in
which an aide discussed closing a real-life New York military base.
Clinton, D-N.Y., and McHugh, R-N.Y., fired off a letter Thursday to
Deputy White House Chief of Staff Joshua Lyman, the TV character played
by Bradley Whitford. ``Dear Josh,'' begins the letter from Clinton and
McHugh, who are real, to Lyman, who is not.
On Wednesday's episode of the NBC drama, a general meeting with Lyman
suggested Fort Drum in northern New York, site of deep-snow combat
training, may be shuttered. ``We want to make sure that such a
recommendation doesn't make it into another West Wing scene,'' the
tongue-in-cheek letter says. ``It is important that all White House
advisors have the most current information to respond to such flawed
proposals.''
This is so unbelivably stupid I am actually at a loss for words.
--- Payback's a bitch,
ain't it Larry? Perhaps it would have behooved you to keep your mouth
shut during the whole IE anti-trust debacle?
In Renton, Washington, in his forty million dollar house by the sea,
Bill Gates is slurping down whatever nerdy beverage he drinks and is
chortling with glee. Putting down his milkshake, he will rub his hands
together eagerly, and say in a Dr. Evil tone of voice, "Excellent,"
while plotting for further world domination by Microsquash.
--- Garry Trudeau is an ass.
So, let me see if I've got this one straight: Trudeau is going to give
$10K to the USO in return for "online testimony" (gives one leave to
wonder if "Well, I got it on with a girl in Alabama..." counts as an
'online testimony') about whether Bush showed up at the airbase in
Alabama or not. Interesting. And how big a tax deduction are you, Garry
Trudeau, going to get on your USO donation? Or do you fill out the EZ
form?
--- Ok, everyone needs to pull their panties out of their butts about this movie right now---and that includes Mel Gibson.
I hate to tell you this, folks, but it's a movie.
This is not the be all, end all, debate of our time. It just isn't.
Terrorism, yeah, that's a biggie. But a frigging movie? Get over
yourselves.
Ever since I started this blog back in August, I've began a few
epistles about The Passion,
numerous times. I stopped and did the digital equivalent of ripping
paper out of the typewriter, balling it up, and shooting for three---I
deleted the posts. Much easier on the trees. I just couldn't get it
down. I've tried to defend Mel's vision. That didn't work. I tried to
tell the ADL to get over themselves, but that didn't work out either. I
think I've finally come to a conclusion about what will work:
EVERYBODY GO INTO A CORNER AND TAKE A TIME OUT. WHEN THE EGG TIMER GOES
OFF, YOU CAN GET UP AGAIN, BUT IF YOU SHOOT YOUR MOUTH OFF ONE MORE
TIME...
I will make a fantastic mother one day, won't I? Heheheheh. I'm all
about the empty threat.
Anyway, the gist of the debate swirling around this film is that a. Mel
keeps shooting his mouth off and b. numerous Jewish groups think its
going to incite hatred against Jews because--they think, they haven't
actually seen it to my knowledge---they're depicted as ultimately
repsonsible for the crucifixion. This is all one big fabricated
controversy. A few people got wedgies because of perceived slights, and
then it got out of control. It's ridiculous. I don't even want to see
the movie anymore. I really don't. Movies are supposed to be another
form of storytelling, but if some jerk is going to scream through the
entire thing, why bother? What exactly are you supposed to get out of
the story if you can't even hear it? Now, just a few comments. Mel
thinks his wife is going to hell? I'm sure she's thanking you for
sharing that assessment of the situation with a few million readers
worldwide, buddy. She gave birth to eight
of your children. And your way of thanking her for seventy-two months
of swollen ankles, bloated boobs, and the eventual joys of labor, is to
tell her---and the world---she's going to hell because she doesn't go
to the same church that you do? HUH? You could have kept your views of
salvation to yourself, Mel. She'd be well within her rights to nail you
with a frying pan. I would. But this is what Mel believes. That anyone
outside of his church is going to hell, yet the guy calls himself a Catholic. Well, bud, I hate to tell you this, you're not a Catholic. Anyone who rejects Vatican II is a heretic. Yep. That's right. Say it with me---her-e-tic. That's right. You're
the heretic, not the other billion people served. Stop calling yourself
a Catholic. You're not. By what my church---you know, the one ruled by
the guy in the big funny hat---teaches, you're the one going to hell.
Stop being so sanctimonious and realize people believe in different
things and that you have no right judging anyone or declaring who is
going to hell and who isn't. Leave it up to God: He's ultimately the
one who will have to settle the score. And I can't think that patently
ignoring Jesus' message of judge not, lest ye be judged is
going to earn you any points in the Man's books. Now, on to the ADL.
This movie is not going to cause worldwide panic. It's just not. Most
Christians can't even be bothered to go to church on Sundays---why on
Earth would you think they could organize themselves into a big
screaming mob who are going to start burning synagogues if they go and
see a movie this movie? The attendance at Mass worldwide is even less
if the World Cup's running. Give it a rest. We're unorganized and we
can't be bothered. Don't worry about us. You've got your hands full
with the Muslims. We know you have to worry about them, but us...pffft.
No fretting necessary. And besides, we're all going to wait for the
rental anyway.
Second, I hate to tell you this, but the Jews are the ones who
organized the crucifixion. No, they didn't kill Jesus, but they ordered
the hit. I don't hold today's Jews reponsible for this. Neither should
anyone else. But if you read the Bible it's pretty clear that it was
the Sandedrin's guards who took Jesus from Gethsemane. They had
recruited Judas to point Jesus out. They were the ones who sent their
guards to round 'em up. The Chief Priest's guard even had his ear
whacked off and Jesus healed it. They were the ones who lobbied Pontius
Pilate to find him guilty of some crime, so he was out of the way. They
were the ones who took him over to Herod when Pilate could find no
reason to hold him. They were the ones who took him back
to Pilate after Herod couldn't come up with anything. Pilate finally
gave in---after trying to let Jesus go free as an act of goodwill for
Passover---and ordered him crucified. Is the name Barrabbas ringing a
bell? No, the ruling Jews of ancient Jerusalem didn't want to have a
damn thing to do with Jesus. They saw him as a threat to their way of
life, so they rejected him, but they went even further---they got him
out of the picture. They got the Romans to crucify him. They are the ones who are culpable here,
not the however many million Jews out there today. We Christians know
this. We are not going to rise up and punish the "Christ Killers"
because a movie has inspired us to do so. Pffft. Ain't going to happen.
Simply because we know the Jews of today had nothing to do with it.
Hear me now: I DON'T HOLD THE JEWS OF TODAY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF JESUS!
Neither do millions of Christians worldwide. But that admission in no
way means we don't recognize the historical fact in this. The Jews of
ancient Jerusalem took out a Nazarean they thought was a threat. And
Jesus was
a threat to their way of life. They liked their way of life. They liked
the sway they held with the powers that were and Jesus was a threat to
all of that. Jesus didn't like their way of life, actively preached
against it, and was gaining followers. Hence, he had to be taken care
of. It was, in essence, a power play. No different than the whole Et
tu, Brute business with Caesar. But this doesn't mean diddly squat to
most Christians. It's the meaning of the crucifixion that has
significance to us---the what, the why, the how---not the who. That,
quite frankly, is irrelevant. Jesus knew he was going to die in the
Garden at Gethsemane. He knew who was going to kill him, too. He asked
for God to forgive his killers when he was on the cross. And he wasn't
just talking about the Romans there, kids. To focus on who is or is not
culpable---today, right here, right now---is to be missing the entire
point of Jesus' suffering and ultimate death on the cross. If Jesus
wasn't concerned with the who, neither should anyone else. And this is
from a person who doesn't take the rest of the Bible literally. I do
happen to know my Passion, though. You sit through a few Holy Thursday
and Good Friday masses and you'll know it, too. Not to mention when
they used to shepherd us around the church, doing the Stations of the
Cross in grade school. The Passion, as described by Luke is filled with
enough facts that despite the author's leanings, it's a credible
recording of what actually happened. IF
and only you believe it happened in the first place. Which I do. Others
may not, but I'll take Luke's word for it. He seems to be the apostle
who strove for accuracy, unlike John, whose writing, at times,
honestly, forces you to wonder what the hell the man was smoking to
come up with his Gospel, let alone Revelations. Must have been some seriously
good weed. Everyone just needs to get over this whole thing. Mel didn't
show the film to people he thought would rip it up and down the river
and shot his mouth off about it. He's defeating himself in this manner.
Let him, is what I say. I don't want this story told by him. He should
be shouted down---because he's now pissing off his core audience---the
Christians. And if they don't want to see it, who do you think will?
--- Whoooeeee.
I don't care for Howard Stern. I think he's a crass man. Wait a minute. Man
is too good of a term for him. He's a fourteen-year-old boy. A
fourteen-year-old boy who does nothing but masturbate while reading
porn. And he's got a short attention span, so the mag that did it for
him five minutes previous, won't do it for him now. He's not a man;
he's a boy. As Lileks would say, he's taken a wrong turn at the corner
of groin and life. That said, he pulls an audience. A big audience. People
listen to him and what he has to say, even if the topic he seems to hit
on most is porn. Subject matter does have some part in the
cause and effect scenario going on here. It does. If he didn't ramble
on about this, well, Clear Channel wouldn't be pulling him, would they?
But that shouldn't matter. I don't listen to Howard Stern,
mainly, because I think he's foul. But the main reason is that he's not
on the air here in the Twin Cities. He was, for a few month stint, back
in the late 90's, but the local Barnyard animal (people here will get
that) beat him in the ratings and it was too costly to keep paying for
his show, or so the radio station said. I digress, but the point would
be that it's about profitability. Howard gets paid what he does
because he's nationally syndicated. If stations start censoring, well,
Howard will go where he can get the most air time, and that won't be on
broadcast radio. Jarvis think's he'll go to satellite. Maybe. But I
think, perhaps, that the internet could be the venue for him. People
would slap down serious bucks to hear Howard rant and rave---and he
wouldn't have any restrictions---at all. And we know Howard doesn't
like restrictions. I think maybe he's tired of dealing with this stuff
entirely. How many times have they pulled him back? Too many to count.
And after all, the Internet is the perfect venue for someone
who worships at the altar of porn like Howard does. The reason we have
streaming video is because poor Fred in Toledo didn't like having his
dirty movie---the one he'd paid good money for---stopping then
starting, then going really sloooooooooow because of bandwidth issues.
It's a win-win situation---Howard will actually be able to claim
something other than one of his many erections came from his love of
porn. And he'll actually be able to profit from it. How perfect is
that? Remember kids, the Internet loves you more than a lapdancer does.
--- The husband sent this to
me under the heading, "you haven't done Crazy Germans in a while."
(Well, I should hope he knows I haven't DONE any crazy Germans---I
don't know how I'd keep a straight face.)
Ahem. Commentary.
Now, that's a bureaucracy ANY country should be proud of, no?
Window Update---Tweedledumb called back this afternoon and chatted with
the husband. Reportedly, Tweedledumb is going to contact the window
contractors and get them to take responsibility. In the meantime, we
just have to live with the constant drip, drip, drip because the Great White Hunter landlord isn't going to pay someone to come out and take care of the ice.
This, I should add, is the same window contractor Tweedledumb forgot to pay
for the window install, and who subsequently slapped a lien on the
house in lieu of said payment. And they put that lien on the house
toute suite, too. Within thirty days if memory serves. They didn't even
want to have interest build up. One can suppose they were so sick of
the Great White Hunter and Tweedledumb that they just didn't care about
accruing interest. They wanted their money and they wanted done with
these idiots. And Tweedledumb thinks he's going to get this contractor
to pay for ice removal when it's not their fault. Good freaking
luck. This, of course, is a stall maneuver by Tweedledumb. If he
actually calls said window contractor, I'll be very much surprised.
This is just his way of weaseling out of actually having to do anything
about the problem. I repeat. I am sick of this.
--- Ok, this is pretty darn funny.
Seems more than a few fans of Star Wars can write poetry. Some of it's
filthy, of course, but they're writing odes in defense of a preemptive
shooting in Star Wars
that Lucas rearranged in the special editions to make the whole thing
more pc. Whaddya want? They're axe murderers to begin with...they're
not going to improve with time and education. I remember going to see
the special editions with the husband. He was so stoked. We got into it
and then there's the scene in the cantina with Han and Greedo---and
Greedo shot first. It was the wierdest sensation, both of us just
looked at each other in disbelief. I knew Greedo hadn't shot first, or
at least was pretty sure that he hadn't. The husband knew
that Greedo hadn't shot first in the same way some people can explain
neutrinos and quarks---those movies are one of his areas of expertise.
He wasn't as scandalized as some other people were when this came out
in the news. His reasoning: their Lucas' movies---let him do what he
will with them.
So the news comes down the pike yesterday that Lucas is finally
releasing Episodes 4,5 and 6 on DVD---but
he's only releasing the special editions...not the originals that were
shown in the theaters and originally released on videotape.
Everyone's assuming greed as Lucas' motivation here. He'll only release
the originals when 1, 2 and 3 come out in some boxed set, someone said.
I have to agree with that sentiment. But there's something more to it,
I think, and another commenter, MikeR. on A Small Victory worded it perfectly, so I'll use his words and not mine:
I have no problem with an artist changing his work of art over time.
That's a natural human impulse. However, I do have a problem with
someone taking the originals out of circulation. That's sheer
arrogance, to effectively tell people they shouldn't care about the
original work because the artist in his infinite wisdom has chosen to
make it "better". The paying Star Wars fans made George Lucas a
zillionaire, yet he seems to hold them in contempt...
Then Dorkafork said this and he, too, makes a good, and very important, point:
Well, no Matt, they aren't his movies. We could argue the
technicalities of it, the Constitution says artists should have
exclusive right to their writings for a limited time and argue how long
that limited time should be. But the import{ant) thing is to promote
"the progress of science and useful arts". What the hell kind of
filmmaker tries his best to prevent his movie from being seen? How does
preventing his movie from being seen "progress art"? This goes beyond
mere changes in a movie. I think it's great that there are director's
cuts, extended versions, etc. And I want creative people to get paid
for their work. But look at how Lucas is using his copyright. The
originals are not being shown on TV, they're not being sold in stores,
and they are never going to be shown or sold again. He is removing them
from the public domain, taking a movie millions adored and trying to
hide it from them. This does not benefit anybody, except maybe people
who get on eBay with the laserdisc version. The problem isn't with the
changes, or the relative artistic merit of Star Wars. They're archival
issues, mainly. Those VHS tapes are not going to last forever. The film
stock won't either (if it hasn't been destroyed already). Christ, the
more I think about it, the more sick it makes me.
Now, I don't think Lucas will go so far as to never
offer the originals on DVD, but I can see where this guy has a point.
It's worrying. Lucas went back and not only digitized the original
footage, he put in stuff he couldn't get the first time around. This was what he wanted with the originals,
or so he says. I don't know that you can honestly, as an artist, make
the same pronouncements about "what you want your work to project" when
you're thirty years old as when you're fifty. People change as they get
older. Their ideas change, as do their priorities, and George has
seemingly wussed out over the years about providing entertainment
that's as fun for adults as it is for kids. He seems to think that kids
should be getting all the good stuff, while he ignores first generation
that put him where he's at. We're part of his audience, too and
it's amazing how he forgets this, in fact, it's amazing he doesn't
remember he has an audience to please in the first place. Episode I and
II show this: he's arrogant enough to think that story doesn't
matter---and that bad actors can, in fact, be good. In Episode II,
Hayden Christensen is painful
to watch. Literally. He made me cringe and want to hide because he
stank the place up so bad. His anger was just so juvenile: it made you
feel as if the conversion to Darth Vader will ultimately be the result
of a teenage temper tantrum. No one appreciates me! Waaaah! I'm going over to the Dark Side!
I feel awful for Ewan McGregor---he carried Episode II along with Yoda
(who, by the way, kicked ass in that movie---if a Mexican jumping bean
looks like something, they'd look like Yoda fighting). Natalie Portman,
who is a great actress, could do nothing to save that thing. I'm amazed
she didn't force Hayden to get up to her level. I have to think when
she was done with it, she said, thank God, I'm done with that for the
time being and maybe the kid will learn how to act before the next one.
But Lucas noticed none of this. You would like to think that a
director who has his credentials could at least tell a worthy
performance from a not-so-worthy one. He can't. He doesn't know how to
do this. This is why he hired different directors for Empire and
Return. This is why he got Spielberg to direct Indiana Jones. For my
birthday, I got a nifty Target gift card with which I bought the
Indiana Jones box set. This was my first DVD goo-goo-ga-ga experience:
nothing else had tripped my trigger enough to fork out the cash. Well,
I was watching the DVD with all the "making of"'s for the first time
the other night, and it was amazing how much his enthusiasm decreased
when talking about Last Crusade as Raiders.
These were recent interviews, done with the DVD release in mind, but it
was as if you got an idea of what it was like twenty years ago when
they were making the films---he was fired up about Raiders and where all the ideas came from and how the project came to be. But by the time we watched the Last Crusade
making of, no one was saying anything about how many great ideas George
had come up with, because he hadn't come up with anything other than he
wanted to make it a father-son picture. Well, then Spielberg even
commented about how George hadn't wanted to have Henry Sr. and Indiana not
get along. George wanted a buddy-buddy happy movie. Spielberg then
described the conversations he'd had with Lucas, convincing him that
this was the way to go. It was amazing in that here you have this
cantankerous character, Indy, and you invented him, and while he does
have his soft spots and a good sense of honor, he's also a mercenary.
This is fine. Conflicted hero. We all like conflicted heroes. So, the
stage was set long ago as far as what behavior was expected of him. We,
the audience, loved this guy. We didn't want him to change. Now,
George, tell me, precisely how would it make sense to think that Indy
would be best friends with his father? It doesn't. Guys like Indy don't
become guys like Indy if they go play catch on the front lawn every day
before supper. It just doesn't happen. Spielberg practically came out
and said that the first part of the movie, showing Indy's youth with
the very delicious and very much missed River Phoenix, was a bone
thrown at Lucas for making a film where Indy didn't get along with his
father. Ultimately, it comes down the the supposition (on my part,
anyway) that Lucas likes his characters and doesn't want to put them
through any pain, so we get really weak story arcs and incredibly
sophmoric writing. Look at Episode II: he'd rather make a cariacature
of Anakin than really get down to business and write something
worthwhile for Hayden to work with. And it's a painful storyline: the
guy is separated from his mother; he feels his talents are being
ignored by the higher ups at the Jedi council; he's in love with a
woman he shouldn't be in love with---everything's there, but Lucas
softens it. He throws us an underhanded softball, when we're ready for
a fastpitch overhand. I think part of the reason why Christensen stank
so badly was because he was trying too hard. Well, when the
director/writer/producer of the most beloved series of films of our age
comes to you and tells you he wants *you* to show how Darth Vader came
about, what are you going to do? Ignore the success of the series,
ignore the absolute worthiness of what had already been created and
throw it away because it's poorly written? No, you're going to go for
it. And it's a shame: Hayden should have said no. Said to George Lucas
that this script is a piece of shit and you should rework it. Why is
George the way he is? I don't know. But I'm not going to buy the Star Wars
DVD's. The husband will buy them, so I will end up owning them by
association. And that's sad, because it confirms Lucas' notion that
he's got us by the short and curlies. Which he does. He holds the key
to the good stuff, and make no mistake, he's not going to open the door
unless he's got a really good reason.
--- Guest blogger today---ML has a few things she'd like to say.
Strangely reminiscent of what I said below, but much better worded and
coherent. Enjoy. Hell, she even titled her piece too...she should get
bonus points.
Gay Marriage – The Hot Topic of 2004
You can’t turn on talk show radio or read a news paper without
listening to or reading about at least one issue surrounding gay
marriage. It is the hot, “in†topic for this Presidential election
year of 2004. In the Opinion section of the Minneapolis Star Tribune
today there were three Letters from Readers with opinions on the
subject of gay marriage. During the program All Things Considered on
National Public Radio two guests and several callers discussed the
arguments for and against same-sex marriage within the gay community.
Earlier on Minnesota Public Radio there was an hour-long program with
one guest speaking to the topic of an alternative word to
“marriage†that can be used in the public forum that will cause
less division and consternation and encompass all of society. The
answer to the question posed on today’s segment of Midmorning on MPR
is yes. Actually we can save the word “marriage†and continue to
use it in a more appropriate context. In today’s society, the word
marriage is used to encompass both civil and religious unions. Marriage
describes both a couple’s state sanctioned rights, such as tax breaks
for families and inheritance benefits, and a couple’s participation
in certain religious ceremonies. Herein lies the problem. The United
States is based on the idea of the separation of church and state. This
was the reason that many of our fore- parents left their homelands and
began life anew in the what was later to become the United States of
America – separating church laws and beliefs from the laws that would
govern the people. Religious laws were not to be transferred to society
as a whole. In Europe, religions such as the Church of England and the
Roman Catholic Church were quite intertwined. Many Europeans believed
that it was the clergy’s role to see to the spiritual well-being of
its members and it was the government’s role to oversee the
well-being of it citizens. Clergy should not be meddling in affairs of
the state. This ideology of church/state separation is reflected in our
Constitution.
The popular definition of the word “marriage†has no separation of
church and state. A marriage can take place in a religious ceremony or
a civil ceremony. I propose separating these two ceremonies, as is
customary in Europe and other societies, and call one civil union and
the other marriage. Marriage can be defined by religious customs and
all citizens of the United States would have the religious freedom of
choice. Civil union would bestow secular benefits, marriage would
bestow spiritual benefits. Should the President of the United States be
putting forth religious arguments for the denial of gay marriage or
further to amend the United States Constitution when he or she is
entrusted to ensure the separation of church and state? The President
is a civilly elected official of government. His or her religious
beliefs are a private issue. They certainly should not be the platform
for change in our federal Constitution. The argument of marriage being
the province of one man and one woman is a religious concept. Separate
the two for all people - civil unions for legal ceremonies and marriage
for religious ceremonies and there would be a lot less contention. As
our fore-parents knew, separation of church and state advances another
principle that our country is based on - equal rights for all citizens.
One of the principle tenets of social conservatives is family values.
There are over 1,000,000 children of gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgendered parents. Those children are not getting the same legal
protection and benefits as the children of heterosexual couples.
Discrimination of any child is not a family value. All children of our
nation should enjoy equal benefits and protection under the law. If
protecting the family unit is of utmost importance, then gay marriage
should be allowed by law thus ensuring legal protection for all our
children. If monogamy is also a strong, stabilizing family and societal
value, then it would be to our nation’s benefit to allow gay couples
to marry. The greater the number of stabilizing monogamous marriages in
this country, the stronger our nation will be. Our nation will be
strengthened when gay couples are encouraged to marry and create
families. Where are the family values when heterosexual couples get
married and then divorce within hours of the marriage ceremony? How is
it that gay couples, committed to one another, are denied the right to
marry, but heterosexual couples are allowed such flagrant disregard of
societal or family values? It is good for this country that gay
marriage be such a social, legal and political hot topic in 2004.
Change rarely happens smoothly, it is rarely painless, but change does
happen and it will happen in the case of gay marriage. Within the next
twenty years gay couples will be granted the same right of marriage or
civil union (if legal and religious ceremonies are separated) that will
give all couples equal right under the law. --- Mary Lynn Collins
--- Ok, Janet's Boobie.
Instead of actually watching the Superbowl last night, I watched Independence Day
on Fox. I don't give a rat's ass about pro football. It's boring. It's
players are owned by corporations who expect us to give over all our
money to cheer for players who have no loyalty to the teams they play.
That's the whole NFL thing summed up in a nutshell. It's greedy and
it's boring. Enough said. But I like the Superbowl commercials. They're
fun. So, you have to watch some of the football to get to the good
stuff. Invariably, though, with my luck, I kept getting the actual
Superbowl programming instead of the commercials. I was cursed. Every
single flipping time I changed the channel, I got the actual game and
halftime program instead of the good stuff. Someone was working the
voodoo last night. It should have been called Freaky Friday instead of
Superbowl Sunday---everything was turned around from the way things
normally work. Usually, you get commercials when you flip to another
channel. That's just the way God designed the definition of the term
"ironic." This is the way things are supposed to work, damnit! I was
counting on this! This principle ensured I would get to see the
commercials and VERY little game. Last night, the Devil was in charge
of things, obviously, and as a result, I got Janet's boob on my TV
screen for about five seconds. This is what happens when the Devil gets
his fingers into the pie, you know. You have to sit through Justin
Timberlake and Janet Jackson lipsynching and grinding themselves into
oblivion---something that would NEVER happen in real life---and then
you get to see Justin rip off an obviously velcroed boob cover. Now,
this didn't bother me because I took a few things into account: the
halftime show had been billed up and down the river as being produced
by MTV. I, who paid so little attention to the hype leading up to the
game did not know even who was playing in it, knew this. I also knew
that CBS, who is owned by Viacom, was throwing a bone to MTV which, by
some weird twist of fate, is also owned by Viacom. It's big media
having a party for itself. They're bound to push the limits of
acceptability in this regard. Sort of like the Stanley Cup playoffs
last year. Then you had the Anaheim Mighty Ducks, a Disney owned
enterprise, being shown on ESPN and ABC, who also advertised the hell
out of those games, more so in my estimation than the actual
championship series---particularly when the New Jersey Devils started
beating the snot out of the Ducks. Disney backed away from promoting
the series, in my opinion. I have no facts to back this one up, it's
just a gut feeling. They were making plenty of money as it was no need
to push it anymore. In this case pride went before the fall, as well.
They pushed the envelope, in other words. They tried to see what they
could get away with. It's pretty simple stuff. In this case, it was the
supposedly accidental airing of Janet's boob. I don't think it was
accidental. Just look at the slide show. Does she look really all that
surprised that he yanked her bustier? No. Look at the pictures of the
pastie she wore---was she really all that concerned that TV lights
would get through that inpenetrable fabric we all know as black leather
and someone would see---gasp!---her nipple? Why'd she wear such a fancy
pastie? If it really was a cover-job-pastie only, why the hell was it
so fancy? How come Justin, who, let's face it, is not exactly The Hulk,
able to pull that thing off if it wasn't velcroed? Leather stitching is
tough to rip through. Ask any seamstress. No, that sucker was supposed
to come off because MTV wanted to push it. These are the same people
who produced that shocker of a kiss between Britney and Madonna last
summer at the VMA's? Why is anyone surprised that Janet's boob
got aired (both literally and figuratively speaking) last night? CBS,
too, wanted that thing to come off. Everyone's talking about it---means
good ratings. What I'm ticked about is, that despite the reasoning that
this is a con job, Viacom, CBS, MTV and
Justin Timberlake expect us to believe it was a "wardrobe malfunction."
Oh, come on! How stupid do you think I am? What am I? A sheep? Boob
doesn't bother me. It's a mammary gland---a part of the female anatomy.
Every woman has them---even your mother. If you're freaked out by a
mammary gland, you're the one with issues, not Janet. Janet's going to
get a write off on her latest round of plastic surgery. Good for her.
It was an impressive boob. So, as long as she keeps her mouth
shut, I'm not going to pick on her for showing off. So, the boob
doesn't bother me, it's the blatant covering of asses that bothers me.
They're trying to get out of paying the FCC a fine. That's it. And
that's just irresponsible and gutless. If you want to shock people,
you'd better be willing to pay the consequences for said shocking.
---Trudging through snow to store now. Fajitas for dinner and I need
limes for the marinade. Thank God we only live a few blocks away. No
way in hell am I getting anywhere near the car right now.
Ok, I'm a frigging idiot. Forgot to delete his admin status.
{Guy Smiley} {/Guy Smiley}
Well, all the doors are closed now. Somewhat belatedly, but the job is
done.
This is the hot water you can get yourself into if you leave it all up
to the techie in the house.
{INSERT MONSTROUS SIGH HERE}
Well, changed the password again. I was lazy, I will admit. I used a
variation of the old one. It was just a matter of time before he
figured it out. He's not going to get this one. I guarantee it.
Good luck, baby! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA yourself!
Pfffffffffft.
--- Jesus.
Literally. I will admit I'm not going to go and see this movie. I just
don't want to. I'll wait until it comes out on video. It's a personal
choice for me. I'm not one of those people who likes to hold hands when
I say the "Our Father" during mass, or is big into “getting
involved,†with my church. My relationship with God is more personal
experience for me, rather than communal one. I don't want to run to the
theater with a bunch of other Christians to see this movie, like it's a
football game where I need to show up to root for the home team. It's
just not me. I will see the film, but in the privacy of my own home. I
already said my piece about Mel and the ADL, so it's not worth
revisiting. I just have one comment, though, and it relates to
children. Paul Clinton warns in his review: However, I recommend to parents -- many of whom may be taking
their kids to see this film as part of various church-sponsored
screenings -- that this is a very violent and graphic film, and just
because it is about Jesus doesn't make it suitable for everyone.
Allrighty then. Take the kiddies to church, let them hear the story,
let them walk the Stations of the Cross, tell them how Jesus died for
our sins, tell them that we're all culpable his death because of our
sinning, but for the love of all that is good and holy, don't let them see an account of the crucifixion. It's too violent. It's too bloody.
Keep the message centered on that He died for our sins, but don't let
them see an account of His death because it might scar them for life.
Of all the flaming hypocritical bits that have come across my path.
YEESH! I just don't get this one. Let me revise that: I get it, but
it's still hypocritical. After hearing how violent this film is, if I
had kids, I probably wouldn't let them see it either, so I know
I don't have a leg to stand on here, but it's interesting to see this
collision of today's brand of family values collide with a portrayal of
the death of a man around whom those family values are structured.
Yesterday, the husband was conducting some business on the other side
of town and decided to drop in to see his sister. Now, the sister in
law is a devout Lutheran--- of the Missouri Synod variety. (Just as an
example, she thought Judge Moore was in the right last summer and
wanted to get on a bus to go and support him.) She and her husband have
organized their lives, and the lives of their children, around their
belief in God and what their church teaches. They’re very into
“family values.†One aspect where they follow their beliefs to the
max is that they homeschool their children. Their decision was, in
part, based upon their worries about public schools, which are many,
but mainly reside in the neighborhood of the quality of education the
schools provide. But, on the whole, I would say homeschooling is mostly
a religious thing for them: they want their kids to have a parochial
education. The niece and nephew are nice little kids and I love them to
pieces. They're wonderful children, and despite my original worries
about homeschooling, I think the sister in law is doing a pretty good
job of educating them. So, while they're incredibly sheltered kids,
they are being educated the way their parents want them to be: in a
Christian way, according to their beliefs. This is fine. I'm all for
free choice. According to the husband, they're going to go see "The
Passion of the Christ," on Saturday and they've got a babysitter lined
up for the kids. Now, perhaps this doesn't seem like a big deal to you,
and it's not a "big" deal, but I find it very interesting, and I have
to tell you a story about the nephew to tie it all together. A few
years ago, we were over at their house for Easter dinner. The sister in
law was in the kitchen, finishing things up, we were hanging out in the
living room, chatting with the nephew. He wanted to show us something.
He's a very creative kid with an active imagination, so we settled in
for the show. I should mention their house is pretty small. They don't
have a goodly amount of room to work with, so the living room is filled
with toys and the kids’ bookcases. R., who could best be described as
"scrawny" in terms of body mass, crawls up on his bookcase, like a
monkey climbing a tree, manages to turn himself around, outstretches
his arms and crosses his feet at the ankles and then proceeds to shout
at full volume, LOOK, AUNT KATHY! I'M CRUCIFIED!.
Then he proceeded to jump down from the bookcase. He ran across the
room to where the sofa was and crawled behind it and then covered the
opening with a spare sofa cushion. He gave no explanation this time
around, but it was obvious to us that he was simulating Jesus' body
being put into the tomb, the cushion acting as a substitute for the
rock. Two seconds later, he crawled back out again, said, "It's three
days later! I'm resurrected!" The nephew then ran into the kitchen and
informed his mother of the same. Now, a little kid acting out the
Passion is not disturbing to me, particularly not on Easter Sunday,
where all he'd been hearing for the past few days at church was about
the crucifixion and how joyful the resurrection was. R. is a gorgeous
kid. And I really mean that. He’s beautiful in the classical,
aesthetically pleasing sense of the word. If he had been born five
hundred years ago, he would have been immortalized in paint by
Rembrandt. Blonde hair, blue eyes, fine features---the girls are going
to be mad for him when he grows up. But I don’t think I’ll ever get
over the incongruity of the whole situation: here you have this
beautiful little boy, the widest grin in the world on his mouth, his
big blue eyes sparkling, and he’s up on a bookcase, happy as a clam
that “he’s been crucified.†It was one of the creepiest things
I’ve ever seen. It just rang so absolutely wrong.
But he’s a little kid. It’s not surprising to me that he got the
messages mixed up in his mind. When I expected his parents to correct
him, however, to tell him that the resurrection was joyful, yes, but
the crucifixion was one of the most painful endings a person could come
to, his parents chose not to go that route. Instead, they praised him.
Their attitude was that it was a cute thing, something for them to be
proud of---that he knew the story well enough to act it out. I just
looked at the husband and stared. He stared back. But we kept quiet: it
wasn’t our place to say something. When I told Mr. H. about this, he,
too, was surprised that R.’s parents hadn’t corrected him. He
thought they should have said something and the comment he made that
sticks with me was, “having tie irons hammered through your wrists
and feet is not a pleasant, happy, thing.†R. didn’t have the
context of the crucifixion, and as far as I know, he still doesn’t. I
don’t know that his parents want him to have it. I’ve been to their
church---it’s a pretty happy-go-lucky sort of place where everyone
gets forgiven of their sins without actually having to confess
them---and it’s fairly obvious that they don’t spend a whole lot of
time on the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross that day, but instead
spend the majority of their time talking about how he saved us when he
was resurrected. At their church, in other words, it’s all about the
happy ending, and not the pain and suffering that made the happy ending
possible. I’ll be curious to hear what the sister in law has to say
about the film. Five bucks says she’ll say it’s very bloody and
violent and, undoubtedly, she’ll be shocked at all the kids who were
in the theater with them. Which is odd---don’t you think---for people
who are so into being Christian? People who center their lives around
acting like Christ? People who spent good money buying bracelets with
the the acronym, "WWJD"? Jesus became Jesus Christ because of his
crucifixion and resurrection. If you didn’t have the crucifixion, we
wouldn’t have the ultimate meaning of Christianity. I find it so odd
that ultimately some would reject a film that shows the true extent of
Jesus’ suffering, of what he went through to save us from our sins,
because it’s too violent and they don’t want their kids exposed to
that, even though they center their lives directly around that
sacrifice. Perhaps, if we insisted that kids saw the movie, they’d be
less likely to crawl up on a bookcase and scream, “I’m
crucified!†while wearing a big happy grin.
--- I have made a major decision. I have decided who the best candidate
would be to go head on with the Great White Hunter and Tweedledumb. This guy is
the man I need.
The Merovingian. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea.
He's all about causality. He could explain to the GHW and Tweedledumb
what needs to be done. Yep. He's the man for the job. I imagine the
conversation would go something like this:
Merovingian: Aha, here he is at last. The Great White Hunter, the One
himself, right? And the legendary Tweedledumb. I have heard so much,
you honour me. Please, sit, join us. This is my wife, Persephone.
Something to eat? Drink? Hmm... of course, such things are contrivances
like so much here. For the sake of appearances.
GWH: Uh, yeah, sure.
Tweedledumb: As long as it's free. I can't afford wine. Too expensive,
well except for Night Train, but that don't taste too good. {Busy
staring at Persephone's impressive cleavage. Drool trickled out of the
corner of his mouth and runs down his chin}
Merovingian: Château Haut-Brion 1959, magnificent wine, I love French
wine, like I love the French language. I have sampled every language,
French is my favourite - fantastic language, especially to curse with.
Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard
d'enculé de ta mère! You see, it's like wiping your arse with silk, I
love it.
GWH: What the #$% are you talking about? You know why we are here.
Tweedledumb: Yeah, you know why. {Drains goblet of wine} You got any
Nat Lite around here? Wine gives me a headache the next day.
Merovingian:{Rolls eyes} Hmph... I am a trafficker of information, I
know everything I can. The question is, do you know why you are here?
GWH: We are looking for the rent check. Tweedledumb {waiting impatienly
for beer to arrive turns to Persephone} Hey, I hope you don't mind me
asking, but since you're so obviously proud of your wonder twins, you
mind me asking if they're real? That's a hell of a boob job you got
there. Merovingian: {Rolls eyes in concert with Persephone, who remains
silent. Nods at Twins. Twins place themselves on either side of
Tweedledumb and take turns bitchslapping him for his insolence. Amused,
he turns back to GWH.} Oh yes, it is true. The rent check, of course.
But this is not a reason, this is not a `why.' The rent check, its very
nature, is means, it is not an end, and so, to look for it is to be
looking for a means to do... what?
GWH: You know the answer to that question.
Merovingian: But do you? You think you do but you do not. You are here
because you were sent here, you were told to come here by that darling
and desirable creature, Kathy, and you obeyed. [Laughs] It is, of
course, the way of all things. You see, there is only one constant, one
universal, it is the only real truth: causality. Action. Reaction.
Cause and effect. You did not fix the leaks in the windows, nor did you
clear the melt off the roof, hence Kathy did not pay the rent.
GWH: Oh, just shut up, would you? We're owed money; we're here to get
it because Kathy sent us. Look, Kathy and her husband signed a lease.
They pay us rent, we let them live at the property. They chose not to
pay the rent and everything begins with choice. In this case, it was
their choice that led me here.
Tweedledumb: {Struggling for composure while bleeding
copiously}Um...yeah...their choice. Merovingian: No. Wrong. Choice is
an illusion, created between those with power, and those without. In
this case, you hold all the cards, ma chere
Kathleen does not. You have the power, but do you know this? No. Hence
you are an idiot. Causality. There is no escape from it, we are forever
slaves to it. You take the rent check, you do nothing with it. You hire
incompetent contractors to work on the house when you actually take
time to look at the property. You have hired this cretin to look after
the place. And yet you are surprised I will not hand over the rent
check? I need a 'why.' `Why' is what separates us from them, you from
me. `Why' is the only real social power, without it you are powerless.
And this is how you come to me, without `why,' without power. Another
link in the chain. But fear not, since I have seen how good you are at
following orders, I will tell you what to do next. You will make the
repairs and I will hand over the rent check. Simple, no? Now I have
some real business to do, I will say adieu and goodbye.
GWH: This isn't over, damnit!
Merovingian: Oh yes, it is. The rent check is mine and I see no reason
why I should give it up. No reason at all.
Persephone: Where are you going? Don't you dare leave me alone with
these nimrods!
Merovingian: Please, ma chérie, I've told you, we are all victims of
causality. These cretins have come to me, they have displeased me
tremendously by ignoring ma chere
Kathy and not solving her problems, problems they caused by their
stupidity, hence I feel obligated to organize a tremendous beating of
these idiots on her behalf. {Snaps fingers, henchman stand at attention
and surround GWH and Tweedledumb} Cause and effect, you see.
Persephone: Oh, that's all right then. Just so long as you weren't
headed off to the bathroom. I need to be entertained. This should
satisfy that need. Thank you, my love.
Merovingian: {Raises one eyebrow and nods in gracious acceptance} I'm
happy to oblige you my love. {Beating ensues, phone calls are made,
apartment stops leaking}
Works for me.
--- Now I can buy Monica Lewinsky's protestations of ignorance about
how the media works. Hers, however? I think not.
Regarding her silence until now, Polier said, ``Because these
stories were false, I assumed the media would ignore them. It seems
that efforts to peddle these lies continue, so I feel compelled to
address them.''
Let me see if I've got this straight. You have a master's degree in
journalism from Columbia University and you just assumed there was no
need to reply to these allegations; that everyone would just take your word for it because the story is so patently false?
Ummm, honey, either Columbia is really into grade inflating these days,
or you're covering. Even I know you have to get out in front of a
story---it's not like the press wasn't following you around already.
You can't claim that being in Nairobi is like being on the moon where
the media is concerned. Everyone's got an African bureau these days,
and many of them are in Nairobi. Hell, you knew where to find the AP
office when you needed to. Could it be that, AHEM, you used to work for them? Oh, but that doesn't count right? You're just an innocent in the ways of the media---you just thought it was going to go away because everyone who knows you would know just how ridiculous a claim it was..
Has Monica taught you nothing? Don't let that poor girl's sacrifice go
to waste. Learn the lessons she never did. Either she's really dumb,
which I doubt. Or something fishy is going on here. I'm not buying the
"it'll go away" business for a second. I still haven't decided whether
or not I'll care about the whole deal. But it's fascinating to watch
just how the media is covering this thing. --- Yeah, but you still need a pitching staff, George.
Bats are the last thing you need right now, buddy.
--- Went and saw this on Friday night.
And it's good. It's really good. But, once again, it could have been better.
I just spent about a half hour looking through the seventeen
clips they have listed as trailers on the IMDB site---some of which
were actually trailers---but most were clips from the film, with a few
interviews with the cast and the director thrown in for spice, I guess.
And watching them reinforced the brilliance of this film for me. Now,
it's not Casablanca brilliant. Nothing will ever be that good
again, but to handle the overall topic of "age" as classily as they did
speaks volumes. But I can't help but thinking they got the short-shrift
from the editing and marketing departments. If this film is exactly how
the director wanted it to be, well, I guess I don't know much about
storytelling. Hmmm. How to put it without blowing the plot for those
who haven't seen it? Hmmm. Let's just say there was a whole lot of
brilliant buildup regarding Jack Nicholson's Harry and Diane Keaton's
Erica---but the ending was contrived. It left you unsatisfied. It was
too simple and I have this horrible feeling there was a huge scene
between Diane and Keanu that got the boot in the editing process.
Grrrrrr. Now, it's kind of hard to describe but the "age" theme was
completely apparent without them having to hit you over the head with
it. Yes, they did talk about it directly, but it wasn't omnipresent and
heavy. I think the phrase that best describes the writer/director's
handling of the subject would be "a deft touch." But the ending, well,
it brought that damn cast iron frying pan out and pretty much implied
that the main reason Erica wound up with Harry was that it was too
awkward for her to be with a younger man. Yeah, Erica was in love with
Harry, no doubts about it, but why
did she dump Keanu's Julian for him, particularly when he had treated
her pretty poorly? Makes no sense. It's very funny, and who the hell
knew that Jack "I could be your grandfather" Nicholson could
be---reasonably---sexy? Huh. Threw me for a loop. On the whole: well
worth the eight bucks. Prediction: there are doing to be shedloads of
"deleted scenes" on the DVD.
--- This is really beginning to piss me off. First, I think I've got it
figured out as to how he's getting in here. I'm not tipping my hand
this time, though, so you'll just have to wait to see if my mission is
succesful.
Second, he called me kitten. GOD ALMIGHTY THERE IS NOTHING I HATE MORE IN THIS WORLD THAN BEING CALLED KITTEN.
UGH!
I am not a kitten. I just don't have any of those qualities you
associate with kittens---cute, fuzzy, small, cuddly---it's just not an
appropriate endearment. Besides, its sexist and demeaning. Ugh. It
harks back to that era where it was considered socially appropriate for
men to go to Playboy bars to play a quick game of grab ass with the
bunnies, rather than just drinking themselves into a stupor. It makes
me want to take a shower---a long one---to wash off the slime that might
have touched me simply by the husband's usage of the term. EEEEEEEEWWW!
He knows I hate this term, too. That's why he used it. He's
deliberately provoking me. --- It's snowing here. Copiously. But it's
taking its time about dumping said copious amounts of snow. In
technical terms, what we've got going on here is prolonged flurrying:
you have a hard time believing, when you look out the window, that it
could add up to a foot. But it does, and it's more than halfway to
accomplishing its goal. It's been snowing since Saturday night---and
it's not supposed to stop until tonight. When all is said and done,
we're supposed to receive a foot of new snow. And this is on top of the
eight inches we got last week. We're running out of places in the Cake
Eater Alley to put the stuff. I just got done with Round Two of
snowblowing. The piles of white junk are so high in certain spots that
it's an impossible task to angle the snowblower any more funkily. You
see, you have to try and put the snow on top of the ten-foot-high
bank---to do so, you must take the handle of the snowblower, go low
with it, and angle the blade in a just-so manner so the snow hits the
top of the bank. The bottom of the snow bank already has the girth of
Andre the Giant: any more snow at the bottom and no one will be able to
park in our extra spots, ultimately rendering the entire snow removal
process as a worthless experience. This is where we're at. I managed to
get a whole lot of snow at the top of the bank, adding probably another
foot or so of height, but unless the Divine decides to intervene the
next time we snowblow---which will be in a couple of hours--- there is
no way in hell we will be able to put more snow on top of the bank.
Just isn't going to happen. Any more snow and the whole bank will
collapse, like a sandcastle that just wasn't architecturally sound. And
honestly, that's the last thing we need.
So, we'll just have to blow it into the alley instead. The City plows
the alley: they own that little strip of concrete we all use to get to
our garages. They come through with an industrial plow and push it all
into the obnoxious Cake Eater neighbor's yard. Totally true and it's
the coolest thing ever. He has a pile of snow in his yard that's coming
up on twenty feet high. Holy of Holies. I'm sure he's got some deal
with the city that ensures he gets some sort of compensation for this
usage---he's a mercenary, there is no such thing in his book as
something for nothing---but this also means that the snow that sullies
my driveway, if I blow it into the alley, winds up in his
yard. Tee hee. Anyway, I'm tired from the snowblower war waging. I just
ate lunch, so I'm sure I'm just experiencing digestion-induced oxygen
deprivation, but on top of snowblowing, I'm pooped. Am going to take a
nap now. Will be back later with comments about Janet's nipple.
--- Man, it's the early hours of the afternoon and I already need a
cocktail. A can of whoop ass opened and unleashed on the Great White
Hunter landlord and Tweedledumb, the building manager, might suffice,
though. I'm not sure which I want more right now. Booze? Can of whoop
ass? Booze? Can of whoop ass? I don't know. Choices, choices. Our
landlord, in case you don't know, is an absentee owner. He lives in
Texas. If this year is like years past, he's currently on South Padre
Island, slurping a margarita while he basks in the warm Texas sunshine.
We, however, are in Minnesota. Where we got a foot of snow yesterday.
Yes, that's right, a foot of snow that is now all piled up on the roof.
Snow that is melting into water, despite the frigid temperatures,
because it's sunny outside. The water has no place to go because
Tweedledumb never bothered to clean out the gutters this fall, or last.
Water that should flow down to the ground but because of the
underinsulated attic that is above me and allows for the heat to flow
up to the roof to ice things over some more, has backed into the walls
and is currently running down the inside of the window I sit next to. AND THE CONSTANT DRIPPING IS DRIVING ME INSANE!
Now, this doesn't go into the fact we have no phone service right now.
Yes, the two things are related. The nice lady at Qwest said her
diagostic check revealed a short in the line. Someone should be here
before tomorrow night
to fix the problem. Seems some of this dripping water shorted the damn
phone line out. How we still have DSL---it comes in on the same phone
line as our house line---I don't know. I don't really care, either. BUT
the dripping is driving past the point of rational thought. I'm going to lose it soon: take cover.
Why is this guy such a goddamn idiot? He spends thousands of dollars putting a new roof and gutters on the house, and yet he doesn't make sure his manager takes care of things! He spends even more money putting in all new windows and forced air heat. He knows
ice dams are now a potential problem with the new heating system. The
attic never got overheated when we had steam heat. Forced air heat is a
different story. The venting runs through the attic. Tweedledumb even
told me during the construction period that he would have to be on the
lookout for ice dams. They knew this would be a problem. They just don't care!
Honestly, how hard is it to get out on a ladder and clean out the gutters? How hard is it to call a roofer right now
to come out and clean off the snow? All Tweedledumb has to do is pick
up the phone and call a roofer. This is what roofers do here in the off
season, they come out and clean off snowy roofs to prevent ice dams.
Their fear of heights is nonexistent year round; why shouldn't they
make some money in the winter, too? I just don't get why, when there
are resources available, they don't take care of their property better.
The reason they had to spend all that money in the first place was
because they didn't spend the money on upkeep. I don't know: it must be
cheaper to their way of thinking to spend a boatload of cash every once
in a while on a massive upkeep, rather than a little here and there. I
like the house I live in. It's in a GREAT location. It's got TONS of
potential, but its a slumlord property and hence it won't ever reach
its potential because our landlord would rather spend our rent checks
on safaris, beach houses, and taxidermy than upkeep. Now, as a free
market capitalist, this should be all right with me: it's the Great
White Hunter's property, he should be able to run it the way he wants
to, right? Well, in theory, yes, he should be able to, but this man has
no problems with screwing with my life because he's lazy and because he
hires incompetent nincompoops to look after his property. The only
reason we got a new furnace, even though the old one was breaking down
quite regularly which is a big legal no-no in Minnesota, was because he
toured the property once and felt, and I quote, depressed
when he was done. I almost had an aneurysm when I heard that. So, he
fixed a few things. Big-freaking-whoop-de-goddamn-do. He's back to his
old habits and it's screwing with my life!
We're constantly paying the penalty for their mistakes. In the past
it's been a toxic basement because the sewer line backed up into the
house and Tweedledumb was in detox and couldn't take care of it.
Boilers have broken down in the middle of winter. Three weeks in a
hotel while they put in the new windows and furnace, the resultant mess
we wound up cleaning up because the people they hired were incompetent
(They cleaned the inside of the microwave---not the three inches of
dust on the top). The list is long. The penalty du jour: our phone line
is out through no fault of our own. And I can't get Tweedledumb on the
phone to save my life. Voice mail. He's dodging because he probably
spent his discretionary budget for the month. Booze? Drugs? He got
ripped off by yet another contractor he didn't have the good sense not
to hire? I don't know. I just know that I'm getting damn tired of this
crap. Booze? Can of whoop ass? You decide. After five years of this
shit, I've about had it.
--- You know, the internet is really weird sometimes. All of the
bloggers have been aflame over the past day about Kerry's alleged
affair with an intern. I watched and tracked the story yesterday with a
sort of amazement at how the chain works. It was sort of like when you
were at school, you all sat in a circle, the teacher whispered
something into someone's ear and told them to pass it along. When
everyone had been told, you compared the original with what the last
person had. A Gossip Chain. And yesterday's was amazing.
First, you have Drudge who somehow managed to land yet another potential sex scandal regarding a politician. Then the big dogs chimed in---Instapundit and Sullivan. Then you have Vodkapundit,
who opened a thread inviting rampant speculation, and at last count,
had ninety-nine comments rampantly speculating. I don't go to a lot of
blogs. I just don't have the time, but from what I saw yesterday, I
don't know how regular media can compete. Particularly when they
haven't even gotten around to covering the story yet. Now, I don't hold
big media in contempt like many bloggers do. I realize they're biased.
And that's fine with me: I'm intelligent enough to recognize that fact
and weed the bias out of the news. The main problem I have with big
media is the content on the whole---which stories they pick and choose
to report. This is where I don't even get the chance to weed through
the bias. But hell, it's a free market; journalism is a business, and
there's always the internet and The Economist
because they'll give me what I need. I am not a regular Fox News
Channel watcher---just shifting the bias to the right doesn't solve the
problem we have with bias. It just doesn't. Sure it provides the other
side of the story, but it's a non-starter for me: I want people in the
media to realize they're supposed to take their feelings out of it and
their job is to give me the facts---not just as they see them, but as
they are. As long as Fox is as successful as they are, I suspect, this
tendency to polarize news stories will continue. Unlike many, I'm so not surprised this story hasn't hit the
mainstream media yet. Unlike bloggers, they have to worry about being
sued. We don't have that issue---so far. This could change sometime in
the near future, but for right now, bloggers are pretty much free of
any interference from threats of libel by sharky lawyers. No one really
knows how to handle this media. And bloggers are very careful. They
have to be---they don't want to be regulated by the courts. So,
yesterday was a very interesting lesson in base journalistic
ethics. Everyone was very careful about tracing their steps, saying all
the while that it was Drudge who'd reported it first, etc. But now that
it's a mainstream internet story, people are already running with it as if it were a true fact, instead of an allegation.
Yes, they're still covering themselves, but the speculation has run
rampant. By the time big media gets the story confirmed and have
checked their facts---this of course being true only if they choose to
run with it in the first place---it'll be dead in the water. No one on
the internet will care. Really interesting stuff. As far as John Kerry
sleeping with an intern? Well, what do you expect from a politician?
They're never held accountable for their actions when they're in
office. What, exactly, do you think that leads them to believe about
everything else? They think they're safe.
Particularly after the Clinton debacle. My only prediction: no one's
going to be saying, "well, the French do this sort of thing all the
time and no one over there gets their knickers in a twist about it."
Making the statement that the French are so much more advanced than we
are is not going to get anyone any favors this time around. --- I keep
forgetting to post this Ice Palace picture. So, here it is---try and
not to laugh too hard. {the link is dead---if you're interested email
me and I'll send you a copy of the picture}
In 2002, Minnesota got a Republican govenor. One of his big priorities
was to enable people to carry concealed. This was a big deal last
summer. Everyone's biggest fear was that, now that it was legal to
carry concealed, there would be a million more gun related deaths.
Well, it hasn't happened. I knew this would be the case, too. Concealed
weapons statutes are very specific as far as the requirements to apply.
And Minnesota was no slouch in laying down the requirements. People
have to apply, background checks need to be done, classes need to be
taken---all in all---a pretty onerous process. And most of it ignores
the simple fact that the people who are carrying concealed legally are not the ones who are just going to open fire on anyone.
They're carrying for self-defense, not for the thrill of it. It never
ceases to amaze me how silly some people's assumptions about this sort
of thing can be. And it all stems from the fact that guns are scary.
Now, I will admit this much: I don't like guns---not one iota. The
husband, in the past, has mentioned getting one and I said no way---not
in my house. But just because I don't like them does not mean I'm going
to deny a security guard, who works in a really bad part of town and
has to worry about defending themselves on a regular basis, the right
to carry a gun under his jacket if he passes the legal requirements to
do so. It's just not my call to make. But plenty of people think it is
their call to make, even though they've never held a gun. They've never
fired one and the only lesson they have on guns is from the television.
People whip out guns left and right on TV. And Hollywood makes it look
stylish. But they're scary things---and anyone who's ever held one, and
this includes me, can tell you this. My friend D. worked as a security
guard in college to make extra money. He applied for a permit to carry
concealed and was approved, only after he'd jumped through myriad
hoops. At his expense, of course. He went through weeks of classes. And
the main lesson he culled from it: do not ever remove your gun from your holster unless you mean to fire it.
Law enforcement is taught this one simple rule. Soldiers are taught
this one simple rule. Everyone whose professional livelihood requires
carrying knows this simple rule. And I have to say, I felt a lot safer
knowing this rule. D. needed his gun. And I, on occasion, needed D. and
his gun. When I served subpoenas for a living, I ran across some scary
characters---if I had warning about said scary characters, I would call
D. He would come with me while I served the papers and basically all he
ever did was pull his jacket aside so that the gun was visible and put
his game face on. Never had a problem. I don't want to know what I
would have done if something had happened and he hadn't been there, but
the fact remains that there was never a problem because people were
deterred from causing one. Guns are best used as a deterrent. No one,
not even criminals, wants to get shot. A gun says, I take this seriously. You should, too.
So, again, anyone who is legally carrying concealed is going to be
taught the same lesson as law enforcement: don't pull your weapon
unless you mean to fire it. But a lot of businesses complained when the
law went through last year. They didn't want guns---legally carried or
not---on their property. So a compromise was reached. If businesses
didn't want guns on their property, they would need to post a sign. You
see these all over town. A business a few blocks away posted one that
said: I cannot believe I have to do this, but blank business does not allow guns on the premises.
To see this sign at the Ice Palace, however, was just so ridiculous.
It's necessary, yes, but come on, kids! It's an ice palace. It's not
even there anymore!
--- All right. That's enough of that. Have a happy Valentine's Day and
I'll see you on Monday with a movie report.
--- Well, the conversation with the Merovingian actually did some good.
Well, I didn't actually call the Merovingian into it---he was
unavailable. Something about a previously scheduled appointment in the
ladies room, but the husband was available, and on Friday he reamed the
manager and, finally, something got done. Why does it always have to
take threats of having the city come out to inspect for this or that
before they'll actually do something? It's so annoying. Do we seem like
the type of people who enjoy laying down threats of having the city
come out and inspect for mold because of all the water damage? No. I
certainly don't enjoy doing this; I know the husband doesn't like to,
either. Why do some people only respond when their asses are on the
line? And the rest of the time you and your needs can go hang? Even if
its part of their stated job responsibilities to do what they're
supposed to be doing? It's such a pain in the ass to have to call these
people on the carpet all the time. Anyway, rurrently there are now two
foul mouthed louts outside melting the ice in the gutters. They were
here for a time yesterday afternoon. $240 an hour---three hour minimum.
Tweedledumb on Saturday actually told the husband that he couldn't get
anyone to come out without payment up front and that he was trying to
get the Great White Hunter to cough up some cash. Well, ok. But I'm not
buying it. How is it possible that the next door Type A neighbor had
his roof cleaned---on Saturday, mind you---when he's in Phoenix for the
winter? What is the deal here? Anyway, the jerks showed up yesterday.
Of course they're the bottom of the barrel type of contractors. And, I
know I have a potty mouth, but these guys put me to shame.
When every other word out of their mouths was a curse word, we're
hitting the area where I actually become offended. Not to mention they
felt the need to shout the curse words to each other---one was on the
roof, the other on the ground. I'm sure the neighbors were impressed. I
know I was, says she, dryly. I shouldn't complain. It's not dripping in
the Cake Eater apartment right now. That's a good thing. I'll take it.
I just wish it hadn't taken a whole
week for them to do something about the problem. Is it really too much
to ask for someone to do what they say they will?
{Insert sound of husband laughing hysterically here}
--- Funny anecdote from Friday afternoon.
The Doctor and ML were off to Chicago to celebrate ML's 40th Birthday
and they needed a ride to the airport. We have a neighborhood taxi
service when it comes to rides to the airport. If they need a ride,
they call us. If we need a ride, we call them. It all works itself out.
They fly a lot more than we do any more, but there was a time when they
were hauling us back and forth frequently. It all comes out in the
wash. And it saves you $40 in taxi fare each way. So, I drove them to
the airport. As I was dropping them off, mentally girding myself for
the ride home in rush hour traffic, there was a page for some famous
NHL player I'd never heard of. ML commented on this, in a funny, ha-ha
sort of way. A lady that was standing there smoking jumped in and said
"Hey, they just paged Wayne Gretzky a minute ago." I'd forgotten the
NHL All Star game was in St. Paul on Sunday until that moment. So,
while it was probably some overzealous hockey fan trying to peg the
Wayner to get an autograph, it was still humorous. But it might have
been legit, too. I've never seen so many limos leaving the airport in
all the years I've lived here. Amazing. The highway was full of them,
so you never know. Hmmmm. ---We finally got our butts over to St. Paul
to see the Ice Palace on Saturday afternoon, and that was fun. The
weather was finally decent. About twenty-five degrees and incredibly
sunny---not a cloud in the sky. Now, the ice palace is pretty cool, in
itself. They built a palace out of ice blocks! WOW! A big giant igloo with form! Very cool!
That's a lot of work, obviously. Particularly for something that will just be torn down in a few weeks, anyway. They're doing that today.
But it's still cool, in theory. Particularly when you get into the
notion that winter in Minnesota is now something to be seen as a
fickle, teasing bitch. She doesn't get going very often anymore.
There's no more "sure thing" guarantees to be had. Maybe winter's hit
middle-age here and has a headache all the time? I don't know, and I
don't really care if she puts out or not, but there was an awful lot of
hullaballoo about how they were afraid they weren't going to get the
thing built because we'd had such a mild December. You see, the lakes
hadn't frozen over yet, and despite pissing off the ice fisherpeople,
this was bad for the ice palace---they needed the ice from Lake Phalen
to build the thing. Lake ice is better, apparently, than plain old
ice---the silt and mud and vegetation that turn off swimmers in
summertime are good things when it comes to constructing
buildings with ice---they provide extra stability. But January turned
out to be very, very cold, and the lake cooperated by freezing over and
the thing got built. Now, I don't know exactly what I was expecting.
Something more impressive than it was, I suppose. Now, it was very cool. Don't get me wrong. But I guess I actually expected rooms.
Instead, you got a big castle wall made out of ice and a big empty
space in the middle---with jumbotrons, of course, to advertise junk.
Still cool, but I think I worked myself up too much for that. The
husband and I paid our $10 to get in, we walked through the ice maze
they'd set up to act as turnstiles, we walked through what would be
considered the front yard if it was an actual castle, walked through
the doors of the palace, and wham...turrets of ice and a bandstand,
with guys in parkas playing Hawaiian music. And that was it.
Still cool, but not as cool as it could have been. I liked it. It's not
every day you get to see a building made out of ice. Very nice. And it
was all nice and legal, too. I'll post a picture of it later with a
little post about the carry and conceal law. The husband is busy right
now.
--- Oh. My. God. It's true. Everyone really does have a blog. Including Mr. Levi and black leather jacket himself---Adam Curry.
Yes. That
Adam Curry. The one from MTV. The one who had a mane that would make
any lion in Kenya proud. The man who was cool disdain personified.
{Insert a few regrets about my youth being wasted in front of the TV
here} Now, apparently his blog has been up for some time. I'm pretty
sure Instapundit (hat
tip) has linked to him before, but I never put two and two together. I
can't believe this! I pick up the references to Will Wheaton/Wesley
Crusher. No problem. I know who that little geek is. Yet---somehow---I
completely missed Adam Curry? THE Adam Curry! What the hell is wrong with me? Why did I not know about this!
AIEEEEEE!
So pathetic. Slapping self on forehead repeatedly. {Bookmark}
Note to Adam: I realize you're in Iraq and all, but from the pictures
it looks as if you've got a pretty sweet laptop---which, I'm sure, came
with a spellchecker.
AHEM! USE IT!
Not like I should talk, but hey...maybe he'll email me when he sees the
technorati. {SWOON!}
--- Ok, there's really not much else to talk about today. Nothing's
tripping the trigger. I'll be back later if something piques my
interest. Maybe.
--- Well, he's gone.
Or at least he will be soon. The presidential campaign just got so
boring. It's turned into the battle of the Great White Hopes. What,
honestly, could be more boring? Watching a slug crawl across a patio is
more interesting than watching the Democratic presidential nominees.
Howard, however, just made his final misstep, though. The former Vermont governor, who went winless in 17 caucuses and
primaries after falling from leading contender early in the year, does
not intend to endorse either John Kerry or John Edwards, the aide said
on condition of anonymity. Dean has been impressed with Edwards and
suggested on the campaign trail that he would make a better nominee,
but Dean has decided to stay out of the Kerry-Edwards contest, the aide
said.
If this leak is true, well, Howard, you just pissed away your chance to
make some actual substantial change within the Democratic party. Not
that it was a good
chance that anyone in that group would take anything you said
seriously, but it was your one and only chance. By not endorsing
someone, by not pushing your agenda upon anyone as a quid pro quo
arrangement, well, you've relegated yourself to footnote status.
Neither Kerry nor Edwards is going to court your supporters. They don't
have to: they know that your supporters ultimately want Bush out of the
White House and they'll support anyone who will get them that result.
Your supporters, Howard, in other words, are Happy Meal toys. They come
free with the purchase of a regularly priced meal. Don't expect
strategy calls from Kerry. Don't even expect an invitation to speak at
the convention this summer, let alone an invitation to the convention
itself. They don't want you around Howard. They used you to get people
fired up. You were the warm-up act. Ok, now I'm officially done with my
one post about the Democratic primaries. Wake me up when Kerry and
Edwards pull on the little wrestling panties and decide to have a
Pay-Per-View smackdown. Until then...pffft. Who cares?
--- I'm tired of Lileks writing about how much The Bleat sucks.
I realize Lileks is the official nice guy of the blogosphere. He
doesn't like letting his readers down. He feels bad when he doesn't
have time to produce his screedy goodness. That's all well and good.
Very kind and considerate. But we understand, James. We know you write
other stuff besides The Bleat. You're a full-time writer. You get paid
for this stuff. How much you write directly affects how much money you
have in your bank account. You've got mouths to feed. There's no reason
why you have to explain to the freeloaders---those of us who mainly
read The Bleat and who won't chip out for The Gallery of Regrettable Food---why you're shortchanging us. We understand.
So, please, stop using the Bleat's suckiness as your theme for
Wednesdays. It's boring. And you're not a boring writer. You're not.
You're inventive. You have lovely prose. You can find subject matter in
the most mundane of tasks, but this, well, I don't have time to write a good Bleat, so I'm sorry, but you're getting a sucky Bleat attitude is getting SO OLD. So knock it off, ok?
Besides, if I could be as lame as you, I'd consider myself a lucky girl.
--- Oh, yeah!
The only beef I have with this piece is that it ignores the main
strategy behind the TSA's behavior: that all of the TSA's hustle and
bustle is about the perception of safety, not safety itself. As long as
the TSA screeners feel clearing out an airport well after the perceived
threat is gone, they're doing something about the problem. The system worked
we're no safer than we were on 9/11. This program costs the taxpayers
millions of dollars, not to mention how the flying public gets screwed
on ticket surcharges to pay for this program. And we're no safer today
than we were on 9/11. We're just not. I don't feel any safer now that
my underwire bra sets off the metal detector. It's all for show and
anyone with even the smallest amount of common sense knows this. Now,
what we need is for someone to write an article about how much money
the airlines are making from first class tickets and the people who get
a light checking from security because of this. --- Oooh, it's time for
a "Don Henley is an Idiot" fest.
"Artists are finally realizing their predicament is no different
from that of any other group with common economic and political
interests. They can no longer just hope for change; they must fight for
it. Washington is where artists must go to plead their case and find
answers. So whether they are fighting against media and radio
consolidation, fighting for fair recording contracts and corporate
responsibility, or demanding that labels treat artists as partners and
not as employees, the core message is the same: The artist must be
allowed to join with the labels and must be treated in a fair and
respectful manner. If the labels are not willing to voluntarily
implement these changes, then the artists have no choice but to seek
legislative and judicial solutions. Simply put, artists must regain
control, as much as possible, over their music."
Ah yes. It's not the music industry you need your troops to battle,
it's Congress. Congress has to come in and save you from being taken
advantage of by shameless music producers. Oh, fer chrissakes! What
exactly do you think the government is going to do about
it? Force the music companies to play fair? Pffft. It's called a free
market. If you don't want to participate in the free market, well, Don,
you should just pack it up and go home. As someone who hopes to be a
published writer someday I have researched the business realities that
hopefully will be a part of my life so I will be prepared when it does
happen. I can tell you right now that, compared to other artists, such
as a writer or an actor, musical artists get screwed by the companies that market their product. SCREWED,
I tell you. If I ever get published, the deal will go something like
this: I will sign the English language rights to my work over to the
publishing company for an upfront fee---which, depending upon how good
my work is and how well they think it will sell, will either be an
advance or an upfront payment. Out of that upfront fee, my agent will
take a percentage. Then the book goes to market. The publishing company
plans the marketing campaign. They will lobby for space on the front
table at Barnes and Noble. They will make deals with Amazon. They will
send the book out for quips from other writers who lodge under the same
publishing house to put on the back cover. And depending upon what kind
of publicity clause is in the contract I sign, I will go out and do
interviews and book signings, etc., to get the word out and to make
sure the book is sold. When the sales figures start being tallied, then
they will start deducting the advance I received from the sales. They
will turn the gross into net. It's quite simple. And after that,
industry standards dictate that for every copy of my book that is sold,
I'll get about seven percent of that money. This is why Philip Roth
makes very little coin in reality, but is also why John Grisham gets
paid the millions of dollars that he does: he moves product. Roth,
while the better writer of the two, does not move product. But the two
writers start all over again when the book is translated into other
languages and sold overseas. Same deal with the audio books. And then
there are the movie deals: options. Now, I love
the idea of options. It's frickin' fantastic. When someone in Hollywood
buys the rights to a book most often they are only "optioning" the
rights. They pay a fee to hold the right to use your book as source
material for their movie, but they only buy that right for a few years.
If they choose not to make a movie out of it, that option expires, and
then the writer can option their work to another buyer, and so on and
so on. Writers may not make millions of dollars, but when published,
chances are if they're working in a commercially viable field, like
popular fiction, they will make a decent living for the rest of their
lives. But they only make this money because they have many fields from
which to profit: they've looked for places to make money and they do
make money because of it---they spread their work out across the market
and they profit from it. Music artists, however, get screwed. It's
pretty much the same deal for musicians as for writers, but the
specifics are different. It costs more to produce a CD than it does to
produce a book. It also costs more to promote a CD than it does a book.
But the financial condition most musicians really get screwed with is
that they have this little word in their contract that writers do not: recoupment,
which means that for every dime the record company puts out on their
behalf, whether it be an advance or for a platter of cheez doodles, the
record company takes that dime back from the proceeds. Writers, in
other words, do not have to pay for the production of the book itself,
or the costs of promoting it: the publishing company takes that on.
Record companies also take all of the copyright rights. Writers can
pick and choose which rights they want to hold and to give
up---musicians can't do this unless they put out their own CD's. It
takes years, sometimes, before an artist will see any proft from their
work. And the only place musicians make money is from the sales of
their records. They don't have an audio book option. They don't have a
movie option. The music industry, in other words, depends solely upon
the sale of CD's to make a profit. Now, that's not a good deal. But
this is how the music industry has traditionally worked and they have
made money from it in the past, so they're loath to part with it. Add
into that agents and managers and producers who take a percentage, you
can understand why most musicians don't like the idea of file sharing.
They're not going to make any money if you're not shelling out coin for
a CD. Yes, there are tours and MTV and the like, but those are not
profit centers for them: those are geared toward promoting CD sales.
Any money they make from a tour is gravy to their way of thinking.
Their business model is flawed. This is why free downloads are a big
deal. This is why the RIAA is suing kids. Instead of adapting their
model to the possibility of a new profit center, they see it as a
threat to the old ones. And Don Henley wants Congress to get involved
because the music industry won't change. Well, as flawed as the music
industry is, Don, they're not going to change. And neither should they
have to. It's a free market and they're allowed to run their business
the way they want to. I'm sorry, but them's the breaks. What artists
seem to ignore, though, is the opportunity they have to make change
themselves. All it would take would be for some highly popular artist
to break the mold. To say, hey, we're going to do something radical:
we're going to change how the system works, come along with us. But
they don't do that. The big artists are the ones who are making money
on the system and they see no need to further the cause of music
itself. I don't see you going out and starting your own record company,
Don, and saying hey, we won't have recoupment. You'll actually be able
to make a living with us. No, it may not be as much as Britney makes,
but it'll be brass in the pocket for you. You want Congress to step up
and defend you from the big bad wolves. Well, that's not going to
happen, my friend. It's just not. I'm sure more than a few people on
the Hill got a good chuckle out of your op-ed, Don.
--- Ok, this is interesting in more than just the obvious ways.
On January 9th, when the sale was announced, I wrote:
The best possible option here would be for Putin to make a deal with
one of the oligarchs and have them buy the stuff for the Hermitage in
St. Petersburg, and then we could all see it again. But it won't
happen. Putin' doesn't have enough cash in the treasury to compete with
the other buyers at this sale, and it's not like he's going to give the
oligarchs any ground with which to strengthen their position. It's a
shame. The Hermitage is where that collection belongs.
Well, I was wrong. Can you believe that? (Heheheheh) Putin made a deal!
I suspect we won't ever know any of the specifics, but heh! He's a
crafty guy. I think Vekselberg is going to get a big ass break on his
taxes. And perhaps, if Putin's in a good mood, maybe he won't have his
ass thrown in jail. And don't think Vekselberg did this out of the
goodness of his heart. Tch. I don't think so. He didn't become an
oligarch in a country where the business world is best seen as the
Colliseum and businessmen are seen as lion's meat. It's kill or be
killed in Russia---and killing, in this situation, depending upon how
naive you are, can either be a metaphor or the real thing---it just
depends upon how much you want to know and what you would prefer to
ignore. Now, I wonder what this means in terms of the Khodorkovsky
debacle? What is this meant to teach Khodorkovsky? It's my way or the highway? or You see, I can be a reasonable man. Why not just give me what I want?
I don't know. I suspect we won't ever know, media coverage of Putin
being what it is. Interesting nonetheless. The sort of story that makes
the imagination run rampant.
--- It's not dripping in the office today because it's 1 degree outside
and cloudy. The sun's not out to muck things up. So, while I have a
temporary reprieve from the dripping, we still don't have phone
service. The Qwest people have repeatedly assured us, however, that
we're on the list and that someone should be out to fix the problem
today. Tip for Qwest customers: Pay the $3.95 a month for the
Linebacker option. This is saving us hundreds of dollars in repair
charges. It could save you, too, trouble down the line. Think of it as
an installment plan. We've had this for six years, have never been
covered under it before---but this time we are. And here I had just
been toying with the notion of getting rid of it. Glad I didn't. ---
Tip for the Day II: If you live in the Northern Hemisphere, where it
gets below 32 degrees on a regular basis, it's a good thing to know
that potting soil that has been sitting in an unheated garage all
winter long will
freeze, just like the dirt in the yard. Didn't even think about this
when I went to transplant a house plant this morning. Found out
differently when the husband told me. Yes, I am an idiot. {/idiot}
--- How much you want to bet they're going to blame this on America?
My favorite Oscar Wilde quote: America and England are two countries separated by a common language.
I still can't quote Shakespeare to save my life. Thank God for it, but
that's a discussion best left for another day.
--- ok, so I admit it. I have the attention span of a gnat. I've lost
interest in writing about DWI. Sorry to have teased you in a such a
manner. You may call me Jezebel, if you so choose, but I've come to the
conclusion that I'm still not ready to see this in a rational light. My
fault completely---I overestimated myself. I tried five different times
to sit down and write something that was coherent and rational and it
just didn't happen. I wound up deleting everything. So, I'm backing
down. In my estimation it's better to pull back than spew shit. Back to
our regularly scheduled blogging activities. --- Interesting tidbit
from The Economist's Business This Week section.
Yukos proposed an unusual asset swap with Russia's government. Big
shareholders in Russia's largest oil company offered to give a
controlling interest to the government in return for the freeing from
jail of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Yukos's chief executive, and two
associates, who are in prison awaiting trial on charges of tax evasion.
As the husband incredulously phrased it, Greenmail? They're trying
greenmail with Putin?
Now, do these people have balls or what? I love the audacity of this.
It's one thing to try and bribe a company that's trying to take yours
over with a stock swap or cash. That's a case of two private entities
doing business. But to offer this sort of agreement to a government, to get someone out of jail? Holy cow! That's brash and bold and ballsy. And has got to make it into the Guinness Book of World Records
for the largest amount of bail paid---ever. Putin, whether he goes for
it or not (something tells me that the greedy pragmatist in him will
take the offer), has got to appreciate what lengths these people will
go to get their rainmaker out of jail. Appreciation aside, just think
of the offer in itself. Think of YUKOS as an old Ferrari that was
rusted, beat to hell, and it looked like there was no way it was going
to get back up and running, let alone scream down the highway as God
intended it to do. You sell it off, disappointed you couldn't fulfill
the car's potential, but you're ok with the sale to a
refurbisher---maybe they'll succeed where you couldn't, plus, thanks to
the money they paid you for the Ferrari, you'll now be able to feed
yourself. So, fast forward a few years, the Ferrari is now restored to
its original glory; in fact, it's better than it ever was, thanks to some tinkering, and you've got the opportunity to get it back---for next to nothing.
What would you do? What would Putin do? (heh, new bracelet fad in
Russia---WWPD). It's a win-win situation for him: he loses no face and
he gets control of a cash cow in a place where cash is king. Seems like
a no-brainer to me. The catch? If his shareholders manage to purchase
his release, will Khodorkovsky back down? Hmmmm. Interesting question.
If the deal goes through Putin would, essentially, be his boss. Could
that work? Probably not. Khodorkovsky would probably dump his stock and
flee the country. How deep does Mikhail's devotion to his country go
and will he stick? But we won't find out about any of this until after
Putin is safely reelected. After all, wasn't that the point in throwing
Khodorkovsky into jail in the first place? To keep him from swaying the
election away from Putin? Heheheheh. I love crafty Russians. --- So,
I'm waiting for the UPS guy to show up. This is annoying. I've never
had this problem before---it's a new situation for me. Usually I'm the
girl who's always home and who signs for anything they need signed for.
Then the neighbors come over, retrieve their stuff and then go home
happy. Today, however, we're
having something delivered. Something that has to be signed for. And I
wish the guy would just ring the bell so I can get on with my day.
We're getting a new printer, you see. {Insert angels singing
HALLELUJAH! from on high here} We ordered it last week from Dell and it
should be getting here today. Sometime between 10:30 and 2:30. Very
exciting stuff. I don't know if I'll be able to handle the drama of it
all. The tension is killer. We played taps for the old printer, an
ancient HP laserjet, last month. We had to move the budget around a
little and do some serious research, but we were finally able to find
what we wanted at Dell. It's an all in one---printer, fax, copier and
scanner---everything we wanted, but for half the price of what HP
wanted for the same damn thing. I'm a little leery about going with
Dell: they only started putting out printers last year. The HP lasted
eight years---it had earned its stripes. We'll have to see just how
well the Dell version works. And I'm installing it. I know. Odd, eh?
You'd think the husband would be all over this one, but he's out
visiting his client's remote locations, doing site inspections or
something like that. Pffft. Whatever. So, to spare him the business of
the installing after listening to everyone's computer woes all day
long, I thought I'd give it a whack...
And there's the doorbell. Gotta go. Should have interesting tales of
printer installation tomorrow.
--- Good for Rosie.
Mazeltov. Congratulations. Best wishes for a long life together and all that jazz.
I'm happy for her. I really am. I'm glad she got to marry the woman of her dreams. I still don't have to like her, though, particularly when she says stuff like this:
O'Donnell told the crowd that she and Carpenter, who have been
together six years and are raising four children, decided to dash to
San Francisco after hearing President Bush endorse a proposed
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Tuesday.``We were
both inspired to come here after the sitting president made the vile
and hateful comments he made,'' O'Donnell said.
Ok, so what part of this is actually vile and hateful?
Now, I can understand "vile"---because to Rosie, what he said is vile. But hateful?
I don't think so. Get a grip and get one now. If we're to have this
debate, let us make it a debate, not an illogical, irrational hate fest
where someone who disagrees with you can be labeled "hateful." Where,
precisely, is that going to get you in legalizing same sex marriage,
Rosie? Not very far, methinks. Ever heard the one about attracting more
flies with honey, rather than vinegar? Personally, I think this was a
political move. Bush is trying to appease the religious right---those
conservative Christians who feel that marriage needs to be defended
from any possible threat---even if the threat to the institution of
marriage is not from Gays and Lesbians, but from stupid heterosexuals
who can get married and then divorced and all on a whim. And these are
the reasons why I think this.
1. The President of the United States of America has absolutely no part
of the amendment process. It was designed that way for a reason---to
overcome a presidential veto. So, Bush's statement means nothing in the
scheme of things because he doesn't have the power to do anything. He
can make a few phone calls, and maybe twist some arms, but that's it.
That's the full extent of executive authority when it comes to
amendements. Don't believe me? Get out your copy of the Constitution
and read it. It's Article V, if I'm remembering correctly.
2. The proposed FMA hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of actually
passing. DO THE MATH. The constitutional requrements for passing an amendment through Congress demands a 2/3 majority of each
house. Perhaps it will pass through the House, but if anyone thinks
that this piece of excrement will get 2/3 of the Senate, they're
kidding themselves. It won't. If, on the off chance the amendment
actually makes it out of Congress, it goes to the State Legislatures
for ratification---of which, 3/4 of the states must ratify said
amendment. So, there are fifty states in the Union---3/4=38 states.
That means a whopping twelve states could conceivably kill this thing.
Are there twelve such states? What do you think, knowing what you know
about where you live? And do keep in mind that small states and large
ones have the same amount of power in this decision---Rhode Island
wields the same amount of power in the ratification process as
California, in other words. As Tip O'Neill so wisely said, All politics are local.
The FMA doesn't have a chance. This is all election year politics. Make
no mistake about it: even Tom DeLay is up for reelection this year. Not
that this means he won't get reelected, thanks to his efforts in
getting Texas redistricted to his specifications. But he's got to hit
the stump, still. He has to make the effort to get reelected, as do any
other number of Republicans. This isn't going to go anywhere,
so I would really appreciate it if people would untwist their knickers
about it. It's going to wind up in the courts---sooner rather than
later. I would prefer that not happen, because it curtails the amount
of debate on the matter---and we need a debate. How are we to change
minds otherwise?---- and, to some extent, hands a fait d' accompli
to the side that gets the short end of the stick. But as I said last
week, the courts are there for a reason: they are the legitimate third
branch of the government. They play a big part in the checks and
balances the founding fathers set up, accept it and move on.
--- The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
America states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be siezed.
Now, after that pleasant little refresher course in the constitution, please inform me as to how this does not violate an individual's right to be spared unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause?
So, here we have an individual in the New Mexico House of Representatives that is, pretty much, assuming that all New Mexicans are all guilty of drunk driving, hence we'd better stop them before they do it, eh?
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, eh? When are
these people going to learn? It's not the social drinkers, who make up
the majority of the population, that are the perpetrators of repeated
drunk driving, it's the heavy drinkers---the ones who literally cannot
quit drinking after they've started. Need proof? Go read this.
"Two thirds of the drivers in alcohol-related fatal accidents have a
BAC (blood alcohol content) of .14 or higher. The average BAC in fatal
accidents involving alcohol is .17."
"Looking abroad. Sweden has a BAC threshold of .02, yet the average BAC
in alcohol related fatal accidents there is still .15."
Never mind the atrocious legality issues involved with this proposed
law. That's not really relevant---yet. What is relevant, however, is
the fact that this law probably won't cut down on drunk driving anyway,
or is that it's intended purpose to begin with? Hmmmm. That's a good
question. I think there's another reason lurking under the relative
political safe haven of "getting tough on drunk driving." And I think
it's that, like the author of the Cato Institute Study, Radley Balko,
claims: it's that people want to have another go round at prohibition.
Balko makes the rather convincing claim that alcohol, a legal substance
for those over the age of twenty-one, is seen, by some people, as the
root of all evil and the only way to root out
that evil is to ban it entirely. He says at one point in his findings
that (paraphrasing badly) it's the behavior and the lifestyles
associated with alcohol that these people are going after. And I think
he's got a point---look at the evidence. We've gotten to the point in
this society where a law like this can be proposed and has been
approved by one half of a state legislature and the ACLU is only doing
its concerned watching act. Which is a major contrast to what they
usually do when the Constitution is under threat: firing up all the
cylinders about the fact that the entire citzenry of a state has the
potential to be subjected to unreasonable searches held without
probable cause. Alcohol, and anything associated with it, like drunk
driving laws, have become the new Third Rail of politics. It used to be
Social Security that no one wanted to touch with a ten foot pole, now
it's all about coming down on the "right" side of the issue of booze.
But what is the right side of the issue? And the better
question is when is the insanity going to stop? Where is the friggin'
line? And when are the legislators going to realize that they've
stepped one pace too far? I have a lot of personal experience with this
issue. My objectivity might be skewed here, but you don't come here to
read about objectivity---you come here to read my thoughts. So strap in
kids---it's going to be a bumpy ride. The husband is an alcoholic. We
just celebrated his one year sobriety anniversary last week. And he's
doing pretty damn good, but at this time last year our lives were
completely thrown into a salad spinner because of his actions. He drove
drunk, as you might have guessed, and this last incident was the one
that finally woke him up to what he was doing with his life. I thank
God he got busted for this: it was the catalyst that finally made him
realize he just couldn't handle booze and that there was no shame in
the act of not drinking. A very hard lesson to learn, and one I will go
into another day, but I honestly think most people don't know the
extent that the legal system has gone to to deal with the problem of
drunken driving. Most people wouldn't know---they don't drive drunk.
Hence, they don't realize how very few rights you have when you're
accused of drunken driving---and make no mistake about it---your rights
go out the window the very minute those sirens and flashers start
blaring. So picture the situation. You're sitting in your car. You've
been pulled over. Traffic is flying by to your left and you are
terrified. Suddenly, the music that wasn't loud enough a few moments
ago, when you were carefree and screaming down the highway, is way
entirely too loud and you move to turn off the stereo, but you do so in
a manner that won't attract the cops attention, lest his pull his
weapon on you, thinking you're going for a gun. You start thinking
about what you should do. You curse. You try and pull yourself together
and do the mental math on just how long you were out and how much
alcohol you ingested. You think it may not be the best idea to take
your chances with a sobriety test. That you've heard they're rigged.
You might even look helplessly around for a penny to put under your
tongue, because you'd heard that the copper sends faulty signals to the
breathalyzer. You jolt as the cop knocks on your window and as you pull
it down, the cop starts sniffing and looking to see what your eyes look
like. You say, "Good evening, officer," whilst praying you're not
slurring your words and you don't realize it, and then the dance
begins.
I've never been pulled over for drunken driving. I've been pulled over
once for speeding, and I was let off with a warning. That's the extent
of my experience with cops. But I have to think this is what it's like.
Being scared out of your wits that two glasses of wine might have
ruined your life. This is why most people never have an issue with this
sort of thing ever again. They're scared straight, as the cons call
that particular experience. But this also means most people don't have
any idea of the consequences of protecting yourself. Any time someone
is arrested, they're Mirandized. We've all heard the little diddy on
TV, so we know it by heart, but did you know that police in most states
can collect evidence that will be used against you in a DWI case and
you cannot protect yourself without paying a price for that right? In
Minnesota, and plenty of other states, if you refuse to blow into a
breathalyzer, they will automatically suspend your license for up to a year. Just for thinking you had the right not to incriminate yourself guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
How do they get around this? Administrative rules. It's not on the
books anywhere other than at your local DMV. It's not an actual
law---it's a rule. And, as we all know from those fabulous driver's ed
classes they made us take in high school, driving is a privilege, not a
right, so they can take away your license just for refusing to test.
So, with this thought firmly in mind, and the knowledge running around
the back of your head that hey, I only had a couple of glasses of wine, with dinner, I should be fine, I should probably just blow and get it over with
you think about your options. At this point, the scales are already
tipping in favor of the police and away from the individual. You think
of all the hassle that will happen if you don't blow: your license will
be suspended, you won't be able to drive to that very important meeting
you have the next day, you'll probably be arrested on suspicion of
drunk driving anyway or for some other reason, your car will be towed
and you'll have to go through the interminable nightmare of the impound
lot to get your car back. You should be fine, you repeat to yourself, working up your confidence for the procedure,After all, I stayed on the line and I could touch my nose. I'll be fine. And...you blow.
WHAMMO!
This is where you find yourself handcuffed and on your way to jail,
watching in stupefied disbelief through the rear window of the cruiser
as your car fades into the distance. Depending upon which jail they
take you to, an hour later you could find yourself locked up in a cushy
cell with cable or in with the homicidal madmen at the badass county
jail. Then comes the phone call you will have to make to have yourself
out by morning, so you can get to work on time. The call to the spouse
or the close friend to come and bail you out. And that's when the nice
people at the jail inform you that your bail wasn't set when you were
booked; that the judge will set it for you when you're arraigned. This
is when you realize you have taken a trip into the ninth level of hell
usually only reserved for lawyers. And all because you wanted to keep
your license to drive. Fun, huh? Rights are always fun. Particularly
the violation of said rights. To be continued...
--- DWI is the planned topic of the week. If you don't care or don't
want to read, please, by all means skip it and I hope you come back
when I'm done. First, though, I felt I should give a word of warning.
If I sound a bit brusque and uncaring you should not take my attitude
to mean that I don't care about the problem of drunken driving. I do
care about it. Quite a bit. Ask anyone who's ever had to bail out a
loved one who had been charged with that particular offense. I can tell
from experience that your first thought is Thank God they didn't kill someone! Thank God they're not hurt! Which is rapidly followed up with But they sure as hell don't have long to live!
The husband has been pulled over for this six times since we were married. Six
times. I know. A horrible recidivism rate. He should, by all rights, be
locked up until kingdom come---provided he'd hurt someone whilst
driving drunk. If that had been the case, that key would have been in
the garbage can faster than you could spit and I would have been the
one who'd have thrown it there. But he never hurt anyone. The potential
for harm was there, yes. I'm not denying that one little bit, but
actual harm never occurred. The worst that ever happened while he drove
drunk was that he hit a slick spot and went into the ditch. That's it.
There was no horrific smashing of parked cars. No little kids were
mowed down in the roadway. No buses jampacked with nuns were run off
the road. None of those things ever occurred. But let's be honest about
the situation: when I wrote on early Friday morning that the husband
had been charged with drunk driving, that was what you thought he'd done. Wasn't it? You'd lumped him into the category of stupid person who gets behind the wheel and does horrible things when they're incapacitated
category. I'm sure you did. It's not your fault. That's what everyone
from Congress to our local politicians to MADD wants us to think about
drunk drivers; that they're scary individuals who don't giving a
flaming hoot about other people. They didn't care enough to call a cab.
They didn't care enough to designate a driver. They just don't care about anyone but themselves!
I am here to tell you that this is not the case. At least it's not with
the husband. He made bad choices. He did. I'm not denying this one
little bit. Every time I got the call to come and bail him out I
thanked God no one had lost their life or their livelihood because the
husband, God love him, was too stupid to see that he couldn't handle
booze and needed to quit. Every time he went out thereafter, I lived
with the horrible knowledge that maybe the only thing that was going to
stop him from drinking was that he would kill someone whilst driving
drunk. That the loss of someone else's life would be his wake up call
and it would be too late for everything. I had horrible nights when he
would do this. It wasn't very often. Once or twice a month. But those
nights were interminable. And the relief was overwhelming when he
finally would walk into the apartment---inebriated, but alive. I once
read that life happens one day at a time, like water dripping on a
stone; that no one deserves all the good or the bad they come across in
their life, and this is how I feel about the husband's alcoholism. So,
please, whatever you take out of this little diatribe, don't think I
don't care. I do. More than I can ever express. But it's also this
care, this feeling, or whatever you want to call it, that is the source
of my incredulity with the laws. This diatribe is not the work of a
hard bitten woman who's had to deal with too much legal hassle, in
other words. While the law has not not played fair, in my opinion, by
stacking the deck against the accused, I do see the need for there to
be laws against drunk driving in the first place. But I also see the
need for a better solution to the problem of drunken driving than the
one we have in place. It may work to deter the social drinkers, but as
the statistics show, the laws don't make a dent in the actual deaths
that occur as a result of drunken driving. We're past the stage where
we need ads during the Super Bowl to deter social drinkers from being
stupid. They know not to be stupid. We don't need to lower the legal
limit to .08. That's not going to do anything when the statistics show
that the average BAC of someone who's involved in an alcohol related
fatality is .17. We're at the stage that no one wants to touch because
no one knows how to resolve it. People deserve better---both the
accused and the people who have lost loved ones because of drunken
driving.
---- BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You know, just in case you were wondering what the muppets were
actually going to do in the magic kingdom. Personally, I think the
Swedish Chef could take those Japanese guys on Iron Chef anyday. And
Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and Beaker will undoubtedly be put to work in the
Disney labs. I picture a chain around poor Beaker's neck while they
slave away over experiments on how to further brainwash children. I'm
also picturing Kermit taking over for Peter Jennings on the ABC Nightly
News...I mean, come on, Kermit's got plenty of experience from doing
the news on Sesame Street. Kermie just doesn't give me that Monday
Night Football vibe. Al Michaels wouldn't know what to do with him. And
of course, Piggy can get her lard ridden butt over to the Lizzie
McGuire soundstage and do a karate chop on Hillary Duff. Oh, wait.
Hillary quit. Damn. Hmmm. Someone must be worthy of a karate chop at
Disney? Oh, I know. Michael Eisner. Perfect. Piggy can just go beserk
on him and the board's problems would be solved. And I'm sure they'd
give her a bonus, too.