Delenda Est Carthago

"Five years, that's all we got"

2009-10-18T16:27:00.003-07:00

So I've decided to stop blogging here. I figure five years is a good run. I've just been running out of things to say, I guess. Plus I have some things in the real world that are taking up my time, so I just can't devote as much time to this. I'll still be blogging about my daughters, and I'll still be blogging about comics (I get paid for that, after all, even though it's a miniscule sum), but I just don't feel like writing about myself and my thoughts anymore. I'm too busy trying to take over the world!

Thanks for reading, everyone (you know who you are!). I'd tell you to follow me on Facebook, but I hardly ever use it, or on Twitter, but that's even more inane than blogging, so I'll just say thanks. It's been fun.

Horrible self-indulgence, Year Five

2009-10-08T08:06:00.000-07:00

Yes, it's the fifth anniversary of when I started this blog, and it's time once again to review the previous year. I hope you will indulge this trip down memory lane. Five years. Wow.

This insane world.

Man threatens to set his teacher on fire because she assigned "The Crucible."
Weird sex stuff. Totally safe for work, though!
The hardcore dude at the convenience store.
Horrible shoppers on Black Friday.
God is mean.
The people who named their kid Adolf Hitler.
Some odd news: Birmingham, England removes apostrophes from its street signs; Anna Nicole Smith's life is turned into an opera; a 13-year-old father; churches believe in evolution!
An Afghan law makes it legal for husbands to rape their wives.
Torture; Carrie Prejean; speed cameras.
No naked hiking in the Switzerland!
Are you looking for a sugar daddy?
The Pentagon no longer quotes the Bible; a man called 911 because his adult son's bedroom was messy.
Sex is fun!
A great photograph.

Sports.

The Phillies win the pennant!
The anniversary of the end of the 1993 World Series.
Did the media want Tampa Bay to win the World Series?
A phallic team logo?
Bad sports announcing round-up.
Sports photos of the year!
Sammy Baugh died.
Cool photo of Shaq.
Cute lumberjacks!
World Naked Bike Ride!
Pole dancing championships. It's totally a sport, man!
Rick Pitino needs to shut up.

Politics.

Sarah Palin is wacky. I suppose we already knew that.
Yay, gay marriage was banned in Arizona! Again, I might add.
Post-Election Day thoughts.
Even more Election Day thoughts!
Sadness over Dana Perino leaving the White House.
Why is there no love for the American system of government?
Fifty years of the Chinese in Tibet.
Legislation to make commercials quieter.
Moral relativism and torture.

Religious oddness.

Jews versus Mormons!

Link-blogging.

Best butts, scary Ronald McDonald.

My observations on life and my life in general.

The five stages of memorizing song lyrics.
Riding the rails in northern Arizona.
Classes you can take at Mesa Community College.
The quality of friendship.
I bite my lip.
I'm finding it hard to be a Luddite.
Thoughts about Disneyland and Los Angeles.
Pictures of me from the late 1980s and early 1990s.
My power went out!
The summer of 1979.
My long post about racism.
My twenty years of collecting comics.

Culture, popular or otherwise.

Sunny von Bulow died.
Betty Page died.
Ricardo Montalban died.
Estrada or Nada should have been a real show.
Zsa Zsa Gabor turns 92!
Hans Beck died.
Rihanna's birthday made me feel old.
Dr. Seuss's birthday reminded me of something.
Barbie turns 50.
Erik Estrada turns 60!
Stupid Americans!
Hollywood is conservative.
Movie review: District 9.
Sort-of movie review: Inglourious Basterds.
I don't get SpongeBob SquarePants.
How to celebrate Guy Fawkes' Day!

Books I read.

Carlisle vs. Army by Lars Anderson.
The Will by Reed Arvin.
Shadowplay by Clare Asquith.
War Reporting for Cowards by Chris Ayres.
Dreamland by Kevin Baker.
Sacrament by Clive Barker.
Abarat by Clive Barker.
Arthur & George by Julian Barnes and The Somnabulist by Jonathan Barnes.
The Alps by Andrew Beattie.
The Battle for Spain by Antony Beevor.
For the Thrill of It by Simon Baatz.
The Catastrophist by Ronan Bennett.
Easy Riders, Raging Bulls by Peter Biskind.
Grant Morrison: The Early Years by Tim Callahan.

Great songs, according to me.

Part 39.

Into the back issue box.

The Magdalena vol. 2 #2.
Sgt. Rock: The Prophecy #6.
Wolverine #94.
Wolff & Byrd: Counselors of the Macabre #22.
Case Files: Sam & Twitch #23.

Death and sex in comics.

Dark Horse's Conan #0-50.
John Byrne's Next Men.

Comic reviews.

Three comics by Dwight MacPherson: Kid Houdini and the Silver-Dollar Misfits; The Surreal Adventures of Edgar Allan Poo, volume 2; Dead Men Tell No Tales.
Aetheric Mechanics; Almighty; Dad!; Fishtown; The Martian Confederacy; Obsession; Slow Storm; Tiny Life: l)a.
B. P. M.; Swallow Me Whole; Jobnik!; La Muse; Septic Isle; Damnation.
Winter Men and its long publication history.
Fantastic Four Visionaries volume 0; Tokyo Days, Bangkok Nights; Eddy Current; Chronicles of Some Made; American Elf volume 3; Sulk volumes 1 and 2; Waltz With Bashir; Never As Bad As You Think; Miss Don't Touch Me; In the Flesh.
My Playmobil comic from the 1970s.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Century: 1910.
Strongman; The New Brighton Archeological Society; The Bun Field; Supermen!
Blinded; Ace-Face: The Mod with the Metal Arms; Blazing Combat; The Eternal Smile; Pherone; Walled In; Studs Terkel's Working; Britten and Brulightly; T-Minus: The Race to the Moon; Jan's Atomic Heart; Super Human Resources.
Black Hole; Whatever Happened to the World of Tomorrow?; Far Arden; Imaginary Friends; Praetorian; Smuggling Spirits; Asterios Polyp; The Nobody; The Hunter.
The Ragbox.
The Field at the Edge of the Woods.
It Tolls for Thee.
Mercury.
The Imposter's Daughter.
You Have Killed Me.
The Big Kahn.
No Pasaran!
Frankenstein's Womb.
Gauze.
Some New Kind of Slaughter.
Awakening volume 1.
Dark Entries.
10 Beautiful Assassins.
The Middleman: The Doomsday Armageddon Apocalypse.
PS Comics.
The Colodin Project.
The Surrogates.
Stuffed!
The Storm in the Barn.
3 Story: The Secret History of the Giant Man.
Covered in Confusion.

Comics commentary.

My best comics of 2008.
DC comics in the 1940s.
Is Diamond Comics the devil?
The San Diego con, 2009!

My comic book shoppe.

Greg's Comics.
Ralph's Comic Corner.
Comic Zone.

Comics You Should Own.

Hellstorm #12-21 and Druid #1-4.
High Roads.
Hitman.
Human Target.
I Kill Giants.
The Incredible Hulk #331-346.
The Incredible Hulk #347-367.
The Incredible Hulk #368-401.
The Incredible Hulk #402-426.
The Incredible Hulk #454-467.

As always, I appreciate everyone who reads this blog, whether it's often or just every once in a while. Thanks, everyone! I know there are only about seven of you, but it's still cool that you're here!

Bye Week Blues

2009-10-05T19:30:00.002-07:00

I didn't learn anything about pro football this week other than what you can glean from the newspapers and ESPN. I barely watched any of the games because the Eagles weren't playing. I did learn that if Oregon beats one of the worst teams in Division 1-A (Washington State) at home while Penn State beats a not-very-good-but-miles-better-than-Wazzou Illinois team on the road, Oregon ought to jump Penn State in the polls, but polls are meaningless anyway, so that doesn't bother me too much.

Did anyone learn anything while I had the television turned off? Don't be shy!

Great songs, according to me (Part 39)

2009-10-04T11:50:00.001-07:00

Yes, it's time for another ten great songs! Man, it's been a while! And because I've finally gotten around to labeling my posts, I don't have to link to previous posts. You can just click on the label to find the previous ones. I know my eight readers will be happy about that!

381. Next Year (by Foo Fighters on the album There Is Nothing Left To Lose, 1999): Dave and the boys are surprisingly good at writing ballad-like pop songs, and this is one of them. I'd like to say it's off one of their better albums, but all FF albums are good, so it's hard to say where this one ranks. This song, however, is great, as the gentlemen do a wonderful job with soaring melodies and music that uplifts without being schmaltzy. It's a marvelously hopeful song that manages to be mature but not dull. Grohl's lyrics are nice, too: "Into the night we shine/Lighting the way we glide by/Catch me if I get too high/When I come down/I'll be coming home next year." Like a lot of Foo Fighters songs, the first time you hear this you feel like you've always known it. It's quite odd but wonderful how that happens.

382. New Jack Hustler (by Ice-T on the album O. G. Original Gangster, 1991): I'm not sure if I've ever written about this before, but a few of my college friends and I went to see New Jack City in the theater in State College when it was released. We enjoyed it, but that's not the story. This was when people were rioting during screenings of the movie, and although State College is a pleasant little college town, we didn't know what we were in for, going to see the movie. It was pretty interesting, because white people were definitely in the minority, but I didn't feel like anyone was going to beat me up because of it. It was just a weird episode in my life, because it's very rare that I find myself in the minority when it comes to skin color. I reckon that's probably true for most white people - we don't often end up someplace where most of the people aren't white. I don't know why white people wouldn't want to go see New Jack City, because it's a damned good movie. Okay, maybe not damned good, but pretty entertaining. It was also the first time I had ever heard Ice-T's music, in the form of this anthem that plays during a chase scene. Later, I heard the entire song (the movie version is truncated) and absolutely loved it. it has a great groove, which propels the song along, and Ice's lyrics, which cut to the core of why so many poverty-stricken people don't care about the system and just look to get paid, are devastatingly honest. It's certainly not an excuse for criminal behavior, but when someone from the street raps, "The end justifies the means, that's the system; I learned that in school then I dropped out," you can't help but listen. But Ice also understands the cost: "Every dollar I get, another brother drops." That makes the allure - "So many hos on my jock, think I'm a movie star/Nineteen - I got a fifty thousand dollar car" - more tragic. Ice often thinks that there's a conspiracy against black people, which borders on the silly, but otherwise, he gives us a fascinating look into what's going on in the minds of young African-Americans. That he can lay it over such a funky track makes it great.

383. New Way Home (by Foo Fighters on the album The Colour And The Shape, 1997): Hey, look! it's another Foo Fighters song! What do you know? This song ends the boys' best album (although the new one challenges it, I'll tell you that much), and like a lot of Fighters songs, it's melodic but rocking all at once and fills you with a strange kind of nostalgia. Eventually, of course, it builds into a primal scream of defiance, as Dave sings "I'm not scared" over and over, altenating it with the two lines, "I felt like this one my way home" and "I pass the boats and the Kingdome." Maybe evoking the old stadium is why we get that sense of nostalgia. I don't know - all I know is that it's a great song.

384. Nice To Know You (by Incubus on the album Morning View, 2001): I only own this one Incubus album, even though it's pretty good, but there are a few great songs. This song opens the album, and it's a weird little tune that sets the stage well for the rest. Lyrically, it's a bit odd, but musically it really shines, with a strange meandering vibe that ramps up into a heavy beat for the chorus. As a mood setter, it previews the album's swing between surfer sensibility and metal grinding. You can't help but bang your head, and then you lurch back to laid-back. It's a weird mix, but it works well.

385. Nicotine & Gravy (by Beck on the album Midnite Vultures, 1999): Beck's 1999 album is so funky and weird, and this song is one of its standouts. Beck lazily drawls through oddball lyrics like "Her left eye is lazy, she looks so Israeli," but the Seventies vibe carries it through, and it becomes a charming love song. If it's just weird, it probably wouldn't work, but as with a lot of Beck songs, the foundation is solid.

386. Nights Of Mystery (by the Georgia Satellites on the album Georgia Satellites, 1986): Krys mocks me for liking the first Georgia Satellites album, but I do. Most of it I like despite it not being all that good (the songs rock, but they're not that good), but "Nights of Mystery" is a nice country-fried rocker that begins quietly and cranks up nicely. It's a strangely sweet song, too, as we get nice lyrics like "I got this genius of a heart that shines wild and free ..." Every Georgia Satellites song has this kind of vibe to it, but this song manages to be deeper, and therefore better.

387. 1999 (by Prince and the Revolution on the album 1999, 1983): "I was dreamin' when I wrote this, forgive me if it goes astray ..." Sing along, people! Do I really need to write any more about this? Prince at perhaps his peak (although he has had a lot of peaks, but let's call this his first one), his band kicking ass, and a elegy about nuclear war. "But life is just a party and parties aren't meant to last ..." Get out your vinyl and fire it up!

388. Nitro Burning Funny Cars (by The Dead Milkmen on the album Bucky Fellini, 1987): A simple guitar hook and hilarious lyrics. That's all that's needed sometimes, and while a lot of the Dead Milkmen songs fall into this category, some are simply more hilarious than others, and those reach greatness. Like this one: "This world is full of people who think a lot about bowling balls" and "This world is full of people who look a lot like Gavin McCloud" are eerily true. What's up with that? Just a great, great song.

389. No Further Damage (by P. M. Dawn on the album Dearest Christian, I'm So Very Sorry For Bringing You Here. Love, Dad, 1998): As usual with P. M. Dawn songs, this features some beautiful lyrics about love and why it's important. It's a typically lush song, as well, and simply takes you along into that strange world that P. M. Dawn inhabits. I just don't have much else to say about it.

390. No Man's Land (by Billy Joel on the album River Of Dreams, 1993): Joel's "last" album gets off to a rollicking start with this anti-capitalism screed which stands as a companion piece to "Allentown" - where that was contemplative and sad, ten years later Joel is pissed off, and with good reason. Joel does a good job blending trenchant lyrics and throbbing music, and this song proves, for the last time, that he can rock out when he wants to. It sets the tone for the album, which is somewhat melancholy. It's not his best album, but it features some great songs, and this is one of them.

Well, that was fun. I've had this post sitting around for almost a year, and I finally got it finished. I don't know why it took me so long; that's just the way it is, I suppose. Anyway, that's ten more great songs for your iPod! You know you fill it based on my recommendations!

I don't get SpongeBob

2009-10-03T09:05:00.002-07:00

Norah recently discovered SpongeBob SquarePants, and she digs it a lot. Not to the point of obsession, but she still likes it. So I've been watching with her, mainly because I've been sitting in the same room. I know that a while back, SpongeBob was a bit hit with adults as well as kids (my brother-in-law, as far as I know, still likes it), but I just don't get it. SpongeBob is, in a word, annoying. In two words: REALLY ANNOYING. I mean, it's mildly amusing, but I can't imagine anyone over the age of 10 enjoying it for more than five minutes. After about five minutes I just get sick of it. It's not really that hilarious. I'd like to say that its popularity among older people is due to the fact that they watch while they're, you know, enjoying some natural consciousness-altering substances, but my brother-in-law certainly doesn't do that, so that can't be all of it. Can it?

Can someone explain it to me? I just don't get it. Frankly, Disney's Phineas and Ferb is much, MUCH better thant SpongeBob SquarePants, at least for adults. I think it's better for kids, too, but Norah digs the absorbant, yellow, and porous dude. There's just no accounting for taste!

And the 2016 Olympics will be in ...

2009-10-02T09:49:00.003-07:00

Rio de Janeiro!

Look at me, breaking the news! I just happened to have on ESPN when they made the announcement. I'm actually glad Chicago didn't get it. The Olympics have never been held in South America, and wouldn't you rather get "man-on-the-street" shots of impossibly attractive women walking along the beach than shots of fat guys drinking beer?

Pre-adolescent boys shall lead the way!

2009-09-30T09:31:00.003-07:00

I was watching The Daily Show last week (here it is!), and they had a piece about the "Values Voters Summit," which features conservative Christians talking about politics. They showed a video clip of Michael Swartz, the chief of staff of Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) talking about homosexuals. Of course, it's on YouTube:

It's a long video, but Stewart's crew broke down the important stuff: Schwartz says it hasn't been that long since he was "closely associated" with "pre-adolescent boys" (which, come on, sounds really funny, even though I'm sure it was very innocent), and that he finds that boys of that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than "just about any other class of people." They speak badly about homosexuals because "they don't want to be that way." They don't want to "fall into it, and that's a good instinct." As Stewart points out, there's only one thing 10- to 12-year-old boys like less than homosexuals, and that's girls.

Schwartz went on to say that all pornography is homosexual pornography, because it tuens your sexual drives inward. He thinks we can use this to turn boys away from pornography, because if you tell them that if they look at Playboy they'll turn gay, they won't want to look at Playboy!

Oh dear. Good stuff. I know that liberals say really, really idiotic things quite often and do really, really idiotic things quite often, but I always love when conservatives say stuff like this. Liberals, at least, are less concerned with behavior and more with pseudo-science, so they come off as a bit goofily earnest. Conservatives are concerned with behavior, so it's always fun to hear them thunder about it.

Man, politicians are idiots.

What have we learned - Week 3

2009-09-27T18:53:00.008-07:00

Will there be cheesecake in this post? Don't be surprised if there is!

Eagles 34, Chiefs 14. Well, if you have a bad game, make sure you follow it up with a game against Kansas City! This was a shockingly easy game, as Kevin Kolb carved up the Chiefs, the defense stymied Matt Cassel and his crew, and the Eagles cruised. I was never sure why Kolb was getting bashed in the media after his poor performance against Baltimore last year and in the first game this year. After a week of practicing with the first team, he's put up 391- and 327-yard passing games consecutively. He looks very confident and he's standing in and taking the heat well. Plus, LeSean McCoy looked really good, and it makes the continuing drama over Brian Westbrook's health less traumatic. McCoy seems to hit the hole faster than Westbrook does, which is nice. All of this, of course, is mitigated by the fact that it was, after all, the Chiefs, but still - a nice win that they kind of needed. They get a bye, and then they get Tampa at home, Oakland on the road, and Washington on the road before they get the Giants and Cowboys at home. Those are all winnable games.

Lions 19, Washington 14. Surprisingly, the world didn't end at about ten minutes after four this afternoon, when the Detroit Lions won a football game. I actually watched quite a bit of this game, because it was fairly entertaining. A lot of people called this one, which only shows how very awful Washington is. And they looked terrible - for the second straight week, they struggled against what ought to be an inferior opponent, but maybe isn't. Matthew Stafford looked pretty good, and it's looking like Detroit made a good pick with him. I have a feeling Jim Zorn won't be long for this coaching world, as his owner is notoriously short-tempered when it comes to his coaches.

Packers 36, Rams 17. My friend who loves Marc Bulger was a bit grumpy about this game. First, Bulger gets hurt because God forbid the Rams provide him with any protection. Then, Kyle Boller comes in a chucks a couple of quick touchdowns, bringing the Rams back. Ultimately, they lost convincingly, but now the quarterback controversy begins, and my friend isn't happy about it, because Bulger is obviously much better than Boller is. The fact that Bulger toils for a horrible team is sad until you realize that he signed a long-term contract with St. Louis. But it's still kind of a shame that he could be doing much better if the Rams weren't such a dysfunctional organization. Meanwhile, Aaron Rogers continues to make Packer fans forget that other dude they had. Yes, he had a good day today, but long-term, Rogers is the man.

Vikings 27, 49ers 24. Speaking of R. C. Favre, the canonization continues, even though he had less to do with Minnesota's victory than you might think. First, Percy Harvin returned a kickoff for a touchdown, which was huge. Then, the final touchdown was much more Greg Lewis's effort than Favre's pass. San Francisco didn't get much pressure on him, so the fact that he "got away from it" isn't that big a deal (yes, he sidestepped a tackler, but 99% of quarterbacks who've ever played in the NFL could have done that). He had to throw it into the end zone, and he simply hurled it as far as he could. Lewis made a tremendous catch on a pass that just happened to come near him - it wasn't like R. C. found him as he broke open, because Lewis was blanketed. So let's hold off on re-anointing R. C., shall we? It's a good win for the Vikings, but for most of the game, they were winning despite their quarterback, not because of him. And remember that Frank Gore was injured early on, and San Francisco still should have won the game!

Patriots 26, Falcons 10. I watched very little of this game, so I don't know what we learned from it. Maybe we shouldn't count New England dead yet? Maybe we shouldn't proclaim Atlanta as a Super Bowl favorite? Beats me.

Jets 24, Titans 17. This was a pretty exciting game, with New York scoring early and late while Tennessee dominated the middle. It's always nice to see the old-school uniforms (especially the refs'), and on Lendale White's second-quarter touchdown run, the Jets grabbed him by the jersey and pulled, and as he was wearing a Houston Oilers shirt, it looked scarily like Earl Campbell breaking free. I started cheering, "Tear it!" even though they don't tear anymore. But it was pretty cool. The Jets sure look for real, I tell you that much.

Giants 24, Buccaneers 0. Here's another game I skipped completely, because there wasn't going to be much drama, and it turned out there wasn't much drama at all. New York, just like last year, looks like the class of the NFC, but we'll see how that plays out in January, won't we? New York was playing without a couple of their defensive lineman and Tampa still got five (5) first downs (!) and 86 (!) total yards. Yucky.

Ravens 34, Browns 3. Here's one reason why the Browns suck: Trailing 27-0 on the road, on the first play of the fourth quarter, Eric Mangini kicked a field goal. A FIELD GOAL! Why didn't he just pull his team off the field and forfeit? I mean, it's not likely you're going to 27 points in a quarter against Baltimore, but still. It was a 29-yard field goal, too, meaning the Browns had the ball at the 11 or so. Fortune favors the bold, Mangenius! Even if you don't score, that sets the tone for the rest of the season and shows your team that you expect them to step up. Mangini was playing for a tiny goal - not getting shut out. He should have realized the game was lost, and set up a bigger goal - suck it up, Browns players, and stick that damned ball in the end zone! But now you're 0-3, Cleveland, but worse, you have no hope. Good job. Oh, and Joe Flacco is getting scary good.

Jaguars 31, Texans 24. Hey, remember when Houston was a trendy playoff pick? They should stop losing to teams like Jacksonville at home. I probably should have watched more of this game, because Maurice Jones-Drew had another excellent game, but the only thing I saw was Chris Jones's fumble into the end zone with two minutes left, which Jacksonville recovered and which killed Houston's hopes. The Texans are one of those teams with a lot of talent that just hasn't figured out how to stomp on teams that aren't as good as they are yet. Unless they do, they won't go far this season. We'll see.

Bears 25, Seahawks 19. So Jim Mora, Jr. is chucking his kicker under the bus after Olindo Mare missed two (somewhat long) field goals on a beautiful day in Seattle. You stay classy, Mora. I could have sworn winning and losing in football was a team effort. Maybe you shouldn't have worn jerseys that made you look like you were wearing pinnies in high school:

I figured they won the coin toss and took "shirts." I'm surprised Da Bears weren't "skins." Gadzooks.

Saints 27, Bills 7. I watched a lot of this game, until the Saints scored to make it 17-7, at which time it became clear the Bills had no offense to come back (they scored their only points on a fake field goal). It was a nice defensive effort and showed, once again, that no quarterback, even Drew Brees, is unbeatable - the Bills put him under a lot of pressure and knocked him around quite a bit. Terrell Owens didn't catch a pass for the first time in 185 games, and I watched a couple of pass plays called for him. On one deep route, he barely looked back for the ball, and when he did finally see it, he didn't even make an effort for it. I've never liked Owens too much (even when he played for the Eagles), but at least he always made an effort. He's only on a one-year contract, so presumably he's trying to play into a contract with a better team next year. He's not going to get it this way.

Bengals 23, Steelers 20. I guess I should have watched more of the late games, but Mia wanted to watch the Wiggles, and she's quite insistent! I don't know how Carson Palmer and Cincinnati won this game, but good for them! The two Super Bowl teams from last year are both 1-2. I think we expected it from the Cardinals, but not from the Steelers.

Broncos 23, Raiders 3. Oh, Oakland. You're so bad. The good news: JaMarcus Russell completed over half his passes! The bad news: His 12 completions went for 61 yards. Blech. I was listening to the radio this morning, and Colin Cowherd and Trent Dilfer were pooh-poohing Denver's 3-0 record. Of course they got hate mail, but they have a point: They've beaten Cincinnati (on a miracle play), Cleveland (who's terrible), and Oakland (who's very terrible). It's nice that they're 3-0, but let's not start printing playoff tickets yet.

Chargers 23, Dolphins 13. Philip Rivers throws a nice deep ball, I'll tell you that much. His completions in the second half: 47 yards, 19 yards, 55 yards, 15 yards, 14 yards, and the two long passes were real purty. Of course, CBS kept showing scenes of San Diego, which made me think: If you lived in San Diego, why would you waste your afternoon attending a football game? Dang, that's a nice city. And Chad Pennington is out for the season. Miami's season last year is looking more and more like a mirage.

Colts 31, Cardinals 10. Some radio guys in town were predicting a Cardinals win on Friday, mainly because they thought Kurt Warner could keep up with Peyton Manning. They failed to realize that you don't beat the Colts by keeping up with Manning, you beat the Colts by not letting Manning on the field. Miami almost did it, but they didn't have the offensive firepower to finish the deal. Arizona needed long, sustained drives capped off by touchdowns, and then they turned the ball over twice inside the Colts' 10-yard line. They didn't need to get in a shootout with Manning, because Manning loves that. And the Cardinals gave up way too early on the run game, probably because they wanted to get in a shootout. Just a bad game plan all around. Oh well. I figured Arizona would fall back to Earth this season, and they are. Of course, it's not like they were that great last year - they could still go 8-8 this year and it wouldn't that big a dropoff. They're still far too undisciplined to be a consistent winner.

I'd write about college football, but nobody knows nothing, so what would I have to say? I thought Penn State was way overrated, but I also didn't think they'd stink up the joint so badly on offense. I kept wanting them to score just one more touchdown, because Iowa's offense wasn't doing anything. When Daryll Clark threw the interception on the first drive of the second half, I told Krys, "They're going to lose." After that, it was just waiting for the other shoe to drop. There just aren't any great teams in the country - the top three, Florida, Texas, and Alabama are close, but they're still beatable. Cal isn't ready for prime time, Miami got their swagger back without learning that those old Hurricane teams had the swagger because they were better than everyone, and LSU barely beat Mississippi State, for crying out loud. At this rate, it will be Cincinnati versus Boise State in the National Championship Game, and I think I might have to root for that, because maybe then the college presidents will get a playoff together, because no one will watch that game (sorry, Woody!, but it's true). Who knows what craziness will ensue this week? Will the Lions lose at Illinois? Will Arizona go to Washington and knock off the Huskies? Will Cal beat USC now that the pressure is off? Will Michigan State get their heads out of their asses and beat Michigan? We'll see!

More body-painted young ladies here. It seems like a really uncomfortable way to show off your bod, but we appreciate the effort!

Why didn't I love Inglourious Basterds?

2009-09-24T13:50:00.012-07:00

I saw Quentin Tarantino's newest movie last week. I enjoyed the hell out of it. Really. But it was kind of like junk food, wasn't it?

I got in a bit of an argument with the guy at my comic book store about this. I told him that after we saw Inglourious Basterds, I couldn't figure out what the point was. He told me it didn't need a point. But I disagree! Yes, this is America! Disagreement is the spice of life!

Let me start by saying that I really enjoyed it. I just wrote it above, didn't I? Tarantino certainly knows how to put a movie together, and he's dynamite with actors. He often gets career-best performances out of actors. Brad Pitt is fantastic and funny, Mélanie Laurent is hard-ass and steely, Diane Kruger is wonderfully glamorous, and the Basterds themselves are excellent. Christoph Waltz is getting all the Oscar talk, and he's astonishing as Colonel Hans Landa, the "Jew Hunter." He's amazingly evil and refreshingly civil, except when, stunningly, he's not. The opening scene, when he shows up at a Frenchman's farm looking for a Jewish family, is one of the tensest scenes Tarantino has come up with in years. Waltz does a wonderful job with this utter opportunist, who does his job well but isn't above getting something for himself. Tarantino, naturally, comes up with some excellent action (a Mexican stand-off? in a Tarantino film? you don't say!) and sudden and shocking violence, and he reaches into his usual bag of tricks to twist the narrative around a bit - not as well as he's done in the past, but he's still a very good filmmaker. The grand finale is a wonderful orgy of violence and sly humor, and the final scene is a nice touch. Plus, Mike Myers is hilarious in his brief scene.

So what's my problem? Why can't I love this movie? Well, as I wrote, it's junk food. I couldn't quite figure out why Tarantino made this movie and what he's trying to say. My friend said it doesn't matter, that I should just enjoy it for the entertainment. However, I said that Tarantino has been making movies for almost 20 years, and he hasn't made one with something interesting to say since Jackie Brown, which came out in 1997 (granted, he's only directed two movies in between that one and this one, but still). We know he can make dazzling technical movies and that he can get excellent work out of his actors. Can he do anything else?

Getting back to Inglourious Basterds (and yes, I'm going to SPOIL it, so read no further if you really want to see it clean): What's Tarantino really trying to say? Ultimately, this is Death Wish with better financing and better acting. It's a revenge fantasy, and while I don't have an issue with revenge fantasies per se, Tarantino's last big movie, Kill Bill, was also a revenge fantasy. Revenge obviously plays a big role in all of his movies, to the degree that he's almost pathological about it, but does it need to be the driving force of this movie? We've heard the objections to the movie, about how it distorts history and is therefore disrespectful to Jews, because Tarantino's belief that killing Hitler somehow makes up for the millions slaughtered by the Nazis. I didn't get that - this is like a lot of old-time World War II movies, in which the Holocaust is virtually ignored because it gets in the way of a good action movie. Sure, Tarantino can make an action movie set in World War II in which he gleefully kills the Nazi High Command - I don't have a problem with that. I guess my objection is more with the tone of the movie. Tarantino seems to be far too gleeful about this movie, and it jars with the somewhat serious tone the movie has for a good deal of it. I wasn't particularly uncomfortable with Brad Pitt being a cheery psychopath, for instance - his attitude seems to be the one you need in a horrible war. It just seems like Tarantino, for all his gifts as a filmmaker, simply wants to revel in what he can do instead of trying for something more. If we look at someone like Scorsese, for instance, as an example of someone who has always resisted stereotyping. We might think of him as a director who makes bleak movies often starring Italian-American New York gangsters, but he's made a lot of different kinds of movies - he made The Age of Innocence, The Last Temptation of Christ, After Hours, The Last Waltz, and Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, for crying out loud. Scorsese is a great director because he doesn't let himself get pigeonholed. Tarantino, it seems, pigeonholes himself.

I suppose I'm not explaining myself very well. Tarantino is a gifted filmmaker, but he's content to mine the movies he saw in his childhood for inspiration and simply update things with tongue in cheek. Inglourious Basterds is a "remake" of an old Italian movie, for instance. I assume that Tarantino has seen the great World War II movies of the 1960s and 1970s, because that's when he was growing up. But even those movies took the war seriously, even if they had some humor. Tarantino takes nothing seriously, apparently, and because he doesn't make straight comedies, he usually falls short of greatness because of this. At least that's what I think. Maybe I'm not getting it across very well. Sorry!

Anyway, Inglourious Basterds is a marvelous movie to watch. I just didn't get enough out of it. Oh well.

What have we learned - Week 2

2009-09-20T20:29:00.007-07:00

Blech. Stupid Eagles. Stupid broken rib of the quarterback. Blech.

Saints 48, Eagles 22. I'm not as bummed out by this game as you might think, even though the Eagles lost by four touchdowns. They played well for most of the first half and then had a horrible two minutes at the end of the half, giving up an easy touchdown with very little time left after tying the game at 10. They kicked a field goal to end the half, but then, in the first three minutes of the second half, they turned it over twice and gave up two quick touchdowns, and the game was pretty much over. So in about five minutes of game time, they gave up 21 points and scored 3, meaning if you take away those five minutes (I know we can't, but work with me!), they lose only 27-19 (plus, of course, the final touchdown was an interception return very late). With a guy making his first career start. Yes, the defense could have played much better, but if McNabb is playing, I think the Eagles win, because they would have been crisper on offense. That being said, Kolb played pretty well (his first interception was awful, but other than that, he didn't make too many mistakes), and next week they get Kansas City at home, and then the bye, and then Oakland at home (when McNabb should be back), so I'm not too worried about losing to a high-powered offensive team like the Saints. And damn, Drew Brees is good. I mean, I've known that for a few years (I'm not sure how, in the age of the Internet, any team can be a "secret," as the Aikman kept saying, and if N'Awlins is a secret, it's probably because the networks only talk about the Cowboys and their new monstrosity, but that's just my opinion, of course), but watching him work for a full game (or at least most of the game; I kept switching channels to better games) is pretty neat to see. Of course, like all good quarterbacks, it really helps if you have a good offensive line, and Brees does. Oh well.

Falcons 28, Panthers 20. This is one of the games I skipped, mainly because other games were better. So I don't have much to say about it. Matt Ryan is still doing well, I guess. Nice draft pick, Falcons!

Vikings 27, Lions 13. I was so jazzed that the Lions were winning this game, 10-0, and then, a little later, I noticed it was 27-10. Well, that sucks. But look! No shots at R. C. Favre!

Bengals 31, Packers 24. I watched a bit of this game, because it was going back and forth nicely. I was amused to see that Chad Johnson found possibly the only Bengals fans outside of Cincinnati in the front row at Lambeau Field so he could do a Lambeau Leap. What are the odds of Bengals fans being at a game in Cincinnati, much less Green Bay? And the ending was pretty exciting, as Cincy had to see last week's game flashing before their eyes again. The Pack made it to the 10-yard line before time ran out. I'd say it was a good job by Cincinnati's defense, but they should thank the clock!

Texans 34, Titans 31. I watched a lot of this game, because it was really exciting. And there were at least two fights between the teams, which was kind of neat. Houston got a lucky touchdown that should have been overturned (the Saints' first touchdown in the second half should have been overturned, as well - what's up with the replay officials?) and a good call on a punt return that was recovered by Tennessee but wasn't technically a fumble (and Titans' fans, who were booing the call, should realize it was the right call, even if they didn't like it). I doubt if most of the country got to see this game, but it was fun to watch, I tells ya. And Chris Johnson had a good day, didn't he?

Raiders 13, Chiefs 10. I doubt if there was enough money in the world to make me watch this game all the way through. How did Oakland win this game? Is JaMarcus Russell ever going to learn how to play quarterback? Will the Eagles please not look past the Chiefs, even though Philly ought to roll them? I don't have the answers to these questions.

Jets 16, Patriots 9. So now we have to listen to how fucking great the Jets are and how fucking Joe Namath-esque Mark Sanchez is and how fucking "good" it is for the NFL when the Jets are decent (why, exactly?). Now, I'm perfectly happy that they smacked around the Cheaters, but I'm going to get sick real quick of the slobbering of the national media just because the Jets are decent again. I'd be worried if I were the Grand Cheater, because except for a few minutes in the Monday night game, New England has looked really bad, and they'd be 0-2 if not for the gift from the Bills. I don't know if Brady is still scared of taking a hit, but New Jersey blitzed him a lot (something every team should have been doing for the past 6-7 years) and he couldn't handle it. Very interesting. We'll see how they recover from this.

Team That Will Soon, We Hope, Not Be Called What They Have Always Been Called 9, Rams 7. What a joke of a game. I watched a few minutes, and Washington kept going up and down the field but couldn't put the ball in the end zone. St. Louis, meanwhile, stinks on ice. I'm not sure why they ever punt the ball. Why not just go nuts and never punt? It's not like you're going to be any worse!

Cardinals 31, Jaguars 17. Kurt Warner had a good game, didn't he? 15 consecutive completions to start the game, a record-setting completion percentage (24 for 26), and a big win in the Eastern time zone, which flummoxed Arizona last year. It's always interesting to see on what plays games change. Arizona was leading 10-3 when the Jaguars lined up for a field goal. I'm not saying that if Jax makes the figgie, they go on to win, but they're still in the game. Instead, the Cardinals block it, Antrel Rolle recovers the block and takes it 83 yards the other way. Instead of 10-6, it's 17-3, and the rout is on. It's interesting also to see a play like that go the Cardinals' way. It seems like those things happen to good teams, whereas a bad team might block the kick, but it would go out of bounds or something. Is Arizona starting to get "good teams'" breaks? The mind boggles!

Bills 33, Buccaneers 20. I watched some of this game, and saw Terrell Owens drop a perfect bomb from Trent Edwards. After picking on his quarterback and kick returner a bit this week, it was nice to see Owens get a beautiful pass and simply drop it. The Bills ought to be 2-0, and they make the AFC East even more interesting.

49ers 23, Seahawks 10. Frank Gore went a bit nuts in this game, gaining 207 yards on only 16 carries, including two long touchdown runs. I watched some of this game, and was astonished that Seattle wasn't winning - they were moving the ball well and stopping San Francisco fairly easily. But then Hasselbeck got injured, and although Seneca Wallace can play a bit, it seemed the life went right out of the Seahawks. Of course, Gore accounted for 14 points with his two long runs, so it's not like the 49ers blew them out of the water. But they are 2-0, with two divisional wins, in a weak division, so maybe, just maybe, this is the year San Francisco returns to the top of the heap in the NFC West. Maybe. It's a long season.

Da Bears 17, Steelers 14. I actually didn't watch any of this game. I did find it humorous that after last week, everyone was saying the Steelers were going to pound Da Bears. Except for Colin "I Was A Teenaged Blowhard" Cowherd, who thought otherwise. His reasoning was sound: Pittsburgh has no running game, they got lucky against Tennessee, Cutler wouldn't be as lousy as he was against the Packers, and Chicago's defense is still pretty good even without Urlacher, plus they would be playing hard to prove it. So this wasn't too surprising. What happened to Pittsburgh's running game?

Broncos 27, Browns 6. Gadzooks, the Browns are lousy. Nice way for Denver to open the season - versus the Bengals and the Browns. And they still needed a miracle finish for their 2-0 start.

Ravens 31, Chargers 26. Everyone keeps talking about the tackle Ray Lewis made on Darren Sproles that basically won the game for Baltimore, but I haven't seen many people talking about the fact that Philip Rivers destroyed Baltimore's pass defense, and even though it's impressive that the Ravens won that game, shouldn't they be worried if Joe Flacco, of all people, doesn't have a great game? I mean, Lewis's single play was good, but I'd be worried about stopping people if I'm Baltimore's defense. And Norv Turner is a lousy coach. Just ... lousy.

Giants 33, Cowboys 31. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!! I was rooting for Dallas in this game, actually, so I ought to be disappointed, but can we really be sad when a team rips the heart out of the Cowboys and their fans like that? The orgy of ego that was going on before the game (I didn't watch it, but I saw highlights) and then the awful quarterbacking during the game was just perfect. Jerry Jones cares more about his stadium than his team, and it showed. Tony Romo, as I mentioned last week, had three long throws and little else, and if he didn't get those, he would be ordinary. And he was! Dallas can run the ball a little bit, can't they? Why didn't they do that more?

Colts 27, Dolphins 23. I honestly can't believe Indianapolis won this game. They possessed the ball for less than a quarter!!!! Miami worked their game plan to near-perfection, with one fatal flaw: You must score touchdowns!!!! If they had scored a touchdown instead of a field goal on just one of their scoring drives, they would have won. Instead, they kicked field goals while the Colts, despite the tiny amount of time they had the ball, scored touchdowns, one on a 1-play drive and another on a 4-play drive. That's definitely the way you beat Peyton Manning - keep him off the field - but you have to finish with touchdowns. Still, a good game plan. Maybe other teams will follow it.

Penn State was boring and workmanlike once more, dispatching their third inferior opponent with little fuss. They haven't been tested, but they haven't played anyone either, and I'm a bit worried about Iowa this week, especially as the Hawkeyes beat them last year. But it's in Happy Valley this year, and the Lions should be a bit peeved about last year. USC pulled its typical bad game against an unranked opponent, but it seems like this year, they should be a bit more worried. Cal is quite good and they play the Trojans at home; Oregon also gets to play USC at home, and the Ducks proved they're not as crappy as they looked against Boise State; and Oregon State isn't lousy. Even Arizona State has a fairly good defense, and USC's offense isn't clicking. I really, really hope this is the year USC finally bites it, because I'm sick of Big Eleven teams playing the Rose Bowl in basically the Trojans' back yard. If Cal or Oregon has to travel to the game, maybe it might be fair. Meanwhile, I'm quickly falling in love with Lane Kiffin, the new coach of Tennessee. After Urban Meyer said his team had the flu and that he coached conservatively because Tennessee wasn't "playing to win," Kiffin said, in response to a question about whether he was worried about his players getting the flu, "I don't know. I guess we'll wait, and after we're not excited about a performance, we'll tell you everybody was sick." Kiffin is awesome. The Big East got a big boost from Cincinnati going to Corvallis and beating Oregon State, while the "mid-majors" took a hit when BYU lost to Florida State (boo!) and Oregon beat Utah. It wasn't the greatest week in college football, but there are always exciting games around. And then there was that Notre Dame receiver, Golden Tate, who jumped into the Michigan State band and they simply let him fall to the ground. It was pretty awesome.

Sorry, no cheesecake this week. Maybe next week. Anyway, the biggest thing we've learned this week is that rushing the ball just isn't what it used to be. Miami and Dallas both put up well over 200 yards on the ground, and they both lost. Somewhere Woody Hayes is rolling in his grave.

What have we learned - Week 1

2009-09-14T10:04:00.011-07:00

Well, we learned that the Football Gods are fickle and cruel and are punishing the Eagles for signing Michael Vick. "You wanted Vick?" say the Football Gods. "Fine. We'll take away your other, better quarterback. Suck on it, Eagles fans!" Jesus.

Anyway, it's time for the NFL (college football, you may have noticed, started last week), and let's try to figure things out from one whole week of games. Jumping to conclusions is p-h-u-n! (One thing I don't say enough: Last week, while watching Penn State trounce Akron, I turned to my lovely wife and said, "Damn, I just love watching football!" I forget how much I love watching games when it goes away. Krys is certainly not a football widow; I turn games off all the time - next week I'm going to miss watching the Penn State game, for instance - but I really, really love watching football. Unless McNabb is gone for a long time. Watching Kevin Kolb run that offense was pretty painful.)

(And, to warn you, since these posts run pretty long with a lot of text, I've dropped in some random cheesecake pictures. Just a warning!)

Eagles 38, Panthers 10. When Carolina took the ball to begin the game and went 70 yards in 8 minutes to score a touchdown, I thought everyone's favorite team was in trouble. Luckily, the defense and special teams took some heat off the offense - in one 5-minute span in the second quarter, the Eagles scored 21 points and ran one (1) offensive play - and all went well ... until McNabb decided to score a touchdown in the third quarter and, while lying in the end zone, was hit by a late-entering defensive player and fractured a rib. The defender wasn't penalized, and I'm not sure he should have been, but he was late, and if McNabb misses significant time, I'll be really upset because it wasn't in the middle of a play. I certainly don't want players to pull up when they have a big lead, but it was 31-10 late in the third quarter, so couldn't McNabb have thrown it away and lived to play another day? Sheesh. (It was third down, so I get why he didn't, but a field goal works there, you know!) I wouldn't mind if they were playing a bad offensive team next week and could maybe survive with Kevin Kolb at QB, but they're playing the Saints, who just hung 45 points on Detroit (yes, it's Detroit, I know, but they're still good) and are firing on all cylinders. I hope the home crowd will inspire the defense and that Michael Vick can play in Week 3 and then the bye gives McNabb a chance to recover. As for Jake Delhomme - I've been saying for a few years that he's overrated, and boy howdy, is he proving me right. In his last game (the playoff loss to Arizona), he threw 5 interceptions and fumbled once. Today: 4 interceptions and 1 fumble. He's kind of like Brett Favre (God, I have to write about him for another freakin' year?) but less talented, and that gets him in deep trouble. Last year, it seemed Carolina didn't rely on him as much, and they were successful. Today, once the Eagles decided to play some run defense, they forced Delhomme to throw a lot, and we saw what happened. Seven turnovers (not all on Jake, of course, as he was benched) will cause you many, many problems.

Steelers 13, Titans 10. I know I should have watched this, because it featured "real-man" football, but I just couldn't be bothered. I will say that I don't understand the love for Ben Roethlisberger. Sure, he makes some plays, but usually there's a reason his team needs him to make a fourth-quarter comeback - because he's played lousy for three quarters and the team is either losing of playing down to the level of their competition. The defense saves that team way too much. Yes, I'm jealous that Big Ben has two Super Bowl rings. That doesn't change the fact that he's not that excellent. He's a top ten quarterback in the league, sure, but he's not top five.

Falcons 19, Dolphins 7. I watched exactly none of this game. Hey, Atlanta won! Good for them! The Dolphins will find out that last year's playoff run is a mirage, I think.

Broncos 12, Bengals 7. Woody! has to be dying inside after the events of this game. I turned it on at the perfect time - the last 30 seconds. Prior to that, it seemed like a snorefest, but a snorefest that it appeared Cincinnati had won when they scored a touchdown with 38 seconds left. Denver was backed up at its 13 and all hope seemed lost. Then Kyle Orton threw a pass to Brandon Marshall, who was covered by three defenders. If he catches it, he probably gets tackled in bounds and I don't think the Broncos could have gotten a few more plays off to get into field goal range. It's no guarantee that he would catch it, either. But one of the defenders in front of him leaps in the air and tips the ball. Unfortunately, he tips it straight up and in front of him a few feet, right into the arms of ... Brandon Stokely, receiver for the Broncos. As everyone appeared to be covering Marshall, there was no one between Stokely and the end zone, and he scored the winning touchdown with 11 seconds left. Man, what a way to lose. I don't think either of these teams has reason to be optimistic.

Vikings 34, Browns 20. Dear sweet Jebus, it's yet another year with Brett "Risen Christ" Favre on an NFL roster. I like how he said that his daughters told him that he should come back to get another Super Bowl ring. Yeah, right. His daughters are probably saying to him, "Hey, are you really my daddy? Because when you're gone for six months out of the year, Mommy hangs out with the landscaper a lot." The nice thing is that there seems to be a bit of backlash against R. C., mainly because of that crackback block he laid on that dude in the preseason game. I'm sure the media will quickly revert to worshipful form, but it was nice them get their heads out of their asses for a bit. Anyway, R. C. is supposed to lead this immensely talented Minnesota team to the Promised Land (that would be just like the Risen Christ, wouldn't it?), but the Vikings are classic underachievers (people claim the Eagles are underachievers, but at least they get to NFC Championship Games and the occasional Super Bowl) and there's no reason to think this year will be any different, especially once R. C. starts seething with jealousy over the attention paid to Adrian Peterson and begins to hurl the ball around like it was 1996. And he will. Peterson, meanwhile, put up typically monster numbers against a completely overmatched Cleveland team. Good job, Adrian - let's see you do that in the playoffs. Speaking of the Browns ... well, maybe we shouldn't. Thanks for playing, Cleveland - better luck next year!

Colts 14, Jaguars 12. I watched one play in this game. Nothing to say, really. It was closer than I would have expected, because I don't think Jacksonville is very good, but maybe the Colts aren't as good we think either. Who knows.

Saints 45, Lions 27. Man, whenever I looked up, Drew Brees had thrown another touchdown pass. Sure, it was against Detroit (I think they're at 18 losses in a row now), but that's still impressive. Next week they invade Philadelphia, and I fear for that game now that McNabb is (probably) out. Of course, any hope New Orleans has a postseason glory rested in their defense, and allowing Detroit 27 points (granted, one touchdown was a fumble recovery) isn't that great. Matthew Stafford got picked three times, but turnovers are largely luck, so I wouldn't hang my hat on that. Detroit was anemic offensively, but they did manage to move it a little bit (thanks to three Saints turnovers), so if the Saints play a team that can play a little defense (like the Eagles), they might be trouble. Still, New Orleans is fun to watch. And they'll probably be right there with Atlanta at the end of the year for the division, because Carolina and Tampa won't be.

Cowboys 34, Buccaneers 21. Right before Tony Romo unloaded an 80-yard touchdown pass that iced the game, the announcers said something to the effect that if you didn't look at the score, you'd think Tampa was winning the game, because they were outplaying the 'Boys. Not 30 seconds later, Romo chucked his backbreaker. I don't think Dallas is going to be very good this year, but they do have big-play capability, which can cover up a lot of flaws. They got three touchdown passes of 42, 66, and 80 yards, which accounted for 188 of Romo's 353 yards - or 53% of his total, in 3 completions. Tampa gained almost as much as Dallas, but couldn't get a play or two that gained big yards, so they couldn't keep up with the scoring. Of course, a team that doesn't give up big plays will pummel Dallas. I'm not a huge fan of Carnell Williams, but it was pretty cool to see him run well for Tampa after two years of recovering from injuries. Gruden ran him waaaaay too much in his rookie year - fans are probably hoping the new coach doesn't make the same mistake.

Ravens 38, Chiefs 24. I guess I should have watched some of this game, because it seems it was pretty entertaining. But I didn't. How impressive is Joe Flacco? Man, if Baltimore's offense plays like that all the time, they could be scary good.

Jets 24, Texans 7. Hey, remember the good old days of, say, Saturday, when all the "experts" had Houston as a sexy playoff pick? And how they were starting the season at home against a rookie quarterback, so it would be easy for them to go 1-0? Yeah, well, Mark Sanchez showed the experts, didn't he? He looked fairly impressive, I'd say. I'm not sure why a lot of people like the Texans. I've never been impressed with them, even when they win. Maybe they'll win someday, but not this year. And Sanchez will come back to earth, I think. Or maybe he's just that good.

Giants 23, Washington 17. New York is good. Washington is not. 'Nuff said.

49ers 20, Cardinals 16. Talk radio folk here in the Basin are living in a dream world, where Arizona didn't barely make the playoffs and just happened to get hot at the right time and instead went 14-2 for the fifth straight year and are shoe-ins to win the NFC West again. Last year they barely escaped one game against San Francisco, and this year they couldn't escape. They were the same old Cardinals - committing 12 (!) penalties and turning the ball over twice. Their defense played fairly well until it really mattered, and then San Francisco, with no help from Frank Gore, drove 80 yards in something like 7 minutes to score the game-winning touchdown. Good job, Cardinals! San Francisco isn't any good, either, but at least they're hungry. Arizona has acted all off-season like a 9-7 record gives them the division this year by default. Um, not quite. I will say that Adrian Wilson was penalized for hitting Vernon Davis under the new rules about not hitting "defenseless receivers." I didn't see the hit, but if the NFL continues "protecting" all the offensive players, why not just make it flag football? Apparently Wilson's hit was perfectly legal under the old rules, and he didn't lead with his helmet and he didn't hit Davis in the head. He hit him in the chest with his shoulder, but because Davis wasn't looking, he was "defenseless." Maybe if I see the hit I'll feel differently, but this is a bit ridiculous. Come on, NFL! Let them play!

Seahawks 28, Rams 0. Man, St. Louis is lousy. Really lousy. When your best offensive weapon is your punter, that ain't good. Seattle looks like they're back, as long as Hasselbeck doesn't get hurt. Of course, it's fairly easy to look good against the Rams.

Packers 21, Da Bears 15. Man, it sucks to be Brian Urlacher today - gone for the season. It seems like, from what I saw of the game, Da Bears played a lot better than the Pack, but of course, it comes down to turnovers, and Jay Cutler kept throwing interceptions. Cutler is just not a great quarterback - he's fool's gold, I tells ya! Chicago will probably still be pretty good, but they're not going far in the playoffs if they even make it. And it looks like it's Green Bay's division to lose. Now that R. C. Favre is gone, I no longer hate the Pack, so that's cool with me.

Over in college football, Penn State was on cruise control for the second straight week in dominating Syracuse. I'm not convinced they're the fifth-best team in the country, but they haven't played very well at all and they've still cruised. And they won't be tested next week against Temple, for crying out loud. The other "good" team in the Big Eleven, Ohio State, played amazingly conservatively at home against USC, which is never a good idea, and they lost late. Fortune favors the bold, Jim Tressel! Ohio State played better than the Trojans for 50 minutes, but couldn't put them away. I was rooting for Michigan against Notre Dame, because I don't hate Michigan as much as Notre Dame, and I always want the Big Eleven to win those high-profile games. I still don't think the Wolverines are all that great, but I think this game may have killed Charlie Weis. Houston beat Oklahoma State in Stillwater, but do we hear how lousy the Big XII is? UCLA beat Tennessee in Knoxville, but do we hear how lousy the SEC is? I just get tired of the Big Eleven bashing. Yes, Michigan State should have beat Central Michigan, but CMU is a pretty good team. It's just annoying that everyone bashes the Big Eleven, even if the conference often deserves it. The way parity has come into college football, there are very teams that are completely easy wins. And Florida schedules all of them!

So that's the week. Not a bad one in football world, in terms of entertainment. Your opinion may vary based on how your team did, but the games in which I had no stake were pretty entertaining. We'll just see if Kevin Kolb can actually play next week! Yay!

(I got the image from here, where they have 101 attractive and probably faux redheads. Just in case you were wondering.)

Dokken versus chicken

2009-09-09T12:56:00.001-07:00

This is a funny commercial. Even if you don't know who Dokken is. And if you don't know who Dokken is, you should be ashamed. Why don't you love America?

I've been meaning to write about racism, but I've been too scared

2009-09-07T12:15:00.006-07:00

I'm not racist. Not even a little bit. I reject Avenue Q's song "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" completely (and, even though I haven't seen the show, I know that's satirical, but still). I'm not racist.

How can I, a middle-class white man, make that statement? I mean, I must be, as the song says, a little bit racist, right? I must harbor some resentment toward people who aren't white people, right? I'm deluding myself, right?

Well, I don't think so. I know that some people are racist, and I know I'm not perfect, but racism just isn't a part of my mental or emotional makeup. I'm not even trying to be "politically correct" and say that I'm careful never to offend people while I'm really masking my racism. I still use the term "black" more often than "African-American," and if that makes me racist, then I guess I am. But that seems silly. Everyone calls me white and not Polish-Lithuanian-German-Scotch/Irish American, and that's fine. Maybe that makes those people racist, too.

I don't know why I'm not racist. My parents don't act like racists, but they're more prejudicial than I am, and I call them on it all the time. They don't go around burning crosses, but they do make generalization based on race, and I always have to point out how silly they sound when they say it. My father is worse than my mother, but they both do it. I don't think of them as racist, but I suppose some people would. The point is: When I was growing up, they never made those statements around me (my parents, to their credit, understood that adults don't really need to discuss absolutely everything with their impressionable children, so I never knew much about my parents' political beliefs, for instance, until I was much older, because when I was 12, it wasn't any of my goddamned business), and they never did anything that was racist. It was never an issue for us. I didn't know many people of different races, because Bucks County in the 1980s was mostly white, but when I did encounter people of different races (mostly Asians, if I remember correctly), I didn't really think anything of it. They were just kids. Of course, some of the stereotypes applied, but not to the point where I could say "Man, all those Asian kids are good at math and science!" It just wasn't an issue.

It became less of an issue as I got older, because I met more and more people and learned more and more about people. I have worked with people of other races and taught people of other races, and if I was racist before (and I doubt it), I learned that you really can't generalize about people. Why this is a stunning insight I'll never know, but it seems some people still can't make it (including, occasionally, my parents). I say I'm not racist not only because I don't discriminate against people (I'm not in any position to do so, but it's not like I would anyway), but because I never make statements (or even think statements) like "Well, all black people like fried chicken." I think that's what people say when they claim that everyone is a "little bit" racist - doesn't everyone say or think something like that at some time or another? Well, I don't. I've said things like "When I taught, I noticed that many of the Hispanic kids came from single-parent households," but if that's racist, we might as well never discuss anything ever again. That's just a statement of fact based on the kids I talked to. It's certainly not generalizing, as in, "All Hispanic kids come from single-parent households." That would be untrue and racist.

I suppose it depends on your definition of racism. Have I told racist jokes before? I sure have, when I was a kid and didn't know any better. I've also told Polish jokes even though I'm Polish, so there's that. Yes, the jokes were racist, but I also had no idea that they were racist. Nobody told me, either, I just came to the realization that they were. I don't call people "Oriental" anymore, either, because those people who were offended by it said it was dismissive, and as I read exactly what "Oriental" meant, I came to realize that while I might not consider it offensive, it's defining a group of people by what they are not, i.e. European. "Oriental" is a term that Europeans used to define something exotic, and it's outdated. I don't think it's politically correct to call someone Asian (or, better yet, by their specific nationality), but if it is, so be it. Similarly, I don't think calling someone "black" is racist, mainly because I see far too many "African-Americans" calling themselves "black." Of course, many African-Americans call themselves the "n" word, too, but I never use that because, well, it's racist. It saddens me when black people call themselves the "n" word, as well.

Again, it gets back to your definition of racism. Is it racist to look at demographics and state facts that can be gleaned from them? Is it racist to point out that Pine Ridge, the reservation in South Dakota that is famous because of the Leonard Peltier case, is the poorest place in the United States? I suppose it's racist to draw conclusions about all Indians (whoops, can I not use that term, even though many Natives use it?) from the example of Pine Ridge, but some people say we can't even draw conclusions about the residents of Pine Ridge from the example of Pine Ridge. Again, how can we ever fix the problems of minorities in this country if anyone who addresses them is shouted down with charges of racism? I know my history, and I know that the problems faced by minorities are largely "not their fault." However, at some point, someone - black or white or yellow or red - has to talk about what can be done to alleviate those problems and what everyone - not just white people, not just black people - can do to move forward. It's too easy to shout "racism" and ignore anyone who doesn't agree with you.

I write this because of many factors, but Roger's Labor Day post helped spur me on. In that post, he links to a letter from the editor in GQ magazine (yeah, I know) in which the editor writes about having a discussion about race and how the president needs to start one. This ties into Roger's larger theme about how civil discourse has become decidedly less civil, to the point where people at a town hall health care meeting heckled a woman in a wheelchair who was worried about losing her coverage. Yes, a woman in a wheelchair. Later on in the video, two interesting things occurred: One man, who was interviewed about it, said he wasn't at the meeting to listen to anyone's opinions (what, pray tell, are the town hall meetings for, then?) and another person, commenting on the story, claimed that if you're a Republican, you're evil and racist and ugly and you don't like porn. Okay, maybe not that last part, but he basically stereotyped all Republicans as hateful people, which seemed to me as bad as heckling someone at a town hall meeting who doesn't agree with you. That's why we never have frank discussions about race - because it's far too easy to shout, and if we disagree on health insurance, can you imagine the bile that will be unleashed if President Obama started a national discussion about racism?

I'm certainly not condoning racism. I know it's still far too prevalent in this country. When my parents, who are extremely tolerant people, can say things like "Well, that's just the way Hispanics are," I know that plenty of people harbor far uglier thoughts. But it's never fun, no matter how ugly your beliefs are, to be yelled at about them. If we begin a discussion about race, minorities will have to get used to the fact that there are some really, really stupid people out there - and guess what? Some of them are minorities! Yelling at racists won't change their minds; it will simply entrench their opinions more. Some people think, "Well, it's fine that I yell, because I don't want to engage racists in meaningful conversation anyway," but that seems like a silly opinion to have, especially if you want to change minds. If you want to feel morally superior to people, yelling at them is fine. But to change someone's mind, you have to understand why they feel a certain way. Most people don't want to know why someone is racist, they just want them to stop being racist. Similarly, most racists don't want to talk about it, because they think they'll get yelled at. Most racists, I would guess, are "casual" racists, like my parents, who wouldn't dream of discriminating against someone based on their race but think nothing of making generalizations based on race. So they would be appalled that someone thinks they're racist and would immediately get defensive. There's room for leeway on both sides. And, of course, it's very difficult to bring it up with anyone, because even racists are aware of the ugly history of racism. If it's your family, you might be able to bring it up (as I do with my parents, even though I never say they're racists), but it's something you just don't bring up with people, even if they're close friends, unless it gets obvious. I certainly don't blame people for never speaking of it; nobody wants to admit they make racist statements, even if they aren't aggressive racists.

I'm not sure what the solution is. I have a feeling I know why I'm not racist. Part of it is because my family was never one to put pressure on the kids to conform. We had a strong family structure (and my grandparents were racist in the way that people born in the first two decades of the twentieth century were; i.e., they were raised with certain attitudes and never gave them much thought, but they didn't go around burning crosses and lynching people, either), but it was never a case of my grandfather or father sitting me down and explaining what the world was like and if I was a real Burgas I'd think that way too. It's no revelation to say that racism is learned, and I think a lot of it has to do with parents and grandparents making a concerted effort to "indoctrinate" their children. My parents never believed in that. They raised me by example, and generally, their example was a good one (as I wrote, they rarely discussed "adult" topics with me). I learned from their actions that we should treat people as individuals, so even if they thought all Pakistanis, for instance, were raving Muslims lunatics (they didn't), I'd never know, and the only Pakistani I ever met was a wonderful man who made us dinner one night, and damn! it was tasty. Many young people learn to parrot their parents' prejudices, and by the time they start thinking for themselves, it's too late. The other reason I'm not racist, of course, is where I grew up. I grew up in a middle class neighborhood and was exposed early on to a relatively liberal lifestyle (my parents voted for Ronald Reagan, I know, but it's not like they were hardcore Republicans - they just didn't like Carter). And I went to college, where any prejudices I might have had (and I don't recall having any) were blown up fairly quickly. I just never cared about someone's label. Again, maybe early on I wasn't exposed to large groups of a certain stereotype living up to that stereotype, so I didn't get a chance to "learn" that "all" of a certain minority was lazy or drunk or angry or dumb, and by the time I met members of those minorities I was smart enough to realize that one drunk person doesn't mean everyone of that group is drunk.

One thing that seems crucial for combatting racism is thinking about our attitudes toward the world, something I do maybe even too often. Whenever I ask my parents to "prove" what they're generalizing, they sputter a retraction and we all move on. If you ask racists where they get their information, they either retreat further into name-calling or they're forced to realize they don't have accurate information. At least then they're exposed and they might be forced to re-evaluate their thoughts. Many don't, of course, but instead of yelling at them, people should ask them why they believe what they do and try to get them to admit it's all anecdotal, based on one experience they had when they were 12 years old, or it's something "their Daddy always said." People don't think enough these days, and it's frustrating. One thing I appreciate about my father is that he does a lot of research before he makes up his mind. Once he makes up his mind, his opinion tends to calcify into hard certainty even if new evidence comes to light, but at least he does research beforehand. I know that education won't solve all our problems, but it's a start.

I don't mean to be so self-congratulatory in this post, because I'm well aware of my shortcomings. Racism just isn't one of them. And I don't think I'm alone in this. I've never heard my lovely wife express any sort of racist sentiment. Beyond that, I'd like to think most of the people I've met in my life aren't given to generalizing based on race, but, like I mentioned above, it's very difficult to tell. But I do reject the idea that "everyone's a little bit racist." You might think that would make it easier to discuss racism. I think it puts people on edge and less trusting. If I ever meet Roger (although then I'd have to go to Albany, and who wants that?), I'd like to think we could meet without either of us thinking to ourselves, "Well, this guy is white/black, so he has some attitudes about things that are common to his race." That seems awfully shallow.

Or maybe I am just deluding myself. Maybe I'm a raving racist and I just don't know it. That would be weird.

"Cool kids never have the time"

2009-09-04T14:03:00.004-07:00

As we reach Labor Day, I ought to post this, because it's about summertime, more specifically the summer of 1979. Thirty years ago, in May 1979, I moved from Liederbach, West Germany, to Warminster, Pennsylvania. My family had moved to Germany from Warminster in 1975 when my dad's company, Sperry Univac, asked him to take a job in Europe. My mother, always one to leap on a chance to travel, told him it was a great idea. Four years later we moved back. I spent one month in second grade (I turned eight in May 1979), then experienced my first summer (that I can remember) in Pennsylvania. Thirty years later, it's still the best summer I ever had.

We lived on a street (my house was here!) with a bunch of families with younger kids, so it was kind of a paradise. Behind me lived my best friends, Frank and Dave Alvaro, who are twins and are a few months younger than I am (and yes, it's the same Dave whose wedding I missed a few years ago; it became moot that I missed it last year, when he split up with his wife), but on my street we had a bunch of other kids. They were all about the same age, too - at eight, I was about in the middle of the bunch, age-wise. Down the street were the oldest kids around, and they might have been 11. Our next-door neighbors had a younger daughter who was probably six. We had about 15 kids living either on the street or on the street behind us, where Frank and Dave lived. It was kind of the perfect storm for fun, and we took advantage.

All summer we played with each other. This was, of course, in the era before hundreds of channels on television, and it was summer anyway, so nothing was on. It was also before video games went nuts, so nobody was playing those. We watched a few cartoons (I'm not sure if Star Blazers had hit the United States yet, because that was one for which Frank, David, and I stopped everything to watch), but nothing really distracted us too much from enjoying the outdoors. I had brought a giant ball back from Germany. It was about waist-high on us kids, and it was painted like a soccer ball. We decided we were going to play "Kick the Can" all day, every day. Of course, we didn't use a can. We used my giant ball.

I don't know if you've ever played "Kick the Can," but here it is: Someone is "It," and someone else kicks the ball as far as they can. We kicked it up the street, because our street was on a slight incline and kicking it down the street would have meant it would have rolled forever. Once the ball is kicked, everyone else ran and hid while the person who's "It" went and got the ball. Then the "It" person would place the ball at a set place (this was a lamp post on our front yard, because our house was centrally located) and start looking for the others. When the "It" person caught one person, he or she would escort that person back to "jail," which is where the ball is, usually. When they caught everyone, someone else would be "It." Yay!

Of course, there's a catch. At any time, a person who hasn't been caught yet can run to the ball and kick it, thereby freeing all the prisoners and making the "It" person start all over again. In our neighborhood, this was ridiculously easy, and therefore the "It" person could remain "It" for many, many hours. Why we kept playing remains a mystery. Perhaps it was the great many places to hide in our neighborhood.

We had a blast playing "Kick the Can." Back then, very few people had fences in their yards, so the kids could easily move through back yards to various hiding places (upon reflection, this may have been why some people started putting up fences, but we were kids - what did we care?). We had to make boundaries for where you could hide, too, because otherwise someone might end up on a different street altogether. For three months, we played "Kick the Can" almost every day. It really was a wonderful time, because all the kids were at an age when they still liked to play together. By the next summer, some of the kids were 12 and beginning to hang out with the older kids and didn't want to be seen with 9-year-olds. And, of course, as we got older, we didn't want to hang out with the kids who were a few years younger than we were (even though my next-door neighbor grew up to be a hottie - but that was a decade later). At night we would play "Flashlight Tag" or "Ghost in the Graveyard," two more hiding and seeking games. None of us were old enough for jobs, so we had no place to be and nothing to do except have fun. And we did.

It's very odd how this era came to an end, because it was almost poetic and something you might see in a sepia-toned movie about the loss of childhood innocence. We all went back to school in the autumn of 1979, me to third grade (where I was the first teacher who had a real positive influence on me in terms of making learning fun; before that I enjoyed school, but I didn't really think it was that important) and the others to their various grades. One day my soccer ball, which I left out at night, ended up in a neighbor's yard a few doors down, where their dog popped it somehow. I found it and wept (okay, not really, but I was kind of sad). It signaled the end of the summer, somehow, and the next summer, we didn't even try to recreate the magic from the year before. That's not to say I didn't have a wonderful time, but it wasn't the same. As I mentioned, some of the kids grew up just enough that they didn't want to hang out with us, and I also made some other friends from my school who lived near me, so Frank and Dave and I played with them. (I never stopped hanging out with Frank and Dave, who remain some of my best friends to this day. I mean, they lived behind me, for crying out loud, and were three months younger than I was. And they're awesome. What was I going to do, stop hanging out with them?) We played different games, watched more television than we should have (still not as much as some kids), and I started riding my bicycle a lot more to more distant places (not too far away, of course - I wasn't even a teenager yet) and I started reading more, going well on my way down the path to nerdiness. I had a wonderful childhood and adolescence (much better than a lot of people, I guess, as I've heard their stories over the years), but I always look back at that summer, 30 years ago, and wonder how I got so lucky to have such a golden time. I've spoken to other people who were there in the intervening years, and they agree with me, so it wasn't just me viewing it through rose-colored glasses.

I just find it strange that it was 30 years ago. The oddest thing about growing older is not the way you feel, because I still feel fairly young (and I am, I know, but I'm not as young as I used to be), but that you can remember things that happened decades ago. Not just years, whole ten-year bunches. I remember when I graduated from high school and thought about the ten years that had passed since I moved back to the U. S. and thought that was a long time. Ah, how foolish I was.

Anyway, I just thought it would be fun to share a nice memory with you. Take it as you will.

What I've been reading

2009-09-01T13:21:00.001-07:00

Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock 'N' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood by Peter Biskind. 1998, Simon and Schuster, 506 pages.

I'm not sure if I've mentioned before how much I like not only the thing, but how the thing is made, and therefore I love reading books about how, say, movies are made almost as much as the movie itself. So I was jazzed to read this book, which is about the seismic shift in Hollywood from the late 1960s to the late 1970s. In that decade, a slew of new directors changed the way movies were made and how they were perceived. Biskind's book is pretty fascinating, and it's amazing that it's so, mainly because I hated pretty much everyone in this book. Yes, hated!

It's not surprising to anyone that creative types in a highly competitive business are often evil, but it's strange that every creative type in this book, with one exception, comes off as a complete scumbag. That one exception is Steven Spielberg, and from what the people in the book say, that might be because he's not a true "artiste." But we'll get back to that! (I should point out that a lot of the women come off pretty well, but that might be because this time period was still notable for its sexism, despite the women's movement.)

Biskind begins in the mid-1960s, when Hollywood had become a bit staid and conservative and moviegoers were abandoning theaters in droves. Television had taken a huge chunk out of their audience, and the owners of the movie companies, all old men, some of whom from the earliest days of Hollywood, no longer had any idea how to connect to the younger audiences. Into this mess came a bunch of directors and producers (and, to a lesser extent, writers and actors) who had been influenced by French New Wave and even Americans like Orson Welles (who became, in the 1970s, a patron saint of these men, who loathed how he had been treated by Hollywood) and wanted to make movies in that vein for an American audience. Biskind begins with Bonnie and Clyde, which shattered the perceptions of what a gangster movie could be and made Warren Beatty one of the most powerful men in Hollywood. He follows that up with Dennis Hopper's Easy Riders, which made a boatload of money and pointed the way to low-budget movies that connected with the hippie generation. By the end of the 1960s, the New Hollywood was off and running and ready for the 1970s, one of the most creative eras in moviemaking ever.

Biskind tells the story in a sprawling thematic fashion, focusing on certain movies and individual directors, jumping back and forth in time to cover what he sees as the major signpost movies along the way. He covers the ones you'd expect - The Godfathers, Apocalypse Now, The French Connection, The Exorcist, The Last Picture Show, Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Five Easy Pieces, M*A*S*H - and some you might not expect, such as those of Lucas and Spielberg. The book is really about the directors, as the 1970s were their Golden Age, so he gives us good character sketches of Hopper, Robert Altman, Bob Rafelson, Francis Ford Coppola, William Friedkin, Paul Schrader, Hal Ashby (whose death he sees as the symbolic end of the era), Peter Bogdanovich, Martin Scorsese, George Lucas, and Spielberg. He gets into the directors' battles over creative control with the heads of the studios, who had never been challenged before. As their movies made money, the directors were able to gain more and reach higher, and Biskind's prose is thrilling as he discusses this. It's astonishing that he makes the dirty business of making movies (I mean, come on, they're only movies) sound so noble.

Of course, this is a "rise and fall" story, so the directors overreach, as many of them began to believe that they could write and produce, cutting everyone out of the process. As more than a few observers point out, very few of them were true "auteurs," so they couldn't write a good script or produce a good movie, and when they started alienating everyone who could, they turned out horrible movies. It's interesting that one of the few American "auteurs," Woody Allen, gets barely a mention in this book (and that to point out that he was, in fact, an auteur), perhaps because he was able to make the kinds of movies that these complicated directors wanted to make, and therefore wasn't as interesting. One of the weaknesses of the book is that Biskind tends to ignore a lot of movies that were important in the 1970s (A Clockwork Orange comes to mind), but if we recognize that he's not necessarily writing a history of the movies but a history of a group of directors who, to one degree or another, self-destructed like Icarus, it becomes less egregious. As the directors spiral out of control, Biskind does a good job getting all the dirt on them (he notes when people disagree on facts, but it happens surprisingly little) and showing how horrible they really were. Hopper is insane, Coppola is megalomaniacal, Scorsese is paranoid, Bogdanovich is vain, Friedkin is mean, and they're all doing copious amounts of drugs that don't help. It seems that very few of them made great movies after they became powerful, and only when they were brought low could they reinvent themselves. Some, like Bogdanovich (and, to a lesser extent, Coppola), never recovered. Some, like Scorsese, recovered almost in spite of themselves. Biskind writes this as a Greek tragedy, which is fine, but because there are almost no likable characters, it's hard to care all that much. Biskind, along with his subjects, seem to have an elevated idea of what movies mean, and although I love movies, I recognize that there might - just might - be more important things in the world. These directors, it seems, took far too long to figure that out.

Perhaps that's why Spielberg, and to a lesser extent Lucas, come off relatively well in the book. Lucas is, like every other director in the book, a control freak, but he takes it to a new level. Biskind seems to share the other directors' dismissive attitude toward Lucas, but he's the only one who created an independent entity that was able to be profitable and compete with the major studios. Of course, capturing the zeitgeist with Star Wars helped, but it was only with the success of The Empire Strikes Back was Lucas able to strike out totally on his own. But Lucas still comes off a bit like the emperor in the Star Wars saga - hiding out in the shadows, cloaked in mystery, slowly retreating more and more from the world. Spielberg, on the other hand, seems to be the only one who recognizes what movies are, and even though he cheat on Amy Irving, she's so mean to him you almost can't blame him. Spielberg is also held up to scorn by the subjects of the book, but he's also the only one who seemed to escape a major flop (1941) almost unscathed. There's a nice undertone of jealousy throughout the book whenever Lucas and Spielberg come up, both by the author and by the subjects. It makes the book a bit more interesting.

Ultimately, Biskind is a bit too in love with the decade, but at least he wears his heart on his sleeve. Yes, a lot of the movies of the Eighties were soulless corporate products, but perhaps that's because the directors of the Seventies screwed up so badly. They allowed their budgets to bloat so that their movies weren't profitable anymore, and so big-budget directors who could deliver as many dollars as possible came into vogue. The directors became so obsessed with power that they shut down producers, writers, and even actors occasionally, so the studio heads began to see less of those people too and began looking for the big explosion instead of the major star. Biskind never addresses that perhaps it wasn't only Spielberg's genius of reading the audience that changed the movies, but also the the egos of the directors. That's really the tragedy of this book - that talented people were allowed to run riot and destroyed a system without really replacing it with anything. After a decade of rule, the directors ate themselves and the studios just moved back in. Coppola wanted to create an alternative studio, Lucas sort of did, but nobody seemed to have a plan about what to do once they stormed the gates. They looked around, saw all the loot, and just started seizing it for themselves. Biskind's book is a fascinating portrait of this crazy time, and it's worth checking out for all the behind-the-scenes stuff about the movies and the lives of these men, who drank, smoked, and snorted anything they could get their hands on, blithely cheated on women who had supported them, and went a bit nuts when they got the keys to the kingdom. It's a gripping read, and I'd like to check out the other books that Biskind has written about the movie industry.

Rick Pitino needs to shut up

2009-08-26T21:44:00.004-07:00

I've avoided commenting on the Rick Pitino situation, because I just don't care. However, yesterday Pitino got a bit angry, and I think I need to tell him to just shut up. So: Shut up, Rick Pitino.

Pitino, in case you don't know, is the head basketball coach at the University of Louisville. A few weeks ago, it came out that he had fucked a woman in a restaurant six years ago and then paid her to have an abortion. The news came out because the woman, after six years, claimed rape and tried to extort money from him. The police brought no charges against Pitino and the woman is under investigation for the extortion charge. Despite committing adultery and paying for an abortion, the very Catholic Pitino kept his job. I mean, he knows how to coach, right?

I was disgusted by both parties involved in this sordid tale, as Karen Sypher, the woman whom Pitino nailed, seems like a bit of a nut case. However, yesterday Pitino responded to the release of her police interview, which he says is a "total fabrication."

Listen, Rick, you need to shut up. It's obvious this woman is unhinged, and nobody believes her when she says you raped her and all the other charges she's levying against you. But when you respond by holding a press conference and ranting like you do, everyone starts to wonder whether you're a bit unhinged, too. It began when Pitino inexplicably referenced 9/11 in his initial press conference (he wasn't comparing what he was going through to the victims of 9/11, so that's a plus, but he did bring it up for seemingly no reason), and now, Pitino wishes it would all go away because he's worried about the effect the news coverage is having on his family.

Um, yeah. Maybe you should have thought of the effect fucking a woman who wasn't your wife and then paying for her abortion would have on your family, Rick. This is a news story, mainly because you're a high-profile employee in a high-profile job and you did something that, according to the teachings you profess to follow, makes you a hypocrite. Pitino also goes a bit off-topic again, this time whining that people should focus on the economy (says the man who makes millions coaching basketball), bitching that it came out on the day Ted Kennedy died (another odd allusion), and saying that we need to get on with "crucial" things in life, "like basketball."

This last statement is why he really, really needs to shut up. Reminding people that you're a freakin' basketball coach (and yes, coaches often help shape the lives of young men who don't have father figures, I get it, but if Pitino really believes that, he should man up and resign, because men take responsibility for their indiscretions) might not be the best way to go. So please shut up, Rick Pitino. When Karen Sypher makes some idiotic statement, stop reminding people that it takes two scumbags to tango on a restaurant floor.

Someone is going to hell ...

2009-08-20T13:10:00.000-07:00

Wandering the Internet, I found this:

I'd like to think Jesus wouldn't mind someone dressing like that. Of course, who knows what she did next. Oh, Jesus, avert your eyes!!!!

Hey! I can review first-run movies occasionally!

2009-08-17T20:45:00.009-07:00

This past Friday, Mia was at school, and Norah was at pre-school for the entire day. The entire day!!!!! We want to get her ready for kindergarten, so we're sending her to pre-school for the whole day once a week. That means I had most of the entire day to myself (about 10.30 a.m. to 2.45 p.m.) and nothing to do, so I went to the movies! Yay!

I checked out District 9 because why not? It's a pretty good movie, and now I'll tell you why! Here's the story: In 1982, an alien spaceship appeared over Johannesburg, South Africa. The humans went inside and found that the aliens were more like refugees, with no leaders and no organization. So the humans created a refugee camp for them (called District 9) and stuck them there, partitioning them off from the rest of the world. Now it's 2010, and the humans have had enough - the aliens are scheduled to be sent to a new camp, 200 kilometers away from Johannesburg. Into this mess comes Wikus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley), a bureaucrat of MNU, the corporation in charge of the shantytown where the aliens - derisively called "prawns" because they look like seafood - live. Wikus is tasked with getting the prawns to sign a waiver agreeing to the move - this section of the movie is weirdly humorous, as it's such a bureaucratic thing to do, even when you're dealing with aliens who don't sign their names (luckily, Wikus understands their language). As he moves through District 9, he comes across a hut where there's a strange vial that squirts out some strange black liquid. Before you know it, Wikus is becoming a prawn himself, and MNU wants to experiment on him, and he's ostracized from society in the same way the prawns are. Oh, the irony!

The movie quickly goes from social allegory/satire to action movie, which presents some problems, but not enough to ruin the movie, unless you're really into seeing a social allegory. Obviously, the director, Neill Blomkamp (a South African himself, hence the setting of the movie), is going for the apartheid parallel, but he doesn't go far enough with it. First of all, he never mentions that this situation existed in South Africa in the first place, leading me to believe this is some parallel reality world where it didn't exist (in 1982, of course, apartheid was still in full effect, so somebody might have mentioned it). He also gives us stereotypical Nigerians as villains in the movie, which made me a bit uncomfortable. The white villains are evil, sure, but they're just regular people. The Nigerians, with their witchcraft and cult of personality around their leader, seem as or more subhuman than the prawns themselves, which is odd. It's a weird choice for Blomkamp to make and somewhat undermines his idea of tolerance that underlies the movie. Of course, he doesn't want to push the apartheid parallel all that much because he's making an action movie, but it's still a strange thing to put in the movie and then ignore. Perhaps it would have been better to set it somewhere else other than South Africa so that the parallel wouldn't have been so obvious.

The "mockumentary" style Blomkamp employs for some of the movie works against him, too. He starts the movie this way, but quickly abandons it for long stretches before intermittently using it again. It's the same thing as the apartheid subtext - embrace it completely or ditch it. It doesn't seem possible to tell this story in a "mockumentary" style, and so when he breaks with that, it heightens the "movie-ness" of it even more, drawing us out of the story. I get what he was trying to do with the "mockumentary" style, as it adds a immediacy and also a claustrophobia as Wikus's life unravels, but it feels affected because he doesn't use it throughout. Again, I doubt if he could use it throughout, so it probably should have been abandoned.

Of course, I still enjoyed the movie. It's not great science fiction, mainly because Blomkamp is too concerned with making an action movie, but it's a good action movie, with far more on its mind than most. He gets a great performance from Copley, who begins as a weasel and really doesn't do too much to redeem himself. Even as he begins to change, he doesn't sympathize with the prawns all that much, convincing himself that if he change back, his wife will take him back (she won't) and all will forgiven (it won't). When he's confronted with a moral choice about helping the aliens or helping himself, he helps himself. It's a nice character arc, actually, because we probably wouldn't believe that Wikus would change so quickly. When he finally comes down on the "right" side (and of course he does), it's not necessarily because he completely sees the light, but because he decides it's the only thing he can do. Copley is very good in the role, which is interesting given it's his first movie (indeed, his first acting job).

District 9 is R-rated, and it earns it. The language, according to the rating, is "pervasive," which is as good a description as any. It's also very violent, as Blomkamp, when he decides to make this a complete action movie, shows that he can really do action well. The violence is sudden and devastating and extremely graphic, just as a warning. It's also very quick, as Blomkamp doesn't linger on the horror, in case you're wondering. Despite the fact that the turn toward action is a bit disappointing, at least Blomkamp does it very well!

I wanted District 9 to be a masterpiece, but I'm not surprised it wasn't, as it was made by a bunch of people with very little movie experience. What it is, however, is a fine action movie disguised as a science fiction movie with a conscience, and it certainly makes you think more than other summer action movies do. It's very gripping and tense, keeping you on the edge of your seat throughout ("We'll sell you the whole seat, but you'll only need the edge!!!!!!) and featuring some very fine performances. If there's any justice in the world, it portends big things for its star and its director. And it's a fine way to spend two hours during the dog days of summer!

And if you don't believe me, Nik has reviewed it too! You can trust Nik!

Michael Vick on the Eagles?

2009-08-13T19:26:00.002-07:00

Yes, it's true. Michael Vick has been signed to a two-year contract by my beloved Philadelphia Eagles. Hmmm.

I'm not really sure what to think about this. If Vick hadn't served two years in prison for killing dogs, I'd be extremely angry about it, but he did. He might be a scumbag, but he has paid a lot more than a lot of supremely talented scumbags have. I can't imagine he'll do anything heinous in his time as an Eagle, because he can't be that stupid, can he?

The Eagles seem like a decent fit for him, structure-wise. They, like the Patriots, don't tolerate idiots, so Vick going to Philly makes more sense for him than signing with some outlaw organization like the Raiders. I think everyone on the team will help keep him in line, but I could be just hopeful more than anything.

I don't know how much protesting there will be of the Eagles. I don't feel any sympathy for Vick, but he did spend a good amount of time in prison and he's apparently deep in debt, so what else do you want? Maybe he shouldn't get another chance to play in the NFL and he should go earn an honest living somewhere, but that's for Roger Goodell to decide. If he says Vick's eligible, that's that.

Go Eagles!

Conservatives who say Hollywood is liberal crack me up

2009-08-04T13:40:00.000-07:00

We've been watching the burn-off episodes of Dirty Sexy Money this summer, and we just watched Saturday's episode on Sunday (long live DVR!). At the beginning of the episode, Karen (played by Natalie Zea) is upset because at the end of the previous episode, she found she was pregnant and the father was her ex-fiancée, Simon Elder (Blair Underwood), who ditched her at the altar when he was offered what he really wanted, which was half of Karen's father's company. So Karen is a bit upset. She and her mother (Jill Clayburgh) head off to a clinic, where Karen, naturally, has second thoughts about terminating the pregnancy. Simon finds out she's pregnant by following her to the clinic, and he tells her later that he's going to be very involved with the kid even though she now hates him. Got all that?

The reason I bring this up is because Karen and her mother never mention the word "abortion." I mean, it's not surprising that Karen doesn't have an abortion, because no one on television is allowed to have one. She later says that having Simon involved is going to be horrible but that she has no choice. Well, yes she does. She gets around this by saying it might be her only chance, but Karen is, presumably, about as old as the actress playing her, and Ms. Zea is 34. There has never been any mention on the show that she has trouble conceiving, nor were she and Simon trying to have a baby, so this "just happened." There's no reason to believe that Karen can't have another kid.

The funny thing about this is Sarah Palin's recent farewell speech, in which she blamed Hollywood for going against American values. This is a frequent rant from conservatives, but rarely in television shows do you see something as odd as, say, the Republican governor of South Carolina lying about hiking on the Appalachian Trail while he was in Argentina boning his mistress. But that's neither here nor there. On Dirty Sexy Money, which is a soap opera that aired at 10 o'clock at night and featured the usual number of murderers, cheaters, candidates for political office who cheated on their wives with transsexuals, and all the sexual transgressions we expect from a prime-time soap opera. Yet a show that has already been cancelled, is airing its burn-off episodes on Saturday night in the summertime, and in the same episode features a gay Congressman and his wife propositioning a Senator because they have an "arrangement" in their marriage, can't utter the word "abortion," much less let one of their selfish, spoiled characters have one. Television, I'm sorry to say to those moralist Republicans, is extremely conservative, because all television executives care about is money, which means they can't piss off any portion of their audience. So not only is a perfectly legal medical procedure forbidden to any television character, even mentioning the word is like Dick Cheney saying the n-word at the Apollo Theater.

So shut up, conservatives. You've neutered Hollywood. Congratulations!

Power out(r)age!

2009-08-03T21:29:00.002-07:00

There I was, typing a new post for this here blog at approximately 1.45 this afternoon, when the power went out. Sigh. The two darling children were very puzzled by the fact that The Emperor's New Groove suddenly disappeared from the television screen, and I wondered if it was just our house or the whole neighborhood. I waited a few minutes to see if it would come back on, then called SRP (Salt River Project), our electricity providers.

The nice lady who answered the phone told me to check my circuit breaker. As I was outside doing so, one of the people who lives across the street (we're still not sure on the living arrangements in that house) told me her power was out too. I relayed this information to the SRP representative, and I also told her flipping the main breaker did nothing to fix my problem. She told me she'd get right on it.

I put Mia in her bed (she doesn't nap anymore, but she also gets bored easily, and with no television, there wasn't much to do, so I figured she could relax a bit) and hung out with Norah for the afternoon. I thought about going in the pool, but decided against it in case Mia had a seizure or otherwise got upset for some reason. The house didn't get too, too hot right away, so it wasn't really that awful. We rarely get power outages in these parts, but when we get them in the summer, it's really, really horrible, as you can imagine.

At 3.15 I called SRP back and asked what was going on. The woman was very vague, as she couldn't really tell me if they had alerted anyone about my problem or if they had alerted someone and those people weren't fixing anything yet. By this time I had found out that the people two doors down had also lost power, another nugget I relayed to the SRP rep. She said they would get right on it.

About 20 minutes later our next-door neighbors knocked on the door and asked if our power was out. I told them yes and that I had called twice to let SRP know what was happening. The woman told me she had just gotten off the phone with "them" (I assume SRP, because they're a bit of a monopoly 'round these parts, but she never expressively said the company's name) and that they told her no one had called in. I said she was lying. Which she was. Or she was just ignorant. I don't know which is worse.

At 4.15 I called back. They had finally dispatched a team to, and I quote, "an underground mine" where the problem was. I really didn't feel like getting the entire story about what the hell she was talking about, so I just asked if they had a ballpark figure for when the power was coming back on. Yes, she said, eight p.m. I almost, but not quite, lost it. "Eight o'clock?" I said, not angrily, but more aghast. "So I'll be without power for six hours?" Yes, she said, but it was only an estimate. I wasn't sure if that was supposed to be reassuring, because in my world, when a company estimates a timeframe, you can usually automatically add at least an hour if not two to it. I told the lady such. I still wasn't angry, just exasperated (it wasn't, after all, her fault). I told her I had called in at 1.45, so I hoped they just weren't figuring this out right now, as that meant they wasted a good two hours in which they could have been working. Oh well - at least now I had an idea of when the power would be back on.

Mia's OT showed up, then Krys came home. We had already decided that we were going out to dinner, so we headed off to the mall and the Cheesecake Factory, where neither Norah nor Mia ate. Good times! We got back around 7.45, and the power still wasn't on. We put Mia to bed in the dark (well, by candlelight, but we don't have many candles). We read to Norah by flashlight (I've just about finished reading Wuthering Heights to her - man, that Heathcliff is a scumbag!). We put Norah to bed and then I called SRP back, as it was about 8.15. The estimated fix time had been amended to 10. I tried not to feel smug.

We jumped in the pool (aaaaaahhhhhhh!) and hung out for a while, and while we were in there, the power came back on. Yay! Surprisingly, our refrigerator and freezer lost very little coldness, so none of our food was ruined from the seven hour-outage. And I could post this. Man, I hate summers in Arizona. But you already knew that.

It's a good day!

2009-07-30T20:35:00.003-07:00

Sorry I've been away. We went to San Diego last week to have a bit of a vacation, and I went to the Comic-Con (read about it here!), so I had no access to yonder Internet for a few days, and since I've been back, I've been busy. I'll try to be better now, though!

Anyway, it's a good day because today is the anniversary of our wedding. It's been 15 years! Crystal is the "gift" for 15 years, but Krys and I never get anything for each other except cute cards, so she got no crystal! I'm very proud that we've lasted for 15 years, mainly because I've seen some people I know have marriages that don't last and also because most of my friends waited until they were older, so I'm fairly proud that I was so young and knew who I wanted to spend my life with.

It's still very cool being married, and it's a wonderful feeling to know that Krys and I will always be there for each other. I just thought I'd mention what a good day it is. And promise I'll post something substantial very soon!

What I've been reading

2009-07-21T13:40:00.005-07:00

The Catastrophist by Ronan Bennett. 1997, Simon & Schuster, 333 pages.

This novel is strange. It's not strange in a Joycean way, because it's very straightforward, but it's strange because it doesn't seem that Bennett knows what he wants to do with it. It is a story of a cynical novelist who travels to the Belgian Congo in 1959, just on the cusp of independence, to be with the woman he loves, a fiery, idealistic journalist. Anyone who knows the slightest bit about the transfer of power in the Congo from the Belgians to the Congolese knows that Patrice Lumumba, who was the first prime minister, was deposed in a coup ten weeks after taking power and a few months later killed (probably with the Americans' blessing). Lumumba has become a mythic figure in the history of anti-colonialism and African independence, and he haunts this book as well, although he's not in it that much.

Bennett gives us an interesting pair in James Gillespie and Inès Sabiani, the book's star-crossed lovers. James is older (by thirteen years) and much more jaded than Inès, who believes in completely biased journalism (she's a communist) while James tries to see all sides of a story. James finds his relationship threatened by the volatile situation in the Congo, which is bad and getting worse, but which offers Inès a chance to get involved in the way she loves and the way James hates. The book is really about how their affair disintegrates as James realizes that a simple love affair will never be as important to Inès as grand ideas on the world stage. She leaves him, but he can never stop loving her. That, of course, becomes a problem.

The difficulty with this book is that we know exactly where it's going, and while that's not always the point, as a thriller, it doesn't deliver, and as a love story, it's a bit lacking (for different reasons). The reviews compare it to, most commonly, a Graham Greene novel, but the crucial difference is that it's written with almost 40 years' hindsight, so while Greene's novels have a sense of not knowing exactly who's who and who's the bad guy, this novel can examine the legacy of the early independence movement and buy into the Lumumba fantasy more than a contemporary novel might (or might not, of course). We know how the Congo spiraled out of control fairly quickly (and this book was written in 1997, prior to the latest round of violence in the eastern part of the country), so Bennett can subtly indicate that the involvement of the United States (personified by Mark Stipe, a CIA agent who befriends Gillespie) was part of what caused the country to fall apart. It makes this slightly more a propaganda piece than a true thriller, because Bennett is guiding us toward an anti-Belgian, anti-American viewpoint based on the future history of the country, which a contemporary author might not do. (I'm not, I should stress, saying that Bennett believes this viewpoint or, if he does, that it's a bad viewpoint to have. It's apparently fairly clear that the CIA was, if not complicit, at least aware that Lumumba's enemies were going to slaughter him, so it's not as if writing with an anti-American tone is that offensive. I'm just pointing out that it's fairly obvious, and it's mostly because Bennett "knows how it all turns out.")

As a love story, it falls apart even more quickly, because the affair is falling apart at the beginning of the book, and Bennett never quite convinces us that James and Inès had the affair of the century, so its dissolution isn't as powerful (although Bennett's writing when describing the fractured affair is very good; the best in the book). Bennett doesn't quite earn the tragedy of James and Inès, because we don't really believe that James could be so beguiled in the first place, so why is he so addicted to Inès? It's crucial that we believe it, because it's the hinge on which Gillespie's final actions rotate. James becomes much more pathetic as the book continues, because despite Inès telling him early in their relationship that she loved him, it's hard to believe from her actions. So when she breaks his heart, it feels like he should have gotten over it. Come on, Gillespie!

In the end, his love clashes with his lack of belief in, well, anything. If you've ever seen Casablanca or The Third Man, you know that the cynic grows a conscience and helps the person who needs his help. What's interesting is that Bennett makes it clear that James does this (yes, he can't escape the conscience!) not for noble reasons, like Rick Blaine, but because of his love for Inès - he's convinced that she'll come back to him if he doesn't cave to the authorities. The problem with this goes back to the unconvincing way Bennett gives us the affair. James is conflicted because he's unsure if Inès will come back to him or not, but we as the reader are sure she won't, because she's never given any reasons that James is anything else but a momentary stop on her way between one revolution and the next. Therefore, his sacrifice is meaningless, and his loss of cynicism, even for a moment, rings false. It's frustrating.

Bennett writes very well, and he really does a fine job creating these characters - perhaps too well, because then he can't fit these two people together. The politics of the book, in fact, are quite well done, as we get a good sense of what it was like in the Congo in 1959-60. I'm fascinated by the independence movement in Africa, and while Bennett changes the time frame so that it's not a very good historical document, he does a good job showing us the effect the independence movement had on both the whites and the natives, as for many Europeans, they considered Africa their home and couldn't imagine the violence that accompanied many independence movements. Bennett does a good job with that, and when that takes center stage, the book is often gripping.

The Catastrophist is a difficult book to recommend, because while there's a lot of good writing and some good ideas in the book, the central relationship is poorly done and therefore affects much of the rest of it. It's an easy book to read and it's an interesting look at a volatile period of history, but it also falls short in a lot of places. But it also shows why Krys and I call some incidents "Lumumba moments!"

People are awesome

2009-07-16T14:13:00.003-07:00

This photograph was on the front page of the Valley & State section of the 15 July edition of the Arizona Republic. According to the caption, this SUV was stolen by a dude who was drunk. So now they're going to charge him with theft and DUI. That has to suck. I just love this picture. It sucks for the homeowner, but it's freakin' hilarious.

Sex is fun!

2009-07-14T14:05:00.003-07:00

So says Britain's National Health Service!

The NHS (can we call it that?) has released a pamphlet for teens emphasizing that sex can be pleasurable. This, of course, has put some people into a bit of a dither, because won't someone think of the children!!!!! I sympathize with those people, being a parent of daughters (because boys can have sex anytime they want and not worry about the consequences, right?), but I still think the parents are the ones who really have the most influence with whether their kids have sex or not. I know I'll have to deal with this sooner or later, but I'd like to think that Norah will be smart about it - whatever "smart" means in this case.

Who knew sex is fun? Alert the media!