. . . in "Fisking" an article when the author of said article is the man, the myth, the legend his on bad self, Robert Fisk.
(hat tip Drudge, he reads The Independent, so I don't have to)
10 April 2007
Word of the Day
Gobsmacking(who says it has to be a different word each day?)
(hat tip Drudge)
(if only there'd been more dialogue between Jews and German National Socialists in the 30s, then history would have been different, I'm sure)
W T F ? ! ? ! ? (Part II)
I'm pretty sure that's Lily actually singing in this song. If so, WTF?!?!?
UPDATE: I forget, she's a blogger, so I check out her blog, and sure enough, that's really her, it's part of a contest.
The Things You Find When Looking For Something Else . . .
. . . funny how when what you're looking for isn't to be found, sometimes what you do find is far more interesting.
Stumbled upon this YouTube auteur who has a Cary Grant obsession.
Below are two examples, first up, Besame Mucho (sung by the Beatles) playing over multiple scenes of Cary Grant in liplock with various leading ladies.
Next up, The Buckinghams singing Kind of a Drag, with Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr from that marriage on the rocks film they did together.
I would have gone with scenes from I Was a Male War Bride (in which he's in drag through a good portion), instead.
But that's me, always looking for the humor.
Stumbled upon this YouTube auteur who has a Cary Grant obsession.
Below are two examples, first up, Besame Mucho (sung by the Beatles) playing over multiple scenes of Cary Grant in liplock with various leading ladies.
Next up, The Buckinghams singing Kind of a Drag, with Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr from that marriage on the rocks film they did together.
I would have gone with scenes from I Was a Male War Bride (in which he's in drag through a good portion), instead.
But that's me, always looking for the humor.
My Simplified (And Completely Fair) Rules for the Blogosphere
I might as well jump on the bandwagon, too.
Here are my simplified rules for the blogosphere.
Does it matter if some actions are OK under rule 1, but forbidden under rule 2?
That's the beauty of this rule set, contradictions only make it more necessary.
Here are my simplified rules for the blogosphere.
1. Whatever I choose to do to others in the blogosphere, is absolutely OK and appropriate.
2. Whatever anyone else does to me that I don't like, should be forbidden.
Does it matter if some actions are OK under rule 1, but forbidden under rule 2?
That's the beauty of this rule set, contradictions only make it more necessary.
08 April 2007
What Sam Zell Should Do . . .
Sam Zell bought the Chicago Tribune empire, but seems most interested in the media portions and plans on dumping the Cubbies (who wouldn't).
He's assured of a tidy profit if a higher offer for the company comes in from the other billionaires interested (mainly Ron Burkle and David Geffen).
Here's how to make sure that higher offer comes in.
Don't touch the Tribune, that isn't the paper Burkle and Geffen want, they are in it for their hometown paper, the LA Times (and possibly also the local CW affiliate, KTLA).
Turn those entities into rabidly right wing/libertarian bastions that would make the Washington Times look like The NY Times.
This wouldn't be done for ideological reasons, but rather to increase the urgency on the part of the liberal billionaires who want the paper.
Watching the LA Times morph into a conservative paper would drive them crazy. They'd throw nearly every penny they have to get the LA Times back if they thought this was going to be a permanent shift in editorial direction.
You could probably sell just the LA Times alone for the price you paid for the entire Chicago Tribune empire. Think of it as a media company version of 'flipping'.
As a bonus, an unabashedly conservative/libertarian LA Times might gain far more readership than it loses if they do so in an entertaining fashion.
LA Times would look great as a Daily Sun or NY Post style tabloid, and given that the main industry here is Hollywood, a tabloid paper makes a lot more sense then some self-serious broadsheet NY Times or Guardian rip-off.
One sure way to make circulation skyrocket would be to have an entertainment section that was actually entertaining. On top of that, make sure you write a lot of nasty pieces about David Geffen, Ron Burkle and their cronies. Be as bad as you can be without being slanderous, that will infuriate them to the point where they'll be willing to pay through the nose to end this new slant.
It's only business, and if Sam Zell is a real businessman, he'll follow my advice.
As an added bonus, we'll have a fun newspaper for 6-12 months out of it.
(and if the circulation and advertising numbers blow up, then you can keep the new monster you created and enjoy the profits)
He's assured of a tidy profit if a higher offer for the company comes in from the other billionaires interested (mainly Ron Burkle and David Geffen).
Here's how to make sure that higher offer comes in.
Don't touch the Tribune, that isn't the paper Burkle and Geffen want, they are in it for their hometown paper, the LA Times (and possibly also the local CW affiliate, KTLA).
Turn those entities into rabidly right wing/libertarian bastions that would make the Washington Times look like The NY Times.
This wouldn't be done for ideological reasons, but rather to increase the urgency on the part of the liberal billionaires who want the paper.
Watching the LA Times morph into a conservative paper would drive them crazy. They'd throw nearly every penny they have to get the LA Times back if they thought this was going to be a permanent shift in editorial direction.
You could probably sell just the LA Times alone for the price you paid for the entire Chicago Tribune empire. Think of it as a media company version of 'flipping'.
As a bonus, an unabashedly conservative/libertarian LA Times might gain far more readership than it loses if they do so in an entertaining fashion.
LA Times would look great as a Daily Sun or NY Post style tabloid, and given that the main industry here is Hollywood, a tabloid paper makes a lot more sense then some self-serious broadsheet NY Times or Guardian rip-off.
One sure way to make circulation skyrocket would be to have an entertainment section that was actually entertaining. On top of that, make sure you write a lot of nasty pieces about David Geffen, Ron Burkle and their cronies. Be as bad as you can be without being slanderous, that will infuriate them to the point where they'll be willing to pay through the nose to end this new slant.
It's only business, and if Sam Zell is a real businessman, he'll follow my advice.
As an added bonus, we'll have a fun newspaper for 6-12 months out of it.
(and if the circulation and advertising numbers blow up, then you can keep the new monster you created and enjoy the profits)
07 April 2007
QT Should Just Go Ahead and Shoot That RomCom He Clearly Wants to Make
Saw Grindhouse. Liked it. Preferred the QT portion. But I'm not here to talk about Grindhouse specifically, I'm here to talk about Quentin Tarantino in general. Is he the George Cukor of our day? Is he one of the best "women's directors" working? (at least the best working in English, I think Almodovar gets the title globally)
I say yes to both. For most that may seem an odd comparison, George Cukor and Tarantino, but I think not. Both have a talent for getting women to sell dialogue in a believable way. Both preferred rapid fire dialogue over a slower pace. Both knew how to allow a camera to linger over a woman's form without it becoming too pervy (except when it comes to QT's foot fetish, that goes a bit over the top, but now it's still like a cinematic signature masking his indulgence rather than just an indulgence masquerading as a cinematic signature).
The Deathproof portion of Grindhouse and Kill Bill are bloody action pictures, but they are also "women's pictures", and so was Jackie Brown before that. Some might view the chatting and girl talk scenes from Deathproof as set up for the 'good stuff' of the car scenes and bloody violence, but it's the other way around. The blood and horsepower are hooks to get you to watch him revel in female bonding and behavior.
Could QT direct a movie with just the chatting, and skip the violence? Absolutely, but nobody would go see that film. His 'brand' is based on quirky film structures, strong characterizations, and lately, hot chicks kicking ass. But he could pull a fast one and direct a straight ahead stupid RomCom that would probably be the best film that genre has ever produced. His touch with dialogue could actually turn one of those crappy films into something watchable.
He's basically become Russ Meyer with a foot and leg fetish instead of the whole big breast thing. Russ was a genius filmmaker who probably should have indulged his quirky vision just a bit less than he had. Tarantino continues to pump out interesting work, but for whatever reason, his success at the box office often doesn't match his artistic achievements. The latest seems to be a bit of a bust, but that doesn't mean the film isn't worthwhile. It just means that it will take some time for the cult to build around this particular film.
Also, the work by Zoe Bell in Deathproof is beyond description. It can't possibly be real, cause if it is, she should be dead many times over. She's amazing in this, as is all the car stunt work.
And Sydney Poitier, Jr. is beautiful to behold, but her character annoyed me, and so did her acting (how many women share their father's name?)
(I threw in the Jr., she doesn't go by that, but she should)
I say yes to both. For most that may seem an odd comparison, George Cukor and Tarantino, but I think not. Both have a talent for getting women to sell dialogue in a believable way. Both preferred rapid fire dialogue over a slower pace. Both knew how to allow a camera to linger over a woman's form without it becoming too pervy (except when it comes to QT's foot fetish, that goes a bit over the top, but now it's still like a cinematic signature masking his indulgence rather than just an indulgence masquerading as a cinematic signature).
The Deathproof portion of Grindhouse and Kill Bill are bloody action pictures, but they are also "women's pictures", and so was Jackie Brown before that. Some might view the chatting and girl talk scenes from Deathproof as set up for the 'good stuff' of the car scenes and bloody violence, but it's the other way around. The blood and horsepower are hooks to get you to watch him revel in female bonding and behavior.
Could QT direct a movie with just the chatting, and skip the violence? Absolutely, but nobody would go see that film. His 'brand' is based on quirky film structures, strong characterizations, and lately, hot chicks kicking ass. But he could pull a fast one and direct a straight ahead stupid RomCom that would probably be the best film that genre has ever produced. His touch with dialogue could actually turn one of those crappy films into something watchable.
He's basically become Russ Meyer with a foot and leg fetish instead of the whole big breast thing. Russ was a genius filmmaker who probably should have indulged his quirky vision just a bit less than he had. Tarantino continues to pump out interesting work, but for whatever reason, his success at the box office often doesn't match his artistic achievements. The latest seems to be a bit of a bust, but that doesn't mean the film isn't worthwhile. It just means that it will take some time for the cult to build around this particular film.
Also, the work by Zoe Bell in Deathproof is beyond description. It can't possibly be real, cause if it is, she should be dead many times over. She's amazing in this, as is all the car stunt work.
And Sydney Poitier, Jr. is beautiful to behold, but her character annoyed me, and so did her acting (how many women share their father's name?)
(I threw in the Jr., she doesn't go by that, but she should)
How To Convince the Political Class That "The War On Drugs" Must End
It has been beyond obvious that the "War on Drugs" is a bad idea. But it seems impossible to convince very many politicians in either major party at any level to do much about it.
Drug addiction is an awful thing. People do stupid, dangerous and harmful things on drugs and to get the money to fuel their addictions. But criminalization has exasperated rather than mitigated those problems.
So how do you frame the argument against this war to convince politicians to oppose the ongoing war?
So, what would happen to a Bill Richardson, who despite a decent pile of cash, still trails the others substantially, if he took this position early and hit it hard during the primaries? It would add a great deal of heat to his campaign, that's for sure. If you're going to lose anyway, at least lose with a great issue.
Same goes for a Mike Huckabee on the Republican side. He has no chance, none, not even a slim chance. But, if he pushed a sensible plan for first decriminalization and then legalization of illicit drugs, he could find a way to draw in new voters, as well as energize a hidden voting bloc that may decide that this is an issue that could get them to the polls.
Another person who could take advantage of an audacious position on this matter, is Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He's hinted at an independent campaign for president. He could blow $100-200 million dollars of his own money on a vanity campaign and still be rolling in dough. Just as Perot had one main position, anti-NAFTA, and managed to garner a significant number of votes (but no pluralities in any states necessary to get electoral votes), Bloomberg could do well if he staked out a radical position on this issue. As Mayor of New York City, he more than anyone should know what a waste the drug war is, he could use that position to highlight the difference between himself and either of the major party candidates (just as Perot's populist rhetoric on trade attracted voters despite all the other problems with his campaign).
This is mostly a response to Reader I Am's post over at Done With Mirrors (which in of itself is a response to the Huff in HuffPo's post prodding Dem's to attack this issue). It's a good post, well worth reading, and she links to this blast from the past at National Review. Even if William F. Buckley is unwilling to admit he copied me regarding a 'green inquisition' I'm willing to acknowledge he's been way out in front on this particular issue. Speaking of that National Review symposium, way back then Arianna was still a Republican, I wonder if she was at that particular symposium?
And lest it seem I'm advocating Arianna Huffington's position on this matter, making this issue mainly about racial politics is cynical, untruthful, divisive, and harmful. Just as those that feared welfare reform would hurt 'people of color' disproportionately and were wrong, as far as the war on drugs go, it sucks for all Americans, not just 'people of color'. When alcohol was illegal, you could have argued that prohibition was a 'war on Italians and other catholics and recent immigrants' but that would be a gross oversimplification ignoring many realities (and ignoring that a large percentage of the folks involved in the illicit booze trade were indeed Italians, recent immigrants and other catholics, like say the pater familias of a prominent political family). Same goes for calling the current prohibition, a "war on people of color" the way Arianna does. Just cause people of color are disproportionately effected, doesn't mean they are being disproportionately targeted (for political reasons) as would seem to be Huffington's not so implicit suggestion.
Drug addiction is an awful thing. People do stupid, dangerous and harmful things on drugs and to get the money to fuel their addictions. But criminalization has exasperated rather than mitigated those problems.
So how do you frame the argument against this war to convince politicians to oppose the ongoing war?
Libertarian argument:
This one is a no brainer, libertarians are already against 'the war'. Too bad there are so few libertarians in office.
"Family Values" Social conservative argument:
Drugs are evil, yes, that's undeniable. But the illegality of the drugs themselves punishes people for their very human failings in a manner that is unchristian, unfair, and unamerican. Love the sinner, hate the sin. It's bad enough they sin against their own body, don't make it a crime, also.
"Nanny State" big government liberals argument:
An unregulated market is a dangerous market. Without government oversight, the relative safety and purity of the various things people choose to put in themselves is far too variable. If we legalize drugs, we reduce the 'cool factor' associated with illicit drugs, and we can make sure that the dosages are better controlled. Besides, sin taxes are terrific sources of revenue, and taxing marijuana (while eliminating the wasteful spending on interdiction) alone could fund universal health care as well as many green initiatives.
"Moderate" middle-of-the-road argument:
The 'war' has been wasteful in human terms and in resources. You can dislike drugs personally (or like them), but you can't deny that a certain percentage of people are prone to drug seeking, and will do so no matter what the law says, just as even if every drug under the sun is perfectly legal, the majority of people will either reject them outright, or find a way to balance their drug use with their functioning in their private life, just as they do with alcohol, which is just as toxic, and in many cases, far more toxic than illegal drugs. Punish behaviors, not substances.
So, what would happen to a Bill Richardson, who despite a decent pile of cash, still trails the others substantially, if he took this position early and hit it hard during the primaries? It would add a great deal of heat to his campaign, that's for sure. If you're going to lose anyway, at least lose with a great issue.
Same goes for a Mike Huckabee on the Republican side. He has no chance, none, not even a slim chance. But, if he pushed a sensible plan for first decriminalization and then legalization of illicit drugs, he could find a way to draw in new voters, as well as energize a hidden voting bloc that may decide that this is an issue that could get them to the polls.
Another person who could take advantage of an audacious position on this matter, is Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He's hinted at an independent campaign for president. He could blow $100-200 million dollars of his own money on a vanity campaign and still be rolling in dough. Just as Perot had one main position, anti-NAFTA, and managed to garner a significant number of votes (but no pluralities in any states necessary to get electoral votes), Bloomberg could do well if he staked out a radical position on this issue. As Mayor of New York City, he more than anyone should know what a waste the drug war is, he could use that position to highlight the difference between himself and either of the major party candidates (just as Perot's populist rhetoric on trade attracted voters despite all the other problems with his campaign).
This is mostly a response to Reader I Am's post over at Done With Mirrors (which in of itself is a response to the Huff in HuffPo's post prodding Dem's to attack this issue). It's a good post, well worth reading, and she links to this blast from the past at National Review. Even if William F. Buckley is unwilling to admit he copied me regarding a 'green inquisition' I'm willing to acknowledge he's been way out in front on this particular issue. Speaking of that National Review symposium, way back then Arianna was still a Republican, I wonder if she was at that particular symposium?
And lest it seem I'm advocating Arianna Huffington's position on this matter, making this issue mainly about racial politics is cynical, untruthful, divisive, and harmful. Just as those that feared welfare reform would hurt 'people of color' disproportionately and were wrong, as far as the war on drugs go, it sucks for all Americans, not just 'people of color'. When alcohol was illegal, you could have argued that prohibition was a 'war on Italians and other catholics and recent immigrants' but that would be a gross oversimplification ignoring many realities (and ignoring that a large percentage of the folks involved in the illicit booze trade were indeed Italians, recent immigrants and other catholics, like say the pater familias of a prominent political family). Same goes for calling the current prohibition, a "war on people of color" the way Arianna does. Just cause people of color are disproportionately effected, doesn't mean they are being disproportionately targeted (for political reasons) as would seem to be Huffington's not so implicit suggestion.
06 April 2007
Because Somethings need pointing out . . .
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
04 April 2007
Allow Me to Translate
Mullen said the "main message" in the United States having two aircraft carrier battle groups at present in the Persian Gulf "is to reassure our friends" from a "position of great strength."
From this piece (via Drudge) by the AFP (no byline), but I think the real main messages are,
a) We aren't all pussified like the Brits/Europeans (at least not yet, the first Tuesday in November 2008 will decide how unpussified we remain).
b) We won't hesitate in unleashing hell upon your shores should you try this with Americans.
The problem is that there may be elements within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that want hell unleashed on their own country believing (wrongly) that a direct military confrontation with the United States will solidify their power and shore up their waning support with younger Iranians. Plus they might also have some zealots in their midst that believe that this will hasten the return of the Hidden Imam. Sometimes you have to make the times fit the prophecies, I guess.
Because It's April 4th
1968 was a truly crappy year (other than my parents getting married).
(and this video was back before Bono became a self parody)
(I still think a National Holiday in MLK's honor is a stupid idea)
The End of NMT
So, this whole NMT thing didn't last long. Turns out, listening to music is a lot easier than writing about it. Plus trying to write about an album the same week it comes out, that's not really my style. I like albums to marinate for awhile before forming a solid opinion on them.
But, I still like listening to what's out there, and I like sharing, even if you don't like hearing what I have to share, so I may post random reviews at random times about albums that are brand new, or have been around for awhile.
But here are a few one word reviews for recent releases (two of which were NMT that were never finished, the third would have been last week's NMT, and the last would have been this week's NMT).
Arcade Fire, Neon Bible --- Pretentious
The Feeling, Twelve Stops and Home --- Funtastic!
Mika, Life in Cartoon Motion --- Glamtastic!
Hillary Duff, Dignity --- Surprisinglyuncrappytastic!
(yes, I stretched the definition of "one word" beyond its breaking point)
Of albums I've reviewed, Lily Allen, Lucinda Williams and The Feeling are the only ones that have stayed in heavy rotation on my personal listening space.
But, I still like listening to what's out there, and I like sharing, even if you don't like hearing what I have to share, so I may post random reviews at random times about albums that are brand new, or have been around for awhile.
But here are a few one word reviews for recent releases (two of which were NMT that were never finished, the third would have been last week's NMT, and the last would have been this week's NMT).
Arcade Fire, Neon Bible --- Pretentious
The Feeling, Twelve Stops and Home --- Funtastic!
Mika, Life in Cartoon Motion --- Glamtastic!
Hillary Duff, Dignity --- Surprisinglyuncrappytastic!
(yes, I stretched the definition of "one word" beyond its breaking point)
Of albums I've reviewed, Lily Allen, Lucinda Williams and The Feeling are the only ones that have stayed in heavy rotation on my personal listening space.
Hey! Will F. Buckley, Jr., Where's My Link?
I'm glad you read my blog, Mr. Buckley, Jr., I've been a fan of yours since I was in grade school (didn't all 4th graders watch Firing Line?), and I gobbled up your Blackford Oakes novels in the 80s (but stopped reading them after High Jinx), but dude (may I call you dude?), where's my link?
I came up with the idea of the Green Inquisition, I don't mind you using the idea, fleshing it out in your inimitable style, but dude, I want my link.
Is that too much to ask?
(hat tip Drudge)
Speaking of Buckleys, I really am looking forward to reading Christopher Buckley's latest Boomsday, sounds like something I might have thought up (but I never got around to creating a "proposal", so I can't take credit on this one).
I came up with the idea of the Green Inquisition, I don't mind you using the idea, fleshing it out in your inimitable style, but dude, I want my link.
Is that too much to ask?
(hat tip Drudge)
Speaking of Buckleys, I really am looking forward to reading Christopher Buckley's latest Boomsday, sounds like something I might have thought up (but I never got around to creating a "proposal", so I can't take credit on this one).
03 April 2007
Do You Promise to Funk, the Whole Funk, and Nothing But the Funk?
I still think this should be our National Anthem (but not my theme song). Someone was kind enough to upload the whole sprawling mess of a song on YouTube this week, thanks a million MojoRebel.
Ken Jennings posted some interesting National Anthem trivia which got me thinking about this. Read that, too, those are some interesting trivia questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)