I'm Still, Still Stuck in the Desert

Mojave Dessert?



Sunset off I-15 (near Apple Valley) [the colors are false, but the image is true, and it's cropped at 16x10, perfect for a widescreeen desktop background]

I'm Still Stuck In the Desert

Posting wise, anyway.

Above, a photo from the Kelso Dunes set. Hard to tell scale in these pictures, but the tallest peak is about 600 feet.

This shot gives you a good sense of the middle of nowhere-ness of the place. I could have taken that shot in any direction and it'd look much the same.

Next up the Kelso Depot set. It's restored nicely, no longer useful, and a bit out of the way.

I wonder how well this lunch counter will do, or how easy it will be to staff? I arrived after closing time, don't know if it's open for business yet, by the looks of things, looks like it's still not being used.

Look, I found a colorful flower of which to take a close-up (I have Althouse envy).

Still uploading more sets, the Kelbaker Rd. set (taken while moving, forgive the lousy composition), the Baker set (experience the wonders of the Mad Greek Diner), and the Sunset set (air pollution and forest fires are good for something, spectacular sunsets).

I'll link to those sets in this post, once they're uploaded.

Uploading is iffy in my neighborhood at the moment, I blame E3 being in town, the local internet is groaning under the strain.

A Sad or Happy Tale?

One of the stops along the way on my trip into the Mojave, was Daggett Pioneer Cemetery (flickr set at link). It's a sandy, rocky place. The decay may only be due to the harsh conditions, or might be due to neglect and even vandalism. There's no grass, no trees, no live flowers, just a few shrubs, a few fake flowers, a few American flags. But this cemetery is still serene, still holy, still a place of reverence.

There are old graves, the earliest death on a marker that was still legible was in the 1890s. There's new ones, too, even sites waiting for a husband or wife to join their beloved who preceded them. The graves whose markers are legible tell stories. You have families who've suffered losses, many men proud of their service to this country (mostly WWI and WWII), and lots of weather beaten crosses that bear no indication of who rests below.

These two markers seemed to have quite a bit to say.

Above you have Joseph L. Balderas, Jr., dead before his 32nd birthday. Not yet old, but not exactly young either. Still too young not to be around, you wonder what might have been the cause of a death at that age.

Then you look next to Joseph, and you see the grave of his mother Susie May, and you see that Joe L. is still alive, still waiting, "Until we meet again". Susie May died less than a year ago, and Joe, Jr., almost 20 years ago. I wouldn't be able to guess which Joe mourns for the most, though. But, despite this, I bet Joe is a happy man, a good man, a man you'd want as a neighbor and a friend. Joe, Jr. probably wasn't Susie and Joe's only child, hopefully he's their only child that preceded them in death. Joe probably has grandkids that keep him busy, and keep him wanting more days here.

That's a lot to infer from two grave markers, and I could be completely wrong, but it's certainly one of the many possibilities.

Another Misuse of the Term "Modest Proposal"

(via Andrew Sullivan, who I should probably not link to, as is his want, but good netiquette doesn't require reciprocity)

Gloria Steinem displays the grand sense of humor second wave feminist have been renowned for. That aside, what she does to raise my ire is throw the term "modest proposal" about carelessly.

I'm in a deconstructing mood, so let's unpack all she has to say.

Here's a modest proposal to the young man on the plane from Los Angeles to Seattle who said of the movie that most passengers -- male and female -- voted to watch: "I don't watch chick flicks!"

Way to prop up an anonymous boor (if he even exists) to create your strawperson.

So what exactly is a "chick flick?" I think you and I could probably agree that it has more dialogue than special effects, more relationships than violence, and relies for its suspense on how people live instead of how they die.

Right, anything 'guys' might like is bad, got it.

I'm not challenging your choice; I'm just questioning the term that encourages it. After all, if you think back to your school days, much of what you were assigned as great literature could have been dismissed as "chick lit." Indeed, the books you read probably only survived because they were written by famous guys.

What do you mean "I'm not challenging your choice"? In the previous paragraph you just implied his taste in film is infantile and full of bloodlust. Why play coy Ms. Steinem? Call him a knuckle dragger, if you think he's a knuckle dragger, after all he's probably too stupid to know that's an insult

Think about it: If Anna Karenina had been written by Leah Tolstoy, or The Scarlet Letter by Nancy Hawthorne, or Madame Bovary by Greta Flaubert, or A Doll's House by Henrietta Ibsen, or The Glass Menagerie by (a female) Tennessee Williams, would they have been hailed as universal? Suppose Shakespeare had really been The Dark Lady some people supposed. I bet most of her plays and all of her sonnets would have been dismissed as some Elizabethan version of ye olde "chick lit," only to be resurrected centuries later by stubborn feminist scholars.

OK, how'd we get from "chick flick" to literature? I guess she forgot we're supposed to discourage emphasizing 'dead white males' in the canon (just another kind of 'prick', after all) of literature studied in school. You can pat yourself on the back for the fact that this frat boy on the plane has likely not studied Hawthorne, Tolstoy, Flaubert, or even Shakespeare.

Indeed, as long men are taken seriously when they write about the female half of the world -- and women aren't taken seriously when writing about themselves much less about men or male affairs -- the list of Great Authors will be more about power than about talent.

Oh, never mind. I can't believe she brought that up. So not only does she use the 'classic' authors to support her disdain for a certain kind of popular art, but she throws out some tired line about how it's impossible for women to be taken seriously by --- who? The Academy? Book Reviews? She's clearly not looked at the curricula taught at most schools in the past 20 years, or else she'd know how baseless that kind of claim is today.

Still, I know this is not your problem. Instead, let me appeal to your self-interest as well as your sense of fairness: If the "chick flick" label helps you to avoid the movies you don't like, why is there no label to guide you to the ones you do like?

Just as there are "novelists" and then "women novelists," there are "movies" and then "chick flicks." Whoever is in power takes over the noun -- and the norm -- while the less powerful get an adjective. Thus, we read about "African American doctors" but not "European American doctors," "Hispanic leaders" but not "Anglo leaders," "gay soldiers" but not "heterosexual soldiers," and so on.

That's also why you're left with only half a guide. As usual, bias punishes everyone. Therefore I propose, as the opposite of "chick flick" and an adjective of your very own, "prick flick." Not only will it serve film critics well, but its variants will add to the literary lexicon. For example, "prick lit" could characterize a lot of fiction, from Philip Roth to Bret Easton Ellis and beyond. "True prick" could guide readers to their preferred non-fiction, from the classics of Freud to the populist works of socio-biologists and even Rush Limbaugh.

Finally we get to her proposal portion of her 'proposal'. Her big idea is to label all masculine leaning work as 'prick flicks' or even 'prick lit'. That'll teach us knuckle draggers! Newsflash, most men are inordinately proud of their pricks, and if we were to be identified by one thing, then we have no problem having that being our main identifier. Men are funny that way, I guess. I should attack the whole Marxist, 'those with power shape the language to disenfranchise the powerless' argument, but seems that's tired, hackneyed, and ridiculous enough to be self-refuting.

Most of all, the simple label "prick flick" could lead you easily and quickly through the thicket of televised, downloaded and theatrical releases to such attractions as:

All the movies that glorify World War II. From classics with John Wayne and Ronald Reagan, those master actors who conveyed heroism without ever leaving the back lot, to Spielberg's "Band of Brothers," in which the hero would rather die than be rescued, Hollywood has probably spent more on making movies about the war than this country spent on fighting it. After all, World War II was the last war in which this country was clearly right. Without frequent exposure to it, how are we to believe we still are?

All the movies that glorify Vietnam, bloody regional wars, and the war on terrorism. These may not be as much fun to watch -- you probably are aware that we aren't the winners here -- but they allow you to enjoy mass mayhem in, say, South Asia or Africa or the Middle East that justifies whatever this country might do.

Now we get to the meat of the matter. This boorish (probable) ex-frat boy on the flight from Los Angeles to Seattle (two hotbeds of hyper-masculine Red State yahoos), is really just lusting for a fight, and has a hard-on for war. Just like our current president (she couldn't even bring herself to type his name, she had a hard enough time typing "John Wayne" and "Ronald Reagan").

All the movies that portray violence against women, preferably beautiful, sexy, half-naked women. These feature chainsaws and house parties for teenage guys, serial killers and sadistic rapists for ordinary male adults, plus cleverly plotted humiliations and deaths of powerful women for the well-educated misogynist.

All the movies that insist female human beings are the only animals on earth that seek out and even enjoy their own pain. From glamorized versions of prostitution to such complex plots as "Boxing Helena," a man's dream of amputating all a rebellious woman's limbs -- and then she falls in love with him -- these provide self-justification and how-to manuals for sadists.

First off, Boxing Helena was eons ago, nobody saw it, fewer liked it, and it was directed and co-written by a woman. Secondly, there are plenty of men upset with the whole 'torture porn' sub genre that has surfaced recently, and there are plenty of women who consume that product, so it's a much more complex picture than the one you'd like to paint. Note the recent failure at the box office of Grindhouse and Hostel II. Captivity looks destined for a crappy weekend as well, despite a controversial ad campaign (which is usually a good thing for a flick).

As you can see, one simple label could guide you through diversity, and help other viewers to practice avoidance.

But if you really think about it, I'm hope-a-holic enough to think you might like to watch a chick flick after all.

Isn't that nice, she's willing to let you decide to see what you want to see, so long as your choice is one that pleases her. Just through a little education and creative labeling you'll come to realize that 300 is an evil instrument designed to aid in the reproduction of our weapons obsessed national deathcult, while a light and cheery confection like Music and Lyrics is a superior work of art in every single way (assuming those were the kinds of films offered up for vote on the plane). You really think that 'no chick flick!' shouting frat boy will be upset when you call his taste in films "Prick Flicks", or his taste in music, "Cock Rock" or his taste in cigars as "Penis-substitutes"? (OK, he may balk at the cigar one).

Women, and especially 2nd wave feminist should be the ones most offended by the current state of 'chick flicks'. Pictures aimed at and marketed towards a primarily female audience are more regressive and beholden to traditional gender roles than even the films of the 30s or 40s. Just look at all those awful underling screws boss pictures of the past decade or so. There's plenty to choose from. Or you have the ever popular cold hearted corporate climber learns the true value of having a vagina when thrust into a child rearing situation subgenre of chick flicks. Those are real progressive. Maybe the guy voicing his dismay at the plane choosing a chick flick, wasn't dismayed at a female-centric story, rather he was dismayed at the likelihood that the film chosen was another in a long line of Hollywood films that portray careerism in women negatively, neediness as a virtue, rescue through relationship, and casts the usual 20 something actress with an actor on the wrong side of 40. It may well have been an excess of feminism that drove that brave man to exhort as he did on the plane, that or he's a knuckedragging frat-boy, either way's cool with me.

Besides, who goes on a plane without a laptop or their own dvd player, anyway?

Inappropriately Displayed Fruits and Vegetables

A display sure to anger Al Qaeda (shot at the Mad Greek Diner, in Baker, CA).

Ohhhh, Push Pins!

Created a Google Map with locations marked of where I went yesterday.

Total miles driven, 470.

Miles hiked on a sand dune in 115 degree weather without carrying any water, about 1.

Still uploading the images to Flickr.

The Mojave National Preserve (where the Kelso Dunes, and Kelso Depot are), is about the size of Delaware (to give you an idea of the distance covered).

A Follow Up Post to a Previous Post That Never Actually Got Posted

I had a post, all worked out, then had a short internet outage, and once I could post again, the post didn't seem post worthy. But it did provide inspiration for a little daytrip I did today.

In the post, that you never got to see, I waxed poetic about the joys of The Mad Greek Diner in Baker, California, and specifically their fantastic milkshakes.

As a man of action, rather than imagining that taste, I decided to drive the 192 miles to Baker and get one myself.

But as a man without a plan, and a desire to wander, I took the long way there, via portions of Route 66, and then Kelbaker Rd. Added 80 miles to the trip by going that route, but then I wouldn't have seen the Daggett Pioneers Cemetery, or nearly pass out from heat stroke at the Kelso Dunes (I should mention it was 114 degrees when I got to Baker at 6:30pm, and probably hotter at the dunes two hours earlier), or taken photos at the recently restored Kelso Depot.

As a reminder to anyone thinking of heading to Kelso Dunes in July, don't do it in the afternoon, don't forget to pack water with you (I did), make sure you have plenty of water back in your car when you're done with your hike (I didn't), and don't go alone in case you have trouble (I was alone, and I don't think I was ever in trouble, but I was closer to being in serious trouble than I should have been).

Posts with photos will follow all week, and maybe even some dashcam YouTube videos, assuming any of it came out, hard to see the lcd screen with the midday sun overhead.

Shaky Cam Must Die!!!

Saw Transformers, was impressed with the impressive bits, bored with the boring bits, and somewhat humored by the humorous bits. There's plenty of stupid to go around in this movie, but it's stupid in a good natured way, and that's important. It's two tales intertwined, a very simple old fashioned boy meets girl story, and a very simple bad guys versus good guys tale. Both tales are told less artfully than they should be, but you don't buy a ticket to this ride expecting a whole lot of plot.

Shia Labeouf is an unlikely action hero, but all we get nowadays are unlikely action heroes, the likely ones aren't ironic enough, or something.

Ed Driscoll points to this piece at Libertas praising the film, and mentioning the core pro-military, and pro-American message in the film.

This movie will still do fine in foreign lands, though. Even with the pro-American message (presumably a bad thing nowadays), the America haters will be happy to see large portions of Downtown Los Angeles torn to pieces.

Why don't aliens ever pick on Tehran, Beijing, or Caracas? Funny how they always end up in either DC, LA, or NYC.

The effects are the most seamlessly intergrated CGI with live action effects, ever. Despite the over the top nature of the destruction, you never get the sense that the actors are just reacting to a tennis ball in a green screened soundstage. The Autobots and Decepticons occupy real physical space, and interact in that space convincingly. Think of the recent War of the Worlds and King Kong remakes, this was the opposite. Both of those films had big set pieces with the heroes running from unimaginable destruction, yet you never got the sense of physical danger you should have.

But back to the shaky cam. Michael Bay uses it way too much in this, and it makes it impossible to follow the action in some of the sequences. Plus once you've seen one impossibly articulated and speedy robot, you've seen them all, so despite an attempt to give character to each robot, they have a tendency to blend in action.

It's a deeply flawed film, would have been the tightest, most visually stunning popcorn film, ever made at 90 minutes with a better script. Instead it was a meandering 144 minute film that has a few too many lulls. They don't need to lose the entire boy meets girl plot, but it should have been a lot tightened up, plus the whole hacker and "section 7" subplots were superfluous.

GM probably will get their money's worth, especially when the new Camaro comes out 1Q 2009 (maybe GM will encourage Paramount to rush a sequel that summer to give sales an extra boost, they always leave room for sequels in these pictures, could make it a Bumblebee solo pic, no Shia, no other Autobots, just the sweet, sweet Bumblebee and his bitchin' Camaro self). All the good guy robots are GM branded, but it never feels like a commercial. Selling the new Camaro in any color other than bumblebee gold, might be tough, though, it looks awesome in that color. In the film, turns out it's a reskinned Pontiac GTO in Camaro drag, but I won't tell if you don't.

But mainly, try and see this film in the loudest theater in your area, this is a film that sounds best turned up to 11.

I haven't made fun of Manohla Dargis in awhile, but luckily, the NYT made the mistake of assigning her this film (or she gladly volunteered to see a film she knew before seeing she'd hate).

The opening paragraph sets the tone

Boys and their toys are in full formation in “Transformers,” a movie of epically assaultive noise and nonsense. Originating with the shape-shifting toys — created in Japan, rebranded in America — that transform from robots into stuff like cars and planes, then back again, the movie has been designed as the ultimate in shock-and-awe entertainment. The result is part car commercial, part military recruitment ad, a bumper-to-bumper pileup of big cars, big guns and, as befits its recently weaned target demographic, big breasts.

She says it as if those are bad things, "epically assaultive noise and nonsense", sounds good to me. Just in case that didn't prove Manohla's disdain for this film, and for its jingoism, she uncorks this bit

The movie waves the flag equally for Detroit and the military, if to no coherent end. Last year the director of General Motors brand-marketing and advertising clarified how the company’s cars were integral to the movie: “It’s a story of good versus evil. Our cars are the good guys.” And sure enough, most of the Autobots take the shape of GM vehicles, including Ratchet (a Hummer H2) and Ironhide (a TopKick pickup truck).

But, remember kiddies, Brand America is the only real evil in this world, and this movie didn't have the decency to even poke proper fun at our current president

Shape-shifters of another kind, Hollywood action movies bend this way and that politically in a bid to please as many viewers as possible, but they almost always play out exactly the same, as entertaining violence leads to heroic individualism leads to the restoration of order. “Transformers” is no different, even if it does offer chewy distraction for the bored viewer: the would-be suicide bomber, American soldiers tearing it up in the Middle East while American cars keep up the fight at home, along with plugs for Burger King, Lockheed Martin, Mountain Dew and the Department of Defense. Why there’s even a president who asks for a Ding Dong. He’s wearing red socks like a big old clown, but no one really laughs.

What an ass. On the Dargis scale I give this review only 500 millidargis (a reminder of what the dargis unit is, here) as at least it's clear what she thought about the film and the reasons for her dislikes. The review is still mostly useless as a review of the film given that she spends most of the word count accusing all men of being infantile and Americans being war happy and our corporations being greedy, but at least she sort of mentions some specifics about the film while venting her spleen.

Calvin Coolidge, Jumped In a Time Machine, Read My Blog, and Stole My Ideas . . .

. . . or not.

That might be a little far fetched.

Still, the idea that we represent modernity with our classical liberal Burkean founding principles while reactionary movements like postmodernism, gaiaism, and fundamental islamism represent regressive primitivism would seem to be echoed in his 5th of July speech in 1926 commemorating our nation's 150th birthday. It's not a short speech, but it's a reminder of a more thoughtful and scholarly time in our politics. Even though we're constantly reminded of the sheer brilliance of President Clinton on a regular basis by his fans, when it came to writing his autobiography it was a meandering mess. A president who admired Coolidge greatly, was the one that came closest to his scholarship since, as evidenced by his recently published diaries.

Silent Cal could orate, when needed. His reputation for silence was exaggerated, his commitment to the core Jeffersonian and Burkean values at the heart of our national experiment, under appreciated.

Here's the part that resonates most with what I wrote earlier (having not read this speech before)

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

The summation of the speech is also very interesting,

No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.

What we get so right, and what too many nations still get so wrong is a strong adherence to a rule of law endowed by unalienable rights. Coolidge ascribes these rights as divine. Whatever the source of that spiritual yearning for freedom, that yearning waited a long time till it found its best expression in our founding documents. Lucky for us that we get to live at a time when we see the expression of those values more so than at any time in the past. Luckily for the rest of the world, we're happy to export the best of what we have to offer. We'll let you have those ideas for free, no strings attached. We'll even spend a great deal of our own treasure helping your country get there. We know in the long run our philosophy is irresistible (if not to those in power, at least to the people governed), and that trade partners are vastly preferable to armed rivals. But if you insist on the rivalry route, we're generous with the ass-kickings, as well (just ask our first dance partners, the Barbary Pirates).

(hat tip Powerline, via Ed Driscoll)

Why Victor Davis Hanson Rocks

He unleashes a litany of information regarding our 'bungled' adventure in Iraq. It's not the usual litany of failures, rather it's a lengthy litany of our successes, and the trouble our success there is causing our enemies.

Expect him to be belittled, ignored, but not refuted. There aren't any factual errors in what he says, so they can't attack him on the facts, instead they'll just claim he's painting an improbably rosy picture of what clearly is a continuing failure by the Bush Administration.

If we continue to fail as well as we have been, the world might be a pretty great place by 2030.

Think back 25 years to 1982. All the things Reagan was doing was needlessly provocative, ruinous to our economy, and lacking nuance with regards to the Soviet's legitimate desire to carve out a sphere of influence in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, or at least that was the conventional wisdom at the time.

I think history shows whether the Reagan critics, or Reagan was right back in 1982. Mistakes and bungles were made back then, too. Saddam flourished because we needed him to contain Iran. We helped plant the seeds of the Taliban by not following up with more aid after the Soviet pull out. But I think very few people in the former Warsaw Pact were sad to see that organization dissolve, and our best friends in Europe are those countries that suffered the most under the Soviet boot.

In another 20 years, will a free Kurdistan, peaceful Iraq, and truly democratic Iran be our best allies in the region?

Don't be surprised if it happens, and don't root against it just cause you hate President Bush. Nobody foresaw the fall of the Soviet Empire happening as quickly, and relatively peacefully (former Yugoslavia excepted) as it did. So nobody other than somebody like Victor Davis Hanson is willing to suggest that the hopefulness of The Cedar Revolution (currently hitting a road bump, but the spirit and will to reform remains), and the Purple Fingers, and the amazing prosperity in Arbil are not isolated incidents, but early signs of our inevitable victory over primitive tribalism, even in an area with millennia of tradition honing mutual hatred.

Terrorism is a tool used by failing ideologies, and power mad nihilists. Terrorism will never go away completely, but remaking the world into a place where no state can seek to help or even harbor terrorists in their midst is a worthy goal. A goal for which success will be hard to measure, and failure will be all too obvious. Each bomb that goes off isn't a failure, and each day without a bomb isn't a success, but another 4th of July was celebrated in the United States, and despite the threats, chatter and insinuations from the crazies, they weren't able to screw with people's plans (mother nature on the other hand, she's hardcore).

Things Seen Today (That I Had Rather Not Seen)

The thing I saw that I would have prefered not seeing was a 'healthy' young bird (past healthy, more rolly-polly, and I call her a bird since I have reason to believe she's a loyal subject of Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II), in an above the knee black skirt, a Union Jack top entirely too form fitting for her form, and worst of all, UGG boots.

I have no problem with people who carry around a little extra weight, so long as they recognize this about themselves and dress accordingly.

I have no problem with somebody proudly displaying a Union Jack on their body, but not on Independence Day.

I have no problem with UGG boots, worn indoors, or actually in a ski chalet, but on the streets near the beach, on a summer day, paired with a skirt, that ain't right.

Whiskey, Democracy, Sexy

Happy 4th of July.

And if you haven't at least squeezed in two of the three above mentioned things in your day, try to do so before midnight, our founding fathers will be angry if you don't.

Speaking of the 4th and Whiskey. . .

Speaking of the 4th and Democracy . . .

Speaking of the 4th and Sexy . . .

Enjoy, and here's to the next 231, we're still a young country, a hopeful country, a whiskey soaked country, a democratic country, and above all else, a sexy country.

Take that, Luxemborg (I'm sure there are many fine people in Luxemborg, but nobody ever describes that country as being 'sexy').

It's Is Important To Have A Good Working Relationship With the Press . . .

. . . but this is probably taking things a bit far.

This dashes any hopes Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had at being a vice-presidential candidate (there was talk). He had been toadying up to Sen. Clinton which some have questioned as he would seem to be less 'moderate' than she is. Speculation was that he's angling for a position in her hoped for administration, possibly as high as Vice President.

On the plus side, she's hot, which helps (if Monica, or Paula were hotter, Bill would have been ridiculed less), and she's Mexican, which probably helps, too (had it been one of the cutie bunny blond reporters he'd been 'getting in depth' with, then that'd have hurt him deeply with core supporters).

Personally, don't care, getting outside nooky while your marriage is falling apart doesn't make somebody a bad mayor. Even sleeping with someone in the press doesn't make you a bad mayor. Villaraigosa is a bad mayor cause he refuses to enforce the law, spends too much time trying to draw the spotlight to himself personally and not on the city in general, and advocates a variety of ill-advised nanny-state programs that could damage the long term prosperity that Los Angeles should be destined to achieve.

Los Angeles has been fairly lucky with its mayors, Tom Bradley did a decent job, but held on for about a decade too long, Richard Riordan did a phenomenal job during a very tough time in our history, and just those two men cover most of my adult life (James Hahn was so forgettable, that I forgot about his one term not so long ago), so I won't bother you with tales of the Sam Yorty years, as I really don't recall them.

Compared to Chicago, New York, or Philadelphia, the mayoralty in Los Angeles has been exemplary for a large metropolis. Maybe it's cause they don't really have much power here (that's wielded by the L.A. County Board of Supervisors, probably the most powerful non-state, non-federal government positions in the country, if not world).

The Key To Prospering In the Current Economy

Reading today's Bleat something jumped out at me. I think I may have an insight, it may not be original, or it might be. I'm not sure, either way, I'll ram it down your throat whether you want it or not.

At the end of it he wrote:

New comics, and of course buzz - with a new video around 11 AM or so. See you there! (Note: I finished the video around 10:30, and realized I'd been at the job, in one way or another, since 8:30 AM. Didn't feel like it. Didn't feel like work at all.)

Seems to me, that's what all businesses should look for, especially in jobs that require lots of brain work and enthusiasm.

You want to hire people to do jobs that they would be happy to pay you to do, but rather than use that against them to keep them underpaid, pay them enough so that they don't feel like they need to turn their obsession into a hobby. By paying Lileks to do what he'd been giving away for free for years, the Star Tribune has just gotten a much greater value out of an asset that they'd been undervaluing for far too long.

Seems like that's what PIXAR does, and why they've been able to succeed so wildly at making films that gross hundreds of millions every time out. Every job doesn't lend itself to finding the perfect obsessive to fill the job. And not every obsessive would do a job worth paying. But when the two come together just right, it's magical, and lucrative for all involved.

The entire economy can't run along on Eudaimoniacal principles, but it's getting increasingly possible to make many jobs and workers fit together harmoniously. Humans being human, the trouble that will happen is the friction between the happy workers doing their dream jobs rubbing elbows with the drones just collecting a paycheck. Folks can't help but try and bring the happy ones down a peg or two.

Joy comes from within, but sometimes it needs an assist to flourish. It's fun watching how clearly joyous Lileks is at the moment, and contrasts greatly with his months of dread and trepidation before his new found bucket (though some of his writing during the trepidatious period was his best). One danger about obsessives getting paid to do what they love to do, is they might forget that there's life outside of their obsession. When you enjoy what you do, and get rewarded well for doing it, you might forget that "off" is not only an option, but a necessity.

Sorry Ollie, But We Find Your Anti-Americanism A Bit Over the Top

(hat tip Drudge)

Pres. Ahmadinejad rejects a proposed documentary on him by Oliver Stone.

Doesn't President Ahmadinejad realize that Stone would make a piece of pure pro-Mahmoud propaganda?

Did Mahmoud find Stone's Castro doc too hard hitting?

Maybe he just didn't want to be around Stone in close quarters for too long (make up your own reasons for this fear, but try and include bodily fluids, odors, and sexual attraction in your answers).




. . . In other film news, the title of Fishbone's album Chim-Chim's Badass Revenge became eerily prophetic when a chimp on the set of the live action Speed Racer film bit an actor on set.

Hopefully the song Party at Ground Zero will remain unprophetic.



UPDATE:

I dug around the PressTV website (the Iranian government's English language propaganda outlet), and found their take on it, here it is in full (not going to link to their propaganda page, bad enough to visit it):

Mahdi Kalhor said that Oliver Stone has repeatedly requested to make a film about Ahmadinejad over the past year.

“We have already seen his documentaries on Arafat, Castro and Hezbollah. Even though Stone is considered a member of the opposition group in the US, it is still part of the 'Great Satan'.

We believe the American cinema is void of real art and culture and that it is largely used as a mouthpiece," he added.

He also noted that Ahmadinejad personally rejected the idea from the very beginning.

The global arrogance has been making efforts to tarnish the image of Iran's president and this is no new ruse in the US media.

Bet Oliver Stone is very shocked to find that he's considered part of "the global arrogance" or even "the US media". He really ought to have a heart to heart with them and explain that he hates the "Great Satan" even more than they do.

Also found their account of the Clintons fascinating on multiple levels:

The charismatic former president's first campaign swing with his wife opened Monday with a folksy speech at the Iowa State Fairgrounds where he urged the party faithful to vote for Hillary because she is both the best qualified and the most responsible, AFP reported.

"You will never have anybody in the White House who cares more about how every decision she makes affects you," Bill Clinton said from a stage surrounded by flag-lined hay bales.

Hillary thanked him for the brief speech by saying, "I'm awfully glad to have my husband here," and went on to list his achievements and everything that had been lost since he left office.

"After two terms of the Bush administration and their cronyism and their incompetence we're going to have a lot of cleaning up to do," Hillary told the cheering crowd.

Bill has made a few early forays into the campaign, most notably dipping a toe in the race in May with a syrupy Internet video tribute to his wife and again in June when he appeared in a stylish spoof of the mystery ending of hit mob show "The Sopranos" unveiling Hillary's campaign song.

His speech Monday reflected that first tribute as he described Hillary's lifelong commitment to public service and the work she did as first lady of Arkansas and then the United States.

Hillary's ranking nationally, however, has given her an aura of invincibility. Recent polls show her garnering 43 to 48 percent of the Democratic vote compared with 19 to 25 percent for Obama and 11 to 17 percent for Edwards.

The Iranian government is rooting for Sen. Clinton to take over the "Great Satan"?
Should I be disturbed?
Should I be surprised?

Bet they don't publish anything that positive about Sen. Fred Thompson.