Here's a interesting op/ed I came across today by some cool lookin' dude with the equally cool name Crispin Sartwell. The money lines:
We want the government to guarantee our health, deflect hurricanes, educate our children and license us to drive; we want to be told what to eat, what to smoke and whom to marry. We are justly proud of the fact that no enduring society has ever incarcerated more of its people. Noting that the policeman has a pistol, a club, a stun gun, a can of pepper spray and a database that includes us, we feel happy and secure.
Our submission is absolute: We want to be operated like puppets and provided for like pets.
The terrorists hate our freedom. But we should be comfortable with that. We hate our freedom, too.
Friday, March 31, 2006
OMFGWTFBBQ!!!
In case you haven't heard, the NFL owners voted to curtail endzone celebrations. As near as I can tell, players can still spike the ball or dunk it, but can't use props. And also, they have to stay on their feet. I've come across two reasons for this vote, and they are both mind-bogglingly stupid. The first arguement is that they consume too much time, making the game longer. All the commercial breaks and Joe Thiesman idiocies are OK, but not endzone celebrations. This is so flagrantly and insultingly moronic that I can't even think straight. I've tried to see the logic here, but I can't.
The other reason I've come across is that children playing football are emulating football players. So the fuck what? Is it suddenly the NFL's responsibility to raise children? You're a bunch of god damn entertainers for christ's sweet sake. No one, absolutely no one, watches NFL for child raising tips. Any parent that tells his child to watch T.O. or Chad Johnson and do what they do deserves to be put to death. While the kid watches. Cuz I think that'll teach the kid a lesson...about something.
At any rate, I don't really know where the NFL gets off pulling this crap. Especially because so many people are paying ridiculously high prices just to get into a game (note the average price of an NFL ticket in 2003 was $52). If I'm gonna fork out fifty-plus bucks to see a football game, I want to be entertained. (Also, note that that the league of fans isn't a superhero club, but something completely different and founded by Ralph Nader.) Half the reason people watch games is to see what whacky, zany celebration Johnson or Smith or T.O. will come up with next. Said Tony Dungee after the vote (which he voted FOR curtailing celebrations) "I'm looking forward to seeing what Chad will come to celebrate with now." You shithead. You absolute shithead. From now on, anyone who says what a great guy Dungee is gets kicked in the nuts. No questions asked. And that goes double for girls. Right in the nuts. That's right. And it's sad because I like Peyton. But now I have to hope the Colts lose every single game this season on account of Tony Dungee is a gigantic ass.
The other reason I've come across is that children playing football are emulating football players. So the fuck what? Is it suddenly the NFL's responsibility to raise children? You're a bunch of god damn entertainers for christ's sweet sake. No one, absolutely no one, watches NFL for child raising tips. Any parent that tells his child to watch T.O. or Chad Johnson and do what they do deserves to be put to death. While the kid watches. Cuz I think that'll teach the kid a lesson...about something.
At any rate, I don't really know where the NFL gets off pulling this crap. Especially because so many people are paying ridiculously high prices just to get into a game (note the average price of an NFL ticket in 2003 was $52). If I'm gonna fork out fifty-plus bucks to see a football game, I want to be entertained. (Also, note that that the league of fans isn't a superhero club, but something completely different and founded by Ralph Nader.) Half the reason people watch games is to see what whacky, zany celebration Johnson or Smith or T.O. will come up with next. Said Tony Dungee after the vote (which he voted FOR curtailing celebrations) "I'm looking forward to seeing what Chad will come to celebrate with now." You shithead. You absolute shithead. From now on, anyone who says what a great guy Dungee is gets kicked in the nuts. No questions asked. And that goes double for girls. Right in the nuts. That's right. And it's sad because I like Peyton. But now I have to hope the Colts lose every single game this season on account of Tony Dungee is a gigantic ass.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Worst movie ever
I'm not sure, but this might be the worst thing ever made. Not sure who allowed the wayans to make a movie after white chicks, but they should be shot. Near as I can tell, a midget steals a diamond and pretends to be a baby to get it back. Also, the wife has sex with what I am assuming she thinks is a baby. But I'll probably never know as I don't think I'll be catching this one.
commish
The point was more that the government seems to be more obviously sticking it's nose where it is neither wanted or warranted. Senators don't need to be getting involved with baseball, T.O. drama (happened), etc. I shudder to think the fiasco that would have resulted with baseball had an ex-secretary been commish. Bad enough the government forces itself into such issues without having one of their own hold the door open.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Commissioner
Condi would not have to decline. The article was quoting her spokesman saying she would decline if the position were offered.
Your complaint that her having been Secretary of State would somehow be detrimental does not stand up, I think. Commissioner is a highly political job (not in the sense of dealing with government though it can be that too as you point out with baseball), and it requires political skills. Baseball's great, and first, commissioner was a Federal Judge. Many politicians have been involved in sports.
I agree that Congress should stay out of baseball, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with Condi. I might have to object on the grounds she is Browns fan, however.
Your complaint that her having been Secretary of State would somehow be detrimental does not stand up, I think. Commissioner is a highly political job (not in the sense of dealing with government though it can be that too as you point out with baseball), and it requires political skills. Baseball's great, and first, commissioner was a Federal Judge. Many politicians have been involved in sports.
I agree that Congress should stay out of baseball, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with Condi. I might have to object on the grounds she is Browns fan, however.
The War
I have ignored the War on Terrorism lately. No doubt many other people have as well. Perhaps we are lulled into some complacency by the war's distance from us, the lack of attacks on us at home. This could explain sagging support for the war in Iraq. Attacks continue abroad, however. Europe, even, is starting to awaken to the problem of Islamism and its own hostile Muslim population.
I have recently been reminded of the War that continues, and will continue for some time, by some articles by conservatism's heaviest hitters, Bill Buckley and George Will and by the President's seeming reinvigoration today. Buckley and Will, although never on board completely with the President, have recently been more vocal in their criticims of the administration's direction of the war, here and here. Here and here are their follow-ups containing advice to the President. The President has been failing politically and rhetorically. Hopefully today's joust is a sign of more to come from the White House, more substance and campaigning to the public. It is needed because, as Mark Steyn points out in response to criticims conservative and otherwise, no one is providing an alternative course to the present one except surrender. I agree with conservative critics who say the President is overly idealistic about the prospects of democracy in the Arab world, but we must decide what our more realistic goals are. This likely involves years of fighting, and in the meantime establishing much better world-wide intelligence to stamp out terrorists before much harm is done. Thus, the end goal is not so tangible, but rather a process that makes organized terrorism more difficult and less attractive politically.
For a positive take on the war look here. This article argues that Jihad has failed in Iraq because there is no strategy other than terror. "The lack of a viable political program crippled the insurgency. Mao’s theory of people’s war,which formed the basis of every successful revolutionary movement of the late 20th century, emphasizes a struggle’s political aspect over the military. A successful insurgency cultivates and holds on to popular support, as occurred in Algeria and Vietnam. Similar efforts were conspicuous in Iraq by their absence."
This take underscores the importance of the Media in the US. If we are winning, according to the Media we are not, we must recognize it. The mainstream media is reflexively anti-war and negative, and this has an impact on public opinion. They simply refuse to report, or at least seek out, news that might conflict with their view, which often seems like an agenda. Imagine the media's response should we need to strike in Iran.
The War will continue in Iraq and elsewhere. We must have the will to fight it. Disengagement is not an option, for the war was brought to us despite lefty accusations of war-mongering. This is why it is good that the administration has returned to the theme of the "Long War". Despite cries of about Bush's lies, a short, clean victory was not promised. What the President needs to do is summon again the American people and explain this reality. If he does not sell it to us, we will not--barring another attack at home--have the fortitude to do what is necessary when and if more is required. The President is probably right that the Middle East needs to change politically. He is just overly optimistic about how this will come about. This in turn encourages the public expectations of quick solutions.
I have recently been reminded of the War that continues, and will continue for some time, by some articles by conservatism's heaviest hitters, Bill Buckley and George Will and by the President's seeming reinvigoration today. Buckley and Will, although never on board completely with the President, have recently been more vocal in their criticims of the administration's direction of the war, here and here. Here and here are their follow-ups containing advice to the President. The President has been failing politically and rhetorically. Hopefully today's joust is a sign of more to come from the White House, more substance and campaigning to the public. It is needed because, as Mark Steyn points out in response to criticims conservative and otherwise, no one is providing an alternative course to the present one except surrender. I agree with conservative critics who say the President is overly idealistic about the prospects of democracy in the Arab world, but we must decide what our more realistic goals are. This likely involves years of fighting, and in the meantime establishing much better world-wide intelligence to stamp out terrorists before much harm is done. Thus, the end goal is not so tangible, but rather a process that makes organized terrorism more difficult and less attractive politically.
For a positive take on the war look here. This article argues that Jihad has failed in Iraq because there is no strategy other than terror. "The lack of a viable political program crippled the insurgency. Mao’s theory of people’s war,which formed the basis of every successful revolutionary movement of the late 20th century, emphasizes a struggle’s political aspect over the military. A successful insurgency cultivates and holds on to popular support, as occurred in Algeria and Vietnam. Similar efforts were conspicuous in Iraq by their absence."
This take underscores the importance of the Media in the US. If we are winning, according to the Media we are not, we must recognize it. The mainstream media is reflexively anti-war and negative, and this has an impact on public opinion. They simply refuse to report, or at least seek out, news that might conflict with their view, which often seems like an agenda. Imagine the media's response should we need to strike in Iran.
The War will continue in Iraq and elsewhere. We must have the will to fight it. Disengagement is not an option, for the war was brought to us despite lefty accusations of war-mongering. This is why it is good that the administration has returned to the theme of the "Long War". Despite cries of about Bush's lies, a short, clean victory was not promised. What the President needs to do is summon again the American people and explain this reality. If he does not sell it to us, we will not--barring another attack at home--have the fortitude to do what is necessary when and if more is required. The President is probably right that the Middle East needs to change politically. He is just overly optimistic about how this will come about. This in turn encourages the public expectations of quick solutions.
Condi Rice is a Browns fan
You heard it here first. I heard it here. Also, she would have to decline the job of commisioner were it offered to her. Oh, Condi....
On a more serious note, I think this might be the most terrible proposition I have ever heard. Bad enough Congress is dipping its dangle in baseball. I don't want to think about what an ex-secretary of state would do to football and I don't give a good god damn what Kraft thinks.
On a more serious note, I think this might be the most terrible proposition I have ever heard. Bad enough Congress is dipping its dangle in baseball. I don't want to think about what an ex-secretary of state would do to football and I don't give a good god damn what Kraft thinks.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Re: Oscars
I didn't watch much of the show, but I thought Jon Stewart was good where I saw him. It was nice to see that *someone* at the Oscars wasn't taking it too seriously.
I will mention one thing--during the montage to "the Big Screen," where the message was presumably that seeing a movie in a theater is an ennobling experience, as opposed to watching it at home on DVD, which is dirty and whorish, the actor reading the card stumbled over his line, as if he recognized the bullshit coming out of his mouth the instant he said it. It was telling. Hollywood can keep on saying to us that movies are better in a theater, but, you know as they say, folks vote with their dollars...
I didn't see Brokeback, but I wanted to. I did see Capote, and it was an excellent movie. It really grinds me to see certain writers and commentators (most of them conservative) lash out against this crop of movies in such a brazen, uninformed way (such as Coulter, but she is far from the only one). Given, Hollywood is full of itself, and the movies this year do strike me as particularly agenda-driven. But Capote, and I would venture to say all of these movies, deserve better than the already stale one-liners about gays, racism, homophobia, etc.
In specific reference to Capote: this film had no agenda, beyond the usuals of making money, and the more rare objective of telling a good story. I dare anyone to tell me Capote was a polemic on the death penalty. Truman Capote is reported to have been fervently anti-death penalty, but the movie remains ambiguous and at the same time honest. Capote wanted these men to die so he could finish his story. In "In Cold Blood," he takes pains to draw out the two killers, examine their childhoods and examine how they became they way they were. But he never lets the reader forget about the family they killed. Near the end of the book he revisits the killings in great detail. The triumph of the book is that Capote enables you to sympathize with the killers and yet keep their crime firmly in mind, recognizing that death is perhaps the only appropriate end for these men.
The movie has a somewhat different angle, as it focuses on Capote's own devotion to his nonfiction novel, and the lengths he would go to in order to finish it. Yes, Capote was gay, but that actually plays very little into the central conflict. At one point in the movie, Capote himself uses his broken childhood to get closer to one of the killers to get his story. My point remains: this movie deserves better than dismissive one-liners. I can't speak for the others, but this one deserved a spot in the top 5 movies of the year.
I will mention one thing--during the montage to "the Big Screen," where the message was presumably that seeing a movie in a theater is an ennobling experience, as opposed to watching it at home on DVD, which is dirty and whorish, the actor reading the card stumbled over his line, as if he recognized the bullshit coming out of his mouth the instant he said it. It was telling. Hollywood can keep on saying to us that movies are better in a theater, but, you know as they say, folks vote with their dollars...
I didn't see Brokeback, but I wanted to. I did see Capote, and it was an excellent movie. It really grinds me to see certain writers and commentators (most of them conservative) lash out against this crop of movies in such a brazen, uninformed way (such as Coulter, but she is far from the only one). Given, Hollywood is full of itself, and the movies this year do strike me as particularly agenda-driven. But Capote, and I would venture to say all of these movies, deserve better than the already stale one-liners about gays, racism, homophobia, etc.
In specific reference to Capote: this film had no agenda, beyond the usuals of making money, and the more rare objective of telling a good story. I dare anyone to tell me Capote was a polemic on the death penalty. Truman Capote is reported to have been fervently anti-death penalty, but the movie remains ambiguous and at the same time honest. Capote wanted these men to die so he could finish his story. In "In Cold Blood," he takes pains to draw out the two killers, examine their childhoods and examine how they became they way they were. But he never lets the reader forget about the family they killed. Near the end of the book he revisits the killings in great detail. The triumph of the book is that Capote enables you to sympathize with the killers and yet keep their crime firmly in mind, recognizing that death is perhaps the only appropriate end for these men.
The movie has a somewhat different angle, as it focuses on Capote's own devotion to his nonfiction novel, and the lengths he would go to in order to finish it. Yes, Capote was gay, but that actually plays very little into the central conflict. At one point in the movie, Capote himself uses his broken childhood to get closer to one of the killers to get his story. My point remains: this movie deserves better than dismissive one-liners. I can't speak for the others, but this one deserved a spot in the top 5 movies of the year.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Oscars
I was suprised at how many of the movies I had seen and a little less suprised that I had seen almost none of the movies that were up for the main awards. None of which I had any real desire to see.
While the popularity of the films isn't always indicative of their value. I am skeptical of this year's "top" films. As I have not seen them, I will not be as harsh as Ann Coulter was.
If the questionable "top" films didn't give pause to the Academy one would think the choice of best song, "It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp", might embarrass them, but alas...
The only movie of the year I didn't see that I might is A History of Violence.
I will say that I thought Million Dollar Baby was very good despite the women boxing. So see that when you can, Kris. War of the Worlds and, more notably, The Constant Gardener were pretty bad. I would've taken Corpse Bride over Wallace and Gromit although both were pretty good despite the anti-killing animals theme of W&G.
Pride and Prejudice was tolerable but not as good as the one with Colin Firth. Kiera Knightley was pretty good and hot, but she was wrong for the part. Donald Sutherland turned in a good albeit minor-part performance, and the guy that played Darcy did well.
Other noteworthy mentions in my book were, Walk the Line, Chronicles of Narnia, Harry Potter of course, Batman Begins, and even Cinderella Man in that hokey, wholesome Hollywood-of-old way. It seems I have chosen the less "serious" films. Perhaps Hollywood should take itself less seriously.
While the popularity of the films isn't always indicative of their value. I am skeptical of this year's "top" films. As I have not seen them, I will not be as harsh as Ann Coulter was.
If the questionable "top" films didn't give pause to the Academy one would think the choice of best song, "It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp", might embarrass them, but alas...
The only movie of the year I didn't see that I might is A History of Violence.
I will say that I thought Million Dollar Baby was very good despite the women boxing. So see that when you can, Kris. War of the Worlds and, more notably, The Constant Gardener were pretty bad. I would've taken Corpse Bride over Wallace and Gromit although both were pretty good despite the anti-killing animals theme of W&G.
Pride and Prejudice was tolerable but not as good as the one with Colin Firth. Kiera Knightley was pretty good and hot, but she was wrong for the part. Donald Sutherland turned in a good albeit minor-part performance, and the guy that played Darcy did well.
Other noteworthy mentions in my book were, Walk the Line, Chronicles of Narnia, Harry Potter of course, Batman Begins, and even Cinderella Man in that hokey, wholesome Hollywood-of-old way. It seems I have chosen the less "serious" films. Perhaps Hollywood should take itself less seriously.
Monday, March 06, 2006
The Oscars last night
What else needs to be said about last night? Other than BORING, of course. And totally predictable. I didn't see Crash (or Million Dollar Baby for that matter) and I'm wondering if it is at all worthwhile. John and I did see Brokeback Mountain and likely have differing opinions on it. It did have great music, so I'm glad it won for best original score. Jon Stewart was OK as host. I though Chris Rock was funnier last year; apparently the general consensus is that Rock bombed last year. Anyway, thats about it for that.
So about this wiretapping business....Is it really any different than when Clinton had FBI files in the White House? I mean, I'm having a hard time getting worked up about this at all. It just seems to be something common from administration to administration (regardless of party). I can see both sides of the argument (I think) where one (the White House and supporters) claim they have the power already under the Constitution and it is a necessary power to wage war. The other side (contrary to what the conservative pundits would have you believe) is composed of all sorts, including Richard Epstein, who is one of the smartest Constiutionalists/Federalists out there. This side is claiming that the wiretapping power is only available after securing a warrant from a FISA judge. Which is not unreasonable. Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong. But I still don't care all that much about it.
So about this wiretapping business....Is it really any different than when Clinton had FBI files in the White House? I mean, I'm having a hard time getting worked up about this at all. It just seems to be something common from administration to administration (regardless of party). I can see both sides of the argument (I think) where one (the White House and supporters) claim they have the power already under the Constitution and it is a necessary power to wage war. The other side (contrary to what the conservative pundits would have you believe) is composed of all sorts, including Richard Epstein, who is one of the smartest Constiutionalists/Federalists out there. This side is claiming that the wiretapping power is only available after securing a warrant from a FISA judge. Which is not unreasonable. Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong. But I still don't care all that much about it.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Harry Browne dead at 72
Former Libertarian Party Presidential candidate and spokesman Harry Browne has died. I voted for him twice. RIP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)