What's he on about now?

In case the articles, essays and opinions throughtout this site just weren't enough for you, here's my online diary (a.k.a. 'blog'). It's as close as you'll come to the inside of my head, so don't say I didn't warn you
(and remember, you can always e-mail me if you love or loathe anything you're about to read)...


   Thursday, October 28, 2004

   "REALITY-BASED" FAITH

"Here is God's purpose --
God, to me, it seems, is a verb not a noun, proper or improper;
is the articulation not the art, objective or subjective;
is loving, not the abstraction 'love' commanded or entreated;
is knowledge dynamic, not legislative code, not proclamation law;
not academic dogma, not ecclesiastic canon.
Yes, God is a verb, the most active, connoting the vast harmonic reordering of the universe from unleashed chaos of energy."

-- Buckminster Fuller, blurring the line between religion and science

Rev. Chloe Breyer, an Episcopal priest in New York, has a piece in Slate today about the absence of liberal religious viewpoints in the media. She says, "the troubling question arises for orthodox believers with liberal political convictions: Why are they still upstaged by their "super religious" conservative sisters and brethren?"

Rev. Breyer goes on to highlight the work of the Progressive Faith Movement, and I'm delighted by the introduction.

The American election's on Tuesday and I promised that I would refrain from further "Bush-bashing" (a popular phrase I completely hate, as it implies that the President is an innocent victim of assault). So, I won't say a word, I'll just ask you to watch your man in action:

Bush Uncensored

Labels: George W Bush

After Jon Stewart's acclaimed outburst on "Crossfire" last week, TV critic Ken Tucker questions the motives of "The Daily Show" host, asking the timely question, "Is Stewart a true satirist or a monkey?"

I'M BUSHED!

Yes, I'm almost as bored of writing about Bush as you are of reading about him. But we're a week away from the election and he's leading (leading!) in the polls. Oh, how can I not rant?

How's this, then? Just one more laurel for William Saletan, Chief Political Correspondent at Slate. He's not only usually right, he's usually funny...

Here's what I wrote about Bush when we disclosed our votes four years ago:

"He's shallow, obtuse, and proud of it. He's disdainful of reflection and indifferent to work. ... Congress can restrain either of them, but a president can catastrophically botch a foreign policy crisis all by himself. I trust Gore in that situation. I don't trust Bush."

Looks like I was wrong about Congress.

Labels: George W Bush

THE TIPPING POINT

Die-hard Bush-cheerleader Andrew Sullivan has officially endorsed John Kerry:

I do not hate [George W. Bush]. I admire him in many ways--his tenacity, his vision of democracy, his humor, his faith. I have supported him more than strongly in the last four years--and, perhaps, when the dangers seemed so grave, I went overboard and willfully overlooked his faults because he was the president and the country was in danger. I was also guilty of minimizing the dangers of invading Iraq and placed too much faith, perhaps, in the powers of the American military machine and competence of the Bush administration. Writers bear some responsibility too for making mistakes; and I take mine.

But they bear a greater responsibility if they do not acknowledge them and learn. And it is simply foolish to ignore what we have found out this past year about Bush's obvious limits, his glaring failures, his fundamental weakness as a leader. I fear he is out of his depth and exhausted. I simply do not have confidence in him to navigate the waters ahead skillfully enough to avoid or survive the darkening clouds on the horizon.

If George Bush was capable of this kind of thoughtfulness and humility, we wouldn't have come to this sorry state. Thanks, Andrew!

Labels: George W Bush

HE FLIPS! HE FLOPS! HE SCORES!

Just when I thought the US presidential race was getting predictable, George Bush is now in favour of civil unions for gay couples -- matching John Kerry's position of 'separate-but-equal' quasi-marriages for gay and lesbian couples.

In an interview on "Good Morning America," host Charles Gibson noted that the Republican Party platform opposed civil unions. "Well, I don't," Bush replied.

Is this a desperate attempt to attract moderate voters and undecideds? Of course it is, but one I never saw coming!

Labels: George W Bush

SAY IT OUT LOUD

People wonder why I'm so hard on Republicans. I understand many of their positions, liked John McCain and avoid screechy left-wing rants (unless they're my own). Nevertheless, guys like Rob Finberg make me curse the lot of them.

Finberg is running for the Hawaii state senate and has the distinction of being the first Republican to openly approve of the death penalty...for homosexuals.

He admitted as much to the host of a Hawaiian political cable-access show, who then called him on it. After giving the host a creationist history lesson, Finberg was asked: "If there was a law that supported the execution of people found guilty of performing homosexual acts, would you support that law?" Finberg fumbled with some AIDS-phobic garbage before answering, "Yes, if it were the law of the land. Yes."

(Is this an unfair misrepresentation? Let's go to the videotape!)

Am I angry because he's a bigot? No, bigots are everywhere. What makes me angry is the lack of censure from other Republicans. Their silence on Finberg (and Alan Keyes and Bill O'Reilly, etc. etc.) is truly aggravating when combined with their posturing as America's moral guardians. Let's look at the last few months:

John Kerry refers to Dick Cheney's gay daughter during a debate?
Pundit outrage.
Janet Jackson's breast gets loose at the Super Bowl?
National outrage!
A president who's run up the biggest national debt in decades?
Mild grumbling.
Over a thousand troops killed in Iraq with no end in sight?
Whatever.
An aspiring senator advocating the killing of American citizens?
Hey, what's on TV?

Republicans are people who give a free pass to hatemongers with death threats while whining that Michael Moore is a danger to America.
Am I being too hard on our moral guardians?

TEACH YOUR CHILDREN WELL

Irish 'bad-boy' actor Colin Farrell (who you think would be getting tired of that label by now -- we are) has once again shocked people in an interview by admitting that he's used heroin in the past:

In a candid interview with GQ magazine, he says, "I've smoked it a couple of times, but I knew where I was going. For some reason it seemed pretty f**king nice at the time." But drug prevention workers have blasted Farrell for acting irresponsibly in the knowledge his young fans look up to him. Peter Stoker of the National Drug Prevention Alliance says, "He should not be bragging about taking heroin. Farrell is a role model for children. If he thinks it is so cool he should go to a Narcotics Anonymous meeting and see the harsh reality."

Well, that's sensible enough and...wait. Did Stoker actually say, "Farrell is a role model for children"? Is that what I read? "Farrell is a role model for children"? Whose children? Is someone looking at his son and thinking, "He's too dull -- he needs more booze, more swearing, a bit of heroin and a fling with Britney Spears."

Oh, wait, that's my dad. Never mind.

Labels: family, insanity, media

BUT WOULD JOHN WATERS APPROVE?

We're wading through all this gay-marriage babble and anti-gay crusading when it seems what we all truly crave is silliness. It's MTV's "Choose or Lose" youth voting campaign to the rescue, which has a snappy website devoted to the equal marriage issue.

Its best feature is a series of clever PSAs on the topic, three of which are terrific. "Threats" is funny and pointed, "Permission" is wry and charming and "Sex Toy" was considered too racy to air on TV but made me laugh the hardest.

WHOA

I honestly thought the Yankees would pull it together in time but the Boston Red Sox won Game 7 of the American League championship. They had lost the first three games -- it's the most astonishing comeback in baseball postseason history.

I'm just afraid to see what sort of condition my pal Jeff will be in when he rolls into work in about an hour. He takes his Yankees seriously. As for Boston, it's time to see if the Curse of the Bambino holds up...

LINES IN THE SAND

Hey, I was good -- I held back on the George Bush ranting for, what, two whole days? But a chilling New York Times Magazine piece by Ron Suskind (former national-affairs reporter for that left-wing rag The Wall Street Journal) has my blood boiling over once again. The piece is on -- what else? -- the utter incompetence of this president, only this time viewed through Bush's elevation of faith over reality. Suskind asserts that a "faith-based presidency" is bad for church AND state:

And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. "You think he's an idiot, don't you?" I said, no, I didn't. "No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!"
...
[Another] aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

But why does this line in the sand exist at all? Can't one by a member of a faith-based community AND a reality-based community? Consider this exchange between Bush and evangelical pastor Jim Wallis "who for 30 years has run the Sojourners -- a progressive organization of advocates for social justice":

I said, "Mr. President, if we don't devote our energy, our focus and our time on also overcoming global poverty and desperation, we will lose not only the war on poverty, but we'll lose the war on terrorism."

Bush replied that that was why America needed the leadership of Wallis and other members of the clergy.

"No, Mr. President," Wallis says he told Bush, "We need your leadership on this question, and all of us will then commit to support you. Unless we drain the swamp of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we'll never defeat the threat of terrorism."

Bush looked quizzically at the minister, Wallis recalls. They never spoke again after that...He is no longer invited to the White House.

Wallis gets the last word in this piece, because his opinion is both the most damning for George Bush and the most sane and rational for the rest of us:

Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not--not ever--to the thing we as humans so very much want...Easy certainty.

Labels: George W Bush

MOVING TARGETS:
More on Satire

My friend Jeff and I went to see "Team America: World Police" the other night and laughed all the way through it (with one brief exception -- more on that at the end). The puppets are hilariously unrealistic while the sets housing them are beautifully intricate (and the 'here come the panthers' gag is both blindingly obvious and one that's still making me laugh days later). The movie is astonishingly filthy yet a pitch-perfect parody of horrible patriotic action films like "Top Gun" or "Pearl Harbour."

But is it a satire? We all went it thinking it would be an attack on the Bush administration's hamfisted bungling of the 'War on Terror' but the movie spends most of its time attacking Hollywood liberals. In the end, "Team America" pointedly resists any sort of political viewpoint, which led Roger Ebert to hate the film:

If I were asked to extract a political position from the movie, I'd be baffled. It is neither for nor against the war on terrorism, just dedicated to ridiculing those who wage it and those who oppose it...to sneer at both sides -- indeed, at anyone who takes the current world situation seriously.

But Ebert has actually identified the movie's politics -- it's not satirizing politics, it's satirizing seriousness -- specifically, the rampaging egos of both America as a country (with it's rousing theme song, "America -- FUCK YEAH!") and celebrites who think their opinions can sway the public (Alec Baldwin is particularly savaged). Trey Parker and Matt Stone aren't making fun of an idea or philosophy, they're making fun of an attitude.

A similar thing happens in John Waters' A Dirty Shame, which makes Baltimore the battleground between moralistic, repressed prudes and a 'congregation' of sexual compulsives and fetishists. We know going in where Waters' sympathies lie but the movie takes an odd turn by making the 'liberated' characters as creepy and demented as the 'neuters' opposing them. By the end of the film, one wonders if we might actually need a League of Decency.

A USA Today interview with Waters brought this up:

Q: What message are you sending with "A Dirty Shame?" You aren't really promoting people who are obsessed with sex. You're knocking the neuters and their conservatism, but they have a point.

A: You're right. I'm on both sides. I agree with the neuters sometimes. What I find oddest in all the sexual minorities is they have no humor about it.

Q: So, what are you saying?

A: Have safe sex and laugh. That's the wave of the future. Maybe I should take over Michael Eisner's job at Disney.

(I saw a box at the video store once called "Sex Toy Story" so someone may have beaten him to it.)

So again, it's not any one position or idea or 'side' that Waters is mocking, but an attitude. In the end, he and Trey Parker and Matt Stone just want everyone, regardless of belief, so stop taking themselves so seriously. This is a point that Roger Ebert obviously disagrees with whereas I find myself stuck.

I just don't think it's pretentious to say that I take war and prejudice seriously. Many do and I'm not sure these views deserve mockery. People are asking big questions and I'm not sure "oh, lighten up" is a helpful response. On the other hand, anyone looking to a movie for definite answers is truly an idiot. Art can truly only show us the doorways -- it can't pick one and hold it open for us.

Mocking all sides might truly be the best way to get people thinking, I suppose, but I still think of great satires like "Dr. Strangelove" or "Brazil" that articulated a clear moral viewpoint with razor precision. "Team America" and "A Dirty Shame" just seem too scattershot in their approach to have much effect.

A couple postscripts:

1) John Waters and I seem to have the same love for ridiculous lounge music so I really enjoyed hearing this:

I also have three albums coming out with New Line records. The first one is the "Dirty Shame" soundtrack. The second is called "The John Waters Christmas," which is 12 of the most bizarre carols you have never heard. Then next year comes "A Date With John Waters," which is my idea of ludicrous romance music. I don't have a deal, but I want to do "Breaking Up With John Waters."

2) The Hollywood left-wing traitors in "Team America" are part of the Film Actors Guild, so that when Tim Robbins appears on TV, it reads, "Tim Robbins, FAG." The Alec Baldwin puppets asserts that "peace is the FAG way." Parker and Stone beat us over the head with variations on this gag until I could feel my teeth clench. It's not so much that I take it personally (though I'd be lying if I said not at all), but that it's just not funny and, as satire, there's no point.

The good news is that the audience we saw the movie with seemed bored by the joke, too. The first couple got a snicker, one guy briefly laughed out loud during the barrage in Baldwin's speech, but most of it was met with silence. That was great to (not) hear.

PAGING DR. FEELGOOD?

Today's IMDB news has the Love treatment:

Troubled rock chick Courtney Love...40-year-old former Hole frontwoman is trying to get her act together following a number of brushes with the law and a self-confessed drug problem - and she's convinced "doing a Demi Moore" will help her. According to reports, Love is asking friends to set her up with "eligible boys" between the ages of 18 and 30.

Is it that easy? If so, I say me too, please!

ALL YOU GET IS A BLOODY FOREHEAD

This political flap over Mary Cheney is actually depressing me. Bill Safire and a pack of other conservative commentators are accusing John Kerry of being homophobic because he mentioned that Mary is an out lesbian. They freak out because they still believe that the mere acknowledgement of homosexuality is shameful. Poor Andrew Sullivan still gamely tries to reason with these people, to diminishing effect.

Meanwhile, Republican Alan Keyes is spewing this garbage about gays molesting their own adopted children and not one conservative has made any comment about it.
Not. One. But why should they criticize? Free country, free speech, right?

I believe in reason and logic and compassion and communication, and I see absolutely none in these gay-rights debates. The more we explain, the less we're heard, while bigots like Keyes and Safire take the mic. It makes me tired.

RAISE A GLASS

I'm a big fan of John Cleese, not just for his impressive comedic legacy of "Monty Python," "Fawlty Towers" and "A Fish Called Wanda," but for his ability to multi-task.

In the last couple years alone, he's
-- carried on in the role of Q in the "James Bond" films (and video games!?)
-- spent a season on "Will and Grace"
-- popped up in "Charlies Angels 2"
-- appeared in two "Harry Potter" films
-- done a voice-over for "Shrek 2"
-- written and hosted a documentary series on "The Human Face"
-- begun developing a new website
-- continued the series of corporate training films he's produced and appeared in since he founded the company in the seventies.

Busy guy.

But what I really admire is the life he's created for himself, in which he's been able to blend intellectual whims, artistic endeavors and business opportunities. An interest in psychiatry led to the best-selling book "Life and How to Survive It," co-written with Robin Skinner. An interest in lemurs led to their cameos in "Fierce Creatures" and, later, a Discovery Channel special in Madagascar.

Now, he's created a helpful new Food Network special called "John Cleese's Wine for the Confused" because, he says, "I felt it was a shame that something that is such a source of pleasure should have become restricted by all this snobbery."

In other words, Cleese is rescuing wine from upper-class twits -- nice to see that nothing's changed.

CROSSFIRE IN THE CROSSFIRE

That grating political shriek-fest called "Crossfire" on CNN had the misfortune to book Jon Stewart, who finally -- deservedly -- tore into them:

JON STEWART: ...And I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad.

PAUL BEGALA: We have noticed.

STEWART: And I wanted to -- I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't -- it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America.
...
TUCKER CARLSON: You have a chance to interview the Democratic nominee...Why not ask him a real question, instead of just suck up to him?

JON STEWART: You know, it's interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility...I didn't realize...that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity.
...
CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?

STEWART: Absolutely.

CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you -

STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls...
You know, the interesting thing I have is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.

CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think.

STEWART: You need to go to one.
The thing that I want to say is, when you have people on for just knee-jerk, reactionary talk -

CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.
...
STEWART: I watch your show every day. And it kills me.

CARLSON: I can tell you love it.

STEWART: It's so -- oh, it's so painful to watch.

STEWART: You know, because we need what you do. This is such a great opportunity you have here to actually get politicians off of their marketing and strategy.

CARLSON: Is this really Jon Stewart? What is this, anyway?

STEWART: Yes, it's someone who watches your show and cannot take it anymore.
...
CARLSON: I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion.
...
STEWART: You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.

And Jon Stewart is brought down to the usual "Crossfire" level. He gets points for trying, though.

LUCKY!

We've all scored a huge break today as Britney Spears has announced that she's taking a break from show business. Sure, we've heard that before (I'm looking at YOU, Celine Dion!) but even a few months off will be a relief. Plus, she says she wants to let "other overexposed blondes" replace her on the covers of magazines, so she's even aware of how annoying she's become. It's all good!

MARY, QUITE CONTRARY

This gay marriage thing gets weirder all the time. Christian right-wingers in the U.S. are leaping to the defense of Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter, Mary.

In Wednesday night's debate, John Kerry referred to her during an exchange on the marriage issue, noting the contradiction in her father supporting legislation to deny his daughter rights. Kerry did not "out" Mary Cheney -- she's been out for years -- but conservatives say Kerry is being homophobic by using Mary's sexuality as an election issue (Charles Taylor at Salon rightly asks why it's an 'issue' at all).

Conservatives defending Mary Cheney's right to privacy while stripping away all others -- Bizarro World keeps on spinning.

Labels: religion

I WANTED TO BE WRONG

Oh, the pain of pop disappointment. The new R.E.M. album "Around The Sun" came out last week and it's...well...dull. Musically and even lyrically, the bulk of the new record sounds flat and uninspired and it's a real shock to this long-time fan.

The band has struggled somewhat since the departure of drummer Bill Berry in 1997 -- leading many critics to start writing glowing obituaries for the band -- but the uneven "Up" and "Reveal" still have several fantastic songs on them. This time out, there's the pleasant but conventional first single, "Leaving New York," the lyrically interesting but musically bland "Make It All Okay," and a bouncy ode to midlife angst, "Wanderlust" -- decent enough but nowhere close to the band's previous heights. Even the requisite anti-Bush tune, "Final Straw," falls flat.

The review on AllMusic is unfortunately spot-on:
This is as slow and ballad-heavy as "Automatic for the People," but where that album was filled with raw emotion and weird detours, "Around the Sun" is tasteful and streamlined, from its fussy production to its somber songwriting.

R.E.M. virtually created alternative rock nearly 25 years ago and they're still brilliant as far as I'm concerned but their new album is..."tasteful". Oh dear.

TIME ONCE AGAIN...

...for The Disturbing Quote of the Week:

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
-- Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials

BECAUSE THEY RAN OUT OF COMIC BOOKS

Not that we needed proof that there are no original ideas in Hollywood, but...

"Legally Blonde" director Robert Luketic is in negotiations to shoot the big-screen version of the hit TV show "Dallas." The long-running prime-time soap about a wealthy Texas oil family originally ran on CBS from 1978 to 1991. It joins such TV titles as the upcoming "Dukes of Hazzard" and "Bewitched" in getting big-screen makeovers.

HE MEANS IT

As all this election hand-wringing gets ever-more serious, the good people at The Onion have let us in on the real terror threat:

"Dick Cheney Vows to Attack U.S. If Kerry Elected"

"If the wrong man is elected in November, the nation will come under a devastating armed attack of an unimaginable magnitude, one planned and executed by none other than myself," Cheney said, speaking at a rally in Greensboro, NC. "When they go to the polls, Americans must weigh this fact and decide if our nation can ignore such a grave threat...A vote for Kerry is a vote to die in your own bed at the hands of Dick Cheney."

SMOKING GUN

This US presidential campaign has been the ugliest since Bush/Dukakis, with both candidates accusing the other of being an outright liar.

In last night's debate, John Kerry charged that Bush had once said he was "not that concerned" about finding Osama bin Laden. The president smirked and told viewers that Kerry's comment was "one of those exaggerations."

This is a tactic that worked against Al Gore in 2000 but not after March 13, 2002, when a reporter asked Bush why he was declaring war on Iraq instead of continuing the search for Osama Bin Laden. Bush said, "I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run" (check out the video).

Aside from the dubious military tactics on display here, Bush -- like Cheney last week -- is out-and-out lying. And, unlike Kerry's "exaggerations", his lies are deadly.

Labels: George W Bush

AND 'BIGOT' IS UNFAIR?

Javier Lozano Barragan, a prominent Mexican cardinal, has denounced Spain's proposal to legalize same-sex weddings:

One of the great goals of the culture of death is destruction of the family so on all sides, not merely in Spain...there are these proposals that say that the family consists of all those who live beneath the same roof...They even give cockroaches the rank of family now because they live under the same roof. If there's a cat, a dog, two lesbians and everything living there, it's a family.

Culture of death?
Family cockroaches?
If this is what passes for argument, the same-sex marriage debate is over.

I'M NO BOOKER T.

After my latest George W. Bush rant yesterday, I would of course stumble upon this quote from the great Booker T. Washington:

"I will not permit any man to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him."

Oh, alright, I'll ease up. Forgiveness is an excellent thing to aim for, after all. But I'm not a Christian -- my forgiveness is not unconditional. Get that moron out of the White House, stop him from doing any further damage and then and only then will I be able to relax and admit that Bush truly was doing what he thought was right.

It's the final verdict for incompetents throughout history: "Well, he meant well..."

Labels: George W Bush, religion

SUPERMAN

There's not much else I can add to the eulogies for Christopher Reeve, except that he accomplished something few other actors in his position have.
Sean Connery resented being typecast as James Bond.
William Shatner has struggled to maintain the icon status he once enjoyed as Captain Kirk.
Jeremy Brett nearly lost all separation between himself and his legendary character, Sherlock Holmes.

But Christopher Reeve not only embodied Superman in his film series but became a real-life superhero after his devastating horseriding accident in 1995. He became a symbol of hope for people with disabilities, for scientists working on treatments and everyone else who marvelled at his determination and good humour.

He became bigger than the icon he played in the movies.

Labels: comic books, tributes

MEAN GIRL

Thanksgiving with the family was terrific. My niece Syrena was over and I'm always happy to see her, even when she's...well...bratty. She's become surprisingly aggressive for a four-year-old (assuming that all four-year-olds aren't like this) and was actually punching me. It was all sort of adorable and creepy at the same time, like a Teletubby. "You're lucky you're cute," I told her.

I held up a sofa pillow between us and let her punch away at it like a training boxer. I peeked at her over the top of the pillow and said, "Not so tough now, are you?" She grit her teeth and plowed her forehead into mine. I saw stars and shooed her off my lap, announcing, "Playtime's over!" I couldn't believe she had just head-butted me!

An article I found on aggressive girls says nothing about head-butting. I don't even know where she'd get that from. Is it television or instinct?

JUST THE FACTS, RICK

On the opinion pages this morning, "Slate asked a variety of prominent American novelists, ranging from Edwidge Danticat to John Updike, for a frank response to the following question: Which presidential candidate are you voting for, and why?"

Richard Dooling makes a good point that writers should be "political agnostics" but totally lost me with this comment:

The left-wing political road rage directed at George W. Bush for being dumb and lying about the war reminds me of nothing so much as the right-wing obsessive invective directed at Bill Clinton for being smart and lying about sex.

This is an unbelievable comparison. Bill Clinton had many flaws but none of them led to the catastrophic effects of Bush's idiocy. I don't understand anyone who could equate lying about personal sexual behaviour with lying about a rationale for a conflict that has killed thousands of people.

I do recognize Dooling's "rage" idea though -- it's an issue I've been wrestling with for some time. I don't like admitting it but I hate George W. Bush. More than any politician I can think of, I absolutely hate this guy. Even more than Reagan, who I could admire from time to time while still finding his policies grotesque. Canada's flirted with electing right-wing demogogues like Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day yet I never looked at them with the same contempt I feel for this...imposter.

I still maintain, however, that all of this stems not from irrational, knee-jerk politicking but from Bush's own history. I watched this nepotism-winner stumble his way through that campaign against Al Gore and was stunned by how incapable he seemed. Then came the real shocks: first, the Florida election debacle; then, the way the Supreme Court cut off a recount and handed Bush the presidency. He was the first president to have protesters at his inauguration and Rick Moody, author of "The Ice Storm," asserts in Slate's interview that, over the last four years:

it became self-evident, I think, that the Bush presidency is the most corrupt in modern history. Under the cynical disguise of evangelical Christian moralizing (and don't even get me started on Bush's moronic theology), Bush conducted (and continues to conduct) a fire sale, in which he auctioned off the entire nation to the highest corporate bidder, piece by piece. Well, that's not entirely true. Sometimes he didn't even bother to take bids. And this is not to mention a war based on outright mendacity, in which tens of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed.

Too much rhetoric? Maybe, so here's a more pragmatic take from Chang-Rae Lee:

I would be voting for Kerry as a protest vote against the Iraq war alone, but even without that horrid mess, Bush and his handlers are heading us in the wrong directions in energy policy, the environment, civil liberties, tax issues, health care, education, judicial appointments—-the list is endless.

Even if you agree, as a few of the writers interviewed do, that Bush is the stronger war-time leader and that the war in Iraq was necessary, this Republican administration's handling of the war has been abysmal and their record on nearly every domestic issue has been awful bordering on terrifying. And I say this as a Canadian, a safe distance from the fire but close enough to feel the heat. Kerry will not be the perfect leader -- he's yet to truly inspire -- but at least he'll be practical and sane. And that's just the cold, hard truth.

Labels: Canada, George W Bush, religion, Stephen Harper

CHENEY'S BULLET IN THE FOOT

An amusing follow-up to the US VP debate this week:

Dick Cheney argued that John Edwards was wrong about the VP's past ties to Halliburton, and told viewers to check out "FactCheck.com" for proof.

Turns out that FactCheck.org is the website he was thinking of but they were quick to point out that, while they have defended Cheney on other Halliburton accusations, Edwards was mostly right this time.

Meanwhile, the owners of FactCheck.com -- used as a mere home for advertising -- saw a huge increase in traffic and responded by redirecting visitors to the web site of billionaire philanthropist George Soros. Though hardly some left-wing communist, Soros has repeatly proclaimed a simple message since September 11, 2001: "George W. Bush does not qualify to serve as our Commander-in-Chief."

Dick Cheney's simple web site flub has made the re-election of his boss that much harder.

Labels: George W Bush

HELPING THE HELPLESS

The BBC has an intriguing look at attempts to save corals through electroshock therapy. Marine biologist Tom Goreau says, "What we found was that we were able to grow corals at three to five times the record rates, in a habitat where all the corals had been killed by pollution."

THIS JUST IN: I STILL DON'T CARE

At some point many moons ago, I expressed frustration over the non-stop media coverage of the Michael Jackson witch-hunt (in short, lock him up if he's guilty; leave him alone if he's not -- I don't need to hear about it).

Now we have the radio telling me (in its Top Story!!) this morning that Martha Stewart may be in jail already as opposed to today's 2 p.m. sign-in. Why is this news?

I think this is why most people I know don't even pay attention. We're watching less TV news and subscribing to fewer papers -- what's the point? There's too little substance and too much junk. Worst of all, here I am griping about it, becoming part of the problem. But no links, notice. Go look up info on Martha yourself if you need it -- you won't have to search too hard.

FIGHT THE FUTURE

BBC News reports on competing visions of the Internet future at the 'Web 2.0' conference in San Francisco.

In this corner:

...visionary Brewster Kahle [founder of the Internet Archive], who suggested starting by digitally scanning all 26 million books in the US Library of Congress...to scan as many books as possible and put them online so everyone has access to that huge amount of knowledge. In his speech, Mr Kahle pointed out that most books are out of print most of the time and only a tiny proportion are available on bookshop shelves.

In the other corner:

Speaking about what this future will be like, Jeff Bezos, boss of e-commerce firm Amazon, said it will be about making the web useable for computers rather than people. [Did I read that last bit correctly?]

This will revolve around tools and programs that re-work the information collected by firms like Amazon that will help create new services and businesses. One such is MusicPlasma which mines Amazon data to produce a visual search engine to let people find other music that resembles the stuff they already listen to. Another is the Scoutpal service that lets people scan book bar codes to find out what price of the title on Amazon.

Amazon already has 65,000 developers who are working on ways to plunder information on its site for their own ends. The payback for Amazon is the selling of more stuff through its site.

Let's hope Brewster gets his millions.

IT NEVER GETS OLD

I shouldn't have mentioned Mark Twain in that last post -- it always pulls me back into one of his pieces and, in my current 'watching-the-debates-like-a-dove' mode, I couldn't help bringing your attention to one particular essay.

As Twain wrote in his 1901 essay, "To the Person Sitting in Darkness," America should explain how "we have bought a Shadow from an enemy that hadn't it to sell...we have invited clean young men to shoulder a discredited musket and do bandit's work under a flag which bandits have been accustomed to fear, not to follow; we have debauched America's honor and blackened her face before the world."

Oh, what 103 years of progress can do.

COMEDY AIN'T PRETTY

I love satire. I always have, I always will, because while funny is good, funny with a point is better. But good satire is a difficult thing to achieve. The mocking of empty pomposities is always necessary -- especially in politics -- but deflates into cheap lecturing if not done well (says this mid-price lecturer).

While everything goes back to the masters -- Mark Twain, Jonathan Swift, George Orwell and Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., among others -- I'm glad that the great tradition of sharp political satire is still alive and well in our ADD era.

TV hosts Jon Stewart and Bill Maher have been essential viewing for totally different reasons -- Stewart is so fair and reasonable in his attacks that real newscasters are getting jealous, while Maher has become increasingly radical and outspoken since Disney-owned ABC turfed him off the air.

Here in Canada, we've got the sarcastic Rick Mercer and his former compatriots on "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" (which I don't see anymore since the CBC exiled it to Friday nights).

As "South Park" has evolved from cheap potty humour to brilliantly-ruthless mockery, Trey Parker and Matt Stone are joining my list, especially with their new and perfectly-timed movie, "Team America: World Police." Even the MPAA warning on its poster is funny: "Graphic, crude and sexual humour, violent images and strong language; all involving puppets" [the italics were mine, of course].

So far, so good, but what happens when satire doesn't work? I read a piece today by the Jewish World Review's conservative satirist (my head is spinning!) Julia Gorin on celebrity 'Bush-bashing' and, while even I have to admit that certain Hollywood lefties could do with some teasing, Gorin's odd, ugly rant is just not funny (and I'm not even a latino!).

Or are my own politics just getting in the way? I would hope not -- I think P.J. O'Rourke and Florence King are funny and they're as right as one can swing. Perhaps a true dyed-blue conservative can take a look at Gorin's piece and let me know if it meets the Twain.

Labels: Canada

GLASS HALF-EMPTY

John Kerry wants the world to trust him on Iraq despite having little experience.

George Bush wants the world to trust him on Iraq despite having little clue.

I'm more inclined to listen to Ahmed S. Hashim, professor of strategic studies at the Naval War College in Newport. In a piece for the Boston Review, he outlines the Iraq situation in fascinating detail but, overall, it ain't pretty. Here's the money quote:

The insurgency can evolve, and indeed, from the vantage point of summer 2004 appears to be evolving, into patterns of complex warfare and violence. Should this evolution continue, the prospects for American success in bringing about Iraqi security, political stability, and reconstruction will be nonexistent.

Sounds very different from the White House's "everything is fine" stance, doesn't it?

Labels: George W Bush

GREAT JOB, GWEN

Gwen Ifill of "The NewsHour" and "Washington Week" on PBS hosted the American Vice-Presidential debate last night between Vice President Dick Cheney, the Republican nominee, and Senator John Edwards, the Democratic nominee.

Her questions were blunt, her demeanor was warm yet professional and her tolerance for spin was slight. She did a terrific job keeping the contestants under control.

The Washington Post has the full transcript but here's my favourite bit from Ifill:

EDWARDS: While [Dick Cheney] was CEO of Halliburton, they paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false information on their company, just like Enron and Ken Lay. They did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States.
They're now under investigation for having bribed foreign officials during that period of time. Not only that, they've gotten a $7.5 billion no-bid contract in Iraq, and instead of part of their money being withheld, which is the way it's normally done, because they're under investigation, they've continued to get their money.

IFILL: Mr. Vice President?

CHENEY: I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds.

IFILL: Well, that's all you've got.

(LAUGHTER from audience)

CHENEY: Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false. They know that if you go, for example, to factcheck.com [sic], an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton.

Well, it's actually FactCheck.org, but why quibble? (Especially since the site isn't exactly picking Cheney's side)

Later, Ifill's question on the Israel-Palestine conflict led to the candidates' rambling attack on each other's voting records:

IFILL: In that case, we'll move on to domestic matters. And this question, I believe, goes to Senator -- to Vice President Cheney. The Census Bureau...

CHENEY: I think it goes to Senator Edwards.

IFILL: It goes to the Senator. I see you. I just asked him about Israel, even though we didn't actually talk about it much.

CHENEY: I concede the point.

(LAUGHTER from audience)

EDWARDS: No, I did talk about it, Israel. He's the one who didn't talk about it.

I found Edwards' performance in the debate frustrating. He held his own with Cheney, which was a relief, but failed to capitalize on several key moments when the VP got shifty. At one point, Cheney insisted, "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11," and I was actually shocked at such an obvious, outright lie -- yet Edwards let it pass without calling him on it. Not very effective and not the only example.

Oddly though, William Saletan at Slate (I believe I mentioned him yesterday!) says he watched Edwards "knock Dick Cheney around the ring" all evening. For once, I'm not agreeing with him outright but I hope the voters do.

Labels: Middle East

LIKE A MATCHSTICK HOUSE

A pair of hilariously flimsy excuses this morning from the Internet Movie Database's newspage:

Director Ang Lee and writer Larry McMurtry have had a falling out over changes that Lee reportedly made to McMurtry's script for Brokeback Mountain, which concerns a homosexual love affair between two cowboys played by Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger, the New York Daily News's "Rush & Molloy" column reported today (Monday).

According to the column, Lee has barred McMurtry from the set of the movie, shooting in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. A spokeswoman for Focus Features, which is producing it, commented: "Larry McMurtry can never go on sets because he's got very severe allergies."

Perhaps he's allergic to the rumours that Lee and the studio are anxious to tone down the 'gay love story' element, making the film rather pointless -- a western in which nothing happens.

Meanwhile, the 'fair and balanced' Fox News network, currently crowing over the fact-checking controversy at CBS News, has been caught with their own problem:

Fox News has apologized for a bogus news report posted on its website that included fabricated quotes by John Kerry boasting about how he was bolstered in last week's debate with George W. Bush by his "metrosexual" appearance, including a manicure. The item quoted Kerry as saying, "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" The article was written by Carl Cameron, Fox News's chief political correspondent. In a message posted on the website, Fox News said, "We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice."

Fatigue? Maybe "chief political correspondent"(!) Carl took some of Larry McMurtry's allergy pills. Get some rest, boys, you're getting a bit giddy.

OK, OK, I'LL READ THEM ALREADY

Regular readers of this page (both of you!) will know how many times I link to Slate, the web magazine started by liberal editor Michael Kinsley and, erm, Microsoft (how's that for balance?). As with any magazine, it's all about the writers and Slate has two I'm always impressed by -- film critic David Edelstein and political reporter William Saletan.

In his review of David O. Russell's new film, "I Heart Huckabees," Edelstein does what many critics often fail to -- separate the art from the artist:

Russell is a manically inventive writer-director —- maybe the most fearless talent of his generation. It's not a contradiction to say that I admire him more than ever while pronouncing Huckabees an unmitigated disaster.

Edelstein goes on to explain precisely why he loathes the film yet leaves you with a desire to investigate it for yourself by how strongly he admires its director. Nothing he ever writes can be summed up by a thumb.

Over on the political pages, William Saletan is an invaluable resource -- a 'Bush-hater' with a brain. If Michael Moore and Al Franken go after the prez like 'liberal cops' with guns blazing, Saletan is the forensics officer, examining the nuances of Bush's folly with a scalpel. In today's piece, he examines Bush's dismissal of John Kerry's notion of a global test before declaring war on another country:

The test isn't moral. It's factual...The global test is the measurement of the president's assertions against the real world, the world you and I can see. This is the test Bush has failed...Now he's going further. He's not simply failing the test. He's refusing to take it.

Listen to Bush's words again. "The president's job is not to take an international poll," he says. "Our national security decisions will be made in the Oval Office, not in foreign capitals." Bush doesn't say these decisions belong to the United States. He says they belong to the Oval Office. He frames this as patriotism, boasting that he doesn't care whether he offers evidence sufficient to convince people in France. He shows no awareness or concern that evidence is also necessary to convince people in Ohio.

Bang on. And I wish more American voters would read him.

Labels: George W Bush

MATT AND BEN WRESTLE

Ben Affleck hosted "Saturday Night Live" this weekend and responded directly to friend Matt Damon's comments on actors only taking big-money parts:

"Listen bro, we all know who you're talking about.
It's been kind of a mainstream year for me; OK, stop rubbing it in.
I get halfway through 'Paycheck,' I went to ask the theatre manager for my money back and I remembered I was in it.
I know you're not into stardom but help me out here -- I can't seem to recall which Chekhov play 'The Bourne Supremacy' is based on. I'm sure they'll be studying 'Ocean's Twelve' in the film classes at USC, believe me, because 'Ocean's Eleven' left so many unanswered questions. You wait 'til you lose your mind and make two movies in a row with your girlfriend.
By the way, street cred, how's Clooney's yacht treating you? Is there a phone on that thing? I've been trying to call you for three weeks."

Labels: movies

BUBBA BLESSINGS

To those people who may think I'm too hard on George Bush all the time (just because I think he's unbelievably unqualified to be President?), here's proof that Bill Clinton worship is no solution -- I can't decide if it's hilarious or creepy!

Labels: George W Bush

A SIGH OF RELIEF

Wow. Even Fox News is saying that John Kerry won last night's Presidential debate:

"There was a chance that the president would knock Kerry out of the race tonight. ... I think Kerry survived and I think he did pretty well tonight. Kerry was forceful and articulate," said William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard. "He did a pretty good job of making the case that the invasion of Iraq was wrong."

This comes as a big relief, especially after viewing Slate's latest update of their 'election scorecard' -- terrifyingly red!

ANOTHER STEP FORWARD

While Spain's gay marriage bill heads to Parliament with little fuss, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly defeated a constitutional amendment introduced by the Bush administration that would utterly ban same-sex marriage in America.

Two Democratic Representatives from Massachusetts summed up our side perfectly:

“We feel love, and we feel it in a way different than you,” said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is openly gay. “We feel it with someone of the same sex, male or female, and we look at your institution of marriage and we see the joy it brings. How do we hurt you when we share it?” And Rep. Jim McGovern told the ban's supporters, “You are on the wrong side of history...It is wrong to take a beautiful institution like marriage and use it as an instrument of division.”