Ashley Judd and end-of-the-season hoops thoughts
Kenny B told me about this letter-to-the-editor written by Ashley Judd for last Sunday's Lexington Herald. Shows she's learned the true meaning of family...
If you're looking for Sunday pathos on TV, skip the Pope-talk and catch Fox Sports' tribute to the Kentucky Laettner-ending season tonight.
Kentucky added another tall one for next season to try and help out with the rebounding woes.
As a Kentucky fan, I must root for Illinois on Monday. With Louisville out of the way, we can't have North Carolina winning another championship.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
The Debt
Josh Marshall points out that Bush is scheduled to go "visit his legacy" while on his tour to convince the American people to phase out Social Security. The President will make a symbolic trip--intended to bolster his case--to the Bureau of Public Debt. I had no idea, but it's an actual place, presumably with files and files of various IOU's. For some reason, it's in West Virginia.
If you want to see something scary, check out the Public Debt Bureau's "Debt to the Penny" page. Updated every week day. The good news? Somehow between March 30 and March 31, we cut 10 billion off of the national debt! The bad news? Between March 1 and March 30, we added 85 billion.
Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that Treasury Secretary John Snow has a funny notion of "making progress" on the Administration's phase-out attempts. Every Democratic Senator but one (Nebraska's Nelson, who says only that he remains open) continues to be united and determined against any plan that would divert payroll taxes into private accounts. Hastert says he doesn't see any legislation passing this year. And if it doesn't happen this year, I don't think it will happen. Presuming it doesn't, Bush will have fallen flat on his face (sans pretzel) in his primary domestic initiative.
Initiative #2? Overhaul of the tax code. That sounds more like the kind of fight they will reserve for an election year (06). We'll see if Republicans learn anything from this failure. More important, we'll see if Democrats learn anything from this victory.
Josh Marshall points out that Bush is scheduled to go "visit his legacy" while on his tour to convince the American people to phase out Social Security. The President will make a symbolic trip--intended to bolster his case--to the Bureau of Public Debt. I had no idea, but it's an actual place, presumably with files and files of various IOU's. For some reason, it's in West Virginia.
If you want to see something scary, check out the Public Debt Bureau's "Debt to the Penny" page. Updated every week day. The good news? Somehow between March 30 and March 31, we cut 10 billion off of the national debt! The bad news? Between March 1 and March 30, we added 85 billion.
Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that Treasury Secretary John Snow has a funny notion of "making progress" on the Administration's phase-out attempts. Every Democratic Senator but one (Nebraska's Nelson, who says only that he remains open) continues to be united and determined against any plan that would divert payroll taxes into private accounts. Hastert says he doesn't see any legislation passing this year. And if it doesn't happen this year, I don't think it will happen. Presuming it doesn't, Bush will have fallen flat on his face (sans pretzel) in his primary domestic initiative.
Initiative #2? Overhaul of the tax code. That sounds more like the kind of fight they will reserve for an election year (06). We'll see if Republicans learn anything from this failure. More important, we'll see if Democrats learn anything from this victory.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Values
Besides medical costs (my premium just went up 29% - Woohoo!), no other necessity has seen a more rapid increase in pricetag than higher education. And yes these days, a necessity. It can be a crippling burden on families, and on kids trying to get out in the adult world. Americans can spend much of their adult life paying for the education they received when they were 18-22.
Instead of moving to relieve this problem, or even just committing to do no more harm, the Bush administration has made things worse. The good news is that there are some serious proposals in congress (including Barack Obama's first bill!) that would go along way toward repairing the damage done in the last 4 years. The bad news is that they have no chance of passing so long as Bush refuses to back them, even though that would require only keeping a campaign promise or two.
Our House republican leadership, too concerned with life to give much of a damn about life, are in the way. Campaign for America's Future leader Earl Hadley has the details (via TomPaine.com).
Besides medical costs (my premium just went up 29% - Woohoo!), no other necessity has seen a more rapid increase in pricetag than higher education. And yes these days, a necessity. It can be a crippling burden on families, and on kids trying to get out in the adult world. Americans can spend much of their adult life paying for the education they received when they were 18-22.
Instead of moving to relieve this problem, or even just committing to do no more harm, the Bush administration has made things worse. The good news is that there are some serious proposals in congress (including Barack Obama's first bill!) that would go along way toward repairing the damage done in the last 4 years. The bad news is that they have no chance of passing so long as Bush refuses to back them, even though that would require only keeping a campaign promise or two.
Our House republican leadership, too concerned with life to give much of a damn about life, are in the way. Campaign for America's Future leader Earl Hadley has the details (via TomPaine.com).
Friday, April 01, 2005
Reflections on this Most Sacred of Days: Guest post by Stevie T
Try as hard as a I may, I could not avoid writing about my favorite holiday.
Favorite in this sense refers to how much I anticipate its coming each year. In my alternate reality, I spend the whole year planning the wonderfully intricate practical jokes I will play on my friends, family and colleagues. Each joke is matched perfectly to each personality with just the right oomph and gotcha for each person--way overboard for those who will not be offended, and just a little for those who never seem to get my attempts at irony in our everyday conversations.
Yes, one long day of guffaws and frolic, all carefully planned by me. That's how I envision April Fool’s Day every year, from April 2nd the previous year until March 31st, the day when I realize I haven’t planned anything at all.
This year, yesterday, in a fit of panic, I turned to myofficemate friend (whoops, April Fool's!) and told her we had to think fast, it’s almost here, my favorite day! “OK, here's what we do! You announce that you're pregnant to everyone! Then we’ll sit back and watch the hilarity unfold!”
Needless to say, I have scrapped those plans, and have now entered my annual post-imbécile d'avril let-myself-down-again depression.
This year I will amuse myself by reading the Top 100 April Fool's Day Hoaxes of All Time, like the rest of the world apparently. Numbers 1 and 2 are two of my all-time favorites. I remember reading the Sidd Finch story in Sports Illustrated when it came out, and being totally fooled by the whole thing.
Please share with us your warm reflections on this sacred day.
Try as hard as a I may, I could not avoid writing about my favorite holiday.
Favorite in this sense refers to how much I anticipate its coming each year. In my alternate reality, I spend the whole year planning the wonderfully intricate practical jokes I will play on my friends, family and colleagues. Each joke is matched perfectly to each personality with just the right oomph and gotcha for each person--way overboard for those who will not be offended, and just a little for those who never seem to get my attempts at irony in our everyday conversations.
Yes, one long day of guffaws and frolic, all carefully planned by me. That's how I envision April Fool’s Day every year, from April 2nd the previous year until March 31st, the day when I realize I haven’t planned anything at all.
This year, yesterday, in a fit of panic, I turned to my
Needless to say, I have scrapped those plans, and have now entered my annual post-imbécile d'avril let-myself-down-again depression.
This year I will amuse myself by reading the Top 100 April Fool's Day Hoaxes of All Time, like the rest of the world apparently. Numbers 1 and 2 are two of my all-time favorites. I remember reading the Sidd Finch story in Sports Illustrated when it came out, and being totally fooled by the whole thing.
Please share with us your warm reflections on this sacred day.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Sin Tax Philosophy
As I indicated in an earlier post, I am thrilled that states are starting to levy higher taxes on cigarettes--especially in those states like KY that have such paltry cigarette taxes. But, there does seem to be a bit of a dilemma, doesn't there? What happens if the education and the deterring factor of the tax actually take hold and smoking seriously drops off? What happens to the tax base? Ideally, things like cigarette taxes would be reserved for medical costs that the state faces as a result of the dangers of smoking. But instead that money typically is piled into the general fund, along with the alcohol taxes (and here in TN there's a new proposal to add an entrance tax of a couple bucks onto strip club entry fees). My question is, is there a danger, even just a cultural one, in states getting too close, and too dependent, on its citizens engaging in activities that are unhealthy one way or another?
And this is especially on my mind having read a NYTimes story on states' new found love of gambling revenue. There are no direct costs that the state incurs as a result of people engaging in gambling abuse or addiction. So this is just a way to raise money. Like church groups that raise funds with a bingo game. Is this really a proper way for the state to raise money? On one hand, if it's going to be legal, it might as well have a healthy tax. But in this case, we have examples of gambling being made legal for the explicit purpose of shoring up the tax base since the public refuses to sacrifice as a community.
To be clear, I am a strong supporter of a very hefty cigarette tax. It makes sense for many reasons-including a deterring factor for teenagers to start. But I do wonder if there is a downside (like, what is the state's real incentive to discourage smoking should the revenue start to outweigh the costs? or is that not even possible); and I wonder if it's not part of a troubling trend in state revenue streams.
On the other side of the spectrum is a federal tax proposal that doesn't make alot of sense to me (or to Kevin Drum), even though it's the option preferred by one of my heroes, Frank Zappa. Replace the income tax with a consumption tax, and send monthly rebates to cover the taxes on necessities.
As I indicated in an earlier post, I am thrilled that states are starting to levy higher taxes on cigarettes--especially in those states like KY that have such paltry cigarette taxes. But, there does seem to be a bit of a dilemma, doesn't there? What happens if the education and the deterring factor of the tax actually take hold and smoking seriously drops off? What happens to the tax base? Ideally, things like cigarette taxes would be reserved for medical costs that the state faces as a result of the dangers of smoking. But instead that money typically is piled into the general fund, along with the alcohol taxes (and here in TN there's a new proposal to add an entrance tax of a couple bucks onto strip club entry fees). My question is, is there a danger, even just a cultural one, in states getting too close, and too dependent, on its citizens engaging in activities that are unhealthy one way or another?
And this is especially on my mind having read a NYTimes story on states' new found love of gambling revenue. There are no direct costs that the state incurs as a result of people engaging in gambling abuse or addiction. So this is just a way to raise money. Like church groups that raise funds with a bingo game. Is this really a proper way for the state to raise money? On one hand, if it's going to be legal, it might as well have a healthy tax. But in this case, we have examples of gambling being made legal for the explicit purpose of shoring up the tax base since the public refuses to sacrifice as a community.
Because of gambling, South Dakota officials were able to push through a 20 percent reduction in property taxes a decade ago by increasing to 50 percent the state's share of gambling revenue from video lottery terminals, up from 37 percent.Is this just a good, clever way to fund the budget? (what's next, a state wide bake sale or silent auction?) Or does this mark--like I fear--the tacit approval of a funding system that requires fewer and fewer citizens to pay their fair share, so long as we can leverage that desperate (for a drink, a smoke, some action) minority for some extra cash? And then, to top it off, doesn't the state have to hope, deep down, beneath the public service announcements, for the ranks of that group to increase? The more the better?
A property tax reduction was also the main argument in Pennsylvania for legalizing gambling when the Legislature last year authorized slot machines at racetracks and casinos after years of intense opposition.
To be clear, I am a strong supporter of a very hefty cigarette tax. It makes sense for many reasons-including a deterring factor for teenagers to start. But I do wonder if there is a downside (like, what is the state's real incentive to discourage smoking should the revenue start to outweigh the costs? or is that not even possible); and I wonder if it's not part of a troubling trend in state revenue streams.
On the other side of the spectrum is a federal tax proposal that doesn't make alot of sense to me (or to Kevin Drum), even though it's the option preferred by one of my heroes, Frank Zappa. Replace the income tax with a consumption tax, and send monthly rebates to cover the taxes on necessities.
Question
Why is MSNBC abusing me with an original composition played and sung by Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry? We can add musical crimes against humanity to his other offenses. Not even Fox News is covering it. Much less CNN.
Why is MSNBC abusing me with an original composition played and sung by Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry? We can add musical crimes against humanity to his other offenses. Not even Fox News is covering it. Much less CNN.
Retiring?
Having never made the short list for the job, I don't know much about the protocol of being Pope. Is he required to keep the title until he dies? If not, why is nobody talking about him maybe stepping aside? Isn't he pretty well incapable of doign much of anything? I think even Southern Baptists would encourage a pastor to retire once he can't muster the breath to speak a single word...
On the other hand, a mute Baptist preacher just may lead the kind of church I could attend.
Having never made the short list for the job, I don't know much about the protocol of being Pope. Is he required to keep the title until he dies? If not, why is nobody talking about him maybe stepping aside? Isn't he pretty well incapable of doign much of anything? I think even Southern Baptists would encourage a pastor to retire once he can't muster the breath to speak a single word...
On the other hand, a mute Baptist preacher just may lead the kind of church I could attend.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Culture of Life (again)
Matt Yglesias has never been moreright correct. Today he hits the mark pointing to the logical contradiction tugging at the mainstream right-to-life philosophy, "(t)he line that abortion is murder, but killing stem cells for research purposes is legitimate science..."
At its heart is a fundamentally misguided notion--held by mostly men and some women--of women and womanhood, one which both beatifies her and her reproductive power, and would also like to control and limit her--to keep her in that place of adored, revered, encasement.
Our fascination with the near-magical wonder of child-bearing impels us to womb-worship. Her ovaries work in time with the glorious ocean and the mysterious moon, while the male half of the equation--the rather inglorious by comparison ejaculation--can happen any old time and place, for our benefit and pleasure. And our culture generally doesn't begrudge us doing just that. Still, you get the sense that if we could, we would remove males from the process altogether. Our perfect woman, Mary, was allowed to do just that, or so the story goes.
And so the woman bears, too, the weight of responsibility in George Bush's culture of life (a culture whose roots stretch back more than 2000 years), responsibility to cultivate not just a child, but our traditional awe at her beautiful (unseen) gift/power (perhaps beautiful *because* unseen? the male gift, out in the open, offers so little mystery as to be banal.). And so, a fertilized egg inside her comes wrapped with promises, threats, and the duty of protecting innocence and the soul itself. But, a fertilized egg outside her? As Matthew quotes John Danforth rightly pointing out, most of us, including conservatives, can clearly see the difference between "cells in a petri dish" and human life.
So, why the criminalizing distinction? Isn't this just another way for men to try and control women for the furtherance of their own deeply-ingrained mythologies? This contradiction--which would grant humanity to embryonic cells inside a woman, but deny it outside--would see the womb as the temple in which God Himself reaches out to touch mankind; the place where the soul itself is born. Males--at our best--can only manage that event in art, on chapel ceilings and the like. And so conservatives feel empowered to deny women the right to decide what they may and may not cultivate in their own bodies, primarily because they want to believe something magical happens in the womb and nowhere else.
Well, it is wondrous. But it is not magic. And that reverential mythology is not a justifiable burden to place on women, even as we adore and are awed by all of nature's biology. As Matthew says "you sort of have to be a man" to hold such requirements and beliefs, that would gladly suffer the destruction of embryos for research and for fertility clinics (for which hundreds of thousands of embryos are destroyed) and call it science, but would criminalize a woman for doing it, and call it murder.
If the Schiavo case has done nothing else, it has brought into full light the question of human life. I have been shocked, though I suppose I shouldn't be, to hear conservative TV pundits aghast at the reality--known to all the rest of us--that feeding tubes are in fact routinely removed; ventilators are turned off; determinations are made that there is no recognizable human life there. What gives a life its humanity? its capacity to commune with others? its memory? consciousness of its own existence? Is a faint heartbeat all that constitutes a human life? Does it require a womb? must it feel pain? joy? anticipation? Must it merely be an organism with the potential for such?
Will we let all cells that meet the minimum imaginable requirements hold the same place in our laws, and our religion, and our hearts, that a baby does, or a sibling, or a parent? I would suggest that, as argued in Matt's piece, we already do not, and we should not. And so long as we don't, we must not demand it of women just to further our own cultural-religious mythologies of the womb.
Let's be about the business of valuing, and honoring, human life with all of the dignity it deserves and desires. Human. Life. It is, today, struggling with decisions, disease, hunger, pain, poverty, war and hatred, sacrifice, cruelty, disaster and disability; and it dreams and plans--when it still has the will--for opportunity, freedom, justice, friendship, peace, community, love, family and beauty. It is in the pursuit of those things--both the great and the small, the joyful and the harrowing--that the fingertips of God touch us all. And the enactment of those things, not the reproductive chemistry of cellular biology, is the temple in which the soul is born. Care toward a dignified--even when difficult--human life is the duty of us all, not just the females among us. There is much to be done on that front.
Matt Yglesias has never been more
At its heart is a fundamentally misguided notion--held by mostly men and some women--of women and womanhood, one which both beatifies her and her reproductive power, and would also like to control and limit her--to keep her in that place of adored, revered, encasement.
Our fascination with the near-magical wonder of child-bearing impels us to womb-worship. Her ovaries work in time with the glorious ocean and the mysterious moon, while the male half of the equation--the rather inglorious by comparison ejaculation--can happen any old time and place, for our benefit and pleasure. And our culture generally doesn't begrudge us doing just that. Still, you get the sense that if we could, we would remove males from the process altogether. Our perfect woman, Mary, was allowed to do just that, or so the story goes.
And so the woman bears, too, the weight of responsibility in George Bush's culture of life (a culture whose roots stretch back more than 2000 years), responsibility to cultivate not just a child, but our traditional awe at her beautiful (unseen) gift/power (perhaps beautiful *because* unseen? the male gift, out in the open, offers so little mystery as to be banal.). And so, a fertilized egg inside her comes wrapped with promises, threats, and the duty of protecting innocence and the soul itself. But, a fertilized egg outside her? As Matthew quotes John Danforth rightly pointing out, most of us, including conservatives, can clearly see the difference between "cells in a petri dish" and human life.
So, why the criminalizing distinction? Isn't this just another way for men to try and control women for the furtherance of their own deeply-ingrained mythologies? This contradiction--which would grant humanity to embryonic cells inside a woman, but deny it outside--would see the womb as the temple in which God Himself reaches out to touch mankind; the place where the soul itself is born. Males--at our best--can only manage that event in art, on chapel ceilings and the like. And so conservatives feel empowered to deny women the right to decide what they may and may not cultivate in their own bodies, primarily because they want to believe something magical happens in the womb and nowhere else.
Well, it is wondrous. But it is not magic. And that reverential mythology is not a justifiable burden to place on women, even as we adore and are awed by all of nature's biology. As Matthew says "you sort of have to be a man" to hold such requirements and beliefs, that would gladly suffer the destruction of embryos for research and for fertility clinics (for which hundreds of thousands of embryos are destroyed) and call it science, but would criminalize a woman for doing it, and call it murder.
If the Schiavo case has done nothing else, it has brought into full light the question of human life. I have been shocked, though I suppose I shouldn't be, to hear conservative TV pundits aghast at the reality--known to all the rest of us--that feeding tubes are in fact routinely removed; ventilators are turned off; determinations are made that there is no recognizable human life there. What gives a life its humanity? its capacity to commune with others? its memory? consciousness of its own existence? Is a faint heartbeat all that constitutes a human life? Does it require a womb? must it feel pain? joy? anticipation? Must it merely be an organism with the potential for such?
Will we let all cells that meet the minimum imaginable requirements hold the same place in our laws, and our religion, and our hearts, that a baby does, or a sibling, or a parent? I would suggest that, as argued in Matt's piece, we already do not, and we should not. And so long as we don't, we must not demand it of women just to further our own cultural-religious mythologies of the womb.
Let's be about the business of valuing, and honoring, human life with all of the dignity it deserves and desires. Human. Life. It is, today, struggling with decisions, disease, hunger, pain, poverty, war and hatred, sacrifice, cruelty, disaster and disability; and it dreams and plans--when it still has the will--for opportunity, freedom, justice, friendship, peace, community, love, family and beauty. It is in the pursuit of those things--both the great and the small, the joyful and the harrowing--that the fingertips of God touch us all. And the enactment of those things, not the reproductive chemistry of cellular biology, is the temple in which the soul is born. Care toward a dignified--even when difficult--human life is the duty of us all, not just the females among us. There is much to be done on that front.
More rights the right-wing should consider
Why should pharmacists and doctors have all the rights when it comes to refusing service for religious reasons? Here are a few more I thought of that should be next:
1. Bartenders/waiters refusing to serve alcohol: opposition to drinking
2. Judges refusing to hear divorce proceedings: no broken promises to God
3. Cabdrivers refuse to drive to strip clubs or casinos or bars
4. Movie theater box office workers refuse to sell tickets to R-rated movies
5. Fishermen refuse to pull in shrimp (god hates shrimp)
I'm sure I missed many--help me out.
The point is this: you're a pharmacist. I have a prescription. Give me my damn drugs. If you don't want to dispense legal drugs to people with prescriptions, don't be a pharmacist. It's kind of the job description.
Why should pharmacists and doctors have all the rights when it comes to refusing service for religious reasons? Here are a few more I thought of that should be next:
1. Bartenders/waiters refusing to serve alcohol: opposition to drinking
2. Judges refusing to hear divorce proceedings: no broken promises to God
3. Cabdrivers refuse to drive to strip clubs or casinos or bars
4. Movie theater box office workers refuse to sell tickets to R-rated movies
5. Fishermen refuse to pull in shrimp (god hates shrimp)
I'm sure I missed many--help me out.
The point is this: you're a pharmacist. I have a prescription. Give me my damn drugs. If you don't want to dispense legal drugs to people with prescriptions, don't be a pharmacist. It's kind of the job description.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Nutjobs at the Helm
Why are state legislatures always crazier, even, than the state population? The old days of voting for the reasonable, thoughtful candidates that won't do anything too stupid are over. Now it's divide and conquer to get elected, and then wreak havoc once you're in. Why bring this up today? The Michigan House passed (that's right, passed) a bill that would allow doctors the right to refuse service on religious or ethical grounds; like, for instance, if you don't really want to help gay people live.
We don't let ministers practice medicine if it results in harm. We shouldn't let doctors practice religion when it results in harm to their patients either. We can only hope the Michigan Senate somehow has more sense.
Why are state legislatures always crazier, even, than the state population? The old days of voting for the reasonable, thoughtful candidates that won't do anything too stupid are over. Now it's divide and conquer to get elected, and then wreak havoc once you're in. Why bring this up today? The Michigan House passed (that's right, passed) a bill that would allow doctors the right to refuse service on religious or ethical grounds; like, for instance, if you don't really want to help gay people live.
The legislation permits doctors to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical, or religious grounds (race is excluded). The Michigan House simultaneously passed legislation allowing health insurers and facilities to avoid providing or covering health care procedures that violate ethical, moral, or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.Between this and the new push to allow pharmacists the right to refuse to fill prescription contraception, I think the whole country is going stark-raving mad. The American Constitution Society has more on both stories.
We don't let ministers practice medicine if it results in harm. We shouldn't let doctors practice religion when it results in harm to their patients either. We can only hope the Michigan Senate somehow has more sense.
Monday, March 28, 2005
MEDIA MONDAY--DELIRIOUSLY SLEEPY FROM LATE-NIGHT TRAVEL EDITION
What have you been watching, reading or listening to?
The Future of Innovation Technology at Stake Tomorrow
Will the Supreme Court change course on the Sony-Betamax decision? Will companies be held liable for all infringing activities that can be accomplished with their products? Arguments are tomorrow in MGM v. Grokster. Who's paying the bills? Mark Cuban.
The Coolest Radio Station Ever?
David Byrne has launched an online radio station that plays through a 3-hour playlist of what he's listening to/recommending these days. How often will he update it?
Springsteen inducts U2 into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
I recently discovered Tim Riley's blog (he wrote my favorite book on the Beatles). He points to the hilarious and glowing induction speech the Boss gave earlier this month. This is the first I've heard of it. Read the whole thing.
Project Greenlight
Sorry, I may be the only one here who cares, but episode 3 premiers tomorrow night (on Bravo). I have become curious--maddening as that is in this case--about what happens with the director, John Gulager. Hopefully the people behind the show know there is a limit. As out-of-place as he may be in the professional film world, and as strange as some of his mannerisms, I'm tuning in to see if he can wrap his arms around this project and make it his own, whether or not it's successful commercially, and whether or not he wins over the entire team. I would prefer they fire him if the alternative is to continue demeaning him. If it keeps up like this for the next few episodes, they'll lose me. I'm more interested to see if he can make a film that he's happy with than one that anyone else is happy with. They've shown him to have an Ed-Wood-like capacity to be rather uncritical of anything he does. If that turns out to be the case, this show will be disappointing.
For the interested: there are blogs by some primary players who comment on each episode's happenings without giving away what happens next. Can't help but notice that while the 2 writers (including Marcus, from Deb's hometown!) are blogging the show, John is not. Makes me think they may have canned him. On the other hand, I was pleased to read Marcus's feelings that the show had really drawn out some of the antipathy toward Gulager beyond the way it really felt in real life. He also sounds like he has genuine respect and no ill-will (the kind you might have if an eccentric derailed your best shot at making it in the movie biz.) toward John.
So, either Marcus is just being courteous or the show may yet take a turn toward the humane and artistic. Since I'm guessing John is about to have the studio take a hard stand against him on casting his family in all the lead roles, it may get worse before it gets better.
Meanwhile, has anyone seen the new South Parks? I've managed to miss them all so far. Thumbs up, down, sideways?
Weekend Box Office
1. Guess Who
2. Miss Congeniality 2
3. Ring 2
4. Robots
5. The Pacifier
Out of ideas...top 3 films are all remake/sequels. I first saw the Tracy/Hepburn Guess Who's Coming to Dinner when I was in high school, and thought it was real funny and have always assumed the interracial relationship made for a fairly risky comedy subject in 1967. So, what's the point of redoing it now? Just some Bernie Mac Meet-the-Parents moments with Ashton Kutcher?
Lost in Translation
Kevin Drum reports that any Office-Space-on-TV hype for the new NBC (BBC ripoff) show The Office is way off the mark:
Tom Waits' 20 "most cherished" albums of all time
From The Guardian (with Waits' comments on each), here's his top 6 (Frank Zappa and Elvis Costello make Tom's list further down..):
1. In The Wee Small Hours by Frank Sinatra
2. Solo Monk by Thelonious Monk
3. Trout Mask Replica by Captain Beefheart
4. Exile On Main St. by Rolling Stones
5. The Sinking of the Titanic by Gavin Bryars
6. The Basement Tapes by Bob Dylan
What have you been watching, reading or listening to?
The Future of Innovation Technology at Stake Tomorrow
Will the Supreme Court change course on the Sony-Betamax decision? Will companies be held liable for all infringing activities that can be accomplished with their products? Arguments are tomorrow in MGM v. Grokster. Who's paying the bills? Mark Cuban.
The Coolest Radio Station Ever?
David Byrne has launched an online radio station that plays through a 3-hour playlist of what he's listening to/recommending these days. How often will he update it?
The song list will be updated periodically (how long is that really, in Earth time? Well, it depends on my listening habits.) As it reflects what I’m listening to, some songs will hang around longer while others will get dumped and replaced quickly.I found it easier to go through ITunes, since I use that anyway (under "radio", "eclectic"), but you can use any player. (thanks to--and thank god for--boing boing)
Like many people, I listen to a wide variety of music, and some of it is, ahem, more appropriate at certain times of day than others. We here are not responsible for adverse affects from playing the wrong music at the wrong time. Hope some of this is enjoyable.
Springsteen inducts U2 into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
I recently discovered Tim Riley's blog (he wrote my favorite book on the Beatles). He points to the hilarious and glowing induction speech the Boss gave earlier this month. This is the first I've heard of it. Read the whole thing.
Project Greenlight
Sorry, I may be the only one here who cares, but episode 3 premiers tomorrow night (on Bravo). I have become curious--maddening as that is in this case--about what happens with the director, John Gulager. Hopefully the people behind the show know there is a limit. As out-of-place as he may be in the professional film world, and as strange as some of his mannerisms, I'm tuning in to see if he can wrap his arms around this project and make it his own, whether or not it's successful commercially, and whether or not he wins over the entire team. I would prefer they fire him if the alternative is to continue demeaning him. If it keeps up like this for the next few episodes, they'll lose me. I'm more interested to see if he can make a film that he's happy with than one that anyone else is happy with. They've shown him to have an Ed-Wood-like capacity to be rather uncritical of anything he does. If that turns out to be the case, this show will be disappointing.
For the interested: there are blogs by some primary players who comment on each episode's happenings without giving away what happens next. Can't help but notice that while the 2 writers (including Marcus, from Deb's hometown!) are blogging the show, John is not. Makes me think they may have canned him. On the other hand, I was pleased to read Marcus's feelings that the show had really drawn out some of the antipathy toward Gulager beyond the way it really felt in real life. He also sounds like he has genuine respect and no ill-will (the kind you might have if an eccentric derailed your best shot at making it in the movie biz.) toward John.
So, either Marcus is just being courteous or the show may yet take a turn toward the humane and artistic. Since I'm guessing John is about to have the studio take a hard stand against him on casting his family in all the lead roles, it may get worse before it gets better.
Meanwhile, has anyone seen the new South Parks? I've managed to miss them all so far. Thumbs up, down, sideways?
Weekend Box Office
1. Guess Who
2. Miss Congeniality 2
3. Ring 2
4. Robots
5. The Pacifier
Out of ideas...top 3 films are all remake/sequels. I first saw the Tracy/Hepburn Guess Who's Coming to Dinner when I was in high school, and thought it was real funny and have always assumed the interracial relationship made for a fairly risky comedy subject in 1967. So, what's the point of redoing it now? Just some Bernie Mac Meet-the-Parents moments with Ashton Kutcher?
Lost in Translation
Kevin Drum reports that any Office-Space-on-TV hype for the new NBC (BBC ripoff) show The Office is way off the mark:
Long story short, the American version didn't do much for me. Unlike Office Space, in which we get parodies of recognizable types, The Office seemed to offer up parodies of parodies, or perhaps parodies of Martians. The characters barely even seemed to be recognizably human, let alone engaging mockeries of people we all feel like we've met at some point in real life.I haven't seen it, and now I know not to. Anyone seen the British version?
Tom Waits' 20 "most cherished" albums of all time
From The Guardian (with Waits' comments on each), here's his top 6 (Frank Zappa and Elvis Costello make Tom's list further down..):
1. In The Wee Small Hours by Frank Sinatra
2. Solo Monk by Thelonious Monk
3. Trout Mask Replica by Captain Beefheart
4. Exile On Main St. by Rolling Stones
5. The Sinking of the Titanic by Gavin Bryars
6. The Basement Tapes by Bob Dylan
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Weekend
I'm off for a completely undeserved vacation this weekend. Mark has agreed to handle the guest post on Friday, so make sure you come around and comment on whatever he has to say. The rest of you who have guest-posted in the past please feel free to chime in over the weekend with posts. And maybe someone can throw in a Go Big Blue headline when warranted (just in case that's the lucky charm that's gotten them 2 wins so far.) I'll be back in time for Media Monday.
I'm off for a completely undeserved vacation this weekend. Mark has agreed to handle the guest post on Friday, so make sure you come around and comment on whatever he has to say. The rest of you who have guest-posted in the past please feel free to chime in over the weekend with posts. And maybe someone can throw in a Go Big Blue headline when warranted (just in case that's the lucky charm that's gotten them 2 wins so far.) I'll be back in time for Media Monday.
Draft Impending?
Stars and Stripes reports on the striking concerns of Army Vice Chief of Staff Richard Cody, who warns that the all-volunteer force we have now is stretched thin, that recruiting is "showing cracks", and that our present active military are not being adequately cared for. We have heard this kind of warning in political debates, but this is the first time I've seen such high-ranking military officials offer such a dire short-term outlook.
Is there any doubt that some form of draft will eventually have to be implemented to avert a total military breakdown? Every month I see new stories about recruiting goals not being met, and no new stories about troop deployments decreasing. And this growing deficit promises to arrive much quicker than 2041. Why does this real crisis not warrant more reform-minded attention than social security? What is the Bush plan? Hope we can get out of Iraq in time to regroup and replenish?
I can think of 2 ways to make volunteer service more attractive:
1. Compensate military appropriately. Higher pay, better, more reliable benefits.
2. Make it less likely that they will die or lose eyes, arms or legs. Start with being more careful, deliberate, and honest about which conflicts we join, or start.
(tip of the hat to Doug for sending a link to this story)
Stars and Stripes reports on the striking concerns of Army Vice Chief of Staff Richard Cody, who warns that the all-volunteer force we have now is stretched thin, that recruiting is "showing cracks", and that our present active military are not being adequately cared for. We have heard this kind of warning in political debates, but this is the first time I've seen such high-ranking military officials offer such a dire short-term outlook.
In the end, says Cody, it comes down to simple questions like, “What kind of Army do you want to have? Is service to this country important to you?”Hmmm, the same kind of doomsday language Republicans use about leaving social security unchanged. Somehow, I put more faith in the Major General's words.
[SNIP]
“The all-volunteer force is close to breaking right now,” said retired Maj. Gen. Edward Atkeson, now a prolific author on military affairs and a senior fellow at the Institute of Land Warfare. “When it does break, that’s when you’ll see the draft come back.”
Atkeson said cracks are already showing with the use of stop loss to keep troops in beyond their active contracts and massive reserve mobilizations.
“The worst-case scenario is that things just continue as they are.”
Is there any doubt that some form of draft will eventually have to be implemented to avert a total military breakdown? Every month I see new stories about recruiting goals not being met, and no new stories about troop deployments decreasing. And this growing deficit promises to arrive much quicker than 2041. Why does this real crisis not warrant more reform-minded attention than social security? What is the Bush plan? Hope we can get out of Iraq in time to regroup and replenish?
I can think of 2 ways to make volunteer service more attractive:
1. Compensate military appropriately. Higher pay, better, more reliable benefits.
2. Make it less likely that they will die or lose eyes, arms or legs. Start with being more careful, deliberate, and honest about which conflicts we join, or start.
(tip of the hat to Doug for sending a link to this story)
Meanwhile...
The Bush Administration is putting the kibosh on officials who are starting to wonder why social security is getting reform attention when Medicare is in clearly worse shape. Kevin Drum has the answers.
The Bush Administration is putting the kibosh on officials who are starting to wonder why social security is getting reform attention when Medicare is in clearly worse shape. Kevin Drum has the answers.
Schiavo Politics
Over at Kos, they've picked up on a quote from David Sirotka in a Washington Post piece (note the misuse of "begs the question"!) in which he reaches a similar conclusion to the one I did earlier: that this is not the winner for Democrats that the polls imply. Of course Kossaks think he's wrong and that this will help usher out the arrogant GOP now that the public sees them clearly and disagrees.
But let me throw another couple of logs on the fire of political pessimism. Let's suppose Sirotka and I are wrong, and that the public is not, overall, impressed with the zealotry of protection and principle that Republicans are trying to present. Let's say a clear majority does in fact believe Congress is not standing on principle (hence, respectable), but on politics. That interpretation doesn't help much.
1. People want to root for those that champion their cause. Republicans may have picked up even more support among that minority who oppose right-to-die efforts. And the flock will have increased the fervor with which they show that support. That's more money, more volunteers, more determination to spread the total GOP message among those who may disagree with them on this one issue.
(And can you imagine what we'll have to listen to should the poor woman die tomorrow...on Good Friday? It's bad enough her legal fate is being sealed Easter weekend.)
2. Where will Republicans lose support over this issue? What is the profile of the person who previously voted Republican or crossed lines and will now be more likely to vote Democrat? Haven't the GOP already given that libertarian strain of Republicanism reason enough to bolt, well before this issue?
3. Even though a majority disagrees with congress, they're telling pollsters the GOP doesn't really mean it--"they're just playing politics". In truth, the modern Republican Party is run by fanatical madmen. Once the public realizes that then we're getting somewhere. Until then, the GOP is getting a pass on this issue from the very people that disagree with them. When we actually get the majority to oppose a Republican position, we want them to believe that those officials mean it, don't we? Now, we only have people believing that elected officials play politics. And they think both sides do that equally.
This is not a winner for Democrats, though not much of a loser either. Let's not drop the ball. Our winning issue of today is social security. Judging from the round-the-clock coverage, I'd say they've pretty well changed the subject. This religion and politics thing is not going to go away.
Over at Kos, they've picked up on a quote from David Sirotka in a Washington Post piece (note the misuse of "begs the question"!) in which he reaches a similar conclusion to the one I did earlier: that this is not the winner for Democrats that the polls imply. Of course Kossaks think he's wrong and that this will help usher out the arrogant GOP now that the public sees them clearly and disagrees.
But let me throw another couple of logs on the fire of political pessimism. Let's suppose Sirotka and I are wrong, and that the public is not, overall, impressed with the zealotry of protection and principle that Republicans are trying to present. Let's say a clear majority does in fact believe Congress is not standing on principle (hence, respectable), but on politics. That interpretation doesn't help much.
1. People want to root for those that champion their cause. Republicans may have picked up even more support among that minority who oppose right-to-die efforts. And the flock will have increased the fervor with which they show that support. That's more money, more volunteers, more determination to spread the total GOP message among those who may disagree with them on this one issue.
(And can you imagine what we'll have to listen to should the poor woman die tomorrow...on Good Friday? It's bad enough her legal fate is being sealed Easter weekend.)
2. Where will Republicans lose support over this issue? What is the profile of the person who previously voted Republican or crossed lines and will now be more likely to vote Democrat? Haven't the GOP already given that libertarian strain of Republicanism reason enough to bolt, well before this issue?
3. Even though a majority disagrees with congress, they're telling pollsters the GOP doesn't really mean it--"they're just playing politics". In truth, the modern Republican Party is run by fanatical madmen. Once the public realizes that then we're getting somewhere. Until then, the GOP is getting a pass on this issue from the very people that disagree with them. When we actually get the majority to oppose a Republican position, we want them to believe that those officials mean it, don't we? Now, we only have people believing that elected officials play politics. And they think both sides do that equally.
This is not a winner for Democrats, though not much of a loser either. Let's not drop the ball. Our winning issue of today is social security. Judging from the round-the-clock coverage, I'd say they've pretty well changed the subject. This religion and politics thing is not going to go away.
"Hot Tub" Tom Delay is smoking crack [UPDATED...for accuracy with help from the comments]
His logic (a must read...you won't believe it):
1. "Hot Tub" Tom Delay is under attack by liberals.
2. Ed Feulner of the Heritage Foundation is under attack by liberals.
3. Terry Schiavo ishelpless under attack by liberals.
3.1 Her suffering is a gift from God to help uplift the righteous conservative cause.
4. These personal attacks on three innocent sweet Americans are cruel and inhumane and all part of the secret anti-conservative plan headed up by George Soros.
5. Vote Republican!
His logic (a must read...you won't believe it):
1. "Hot Tub" Tom Delay is under attack by liberals.
2. Ed Feulner of the Heritage Foundation is under attack by liberals.
3. Terry Schiavo is
3.1 Her suffering is a gift from God to help uplift the righteous conservative cause.
4. These personal attacks on three innocent sweet Americans are cruel and inhumane and all part of the secret anti-conservative plan headed up by George Soros.
5. Vote Republican!
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
The least mad hypothesis
Wow. Mendel's theory of inheritance thrown out the window? What if RNA contained a "backup" copy of a species' standard genome that would allow an organism to "revert" to a healthy state should both parents contain the same genetic deficiency. Inheritance theory says this is impossible. But scientists now say that is the only decent explanation for the Arabidopsis. Wouldn't this change our basic understanding of evolution?
And if human RNA contained a similar escape button? Wouldn't we need only figure out a way to press it? And then, genetic disabilities be gone? Really, I'm just asking.
Link above is to the NYTimes story. The Nature article is here.
Wow. Mendel's theory of inheritance thrown out the window? What if RNA contained a "backup" copy of a species' standard genome that would allow an organism to "revert" to a healthy state should both parents contain the same genetic deficiency. Inheritance theory says this is impossible. But scientists now say that is the only decent explanation for the Arabidopsis. Wouldn't this change our basic understanding of evolution?
And if human RNA contained a similar escape button? Wouldn't we need only figure out a way to press it? And then, genetic disabilities be gone? Really, I'm just asking.
Link above is to the NYTimes story. The Nature article is here.
This is the best they can do?
The social security trustees' report is out. They plied the numbers (by, for instance suddenly deciding that we're all going to live longer than they thought we were last year) and the best they can do is roll back the year in which the trust fund runs out from 2042 to 2041. Naturally, the media's take bears a shocking resemblance to the White House statement: the deadline's getting closer!! Nevermind that they changed the rules, and that it's not getting much closer.
At Mother Jones' blog, Bradford Plumer covers some details, and points to this handy graph that shows that even with the strangely pessimistic new assumptions even the Trustees' report concedes that the long-term stability of the social security fund appears stronger than it did only last year.
The social security trustees' report is out. They plied the numbers (by, for instance suddenly deciding that we're all going to live longer than they thought we were last year) and the best they can do is roll back the year in which the trust fund runs out from 2042 to 2041. Naturally, the media's take bears a shocking resemblance to the White House statement: the deadline's getting closer!! Nevermind that they changed the rules, and that it's not getting much closer.
At Mother Jones' blog, Bradford Plumer covers some details, and points to this handy graph that shows that even with the strangely pessimistic new assumptions even the Trustees' report concedes that the long-term stability of the social security fund appears stronger than it did only last year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)