February 01, 2004
--- Check this out. Interesting.
--- Check this out. Interesting.
But part of American law is the principle that unconstitutional laws
are not laws at all. This principle isn't always taken to its logical
conclusion, but generally it is understood to be the principle. As I
understand it, Mayor Newsom's position is that California's
male-female-only marriage law -- which is only a statute, albeit one
that was implemented by a voter initiative -- violates the California
Constitution. If he's right, then refusing to marry same-sex couples
(thus complying with the invalid state statute) would be violating the
law, because it would be denying people the equal treatment that the
constitution allows them; agreeing to marry same-sex couples (thus
violating the invalid state statute) would be upholding the law,
because it would be complying with the constitutional command. His
actions are, I suspect, partly calculated to create a test case that
would lead the California Supreme Court to decide the matter.
I've been watching this whole thing come to a head on CNN. It's
honestly been amazing. Who would have thought someone would actually
stand up and say, hey, we're going to marry gay couples over the long
weekend of court closure to push this argument to the forefront? Not
me, certainly. And certainly not all of the judges who took off for an
early weekend. And for what? What does everyone have their knickers in
a twist over? Something that probably won't be happening by the
beginning of next week---same sex marriages. A marriage, that because
of other laws in place, will not have the full force of the law behind
it. Essentially---an exercise in futility. Everyone, every single
couple that stood in line, knew that their marriage would probably be
declared null and void by some judge, but they wanted to be married
anyway. Good for them. Now, in my opinion, it's a matter of how it
should be resolved which is at issue here, and which will ultimately
cause the most uproar if it comes down to a 9th Circuit or Supreme
Court ruling. The issue itself is clear: how do you define marriage?
Now this is something that the framers could never have ever
thought would be an issue. But while they may not have recognized the
circumstance, they did provide a number of remedies: Congress can pass
a law; they can hand it over to the states to handle; or there can be
judicial review. These are the three ways we as a country choose to
govern ourselves. Legislators have worked on number one and number two:
they've passed laws banning same sex marriages; they've defined
marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman. They've done
everything they could to keep this matter out of the courts because
they learned their lesson with Roe v. Wade. They declared abortion
illegal; the Supreme Court decided differently, and now, thirty some
years later, it's a matter of judicial usurpation and activism that
cheeses Republican congressmen like no other. They claim the issue was taken out of the people's hands!
They had their say; the judiciary reviewed the matter and said they
were wrong; that their laws were unconstitutional. It happens. This is
why we have three branches of government---each fact checks the other.
Sometimes the courts get it right and push things forward. Sometimes
they don't. That's what Congress is for: they're supposed to go back
and rewrite the law if it's declared unconstitutional---so, you know,
they can get it right the second time. Judicial review is one thing
when it's a matter of how government functions. For example, how many
baby steps the FBI can take when they bust a drug dealer. That's an
essential funtion of government---to keep the peace. It's another
matter entirely when you're dealing with social policy---because
everyone has different views on social policy. We're the melting pot,
for chrissakes, of course we're going to have different views on what
is and is not appropriate in the realm of social policy. This is why I don't believe government should be involved in social policy
I mean, honestly, what business does the government have saying what
should be promoted as healthy behavior and what isn't? It's so tiring.
The libertarians, if they were better organized and kicked that freak
Lyndon LaRouche out, could cull some serious support from the GLBT
community. But I digress. Where was I? Oh, social policy. That's right.
Anyway, government should not be in the business of promoting social
policy, but they do anyway. Whomever's in power pushes, like a drug
dealer, their version of what America should be. In my view America
should be a place where people should be able to get married, no matter
if the person they're marrying has the same plumbing as they do. Anyone
who's against this should realize that they're the ones who have
hamstrung themselves on this puppy. When people took the Roe v. Wade
result so seriously, they inadvertently pushed the matter before the
Supreme Court. They're efforts will be paid in spades in the form of
"judicial activism." Because that's where this is headed, kids. Like it
or not. I'm not fond of having the courts come in and decide matters
like this. But Congress is lazy. They pass bad laws. They try and
promote what they see as acceptable social policy. So, when Congress
drops the ball and hamstrings the states from handling it effectively
by trumping them with stupid laws like "The Defense of Marriage Act,"
what exactly does anyone expect the outcome to be? What other remedy is
there? Judicial review is one of the three remedies available: the
other two aren't available. It's up to the third to sort this out. I
never thought I would be a supporter of the idea of gay marriage.
Never. In. My. Life. Why would I, as a married person without kids,
support this idea? Gays and Lesbians had it reasonably good, I thought.
They didn't get screwed on their taxes because they couldn't get
married. And that was as far as I went in the argument. Then I met ML
and The Doctor. They're two lesbians. They had a commitment ceremony
last year. I told everyone they "got married," because in my mind, they
did
get married. They had a minister. The only difference between their
marriage and mine is that they have kids and we don't. I just don't see
the difference anymore and the reason I got over the hump is that I got
my head out of their bedroom. Now, I wasn't thinking about what was
going on behind closed doors, but that's what I figure everyone is so
hung up on: what happens in gay and lesbian bedrooms. Oooh, there's sodomy. That's in the BIBLE as being a bad thing! There's no conception! There are no children. Aiieeeee. .
It's bullshit, to put it simply. What goes on in anyone's bedroom is of
no concern. I'll stay out of your bedroom. You stay out of mine. It's
that simple. But this is not what the anti-gay marriage activists say.
The tame ones say marriage was essentially founded to protect the children of the union. It's all about children!. The zealots say that they're
committing unnatural acts! It would taint the institution of marriage
to even think about giving gays and lesbians the right to marriage.
It's all ridiculous. News flash: there are any number of straight
couples that practice sodomy. News flash: they also practice
contraception. But they have the right to get married, nonetheless. Do
you think they ask straight couples at the marriage license bureau if
they're going to have kids? Or if one of the partners takes it up the
ass? No. None of that is germane to allowing people to get married.
They certainly didn't ask the husband or I any of those questions when
we applied for our marriage license. So, if it's not relevant for
straight people, why would it be relevant for those who aren't?
When you take your mind out of the bedroom, you realize it's a simple
matter of rights: what rights are gays and lesbians denied simply
because of who they are? One of the lawyers in the Massachusetts case
last week put it very simply: you cannot write discrimination into the
constitution. And look at the historical precedent of that same action.
We don't have slavery anymore. It was written into, and subsequently
out of, the constitution. We don't have Jim Crow laws anymore. We don't
have segregated schools anymore. We don't have an Equal Rights
Amendment, but there are any number of laws regarding sex based
discrimination. Every time America's legislators have written
discrimination into the constitution, they've been struck down. The
track record is not good. If the definition of insanity is to keep
trying the same thing over and over while expecting a different result,
well, what exactly is this?
This is a personal thing for me. I have rights because I married a man
that two of my best friends do not because they choose to partner with
someone of the same sex. I feel VERY bad about this. The guilt reeks
from me. It's not fair. I think of them as married. They've made a
lifetime commitment to each other; they got up in front of all their
friends, family and in front of a minister no less, pledged to spend
their lives together. The husband and I did the same thing. What's the
difference? They, if you're using the standards that the anti-gay
marriage activists have established---that marriage is about protecting
children of a union---they've technically adhered to the rules better
than I have. We don't have kids. They do. Three of them. They're from
ML's marriage, but the doc couldn't have custody of them if something
happened to ML. Why? Because she's not a legally recognized spouse.
ML's ex's new wife, if the situation were reversed, would. Where's the
equity in that? How is this protecting the children they're responsible
for? It's not. But people will get their knickers in a twist over it
when it's struck down. And it will be. Maybe not this time around, but
we can hope, right? I can understand religions saying no, we won't
marry you because of this, but the state?
What the hell harm could it do? There are more heterosexuals who get
divorced every year than there are gays and lesbians who will apply to
get married. The statistics demand this to be the case. There's no
reason to get twisted up about this. That comes in the "hearts and
minds" stage. We have to get through this before we can
actually discuss the issue of homosexuality in a rational light. Right
now we're not on the same level. Acceptance simply is not possible when
the opposing sides aren't equal in the eyes of the law. Make the fight
fair.
But part of American law is the principle that unconstitutional laws
are not laws at all. This principle isn't always taken to its logical
conclusion, but generally it is understood to be the principle. As I
understand it, Mayor Newsom's position is that California's
male-female-only marriage law -- which is only a statute, albeit one
that was implemented by a voter initiative -- violates the California
Constitution. If he's right, then refusing to marry same-sex couples
(thus complying with the invalid state statute) would be violating the
law, because it would be denying people the equal treatment that the
constitution allows them; agreeing to marry same-sex couples (thus
violating the invalid state statute) would be upholding the law,
because it would be complying with the constitutional command. His
actions are, I suspect, partly calculated to create a test case that
would lead the California Supreme Court to decide the matter.
I've been watching this whole thing come to a head on CNN. It's
honestly been amazing. Who would have thought someone would actually
stand up and say, hey, we're going to marry gay couples over the long
weekend of court closure to push this argument to the forefront? Not
me, certainly. And certainly not all of the judges who took off for an
early weekend. And for what? What does everyone have their knickers in
a twist over? Something that probably won't be happening by the
beginning of next week---same sex marriages. A marriage, that because
of other laws in place, will not have the full force of the law behind
it. Essentially---an exercise in futility. Everyone, every single
couple that stood in line, knew that their marriage would probably be
declared null and void by some judge, but they wanted to be married
anyway. Good for them. Now, in my opinion, it's a matter of how it
should be resolved which is at issue here, and which will ultimately
cause the most uproar if it comes down to a 9th Circuit or Supreme
Court ruling. The issue itself is clear: how do you define marriage?
Now this is something that the framers could never have ever
thought would be an issue. But while they may not have recognized the
circumstance, they did provide a number of remedies: Congress can pass
a law; they can hand it over to the states to handle; or there can be
judicial review. These are the three ways we as a country choose to
govern ourselves. Legislators have worked on number one and number two:
they've passed laws banning same sex marriages; they've defined
marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman. They've done
everything they could to keep this matter out of the courts because
they learned their lesson with Roe v. Wade. They declared abortion
illegal; the Supreme Court decided differently, and now, thirty some
years later, it's a matter of judicial usurpation and activism that
cheeses Republican congressmen like no other. They claim the issue was taken out of the people's hands!
They had their say; the judiciary reviewed the matter and said they
were wrong; that their laws were unconstitutional. It happens. This is
why we have three branches of government---each fact checks the other.
Sometimes the courts get it right and push things forward. Sometimes
they don't. That's what Congress is for: they're supposed to go back
and rewrite the law if it's declared unconstitutional---so, you know,
they can get it right the second time. Judicial review is one thing
when it's a matter of how government functions. For example, how many
baby steps the FBI can take when they bust a drug dealer. That's an
essential funtion of government---to keep the peace. It's another
matter entirely when you're dealing with social policy---because
everyone has different views on social policy. We're the melting pot,
for chrissakes, of course we're going to have different views on what
is and is not appropriate in the realm of social policy. This is why I don't believe government should be involved in social policy
I mean, honestly, what business does the government have saying what
should be promoted as healthy behavior and what isn't? It's so tiring.
The libertarians, if they were better organized and kicked that freak
Lyndon LaRouche out, could cull some serious support from the GLBT
community. But I digress. Where was I? Oh, social policy. That's right.
Anyway, government should not be in the business of promoting social
policy, but they do anyway. Whomever's in power pushes, like a drug
dealer, their version of what America should be. In my view America
should be a place where people should be able to get married, no matter
if the person they're marrying has the same plumbing as they do. Anyone
who's against this should realize that they're the ones who have
hamstrung themselves on this puppy. When people took the Roe v. Wade
result so seriously, they inadvertently pushed the matter before the
Supreme Court. They're efforts will be paid in spades in the form of
"judicial activism." Because that's where this is headed, kids. Like it
or not. I'm not fond of having the courts come in and decide matters
like this. But Congress is lazy. They pass bad laws. They try and
promote what they see as acceptable social policy. So, when Congress
drops the ball and hamstrings the states from handling it effectively
by trumping them with stupid laws like "The Defense of Marriage Act,"
what exactly does anyone expect the outcome to be? What other remedy is
there? Judicial review is one of the three remedies available: the
other two aren't available. It's up to the third to sort this out. I
never thought I would be a supporter of the idea of gay marriage.
Never. In. My. Life. Why would I, as a married person without kids,
support this idea? Gays and Lesbians had it reasonably good, I thought.
They didn't get screwed on their taxes because they couldn't get
married. And that was as far as I went in the argument. Then I met ML
and The Doctor. They're two lesbians. They had a commitment ceremony
last year. I told everyone they "got married," because in my mind, they
did
get married. They had a minister. The only difference between their
marriage and mine is that they have kids and we don't. I just don't see
the difference anymore and the reason I got over the hump is that I got
my head out of their bedroom. Now, I wasn't thinking about what was
going on behind closed doors, but that's what I figure everyone is so
hung up on: what happens in gay and lesbian bedrooms. Oooh, there's sodomy. That's in the BIBLE as being a bad thing! There's no conception! There are no children. Aiieeeee. .
It's bullshit, to put it simply. What goes on in anyone's bedroom is of
no concern. I'll stay out of your bedroom. You stay out of mine. It's
that simple. But this is not what the anti-gay marriage activists say.
The tame ones say marriage was essentially founded to protect the children of the union. It's all about children!. The zealots say that they're
committing unnatural acts! It would taint the institution of marriage
to even think about giving gays and lesbians the right to marriage.
It's all ridiculous. News flash: there are any number of straight
couples that practice sodomy. News flash: they also practice
contraception. But they have the right to get married, nonetheless. Do
you think they ask straight couples at the marriage license bureau if
they're going to have kids? Or if one of the partners takes it up the
ass? No. None of that is germane to allowing people to get married.
They certainly didn't ask the husband or I any of those questions when
we applied for our marriage license. So, if it's not relevant for
straight people, why would it be relevant for those who aren't?
When you take your mind out of the bedroom, you realize it's a simple
matter of rights: what rights are gays and lesbians denied simply
because of who they are? One of the lawyers in the Massachusetts case
last week put it very simply: you cannot write discrimination into the
constitution. And look at the historical precedent of that same action.
We don't have slavery anymore. It was written into, and subsequently
out of, the constitution. We don't have Jim Crow laws anymore. We don't
have segregated schools anymore. We don't have an Equal Rights
Amendment, but there are any number of laws regarding sex based
discrimination. Every time America's legislators have written
discrimination into the constitution, they've been struck down. The
track record is not good. If the definition of insanity is to keep
trying the same thing over and over while expecting a different result,
well, what exactly is this?
This is a personal thing for me. I have rights because I married a man
that two of my best friends do not because they choose to partner with
someone of the same sex. I feel VERY bad about this. The guilt reeks
from me. It's not fair. I think of them as married. They've made a
lifetime commitment to each other; they got up in front of all their
friends, family and in front of a minister no less, pledged to spend
their lives together. The husband and I did the same thing. What's the
difference? They, if you're using the standards that the anti-gay
marriage activists have established---that marriage is about protecting
children of a union---they've technically adhered to the rules better
than I have. We don't have kids. They do. Three of them. They're from
ML's marriage, but the doc couldn't have custody of them if something
happened to ML. Why? Because she's not a legally recognized spouse.
ML's ex's new wife, if the situation were reversed, would. Where's the
equity in that? How is this protecting the children they're responsible
for? It's not. But people will get their knickers in a twist over it
when it's struck down. And it will be. Maybe not this time around, but
we can hope, right? I can understand religions saying no, we won't
marry you because of this, but the state?
What the hell harm could it do? There are more heterosexuals who get
divorced every year than there are gays and lesbians who will apply to
get married. The statistics demand this to be the case. There's no
reason to get twisted up about this. That comes in the "hearts and
minds" stage. We have to get through this before we can
actually discuss the issue of homosexuality in a rational light. Right
now we're not on the same level. Acceptance simply is not possible when
the opposing sides aren't equal in the eyes of the law. Make the fight
fair.
Posted by: Kathy at
11:57 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1830 words, total size 11 kb.
--- Oh for chrissakes! Sen.
--- Oh for chrissakes!
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rep. John McHugh are picking a fight
with the fictional ``West Wing'' over a scene aired Wednesday night in
which an aide discussed closing a real-life New York military base.
Clinton, D-N.Y., and McHugh, R-N.Y., fired off a letter Thursday to
Deputy White House Chief of Staff Joshua Lyman, the TV character played
by Bradley Whitford. ``Dear Josh,'' begins the letter from Clinton and
McHugh, who are real, to Lyman, who is not.
On Wednesday's episode of the NBC drama, a general meeting with Lyman
suggested Fort Drum in northern New York, site of deep-snow combat
training, may be shuttered. ``We want to make sure that such a
recommendation doesn't make it into another West Wing scene,'' the
tongue-in-cheek letter says. ``It is important that all White House
advisors have the most current information to respond to such flawed
proposals.''
This is so unbelivably stupid I am actually at a loss for words.
--- Payback's a bitch,
ain't it Larry? Perhaps it would have behooved you to keep your mouth
shut during the whole IE anti-trust debacle?
In Renton, Washington, in his forty million dollar house by the sea,
Bill Gates is slurping down whatever nerdy beverage he drinks and is
chortling with glee. Putting down his milkshake, he will rub his hands
together eagerly, and say in a Dr. Evil tone of voice, "Excellent,"
while plotting for further world domination by Microsquash.
--- Garry Trudeau is an ass.
So, let me see if I've got this one straight: Trudeau is going to give
$10K to the USO in return for "online testimony" (gives one leave to
wonder if "Well, I got it on with a girl in Alabama..." counts as an
'online testimony') about whether Bush showed up at the airbase in
Alabama or not. Interesting. And how big a tax deduction are you, Garry
Trudeau, going to get on your USO donation? Or do you fill out the EZ
form?
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rep. John McHugh are picking a fight
with the fictional ``West Wing'' over a scene aired Wednesday night in
which an aide discussed closing a real-life New York military base.
Clinton, D-N.Y., and McHugh, R-N.Y., fired off a letter Thursday to
Deputy White House Chief of Staff Joshua Lyman, the TV character played
by Bradley Whitford. ``Dear Josh,'' begins the letter from Clinton and
McHugh, who are real, to Lyman, who is not.
On Wednesday's episode of the NBC drama, a general meeting with Lyman
suggested Fort Drum in northern New York, site of deep-snow combat
training, may be shuttered. ``We want to make sure that such a
recommendation doesn't make it into another West Wing scene,'' the
tongue-in-cheek letter says. ``It is important that all White House
advisors have the most current information to respond to such flawed
proposals.''
This is so unbelivably stupid I am actually at a loss for words.
--- Payback's a bitch,
ain't it Larry? Perhaps it would have behooved you to keep your mouth
shut during the whole IE anti-trust debacle?
In Renton, Washington, in his forty million dollar house by the sea,
Bill Gates is slurping down whatever nerdy beverage he drinks and is
chortling with glee. Putting down his milkshake, he will rub his hands
together eagerly, and say in a Dr. Evil tone of voice, "Excellent,"
while plotting for further world domination by Microsquash.
--- Garry Trudeau is an ass.
So, let me see if I've got this one straight: Trudeau is going to give
$10K to the USO in return for "online testimony" (gives one leave to
wonder if "Well, I got it on with a girl in Alabama..." counts as an
'online testimony') about whether Bush showed up at the airbase in
Alabama or not. Interesting. And how big a tax deduction are you, Garry
Trudeau, going to get on your USO donation? Or do you fill out the EZ
form?
Posted by: Kathy at
11:33 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.
--- Ok, everyone needs to
--- Ok, everyone needs to pull their panties out of their butts about this movie right now---and that includes Mel Gibson.
I hate to tell you this, folks, but it's a movie.
This is not the be all, end all, debate of our time. It just isn't.
Terrorism, yeah, that's a biggie. But a frigging movie? Get over
yourselves.
Ever since I started this blog back in August, I've began a few
epistles about The Passion,
numerous times. I stopped and did the digital equivalent of ripping
paper out of the typewriter, balling it up, and shooting for three---I
deleted the posts. Much easier on the trees. I just couldn't get it
down. I've tried to defend Mel's vision. That didn't work. I tried to
tell the ADL to get over themselves, but that didn't work out either. I
think I've finally come to a conclusion about what will work:
EVERYBODY GO INTO A CORNER AND TAKE A TIME OUT. WHEN THE EGG TIMER GOES
OFF, YOU CAN GET UP AGAIN, BUT IF YOU SHOOT YOUR MOUTH OFF ONE MORE
TIME...
I will make a fantastic mother one day, won't I? Heheheheh. I'm all
about the empty threat.
Anyway, the gist of the debate swirling around this film is that a. Mel
keeps shooting his mouth off and b. numerous Jewish groups think its
going to incite hatred against Jews because--they think, they haven't
actually seen it to my knowledge---they're depicted as ultimately
repsonsible for the crucifixion. This is all one big fabricated
controversy. A few people got wedgies because of perceived slights, and
then it got out of control. It's ridiculous. I don't even want to see
the movie anymore. I really don't. Movies are supposed to be another
form of storytelling, but if some jerk is going to scream through the
entire thing, why bother? What exactly are you supposed to get out of
the story if you can't even hear it? Now, just a few comments. Mel
thinks his wife is going to hell? I'm sure she's thanking you for
sharing that assessment of the situation with a few million readers
worldwide, buddy. She gave birth to eight
of your children. And your way of thanking her for seventy-two months
of swollen ankles, bloated boobs, and the eventual joys of labor, is to
tell her---and the world---she's going to hell because she doesn't go
to the same church that you do? HUH? You could have kept your views of
salvation to yourself, Mel. She'd be well within her rights to nail you
with a frying pan. I would. But this is what Mel believes. That anyone
outside of his church is going to hell, yet the guy calls himself a Catholic. Well, bud, I hate to tell you this, you're not a Catholic. Anyone who rejects Vatican II is a heretic. Yep. That's right. Say it with me---her-e-tic. That's right. You're
the heretic, not the other billion people served. Stop calling yourself
a Catholic. You're not. By what my church---you know, the one ruled by
the guy in the big funny hat---teaches, you're the one going to hell.
Stop being so sanctimonious and realize people believe in different
things and that you have no right judging anyone or declaring who is
going to hell and who isn't. Leave it up to God: He's ultimately the
one who will have to settle the score. And I can't think that patently
ignoring Jesus' message of judge not, lest ye be judged is
going to earn you any points in the Man's books. Now, on to the ADL.
This movie is not going to cause worldwide panic. It's just not. Most
Christians can't even be bothered to go to church on Sundays---why on
Earth would you think they could organize themselves into a big
screaming mob who are going to start burning synagogues if they go and
see a movie this movie? The attendance at Mass worldwide is even less
if the World Cup's running. Give it a rest. We're unorganized and we
can't be bothered. Don't worry about us. You've got your hands full
with the Muslims. We know you have to worry about them, but us...pffft.
No fretting necessary. And besides, we're all going to wait for the
rental anyway.
Second, I hate to tell you this, but the Jews are the ones who
organized the crucifixion. No, they didn't kill Jesus, but they ordered
the hit. I don't hold today's Jews reponsible for this. Neither should
anyone else. But if you read the Bible it's pretty clear that it was
the Sandedrin's guards who took Jesus from Gethsemane. They had
recruited Judas to point Jesus out. They were the ones who sent their
guards to round 'em up. The Chief Priest's guard even had his ear
whacked off and Jesus healed it. They were the ones who lobbied Pontius
Pilate to find him guilty of some crime, so he was out of the way. They
were the ones who took him over to Herod when Pilate could find no
reason to hold him. They were the ones who took him back
to Pilate after Herod couldn't come up with anything. Pilate finally
gave in---after trying to let Jesus go free as an act of goodwill for
Passover---and ordered him crucified. Is the name Barrabbas ringing a
bell? No, the ruling Jews of ancient Jerusalem didn't want to have a
damn thing to do with Jesus. They saw him as a threat to their way of
life, so they rejected him, but they went even further---they got him
out of the picture. They got the Romans to crucify him. They are the ones who are culpable here,
not the however many million Jews out there today. We Christians know
this. We are not going to rise up and punish the "Christ Killers"
because a movie has inspired us to do so. Pffft. Ain't going to happen.
Simply because we know the Jews of today had nothing to do with it.
Hear me now: I DON'T HOLD THE JEWS OF TODAY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF JESUS!
Neither do millions of Christians worldwide. But that admission in no
way means we don't recognize the historical fact in this. The Jews of
ancient Jerusalem took out a Nazarean they thought was a threat. And
Jesus was
a threat to their way of life. They liked their way of life. They liked
the sway they held with the powers that were and Jesus was a threat to
all of that. Jesus didn't like their way of life, actively preached
against it, and was gaining followers. Hence, he had to be taken care
of. It was, in essence, a power play. No different than the whole Et
tu, Brute business with Caesar. But this doesn't mean diddly squat to
most Christians. It's the meaning of the crucifixion that has
significance to us---the what, the why, the how---not the who. That,
quite frankly, is irrelevant. Jesus knew he was going to die in the
Garden at Gethsemane. He knew who was going to kill him, too. He asked
for God to forgive his killers when he was on the cross. And he wasn't
just talking about the Romans there, kids. To focus on who is or is not
culpable---today, right here, right now---is to be missing the entire
point of Jesus' suffering and ultimate death on the cross. If Jesus
wasn't concerned with the who, neither should anyone else. And this is
from a person who doesn't take the rest of the Bible literally. I do
happen to know my Passion, though. You sit through a few Holy Thursday
and Good Friday masses and you'll know it, too. Not to mention when
they used to shepherd us around the church, doing the Stations of the
Cross in grade school. The Passion, as described by Luke is filled with
enough facts that despite the author's leanings, it's a credible
recording of what actually happened. IF
and only you believe it happened in the first place. Which I do. Others
may not, but I'll take Luke's word for it. He seems to be the apostle
who strove for accuracy, unlike John, whose writing, at times,
honestly, forces you to wonder what the hell the man was smoking to
come up with his Gospel, let alone Revelations. Must have been some seriously
good weed. Everyone just needs to get over this whole thing. Mel didn't
show the film to people he thought would rip it up and down the river
and shot his mouth off about it. He's defeating himself in this manner.
Let him, is what I say. I don't want this story told by him. He should
be shouted down---because he's now pissing off his core audience---the
Christians. And if they don't want to see it, who do you think will?
I hate to tell you this, folks, but it's a movie.
This is not the be all, end all, debate of our time. It just isn't.
Terrorism, yeah, that's a biggie. But a frigging movie? Get over
yourselves.
Ever since I started this blog back in August, I've began a few
epistles about The Passion,
numerous times. I stopped and did the digital equivalent of ripping
paper out of the typewriter, balling it up, and shooting for three---I
deleted the posts. Much easier on the trees. I just couldn't get it
down. I've tried to defend Mel's vision. That didn't work. I tried to
tell the ADL to get over themselves, but that didn't work out either. I
think I've finally come to a conclusion about what will work:
EVERYBODY GO INTO A CORNER AND TAKE A TIME OUT. WHEN THE EGG TIMER GOES
OFF, YOU CAN GET UP AGAIN, BUT IF YOU SHOOT YOUR MOUTH OFF ONE MORE
TIME...
I will make a fantastic mother one day, won't I? Heheheheh. I'm all
about the empty threat.
Anyway, the gist of the debate swirling around this film is that a. Mel
keeps shooting his mouth off and b. numerous Jewish groups think its
going to incite hatred against Jews because--they think, they haven't
actually seen it to my knowledge---they're depicted as ultimately
repsonsible for the crucifixion. This is all one big fabricated
controversy. A few people got wedgies because of perceived slights, and
then it got out of control. It's ridiculous. I don't even want to see
the movie anymore. I really don't. Movies are supposed to be another
form of storytelling, but if some jerk is going to scream through the
entire thing, why bother? What exactly are you supposed to get out of
the story if you can't even hear it? Now, just a few comments. Mel
thinks his wife is going to hell? I'm sure she's thanking you for
sharing that assessment of the situation with a few million readers
worldwide, buddy. She gave birth to eight
of your children. And your way of thanking her for seventy-two months
of swollen ankles, bloated boobs, and the eventual joys of labor, is to
tell her---and the world---she's going to hell because she doesn't go
to the same church that you do? HUH? You could have kept your views of
salvation to yourself, Mel. She'd be well within her rights to nail you
with a frying pan. I would. But this is what Mel believes. That anyone
outside of his church is going to hell, yet the guy calls himself a Catholic. Well, bud, I hate to tell you this, you're not a Catholic. Anyone who rejects Vatican II is a heretic. Yep. That's right. Say it with me---her-e-tic. That's right. You're
the heretic, not the other billion people served. Stop calling yourself
a Catholic. You're not. By what my church---you know, the one ruled by
the guy in the big funny hat---teaches, you're the one going to hell.
Stop being so sanctimonious and realize people believe in different
things and that you have no right judging anyone or declaring who is
going to hell and who isn't. Leave it up to God: He's ultimately the
one who will have to settle the score. And I can't think that patently
ignoring Jesus' message of judge not, lest ye be judged is
going to earn you any points in the Man's books. Now, on to the ADL.
This movie is not going to cause worldwide panic. It's just not. Most
Christians can't even be bothered to go to church on Sundays---why on
Earth would you think they could organize themselves into a big
screaming mob who are going to start burning synagogues if they go and
see a movie this movie? The attendance at Mass worldwide is even less
if the World Cup's running. Give it a rest. We're unorganized and we
can't be bothered. Don't worry about us. You've got your hands full
with the Muslims. We know you have to worry about them, but us...pffft.
No fretting necessary. And besides, we're all going to wait for the
rental anyway.
Second, I hate to tell you this, but the Jews are the ones who
organized the crucifixion. No, they didn't kill Jesus, but they ordered
the hit. I don't hold today's Jews reponsible for this. Neither should
anyone else. But if you read the Bible it's pretty clear that it was
the Sandedrin's guards who took Jesus from Gethsemane. They had
recruited Judas to point Jesus out. They were the ones who sent their
guards to round 'em up. The Chief Priest's guard even had his ear
whacked off and Jesus healed it. They were the ones who lobbied Pontius
Pilate to find him guilty of some crime, so he was out of the way. They
were the ones who took him over to Herod when Pilate could find no
reason to hold him. They were the ones who took him back
to Pilate after Herod couldn't come up with anything. Pilate finally
gave in---after trying to let Jesus go free as an act of goodwill for
Passover---and ordered him crucified. Is the name Barrabbas ringing a
bell? No, the ruling Jews of ancient Jerusalem didn't want to have a
damn thing to do with Jesus. They saw him as a threat to their way of
life, so they rejected him, but they went even further---they got him
out of the picture. They got the Romans to crucify him. They are the ones who are culpable here,
not the however many million Jews out there today. We Christians know
this. We are not going to rise up and punish the "Christ Killers"
because a movie has inspired us to do so. Pffft. Ain't going to happen.
Simply because we know the Jews of today had nothing to do with it.
Hear me now: I DON'T HOLD THE JEWS OF TODAY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF JESUS!
Neither do millions of Christians worldwide. But that admission in no
way means we don't recognize the historical fact in this. The Jews of
ancient Jerusalem took out a Nazarean they thought was a threat. And
Jesus was
a threat to their way of life. They liked their way of life. They liked
the sway they held with the powers that were and Jesus was a threat to
all of that. Jesus didn't like their way of life, actively preached
against it, and was gaining followers. Hence, he had to be taken care
of. It was, in essence, a power play. No different than the whole Et
tu, Brute business with Caesar. But this doesn't mean diddly squat to
most Christians. It's the meaning of the crucifixion that has
significance to us---the what, the why, the how---not the who. That,
quite frankly, is irrelevant. Jesus knew he was going to die in the
Garden at Gethsemane. He knew who was going to kill him, too. He asked
for God to forgive his killers when he was on the cross. And he wasn't
just talking about the Romans there, kids. To focus on who is or is not
culpable---today, right here, right now---is to be missing the entire
point of Jesus' suffering and ultimate death on the cross. If Jesus
wasn't concerned with the who, neither should anyone else. And this is
from a person who doesn't take the rest of the Bible literally. I do
happen to know my Passion, though. You sit through a few Holy Thursday
and Good Friday masses and you'll know it, too. Not to mention when
they used to shepherd us around the church, doing the Stations of the
Cross in grade school. The Passion, as described by Luke is filled with
enough facts that despite the author's leanings, it's a credible
recording of what actually happened. IF
and only you believe it happened in the first place. Which I do. Others
may not, but I'll take Luke's word for it. He seems to be the apostle
who strove for accuracy, unlike John, whose writing, at times,
honestly, forces you to wonder what the hell the man was smoking to
come up with his Gospel, let alone Revelations. Must have been some seriously
good weed. Everyone just needs to get over this whole thing. Mel didn't
show the film to people he thought would rip it up and down the river
and shot his mouth off about it. He's defeating himself in this manner.
Let him, is what I say. I don't want this story told by him. He should
be shouted down---because he's now pissing off his core audience---the
Christians. And if they don't want to see it, who do you think will?
Posted by: Kathy at
10:52 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1487 words, total size 8 kb.
--- Whoooeeee. I don't care
--- Whoooeeee.
I don't care for Howard Stern. I think he's a crass man. Wait a minute. Man
is too good of a term for him. He's a fourteen-year-old boy. A
fourteen-year-old boy who does nothing but masturbate while reading
porn. And he's got a short attention span, so the mag that did it for
him five minutes previous, won't do it for him now. He's not a man;
he's a boy. As Lileks would say, he's taken a wrong turn at the corner
of groin and life. That said, he pulls an audience. A big audience. People
listen to him and what he has to say, even if the topic he seems to hit
on most is porn. Subject matter does have some part in the
cause and effect scenario going on here. It does. If he didn't ramble
on about this, well, Clear Channel wouldn't be pulling him, would they?
But that shouldn't matter. I don't listen to Howard Stern,
mainly, because I think he's foul. But the main reason is that he's not
on the air here in the Twin Cities. He was, for a few month stint, back
in the late 90's, but the local Barnyard animal (people here will get
that) beat him in the ratings and it was too costly to keep paying for
his show, or so the radio station said. I digress, but the point would
be that it's about profitability. Howard gets paid what he does
because he's nationally syndicated. If stations start censoring, well,
Howard will go where he can get the most air time, and that won't be on
broadcast radio. Jarvis think's he'll go to satellite. Maybe. But I
think, perhaps, that the internet could be the venue for him. People
would slap down serious bucks to hear Howard rant and rave---and he
wouldn't have any restrictions---at all. And we know Howard doesn't
like restrictions. I think maybe he's tired of dealing with this stuff
entirely. How many times have they pulled him back? Too many to count.
And after all, the Internet is the perfect venue for someone
who worships at the altar of porn like Howard does. The reason we have
streaming video is because poor Fred in Toledo didn't like having his
dirty movie---the one he'd paid good money for---stopping then
starting, then going really sloooooooooow because of bandwidth issues.
It's a win-win situation---Howard will actually be able to claim
something other than one of his many erections came from his love of
porn. And he'll actually be able to profit from it. How perfect is
that? Remember kids, the Internet loves you more than a lapdancer does.
I don't care for Howard Stern. I think he's a crass man. Wait a minute. Man
is too good of a term for him. He's a fourteen-year-old boy. A
fourteen-year-old boy who does nothing but masturbate while reading
porn. And he's got a short attention span, so the mag that did it for
him five minutes previous, won't do it for him now. He's not a man;
he's a boy. As Lileks would say, he's taken a wrong turn at the corner
of groin and life. That said, he pulls an audience. A big audience. People
listen to him and what he has to say, even if the topic he seems to hit
on most is porn. Subject matter does have some part in the
cause and effect scenario going on here. It does. If he didn't ramble
on about this, well, Clear Channel wouldn't be pulling him, would they?
But that shouldn't matter. I don't listen to Howard Stern,
mainly, because I think he's foul. But the main reason is that he's not
on the air here in the Twin Cities. He was, for a few month stint, back
in the late 90's, but the local Barnyard animal (people here will get
that) beat him in the ratings and it was too costly to keep paying for
his show, or so the radio station said. I digress, but the point would
be that it's about profitability. Howard gets paid what he does
because he's nationally syndicated. If stations start censoring, well,
Howard will go where he can get the most air time, and that won't be on
broadcast radio. Jarvis think's he'll go to satellite. Maybe. But I
think, perhaps, that the internet could be the venue for him. People
would slap down serious bucks to hear Howard rant and rave---and he
wouldn't have any restrictions---at all. And we know Howard doesn't
like restrictions. I think maybe he's tired of dealing with this stuff
entirely. How many times have they pulled him back? Too many to count.
And after all, the Internet is the perfect venue for someone
who worships at the altar of porn like Howard does. The reason we have
streaming video is because poor Fred in Toledo didn't like having his
dirty movie---the one he'd paid good money for---stopping then
starting, then going really sloooooooooow because of bandwidth issues.
It's a win-win situation---Howard will actually be able to claim
something other than one of his many erections came from his love of
porn. And he'll actually be able to profit from it. How perfect is
that? Remember kids, the Internet loves you more than a lapdancer does.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:27 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 453 words, total size 3 kb.
--- The husband sent this
--- The husband sent this to
me under the heading, "you haven't done Crazy Germans in a while."
(Well, I should hope he knows I haven't DONE any crazy Germans---I
don't know how I'd keep a straight face.)
Ahem. Commentary.
Now, that's a bureaucracy ANY country should be proud of, no?
me under the heading, "you haven't done Crazy Germans in a while."
(Well, I should hope he knows I haven't DONE any crazy Germans---I
don't know how I'd keep a straight face.)
Ahem. Commentary.
Now, that's a bureaucracy ANY country should be proud of, no?
Posted by: Kathy at
09:15 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.
Window Update---Tweedledumb called back this
Window Update---Tweedledumb called back this afternoon and chatted with
the husband. Reportedly, Tweedledumb is going to contact the window
contractors and get them to take responsibility. In the meantime, we
just have to live with the constant drip, drip, drip because the Great White Hunter landlord isn't going to pay someone to come out and take care of the ice.
This, I should add, is the same window contractor Tweedledumb forgot to pay
for the window install, and who subsequently slapped a lien on the
house in lieu of said payment. And they put that lien on the house
toute suite, too. Within thirty days if memory serves. They didn't even
want to have interest build up. One can suppose they were so sick of
the Great White Hunter and Tweedledumb that they just didn't care about
accruing interest. They wanted their money and they wanted done with
these idiots. And Tweedledumb thinks he's going to get this contractor
to pay for ice removal when it's not their fault. Good freaking
luck. This, of course, is a stall maneuver by Tweedledumb. If he
actually calls said window contractor, I'll be very much surprised.
This is just his way of weaseling out of actually having to do anything
about the problem. I repeat. I am sick of this.
the husband. Reportedly, Tweedledumb is going to contact the window
contractors and get them to take responsibility. In the meantime, we
just have to live with the constant drip, drip, drip because the Great White Hunter landlord isn't going to pay someone to come out and take care of the ice.
This, I should add, is the same window contractor Tweedledumb forgot to pay
for the window install, and who subsequently slapped a lien on the
house in lieu of said payment. And they put that lien on the house
toute suite, too. Within thirty days if memory serves. They didn't even
want to have interest build up. One can suppose they were so sick of
the Great White Hunter and Tweedledumb that they just didn't care about
accruing interest. They wanted their money and they wanted done with
these idiots. And Tweedledumb thinks he's going to get this contractor
to pay for ice removal when it's not their fault. Good freaking
luck. This, of course, is a stall maneuver by Tweedledumb. If he
actually calls said window contractor, I'll be very much surprised.
This is just his way of weaseling out of actually having to do anything
about the problem. I repeat. I am sick of this.
Posted by: Kathy at
07:34 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.
More than one way to
More than one way to skin a cat....kitten. :-)
Posted by: Kathy at
06:21 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
--- Ok, this is pretty
--- Ok, this is pretty darn funny.
Seems more than a few fans of Star Wars can write poetry. Some of it's
filthy, of course, but they're writing odes in defense of a preemptive
shooting in Star Wars
that Lucas rearranged in the special editions to make the whole thing
more pc. Whaddya want? They're axe murderers to begin with...they're
not going to improve with time and education. I remember going to see
the special editions with the husband. He was so stoked. We got into it
and then there's the scene in the cantina with Han and Greedo---and
Greedo shot first. It was the wierdest sensation, both of us just
looked at each other in disbelief. I knew Greedo hadn't shot first, or
at least was pretty sure that he hadn't. The husband knew
that Greedo hadn't shot first in the same way some people can explain
neutrinos and quarks---those movies are one of his areas of expertise.
He wasn't as scandalized as some other people were when this came out
in the news. His reasoning: their Lucas' movies---let him do what he
will with them.
So the news comes down the pike yesterday that Lucas is finally
releasing Episodes 4,5 and 6 on DVD---but
he's only releasing the special editions...not the originals that were
shown in the theaters and originally released on videotape.
Everyone's assuming greed as Lucas' motivation here. He'll only release
the originals when 1, 2 and 3 come out in some boxed set, someone said.
I have to agree with that sentiment. But there's something more to it,
I think, and another commenter, MikeR. on A Small Victory worded it perfectly, so I'll use his words and not mine:
I have no problem with an artist changing his work of art over time.
That's a natural human impulse. However, I do have a problem with
someone taking the originals out of circulation. That's sheer
arrogance, to effectively tell people they shouldn't care about the
original work because the artist in his infinite wisdom has chosen to
make it "better". The paying Star Wars fans made George Lucas a
zillionaire, yet he seems to hold them in contempt...
Then Dorkafork said this and he, too, makes a good, and very important, point:
Well, no Matt, they aren't his movies. We could argue the
technicalities of it, the Constitution says artists should have
exclusive right to their writings for a limited time and argue how long
that limited time should be. But the import{ant) thing is to promote
"the progress of science and useful arts". What the hell kind of
filmmaker tries his best to prevent his movie from being seen? How does
preventing his movie from being seen "progress art"? This goes beyond
mere changes in a movie. I think it's great that there are director's
cuts, extended versions, etc. And I want creative people to get paid
for their work. But look at how Lucas is using his copyright. The
originals are not being shown on TV, they're not being sold in stores,
and they are never going to be shown or sold again. He is removing them
from the public domain, taking a movie millions adored and trying to
hide it from them. This does not benefit anybody, except maybe people
who get on eBay with the laserdisc version. The problem isn't with the
changes, or the relative artistic merit of Star Wars. They're archival
issues, mainly. Those VHS tapes are not going to last forever. The film
stock won't either (if it hasn't been destroyed already). Christ, the
more I think about it, the more sick it makes me.
Now, I don't think Lucas will go so far as to never
offer the originals on DVD, but I can see where this guy has a point.
It's worrying. Lucas went back and not only digitized the original
footage, he put in stuff he couldn't get the first time around. This was what he wanted with the originals,
or so he says. I don't know that you can honestly, as an artist, make
the same pronouncements about "what you want your work to project" when
you're thirty years old as when you're fifty. People change as they get
older. Their ideas change, as do their priorities, and George has
seemingly wussed out over the years about providing entertainment
that's as fun for adults as it is for kids. He seems to think that kids
should be getting all the good stuff, while he ignores first generation
that put him where he's at. We're part of his audience, too and
it's amazing how he forgets this, in fact, it's amazing he doesn't
remember he has an audience to please in the first place. Episode I and
II show this: he's arrogant enough to think that story doesn't
matter---and that bad actors can, in fact, be good. In Episode II,
Hayden Christensen is painful
to watch. Literally. He made me cringe and want to hide because he
stank the place up so bad. His anger was just so juvenile: it made you
feel as if the conversion to Darth Vader will ultimately be the result
of a teenage temper tantrum. No one appreciates me! Waaaah! I'm going over to the Dark Side!
I feel awful for Ewan McGregor---he carried Episode II along with Yoda
(who, by the way, kicked ass in that movie---if a Mexican jumping bean
looks like something, they'd look like Yoda fighting). Natalie Portman,
who is a great actress, could do nothing to save that thing. I'm amazed
she didn't force Hayden to get up to her level. I have to think when
she was done with it, she said, thank God, I'm done with that for the
time being and maybe the kid will learn how to act before the next one.
But Lucas noticed none of this. You would like to think that a
director who has his credentials could at least tell a worthy
performance from a not-so-worthy one. He can't. He doesn't know how to
do this. This is why he hired different directors for Empire and
Return. This is why he got Spielberg to direct Indiana Jones. For my
birthday, I got a nifty Target gift card with which I bought the
Indiana Jones box set. This was my first DVD goo-goo-ga-ga experience:
nothing else had tripped my trigger enough to fork out the cash. Well,
I was watching the DVD with all the "making of"'s for the first time
the other night, and it was amazing how much his enthusiasm decreased
when talking about Last Crusade as Raiders.
These were recent interviews, done with the DVD release in mind, but it
was as if you got an idea of what it was like twenty years ago when
they were making the films---he was fired up about Raiders and where all the ideas came from and how the project came to be. But by the time we watched the Last Crusade
making of, no one was saying anything about how many great ideas George
had come up with, because he hadn't come up with anything other than he
wanted to make it a father-son picture. Well, then Spielberg even
commented about how George hadn't wanted to have Henry Sr. and Indiana not
get along. George wanted a buddy-buddy happy movie. Spielberg then
described the conversations he'd had with Lucas, convincing him that
this was the way to go. It was amazing in that here you have this
cantankerous character, Indy, and you invented him, and while he does
have his soft spots and a good sense of honor, he's also a mercenary.
This is fine. Conflicted hero. We all like conflicted heroes. So, the
stage was set long ago as far as what behavior was expected of him. We,
the audience, loved this guy. We didn't want him to change. Now,
George, tell me, precisely how would it make sense to think that Indy
would be best friends with his father? It doesn't. Guys like Indy don't
become guys like Indy if they go play catch on the front lawn every day
before supper. It just doesn't happen. Spielberg practically came out
and said that the first part of the movie, showing Indy's youth with
the very delicious and very much missed River Phoenix, was a bone
thrown at Lucas for making a film where Indy didn't get along with his
father. Ultimately, it comes down the the supposition (on my part,
anyway) that Lucas likes his characters and doesn't want to put them
through any pain, so we get really weak story arcs and incredibly
sophmoric writing. Look at Episode II: he'd rather make a cariacature
of Anakin than really get down to business and write something
worthwhile for Hayden to work with. And it's a painful storyline: the
guy is separated from his mother; he feels his talents are being
ignored by the higher ups at the Jedi council; he's in love with a
woman he shouldn't be in love with---everything's there, but Lucas
softens it. He throws us an underhanded softball, when we're ready for
a fastpitch overhand. I think part of the reason why Christensen stank
so badly was because he was trying too hard. Well, when the
director/writer/producer of the most beloved series of films of our age
comes to you and tells you he wants *you* to show how Darth Vader came
about, what are you going to do? Ignore the success of the series,
ignore the absolute worthiness of what had already been created and
throw it away because it's poorly written? No, you're going to go for
it. And it's a shame: Hayden should have said no. Said to George Lucas
that this script is a piece of shit and you should rework it. Why is
George the way he is? I don't know. But I'm not going to buy the Star Wars
DVD's. The husband will buy them, so I will end up owning them by
association. And that's sad, because it confirms Lucas' notion that
he's got us by the short and curlies. Which he does. He holds the key
to the good stuff, and make no mistake, he's not going to open the door
unless he's got a really good reason.
Seems more than a few fans of Star Wars can write poetry. Some of it's
filthy, of course, but they're writing odes in defense of a preemptive
shooting in Star Wars
that Lucas rearranged in the special editions to make the whole thing
more pc. Whaddya want? They're axe murderers to begin with...they're
not going to improve with time and education. I remember going to see
the special editions with the husband. He was so stoked. We got into it
and then there's the scene in the cantina with Han and Greedo---and
Greedo shot first. It was the wierdest sensation, both of us just
looked at each other in disbelief. I knew Greedo hadn't shot first, or
at least was pretty sure that he hadn't. The husband knew
that Greedo hadn't shot first in the same way some people can explain
neutrinos and quarks---those movies are one of his areas of expertise.
He wasn't as scandalized as some other people were when this came out
in the news. His reasoning: their Lucas' movies---let him do what he
will with them.
So the news comes down the pike yesterday that Lucas is finally
releasing Episodes 4,5 and 6 on DVD---but
he's only releasing the special editions...not the originals that were
shown in the theaters and originally released on videotape.
Everyone's assuming greed as Lucas' motivation here. He'll only release
the originals when 1, 2 and 3 come out in some boxed set, someone said.
I have to agree with that sentiment. But there's something more to it,
I think, and another commenter, MikeR. on A Small Victory worded it perfectly, so I'll use his words and not mine:
I have no problem with an artist changing his work of art over time.
That's a natural human impulse. However, I do have a problem with
someone taking the originals out of circulation. That's sheer
arrogance, to effectively tell people they shouldn't care about the
original work because the artist in his infinite wisdom has chosen to
make it "better". The paying Star Wars fans made George Lucas a
zillionaire, yet he seems to hold them in contempt...
Then Dorkafork said this and he, too, makes a good, and very important, point:
Well, no Matt, they aren't his movies. We could argue the
technicalities of it, the Constitution says artists should have
exclusive right to their writings for a limited time and argue how long
that limited time should be. But the import{ant) thing is to promote
"the progress of science and useful arts". What the hell kind of
filmmaker tries his best to prevent his movie from being seen? How does
preventing his movie from being seen "progress art"? This goes beyond
mere changes in a movie. I think it's great that there are director's
cuts, extended versions, etc. And I want creative people to get paid
for their work. But look at how Lucas is using his copyright. The
originals are not being shown on TV, they're not being sold in stores,
and they are never going to be shown or sold again. He is removing them
from the public domain, taking a movie millions adored and trying to
hide it from them. This does not benefit anybody, except maybe people
who get on eBay with the laserdisc version. The problem isn't with the
changes, or the relative artistic merit of Star Wars. They're archival
issues, mainly. Those VHS tapes are not going to last forever. The film
stock won't either (if it hasn't been destroyed already). Christ, the
more I think about it, the more sick it makes me.
Now, I don't think Lucas will go so far as to never
offer the originals on DVD, but I can see where this guy has a point.
It's worrying. Lucas went back and not only digitized the original
footage, he put in stuff he couldn't get the first time around. This was what he wanted with the originals,
or so he says. I don't know that you can honestly, as an artist, make
the same pronouncements about "what you want your work to project" when
you're thirty years old as when you're fifty. People change as they get
older. Their ideas change, as do their priorities, and George has
seemingly wussed out over the years about providing entertainment
that's as fun for adults as it is for kids. He seems to think that kids
should be getting all the good stuff, while he ignores first generation
that put him where he's at. We're part of his audience, too and
it's amazing how he forgets this, in fact, it's amazing he doesn't
remember he has an audience to please in the first place. Episode I and
II show this: he's arrogant enough to think that story doesn't
matter---and that bad actors can, in fact, be good. In Episode II,
Hayden Christensen is painful
to watch. Literally. He made me cringe and want to hide because he
stank the place up so bad. His anger was just so juvenile: it made you
feel as if the conversion to Darth Vader will ultimately be the result
of a teenage temper tantrum. No one appreciates me! Waaaah! I'm going over to the Dark Side!
I feel awful for Ewan McGregor---he carried Episode II along with Yoda
(who, by the way, kicked ass in that movie---if a Mexican jumping bean
looks like something, they'd look like Yoda fighting). Natalie Portman,
who is a great actress, could do nothing to save that thing. I'm amazed
she didn't force Hayden to get up to her level. I have to think when
she was done with it, she said, thank God, I'm done with that for the
time being and maybe the kid will learn how to act before the next one.
But Lucas noticed none of this. You would like to think that a
director who has his credentials could at least tell a worthy
performance from a not-so-worthy one. He can't. He doesn't know how to
do this. This is why he hired different directors for Empire and
Return. This is why he got Spielberg to direct Indiana Jones. For my
birthday, I got a nifty Target gift card with which I bought the
Indiana Jones box set. This was my first DVD goo-goo-ga-ga experience:
nothing else had tripped my trigger enough to fork out the cash. Well,
I was watching the DVD with all the "making of"'s for the first time
the other night, and it was amazing how much his enthusiasm decreased
when talking about Last Crusade as Raiders.
These were recent interviews, done with the DVD release in mind, but it
was as if you got an idea of what it was like twenty years ago when
they were making the films---he was fired up about Raiders and where all the ideas came from and how the project came to be. But by the time we watched the Last Crusade
making of, no one was saying anything about how many great ideas George
had come up with, because he hadn't come up with anything other than he
wanted to make it a father-son picture. Well, then Spielberg even
commented about how George hadn't wanted to have Henry Sr. and Indiana not
get along. George wanted a buddy-buddy happy movie. Spielberg then
described the conversations he'd had with Lucas, convincing him that
this was the way to go. It was amazing in that here you have this
cantankerous character, Indy, and you invented him, and while he does
have his soft spots and a good sense of honor, he's also a mercenary.
This is fine. Conflicted hero. We all like conflicted heroes. So, the
stage was set long ago as far as what behavior was expected of him. We,
the audience, loved this guy. We didn't want him to change. Now,
George, tell me, precisely how would it make sense to think that Indy
would be best friends with his father? It doesn't. Guys like Indy don't
become guys like Indy if they go play catch on the front lawn every day
before supper. It just doesn't happen. Spielberg practically came out
and said that the first part of the movie, showing Indy's youth with
the very delicious and very much missed River Phoenix, was a bone
thrown at Lucas for making a film where Indy didn't get along with his
father. Ultimately, it comes down the the supposition (on my part,
anyway) that Lucas likes his characters and doesn't want to put them
through any pain, so we get really weak story arcs and incredibly
sophmoric writing. Look at Episode II: he'd rather make a cariacature
of Anakin than really get down to business and write something
worthwhile for Hayden to work with. And it's a painful storyline: the
guy is separated from his mother; he feels his talents are being
ignored by the higher ups at the Jedi council; he's in love with a
woman he shouldn't be in love with---everything's there, but Lucas
softens it. He throws us an underhanded softball, when we're ready for
a fastpitch overhand. I think part of the reason why Christensen stank
so badly was because he was trying too hard. Well, when the
director/writer/producer of the most beloved series of films of our age
comes to you and tells you he wants *you* to show how Darth Vader came
about, what are you going to do? Ignore the success of the series,
ignore the absolute worthiness of what had already been created and
throw it away because it's poorly written? No, you're going to go for
it. And it's a shame: Hayden should have said no. Said to George Lucas
that this script is a piece of shit and you should rework it. Why is
George the way he is? I don't know. But I'm not going to buy the Star Wars
DVD's. The husband will buy them, so I will end up owning them by
association. And that's sad, because it confirms Lucas' notion that
he's got us by the short and curlies. Which he does. He holds the key
to the good stuff, and make no mistake, he's not going to open the door
unless he's got a really good reason.
Posted by: Kathy at
05:39 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1724 words, total size 10 kb.
--- Guest blogger today---ML has
--- Guest blogger today---ML has a few things she'd like to say.
Strangely reminiscent of what I said below, but much better worded and
coherent. Enjoy. Hell, she even titled her piece too...she should get
bonus points.
Gay Marriage – The Hot Topic of 2004
You can̢۪t turn on talk show radio or read a news paper without
listening to or reading about at least one issue surrounding gay
marriage. It is the hot, “in†topic for this Presidential election
year of 2004. In the Opinion section of the Minneapolis Star Tribune
today there were three Letters from Readers with opinions on the
subject of gay marriage. During the program All Things Considered on
National Public Radio two guests and several callers discussed the
arguments for and against same-sex marriage within the gay community.
Earlier on Minnesota Public Radio there was an hour-long program with
one guest speaking to the topic of an alternative word to
“marriage†that can be used in the public forum that will cause
less division and consternation and encompass all of society. The
answer to the question posed on today̢۪s segment of Midmorning on MPR
is yes. Actually we can save the word “marriage†and continue to
use it in a more appropriate context. In today̢۪s society, the word
marriage is used to encompass both civil and religious unions. Marriage
describes both a couple̢۪s state sanctioned rights, such as tax breaks
for families and inheritance benefits, and a couple̢۪s participation
in certain religious ceremonies. Herein lies the problem. The United
States is based on the idea of the separation of church and state. This
was the reason that many of our fore- parents left their homelands and
began life anew in the what was later to become the United States of
America – separating church laws and beliefs from the laws that would
govern the people. Religious laws were not to be transferred to society
as a whole. In Europe, religions such as the Church of England and the
Roman Catholic Church were quite intertwined. Many Europeans believed
that it was the clergy̢۪s role to see to the spiritual well-being of
its members and it was the government̢۪s role to oversee the
well-being of it citizens. Clergy should not be meddling in affairs of
the state. This ideology of church/state separation is reflected in our
Constitution.
The popular definition of the word “marriage†has no separation of
church and state. A marriage can take place in a religious ceremony or
a civil ceremony. I propose separating these two ceremonies, as is
customary in Europe and other societies, and call one civil union and
the other marriage. Marriage can be defined by religious customs and
all citizens of the United States would have the religious freedom of
choice. Civil union would bestow secular benefits, marriage would
bestow spiritual benefits. Should the President of the United States be
putting forth religious arguments for the denial of gay marriage or
further to amend the United States Constitution when he or she is
entrusted to ensure the separation of church and state? The President
is a civilly elected official of government. His or her religious
beliefs are a private issue. They certainly should not be the platform
for change in our federal Constitution. The argument of marriage being
the province of one man and one woman is a religious concept. Separate
the two for all people - civil unions for legal ceremonies and marriage
for religious ceremonies and there would be a lot less contention. As
our fore-parents knew, separation of church and state advances another
principle that our country is based on - equal rights for all citizens.
One of the principle tenets of social conservatives is family values.
There are over 1,000,000 children of gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgendered parents. Those children are not getting the same legal
protection and benefits as the children of heterosexual couples.
Discrimination of any child is not a family value. All children of our
nation should enjoy equal benefits and protection under the law. If
protecting the family unit is of utmost importance, then gay marriage
should be allowed by law thus ensuring legal protection for all our
children. If monogamy is also a strong, stabilizing family and societal
value, then it would be to our nation̢۪s benefit to allow gay couples
to marry. The greater the number of stabilizing monogamous marriages in
this country, the stronger our nation will be. Our nation will be
strengthened when gay couples are encouraged to marry and create
families. Where are the family values when heterosexual couples get
married and then divorce within hours of the marriage ceremony? How is
it that gay couples, committed to one another, are denied the right to
marry, but heterosexual couples are allowed such flagrant disregard of
societal or family values? It is good for this country that gay
marriage be such a social, legal and political hot topic in 2004.
Change rarely happens smoothly, it is rarely painless, but change does
happen and it will happen in the case of gay marriage. Within the next
twenty years gay couples will be granted the same right of marriage or
civil union (if legal and religious ceremonies are separated) that will
give all couples equal right under the law. --- Mary Lynn Collins
Strangely reminiscent of what I said below, but much better worded and
coherent. Enjoy. Hell, she even titled her piece too...she should get
bonus points.
Gay Marriage – The Hot Topic of 2004
You can̢۪t turn on talk show radio or read a news paper without
listening to or reading about at least one issue surrounding gay
marriage. It is the hot, “in†topic for this Presidential election
year of 2004. In the Opinion section of the Minneapolis Star Tribune
today there were three Letters from Readers with opinions on the
subject of gay marriage. During the program All Things Considered on
National Public Radio two guests and several callers discussed the
arguments for and against same-sex marriage within the gay community.
Earlier on Minnesota Public Radio there was an hour-long program with
one guest speaking to the topic of an alternative word to
“marriage†that can be used in the public forum that will cause
less division and consternation and encompass all of society. The
answer to the question posed on today̢۪s segment of Midmorning on MPR
is yes. Actually we can save the word “marriage†and continue to
use it in a more appropriate context. In today̢۪s society, the word
marriage is used to encompass both civil and religious unions. Marriage
describes both a couple̢۪s state sanctioned rights, such as tax breaks
for families and inheritance benefits, and a couple̢۪s participation
in certain religious ceremonies. Herein lies the problem. The United
States is based on the idea of the separation of church and state. This
was the reason that many of our fore- parents left their homelands and
began life anew in the what was later to become the United States of
America – separating church laws and beliefs from the laws that would
govern the people. Religious laws were not to be transferred to society
as a whole. In Europe, religions such as the Church of England and the
Roman Catholic Church were quite intertwined. Many Europeans believed
that it was the clergy̢۪s role to see to the spiritual well-being of
its members and it was the government̢۪s role to oversee the
well-being of it citizens. Clergy should not be meddling in affairs of
the state. This ideology of church/state separation is reflected in our
Constitution.
The popular definition of the word “marriage†has no separation of
church and state. A marriage can take place in a religious ceremony or
a civil ceremony. I propose separating these two ceremonies, as is
customary in Europe and other societies, and call one civil union and
the other marriage. Marriage can be defined by religious customs and
all citizens of the United States would have the religious freedom of
choice. Civil union would bestow secular benefits, marriage would
bestow spiritual benefits. Should the President of the United States be
putting forth religious arguments for the denial of gay marriage or
further to amend the United States Constitution when he or she is
entrusted to ensure the separation of church and state? The President
is a civilly elected official of government. His or her religious
beliefs are a private issue. They certainly should not be the platform
for change in our federal Constitution. The argument of marriage being
the province of one man and one woman is a religious concept. Separate
the two for all people - civil unions for legal ceremonies and marriage
for religious ceremonies and there would be a lot less contention. As
our fore-parents knew, separation of church and state advances another
principle that our country is based on - equal rights for all citizens.
One of the principle tenets of social conservatives is family values.
There are over 1,000,000 children of gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgendered parents. Those children are not getting the same legal
protection and benefits as the children of heterosexual couples.
Discrimination of any child is not a family value. All children of our
nation should enjoy equal benefits and protection under the law. If
protecting the family unit is of utmost importance, then gay marriage
should be allowed by law thus ensuring legal protection for all our
children. If monogamy is also a strong, stabilizing family and societal
value, then it would be to our nation̢۪s benefit to allow gay couples
to marry. The greater the number of stabilizing monogamous marriages in
this country, the stronger our nation will be. Our nation will be
strengthened when gay couples are encouraged to marry and create
families. Where are the family values when heterosexual couples get
married and then divorce within hours of the marriage ceremony? How is
it that gay couples, committed to one another, are denied the right to
marry, but heterosexual couples are allowed such flagrant disregard of
societal or family values? It is good for this country that gay
marriage be such a social, legal and political hot topic in 2004.
Change rarely happens smoothly, it is rarely painless, but change does
happen and it will happen in the case of gay marriage. Within the next
twenty years gay couples will be granted the same right of marriage or
civil union (if legal and religious ceremonies are separated) that will
give all couples equal right under the law. --- Mary Lynn Collins
Posted by: Kathy at
05:06 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 894 words, total size 6 kb.
--- Ok, Janet's Boobie. Instead
--- Ok, Janet's Boobie.
Instead of actually watching the Superbowl last night, I watched Independence Day
on Fox. I don't give a rat's ass about pro football. It's boring. It's
players are owned by corporations who expect us to give over all our
money to cheer for players who have no loyalty to the teams they play.
That's the whole NFL thing summed up in a nutshell. It's greedy and
it's boring. Enough said. But I like the Superbowl commercials. They're
fun. So, you have to watch some of the football to get to the good
stuff. Invariably, though, with my luck, I kept getting the actual
Superbowl programming instead of the commercials. I was cursed. Every
single flipping time I changed the channel, I got the actual game and
halftime program instead of the good stuff. Someone was working the
voodoo last night. It should have been called Freaky Friday instead of
Superbowl Sunday---everything was turned around from the way things
normally work. Usually, you get commercials when you flip to another
channel. That's just the way God designed the definition of the term
"ironic." This is the way things are supposed to work, damnit! I was
counting on this! This principle ensured I would get to see the
commercials and VERY little game. Last night, the Devil was in charge
of things, obviously, and as a result, I got Janet's boob on my TV
screen for about five seconds. This is what happens when the Devil gets
his fingers into the pie, you know. You have to sit through Justin
Timberlake and Janet Jackson lipsynching and grinding themselves into
oblivion---something that would NEVER happen in real life---and then
you get to see Justin rip off an obviously velcroed boob cover. Now,
this didn't bother me because I took a few things into account: the
halftime show had been billed up and down the river as being produced
by MTV. I, who paid so little attention to the hype leading up to the
game did not know even who was playing in it, knew this. I also knew
that CBS, who is owned by Viacom, was throwing a bone to MTV which, by
some weird twist of fate, is also owned by Viacom. It's big media
having a party for itself. They're bound to push the limits of
acceptability in this regard. Sort of like the Stanley Cup playoffs
last year. Then you had the Anaheim Mighty Ducks, a Disney owned
enterprise, being shown on ESPN and ABC, who also advertised the hell
out of those games, more so in my estimation than the actual
championship series---particularly when the New Jersey Devils started
beating the snot out of the Ducks. Disney backed away from promoting
the series, in my opinion. I have no facts to back this one up, it's
just a gut feeling. They were making plenty of money as it was no need
to push it anymore. In this case pride went before the fall, as well.
They pushed the envelope, in other words. They tried to see what they
could get away with. It's pretty simple stuff. In this case, it was the
supposedly accidental airing of Janet's boob. I don't think it was
accidental. Just look at the slide show. Does she look really all that
surprised that he yanked her bustier? No. Look at the pictures of the
pastie she wore---was she really all that concerned that TV lights
would get through that inpenetrable fabric we all know as black leather
and someone would see---gasp!---her nipple? Why'd she wear such a fancy
pastie? If it really was a cover-job-pastie only, why the hell was it
so fancy? How come Justin, who, let's face it, is not exactly The Hulk,
able to pull that thing off if it wasn't velcroed? Leather stitching is
tough to rip through. Ask any seamstress. No, that sucker was supposed
to come off because MTV wanted to push it. These are the same people
who produced that shocker of a kiss between Britney and Madonna last
summer at the VMA's? Why is anyone surprised that Janet's boob
got aired (both literally and figuratively speaking) last night? CBS,
too, wanted that thing to come off. Everyone's talking about it---means
good ratings. What I'm ticked about is, that despite the reasoning that
this is a con job, Viacom, CBS, MTV and
Justin Timberlake expect us to believe it was a "wardrobe malfunction."
Oh, come on! How stupid do you think I am? What am I? A sheep? Boob
doesn't bother me. It's a mammary gland---a part of the female anatomy.
Every woman has them---even your mother. If you're freaked out by a
mammary gland, you're the one with issues, not Janet. Janet's going to
get a write off on her latest round of plastic surgery. Good for her.
It was an impressive boob. So, as long as she keeps her mouth
shut, I'm not going to pick on her for showing off. So, the boob
doesn't bother me, it's the blatant covering of asses that bothers me.
They're trying to get out of paying the FCC a fine. That's it. And
that's just irresponsible and gutless. If you want to shock people,
you'd better be willing to pay the consequences for said shocking.
---Trudging through snow to store now. Fajitas for dinner and I need
limes for the marinade. Thank God we only live a few blocks away. No
way in hell am I getting anywhere near the car right now.
Instead of actually watching the Superbowl last night, I watched Independence Day
on Fox. I don't give a rat's ass about pro football. It's boring. It's
players are owned by corporations who expect us to give over all our
money to cheer for players who have no loyalty to the teams they play.
That's the whole NFL thing summed up in a nutshell. It's greedy and
it's boring. Enough said. But I like the Superbowl commercials. They're
fun. So, you have to watch some of the football to get to the good
stuff. Invariably, though, with my luck, I kept getting the actual
Superbowl programming instead of the commercials. I was cursed. Every
single flipping time I changed the channel, I got the actual game and
halftime program instead of the good stuff. Someone was working the
voodoo last night. It should have been called Freaky Friday instead of
Superbowl Sunday---everything was turned around from the way things
normally work. Usually, you get commercials when you flip to another
channel. That's just the way God designed the definition of the term
"ironic." This is the way things are supposed to work, damnit! I was
counting on this! This principle ensured I would get to see the
commercials and VERY little game. Last night, the Devil was in charge
of things, obviously, and as a result, I got Janet's boob on my TV
screen for about five seconds. This is what happens when the Devil gets
his fingers into the pie, you know. You have to sit through Justin
Timberlake and Janet Jackson lipsynching and grinding themselves into
oblivion---something that would NEVER happen in real life---and then
you get to see Justin rip off an obviously velcroed boob cover. Now,
this didn't bother me because I took a few things into account: the
halftime show had been billed up and down the river as being produced
by MTV. I, who paid so little attention to the hype leading up to the
game did not know even who was playing in it, knew this. I also knew
that CBS, who is owned by Viacom, was throwing a bone to MTV which, by
some weird twist of fate, is also owned by Viacom. It's big media
having a party for itself. They're bound to push the limits of
acceptability in this regard. Sort of like the Stanley Cup playoffs
last year. Then you had the Anaheim Mighty Ducks, a Disney owned
enterprise, being shown on ESPN and ABC, who also advertised the hell
out of those games, more so in my estimation than the actual
championship series---particularly when the New Jersey Devils started
beating the snot out of the Ducks. Disney backed away from promoting
the series, in my opinion. I have no facts to back this one up, it's
just a gut feeling. They were making plenty of money as it was no need
to push it anymore. In this case pride went before the fall, as well.
They pushed the envelope, in other words. They tried to see what they
could get away with. It's pretty simple stuff. In this case, it was the
supposedly accidental airing of Janet's boob. I don't think it was
accidental. Just look at the slide show. Does she look really all that
surprised that he yanked her bustier? No. Look at the pictures of the
pastie she wore---was she really all that concerned that TV lights
would get through that inpenetrable fabric we all know as black leather
and someone would see---gasp!---her nipple? Why'd she wear such a fancy
pastie? If it really was a cover-job-pastie only, why the hell was it
so fancy? How come Justin, who, let's face it, is not exactly The Hulk,
able to pull that thing off if it wasn't velcroed? Leather stitching is
tough to rip through. Ask any seamstress. No, that sucker was supposed
to come off because MTV wanted to push it. These are the same people
who produced that shocker of a kiss between Britney and Madonna last
summer at the VMA's? Why is anyone surprised that Janet's boob
got aired (both literally and figuratively speaking) last night? CBS,
too, wanted that thing to come off. Everyone's talking about it---means
good ratings. What I'm ticked about is, that despite the reasoning that
this is a con job, Viacom, CBS, MTV and
Justin Timberlake expect us to believe it was a "wardrobe malfunction."
Oh, come on! How stupid do you think I am? What am I? A sheep? Boob
doesn't bother me. It's a mammary gland---a part of the female anatomy.
Every woman has them---even your mother. If you're freaked out by a
mammary gland, you're the one with issues, not Janet. Janet's going to
get a write off on her latest round of plastic surgery. Good for her.
It was an impressive boob. So, as long as she keeps her mouth
shut, I'm not going to pick on her for showing off. So, the boob
doesn't bother me, it's the blatant covering of asses that bothers me.
They're trying to get out of paying the FCC a fine. That's it. And
that's just irresponsible and gutless. If you want to shock people,
you'd better be willing to pay the consequences for said shocking.
---Trudging through snow to store now. Fajitas for dinner and I need
limes for the marinade. Thank God we only live a few blocks away. No
way in hell am I getting anywhere near the car right now.
Posted by: Kathy at
04:50 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 929 words, total size 5 kb.
Ok, I'm a frigging idiot.
Ok, I'm a frigging idiot. Forgot to delete his admin status.
{Guy Smiley} {/Guy Smiley}
Well, all the doors are closed now. Somewhat belatedly, but the job is
done.
This is the hot water you can get yourself into if you leave it all up
to the techie in the house.
{Guy Smiley} {/Guy Smiley}
Well, all the doors are closed now. Somewhat belatedly, but the job is
done.
This is the hot water you can get yourself into if you leave it all up
to the techie in the house.
Posted by: Kathy at
04:15 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.
Wanna bet?
Wanna bet?
Posted by: Kathy at
04:09 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 6 words, total size 1 kb.
{INSERT MONSTROUS SIGH HERE} Well,
{INSERT MONSTROUS SIGH HERE}
Well, changed the password again. I was lazy, I will admit. I used a
variation of the old one. It was just a matter of time before he
figured it out. He's not going to get this one. I guarantee it.
Good luck, baby! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA yourself!
Pfffffffffft.
Well, changed the password again. I was lazy, I will admit. I used a
variation of the old one. It was just a matter of time before he
figured it out. He's not going to get this one. I guarantee it.
Good luck, baby! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA yourself!
Pfffffffffft.
Posted by: Kathy at
04:07 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.
--- Jesus. Literally. I will
--- Jesus.
Literally. I will admit I'm not going to go and see this movie. I just
don't want to. I'll wait until it comes out on video. It's a personal
choice for me. I'm not one of those people who likes to hold hands when
I say the "Our Father" during mass, or is big into “getting
involved,†with my church. My relationship with God is more personal
experience for me, rather than communal one. I don't want to run to the
theater with a bunch of other Christians to see this movie, like it's a
football game where I need to show up to root for the home team. It's
just not me. I will see the film, but in the privacy of my own home. I
already said my piece about Mel and the ADL, so it's not worth
revisiting. I just have one comment, though, and it relates to
children. Paul Clinton warns in his review: However, I recommend to parents -- many of whom may be taking
their kids to see this film as part of various church-sponsored
screenings -- that this is a very violent and graphic film, and just
because it is about Jesus doesn't make it suitable for everyone.
Allrighty then. Take the kiddies to church, let them hear the story,
let them walk the Stations of the Cross, tell them how Jesus died for
our sins, tell them that we're all culpable his death because of our
sinning, but for the love of all that is good and holy, don't let them see an account of the crucifixion. It's too violent. It's too bloody.
Keep the message centered on that He died for our sins, but don't let
them see an account of His death because it might scar them for life.
Of all the flaming hypocritical bits that have come across my path.
YEESH! I just don't get this one. Let me revise that: I get it, but
it's still hypocritical. After hearing how violent this film is, if I
had kids, I probably wouldn't let them see it either, so I know
I don't have a leg to stand on here, but it's interesting to see this
collision of today's brand of family values collide with a portrayal of
the death of a man around whom those family values are structured.
Yesterday, the husband was conducting some business on the other side
of town and decided to drop in to see his sister. Now, the sister in
law is a devout Lutheran--- of the Missouri Synod variety. (Just as an
example, she thought Judge Moore was in the right last summer and
wanted to get on a bus to go and support him.) She and her husband have
organized their lives, and the lives of their children, around their
belief in God and what their church teaches. They̢۪re very into
“family values.†One aspect where they follow their beliefs to the
max is that they homeschool their children. Their decision was, in
part, based upon their worries about public schools, which are many,
but mainly reside in the neighborhood of the quality of education the
schools provide. But, on the whole, I would say homeschooling is mostly
a religious thing for them: they want their kids to have a parochial
education. The niece and nephew are nice little kids and I love them to
pieces. They're wonderful children, and despite my original worries
about homeschooling, I think the sister in law is doing a pretty good
job of educating them. So, while they're incredibly sheltered kids,
they are being educated the way their parents want them to be: in a
Christian way, according to their beliefs. This is fine. I'm all for
free choice. According to the husband, they're going to go see "The
Passion of the Christ," on Saturday and they've got a babysitter lined
up for the kids. Now, perhaps this doesn't seem like a big deal to you,
and it's not a "big" deal, but I find it very interesting, and I have
to tell you a story about the nephew to tie it all together. A few
years ago, we were over at their house for Easter dinner. The sister in
law was in the kitchen, finishing things up, we were hanging out in the
living room, chatting with the nephew. He wanted to show us something.
He's a very creative kid with an active imagination, so we settled in
for the show. I should mention their house is pretty small. They don't
have a goodly amount of room to work with, so the living room is filled
with toys and the kids̢۪ bookcases. R., who could best be described as
"scrawny" in terms of body mass, crawls up on his bookcase, like a
monkey climbing a tree, manages to turn himself around, outstretches
his arms and crosses his feet at the ankles and then proceeds to shout
at full volume, LOOK, AUNT KATHY! I'M CRUCIFIED!.
Then he proceeded to jump down from the bookcase. He ran across the
room to where the sofa was and crawled behind it and then covered the
opening with a spare sofa cushion. He gave no explanation this time
around, but it was obvious to us that he was simulating Jesus' body
being put into the tomb, the cushion acting as a substitute for the
rock. Two seconds later, he crawled back out again, said, "It's three
days later! I'm resurrected!" The nephew then ran into the kitchen and
informed his mother of the same. Now, a little kid acting out the
Passion is not disturbing to me, particularly not on Easter Sunday,
where all he'd been hearing for the past few days at church was about
the crucifixion and how joyful the resurrection was. R. is a gorgeous
kid. And I really mean that. He̢۪s beautiful in the classical,
aesthetically pleasing sense of the word. If he had been born five
hundred years ago, he would have been immortalized in paint by
Rembrandt. Blonde hair, blue eyes, fine features---the girls are going
to be mad for him when he grows up. But I don̢۪t think I̢۪ll ever get
over the incongruity of the whole situation: here you have this
beautiful little boy, the widest grin in the world on his mouth, his
big blue eyes sparkling, and he̢۪s up on a bookcase, happy as a clam
that “he’s been crucified.†It was one of the creepiest things
I̢۪ve ever seen. It just rang so absolutely wrong.
But he̢۪s a little kid. It̢۪s not surprising to me that he got the
messages mixed up in his mind. When I expected his parents to correct
him, however, to tell him that the resurrection was joyful, yes, but
the crucifixion was one of the most painful endings a person could come
to, his parents chose not to go that route. Instead, they praised him.
Their attitude was that it was a cute thing, something for them to be
proud of---that he knew the story well enough to act it out. I just
looked at the husband and stared. He stared back. But we kept quiet: it
wasn̢۪t our place to say something. When I told Mr. H. about this, he,
too, was surprised that R.̢۪s parents hadn̢۪t corrected him. He
thought they should have said something and the comment he made that
sticks with me was, “having tie irons hammered through your wrists
and feet is not a pleasant, happy, thing.†R. didn’t have the
context of the crucifixion, and as far as I know, he still doesn̢۪t. I
don̢۪t know that his parents want him to have it. I̢۪ve been to their
church---it̢۪s a pretty happy-go-lucky sort of place where everyone
gets forgiven of their sins without actually having to confess
them---and it̢۪s fairly obvious that they don̢۪t spend a whole lot of
time on the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross that day, but instead
spend the majority of their time talking about how he saved us when he
was resurrected. At their church, in other words, it̢۪s all about the
happy ending, and not the pain and suffering that made the happy ending
possible. I̢۪ll be curious to hear what the sister in law has to say
about the film. Five bucks says she̢۪ll say it̢۪s very bloody and
violent and, undoubtedly, she̢۪ll be shocked at all the kids who were
in the theater with them. Which is odd---don̢۪t you think---for people
who are so into being Christian? People who center their lives around
acting like Christ? People who spent good money buying bracelets with
the the acronym, "WWJD"? Jesus became Jesus Christ because of his
crucifixion and resurrection. If you didn̢۪t have the crucifixion, we
wouldn̢۪t have the ultimate meaning of Christianity. I find it so odd
that ultimately some would reject a film that shows the true extent of
Jesus̢۪ suffering, of what he went through to save us from our sins,
because it̢۪s too violent and they don̢۪t want their kids exposed to
that, even though they center their lives directly around that
sacrifice. Perhaps, if we insisted that kids saw the movie, they̢۪d be
less likely to crawl up on a bookcase and scream, “I’m
crucified!†while wearing a big happy grin.
Literally. I will admit I'm not going to go and see this movie. I just
don't want to. I'll wait until it comes out on video. It's a personal
choice for me. I'm not one of those people who likes to hold hands when
I say the "Our Father" during mass, or is big into “getting
involved,†with my church. My relationship with God is more personal
experience for me, rather than communal one. I don't want to run to the
theater with a bunch of other Christians to see this movie, like it's a
football game where I need to show up to root for the home team. It's
just not me. I will see the film, but in the privacy of my own home. I
already said my piece about Mel and the ADL, so it's not worth
revisiting. I just have one comment, though, and it relates to
children. Paul Clinton warns in his review: However, I recommend to parents -- many of whom may be taking
their kids to see this film as part of various church-sponsored
screenings -- that this is a very violent and graphic film, and just
because it is about Jesus doesn't make it suitable for everyone.
Allrighty then. Take the kiddies to church, let them hear the story,
let them walk the Stations of the Cross, tell them how Jesus died for
our sins, tell them that we're all culpable his death because of our
sinning, but for the love of all that is good and holy, don't let them see an account of the crucifixion. It's too violent. It's too bloody.
Keep the message centered on that He died for our sins, but don't let
them see an account of His death because it might scar them for life.
Of all the flaming hypocritical bits that have come across my path.
YEESH! I just don't get this one. Let me revise that: I get it, but
it's still hypocritical. After hearing how violent this film is, if I
had kids, I probably wouldn't let them see it either, so I know
I don't have a leg to stand on here, but it's interesting to see this
collision of today's brand of family values collide with a portrayal of
the death of a man around whom those family values are structured.
Yesterday, the husband was conducting some business on the other side
of town and decided to drop in to see his sister. Now, the sister in
law is a devout Lutheran--- of the Missouri Synod variety. (Just as an
example, she thought Judge Moore was in the right last summer and
wanted to get on a bus to go and support him.) She and her husband have
organized their lives, and the lives of their children, around their
belief in God and what their church teaches. They̢۪re very into
“family values.†One aspect where they follow their beliefs to the
max is that they homeschool their children. Their decision was, in
part, based upon their worries about public schools, which are many,
but mainly reside in the neighborhood of the quality of education the
schools provide. But, on the whole, I would say homeschooling is mostly
a religious thing for them: they want their kids to have a parochial
education. The niece and nephew are nice little kids and I love them to
pieces. They're wonderful children, and despite my original worries
about homeschooling, I think the sister in law is doing a pretty good
job of educating them. So, while they're incredibly sheltered kids,
they are being educated the way their parents want them to be: in a
Christian way, according to their beliefs. This is fine. I'm all for
free choice. According to the husband, they're going to go see "The
Passion of the Christ," on Saturday and they've got a babysitter lined
up for the kids. Now, perhaps this doesn't seem like a big deal to you,
and it's not a "big" deal, but I find it very interesting, and I have
to tell you a story about the nephew to tie it all together. A few
years ago, we were over at their house for Easter dinner. The sister in
law was in the kitchen, finishing things up, we were hanging out in the
living room, chatting with the nephew. He wanted to show us something.
He's a very creative kid with an active imagination, so we settled in
for the show. I should mention their house is pretty small. They don't
have a goodly amount of room to work with, so the living room is filled
with toys and the kids̢۪ bookcases. R., who could best be described as
"scrawny" in terms of body mass, crawls up on his bookcase, like a
monkey climbing a tree, manages to turn himself around, outstretches
his arms and crosses his feet at the ankles and then proceeds to shout
at full volume, LOOK, AUNT KATHY! I'M CRUCIFIED!.
Then he proceeded to jump down from the bookcase. He ran across the
room to where the sofa was and crawled behind it and then covered the
opening with a spare sofa cushion. He gave no explanation this time
around, but it was obvious to us that he was simulating Jesus' body
being put into the tomb, the cushion acting as a substitute for the
rock. Two seconds later, he crawled back out again, said, "It's three
days later! I'm resurrected!" The nephew then ran into the kitchen and
informed his mother of the same. Now, a little kid acting out the
Passion is not disturbing to me, particularly not on Easter Sunday,
where all he'd been hearing for the past few days at church was about
the crucifixion and how joyful the resurrection was. R. is a gorgeous
kid. And I really mean that. He̢۪s beautiful in the classical,
aesthetically pleasing sense of the word. If he had been born five
hundred years ago, he would have been immortalized in paint by
Rembrandt. Blonde hair, blue eyes, fine features---the girls are going
to be mad for him when he grows up. But I don̢۪t think I̢۪ll ever get
over the incongruity of the whole situation: here you have this
beautiful little boy, the widest grin in the world on his mouth, his
big blue eyes sparkling, and he̢۪s up on a bookcase, happy as a clam
that “he’s been crucified.†It was one of the creepiest things
I̢۪ve ever seen. It just rang so absolutely wrong.
But he̢۪s a little kid. It̢۪s not surprising to me that he got the
messages mixed up in his mind. When I expected his parents to correct
him, however, to tell him that the resurrection was joyful, yes, but
the crucifixion was one of the most painful endings a person could come
to, his parents chose not to go that route. Instead, they praised him.
Their attitude was that it was a cute thing, something for them to be
proud of---that he knew the story well enough to act it out. I just
looked at the husband and stared. He stared back. But we kept quiet: it
wasn̢۪t our place to say something. When I told Mr. H. about this, he,
too, was surprised that R.̢۪s parents hadn̢۪t corrected him. He
thought they should have said something and the comment he made that
sticks with me was, “having tie irons hammered through your wrists
and feet is not a pleasant, happy, thing.†R. didn’t have the
context of the crucifixion, and as far as I know, he still doesn̢۪t. I
don̢۪t know that his parents want him to have it. I̢۪ve been to their
church---it̢۪s a pretty happy-go-lucky sort of place where everyone
gets forgiven of their sins without actually having to confess
them---and it̢۪s fairly obvious that they don̢۪t spend a whole lot of
time on the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross that day, but instead
spend the majority of their time talking about how he saved us when he
was resurrected. At their church, in other words, it̢۪s all about the
happy ending, and not the pain and suffering that made the happy ending
possible. I̢۪ll be curious to hear what the sister in law has to say
about the film. Five bucks says she̢۪ll say it̢۪s very bloody and
violent and, undoubtedly, she̢۪ll be shocked at all the kids who were
in the theater with them. Which is odd---don̢۪t you think---for people
who are so into being Christian? People who center their lives around
acting like Christ? People who spent good money buying bracelets with
the the acronym, "WWJD"? Jesus became Jesus Christ because of his
crucifixion and resurrection. If you didn̢۪t have the crucifixion, we
wouldn̢۪t have the ultimate meaning of Christianity. I find it so odd
that ultimately some would reject a film that shows the true extent of
Jesus̢۪ suffering, of what he went through to save us from our sins,
because it̢۪s too violent and they don̢۪t want their kids exposed to
that, even though they center their lives directly around that
sacrifice. Perhaps, if we insisted that kids saw the movie, they̢۪d be
less likely to crawl up on a bookcase and scream, “I’m
crucified!†while wearing a big happy grin.
Posted by: Kathy at
03:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1558 words, total size 9 kb.
--- I have made a
--- I have made a major decision. I have decided who the best candidate
would be to go head on with the Great White Hunter and Tweedledumb. This guy is
the man I need.
The Merovingian. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea.
He's all about causality. He could explain to the GHW and Tweedledumb
what needs to be done. Yep. He's the man for the job. I imagine the
conversation would go something like this:
Merovingian: Aha, here he is at last. The Great White Hunter, the One
himself, right? And the legendary Tweedledumb. I have heard so much,
you honour me. Please, sit, join us. This is my wife, Persephone.
Something to eat? Drink? Hmm... of course, such things are contrivances
like so much here. For the sake of appearances.
GWH: Uh, yeah, sure.
Tweedledumb: As long as it's free. I can't afford wine. Too expensive,
well except for Night Train, but that don't taste too good. {Busy
staring at Persephone's impressive cleavage. Drool trickled out of the
corner of his mouth and runs down his chin}
Merovingian: Château Haut-Brion 1959, magnificent wine, I love French
wine, like I love the French language. I have sampled every language,
French is my favourite - fantastic language, especially to curse with.
Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard
d'enculé de ta mère! You see, it's like wiping your arse with silk, I
love it.
GWH: What the #$% are you talking about? You know why we are here.
Tweedledumb: Yeah, you know why. {Drains goblet of wine} You got any
Nat Lite around here? Wine gives me a headache the next day.
Merovingian:{Rolls eyes} Hmph... I am a trafficker of information, I
know everything I can. The question is, do you know why you are here?
GWH: We are looking for the rent check. Tweedledumb {waiting impatienly
for beer to arrive turns to Persephone} Hey, I hope you don't mind me
asking, but since you're so obviously proud of your wonder twins, you
mind me asking if they're real? That's a hell of a boob job you got
there. Merovingian: {Rolls eyes in concert with Persephone, who remains
silent. Nods at Twins. Twins place themselves on either side of
Tweedledumb and take turns bitchslapping him for his insolence. Amused,
he turns back to GWH.} Oh yes, it is true. The rent check, of course.
But this is not a reason, this is not a `why.' The rent check, its very
nature, is means, it is not an end, and so, to look for it is to be
looking for a means to do... what?
GWH: You know the answer to that question.
Merovingian: But do you? You think you do but you do not. You are here
because you were sent here, you were told to come here by that darling
and desirable creature, Kathy, and you obeyed. [Laughs] It is, of
course, the way of all things. You see, there is only one constant, one
universal, it is the only real truth: causality. Action. Reaction.
Cause and effect. You did not fix the leaks in the windows, nor did you
clear the melt off the roof, hence Kathy did not pay the rent.
GWH: Oh, just shut up, would you? We're owed money; we're here to get
it because Kathy sent us. Look, Kathy and her husband signed a lease.
They pay us rent, we let them live at the property. They chose not to
pay the rent and everything begins with choice. In this case, it was
their choice that led me here.
Tweedledumb: {Struggling for composure while bleeding
copiously}Um...yeah...their choice. Merovingian: No. Wrong. Choice is
an illusion, created between those with power, and those without. In
this case, you hold all the cards, ma chere
Kathleen does not. You have the power, but do you know this? No. Hence
you are an idiot. Causality. There is no escape from it, we are forever
slaves to it. You take the rent check, you do nothing with it. You hire
incompetent contractors to work on the house when you actually take
time to look at the property. You have hired this cretin to look after
the place. And yet you are surprised I will not hand over the rent
check? I need a 'why.' `Why' is what separates us from them, you from
me. `Why' is the only real social power, without it you are powerless.
And this is how you come to me, without `why,' without power. Another
link in the chain. But fear not, since I have seen how good you are at
following orders, I will tell you what to do next. You will make the
repairs and I will hand over the rent check. Simple, no? Now I have
some real business to do, I will say adieu and goodbye.
GWH: This isn't over, damnit!
Merovingian: Oh yes, it is. The rent check is mine and I see no reason
why I should give it up. No reason at all.
Persephone: Where are you going? Don't you dare leave me alone with
these nimrods!
Merovingian: Please, ma chérie, I've told you, we are all victims of
causality. These cretins have come to me, they have displeased me
tremendously by ignoring ma chere
Kathy and not solving her problems, problems they caused by their
stupidity, hence I feel obligated to organize a tremendous beating of
these idiots on her behalf. {Snaps fingers, henchman stand at attention
and surround GWH and Tweedledumb} Cause and effect, you see.
Persephone: Oh, that's all right then. Just so long as you weren't
headed off to the bathroom. I need to be entertained. This should
satisfy that need. Thank you, my love.
Merovingian: {Raises one eyebrow and nods in gracious acceptance} I'm
happy to oblige you my love. {Beating ensues, phone calls are made,
apartment stops leaking}
Works for me.
would be to go head on with the Great White Hunter and Tweedledumb. This guy is
the man I need.
The Merovingian. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea.
He's all about causality. He could explain to the GHW and Tweedledumb
what needs to be done. Yep. He's the man for the job. I imagine the
conversation would go something like this:
Merovingian: Aha, here he is at last. The Great White Hunter, the One
himself, right? And the legendary Tweedledumb. I have heard so much,
you honour me. Please, sit, join us. This is my wife, Persephone.
Something to eat? Drink? Hmm... of course, such things are contrivances
like so much here. For the sake of appearances.
GWH: Uh, yeah, sure.
Tweedledumb: As long as it's free. I can't afford wine. Too expensive,
well except for Night Train, but that don't taste too good. {Busy
staring at Persephone's impressive cleavage. Drool trickled out of the
corner of his mouth and runs down his chin}
Merovingian: Château Haut-Brion 1959, magnificent wine, I love French
wine, like I love the French language. I have sampled every language,
French is my favourite - fantastic language, especially to curse with.
Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard
d'enculé de ta mère! You see, it's like wiping your arse with silk, I
love it.
GWH: What the #$% are you talking about? You know why we are here.
Tweedledumb: Yeah, you know why. {Drains goblet of wine} You got any
Nat Lite around here? Wine gives me a headache the next day.
Merovingian:{Rolls eyes} Hmph... I am a trafficker of information, I
know everything I can. The question is, do you know why you are here?
GWH: We are looking for the rent check. Tweedledumb {waiting impatienly
for beer to arrive turns to Persephone} Hey, I hope you don't mind me
asking, but since you're so obviously proud of your wonder twins, you
mind me asking if they're real? That's a hell of a boob job you got
there. Merovingian: {Rolls eyes in concert with Persephone, who remains
silent. Nods at Twins. Twins place themselves on either side of
Tweedledumb and take turns bitchslapping him for his insolence. Amused,
he turns back to GWH.} Oh yes, it is true. The rent check, of course.
But this is not a reason, this is not a `why.' The rent check, its very
nature, is means, it is not an end, and so, to look for it is to be
looking for a means to do... what?
GWH: You know the answer to that question.
Merovingian: But do you? You think you do but you do not. You are here
because you were sent here, you were told to come here by that darling
and desirable creature, Kathy, and you obeyed. [Laughs] It is, of
course, the way of all things. You see, there is only one constant, one
universal, it is the only real truth: causality. Action. Reaction.
Cause and effect. You did not fix the leaks in the windows, nor did you
clear the melt off the roof, hence Kathy did not pay the rent.
GWH: Oh, just shut up, would you? We're owed money; we're here to get
it because Kathy sent us. Look, Kathy and her husband signed a lease.
They pay us rent, we let them live at the property. They chose not to
pay the rent and everything begins with choice. In this case, it was
their choice that led me here.
Tweedledumb: {Struggling for composure while bleeding
copiously}Um...yeah...their choice. Merovingian: No. Wrong. Choice is
an illusion, created between those with power, and those without. In
this case, you hold all the cards, ma chere
Kathleen does not. You have the power, but do you know this? No. Hence
you are an idiot. Causality. There is no escape from it, we are forever
slaves to it. You take the rent check, you do nothing with it. You hire
incompetent contractors to work on the house when you actually take
time to look at the property. You have hired this cretin to look after
the place. And yet you are surprised I will not hand over the rent
check? I need a 'why.' `Why' is what separates us from them, you from
me. `Why' is the only real social power, without it you are powerless.
And this is how you come to me, without `why,' without power. Another
link in the chain. But fear not, since I have seen how good you are at
following orders, I will tell you what to do next. You will make the
repairs and I will hand over the rent check. Simple, no? Now I have
some real business to do, I will say adieu and goodbye.
GWH: This isn't over, damnit!
Merovingian: Oh yes, it is. The rent check is mine and I see no reason
why I should give it up. No reason at all.
Persephone: Where are you going? Don't you dare leave me alone with
these nimrods!
Merovingian: Please, ma chérie, I've told you, we are all victims of
causality. These cretins have come to me, they have displeased me
tremendously by ignoring ma chere
Kathy and not solving her problems, problems they caused by their
stupidity, hence I feel obligated to organize a tremendous beating of
these idiots on her behalf. {Snaps fingers, henchman stand at attention
and surround GWH and Tweedledumb} Cause and effect, you see.
Persephone: Oh, that's all right then. Just so long as you weren't
headed off to the bathroom. I need to be entertained. This should
satisfy that need. Thank you, my love.
Merovingian: {Raises one eyebrow and nods in gracious acceptance} I'm
happy to oblige you my love. {Beating ensues, phone calls are made,
apartment stops leaking}
Works for me.
Posted by: Kathy at
02:54 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 999 words, total size 6 kb.
--- Now I can buy
--- Now I can buy Monica Lewinsky's protestations of ignorance about
how the media works. Hers, however? I think not.
Regarding her silence until now, Polier said, ``Because these
stories were false, I assumed the media would ignore them. It seems
that efforts to peddle these lies continue, so I feel compelled to
address them.''
Let me see if I've got this straight. You have a master's degree in
journalism from Columbia University and you just assumed there was no
need to reply to these allegations; that everyone would just take your word for it because the story is so patently false?
Ummm, honey, either Columbia is really into grade inflating these days,
or you're covering. Even I know you have to get out in front of a
story---it's not like the press wasn't following you around already.
You can't claim that being in Nairobi is like being on the moon where
the media is concerned. Everyone's got an African bureau these days,
and many of them are in Nairobi. Hell, you knew where to find the AP
office when you needed to. Could it be that, AHEM, you used to work for them? Oh, but that doesn't count right? You're just an innocent in the ways of the media---you just thought it was going to go away because everyone who knows you would know just how ridiculous a claim it was..
Has Monica taught you nothing? Don't let that poor girl's sacrifice go
to waste. Learn the lessons she never did. Either she's really dumb,
which I doubt. Or something fishy is going on here. I'm not buying the
"it'll go away" business for a second. I still haven't decided whether
or not I'll care about the whole deal. But it's fascinating to watch
just how the media is covering this thing. --- Yeah, but you still need a pitching staff, George.
Bats are the last thing you need right now, buddy.
--- Went and saw this on Friday night.
And it's good. It's really good. But, once again, it could have been better.
I just spent about a half hour looking through the seventeen
clips they have listed as trailers on the IMDB site---some of which
were actually trailers---but most were clips from the film, with a few
interviews with the cast and the director thrown in for spice, I guess.
And watching them reinforced the brilliance of this film for me. Now,
it's not Casablanca brilliant. Nothing will ever be that good
again, but to handle the overall topic of "age" as classily as they did
speaks volumes. But I can't help but thinking they got the short-shrift
from the editing and marketing departments. If this film is exactly how
the director wanted it to be, well, I guess I don't know much about
storytelling. Hmmm. How to put it without blowing the plot for those
who haven't seen it? Hmmm. Let's just say there was a whole lot of
brilliant buildup regarding Jack Nicholson's Harry and Diane Keaton's
Erica---but the ending was contrived. It left you unsatisfied. It was
too simple and I have this horrible feeling there was a huge scene
between Diane and Keanu that got the boot in the editing process.
Grrrrrr. Now, it's kind of hard to describe but the "age" theme was
completely apparent without them having to hit you over the head with
it. Yes, they did talk about it directly, but it wasn't omnipresent and
heavy. I think the phrase that best describes the writer/director's
handling of the subject would be "a deft touch." But the ending, well,
it brought that damn cast iron frying pan out and pretty much implied
that the main reason Erica wound up with Harry was that it was too
awkward for her to be with a younger man. Yeah, Erica was in love with
Harry, no doubts about it, but why
did she dump Keanu's Julian for him, particularly when he had treated
her pretty poorly? Makes no sense. It's very funny, and who the hell
knew that Jack "I could be your grandfather" Nicholson could
be---reasonably---sexy? Huh. Threw me for a loop. On the whole: well
worth the eight bucks. Prediction: there are doing to be shedloads of
"deleted scenes" on the DVD.
how the media works. Hers, however? I think not.
Regarding her silence until now, Polier said, ``Because these
stories were false, I assumed the media would ignore them. It seems
that efforts to peddle these lies continue, so I feel compelled to
address them.''
Let me see if I've got this straight. You have a master's degree in
journalism from Columbia University and you just assumed there was no
need to reply to these allegations; that everyone would just take your word for it because the story is so patently false?
Ummm, honey, either Columbia is really into grade inflating these days,
or you're covering. Even I know you have to get out in front of a
story---it's not like the press wasn't following you around already.
You can't claim that being in Nairobi is like being on the moon where
the media is concerned. Everyone's got an African bureau these days,
and many of them are in Nairobi. Hell, you knew where to find the AP
office when you needed to. Could it be that, AHEM, you used to work for them? Oh, but that doesn't count right? You're just an innocent in the ways of the media---you just thought it was going to go away because everyone who knows you would know just how ridiculous a claim it was..
Has Monica taught you nothing? Don't let that poor girl's sacrifice go
to waste. Learn the lessons she never did. Either she's really dumb,
which I doubt. Or something fishy is going on here. I'm not buying the
"it'll go away" business for a second. I still haven't decided whether
or not I'll care about the whole deal. But it's fascinating to watch
just how the media is covering this thing. --- Yeah, but you still need a pitching staff, George.
Bats are the last thing you need right now, buddy.
--- Went and saw this on Friday night.
And it's good. It's really good. But, once again, it could have been better.
I just spent about a half hour looking through the seventeen
clips they have listed as trailers on the IMDB site---some of which
were actually trailers---but most were clips from the film, with a few
interviews with the cast and the director thrown in for spice, I guess.
And watching them reinforced the brilliance of this film for me. Now,
it's not Casablanca brilliant. Nothing will ever be that good
again, but to handle the overall topic of "age" as classily as they did
speaks volumes. But I can't help but thinking they got the short-shrift
from the editing and marketing departments. If this film is exactly how
the director wanted it to be, well, I guess I don't know much about
storytelling. Hmmm. How to put it without blowing the plot for those
who haven't seen it? Hmmm. Let's just say there was a whole lot of
brilliant buildup regarding Jack Nicholson's Harry and Diane Keaton's
Erica---but the ending was contrived. It left you unsatisfied. It was
too simple and I have this horrible feeling there was a huge scene
between Diane and Keanu that got the boot in the editing process.
Grrrrrr. Now, it's kind of hard to describe but the "age" theme was
completely apparent without them having to hit you over the head with
it. Yes, they did talk about it directly, but it wasn't omnipresent and
heavy. I think the phrase that best describes the writer/director's
handling of the subject would be "a deft touch." But the ending, well,
it brought that damn cast iron frying pan out and pretty much implied
that the main reason Erica wound up with Harry was that it was too
awkward for her to be with a younger man. Yeah, Erica was in love with
Harry, no doubts about it, but why
did she dump Keanu's Julian for him, particularly when he had treated
her pretty poorly? Makes no sense. It's very funny, and who the hell
knew that Jack "I could be your grandfather" Nicholson could
be---reasonably---sexy? Huh. Threw me for a loop. On the whole: well
worth the eight bucks. Prediction: there are doing to be shedloads of
"deleted scenes" on the DVD.
Posted by: Kathy at
02:17 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 721 words, total size 4 kb.
--- This is really beginning
--- This is really beginning to piss me off. First, I think I've got it
figured out as to how he's getting in here. I'm not tipping my hand
this time, though, so you'll just have to wait to see if my mission is
succesful.
Second, he called me kitten. GOD ALMIGHTY THERE IS NOTHING I HATE MORE IN THIS WORLD THAN BEING CALLED KITTEN.
UGH!
I am not a kitten. I just don't have any of those qualities you
associate with kittens---cute, fuzzy, small, cuddly---it's just not an
appropriate endearment. Besides, its sexist and demeaning. Ugh. It
harks back to that era where it was considered socially appropriate for
men to go to Playboy bars to play a quick game of grab ass with the
bunnies, rather than just drinking themselves into a stupor. It makes
me want to take a shower---a long one---to wash off the slime that might
have touched me simply by the husband's usage of the term. EEEEEEEEWWW!
He knows I hate this term, too. That's why he used it. He's
deliberately provoking me. --- It's snowing here. Copiously. But it's
taking its time about dumping said copious amounts of snow. In
technical terms, what we've got going on here is prolonged flurrying:
you have a hard time believing, when you look out the window, that it
could add up to a foot. But it does, and it's more than halfway to
accomplishing its goal. It's been snowing since Saturday night---and
it's not supposed to stop until tonight. When all is said and done,
we're supposed to receive a foot of new snow. And this is on top of the
eight inches we got last week. We're running out of places in the Cake
Eater Alley to put the stuff. I just got done with Round Two of
snowblowing. The piles of white junk are so high in certain spots that
it's an impossible task to angle the snowblower any more funkily. You
see, you have to try and put the snow on top of the ten-foot-high
bank---to do so, you must take the handle of the snowblower, go low
with it, and angle the blade in a just-so manner so the snow hits the
top of the bank. The bottom of the snow bank already has the girth of
Andre the Giant: any more snow at the bottom and no one will be able to
park in our extra spots, ultimately rendering the entire snow removal
process as a worthless experience. This is where we're at. I managed to
get a whole lot of snow at the top of the bank, adding probably another
foot or so of height, but unless the Divine decides to intervene the
next time we snowblow---which will be in a couple of hours--- there is
no way in hell we will be able to put more snow on top of the bank.
Just isn't going to happen. Any more snow and the whole bank will
collapse, like a sandcastle that just wasn't architecturally sound. And
honestly, that's the last thing we need.
So, we'll just have to blow it into the alley instead. The City plows
the alley: they own that little strip of concrete we all use to get to
our garages. They come through with an industrial plow and push it all
into the obnoxious Cake Eater neighbor's yard. Totally true and it's
the coolest thing ever. He has a pile of snow in his yard that's coming
up on twenty feet high. Holy of Holies. I'm sure he's got some deal
with the city that ensures he gets some sort of compensation for this
usage---he's a mercenary, there is no such thing in his book as
something for nothing---but this also means that the snow that sullies
my driveway, if I blow it into the alley, winds up in his
yard. Tee hee. Anyway, I'm tired from the snowblower war waging. I just
ate lunch, so I'm sure I'm just experiencing digestion-induced oxygen
deprivation, but on top of snowblowing, I'm pooped. Am going to take a
nap now. Will be back later with comments about Janet's nipple.
figured out as to how he's getting in here. I'm not tipping my hand
this time, though, so you'll just have to wait to see if my mission is
succesful.
Second, he called me kitten. GOD ALMIGHTY THERE IS NOTHING I HATE MORE IN THIS WORLD THAN BEING CALLED KITTEN.
UGH!
I am not a kitten. I just don't have any of those qualities you
associate with kittens---cute, fuzzy, small, cuddly---it's just not an
appropriate endearment. Besides, its sexist and demeaning. Ugh. It
harks back to that era where it was considered socially appropriate for
men to go to Playboy bars to play a quick game of grab ass with the
bunnies, rather than just drinking themselves into a stupor. It makes
me want to take a shower---a long one---to wash off the slime that might
have touched me simply by the husband's usage of the term. EEEEEEEEWWW!
He knows I hate this term, too. That's why he used it. He's
deliberately provoking me. --- It's snowing here. Copiously. But it's
taking its time about dumping said copious amounts of snow. In
technical terms, what we've got going on here is prolonged flurrying:
you have a hard time believing, when you look out the window, that it
could add up to a foot. But it does, and it's more than halfway to
accomplishing its goal. It's been snowing since Saturday night---and
it's not supposed to stop until tonight. When all is said and done,
we're supposed to receive a foot of new snow. And this is on top of the
eight inches we got last week. We're running out of places in the Cake
Eater Alley to put the stuff. I just got done with Round Two of
snowblowing. The piles of white junk are so high in certain spots that
it's an impossible task to angle the snowblower any more funkily. You
see, you have to try and put the snow on top of the ten-foot-high
bank---to do so, you must take the handle of the snowblower, go low
with it, and angle the blade in a just-so manner so the snow hits the
top of the bank. The bottom of the snow bank already has the girth of
Andre the Giant: any more snow at the bottom and no one will be able to
park in our extra spots, ultimately rendering the entire snow removal
process as a worthless experience. This is where we're at. I managed to
get a whole lot of snow at the top of the bank, adding probably another
foot or so of height, but unless the Divine decides to intervene the
next time we snowblow---which will be in a couple of hours--- there is
no way in hell we will be able to put more snow on top of the bank.
Just isn't going to happen. Any more snow and the whole bank will
collapse, like a sandcastle that just wasn't architecturally sound. And
honestly, that's the last thing we need.
So, we'll just have to blow it into the alley instead. The City plows
the alley: they own that little strip of concrete we all use to get to
our garages. They come through with an industrial plow and push it all
into the obnoxious Cake Eater neighbor's yard. Totally true and it's
the coolest thing ever. He has a pile of snow in his yard that's coming
up on twenty feet high. Holy of Holies. I'm sure he's got some deal
with the city that ensures he gets some sort of compensation for this
usage---he's a mercenary, there is no such thing in his book as
something for nothing---but this also means that the snow that sullies
my driveway, if I blow it into the alley, winds up in his
yard. Tee hee. Anyway, I'm tired from the snowblower war waging. I just
ate lunch, so I'm sure I'm just experiencing digestion-induced oxygen
deprivation, but on top of snowblowing, I'm pooped. Am going to take a
nap now. Will be back later with comments about Janet's nipple.
Posted by: Kathy at
01:52 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 701 words, total size 4 kb.
--- Man, it's the early
--- Man, it's the early hours of the afternoon and I already need a
cocktail. A can of whoop ass opened and unleashed on the Great White
Hunter landlord and Tweedledumb, the building manager, might suffice,
though. I'm not sure which I want more right now. Booze? Can of whoop
ass? Booze? Can of whoop ass? I don't know. Choices, choices. Our
landlord, in case you don't know, is an absentee owner. He lives in
Texas. If this year is like years past, he's currently on South Padre
Island, slurping a margarita while he basks in the warm Texas sunshine.
We, however, are in Minnesota. Where we got a foot of snow yesterday.
Yes, that's right, a foot of snow that is now all piled up on the roof.
Snow that is melting into water, despite the frigid temperatures,
because it's sunny outside. The water has no place to go because
Tweedledumb never bothered to clean out the gutters this fall, or last.
Water that should flow down to the ground but because of the
underinsulated attic that is above me and allows for the heat to flow
up to the roof to ice things over some more, has backed into the walls
and is currently running down the inside of the window I sit next to. AND THE CONSTANT DRIPPING IS DRIVING ME INSANE!
Now, this doesn't go into the fact we have no phone service right now.
Yes, the two things are related. The nice lady at Qwest said her
diagostic check revealed a short in the line. Someone should be here
before tomorrow night
to fix the problem. Seems some of this dripping water shorted the damn
phone line out. How we still have DSL---it comes in on the same phone
line as our house line---I don't know. I don't really care, either. BUT
the dripping is driving past the point of rational thought. I'm going to lose it soon: take cover.
Why is this guy such a goddamn idiot? He spends thousands of dollars putting a new roof and gutters on the house, and yet he doesn't make sure his manager takes care of things! He spends even more money putting in all new windows and forced air heat. He knows
ice dams are now a potential problem with the new heating system. The
attic never got overheated when we had steam heat. Forced air heat is a
different story. The venting runs through the attic. Tweedledumb even
told me during the construction period that he would have to be on the
lookout for ice dams. They knew this would be a problem. They just don't care!
Honestly, how hard is it to get out on a ladder and clean out the gutters? How hard is it to call a roofer right now
to come out and clean off the snow? All Tweedledumb has to do is pick
up the phone and call a roofer. This is what roofers do here in the off
season, they come out and clean off snowy roofs to prevent ice dams.
Their fear of heights is nonexistent year round; why shouldn't they
make some money in the winter, too? I just don't get why, when there
are resources available, they don't take care of their property better.
The reason they had to spend all that money in the first place was
because they didn't spend the money on upkeep. I don't know: it must be
cheaper to their way of thinking to spend a boatload of cash every once
in a while on a massive upkeep, rather than a little here and there. I
like the house I live in. It's in a GREAT location. It's got TONS of
potential, but its a slumlord property and hence it won't ever reach
its potential because our landlord would rather spend our rent checks
on safaris, beach houses, and taxidermy than upkeep. Now, as a free
market capitalist, this should be all right with me: it's the Great
White Hunter's property, he should be able to run it the way he wants
to, right? Well, in theory, yes, he should be able to, but this man has
no problems with screwing with my life because he's lazy and because he
hires incompetent nincompoops to look after his property. The only
reason we got a new furnace, even though the old one was breaking down
quite regularly which is a big legal no-no in Minnesota, was because he
toured the property once and felt, and I quote, depressed
when he was done. I almost had an aneurysm when I heard that. So, he
fixed a few things. Big-freaking-whoop-de-goddamn-do. He's back to his
old habits and it's screwing with my life!
We're constantly paying the penalty for their mistakes. In the past
it's been a toxic basement because the sewer line backed up into the
house and Tweedledumb was in detox and couldn't take care of it.
Boilers have broken down in the middle of winter. Three weeks in a
hotel while they put in the new windows and furnace, the resultant mess
we wound up cleaning up because the people they hired were incompetent
(They cleaned the inside of the microwave---not the three inches of
dust on the top). The list is long. The penalty du jour: our phone line
is out through no fault of our own. And I can't get Tweedledumb on the
phone to save my life. Voice mail. He's dodging because he probably
spent his discretionary budget for the month. Booze? Drugs? He got
ripped off by yet another contractor he didn't have the good sense not
to hire? I don't know. I just know that I'm getting damn tired of this
crap. Booze? Can of whoop ass? You decide. After five years of this
shit, I've about had it.
cocktail. A can of whoop ass opened and unleashed on the Great White
Hunter landlord and Tweedledumb, the building manager, might suffice,
though. I'm not sure which I want more right now. Booze? Can of whoop
ass? Booze? Can of whoop ass? I don't know. Choices, choices. Our
landlord, in case you don't know, is an absentee owner. He lives in
Texas. If this year is like years past, he's currently on South Padre
Island, slurping a margarita while he basks in the warm Texas sunshine.
We, however, are in Minnesota. Where we got a foot of snow yesterday.
Yes, that's right, a foot of snow that is now all piled up on the roof.
Snow that is melting into water, despite the frigid temperatures,
because it's sunny outside. The water has no place to go because
Tweedledumb never bothered to clean out the gutters this fall, or last.
Water that should flow down to the ground but because of the
underinsulated attic that is above me and allows for the heat to flow
up to the roof to ice things over some more, has backed into the walls
and is currently running down the inside of the window I sit next to. AND THE CONSTANT DRIPPING IS DRIVING ME INSANE!
Now, this doesn't go into the fact we have no phone service right now.
Yes, the two things are related. The nice lady at Qwest said her
diagostic check revealed a short in the line. Someone should be here
before tomorrow night
to fix the problem. Seems some of this dripping water shorted the damn
phone line out. How we still have DSL---it comes in on the same phone
line as our house line---I don't know. I don't really care, either. BUT
the dripping is driving past the point of rational thought. I'm going to lose it soon: take cover.
Why is this guy such a goddamn idiot? He spends thousands of dollars putting a new roof and gutters on the house, and yet he doesn't make sure his manager takes care of things! He spends even more money putting in all new windows and forced air heat. He knows
ice dams are now a potential problem with the new heating system. The
attic never got overheated when we had steam heat. Forced air heat is a
different story. The venting runs through the attic. Tweedledumb even
told me during the construction period that he would have to be on the
lookout for ice dams. They knew this would be a problem. They just don't care!
Honestly, how hard is it to get out on a ladder and clean out the gutters? How hard is it to call a roofer right now
to come out and clean off the snow? All Tweedledumb has to do is pick
up the phone and call a roofer. This is what roofers do here in the off
season, they come out and clean off snowy roofs to prevent ice dams.
Their fear of heights is nonexistent year round; why shouldn't they
make some money in the winter, too? I just don't get why, when there
are resources available, they don't take care of their property better.
The reason they had to spend all that money in the first place was
because they didn't spend the money on upkeep. I don't know: it must be
cheaper to their way of thinking to spend a boatload of cash every once
in a while on a massive upkeep, rather than a little here and there. I
like the house I live in. It's in a GREAT location. It's got TONS of
potential, but its a slumlord property and hence it won't ever reach
its potential because our landlord would rather spend our rent checks
on safaris, beach houses, and taxidermy than upkeep. Now, as a free
market capitalist, this should be all right with me: it's the Great
White Hunter's property, he should be able to run it the way he wants
to, right? Well, in theory, yes, he should be able to, but this man has
no problems with screwing with my life because he's lazy and because he
hires incompetent nincompoops to look after his property. The only
reason we got a new furnace, even though the old one was breaking down
quite regularly which is a big legal no-no in Minnesota, was because he
toured the property once and felt, and I quote, depressed
when he was done. I almost had an aneurysm when I heard that. So, he
fixed a few things. Big-freaking-whoop-de-goddamn-do. He's back to his
old habits and it's screwing with my life!
We're constantly paying the penalty for their mistakes. In the past
it's been a toxic basement because the sewer line backed up into the
house and Tweedledumb was in detox and couldn't take care of it.
Boilers have broken down in the middle of winter. Three weeks in a
hotel while they put in the new windows and furnace, the resultant mess
we wound up cleaning up because the people they hired were incompetent
(They cleaned the inside of the microwave---not the three inches of
dust on the top). The list is long. The penalty du jour: our phone line
is out through no fault of our own. And I can't get Tweedledumb on the
phone to save my life. Voice mail. He's dodging because he probably
spent his discretionary budget for the month. Booze? Drugs? He got
ripped off by yet another contractor he didn't have the good sense not
to hire? I don't know. I just know that I'm getting damn tired of this
crap. Booze? Can of whoop ass? You decide. After five years of this
shit, I've about had it.
Posted by: Kathy at
01:47 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 981 words, total size 5 kb.
Search Thingy
Recent Comments
- lv outlet Typically I don't learn post on blogs, however I wish to say that this write-up quite pressured me t... entry
- shoes I came to the exact conclusion as well some time ago. Wonderful write-up and I is going to be sure t... entry
- shoes extremely excellent post, i surely love this excellent web site, keep on it shoes http://blog.wledu... entry
- shop A domain name is an identification label which defines a realm of administrative autonomy, authority... entry
- shop You created some decent points there. I looked on the internet for the concern and found most indivi... entry
- toms shoes The elegance of those blogging engines and CMS platforms might be the lack of limitations and ease o... entry
- Khorj IÂ’d evaluate the sphere of to animadvert on that too! entry
- take complete; rimoslim; rimoslim; http://texangamer.com/zimulti.php rimoslim; ; entry
- Muchlberger showin luv, Http self shot amature masturbation our thereafter and no for while. U a toward i how do... entry
- Llugai Hmmm, maybe a new idea in your local stores?? , Several anyhow cm what is miley cyrus's phone number... entry
Categories
- "The White House Cookbook" (21)
- Best Of (0)
- Cancer Schmancer (45)
- Demystifying Divas (52)
- Example (0)
- Gamer Widow (13)
- Haus Frau Files (48)
- Idiots Abound (209)
- James' JDRF Weeklong Hijack (7)
- Kyrie Elaison (14)
- Miscellania (793)
- Political (221)
- Random Questions (34)
- Screaming Memes (36)
- Scribe Scribblings (50)
- Silly Germans! (8)
- The Cotillion (16)
Archives
- July 2008 (5)
- June 2008 (21)
- May 2008 (28)
- April 2008 (12)
- March 2008 (36)
- February 2008 (40)
- January 2008 (47)
- December 2007 (52)
- November 2007 (35)
- October 2007 (15)
- September 2007 (9)
- August 2007 (10)
- July 2007 (17)
- June 2007 (9)
- May 2007 (7)
- April 2007 (5)
- March 2007 (3)
- February 2007 (4)
- January 2007 (4)
- December 2006 (3)
- November 2006 (1)
- October 2006 (5)
- September 2006 (7)
- August 2006 (5)
- July 2006 (14)
- June 2006 (12)
- May 2006 (13)
- April 2006 (26)
- March 2006 (61)
- February 2006 (72)
- January 2006 (73)
- December 2005 (57)
- November 2005 (72)
- October 2005 (70)
- September 2005 (78)
- August 2005 (86)
- July 2005 (74)
- June 2005 (78)
- May 2005 (114)
- April 2005 (119)
- March 2005 (102)
- February 2005 (96)
- January 2005 (105)
- December 2004 (84)
- November 2004 (99)
- October 2004 (71)
- September 2004 (104)
- August 2004 (47)
- July 2004 (71)
- June 2004 (238)
- May 2004 (278)
- April 2004 (122)
- March 2004 (34)
- February 2004 (29)
- January 2004 (22)
- December 2003 (21)
- November 2003 (19)
- October 2003 (24)
- September 2003 (24)
- August 2003 (22)
Blogroll
Sample linkMonthly Traffic
- Pages: 2717
- Files: 5
- Bytes: 11.1M
- CPU Time: 1:14
- Queries: 122496
Content
- Posts: 3042
- Comments: 3374
Feeds