Month: January 2004 (Page 1 of 6)

THNX LRD

Vanity license plate on British-racing-green Jaguar XJ6 in front of me on John Nolen Drive today.

“There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith.”

-Jimmy Carter, slamming the Georgia Dept. of Education’s proposal to ban the word “evolution” in state curriculum

I saw this page originally via Ultramundane, and I debated for quite a while whether to post it. But it’s so amazingly funny and perceptive, I couldn’t resist. (Plus, my wise friend Lisa laughed heartily and wasn’t offended, and she in fact urged me to post it. So if anyone is offended, please blame her. 🙂

There’s actually lots of other interesting stuff on this site too, such as the FUQ (Fictitious Unasked Questions). I also like “Fred Wanted to Ski.” Let me know what you think.

Roger Ebert called “Monster” the best movie of 2003, and as usual he’s slightly off his rocker. This is a middling movie with a wonderful performance by Charlize Theron as serial killer Aileen Wuornos. That’s about it.

The biggest surprise of this movie was Theron – not that she did a fantastic job; I knew she would. But I laughed a lot before seeing the movie about a casting session where they said, “We need someone to play a aggressively plain down-on-her-luck serial-killing prostitute. Hmmmmm. How about the most beautiful woman in Hollywood!”

What I didn’t realize until seeing the movie is that Theron’s charisma, that quality that draws your eyes to her no matter what she’s doing or how she looks, is crucial for this role. A “normal” actress would have made this flat story almost disappear. But Theron pulls you in, especially in the first half of the movie. Without her, as Paul said, you’re left with an average Lifetime movie about an abused woman.

The biggest failure was the script’s inability to portray anyone other than Aileen as more than a cardboard cutout, a prop in her tragic fall. Christina Ricci is given little to do as Aileen’s girlfriend, who goes inexplicably from eye-batting innocent to a Lady Macbeth figure who urges Aileen to kill again so they can get a car. Blink and you’ll miss Bruce Dern as Aileen’s friend.

There are moments of brilliance, like a roller rink scene between Aileen and Selby, their eyes dancing with attraction. But those moments are few and far between.

“Monster” has been compared to “Boys Don’t Cry” with Hilary Swank – on the surface, they’re both about tragically abused women, and include graphic scenes of that abuse. Well, I know “Boys Don’t Cry,” and “Monster,” you’re no “Boys Don’t Cry.”

Absolutely beautiful stuff from Furhouse. To say this post is about “Average Joe” is to say “Moby Dick” is about a whale. Please read it.

[The title link doesn’t work for me, and if it’s the same for you, just go to the site main page and scroll down to January 22.]

[Ed. note: This post is a counterpoint to John Callender’s “Why Bush Will Lose” post on lies.com.]

Why Bush Will Win

One word: fear.

Ever since the transformative event of 9/11, the Bush administration has been scarily good at exploiting the fear of a freaked-out nation, a nation that had never before felt threatened within its own borders. They’ve pushed through a far-right agenda that would have been laughed off the stage at any other time in American history. Terror alerts, demonization of Saddam, “with us or against us,” crackdown on civil rights, xenophobia – is this the most fear-based administration ever?

So why should the Bushies abandon the tactic that has gotten them where they are today? If anything, fear works better in the soundbite world of an election year than it does during the rest of the term. They don’t have an actual record to run on, as John Callender pointed out in his post. (I discussed their absymal record in my “You sir are not objective” post from last week.) But fear isn’t logical. Fear doesn’t need to debate. Fear, if it’s strong enough, always trumps reason. Thus it’s perfect for Bush and Co.

Here’s some sample fear-based election-year rhetoric (it’s not difficult to come up with):

-The other guy doesn’t care about your security!
-The other guy would like to see Saddam in power!
-The other guy wants to let other countries tell us what to do!
-The other guy wants to raise your taxes!
-The other guy has some wacko liberal social agenda!
-The other guy wants to dismantle marriage!
-The other guy doesn’t respect your religion!
-Do you really want to change the Commander in Chief at this terrible time?
-Has there been another attack since 9/11? No. I’m the only one who can protect you.

The Bush Administration is so fear-based, it should be called the Hindbrain Administration. And when the hindbrain kicks in, it takes a lot for the forebrain to take control back.

Well not really. But I never wrote about Sawyer’s abysmal performance interviewing Howard and Judy Dean on Primetime last week, and I think she deserves all the scorn she can get for it. When the most substantive question you can ask a presidential candidate is whether he gets mad at his son’s hockey games, you really should throw in the towel.

This was the first time I’d really ever heard Judith Steinberg Dean speak, and I instantly fell in love with her. She’s not polished, she doesn’t have that “political wife look,” she’s an accomplished and smart woman who values her patients more than getting poked and prodded endlessly on the campaign trail. That’s cool with me.

I was also pleasantly surprised by the dynamic between Howard and Judy. They seemed genuinely, for want of a better phrase, in love with each other. It reminded me of Bill and Hillary, and how they always seemed like two positive magnets vibrating against each other when they appeared together. That was not the case with the Deans.

So yes, I do see the point of a “softer” interview where you get to know the non-political sides of a candidate and his wife. But Diane Sawyer’s smarmy “are you angry now? how about now?” manner is not the way to do it, if you ask me.

“When [Dean’s speech in New Hampshire] was over, the reporter standing next to me, turned and said: ‘If he would have given this speech last week, this would be a very different story.'”

–Josh Marshall of “Talking Points Memo”

Soul-crushingly sad (for many reasons), but true.

“His concession speech was easily the best of the night. It was authentic, uplifting, and red meat to the Democrats. It actually rang true to me as Dean’s real view of the world. It isn’t one I entirely share, to say the least, but it is genuine, represents a lot of people in this country and deserves a hearing.

…All I know is that what I saw in Dean’s speech – and the extraordinary crowd that accompanied it – was more authentic than anything I have ever seen Kerry say or do. That must count for something.”

–Andrew Sullivan

Who would have thought I’d be quoting Andrew Sullivan, he of the “Republicans probably don’t hate gays as much as they say they do” defense, on this site? But he really crystallizes why I like Howard Dean so much. Dean’s speech in New Hampshire tonight was a beautiful thing. Go Howard.

FROM: Junky V. Cicadas
SUBJECT: Adam I’m hated but why?

Dear Junky:

Well let’s start with your name. I bet you got a lot of ribbing about that growing up, huh? I mean, even something like “Humbert Cicadas” would have been better.

But mainly, I think people hate you because you’re sending out Viagra spam. That’s all it will take for most people to hate you. I suggest changing careers. Maybe IRS investigator or meter maid – something where people love you.

Sincerely,
Adam J. Blust
words mean things