Thank you for visiting and reading my blog! It's because of people like you that I continue to contribute to this online journal of mine.
Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones. If you don't celebrate Christmas, then enjoy this time of year when you get to take advantage of vacation days established for those of us who DO celebrate Christmas!
Cheers!
In case you didn't get it, our Christmas cards were sent and here is the final design. (You can see the old ones here.)
I have been loosely following news about the new Transformers live action movie by Michael Bay and until now, I've only been exposed to the lame teaser that's been floating around the internet as well as some screenshots.
BUT LOOK! A new trailer has been released and it's nails... enjoy...
I found this at Access Hollwood today... I have no idea what's going on. It seems like an episode of MTVs Celebrity Deathmatch.
Marion Barry, the discredited coke-head former mayor of Washington D.C. was arrested for driving with a suspended license.
Barry said the officers asked him for his license and registration and then said that his license was suspended.
Barry told NBC4 the suspension was a clerical mistake, and he accused the U.S. Park police of racial profiling.
Elton John attended "Little Britain" star Matt Lucas' gay wedding on Sunday, and the costumes were so elaborate it caused John to not recognize most of the celebrity guests.
John loved the pantomime-themed post party after Lucas and Kevin McGee's gay nuptials, and praised fellow Brits for their love of dressing up. ContactMusic.com reported John as saying:"The great thing about British people is you say, 'Come as fancy dress' and they always do...Americans don't get it. British people really do rise to the occasion.
I just liked the photo and thought I'd share. The article is here.
This morning I was thinking about what many people who are even marginally involved with politics think about: Iraq. Why are we there? What are the virtues of being in that God-forsaken sandhole?
I came up with a few legitimate reasons that are commonly extolled by pro-war folk and one fallacy that they behold.
I want to take a moment to thank all of you for voting for me to become Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2006.
I appreciate all of your confidence and support and would like to take a moment to implore the masses with my words of wisdom and encouragement...
Together we shall create a new world filled with hope and kindness toward humanity. We shall move forward, not backward. We shall climb upward, not forward.
Catch a man a fish and he eats for one day - teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life! Give a man a fire and he is warm for but a moment. Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life!
Friends With Money is one of those movies that just slowly meander along a set of circumstances that are neither remarkable nor particularly noteworthy. But the mundane tale of the goings-on of the decidedly average characters is so well told that one cannot help but to be utterly absorbed into the lives of these strangers.
Most movies have a hook (you can think of it as the special x-factor that they pitch to studios that will make the studio think, 'yeah! That's not been done before' or 'well, we've done that formula a million 
times in the past, but it's a proven money-maker!' before they green light the project) that either involves some clever story or dazzling special effects. The most classically successful movies have timeless themes and rely on a great script and outstanding performances by the cast. Movies that rely on special effects rarely achieve the status of a classic movie because those effects always become outdated and comical within a few years. There are, of course some exceptions to that rule and certain movies obtain a mythical status because of the sheer passion evoked from its original audience. Star Wars is one such exception.
Friends With Money has neither an outstanding, gripping story nor any special effects, but the script is so pure and so simple and the performances so realistic and deep that I couldn't help but to view the characters as acquaintances of mine and their story as non-fiction events being unfolded in some sort of reality TV show.
Watching this movie was quite an enjoyable experience. Now on with the grades… (see my movie review guide here.)
Legs 7/10. While I currently have no desire to re-watch this movie, I can picture myself tuning in if it made the Cinemax circuit of replays on days there are no other shows to watch. The script is smart and the dry humor is delivered by the truckload. I could definitely watch this movie again (and again.)
Agenda 7/10. There wasn't much of an agenda in this movie although the assembled cast could fit in quite well at a Hillary '08 fundraiser. There's no way to avoid the fact that these actors, actresses, and, indeed, their respective characters, are all democrats. Thankfully none of their political causes pushed themselves on me.
Script 9/10. An incredibly funny, witty, and realistic script is what carried this movie. Without the strength of this script, this movie would have been another disaster. (And when I say "disaster", I mean "About Schmidt".)
Acting/Directing 8/10. I can't review this movie without talking about the excellent performances put in by the cast. I especially can't get away with neglecting to talk about Jennifer Anniston. Watch me mix my sports metaphors: while Anniston has taken her fair share of lumps for mediocre performances in strike out films, she really scored a touchdown by bringing it home in the extra period with Friends With Money. OK, so the "bringing it home in the extra period" is sort of a stretch, but you get the drift. Anniston's portrayal of Olivia, the one friend in a quartet of girlfriends that doesn't have a six-(or seven)-figure household income, is so subtle and pinpointedly accurate that she sems like a real person. It's rare that an actor can convey as much as Anniston did with simple, subtle facial quirks and contortions. An eyebrow lift here and a slight squint there practically spell out what Olivia is thinking. There is one particular scene where Olivia's "boyfriend" - and you have to watch the movie to understand why I put that in quotation marks - asks her for a cut of her money and Olivia is reluctant yet unable to say no that is so well done that it solidified my thought that Anniston is actually a decent actress. This is also to the credit of the director, Nicole Holofcener, who also wrote the screenplay.
I mentioned in a previous post that Will Smith, while not my favorite actor was climbing up my respect ladder of "actors I like for reason x" (previously/also known as a chart of "actors who gain my respect for reason X") because he gets it. He gets that America isn't all bad like the MSM tends to imply and his new movie portrays this philosophy clearly and resoundingly.
Today I stumbled upon this video clip and I have no choice but to put Danny Donaduce a few rungs higher up on the "reason X respect chart/ladder".
Wow. I'll bet that didn't go the way that Conner guy expected.
Tom Brady, through his publicist, announced that after three years, he and Bridget Moynahan are breaking up.
Bridget Moynahan and Tom Brady amicably ended their three year relationship several weeks ago. We ask for your respect and consideration of their privacy. No further comments will be made.One blogger commented,...
Tom Brady has three Super Bowl rings, two Super Bowl MVP trophies, three Pro Bowl appearances, a Sportsman of the Year award and looks like Matt Damon if Matt Damon was 1,000 times better looking. Bridget Moynahan was in I, Robot. I just don't see how Tom Brady is going to get over this. Oh, I know, by going into any bar in America and having more asses in his lap than Santa.
There's a combination of simplicity and depth. When you can get that in a movie,
it's so basic and so simple that a five year old can understand what's going on. Yet it's still so deep and textured and complex that you can talk about it with great minds for hundreds of hours. For me, the Pursuit of Happyness is so connected to the idea of why America works. This is the only country on the face of the earth where Chris Gardner can exist. That wouldn't happen anywhere else on earth. The hope for that doesn't even exist anywhere else on earth. That you're homeless, that you have $23, and without killing anybody, without oil, without an army that you go strictly based on an idea that you have in your mind. And you hold onto that idea and you create a multi-million-dollar empire. That doesn't happen anywhere else.The idea that America thrives because that is the idea and the promise that we sell to the rest of the world. In practice, there's a little difficulty, but the promise of it is what inspires great minds to come here. The poor, tired, huddled masses, they're not just coming here for food and a house, they're coming here for an idea, and their idea is being murdered in other places. This is a country that says, We believe in nurturing ideas. That is so the center of humanity.
Although I haven't seen the movie - but intend to brave the sea of chatting and coughing and plan on enduring the seatback-kicking of the modern day movie-going experience and am excited to do so - I suspect that Smith's portrayal of Chris Gardner will be sufficiently complex and well-rounded. Beyond that, Smith is moving up my arbitrarily arranged chart of "actors who gain my respect for reason X" for having said what he said about America.Are you a post-modernist? Do you believe all ideas and religions should be tolerated? Do you believe that Christianity and Christians are closed-minded and intolerant of other people's beliefs? Do you believe that all ideas are OK because people's beliefs are valid for them but don't need to be valid for you?
Greg Koukl shakes the foundation of your world view.
Be egalitarian regarding persons.
Be elitist regarding ideas.
To a class full of budding thinkers and future leaders, Koukl explains what these phrases mean.
"Egalitarian" was a new word for them. Think "equal," I said. Treat others as having equal standing in value or worth. They knew what an elitist was, though, someone who thought he was better than others. "Right," I said. "When you are elitist regarding ideas, you are acknowledging that some ideas are better than others. And they are. We don't treat all ideas as if they have the same merit, lest we run into contradiction. Some ideas are good, some are bad. Some are true, some are false. Some are brilliant, others are just plain foolish."
The first principle, what might be called "civility," is at the heart of the classical view of tolerance. It can be loosely equated with the word "respect." Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree with, not how we treat ideas we think false.
In December of 2005, critics of the theory of intelligent design (ID) hailed federal judge John E. Jones’ ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which declared unconstitutional the reading of a statement about intelligent design in public school science classrooms in Dover, Pennsylvania. Since thed ecision was issued, Jones’ 139-page judicial opinion has been lavished with praise as a“masterful decision” based on careful and independent analysis of the evidence. However, a new analysis of the text of the Kitzmiller decision reveals that nearly all of Judge Jones’ lengthy examination of “whether ID is science” came not from his own efforts or analysis but from wording supplied by ACLU attorneys.
In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004-word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU. The finding that most of Judge Jones’ analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones’ examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design.
I want this.
It's good to see that in some countries (not necessarily the United States where the ACLU's lizard-faced lawyers have run amok) people still see that teaching the truth about a backwards belief system is OK to do and that there is a difference between hating a belief system and hating a people group.
TWO Christian pastors found to have vilified Muslims stood on the steps of the Court of Appeal yesterday after the ruling was overturned and vowed to keep telling "the truth" about Islam.Further,...
It seems there is a balanced outlook on this verdict by the churches involved.Last year, the two pastors and Catch the Fire ministries were found to have vilified Muslims at the seminar, in a newsletter and website article.
Judge Michael Higgins ordered them to apologise in newspaper advertisements and not to repeat the teachings anywhere in Australia.
Yesterday, the Court of Appeal overturned his finding, ordered the case to be reheard at the original tribunal before a different judge with no further evidence, and set aside Judge Higgins' orders.
Justice Geoffrey Nettle said Judge Higgins equated hating Muslims' religious beliefs with hating Muslims because of their beliefs. This was not so — many people might despise Pastor Scot's perception of Christianity, yet not dream of hating him.
Uniting Church justice spokesman Mark Zirnsak said he hoped the judgement wouldIt seems like it will be up to the Muslim community in Australia to prove it's not the rioting horde some of their global observers might conclude. We'll how well they handle the verdict.
not be seen as a green light for groups to incite racial or religious hatred, believing that the law had been watered down.
"There are groups who may be emboldened to test what they can get away with. People might be assaulted or insulted or mistreated because of their race or religion — that's been our key concern."
The incident where Pauly Shore got laid out by a right cross - a fantasy thought to have come true for many - turns out to be staged.
The Odessa police released this document (thanks, TMZ.com) explaining what happened.
The officer who hauled off the big-hatted, thick-torsoed assailant had "met with Mr. Shore prior to the set, and was asked to participate in the skit."
Shore seems pretty desperate for attention. Congratulations, "Mr. Shore", you are once again the biggest jerk in the room.
Here are a few random sketches I did that have no particular significance whatsoever.
"scroll"; 1.5"x2.5"; ink on paper; 12-11-06
"scene"; 2.5"x4.25"; ink on paper; 12-11-06
"vike"; 7"x7"; ink on paper; 10-2006
detail
What is it about comedy clubs that spark so much hatred and anger?
Here is another incident that happened recently. (NSFW: F-Bombs, right hooks)
People in comedy clubs need to...
A) start ordering more O'Doul's
B) leave the talking to the headliner
C) resume their medication
D) enhance their calm
E) stop being ten gallon hat wearing drunken redneck dudes in red shirts with hairy knuckles, no sense of decorum, and the inability to control their adolescent urges to fight or screw everyone around them like Odessa, 2006 is the same as post-apocalyptic Thunderdome, 2112.
For once, Pauly shore isn't the biggest jerk in the room.
Let me qualify this review by saying that I only rented this movie because I was curious to see Kiefer Sutherland fight his way out of a Jack Bauer typecast (thumbs down) and because the rental was free (thumbs up!)
I got the free rental because I'm taking advantage of Blockbuster's poorly-thought-out marketing strategy of enticing NetFlix members to their online/in-store rental program by offering free rentals for every NetFlix mailing slip you bring in. (I mentioned it here.) Why this would be a good marketing strategy is beyond me. Think: I'm already a happy NetFlix customer but I want a particular movie RIGHT NOW. I decide to trade in my mailing label for a free DVD at Blockbuster. I am satiated. I repeat this process until 12/21 when the promo ends. Now Blockbuster tells me I have to pay to get rentals from them and giving them my trash won't cut it anymore. "Pfft," I think to myself, "I'm so outta here." Congratulations, Blockbuster! You have gained zero new customers! Great work!
Anyway... back to the movie review.
The Sentinel is a fictional account of a tried-and-true Secret Service agent, Peter something-or-other (Michael Douglas) who gets framed for plotting the President's assassination. The man in charge of the investigation, Jack Bauer-something-or-other (Kiefer Sutherland), is Peter's protégé. The first act establishes Peter's commitment to the protection of the Presidency (the opening sequence implies that he was instrumental in the prevention of President Reagan's assassination. He, in fact, took a bullet for Reagan.) It also spends considerable time trying to show how protected the President is at all times.
The Second Act is spent trying to reveal Peter and Jack Bauer-whatever's past relationship as well as set the stage for the murder or a fellow agent and the subsequent investigation. A plot to kill the president is revealed, all the evidence points toward Peter, and the chase is on. The Third Act, where all the action happens, is of course, spent trying to wrap up the story and solve the problem at hand.
I have always really hated it when a movie's plot is inseparable from a piece of technology (like the rail gun in Schwarzenegger's 1996 action/thriller, Eraser, and the spy equipment used in the movie Enemy of the State) but the technology is either unbelievable or poorly utilized. For example, in the scene from Enemy of the State where a very unfunny Jack Black uses a clothing boutique's in-store security camera to examine the contents of a bag that Will Smith's character is holding. Somehow the government spooks' "super computers" are able to do a 3D rendering of the bag and its contents in real-time and miraculously extrapolate that, hidden in the brown shopping bag, there is a rectangular box similar to the item they are searching for. 
In Eraser, the extremely dangerous, hand-held, magnetically-driven rail gun that can fire projectiles at near light speed with no recoil, might fall into enemy hands and tilt the balance of power in favor the ominous 'bad guys' for years to come. But when the bad guys fire no less than three individual rail guns at our hero, Schwarzenegger, not one villain is able to shoot him. How dangerous can these weapons be?
Movies always exaggerate technology in one way or another. But when it's integral to the storyline and they exaggerate too much, it renders the entire tale unbelievable.
Anyway, I was really afraid that this movie, The Sentinel, would have these types of story-telling problems. Thankfully, there are very few and none that can't be overlooked. Once or twice you have to suspend disbelief about things like how easy it is to use some cables and a Blackberry to steal out-going phone numbers from a telephone pole call box. Or why Secret Service agents, while in pursuit of a suspect of treason and attempted assassination of the President, would just stop chasing him because he crossed the water in a motorized rubber raft. Smoothing out these types of head-scratching moments is the responsibility of the director. One of the director's jobs is to make sure the audience can understand what is happening and the motives behind the characters' actions. This wasn't always the case in this movie. I had to do a lot of extrapolating and filling in the blanks as far as motives and timelines of events were concerned.
The story itself was pretty well written and thorough. The movie proved to be an interesting blend of political, action, and thriller motifs. And while I am normally pretty sensitive to the Anti-American agenda of many movies like this one, I'm happy to report that there was very little of that sentiment portrayed. Of course, the very idea that there could be a mole in the Secret Service and that that mole is attempting to aid in the President's assassination is undermining and not only a little grotesque, but the movie did try to show that the mole's heart had changed since 20-years ago when he brokered an undefined deal with the now non-existent KGB to give them the President's head, so to speak. The mole agent was now being blackmailed to fulfill his end of the bargain with the lives of his wife and daughters. So what is he to do, right? At least there was an attempt to show that he trying to be honorable.
Eva Longoria was also in the movie. I thought I should mention that since her name is on the poster. Why she was cast, I have no idea. Her character was so totally inconsequential that not only did it not have to be played by Longoria, she didn't even have to be in the story. The screenwriter could have totally taken her out of the movie and it would have been just as complete. Maybe
more so because her history with Pete was undefined and only served to cloud Pete's relationship with Jack Bauer-whatever when she became Bauer-whatever's new partner just before the murder was committed and investigation began. Also, why she was considered 'number two in her class' was not apparent either. She did nothing but draw stares from her fellow Service Agents.
Sometimes you get a pretty-young-thing that the Old Boy's Club likes to harass only for that PYT to turn around and kick someone in the 'nads or show them up with her intellect or wit, putting them in their place. But this movie didn't even bother with that cliché. She just drew stares and whistles, snickers and sideways comments throughout the movie without any response. It's almost as if the message was, "all men are pigs and all women should just take it." Weird.
There was, however, one glaring moral of the story that was probably not what the writer intended: Be above reproach.
The reason that Pete was jammed up and framed the way he was is because he had an extramarital affair with the president's (played by the Sledgehammer dude) wife (played by the kidnapped chick from Cellular.) Now, if only he kept his Little Pete in his pants, there would have been no way of blackmailing or framing him. Even when stuff hit the fan, it would have been better if he had simply confessed his indiscretions and let the Secret Service agents do their work in tracking down the bad guys.
One last note: it was completely unclear why the bad guys wanted the President dead. Obviously it's a very popular stance to have for foreigners and citizens alike, but I think leaving the assassination plot a matter of fact rather than a matter of consequence leaves a certain dispassionate indifference that crept through the whole movie.
OK, one more note… the last last note… how come Michael Douglas is always playing roles where he either has an affair or is involved in some sordid sexual affair? (Remember: Basic Instinct; Fatal Attraction; Disclosure; A Perfect Murder; etc?)
So, on to the ratings:
Legs 2/10. Without the element of suspense, there is nothing to keep you interested in this movie – no quippy quotes, no interesting characters, no snazzy special effects. Nothing.
Mission 6/10. As a suspense thriller, it did maintain my interest in wanting to find out who the Secret Service mole was. As it turned out, the old Scooby Doo styled "all evidence points at one guy but in the end it's the other guy" formula didn't ring true, believe it or not. That was refreshing.
Agenda 7/10. The Sentinel - though ripe with liberal, America-hating possibilities - was rather tame as far as that goes. It actually did a good job of representing the Secret Service and the Presidency as good guys. There was only one bad egg and he was deeply remorseful about what he had to do. And he only had to do it because his family was in grave danger otherwise. One gripe I did have was that the bad guys, yet again, are white males. How come there aren't North Koreans or Iranian guys behind the plot to assassinate the President instead? Wouldn’t that make more sense than old, retired KGB guys who, in reality, would have nothing to do with the current administration? ut low in the "agenda" category on my scale.
Script 5/10. I can't remember a single memorable line but neither can I remember a single bad line. I think the script was rather neutral and was just smart enough to carry the story, but not smart enough to wow the sophisticated movie-goer.
Acting/Directing 6/10. Make no mistake, there will be no awards handed out for the performances in this flick. I did notice that the director tried to infuse a certain amount of 'coolness' into the movie. I will cover that in the next category…
Production 6/10. Tony Scott, one of my favorite directors, has a terrific sense for color filters and editing fast cuts and speed ramping in his movies. His movies have this terrific MTV-meets-documentary feel that I quite like and have been slowly incorporating into the event videos that I produce. (Scott, incidentally, also directed Enemy of the State which I mentioned early as a bad movie. It was. Scott's gotten much better since 1998's State.) But the director, Clark Johnson, who has directed several episodes of my favorite shows of all time (The Shield, NYPD Blue, The Wire, and Sleeper Cell) did this weird thing with that "Tony Scott" effect. For the first half of the movie, it was all 'straight-up'. Then all of a sudden in the second half, the color tints turned into that signature cyan that Tony Scott uses for outdoor shots and everything became increasingly saturated. It was a weird switch. It's possible that Johnson wanted to create a different feel for the 'chase' portion of the movie that separated itself from the first half's 'setting the stage' portion. At any rate, it was rather disconcerting for me.
Overall 6/10. This movie was "OK." It entertained well enough that I didn't mutter under my breath about it's duration or pacing and I didn't gripe about any of the plot points (except for two, but I could explain those parts away relatively convincingly). Would I recommend it? Well, I think there are some of my friends that would enjoy it, but are there other movies I would recommend ahead of this one? Absolutely.
I plan on posting film reviews for some movies I will be watching from now on. I might even go into retrospective mode and review movies I've watched in the past.
But considering my opinion that a simple one-through-four-stars ratings system is largely innefectual when it comes to informing viewers about the quality of films they've yet to see as well as my penchant for being verbose, I have devised this rating system to help me define what I like and what I don't like about a movie in greater clarity than just a matter of simply choosing a number of stars, one-through-four.
Here is how the ratings system will work; between the scale of 1-10 (with 10 being the highest) I will rate each movie on the following criteria:
Legs. How well does this movie hold up under the scrutiny of re-watching? Some movies are one-watch only and some can be watched over and over again with the added pleasures of quoting along with the characters best lines or happily revisiting the emotions you felt when you watched it the first time. Legs also applies to how anachronistic a film feels when watched again years later or how well the themes hold up against time.
Mission. How well did this movie do what I perceive it to be its job? If it is a comedy, did it make me laugh? If it is a horror/thriller, did it horrify and thrill? You get the drift; can it say, 'mission accomplished'?
Agenda. I can't help it, but I have to evaluate the movie based on the moviemakers' underlying message as well as judging it as a stand-alone piece of work. If the message is exceedingly un-American or anti-Christian, I will grade lower. The movie might rate highly in the "mission" category, but low in the "agenda". (Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth 'documentary', for example, might rate high in it's effectiveness or "mission", but low in the "agenda" category on my scale.
Script. The story itself, the actual line characters speak, the cohesiveness of the story and the coherency of the movie all come under scrutiny. Side note: this is one of my favorite aspects of what I consider good films and most heavily weighted categories. A good script trumps bad productions, and bad agendas most of the time.
Acting/Directing. The performances of the actors and actresses as well as the proficiency of the director might be the single most obvious factor to evaluate. Were they convincing? Did I ever get the sense that they are just actors in a sound stage playing a part? If so, the actor and the director have both failed in their duty.
Production. This entails everything from sound mixing to special effects; from film filters and post-processing techniques to costume and makeup; from editin to shot selection and camerawork; from casting to location scouting and an overall sense of "production value".
Overall. This is the obligatory, 'well well did I like the movie overall' category and I usually try to summarize by asking myself whether or not the movie was worth the price of admission or the time it took to sit through it. The "overall" category is not be a mathematical sum or average of the ratings from the other categories, but rather an overall feeling. For example, if every category rates as a perfect "10", except the "agenda" category is so grotesquely counter culture or liberal, I might still rate the movie with an overall "2" or "3" or whatever. That's why I think this rating system is better because you can pick and choose which of the criteria you weigh most heavily.
I hope you enjoy the upcoming movie reviews!
Katie Couric - in my estimation still a local anchor girl - seemed a little above her head when interviewing British Prime Minister late last week (12/7/06). Eager to push her opinion that our President is a bumbling baffoon stumbling his way through the Iraq War, she asked this:
Couric: “Your steadfast support, Mr. Prime Minister, of President Bush has cost you at home. In a recent poll, only 27 percent said they were satisfied with your job performance. Do you regret what many perceive as your unwavering support of this President and this war?”
Blair: “No. Look, sometimes in politics what happens is there are issues that come up that you consider so big and so important that you've got to do what you think is the right thing, and, you know, people can disagree, and they can make you unpopular, but you've got to do it if you think it's right. And even if it is difficult-”
Couric: “Even if the majority of people disagree with you?”
Blair: “You sometimes, I'm afraid, have got to govern by what you believe rather than by picking up the opinion poll. Now they may end up rejecting you as a result of it. Well, that's -- that's their prerogative to do it, but it's your duty to do what you think is right, and that's what I've tried to do. And I think that we should be proud of what we stand for in the world.”
Maybe Katie needs to re-read the letter from British journalist Tony Parsons before trying to solicit support for her anti-war views from any more Britons.
See it here:
(PC users, hold CTRL and scroll your mouse wheel to increase the font size)
========
Tony Parsons, September 11, 2002
One year ago, the world witnessed a unique kind of broadcasting - the mass murder of thousands, live on television. As a lesson in the pitiless cruelty of the human race, September 11 was up there with Pol Pot's mountain of skulls in Cambodia, or the skeletal bodies stacked like garbage in the Nazi concentration camps.
An unspeakable act so cruel, so calculated and so utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on one thing - nobody deserves this fate.
Surely there could be consensus: the victims were truly innocent, the perpetrators truly evil.
But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is increasingly seen as America's comeuppance.
Incredibly, anti-Americanism has increased over the last year.
There has always been a simmering resentment to the USA in this country - too loud, too rich, too full of themselves and so much happier than Europeans - but it has become an epidemic.
And it seems incredible to me. More than that, it turns my stomach.
America is this country's greatest friend and our staunchest ally. We are bonded to the US by culture, language and blood.
A little over half a century ago, around half a million Americans died for our freedoms, as well as their own. Have we forgotten so soon?
And exactly a year ago, thousands of ordinary men, women and children - not just Americans, but from dozens of countries - were butchered by a small group of religious fanatics. Are we so quick to betray them?
What touched the heart about those who died in the twin towers and on the planes was that we recognised them. Young fathers and mothers, somebody's son and somebody's daughter, husbands and wives. And children. Some unborn.
And these people brought it on themselves? And their nation is to blame for their meticulously planned slaughter?
These days you don't have to be some dust-encrusted nut job in Kabul or Karachi or Finsbury Park to see America as the Great Satan.
The anti-American alliance is made up of self-loathing liberals who blame the Americans for every ill in the Third World, and conservatives suffering from power-envy, bitter that the world's only superpower can do what it likes without having to ask permission.
The truth is that America has behaved with enormous restraint since September 11.
Remember, remember.
Remember the gut-wrenching tapes of weeping men phoning their wives to say, "I love you," before they were burned alive. Remember those people leaping to their deaths from the top of burning skyscrapers.
Remember the hundreds of firemen buried alive. Remember the smiling face of that beautiful little girl who was on one of the planes with her mum. Remember, remember - and realise that America has never retaliated for 9/11 in anything like the way it could have.
So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked without a trial in Camp X-ray? Pass the Kleenex.
So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up after they merrily fired their semi-automatics in a sky full of American planes? A shame, but maybe next time they should stick to confetti.
AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of the world into a parking lot. That it didn't is a sign of strength.
American voices are already being raised against attacking Iraq - that's what a democracy is for. How many in the Islamic world will have a minute's silence for the slaughtered innocents of 9/11? How many Islamic leaders will have the guts to say that the mass murder of 9/11 was an abomination?
When the news of 9/11 broke on the West Bank, those freedom-loving Palestinians were dancing in the street. America watched all of that - and didn't push the button. We should thank the stars that America is the most powerful nation in the world. I still find it incredible that 9/11 did not provoke all-out war. Not a "war on terrorism". A real war.
The fundamentalist dudes are talking about "opening the gates of hell", if America attacks Iraq. Well, America could have opened the gates of hell like you wouldn't believe.
The US is the most militarily powerful nation that ever strode the face of the earth.
The campaign in Afghanistan may have been less than perfect and the planned war on Iraq may be misconceived.
But don't blame America for not bringing peace and light to these wretched countries. How many democracies are there in the Middle East, or in the Muslim world? You can count them on the fingers of one hand - assuming you haven't had any chopped off for minor shoplifting.
I love America, yet America is hated. I guess that makes me Bush's poodle. But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in Riyadh. Above all, America is hated because it is what every country wants to be - rich, free, strong, open, optimistic.
Not ground down by the past, or religion, or some caste system.
America is the best friend this country ever had and we should start remembering that.
Or do you really think the USA is the root of all evil? Tell it to the loved ones of the men and women who leaped to their death from the burning towers.
Tell it to the nursing mothers whose husbands died on one of the hijacked planes, or were ripped apart in a collapsing skyscraper.
And tell it to the hundreds of young widows whose husbands worked for the New York Fire Department. To our shame, George Bush gets a worse press than Saddam Hussein.
Once we were told that Saddam gassed the Kurds, tortured his own people and set up rape-camps in Kuwait. Now we are told he likes Quality Street. Save me the orange centre, oh mighty one!
Remember, remember, September 11. One of the greatest atrocities in human history was committed against America.
No, do more than remember. Never forget.
A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.MORE>>>
I previously wrote about Rosie O'Donnell's insulting imitation of Chinese speakers and the feigned 'sensitivity' of her two-faced antics.
In another display of unbridled disrespect for people, here is how Rosie replied to a poster on her blog when he remarked that she was unworthy to be on broadcast television.
Way to show remorse, Rosie.
The thing about Rosie is that her sense of what is right is basically calibrated to her own personal whims. There is no sense of "this type of action is categorically wrong" or "my thought processes do not coincide with what is espoused as politically correct" or whatever. She does, says, and thinks what she feels like at the moment with her only reservations stemming from foreseeable reperucussions by the authority figures immediately surrounding her. And sometimes not even then. If it weren't for the possibility that she could get fired from her stint in front of the camera, Rosie would probably denounce all straight, white, males to be castrated and moved to an island where they could do her and her followers no harm.
And to be clear; I don't have (serious) problems with comedians doing their thing on stage; imitations of minority groups (a la Russell Peters), the use of "racist" epithets (a la Chris Rock - not, Michaels Richards), politically incorrect stereotyping (a la Denis Miller), and mocking ethnic groups of which you are a part (a la George Lopez) etc.
(The following Lopez video is NSFW... but it's funny.)
But Rosie isn't on a comedy club stage and she isn't painting a broad brush of making fun or ALL stereotypes. Some would argue that picking on ALL stereotypes is much more acceptable because you aren't necessarily endorsing one group over another, rather pointing out the funny idiosyncrosies of all of them. Rosie only picks on the ones that SHE thinks is OK to pick on and makes the 'protected' ones taboo to mock.
As I said in my previous post, her hypocrisy is what I have a big problem with and her unwillingness to offer a swift apology when she is told that she has been offensive is yet another symptom of how she thinks the world should operate when seen through 'Rosie' tinted glasses.
I don't mind that she has her views. I don't mind that she makes fun of people because she's a comedienne. That's what they do. Fine.
I'm less easily offended by racist remarks and bigotry than I am by hypocrisy and a misguided sense of objective truth; i.e., Right and Wrong.
For example, if you say you think eating animal meat or any animal biproduct is cruel because it perpetuates a system that is explicitly and without remorse, cruel to animals, then that's fine. You can believe that and live your life the way you need to in order to support that belief system. I may not agree with it - and if you're open to discuss why that belief system is better than mine or maybe not - but I will be happy to discuss its virtues.
BUT if you are a vegan for the reasons stated above, and then wear leather boots and a rabbit 
fur coat while making fun of people who are drinking milk or eating ice cream, THEN I will have a problem with your hypocrisy.
Take Rosie O'Donnell,... (Please.)
She was recently busy ripping into Kelly Ripa for reacting negatively to Clay Aiken putting his man-paws across her face.
Aiken, guest-hosting with Ripa on "Live With Regis and Kelly," jokingly put his hand over Ripa's mouth while she was conducting an interview.
Seeing that Ripa didn't appreciate his joke, Aiken said, "Oh, I'm in trouble." Ripa responded, "No, I just don't know where that hand's been, honey."
On Monday, Ripa took aim at Aiken's behavior. "You don't put your hands on someone's face when they're conducting an interview. Even when it's for a laugh," she said on "Live."
Enter Rosie O'Donnell:
"Now listen, to me that was a homophobic remark. If that was a straight man, if that was a cute man, if that was a guy that she didn't question his sexuality, she would have said a different thing."
Wait. I thought Clay was straight... or at least still closeted. Did she just accidentally out him? Regardless, it seems we're supposed to think Rosie is a caring and sensitive person because she came to the defense of the offended.
Wait again. If Rosie is so sweet and caring and sensitive, what is she doing saying this? <-- MP3 of Rosie being extremely sensitive to Asian minorities in this country.
Here is a transcript in case you can't hear the MP3:
[to a backdrop of a hysterically laughing studio audience] "...you can imagine in China it's like, 'ching chong hu da ching chong dong, ching chong, Danny Devito, ching chong, chong chong chong, drunk, The View."
Nice going Rosie. Next time you want to play the sensitivity card, try to think about being less hypocritical. Of course the left-leaning members of the media are busy spinning this story into a pro-Rosie twist. The National Ledger remarks, "Was it rude? Certainly as Rosie has no idea that Ripa is a homophobe but it made for great TV and great debate." Ratings is what trumps decency and responsibility, according to them.
Now comes the good with Rosie's obnoxious way. Ratings. Variety notes that the show just received its best-ever November sweeps ratings last month, surging 27% over its year-ago Nielsen numbers. Sweeps period was the first for the show since O'Donnell joined in September.
It wasn't too long ago that Rosie was busy asserting that the "radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America."
Umm, Rosie, the last time I checked, even the most radical Christians didn't kill 3,000 civilians in one fell swoop. Get a grip on reality, Rosie.
By now you must have heard about, or even seen, Cosmo Kramer (sometimes known as Michael Richards) and his racist tirade at a comedy club. He totally loses control and starts spewing racial slurs at some African American hecklers in a balcony.
If you haven't seen it, you can see it here. Keep in mind, it's not safe for work.
But just recently, an audience member at a North Pole comedy club, The Toy Store, caught Santa Clause in a (eerily) similar tirade when trying to perform his own stand up routine.
See it here, courtesy of aweekofkindness.com and youtube.com
Still keep in mind... Santa, in this instance is still not very safe for work.
Oprah was snubbed again. I think, at this point, it's safe to say James Frey likes Oprah more than Tom Cruise does.
This article is from Maira Oliveira - All Headline News ReporterLos Angeles, CA (AHN) - TomKat have done it again, folks.
As if their wedding extravaganza a la royalty wasn't enough, TomKat are throwing yet another wedding party this weekend in LA with adorable baby Suri in tow. But they've snubbed one of the country's biggest celebrities yet again.
This time they're inviting all their friends who were unable to attend the splendid castle-tastic event in Europe. Now since they gave big named celebrities like Will Smith and Brooke Shields - who aren't exactly their friends - a free trip to Italy, you would think this time around they wouldn't forget to invite say the one person who gave their relationship loads of publicity to begin with.Yes, I'm talking about the queen of talk - Miss O.
Instead the queen of talk has been left in the dark for the second time. Ouch!
Oprah's representative recently confirmed to the New York Daily News that she has not been invited to this weekend's big bash. No further comment has been made on either side.
Chicago city officials have made the decision to ban advertisements for the movie, The Nativity Story, starring Keisha Castle-Hughes of Whale Rider fame, because of fears that it might "insensitive to the many people of different faiths who come to enjoy the market for its food and unique gifts", said Jim Law, the executive director for the Mayor's Office of Special Events.
This is one of the most blatant forms of religious discrimination imaginable. To suggest that a movie about the birth of Jesus Christ should not be included in a Christmas festival is absurd. This transcends political correctness and centers squarely on religious bigotry. The city of Chicago and festival organizers are exhibiting an intolerance that is offensive to Christians who celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. The city and festival organizers must respect the First Amendment and put an end to the discriminatory practices. We call on the city of Chicago and festival organizers to reverse the decision and permit 'The Nativity Story' to serve as a sponsor of the Christmas festival.
Blockbuster is offering a free movie rental for every Netflix envelope address label you bring to them. (The address label portion is the part you tear off and discard before mailing the movie back to Netflix.)
This offer is only good from 12/5 - 12/21.
Excuse me as I dig up the Capote and V for Vendetta labels from the kitchen garbage can.
Yahoo! News Article
US News and World Report Article
Some Netflix television spots
Egg-laying chickens, when too old to produce eggs, are euthenized. But what do farmers do with their corpses? Let's see if you can guess:
But some chickens not properly euthanized have been seen crawling out of the compost piles, earning them the name "zombie chickens" — and hatching a debate over what else might be done with them and other "spent hens."
But I won't be discussing that here. Here I will simply talk about the secular world's view on the AIDS epidemic and its prevention.Yes, there must be more money spent on this disease. But there must also be a change in hearts and minds; in cultures and attitudes. Neither philanthropist nor scientist; neither government nor church, can solve this problem on their own - AIDS must be an all-hands-on-deck effort.But isn't the best solution for this global problem simply a global change in sexual behavior? If only people subscribed to what God designated as the proper practice of sex, AIDS would be less about as rare as Parsonage Turner Syndrome.
Now, too often, the issue of prevention has been framed in either/or terms. For some, the only way to prevent the disease is for men and women to change their
sexual behavior - in particular, to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage. For others, such a prescription is unrealistic; they argue that we need to provide people with the tools they need to protect themselves from the virus, regardless of their sexual practices - in particular, by increasing the use of condoms, as well as by developing new methods, like microbicides, that women can initiate themselves to prevent transmission during sex. And in the debate surrounding how we should tackle the scourge of AIDS, we often see each side questioning the other's motives, and thereby impeding progress. For me, this is a false argument.Let me say this - I don't think we can deny that there is a moral and spiritual component to prevention - that in too many places all over the world where AIDS is prevalent - including our own country, by the way - the relationship between men and women, between sexuality and spirituality, has broken down, and needs to be repaired.
Keith Ellison, the first professed Muslim to ever be elected into Congress 
said that he will be using a Koran in his swearing-in ceremony instead of the Holy Bible, as is the tradition.
For obvious reasons, the United States reveres the Bible as it's most sacred text, and appeals to a higher power have either been directed toward the Judeo-Christian God or a more secular "God deity". Clearly, this is going to be controversial.
Denis Prager, a conservative talk show host/political analyst says in an article in Townhall.com that it makes no sense to use a book other than the Bible because that is what American tradition has done and if you can't morally or ethically accept doing so, you shouldn't serve in office.
Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.Some articles have dismissed this whole issue as a non-issue citing that using a holy book of any kind is not mandatory and has purely been practiced by individual preference.
It's needless to say that this will be a hot topic in spite of the voluntary aspect of using a holy book in your swearing in ceremony.The taking of the oath is relatively simple, with members asked to say: “I, (name of member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”The House speaker administers the oath to members en masse on the floor of the House of Representatives. It’s up to individual members if they want to hold religious texts, said Fred Beuttler, the House deputy historian.
After the official swearing-in, members often have photos taken at a staged wearing-in ceremony in the speaker’s office or their own offices, where they can place their left hands on sacred texts or hold them and have their families or religious leaders present, Beuttler said.
Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran. He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.Personally, I think, as a representative of his constituents and a mouthpiece for those who don't have individual voices in the Chambers of Congress, Ellison should seek to represent his people first. In other words, what do those that he is serving want him to do? For whom would they like as a witness to Ellison's oath to uphold the Contitution? The Christian God of Allah?
First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.
Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.
Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?
Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.
So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?
The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.
This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us). But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.
When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.
