Save the planet, get a motorcycle

For now, I have foresaken cars and will stick with my BMW K1200 LT (mine is not this new, it's a 2000). It's simple math.

My beloved, lamented, and missed Passat got around 20mpg on my current commute. Don't blame the car, blame the distance, as in less than 5 miles from home to office. Last year, when I was commuting a longer distance, I got over 30mpg on the commute. Under these same circumstances, my Beemer gets 35mpg. Voila, I almost half as much fuel as I used to.

Of course, now that I have helped save the planet I say it is time to pave the planet. I need more roads to ride on. As the T-shirt says: One world, one people, one slab of asphalt!

The Talk of the Town?

The New Yorker: The Talk of the Town:

The imminence of catastrophic global warming may be a subject far from the ever-drifting mind of President Bush—whose eschatological preoccupations privilege Armageddon over the Flood—but it is of growing concern to the rest of humanity. Climate change is even having its mass-entertainment moment. “Ice Age: The Meltdown”—featuring Ellie the computer-animated mammoth and the bottomless voice of Queen Latifah—has taken in more than a hundred million dollars at the box office in two weeks. On the same theme, but with distinctly less animation, “An Inconvenient Truth,” starring Al Gore (playing the role of Al Gore, itinerant lecturer), is coming to a theatre near you around Memorial Day. Log on to Fandango. Reserve some seats. Bring the family. It shouldn’t be missed. No kidding.

No way. Near as I can tell, most of the major leaders in the environmental movement are morally bankrupt, as in they don't mind a stretch or two with the truth. Few (none?) of their predictions pan out. Kyoto was/is/ever will be a joke. (If it was so damn important, why didn't Clinton/Gore really push for its ratification? Why blame Bush for what they put on the way back burner? Food for thought.)

There is still argument about global warming, no matter what Gore & Co. may say/scream/rant/kant. Even if the grant the notion, there is no solid evidence linking that to human activity. I'd feel a lot better about the global warming rant if they focused on how to cope with the alleged warming, rather than continually saying that the US must be destroyed (at least economically).

But no, their focus on the US changing the fundamentals of its society betrays the goal. Strange how all the major environmental movements are -- to be generous -- socialist in orientation.

Again, the goal isn't to "save" the environment. Consider that Kyoto adopts a "per capita" measure for the production of greenhouse gases. By that measure, China isn't even in the same league as the US. But if you measure actually tonnage of greenhouses gases produced, China is second only to the US, is expected to catch the US in the next few years, and will exceed in the US after 2010. And tonnage should be the focus, because if man-made greenhouses gases really are the cause of global warming, then the planet just doesn't give a fig about how much gas is generated per person; it cares about total tonnage, of which China (and India) produce a lot.

Yet China is exempt from Kyoto.

The Kyoto Accord is a farce and that Gore et al keep braying about Bush's refusal to sign tells me more about them than him.

So no. I thank you, but no, and yet still I thank you, but again no, I shall not pay to see Gore bray on.

Pigs fly yet again

Going Nuclear:

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

A couple of years ago, the Sacramento Bee ran a series of articles about the environment. The series recounted how the desperate need to save habitat for the spotted owl had forced the lumber industry of northern California out of business. It also revealed that at the time and unto this day, the spotted owl has never actually been seen in that area. So why was it that an industry had to die? Simple: A biologist who wrote the original report admitted -- years later -- that he just felt it was a gestalt that the reqion was the owl's habitat.

In other words, he lied through teeth because it just felt like owls would like that area.

Now we have this guy saying, "Oops!" That nuclear power wasn't as bad as he screamed. Nice.

I embrace his realization of his error. I lament that as a result of his earlier actions, the United States has shut down nuclear reactors and has no plans anywhere for building more.

Which sportscar am I...?

I'm a Chevrolet Corvette!

You're a classic - powerful, athletic, and competitive. You're all about winning the race and getting the job done. While you have a practical everyday side, you get wild when anyone pushes your pedal. You hate to lose, but you hardly ever do.

Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.

A History of Violence

Watched David Cronenberg's A History of Violence last night. Kicks the crap out of Crash, and probably all the other films that were considered "Oscar worthy" for 2005. (I saw "probably" because I have not, as yet, seen the others.)

I like Cronenberg films. There is always something unsettling about them, and I don't just mean their subject matter. It's the way he does thing, how he films. All of his films are very straight-forward, or so it seems. When there's violence it always has a sense of here-and-now-real, with little pretense and not a hint of glory.

And that's true here. I remember reading that this is a difficult film to review, and now a difficult one to write about, because to really discuss the film you have to give everything away. Which would be wrong because even though you may assume what the truth is, that's only a part of the story. In short, the film doesn't rely on that mystery and that's why it's really, really good, if not great.

All performances are more than good enough, even Viggo who I normally just see and think "Zzzzz." The stand-out is Maria Bello as his wife. The things she has to go through and the transformations of her character...yeesh. She carries it all off very well; shame that the Academy didn't think so.

The plot of the film is simple: What if a person you thought you knew really well wasn't the person you thought he was? The answer isn't crucial to how Cronenberg's play the drama. It's how people react to the possibility, how things slowly begin to unravel, then accelerate.

Highly recommended, not necessarily for the faint of heart. Cronenberg is reputedly anti-violence but violence is at the core of this film. The never blinks or turns away from what people are capable of doing to each other, but the real violence in this film isn't physical, and that's what makes it a winner.

Return to Jackson's Kong, King

I should have written this last night, but I couldn't see straight. It was a three-way blitz: a bit of pink eye, a lovely carbernet, and watching the rest of Peter Jackson's King Kong. At the end of the marathon, the pink eye was in recession, the bottle was almost empty, and Kong wasn't half bad.

It wasn't half good, either. Attend!

Kong is a story in three acts: New York (meet everyone) -- Skull Island (meet Kong, etc.) -- New York (Kong as stage act). In the 1933 original, each of these is taut and to the point. In the 1976 re-visit, much the same time schedule is adhered to. In the 2005 re-make, each act is stretched almost beyond endurance. With the exception of 2005's third act, Jackson should have left well enough alone.

I already ranted about Act I, so on to II and III....

After a seemingly endless sea voyage during which damn near nothing happens, we arrive at Skull Island, "the most dangerous place on earth." I laugh outloud (blame the wine) at the natives, especially the white folk in black face. Oh how 1930's! Jackson overuses slow motion and overuses some sort of long-shutter speed smear technique that he should forget exists. Really. In all things, moderation. All things.

But there's nothing of moderation in the entire Skull Island sequence. It plays over and over as though Jackson was desperately trying to out jurassic Jurassic Park. But in terms of more dinosaurs, more lethal dinosaurs, more people stomped, more people eaten...just plain more more more!, that was already done in The Lost World. And Kong '05 doesn't live up to either film. It's all very pretty and all very lush and lots of times it feels all very fake, as though it was all created on a computer.

Oh, wait.

That's the problem with too much. A film depends on a willing suspension of disbelief, and while that's a strange topic to discuss in terms of a film about a 30-foot ape, it still applies. The brontosaur stampede: Too much, too unbelievable that everyone wasn't squished. Ann being carried off by Kong; too much, too much to believe that the neck of the fair and lovely Naomi Watts wouldn't snap like a very dry, very brittle twig under Kong's (at this point) untender treatment. Fall down the ravine, please. Dinosaurs fall down the ravine, oh for heaven's sake! And fighting on the way down. Gag!

Look, I live for these sorts of films and it was all so far over the top that I started laughing again, and this time I won't blame the wine.

But....

There is a sequence where Ann is just being carried in Kong's hand and the camera stays with her while all around the world whirls by, not just by Kong's speed but because he's swinging his arm, jumping around, leaping from tree to tree (with his best girl by his side; is Kong a lumberjack?). That sequence is magic. There are others, like the sunset, but they get lost in the noise of the rest. Thank God that at the end of all this, they capture Kong.

Have you seen the film? Have you seen any of the Kong films? If no, then go see and come back later, because I'm giving it all away, such a heartless bastard am I.

Last warning: MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

Very well, you have been warned. And now, Act III, Return to New York City:

I'm going to get my "complaints" for this part of the way right away. Much like the rest of the film, some things just go on far too long.

There, I'm done, because Act III redeems the film and makes it watchable and enjoyable. Jack Black's performance never gets good, but Naomi Watts takes over. Even what's his face, er (quick glance and IMDB), Adrien Brody turns out well. To explain what makes Act III so extraordinary and special, we have to return to 1933 and 1976.

In both of the priors versions, Kong in NYC is still a beast. He's shackled and chain, but he's still Kong, damnit, and he will kick your ass. In both, Ann willingly particpates in Kong's exhibition and humiliation. Ultimately he carries her off and she's with him when he faces his doom. In 1933, Kong dies, Ann gets reunited with her lover, the first mate, and all's as well as it's ever going to be.

In 1976, Kong dies but Ann tries to wave off the attacking helicopters, to save Kong. She fails, Kong dies, and the last scene is her with the body, surrounded by the press she's always sought, and her lover drifting away into the crowd, abandoning her.

Kong '05 rejects almost all of this, to its credit and ultimate success. When you see Kong on stage he is a whipped puppy, a shadow of his former self, less than a shell. He is passive to the point of being pitiful. When "Ann" appears on stage, he brightens up, only to discover that this "Ann" is an actress, not his Ann. His Ann has refused to participate in Kong's humiliation and wants nothing to do with the extravaganza.

(Props to that extravaganza, too. It's a stage recreation of the 1933 Skull Island ceremony, complete with Max Steiner's music. Geek heaven!)

This fake, plus a few flash bulbs, pisses Kong off and he goes off on a tear, just like in the prior films. What is different is that he doesn't go searching for Ann, she finds him. The beast is soothed, he gathers up his girlfriend, and they go for a stroll in the park. I am not kicking.

The ice "skating" scene is breathtaking and beautiful. You know it can't last, here comes the Army and all, but for a few shining minutes Jackson's Kong ceases to be a movie. It rises to the level of beauty and is damn-near art (though I hate that term, "art", and wouldn't curse this part of the film by calling it "art").

The attack and death of Kong go on too long, but the only other thing that ruins the third act is Jack Black's flat and lifeless recitation of the closing line, "Twas beauty that killed the beast." Ugh.

In sum, Kong '05 has moments, most of which are during the final act. I still prefer the original 1933, and look forward to adding the trashy but strangely watchable 1976 version to my Kong collection. If nothing else, I'll be watching Act III 2005 several times.

Jackson's King Ko-uhhh-Zzzzz....

I admit it. I was pre-disposed to not like Peter Jackson's King Kong.

Like Jackson, I'm a big fan of the original 1933 version. Heck, I even like a few moments in the 1976 rendition, which is otherwise pretty awful. But when Dino de Laurentis announced he was remaking the fabled film, he made no pretense of being some great lover of the original. Oh, he liked it, and said so, but compare with Jackson, who made the original sound like his mother. Now, I love my mother, and I'm sure Jackson loves his mother, but I'd never want to make love with my mother. Jackson, on the other hand....

Oh, that's harsh. Let's concentrate on the film instead.

Watching the first third of Jackson's film is seeing a man obsessed with himself. There are plenty of coy moments, but since Jackson takes us back to the time at which the original was made, 2005 begs comparison with 1933. And 1933 kicks 2005's ass.

Jackson takes a full 30 minutes to do what Cooper and Schoedsack did in 10 or less. Worse, the expasion adds precisely zip. It's just showing off a digitally recreated New York of the 1930's. The original film is on Skull Island within 20 minutes, Jackson takes over and hour. And while 2005 won an Oscar for visual effects it all feel relentlessly fake. The lighting never seems right. Ugh.

I stopped watching when Kong snatched Ann. All interest was lost. It was all remarkably uninvolving. The snatch was nicely done, with Kong all in shadow and mist, but Rick Baker as man-in-a-suit Kong from 1976 does better. Maybe when I try and watch again, I'll get more into it, but frankly I like Baker's man-in-a-suit Kong better than Jackson's CGI rendition. And for sheer emotional enjoyment, the 1933 Kong rules.

Other things bother the crap out of me. Max Steiner's score from 1933 is worthy of orchestral presentation. John Barry's score from 1976 is one of his best, and easily the finest thing in the film. James Newton Howard has the thankless task of following in their footsteps, and he doesn't come into his own until the arrival on the island. His gentle score underlying Hayes' recitation from Conrad's Heart of Darkness is superb; in fact, that gentle bit of film is the best thing in whole first hour. It is certainly a juicy, forboding quote:

We could not understand because we were too far and could not remember because we were traveling in the night of first ages, of those ages that are gone, leaving hardly a sign - and no memories. The earth seemed unearthly. We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there - there you could look at a thing monstrous and free.

I have a certain faith that in the next two hours of the film, Howard's music continues to improve.

But I don't know, not yet. As the mighty crew takes off into the jungle in pursuit of Kong and Ann, I eject the disk and look for something else to watch. Ah, there it is, my new 50th anniversary version of The Ten Commandments.

About those "message" films

I'm late to the party. I just this week saw the Best Picture of 2005, Crash.

That's "the best"? Oh, such a sorry state Hollywood is in.

Crash isn't a bad film, per se, but it's not exactly great, either. I did enjoy the casting and the performance. I was frankly surprised at how well Ludacris performed. His introductory bit with Larenz Tate is the highlight of the film. The lines are perfect, the delivery perfect, the humor is perfect. In fact, watching that scene you have the sensation that you're about to watch an amazing satire unfold. Unfortunately, no, this is meant to be a "serious" film.

Too bad, because it would have been great satire and made precisely the same points in a much better way. As it is, it continues Paul Haggis's deceitful career.

Deceitful, you ask? Well, yes, because he presents these serious films with serious topics for serious discussion...and then creates utter falsehoods. Attend me...

Haggis wrote the Best Picture of 2004, Million Dollar Baby. Now, for the most part it's a pretty good flick. Despite the purported lack of realism, I loved the boxing sequences. The editing, the photography, the directing, are all excellent. But the film completely collapses after The Accident.

It's been over a year, I'm going to assume everyone knows the plot twist. If you don't, if you haven't seen the film but plan to, stop now or you'll just be pissed off at me.

You've been warned.

Throughout the film, Maggie (Hilary Swank) has been portrayed as a fighter. I don't mean just in the boxing ring, I mean in life. She fights here way into adulthood, she fights her way to independence from her family, she fights for Frankie (Clint Eastwood) to train and manage her, etc. She does not give up, she does not quit, she wins. Always.

So she suffers that horrendous accident that renders her a quadrapalegic and, voila, she suffers a compete 180-degree reversal in personality. She is now a quitter. "Kill me! I cannot live like this!"

That is so utterly in opposition to how the character was established that it's trash. Certainly characters can suffer such reversals; certainly people in real life do. But a better writer would have shown the descent, would have shown the fight, would have shown her losing this last, crucial fight for character. (Or, as I'd prefer, winning; she is, after all, a winner.)

So Haggis hacks this bit so he can get on to his real issue, the right to die, the right to have a quality life. Frankie consults his priest, but his priest is an idiot who can't even discuss the Trinity of the Catholic faith correctly (another Haggis gaff; Catholic priests live to discuss the nature of the Trinity).

Now we get to the stuff that really irritates the crap out of me. Her treatment at the hospital is horrific. She suffers gangriene and has to have a leg amputated. She tries to swallow her own tongue, to kill herself, and they...well, you get the picture. It's ugly and it is a complete crock of shit. This hospital is described as "the best", yet they are essentially torturing this bed-bound patient. And no one kicks their ass!

Because we are getting to Haggis's message, his moral. Maggie wants to die, and Frankie must kill her. Euthanasia, mercy killing, the thing that until very recently was illegal throughout the land (the recent development being the Supreme Court upholding the Constitutionality and legality of Oregon's "assisted suicide" statute).

This is important to understand. The issue wasn't the right to die, the issue was assisted suicide. Haggis wanted to illustrate a person's right to have someone kill them.

But the presentation is utter horseshit. Maggie is forever trapped in a bed and living off a respirator. If a patient in that condition turns to her doctor and says, "Turn my damn breathing machine off", what do you think happens? All the doctor has to do is determine that the patient is rational. He can then adminster pain medication and he'll then unplug the damn machine.

That's "right to die". It is black letter, chiseled in stone law in the United States. Everywhere. Including California.

So in reality once the medical staff heard Maggie say she wants off life-support, they take her off life support and off she goes. Done deal.

So at its core, Million Dollar Baby is a lie. It creates a false scenario with a false resolution. It sucks.

Crash is not quite that bad, but it shows the same stain of dishonesty. I don't mean in its portrayal of Los Angeles, but in how its characters behave. Everyone is a stereotype and everyone lives up to their stereotype. The above mentioned scene between Ludacris and his partner is a case in point. They keep joking back and forth, and then proving the "validity" of the stereotype they're discussing. If the film had been satire, that would have been great. But it isn't, so it isn't.

In Crash, every character of every race is a rascist. Fine, we all suffer some degree of the stain of racism. In Crash, every character is a stereotype. Fine, every stereotype has some, no matter how thin, link to reality. But in Crash, every character, when under any degree of stress, openly vents their rascism.

And that's a crock.

One of the most egregious examples is Ria (Jennifer Esposito), who at the start of the film has been in a traffic accident. She goes out to talk to the officer investigating the accident, but he's busy talking with the Asian driver of the other car. The two drivers hurl racial epithets. Fine for the Asian, but Ria is a cop. Am I really to believe that an LAPD detective is going to be so blatantly racist in front of so many witnesses and at such a time? Wouldn't such a person be just slightly less obvious?

On and on, the film drowns itself in the over-the-top manner in which its characters vent their inner rascist. Ruins the experience big time.

There are jewel like moments. There is one scene guaranteed to make you stop breathing. Oh yes, you're being blatantly manipulated, but it's a pretty well gone bit of manipulation.

And the subtle humor of the shopkeeper's daughter (I can't remember her name, and thus can't name the actress who portrayed her), in her gentle interactions with her father at the end, are beautiful. This is especially so when you reflect on the same characters at the beginning of the film and realize what she did. (Sorry, don't want to give away too much.)

So Crash isn't as inherently dishonest as Baby, but it continues Haggis's penchant for dishonesty in his characters and plot. I am not excited about what he might crank out next.

Now, off to find a copy of Capote!

And maybe I'm back....

It's not that I disliked Typepad, I just don't want to spend the money. Call me "cheap".

PS - Have moved...

...so look for me at 667.

Kathleen Parker writes....

In a parallel universe called 'what if.':

NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's highest office came as little surprise following almost four years of remonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre attack on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.

Hmm, makes you wonder.

Via Right-Thinking Girl.

Ugh

A new year, a new template, a new post. Yippee.

I really have to keep more up to date here. So much has happened since Arnie's bloodless right-wing coup d'etat take over of California. As predicted by the radical elements of the left-left-oh-so-very-left wing, his stormtroopers quickly consolidated power. You didn't see that in the news? See how much control the vast, vast, oh say very vast, right-wing conspiracy has? The media is ours, bwahaha!

Where was I? Oh, yeah, new year....

This is caucus day. I wonder which sad case will become the new Democrat front-runner? And "sad case" is just so kind a way of putting it. Really, they all suck like a vacuum cleaner. A Kirby. Something could suck cheese from a dead rat's, er, posterior. I'm really not interested enough in any of them to make an extensive comment. At best they are so boring. At worse...oh, let's so not go there. When there actual is a Democrat candidate, I'll rant more. For now, ugh. I feel so sorry for those members of my parents' party. It is all so pitiful.

Remember, a third party is a viable alternative.

Until later....

Arnie!

Californians!

As a proud member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, I can report that the coup d'etat went off perfectly last night. As Alternet warned, a coup was in the works and, voila, here we are. Over the next 30-40 days there will be a sudden and decisive change in the state government. The Constitutionally-allowed vote was of course completely illegal, despite all those legally approved signatures, that the entire procedure is outlined in the State Constitution, etc. And by the sheer force of the vote, this coup has succeeded.

Ha! Must suck being them.

60+% voter turn out, largest since 1982. 60+% of the vote going to the Republicans. Arnie doesn't win by a squeak; current count gives him 48% of the vote. His plurality is larger than what Davis got for his election or re-election. That percentage is liable to go up as the absentee ballots get counted, since those ballots tend to be convervative.

A huge percentage of Democrats abandoned the party ticket and voted for Arnie. Ditto Hispanics. Ditto unions. Ditto damn near everyone. Art Torres and the state Democrat machine must have just shit at these results, along with a muttered, "Whuhappened?"

To throw back their oft-heard refrain: Hey, stupid, it's the economy!

The next few years should prove to be interesting. For now, we get to see if Davis's staff is as gracious in defeat as he was last night with his concession speech. Mind you, I still dislike and distrust the man, but considering that he has spent a life-time in politics, that his political career very probably ended last night, he gave an excellent speech. I hope he and his backers live up to his tone and concessions.

Vote!

And speaking of direct democracy in action, if you live in California I have a single question:

HAVE YOU VOTED YET?!?

Rantings of a Loon?

One has to wonder....

AlterNet: Defeating the California Republic(an) Coup:

This isn't funny. This is a power play that could wrest control of California away from the man we elected, and hand our state to an egomaniac with no political experience. And it is happening during a time of real crisis. This isn't a circus: It's a coup d'etat.

Well, by this time the decision is pretty must made, but still, this is just a funny, funny "article". Great humor.

"It's a coup d'etat."

Oh, my aching sides, because I see that the definition of coup d'etat is "a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force."

Today's recall isn't illegal; it's specifically authorized by the California State Constitution. Millions of California citizens signed the petition to put the question to a vote. Many more millions are now voting. Where's the illegality?

Oh, I laugh. It is an endless source of amusement when I see alleged liberals screaming in terror at something they otherwise cry for, i.e., direct democracy. California has this process in order to avoid...

"...or by force." I don't see any firefights being reported, so that pretty much means no one is forcibly overthrowing the state government. I suppose they could all be using suppressors, but you think someone would complain about the flying lead.

So, the question becomes: What world is the author living on? Certainly not the one I inhabit. And if he does, he needs to learn to use the language better. When you overstate your case, as he does throughout, you diminish your case. Calling a recall vote a coup d'etat is about as overstatement as you can get.

Vote!

Californians!

This is the day. This is the day you decide to stop an out of control state government.

Californians!

This is the day. This is the day to send a decisive message to the thieves who have esconced themselves in state government.

Californians!

This is the day. This is the day to end the Time of Gray. Our state once stood proudly at the forefront of damn near everything. You name it, California led it. The one statistic that is always most staggering is the size of our economy: 5th or 6th (depending on who is doing the counting) largest in the world. Most nations envy us our prosperity.

But we are dying. This state is shriveling. Florida, in 2000, tried desperately to take our title of Looniest Looney Bin in the US of A, but we are staunchly hanging onto that title. If after all this effort we allow The Big D to remain in the Statehouse, we will have nailed that looney crown permanently to our collective head.

Californians!

When you journey outside our fair state you see a different world. Shocking as it may seem, not everyone thinks the same as the LA Times or SF Chronicle proclaim. It is amazing.

Believe it or not, other states have interstate highway systems that are -- brace yourself -- clean! The roads are in good repair. Lord help us, even the buses run on time! There was a time, honest, I remember it, when the same could be said here.

I am a native of California. I was born and raised in San Francisco. My parents were straight-ticket Democrats. That party has betrayed the trust my parents placed with it and sullied its own history, as well as destroyed this state.

Stop them.

This is not a right-wing coup. This is the same anger that led to the passage of Prop 13. And that was a blow that the state legislature will never forgive us for. So, it is time to strike again, to hit them hard, to rock the very foundations of the California State Legislature and the entire sick, twisted crowd.

Californians!

This is the day! This is history. Rise. VOTE! Vote to continue the insanity, or cast a vote in an attempt to stop it. The slide has begun but does not have to continue.

One guess how I intend to vote. How you vote is between you and your conscience or your god or your goddess or your animal spirit...whatever, we have them all here and that is our glory. Bear in mind a simple statistical fact: If you total up the support for Arnie with the support for McClintock you get something like 60%.

And they say we're a Democrat looney bin! Ha!

Californians!

Rise, to your polling place. You're not as stupid as the ACLU and NAACP made you out to be. You can actually find it and you can damnwell use the same stupid voting machines you used not 11 months ago! (And thank god for them, because I know all too well how persistent computer hackers are.)

Rise, vote! Vote your conscience and let the strongest voice take the day. Personally, if Gray wins the day, I'm out of here in two years or so (wanna finish law school). Because then that strong voice will be crying, "No, we like government telling us what brand and how sheets of toilet paper to use. Oh, and how often we should go so we don't overload Mother Earth."

And that's not the state (or nation) I grew up in.

VOTE! This is the day.

Kill Bill

I sooooo want to see this film....

'Kill Bill' hatched from 'little egg' / Tarantino's two-part saga pays homage to Hong Kong actioners

"As usual, Quentin was trying in vain to educate me about cinema and going on about the great roles that existed in genre filmmaking for women," [Uma] Thurman says. "I told him I had this idea about a character -- she's an assassin -- and we went back and forth, and Quentin goes, 'Yes! and the guy at the head of it all, his name is Bill! He's a pimp for assassins! He is the ultimate agent, the Mike Ovitz of assassins! He's the bad guy and the movie's called 'Kill Bill!'

"And right between us, in that conversation, this little egg was formed."

I don't think I've seen a single film this year that I had on my "must see" list. And I had some dogs on that list, too. I even managed to miss The Matrix Reloaded, which is strangely appropriate because the first time I saw The Matrix was on DVD.

I any event, I need to see Kill Bill on the big screen, the whole gory enchilada!

Obviously, to get in the mood I must review some masters of screen violence. Or, more correctly, The Master, starting with The Wild Bunch.

Old News

This is becoming old news, but since they're smearing Arnie up one wall and down the other....

Now that Democrat Cruz Bustamante is California's gubernatorial recall front-runner, we can look forward to in-depth media investigations of the Latino candidate's long-held ties to the racial separatist group MEChA, right?

Ha.

Ha is right. This has never made the LA Times, has it? Thank goodness they're an unbiased representative of the ("Oh, we're not liberal") news media.

But wait, this article seems to say that, hmm, perhaps the LA Times is a little, er, slanted.

Some politicos dub the Thursday before a big election 'Dirty Tricks Thursday.' That's the best day for an opponent to unload his bag of filth against another candidate, getting maximum headlines, while giving his stunned opponent no time to credibly investigate or respond to the charges.

It creates a Black Friday, where the candidate spends a precious business day right before the election desperately investigating the accusations, before facing a weekend in which reporters only care about further accusations that invariably spill out of the woodwork.

Dirty Tricks Thursday is not used by the media to sink a campaign.

Yet the Times managed to give every appearance of trying to do so.

Stewart goes on to report on stories she attempted to get written about Gov. Gray's not so gray temperment. But, no, let's talk about 20 year old Arnie gropes. So much more in keeping with the editorial desires of the paper.

Fooles.

Laugh of the Day

I work for the state of California. I am emphatically not a member of the California State Employees Association (CSEA). Why should I join such a ludicrously biased organization? Besides, they're affiliated with the AFL/CIO, which is more ridiculously biased. Ugh.

They are also the cause of a good laugh, however.

Gov. Gray "Not My Real Name" Davis gave state employees a 5% raise and now wants to take it back. The deal is we give up that 5% and, in exchange, PERS (the retirement system) waives collecting our retirement contribution, which is roughly 5%. So it's a wash. More, we also get a PLD, Personal Leave Day. One a month. We can take it off, or let it sit in an account and acrue. That's another 5%. So there's a potential net gain despite the pay cut.

Neat, huh? He stole that trick from Pete Wilson, who used it in 1992. Wilson saved a billion or so dollars in the state budget. The state is still paying that back. Figures have it that the $1 billion saved is right now costing around $8 billion.

Neat, huh?

But that's not the joke.

No, the joke is that I received a voting ballot to say yes or no on this contract. Only I can't really vote, because I'm not a CSEA member. Conveniently, they include the form to join with the ballot, so then I can vote, but please, no thank you. The joke is the ballot.

Remember (or learn), that leaders of the CSEA and AFL/CIO were and are some of the louder complainers about the punch-card ballot system. It's terrible. It disenfranchises people. Not all votes get counted. Blah blah blah.

Their ballot is a punch-card.

I have it pegged to my cubicle wall. Whenever they whine I will get a great laugh. Works fine for union votes, but somehow everyone else is too stupid.

Hypocritical fools.

I voted for Clinton...

...in 1992.

But now I think this guy has it right as to why I loathe Clinton:

Maybe this is true, although the Lewinsky business never bothered me; there's something endearing about Bill's taste for zaftig women. But perjury is no less a crime than burglary, and there's no question Mr. Clinton perjured himself in his deposition to Paula Jones's lawyers. If you think Nixon deserved to go down, then so too did Mr. Clinton.

But that's hardly why Clinton-haters hate Mr. Clinton. The Clinton-lovers are right; l'affaire Lewinsky was just something we could nail him with. With a different president, a different man, we might have been tempted to join the camp of apologists in saying: It's just sex, and everyone lies about sex.

But Mr. Clinton was not a different man. To his supporters, he was the shaper of the new American center, the brightest Democratic light since John F. Kennedy, the toast of European elites. To people like me, he was a hollow and posturing and feckless man who embodied that side of America that was also hollow and posturing and feckless.

Says it all.

Thank goodness he's not playing around

sacbee.com -- Politics -- No staff cuts till after the election?:

Gov. Gray Davis' administration says it is unlikely to approve plans for substantial reductions to the state payroll until the middle of next month.

That makes it likely that the impact of the cuts -- in thousands of layoffs and in reduced state services -- won't become public until after the Oct. 7 recall election.

Isn't that lovely. This is exactly what he did during his re-election, holding back bad news he knew was coming (knew because he was the cause, that is). Better is this bit:

One goal, [Davis' finance director Steve] Peace said, is to minimize layoffs. He said he also wants to avoid giving workers layoff notices and disrupting their lives, only to reverse course later.

"It's not efficient. It's not good business. ... It's a morale-breaker of huge proportions," he said.

The state has already given about 12,000 workers 120-day notices that they are "surplus" and subject to layoff.

I guess I'm confused. He doesn't want to disturb workers by sending out notices but he's already sent out 12,000 notices. And he'll have to do it again because that list has been rescinded. (Remember, I was on of the 12,000, and now I'm not.)

Why do people wonder why we want to recall this, er, person?

Where were you...

I was just waking up. My girlfriend was in the washroom, drying her hair, and she said, "The World Trade Center is on fire."

I believe my exact response was, "Get the f*ck out of here."

I was thinking about the fire, not the cause. I sat up in bed. The local (Sacramento, California) news station had nothing, so I clicked over to FoxNews. Voila, burning tower. The fire was waaaaay up there. That was going to be a bitch to handle, if it could be handled at all. Firefighters loathe and fear high-rise fires for the simple reason that their equipment can't get to it. A firefighter must strap on all their gear and walk up to a point where they can assault the fire, and not very effectively because they are relying on the building's fire-fighting capabilities (water stand pipes and the like). In effect, the building has to be able to handle the fire.

And you could see that Tower One wasn't handling it at all.

I can't remember who the news anchor was. I remember fragments of the conversation they were having with another off-camera voice, an "expert" of one stripe or another. They were already reporting that witnesses saw a large aircraft hit the building. The babbling "expert" was saying that we can't assume this was some sort of deliberate act. It was early morning, bright sun, tall buildings, lots of air traffic, blah blah blah.

I'm shaking my head. If this was an aircraft strike, how do you explain on a bright, clear, beautiful day that the pilot didn't see this nice, huge building in front of him?

That internal debate became moot as a huge fireball rose into the screen. You almost heard the news anchors gasp.

Fox was holding too tight an image. I cut over to CNN. Their angle was wider and they replayed what had just occurred. A second airliner coming in fast from the right side of the screen. Disappearing behind the one burning tower, a huge explosion and fireball erupting out behind. Tower Two was now hit and on fire.

And now there was no doubt. This was deliberate, this was not an accident. This was an attack. I told my girlfriend and said, "This is brilliant."

Really, I had to admire the sheer audacity of the attack, the coordination and effort that had gone into it. This was brilliant work. The results were horrific, beyond the pale, because I knew that 50,000+ people worked in and around those buildings. My assumption was that the death toll would be staggering.

That it turned out to be "only" 2700 (3000 total for the day, including Pentagon and Flight 93) was a miracle and a credit to the Port Authority's planning following the 1993 WTC bombing. Really, those people have not gotten a fraction of the credit they deserve. They literally saved tens of thousands of lives on 9/11.

The first tower fell while I was driving to work. I heard the word as I parked at Starbucks. I told the barista inside, Tracy, and I thought she was going to faint. The second tower fell shortly after I got to work, and I watched that live on television. On that day I learned that the state considered me "essential personnel" because most California state offices were closed, staff sent home. Mine shifted into high gear. I work for the California Highway Patrol (don't ask me about tickets, I'm not an officer).

I didn't expect much of a response from the government. Really, I didn't. For how long was that the case? The last time we, the US, actively responded to an act of terror was when Reagan tried to blow up The Libyan Madman, Mummar Ghadafi. It certainly seemed to shut him up. I guess realizing that a 2000 pound bomb has your name on it will do that.

That it worked should have been a lesson for his successors to follow, but for the most part they didn't. Clinton launched a few hundred million dollars worth of cruise missiles at a Sudan aspirin factory and some hits of rock in Afghanistan, but that was all. Nice light show, not much substance. Stamped his feet and pouted. Ooh, the terrorists must have thought, I am soooooo scared.

And now we see that Dubya is of a different character. Oh my, he says we're going to hunt the bastards down and wump 'em. And voila, that's what we're doing.

In the two years since 9/11/01, we have liberated two oppressed countries. We have made it loud and clear that we shall respond to acts of aggression with a level of aggression that begs the imagination. (Who would have dreamed that you could tell a bomb, "That building, on that floor, through this window, so you blow up in this direction," and the bomb would do precisely that? It almost begs the question, who needs nukes?)

In the two years since 9/11/01, this country has demonstrated a resolve it hasn't shown in decades (if not generations). The naysayers are the usual gang of idiots, driven by their hatred of (in rough order): Bush, conservatives, Republicans, capitalism, the free market, and the United States. Their hatred blinds their reasoning. You doubt that? Read some of the drivel at AlterNet. No facts, no substance, just hate and loathing.

In the two years since 9/11/01, two old allies have demonstrated their inability to adapt to a modern world. This is sad. I find it striking that a nation that helped foster the very notion of a democratic society (and yes, I'm speaking about France) is being shoved to the back burner of relevance by a group of nations that until very recently lived under a totalitarian dictatorship. It would seem that those free nations of Eastern Europe understand how you must respond to oppression. I find their response to 9/11, and their willingness to aid the US, inspirational.

In the two years since 9/11/01, we have learned just how large the threat is, and hopefully people understand just how long the campaign to eradicate it must be. The United States has been called a "hyperpower," the last and only superpower on Earth. Some have complained that we're throwing our weight around, acting like the bully on the block.

The neighborhood bully was not interested in freedom. He was interested in oppression.

Anyone who says the same of the United States hasn't been studying history, or insists on focusing on narrow little bits of it, ignoring the rest. Reminds me of an observation I read (can't remember who, sorry). It had to do with how certain Arab states compared themselves to the Western world (i.e., the United States). When describing themselves, the Arab states, they would invariably described them in terms of their ideals ("Islam is a religion of peace."). When describing the US, they invariably pointed to abnormalities that they said defined the US. But the ideals they would describe don't exist, and the abnormalities they identified don't define.

And I think that's that for now. This is written off the cuff and on the fly.

So Tiring

FOXNews.com - Politics - ACLU: Accuracy of California Recall in Danger:

The ACLU has argued that delaying the election until March will ensure the state avoids the 'hanging,' 'dimpled' and 'pregnant' chads that dominated the Florida recount and left the presidency up in the air for 35 days.

No, what left the presidency up in the air for 35 days was Gore denying reality (i.e., he lost the first count, the second count, the recount, and then the recount of the recount; in fact, he lost every count) and continually taking the matter to court. That is, he kept trying to steal the election.

Oh, things get better:

"This is not merely about a recall election," Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU-SC, said in a statement. "This is about having every vote counted. Voting machines are the infrastructure of our democracy. Right now, the integrity of our state’s democracy is riding on the performance of these outdated, obsolete and decertified voting machines."

So how come these "outdated, obsolete and decertified voting machines" were okay last November, when they (apparently mistakenly) vote Gray into office for a second term? Oh, wait, I think I see....

Some observers have speculated that the ACLU is bringing this suit in part for political reasons. Asked why the ACLU did not bring a similar case preceding the 2002 gubernatorial race, Barankin replied: "I don’t want to speculate."

(Nathan Barankin is the California attorney general's "office spokesman.")

Ah, I see. Is there a hint of a stink to the ACLU's "unbiased" actions?

Just before in this article, Barankin said brilliantly, "But they [punch card voting machines] are a system that has been in this state for decades without Florida-like problems, and we don't see why that can't continue on October 7."

And just so you understand where the Attorney General -- and his staff -- might be standing, after last November's election, all state constitutional offices were held by Democrats.

Best Joke I Heard All Day

And the Sacramento Bee reports....

sacbee.com -- Recall -- Clinton to start campaign swing for Davis Sunday:

"Democratic leaders all over this country oppose this recall because they know it is not a solution to California's problems," he [Peter Ragone, director of communications for the Davis campaign] said. "(Clinton's) voice is one of the most respected in the country when it comes to civic life and public affairs and the people of California recognize that."

Oh, my aching sides!

"Most respected...."

Bwahahahahahaha!

Bored With the Rings

All right, I am a heretic. I am about to commit blasphemy. I shall engage in an act which will have many questioning my sanity, or at least my taste. So be it.

"LOTR: The Two Towers" sucks.

All right, I understand that middle films in any trilogy have a hard road to hew. Fine. If that's the nature of the product, then the producers of that product know that going in and should act accordingly. In other words, they should make a product that is superior to the first, and maybe even the third. In contrast to that lofty ideal, "The Two Towers" is lacking. It is just more of the same from "The Fellowship of the Ring," no less and absolutely no more. No more plot, no more development, no more interesting. Ugh. It is a big, huge, string of "zzzzzzzz."

This has really bugged me because people whose opinions I respect have raved about this film. They love it. I hate it. Where does this disconnect come from? When I saw it on The Big Screen, I walked away going, for the first time ever, "Can I have those three hours of my life back?" I have seen some absolutely shitty films and I have never felt like watching them was such a complete waste of time.

Does anything happen in "The Two Towers"? If anything does, I missed it. I've watched it again on DVD. I'm still missing it. It's beautifully photographed, gorgeously rendered, lovingly assembled...and a whole string of other "ly" words apply to its technical construction.

BUT!

The plot moved forward not one smidgen. Precisely two things sorta happened. You got to see that Gollum has A Good Side. Gosh, how sweet. Only by film's end he's precisely back where he started at film's start. He's an annoying little prick who wants his precious, and is plotting the ugly demise of Frodo in order to get it.

The other item were those walking tree critters who aren't trees. They were cool. I have heard they're not in the book. That would explain why they are cool. And if they are in the book, well at least this is a great rendition.

The tree dudes point out one of the biggest issues I have with the film, though. Namely, they are all, storming the evil tower, stomping (literally) orc ass. Then someone utters, "Release the river!" Where in the hell did that dam come from? I don't remember that in the first film, and I looked for it in the scenes leading up to this climax in the second film. It just sort of, "poof," appears and drowns all sorts of bad guy mischief. Deus ex machina? "And suddenly I dreamed I had a phaser...."

But really, where's the plot? Years and years ago I tried to read these books and I just for tired of reading about people walking around, smoking pipes, eating food, walking around, sulking, walking around, eating food, pining for the fjords, walking around, drinking and eating, talking, thinking, feeling gloomy, and....

Oh hell, you get the idea.

There are those among you who adore such things. I am not of you. I prefer a book, a story, driven by plot. I'm not picky about the plot. I'm not even a stickler for the speed at which the plot unfolds, unravels, or otherwise meanders. I just want a plot. Well, usually. I'm not consistent. This weekend, after sleeping through "The Two Towers," I watched the newly released Fosse wonderwork "All That Jazz." Does it have a plot? Well, sorta, but it's driven by characters. Would that this had been true of "The Two Towers."

Personally I've already decided that after "The Return of the King," when all three are wrapped up into a DVD set, you could pull "The Two Towers" out of the boxed set and never miss it. Unless you were some sort of Tolkien freak. But then again, you're already screaming about Peter Jackson's alterations, the bastard.

UPDATE:

I forgot to mention that decent mid-trilogy films do exist. "The Empire Strikes Back", in addition to being the best of the original three films, demonstrates what a mid-trilogy film can do. Characters evolved, they changed. Situations changed. The Plot Unfolded. Etc.

From what I have been told, "The Matrix: Reloaded" does the same. (I missed it at the theatres, and thus must wait until October 14 for the DVD to know for sure.) All complaints about the film aside, it moved the plot along. Things were different at the end than they were at the beginning.

In other words, both of these mid-trilogy films did what "The Two Towers" didn't.

Nauseating

California Governor Gray "Not My Real Name" Davis spoke to the faithful yesterday, taking the offensive against his recall.

sacbee.com -- Politics -- Davis stands by his record

Gov. Gray Davis, opening a new phase in his campaign to hold on to his job, took his case directly to the voters Tuesday -- accepting criticism for acting too slowly on the energy crisis but not offering any apologies.

He accepts criticism but doesn't take responsibility, or even admit he might have just goofed, even if just a little. Oh, wait, that's not how The Faithful see it:

Dan Terry, president of the California Professional Firefighters Association, disagreed, saying Davis had taken responsibility for the energy crisis and "laid responsibility where it belonged."

"I am proud of my governor," he said. "He did a good job."

Yes, yes, a great job of doing a $50 billion shift in California's fortune, from plus $12 billion to minus $38 billion all because of a one year spike in state income.

Also, I'm confused. If he took responsibility, then how can he lay responsibility "where it belonged"? If he accepts responsibility, it's his. But, no, he didn't accept a damn thing. He just shifted it to someone else. He's a victim, damnit, wahhhhh. Such a lovely picture of a governor.

Of course, the nature of this audience tells you who the intended audience really was:

Arriving onstage with his wife, Sharon, at his side, he was welcomed with a standing ovation from an invited crowd of about 300 union activists and supporters. They frequently interrupted his address at UCLA's Ackerman Hall with cheers, chants, boos and standing ovations.

Or, as Dan Waters (also in the Sac Bee) puts it:

Davis' 20-minute speech to a carefully selected audience of enthusiastic supporters at UCLA was clearly aimed at arresting his popularity plunge -- one that threatens to make him irrelevant as the recall becomes an assumption, and the contest among Bustamante, Schwarzenegger and others takes center stage. And Davis' chief target was Democratic voters, many of whom are ready to jettison him, especially because they have another Democrat in Bustamante waiting in the wings.

Waters also zeroes in on the, er, alterations Davis loves to make to history:

The governor described the 2001 energy crisis, which saw Californians experience power blackouts and soaring utility bills, as something foisted on the state by Enron and other greedy energy suppliers. However, Davis glossed over and distorted his refusal early in the crisis to allow utilities to sign long-term supply contracts that would have protected them and their customers from soaring spot market power prices. That refusal has been singled out by even the most objective critics as Davis' chief failure -- one magnified a half-year later when he sought long-term contracts at much-higher prices.

Davis cryptic version: "I refused to give in to pressure to raise rates astronomically." Reality: Rates would have risen only slightly had Davis acted earlier, and they did rise astronomically to pay for the much more expensive contracts his administration signed later.

And as for that small problem of the deficit, I again defer to Mr. Waters for the clearest and truest explanation:

The record differs markedly from Davis' self-serving version. When the state experienced a $12 billion windfall in 2000, Davis publicly declared that he would stoutly resist pressure from either party to spend it because it likely would be a one-time phenomenon, stemming from a flurry of stock market activity in the volatile high-tech industry. If the money were to be committed to ongoing spending or permanent tax cuts, Davis said then, the state could face massive deficits as future revenues returned to normal levels.

In fact, however, Davis and lawmakers quickly agreed to spend about $8 billion of the windfall on ongoing programs -- tax cuts, education and health care primarily -- and when revenues did return to normal, the state had an $8 billion "structural deficit" that was papered over with bookkeeping gimmicks and loans in the ensuing three years. It leaves the state with an immense ongoing deficit and equally massive debts.

So, Davis said one thing then ran as quickly as possible to do the opposite.

A Constitutional Lesson

Reuters "reports"" that Fox News is suing Al Franken. At issue is Franken's use of the phrase "fair and balanced" on the book's cover. Fox News uses that as a tag phrase for their news broadcasts. Says Lisa Johnson, spokeswoman for Franken's publisher:

In trying to suppress Al Franken's book the News Corp is undermining First Amendment principles that protect all media by guaranteeing a free, open and vigorous debate of public issues.

First Amendment...?

The First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law...." Doesn't say a thing about a private business suing another for copyright infringement. Thus, Ms Johnson's statement is the usual rhetoric, an effort to wrap oneself in the safety and protection of the Constitution when it doesn't even apply.

Unless they want it to, in which case it would seem to me it could undermine the very notion of copyright protection. Is Fox's claim legit? I don't know. Seems like a debateable question, which means it goes to court. But no way is this a First Amendment issue. None at all.

Enterprise

In case no one has mentioned it, twenty-six years ago the Enterprise flew for the first time. While it would never fly in space, this space shuttle would prove that the bricks could indeed "glide" to a safe landing. It also verified that the shuttle could be, er, shuttled to and fro on the back of a modified 747. I believe the Enterprise, OV-101, now is on display at the Smithsonian.

Democrat Love

Gads, love these people:

"Schwarzenegger is going to find out, that unlike a Hollywood movie set, the bullets coming at him in this campaign are going to be real bullets and he is going to have to respond to them," warned Mulholland in an interview with a camera crew from ABC NEWS.

No further comment needed.

Hot, so hot!

They are melting in Europe, with temperatures like....

A weather station in southern Paris reported Monday it had recorded 25.5 degrees Celsius (77.9 Fahrenheit) overnight, the highest nighttime low since France started keeping records in 1873. The previous record was 24C (75.2F), recorded on the night of July 4, 1976.

Less than 80 degrees (American) overnight, and they're complaining? Sheesh. Poor people.

Actually, I should be more sympathetic. As a San Franciscan born and raised, I'm used to a temperature that could be called moderate. I mean, you got up in the morning and the temperature was between 50-55. By evening, it was 50-55. Sometime during the night it dropped to 50-55. That's winter. Summer rises to 55-60. Oh, yes, there are variations; this weekend it was more in the 70's. Nonetheless, over the course of a year the temperature sits in a ten degree range.

Now I live in the Sacramento valley, and temperature can swing 30+ degrees over the course of a day. It'll be in the mid-90's today. July had a record number of 100+ days. Ugh. Hate it. Been here some 17 years and have yet to adapt. I hate summer.

So, sorry, Europe.

An Insult

The Guv says....

Davis said he has "gotten the message. I understand a lot of people signed a recall." But he also called it "an insult to the 8 million people who went to the polls last November and decided I should be governor."

No, what's insulting was his concealing the true and coming size of the state deficit in the days leading up to that election. What's insulting is how he claims he isn't giving state employees a raise, while at the same time negotiating raises. How do you do that? Last year, rather than give state employees a 5% raise, he agree that the state would pay 100% of the contribution to an individual's retirement account, essentially 5% raise. This year, that was going to end; employees would resume paying into their retirement account. As compensation, they would get a 5% raise.

Naturally, he doesn't want to do that now, given the deficit he managed to run up. So here's the deal: Employees waive that 5% raise. In exchange, they get an extra one "personal day" off each month. Surprise! That's effectively a 5% raise! What happens is that the employee can take the day off or they can allow it to accrue. Forever, or until they retire, whichever comes first. This has been done before. The reviled governor Pete Wilson (well, reviled by the wildly liberal state unions, that is) did the same, circa his first year in office. Surprise, that saved the state a prompt billion or so. Bigger surprise, it's current cost to the state is several billion dollars...and growing! Lo and behold, Gray wants to do the same because it looks great on paper and in the headlines. Please, though, no one look behind the curtain.

Damn, this guy sucks.

Happy Birthday, Katie!

No, no, not Couric. This Katie is my daughter. Today is her 18th birthday. I can't wish her happy birthday in person because she's in US Air Force basic training. She's more than a few miles away, very much out of communication with me. With luck, I'll get a letter.

So there's my daughter in military service. And there's my old chief's oldest son in the Navy, currently somewhere in California. And there's his younger son, somewhere near the DMZ in Korea. And on and on. I seem to know an amazing number of people who have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way for their country.

Amen.

Love and kisses, Katie!

Somebody save us...

...from Gray Davis!

The recall is a go. The California Supreme Court has rejected all challenges, including silly ones from The Guv himself, and October 7 remains D-Day for the Davis administration. One of Davis's objections was that he wasn't allowed to be on the list of candidates. As you may know, the recall ballot will have two questions. #1) Should Davis be recalled? #2) If so, who do you want to replace him? The list for #2 is unoffically huge (300+?). I say unofficially because that's the number of applications that have been requested and/or distributed. The final tally of those who have actually filed won't be known until after 5pm Saturday.

And while many see this as evidence of California insanity, Daniel Henninger says it well:

So how is it that Californians are ridiculed as zany for trying to recall a politician-governor who has wasted not only the public trust conferred by election but $38.2 billion of their money, the state's current deficit?

Amen.

Now Arnie is in the race, and the smear begins. First was the perky Katie Couric, quoted via Rush Limbaugh (no link to his specific musings, because I don't know how "permanent" his links are), wherein she immediately implies Arnie is a Nazi. Now today comes this idiot...

Here's a question Jay Leno forgot to ask Arnold Schwarzenegger when he announced his candidacy for governor of California on last night's "Tonight Show": "Will you renounce your support for Kurt Waldheim?"

Puh-leez! Spare me!

Guilt by association: Isn't this the exact same tactic that liberals complain about and label "McCarthyism"? Against McCarthy they railed that membership in the Communist Party didn't mean they were a spy. (Well, many were, but that little fact is, er, ignored.) Now Arnie likes a guy who was a Nazi, and (gasp!) his father was a member of the Nazi Party (during WW2, in Germany/Austria, at a time when pretty much everyone was, or they were in a concentration camp). No, let us never discuss the idea(s) a person might have. So much easier to slander him instead.

From the same opinion/slam piece:

Rather than confront his Waldheim problem head-on, Schwarzenegger has proclaimed his disgust for Nazism, raised money for education about the Holocaust, traveled to Israel (where he met with then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin), and given generously to the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, which in 1997 bestowed on him its National Leadership Award. "He wants no truck with … Waldheim," the Wiesenthal Center’s Rabbi Marvin Hier told the Jerusalem Post. "He probably did not have any clue as to the seriousness of the allegations against Waldheim at that time [i.e., 1986]. To suggest that Arnold's an anti-Semite is preposterous. He's done more to further the cause of Holocaust awareness than almost any other Hollywood star."

(Emphasis mine.)

And despite all that, the piece wraps up in the very next paragraph with....

Clearly, though, that won’t be enough. If Schwarzenegger doesn't renounce Waldheim in a highly public way, he can forget about ever becoming governor of California.

By God, just because a rabbi states the matter correctly, absolving Arnie of any implied guilt, doesn't mean the liberals will. They can't! Damnit, he's a Republican!

The only thing clear is that hacks like Noah (who?) and Couric (highest paid talking head on TV?) will do whatever is necessary to stop any Republican from gaining any public office. In this, they are the perfect reps for Gray Davis, who can never campaign on his record (which sucks, remember the $50+ billion swing in California state economics, from a $12 billion surplus to a $38+ billion deficit), so constantly goes on the smear offensive.

And they wonder why we want him (and them) to go. Don't go away upset, don't go away mad, just go away.

The Morality of Liberty

Part of what PM Tony Blair told Congress yesterday:

This is a battle that can't be fought or won only by armies. We are so much more powerful in all conventional ways than the terrorists. Yet even in all our might, we are taught humility. In the end, it is not our power alone that will defeat this evil. Our ultimate weapon is not our guns, but our beliefs.

There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Milosevic was Serbia's savior. Members of Congress, ours are not Western values. They are the universal values of the human spirit, and anywhere--anywhere, anytime ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police.

The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack.

And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to unify around an idea. And that idea is liberty.

We must find the strength to fight for this idea and the compassion to make it universal. Abraham Lincoln said, "Those that deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."

And it is this sense of justice that makes moral the love of liberty.

I can really begin to like this guy, liberal as he is.

California and the woe of budget

My state is in a world of hurt, and it is everyone's fault except the Governor's. Just ask him, he'll tell you. He isn't responsible for a damn thing. Which sounds like a good reason to recall him, if you ask me.

You see, I'm a big fan of personal responsiblity. If I screwed up, then I screwed up; no need to try and blame someone else. Which is why the phrase "society is to blame" has always made my skin crawl. No, you stupid bastard, you are the one who robbed the damn bank, not society; now stand there and take it like a man. (Oh, sorry, you already did! That's why you're here....)

Anyway, here's the governor of the largest state in the Union. We have fiscal wealth that rivals that of other countries (what, seventh largest economy in the world, or something like that). And we are in a world of fiscal hurt and it is not the fault of the state's chief executive. That doesn't make sense. If a corporate CEO makes decisions that cost the company money, it's his fault. Nevermind the outside influences and such, the job of the CEO is to anticipate those occurences and plan accordingly. Failure to do so results in job failure, which in The Real World is known as, "You're fired!"

In the Artificial World (i.e., the "public sector"), that's never the case. You're not allowed to blame anyone for anything, which is why they have the reputation that they have, the rep of being selfish, lazy, uncaring, slow, etc. I've worked in the public sector for some fourteen years now, and I know that that for most the reputation is a lie. For others, it is earned and deserved. Gray Davis is one of the latter.

Let's face it, people, he panicked. When 9/11/01 happened, it was immediately foreseeable that nothing was going to be the same. We depend on our elected officials to respond accordingly. Instead, we saw many of them pretend that the only thing that was going to change was their ability to spend even more money. Enter, Gov Gray.

He has delayed, stalled, or ignored the state budget issues ever since he was first elected, nevermind his recent re-election. The former state controller, a fellow Democrat, even points this out. She warned him (and us) time and again that there was a reckoning a-comin', and the sooner we start to take care of it, the better.

But, no. Gray continued to spend. He didn't just spend on existing programs, he created new ones. He had a multi-billion dollar fund, financed from gasoline and other transporation taxes, from which he could dispense highway projects, presumably to those he owed, er, a favor to. More generously, this projects were special ones (to him) that he reserved the right to pick and choose. When the money started getting tight, this shifting of revenue continued.

Fiscal 2001-2002 was going to be tight, but nothing was done. Fiscal 2002-2003 was patched with lies, half-truths, borrowed money, and the complete ignoring of the budget crash already in progress. If you want to say that state Republicans are equally to blame for that lack of reaction (or responsibility), go ahead; lots of blame to go around. But Gray is The Boss, or so he continually trumpets. And his budget projections were spectacularly rosy, because, well, he wanted to get re-elected.

Know how he says he's not cutting funding for public safety? Liar! The budget for the California Highway Patrol has been chopped 10%, their academy has been shutdown, and some 500 or so officers have received letters that they are "surplus" and may be subject to layoff starting this coming September (the state's Department of Personnel Administration [DPA] has to give that much warning prior to layoffs occuring). In addition, some 300 non-officers of the CHP received a similar notice. It's an interesting letter; I'm holding one, the one addressed to me.

No cuts in public safety funding? Liar!

There is some illusion out there that the Governor didn't give any state workers a raise last year, that he held the fiscal line, and that a lot of state workers are pissed off because he's opposing a 5% raise. Wrong. Last year, state workers' unions agreed to waive a 5% raise. In return, the state would pay 100% of their retirement contribution. This was effectively a 5% raise, but on paper it didn't look like one; no one's gross pay increased, just their net take home. The deal was this would only last one year, that this year the retirement deduction would go back into effect and there would be a 5% raise to offset that, thus resulting in a tiny (1%?) increase in net, take home pay. That deal was signed, passed by the state legislature, and put into effect.

What Gray is trying to do now is renig on the deal. He wants the employee's to forego the 5% raise and pay 100% of their retirement contribution. This means an effective 5% pay cut from what people have been receiving for the last year. This is what the state employee unions are screaming about.

When the local shop steward explained the deal last year I laughed. I knew Gray would try and pull something like this, that he was paying for union support of his re-election. This is why I won't join the stupid state's union; it's so blatantly partisan, and so utterly shocked when it gets slapped in the face and stabbed in the back. Poor, silly bastards.

This is exactly what Gray did with the "energy crisis". He panicked, signed huge deals with the power companies, and was "shocked" when he saw how rotten the deal he had negotiated was. He's still trying to re-negotiate those contracts, poor silly bastard.

And people wonder why I want him recalled? For god's sake, he's worse that incompetant, he's dangerous. He took a massive surplus and turned it into a history-making state deficit. That was bad enough, but he knew it was coming. He hid the true size and knew it was going to get bigger. And bigger.

And bigger.

There are some 30+ states running deficits this year; California's is larger than all the others combined. California's deficit is larger than most state's entire budgets. It is so huge and out of control, the mind boggles.

My motorcycle will cost $400+ to register next year. That's one of Gray's "cures" for the deficit. To pay for the (coming) increase in other taxes, and because of the possibility that I'll be laid off, I can no longer afford the monthly payments for the motorcycle. I'm selling the motorcycle, dropping my 45mpg vehicle and converting to a 25mpg vehicle. The car is paid for, and after the registration increase will cost under $200 to register next year. Thus we see how tax increases will stimulate the economy.

And pigs can fly....

Please don't tell me that we can't afford a recall. It's a deficit of $38+ billion (rumors put it close to $50 billion, but those are rumors). The cost of a recall election is approximately $26 million. Do the math. The cost of this election will add 0.07% to the existing deficit. Whoopee. And well worth it to get rid of the Gray.

Please don't tell me this is a Republican plot to steal a legitimate election (egads, just like 2000....). In my mind, Gray stole the election. Face it, the Republicans nominated an idiot--and he came within a whisker of winning! If he had kept his mouth shut, he would have won. Plus, look at all the budget manipulation that Gray engaged in leading up to the election. There was already a deficit, but it ballooned (again and again) starting the day after his re-election. Hmm, odd, that.

Certainly, it can get worse. Frankly, I expect California to go bankrupt. That will make for an interesting situation. Exactly, how does a state go bankrupt? Fiscally, I mean, because at a governmental level, we're already morally bankrupt.

UPDATE:

I forgot a few details. In the CHP, lieutenants and above have been given a 10% pay cut; sergeants got a 5% pay cut. Remember what Gray loves to say and repeat, no cuts in public safety. 'Tis the big fib, I think.

Do not tell me that this "twarts the will of the people". The People signed the recall petitions. If those signatures pass muster and the recall makes it to the ballot, The Will of the People will speak again. If Gray is tossed out on his ass it will be due to the "will of the people."

That entire "will of the people" argument, coming from politicians like Gray, makes me nauseous. Prop 13, the one that cut property taxes almost 25 years ago, was the will of the people, yet public officials like Gray continue to lament about it, fight against it, and seek ways around it. His concern for the people extends precisely one step short of his concern for his own political career. That is, he is concerned about The People only when, and in the context of, it furthers his own political goals.

Anti-American Pollsters

Opinion Journal has this editorial from Fouad Ajami, which reads in part:

In the days that followed the attacks of Sept. 11, a young Palestinian gave expression to the image America holds out in places where its shadow falls: the boy passing out sweets in celebration of America's grief wondered aloud as to the impact of the bombings on his ability to get a U.S. visa. He felt no great contradiction. He had no feeling of affection or loyalty for the land he yearned to migrate to. He grew up to the familiar drums of anti-Americanism. He had implicated America in his life's circumstances. You can't reason with his worldview. You can only wish for him deliverance from his incoherence--or go there, questionnaire in hand, and return with dispatches of people at odds with American policies. You can make foreigners say the sort of things about America you wanted to say yourself.

Very good point. Something to think about when the next Pew survey comes out.

Let's have a laugh

Oh, she's upset:

Is the ghost of Sen. Joe McCarthy alive and well in Hollywood? That is certainly on the minds of many outspoken liberals in Tinsel-town these days. The latest conspiracy theory focuses on the just-announced axing by ABC of very vocal anti-Iraq war activist Janeane Garofalo's new sitcom, ''Slice o' Life.''

Though the alphabet network had given Garo-falo and Universal Tele-vision a thumbs up on the show for next season, network execs changed their minds, telling Daily Variety and other industry outlets it was ''the direction of the series story line'' that led to the dumping of ''Slice''--just days before the show's pilot was scheduled to be taped in Vancouver, British Columbia.

A source close to Garofalo tells this column the actress and comedian was furious by the last-minute change and believes it's yet another example ''of a network bowing to the perceived power of the Bush administration. ... Janeane is convinced her politics and all the hate mail the right-wing lobby stirred up during the war is what is behind all this.''

What makes this funny is that it wasn't all that long ago that she was crowing that her anti-war (anti-freedom?) stance was the reason the series was picked up in the first place. Now that's the reason she lost the job. Puh-leez, can we make up our minds here? Sorta like Mike "I cannot tell the truth even if it kills you" Moore bragging about his great change of fortune when Icon Productions opted to finance his next pack of crap, only to also latter change their minds.

Midway

Sixty-one years ago, World War II was raging and the pivotal battle in the Pacific began, namely the Battle of Midway. I like to remember this battle because it is arguably the point around which the entire war, in the Pacific and in Europe, turned. US defeat here would have meant a dramatically different war against the Japanese. Oh, we probably still would have won, but when? How much longer would it have taken? If the Japanese plan had succeeded, and their forces had come out more or less intact, how would that have effected battles that were yet to come? And if we had to devote more resources to the Pacific, how would that have effected our European campaign? I submit the obvious, that things would have been very, very different, up to and including a less-than happy outcome to the entire war.

Midway also illustrates the entire notion of the "fog of war." The US won by a combination of skill, courage, determination, pluck, and sheer luck. In turn, the Japanese lost for almost the exact same reasons, only in their case the luck was almost all bad. Before Midway, the Japanese roamed and ruled the Pacific. After Midway, they were on the losing end of things. Yamamoto had tried to guarantee his country twelve months of victory following Pearl Harbor; he could only deliver six.

After Midway, the US could starve Japan because bit by bit, we controlled the Pacific. Cut off from external supplies, Japan's war machine began to starve. After Midway, the outcome of WW2 was a foregone conclusion. Oh, there were still times here and there where it could have been different, but the key, the focal point, was Midway. I've yet to identify a similar event in Europe; the closest -- and perhaps the one, only I don't know it yet -- was when Russia stopped the German advance. Right there, at that moment, the outcome for the War of Europe was a foregone conclusion, because from then on Germany was on the retreat. Some silly mistakes by the Allies here and there almost allowed a surrender that would have left Germany intact, but that was not meant to be.

And if you are really into this stuff, consider: I have read the the Battle of Hampton Roads (USS Monitor vs. CSS Virginia [the Merrimac]) was actually the key battle of of the US Civil War. Most historians focus on Gettysburg, but the argument is that at Hampton Roads, the Confederates almost succeeded in breaking the Union blockade. If they had done so, they would have had a guaranteed supply route to their European benefactors, namely the British. It would not have lasted, as the North could outproduce the South, would have built more warships, and eventually sealed the Confederates back up. In the meanwhile, though, there would have been a growing chance that the British would enter the war on the Confederate side. It goes without saying that if that had happened, the United States would be a very different place today.

Gettysburg was where General Lee's winning streak ended, but that end became inevitable at Hampton Roads. Think about it.

Depressing

Does anyone else find this depressing?

Air France's Concorde made its next-to-the-last commercial flight Friday, an emotional trans-Atlantic journey completed in 3 1/2 hours as the supersonic jetliner nears the end of a pioneering chapter in aviation.

Much like our retreating from space since landing on the Moon, we are now retreating from the sky. Early airliners were noisy, dangerous, etc., but we kept going until we finally created the DC-3. They complained about the Boeing 747, but it created the present age of inexpensive air travel. The Concorde was never meant to be the be-all end-all of supersonic flight, but no one ever followed up on the idea. Instead, we regulated it out of existence in the US...for suspect (at best) reasons.

Cover up

So there's this woman in Florida who insists that Florida DMV is violating her right to religious freedom because they insist she remove her veil for her driver's license picture. How this is so, I do not know, especially given that driving is not a right. If you can't comply with the applicable laws for obtaining a driver's license, and Florida requires a full-face photo, then you don't get a DL. Seems simple.

But no, assorted and sundry lobby and "civil rights" groups feel otherwise. What makes this all the more interesting is the sidebar attached to this CNN article. See, the woman is asserting that revealing her face would violate Islamic religious law, a higher authority as it were. But, the sidebar has this to say about photo ID's in established, Muslim countries:

Driver's identification rules in Muslim nations:
Saudi Arabia: Women aren't allowed to drive
Iran: Women wear a traditional chador, which does not cover the face.
Egypt: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
United Arab Emirates: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Oman: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Kuwait: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Qatar: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Bahrain: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Jordan: Women can drive if their faces are covered but do not cover their face in I.D. pictures

Now, don't mean to hold up any of these Arab states are paragons of human rights, but these are countries where Islamic law is often The Law. And they require the veil to come off for photo ID. So who is the higher authority, the "experts" her attorneys will trundle into court, or the existing laws and standards of Islamic states?

Oh, and besides, turns out she's a recent convert, so who is telling her that it is an absolute, no exception, that her face remain covered for "modesty."

Linux on a Laptop

I've dabbled with Linux before, but this time I think it may be serious. Why? Because I have this little old Gateway 600 laptop and it occured ot me that it is the near-equal of my main desktop computer. So why shouldn't it be able to run Linux?

I downloaded Red Hat v9, burned the CD's, put the first one in the laptop's CD drive and...voila, it runs. Not a single install or operational issue so far. The only feature I haven't tried yet is the wireless NIC. The onboard wire NIC is eth0, and the wireless shows as eth1, so the system recognizes it, even correctly ID's the hardware, so sometime this week I'll give it a shot.

I had a brief issue creating a FAT16 partition that would allow me to move files from the Windows XP side to the RH Linux side. Seems that users under Linux couldn't mount the partition, while the root (superuser) account could. Only root didn't have permission to modify the permissions. Weird. A one minute search via Google provided the answer, the correct syntax to add to the fstab file, and voila, problem solved.

(fstab is the file the system parses on boot to tell it how to mount what filesystems -- drives and drive partitions. The line I had to add was "/dev/hda6 /mnt/fat vfat users,noauto,umask=000 0 0". Don't ask me -- yet. It just works.)

Well, no duh!

Why is 'Idol' beats Oscars in viewers surprising? That show had a veneer pretense of not being manipulated toward a conclusion, whereas the Oscars had a lying bastard win an award for best documentary when the tripe he produced clearly was not.

But, hey, as he says, "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy? You know." (Scroll down a bit to read the relevant transcript). So we shan't take any of his sputters too seriously; in fact, not seriously at all.

Day of Defeat

I play this game waaaaay too much. After most of a week of reading torts, contracts, and crim law (oh my!), few things were more relaxing than charging into Thunder, trusty Thompson in hand, blasting away. If you like first person shooters, own a copy of Half-Life, and are willing to play on-line, then you owe it to yourself to go here and download the Day of Defeat mod. Do it for the liberation of humanity...well, if you play on the Allies side, at least. Remember: Back the attack!

Man in Space

See, I agree with this guy when he says:

The bottom line is that the shuttle is too old. ... It would be very difficult to make sure it is in good shape. We ought to just stop going into space until we get a good vehicle. If we aren’t willing to spend the money to do that, then we should be ashamed of ourselves.

How do you honestly dispute the opinion of the guy who designed the shuttle (and darn near everything that came before it)? This stuff looks far more interesting than just cranking out another Columbia-like shuttle.

Don't shoot me, I only type here

All right, I've shamelessly neglected this site, these pages, and the scant attention I ever attracted. Sorry. Is that sufficient? Apologies always seem to make up for things...don't they? C'mon, it's intentions that are important, not results! Haven't you been listening?

Sorry. Again. First year of law school...done! Study mates are taking a full course load during the summer. They want to graduate a year early, bless their little advocate hearts. I just want to survive, thank you very much. Besides, this is the last summer with my daughter; she wings to the USAF come August, just about the time I start Law School Year Two. So, I think I'll leave myself more or less Free this summer, thank you very much. Again.

Quoting Tommy Lee Jones in "The Fugitive": My my my my my my my. So much has happened in recent weeks. We clobbered Iraq. Oh, sure, that was expected, but this fast? With no significant resistance? We paused and The Media lept upon it like we were staggering from a body blow, but really it was 1) the weather, and 2) some more weather. Then, Saddam did pass from the field. Where is Saddam? Reduced to molecules and floating about, or skulking in a cave of one sort or another. I don't care which. He be gone and that's all right by me.

Ah well. Enough for the moment. Time to peruse the news I've been missing....

Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who!


What Monty Python Character are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

You're Insanly Smart

What type of Insanity are YOU?
Test by Snow Katt#101