July 27, 2004
Everything you always wanted to know about the USA
For my own amusement, I decided to have a look through Culture Shock! USA, which purports to be a guide to the manners, customs and culture of the United States.
It didn't take long before I was boiling over with rage. The author, Esther Wanning, claims to be American, but the entire book is written from the point of view of a Guardianista Eurosnot. Hardly a page goes by without some sort of casual leftist slur, pop psychobabble, or anti-American and anti-corporate whining. I present to you a selection of quotes from the paperback edition. Emphases, alas, are mine.
Please, may I have more? »
p13: "In 1782, a Frenchman, St John de Crevocoeur, noted that it was in going from a servant to a master that a man became American. Actually, many people through the years remained downtrodden, but there have been enough examples of upward mobility to keep the myth of equality alive."
p17: "[I]ndependent as Americans like to consider themselves, in the area of work they are not. Most corporations operate in a dictatorial manner and are not expected to accomodate complexities in employee's personal lives...Most people think employers have a right to make such demands; the employee after all retains the freedom to find another job."
p18: "Businesses, also, resist regulation. It has taken a long time to convince the public that free enterprise does not mean that a company should be free to pollute the air, foul the rivers, and destroy the forests. Such problems, of course, are not unique to this society."
p19: "The Puritans would not have smiled on the conspicuous consumption of today, but they would have admired the unrelenting effort that goes into the acquisition of goods. Americans have much greater admiration for businessmen than most other peoples do. An Englishman who has made enough money may well be happy to retire to his country home. The American only wants to go on making more money, driven as much by the Puritan work ethic...as by the desire for more money."
p20: "Time is money, we say. Nothing is more American than the supermarket. Food is prepackaged, and shopping is impersonal, but the efficiency of the operation produces lower food prices and less shopping time. The food's lack of taste has not created much customer resistance."
p21: "It does seem that Americans often lack the capacity to enjoy their achievements. We find more satisfaction in acquiring the trappings of the leisure life than leisure itself.
p21:"According to Alan Roland....in the United States 'a militant individualism has been combined with enormous social mobility', leaving very little group identity."
p24: "Expect also to find innumerable exceptions to any of my claims about Americans. Just as not every Japanese is hard-working and deferential to superiors, nor every Chinese devoted to family, not every American is ambitious, patriotic, money-grubbing or even unsophisticated." (Ed: I love the "even".)
p37: "Southerners were once considered to be more racist than Northerners, but this is no longer the case. Even if it were, their racism is unlikely to extend to Asians whose numbers are small in the South."
p46:" Politeness also depends on where you are. New Yorkers have a far-reaching reputation for rudeness, although they can also be surprisingly helpful."
p51: "The person who never relaxes may turn to drugs for help--hence we may have some clue to the popularity in American life of alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, and the 'boob tube' (television), which induces a drug-like lethargy and a dullness of mind almost as effectively as the real drugs."
p56: " There is an unfortunate prejudice against fat people, which comes from the viewpoint that the fat person is a person lacking in self-control, rather than the victim of a metabolic problem. Foreigners in particular, surprised to see so much obesity, often suffer from this prejudice." (Ed: the foreigners are the ones who "suffer" a "prejudice"? WTF?)
p72: "Many social analysts now think that television's domination of the American home is a major contribution to social problems. Television rivals family and church as the dispenser of values. Repeated thousands of times a day in advertisements is the message that acquiring stuff is a worthy goal. It is a message that children easily succumb to, and the loonging of even young children for brand names is a product of television."
p86: "The American dinner has fallen under medical disapproval due to its high cholesterol content. The meal typically consists of a large piece of meat, ketchup, vegetables with butter, potatoes (fried or with butter), and a sweet dessert." (Ed: "Typical"? Not even close. I have yet to meet an American family for whom this is a "typical" meal, as in a dinner consumed the majority of days of the week. And needless to say, ketchup is not consumed at every meal.)
p89, regarding American diners/coffee shops:"A waitress will often offer coffee as soon as you sit down. In the hospitable western part of the country, she will refill your coffee cup as fast as you can empty it. On the East Coast... you will have to pay for your second and third cups of coffee." (Ed: Patently false. New York diner waiters will also give you free refills, and in fact there is usually one waiter roving the tables whose sole job is to keep customers' cups filled up. I have yet to experience an exception to this rule.)
p122: "[F]undamentalists are not usually highly educated..."
p126: " Currently, our schools are a source of intense distress because many of our younger citizens, despite 13 continuous years'school attendance, are profoundly ignorant...One of my friends, the principal of an exclusive private school, discovered to his chagrin that not one of his 8th graders had any idea what the circumference of the world might be." ( Ed: Anyone here know that off the top of their head? There are lots of things to be chagrined about regarding our schools, but that particular factoid is not one of them.)
p177: "The rich have often rechanneled their killing instincts and are satisfied to go out with their tennis rackets and golf clubs to expensive country clubs."
« That's quite enough, thank you
Remember the furore that erupted when the Reagan-era government tried to classify ketchup as a vegetable? I have a feeling that this will not attract nearly as much opprobrium: French to Classify Wine as Food.
"Wine is not a food like any other," said Alain Suguenot, the head of the wine growers' study group of France's National Assembly and the Commander of the Chevaliers de Tastevin, the exclusive fraternity of Burgundy wine connoisseurs. "It's a special food. It has nutritional value. Of course, you cannot eat it alone. It's a food you have to eat with other food. But it is a food."
All to combat a slump in the French wine market. Gee, I wonder what could have caused that? (Hints: that big heat wave that killed all the old folks last summer? It affected the wine harvest too. And oh yeah, something about a war...)
Besides, if you want a good wine, you could do a heck of a lot worse than my adopted country's sensational Dionysus Winery 2003 Merlot. And fans of fortified wine should look no further than Bethany's revelatory white port.
Look What The Cat Dragged In
The theme of Batman is that of a traumatized millionaire who encounters villains who have descended even more deeply into madness than he has. The trick to successfully transplanting this on film is to create screen villains who are at least as witty and engaging as they are tragic. Nicholson, Jones, and Carrey pulled it off. (I have not seen Batman and Robin.) But Batman Returns is a depressing flick that makes Hamlet look optimistic by comparison, even though the body count in the latter is much higher. The insanity of Penguin and Catwoman is so overwhelming that the audience has little sense of victory after Batman wins in the end.
The most ludicrous character is Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman. Her origins are downright silly, even by comic book standards: she is pushed out a window several stories high, licked into consciousness by stray cats, vandalizes her own apartment, and develops a feline obsession, leather fetish, and cornball feminist braggadocio ("I am Catwoman, hear me roar").
But at least the costume looks good. I haven't seen the flick, but I've seen stills from Halle Berry's Catwoman, and if this is the start of a trend it looks like the new generation of superheroines and supervillainesses will be outfitted by misogynous French fashion designers. Berry's costume is more unattractive than sexy, and the mask is downright ugly. Patience Phillips? The James Bond molls don't have names that goofy.
July 26, 2004
Vive la Lance!
Yes, he did it again, a record sixth Tour win for our boy Lance.
And let's not forget about the bike. In fact, Lance's bike had its own blog during the Tour. Seriously. And Mister Two-Wheels has a snarky Steynish streak:
Yeah, I’m pretty hacked off at those German fans who cursed me and spit on me today going up L’Alpe d’Huez.
C’mon guys, you lost the war(s), you’re a second-rate first-world country and you’re favorite rider has a girl’s name, but let it go already.
I mean, don’t you think spray-painting “LANCE’S BIKE HAS TRAINING WHEELS” on the road is a little much?
Then there was the clever guy who came up with “LANCE’S BIKE SUCKS AIR.” Nice. Very nice.
And I won’t even comment on the jerk who held up the poster reading, “SADDAM’S MOTHER RIDES LANCE’S BIKE.”
Somebody call Lance’s buddy George W. It’s time to invade.
Be sure to read all the archives. They're a hoot.
July 25, 2004
Badnarik For President...
Want to know why the Libertarian Party isn't going to have any influence in the U.S., ever?
Go read these comments at Reason's [s]Hit and Run concerning journalist Ann Jacobsen's scare on a flight when a bunch of Syrian musicians started acting really wierd. And just bask in the paranoia, ignorance, and all around wingnuttery. I wouldn't want to be seen in public with the likes of the people who post there.
Please, may I have more? »
Sure, they may be a little crazier at DU. But not much. These people are flat out morons, and some of the contributors aren't much better. They claim to be libertarians, but are actually just juvenile anarcho-hedonists. The highest sentiment I've seen expressed was "snark", with most comments running closer to the gutter. The only form of government that ever met their approval was a Danish squatter commune that paid the bills with drug sales (and collecting welfare on the side).
And for your libertarian leaning blog visits, visit a smart blog where the libertarians are actual libertarians, mostly pretty mature adults (both contributors and commenters) who have actually read the foundational texts of libertarianism, and who are capable of making constructive comments about foreign and domestic policy. I am referring, of course, to Samizdata.
« That's quite enough, thank you
July 24, 2004
This Bears Repeating
Here's what the 9/11 Commission - a partisan snake pit that apparently can't agree on which cafe to order coffe from, much less on political points - here's what they found about the Islamofascist threat we face:
In this sense, 9/11 has taught us that terrorism against American interests “over there” should be regarded just as we regard terrorism against America “over here.” In this same sense, the American homeland is the planet. But the enemy is not just “terrorism,” some generic evil. This vagueness blurs the strategy. The catastrophic threat at this moment in history is more specific. It is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism —especially the al Qaeda network, its affiliates, and its ideology.
As we mentioned in chapter 2, Usama Bin Ladin and other Islamist terrorist leaders draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within one stream of Islam (a minority tradition), from at least Ibn Taimiyyah, through the founders of Wahhabism, through the Muslim Brotherhood, to Sayyid Qutb. That stream is motivated by religion and does not distinguish politics from religion, thus distorting both. It is further fed by grievances stressed by Bin Ladin and widely felt throughout the Muslim world—against the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, policies perceived as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, and support of Israel. Bin Ladin and Islamist terrorists mean exactly what they say: to them America is the font of all evil, the “head of the snake,” and it must be converted or destroyed.
It is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground—not even respect for life—on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated.
Read it and weep, MoveOn morons. While reasonable people can disagree on a lot of things, the most partisan, hardened of reasonable people agree on that point. Your move.
Hat tip to Insty, who is on the 9/11 Commission report and the HamBergler like white on rice; and to Wizbang.
DNC Press Release
Washington, SOL Newswire - DNC Chairman Terry MacAuliffe today questioned the timing of an apparent Republican leak involving former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and the Administration's National Archive Staff's failure to maintain accountability over government documents.
MacAuliffe also questioned the Pentagon's rediscovery of President Bush's military pay records, which were thought to have been lost. "It's mighty curious," said the DNC chair, "that these records come out just three days before the start of the Democratic National Convention. We think the Republicans are doing this to draw attention away from our event, which will be pivotal to the Kerry campaign.
The DNC chief added that "it's really scandalous when the Republican President can set the political agenda in this country, and when you look around, you see it happening all the time."
MacAuliffe added that "it's awfully coincidental, don't you think, that the federal government's fiscal year ends September 30. This means that the budget fight always falls just 34 days before the election. Isn't this just a little too coincidental?"
Please, may I have more? »
Other events with suspicious timing cited by MacAuliffe included President Bush's announcement that he was running for re-election, which fell on January 6, just 23 days prior to the Rhode Island Democratic Primary; House Speaker Dennis Hastert taking the floor to call into recess the House of Representatives, which occured July 14, a "symbolic 14 days" prior to the Democratic Convention; and the war in Iraq, which "has all but pushed Democratic candidates out of the news."
MacAuliffe added that some recent events involving Republicans were legitimately newsworthy and did not raise serious questions relating to timing. He cited such events as "the discovery of the Republican voter registration of nearly two thirds of the troops involved in abusing poor helpless would-be-immigrants at Abu Ghraib prison," Jenna Bush's getting cited for underage drinking, and George Bush's mountain bike spill, along with the year-long impeachment saga of Republican Governor Rowland in Connecticut. "That last one we're not sure about. I think the Rowland debacle was staged just to keep Joe Lieberman from building Joe-mentum during the primaries, but some people like Chris Lehane would tell you it happened because Republicans can't help themselves, what with being the subhuman corrupt reptilian beasts that they are. But I think the jury is still out, and I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt on that issue." said MacAuliffe. "But then there's their national convention, which falls just before the Presidential election. If they had any decency, it would be after. Their pathetic attempt to gain a political "bounce" from the convention is completely transparent."
At the same time, MacAuliffe hinted that other events were planned by Republicans for the purpose of hurting Democrats, such as the 9/11 attacks which were timed so as to give the Republicans nearly a year to build a national security policy; and the Whitewater investigation, which occurred within the statute of limitations.
"You could say one or two of these things are sheer coincidences. But when they happen again and again, reasonable people start to see connections, like my friend Mike Moore was telling me."
Lanny Davis had no comment with respect to the timing of the leaks, and Republican countercharges that certain Democrats were manipulating all political situations in which they were involved, so as to claim to be victims of Republican political timing.
« That's quite enough, thank you
Steve, I hope you don't mind this, but I'm about to punk you really badly.
First off, before you go shooting your mouth off about what is Constitutional and not, or a violation of separation of powers, as you did here in the post immediately below this one, it would behoove you to take your head out of your ass, so that you can see the text of the Constitution.
Under Article III, "Judiciary", it says:
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Got that? Only the Supreme Court is actually a Constitutionally established court. The others exist at Congress' whim. That means that the federal courts - as to their existence - are Congress' bitch.
Please, may I have more? »
A little further on, the oft-cited, seldom read Article III states that:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.
So the Supreme court can hear those cases, and Congress can't say anything about it. Right?
Wrong.
Just after that, the Constitution gives Congress the power to limit Supreme Court jurisdiction, in what I like to call the "Congressional jurisdictional pimp-slap clause."
In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Oooh, that'll leave a mark. So Congress can put certain types of cases out of the reach of Supreme Court jurisdiction, and since the lower federal courts are created at Congress' whim, that power certainly applies to the lower courts as well.
There is nothing unconstitutional about this.
The point of excluding the federal courts from jurisdiction over cases seeking to (1) find a federal right to gay marriage; or (2) seeking to enforce a gay marriage of one state in a state that does not recognize gay marriage, is to prevent the courts from usurping the democratic process with respect to this most controversial of subjects.
I happen to agree with this approach, because I think fundamental changes in society's order, should come from the people, not from some goddamned lawyer like me. Especially not from some goddamned lawyer whose parents paid for his really nice education at Harvard, who has some nice Ecuadorean chaps over to do the lawn every week, who goes to the right liberal Episcopalian church, and who sits on the federal bench primarily because he gave generously to one presidential campaign or another.
The best way for people to live, is the way they want to live, and relying on democracy, either of free choice, expression of communal will at the polls, or from the people's representatives in the legislature, is the best way to preserve that. You want gay marriage? Fine, move to a state where they vote for it, or get people in your state to vote for it. Just don't try to get some left wing fucknut lawyer, who sits where he sits because he is properly connected and well privileged, to impose your social re-engineering on me.
And before you go off on my extreme bigotry, I'd like to point out here that I don't have a particular axe to grind against gays. My sister is a dyke, and the only problem I ever had with her is that when I was single, she pulled a lot more chicks than I did. In fact, I'd go so far as to say I favor some type of legal relationship - civil union? - to legitimize long term stable gay marriage. Sure, I'm morally opposed to it, but it seems to me that the purpose of the state isn't to always impose a particular moral code, but to boost social institutions (some of which are morally based) that improve the social fabric and help people live better lives. And frankly, gay couples could use it; I'd rather have them take seriously the notion of commitment, and privilege it (as most heterosexuals do) over the notion of having anonymous group sex every weekend. Sure, that latter is fun, but frankly, I don't want to live in a neighborhood surrounded by people on the prowl. So I'm more than willing to go with the lesser evil.
Sure, waiting for "the people" to come around is not satisfying, but you know, neither was the slow crawl out of lessaiz (sp?)faire capitalism - and who did better, the market capitalists, or the Reds, with their top-down re-engineering of society? And it's not exactly like slavery - the normal comparison you hear from gay activists. Last time I checked, the local fashion houses paid pretty well, and where I live there's actually a huge gay professional class. (Although you could make an argument about indentured servitude and the journeymen filling the ranks of the ballet and theater, but I won't go there).
You want gay marriage, fine, open a political action committe, lobby for it, convince people it's the right thing to do, and have them vote for it. Again and again if you want, I don't care.
But how dare you take conservative positions down the line, and rail on big-brother-ism and state-ism, and then when it comes to a fundamental question about the basic, central building block of society, to not only demand patriarchal big-brother-ism and a top down solution, but to mis-deploy a particularly uninformed argument about the Constitution to do so. Railing against the rule of judges when they use to the commerce clause to extend the reach of government into private businesses, is a whole lot less convincing when you are calling for a judicially ordered re-engineering of basic social institutions. When conservatives and libertarians show abundant illiteracy of the documents they supposedly revere, it gets used to undercut all other conservatives who would would rely on the same texts to support their argument.
Relying on the Constitution when it suits you, and disregarding it when it doesn't (or worse yet completely misquoting it) basically turns you from someone with principles, into a partisan hack who will use any argument at hand to win the fight. Now when I do legal work for a client, I will use the arguments at hand to win. But in my avocation, doing some legal work with conservatives and libertarians, legal work where I am taking a stand based on my beliefs, I am willing to ride the Constitution start to finish, because it's what I stick with. Most of the time it leads to a good ending and that's why I believe what I do. Yet on some public policy issues, you crash in flames because the damn thing isn't all things to all people. But that's what you have to do if it's the thing you cling to.
« That's quite enough, thank you
July 23, 2004
Republicans Go Gay, Anti-Gay
Republicans passed legislation in the House Thursday to prevent federal courts from ordering states to recognize same-sex unions sanctioned elsewhere.
The bill would strip the Supreme Court and other federal courts of their jurisdiction to rule on challenges to state bans on gay marriages under a provision of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. That law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and says states are not compelled to recognize gay marriages that take place in other states.
Way to go in the House!
You exceeded your Constitutional Mandate, in attempting to tell the Courts what cases they may hear.
You failed to understand basic Separation of Powers in the US Constitution.
You looked like a bunch of bigoted assholes, who are so scared of queers that you want to mangle the Constitution.
You tried to move the focus off the war in Iraq and the ongoing 9-11 report.
I do believe you will all go down in history as a bunch of impotent, fearful, morons.
I can't wait to vote some of you twits out of office.
New Zealand PM Breaks Land Speed Record
I've heard some less than stellar things about the Prime Minister of New Zealand. This is just one more thing that shows she's an asshat.
Prime Minister Breaks Speed Limits to Watch Rugby
WELLINGTON (Reuters) - New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark is under fire after her motorcade broke speed limits so she could attend a rugby test match between New Zealand and arch rival Australia last week.
Hey, nothing says emergency speed like being tardy for a sporting event. Why, I was late for a badminton game the other week, and I used the sidewalks the whole way.
Please, may I have more? »
Just admit that you abused your authority, and ran all the red lights, just so you could go see the hunky rugby guys. Apologize, admit it was wrong, and you can go back to making anti-USA speeches.
When New Zealand's All Blacks took on the Australian Wallabies for the Bledisloe Cup in Wellington Saturday, Clark was stuck on the South Island and her flight was canceled.
Someone is not impressed enough with the PM to even hold a flight for her. Or her staff is so incompetent that they couldn't even get an alternate flight for her.
Clark's police escort decided to drive the prime minister 200 km (120 miles) from the town of Waimate to Christchurch, in two hours, to catch a flight to Wellington. The open road limit in New Zealand is 100 km per hour (62 mph) and 50 kph (31 mph) in towns.
The motorcade was conducted at speeds which we are advised were in excess of the posted speed limits," a police spokeswoman said in a statement.
No kidding. Way over the speed limit, with some serious consequences if the motorcade got into an accident. That just says dedicated public servant.
The opposition ACT party's justice spokesman Stephen Franks said Clark must take full responsibility for her three-car motorcade breaking the law.
"She must have known her motorcade was screaming through the country -- perhaps she thinks it should be normal to scatter peasants like a South American dictator," said Stephen Franks of the opposition ACT.
That is brilliant, Stephen. Probably the best jab I have seen in awhile. Probably fairly accurate, too. The PM seems not to hold the public in very high regard.
"That's not a judgment that I made. Police made a judgment about the mode of transport and the way it was done and they will have to deal with those issues when they do the investigations," Clark said.
I knew she wouldn't apologize.
Not your call, eh, PM? You are the leader of the country, the buck stops with you. Decisions made by subordinates are your responsibility. YOU should deal with any issues that come up in the investigation.
Plus, I'm sure you were in the back of the limo yelling, "Floor it you pansy, I've got a game to get to!"
Next time obey the posted limits and make it for the middle of the match. The little people will thank you.
« That's quite enough, thank you
July 22, 2004
USA Airline Incident: No Safer after 9-11, Part II
Annie Jacobsen's article on a possible terrorism dry run, on an American airline has sparked a fair amount of controversy.
I mentioned it a couple of days ago.
Here is part two of her article.
I watched her on TV last night and she didn't seem an alarmist, nutcase or racist. She pretty much stuck to her story.
There was a large amount of discussion of this issue, at my blog gig, and in the blogsphere. Even the regular media outlets finally got on the story. Though as usual it was up to the blog people to get the facts.
This article seems to answer who the people on the flight were, members of Nour Mehana's band.
So, perhaps it was totally innocent.
And it seems, as Al Maviva, said, that the US is doing a good job at catching terrorist, and guarding the skies.
But, I still think Annie is right and we need to stay vigilant and be ready. Because the terrorist have not stopped trying.
Tree kills lawyer, spoof at 11
An update on the splintery passing of Mr. Champlin.
Members of Mr. Champlin's Legal Ecols Club gathered at the site of the natural disaster.
One member of the club suggested that tombstones be erected for both man and tree.
She was quickly shouted down by a fellow club member.
"What, and deface a poor defenseless rock?"
Eventually it was decided that since the tree had already sacrificed itself, they would bury it and Mr. Champlin next to the still standing hammock tree. Some of the tree was salvaged, because Tammy, "Torty" Thompson thought there was an end table inside, crying to be set free.
They also decided to bill the State for their time, and the cost of the environmental impact report generated to make sure the dig did no harm to the Speckled Mosquito.
"It's just good sense, and professional courtesy to try and protect the parasite," said Torty.
Tree Kills Lawyer, Suit at 11
Blake Champlin, a Tulsa lawyer and environmental activist, was killed when one of the trees holding up his hammock, fell over and crushed him.
That one is good because it has a lawyer and enviro-activist irony.
Since it was his own tree his family can't sue anyone.
I wonder if they will recycle the tree, and use it as his coffin?
Heck, I wonder if other enviro-activists will sue his family for making the tree feel bad?
Lenin had Syphilis
Soviet Icon Lenin Died of Syphilis-Experts Say
The posthumous diagnosis by two psychiatrists and a neurologist recently published in the European Journal of Neurology was that the great Russian revolutionary and Soviet icon Vladimir Lenin died an agonizing death from syphilis.
Based on all the deaths caused by Communisim it feels like poetic justice.
July 21, 2004
Mmmmmm... Burger.
[Edited for tone]
The most unforgiveable thing about Sandy Berger stuffing classified documents into his socks and pants and walking off with them prior to the 9/11 Commission staff getting hold of them, is that he's apparently revitalized the careers of Clinton mouthpieces like Joe Lockhart, Lanny Davis and the walking human slander who goes by the name of Chris Lehane. Berger's lawyer - Clintonoid Lanny Breuer - admitted that some of the theft of classified docs was "knowing" and some was inadvertant. "Knowing", by the way, is a culpable mental state in federal law. It's the mens rea that gets you prison time; it means it wasn't an accident. It's the difference between murder and negligent homicide; felony fraud and a bookkeeping mistake. "Knowing" is a big deal.
Meanwhile, Chris Lehane is saying it's lies all lies, a conservative plot, all Republicans care about is what Dems have in their pants, and so forth.
Damn these crooked Clintonites. How I wish they'd return to their holes.
Please, may I have more? »
Cripes. I can look back in time and I know that while Clinton wasn't much of a president, he wasn't evil incarnate. But these toadies and lickspittles and attack dogs and gollum-like scumbag hangers-on around him... I can't stand Clinton because of his one truly unforgiveable crime: he foisted these lying, spin-doctoring jerks on the American public, and apparently we're going to be stuck with them, yes they are going to be the face of the Democratic Party, for the next 30 years. They are scummy, odious and dishonest down to their toes. Where's Jim Carville? I'm sure he's got some yarn to spin about how it's the evil ol' Pullikins pickin' on ol Sandy boy. And you just wait until Joe Conason gets his lips off President Clinton's ass, realizes what's going on, and goes into full attack dog mode. It'll make Lehane look like a pussy. These calculating liars thrust us into political partisanship hell with their defense of the profligate presidential penis; they are returning us to that political hell at broadband speed this week.
Lehane's and Lockhart's talking points, by the way, are that the stolen top secret documents and contemporaneous notes (that are now lost, which dealt with the Clintonite opportunities to take out Al Qaida, by the way) were taken out of the National Archives top secret holding area due to "sloppiness." You see, Mr. Berger, former National Security Advisor, is just a sloppy guy, and if he didn't have his staff with him to look after this type of thing, it's perfectly natural that he would have wandered out with documents up his shirt, down his pants, in his socks (all places he admitted to hiding the docs) and up his wazoo, for all we know. You know, it's funny; I worked with a lot of highly classified docs, deep in windowless vaults for a few years. It's hard to get out with any documents intentionally, much less to inadvertantly walk out with anything down your pants, up your shirt, and in your socks. Had I walked out with a bunch of materials and been caught, my sore white ass would be in Leavenworth right now. Berger not only isn't going to head to Leavenworth; he's going to wind up a Democrat hero. I don't have the nerve to check out the usual lefty hangouts; I'm sure they are in full war room mode.
Just for the sake of argument, assuming the truth of Lehane's and Lockhart's blatant lie - it's blatant because Berger's lawyer already admitted that it wasn't mere sloppiness - assuming the truth of it, then what does that say about Mr. Berger's fitness to be a National Security Advisor, that he can't even follow basic security procedures? Doesn't this strike you as the kind of guy who just might lose track of a couple terrorist groups, now and again, when there are other pressing issues like irritable Kosovars and dogs being wagged by the tail?
And what does it say about Bill Clinton, and now John Kerry, who employed such a mindless numbnuts like Berger in senior foreign policy advisory roles?
Yep, vote Kerry in 2004. He'll get rid of those dishonest dummies like Bush and Rice and the obfuscating Rumsfeld, and bring in some honest smart folks like Sandy Berger, Joe Wilson and Chris Lehane.
And you know what my sinking gut feeling on this whole thing is? That Berger came across some working papers, or some notes, or some drafts, that showed exactly how lightly the Clinton Administration took the bin Laden threat. Yep, it was a coverup. I'm sure of it. No other explanation makes sense. And even the coverup doesn't make sense. The country has clearly been in a forgiving mood, knowing full well that we are barely putting up with a pre-emptive war right now, and we sure wouldn't have in 1998. But along comes a Clintonoid (it's all about the Legacy, stooopid...) to once again prove, the coverup is always worse than the crime.
I don't know that for sure. The only thing I do know for sure, is that this being a Clintonoid coverup, by the end of this scandal, the Republicans will be the villains, the FBI agents will be in civil court defending their actions, and Sandy Berger - who told Brother Bill to forget about picking up bin Laden from the Sudanese, too much trouble - will be the wronged party.
Damn these lying, soulless Clintonite mouthpieces. Damn them.
« That's quite enough, thank you
Here's an amusing and enlightening website of a woman with the exact opposite problems as me: An Aussie in America. Makes interesting reading.
One less genius
Carlos Kleiber, the eccentric and reclusive Austrian-Argentine conductor, has died at 74.
I was privileged to be able to witness two Kleiber performances at the Met in the early 90s: Otello and the legendary Rosenkavalier with Felicity Lott, Anne-Sofie von Otter and Barbara Bonney (and a certain someone as the Major-Domo). Even the lauded Christian Thielemann never revealed as many of the layers of the piece as Kleiber did. I remeber there were a few occasions during the performance where Kleiber merely crossed his arms and looked over the orchestra with a slight smile, not conducting but appreciating, reveling in the sounds he helped create.
So did his audience.
July 20, 2004
There's no place like home
Had a bad day? Feeling lonely and unloved? Well, cheer up: your life is not as bad as it could be. You could be living in Oz.
Oz was HBO's first dramatic series, not as lauded as The Sopranos but every bit as soapy, profane, violent and utterly addictive.
Please, may I have more? »
"Oz" is the nickname of the Oswald State Correctional Facility. Within Oz is the experimental unit known as "Emerald City", created and run by bleeding-heart liberal Tim McManus (Terry Kinney). Supposedly, residence in Em City is a reward for good behavior and allows more personal freedom than the other cell blocks. This is not always a good thing.
The fascinating thing about the show is that it shows so many different kinds of bad behavior. There are various gangs in Oz which are constantly plotting against each other: the Homeboys, the Aryans, the Latinos, the Wiseguys, the Muslims, the Bikers, and so forth. They are all nasty in their own particular way, and it's engrossing to see them pitted against each other. I introduced a friend to the show, and warned: don't get too attached to any of the characters, because they'll probably die in the next few episodes. Indeed, there is no show on television that has more gleefully dispatched so many leading characters.
The production values of the show are high, and it looks as good as any show set in a prison can. We feel as if we know these places intimately: Em City, Unit B, Death Row, the infirmary, the kitchen, the visiting room, and the terrifying "hole". The spare, jazzy musical score is never obtrusive and the multitude of fight scenes are artfully choreographed. The episodes feature at least 15 important speaking roles apiece, and three or four intertwining storylines which eventually come together, all narrated by the philosophical, wheelchair-bound Augustus Hill (Harold Perrineau).
The acting is top-notch all the way. Besides Hill and Kinney, there's Dean Winters as the scheming Ryan O'Reilly, Lee Tergesen as the put-upon Tobias Beecher, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as super-nasty drug lord Simon Adebisi, Eamonn Walker as simmering Muslim leader Kareem Said, George Morfogen as the iridescently strange lifer Bob Rebadow, Kirk Acevedo as the soulful and deranged Miguel Alvarez, Kristen Rohde as the loathsome guard Claire Howell, and Rita Moreno as the ever-measured Sister Peter Marie, plus too many others to list. Somewhat curiously, there's quite a bit of cast crossover with the various Law & Order shows, so there is the incongruous pleasure of seeing JK Simmons one night as L&O;'s police psychiatrist Skoda, and the next night as white supremacist Vern Schillinger. Or B.D. Wong as a priest and a shrink, or SVU's Christopher Meloni as a cop and omnisexual predator Chris Keller, or CI's Kathryn Erbe as a cop and child-murderess Shirley Bellinger.
Australians can watch Oz on SBS on Monday nights. For the rest of the world, the first three seasons are available on DVD. I suggest you buy them and watch them, preferably with someone who is not opposed to intense violence, cussing, or full-frontal male nudity.
« That's quite enough, thank you
This is, as far as I know, the first-ever example of Hungarian-Mexican fusion cuisine*. It is a recipe of my own invention, a cross between two signature dishes of those two cultures: chicken paprikash and mole poblano. Three of the pickiest eaters in the southern hemisphere pronounced it delicious.
*If it isn't, don't tell me. I'd like to think of myself as a pioneer.
Please, may I have more? »
Czardas-Mariachi Chicken
1 pound chicken breasts, cut up into bite-sized pieces
2 medium onions, finely chopped
1 tablespoon butter
3 tablespoons ancho chile powder
2 tablespoons unsweetened cocoa powder
1 tablespoon garlic powder
1 1/2 teaspoons salt
1 teaspoon ground cumin
1 teaspoon cinnamon
1 teaspoon sugar
1/2 cup tomato puree
1 cup water
1 cup sour cream
1. Melt the butter in a large saute pan or deep electric frypan, on low heat. Cook the onions until translucent.
2. Put chicken in the same pan, turn heat up a bit, and cook until browned. Don't overcook.
3. Mix chile, cocoa, garlic powder, salt, cumin, cinnamon and sugar in a bowl and combine well.
4. Add water, tomato puree and spices to the pan. Stir well, cover, and simmer for 1 hour. Add more water if necessary to cover chicken completely.
5. Uncover pan and turn off heat. Let cool for 5 minutes. Add sour cream and stir well.
Serve over rice, noodles or spaetzle.
« That's quite enough, thank you
A few weeks ago I received this comment from "Becca" in response to a post from a year ago, talking about how Buffy and Harry Potter have reignited (pun intended) interest in paganism:
Just because you do not belong to the church of Satan does not disqualify you from practicing Satanic "practices."
You may be laughing, but God is not.
Well. Where to begin?
Please, may I have more? »
As constant readers of this blog know, there is no more staunch defender of religius liberty and pluralism than me. I am firmly of the belief that every human being has the right to choose to worship God(s), or not, in their own way. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Pagan, Zoroastrian, Scientologist, whatever. Any approach to God that brings peace, enlightenment or knowledge to a seeker is indubitably a good thing.
At the same time, there is no bigger loather of proselytizing and evangelism of any sort. Your right to worship God as you see fit ends at my epidermis. Feel free to tell me about your faith, but don't dare try to convert me. I am not swayed by anyone telling me that I will go to Hell if I do not accept Jesus as my personal savior. Telling me that a certain behavior is "un-Christian" or "Satanic" does not move me... why would it? Since I am not a member of that faith, the context of the insults is completely moot. Israeli Jews who try to ban the selling of pork or shrimp in Jerusalem are doing nobody any foavors, and are inflicting their own dietary rules on other religions. They should be ashamed of themselves. Laws against homosexuality because it goes against the Bible/Koran are wrong. Legislatures have no right to concern themselves with enforcing the word of God, at least not in a supposedly free society.
And certainly not least, Muslims who fly planes into buildings and commit other terrorist acts because they are warring with the "infidel", have no place in this world. I am amazed whenever I see pictures of rallies in Iraq, of Moqtada al-Sadr and his "followers". "Followers", for Pete's sake. I am incredulous that in this day and age, a person can still be induced to commit murder for God on the say-so of someone who claims to have a direct line to Him. How do you know your leader is really talking to Him, and not some schizo voices in his head?
I am mildly amused when proseytizers tell me they are merely doing it out of love and concern for my eternal soul. My soul will be just fine, thank you, without any help from an earthly religion. It is the height of arrogance to think that I, poor lost lamb, need A PERSON (priest, rabbi, lama, mufti) to help me talk with God. Does God not speak English? Is He so lofty and removed from His people that He needs an interpreter? I refuse to believe that.
Not to mention that the track record of organized religion when it comes to "loving thy neighbor" is pretty lousy. Every theocracy in the history of the world has been catastrophic for people who do not adhere to the ruling faith. And people, even highly religious people, are fallible and corruptible. (One might even argue that highly religious people are *especially* corruptible, because they think that they are under God's personal protection and are thus invulnerable.) Witness the Catholic church pedophilia scandals, the selling of indulgences in the Medieval church, the Hindu caste system and the continuing oppression of women in the orthodox branches of Islam and to a lesser extent, Judaism.
I am of the (small-g) gnostic view that every human has a spark of the divine inside them, and that with time, can be come to truly know God. Note that I specified "gnostic" lowercase. I do not subscribe to the philosophy of the Gnostics, who feel that the material world is a prison preventing us from reuniting with God. I quite like the material world. Bodies, beautiful mountain views, the sound of Mozart, orgasms, the feel of a soft puppy in my arms, the smell of a perfect pink peony. Would God have made all these sensory pleasures if we were not meant to enjoy them? Are they there solely as a temptation for us to avoid, to prove our virtuousness? I don't think so.
In sum, although my personal faith may be dribs and drabs of various philosophies, I expect people to respect my choices. If your religion makes you happy, good on you. Just don't condemn me for not being like you.
And as for Becca, may I politely urge you to take two running leaps straight to the Hell of your choice.
« That's quite enough, thank you
For reasons that need not concern us, I have just acquired a large quantity of lemons... about two dozen or so. I've already made a batch of Creepy Alien Cookies in their original lemon incarnation, and soon to come is "Tom Paine's" roast lemon chicken.
Any readers with favorite recipes involving lemons are requested to contribute them in the comments section.
Yes, I'm still alive
Sorry for the dearth of blog posts recently. I've recently gotten access to the ACT public library, and have been doing some reading of actual, you know, books. (I guess that's one of the few advantages of living in a high-tax area like Canberra: they have a bloody good library system. They have a searchable online catalogue, and they will deliver books from any branch in the system to your local for easy pick-up.)
So, expect some more posts from me soon. I've got recipes, reviews and rants ready to go shortly.
July 19, 2004
Itty-Bitty Balls of Bloviation
Since it's an election season, can we just concede that all conservatives, libertarians, Republicans, and the like, are a bunch of hideously deformed cross-burning, Black-lynching, Jim Crow-loving racist fucks?
Oh, I don't mean to say that said people are racist. In my experience, they aren't racist, and in fact are desparate to prove that they aren't.
It's just that we could save an awful lot of repetitive speeches from the Democrats if we could just use some shorthand for evil racist Republicans, like Rush Limbaugh uses "Ditto" to save time.
Really - I get so tired of hearing the same bullshit speech about how Republicans hate Blacks, that I can't listen to anything else in the speech - and lately, comments on how all Republicans are racist are usually the lead-in for Kerry events, to warm up the crowd the way a B-list comedian warms up the crowd with lame observational humor. Some helpful shorthand for evil Black-and-Hispanic-Hating-Republicans would be helpful here. Perhaps calling us the "lynch mob mafia," or taking a clue from E-Commerce honchos, like "R-Bigots." That would allow me to ignore that part of the message and concentrate on the really useful and positive parts of the Dem message that are meant to reach open-minded people like me - parts of the message like the part about Republicans hating all poor people, or wanting to pull a Matthew Shephard on all gay people.
You'd think I'd be upset by this. Nahhh, it's just politics. There's nothing wrong with calling roughly half the country a bunch of retrograde bigoted reactionary racist pigs -- no moreso than calling an opponent a child molestor or a dog-buggerer. You see, it's just politics, you racist shitheads. So go burn your crosses, and get over it... *
I notice that the Belgravia Dispatch's merciless hammering on Josh Marshall and [H]ambassador Joe Wilson continues apace. Josh Marshall has apparently started to back off some of his claims regarding Wilson - you'll remember, Marshall's original stories had the loons over at my favorite partisan hate site, [H]atrios' Esshiton (phonetic) crowing that Dick Cheney would be frog marched out of the Naval Observatory. (The Veep's official housing unit). Sadly for the lefties, it didn't pan out, and now it appears that Wilson Lied, people died. So Marshall, who has something like a journalistic career going on when he's not too busy makin' shit up to support the DNC's talking points, has to back off a bit or face a complete loss of credibility among the four people outside of his political camp who still give his stories a modicum of credence. So I'm wondering if the folks at [H]atrios are going to disown him - and start talking about how he'd be a better journalist, if he wasn't so busy fellating the RNC?
Please, may I have more? »
Wretchard at the consistently excellent Belmont Club notes with interest that some very smart folks, including Bat Yeor, David Warren and Nelson Ascher all doubt our ability to win the war we're in. They are all starting from a premise that we are indeed at war with Islam, or at least a substantial chunk of it. Therefore, they argue, we are not yet able to win it because (1) we are too politically correct to say we are fighting against a religious sect (fundamentalist Wahabbism) (Warren); (2) that politicians are actually unable to voice this truth - there would be real political backlash (Bat Yeor); and (3) that the West is really squeamish about dancing around in other people's blood in the total war mode, something that is an unappeaseable, full time occupation/hobby for the radicalized Arab and Muslim population.
I'm not sure what I think about this. If we really are at war with a religion, then it's time to sharpen the long knives and go to work. We can win, but Western society will be violently riven, and those nations and men that take up the fight will suffer the recriminations of the "Brotherhood of Nations" as well as their own soft countrymen. I don't think Wahabbism has any chance of displacing any Western nations that choose to fight it. I do think, however, that the pacifist left (and much smaller pacifist right) could pretty easily destroy the West from within. Goddamit - everywhere I look it feels like 1683 Vienna.
Orson Scott Card hits it out of the park on the election question.
We have a war going on. Anybody who’s serious about winning it cannot consider, even for a moment, voting for Kerry. No other issue compares to that one.
We can’t afford to be stupid this year.blockquote>
Yeah, that about sums it up.
Oh, fer Allah's sake...
*Yes - that part of the post was about chin-deep in sarcasm. I am thoroughly pissed at being classed as a racist by people who have never met me. Race-baiting is a disgusting, scummy habit on their part, and I'm not impressed.
« That's quite enough, thank you
July 17, 2004
USA Airline Incident: No Safer after 9-11
This is a rather disturbing article on how easy it would be for multiple terrorists to take out an airline flight.
As we sat waiting for the plane to finish boarding, we noticed another large group of Middle Eastern men boarding. The first man wore a dark suit and sunglasses. He sat in first class in seat 1A, the seat second-closet to the cockpit door. The other seven men walked into the coach cabin. As aware Americans, my husband and I exchanged glances, and then continued to get comfortable. I noticed some of the other passengers paying attention to the situation as well. As boarding continued, we watched as, one by one, most of the Middle Eastern men made eye contact with each other. They continued to look at each other and nod, as if they were all in agreement about something. I could tell that my husband was beginning to feel anxious.
The take-off was uneventful. But once we were in the air and the seatbelt sign was turned off, the unusual activity began. The man in the yellow T-shirt got out of his seat and went to the lavatory at the front of coach -- taking his full McDonald's bag with him. When he came out of the lavatory he still had the McDonald's bag, but it was now almost empty. He walked down the aisle to the back of the plane, still holding the bag. When he passed two of the men sitting mid-cabin, he gave a thumbs-up sign. When he returned to his seat, he no longer had the McDonald's bag.
Then another man from the group stood up and took something from his carry-on in the overhead bin. It was about a foot long and was rolled in cloth. He headed toward the back of the cabin with the object. Five minutes later, several more of the Middle Eastern men began using the forward lavatory consecutively. In the back, several of the men stood up and used the back lavatory consecutively as well.
For the next hour, the men congregated in groups of two and three at the back of the plane for varying periods of time. Meanwhile, in the first class cabin, just a foot or so from the cockpit door, the man with the dark suit - still wearing sunglasses - was also standing. Not one of the flight crew members suggested that any of these men take their seats.
Post 9-11 I don't think I would have allowed things to progress as far as things did, without taking physical action against the "terrorists".
Read the rest of the article. Don't tell me that you feel safe with our current level of security and regulations.
Martha Stewart Goes to the Big House
Martha Stewart just got 5 months in the slam.
I bet she has the best looking cell within 5 hours of being locked up.
She will appeal, but since this was a rather light sentence, and I can't see an Error Of Law, she will lose on appeal.
I'm sure they stopped trading on her stock. I bet it takes a huge nose dive when they re-list it.
I wonder if she can start over when she gets out, or if her reputation is permanently destroyed?
Bobby Fisher Won’t You Please Come Home?
Japan is holding former World Chess Champion, Bobby Fisher, after he tried to leave that country with an invalid US passport.
Fischer, 61, was detained at Narita Airport outside Tokyo while trying to board a Japan Airlines flight for the Philippines on Tuesday, according to friends and airport officials. The U.S. Embassy confirmed Fischer was detained.
Hey, we can't catch Islamo terrorists, but we can nab guys who are packing rooks!
Please, may I have more? »
It was not immediately clear if Fischer would be extradited to the United States, where he is wanted for playing a 1992 chess match in the former Yugoslavia in violation of international sanctions. Japan and the United States have an extradition treaty.
Yes, that dangerous violation of international law, unsanctioned chess matches. Better lock Fisher up before he castles again.
Then again he did break the law in for his own personal gain, and that should not just be let go.
“He didn’t know that his passport had been revoked,” said Watai, a member of the Japan Chess Association. “He had been traveling frequently over the past 10 years, and there was never a problem. I don’t understand why his passport was revoked all of a sudden.”
Gee, Watai, maybe that whole pesky 9-11 thing is making the US more interested in not letting law breakers fly all over the world? With the heightened security it was only a matter of time before Fisher was identified and arrested.
In the radio interviews, Fisher praised the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, saying America should be “wiped out,” and described Jews as “thieving, lying bastards.” His mother was Jewish.
Yes, I bet that was one reason the US had started looking for him again. Advocating the destruction of your home country tends to be frowned upon by the government.
Filipino Grandmaster Eugene Torre, another longtime friend of the former champion, said Fischer had been planning to seek political asylum in Switzerland and was caught off guard by the arrest. “Poor Bobby,” he said.
I can't really say that my heart breaks for the guy. He's a jerk and deliberately did things to piss off the USA. If he was really as smart as he thinks he is, then he would have asked France or Switzerland to grant him citizenship a long time ago.
The only asylum he is going to get now is if he pleads insanity, and they put him in Sing Sing.
« That's quite enough, thank you
July 16, 2004
The funniest thing you've seen all week
Put down all food and beverages, swallow, and shoo away delicate coworkers and youngsters before clicking on the link below.
Please, may I have more? »
July 14, 2004
Cultural choices, or How Cool Am I?
Terry Teachout's cultural quiz, via Sheila O'Malley:
1. Fred Astaire or Gene Kelly? Gene Kelly
2. The Great Gatsby or The Sun Also Rises? The Great Gatsby
3. Count Basie or Duke Ellington? Duke
4. Cats or dogs? Dogs
5. Matisse or Picasso? Matisse
6. Yeats or Eliot? Yeats
7. Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin? Chaplin
8. Flannery O’Connor or John Updike?. Can't really make an educated judgment on either.
9. To Have and Have Not or Casablanca? Casablanca!
10. Jackson Pollock or Willem de Kooning? Pollock
Please, may I have more? »
11. The Who or the Stones? Stones
12. Philip Larkin or Sylvia Plath? Never read either.
13. Trollope or Dickens? Dickens
14. Billie Holiday or Ella Fitzgerald? Ella
15. Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy? Tolstoy, by a hair. Both big fat bores, though.
16. The Moviegoer or The End of the Affair? Dunno.
17. George Balanchine or Martha Graham? Balanchine
18. Hot dogs or hamburgers? Hamburgers. Of course.
19. Letterman or Leno?Letterman.
20. Wilco or Cat Power? Huh?
21. Verdi or Wagner? Ooh, tough one. Verdi, but it was close.
22. Grace Kelly or Marilyn Monroe? Grace Kelly.
23. Bill Monroe or Johnny Cash? Cash.
24. Kingsley or Martin Amis? Neither/both.
25. Robert Mitchum or Marlon Brando? Brando.
26. Mark Morris or Twyla Tharp? Mmmmm, Mark Morris.
27. Vermeer or Rembrandt? Rembrandt.
28. Tchaikovsky or Chopin? Tchaikovsky, for the "Souvenir de Florence" sextet and "The Queen Of Spades"
29. Red wine or white? White. Red gives me wicked hangovers.
30. Noël Coward or Oscar Wilde? Oscar
31. Grosse Pointe Blank or High Fidelity? I'll get back to you after I've seen them.
32. Shostakovich or Prokofiev? Shostakovich, fo' sho'.
33. Mikhail Baryshnikov or Rudolf Nureyev? Nureyev.
34. Constable or Turner? No entiendo.
35. The Searchers or Rio Bravo? Searchers.
36. Comedy or tragedy? Comedy.
37. Fall or spring? Fall.
38. Manet or Monet? Monet.
39. The Sopranos or The Simpsons? Simpsons!
40. Rodgers and Hart or Gershwin and Gershwin?Les Gershwins.
41. Joseph Conrad or Henry James? Conrad.
42. Sunset or sunrise? Sunset. Sunrises are too early.
43. Johnny Mercer or Cole Porter? Not a fair question. Cole Porter was a composer/lyricist, while Johnny was basically just a lyricist. In any case, Cole Porter.
44. Mac or PC? PC. Macs are stupidly overrated.
45. New York or Los Angeles? Oh my gods. As if. New York. No contest. Please.
46. Partisan Review or Horizon? PR.
47. Stax or Motown? Motown, I think.
48. Van Gogh or Gauguin? Gaiguin
49. Steely Dan or Elvis Costello? Elvis.
50. Reading a blog or reading a magazine? Eek. I'll say magazine, because I can't yet carry a blog on a bus.
51. John Gielgud or Laurence Olivier? Sir John G.
52. Only the Lonely or Songs for Swingin’ Lovers? I need this one explained to me.
53. Chinatown or Bonnie and Clyde? B & C.
54. Ghost World or Election? Election.
55. Minimalism or conceptual art? They're both crap.
56. Daffy Duck or Bugs Bunny? Bugs.
57. Modernism or postmodernism? Modernism.
58. Batman or Spider-Man? Don't really care. Batman, I guess.
59. Emmylou Harris or Lucinda Williams? Emmylou.
60. Johnson or Boswell? Johnson.
61. Jane Austen or Virginia Woolf? Austen. Shoot me before I am forced to read any more Woolf.
62. The Honeymooners or The Dick Van Dyke Show? "One of these days, Alice, one of these days..."
63. An Eames chair or a Noguchi table? They both sound nice.
64. Out of the Past or Double Indemnity? Double Indemnity.
65. The Marriage of Figaro or Don Giovanni? Figaro, absolutely.
66. Blue or green? Green.
67. A Midsummer Night’s Dream or As You Like It? MND, since I've never seen AYLI.
68. Ballet or opera? Opera by several orders of magnitude.
69. Film or live theater? They both have their places. Theater by a hair.
70. Acoustic or electric? Acoustic.
71. North by Northwest or Vertigo? NBN, though it's close.
72. Sargent or Whistler? Sargent.
73. V.S. Naipaul or Milan Kundera? Not read either.
74. The Music Man or Oklahoma? Music Man.
75. Sushi, yes or no? Bleargh. No.
76. The New Yorker under Ross or Shawn? I don't read the New Yorker.
77. Tennessee Williams or Edward Albee? Williams.
78. The Portrait of a Lady or The Wings of the Dove? Portrait.
79. Paul Taylor or Merce Cunningham? Paul Taylor... never seen any Merce.
80. Frank Lloyd Wright or Mies van der Rohe? Frank.
81. Diana Krall or Norah Jones? Diana Krall.
82. Watercolor or pastel? Watercolor.
83. Bus or subway? Subway.
84. Stravinsky or Schoenberg? Stravinsky, for Pete's sake.
85. Crunchy or smooth peanut butter? Crunchy.
86. Willa Cather or Theodore Dreiser? Dreiser, though I read both of them so long ago I can barely remember.
87. Schubert or Mozart? Yikes. Another toughie. Mozart by a slim margin.
88. The Fifties or the Twenties? The Twenties for the music and the clothes. The Fifties because you could get a drink. I'll have to go with the Twenties.
89. Huckleberry Finn or Moby-Dick? Huck.
90. Thomas Mann or James Joyce? Not really a fan of either.
91. Lester Young or Coleman Hawkins? Dunno.
92. Emily Dickinson or Walt Whitman? Emily.
93. Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill? Winston.
94. Liz Phair or Aimee Mann? Dunno.
95. Italian or French cooking? Italian.
96. Bach on piano or harpsichord? Piano.
97. Anchovies, yes or no? No, no, a thousand times no.
98. Short novels or long ones? Good ones? Long. Bad ones? Short.
99. Swing or bebop? Swing.
100. "The Last Judgment" or "The Last Supper"? Last Supper.
« That's quite enough, thank you
Our Web god Mike has created a new Art Deco-inspired look for us. Pretty spiffy, dontcha think? Thanks, dearest Mike, for the beautiful work.
And yes, I am back, freshly visa-ed once again, with a sprained ankle for my troubles (fell off a ladder...don't ask). Auckland is cold this time of year. And my Lan Chile flight, to my slight surprise, went off without a single hitch. Departed and arrived on time, had the seat-back video on-demand, and friendly bilingual staff. Highly recommended, should you ever need to make the Sydney-Auckland run and don't wish to patronize Emirates or Qantas.
