List Season ::: Reading Material

I don't finish reading a great many books; oh, I start reading probably a dozen or so books every year, but if I finish even 3 or 4 I'm pleasantly surprised, and this year I finished 6

So here are the books I started this year, with a * denoting something I actually finished or will fiinish by the end of 2006.
Everything here comes with a recommendation:
*The Stranger by Albert Camus
*Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston
*The Alchemist by Paolo Coehlo
*After the Quake by Haruki Murakami
*Bartleby the Scrivener by Herman Melville
*The Iraq Study Group Report by The Iraq Study Group
Tender Is The Night by F. Scott Fitzgerald
Notes From Underground by Fyodor Dostoevsky
Candide - Voltaire
A Personal Matter - Kenzaburo Oe
Just So Stories - Rudyard Kipling
The Sun Also Rises - Ernest Hemingway


I also worked an internship at a film production company, and in the course of my work I read scripts for potential films-to-be. Here is a list of films you could/should see coming to a theater near you:

Autopsy: written by Jace Anderson, Adam Gierasch, and Evan Katz
Convoy: written by Art Marcum & Matt Holloway (currently in development with John Singleton) Writers also wrote Iron Man, slated for a 2008 release starring Robert Downey Jr and 2005 it-guy Terrence Howard.
Shoot 'Em Up: written by Michael Davis (In production, directed by Davis, starring Clive Owen and Paul Giamatti, due out next year)
Born to Kill: written by Richard Dana Smith
The Big Boss: written by Jason Burinescu

List Season ::: Music '06: Year in Review

Today we look back at music in the year that was. Bear in mind, once again, I don't listen to everything, so here is a sampling of what I listened to this year. I decided to forego the whole "10" list idea after only doing 8 yesterday, so I'll decide on a cutoff point as I'm making the list.

25 Favorite Songs of 2006
In alphabetical order:
Amos Lee - Southern Girl
Anthony David - On & On
Brooks & Dunn - Believe
Corinne Bailey Rae - Breathless
David Condos - Right Where It Belongs
Decemberists - The Perfect Crime 2
James Hunter - No Smoke Without Fire
John Legend - Coming Home
John Mayer Trio - Gravity
The Killers - Bones
Lupe Fiasco & Pharell - KickPush
Mindy Smith - Peace of Mind
O.K. Go - A Million Ways
Nelly Furtado - Maneater
The Raconteurs - Steady As She Goes
Radney Foster - Half My Mistakes
Ray Charles & Count Basie Orchestra - What A Beautiful Morning
Robert Randolph and the Family Band - Deliver Me
Robin Thicke ft. Lil Wayne - All Night Long
Snow Patrol - You Could Be Happy
Solomon Burke - Til I Get It Right
Sufjan Stevens - Henney Buggy Band
V - Picture This
Van Hunt - Daredevil
Weird Al - White and Nerdy


13 Favorite Albums of 2006
In order
Van Hunt - On The Jungle Floor
Robin Thicke - The Evolution of Robin Thicke
Amos Lee - Supply and Demand
John Legend - Once Again
Sufjan Stevens - The Avalanche
Corinne Bailey Rae - Corinne Bailey Rae
Ray Charles & Count Basie Orchestra - Ray Sings, Basie Swings
Nelly Furtado - Loose
Anthony David - Red Clay Chronicles
Robert Randolph and The Family Band - Colorblind
The Killers - Sam's Town
James Hunter - People Gonna Talk
Solomon Burke - Nashville

End of the Year = List Season:: Top 10 Sports Moments of 2006

The end of the year is time to make lists, lists, and more lists of various media and news and sports goings-on of the outgoing year, and I will be joining in on the fun. Of course, not being a full-time member of the media, I don't get around to everything, so if I missed something, it's not for lack of effort. 10 seems to be the magic number, less than that is too restricting, more than that and your list seems diluted, so from today to the end of the year it will be top 10 lists every day (provided I remember).

Today's List:
Top Sports Moments of the Year:

Rose Bowl 2006
It was Vince Young, the Man-imal, against Reggie Bush and Co. playing for the college football national championship. Early game controversial calls aside, this was a well-played, well-coached effort all around between clearly the 2 best teams in the country, decided with 26 seconds left on a Vince Young 4th down scramble for a touchdown. VY did what he did best all season, put the entire state of Texas on back and carried the Longhorns to victory, just as he did the year before against Michigan, and now he's at it again in the NFL.

Mario Williams? WTF?
There were 4, 5, maybe 6 guys who could've, no should've, gone #1 in the NFL Draft back in April: Reggie Bush, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Jay Cutler, D'Brickishaw Ferguson, AJ Hawk, etc. So imagine then-NFL Comissioner Paul Tagliabue's surprise when he strode to the podium to announce the 1st pick in the 2006 NFL Draft is....Mario Williams, DE from NC State.
In what may go down as the single best rookie class in NFL history, Williams may go down as one of the worst #1 picks ever. So many rookies have had such a huge impact, that taking just about any other playing drafted in the 1st round probably would have turned out better. The good news is, if the Raiders blow it with the #1 pick this year, they can always say "It could be worse, we could've taken Mario Williams in '06" and feel better about themselves.

Shani Davis vs. Team USA
It wouldn't be the Winter Olympics without a little controversy, but this time it didn't come from figure skating; no, this time it was speed skating. Shani Davis became the story as he elected to not participate in the team relay, to concentrate on his individual events, reducing the chances that Chad Hedrick could set an Olympic record with 5 speed skating golds.
The media took sides in the argument, calling him the selfish American, lacking perspective, others siding with Davis, saying he had no obligation to the relay team, especially since he told them last year he wouldn't do it and that to call him out now is cowardice and that he shouldn't be asked to sacrifice his own goals for those of another man.
Through it all Davis kept his head about him and did well in his individual events and appeared to maintain a reasonable relationship with Hedrick. It came out that two US skating officials had put Shani's name on the roster for the relay, "just in case", with full knowledge that he had no intention of doing it, irresponsibly yet inadvertently creating much ado about nothing, but it certain what quite the ado.

'roid Landis wins the Tour de Lance
Everyone (except the French) love Lance Armstrong and when he retired from competing in the Tour de France after winning it last year, we in America expected our days of caring about the event to be over. And they were. Until it came to our attention, about 10 stages in, that American and former Armstrong teammate Floyd Landis was in the lead and had a shot at winning. We all got behind him. Then he had a disastrous stage in the final week, falling off the pace and, presumably, out of contention. Then one night something magical happened, and he woke up with superhuman pedaling ability and he went on to be the first one down the Champs-Elysee on that fateful Sunday morning in July. Then, just when it seemed we were unbeatable, America emerging as the world cycling juggernaut, the drug test came back positive. Landis had apparently cheated. The night before his comeback ride Floyd, or as sports radio host Jim Rome dubbed him, 'Roid Landis" had ingested something illegal. The French finally had the upper-hand on an American that they never could get on Lance Armstrong, the Teflon Don of cycling. Landis blamed it on everything from whiskey, to poppy seeds, to naturally high levels of testosterone, but none of it seemed true, they just seemed like desperation, grasping at straws. Ultimately, I believe he was allowed to keep the title after accusations of sloppy handling of lab samples and what not, but the accusations of cheating are just as strong as being guilty, and such has been the fate of Floyd Landis.

George Mason to the Final 4
We all print out those brackets and fill them out, guessing at games for teams we've never seen play, with players we've never heard of, in hopes that we will get more right than the next person, seeking praise for our prescience. But as soon as the games start, we all root for the underdog. The brackets get tossed aside after that #4 seed that you had going all the way loses to an upstart WAC team in the first round. This year we got to see George Mason, a #10 seed, go all the way to the final four. Led by their 6-7 center they beat pre-season favorite UConn in the Elite 8 and before losing to champ-to-be Florida in the Final 4. One thing we learned from this "Cinderella" story of GMU is that the networks really hate the "Cinderella" story. They want the big names. People tune in to watch Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, and UCLA because they've heard of them in basketball. No one cares to watch George Mason or Wichita State, even if they are a feel-good story. In the end, we got Florida and UCLA in a forgettable championship game, unless you're Les Moonves running CBS, then it was great. And I'd tell him to get ready for rematch the upcoming tournament the way those 2 teams are playing right now.


Federer-Nadal
A new men's tennis rivalry is born. It took nearly a decade for 2 men's tennis players to emerge as legit contenders at the same time, but Roger Federer, the 25-year old Swiss wizard, is virtually unbeatable....except against the capri-wearing Spaniard Rafael Nadal. Nadal beat Federer in 4 tournament finals, inculding the French Open, Federer beat Nadal for Wimbeldon. With the resurgence of Andy Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt, and the rise of James Blake, men's tennis could be on it's way back to competing with the sliding women's side.


Zinedine Zidane and the Headbutt Heard Round the World
I remember two things about this year's World Cup and neither of them is which country won. I remember the USA scoring 0 goals and I remember one of the all-time classic sports moments, Zinedine Zidane unleashing pure, unadulterated hatred on Materazzi.



End of the Line
Andre Agassi ended his illustrious tennis career at the US Open, falling in the 3rd round to fellow old-schooler Boris Becker. He won his first Grand Slam title 14 years ago, and the fact that he was in the US Open Final last year, 20 years in to his pro career, is a testament to his abilities. Professional sports careers rarely last 20 years, and when they do, they certainly don't contain so many productive years as Agassi's. He is indeed one of the best ever, and gave us countless classic matches with "Pistol" Pete Sampras, the best tennis player I've ever seen. And he made it possible for white guys to shave their heads and not be considered members of the Klan.

Jerome Bettis also called it a career after his Pittsburgh Steelers won the Super Bowl in Detroit back in February. Retiring at #4 on the all-time rushing list in a career that split time between the LA Rams and Steelers, Bettis was popular because he a beastly 260 pound bruising runner who still had the same foot speed and agility of any other back. Nicknamed The Bus, Bettis became a fan favorite and all-around role model for the league and can now be seen Sunday nights as part of NBC's football coverage, alongside another legend, Bob Costas.


That's only 8, because I don't care to right out any more. The other 2 that made the list before I decided to pare it down were Raja Bell attempting to decapitate Kobe Bryant in Game 5 of the first round of the NBA playoffs, and Team USA losing to CANA-freaking-DA at the World BASEBALL Classic. Classic indeed.

A Less Than Merry Take on Christmas

I was thinking last night about the notion "gift cards" and how much I generally dislike them. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate it when people give gifts, but there is something very impersonal about it. It says "I don't know you or what you might like, so here is some cash." Obviously, you can't know everyone well enough to find the "perfect present", but since when did anyone need a perfect present? Andy Rooney had an interesting take on the difference between "presents" and "gifts" in his Christmas column, writing:
"The word "gift" is used frequently at this time of year and I don't care much for it. I'm suspicious of anything called "a gift." What I like at Christmas is a present. A "Christmas present" is the real thing. "A Christmas gift" is something you give to someone you don't know very well. And please don't give me anything from a "gift shop." Anything designed specifically to be a "gift" is usually useless. You give presents to friends. "

I think that says it pretty well. Between gift cards and the phenomenon of "re-gifting", one can foresee a Christmas in the not-too-distant future in which people buy gift cards to stores they like themselves, and give them to people who they know won't shop there, in hopes that the recipient with "re-gift" them in their direction. After all, according to the media this is the "me" generation, and what better way is there to love yourself at Christmas than to buy your Christmas presents for other people to give them to you.

To Blog or Not to Blog, That is the Question

After Time Magazine named "You" as 2006 Person of the Year, several members of the mainstream media, including Brian Williams and George Will, were quick to jump all over Time, decrying the amount of worthless content being posted in many blogs and Youtube videos, while extolling the professionalism of their own media outlets. On the other side, bloggers declare themselves the last true bastion of truly free press, without the need to appease advertisers or gain wide circulations/readerships and breaking down the old maxim "The press is free, as long as you can afford one"

In a level-headed, measured defense of "You" on Time.com, recognizing there is indeed a place for all of us in the world of publication, Steven Johnson writes:
"...there's no avoiding the reality that the shift from pro to am comes at some cost. There is undeniably a vast increase in the sheer quantity and accessibility of pure crap, even when measured against the dregs of the newsstand and the cable spectrum...The problem with spending so much time hashing out these issues is that it overstates the importance of amateur journalism and encyclopedia authoring in the vast marketplace of ideas that the Web has opened up. The fact is that most user-created content on the Web is not challenging the authority of a traditional expert. It's working in a zone where there are no experts or where the users themselves are the experts.

It may very well be that, as George Will wrote, that you won't find any Ben Franklin's or Thomas Paine's online blogging today, but by giving everyone a forum to potentially be discovered, maybe you will. Brian Williams splits the difference, "The larger dynamic at work is the celebration of self. The implied message is that if it has to do with you, or your life, it's important enough to tell someone. Publish it, record it ... but for goodness' sake, share it— get it out there...The assumption is that an audience of strangers will be somehow interested, or at the very worst not offended...The danger just might be that we miss the next great book or the next great idea, or that we fail to meet the next great challenge ... because we are too busy celebrating ourselves."

Are you, in fact, the new e-Benjamin Franklin? Is your blog the next "On Liberty"? If so, send your link to George Will to shut him up...and send it to me, so I can crib material from your site for posting here.

In Case You Didn't Know, tha Hood Is A Dangerous Place

For the last week we've all been kept abreast of the search (or inability thereof) for 3 missing hikers on Oregon's Mt. Hood....and I can't help but ask why it is such a big story.

For the first 4-5 days it was in the news, the story was "3 men missing on Mt. Hood, search crews can't go up due to weather" There was nothing to report, there was nothing anyone could do, and yet it was given plenty of air-time. It's not like the Natalee Holloway bonanza from last year when it may have been possible that someone had been in Aruba and seen something and keeping it in the media kept pressure on law enforcement to try to find her (although why and how we decided to focus on her particular case is another question altogether). In this situation, there was nothing we could do but wait for the weather to clear up.

When it did, the rangers found the first body. And the Sheriff held a press conference and said "We failed them."

What?

You failed them? You didn't tell them to go up on that mountain in the middle of December, you didn't create a winter snowstorm, the likes of which crop up every winter, you didn't do anything but get prepared to try to help them as soon as you could. You, sir, didn't fail anyone; they failed themselves. They failed their families. They are to blame, not you, Sheriff. These guys were not James Kim, braving the elements in attempt to save his family. That guy proudly went to his death, and is deserving of the hero label applied to him. They knew the risks of the task they were undertaking and they chose to go anyway. Not out necessity, it was for fun, for recreation. These guys were selfish.

It is selfish to take a trip up to one of the more dangerous peaks in the Western US in the middle of December with a storm on the horizon. It's not like it came out of nowhere, the northwest has been pounded by storm after storm all fall; Washington and Oregon are reporting record rainfall, and as temperatures drop, rain becomes snow, which makes traversing a mountain particularly difficult. To not consider that you could get stranded and leave your families alone, and force rescue workers to give up their Christmas and put themselves in harm's way to try to find you is incredibly myopic.

These guys should have had some restraint and common sense and climbed the mountain in the summer. Leaving behind families, wives, children, etc is just unacceptable. Oh, but they wanted to climb it in winter. Big deal, you don't always get to do what you want to do. That's part of being a grown up. You have to be responsible.

Don't get me wrong, I was hoping they would come out of it alive somehow, I wish death on no person, but I don't think what they chose to do was responsible and whatever befell/befalls them, it is of their own doing.

Should We Cut The NBA Some Slack?

There is a single NFL team that has 8, count them, 8, arrests in the last 12 months, a Chicago Bears lineman was arrested for having 6 unregistered guns in his home, one player stomped on another's head with his cleats, and countless other incidents, and yet...it is the NBA that has the public image of being a league of thugs and goons. This past weekend, there was an on-court brawl involving half a dozen players from the New York Knicks and the Denver Nuggets, resulting in over 50 combined games in suspensions and $1,000,000 in fines betwixt the two teams.

This should be a golden age for the league; last season's NBA playoffs were the best and had the highest ratings in nearly a decade, almost all of the major stars in the leauge are under 30 and on winning teams, and they instituted a dress code and a "no-whining" rule in attempt to tighten up appearances. David Stern, the commisioner, should be on top of the world, and yet, once again he's gotta do damage control to try to clean up the inexplicably negative image of his league.

I say it is inexplicable because the conduct really is nothing egregious, relatively speaking. Granted, in most lines of work, fighting on the job would get you fired (and probably sued/arrested), but this sports, and in sports this is nothing to write home about. There are on-field fights in baseball every week, with a batter charging the pitchers mound followed by the dugouts clearing. In hockey, the officials allow the players to fight, they will literally stand back and watch, then penalize them a whopping 5 minutes off the ice. But somehow, when there is a fight on the court in basketball, it merits overblown media coverage across all networks and news programs, as if it were the most newsworthy item of the day.

Am I saying we should just let is pass? No, I don't think fighting should be tolerated in any professional sports, save boxing and billiards; but if we are going to let every other sport get a free pass for miscreancy, then I see no reason to hold the NBA to a higher standard, as if basketball had some hard earned reputation as the sport of the moral paragon.

Maybe it's because the league decided earlier this decade to become the "hip-hop" league, and now it's reaping what it's sown as the media have conflated basketball players and rappers, or if it's because we can see the players with their tatoos and corn rows and baggy pants and assume they are all "gangsters", while the NFL gets away because we can't see it's players underneath helmets and pads and such. It can't simply be a race issue because the NFL and MLB consist of a majority of black players, but somehow or other the NBA is denigrated with a mishap like this, even if it only happens once or twice out of nearly 2500 games in a season, while every other sport sees it happen with much higher frequency and no one seems to notice or care. Why?

And now, a little NBA humor, courtesy of Argus Hamilton:
"NBA Commissioner David Stern agreed Monday to replace the synthetic basketball he forced on the league. He had vowed to stay the course but finally saw he was wrong. It looks like James Baker got better results with his Basketball Study Group."

PETA Don't Play That

I had to come back early just to post this. PETA is enraged that the NBA is going back to using a leather ball after trying out a new synthetic-composite ball the first 2 months of the season. Players complained that it was too slippery and somehow caused cuts and scrapes, presumably by picking up and holding on to dirt/debris off the floors.

Whatever the case, PETA responded by sending the NBA a brilliantly scathing memo, excerpted below:

"As excruciating as these 'injuries' must be for a world-class athlete, thousands of cows stand to suffer far worse if the NBA goes back to a leather basketball — so we'd like to suggest a compromise.

PETA would like to offer a lifetime supply of cruelty-free hand cream to any NBA siss … excuse me, superstar who'd be willing to give the composite ball another shot. Recreational players and NCAA athletes have been using composite balls for years without experiencing scratches or scrapes — but we understand that the delicate hands of pampered NBA superstars are far more sensitive than those of your average Joe who actually has to work for a living.

The hand cream comes in a variety of scents, including "Filthy Rich Organic" (perfect for any overpaid millionaire) and "Peaceful Patchouli" — Nash, we have a whole case of that set aside for you. Maybe by taking care of your own skin a bit better, you can allow cows who would otherwise meet their end in the slaughterhouse to keep theirs."

To Shaq: "as one of the players who has been most critical of the composite ball, you could volunteer to be our test case — since you've only played four games all season, surely you have time to work a moisturizing routine into your schedule."

To Lebron James: "the NCAA has used the composite ball for years — so it's not only an education you missed out on. Maybe you just need some more time to adjust."

Another Vacation

Once again, I will take a vacation from writing ye olde blog, though this time, not entirely of my own accord. My computer is out of comission for a while since the power adapter decided to become a raging fire hazard and the Apple website says it takes 3-4 weeks to ship a new one and there is no Apple store in Fresno I'll have to find some way of getting a new one. Also, with the Christmas play at church coming up this weekend, I'll be over there 5 of the next 6 nights in preparation, which would leave me precious little time to write as it is. So, I should be back next Monday.

In the meantime, I would like to recommend you read a little Herman Melville in your spare time. I would recommend against attempting to trudge through the Iraq Study Group Report, though I advocated it earlier in the week for members of the media and punditry (which I stand by for them, if they are going to discuss it). It is a challenge which I suffered through, if for no other reason, to be able to save you the time.

And if you're in the mood to make charitable donations this holiday season, but don't necessarily want to give to the Salvation Army/Red Cross brigade of bell ringers, you might consider Nothing But Nets. A foundation started by Sports Illustrated senior writer/editor Rick Reilly that buys and delivers mosquito-proof bed nets to children in West Africa, where mosquito-borne malaria is the leading cause of death in children in many nations. $10 buys a net, potentially saves a life.

Well, see ya later.

Contemplating (Stranger Than) Fiction

Stranger Than Fiction

Here is a film that I almost skipped over, imagining its premise a little too cutesy to be worth the price of admission. That would've been a grave mistake, as the film is one of the more interesting, thought-provoking films to be released this year.

The film poses essentially two questions:
1) How would you respond if you were told your death was "imminent"?
2) What is the responsibility of the artist to both the audience, himself/herself, and the characters in their work?

The film avoids taking itself too seriously and trying to preach a philosophy of life. Rather, it treats it all very matter-of-factly, and the characters do about what we would expect these characters to do were they real people. Ferrell does what we expect anyone to do when they find out they'll die: he takes a vacation from work, finds love, and does all the things he always wanted to do, but was too afraid to break his routine and find time for them, such as buying and learning to play a sea foam green Stratocaster.
I often wonder how many people's lives are so entrenched, so hopeless, so self-defeated that even were they to be told their death was imminent, they would do nothing out of the ordinary until they perished.

The respect for the characters exhibited by the very talented director Mark Forster (of Finding Neverland and Monster's Ball fame) is exactly one of the ideas of the film. Karen Eiffel (played by Emma Thompson) is an author writing the story of Harold Crick, an IRS drone played by Will Ferrell, who one day begins hearing her narrating his life, but only he can hear it and he hears her say some about his "imminent death" (I know what you're thinking, and no, Charlie Kauffman did not write this). He enlists the help of lit professor Dustin Hoffman to help him figure out what's going on. Through a series of tests they determines that he is in a tragedy. Hoffman compiles a list of possible authors who could be writing his story. In the meantime, Ferrell, takes a vacation from work for the first time, falls in love with a baker he was supposed to be auditing, played by Maggie Gyllenhall, and starts "living" his life for the first time. He sees Emma Thompson on TV and realizes she is the author narrating his life. He tracks her down and asks her why she is going to kill him and asks her not to write the end of his story yet, because he is finally happy, for the first time in his life. She tells him she's already written it, but because she hasn't typed it yet, it hasn't happened. She feels the only proper thing to do is to show it to him.

He reads it and acknowledges that it is a masterpiece of tragedy and tells her that he accepts his fate because it is her penultimate piece of fiction. Eiffel has a contradiction in conscience. She know Crick is just a character in her book, and yet here he is, also a living man who's existence she completley controls. She has to decide between killing him and killing her book. What about the audience/publisher? Does she owe them the best book possible, no matter what?
At the beginning of the film her problem is "I can't kill Harold Crick", because she has writer's block. At the climax of the film her problem is still "I can't kill Harold Crick", but now the statement takes on a new significance, in a sort of narrative symmetry that displays a fine grasp of storytelling technique.

She makes a decision (which should be no surprise to anyone who is familiar with American cinema) and while it may seem unsatisfying to some, I think it is the best possible ending.

The idea of the artist's responsibilities is rarely discussed, let alone in a work of art itself. I recall a conversation about whether Kill Bill or Sin City had more responsible depictions of violence. I was in the camp that Kill Bill did because it presents violence in a cartoonish fashion with no real attachment to reality, while Sin City presents its violence with a certain grisly realism, which I argued would be apt to sensitize the audience. Realistic violence played for entertainment value is, in my estimation, less responsible than over-the-top violence reminiscent of Road Runner/Wile E. Coyote cartoons.


In this case, the author character has to decide whether or not to kill off her Harold Crick character. She has never thought about it before, but now it is thrust in her face. What right does she have to create and then take away a life, she asks herself.
Societally, we willfully accept the killing of characters in books/tv/movies, but not so in real life. Why is it that we are so indifferent toward a fictional character? Murder is still murder, whether it happens on screen/page or on the street, isn't it? We allow ourselves to question the actions of characters on a moral level, we tend be queasy when too many characters are killed, or the deaths are elaborate, but what is the difference between this author killing one man, Shakespeare killing off a dozen characters in Hamlet, and Spielberg killing thousands, if not millions, in War of the Worlds? The taking of life is the taking of life is it not? Granted, it's not taking a "real" physical life, but it is taking a life, and for one reason or another we are okay with it as long as we call it tragedy, comedy, or drama.

The creator of that work of art has rationalized in his/her own mind that for the purpose of their work of art, the taking of a life is justifiable and I think that deserves examination.

The responsibility to the audience is another idea at work. Does the creator of a work have a responsibility to put forth the best possible end result for the intended audience, even at a compromise of their own original vision, ideals, or values? If the author finds killing reprehensible, how can he/she right that within himself/herself to kill off characters without remorse for the sake of a profit/success? Do the ends justify the means? WWJSMD? (What Would John Stuart Mill Do?)

I suppose, as a converse, you could ask what right the artist has to create life and then leave it incomplete. Life is a cycle of birth to death, and if the author does not kill the character, he/she is left in a state of constant being with no end and is thus never really alive because death can never come. Or does the character go on living independent of the story as written?

Either way, in some sense, it's playing God. Then we get into questions of whether or not fiction is at all justifiable and I don't want to go there right now; mainly because that's a discussion in which I would be out of my league.

Eat It Rest of the Lower 48

First it was lettuce, then spinach, now it's green onions at Taco Bell. Every state in the contiguous USA is at risk of being contaminated by tainted California produce...except California. You know what, Every Other State, it's your own fault.

Everyone in California knows better than to eat anything grown in Southern California. Heck, we know there's e-Coli in the AIR in So-Cal, you don't even wanna know what's in the groundwater (probably cholera....and more e-Coli).

So, if you all wanna go ahead and keep importing those irresistable LA greens, go ahead, but don't come over here to the Golden state trying to file lawsuits against negligent farmers for your own mistakes.....besides, all of our prisons are full anyway, and we're sending you our prisoners as it is.

Hurray, Responsibility! or: I Wish I Had Been Wrong On This One

Back on Oct. 2, I surmised of the Mark Foley scandal:
"There will be an "investigation" on the taxpayer dime that will render no results of consequence, we'll all forget in 2-3 weeks anyway, and this unfortunate episode will be under rug swept."

Well, here we are some 2 months later, this event a distant memory (if a memory at all), and today the Investigative Subcommittee report on this matter was released sans fanfare.

What I read of the report (which was primarily the summation/conclusion/last 20 pages (no pun intended)), said: 1) the committee had no jurisdiction to fully investigate the actions of Foley as he had resigned from the House 2) though several members of the House did not act responsibly in this matter, they failed to suitably transgress House Rule 23 ("a member...of the House, shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House") or Clause 9 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service ("any person in government service...should expose corruption wherever discovered") so as to require further inquiry and pursuance of this matter, stating "the Subcommittee is mindful of the ease with which decisions and conduct can be questioned in hindsight with the benefit of later discovered facts."
This little disclaimer, gives them a pass to go on for several pages (non sequitur not intended) browbeating the Republican House members for doing next to nothing, while at the same time letting them off the hook.

In the words of a classic Red Stripe commerical: Hurray, responsibility!

While I Haven't Actually Read It Yet, Let Me Tell You What It Says

All day, across all media outlets, regardless of partisan affiliations, the talk was "So the Baker-Hamilton report...blah blah blah....well I haven't read it "cover to cover yet" (said as smugly as possible) but I can tell you this about what they propose...."

Wait. Stop. I have an idea....how about you go ahead and read it first. Cover to cover. It's a brisk 96 pages, with 10 pages of foreword (which you can usually skip anyway). You can read it in an afternoon. Please, just read it before you make your pronouncements. Seriously. Don't get on a mic or in front of a camera and tell me your conclusions about it until you've read it. I'm sure as a member of the media you can rustle up a free copy. If not, it cost $10 at Borders, I know, because that's what I paid for it. Heck, write it off as a business expense. Just do yourself a favor, do your listeners a favor, do us all a favor and go ahead and read it first.

Surprise!

The Iraq Study Group Report came out today, and by all accounts, it says..........exactly what everyone expected it to say 2-3 months ago. I don't know that anything will change necessarily as a result of the report now being official (especially with several other such "reports" expected in the coming "weeks, not months"). Several of the proposed recommendations: phased re-deployment, gradual drawing down, engaging Iran and Syria, were declared "non-starters" by Tony Snow just last month (although he did some back-tracking and double-speaking regarding Iran today). Much of this seems to be what Democrats had been calling for in the run-up to the election, all the while being labeled "defeatocrats" and "the party of cut-and-run", and yet here it comes from a "bipartisan" (or is it nonpartisan...whatever the difference is) group and all of a sudden much of this is in line with the administration's policies? Are they being serious? Do they think people don't have memories (or video tape) to recognize hypocrisy?

In other news, it looks like we're "going back" to the moon, this time for good, by the year 2020. Anyone know why?

The "Youtubing" of the News

Of late, there has a been a drastic uptick in news stories generated by Youtube, TMZ, or other home video/cell-phone video user-generated content websites. The public now has a forum for putting events that would otherwise be missed out to the masses, while it gives lazy news producers easy copy. It seems like a win-win situation.

The problem which arises is that often these videos are posted without context or explanation, so what you see is what you get, and often inferences have to be made to come to any conclusion about the content. This weekend, there was a great example. A video was posted on Youtube of a cop telling 2 black guys they could get out of a littering ticket if they rapped about littering for him. They did their pathetic 2 or 3 lines and left. That's all that was on the website. Civil rights leaders and civic leaders were up in arms, decrying the act as yet another example of racist cops playing up stereotypes. However, with a little research, one learns that the incident last nearly 15 minutes, the men offered up the information that they were rappers, and that the cop told them they would get out of the ticket if they picked up the trash, which they did, then they decided to play it up for the camera and the rap about littering episode that ended up on the web took place, but none of that other stuff is in the video. Of course, none of the follow-up ever makes it to air, you have to find that buried on the station website somewhere, three days later.

The "Youtubing" of the news has added this extra level of subjectivity to the stories. It is a fair resource, but it should be used as a starting point for looking into a story, especially if you want to be considered a credible news outlet. When the story starts and stops with what is posted in a Youtube video, then we have problem.

Another video posted showed 2 little children fighting in a backyard, while a group of adults watched, cheering them on. Now, when Hannity and Colmes decided to discuss this video, they made the assumption that the parents of the two children were among the group, that they were drunk or on drugs, unemployed (possibly unemployable) and irresponsible. It's possible that all of that is true, but there's no actual proof that any of it is, because they are just guessing, it's not in the video. They brought on an "expert", failed to mention his credentials, and he did little more than agree with everything Sean Hannity said (as most of their guests do) and that was the end of the segment. Do we know what actually happened, why the kids were fighting, who the adults were, or where this happened? Nope. But they sure made it sound like they knew what they did.

Making it up as you go along is fine policy for the "War on Terror" or singing sea shanties, but for TV news "journalists", you gotta do better.

The BCS does it again

For the 8th time in 9 years, the BCS has given us the two most deserving teams in the national championship. (This is college football talk for those who may not know). Big 10 champ vs. SEC champ playing for the title. The tie to college hoop is interesting too, because Florida won the national championship in college basketball last season, and Ohio State is one of the favorites to win it this year (heck we could see OSU-Florida in the final four in 4 months, a Greg Oden-Joakim Noah match-up in the post would be an NBA scouts dream).

The BCS gets it right just about every year, and yet every year the clowns come out yelling about a playoff, until they realize the best team in the country continues to win the national championship, which is, I believe, what we all want. So if you're a playoff honk, go ahead and get it out now, because after the national championship there will be no room to complain, because the best team in college football will win the title yet again this year.

I'm taking the safe bet this year, so unless Troy Smith starts hanging out with the Cincinnati Bengals, (which would guarantee him AT LEAST 1 arrest between now and January 8) Ohio State will win the national championship.

Reviews in Brief: The Queen, Flushed Away, Turistas

While I'd like to take the time to write at length about each of these, there are other things I would like to get to as well, so I'll condense and if you want more go to Rotten Tomatoes linked on the right of the page. Now, on with the show:

The Queen:
For my money, the best movie I've seen in theaters this year. All the buzz around the film has been Helen Mirren's performance as Queen Elizabeth II. Well, all the hype is completely merited. She plays the role so well, completely immersed and able to convey her stoicism and humanity equally effectively. The film centers around the royal response to Princess Diana's death, dealing with the massive public mourning.

The film is able to showcase the theme of tradition vs progress without taking a side with either perspective, instead showing how they co-exist within the British society. The people were outraged that the queen was not responding publicly to Diana's death, yet she didn't think it was the place of the monarchy to be publicly emotional, particularly in regard to a private citizen (as Diana and Charles were divorced). Blair is stuck between the people and the palace, as he had recently been elected PM as a champion of progress, while at the same time having respect for the monarchy and realizing that he could use her support in the future should the public turn on him. It is more entertaining than I anticipated, with tone shifts from comedy of manners to weighty drama being so well-crafted that it all flows together without seeming forced. Prince Charles is realistically portrayed as the aloof goof that he is.

Flushed Away:
Flushed Away may be the most fun movie this year, right alongside Little Miss Sunshine and Thank You For Smoking. It has that classic Aardman charm and humor (think Chicken Run or Wallce and Gromit) while picking up some of the pop culture humor on which Dreamworks Animation tends to overdose. Any film that can find a way to work in a joke or gag about Finding Nemo, the Greek chorus, Franz Kafka, the World Cup, Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, and a detective named Le Frog voiced by Jean Reno, all while remaining a breezy, entertaining animated adventure is a small miracle.

Meet Le Frog

The film finds a way to bridge the British sensibilities with the American and succeeds on every level. The animation is crisp, while not taking on the creepy realism that was Happy Feet. This is animation that is gloriously exaggerated. This is Aardman's first foray into digital animation, but you wouldn't know that if someone hadn't told you. It is excellently rendered and takes advantage of the possibilities of the technique quite well.

Turistas:
The latest film from 20th Century Fox's newest imprint, Fox Atomic, the horror/gore/slasher division of the studio. The film takes a chance and I think it succeeds. I say it takes a chance because it is advertised as being in the vein of a film like Hostel or Saw, but in reality it is more of a thriller than a slasher-type film, so I think the audience may be disappointed due to misplaced expectations. It is an interesting twist on the genre with the beautiful Brazilian locales and the villain with well-articulated motives for his sadistic cutting up of American tourists, explained in a scene of gory brilliance. The main problem with the film is that once the characters get trapped and then try to make their escape (as is always the case in these films) we lose them in the dark and then in the water. We see only flashes of what actually takes place (other than one well timed hook to the foot) and as a result it loses some steam. The male lead and one of the male baddies look similar, so when they are filmed underwater, they can be difficult to distinguish. The majority of the criticisms decry either the violence or the portrayal of the "ugly American abroad". First, the violence, in my opinion is overstated. There is one really gory scene, and other than that it is largely implicit or buried under murky cinematography. As for the comments about American arrogance on display, try going on vacation anywhere in the world and not finding that (not to mention the most arrogant character in the film is an Englishman). It exists and I think it is fair game in a film. Although, there is a certain symmetry in talking about the "ugly" American, in a film filled with beautiful people.

The director, John Stockwell, also directed Blue Crush and Into the Blue, so I think it's safe to say if he's helming a project, expect hot girls (in the minimal amount of clothing required to avoid an NC17 rating) aplenty. The line this film will undoubtedly be remembered for (if it is remembered at all) is Olivia Wilde's character Bea saying "I forgot my top in Rio; does anybody mind if I go topless?"

Happy Feet: The Most Bizarre Animated Film Ever?

I can honestly say I've never in my life seen a film quite like George Miller's Happy Feet. I can't imagine writing a proper review of it ( I know, I said that about The Fountain too, but really these are 2 of the most original (if not bizarre) films you'll see this year, maybe ever). I just wrote a synopsis of it, that ended up taking forever because it is that complex. Reading what is it about will determine for you whether you should see it or not because it is impossible to understand what it's gonna be without seeing it, and after reading it you may think you know what you're in for when you do see it, but as they say, "You think you know...but you have no idea"

Before I get to explaining, I have to say the animation is incredible and eerie. The penguins are rendered wonderfully, each one unique, but they are almost too life-like and at times can be creepy. And Robin Williams voices a Latino penguin and a Barry White type character and is the narrator in another Barry White type voice, but not the same one, so he is sort of ever-present, but neither of his characters is the narrator, so that's odd too.

The film itself is bizarre because it plays as about 4 different films in one.
It starts as a standard animated film, with the outsider character, Mumble, trying to earn respect while still being himself, incorporating rousing musical numbers (originals and covers of Beach Boys, Queen, Ricky Martin, Boyz 2 Men, and more... a real mish-mash of top 40 history). In this case, all the penguins can sing, yet Mumble can't sing at all despite the fact that his parents are penguin equivalents of Madonna and Elvis, and he is shunned, despite his incredible dancing skills (hence the title). After his graduation from penguin high school where he is given the ultimate brush off because of his poor singing, Mumble is chased away by a sea lion and ends up in another part of Antarctica with small pengiuns (led by Robin Williams' 2 characters) where he gains a small group of apostles who tell him his dancing is awesome and he gains the courage to eventually returns to his own part of the continent. Upon his return, he is declared a curse because the fish have started to disappear and the elder penguins say it is because of him.

Mumble vows to clear his name and find out what has happened to the fish, beginning the second film within the film: his quixotic journey to discover what has happened to the fish. He goes across the whole continent with his little penguin friends, passes through the land of the elephant seals (which are not as convincingly rendered as the penguins) and ends up finding a large fishing vessel. He is determined to go talk to the people on the boat to tell them to stop stealing the fish. He can't get up on the boat (no surprise) but won't give up. His character is something of a Christ-like figure in sacrificing himself to save the other penguins who had cast him out as a heretic, even his father, the Elvis penguin, had turned his back on him. Now, stay with me. Where was I, oh yes, the fishing boat.

He chases the boat all across the ocean to no avail, long after it disappears from sight, and he eventually winds up on a beach somewhere in what looks like the U.S. Which leads into the 3rd phase of the film: a Twilight Zone episode. Mumble finds himself in a zoo where he tries to talk to the other penguins on display, but they are all catatonic or lobotomized into malaise, and he starts to go crazy. He tries to talk ("speaking perfect penguin") but all the people visiting his exhibit hear is squawking. It is effectively eerie and heartbreaking and would have been an incredibly interesting way to end the film. But it doesn't end there. He hears a little girl trying to get his attention tapping on the glass rhythmically and it gets him to dancing and pretty soon he is a main attraction and somehow ends up getting taken back to Antarctica with a homing device implanted so they can see if he comes from a herd of dancing penguins. He ends up finding his way back home where the traditional old penguins are angered that he's led "aliens" to them, but when they arrive, they are fearful and all start dancing in hopes that it will make the people leave them alone or be friendly.

The human explorers transmit video of the penguins singing and dancing back to the US via satellite/internet (I guess) and it sets off a brief non-animated 4th segment of the film that is eco-propoganda with the UN and congress and newspaper headlines saying things like "We need to stop stealing their fish" and "we must stop overfishing in the Antarctic" or some such. It comes out of nowhere and is completely over the top......
I guess they managed to work it out diplomatically, because the film ultimately ends with the penguins all singing and dancing together, with fish aplenty in the ocean for them to feast.

Like I said, fascinatingly curious with everything possible thrown in. I recommend everyone see it, just because you've never seen anything like it, and probably never will again. Oh, and Mumble gets the girl in the end, too.