Manderlay: A Film Recommendation

Too often we only talk about films in theaters, forgoing the great films we often see on video. I hope to continue pointing out movies available on DVD, that way you can find them on your own time, rather than missing it in theaters and forgetting about for 4-6 months.

So, with that, I submit for your approval: Manderlay.


The film by Danish master Lars Von Trier, manages to be, simultaneously and in varying degrees a brutal critique of: 1) The image of Lincoln as the great emancipator, 2) American (inter/intra)-race relations, 3) Liberal guilt, 4) Bush administration foreign policy.

The situation of the film is, in brief: Grace (played by Bryce Dallas Howard) happens upon a slave plantation in Alabama in 1933. She feels compelled to demand the slaves be rightly freed as per the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th amendment. However, once she sees that no one knows what to do next, she moves in, with a few of her father's gangster friends as her muscle, and attempts to teach everyone a lesson in freedom and democracy, but in the end she is the one who gets her come-uppance.

While the initial critcs' reviews on it were decidedly mixed, I recommend it because it is a rare film explicitly about America and it's issues/values by someone who has never been here. The outsider's perspective is usually a useful, if not entirely accurate one (although who's perspective is entirely accurate?), because it gives you (me/we) a glimpse at how we are being perceived. Even if the view of this one filmmaker is not shared by a wide swath of those outside the States, it is at the very least the view of one man, and it is always interesting to see how others view your actions.

Also, it provides a certain freedom of interpretation of events historically. In this film, von Trier draws a parallel between the liberation of black slaves in America in 1863 and the liberation of the Iraqi people in 2003. This is not a comparison that many, if any, Americans would make, as the ideas/perceptions of those two events are entrenched in their time/space completely separate from each other, and yet, by having that distance from them, it is a contention that, on some level, make sense, we are just too close to those events culturally/psycho-socially to even begin to think about connecting them.

Now, a few brief words of caution about the film, as I know not all films are for all people:
1. There are a few shots of full male nudity, and one sex scene with full male and female nudity, so if you have an aversion to such things, you might want to skip it, or at least have your remote with the fast forward button close by.

2. There is regular usage of the "N" word, and one shot of black man hanging from a tree, so if those things offend you, it might be advisable to avoid this one.

3. The film runs 140 minutes, but it is split into 8 chapters, so it provides nice breaks for watching it in episodes, but at the same time, it's runs quick and stay interesting, so you don't feel the full weight of it.

4. Finally, and maybe most importantly, the film is staged more like a play than a film. Philly critic Sean Burns says it this way in his review, "von Trier shoots Manderlay on a bare black soundstage, with white chalk marks on the floor indicating where the sets would go, if he had even a passing interest in creating any illusion of reality. The Our Town-goes-to-hell aesthetic choice should be enough of a tip-off that we're in the realm of allegory"
Here are a few screen shots, offered in explanation of the visual style:





Watch it.

Conspiracy Theorists, unite!

After spending the last few days steeping myself in conspiracy theory, seeking out controversial and unconfirmed reports, and spuriously connecting of the "the dots", here's what I've come up with:

The government planned 9/11, paid the Saudis to make 9/11 happen, which fomented anti-Arab sentiment in the US, which forced us to go after an Arab regime, which we did in taking down the Taliban, even though the Saudis supported them, but it was ok, because they just went next door to friendly Pakistan (and ally of us and the Saudis) and were provided safe haven until we had shown the American people that we had taken care of them. Then, riding a wave of hyper-aggression throughout the country, we went ahead and took down Saddam for the Saudis, creating an Iraq that could be taken over by Sunni extremists sympathetic to the rest of the region, giving them an easier inroad to Iran, which could then be overrun by Sunni crescent as well.

The Bush Administration engineered the Democrat victory in the '06 congressional elections to get people focused on global warming and, more importantly, the Iraq War now that they have finished their objective there, while they have once again started funneling money through the Saudis to get terrorists to plan a new attack on the scale of 9/11 in order to declare a state of national emergency via Executive Order, installing nationwide martial law, suspending the constitution, exerting posse comitatus, exploiting the recent repeal of habeas corpus, and rounding up overly vocal dissenters (no longer under the guise of terrorism, but 'pandemic'; notice how anthrax, West Nile, SARS, Mad Cow Disease, and Bird Flu have all of a sudden become 'the coming pandemic!" since 9/11, but never seem to affect the US yet [trial phase?]. Why weren't we 'due for a pandemic' during the Clinton years?) and placing them in the detention camps being built around the country by KBR (a subsidiary of Halliburton) claiming to be quarantining them, but in reality it would be concentration camps.

The US and the Arab world will then try to get the UN and EU on board to attempt to take down China before they become too powerful. Europe will resist and we will go ahead anyway. India will join with the US, seeing an opportunity to assert themselves as a new superpower. It will be the US, India, Japan, the Arab World, and (just for kicks) Australia fighting China, the EU, Russia, Latin America (led by Hugo Chavez), North and South Korea, and Israel, (abandoning the US for their allegiance to the Sunni Arabs) in World War 3.


Let's see you cook up something better than that!
or this:

Hollow and Not-So-Hollow Gestures

Hollow: Virginia Lawmakers Pass a Resolution Apologizing For Slavery
"Meeting on the grounds of the former Confederate Capitol, the Virginia General Assembly voted unanimously Saturday to express “profound regret” for the state’s role in slavery...The resolution says government-sanctioned slavery “ranks as the most horrendous of all depredations of human rights and violations of our founding ideals in our nation’s history, and the abolition of slavery was followed by systematic discrimination, enforced segregation, and other insidious institutions and practices toward Americans of African descent that were rooted in racism, racial bias, and racial misunderstanding...Among those voting for the measure was Delegate Frank D. Hargrove, an 80-year-old Republican who infuriated black leaders last month by saying “black citizens should get over” slavery."


Not-So-Hollow: "Making Martial Law Easier", a NY Times Op-Ed about a seemingly disturbing act from the Bush Administration and it's puppet Congress, written a week ago, it that has gone unnoticed by the mainstream media, awash in wall-to-wall Oscar coverage:
"A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration's behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.

The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president's use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order.

Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any "other condition."

Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the country's governors.

There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation's governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate."

Hollow: Congress Sets 'Stiffer' Standards For Lobbyist-Supported Travel
"In passing the rules, intended to cut ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, top Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also agreed to exemptions that allow House members to continue taking trips to destinations such as Miami and San Juan, Puerto Rico...Since the House rules leave campaign-finance laws untouched, lobbyists and members of Congress also can spend days together on golfing and ski trips paid for by a third party, generally a political fundraising committee established by a lawmaker. Lobbyists can then write checks in support of lawmakers' fundraising committees...The Aspen Institute scheduled its four-day trip to San Juan last week for members of Congress to learn more about the No Child Left Behind education law. Former Iowa senator Dick Clark, who runs Aspen's congressional program, said 16 or 17 lawmakers were scheduled for the trip. He declined to name them."

Not-So-Hollow: Continued Clandestine Operations in The Middle East by the Bush Administration
"To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda...the Pentagon is continuing intensive planning for a possible bombing attack on Iran, a process that began last year, at the direction of the President. In recent months, the former intelligence official told me, a special planning group has been established in the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged with creating a contingency bombing plan for Iran that can be implemented, upon orders from the President, within twenty-four hours...The government consultant said that Negroponte shared the White House’s policy goals but “wanted to do it by the book.” The Pentagon consultant also told me that “there was a sense at the senior-ranks level that he wasn’t fully on board with the more adventurous clandestine initiatives.” This goes back to Iran-Contra,” a former National Security Council aide told me...“And much of what they’re doing is to keep the agency out of it.” He said that Congress was not being briefed on the full extent of the U.S.-Saudi operations. And, he said, “The C.I.A. is asking, ‘What’s going on?’ They’re concerned, because they think it’s amateur hour...Time and again, the answer has been ‘Trust us.’"

And The Oscar Goes To....

It's only about an hour or so now before they start handing out statues, so I guess it's about time to put in some Oscar predictions.
For vanity's sake, I'll give who I think will win (thusly) and who I think should win for each category, whether they were nominated or not (denoted thusly). I won't pick any of my personal winners from movies I didn't see (sorry Forrest, maybe next time, although I'm sure your Golden Globe, SAG, DGA, PGA, WGA, and BAFTA awards will comfort you):

Original Screenplay: Little Miss Sunshine Stranger Than Fiction

Adapted Screenplay: Borat The Departed

Achievement in Sound Mixing: Dreamgirls Blood Diamond

Achievement in Sound Editing: Letters from Iwo Jima

Achievement in Music Written for a Motion Picture Original Song:
"Listen", Dreamgirls

Achievement in Music Written for a Motion Picture Original Score:
Gustavo Santaolalla, Babel
Philip Glass, The Illusionist

Achievement in Makeup: Pan's Labyrinth

Achievement in Costume Design: Dreamgirls

Achievement in Art Direction: Dreamgirls The Good Shepherd

Best Foreign Language Film: Pan's Labyrinth

Achievement in Film Editing: Babel United 93

Achievement in Cinematography: Emmanuel Lubezki, Children of Men

Achievement in Directing: Martin Scorsese, The Departed Paul Greengrass, United 93

Best Animated Feature Film of the Year: Happy Feet Flushed Away

Best Actor in a Supporting Role: Eddie Murphy, Dreamgirls Sergi Lopez, Pan's Labyrinth (unless The Proposition counts as a 2006 release, in which case I'd give it to John Hurt from The Proposition)

Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Jennifer Hudson, Dreamgirls Abagail Breslin, Little Miss Sunshine (once again, if The Proposition counts as a 2006 release, I'd give it to Emily Watson from The Proposition)

Best Actor in a Leading Role: Forrest Whittaker, The Last King of Scotland Clive Owen, Children of Men

Best Actress in a Leading Role: Helen Mirren, The Queen Shu Qi, Three Times

Best Motion Picture of the Year: Little Miss Sunshine Letters From Iwo Jima and Pan's Labyrinth. It's my blog and I can do as I see fit so I'm not going to force myself to choose between the two.


and for entertainment's sake (as I've gone a little mixed media crazy here recently), here's the opening number from the 1989 Oscar telecast, widely regarded as the worst opening for any awards show ever (stars 'Snow White', Rob Lowe, Merv Griffin, and a host of others. You have to see it to believe it):

Here Comes the Judge, Here Comes the Judge

I've stayed out of the Anna Nicole Smith custody drama because I don't think it matters and is largely exploitation, but a recent development in this circus has me puzzled.

There was a noticeable uptick in righteous outrage regarding the judge in the case, with the insinuation that he was playing it up for the cameras, in hopes of getting his own show, not simply adjudicating the case.

Well, here's my question. How would those, who now claim moral authority over this judge, know how he was handling the case unless they were watching? Don't tell me they have an overriding interest in family law or that Court TV is required viewing in their households; they were watching for voyeuristic entertainment value. They and virtually all media figures around the country were complicit in the exploitation of the Smith family and those around them over the past 2-3 weeks, gossiping about these lives for their own entertainment or profits. These are the same people who created Judge Judy, People's Court, and all of those other showcases for judge personalities that turned our judicial system into an attempt at entertainment. But none of them claim or take any responsibility, and now want to express indignation about this judge who might be trying to fit into their system.

The fact is, he proved that he belongs. He became a media figure, overshadowing the case itself the last day or two. The fact is, should this guy get a show for himself, these same people who are calling for his ouster today will be the first ones tuning in; the media personalities knocking him now, will be pumping up his show for ratings if he lands on their network. It's all for profit, it's all for entertainment, turning the lives of real people into fiction for their own personal enjoyment. I believe I talked about all of this yesterday, so I guess I could call this Exhibit A, a case study if you will. I'm not saying the judge should be exonerated and legitimized, quite to the contrary, I think he is a joke, but I think these other hypocritical folks are just as pathetic.

Now, when, not if, this judge gets his television program, I propose Shorty Long's R&B classic Here Comes the Judge for the theme song (if you are unfamiliar with the song, it's streaming here, it's about the 10th song down the list)

Sounds About Right

Sums it up quite succinctly, wouldn't you say?

In other news:
RIP Tom Vilsack's campaign

On TV "News" among other things

My thesaurus places gossip as a synonym or near-synonym for news (from which we believe we are getting our "information"), which is interesting when you look at how the accompanying dictionary defines the terms gossip and information.

Gossip: casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true

Information: facts provided or learned about something or someone. Knowlegde, data, and particulars are among the synonyms. News as well.

How can news be at the same time casual, unconfirmed reporting and fact, knowledge, and data? There is incompatibility in how we define news.

The difficulty is resolved when you remove those definitions of news as dispenser of gossip, reports or data or anything else that we might class as "information", and admit what it is: entertainment. The news we see on television is entertainment masquerading as "information". Every day the news is rife with sensational coverage of celebrities (which I'll get to momentarily) or murders, fires, crimes, political intrigue, wars....you know, the stuff of movies. I'm under the impression that we would watch the news more often if the content remained the same but the producers dropped the contention that it’s real “information”, to which we seem to have an aversion (“Ahh! They’re trying to make me learn!”). If people thought they were watching it for entertainment value instead of "information" they would be more inclined to watch, because the content largely falls within our range of entertainment expectations and we are infinitely more likely to seek our entertainment compared to information. Here's an experiment: Go to one of your television station news departments and ask them: "If I gave you $1,000,000, what would do with it?" and see just how much of it they'd spend on adding to their "news-gathering" capabilities compared to how much of it they'd spend on raising their production values or increasing salaries to attract better(-looking) on air talent.
Frank and Ernest puts it this way:


For whatever reason, we've increasingly, as a society, moved away from wanting to know what's going on in the "real world", retreating instead into the supposed fantasy world of 'celebrity', where things seem much more safe (in this case, perhaps the rise of the cult of celebrity can be seen as a cultural response to fears in post-9/11 America, and we avoid the “real news” because it’s simply too intimidating/scary and we feel powerless against various external forces).
What's interesting here is that we treat the ‘real’ lives of these "celebrities" as entertainment, when in reality, it's still "information", the same as on the traditional "news", but because it is prefaced by the word 'celebrity' we don't care/notice/understand the similarity.

Furthermore, I'd maintain that there is no such thing as celebrity “news”, only celebrity creation. Returning to my trusty dictionary, Fame is defined as being well-known or much-talked about "on account of notable achievements". Celebrity is simply the state of being well-known, with the achievement caveat notably absent. What this says to me, is that to be famous you have to do something, to become a celebrity you simply have to be well-known, and what better way is there to become well-known than to be on television every day. Therefore, programs that call themselves celebrity news are in actuality little more than celebrity creation, creating ‘celebrity’ for those profiled on their programs by making them well-known. How they decide who will become a celebrity seems arbitrary. It seems the pool of potential celebrities is limited to the realm of famous people, but every so often someone will rise from the depths of the proletariat and become a celeb without any notable achievement.

In the end, all television is is an appliance for advertising and marketing. Programming is just a window-display to get you into the store. It's the soft sell. All the news/entertainment/sports on television are pretending to be about entertaining you or keeping you "informed". It’s all a ruse, a hoax. It's all about making money from advertisers so they can produce more programming to get you to watch so they can get more money from advertisers. Even viewer-sponsored networks are all about getting you to donate to their pledge drives so they can produce more, maybe better programming so you'll donate to the next pledge drive ad infinitum.
This is why I respect the Home Shopping Network (and like networks) so much. It is pure television. There is no attempt to draw you in with the promise of information or entertainment. It is shameless, unadulterated peddling of product. The true nature of television on raw display. We want to sell you product and here it is. No extraneous noise, no false pretenses, just gemstones, stylish maternity clothes and toll-free numbers 'round the clock.

Photobloggage

Incoming


Dusk


Moon

Does The Constitution Still Matter?

Ask most people what they know about the Constitution and you'll likely get one of 2 immediate responses: 1) The Preamble, 2) The First Amendment. Of course, what's missing, that big thing between the preamble and the amendments....is the constitution. No one seems to know nor care what it says or means. It's become the forgotten document upon which the country was built. As we continue to move forward, we continue to move ever further from the largely states-rights based, narrowly-tailored federal government designed by James Madison and others during the Constitutional Convention, toward increased federalism, while the states become models of debility and inefficiency.

Federal elections, particularly presidential ones have the largest turnout, while local/state elections are the ones that are more likely to directly affect daily life (and ones you probably have more ability to have a voice in), providing for local cops/crime control, road improvement, building/maintaining schools, utility rates, and so on. Federal issues are all handled in DC and are controlled largely by lobbyists and special interests, and not necessarily those of the voting constituencies.

So, what do we do? Will the issues of the day (gay rights, abortion, capital punishment, etc) be decided by a conservative Supreme Court and move us back toward states rights?

There was a proposal in the early 1970's by a group led by liberal activist Robert Hutchins, who founded the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, for a new American constitution which proposed, in part: dividing the US into 20 regions instead of states, changing the presidency to one 9-year term, making the senators appointed not popularly elected, eliminating the Supreme Court, and so on.

Founder of the Heritage Foundation and conservative activist Paul Weyrich had this to say about the subject in 1987:
"There is a basic contradiction between the structure of our government [the Constitution] and our role as a great power. Our government was designed not to play great-power politics but to preserve domestic liberty. The Founding Fathers knew a nation with such a government could not play the role of great power"
(The link up there goes to an interesting page regarding the proposed 1995 Convention of States to call for a new Constitutional Convention)

Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to James Madison in 1789, the very year our constitution was enacted:
"it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please...Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right."
(Jefferson arrived at the 19 years figure as the length of 1 generation, calculating it earlier in the letter based on average life expectancy at the time [which, I gather, was around 55 years] while discussing the concept of national debt. Read it.)

On this 275th birthday of our nation's first president, George Washington, I feel it fitting to let him have the last word:
“The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government”


What say you?

Vacation

It's been a busy first 6 weeks of 2007 here, and since I can't get a vacation from work, I will give myself a vacation here. Back next week, unless something comes up that I need to write about.

In the meantime, I recommend a trip to the theater to go see Bridge to Terabithia, Music and Lyrics, or Catch and Release

Happy 187th to Susan B. Anthony

Continuing in this unplanned week of birthday quotations (which I assure you will not extend beyond this week, it just happens to be a fertile week for birthdays) and coinciding with the release of the new president-based dollar coin series, tonight I present to you, Susan B. Anthony, former dollar coin cover girl.
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."

"What you should say to outsiders that a Christian has neither more nor less rights in our Association than an atheist. When our platform becomes too narrow for people of all creeds and of no creeds, I myself shall not stand upon it"

"Sooner or later we all discover that the important moments in life are not the advertised ones, not the birthdays, the graduations, the weddings, not the great goals achieved. The real milestones are less prepossessing. They come to the door of memory."

"Let me tell you what I think of bicycling. I think it has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world. It gives women a feeling of freedom and self-reliance. I stand and rejoice every time I see a woman ride by on a wheel...the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood."

“Cautious, careful people always casting about to preserve their reputation or social standards never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest are willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathies with despised ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences.”

"Universal manhood suffrage, by establishing an aristocracy of sex, imposes upon the women of this nation a more absolute and cruel despotism than monarchy; in that, woman finds a political master in her father, husband, brother, son. The aristocracies of the old world are based upon birth, wealth, refinement, education, nobility, brave deeds of chivalry; in this nation, on sex alone; exalting brute force above moral power, vice above virtue, ignorance above education, and the son above the mother who bore him."

What's A Homophobe To Do? or: Once Again, Sports Is Out On The Forefront

Yesterday, on Miami sports personality Dan LeBatard's radio show, former NBA all-star Tim Hardaway had this to say when asked how he felt about the possible presence of homosexuals in professional sports:
"You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I'm homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

He was swiftly removed from his position with a CBA team and David Stern more or less said he was no longer welcome as an ambassador for the NBA.

Here's my question: When he was asked this question, should he have done as he did and given his honest opinion, or should he have sugar-coated and/or lied to be politically-correct and save face? When given a chance to clarify his opinions, he simply said he was saying what other people are afraid to say and that he would say the same thing even if it was somebody in his own family (which a lot of people say until they are actually confronted with it).

This is why I think sports can be so nourishing to our society. If you listened to any major sports radio talk show today (Dan Patrick, Jim Rome, Colin Cowherd, Tony Bruno, etc) they were having frank and honest discussion about homosexuality in society and the responses to it in a way that is never approached in the traditional avenues of discussion about the topic because in sports it's not a political argument used for personal aims as it is in Washington; it can't really be commodified the way it is in Hollywood. In sports, you are simply dealing with real people and their real reactions, free from extraneous nonsense.

The same thing happened back in 1947, when Branch Rickey brought in Jackie Robinson to play for the Dodgers. It wasn't a political stunt, it was simply because he was trying to bring in the best ball player. But it sparked a nationwide discussion on the issue of race discrimination a decade before the civil rights movement was set in motion.

Regardless of what you personally think about homosexuality and homosexuals, the presence of a civil and real discussion of so polarizing an issue is refreshing in this age of cursory overview and phony ideals.

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise."
-Benjamin Franklin

Another Birthday, More Quotes

Today we celebrate what would've been Frederick Douglass' 190th:

"Lincoln was the first great man that I talked with in the United States freely who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color."

"I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong."

"I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence."

"A little learning, indeed, may be a dangerous thing, but the want of learning is a calamity to any people."

"Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning."

"One and God make a majority."

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them."

"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe."

"The life of a nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous."

"America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future....What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy-a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms- of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival."

This Valentine's Day, Show Her How Much You Care....

....by giving her chocolate and roses, purchased from child labor plantations in South America and West Africa.

From a recent op-ed in the Fresno Bee:
"Millions of pounds of cocoa come into our country from Central and South America and Africa. Farmers are paid pennies for crops. Children are forced to work the cocoa plantations instead of going to school. Families eke out a meager existence while middlemen and candy companies reap enormous profits. This sweet delight comes at the expense of growers and child laborers.

Americans buy more than 150 million roses each year. Many of these roses come from huge rose plantations in Central and South America and now China. These plantations pay very low wages and often expose their workers to dangerous chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides and fungicides."

And this from human-rights organization Global Exchange:
"The Harkin-Engel Protocol was prompted by media exposés in 2001 by Knight Ridder and others that made public the existence of child slavery on Ivory Coast cocoa farms, and created an avalanche of negative publicity and consumer demands for answers and solutions. Two members of the U.S. Congress, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Representative Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), took up the issue by adding a rider to an agricultural bill proposing a federal system to certify and label chocolate products as "slave free." The measure passed the House of Representatives and created a potential disaster for Mars, Hershey's, Nestle and other major chocolate manufacturers. To avoid legislation that would have forced chocolate companies to label their products with "no slave labor" labels (for which many major chocolate manufacturers wouldn't qualify), the industry agreed to a voluntary protocol to end abusive and forced child labor on cocoa farms by 2005. According to the protocol, the chocolate industry was to develop and implement credible, mutually acceptable, voluntary, industry wide standards of public certification, which would take effect by July 1, 2005. Despite this commitment, there has been almost no progress in the design and implementation of a monitoring or certification program."

Be an informed consumer, know what you're buying. Demand fair-trade products.

Unless, you're like me and are simply too poor to live up to your noble ideals (or if you don't have the time to run from place to place looking for "slave-free" chocolate or flowers today because you put off buying anything until the last minute and you know your girlfriend won't buy your humanitarian rationalizing).
In that case, buy whatever is most convenient and feel free to revel in the contradiction.

Oops!

On a conservative talk radio show today, I heard the host say, "There's a new book out that you just know the liberal media won't be talking about, called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming."

Tonight on The Daily Show: Author Christopher Horner discussing his book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming"

Another 198th Birthday

Coincidentally born the same day as Lincoln, Charles Darwin. Now we hear from the father of the theory of natural selection:

"I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science."

"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change."

"I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved (and I cannot resist forming one on every subject), as soon as the facts are shown to be opposed to it."

" As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."

"A man who dares to waste one hour of life has not discovered the value of life."

"If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin."

“How paramount the future is to the present when one is surrounded by children”

"A man's friendships are one of the best measures of his worth."

“I fully subscribe to the judgement of those writers who maintain that of all the differences between man and the lower animal, the moral sense of conscience is by far the most important....It is the most noble of all the attributes of man.”

“I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me.”

The Words and Wisdom of "Honest" Abe

Time to hear from Abraham Lincoln, on what would have been his 198th birthday:

From the legendary Lincoln-Douglas debates, 1858:
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything"

From a letter to Horace Greeley, 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Lincoln in a letter to the Frankfort Commonwealth newspaper, 1864:
"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling. It was in the oath I took that I would, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power...And I aver that, to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensabale means, that government -- that nation -- of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution?...I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it."

From his 2nd Inaugural Address, 1865: "Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding.
Fondly do we hope — fervently do we pray — that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.'
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan — to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."

"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."

Welcome to Negro History Week

Back in 1926, Dr. Carter G. Woodson established the 2nd week of February (so chosen for being the week of the birthdays of Lincoln and Fredrick Douglass) as "Negro History Week" to overcome the historical portrait of blacks solely as slaves and sharecroppers and to instead praise the contributions of blacks absent from the history books of the day, with the dream that one day the need for the week could be eliminated, with Black History being fully integrated into American history. Instead, on its 50th anniversary it was expanded to Black History Month in 1976.

The question of when (and/or if) it will no longer be necessary lingers. Some say it will always be necessary, others have been against it from the beginning arguing it promotes separatism, and many fall somewhere along the spectrum between those extremes (or, as with many things, have no opinion at all)

Regardless of your opinions on the necessity of Black History Month, the great injustice is that Woodson himself has largely been forgotten. He was the 2nd black man to receive a ph.D from Harvard [in history] and the first child of former slaves to earn a doctorate. Today, in observance of Negro History Week and celebration of Dr. Woodson, are a few of his mostly unseen (or under-seen) words:

"Those who have no record of what their forebears have accomplished lose the inspiration which comes from the teaching of biography and history."

"Truth comes to us from the past, then, like gold washed down from the mountains."

“We need workers, not leaders. Such workers will solve the problems which race leaders talk about.”

"In our so-called democracy we are accustomed to give the majority what they want rather than educate them to understand what is best for them."

“The educational system of a country is worthless unless it [revolutionizes the social order]. Men of scholarship, and prophetic insight, must show us the right way and lead us into light which is shining brighter and brighter.”

“If you can control a man’s thinking, you don’t have to worry about his actions. If you can determine what a man thinks you do not have worry about what he will do. If you can make a man believe that he is inferior, you don’t have to compel him to seek an inferior status, he will do so without being told and if you can make a man believe that he is justly an outcast, you don’t have to order him to the back door, he will go to the back door on his own and if there is no back door, the very nature of the man will demand that you build one.”

Slow News Week

In the absence of anything of substance happening in America (other than the impossible to follow labyrinth that is the Scooter Libby trial), our grand 4th estate, the media, decided to pick up on and run with all sorts of non-stories:

1. Obama smokes!
Apparently Barack Obama smokes cigarettes, or at least he did, claiming he quit on Christmas Day. The right claims he is doing it only to pander to liberals. Only in a slow news week can a man have decided to do something to improve his health 6 weeks ago and be accused of playing politics (oh, how I wish that was true).

2. Castro eats!
Fidel Castro apparently had not been eating. Now he is. End of story.

3. Nancy Pelosi wants a super-plane!
As Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is granted access to a military plane (presumably for safety reasons) for public business in her home district, same as former Speaker Dennis Hastert. She said if the plane is unable to fly her home to San Fransisco non-stop, she would prefer to fly commercial. Somehow, that became her abusing her power as S of the H, whining and complaining for a Jumbo Jet capable of "bringing a circus" along with her (thanks to CNN's Lou Dobbs for that one). You'd think around time the White House came out in her defense was the time this should have died, but, predictably, it lives on, because it's a slow news week.

4. Rupert Murdoch admits agenda-setting at FoxNews!
At the Davos economic summit Rupert Murdoch admitted that at Fox News they attempted to shape public opinion heading into the war, strongly supporting the Bush plan, which drew the ire of media watchdogs everywhere, declaring Fox must now remove their 'Fair and Balanced' pith. Of course, this misses the point that all news attempts to set the agenda, deciding what to report or not report and in what order is putting forth an agenda of what you think is important or what the public should care about. Murdoch isn't even the first one to say it. For instance, America's favorite "golden age of news" anchor Walter Cronkite:
"We cannot be simply a mirror to the world. We've all got to set an agenda of what is most important to lead this broadcast, if you please or leads the piece in the newspaper on the basis of the fact that we have a responsibility to call these things to people's attention, whether they or -- this is the first piece they're going to want to read or not. "

5. Diaper!
Were it not for her diaperedness, that crazy astronaut lady would never have been the story it became. The unfortunate thing is we run her into the ground and ruin her life, making the biggest possible deal out of her wearing diapers, ever glossing over the fact that she was a mother of 3, never stopping to consider the effect this could have on her now permanently tease-worthy children. The NASA connection makes it worth reporting, but the round-the-clock reportage for 2 days is further evidence of a slow news week.

6. RIP Anna Nicole Smith...by the way, who was your baby-daddy
Celebrity deaths are usually juicy fodder for E! and the news for 1 day, built on celebrating the lives of the deceased, but this Anna Nicole Smith thing is peppered with the tactless questions about drug use and who fathered her child. Do you think any of these media folks really cares about her child? Probably not. But do they love salacious gossip? You betcha, anything for eyeballs in a slow news week. (As an aside, salacious is just one of the adjectives that sounds exactly like what it means)

Just When You Thought There Couldn't Possibly Be Any More Global Warming News...

...here come a few new ideas from the Europeans, attempting to save us all from ourselves:

The Norwegian Government revealed plans for "a Noah's Ark for nearly every food crop of every country, to safeguard the agricultural heritage of humankind in the face of increasing global environmental changes" earlier this week. While the Noah's Ark analogy is amusing, it certainly does not appear to be apt, as it looks like they are going to be playing a game of agricultural eugenics, "Given the option of modern varieties of agricultural crops, which are often more productive, farmers often make a rational economic decision to grow those varieties, and older traditional varieties can literally just be eaten up in a bowl of porridge and go extinct". Oh, those crazy Norwegians. Can't say too much bad about them, they gave us a great Winter Olympics in 1994, with the added intrigue of Gillooly-gate.

The UN has decided industrial polluters can take their CO2 and shove it.....under the ocean. "International rules allowing burial of greenhouse gases beneath the seabed enter into force on Saturday...The new rules will permit industrialists to capture heat-trapping gases...and entomb them offshore." The rules allow only for storage of collections that are "overwhelmingly carbon dioxide with no added waste." How they plan to determine that and enforce that and define overwhelmingly is anybody's guess. Greenpeace is, as usual, concerned.

And finally this Friday evening, a little friendly competition, courtesy of one Richard F. Branson:
'British tycoon Richard Branson dangled a $25 million prize before the world's top scientists Friday seeking to spur research into devising ways to suck greenhouse gases out of the air. 'Man created the problem, therefore man should solve the problem,' Branson said. He compared the quest to a competition Britain's Parliament launched in 1714 to devise a method of estimating longitude accurately."

Of course, he's going all Paul Tagliabue on the potential payout, treating it like an NFL contract, big signing bonus with no further guaranteed money, "Organizers of the "Virgin Challenge" said the winner would receive $5 million once judges ruled a carbon-dioxide removal process succeeded. The rest of the money would be paid out over a 10-year period if the judges decided the goal of removing significant amounts of greenhouse gases had been met over the long term."

The (Not-so) "Beautiful Game" Turns Ugly

In this country, fans get rowdy/drunk/loud at football games, even make ridiculous, name-changing bets. But we never, even on our worst day in a football stadium KILL COPS outside the stadium by throwing explosive devices into their patrol vehicles, leading to the cancellation of a tournament by the national government and banning fans from most stadiums for future games until a more secure situation can be ensured, as occurred in Italy over the past few days.

And even if such a thing did happen, there would be serious repercussions and the response from the league would probably be a little more substantial than this, from Antonio Matarrese, preisdent of the Italian soccer league:
"This is among Italy's most important industries, and it needs to continue. We are saddened, but the show must go on...Unfortunately, deaths ... are part of this huge movement, which law enforcement officials still can't control."

Good thing he's got perspective; sport is definitely far more important than public safety. I think Mark Kreidler at ESPN.com has it right: "No crowds? No way in the world. Just cancel the whole deal and be done with it."

Mind you, this all comes on the heels of a major match-fixing scandal that sullied the name of Italian soccer, particularly it's most popular franchises, last year.


All of this puts a big fat scar on that already ugly World Cup trophy the Italians won last summer, which, today, seems like ages ago. And for fans of USA Soccer, it's probably better to put that '06 Cup as far behind you as possible anyway. Put it way back there with the 1998 World Cup [in which we lost to, along with every other team we played, Iran, I-freaking-ran]. Let's hope we don't see a repeat of that in.....nope, not going there, we're gonna end this post "friendly".

Sudan-China: Does This Matter?

The question here is not rhetorical, I really would appreciate those more in the know on the subject to imbue this post with their wisdom. I saw this on the BBC website on Saturday and thought it was interesting enough to provoke broader media coverage, but alas, nothing.

Here's the story, from Bloomberg:
"China's President Hu Jintao broke with his government's traditional policy of non-interference in a nation's internal affairs by telling Sudan last week to accept a joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping mission to Darfur, China's ambassador said.

"Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya said, "It was a clear strong message that the proposal from Kofi Annan is a good one and Sudan has to accept it.'' On his second trip to Sudan in less than a year, Hu signed a series of aid agreements with Sudan and visited the 100,000 barrel-a-day Khartoum oil refinery in which the China National Petroleum Corp. has a 50 percent stake. Sudan now supplies China with about 8 percent of its oil, and its output is rising.
Hu didn't use those trade relations to pressure Sudan, according to Wang, who said China "never twists arms.'' Still, Wang said Sudan "got the message.''

and this from the Sudan Tribune:
"The two countries also signed a loan agreement for a new presidential palace project of some 100 mln Yen

China has agreed to give Sudan an interest-free loan of 100 mln yuan and a grant of 40 mln for a variety of projects, Sudanese Finance Minister Al-Zubair Ahmed Hassan said.

"The agreements also included a protocol on pardoning part of Sudan due debts to China amounting to some 470m Yen and 19m dollars."


Here's where I'm confused. I think China telling Sudan to accept UN peacekeepers is a big step, because they are typically against that sort of thing (especially when it comes to their own affairs) and may be Sudan's biggest international investor/trade partner, but I don't know that it sends the right message to say "You should really accept the UN peacekeepers some time; but in the meantime, how about a little debt relief and economic assistance." To me, that is a dubious position.

Here's one take from Washington Post op-ed'er Sebastian Mallaby, yesterday:
"Hu's visit was a statement that, in the Chinese view of the world, the principle of sovereignty trumps even the most appalling human rights abuses...By pursuing commercial ties with Sudan, Hu was implicitly saying that economic development comes first and that political development is unimportant.

But then there is an even more disturbing question: What does China's policy toward Sudan say about the West's policy toward China? The West is engaging with China on the theory that economic modernization will bring political modernization as well; otherwise, the West would merely be assisting the development of a communist adversary. China's Sudan policy is an assertion that this link between economic and political modernization is by no means inevitable, even in the extreme case. You can construct oil refineries, educate scientists, build ambitious new railways -- and simultaneously pursue a policy of genocide."

This position is relatively close to what I was thinking, but is this position off-base or missing the point?

Stating the (apparently) Not-So-Obvious

This past week the Great Boston Panic of '07 morphed from guerilla marketing campaign into bomb scare into "terrorist hoax" into full-scale media-driven farce that ends today with Turner Broadcasting apologizing and agreeing to a $2 million fine in exchange for not being prosecuted. Bloggers, pundits, and columnists have been split in arguing that it was either wholly irresponsible of the advertisers to pull this "stunt", or that this is homeland security run amok and such overreaction is exactly the kind of fear "the terrorists" intended to instill in us.

What seems to be missing from the discussion is the fact that this was all a marketing campaign, designed to promote the show (and upcoming movie) Aqua Teen Hunger Force on Cartoon Network. The show is part of the [adult swim] block, which airs weeknights starting around 10 or 11. The show has a cult following, but does not draw remarkable numbers (even for Cartoon Network), but this act is about as good an advertising campaign as you can get. You can't pay for the amount of times their show has been mentioned over the past 4 or 5 days in the mainstream media. A 2 million dollar fine is pocket change for the Turner Broadcasting Co. and the return on the investment could be substantial if people seek out the show. The act is the kind of thing that will appeal to skeptical, cynical, dissenting young folks and academics, and that's just who the show tends to target.

Maybe, just maybe, this fallout was all part of the plan. In hindsight, it seems foolproof. Those little light boards they hung up in a dozen or so cities are relatively cheap, couldn't have cost them more than $20-30 a pop. Put 100 of them around the country and you've spent $2,000-3,000, which is about what you'd pay to advertise a couple times on TV, and you'd only reach a niche market. But, if by chance, the devices cause a panic, you can come out and explain it was all part of an ad campaign for our show AQUA TEEN HUNGER FORCE on Cartoon Network, Monday through Friday at 10:30pm (or whenever it airs) all of a sudden your 2,500 dollar investment has returned a HUGE audience for the advertising of your otherwise low-profile show. You get about as many eyeballs/ears finding out about your show as those who pay 100 times as much for 30 seconds of Super Bowl ad time.

The pure audacity of the act will draw more new viewers than any traditional televised advertising system ever could. Even with the $2 million fine, that amount of money would not have bought the amount of air time they have gotten. There are those who say they should have at least alerted the authorities, but, in this scenario, that would have completely defeated the point.

It's like the advertisers saw Borat and attempted to apply the concept to this campaign: Make people/an institution look foolish, but do it in such a way that it makes others who see it reflective. Too bad we live in a reflexive society.

Goodbye (and good riddance) to NFL 2006-2007

The most amusing thing about the Super Bowl is all the people who haven't seen a single snap of a single game all season who make their authoritative pre-game predictions, "Oh, the Bears are definitely gonna win", "The Colts have a better team and they deserve it." Really? Name me one player on their team. Tell me why they "deserve it".

Silence.

That glorious silence lasts only until the game starts (at which time the "which team is which" questions invariably crop up from the aforementioned prognosticators) and the first commercial break hits and everyone gets on the edge of their seats for the first of the vaunted Super Bowl commercials.

What a waste of time and money.

Anyone who watches enough television over the course of the year knows the commercials during the Super Bowl are no more entertaining than commercials the rest of the year. The good part about them is that they are not really designed to sell you product or brand, they are usually just designed to entertain by companies who know you will eventually buy their stuff anyway (GM, Coca-Cola, Budweiser, etc).

Far too frequently, people remember the commercial they liked, but don't remember the product. The only Super Bowl commercials I've really remembered over the years have been Budweiser ads, particularly the original Bud-weis-errr frogs & the "wasuuuuuuup" guys (before they jumped the shark), but I don't know if there is a product on the market that I am less likely to ever purchase. So in the grand scheme of advertising dollars, is the most effective ad the one that is most entertaining, or the one that is most likely to entice you spend spend spend, even if it's not entertaining?

Ultimately, you're still just watching commercials, which 364 days a year we all make an effort to avoid. You have all been brainwashed.

I say good riddance to this NFL season because it brought me an embarrassing, revolting 2-14 season from my beloved Oakland Raiders.

Dear NFL,
When you come back next season, please bring me a Raiders team that, unlike this year, will actually win more games in the regular season than in the preseason.

Sincerely,
Jason

New Artist: Alice Smith

She's awesome.

Listen to her.

Rolling Stone listed her, rightfully so, as one of the 10 New Artists to Watch in 2006.

"Smith could easily be lumped in with expressive chanteuses like Norah Jones and Alicia Keys, but she has a broader palette than either. On the soulful torch song "Dream," which Smith wrote, she conveys a sophisticated allure that would seem well beyond her twenty-seven years. Rock-cabaret tunes like "Gary Song" and "New Religion" show off Smith's four-octave range, and her reggae-loving uncle gets props on the dub-influenced "Do I." In concert, wearing jeans and a T-shirt, she effortlessly fills the room with her booming alto, channeling Nina Simone one minute, Mick Jagger the next."

Happy Super Bowl Eve

Given it's immense popularity, I move for the Super Bowl to be declared an official national holiday. Sure there are people who are not football fans and don't care about the Super Bowl (I'm sure they're the same people who are not fans of Mother's Day, rainbows, and the laughter of a playing child) but for most truly patriotic Americans (I hear not watching the Super Bowl emboldens the terrorists), the Super Bowl should be a day of rest, celebrated on Super Bowl Sunday, observed on the Monday immediately proceeding, to allow for recuperation (either from the elation of seeing your team win, or from the depression of seeing your team lose) and remuneration of gambling winnings.

On this years game
All the talk this week has been about the stars in the game, and who will be the difference maker. Peyton Manning or Brian Urlacher? What will Rex Grossman do? Can the Colts continue to stop the run? Blah, blah, blah. It's like these media types never learn.

Look back at last year's game, the most significant player in Super Bowl XL was not league MVP Shaun Alexander, not Ben Roethliesberger the QB wunderkind, not the ageless Jerome 'The Bus' Bettis. Nope, it was Jerramy Stevens, tight end for the Seahawks who dropped 4 crucial passes that cost them the game. Meanwhile, rookie running back Willie Parker had a monster game for the Steelers, and the Seahawks usually reliable kicker missed to field goals. But none of those guys really factored in to the pre-game hype.

2 years back, it was Deion Branch emerging as Super Bowl MVP, while all the sports pundits fawned over Donovan McNabb, Terrell Owens and Tom Brady (who technically had a lot to do with Branch's performance, but still). And in all 3 of the Patriots recent Super Bowl wins, the game was decided by the kicker. So it looks to me that it's not necessarily the stars who are the difference makers, but the 'other guys'. In this game, I think the Colts have better, more experienced 'other guys' so I give them the edge. Colts 30 Bears 13.

In betting news, I read today that the over/under for the length of Billy Joel's national anthem is at 1:44. Take the over.

Finally, this Super Bowl Eve we take a moment to reflect on those who never made it to the big game, despite their best efforts:

The Case of the Missing Awards Show

Where the heck are the Grammys? I know they announced the nominees at least 2 months ago, if not more.

It's bad enough that they have those goofy nomination rules, where eligible songs and/or albums for the 2007 Grammys were released between the October 2005 and the September 2006, with nominations announced in December of 2006. Here's how ludicrous the rules are: John Legend is nominated for 3 Grammys for 2 different songs on his most recent album. However, the actual album was released after the cutoff, so he has 2 singles from his album nominated this year, but the album itself will only be eligible next year. ????????

So we have to wait at least 2 months from the announcement of noms until the giving of awards, a full 5-6 months since any album nominated could have been released (the last nominated album released was John Mayer's Continuum, back in early September). I don't much care who wins or loses (they usually have lousy nominees [when was the last time someone who wasn't a top 40 act won Artist of the Year?]), but I don't like having these nominations hanging over my head (I'll throw the remote through the tv if I have to hear about enough about Mary J. Blige being the most nominated artist this year again)

Let's go ahead and tighten it up, give those awards out and move it along. Please, for the sake of my television.

Grammy's....you're officially on the clock.

Well, technically, you've been on the clock since September, but this time I said it, if that means anything to you.

Give Us Us Microphones!

One final thing that particularly struck me today, watching the non-stop coverage about the Biden flap (for those who are able to avoid the noise, I mean, the news, here's the wrap-up) was the absolute dearth of minority voices in the mainstream media. It was once again a bunch of middle-aged white guys saying "this is offensive to black people", instead of having black hosts saying this is offensive to "me." If someone says something derogatory about homosexuals, they have Ellen and Rosie on daytime TV to go to bat, if someone says something offensive about Jews....well....you go from this.....

....to seeing things like this.....

...but if you say something derogatory about racial minorities (Jews are a racial minority technically, but it's like men being the gender minority, for most people you wouldn't know unless someone told you), you have to count on someone else to do the talking for you, and hope that they "get it", because you don't have anyone from your demographic with the forum for themselves.

Aside from the occasional visit by Al Sharpton (who, when asked what he said to Biden about the comment about Obama being "clean" quipped, "I told him I take a bath every day") or Juan Williams to the cable news pundits (and even then, usually only when something 'black' happens), there really are not any minority personalities out there offering their thoughts/views/opinions for the general audience. Granted, there are several bloggers and syndicated op-ed columnists out there (Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald, Clarence Page of the Washington Post, Mary Sanchez of the Kansas City Star, to name a few), but they are relatively few and far between and do not have nearly the audience scope of a Limbaugh, Chris Matthews, or (excuse me while I cringe) Glenn Beck. Sports broadcasting notwithstanding, in the (admittedly ever-shrinking) realm of "hard news", where are they? Give us us cable news shows!

I've Got A Few Ideas

I've got an idea for politicians: Let's remove the word "articulate" (and it's less benign cousin, "well-spoken", for that matter) from our national political vocabulary, please. No word more regularly causes trouble or problems for politicians than this, particularly when used in reference to black legislators, candidates, or individuals. Let's just go ahead and stop using it.

I've got another idea for the general public: Let's stop assuming we're each more open-minded than everyone else. From a Yahoo article on a Rasmussen Poll:
"Earlier surveys had found that roughly eight-out-of-ten voters express a willingness to personally vote for either a woman or an African-American candidate. However, just over half believe their family, friends, and co-workers are willing to do the same."
Do we really think so poorly of each other, especially those we choose to associate with?

One last idea for authors: Let's stop with the never-ending subtitles on every book. Not every book needs a subtitle. In a 2004 article, publisher William Germano notes, "We've led authors to believe the way to make their book attractive is to start with something general or jazzy, then drop your guard and show what you really are writing about."
Currently, 16 of the top 25 selling books on Amazon.com are subtitled, 20 of the top 25 in non-fiction feature a lengthy addendum. I commend Bill O'Reilly for his succint titling of his latest offering, "Culture Warrior".
The most egregious offender of all is the novelist who subtitles his/her novel : A Novel. Anyone doing this deserves to beaten over the head with his/her typewriter (because as we all know from the the movies, all writers still use typewriters)