Time to Fill Out Those Brackets....Again

Only this time, it's the NCAA Men's Volleyball national championship at stake.


My breakdown:
Well, let's not kid ourselves, the EIVA and MIVA champions have no chance this year or any year, so they lose. That leaves us with Pepperdine and UC Irvine for the title. As you know, the two met last night for the MPSF conference title, with Irvine winning in 5 games 16-14 in the 5th, handing the Waves their first loss since super-setter Jonathan Winder returned from injury back in mid-January. Some contend Marv Dunphy had his boys tank the match to get Irvine in the Final 4 instead of BYU (though the Waves swept both during the regular season). I don't think Marv would do that. I think they just got beat; but with a legend (and soon-to-be-named National Player of the Year) like Jonathan Winder leading the team on the court (against his hometown team, no less) and a legend (and soon-to-be-named Coach of the Year) like Marv Dunphy coachin' 'em up, I predict Pepperdine wins 3-1 in the championship match, with Tom "The Incredible" Hulse as Final 4 MVP, despite the best efforts of Irvine's senior leader Jayson Jablonsky, who will also have a great match in a losing effort.

What do you think?

Why Show Cho?

There was, to me, a connection between the two popular, but seemingly disparate, perceptions of NBC's (and subsequently, everyone else's) airing (and endless re-airing) of the video/photographic footage of Seung-hui Cho. The first perception was that airing it would give us some insight into why he did it and it would put a face on the crime for the family's grieving. The second perception was that it was reprehensible to run the footage because it gives no insight into the killer's motivations and only serves to further aggrieve the families still mourning the loss of their loved ones.

To me, the second opinion is the validation for the first. We don't learn anything about Cho from seeing the video. We gain no insight into his disturbed state. If his professors and fellow students couldn't glean any insight into his potential to be a killer from being around him regularly and the public-at-large can gain nothing from seeing this manufactured version of himself, I think we can finally put to rest the notion that we can prevent this type of event by spotting the warning signs and that "he fit the profile". If we can only identify or even call out "the profile" of a killer post hoc, what good is the profile?

Also, I believe the families (and, by proxy, all of us) have to deal with the whole incident, and that includes dealing with Cho. If he is simply an idea in our imaginations, a concept, it is very easy to cast him as fitting the profile. It is much more difficult to deal with him as a real, (then)-living human being. The ability for "one of us" to carry out such an act is unconscionable for a reasoning, rational person, and even for some non-rational people. This is why the idea of airing the footage creating copycat events makes little sense to me. If we believe certain individuals act in irrational, inexplicable ways, why then, do we take such a linear approach in regards to the airing of this "manifesto"? If it is indeed as simple as seeing this video flipping a switch in the mind of an already "on the edge" individual, pushing him/her into madness, we should be able to explain their actions better. But the fact is, we don't really know what, if anything external, pushes people over the edge. And we can't explain the further, shouldn't we? And can we draw 1+1=2 conclusions for people who have decided 1+1=orange?

The desire to "make sense of it" overrides the ability to accept that some things will never make sense to anyone but the perpetrator, and maybe not even to him.



Feel free to disagree, I haven't written in a while and could use a little comments-section dialogue for practice.

Warriors!

Playoffs! Yes yes yall.

On VA Tech

From Eugene Robinson's op-ed, 'Beyond Reason' in the Washington Post today:
Don't try to make sense of the horrific killings at Virginia Tech, at least not yet. Don't try to make those involved into archetypes -- the gun-wielding loner, the valiant young heroes, the dithering college officials -- and fit them into a familiar, comfortable narrative. Don't rush to draw lessons about guns or alienation or funding for mental health services. Not yet.

Students appear dazed and unbelieving. Unlike outsiders, they don't enjoy the luxury of being able to look at the Big Picture. They have to live in the here and now.

Near Harper Hall, the dormitory where Cho lived, freshman Timothy Johnson was surrounded by a swarm of reporters and camera crews. When Johnson, who also lived in Harper, disclosed that he remembered Cho, the swarm became a self-replenishing horde. The horde wanted to know what Cho was like, whether he had friends, whether there was anything odd or strange about him. Johnson, who is from Annandale, told them that Cho was just a guy he used to see in the hallway. As one group of reporters finished their interrogation and wandered away, another group pushed to the front and asked the same questions, to which Johnson patiently gave the same answers: just a guy who lived in the dorm.

That's not a satisfying answer, because it doesn't advance the story we're so anxious to tell ourselves. We want this tragedy to prove something. We want it to fit some recognizable template. We want it to make sense because, if there is logic to what Cho Seung Hui did, there should be a logical way to keep such a thing from ever happening again.

An element of randomness and unpredictability is part of any event. What if university officials had shut down the campus after the first murders at West Ambler Johnston? Would Cho have been caught? Or would he have gone off campus to a mall or a school and found others to kill?

One reporter kept pressing Johnson. Was there anything, anything at all, that was unusual about Cho?

Johnson deadpanned that anyone who would gun down dozens of people in cold blood was obviously unusual.

Why the Quote-A-Thon?

Just a note of self-explanation as to why I'm not writing as much as I have, opting instead for endless bouts of quotation. 2 principal reasons. First, my mind is very cloudy right now. I think lots of things about lots of things, but nothing clearly enough to write it, so I'd rather I write nothing than something incoherent. Of course, every time I say I have nothing to write/say is usually when I have some breakthrough of writer's block and write 10 posts in a week. So, all I can say on that front is stay tuned. Also, I'm trying to get back to fiction writing and it's difficult to write fiction and non-fiction simultaneously, at least at the beginning, so that also adds to the problem.

Secondly, I enjoy reading the quotes/speeches/letters of the leaders of the past even though they have a tendency to be museumed into the annals of history, rolled out, to add otherwise absent credibility, by all manner of public figures, who bank on our own ignorance of the actual beliefs/ideas/opinions on issues of those of the past to be able to call them out for charlatanism. Essentially, the goal is to attempt to add some level of realism or humanity to these individuals who have been ceremoniously lumped into a group collectively known as "historical figures", considered simple characters in "the grand narrative", who all acted, believed, and thought in lock-step with a singular conception of freedom/liberty/democracy/America/humanity, rather than as the distinctive individuals that they were. This is why I often don't add commentary that isn't simply biographical, I'd rather let the individual speak for himself/herself. I attempt to make the quotes as relevant as possible to current situations or issues, while at the same time remaining true to the context and spirit in which they were originally brought forth; or at the very least, I attempt to find things that I consider amusing.

Any time I'm quoting modern-day writers/commentators, though, that's usually just laziness on my part. Although sometimes they raise interesting points on issues that are worth considering/discussing, and I reprint them here in case you don't read every news magazine/website or the editorial page of every major paper and could otherwise miss it, and can use it in, or to inspire, a future blog post of your own.

And now for something completely different:
A man in Sudan was caught having sex with another man's goat and was forced to marry it. True story.

Happy Tax Day!

Happy if you, like me, make very little money and will get a (relative to a typical paycheck) sizable refund. If you get no refund, I have no sympathy for you. You make more money than I do. And if you're Dick Cheney, make 1.6 million and still get a refund, I hate you and wish you naught but ill will.

The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.
- Albert Einstein

I shall never use profanity except in discussing house rent and taxes.
- Mark Twain

Of all debts, men are least willing to pay their taxes; what a satire this is on government.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

The income tax has made more liars out of the American people than golf has.
- Will Rogers

Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss.
- Robert Heinlein

Of course the truth is that the congresspersons are too busy raising campaign money to read the laws they pass. The laws are written by staff tax nerds who can put pretty much any wording they want in there. I bet that if you actually read the entire vastness of the U.S. Tax Code, you'd find at least one sex scene ("'Yes, yes, YES!' moaned Vanessa as Lance, his taut body moist with moisture, again and again depreciated her adjusted gross rate of annualized fiscal debenture").
- Dave Barry

"Friends and neighbors complain that taxes are indeed very heavy, and if those laid on by the government were the only ones we had to pay, we might the more easily discharge them; but we have many others, and much more grievous to some of us. We are taxed twice as much by our idleness, three times as much by our pride, and four times as much by our folly."
- Benjamin Franklin

Did you ever notice that when you put the words "The" and "IRS" together, it spells "THEIRS?"
- Author Unknown

The "Climate Change" Debate Rages On

Today's rhetorician, George F. Will, from his Washington Post column this past Thursday, Fuzzy Climate Math:

Nature designed us as carnivores, but what does nature know about nature? Meat has been designated a menace. Among the 51 exhortations in Time magazine's "Global Warming Survival Guide" (April 9), No. 22 says a BMW is less responsible than a Big Mac for "climate change," that conveniently imprecise name for our peril. This is because the world meat industry produces 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, more than transportation produces. Nitrous oxide in manure (warming effect: 296 times greater than that of carbon) and methane from animal flatulence (23 times greater) mean that "a 16-oz. T-bone is like a Hummer on a plate."

Speaking of Hummers, perhaps it is environmentally responsible to buy one and squash a Prius with it. The Prius hybrid is, of course, fuel-efficient. There are, however, environmental costs to mining and smelting (in Canada) 1,000 tons a year of zinc for the battery-powered second motor, and the shipping of the zinc 10,000 miles -- trailing a cloud of carbon dioxide -- to Wales for refining and then to China for turning it into the component that is then sent to a battery factory in Japan.

Opinions differ as to whether acid rain from the Canadian mining and smelting operation is killing vegetation that once absorbed carbon dioxide. But a report from CNW Marketing Research ("Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles from Concept to Disposal") concludes that in "dollars per lifetime mile," a Prius (expected life: 109,000 miles) costs $3.25, compared with $1.95 for a Hummer H3 (expected life: 207,000 miles).

The CNW report states that a hybrid makes economic and environmental sense for a purchaser living in the Los Angeles basin, where fuel costs are high and smog is worrisome. But environmental costs of the hybrid are exported from the basin.

We are urged to "think globally and act locally," as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has done with proposals to reduce California's carbon dioxide emissions 25 percent by 2020. If California improbably achieves this, at a cost not yet computed, it will have reduced global greenhouse gas emissions 0.3 percent. The question is:

Suppose the costs over a decade of trying to achieve a local goal are significant. And suppose the positive impact on the globe's temperature is insignificant -- and much less than, say, the negative impact of one year's increase in the number of vehicles in one country (e.g., India). If so, are people who recommend such things thinking globally but not clearly?

Who will fire the next shot? What say you to George Will?

The Words of Thomas Jefferson

From Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, first Secretary of State, 2nd Vice President, 3rd President of the United States, purchaser of Louisiana, co-honoree on Mt. Rushmore, and father of the University of Virginia.

An admittedly incomplete and far from exhaustive sampling.

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

"We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate."

"I am not for transferring all the powers of the States to the general government, nor all those of that government to the Executive branch. I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans, and for increasing, by every device, the public debt, on the principle of it's being a public blessing."

"I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so...Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control."

"During this course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been leveled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety."

"Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian."

"I have been among the most sanguine in believing that our Union would be of long duration. I now doubt it much, and see the event at no great distance, and the direct consequence of this question: not by the time which has been so confidently counted on. The laws of nature controul this, but by the Potomack Ohio, and Missouri, or more probably the Missisipi upwards to our Northern boundary, my only comfort & confidence is that I shall not live to see this: and I envy not the present generation the glory of throwing away the fruits of their fathers sacrifices of life & fortune, and of rendering desperate the experiment which was to decide ultimately whether man is capable of self government?"

Forget the "Liberal Media", Take On the "Liberal User-Based Content Internet Anti-Media"

American socio-political conservatives have had enough of complaining about the vast left-wing media conspiracy (except talk radio, cable news, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post. NPR and PBS get it from both sides) and have moved on to complaining about the new media front of the internet. Declaring YouTube and Wikipedia simply too liberal/anti-conservative (despite being almost entirely based on user-generated/posted content, open to ALL members of the public), they bring you:

Conservapedia:
"A conservative encyclopedia you can trust."
From their 'Conservapedia Commandments': "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry".
Then this, from a proposed 'commandment': "An encyclopedia which merits trust and respect will avoid taking sides on many or most controversies. On certain core issues, a conservative encyclopedia must take a stand. Matters of morality and ethics are paramount among these."

QubeTV:
"QubeTV.tv is dedicated to bringing your conservative take on politics and culture to the Internet. We know that the history of the modern mass media has been liberal in both its ownership and content for decades. With the world of the Internet playing an increasingly vital part in both our politics and culture, conservatives cannot sit back and cede the territory of online videos and pictures. There will, doubtless, be many conservative sites vying for your attention. We here at QubeTV hope to win your loyalty by committing ourselves to making this your favorite conservative place in the Internet universe."
"[co-founder Jeffrey] Lord called QubeTV the “next step in the revolution once led by the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan."

Once again, rather than trying to, I don't know, remove present biases, we attempt to create equality in the media by spawning more outlets for biased partisans ideologues. Hooray!

Fairness, balance: Welcome to the Internet.

Let's Chat....Just Not Right Now

Another big "race" issues pops up and the punditariat (to borrow a term from Christopher Buckley's new book Boomsday, which is hilarious and highly recommended) would like to convince the public that this issue will spark a "broader conversation about race" and "it just goes to show how far we still have to go".

So jejune. So very jejune.

You have no interest in discussing race. It is the most uncomfortable issue for most in the media, fear of being branded a racist abounds and keeps it out the talking points unless an easy target (Imus, Gibson, etc) pops up and we can point out overt bigotry. Hurricane Katrina, Crash, Michael Richards, the examples abound of issues that are sure to spark a debate about discrimination in America. Of course no one wants to confront the possibility that they too might, on occasion, exhibit racist tendencies (Stephen Colbert's color-blindness gives him an exemption, so he is safe) so it's best announce a "broader conversation" (where no conversation existed in the first place) and hope every forgets or is intimidated by the scope of its broadness that it goes away.

And the idea of "having a long way to go" is just another platitude. We forget that integration (or at least desegregation) was forced on us "with all deliberate speed". It was forced on us in 1957 at Central High School, and in the 50 years since we are still getting used to it. I think we see it in Iraq and other such places; when the notion of equality/democracy/liberty/freedom is forced on a group wherein it was not a natural outgrowth there is an acclamation period wherein the impressed-upon has to come to own the concept (or reject it outright) and learn to adjust the norms and boundaries of their society to fit this new constraint, and I think we are still on the road to claiming integration for ourselves. We'll get there eventually (or reject it outright and have mass racial upheaval, which would probably be bad for society but would probably make great TV).

It was nice this week to see our semi-annual cavalcade of black pundits on the major news/news-esque outlets. Clarence Page, Eugene Robinson, Larry Elder, and the like get plucked from relatively obscurity for a few days to give the 'black perspective' on this one issue and they disappear, waiting eagerly for another white person to say something racist in a very public setting so they can get back on TV, because that's the only time we ever see them (other than Juan Williams on Fox). As Jesse Jackson (incessantly, if accurately) put it on Hardball (among other places), "All day, all night, all white". David Gregory was visibly uncomfortable at the idea and racking his brain for a refutation, but, coming up empty, he shifted gears and steered the conversation back toward the Imus situation specifically. (Keith Olbermann was at least able to counter that his in-absentia host is a black woman). No one has been, to my knowledge, silly enough to invite on their first ever Latino pundit to discuss illegal immigration.

Speaking of Jesse, it may be about that time, old buddy. It may be time for you and Al to hit the ol' dusty trail. You all attempt a noble undertaking, but every cause you champion is undermined by the right-wing outcry against your respective tumultuous personal pasts. I don't believe one need be a blameless shining beacon of moral rectitude to call out bigotry or malfeasance, but it hurts your cause when people don't relate or grant you credibility. I won't go so far as Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star and AOL sports who declared you two "terrorists", but I will ask you to reduce your visibility every time the media blow a case out of proportion.

Excerpted from the Whitlock piece:
"We’ve turned Jesse and Al into Supreme Court justices. They get to speak for us for a lifetime. Why? If judged by the results they’ve produced the last 20 years, you’d have to regard their administration as a total failure. Seriously, compared to Martin and Malcolm and the freedoms and progress their leadership produced, Jesse and Al are an embarrassment. Their job the last two decades was to show black people how to take advantage of the opportunities Martin and Malcolm won...It’s time for Jesse and Al to step down. They’ve had 25 years to lead us. Other than their accountants, I’d be hard pressed to find someone who has benefited from their administration...None of this over-the-top grandstanding does Black America any good."

Is "Democracy" Enough?

From a November 1997 article, "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy" by Fareed Zakaria
"Today, in the face of a spreading virus of illiberalism, the most useful role that the international community, and most importantly the United States, can play is -- instead of searching for new lands to democratize and new places to hold elections -- to consolidate democracy where it has taken root and to encourage the gradual development of constitutional liberalism across the globe. Democracy without constitutional liberalism is not simply inadequate, but dangerous, bringing with it the erosion of liberty, the abuse of power, ethnic divisions, and even war. Eighty years ago, Woodrow Wilson took America into the twentieth century with a challenge, to make the world safe for democracy. As we approach the next century, our task is to make democracy safe for the world.

Elections require that politicians compete for peoples' votes. In societies without strong traditions of multiethnic groups or assimilation, it is easiest to organize support along racial, ethnic, or religious lines. Once an ethnic group is in power, it tends to exclude other ethnic groups. Compromise seems impossible; one can bargain on material issues like housing, hospitals, and handouts, but how does one split the difference on a national religion? Political competition that is so divisive can rapidly degenerate into violence. A distinguished expert on ethnic conflict, Donald Horowitz, concluded, "In the face of this rather dismal account . . . of the concrete failures of democracy in divided societies . . . one is tempted to throw up one's hands. What is the point of holding elections if all they do in the end is to substitute a Bemba-dominated regime for a Nyanja regime in Zambia, the two equally narrow, or a southern regime for a northern one in Benin, neither incorporating the other half of the state?"

First Quarter Music Recap

Amy Winehouse - Back to Black
She's gotten enough press as "an artist to watch in 2007", but has not really gotten much hype in the mainstream media/radio. The title track is the standout, and her band is great, combining UK garage and the Motown-sound into something cohesive and contemporary. She has a unique voice, and sometimes startlingly frank lyrics. If she makes it here, she'll be an easy target for the tabloids.

Aqualung - Memory Man
I think Ben said it best when he wrote that he "makes great calculator rock". The first half of the album is great (especially Pressure Suit and Rolls So Deep), then he loses steam toward the conclusion, which is a live version of the song, 'Good Times Gonna Come' from his debut, which just serves as a reminder of how much he left to be desired in the last 4-5 new songs of this record.

The Broken West - I Can't Go On, I'll Go On
Haven't really listened enough to give a full assesment, but I am not a big fan of power-pop in general, but this band strays from the nu-punk junk stylings of the Fall Out Boy's of the world, they sound more like a hybrid of Love, 9 Days, and The Killers (an odd pairing if ever there was one). The song's Brass Ring and Down in the Valley are the ones that have stood out to me thus far, so check those if you want to discover them for yourself.

Elisabeth Withers - It Can Happen To You
Having starred on Broadway in The Color Purple, she got the record deal based on the label (Blue Note) president hearing her doing a set in a jazz club; we are left to wonder what he heard that night. Every song here is so over-produced that I'm surprised they even bothered to let her sing. There are flashes of vocal brilliance, there is no doubt the girl can sing, but this album is not the showcase she needs.

Explosions in the Sky - All of a Sudden I Miss Everyone
Great dramatic, mercurial instrumental rock. They go from loud to soft, intricate to simplicity at the drop of a hat (or octave). The use of dynamic shifts and solid musicianship makes this a great album to put on and let play through on a rainy afternoon.

The Feeling - Twelve Stops and Home
Wrote about them earlier, Nsync (-dancing) + Queen (- 1 degree of awesomeness) = The Feeling. Gloriously unnecessary guitar solos, sing-along choruses make this record most excellent and infinitely listenable.

Fountains of Wayne - Traffic and Weather
Bought this on the strength of the title track (which turns out to be rather mediocre by comparison), and it was a welcome surprise. Most know this band either on the strength of the title song from That Thing You Do! or the hit Stacy's Mom from a few years ago. This album is the result of a mash-up of classic pop-rock influences, from The Beatles to The Eagles to Springsteen. The songs are small short stories about sundry characters from a DMV employee to TV show anchors to a couple in an airport, all filled with cultural and pop-cultural asides backed up by good musicianship, paying homage to their influences while avoiding mimicry.

I'm From Barcelona - Let Me Introduce My Friends
Without a doubt, the happiest album released thus far this year. This 30-member Swedish (not Spanish, despite the name) ensemble makes the most sing-alongable music since NSync. Songs with lyrics like "I have built a treehouse, I have built a treehouse, nobody can see us, it's a you and me house" and "I can't belive I'm telling everybody I know, that every stamp in my collection is a place you can go" are the stuff Nordic pop dreams are made of. I can't not listen to it.

Joss Stone - Introducing Joss Stone
Finally, Joss Stone releases an album that sounds like her. The first two albums she put out sounded like someone trying to manufacture an artist, in this regard the title is apropos. Mostly produced by Raphael Saadiq and with feature spots by Common and Lauryn Hill, it is a contemporary R&B record that is original enough to separate itself, but close enough to be accessible to the casual fan, even though there is one track where she gets kinda shrieky. The album features a song penned by Diane Warren (think Aerosmith not wanting to close their eyes or miss one kiss) that doesn't make you want to throw up. I think it's worth the listen just for that. Bad Habit is the standout track (top 40 radio stations take note), and the Eddie Winslow-inspired Baby, Baby, Baby is surprisingly enjoyable despite the insipid title.

Loney, Dear - Loney, Noir
If Brian Wilson were at his creative peak today, and lived in Sweden, this is the album he would make. I don't know what else there is to say, that's about as laudatory as it gets in pop music.

Musiq Soulchild - Luvanmusiq
Haven't listened all the way through, but Teachme is another Musiq classic, but overall, the first 5 tracks sound like this album was a bit rushed.

Norah Jones - Not Too Late
Haven't listened enough to give it a fair review. The first couple songs are solid, Sinkin Soon is great, but beyond the first half, I have no real opinion, Norah's voice is too soothing, she puts me right to sleep, which is why I have yet to chance this one in the car.

Timbaland, et al - Shock Therapy
Timbo is chock full of ideas and creativity, but for better and worse, much of it works in the same direction. He's got idiosyncrasies that creep into every song, and usually that works for the best, but an album full of Timbaland beats makes it sound kinda the same over the course of 17 songs. Elton John and Dr. Dre headline a motley crew of guest artists. On the track with Dr. Dre and Missy Elliot, he works a simple laugh into a musical motif that has to be heard to be believed. I'm glad he didn't retire, but unfortunately, this album, like The Neptunes presents The Clones, is just too much of a good thing.

The Words of John F. Kennedy

From a speech for the American Newspaper Publisher's Association
April 21, 1961:
"For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent."

Movie Recap: First Quarter of 2007

Early rankings for (the 11 of over 100) 2007-released films I've seen:
1. Amazing Grace - Great biopic on a now-relegated to the footnotes, but crucial, figure in world history, William Wilberforce; and, graciously, it's a period piece that doesn't call attention to itself with unnecessary excesses of production design. It focuses on character. I'm not entirely sure of the "historical accuracy" of the film, but it doesn't mater.

2. Breach - Chris Cooper does what he does best, which is create a complex, complete character. Josh Hartnett shows he is improving his game, keeping up with Cooper for the better part of 2 hours. Laura Linney is good as always in a supporting role. The rare spy/CIA movie in which there are no shootouts, car chases, or forced parallels to the Bush Administration. It is smart, engrossing, and well-made...exactly the kind of movie that makes no money.

3. Bridge to Terabithia - The best of the targeted-at-children renaissance (which I will cover later). The girl who plays the lead in this has a certain star quality and the coming-of-age story is treated with more detail and complexity than you commonly see in this genre. It was being sold as a fantasy, but it is far more grounded in reality than they wanted to admit because they wanted to draw that same crowd that turns out in droves to see Chronicles of Narnia or Harry Potter, but this is neither of those franchises. It deals with friendship, loss, growing up, isolation, and religion with a frankness we tend to think is too strong for children these days, much to my chagrin and to the detriment of our youngest generations.

4. Music and Lyrics - I don't really have much to say here, Hugh Grant + Drew Barrymore = enjoyable rom-com. The Weitz Brothers (creators of About a Boy and In Good Company, etc) are by no means on par with the Coen Bros, but they have a knack for mainstream romantic comedy with an uncommon wit, and this is the best Hugh Grant performance, in my humble opinion, at least since Notting Hill, maybe since Four Weddings and a Funeral. Brad Garrett and Kristen Johnson would win the Deepest Combined Voice for a Supporting Male/Female Duo in a Film, if there were a Grammy for such a phenomenon (I wouldn't be surprised, there are Grammy's for everything else conceivable...but that's another post.)

5. Catch and Release - Jennifer Garner keeps trying to find her footing, sliding from one near-miss to another since Alias got canned. 13 Going on 30 was likable, but did little business, Elektra was a mess, but this a step in the right direction. She fills out a character that could easily fall into caricature, but buoyed by the underrated Timothy Olyphant, the ever-entertaining Kevin Smith (far from 'silent' in this movie) and a surprisingly not-annoying Juliette Lewis, she is able to carry the film's weightiest role. There is a certain realism in the way the characters respond to the situations in which they find themselves. The ending won't come as a surprise to anyone, but I think it is earned, which is more than I can say for some of the films further down this list. This film was made by Susannah Grant who also made (or at least wrote) the semi-live-action Charlotte's Web which was also good (Andre "3000" Benjamin and Thomas Haden Church voicing the two cowardly crows are classic).

6. I Think I Love My Wife - Chris Rock doing his best early Woody Allen impression (I assume my reader is culturally savvy enough to understand that allusion). Like the 40-Year Old Virgin, it's really a movie about not having sex, which makes it entirely the liberal use of F bombs that garners the R rating. It's not necessarily a great film in itself (though I might call it watch-able, even good for stretches), but if it represents a turning point in Rock's career, combined with his critically-acclaimed, semi-autobiographical TV show 'Everybody Hates Chris', color me interested in Chris Rock again. The film is only 95 minutes, but it's a long 95, if you know what I mean. You are left wondering if this is his Night of the Hunter, his one and done, or if it is only a sign of things to come. I hope it's the latter. Steve Buscemi is given a shell of a character which he fails to do much with and his character ends up inciting a scene that involves horse Viagra and a large needle (and if I have to explain it any more than that...well, maybe you should see the next movie down this list). The best part about the film is the ambiguity of Rock's character, as the film attempts to examine the complications contained in it's title. That and Kerry Washington.

7. The Ultimate Gift - The latest offering from FoxFaith, this is aimed squarely at those in the "Christian" crowd who look for inoffensive family-friendly entertainment. Well, look no further. It's not on par with Bridge to Terabithia, but The Ultimate Gift is not without merit. The lead actor creates a character who is at first detestable, but earns the audience sympathy, the film has great vistas of Bolivia (I believe), and features the criminally underused Bill Cobbs (along with James Garner, Lee Merriweather, and Brian Dennehy). Abigail Breslin, continues to show her range as an actress and her desire to usurp Dakota Fanning's 'it' kid actor title. I thought she was destined for great things after that fine performance she gave in Signs. Anyway, this film avoids being 'preachy' and/or obvious with religious content, which, in itself is an accomplishment.

8. Are We Done Yet - In the interest of full disclosure, this film was co-produced by RKO Pictures, where I was an intern this time last year, so I know a few things about this film. The principle thing being that it was originally set-up to simply be a remake of a Cary Grant movie (Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House) until, around this time last year when Big Momma's House 2 did big business in it's first weekend. RKO and Revolution studios then decided that since one "urban family comedy" did well with a sequel, they should tailor their Blandings remake into a sequel of Are We There Yet, an Ice Cube 'urban family comedy' that did well. Thus, the film is a sequel, a remake, and an adaptation of a remake, a distinction I think few, if any, other films can claim. Also, we discussed the title quite a bit. There was division as to whether it was, for PR reasons, the worst title ever (you could just read the copy, "Are We Done Yet, with sequels, remakes" and so on from critics eager to show their wit) or the best title ever, daring the critics to use the title as a pun, showing that they were just as easy a target as the audience. I don't think we ever settled it. Also, Thomas Haden Church was supposed to play the part that is played by John McGinley in the film, THC dropped out because he got the part as Sandman in Spidey-3. None of that, has any bearing on the finished product of this movie (which is passable family fare, there are worse ways for the kids to spend an hour and a half, but it has the same lags and drags that the Cary Grant version did), but I figured it made for an interesting story, and a rare inside peak at the inner working of "the business" to which I was privy.

9. 300 - If you read regularly, you already know what I said about this one. If you don't read regularly, you should catch up.

10. Reign Over Me - The performances all around (Don Cheadle, Adam Sandler, Liv Tyler, Jada Pinkett-Smith, etc) are decent, but the characters they attempt to fill out are so flat and broad that they lack any real direction. Writer-director Mike Binder is clearly a man of many ideas, but they never really gelled to make a cohesive film here. He tries to deal with 9/11, emotional absence in marriage, office politics, institutionalization, PTSD, reminiscence, male ego, and a number of other things and it tends to feel forced at times. The appropriation of 9/11 for a little extra sympathy for Sandler's character struck me as phony at the time. For others it probably won't be a problem, but I just don't know that it's "safe" to use 9/11 as a crutch. But then again, we might as well deal with it, rather than pretend it didn't happen for the balance of our generation. The end of the movie attempts to be an 'up', but it leaves just as much unresolved or in doubt as it resolves. Others have told me that it made them be more appreciative and kind to their loved ones in general because you never know when you could lose them, and if it did that, then it achieved it's ends for them. I just wasn't as moved, maybe you will be.

11. Premonition - Worst movie I've seen this year. At times incomprehensible, the music was awful, the cinematography was unbelievably repetitive (locked down medium shot, long shot arcing to the left, close up....repeat for 90 minutes). There was never an internal logic defined, so the movie takes ample liberties in jumping around through time playing toward a foregone conclusion. Then, just in case you aren't completely frustrated enough, a religious subtext is introduced, a priest saying "nature abhors a spiritual vacuum", or something to that effect. Then the film closes in such a way that leaves open the interpretation that the whole thing was the mid-summer's afternoon fever dream of a pregnant woman. Any film in which there is a scene where a child is seriously injured that leaves you laughing out loud out from bewilderment is a film designed for awards season. That's right, awards: I forsee several Razzie nominations.

I hope to get to music tomorrow, this took much longer than I anticipated.

The Words of Benjamin F. Franklin

From his speech in opposition to executive salaries at the Constitutional Convention
June 2, 1787:
"Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power and the love of money. Separately each of these has great force in promoting men to action; but when united in view of the same object, they have in many minds the most violent effects. Place before the eyes of such men, a post of honour, that shall be at the same time a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it. The vast number of such places it is that renders the British government so tempestuous. The struggles for them are the true sources of all those factions which are perpetually dividing the Nation, distracting its Councils, hurrying sometimes into fruitless and mischievous wars, and often compelling a submission to dishonorable terms of peace.

And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable pre-eminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate; the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your Government and be your rulers - And these too will be mistaken in the expected happiness of their situation: For their vanquished competitors of the same spirit, and from the same motives will perpetually be endeavoring to distress their administration, thwart their measures, and render them odious to the people."

RIP Eddie Robinson

Excerpted from Richard Lapchick's tribute of Coach Robinson today: (Lapchick wrote Robinson's autobiography)
Eddie Robinson was a proud American. That night in the Holiday Inn, there was a table filled with six older white men about Coach's age. They kept coming by us, shaking his hand, hugging him, asking how Doris was. I could have believed that these same men were raised in a racist, segregated South which Ruston, La., was surely part of in their younger days. But Robinson had regularly walked that part of the earth and forced them to see a great American who happened to have black skin. He broke big barriers and smashed stereotypes along the way. Coach Robinson told me he had never been called "an American" until he took Grambling State to play in Japan in 1976. He confronted segregation in his life. But Eddie and Doris Robinson would stand still for the national anthem, their eyes fixed on our flag. Often you would see tears in his eyes when the singer hit "the land of the free." This was a great American leader who happened to be a coach and happened to be African-American. He was proud of his country and always tried to make it better.

Coach has proved the power of an individual to make a huge difference in the lives of young people. He tried to prepare a new generation of coaches to help today's youth because he knew life had changed dramatically in America. Coach said to me, "I know life isn't easy for young people now. They face all these challenges that my generation didn't have. When I was growing up in Jackson and Baton Rouge, children weren't killing each other; crack didn't exist; I never heard of steroids; most families had a mother and father. Many of today's student-athletes were raised in poverty and despair. They know that some white people will decide who they are just because of what they look like. Yes, indeed, life is hard today."That is why he assumed the role of mentor, role model, father and counselor to his student-athletes, on and off the field. Grown men who are leaders across our nation are calling each other remembering this man who helped change lives. I am lucky to be one of them, a better man for having known coach Eddie Robinson.Coach ended the book with, "If I had the chance, I would call for an instant replay of my entire life -- in slow motion -- so I could savor every second as I continue to work on the next stage of my life. If I could have created a game plan for my own life, I'd want to be born in America to my same parents, marry Doris, go to work for Grambling and have Eddie and Lillian as our children, their children as our grandchildren, and their children as our great grandchildren. I have a great life."Coach Robinson had a great life. He loved his God and the next stage will be with Him.

May God bless you, Coach.

Brokeback Entourage

Starring Ari Gold and Lloyd:


(Cribbed from Heather, the celebrity gossip blogger for the Fresno Bee (our local newspaper, for those unfamiliar)

Constitutional Authority?

From Article 1, Section 8:
-To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
-To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
-To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
-To provide and maintain a navy;
-To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
-To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
-To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

All of that for Congress? I thought they had no power in regard to the military or foreign policy....

Oooh, burn! (because of global warming, of course)

Conservative cartoonist Scott Adams is obviously mocking Al Gore and the Inconvenient Truth Movement in today's edition of Dilbert, if you liberally (pun intended) stretch your reading of it:

Phrases to be Stricken From Public Discourse

"...emboldening the enemy..."
If your "enemy" has already pledged to fight you to the death and is willing to blow himself up for his cause, how much more "bold" can he really get?

"...serve at the pleasure of the president"
The undermining of the idea of members of the federal government serving the people, placing them as lackies of the executive branch notwithstanding, call me a perv, but in general this just sounds kinda dirty.

"...Anna Nicole Smith..."
Seriously, we've had enough. Let her rest in peace. Let us live in peace.

Some iteration of: "...mandate from the American people", "...will of the American people..", "...the mandate from the Novemeber elections...." in regards to the Iraq War
Until the "people" of the United States are actually able to find Iraq on a map, name the Iraqi Prime Minister or tell you when we went into Iraq, then I would caution against acquiescing directly to their "mandate". We (hopefully) elect people who we trust and believe have our best interests at heart and will do whatever is necessary to provide for the maintenance of our nation, and if that means not responding directly to the "concerns" of "the American people" (who are easily swayed by often incomplete, slanted [in various directions] news coverage), so be it. This is why we have representative government and not direct democracy. I point you to a quote from a Newsweek article from late last year, (which I referenced when it came out) regarding the election of Hamas in Palestine. A Palestinian pundit pointed out something to the effect of "the people didn't vote for Hamas because they believe in them. They voted for them because they wanted a change." In essence, the people don't know what they want, but they know what they don't want. To say that the people demand a pullout by March 2008 or August 2008 or any other arbitrary deadline, is opportunism run amuck.