I don't usually use my blog to forward other people's stuff, or link to other websites or anything like that. It's usually just a kind of soapbox. ButI felt this was too good to keep to myself. It's an op-ed piece from the Miami Herald.

AFTER 9/11 Fear destroys what bin Laden could not
ROBERT STEINBACK
rsteinback@MiamiHerald.com

One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.

If,back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.

Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed,then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat-- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.

If I had been informedthat our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas-- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.

Ifsomeone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.

That's no AmericaI know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.

What is there to say now?

Allof these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appearsmore concerned that saying ''Happy Holidays'' could be a disguised attackon Christianity.

I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America'scharacter than I once believed, because I would have expected such actionsto provoke -- speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torchesat the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone whowould suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasmsof despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considersthe law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.

Never would I have expectedthis nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rightsmovement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrouscampaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principlesof liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for promising to ``protect us.''

PresidentBush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizenson at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification?He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to disregard any law,constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.

Isthat America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are thereno principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would haveremembered Patrick Henry had he written, ``What's wrong with giving up alittle liberty if it protects me from death?''

Bush would have usexcuse his administration's excesses in deference to the ''war on terror''-- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic,an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught everyperson guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn't know where tomorrow'sfirst-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fightinginfection -- even when it's beaten, you must continue the fight or it willstrike again.

Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilegeto defy the law forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weighin: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?

Bushstokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things hisextralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. Weare neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt downits enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.

Ultimately,our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is holdingfast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built. Bushclearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?

How is George W Bush still in office? How many lies and backpedals can he get away with? He assured us all that Iraq was a direct threat to us. He then told us, after it was proven that it wasn't, that even though he was wrong, he was right. In the quotes below, Bush tells us in 2003 that we don't WANT to go to war, but we HAVE to because Saddam has WMDs. Then he says, in 2005, that even though they DIDN'T have WMDs, he still made the right move. How does that make sense? What is the noble cause for which Americans are dying? There are no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam is no longer in power. The elections have been held. In the interest of calmness and peace, let's forget all your past lies and get our kids out of that goddamn country.

3/19/03:
GEORGE W BUSH: "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly — yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

12/14/05:
BUSH: "I said I made the right decision. Knowing what I know today, I would have still made that decision."

BRIT HUME: "So, if you had had this — if the weapons had been out of the equation because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them, it was still the right call?"

BUSH: "Absolutely."

THE MOON

Tonight is a full moon. I took some pictures with my new Nikon D-50 digital camera and the 200mm zoom lens. Here is the best one. The first picture is completely un-retouched. The second one is the same picture with contrast enhancements. Cool, huh?

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA is one of those books that I've heard of all my life as this big, sprawling, epic piece of literary wonder. Like LORD OF THE RINGS, it held a place of respect in my mind and I'd always meant to get around to reading it. Finally, when the Lord of the Rings films were announced, I "quickly" devoured the entire dense trilogy in a mere 6 months.

Now, the Narnia movies are coming out. Well, one of them is, and we'll see about the others. Unlike Lord of the Rings, the Narnia books are 7 completely seperate books. They cross characters over within each other and take place in the same general world, but they are less one gigantic narrative story than the Rings trilogy.

I've just begun reading The Chronicles of Narnia all-in-one-volume book. It's roughly the same size as Lord of the Rings, but it's 7 books, not 3.

Ok, why does everyone keep comparing the two books? Well, because JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis were friends, colleagues, and sometimes rivals. Both were distinguished scholars of medieval and early modern literature, both chose fantasy as their primary genre, and both left an indelible mark on every author who attempted to write fantasy and science fiction after them. Tolkien's leanings were toward language and mythology, while Lewis' background was one of Christian scholarship. That's why Tolkien's books are very dense and thorough. He was creating an entire world from scratch as if he was writing a history of it. Lewis' Narnia books are fluffier flights of fancy with a helping of battle, evil witches, and Christian symbolism thrown in. He was writing what he knew.

Anyway, I just finished book 3 of the Narnia septology. It's stunning how short they are! The second one, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe is only about 90 pages long! The big battle at the end of that book is roughly a page long, and yet I hear the cinematic version of the fight is over a half hour! Weird. Another thing that distinguished Lewis from Tolkien is Lewis' playfulness and they fact that he's clearly writing for children as his main audience. He says things like, "The creatures were so horrible that if I described them to you, your parents wouldn't let you read any further!" It's cute and fun, but he books are so breezy, I sometimes wished he'd stopped to engage in details a little bit more. That's not to say the books are badly written. They're just fluffier than I expected from a classic piece of epic fantasy.

So you've all heard about the secret Christianity in the books. Oh puh-leez! Yes, alright, the lion is a Jesus figure, so what? The books are not Bible-stories. There are no evil witches in the Bible. No talking animals....oh wait...alright, but still. Millions of books have used Bible-related symbolism. The reason is that the Bible's stories are so univerally known that their reference resonates with the reader. C.S. Lewis was not trying to secretly convert kids to Christianity. That's Veggie-Tales' racket. Lewis has spoken about this in interviews. He has admitted to using Jesus as an inspiration for Aslan the lion, but the Narnia books are not Biblical allegories. So fine, you get inspired by reading the books, fine. You just like the talking lion, fine. I hate how the relious nuts are jumping all over this movie (Disney included) like it's THEIRS. Passion of the Christ? Fine, take it. Narnia? You're silly. What about the Green Mile? John Coffey? J.C.? A man who takes on the pain of others and sacrifices himself so that the innocent won't suffer? Where was Pat Robertson when that one came out, huh? Get a grip you jerks. As I said before, the Narnia books aren't the first, nor will they be the last to use religious imagery outside of Bible stories.

Another thing C.S. Lewis had said was that he never wanted a live-action film made because Aslan would no doubt look silly as a puppeted character. This was back in the 50's when movie effects were much less sophisticated. I think he'd be OK with the current film, as the lion looks very realistic and not at all buffoonish. Aslan would lose all power as a character if he was portrayed as anything but God-like.

My wife had read the books a lot a long time ago and said she had no interest in seeing the film version. This is the woman who couldn't wait to see the Harry Potter movies and Rent. But after reading the books, I can see her point. The books are so thin that htey leave a lot to the imagination. The Harry Potter and LOTR books shower you with details, so that the film version will no doubt be close to how you imagined it. This is different, I think, and I think I agree that the movie version can't be the same as the book so why bother? Eh, maybe I'll rent it when it comes out on DVD.

Many years ago, my wife went and saw that crazy AIDS musical called Rent. She loved it and got the soundtrack. She quickly got me to love the soundtrack and took me to see the play. I've seen the musical three times now and she four. We both agree that no matter how good the cast is, they'll never be as good as that original-run cast that was on the soundtrack. Those actors helped shape the show through workshops and really embody those characters.

Now, ten years later, 90% of that original cast has come back to make the movie version of Rent. Of course we had to go see it! We had been following the story of the movie for years, back when Spike Lee was interested in making it, then Martin Scorcese, and then...Christopher Columbus? The guy who directed Stepmom, Harry Potter 1 & 2 and Home Alone? I had to figure CC knew how much this show means to people and he's got the original cast to keep him in line, so he couldn't screw it up too bad. As the teaser commercials came on, we got more and more excited! It looked so good! Then more and more commercials came out with scenes of dialogue! What kind of crap is that? The show is basically an opera, with all the dialogue sung. Each commercial made us more and more sad.

That said, we were very excited to go see the movie, even though the only tickets available in our timee frame were in the theater's "Director's Hall." This means we pay an extra $2.75 for stadium-style assigned seating and ushers. And I guess it keeps the riff-raff out. Which means they'll never play Rocky Horror in a Director's Hall! Ha! Anyway...

A lot of people complained that the cast was too old. I don't disagree, butt I think the trade-off of having the originals was worth it. Most glaring was when Roger tells Mimi, "You look like you're 16" and we all though, "Uh, NO ya don't!"

So the real problem was trying not to nottice every single place where the movie diverged from the play and it was really tough to do. Especially during the songs, because we were already singing them in our heads and then all of a sudden a word chages oir a line is left out or a line is SPOKEN rather than SUNG!

With Harry Potter, Columbus was kind of railed by critics for being too true to the book and not adapting it enough. In Rent, it was almost as if he purposefully put his stamp on it and changed a whole lot of stuff. Honestly, I didn't mind most of the changes, but what really bothered me was that Columbus was SO trying to make this a heavy, emotional movie that he removed all the little sung dialogue bits in between songs and within songs and changed them to straight dialogue. One scene in the play, where Angel rescues Tom Collins, is totally sung:

"You Ok, honey?"
"I'm afraid so."
"They get any money?"
"No. Had none to get. But they purloined my coat."

Columbus apparently decided this kind of stylized dialogue would come off as goofy in the movie, so the scene plays out as a regular old movie scene. We see Angel playing drums and hears a cough. He slowly gets up and carefully trods into the alley to find Tom all beaten up and they engage in realistic dialogue. It just slowed the show down. The musical was BANG a song BANG another song BANG another song. The movie was BANG a song.....a very dramatic scene involving homelessness and drugs...BANG a song...some very heavy dialogue...etc. It felt like a car with bad gas in it, stopping and starting and sputtering with spurts of amazing speed and some flat out stops. The good parts were really good. The story held up well and th music was overall great. Mimi (Rosario Dawson) was one of the new actors and she was not nearly as good as the original. She was, I'm sorry, a bit homely and just not great. Joanne (Tracie Thoms) was kind of different from the original character but very likable.

Overall I would give it a 6.5 out of 10. We didn't hate it nearly as much as we were worried we would. If you liked the play, you'll find plenty to like in the movie and plenty more to talk about afterwards. If you never saw the play and wonder what the fuss is about, I'd say this is not the place to start. The movie just doesn't have the energy of the live performance.

HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE

This is, as you all know, the fourth Harry Potter movie. The book was the biggest Harry Potter book at the time, by several hundred pages. "The Goblet of Fire" is the absolute turning point of the series, both literary and cinematic. As you're all tired of hearing, it's much darker and more serious than the previous ones.

We saw the film on the Saturday night after it opened. Needless to say, the theater was PACKED. We picked a seat too close to the front and settled in. There was a trailer for a horrible looking film called HAPPY FEET and another for a horrible looking film called THE SHAGGY DOG, during both of which, the audience howled with laughter. A dog knocked over an old lady! BWAAA HA HA HAAA! A penguin was break dancing! WAAA HAAAAAA!!!!! Ugh. I felt so out of place. This was a 7:30pm show of a PG-13 movie and the audience was mostly adults, laughing likee hyenas at the stupidest crap imaginable. Then we realized the number of little kids in the audience. Like, LITTLE kids. Like, 3 year olds. I've always maintained that the appropriate age of Harry Potter books and movies was roughly Harry's age in the books. That is to say, 11 years old or so is appropriate for the first book. And this movie, the fourth, is PG-13, and therefore appropriate for roughly 13-14 year olds. All the movies have their share of scariness and adult themes, but this one is almost completely devoid of whimsy and chock full of horribleness, including two deaths. Not to mention, of course, the fact that kids under 7 tend to talk in movies. A LOT. So yeah, the kids yammered on throughout most of the movie and we somwhat discretely decried the bad parenting involved.

So how was the movie? Well, it was good. It wasn't amazing, but it was damn good. Why not perfect? Because it assumed you read the book already. See, the book was over 700 pages long and crammed a LOT of stuff into it. For the 2 and a half hour movie, a lot was cut out. The problem was not with what was cut, but with how the remaining pieces stuck together. It seemed like a 4-hour movie was made and then 90 minutes was quickly cut out. If you didn't read the book, I imagine it was very confusing. It seemed like a bunch of scenes strung together with no real flow.

That said, the visuals were pretty amazing, as usual. The actors were all excellent. The movie was pretty emotional and dark, but the humor that DID come through was appropriate and effective. Not like in Lord of the Rings. I hated how Gimli, in LOTR, was reduced to a comic relief that felt very stuck in. The "jokes" in HP4 felt very natural.

So, in a nutshell, this was a very good visualization of the book, but I think it could have been better by being 30 minutes longer and explaining a bit more and creating more of a narrative flow.

Oh yeah, there was a trailer for THE LADY IN THE WATER that was a hell of a good teaser. It definitely made me interested in the film, even though it's by M. Night "I had one good movie in me" Shyamalan.

After looking through my photo albums, it would appear that the eye doctor's office was correct and I was wrong. How humiliating.

MY GODDAMN EYE DOCTOR

I've been going to the same place for my eyecare needs for the last several years. My plan covers one eye exam and pair of glasses per year. Prior to this doctor, I got my glasses at a kind of wholesale eye place. Glasses were $30 a pair, but their selection was pretty crappy. Not really, but they didn't carry expensive, in-style frames. But I'm a pretty careless guy and needed new glasses constantly, so this was the place for me.

Anyway, this new place is an actual doctor's office. However, I've never seen the same doctor twice. They seem to teach them how to be doctors there and then send them off into the real world after a month or something. To be fair, I only go once a year now, so maybe they train them for a whole 11 months. Who knows?

This past summer, I went in for my exam and frames visit. I sat through the exam and adjusted my prescription. Then it came time to pick a frame. I saw one of those frameless sets. They were just eyepieces fused directly to the lenses. They were so sleek and cool it was like not wearing glasses at all! Of course they're not in my plan for free lenses, so I decided to spend the $300 for the goddamn things. They were the most expensive pair I'd ever owned and I LOVED them. A few weeks later I was playing with my son on the floor and took the glasses off and laid them behind me on the floor. I forgot about them and walked away. My son proceeded to trample them. I brought the pathetic thing back to the doctor's office and said, "fix please!" They said, "Nope. Can't. Too fancy. Buy another one." They managed to convince me that I should buy another pair, but this one should have fancy polarized sunglass magic in it, so when you go outside, they turn into sunglasses! So I paid another ridiculous amount of money and got my new awesome glasses. Trouble is, the magic sunglasses only get slightly darker in direct sunlight. If you're getting glare off your side window, tough titty, Kansas City. Even in direct UV sunlight, it gets dimmer, but not nice and dark. Whatever. I needn't complain for long. Last week my daughter decided to swing my new magic glasses around her head as if it were a cat instead of an expensive piece of eyewear, snapping an earpiece in the process.

My wife brought it to the doctor's office on a Saturday, but they had to call the manufacturer and see if it was fixable. On Monday, the doctor's office told me that it was impossible to fix. Grumpily, I told them I'd be by tomorrow (Tuesday) to pick them up. I figured I could try fixing them on my own or something.

Tuesday, I went in to get the broken pair. I walked in, told them my story and said I was here to get them. The woman looked up some paperwork and told me, "Oh, they're not in yet."

"What do you mean 'not in yet'," I stammered, "They never left here I thought."

The lady (whom I've never met before, by the way) was just confused and snotty, like I was the one who was being unclear: "Well...WHEN did you drop it off? When did they say it would be done?"

Sensing that they sent it off to get replaced or something, I held up my palms and said, quickly, "Wait, wait, wait...whoa whoa whoa whoa..."

The lady cocks her head and says, "Calm down, sir."

So now I look like a wild, crazy asshole patient in front of the other people wating because this bitch told me, condescendingly, to calm down. Just then, another assistant lady comes in and say that those glasses are on her order, or something like that. I asked her what that means and she said that it was her order, or something unhelpful like that.

"Are my glasses HERE or somewhere else???" I asked through gritted teeth. I was told they were, in fact, here. She found them and handed them to me. Fine.

END OF ACT 1

ACT 2

I asked the first lady a question: "Ok, my plan allows for one exam and one pair of glasses a year, but last time I got an exam but paid for the glasses out of pocket...OK?" I paused to make sure she understood, because it's a teensy bit complicated. Plus, she was looking at me through half-closed, disinterested eyes and occasionally looked elsewhere in the room. When I asked her if she understood so far, she closed her eyes and lazily bumped her head to the affirmative. "So, can I still get a free pair of lenses on my plan?" She looked at some paperwork and told me I was eligible for an exam and a pair of frames. I said GREAT! "Can I just come back there right now and pick a pair?" "No," she said, "It's been a year since your last exam. You need a new one before I can give you glasses."

"Uh, no, I was just in a few months ago for an exam."
"No, you just got glasses, not an exam."
"I WAS HERE! I HAD AN EXAM THIS SUMMER!"
"No you didn't. You got new glasses this summer, but you didn't have an exam."
The other girl asks what the problem is and the bitch tells her, "He wants new glasses but he hasn't been examined in over a year."
"NO! Your RECORDS say that, but I was here! I was examined by a Russian doctor! Is she still working here?"
"No."
"What time frame was she here??"
"She left here two years ago."
What the hell? It was like a Twilight Zone episode.
"Can't you just PRETEND you examined me? This prescription is 4 months old!"
"No."
Suddenly I realized that they had screwed up somewhere and that's why I was eligible for new frames and exam. They had no record of me being there last time. Either that, or, since I paid out-of-pocket, it didn't register as being on my plan. I don't know. The point is, If I convinced them that I was examined, I probably wouldn't be able to get a free pair of non-frameless glasses. On top of that I lost confidence that the Russian doctor was this summer. It might have been last year. But I ABSOLUTELY remember getting axamined this summer. I had no choice but to swallow my pride and sign myself up for another damn exam. I asked the other lady when she had openings. She said Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. "Tuesday? Today's Tuesday!" The bubblehead just laughed. "Oh, I mean Wednesday and Thursday! Hee hee hee!" I was in no mood for her minor incompetence. I made an appointment and this nasty woman probably rolled her eyes and complained about me as soon as I left. RRRRRRRR That makes me so mad!

I just finished Chris Elliot's first book, The Shroud of the Thwacker. Chris Elliot, for those who don't know, is a crazy comic actor who used to appear on Letterman, eating dog food and living under the audience. He went on to create the amazingly bizarre Get A Life TV show and Cabin Boy movie. He's done a bunch of other guest stints on other shows, but when he's in charge, his total surreal hilarity comes out. What I like about Chris is what I like about Monty Python and Salvador Dali. He just creates completely illogical scenarios and they're freakin' hysterical!

"Thwacker" is basically a whole hodgepodge of zany, surreal moments strung together with the following premise: In the 1800s, a serial killer is murdering prostitutes by hitting them in the head with a sack of apples...How Chris Elliot, Teddy Roosevelt and Yoko Ono come into the story I won't spoil. The story is sort of a parody of Jack the Ripper and The Da Vinci Code. Sort of. It's also sort of like Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...but not really.

I loved the first half of the book and merely greatly enjoyed the second. It is really fast reading because there's nothing to remember or pay attention to! It's just one insane moment after another and it's so damn funny. I don't think another similar book would pack the same punch, so I hope Chris' next book is not just more of the same.

Anyway, if you like zany, random, bizarre humor, read the Shroud of the Thwacker! I give it 4 heads!

"Jack O'Lantern" Rob Lichter 2005 watercolor click for larger image.

I finally got to the movies last weekend! In fact, I saw TWO movies! Both were a little bit influenced by my own personal contexts, but let's get to them:

WALLACE AND GROMIT IN CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT

I've loved Wallace and Gromit for many many years. My first ever DVD was all three W&G short films. You all know who and what W&G are, so I'll leave out any background information.

When my son was around two years old, I introduced him to W&G and he was hooked. He still loves them and he's almost four! Whenever we see the poster or commercial, he gets all excited, though I don't think he understands fully what a movie is all about, even though he went with Mommy to see Pooh's Heffalump movie last year. I wanted to see this movie for myself, but I also wanted to take my boy. But I knew that if I went with him, the theater would be so chaotic that I'd never be able to concentrate on the film. So, Friday night, I braved the rain and the cold and snuck out to a 9:15pm showing at the local crap-hole theater as a precursor to taking Sam. Underneath my watching of the film was A)"Whoa, what a funky little crap hole this theater is!" B)I'm out of the house seeing a movie!" and C)My parenting radar went up as I considered the film for Sam's viewing.

So, that said, I'll say I liked it. I didn't LOVE it, but I certainly wasn't offended or actually disappointed. The main problem for me was that it felt stuffed and stretched. The originals were simple, 30-minute masterpieces. This felt a little too over-complicated. There were so many characters, comparatively speaking. I'm not saying they made any mistakes or missteps per se, I just felt that the characters work better in the shorts. Wallace's cheese-love was played up a bit too much and Gromit's eye-rolling became a bit tiresome after the 7th time.

However, I must say I enjoyed myself. The Bunvac actually made me laugh out loud. The animation was lovable. The designs are so simple and obviously clay. The animators leave fingerprints on the characters as a kind of anti-glitz.

When I first told my wife about the film, I complained about the adult material. For example, a woman holding up her prize melons to her chest and having men gawk at them. Time has passed and I realize that all this stuff will go over kids' heads anyway, and even if they get it, who cares? I was more offended by the opening short film, based on the Madagascar penguins. Never seeing the Madagascar movie, I wasn't excited by the characters.

I hate how all non-Pixar comupter animation sucks. It's all visually rich and detailed, but ugly. Everyone's so Ren-and-Stimpyized to look extremely jagged and crazy. The action was extremely fast-paced and annoying. And why does every cartoon have farts these days? Making farts G-rated is taking away all their power. You can't enjoy the gut-busting stifled laughter of hearing a fart in church if you hear them every day on Sesame Street!

Anyway, I recommend Wallace and Gromit. I just wasn't bowled over.

FLIGHTPLAN

Saturday night my wife and I got our very first non-friend, non-relative babysitter for a night. We were leaving the kids behind to see a movie and have dinner together! Whee!!! We both like Jodie Foster a lot and I was intrigued by the set up of the film: A woman boards an airplane with her little girl. She falls asleep, wakes up, and the girl is gone. Everyone tells her she never had a little girl. AAGHHH!!! How cool is that?

So the first half of the film was somewhat Sixth-Sense-ish with its questioning of reality and sanity. Then it did a 180 and turned into an action thriller. As soon as the turn was made I got angry. About ten minutes later I was drawn into it and felt, while it wasn't a brilliant film, it was fun and exciting. I wouldn't NOT recommend it, but it wasn't an exceptional film. Last year we got out of the house to see a movie and it was Ben Affleck's piece of crap, Paycheck. THAT was a disappointing, anger-inducing movie. What a waste of a night out that was. I didn't feel that way with Flightplan.

SPOILER ALERT: Skip this paragraph if you want to.
I had been hearing that flight attendants were boycotting the movie becuase it portrayed them in a bad light. I strongly disagree. It showed one nice one, two somewhat uncaring ones and one evil one. I would argue that it showed 100% of the sky marshals as ruthless kidnappers and killers. Why aren't any of them protesting? It portrayed all airline passengers as quick to judge and obnoxious. Why isn't everybody who's ever flown complaining? Get a grip, flight attendants. Stop complaining and bring me another pillow.

Overall, two films got me out of the house and didn't make me sorry I saw them. I guess I can't ask for more than that.

CURIOUS GEORGE: THE MOTION PICTURE

I have just been made aware of the Curious George movie coming out next year. It piqued my curiosity, since I loved the character and my almost-4-year-old son likes them too. So I went to the Moviefone website to view the trailer. The page has a little headline for the movie info: "The King of "curious"ity!" Do you idiots understand how puns work at ALL? I mean, the writer of that line thought he was making a creative literary leap by connecting CURIOUS to CURIOSITY. So, hackles up, I took a quick look at the trailer.

I was greeted by a grotesque abomination of Mr George. The monkey has now been rendered to look like some kind of Anime mutant child. He was clearly given a healthy dose of 21st century "attitude" that kids must have in their cartoons these days. On the bright side, it looked fairly well animated. On the down side...everything else. Ok, I'm being harsh. It looks like a decent kids movie. The problem is that they tinkered with a well-loved character. That never works. Let me repeat that...THAT NEVER WORKS! STOP DOING IT! We are treated, in the trailer, to Curious George drinking a latte and belching, followed by the Man With the Yellow Hat (who no longer smokes pipes) saying, "This is AWEsome!" Yes, I know, this is all perfectly acceptable behavior for cartoons. But I maintain it is NOT OK for Curous George and the Man With The Yellow Hat to enter the 21st Century. Make a movie about one of the bajillions of books he's done instead of inventing new, wacky, modern adventures.

Oh, that reminds me of a funny joke I heard: Donald Rumsfeld tells George W Bush that two Brazillian soldiers were killed in Iraq. Dubya says, "Holy cow! That's unbelievable! Exactly how many is a Brazilian?"

Anyway, the trailer concludes by telling me that the film boasts "magical" songs by Jack Johnson. Color me skeptical. That it claims to have the voice talents of WILL FREAKING FERREL among others. I'm sorry, but I really can't stand the guy. He ain't funny, folks. Face it. The emperor? NO CLOTHES! So yeah, WF plays Mr. With The Yellow Hat. After watching the trailer again, I realized he did a decent job. The Man is a non-character. He's the* straight man to George's manic monkey. So I guess he can't do too much harm. That got me thinking, why hire him at all? Why pay the million or so he probably got and not hire some talented voice guy who nobody knows? Is his voice talent really better than anyone elses? Ok, Ok, we all know it's the fact that he's a name actor. But seriously, who in their right mind is gonna go, "Hey, dude, wanna go see that new Will Ferrell movie?" Well, that goes without saying, but I meant that the hypothetical person was looking at a Curious George ad at the time. But I guess someone smarter than I also thought that Angelina Jolie had JUST the right voice to play a fish in Shark Tale, so what the hell can I possibly know? George's voice is that annoying, uvula-crushing cartoon/muppet voice that Elmo from Sesame Street, Treelo from Bear in the Big Blue House, Stitch from Lilo and Stitch and Nibbler from Futurama all use.

My final gut-wrenching discovery was that, through IMDB.COM I found out that the tagline for the film will be "Show me the monkey!"

Well, here ya go. Happy?

THIS BUS HAS BEEN CHECKED FOR SLEEPING CHILDREN

A few years ago there was a big story in the news about a lost child. It turned out she fell asleep on the school bus and the driver never saw her. The kid woke up hours later in the back of a school bus, in the dark, in front of the driver's house. Then other stories came out of the woodwork and it seemed like this was happening more often than people knew. (To be honest, it may have been a boy, not a girl...I really have no idea, but the point is still valid.)

To combat this problem of bus driver laziness, a policy was instituted: The driver must, at the end of his/her shift, walk to the back of the bus and place a sign on the rear window that reads: "This Bus Has Been Checked For Sleeping Children." Then, in the morning, the driver is supposed to walk to the back of the bus, get the sign and bring it back to the front of the bus.

Whenever I see this sign on a bus, I take a look inside. If there are kids inside, I immediately get on my cell phone and call the bus company. The first time I did thsi, the operater laughed it off: "Haha, oh he probably just forgot..." I angrily protested that that defeats the entire point of the sign.

Personally, when I see the sign on a full bus, I take it as a personal insult. Like the driver is taunting me by showing me two conflicting pieces of information and daring me to say something about it. I've called bus companies 3 or 4 times so far, but this mornings' sighting is the first since I started blogging, so you get to hear all about it.

I saw the sign, saw the kids, saw the phone number on the bus, saw the bus number and called. I had to leave a message, but I made sure I left a strong one, ending it with, "God help you if you ever leave my kid asleep on your bus."

Anyway, I strongly urge all of you to call the bus companies that have this problem whenever you see it. They will want to know the number or license plate of the bus, and where the bus is (i.e. Bus #4322, on Sunrise Highway in Babylon, heading West). I know several parents get involved after their kid has been affected, but dammit, I want to get involved BEFORE my kid is affected and try to make sure it never happens. Please help.

MY CRAZY NEIGHBORS

When we first moved into our house, we had no idea our neighbors were crazy. Then, one summer day, before we actually were moved in, we were painting the living room with the windows open. All of a sudden we heard roosters crowing. We froze and tried to follow the sound. It came from across the street. It turned out they had two roosters, at least 6 hens, two horses and two barky dogs. According to the town, they had every right to have noisy animals and we had to just live with it. Sometimes the chickens woke us up at 4:30 in the morning. It was just awful.

My next door neighbor was a single woman. We had no problems with her...just her damn dog. She had a big barky dog which apparently lived in the driveway behind a fence. It rarely got out, but it barked constantly and liked to bang into their metal shed, creating a sound akin to: "ROOF ROOF ROOF.....CRASSSHHH ROOF ROOF ROOF CRASSSSHHHH!" This went on throughout the day. One day I heard the dog barking and saw it was pouring rain outside. I went next door to tell the lady the dog was sitting out in the rain and she assured me, "Oh, don't worry, he's fine." I called the ASPCA to tell them this dog was left outside all day, in the sun, in the snow, in the rain, and the driveway was covered in piles of poop. They pretty much told me they couldn't do anything.

Then one day, someone else was next door. A Hispanic family. I gingerly approached them and asked, "Uh...do you live here now?" Indeed they did and had been there for a month. Who knew? We got along well with the new neighbors. Not really friends, but we'd wave and chat briefly outside. Their son cut our lawn. After about two years, another neighbor approached me about cutting my lawn. He told me the boy next door moved away. Again, our next-door neighbor snuck out on us.

The house has been empty now for two months. The guy came back today and told me he'd thought he sold it, but the guy who was gonna buy it had bank troubles at the last minute and the deal fell through. The family had left all their furniture in the house, planning on buying new furniture with the proceeds from the sell. Since it never happened, he's now paying two mortgages and has no furniture. Poor guy.

About a year ago, we stopped hearing the chickens from across the street. Neither of us wanted to acknowledge this to each other for fear of jinxing it. The subject was finally brought to the surface this week when we discovered something new to hate: a big, scary statue. The chicken-family now have a six-foot brown statue of a tormented naked man-like creature with gigantic hands. We think it's the work of the grown son. It's not horrible as far as art goes, but damn I don't want it on their lawn! To be fair, we can't see it from our house and it's far back on their property, but it's so damn disturbing and eye-catching! Click HERE to see a quick movie of the creature in question.

Simpsons Season 6 DVD box set

Jeez. Give them an "A" for effort. Not content with the standard square DVD box set, The folks at the Simpsons have released a crazy contraption shaped like Homer's head, inside which are the DVDs and booklets.

The clamshell head is swathed in a clear plastic sleeve that more or less conforms to the shape of the head. Once you take off the sleeve and pry open the head, out tumbles a mess of crap. The inside opens yet again to reveal the pocket for the booklets and the DVDs, which are housed in a book-like collection of pages. This is a beautifully designed piece of collectible art but a really crappy practical design. The plastic is thin and cheesy and the access to everything is unbelievably awkward. I respect them for trying new designs, but this one doesn't work. Unfortunately, the next 4 seasons will be similar.

Good news is that there's a card inside, calling me a big whiner and telling me to call an 800 number to get a stupid, normal, square box instead. I finally figured out they meant 888, not 800, and got a recording directing me to a website. The website is www.simpsonsbox.com. They make a big joke out of us jerks wanting stupid boring boxes. It's actually quite funny. But they let you buy a new square normal box for $3.00 shipping. Not a bad deal I guess. It's not like you have to send them your old one.

The artwork inside is all based on "Who Shot Mr. Burns," the final cliffhanger episode of this season. It was a great episode, no question, but to base the whole design of a season on it? I felt it was a little much. The menus are similarly mystery-themed, but design-wise very much like season 5's menus. The episodes are pretty outrageously good. Season 5 was a fantastic season and this one is possibly better. The extras are somewhat thin at this point, but the ever-present audio commentaries are always welcome and appreciated!

Overall a great addition to the collection. I'll keep you posted about the replacement box.

THE MUPPET SHOW!

The Muppet Show was one of my favorite TV shows growing up. I distinctly remember watching it with my family at 8:00 on CBS. I want to say it was Monday nights, but I could be wrong. Anyway, The Muppet Show and the Charlie Brown specials were the only programs I remember that distinctly getting ready for with anticipation.

They released a whole bunch of "Best-Ofs" on DVD, but they were incomplete selections and too sloppily done for my taste, so I never bought them. FINALLY, entire seasons of the Muppet Show with bonus features are being released with the love and care the show deserves.

First of all, the box is lined with imitation muppet skin to simulate Kermit. It's cute, but a little weird when you really think about it. The discs are packaged sort of awkwardly inside. They overlap each other, so if you want dic 4, you have to remove disc 3 to get it.

But the shows look great. The first episode has guest star Juliet Prowse, who I never heard of, but apparently she was very well known dancer in the 70s. Each guest star has a few backstage interaction with the muppets, a show piece on stage and an interview with Kermit. The episode had its usual zaniness and slapstick, but Juliet's show piece was a ballet with muppets. The muppets were full-sized gazelle-like abstract creatures who danced with Ms. Prowse. It was beautiful and artful and not at all funny. To me that was what the show was all about. There were explosions and puns and sitcom-type jokes, but there was also a real intelligence and literary mind behind the show. I remember Harry Belafonte's episode (not on this set) and he did a few African-inspired numbers that, again, were not funny at all, but artistic and beautiful.

The extras are of varying interest, but there are two priceless additions: The original pitch and original pilot. The pitch is merely a muppet talking to the camera, explaining to the network execs why they should buy the Muppet Show. It's totally off-the-wall and clearly for adults and not for TV broadcast. It's not dirty, but it shows a version of muppetry clearly aimed at adult men, not families. Also, the pilot is similar yet way different than the eventual Muppet Show we know now. It's way more chaotic and detailed. It's clearly inspired by Monty Python and Laugh-In, with its jumpcutting and random non-sequitors. It has bits of absolute genius in it and the quality of the tape is pristine.

My only complaint is that the DVD reminds me of when I saw these shows on TV at 8:00 on CBS. Now I can watch them whenever I want and it sucks a little bit of the magic out of it. There's definitely something about watching a TV broadcast that is lost with a videotape or DVD. Maybe I'll finish watching these and realize that they don't live up to my own memories, but I can't pass up the opportunity to find out. So far I'm thoroughly enjoying it!

JOHN BOLTON

Click on the picture to see what our new ambassador to the United Nations had to say about the United Nations back in 1994. This is the man who represents you to the rest of the world.

My M.R.I.

Yesterday was my first ever MRI. I had this weird thing in my arm I thought was Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, and my doctor thought so too, when he referred me to a neurologist who prescribed me a healthy dose of magnetic resonance imaging and vitamins.

The appointment was at 8:00 in the morning but they told me to get there at 7:45 for paperwork. I got there early with my coffee and Harry Potter 2 book. (I'm re-reading them in every spare moment I have to be ready for book #6 on Saturday.) The receptionist cheerily tells me that the technician is ready for me now and I can do paperwork later. I was so looking forward to drinking my coffee and waiting for an hour, reading my book. Oh well.

I removed all my metal, wallet, phone, etc., into a locker and went into The Room. I've seen enough TV to know what an MRI looks like, but it's still a little bit intimidating. The technician was an older Indian man who asked me if Peter Jennings was dead. Thoroughly confused, I said, "Wha?" He explained that he had left America a few months ago and he had heard Peter Jennings had cancer. he wanted to know if he died. I said I didn't think so. I was ready to go and laid myself down. The guy positioned my head in a little brace-like thing and told me in no uncertain terms that I WAS NOT TO MOVE A MUSCLE! EVEN THE SLIGHTEST MOVEMENT WILL BE TROUBLE! Understanding the gravity of the situation, I decided I was glad I didn't drink my coffee. I asked how long this would take and he told me about 35 minutes! I had to lie totally still for a half hour! Hmm...maybe I could go to sleep! I decided this would be awesome and I should probably make follow up visits every week, just to catch up on some sleep!

I was slid into the machine itself. The machine hovered one inch away from my nose. The sides are open, but you can't move your head to look out there, so I'm not sure what good it does. I guess your peripheral vision makes your brain understand that you're not enclosed and you don't get claustrophobic. Anyway, I closed my eyes and relaxed. Then the noises. These weird clicking, buzzing and whirring noises start going on all around me at irregular intervals, making sleep nearly impossible. Instead I began to imagine. I imagined leaving the table in a half hour with severe brain damage. I then imagined that I was, in fact, lying on a beach. Then I imagined that the technician was watching all my thoughts on a little brain-scanning TV set. Then I thought, "Gee, some music would be nice." About 10 minutes later, I heard a noise. It sounded like someone tuning a radio! I quickly realize that, because of my head constraints, I can't hear properly. It sounded like someone playing a loud TV set in the hotel room next door. Finally the radio tunes in a station. Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive" came on. I kid you not. I thought, "you know, I'm not afraid that I'm gonna die, but why bring it up at all?" Then I wonder, "Why are you telling me to lie PERFECTLY STILL for a half hour and then play me the catchiest disco song in the history of mankind? The song ends and I'm treated to 10 minutes of WKTU's commercials. I felt lik Alex in A Clockwork Orange: "Turn it off! TURN IT OOOOOFFFF!!!"

The tech came over a loudspeaker twice to tell me I was doing great and to keep lying still. I went back to imagination mode and imagined that I was lying SO still, that I was their best patient ever. My pictures would be SO clear that other doctors would ask to study them. My MRI pictures would be in journals and textbooks. How proud I'd be!

Then the whole ordeal ended. The tech came in and I debated telling him to avoid dance music for MRI patients. My initial prejudice was that this was an Indian man with a VERY thick accent who hasn't been in the country for a few months and he wouldn't understand me. I decided that was ridiculous. He was a trained medical professional. I told him and he looked at me blankly. Finally, I think he understood and explained that he tried to get the smooth jazz station in, but the MRI causes some stations not to come in well. Whatever.

Anyway, that was it. I drank my lukewarm coffee as I filled out paperwork and never made a dent in Harry Potter. I compensated by treating myself to a long lunch and reading then. I have a followup with my neurologist on Wednesday. If he has anything major to tell me, I'll let you know. Ciao!

NEW HARRY POTTER!

So, I'm sure you already know this, but a new Harry Potter book and movie are being released this year. A time for celebration, right? Well, if I had prepared properly, yes. But book #6 is being released in July and movie #4 is being released in November. So what do I do? Do I go back and re-read the first 5 books to prepare myself for the new book, or do I go back and watch the first 3 movies to prepare for the 4th?

I mean, the book comes out in two weeks and I haven't begun re-reading. The last book alone was something like 10,000,000 pages! But then again, why do I need to read it the day it comes out? So much to think about!

REMEMBER BROWER?

I do. Since I couldn't find any info about it on the web, I've created a message board where you can share your memories and stories with the rest of us!

Click HERE

THE LAND OF THE FREE AND THE HOME OF THE BRAVE

With Independence Day on the horizon, a curious crop of new stories is arising. Or maybe they've always been around but I am just now noticing.

There's a guy named Mike Norton in Utah who's built a war memorial on his front lawn. It says, "KILLED IN IRAQ" and shows the faces of every American who has died in the war. The memorial is updated almost daily as new soldiers are killed. The memorial also sports some yellow "Support our troops" ribbons. There is nothing on the memorial that says, "Stop the war," or "These people died to protect us!" There is no clear opinion expressed, except the simple fact that these are the faces of now-dead Americans. This is a memorial for the dead, not a protest against the war or a call to arms.

As you may expect, Norton is getting a small number of thanks from veterans, but mostly, he's getting his car vandalized and he's being harassed by neighbors. It's gotten to the point that the town is telling him to take down the memorial, even though they told him it violates no codes. Nobody wants to know the truth. Or if they do, they don't want to see it. It's OK to say, "Support our troops and fight the war," as long as you don't show the reality of the situation. Soldiers die. That's what they do. Oh yeah. They kill, too. That's not me being a crazy Liberal. That's the truth and any conservative Republican will agree. So if you want to honor and support the soldiers, the least you can do is to acknowledge their deaths and look at their faces.

In a somewhat related story, The House votes today (June 22) on a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban desecration of the flag. This is plain crazy. The foundation of this amazing country is freedom. All we've been hearing for the last 4 years is how we have freedom and terrorists hate it and our freedom is so amazing. "Freedom isn't Free!" I hear. Well, Bush and Cheney keep saying how well the war is going. That must mean we have our freedom and it's nice and safe. Well then, please explain to me how the government can just decide to take our freedoms away? Or if not how, why? Why would they try to silence the public from dissent? What makes America so special is the respect the government supposedly has for the people. Can you imagine going to prison for desecration a flag? In the strictest sense, people would be eligible for orange jumpsuits left and right. You are not supposed to fly a flag at night, in the dark. You shouldn't put any marks on it. If it's damaged, you are supposed to remove it from sight. How many torn flags have you seen on cars? How many were flying at night? Congressman Phil Gingrey said that "to burn a flag is to disrespect America." Well, yeah...so? That's still legal. Disrespect, while offensive, is legal. The price of freedom is that you're gonna get offended sometimes. Congressman Gary Ackerman said that the American flag symbolizes the right to burn the American flag. I'm paraphrasing, but he's right....I mean Left. He's correct, is what I'm trying to say.

On Independence Day (also known as 4th of July, dummy), try to keep in mind the countries around the world that are NOT free. Think of the countries where the media is told not to print certain stories, or the news stories are produced by the government itself. Imagine a country where the average person cannot criticize the government without risking prison. Imagine a world in which the government sorts through library records to see if there are any suspicious patterns. Better yet, imagine a country in which the government has the right to grab any "suspected" individual without a court order and hold them indefinitely without legal council.

Then wonder who is going to liberate those people.

PINK FLOYD REUNITE!!!!!!

I can't believe I'm writing those words, but it appears Dave and Roger have, at least temporarily, calmed down enough to perform together for charity. Roger started taking over Pink Floyd in the late 70s, and by 1983, he'd basically become a solo artist with Dave and Nick as session players (Rick was fired in 1979 for drug abuse), so he left the band and assumed they'd retire the name Pink Floyd. Dave and Nick didn't retire. They hired Rick back and continued the Pink Floyd legacy, but it just wasn't the same. Dave and Roger complimented each other. Roger is abrasive and witty while Dave is somewhat pop-y and musical. Dave's Floyd was too wimpy and Roger's solo albums are always a little hard to take right away. They're more of an acquired taste.

Anyway, Bob Geldof is reanimating Live Aid with Live8, a similar worldwide concert to raise awareness for world poverty. Nick had always said that it would take something on the scale of Live Aid to reunite Roger with the band.

Now, this isn't a real reunion. I mean, it's a reunion for a concert, but I have no illusions that they'll reunite for an album or tour or anything like that. I'm sure this is a one-time thing, but I'm just so excited!

ADAPTATION part 2: "THe Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy"

I finally saw the film version of Douglas Adams' "HHGTTG." It was originally broadcast on BBC radio, then it was made into books, then a record album, then more books, then a TV miniseries, then more radio shows and now a movie. Every version had direct involvement by the author, Douglas Adams. The film version was in script phase when Adams died. However, I had every reason to expect the best, as Adams had been involved for a long time in getting this movie made, and the directors assured us that they would absolutely do the books, et al, justice.

Holy crap, was I misled. The previous incarnations were chock full of satire, clever writing, meaty science fiction and character development. This film was a whiz-bang, slap-dash, slapstick abomination. I'm not saying this because it was different from the books. I'm saying this because it was completely misguided. All the jokes stemmed from visual gags, instead of from the writing. Zaphod is supposed to be a cool, hepcat-ish smoothie. That was where his character's humor came from. This one was somewhat a smoothie, but mostly an idiot. I had heard they were going Mos Def, a black rapper to play Ford Prefect. Fine, the character doesn't need to be white and Mos is supposed to be a great actor, so bring him on! Mr. Def is a mumbling plank of cardboard in this movie. Marvin was originally depressed, but abusively condescending. This one was just sitcom depressed and irritating. At least they gave Trillian something to do. The previous versions had her dooing nothing of note. This one had her doing dumb things, like falling for Arthur.

Overall, I felt like the producers took the original radio shows and books, tossed them in a pot, boiled it down to a small putty-like paste, and then reconstituted it with too much water. The movie was fast and visually fun, but there was practically no story. They hit on each moment and then WHIZZZ! They went on to the next part without developing it enough to let us care.

This movie sucked. Maybe the DVD will have an hour of deleted footage that willl redeem the story as a whole, but I doubt it.

ADAPTATION part 1: "Wicked"

I saw the Broadway musical Wicked recently. If you're not already familiar, it's the supposed back story of The Wizard of Oz movie and it's based on a book of the same name. It explains how Glinda and the Wicked Witch became who they became, and the real stories behind the Scarecrow, Tin Man and Cowardly Lion. That whole premise lent itself to a lot of "inside" jokes. I say "inside" because you'd only get them if you saw the original "Oz" movie. That pretty much means everyone, but they were delivered with a "wink wink."

So the story basically goes like this: *******SPOILERS*****A long time ago, some guy used a green potion to get a woman to sleep with him. She does and ends up having his baby, even though she's already married. The baby comes out green and her name is Elphaba. Elphaba grows up shy and awkward, hated by her father, and unpopular. Oh, and in Oz, animals can speak and are treated like humans, although the Wizard is trying to stamp them out, Nazi-style. Elphaba meets Glinda at school, who is popular and pretty and dumb. They end up friends and meet the Wizard. The Wizard cons Elphaba into casting a spell to turn the monkeys into flying monkeys so the Wizard can use them as spies. Elphaba goes on a campaign to tell the world of the Wizard's evil plan, but is forced into hiding and she is branded "wicked." The Wizard convinces Glinda to drop a house on Elphaba's sister, to draw her out of hiding. She does and she does. ...You know what? The plot details are long and convoluted, especially as a related story to the original. It's not truly important what happens.

The story has loads of subtexts not related to The Wizard of Oz at all. It touches on high school politics, prejudice, morality and friendship. There are a lot of political references that relate to Nazism and our current United States government. I'm not saying George Bush is a Nazi. I'm just saying some things are similar, i.e. when you need support, find an enemy. So, in all honesty, it wasn't an adaptation of The Wizard of Oz, but more of a sequel, really. It took a few real moments to steal, but basically it was all original show "based on characters created by Frank L Baum."

So, how was the show? It was a lot of fun. I thought it was very well written and quite clever. The set was fairly sparse, but well-designed and efficient. Not as much as Rent, but still lean and tight. That leaves the songs; I had borrowed the soundtrack prior to seeing the show and was terribly disappointed. There are 2 songs that I actually like. The rest are fluffy and unmemorable. I though the show was better than the sum of its parts, however. The songs didn't suddenly become great, but in the context of the show, they were less annoying.

As far as modern Broadway goes, this was a strong GOOD, but not a GREAT, in my opinion. I thought Rent was a GREAT. I think Wicked is safe for just about all ages and I can't say I'd tell anyone NOT to see it.

TWO BOOK REVIEWS

The last two books I've read are "The Plot Against America" by Philip Roth and "Main Street" by Sinclair Lewis. They were both really deep books that sat in my brain for weeks and so I was uncomfortable spitting out reviews right away. Now I think I can give some sort of assessments.

THE PLOT AGAINST AMERICA
This book came out a year ago or so. The story is unbelievably similar to that of Neil Simon's Brighton Beach Memoirs. That is, it's told by a young Jewish city kid, about to go through puberty in the days of FDR. There are other details that make the similarities striking, but it's not really important. The real grab of the story is that it's an alternate universe in which Charles Lindbergh becomes president of the United States, instead of FDR. Lindbergh was, in real life, a Nazi sympathizer. This makes for a really interesting America. Lindy does not want to go to war in Europe and defeat the Nazis. The Democrats do. This a real flip of today's political atmosphere, obviously. But so much so, that it can only be a comment on today. It's a way of looking at the same strong beliefs, but reversed, and how each party handles it. Another comment on today is the way President Lindbergh brings religion into the country's forefront. It's subtle, and he doesn't come out and say, "Jews are bad!" but he makes subtle comments in speeches that foster an American attitude of fierce Christian pride. At atmosphere is built. No actual unconstitutional laws are passed, but the public at large is encouraged (somewhat subliminally) to equate non-Christian with unpatriotic. Sound familiar? It's frightening to see how the country can be whipped into a frenzy over anything the president decides.
I suppose I can understand when Christians rail against this story as anti-Christian, but they've never been on the receiving end of American Christianity's overwhelming political and social power. This is a really interesting historical "What if?" kind of story, but it's also a cautionary tale of today's climate.

MAIN STREET
Main Street was written in 1920, and is a social satire of the small towns in America. In a way, it's dated as all hell. The towns described in the book are from another time in history. It may as well be a satire of Kings and Fiefdoms. The world is much smaller now, and small towns are not isolated from the progressive ideas of the big cities, as they were in the 20's. The "story" is that Carol is a smart, independant woman who has big plans for the world. She ends up in a small town with gossipy women and degrading men. She basically fights to keep her soul alive in a world that's emotionally dead. It's a long book, but I found it absolutely riveting. There's no actual plot to speak of, but we follow Carol along on her adventures, and every time she loses or gives up, it feels so real and it hurts. It's the kind of story that makes you want to throw down the book, get in a car and go live your life the way you want, all human judgement be damned.
As I said, the very basic concepts are dated, as is the dialogue: "Say, that's a dandy idea! What a gay time we'll have." But the vignettes' satirical points are still totally valid and important. I belive I read somewhere that the essense of this book is about people who have big dreams but are too passive to make them real. I can relate to this, as I'm sure many many other can as well. I expect this may be one of those books I read every year or two as an attempt to keep my own life going in a direction I like. I never read Catcher In The Rye, or if I did, I don't remember it. But I always hear of free-thinking people referring to that book like I feel I am to this one. It really spoke to me and I think it's possibly the most literary book I've ever really liked and appreciated.
I just want to add that I was given this book as a gift by my father in law who gets me books for Chistmas every year that I've never heard of or cared about, but which I always like, once I read them. He got me my first Dan Brown and my first Harry potter, too!

SIN CITY

I saw "Frank Miller's Sin City" the other day. If you don't already know the fascinating background story, here it is in a nutshell: Frank Miller made a critically acclaimed graphic novel series called Sin City. He shopped it around Hollywood, but nobody wanted to make it the way Frank wanted it. Then one day, for a goof, director Robert Rodriguez made a 5 minute short out of one of the stories in Sin City, using the comic as a storyboard. He sent it to Miller, who loved it. Rodriguez hired Miller to co-direct the film. The directors' guild said that Miller wasn't a card-carrying member, so he couldn't direct the film. Rodriguez responded by dropping out of the union and letting Miller co-direct. The film is not an adaptation, it is a translation. That is, it looks exactly like the original comic.

Anyway, I was disappointed. I never read the original novels, so I was watching it as if it was just a film, not another version of the books. Like Kill Bill, there are moments of ingenious storytelling, excellent cinematography and fun action galore. But I felt it just went over the top...WAY over the top in terms of violence and overall unpleasentness. I know that's the point of the atmosphere of the movie, but it got a bit much. This is especially true since the "story" is pretty much non-existent. It's a bunch of loosly-related vignettes based on revenge, torture and corruption. It was a real treat for the eyes, but stale chewing gum for the mind (i just made that up and I'm really proud of myself!). If I see it on cable in a few months, I may keep it on while I'm washing dishes or something, but I can't say I recommend it. Oh, and who keeps hiring Brittany Murphy? The girl couldn''t act her way out of a wet paper bag!

COMPANY by MAX BARRY

Several months ago, I praised the works of a new author named Max Barry, who did Jennifer Government and Syrup. Anyway, his new book, Company is almost done and is due for a 2006 release! Look for it! Also, someone has thrown some money at Max to write a screenplay for a potential film version of Syrup! Speaking of Syrup...there's a plotline in that book involving a bold new concept in advertising: full-length feature commercials. What a far-out concept! Meanwhile, what arrives in my Entertainment Weekly last week? A DVD! What's on it? A seven minute commercial for Volkswagen starring Joe Pantaliano! Only 7 minutes, but getting closer to what Max envisioned. Creepy.

EXPLOITATION: A CURRENT AFFAIR

Remember that super-sensational "news" show from the 80's, "A Current Affair"? If not, it was a news magazine show that liked to show video of people getting hurt and real morbidly curious things like that.
I was flipping through the channels today and heard someone talking about "posing dead bodies in the name of art" and I stopped on the channel. I had heard of an interesting artist who replaced the blood in donated dead bodies with plastic and then posed them. I thought this might be related. In fact, this artist, Thomas Condon, snuck into a morgue and posed the bodies there with objects and photographed them. He was sentenced to 18 months in jail. I was horrified at what this man did. I am all for fringe artists like Andres Serrano and Damien Hirst, but this seemed illegal and just flat out wrong. The reporter told us all how horrible this was, and how exploitative it was, not to mention "the worst form of invasion of privacy."
For the next 10 minutes, we are treated to video of the families identifying their dead loved ones from photographs. We are then shown interviews in which the living relatives tell about how they found out their loved ones were dead. We linger on their contorted, crying faces. Exploitation, indeed.
When the piece was over, the host was standing there with a sour face on and he says, "I hope he STAYS in jail, along with anyone who helped him...that's just....anyway..." What a professional!
Then, A Current Affiar tackled the Michael Jackson case, by telling us all about the little kid at the center of the first molestation case. We are told he's in hiding and doesn't talk about the case. We are then shown video of the kid, now 20 or so, skiing and hanging out with his friends. We are told what college he went to and what he majored in. Invasion of privacy, indeed.

LIFE IN A BOX (epilogue)

I called the lady whose computer I garbage picked the other day. I found her number from her files and gave a call last night to mention that I had the computer and wanted to know if it was alright to wipe the files. I left a message on a machine.

This morning I got a phone call from beyond the grave! Turns out the 77 year old woman wasn't dead at all, but simply upgraded her computer. Her files have been transferred over and I was free to clean the computer. She wished me well, hoped my son enjoyed the computer, and invited me to see the old ladies' dance troupe at the library on Tuesday nights!

I no longer feel a sense of protectiveness for the iMac and am ready to re-install the system software and give it a brand new life! Its previous owner was a 77 year old lady and its new one will be a 3 year old boy! If iMacs write memoirs, this one will be interesting!

LIFE IN A BOX

I was driving down a side street yesterday and passed a house with some boxes of garbage at the curb. As I drove by, I noticed the shape and color of one of the pieces of trash resembled an old iMac. Being a huge Apple Computer buff and collector of old Apple Computers, I quickly turned back to see that, yes, someone had thrown out a seemingly intact Bondi Blue iMac. They had also tossed a crummy old scanner and a lousy old printer. I snatched the iMac and put it in my trunk. I brought it back to work to see if it would...well...work! I booted it up and it worked! It had some software on it and a whole bunch of Microsoft Word documents.

I started to feel a little weird about this. Maybe the people didn't mean to throw this out. I mean, a working computer jammed with files? I kept telling myself that it was left on the curb and therefore was free! Another part of my brain was imagining some kid getting ready to move out of the house, coming out of the front door with another pile of stuff for the moving van, going, "Where the hell's my iMac??" After work, I drove back down the street and saw all the boxes were gone. I don't even remember exactly which house it was.

I decided the iMac was mine and voyeuristically started rummaging through the files. Not to find any information to steal or credit card numbers or anything, but just as a peek into someone else's life. In doing so, I discoverd that the previous owner was an 80-ish year old woman who co-owns a business with her children. She used to be a Rockette and was Vice-President of a Rockette alumni association. She also gave dance classes to older folks. There were other files pertaining to business affairs and personal ones as well. Family problems, medical problems and email jokes abound in this thing. I also found a couple of files regarding wills and inheritences and funeral plans. I'm guessing the woman was getting old and none too healthy and was planning for her demise and is now dead. I suspect her children threw out this old (6 years old!) computer rather than try to sell it on Ebay or whatever.

I had every intention of wiping this computer's hard drive clean and letting my son use it. I am now finding it hard to imagine erasing this woman's life from the iMac. It's as if her soul is trapped inside this blue box. (I mean that metaphorically; I don't belive in souls as literal things.)

I found this woman's name, email address and phone number and I'm planning to call, just to make sure it's cool to erase the stuff. Even if it is and I end up keeping the computer, I think I'm going to back up all the files to a CD and keep it in storage. It's weird, but I just don't feel comfortable having all this woman's stuff completely wiped off the face of history.

Please keep this story in mind when you are getting rid of your computer. I am a nice guy, but imagine all this info in the hands of someone who wanted to be nasty or wanted to take advantage. I know this woman's name, family and friends, medical history, and everything else. Erase your hard drive or smash the computer when you throw it out, unless you don't mind people reading your stuff.

WOODSTOCK 05

Back in High School I was a huge fan of the entire concept of Woodstock 1969. I loved 90% of the soundtrack and watched the movie on PBS every time they aired it, even after I bought it on VHS. The original concert was actually a "3-day music and arts fair" to celebrate peace, music and love. about 500,000 people gathered for 72 hours or so and there was no major violence of any kind. The concert became admission-free a few hours in and everybody helped each other coped with shortages of food and facilities. It was a mess but it was beautiful. When the 1994 concert happened, I felt both excited and sickened. I felt that I might finally have a chance to got to Woodstock! But it became apparent that this was a "Woodstock Music and Arts Fair" in name only. It was just a big concert whose goal was the make a lot of money. The 1999 concert was just a disgrace. A bunch of kids paying $150 to sit on an old airforce base listening to Nine Inch Nails, while perhaps fun, is not "Woodstock." I see the video from that concert and I see the kids covered in mud yelling at the kids not covered in mud. They actually went out of their way to create animosity. They were all gathered together for one purpose, but they couldn't be happy unless there was something to fight about. On top of that, there were several reported rapes and major vandalism. It proved that kids today suck and have no sense of a global community. If Woodstock 1969 helped encourage the country and bring it closer to peace, Woodstock 99 actively helped bring it closer to utter chaos.

But that's not the reason I'm blogging this. I just got carried away. Anyway...

So, I've been wondering who SHOULD be performing in a current version of Woodstock. That is, if I were to organize it myself, who would I invite to perform? I like Nine Inch Nails and Metallica, but I don't think they exude the spirit of Woodstock. There would be no Gangsta Rap because A) I hate it and B) it certainly doesn't promote a way of thinking that I want to encourage. On the other hand, I don't want to only invite bands that I like, personally. I also wouldn't want to invite all the old performers, like Ritchie Havens or Arlo Guthrie, because they're just not relevent anymore. With those qualifications in mind, I've come across the following list of performers that I think I'd like to see at my own personally prepared Woodstock 2005:

-Laurie Anderson (Artistic, socially important music)
-Green Day (Rock and Roll with something to say)
-U2 (See Green Day) (Please be advised that I don't really like U2 but I think they'd be perfect for Woodstock 05)
-Melissa Etheridge (I like her less and less as she puts out albums, but I still have loads of respect for her and she's still excellent live)
-Neil Young (This guy still amazes me. He's been constantly challenging himself with new kinds of music and continues to write socially and politically important music, and has done so for 30 years+)
-Eric Clapton (Another legend who's still going. Although I think he's starting a rapid decline into lameness. I have to believe he's still got some spark, however)
-Tom Petty (Not quite our generation's Bob Dylan, but getting there as he gets older)
-Oasis (I think their music is perfect for a huge summer outdoor concert)
-Ween (Something fun and different, I think it's important to expose the public to unusual stuff)
-Eels (Like Ween with a more serious edge)
-Steve Vai (I respect him more than I like him, but he's an amazing guitar player with a strong spiritual side and a hippie spirit)
-Andrew WK ( A controversial pick, I know. He's loud and obnoxious, but he's overall optomistic and fun)
-The Go-Nuts (One of my favorite weird obscure bands. They play 50's-style Rock and Roll but take on the persona of a group of costumed superheroes who keep the world safe for sugary snacks. They would totally make the audience go "Huh?", like Sha Na Na must've done 30 years ago!
-Beck (another guy I respect more than like, but a great soul)

So that's it. I'm sure I could come up with more if I thought about it for longer, but this is my list. FYI, the original concert's list can be found HERE

Please leave me comments about this. I'm sure I'm missing great acts and I'm sure you wanna yell at me for some of my picks. Let's hear 'em!

ONE TOOTH TWO TOOTH RED TOOTH BLUE TOOTH

My little sweetheart, Allie, has one little tooth in the middle of her bottom gum. When she smiles, it's like looking at a haggard old witch! We were playing with her the other day and Called her "One-Tooth." "How's it going, One-Tooth?" I asked her. After a long pause I asked my wife to imagine if we named her Rhee instead of Allie. She looked at me suspiciously. "Rhee? Why would we do that? What does Rhee mean?" she asked. I replied, "Because then we could call her "One-Tooth Rhee!" Her eyes rolled back into her head. She shook her head as if to remove what she just heard from it. I attacked again: "We could say things like, 'What did you do that to One Tooth Rhee for?" I was so damn amused with myself!

SIMPSONS' GAY MARRIAGE EPISODE

I was definitely excited to see the Simpsons Sunday night. I usually look forward to it, but this was the episode in which a character was supposed to come out of the closet and get married! The episode began with a title card: "This Episode Contains Discussions of Same Sex Marriage. Parental Discrection is Advised." I was goddamned flabbergasted. DISCUSSIONS OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE is now cause for advisories...not a "frank discussion of anal sex"...not "graphic depictions of girl/girl action." I was waiting for the joke. There was none. At what point in our future will this seem downright medieval? I also want to point out that in the same episode, Homer gets stabbed in the hand with a butcher knife and gets a lit cigarette in his eye. This was not deemed warning-worthy. Not that I think it should have been, I'm just pointing out the fact that somebody felt that the fairly intelligent discussions of a cartoon were more harmful to the population at large than the image of a burning eyeball. I'm embarassed to live in a world in which homosexual love is considered "part of an ideology of evil" by the Pope. When I was growing up, interracial relationships on TV were cause for raised eyebrows. It's now pretty much treated as not a big deal. I truly hope this important civil rights issue can be looked upon the same way in ten years.

A DAY FOR THE PRESIDENTS ( A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT)

Monday is Presidents' Day. Read that again. Look where the apostrophe is. It is a day for all (or at least 2) presidents. That makes it a plural possessive. If you write "President's Day", then you are saying it is a day for a president. Well, which one? If it's the current one, I'd rather go into work. If it's for Grover Cleveland (pictured), I'll stay home and respect his legacy. After all, he is the only non-consecutive two-term president. I love that.
So, next time you see a Nissan ad claiming to celebrate President's Day...ask yourself which president they are celebrating. Then go to a dealer who celebrates ALL the presidents.

STEVE BARNES

Well, I finally got it done. Click the image of Apu to view the clip that transformed my friend's life

A CULTURE OF LIFE

I really didn't want this blog to get political or religious or any of that crap. Everyone's got their own opinions and it's pretty pointless to try to change people's minds about religion and politics. Plus, if anyone's gonna get on their soapbox it ain't gonna be me. Not because I'm shy or anything, but because I'm not exactly an expert in these fields.

But all this Roe V Wade stuff is getting my hackles up again. I'm pro-choice. I'm not afraid to say "pro-abortion." I know what abortion is and what it does. I don't need to see a picture of an aborted fetus to know it's disgusting-looking. I also know that open-heart surgery is disgusting to look at, but I'm still all for it.

Anyway, if you disagree with me then there's nothing I can do to change your mind.

What I really want to rail against is George W Bush going around saying he wants to promote a "culture of life." What he needs to do is just come out and say he wants to ban abortion. That would be honest and not hypocritical. I could disagree with him and still, perhaps, respect his opinion. But, when this man says he wants to promote a culture of life, I just want to vomit. This is a man who executed 152 people as governor of Texas. Now, I'm not saying I'm against the death penalty. I'm kind of on-the-fence about that one. But don't kill 152 people and then say all life is sacred. As president, this man has caused thousands of people to die in the Iraq liberation. Of course, some of those lives were evil, and you have to break some eggs to make an omelette, right? My point is that if you support a war and the death penalty, then you've got no right to tell me that every single life is a blessing. How in God's name (literally) can you be pro-war and pro-death penalty but anti-abortion? You might say, "because embryos are innocent." Yeah, well a whole hell of a lot of innocent people die in wars, too. You may say that you have to kill some innocents for the greater good. Well, then how can you be against stem-cell research? I don't begrudge anyone their true opinions, I just wish people would think through the logic of their statements.

EVOLUTION II: THE WRATH OF IRA

Today's Newsday had a brilliant and succint version of my spiel in its "Letters to the Editor" section. Here it is:

Where to teach about God

Regarding "A matter of 'intelligent design' " [News, Jan. 14]: The main problem with the Theory of Intelligent Design is that it is based on the theory that God exists. Belief that God exists (held by most people in the world) is not proof that God exists.

One can debate the findings and interpretations of Charles Darwin in a science course, which is appropriate. A debate over the existence of God is not appropriate in science courses. A debate about the attributes of "the God we believe in" belongs in our churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.

This is not a question of government atheism or the separation of church and state. It is dealing with facts, not beliefs.

Ira Perlman
Massapequa

That is precisely what I was trying to say last week, but Ira said it much better. Thanks, Ira!

IF EVOLUTION IS OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL EVOLVE

There was a huge story in Newsday the other day about the controversy over teaching evolution in public schools. I want to start off by saying that it's the year 2004 AD and the concept of evolution is considered "controversial." The very basic conflict is that scientists and most other thinking people believe that humans and other animals became what they are today through millions of years of mutations and natural selection, while religious zealots believe that God said "poof" and every species came into existence as they appear today.
Let's put aside our opinions about this for a second. Let's imagine that we are all adults and can respect someone else's differing opinion. It'll be tough, I know, but I think we can do it for 2 minutes. The religious folks want to either outlaw the teaching of evolution because it conflicts with the Bible, or else they want equal time for the "creation" or "intelligent design" opinion. What I don't understand is how religious beliefs have any place in a science class! The kids are there to learn SCIENCE. Science is constantly evolving. Textbooks need to be updated year after year as we discover new things. THAT is what Science is. I would not expect to learn about pronouns in a science class. If my crazy neighbor started shouting "Chickens are made of limburger!" I would not expect this hypothesis to appear in a textbook. What students learn in Science Class is a conglomoration of what scientists have learned. Why would you expect a Biblical story in there? Would you ever hear about inert gasses during Sunday school? Has any Bar Mitzvah speech mentioned aerobic vs. anarobic respiration? No! And why not? Because it's completely irrelevant! If you were in a Theology Class, I would fully expect the evolution/creation debate to be tackled in a fair and balanced manner. But "science," according to www.dictionary.com, means:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Now, most of those words could apply to the creation theory, but not "experimental investigation." If you want your children to learn your Biblical values, then by all means, send them to a private Christian school. No harm, no foul. But why let Christian dogma enter the public school when you won't allow secular ideas into the Church? When I was in Hebrew School, I tormented the teachers there with questions like, "How come there were no dinosaurs in the Bible? Were Adam and Eve cavemen? Why were the fish spared in the great flood?" The teacher always said the same thing: "The Bible is not a history book." That was the greatest information she ever gave me.

Now, how could I live with myself if I were as hard-headed as the religious folks? I heard that last week in Georgia, a judge ruled on this very topic. Apparently, some God-fearing folk demanded that stickers be put on their science books reading: "Evolution is a theory, not a fact." The ACLU and other hippie-type folks demanded the stickers be removed because they indirectly promote creationism. Now, I gotta say, I don't agree. Evolution is a theory. Nobody can actually record the process in real time situation because it takes millions of years to happen and humans don't live that long. We also can't prove that George Washington existed. There are no photographs or DNA samples. Yet, it makes sense that we go along with the theory of his existence until proven wrong. Evolution is a theory and I see no problem with saying so in a textbook. If the sticker had read: Evolution is a guess, but the Bible is God's word!" then I would take offense at it. But it didn't.
There is an episode of FRIENDS in which Ross, the scientist learns that Phoebe doesn't believe in evolution. He spends the entire episode trying to convince her, to the point of harrassment. He states that evolution is fact and that Phoebe is just plain wrong. Phoebe counters by reminding Ross that hundreds of years ago, scientist were SURE that the Sun revolved around the Earth and before that, they were SURE that the Earth was flat. She convinces Ross in the end that a person can never be 100% sure about anything and that all beliefs, including Science, require a dash of faith. I always loved that.

So, to recap: I believe in evolution, but I acknowledge that humans know a lot less than what they don't know. I also believe that religious beliefs have no place in public schools, except in a theology class or similar line of study. Go rent Inherit The Wind. 'Night.

APPLE'S NEW LINE

On January 11th, Apple Computer released a whole bunch of new stuff. I had been hearing rumors for weeks about this stuff but it finally came out today.
I have to say I'm pretty underwhelmed. The software looks good, but the hardware is dumb.

First off, we get a "headless imac." Actually, they call it a "mac mini," sort of like "ipod mini." Personally, I thought they should have called it "minimac", but hey. Anyway, it's a misguided attempt to supply a cheap, simple computer. It's $500, about the size of a personal pizza and comes with nothing; no keyboard, no mouse, no monitor. I suppose it's good for a very small niche of the population, but it's hardly anything to get excited about. It's basically a $500 hard drive and CD burner. Another problem is that the computer is so small, there's no room for the power supply, so it comes as a seperate box that you plug into. On the website, all the galleries show how clean and simple it is, but only one picture that I found showed the entire system, including the external power supply. Apple tried to do this back a few years ago with the G4 cube. It was the same concept, and nobody bought it.

Next is the new ipod! It sounds so exciting! It really isn't! Like the monitor-less new mac, the ipod has no screen. "Well, how can you decide what to listen to?" You can't. It's called the "ipod shuffle" and basically the point is to use it for random play only. It's "only" one gigbyte, versus the previous 20 or 40gig models and it costs about $100.

So both new things are cheap and simple, but who the hell's gonna use them? I guess I can't blame them for trying to innovate, but these two things seem like big missteps to me. To support my feelings, I'll mention that Apple stock dropped over $4 today. Dammit.

The software is basically all updates of old software like iDVD, iTunes, Keynote, GarageBand, etc. They added one new program, called PAGES. It's a cheap word processor. I suppose it's good for simple and cheap, but anyone halfway serious is gonna go with Microsoft Word. I may hate the practices of Microsoft and their operating system, but Word is a great program.

Anyway, Apple is still da man, but I'll be watching them a little more suspiciously for a bit.