Master and Commander: I did not read the books, so I cannot say if the movie do not follow their spirit. All the same, I am with Christopher Hitchens on the point that the movie is missing something. It surely does sound like the books, partly because they are 'R' rated in spirit, has more bite. Furthermore, the movie was rather boring for long stretches. Long stretches at sea and (though it might look great) not much interesting period or sight specific sense of detail in the telling. The movie has various stock themes, Russell Crowe's character is actually a bit boring, and a few times it is a bit confusing to tell what exactly is going on. Thumbs down.

I caught Jessica Lynch on Letterman. She looked like a deer caught in headlights, which is a bit surprising since she did have nationally broadcast interviews already. One thing that might have unnerved her a bit was the studio audience, who gave her a standing ovation when after she came on (on crutches), something you don't see every day. Letterman basically had to lead her the whole way, but you can tell he deeply respects people like her (another person he sees in this light is Sen. McCain). And, as Richard Cohen recently said in a column, I respect her as well. She, understandably given the usual propaganda of war, has been used as a "hero," (she calls herself a "survivor") but no matter how much her story has been mischaracterized, the fact is she is a hero. And, she has made an effort to not help spread the more fictitious stories.

[Update: As noted by Salon, this low key, taciturn interview style has been her style, even with the more obtrusive Diane Sawyer.]

Lynch might have been used by the administration and its supporters in a cynical way, but that is no fault of hers. She just went over, served her country, and nearly died in the process. One reason she did not, and Lynch reaffirmed this on Letterman, was that Iraqi medical staff and others helped her. Her best friend (a Hopi) was not so lucky; she died over there. It is the harm to people like these that truly is why I am so appalled at the missteps involved in this damn war. I too applaud your efforts ... damn if our leadership doesn't serve us as well as you do.

Talkathon Over ... nothing changes. Oh, Sen. Zell Miller ("D") made an ass out of himself, comparing the effort against Justice Janice Rogers Brown to a lynching, but his support for the re-election of President Bush (like come on man! Sen. Lieberman is running!) made him persona non grata to many Democrats anyway. In the end, it is like the Republicans made themselves look foolish, given they again failed to get a cloture vote and the whole thing looked liked a staged waste of time. The big show of bringing out cots beforehand suggested as much:

"Republicans very much wanted the cots [which in the end were not really unused], with their implicit message of physical discomfort and commitment. On Wednesday, in the presence of a large press contingent, they had 10 cots installed in the Strom Thurmond Room, named for the South Carolina senator who in 1957 famously held the floor single-handedly for 24 hours 18 minutes to oppose a civil rights bill, a record still unmatched."

I also do not think any reminder of Strom Thurmond in this context was a good thing, though again, the conservative sorts this whole thing was primarily meant to satisfy might have appreciated the symbolism. For those just annoyed at the Democrats getting a small victory by blocking the nominations (something Republicans used to do quietly via the now revoked power to hold up nominations in committee), having to stay around for forty or so hours while the Democrats repeatedly railed against them, probably did not seem worth it given the net result.

More on the C-SPAN talkathon. The Senate Republicans figured that thirty hours of repetitive politically motivated theater was not enough, so even after thirty hours, they are still at it. On the other hand, maybe the Democrats are getting a bit tired. Assistant Minority Leader Sen. Reid (NV) a little after midnight was down to citing the number of suicides that occurred during the whole thing, one more thing they could have been talking about besides this whole affair. When he noted his own father committed suicide, well, that might have been one of those "too much information" moments.

Reviews: West Wing was quite good tonight. Matthew Perry again was excellent, suggesting the "Ainsley Hayes" conservative slot on the show should be used more often. One reason why it was good was because it something going on beside malaise. It had that, but it had more too, including a good subplot about the Chief Justice that was a payoff of repeated references sprinkled into various episodes about his slow mental disintegration.

On the other hand, In the Cut was ridiculous. I liked or respected past films by Jane Campion. Meg Ryan looks pretty sexy nude and did pretty well with the material with which she was dealt. It is rare to find a film with even a hint of a penis (admittedly, female frontal nudity generally stops at the chest) and Campion doesn't disappoint there. Also, I'm sure the film was meant to have some deep, feminist, and/or intricately psychological point of view about sexuality. So be it. The movie was boring, pretentious, stereotypical, and ridiculous. It annoyed me because the presence of serious portrayal of sexuality is rather rare in wide release films and this effort did not do much to help that.

A halfway good analyst could probably write a social thesis using the film as a subject and the film wasn't total garbage. All the same, it was a waste of the potential to actually say something about the issues while telling a good story. On that level, it was akin to run of the mill straight to video late night thrillers, which also tend to be explicit, have some lame stereotypical supporting characters, and seem attracted to the seedy underside of things. They also at times even provide a useful message or two, the surprising artistic value especially nice given it was unexpected. You expect more of this sort of fare, though perhaps, the pretentious aspects of Campion's past work made it not totally surprising.

"Rookie" of the Year: Two sportswriters left off Hideki Matsui's name off their 2003 AL Rookie of the Year ballots, thus paving the way for Angel Berroa of the Kansas City Royals' to win by a hair. [Matsui would not even had to be first place on both of their ballots, given the winner was determined by four points.] Their reasoning was that someone who spent ten years in Japan, was a multiple MVP over there, and was hired by the Yankees for that very reason was in spirit not a "rookie." This caused some controversy, since technically Matsui is a rookie, given this is his first year of playing American ball.

Oh please. Yes, technically he is a rookie, but also, technically, sportswriters need not vote for the player with the best stats. Like a juror, they can vote their "conscience" so to speak, and cannot be penalized for voting for other reasons. And, one of the two argued that he didn't know if Matsui would be his choice anyway. Sure. It is notable, though, two others left Berroa's name off, so there was some kind of parity in sense all the same. Anyway, Matsui is not a rookie. He is not just an experienced player, he was a superior one, and did so with an elite team in his league. Thus, the true rookie should have an added edge, since he played basically at the same skill level without years of experience to guide him.

A final argument is that this would mean that Jackie Robinson would not have properly been a rookie of the year, given his years in the Negro Leagues. First off, the ability of a pioneer such as he to adapt to the majors is just not comparable to a Japanese player joining the majors years after other Asian players did so, and in a totally different racial climate. I leave aside comparing the skill levels of Negro and modern Japanese baseball, though given his wartime service, I believe Robinson was not in the Negro Leagues for ten years like Matsui was in his league. Finally, if his baseball experience was comparable, no, in a sense, Robinson was not a "rookie."

Gilmore Girls was excellent tonight. Sometimes I find the show annoying or the characterizations a bit too simplistic (last season had the lousy idea of making Paris' losing her virginity serve as a way to totally embarass her, while Rory shined as the innocent and supportive one), but the basic power of the writing and characters continue to make it eminently watchable. All the same, there seems to be a few episodes in which special effort was given to the screenplay, and the excellence of the writing particularly shines. Tonight was one such night, especially two extended dinner scenes where the wit, characters, and fast pace nature of the show's dialogue truly stood out. I could imagine it being in some witty play. It is one of those moments where television actually seems artistic, lol.

Rory also seems more mature these days, as portrayed by Alexis Bleidel (btw she is only a couple years older than the character, as compared to the actress who plays Paris). This adds to the show, I think, because it takes us in a new direction, making us see her in a new light. Since the mom/daughter relationship is so central to the show, I was wondering how they would handle having Rory away at Yale. The way to do this is to continue to have the two together a lot, which is reasonable since Yale is a fairly close driving distance to her home (as compared to Harvard). All the same, we get a few shades of college life as well. It's working rather well thus far.

The upcoming (Wed Night) "talkathon" or "anti-filibuster" sponsored (so to speak) by the Republicans in the Senate to show conservative activists that they care that Democrats are making a fuss about a few judicial appointments is pretty amusing in a way. It sounds like the making of good theater and something to watch late at night, given the dearth of good repeats and late night porn. It is a cynical power play of sorts all the same, of course, and I give my .02 over here. All the same, I find the average person does not care much about it, or is tired of the whole thing. And, I had trouble finding much about it (it starts tomorrow night after all) in the blog universe. Oh well, let's see how it goes.

My Veteran's Day post.

An excellent essay about Sylvia by someone who did not see the film at the time of writing it can be found here. Readers are well advised to use the "more by user" feature, since there is a consistence excellence to his writing and reasoned thought that is often remarkable.

Chicago acted to settle a long standing lawsuit involving panhandlers. The problem: "Currently you can't have a blanket ban on panhandling like that," said Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the city's Law Department. "It's considered a limit on commercial speech." Those who have been ticketed can obtain $50, arrested $400. Of course, when dealing with this group, it is hard to deliver.

I would suggest going around and putting money in their cups. Panhandlers also can milk the settlement: promote their newly obtained status as fighters in support of the First Amendment. Panhandling is as popular, after all, as another group whose commercial speech rights are being threatened: telemarketers. Seriously, panhandlers have always provided an important resource -- putting a human face on the ills of society as well as allowing us to personally and directly attempt to deal with the problem. I do not think giving panhandlers money is always the best way to help them (but damn if the city, as NYC does through advertising, suggests I cannot decide to spend my money thusly), but covering up the problem by basically banning them (selectively enforced, of course) is not the solution either.

A nod, a bit early, to all those veterans out there, including those in active service. The LA Times had a pair of valuable stories on those currently fighting the imperfect fight in Iraq today. One gives a measured look at the morale of the troops, basically it is better than one can expect, and troubled in some ways as is understandable. Another article discusses those injured, a group we rarely hear about, many of whom owe their lives to improved battle armor. Veteran's Day is scheduled on the official date that WWI ended, a war with many tragedies for often worthless ends. Thus, I think it proper to honor veterans on this day while still remembering how much a mess war all too often turns out to be.

Thoughts: The presidential caucus/primary season is but a couple months away, but it still seems too early to start worrying about things. These things do tend to come up and bite ya, if you aren't careful though. I add to the discussion here, arguing that a new rule change might not only lead to a brokered convention, but might help Kerry (someone else responds, continuing a theme of his, and arguing otherwise).

I also suggest that libertarians (and others) might support a Democratic win because the Republican opposition would better serve as a check. This makes sense, since those friendly with the Democrats are accused of unfairly criticizing this administration selectively. This might be true, but other than the Republicans being in power now, it is only natural to be more harsh to those you trust/disagree with less. This is the value of a "loyal opposition." This is hard for some to accept, as shown by the replies which basically write off the whole Republican Party for what I believe are the wrongs of one wing of it. This tendency to demonize the opposition, shown especially on political message boards, troubles me, and I'm no evenhanded soul myself in that department.

Football: Beware of games in which you are heavily favored, especially if you are going against desperate teams. The Giants played horrible against 1-7 Atlanta, who beat them last year without Michael Vick, and beat them this year as well (now they are 2-7). This game unfortunately did not knock them out of contention, so fans have to bear with them some more, waiting for them to again show their talent, so they can again mess up for one last time. The Jets beat Oakland, but it took a 21-10/24-24 turnaround in the Fourth Quarter to do so, and this time the kicker did his job. An overtime win is always nice, but the history (and early whipping in this very game) between these teams made it even more sweet. The Jets might be 3-6, but fans still have a reason to watch the games -- pride and games like this.

Movies: I am not really a big fan of poetry, since I tend to enjoy poetry in prose more, nor do I know very much about Sylvia Plath. One thing I did learn when I read about the film Sylvia was that those who study her are often divided into two groups: those who are more sympathetic to her, and those who are more sympathetic to her husband. This involves those trying to determine why she committed suicide at a young age, which I found a bit strange, since given her history (she tried to commit suicide before she met him), it appears that Plath had some predilection to it either way. Blaming either, unless somehow their general flaws or decisions were so different from typical of the era to warrant notice (I have my doubts), seems silly. Of course, I know nearly nothing of the background, so who am I to say?

Not knowing much about the background is actually useful in a way when you watch a based on reality film such as this. I do think that films have some responsibility not to twist the truth too much, especially since many do formulate their views on reality from them (unconsciously or not), and knowing the background story does affect how one accepts a film. To take an extreme case, no matter how superior as an art form JFK might be, conspiracy theory twisting of fact such as that bothers me.

Anyway, the thing that stood out about Sylvia was the Oscar nomination worthy performance of Gwyneth Paltrow, who had a bit of an uphill battle given the film seemed underwritten and without a full picture of the characters (mainly Plath and her husband, Ted Hughes). This made the film somewhat flawed, but Paltrow's performance as well as an excellent sense of mood and place surely made it worth watching.

As some reviews note, the screenplay leaves open a lot of questions, even in the limited area of the film (mainly the couple's relationship and Plath's slow loss of control, which the film implies were somewhat closely entwined, especially at the very end), so it is an imperfect work. Also, I too think's Palthrow's real life mother shines in the one scene she is in, playing Plath's mother. Jared Harris as a literary critic and Michael Gambon as her neighbor are also very good in small roles. Finally, is that her in the nude scenes? I wonder. [Plath's sexuality is apparently key to her personality; it is said to be strong and more daring than others of her generation in the c. 1960 era of her adulthood.]

The penchant for the critics of the administration and its supporters (and de facto syncophants, such as those who let him invade Iraq and pooh pooh about the problems involved after the fact, but then vote for his $87B funding bill, only to let it be passed via voice vote so they aren't too public about it, and so forth) to lash back is understandable, but still somewhat troubling.

"Lies," Memory Holes, and Whitewashing touches upon this fact. For instance, I quote someone who specifies what exactly he means by "lies," which turns out to be broader than a common definition of the term might involve. This adds fuel to the other side, but it's not necessary, is it? The "lies" in many cases quite arguably are that; other times they are misleading enough to be wrong on that ground alone. Let's not fall into the trap of being as simplistic as we accuse those we criticize of being.

The same by the way, and I know politics is all about turning up the sound sometimes, in other battles. For instance, Justice Janice Rogers Brown is the latest controversial nominee to be opposed by the Democrats (came out of committee 10-9). Clearly, her tone, strong views (which she publicly promoted in speeches using language meant to excite), and strategic importance (selection to the DC Circuit, possible short list to Supreme Court) all give Democrats valid reasons to oppose her.

One needs not use hyperbole, such as railing on her guarded support of Lochner v. N.Y., a controversial early 20th Century ruling that honored economic rights, here the right of a bakery employee to work over ten hours or so. This line of cases also struck down minimum wage laws, union protection laws, and many more instances firmly supported these days. All the same, the ultimate core of the decision was honoring property rights via a higher standard of review. Quite arguably, property rights sometimes are slighted these days, and some of the controversial cases where Justice Brown honored property can be defended, and were not solo dissents. You can disagree without going the route of Senator Schumer and suggesting any support of Lochner was basically totally unreasonable for a judicial nominee.

'Places I Never Meant to Be' edited by Judy Blume is an excellent collection of "Original Stories by Censored Writers" for teenagers. It suggests not only is teenage fiction excellent as literature, but is not just for teenagers. Each writer had their work censored in some fashion and follow their stories with a little essay about censorship. On the Fringe edited by Donald R. Gallo is also another excellent collection of short stories concerning teenagers in crisis, this time not critical moments per se, but outcasts who each have their own story and burdens to bear. Both are a good way to take a taste of many writers and get some insights about teenagers in the process.

[Ironically, given the theme of the first book, two education majors who reviewed it on the Amazon.com site didn't like the second one because of the bad language in it! It makes you fear the future of education or wonder if they don't curse down in Mississipi.]

In the News Update: The UN took Door Number Three ... the cloning issue was punted for a couple years. As to partial birth abortion, a major abortion provider was given a temporary restraining order by a NY federal district judge, which makes two in what is likely to be numerous ones of the kind. Of interest in the ruling is a statement by the government that Congress did not suggest there is no medical debate on the "health" need of the banned procedure. This is important because it read the Stenberg v Carhart ruling that overturned a state law to mean that serious debate in the medical community that the procedure was less risky was all that was necessary for it to be constitutionally required as an option.

Also, there was an article about the use of lingerie in France, which noted: "Lingerie is so important to a French woman's sexual self-esteem, it seems, that only 3 percent of French women believe they are seductive in the nude." Amusing, but actually it is a generally accepted concept -- nudity per se is not as seductive as clothes that hint but don't totally expose sexuality. It is because certain body parts are hidden that makes them so sexual. The seductive nature of breasts in a society in which they are always exposed is likely to be low. Also, the normal person has flaws, and just laying them all out is not really that sexy in many cases. This means even a little bit of fabric can lead to a more sexual result than total nudity.

Thinking about presents for the holidays? I got an advertisement in the mail that suggests tooth whitening would be an excellent Christmas present. I think not ... the guys I know do not care that much about their teeth and the women might should be a tad insulted if I implied that they needed it. Some ideas (since, like it or not, the time is approaching): money boxes or trees (I got one for my nephew last year ... little kids love money), food (early on, my mom just loved English Toffee, as did the rest of us who sampled it; my sisters like coffees and teas), gift cards or certificates (boring, but some people are too hard to buy for or even like them), books (excellent, including those cute bears, some of which have chocolate in their backpacks), cute catalogue thingies (catalog shoppers know of what I speak), and calendars (loads of themes, including the small desktop daily ones ... for instance, each day I have a For Better or For Worse cartoon to read).

btw I'm getting a bit tired at the continuing sense of anomie on West Wing. It's getting boring and truly depressing. Yes, it is honest and accurate in the wake of the kidnapping of the President's daughter and the "lame duck" blues, but it has to be laid on a tad less thick. Please.

In the News: Some stuff in the news caught my eye, so let me briefly comment on them. First off, one ongoing thing I have commented on is the partial birth abortion ban (see, e.g., Oct. 23). It was signed into law and immediately a temporary restraining order by a Nebraska federal judge (an arguably quite similar state ban in Nebraska was struck down by the Supreme Court). So, I ask, just what is the point of it all?

Meanwhile, Bush is pushing the UN to totally ban cloning, as compared to just banning reproductive cloning. An alternate plan would leave the decision of therapeutic cloning up to individual nations or just do nothing for a couple years. It seemed shall we say (if we want to be nice) a bit ironic that the U.S. wants to push the U.N. to set moral restraints that are surely not universal, given the second option is supported by nations such as Great Britain. After all, in areas such as international justice, the environment, and even trade the U.S. is loathe to join such conventions because they threaten our sovereignty and force us to go along with the wishes of others. Or perhaps they try to do too much, such as conventions to support women that might in some way conceivably support abortion rights. This does not seem that, shall we say consistent, does it?

Is it "a political triumph political triumph for the anti-abortion movement, a reflection of its influence with a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican president" and "a validation of the movement's long-term strategy of incrementalism, restricting abortion step by step?" If so, if it is just suspended by the courts, what is the ultimate point? More heat? More of the same? A symbol that helps push along less emotional restrictions or other symbolic measures? One thing it does not really seem to be is a path to a constructive middle ground. Legislation with a "health" exception would have done that. But, perhaps, a middle ground is not what those in power want.

CBS also decided to not air a Reagan biopic that conservative critics, from what they saw and heard about it, soundly criticized. As the NYT noted yesterday: "CBS's decision to hand the program off to the Showtime cable channel will leave it with a far smaller audience. Cable TV seems to have become the home of any programming with the least hint of political controversy. Meanwhile, the networks grow increasingly brave about broadcasting shows featuring lingerie models parading in the latest fashions, and ordinary people competing for cash by eating live insects." Not to worry, though. The story about the rescued female service woman, a prime propaganda event for the administration, will be aired. How about just not watching what you do not like? I believed that was the idea around here. See also, here.

William Safire on the same page as the CBS comments quoted above had a column on Putin's current selective campaign against Russian mafia that threatens his political power. He ends with this comment: "Which side to root for in the struggle for Russia's political soul: oligarchy or siloviki? Which door: the Lady or the Tiger? I remember the same choice in the war between Iran and Iraq. We can root only for both sides to lose." It made me think ... we actually did not do this. We rooted for Iraq more, helping Saddam increase power and prestige, and continued to assist him when we knew he was killing Kurds. Our selective memory now forgets this fact, blaming him for invasion and genocide as if he didn't have help.

Some interesting stuff: abortion's loaded language (written by the paper's ombudsman, an excellent concept), just how conservative is the Pledge?, and the book Food, Inc. by Peter Pringle. It is about genetically modified foods and besides being quick reading, it is evenhanded -- concern with guarded optimism about its potential.

Legally Blonde 2: Red, White, and Blonde recently came out on video and DVD. It was derivative, wasted the talents of such people as Bob Newhart, but did have a few good lines. Three of the lesser supporting cast members did the DVD commentary, and this is the way to watch the film ... at home, where you can make fun of it ala Mystery Science Theater 3000. As a time waster, this is the best way to go. Oh, they left out Elle's friend's dog. They put in a cameo for her husband and son, but leave out the dog, even though the film is about Elle going to DC to fight animal cosmetic testing [the film is a victim of the "not serious enough to carry such a serious theme" disease, Distinguished Gentlemen is also a victim]. This is a bit annoying.

Happy birthday ... literally ... Harry Joseph Letterman. From AP: "Letterman, 56, said the baby - his first child - is named after his father, Harry Joseph Letterman, who died at 57." The news just came out, though we first found out about it when Paul Shafer guest host on the show last night because Dave was otherwise engaged. I did not think Regina Lasko was that far along. Anyway, the report said it was born "late Monday Night" ... a late show, hmm? [It was born 11:58PM last night. That baby has a sense of timing!]

Conan O'Brien's wife recently gave birth and Letterman was nice enough to welcome her into the world. I guess it's a good time for late night hosts to have their first child. [I just saw his first night back. Dave is great when he is on, and he was tonight. In honor of the birth, he brought on his "special guest," Regis Philbin, who he clearly respects highly, and made it apparent tonight. This sort of show suggests why I think he trumps Leno, ratings aside.]

Reflection: The way to survival in this world, especially on bad days, is not to take things too serious or at least find some humor in it all. It is good, for instance, to appreciate at least the irony or basic stupidity even in the worse things in life. You might laugh sadly, but laugh you do. I find that each day is likely to have some nice moment, a moment of pure joy, which makes even the most mundane day have that little bit of shine. Now, most days have more than one of these moments, but even one makes life worth living, not to be too melodramatic. I feel deep sorrow for those who lives are so bad that they truly do not have such moments or the moments are so overtaken by other events that it amounts to the same thing.

One fun way to enjoy life is the idea of double meanings to generally innocent events or comments. For instance, I used to listen to a radio show in which there were many "in" code words and images that made the audience seem to be like one big family. Part of this was to avoid censors; for instance, oral sex was said to be giving or receiving an "atta girl," arising from one poor soul who got in trouble for saying that to his g/f after she did the deed. This also happens, of course, in our day to day life with friends, family, and loved ones. An ongoing joke with a friend of mine led me to laugh out loud about a line about a butterfly's habits.

Thanks ... to the author of BTC News (see links) for the link to my humble blog ... yours is a worthy addition to the blog universe.

Happy birthday Michael Dukakis (b. 1933).


What was he thinking moment: The Jets fumbled/intercepted their way to a 31-28 overtime loss yesterday, while the Giants are undergoing their now annual November/December game of catch-up, which might be a bit harder given one too many bad losses early. Luck is also going their way ... last time it was a blocked punt that was retrieved and ran in for a first down. This time it was a two point conversion attempt that was actually successfully converted. And, good for them, since the Jets came back from a two touchdown deficit late. The Giants missed a 39yd field goal attempt in OT and time was running out with a tie seeming more and more likely.

And then, the Jets did something else that was stupid ... this seems to be an ongoing theme for them this year. Chad and company scored twice in the last six minutes or so, tying the game with less than thirty seconds left. They were driving again, given a second life after the Giants kicking team performed up to par (that is, below it), and it was Fourth and a few yards. Their kicking team was nothing to write home about would have to convert a fifty one yarder ... the last time the guy (who missed two extra points last year for the Vikings) made a comparable attempt was years ago. The worse that could happen if they went for it would be that the Giants would start on around the 30 yard line. This really is not good field condition, and a failed kick would only mean they would have it better. Oh, and the Jets already made two fourth downs.

Of course, they decide to go for the kick. And, take their sweet time about it. Thus, they don't even miss, but have it blocked, looking bad doing it. In a way, this was better, because the ball wound up farther away than the spot of the kick, but it gave new life to the Giants and took the air out of the Jets. At 2-5 (at the time), why not risk the Fourth Down, given the kick was unlikely to result in a positive outcome? In a somewhat similar position, the Houston Texans went for a risky win at the Goal Line instead of a tie (or 7 instead of 3 later when they played the Jets), and feeded off the success. Playing scared, like Fassel did when he didn't let the time tick away vs. Dallas (giving them time to score) because he remembered what happen to the kicker in the playoffs turned out to bite them. And, I just knew it was a stupid decision at the time.

It was one of those WHAT WERE THEY THINKING moments. Oh, and, assurances otherwise aside, Bobby Valentine did take a job managing the Chiba Lions. Sports figures and contracts are akin to politicians and re-election decisions.

Thoughts: This weekend and today provided me with some fuel for thought. File sharing and safer elections, Leno v. Letterman, and Dean and the Confederate Flag are some things that I found interesting.

Movie: Bubba Ho-Tep is an off the wall little film that suggests you can find serious material in some of the least likely places. The film concerns a soul stealing mummy invading a Texas nursing home, and a pair of residents who find out and fight back. The serious undertone comes when the film deals with the struggles of the elderly residents, sick, alone, and wistful. One would not expect such complex material when one finds out that the protagonist is Elvis Presley (he changed places with an impersonator) and his backup claims to be JFK (painted black ... Ossie Davis plays him). Bruce Campbell of Evil Dead fame plays it totally straight , the dreary view of the nursing home is well portrayed, and the movie on the whole is really a serious work, putting aside some of its silliness. The movie at its heart is a character study and deserves wider release.

Thoughts: How To Tell Your $20 is fake, John Hart Ely RIP, Paper Trails in Touchscreen Voting, and Justice Janice R. Brown.

The NY Knicks started their season with an overtime loss, after blowing a ten point Fourth Quarter lead. Join the NY loser brigade, guys!

As to tv ... Norm Macdonald was great on Conan O'Brien earlier this week, rambling on and on with his convoluted (and ultimately hilarious) stories. His humor had less edge on "A Minute With Stan Hooper," (FOX Wed 8:30PM) which the NYT feels is unfortunate, but I found the show often very funny. This is not as easy as it sounds given most sitcoms today. It was good that I saw it, since this week's "West Wing" was totally depressing and felt as long as the last class before vacation. The show really needs some work.

NY Losers and Winners ... Mainly Losers: The fact that the NY Giants managed to beat the previously unbeaten Vikings, even after making a few mistakes, is typical ... they have what it takes, but aren't consistent enough to show it week after week. Since the Eagles beat the NY Jets (17-14 at the end of the Third Quarter, 17-24 at the end of the game, not helped by Chad's first drive ending with a fumble in the Red Zone near the end of the First Half), the 3-4 Giants might not have enough to show their potential and get to the playoffs. Anyway, the Jets loss was a bummer.

The Yankees World Series loss in six was a bit surprising (I thought it would go seven, but the Yankees failed to show enough life even with their back against the wall) but deserved. Three straight losses, ending up with the other team celebrating at Yankee Stadium might just be what it takes for some serious changes to occur. It's time.

As to other subjects, Dana Priest's book The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace with America's Military argues that in the current world the US military is more and more the guiding force in its foreign policy, even if it is not the best group for the job. The book's theme however is not given an extended discussion per se, since Priest (Washington Post reporter whose bylines top critical Bush administration piece after critical Bush administration piece) uses military actions throughout the world (especially Kosovo) to tell the tale for her. And, this is how a book of over four hundred pages becomes a page turner, able to be enjoyed as a sort of adventure story as much as critical look at the military mission today. The book was written before the Iraq War, but as its approach was clear, and is all the more telling as time goes by.

Meanwhile, I caught "Intolerable Cruelty," which in my opinion explains the effect of this movie on the audience. The movie is advertised as a "romantic comedy," and though it is barely a romance, the comedy is mainly of the "oh, I see how this is supposed to be funny," and not even that much can be said at times. The Coen brothers are known for some quirky classics and some that are just quirky, but worth watching all the same. This is truly a failed effort, so much I was amazed at how bad it actually turned out to be. It began with a totally unfunny first scene and ending with a totally lame ending. Where was all the "sparring" of the two leads? A key trick is not to be believed and the response less so. I don't know why this film even got so many good reviews.

Afterwards, our party (lol) (we all disliked the film, each with different tastes) went out to eat. Annoying exercise. I might be mistaken, but I do not think I'm too fussy when it comes to restaurants. I do dislike bad service, including waiting to be seated and waited on (dining room around half empty). I would not like to wait around fifteen minutes or more to get my appetizer or finish my dessert before my coffee comes. And, this is partly bad luck, if I will get a steaming hot pasta dish (unlike my companions), serving my meal last is a bad idea. The food was pretty good, but the selection of Italian dishes was somewhat mediocre. Finally, though I cannot really do so, I will mixed in the fact that right after I left, I found out the Jets lost by one score.

Maybe, I am fussy?

World Series: Not going according to the Yankee script, huh?

Roger Ebert annoys me again: I respect Roger Ebert's talent and as a fan of movie reviews (reviews are like editorials, they try to condense and express what you believe into well written phrases) I often enjoy his material. All the same, he annoys me, which is nothing special, I guess ... commentators seem to annoy me more than I use ellipses in my remarks. Still, Ebert at times goes into pretentious mode or (perhaps worse) does something that other critics at times do as well -- make comments that lead to believe they really didn't see the movie.

An example of the former is his reeming of the remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," which he gives zero stars. He likes this film as much as Gregg Easterbrook liked "Kill Bill" (Ebert really enjoyed the movie). I checked the Rotten Tomato website and determined about one out of three critics gave positive reviews to the movie. I presume some of the rest felt it was bad, but not REAL bad. This leads me to argue that Ebert is a bit full of himself, and just doesn't like the sort of film involved here. His snide comment about the past employment of the director suggests this.

My problems with his review of Pieces of April is a bit more nuanced. It involves various comments found in the review that are not really based on opinion but on fact. A major thing that annoyed me is his discussion of the closing montage, which he suggests might be a result of the movie (a small independent effort) ran out of money. He basically misses the point, in my humble opinion, given the title -- "Pieces of April," snapshots of April, get it?

I also do not know what else was required in the film. The mother already had a telling moment in the bathroom. The family got to NYC, April had various dramatic and humorous experiences, and the dinner was done. Did he want some tacked on "conclusion" involving the family eating dinner and so forth? For what purpose? The fact they didn't interact much at all adds to the film. You want family interaction, see What's Cooking? The movie in my view was a good length, though perhaps a bit more time with the boyfriend might have helped. I agree with Ebert that his story was undeveloped. On the other hand, it was throughout, so extending the film itself might not have done much good.

I am also somewhat in disagreement with him on the boyfriend. I felt the subplot was a bit amusing, a "shaggy dog" story of sorts, that put him in a good light. I don't quite know how we are supposed to understand he is a middle class, unless some asides suggested as such, especially given where they live and all. Also, if he was middle class, would his "errand" be done in that way? It felt more that he came from a poorer family, thus finding a cheap suit would be special if a bit problematic to carry out gesture on his part. This might be a matter of undevelopment, but this is not surprising (but somewhat annoying, since if you set up a black boyfriend, why not give him more of a role in the story?) since the movie is mainly about her (original) family.

I also agree that the joke Ebert finds distasteful is somewhat "half-baked," but I did not take it as negatively as he did. Also, we already know he is a good guy, and why he looks like that. Why a comment on when "we find out" this out? Also, not only is it a realistic thing for the family to be scared (are they supposed to realize it is the boyfriend who looks like the dad?), it serves as an advancement of the plot. It is the direct reason why the family at first doesn't go up to April's apartment. Is this not relevant?

A couple other things. A whole scene is based on there never being a moment when April was a good daughter. Therefore, when we she the "good" daughter? The reason the youngest is annoyed is that she knows this not to be true, so feels April is wrong to force the family to go eat dinner with her. The grandmother really does not have many "perfectly timed zingers," and in fact the mother implies that she knows more than she lets on. This might actually be true; it is an intersting comment all the same. And, I do wonder if the next film made under less pressure, etc., will truly be better. After all, I found this film pretty good, and more money and time often only gives you the same flaws, just with a bigger budget.

Partial Birth Ban: Symbolic? Vague? Misleading?

World Series: The Yanks won Game 3 vs the Marlins' ace, Josh Beckett (whose 9-8 regular season record is apparently a trick), so the "okay, it's basically over" comments started. Then, Clemens (in his last start, apparently) gave up three runs early, and Carl Pavano (great in relief, decent starting) went eight innings and only gave up one run. The Yanks scored two in the ninth to save Clemens (who held firm and went seven, not adding to those three) from a loss (he also got a hit, unfortunately not when the bases were loaded). When Weaver came in, it was just a matter of time ... the game winner came in his second inning of relief.

I thought this series would go long ... at 2-2, it becomes a best of three, and a Game Seven is far from unlikely. Just ask the Cubs.

Thoughts: Buckley and the Cuba Embargo (article), WA Post and Boondocks, Justice Stevens speaks, and Case For Impeaching Bush (reply).

Sports: Jets are 2-4, and the playoffs are just a matter of time. So, it seems to be the sentiment of the team, now that Chad is due back next week. Anyway, it was nice to see them come from 14-0 behind, even if it was against the Texans. The scare from the final kickoff return to the 27 yd line was not appreciated, but at least the Jets actually stopped it before it lost them the game. KC barely escaped as well the next day when the rarely used Oakland backup drove from their own 6 to the KC one in the final ninety seconds or so, after barely stopping KC from getting the First Down that would have ended the game. This year, MNF actually is exciting again, though the announcers are dull.

Skin, the new Monday Night Romeo/Juliet show involving a struggle between a politically ambitious DA and a porn king and their teenage children, who fall in love, was a bit dull. Oh, and Coupling (American rip-off) was pre-empted last week. Bad sign, but a good one perhaps, since thus far it looks pretty lame. I do hope that Miss Match (pushed back an hour) is not on its way out, since I do find it has promise. If anything, the new time slot is worse, since already there are two shows on Friday Night at nine that I could be watching, three if JAG actually still is good (doesn't sound like it). Just how big is that time slot's audience, anyway?

It's Official: The Giants Are F-ing Losers.

World Series Begins: Game One suggests that it will be a challenging series for the Yankees, who continue to play games without a big margin of error. They eked out two runs, gave up three though one might very well have been cut off at the plate with a good throw, and thus lost the game. David Wells, after pitching to three batters on Thursday, pitched a good game (seven innings), but the Yankees missed opportunities and overall will not win like this. It was just plain tedious to watch, like one of a ton Mets games this year, but sadly not too atypical of their play at times.


Pieces of April was a little gem, which was good because I just recently watched (at same theater in fact) "Demonlover," a film I had to walk out of because it was so tiring. Nothing much really happens for most of the first half, except for some stereotypical characters (the ice queen, macho chauvinistic French guy with a few days growth on his face to prove it, cocky American who smokes pot [Gina Gershon overacting again], and so on) who spend more of the time mostly negotiating a merger. Some growingly unbelievable stuff occurs as well, but the second half must be rather good given some of the high praise given for this film.

I speak about Gregg Easterbrook's controversial column on media violence here.

"I actually think the Marlins might have an edge ... they have stellar pitching and a bit more offense. The Cubs bullpen is questionable; the Marlins bullpen has shown their stuff repeatedly vs. the Giants." [October 7] Unfortunately, I was right, though when they were up 3-1 or 3-2 and six outs away, I thought differently. Some do feel it's a good thing that the Cubs/Red Sox match-up was not to be, while Dave Barry is more sarcastic (and hilarious) than usual in rooting for the Marlins.

Sorry to say, he is right, the Cubs choked, though a fan might have helped them out. [I didn't see it, but pictures seem to imply that the ball was out of field of play, so technically it was not interference.] As to the Red Sox, I am relieved, since it would have been really sad if they got in without the Cubs. First and third, no one out, and the score is already 4-0 with Pedro pitching, I admit I wasn't very optimistic. Mussina came in relief (first time in his career) and just shut them down for three innings. Redemption. Wells (Game 1 starter for the WS) gave up a home run in his 2/3 of an inning in the eighth, making it 5-2, but once it was 4-2 and Pedro was due to leave, I had hope. Pedro stuck around too long (like Mark Pryor), the Yanks tied it, and Mariano pitched three innings ... until Boone hit a home run off Wakefield. The Yanks finally got to him. A team effort and good preparation, since the Marlins won't be easy. At all.

Scott Turow was on Governor Ryan's (Illinois) commission to investigation the death penalty in that state and wrote a little book reflecting about the death penalty. It is a little over a hundred pages and is basically an extension of his magazine article on the subject. Well worth reading and can be finished in a few trips to the office. Al Franken, of course, wrote his own book on a political subject ... it is analyzed here. John Edwards, who I like but think is too young and inexperienced (more the latter) to win, is having problems. On the other hand, if Ashton Kutcher, Dennis Hopper, and Aaron Sorkin (former producer of West Wing) is on his side, he's doing fine, huh?

Thoughts: As and "harmless error," doctors talking to their patients about marijuana/state rights, and Cheney and Halliburton (response to this article).

Note: Out of Time is discussed below and the ending (though not expressly described) is discussed. Consider this a possible. spoiler alert.

The Cubs are one game closer to the World Series for the first time in nearly sixty years, but not quite there yet ... the Marlins finally had a truly excellent pitching performance, making the series 3-2, Cubs. The Jets, unlike the Giants, finally had a good game ... no, a very good game, beating the Bills 30-3. Every dog has his day, and Jets fans deserved a laugher after the drudgery that had to bear thus far. Meanwhile, Carolina beat the Colts (under ex-defensive coordinator of the Giants, John Fox) to regain unbeaten, coming from behind to do so as did the Kansas City Chiefs (KC has a reason to smile still). Dallas beat Philly to retain their surprising early division lead. Thus, three teams are unbeated, one team (bye week San Diego) has no win.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer was one of the few cases where the television show was better than the original movie; Legally Blonde was one of those times when the movie was better than the book. Amanda Brown's (formerly a blonde law student, but of Stanford, not Harvard) original was easy reading, but lacked some of the depth of the movie. For instance, the enjoyable supporting character (the manicurist) that might not have been her social equal, but was her emotional one, was only a trivial one in the book. Elle Woods also had it too easy in the book (perfect LSAT? in the movie she had to get a certain score, doing so barely, to enter) and the "diversity" concept (she was chosen as a sort of "blonde" representative) was lacking. Also, no love interest. Brown's second novel, Family Trust, was also easy reading (perfect for plane trips), but even more trivial. All the same, one can get rich on such fare.

The book did have a good bit about Elle's idea of a "Blonde Defense Fund" to protect the interests of blondes everywhere ... great idea for a comedy bit. She also defined the true blonde: "True blondes, whether natural or not, could be identified by their inner light of buoyant, charmed confidence." The airy tone, on target satire of law school life (done rather thinly all the same), and pleasant story saved the book from being dreck ... and bits like this shows the hints of intelligence there. All the same, material was rather thin. The movie had its trite touches (the trial lawyer of the book was not a sexual harasser like the one in the movie), but it had more meat to it, which overall made it light, but still left you content after consumption.

As to movies, a word about the end of Out of Time. It was too easy, but fairly typical of the genre. My general annoyance is that such endings allow things to be tied together in a bow without the messiness of real life. Real life messiness is not pleasant, so this is sometimes not a bad thing, but sometimes the ending forces us to give something up along the way so how easy is it? Just how pleasant is it to have our hero finish up as he did, but having to do what he had to do to get there? I leave the blanks in place given the recent vintage of the movie, but the viewer can decide.

Friday: While on the subway today, I had to deal with one of those annoying performers, this one a heavyset black guy who apparently was doing some sort of magic tricks along with his cheerful banter. Said banter was appreciated by a few people on the train, but it was annoying to me, trying to read and/or not be bothered by someone trying to make a living sponging off train passengers. I apologize if I sound bitter, but though I am loathe to forbid people from giving money to such individuals, it is not enjoyable to be kept as a captive audience. Furthermore, these performers spend more time annoying passengers than your typical beggar who is in and out in more of a hurry.

"Miss Match" was pushed ahead an hour (bad sign), so I had a chance to watch "Joan of Arcadia." I had to shut it off after around twenty minutes. The parents, especial the mom (Mary Steenburgen) did seem to have potential, but the children (including Joan, perhaps) were pretty standard ... the smart aleck little brother was annoying. The use of a psychic in the police subplot (father is the police chief) was annoying (I'm a cynic, I admit it). The use of cutesy "God" gimmicks (God comes in the form of various people) was annoying. And, yes, God having her do weird things (e.g. learning chess) was annoying. Heck, the mom not wanting to accept the son is paralyzed permanently was even annoying. Maybe, I was in a bad mood. On the other hand, maybe gimmicks, standard plot devices, and the like is just not my cup of tea.

I only saw part of one episode, so I can not get a true sense of the nature of the show. All the same, why cannot we have a show that has a focus on religion and God without gimmicks? "You Can Count On Me" dealt with religious themes. "Seventh Heaven" is preachy, but from what I have saw of it, it really isn't supernatural or anything (as compared to "I'm an angel sent from God" deus ex machina proceedings in "Touch by An Angel"). Real life does not involve God coming in the form of various people (with witty banter), telling you what to do (sure, if God came that way, you'd know it's God), and at times even explaining things to you. I understand that this is a dramatic exercise (partially a "Joan of Arc" takeoff), but we can also use an examination of religion (and even religious experience) more real life. It's an important part of our culture and deserves more than this sort of thing.

For now, I will stick with "Miss Match" or whatever else happens to be on at the time. Today the Cubs/Marlins game was on, another exciting affair that lasted eleven innings (Game 2 was a blowout, Cubs up 2-1). Yesterdays, the Yanks won (shock), tying the series 1-1. Next up Clemens v. Pedro at Fenway. I shall repeat myself ... Pedro doesn't quite impress me. He keeps on getting hurt, missing chunks of games, and being treated as a hurt sparrow some more ... leading to games where he goes only six or so innings. The games he does play, he is often match up with front end starters, thus it turns out to be a pitching duel ... this is often the case in playoff games. The net result is that the elite teams can often stalemate him and since he rarely goes much more than seven, it's up to his flawed pen. This results in Tim Wakefield being as dangerous in the long run to the Yanks.

Frontline had a good somewhat cynical special on the war in Iraq (I watched in today; it was on Thursday night) ... I should watch more of these things, especially since the series is said to have somewhat of a liberal bias. If so, given that I kinda do as well, it would be easier to take my documentary medicine, lol.

Thoughts: Quick/Easy Voting with A Muffin To Go; the recall: groping, Arnold Supporters, and postmortem: and Cubs get trash delivery.

The Yanks/Red Sox have played nineteen times already ... let's root for the Cubs/Marlins series. Game 1: The Cubs score four in the first, Marlins five in the third, each score twice in the ninth to go into extra innings 8-8, and Marlins win in extras. We all want excitement, right? Just look at the winner of the recall!

I spoke about it already (see above), but honestly, you choose him? Yet again, the people cry out: give us a leader, someone who can fix things, and doesn't give us the same old sh*t. And, they grasp toward the inferior new voice out there. And, yet again, we see where desperation takes us. I didn't want to believe an actor, one who turns out to be a boor, would upset someone just re-elected last year. Someone who has no political experience, seems to have came out of the blue, and isn't really as independent (or able to push for change) as much as he implies. The signs were there, the result really wasn't a surprise ... just a tad bit of a travesty. The sky will not fall, out with the old/in with the new will probably bring some fresh air, but it really isn't a great way to play a ball game. It just isn't.

Out of Time with Denzel Washington as a small town police chief who gets into a tad bit of trouble and races against the clock to get out of it was a good summer flick. It took a bit too long to get going, but the lead is great, the story fun, and the atmosphere (the "feel" of a movie is core to my enjoyment) well crafted. Deep down its standard stuff, but most movies are ... not as many do it this good.

Baseball: It's official ... Oakland blows. They are the new Atlanta squared of the AL West ... yet again they get to the playoffs and lose in the first round. And, yet again, they win the first two, but drop three (this happened less often, but even once it's rare ... but twice?) and are eliminated. They couldn't win Game Three because of their own incompetence. Game Four because the pitching matchup finally caught up with them (starter out after one). Game Five ... they were destined to lose. Pedro started and left after six ... 4-2, Sox, on a four run inning. The As got another run in the eighth. They got first and second with no one out in the ninth. Second and Third with one out. Couldn't do it. So sad.

Many are hyped for a Red Sox/Yanks matchup ... they played close to 20 games already. I personally am bored with these guys ... they will be some exciting games, pitching and hitting duels. Pedro will be matched by Yankee pitching and might very well have a stellar effort [seven innings or so and an average of three runs is not really stellar ... suggesting a key to the team's problems]. Each bullpen is questionable but has shown itself to be stellar in key spots (the Red Sox pen in latter games vs the As surely did so, when push came to shove). And so forth. The edge, as it usually is, is slightly on the Yankees' side. If they lose, it would be special -- Red Sox v. Cubs or Marlins -- but really nothing special. Just things going their way, as it sometimes does, though not at the end.

The Marlins/Cubs matchup seems more interesting. I actually think the Marlins might have an edge ... they have stellar pitching and a bit more offense. The Cubs bullpen is questionable; the Marlins bullpen has shown their stuff repeatedly vs. the Giants. The Cubs won the season series, but only four of six, and it is almost meaningless given the greatly changed situation (and belief in the Marlins mind ... actually, they won more games! They are the underdog only because they won the Wild Card, not a division). And, unlike the Red Sox, the Cubs never quite was in this position before.

Weekend: I caught a fun movie that rocked, literally, School of Rock with Jack Black. The movie had a fun trite touches, including a bit forced scene where he talks about how he really cares about his kids ... kids he tricked into serving as his backup in a Battle of the Bands competition by taking over for his roommate (played by the wonderful Mike White, who also co-wrote) in a temp teacher position at a snooty grade school. It was criminal as well that Sarah Silverman was wasted in a role as the bitchy girlfriend. Still, the movie took a standard plot idea, built it around a role made for Jack Black, and took advantage of the general fun of the genre done right. And, new how to appreciate rock while also making fun of it.

Sports was a mixed bag. The Yanks did what they had to by beating the Twins and moving on. The Cubs did what it didn't do for about a hundred years and won a playoff series (admittedly in the past, it didn't have an option to play three sets until its third attempt in 1998) via another great effort by Kerry Wood. The As, likely helped by a bad umpire call but much more so by their own bungling, lost their best shot at advancing. They lost their second shot (helped by Hudson, pitching on short rest, leaving after an inning) and have to face Pedro (on full rest) their third and final shot. The Marlins blew a four run lead (after Dontrielle Willis got a triple on his third hit ... he might have been a tad too pumped up), but survived. So, the Giants and Braves, way ahead by mid-Summer, are eliminated. Oh, and the Giants (football) played shoddy football to drop into last place.

Harmful to Minors by Judith Levine got a lot of criticism around a year ago (feels like that, maybe I'm a bit off) because she had some good things to say about child sexuality. Her main focus was more on children learning about sexuality, playing around with it in safe contexts, and how attempts to "protect" children from sexuality often are counterproductive. She wrote the book right before the Catholic Church scandals came out, but her basic themes still hold. Someone who influenced her (and vice versa) is Sharon Lamb, who about the same time wrote a book entitled The Secret Lives of Girls: What Good Girls Really Do -- Sex Play, Aggression, and Their Guilt. The two can be read together and are both worthwhile at least for perusing, be it for parents, educators, or the regular reader.

Lamb's book is split into two parts, sexual play and aggression. Her overall theme is that both are and have long been (her interviewees range in age from literally eight to eighty) part of the lives of girls, though many seem to feel that they are weird or even bad for taking part. Lamb is not as blase as intersexual sexual contact itself as Levine at times is, but same sex playing is seen by her as important as a way to play around with sexuality, learn about it, and even to provide pleasure. A few intersexual incidents are discussed, but same sex/more balanced in power players seem more attractive to her. Likewise, she wishes society to face up to the fact that girls too deal with aggression, not just boys, and sometimes it might even be good for them (especially in sports, useful also as a way for girls to "take up space" and for "good girls" to be proactive).

The sexuality of children, though addressed in some cultures, is seen by many as dangerous. The fact is that children are in some sense sexual beings, and there are safe ways for them to examine this part of themselves. The same applies to aggression; and when aggression is excessive, it should be seen in a balanced way. Would it be as bad (or even bad at all) if boys were involved? Likewise, yes, some sorts of sex play (especially actual sex) might be deemed troubling, but it should be put in perspective. This is a crosscultural work ... one difference, though in part it is a matter of class, is that black girls more often play sexually with other boys (and are more likely to be deemed bad girls by nature, though white girls are sexual as well). Pretty quick reading with short chapters throughout ... good way to get a feel of a controversial societal topic.

Thoughts: Joseph Wilson as Enemy, Post Season Politics, Why Jet Blue Exposing Customer Info Matters, Hidden Punishments, Perfect Spy (Wilson's wife), and Barely Managing (Bush as manager).

Sports: I only caught bits and pieces of many of the games, but so far the playoffs have had some good ones. The best might be a 12th inning affair between Oakland and Boston with a ninth inning rally, a top of the twelfth save, and a game winning bunt. Unfortunately, after losing Game 1, the Braves showed some of their old magic vs. the Cubs. Hampton survived a bases loaded, no one out, two in, first inning. And, the Braves survived a blown Smoltz save (in the eighth), and got two RBI with two outs (after the pitcher barely allowed Smoltz to lay down a sacrifice on a 3-2 count). The Marlins and Giants also split with each having a chance to shine. The Yanks was totally messy, wasted a good Mussina effort, and good defense stopped a ninth inning rally. They won Game Two though ... only the Red Sox didn't manage to tie things up 1-1.

TV: The second episode of "West Wing" was disappointing; it was like the latter half of an extended episode, which always tend to be an attempt to stretch limited material over an extended amount of time. Not much action, a few cliches, and suddenly the daughter is found. It did take a chance to make fun of itself (fast walking). The second episode of "Coupling" was better, though it again was basically a replay of the original, just with a more annoying soundtrack and less skillful actors. It does seem like they are fitting into their roles. I also caught the theme song -- same song, just not as good. Sounds familiar.

Thoughts: Under the Tuscan Sun, Outing Joseph Wilson's Wife As CIA Agent, Tigers Lose Only 119!, Focus on Bush's Competence, and Bill O'Reilly's scouting report on Democratic candidates.

The Jets looked absolutely pathetic against the Dallas Cowboys; the Chicago Bears were just overmatched against the (had to win, 1-2, Packers), but if you want sad, Jets/Dallas was it. It might be true that Chad Pennington could have given life to the team, but he would have to be practically a miracle worker to have them more than 2-2 (better than 0-4, surely), if that. The team lost too many people in the off season ... it almost felt like the 2001 Mets ... everything had to fall in place, and one major problem, the team would fall like a house of cards.

Books: She's Not There by Jennifer Finney Boylan was a very enjoyable read, though at times I wanted a few more details about the switch. Details are important when you are reading about the development of a married transsexual college professor who decides to fully become her true self when s/he is around forty. Lucky for him, he had a depth of optimism and strength (and a fun life ... professor and musician with a great wife) ... in a way, it seemed a bit too easy. Surely, others without his advantages would have had a tougher time of it, especially if they lived in a less liberal environment.

The story as well as the concept is amazing and again the reason the book was so good was her ability to write an autobiographical account with such style. She is an author of around eight books after all (some are books for teenagers which were written under an assumed name that she apparently wants to keep secret ... have yet to find out what it is) as well as being an co-chair of the English department at Colby College. It is also interesting to note how many feminine traits are really biological, such as emotions (she felt more emotional when ruining dinner or watching certain movies). She also noted how women seem to have questioning tones, even when saying their names ("My name is Jennifer?"). So far, the women I asked about this didn't really agree. What do you think?

Definitely worth adding to your reading list. On the other hand, Gentleman Revolutionary: Governeur Morris - The Rake Who Wrote the Constitution by Richard Brookhiser was a disappointment. This was especially the case because Brookhiser was so great and amusing in interviews, including suggesting Morris (who is an interesting character that is underappreciated) would be the person who'd call if you were in trouble and/or jail. Unfortunately, the book, a relatively brief one, doesn't really do the man justice. I didn't quite understand why he had certain beliefs (e.g. why was someone who had a slave as a child and lived in slave heavy NY so anti-slavery?) and more than once the guy was made out to be an unpleasant spoiled rich kid ... I don't think that was his intention.

It was quick reading, and for those interested in the subject, of some benefit to get a thumbnail sketch of his life. I just didn't get much pleasure from reading it ... it's one of those books you just read to finish it, but are annoyed for having to waste your time to do so. The good part is that you learn something, and it is relatively painless. A quick pan of a recent book on Thomas Paine's Common Sense (forty two pages, or something or other) ... not bad, I guess, but overall trivial. I got as much from reading the original itself (it was one of those with an elongated introduction telling the life and times of the author, etc.). On the other hand, I wasn't that impressed with the author's presentation of the book either.

TGIF TV: ABC has its own lesser form of "Must See TV," namely TGIF (Thank God/Goodness It's Friday) that consists of light, often family friendly (or predictable) comedies, which ones included "Family Matters" and "Full House." The 9 o'clock hour is of some interest to me ... Hope & Faith (co-starring Faith Ford of "Murphy Brown) starts the hour. It is a formulaic comedy involving a self-centered soap star who goes to live with her more prim and proper (but still deep down a bit wild) married with children sister, after she loses her role. The television buff would be intrigued since Ted McGinley actually is in the show from its beginning. Many know of the "McGinley Effect," which involves Ted coming into a series late in its run, a sure sign it is going downhill (Happy Days, The Love Boat, and Married ... with Children). The show was mildly amusing and Kelly Ripa and Faith Ford are quite likeable, so maybe his presence won't taint things.

First, there was the 8 o'clock hour. I took NBC and watched Miss Match, which is sort of like Clueless: 10 Years Later ... Alicia Silverstone is a young divorce lawyer (she works at her father's firm) who has this gift of match making, but is a bit less lucky in love herself. It got mixed reviews, but I enjoyed it as light entertainment with a great lead and some pleasing supporting characters. The other show to watch is Joan of Arcadia (CBS), which I caught a taste of during a commercial (usually, it seems like every show, including professional sports, have commercials at the exact same time) as well as at the very end. It seems promising, but with the potential to be a bit heavyhanded (struggling family, teen who meets God, older brother paralyzed in an accident, younger smarty pants brother ... how couldn't it be??)

Life with Bonnie is a good fit in the TGIF lineup, moving in at 9:30 ... typical light comedy that is carried by Bonnie Hunt's own individual comic vision. I don't always care for the result, which seems a bit too precious (especially the annoyingly cute son), but I respect the effort. Along with The Handler at 10, Fridays have more to offer than one might think. On the hand, more people are home than one might think.

Do Not Call Registry: Congress and the FTC seemed to have a good idea on its hands: a registry that allows people to block telemarketers from calling your house. Congress rushed to pass legislation directly giving the FTC a right to do this, after a federal judge questioned if previously law could be read so broadly. Then, another judge held that singling out telemarketers was a violation of the First Amendment, since commercial speech was wrongly targeted. These rulings had their share of ridicule, though some lawyer types argued the judge had a point. I think so too ... okay, so you think the law is great because it protects your privacy. How many equally are ignored when charities, poll takers, or politicians call you up? It is like being annoyed on subways ... begger or homeless organization ... either way it bothers my attempt to read or sleep.

True privacy protection would be across the board, right? Of course, this would affect the people who write the laws, even though legislation that allows you to pick who you want to block would be the most honest and/or fully inclusive protection of privacy they can offer. Is not privacy what we are aiming for here? Some ridicule the concern for telemarketing jobs (surely not a trivial concern, methinks) ... if we are going to ignore that, let's at least be consistent. Selling things (heck, sometimes, like for bank services or whatever, you actually buy it) are as much a part of our society than donating to charities and hearing pitches to vote for someone you either was going to vote for already, don't care about, or will vote against. And if they interrupt your supper, will you be that much less annoyed?

Thoughts: Anti-war voters against Clark?, 9th Circuit Recall (Non)Decision, More Ashcroft Follies, Bill O'Reilly, and Bush Hatred.

The Mets did a good job honoring Bob Murphy on his last day; he also gave a great speech, sounding full of energy (his physical problems compelled him to retire). Glavine started, but could go only five (no decision, 9-14 for the year ... his worst in a LONG time), and an error (ironically after a Piazza throw that should have caught someone stealing) helped the Mets lose again ... Cerda coming into the game with runners on First and Third and one out made it pretty clear that would be the outcome. Anyway, I switched over to Coupling a few times ... it was basically a direct remake of the British first episode, done with less finesse and an annoying laugh track. Meanwhile, BBC re-aired the superior original.

The NYT today (9/25) suggested it was partly a cultural thing ... the Brits are more polite, proper about sex, and so forth, so the show just doesn't translate as well ... this is just some sitcom. Also, though the British accents help (and they aren't that strong nor are the references too foreign), the original had an interesting extra bit of flavor to it. As the article notes, this new gang often seemed like bland sorts, and the Chicago location of little note (the bar had some sign with "Chicago" in it, like we wouldn't know it was there, if we weren't told. Compare this to various Bonnie Hunt shows in which you often get a flavor of the town). My cynicism was not helped by this first viewing.

"Must See TV" Thursday leaves a lot to be desired these days.

New Season (Part I): There promises to be some new life in television land this season ... so far, so good. There are many shows lingering on that I have grown tired of some time ago, including The Simpsons, NYPD Blue, ER, and (mostly) Friends. Perhaps, the last one still has something left. Anyway, season premieres of other shows suggest they too have life as well. The new season for me basically started on Tuesday with Gilmore Girls. It was basically a prologue to the major changes (Rory has not gone to Yale yet, Sookie is still pregnant, etc.), but it was still a good welcome back. Nothing too major, though there was some serious moments, but it was fun. Also fun was Less Than Perfect, and the addition of Will Grasso as a full time member of the cast is a good idea ... he was fun in his guest roles.

The major premiere was West Wing, which did not deserve "Best Drama" in last weekend's Emmys, given it's subpar year. As one might recall, the cliffhanger involved Zoey being kidnapped and the Republican Speaker of The House (played well by John Goodman, who has proved his serious acting chops in the past) became acting President when President Bartlett stepped down. It looks like this will be the start of a story arc, and again, the premiere only laid down some groundwork. And, as well, it was promising. The episode was well written and acted ... I was engrossed by the story and the possibilities. And, heck, the Mets actually won their second straight. Looks like Tuesday and Wednesday still has life in their old favorites.

There are various odds and ends still to look into, including the Coupling remake, but the next big day is Friday. I can say that Grounded For Life still looks worthy of my time (lol), though again, it isn't really "Must See TV" or anything. This, plus its time slot (Friday Night at 9 on the WB) makes it something to watch if I'm free. Still, low bar or not, it is one of the best shows on the WB.

Casa de los Babys: I was watching a "making of" sort feature that highlighted something that was somewhat lost as I viewed the film ... there are aspects to the film (surely intentions behind it) that are quite powerful. The long career of John Sayles, who made independent films when he wasn't writing or cleaning up scripts of more mainstream fare in order to have the money to do so, is very impressive. The same applies to his social conscience, though some people feel it overwhelms his storytelling. The messages being sent in this film, including the mothers wanting babies and the poverty/inferior status of the land where they went to get them hits home. And, as a whole, it is hard to find a false note in the acting ... Daryl Hannah is not someone you think of for dramatic work, but she is wonderful here, as are the rest. The movie as a whole is worth watching.

I still didn't really like it. I had mixed feelings about his last film, Sunshine State because I don't think the storytelling was tied together enough; but, I did feel it was a complete movie, and not just a connection of scenes and characters. This film has some powerful scenes (a favorite might be when a teenage maid and one of the potential moms to be each open their hearts, though at least one has no idea what the other one said), but it doesn't really work as a film. The ending especially seemed just to happen ... like they just ran out of film or something, while also feeling a bit of a cheat given an earlier scene.

A woman once told me that she feels that most films offer you something to enjoy, and her opinion fits this film as well. Other films might be more complete, but do not often the little gems that this film does. To speak in a cliche, the whole is not the sum of its parts, but the parts probably are worth the price of admission.

A final note ... John Sayles wrote/directed a film a few years entitled Men With Guns, and did so in Spanish, which was deemed notable at the time. It is not like he showed a big bilingual ability in the past. Now, he is giving interviews partly in Spanish. I don't know, but it's like one day he thought "let me learn Spanish so I can better examine subjects involving Latin America." [ed. In fact, he did write something that required he learn the language, and he went from there. Still, he basically learnt the language in adulthood, becoming more comfortable with it in the last few years.] I wouldn't be suprised if one day he decides to examine Asia or the Native American life, and learns to speak their language, and (like here) write character bios in the native tongue!

Movies and Stuff: After a drought of stuff to watch, television and movie season is starting to come into high gear ... right as baseball and football have their own stories to tell. "Lost in Translation" was the best movie I saw this summer and probably will be around come Oscar Time. "Underworld" was a fun vampire/werewolf flick and other good movies are due to come soon. Now, John Sayles, a director I usually enjoy, did not do a good job with "Casa de Los Babys," which was well acted, but felt like half a movie. The story of Americans going out of the country to try to adopt babies had potential, but was underwritten, and had no true momentum.

On the other hand, there will be many season premieres (and premieres in general) on tv this week, and I'm looking forward to several of them. What will happen on "West Wing" and "Gilmore Girls?" Will "Miss Match," [Cher of "Clueless" apparently did grow up to be a lawyer and her matchmaking ways continued] "Joan of Arcadia," (annoyingly on at the same time) and a few other shows be worth watching? How about "Coupling?" I fear this show ... the advertisements and hype make it sound too oversexed and overblown, while the British original (often hiliarious, intelligent, and touching) is partly so good because it is more restrained. I will give one example ... the nutty Jane (one article said she was less nutty here -- why?) says she is a bisexual, but thus far it seems it is just hype. The American Jane in one article was labeled bisexual, as if she actually is. Time will tell.

Ah, to have to deal with NY sports teams. The Nets, a NJ team that actually admits to the fact, is the current Knicks of the near past ... good, but not good enough to go all the way. The Yankees are the Yankees. The rest have brought their separate degrees of aggravation the last couple years. The Mets are now 1 out of 16 ... they had to work at it Saturday with bad baserunning decisions (one by the third base coach) key in their 10th inning defeat. Sunday was just another typical example of great pitching nullified by lack of hitting ... Trachsel, Leiter, and now Seo all gave up one or two runs, and all got nil out of it. Seo at least didn't get the indignity of a loss, helped out by the bullpen getting out of an eighth inning mess. Lost in the ninth, helped out by inferior outfielder defense.

The Jets lost again ... mediocrity mixed with missed chances, while the Giants almost blew another one (21-3 at the Half, they hung on to win 24-21 in OT). I saw the previously noted inferior Sayles film instead of biting my fingernails watching that game ... I had my full screaming and agonizing during the first one. I picked up some Chinese on the way ... somewhat inferior General Tao Shrimp. Let it never be said that all Chinese food is alike or fast food joints either. I have my regulars in which I order certain things, even though the one on the corner of my block is underused. Why? Well, when it takes a few minutes of me standing there before they take my order, is this that surprising?

CA Recall Delay: I think the 9th Circuit case delaying the recall has some validity, as suggested by the links supplied below, but it might clearly have certain flaws as well. For instance, is delaying things to March a great idea? Will not the new technology cause its own problems, though if mandated by law, perhaps more effort can be put in dealing with expected problems? It is true, no matter how many want to ignore the fact, that the state did admit that the push card system was especially flawed (and facts back it up), but it might be the best in this special case.

Other safeguards also could be put in place instead of the election being delayed ... safeguards that might actually have a better chance to be upheld on appeal. On the other hand, this would still be a big step for the federal courts to take, and probably would have been criticized (and perhaps overturned, as this might very well be). I think the problems inherent in a rushed election in the midst of voting procedure change is an overall problem that must be faced here, even if the Court's decision regarding the push card system in certain districts is held to be a bad idea.

Also, relying on Bush v. Gore, even if we try to give it precedential value the Supreme Court said it did not have, has its problems. Putting aside the issues discussed in the linked story, should we respect an opinion not worthy of our respect, even if the Court did so to rub their noses in it? One problem suggested is that we knew the election was real close last time, but this time it is but a possibility. I think it perhaps best to deal with problems before they happen, but even if it isn't close, miscounting skewers the vote count. For instance, if one candidate gets 5% of the vote, maybe it won't matter, but if only 1% is counted, there is a harm. Finally, in a time when partisanship is high and races often close, a honest and fair election process is that much more important. Why not face this beforehand?

Football Woes II: I couldn't watch the Giants after more after they dropped 20-7 at the Half ... good thing. I would have cheered as they came back 32-29 with :13 left on the clock, and watch them still blow it. In less than 1/4 of the time, the Dallas Cowboys did what the Giants could not do in the playoffs ... get an essential field goal. How? They didn't f-up. The Giants last year would have been much closer without an unsportmanlike conduct call ... Dallas also managed to get a long field goal off. And, they won in OT ... but given the Giants penchant for not finishing what they started and blowing the second chances they are given, that was almost mandatory.

Thoughts: Wesley Clark, CA Recall stopped using Bush v. Gore Reasoning (here and here), and In Praise of Older Women.

Football Woes: Oh, I did a lot of screaming today ... the Jets looked pathetic against the Dolphins in the First Half, and couldn't just hold them in place in the Second Half, but that is what they did ... losing 21-10. Last week was aggravating, but close ... this week, aggravating (Miami was given break, opportunity, after break, opportunity to go up 21-3), but not close. Meanwhile, after winning once in nine games, the Mets lost again ... badly (7-3, after being up 3-0 early). I find it hard just to watch as a fan, especially when teams don't just do bad, but do so bad that it is sad. This week, the early defense was made me so mad ... and they might of still lost with it, even with Chad. Ok ... I had my fun.

Buffalo did great again. My sentiment always was that the Bills are really the "NY" team in that they actually play in the state, even if the Jets are considered the NY team. Anyway, they are surely my AFC backup ... the losses the last couple weeks were especially annoying in that I really don't see Miami or the Redskins going that far; I surely don't care for either one of them. Oh, the Yanks have about clinched the East ... shocker, huh?

Thoughts: 911 (see also), Prop 12 (Texas), and Lost in Translation. Just a quick thing on the last item ... excellent movie ... perhaps the best movie of the summer thus far.

This year many popular members of the entertainment industry died; the latest were John Ritter and Johnny Cash, though with Cash's lifestyle, it is amazing he lasted this long. In a bit of black humor, the daily horoscope feature in my local paper featured Ritter, whose birthday was coming up ... it's words on his future was a bit mistaken. There is some talk of Ritter's tv show being continued with another actor, but I find this distressing. The show is built around him and is only moderately successful as it is; why force the issue by trying to replace Ritter? For instance, "NewsRadio" went downhill after Phil Hartman was replaced. I would also like to say that Ritter had shown more talent than some might think, especially in dramatic roles such as "Slingblade" and certain guest shots.

Losing 3-0 vs. Detroit ("hey, we need to win sometime") the day when both of its competitors also lost might just be seen as the final nail in the coffin of KC's season ... bad as they played of late, over the last week or two, they had a few chances to keep within spitting distance ... 3.5 games at this point isn't quite there. On the other hand, if they would lose, losing against 20 game loser Mike Maroth (still arguably the ace of the staff, and not as bad as his record suggests) is in some sense forgivable ... in the sense, that one feels sorry for the guy. Then again, that 20 game losing record wasn't matched for years, why not set a new record in futility? Well, he has a few games to do it.

More Thoughts: Alabama Governor Move For Tax Reform, strong man idea, humorous look at CA Recall, Bush's speech on Iraq, and campaign finance orals.

Mets Futility: The Mets are in the midst of a seven game losing streak, which basically helped the Phillies a bit more than the Marlins in their Wild Card Race because the former played four, to the Marlins three. The starting pitching was actually pretty good with several games tied (or one run difference) in the eighth or ninth, but the Mets kept on blowing it. Today's game was a true exercise in futility. The Mets brought up eight men in the first inning ... and got two runs, which is some feat. The Mets soon enough gave up the lead via two errors, so it was 4-2 (three unearned), giving Seo another game where he lasted only five. A rookie (the regs aren't doing much these days either, including Piazza, who is stuck on needing about four home runs to break the record as a catcher) got his first home run, and it was 4-3 in the eighth. The Mets lost 7-3.

A post linked above discusses it in more detail, but I want to underline my support of the fact that the audio of the oral arguments in the campaign finance law case were release by the Supreme Court, and immediately aired by C-SPAN. Why this is not done more often, at least for important cases, is unclear to me. Audio alone retains the "dignity" of the Court, and it is quite helpful that the questioners from the bench were labelled, unlike it is done in transcripts found on the SC website. I hope the use twice this year (the other being the college affirmative action case) points to a slight trend. It was educational and informative.

Football: The Mets/Phillies matchup as usual saw the Mets show life, but lose in the end ... this happened when the Mets were in contention, and it's happening now. As that played on, the Jets/Redskins game started things off for the NFL season ... other than the surely newsworthy story of Vinny Testaverde starting again, the game was surely not the ideal one for that purpose. If Chad was there, I do think the Jets would have won against an at best middle of the road team; this was the projected result when the game was scheduled. Likewise, the Jets had a busy pre-season with an extra game (Japan). So why were they chosen for a Thursday game? I guess they had their reasons as did those behind the conservative Jets offensive plan that did result in a close game, but unfortunately the wrong way ... 16-13, the difference being another key long field goal by John Hall, but again, unfortunately he's planning for the other side. The defense had their moments, including two turnovers, but also didn't stop the Redskins at key moments. The offense was a tad bit creaky. It was not a pleasant game.

Thoughts: GAO and O'Reilly and Natural Law. The first post is a bit tongue in cheek, but actually, I do somewhat respect O'Reilly ... people (including my mom) like him because he seems to care and attacks those who deserve to be attacked. His anti-government sentiment does overall seem to fall more on Democrats, but one can take his demand for accountability at face value. On the other hand, his has the tendency to be a hypocritical blowhard, and Al Franken's attack on him at a book event and elsewhere is classic. Franken is clearly a bit of a jerk himself, but (of course my political leanings help) he can be a hilarious sort of jerk as well. His anger is real and often well placed. And, as always, humor is a great way to send a message.

Another Democratic Debate is on right now. A couple things that annoy me is about these things ... well at times more, but two come to mind. First, how even long shots like Gephardt talk about "when I'm President ...." One smuck actually talked about his second term! Second, when these morons talk about how the President f-ed up Iraq, and how they warned him about it earlier, and so forth. These same guys gave the guy a blank check, did little to stop him when they saw where he was going (which was no great shock to most people), and now self-righteously speak in superior tones. The best shot they have is to say that the President lied or misled them about WMDs ... but the material supplied was dubious, and people knew that in early March, if not earlier. The fact that it is clearer now is relevant, but only to a degree. Oh, and yes, the debate was sponsored by a Spanish station or something, but the Spanish one-liners were stupid. Cringe!

Kansas City is not making it easy. They started yet another nobody v. Randy Johnson, and was up 4-1 in the 6th. All the same, they couldn't hang on for more than an inning or so, and soon it was tied 4-4 and 5-5 ... they lost in extra innings. The light hitting Diamondbacks vs. the leaky Kansas bullpen, and the former won again. A win would have put KC only 1/2 back, now it's 1 1/2 games, with another extra game to play. Poor competition, good hitting, and more than one deserves from a bunch of retread starters got them this far. A light schedule as well as some more games v. Chicago actually gives them a shot ... and one still hopes they have something left. It is time for them to go on one more run, like they did at least two times this year. They are due to fall short, but they surely are the Bad News Bears of the MLB (surely the AL), and lovable for that reason.