Here and There

(UPDATE: check the comments…I’ve gotten a couple of interesting responses to this seemingly innocuous post)

Does anyone really read lists of the best and/or worst movies of the year to gain some sort of cinematic knowledge? Are they looking for a film that skirted their attention the previous year? Or do they use lists to while away the time over the holidays, as the family chatter ebbs and flows and they just can’t stand it in there any longer?

Lists obviously serve a function greater than mere escape. My guess is that they offer insight into the personality lurking behind the compiler of the list. For example, I couldn’t rightly trust anyone with Revenge of the Sith anywhere near their top ten, whereas I might develop a crush on someone with 40-Year-Old Virgin and Capote at or near the top of their list (see my list, below).

Obviously there are tons of movies missing from my list. Some I simply didn’t have time to see. Others I either warned not to see, or was given that familiar, age-old advice about: watch it at home. And lord knows competition in the Netflix queue is fierce these days, so some movies recommended to me in 2005 will have to wait their turn.

Here it is, broken down into categories (but no specific order within each category).

So glad I saw:
Brokeback Mountain (for the natural beauty and the love story)
Capote (despite some faults, for the journalism and Hoffman’s performance)
Good Night, and Good Luck (mainly for the story)
King Kong (love story and special effects, and Watts’ and Black’s and Kong’s performances)
40-Year-Old Virgin (surprisingly hilarious)
Crash (interesting approach to an important social topic)
Aristocrats (piss-in-your-pants funny)
Murderball (great telling of a story you’ve probably never heard)
Grizzly Man

Eh:
Batman Begins
Revenge of the Sith
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
March of the Penguins
Sin City
Jarhead
Gunner Palace
Memoirs of a Geisha
Constant Gardener

Saw, but wish I hadn’t:
Me and You and Everyone We Know

Avoided for a reason:
The Dukes of Hazard
Wedding Crashers
Bewitched
Fantastic Four

Didn’t see, but wish I had:
Broken Flowers
A History of Violence
Syriana
Walk the Line
Chronicles of Narnia
Munich
The Squid and the Whale
2046
Corpse Bride

Based on some previews I saw at King Kong the other day, 2006 promises to be a better year for film. The good films this year were very good, it’s just that there were so few of them.

All the political blogs are citing this article in today’s Washington Post. I don’t usually like to chime in on such well-covered news bits, but I read the article this morning over two cups of coffee (it’s long — I clock it at 3,122 words), and, well…wow.

Aside from being really good journalism, this story is an eye-opener. It details the intricate money trail leading from and surrounding Jack Abramoff and Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), catching Indian casinos, dead British lawyers, Russian oil executives, and even DeLay’s wife in its net.

A related story comes out of the Associated Press today, and is being reported in papers and on websites all over the place.

It reveals that Abramoff could be ready to offer a plea next week, exposing, according to the story, up to 20 members of Congress and their staff.

To be non-partisan for a moment, I welcome this revelation. I think exposing corrupt public officials would be a great way to ring in the new year.

What really blew me away in the Post story was the deception involved in individuals and so-called non-profits. While claiming to be working for such lofty goals as “moral fitness,” the U.S. Family Network was apparently being used to funnel money from wealthy foreign energy executives back to one of the most powerful members of the U.S. Congress.

True, none of us is above temptation, but DeLay (the main public official in the story) is sworn to act on behalf of his constituents. I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone from Sugar Land, Texas (the district DeLay represents), but I doubt seriously they’re as full of shit and as evil as their Congressman. Good riddance, “Hammer.”

Since I have this space, and of course for shits and giggles, I decided to shoot some darts at William Safire’s annual “Office Pool,” published in today’s Times.

I took the liberty of adding additional answers where the all-knowing master of smug failed to give me a viable option.

He and I agree on exactly one question (number 3).

My answers in bold:

1. U.S. troops in Iraq at 2006 year’s end will number: (a) current “base line” 138,000; (b) closer to 100,000; (c) closer to 90,000; (d) 80,000 or below.

2. Speaker of the House succeeding Dennis Hastert will be: (a) Mike Pence; (b) Rahm Emanuel; (c) Steny Hoyer; (d) Roy Blunt; (e) Nancy Pelosi; (f) Tom DeLay (g) Hastert.

3. Best-picture Oscar to: (a) Woody Allen’s comeback, “Match Point”; (b) Ang Lee’s “Brokeback Mountain” (this isn’t simply my being hopeful. it’s a great film and Hollywood wants to reward Lee); (c) James Mangold’s “Walk the Line” (cashing in on Reese Witherspoon’s performance); (d) Niki Caro’s antisexist “North Country.”

4. The Robertscalito court will: (a) in the Texas case disengage from involvement in states’ redistricting; (b) go the other way in Oregon, holding that federal power to prohibit substances trumps a state’s authority to permit physician-assisted suicide; (c) decide that federal funds can be denied to law schools that prohibit military recruitment on campus; (d) uphold McCain-Feingold, enabling Congress to restrict political contributions but not expenditures; (e) reassert citizens’ Fourth Amendment protection from “security letters” and warrantless surveillance. (b) and (e)

5. Nonfiction sleeper best seller will be: (a) “Never Have Your Dog Stuffed,” by Alan Alda; (b) “Self-Made Man” by Norah Vincent, the new Steinem; (c) “In Search of Memory,” by Nobelist Eric Kandel. (sorry, no answer, too wide-open)

6. Fiction surprise will be: (a) “Eye Contact” by Cammie McGovern, about an autistic murder witness; (b) “The World to Come” by Dara Horn, about a museum heist; (c) a media murder mystery by Russ Lewis; (d) second novel by Scooter Libby about anything. (sorry, no answer, too wide-open)

7. Israel-Palestine affected by: (a) political split in successful Hamas; (b) Mahmoud Abbas naming jailed Marwan Barghouti his Fatah successor; (c) dieter Arik Sharon’s centrist Kadima party winning big in March and forming coalition with Labor (though I’ll believe a coalition with Labor when I see it).

8. Government report most likely to resist investigative reporting will be: (a) special prosecutor David Barrett’s 400-page exposé of political influence within the Internal Revenue Service and Clinton Justice Department; (b) the 36-page report by the Senate Intelligence Committee about the 2000 terrorist attack on the destroyer Cole, cleared for release by the C.I.A. but suppressed by the Senate. None of the above. The press is getting its balls back.

9. Stock market will: (a) slump in midsummer, causing data-dependent Fed chief Bernanke to morph into “accommodative Ben” (or something like this. certain sectors of the market may pick up, but with the last great hope of the U.S. economy [housing] in its last throes, and unravelling confidence in the government, overall market performance will be weak); (b) tread water while a barrel of oil gurgles down to $50 and media “convergence” zigs while corporate “disaggregation” zags; (c) finally reflect sustained 4 percent G.D.P. growth by Dow breaking through 12,000.

10. In Iraqi politics: (a) Shiite majority will refuse to amend the constitution to suit Sunnis; (b) disgruntled Sunnis will encourage terrorists to drive out Americans; (c) nationalist Iraqis and bridging Kurds will achieve a loose confederation and create a Muslim brand of democracy. (d) all of the above, and then some.

11. Vote-changing domestic issue in this year’s U.S. elections will be: (a) wiretapping and computer intrusions on privacy; (b) extending reductions of dividend, capital-gains and estate taxes and reducing alternative minimum tax; (c) growth in economic inequality and need for pension protection; (d) journalist jailing by the new leak-plumbers. (a) and (c), among other issues, like voter displeasure at 12 years of Republican domination (okay, now I’m being wishful).

12. Thinking outside the ballot box - the dark-horse line for the 2008 presidential race will pit: (a) Virginia Democrat Mark Warner against Massachusetts Republican Mitt Romney in the battle of centrist capitalists; (b) Dems’ iconoclastic Senator Russ Feingold vs. the G.O.P.’s nonpartisan Mayor Mike Bloomberg to compete for evangelical vote; (c) the Dems’ favorite Republican, Chuck Hagel, against the G.O.P.’s favorite Democrat, Joe Lieberman; (d) domestic centrists and foreign-policy hardliners Hillary (”You’re a Grand Old Flag”) Clinton against Condi (”I am not a lawyer”) Rice. (e) Feingold vs. Giuliani.

13. Conventionally, inside the box: (a) Bill Richardson vs. Rudy Giuliani; (b) Hillary vs. John McCain; (c) Warner vs. Romney; (d) Joe Biden vs. George Allen. (see last answer)

14. As Bush approval rises, historians will begin to equate his era with that of: (a) Truman; (b) Eisenhower; (c) L.B.J.; (d) Reagan; (e) Clinton. Sometimes Safire blows me away. Bush is finished. Katrina and wiretapping were his sucker-punches.

My (Safire’s) picks: 1 (d); 2 (a); 3 (b); 4 (all); 5 (c); 6 (a); 7 (all); 8 (both); 9 (c); 10 (c); 11 (none); 12 (d); 13 (b); 14 (a).

(reprinted here only because I can’t link)

I don’t own a car, but I tend to find myself driving them quite frequently.

I’ve been car-sitting for a friend for a few weeks now, and today, we used the car to go to the museum.

As we approached in our car, I spotted a group of three young adults unlocking their car and getting inside. I kindly pulled up just behind them, leaving them plenty of room to get out, and put my right blinker on.

But they proceeded to do what I find people doing ALL OVER THE FREAKIN’ PLACE. They got in and just sat there.

They sat there and sat there and sat there. They were in there long enough for us to contemplate saying something. “Should we pull up beside them and ask them if they’re leaving?” I asked. “I’ll just get out of the car and ask them,” my companion suggested.

Then the backseat passenger turned his head in the first acknowledgment of our presence. So I mimed Are you leaving?, to which I think he mimed back Yes.

It’s one of those things, of little consequence in the long run, but in the heat of the moment pisses me off, and for good reason. My reason is also why I feel justified in writing about it here.

It’s inconsiderate. Period.

Just like doubling up on the escalator is inconsiderate. Just like taking forever when you’re at the register and a mile-long line is queued up behind you is inconsiderate. Ditto spending five years filling up your gas tank, or worse, not pulling up to the second pump when there are two.

Okay, my rant is finished. Happy New Year.

Back in October, when it opened, I saw the outside of San Francisco’s newest museum, the de Young in Golden Gate Park.

I kept meaning to go back and go inside. So today, a slow, dreary day in which the empty streets gave the effect of an abandoned town, we tried again.

But the line was still unmanageable. So I decided to take some photos of the sculpture garden. It wasn’t a totally useless trip.

Here are the highlights (click images to view larger):

The Oldenburg/van Bruggen giant safety pin

Barbara (Jocelyn) Hepworth’s Pierced Monolith with Colour

Gustav Kraitz’s Apples

Juan Muñoz’s beautiful and strange Conversation Piece V

And my favorite, Minuteman, by Robert Arneson

Maybe the planners of the museum knew it would be a hit, and that people like me would be showing up months after the opening lacking the stamina to wait in line. The sculpture garden, even on a wintry day like today, is a nice (and free) alternative.

A couple of posts ago, I cited a Newsweek article in which the author posed the (rhetorical) question: Where is the outrage?

I got a couple of responses on this post, namely because I agreed with the idea that no matter how bad the crime and scandals get in this country, there doesn’t seem to be any sign of an appropriate response from the general public.

Let me first say: I don’t mean to generalize. I know there are plenty of people out there who do care that their communications have been subject to surveillance over (at least) the last five years. I know that deep down, Americans don’t like being lied to. I know (all too well) that they value freedom.

I write today to admit maybe I took inventory at the wrong time. Maybe, oddly, we as a nation needed a break, and found one in Christmas weekend.

Whatever the reasons, as of yesterday and today, I’m starting to see more and more items like this one, from Miami Herald writer Robert Steinback. Though Steiback’s prose is a tad grandiose (he says he never would’ve imagined that “this nation…would cower behind anyone just for promising to ‘protect us.’”), he does a great job of breaking down the meaning of just about everything that’s transpired (that we know about):

“I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America’s character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke — speaking metaphorically now — mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we’d follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.”

“Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.”

I, probably like many others, am left to wonder what it would take. What is the appropriate response? Congress has scheduled hearings in January to look into the NSA surveillance program. Am I just a cynical bastard to believe that nothing of any substance will come out of those hearings? I would love nothing more than for those responsible for breaking the law to be held accountable. It would be a good way to start 2006 off right.

My vote on whether to allow Turkey into the EU is now officially, and resoundingly, “No.”

A few weeks ago, I read this first-person essay in The New Yorker by Orhan Pamuk, a Turkish writer on trial for “insulting” his country.

Now, another Turkish writer, journalist Hrant Dink, faces a “trial” similar to the ordeal Pamuk has been going through for years.

Now, I know my own county isn’t doing too much better lately, but really. Freedom of the press, freedom of dissent…they are part of the bedrock of any democracy. What are Turkish officials afraid of? That something these men publish will strike a chord with the public, thereby possibly turning the people against their rulers?

Freedom of speech and press can lead to an informed citizenry, which in turn can lead to great things we’re unable to imagine. The free flow of truthful information should be a given considering where we are in human history. Sure, it’s Euro-centric of me to suggest, but there are societies outside the realm of “The West” that have tried freedoms such as these, and they have mostly thrived.

Shame on Turkey’s ruling party for moving that country backward. It has nothing to do with a culture adopting the ways of the West, and everything to do with letting that culture actually progress.

Catching up on things, I just read this from Arlene Getz at Newsweek.

I’ve been wondering the same thing for a little over five years, Arlene.

Getz closes with the following:

“Yet as I’ve watched this [war on terror versus civil liberties] debate play out, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that not enough Americans really care.”

I saw this ad for Taco Bell just now, and it struck me as a perfect metaphor for what food means to Americans.

“Get full,” the ad says. That’s it. That’s all it’s about, eating till you can’t eat anymore.

Forget eating for your health, or using meals as way to bring family and friends together socially. Just pig out, America!

Of course they’re spying on us.

Okay, I know, it’s really scary and probably illegal and pretty much a bad Jerry Bruckheimer plot, and overall it’s one of civil libertarians‘ (my favorite flavor of libertarian) worst nightmares, but should we really expect anything less?

Should we expect our reactionary, failed-opportunity, eyes-off-the-ball (I break the rule of no sports metaphors with pleasure), tax-cuts-and-sweet-unjust-backroom-energy-dealing, scariest grandpa you could imagine “leaders” to enact anything less than this?

It’s a tired reminder, but they weren’t elected. Sometimes my mental processes get stuck on that fact, and I can’t even visit the million (okay, seven or eight) things that have happened since.

THEY WERE NOT ELECTED. Wow…

And can I quickly point to the results of the last time it happened that our president wasn’t actually chosen by the people?

One of Rutherford B. Hayes’ (Republican, eventual “winner” of the election of 1876, and bearer of the name “Rutherford”) most striking characteristics was, in the words of a politician at the time, to be “obnoxious to no one.” The contrast couldn’t be more striking.

But I digress.

My point was we shouldn’t be surprised by this newest revelation, that governmental spying reached further than originally reported and commented on by the Administration. After all, we are a dangerous lot.

In reading an editorial in NYT this morning, I came across this gem of a quote from your vice president:

“But I do believe that especially in the day and age we live in, the nature of the threats of we face and this is true during the Cold War as well as I think is true now the president of the United States needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired, if you will, in terms of the conduct of national security policy.” (full quote courtesy of Military.com)

So apparently Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan didn’t have enough power. Same goes for W.

Sorry, but last time I checked, these men (and I’d lump Clinton and Bush Sr. in there, too) had plenty of war power, even without formal declarations from Congress.

So what would Cheney like to see? Maybe something like what’s transpired over the last five years? Wars waged whenever and wherever the hell the executive branch feels like it; dishonest public relations campaigns; the torture of enemy prisoners; skirting the Constitution by establishing military tribunals; more torture; extraordinary rendition; a CIA program of secret gulag-esque prisons in former Soviet states; breaking the law by outing an undercover covert officer in an attempt to smear a critic of your policy; spying on your citizens; a little more torture; infiltrating and spying on “protest groups.”

I could go on and on, but I’d rather eat breakfast.

My question to Dick is: really, what more do you want? You’ve basically got the dictatorship you always dreamed of. Who cares if the Democrats regain the legislative branch next November and introduce articles of impeachment? After all, people in England (and other nations) consider your “boss” a bigger threat to world peace than any jihadist group out there. And the fact that other nations are disgusted with your flex of the American muscle (evident within a five-mile radius of anywhere you, W, Condi, or Rummy land on foreign soil) should be enough to show you that you’re well on your way to world domination.

Really, Mr. Cheney, relax by the fire. Have a cigar. Merry Christmas.

Here’s a beautiful graphic that illustrates a point I made in a post 12 days ago (image courtesy RhodesCook.com:

A fish with two mouths was caught in the toxic state of Nebraska.

The fisherman who caught this specimen had it easy: twice the lippage to catch the hook.

The U.S. Senate, which passed the so-called deficit reduction budget earlier in the day thanks to VP Cheney’s tie-breaker, just defeated the GOP-coveted amendment allowing drilling in ANWR. Sorry, Angry Ted.

Looks like the deer and the antelope can breathe a little easier…

Okay, this is rather juvenile of me, I admit.

But I was randomly checking out Google’s “more” section, and came across Language Tools.

The tool allows you to translate any site out of and into various languages. For example, see this blog in French. Ha ha…

Also, it had been awhile since I posted in “ridiculous.” So there.