The ground in winter

Just that.



In case you don't get out enough



in the cold.

Fire up the presses, it's printin time!

The Times reports:

WASHINGTON — House leaders and the White House on Thursday announced a tentative agreement on an economic stimulus package of roughly $150 billion that would pay stipends of $300 to $1,200 per household, and more for families with children, plus provide tax incentives for businesses to encourage spending.

Translation: They're gonna print a lotta money and throw it in the air by the fistful. A lot more money, to put it accurately. It won't be long before we're all carrying around suitcases full of Benjamins to buy groceries. That's already the case if you travel. Funny how you don't hear much about the deficit these days.

Or perhaps the plan is to trick the Arabs and the Asians and the Europeans into going to war with each other over who gets to buy up everything of value in this country? Nah, there is no plan. At least nothing beyond getting a blip in tomorrow's polls. Maybe they'll kick tomorrow?

And of course it could just be another ruse. Last time we learned that the supposedly free money was just an advance on our tax cut, you know, money we would have gotten anyway. Is that trick in the works again? The news stories describe it as a "stipend" or a "rebate," but it'javascript:void(0)s an unfortunate, and very real, possibility that our top flight media don't know what those words mean, or just take dictation without bothering to stop and think about it. We'll see. It'll probably end up being some combination of the two.

Guy knows how to dig a hole

When There Will be Blood first came out, I was enthused to see it and my daughter wanted to go as well. But her schedule is full and the weeks went by and my interest began to wane, as is prone to happen as a movie's initial hype wears off. Then I saw that it was up for a lot of Oscars, and always in the same sentence as No Country for Old Men, a film I truly hated, and I decided not to waste my money, or my time on it, that it was bound to suck like all the other movies. But then my daughter had a free night and wanted to go, so here I am.

If you plan on seeing There Will be Blood, I recommend that you don't read past this paragraph. I will not give the details of what happens, but I will discuss what I thought about some of the major plot elements. You would do better to see it without letting me color your judgment, one way or the other. It's an interesting movie and worth seeing. And if you want a more intelligent review, I trust Roy will provide one soon.

Okay, you were warned. I thought the ending really sucked and it practically ruined the entire movie for me. It felt like one of those tacked-on studio endings where the big shots snatch the film maker's dream at right before release and turn it into crap. Of course it's also possible that the screenwriter just had no idea how to end it and took the easy way out, but I don't think so. The film was intricately plotted and all the pieces were in place for a satisfying ending that was true to the story, but for whatever reason, that just did not happen.

And it's unfortunate because There Will be Blood had the potential to be a truly great movie. The first two thirds of the story arc provided a nearly immaculate example of visual story telling at its finest. The movie began unraveling a bit as it approached the end, but there were still many good moments and the film was entirely salvageable until the next to last scene.

I know that sounds a bit too much like a lot of the complaints about No Country for Old Men. A lot of people thought that was a potentially great movie until the unsatisfying ending. I, however, was not one of them. Although the movies are similar on one level -- interesting leading man, black humor, unsatisfying ending -- the stories are not comparable. No Country is lame-assed kitsch. There Will be Blood came damn close to nailing it.

Beyond commenting on the story, I'd say the cinematography had its moments. There are some interesting images of warm light in late afternoon and during fire scenes and some interesting use of depth of field and a couple incredibly well-framed close-ups, but overall it was not what you'd call spectacular. The acting was good, particularly Tom Selleck, or some guy that looked like him, in the lead role. If that was old Tom, his acting skills have sure improved since Three Men and a Baby.

My name is Glahn

I almost skipped the "Celebrity book club" article in Sunday's Daily News that asked and odd assortment of talent to talk about the book they are currently reading.

You know, anyone could predict that Cassandra Wilson was reading "technical books filled with dense language only Bill Gates could love" or that Shia Labeouf was into "The Definitive Book of Body Language," but I was nicely surprised to learn that Jason Lee was reading Knut Hamsun's "Hunger," one of chuckling's favorite books by one of chuckling's favorite authors.

Lee, who stars in "My Name is Earl" a show I've never seen, had this to say about one of the greatest books of all time:

"It's about how to cross your legs when you're lying. How to scratch your face when you're scared. I want to be a better actor."

Ooops that was Labeouf. What he really said was:

I talk about this book a lot. It makes it seem like the only book I ever read. It's 'Hunger'; I'm on my second pass. I've never been so riveted by something that has nothing going on. It's just absolutely so well-written. Unbelievable. You find yourself going, 'What's going to happen? What's going to happen? What's going to happen?' Oh, my God. And you really feel the pain of the guy. It absolutely makes me look at [homeless] people I see in downtown L.A. in a different light."

Sometimes, karma needs you to show a little humility in order to do its work.

The chuckling character, you may be surprised to learn is loosely based on the narrator of "Hunger" and the main characters in Hamsun's next two books. One of the site's running jokes, the 13 part philosophical treatise on the films of Studio Ghibli, is my little homage to "Hunger."

Wikipedia describes the novel:

It recounts the adventures of a starving young man, whose sense of reality is giving way to a delusionary existence on the darker side of a modern metropolis. While he vainly tries to maintain an outer shell of respectability, his mental and physical decay are recounted in detail. His ordeal, enhanced by his inability or unwillingness to pursue a professional career, which he deems unfit for someone of his abilities, is pictured in a series of encounters, which Hamsun himself has described as 'a series of analyses'.

Yep, that's poor chuckling in a nutshell, though the starving part was a long time ago on the darker side of a modern metropolis far, far away.

But plenty of books by famous authors describe poor chuckling. Hamsun's writing is extraordinary and that's why you should read him. Reading "Hunger," "Mysteries" and "Pan" is an incredible literary experience. "Pan" comes about as close as possible to being a perfect novel.

Changing toons

Frank Rich's column about Hillary Clinton and "change" is particularly inane this morning. I don't know what it is about Clinton that makes the big time journalists start chugging the stupid pills.

It's been a hoot watching all the bigwigs in both politics and media engage in a pissing contest to see who can invoke the word "change" the most. Rich's point, to the extent he has one, seems to be that Clinton is not the candidate of change, and that that's a bad thing. A very bad thing. Change, you see, is good. Clinton, you see, is bad.

But what does he mean by "change?" Probably not the same thing most people mean. To take one example:

This presentation of the liberal catechism reached its apotheosis in a Clinton campaign ad in December. Mrs. Clinton was shown doling out Christmas presents labeled “Universal Health Care” and “Alternative Energy” before delivering the punch line, “Where did I put universal pre-K?”

For Rich, universal health care, alternative energy, and universal pre-K are just the same old, same old. Hillary has been using those terms for years. He's heard it all before. No change there.

Yet for people on the ground, to have a government that ensured decent health care, intelligent energy policy and a better education system, would represent a radical change. And perhaps regular folk have a deeper definition of "change" than "what a person's been saying" as well.

The overall message uniting the small-bore promises, such as it was, remains unchanged today: competence, experience, wonky proficiency.

Hillary's message, you see, is unchanged. She is unchanged. And people want what? People want change!

Rich seems unable to comprehend the fact that competence, experience and wonky proficiency are attributes that represent the greatest possible change from Bush. When he first ran for President, Bush's inexperience and lack of in-depth knowledge about any and all subjects outside of baseball were presented as good things. And although he was presented as competent, he had a long history of failure going in and he's the all-time American champion of miserable failure going out.

So while Rich and the other media nabobs ponder the possibility that "change" means "someone other than Bush," they don't seem to realize that it might have something to do with his staggering incompetence. They seem more inclined to believe that people have grown tired of him because he's been around for eight or nine years and keeps saying the same things.

While it's true, they concede, that Hillary Clinton is not the exact same person as Bush, she is, they insist, part of the Bush/Clinton dynasty. Hillary Clinton, gasp, has been around even longer than Bush! She and Bush have been around forever! They are practically the same person! And they keep saying the same things!

The fact that the things Hillary Clinton keeps saying represent true and significant change doesn't enter into the conversation.

Obama, on the other hand, represents change. He is a uniter, not a divider. Ummmm. No wonky spiels. Ummmm. At least he has a history of competence, not that that counts. Maybe it's because he looks different? That's the kind of "change" we're talking about! Let's give him a few months before he has to change what he says.


The way Rich and the media-politico in crowd keep changing the definition of "change," it's difficult to know what a presidential candidate should do to "change" in a way that suits them. Mitt Romney changes what he says all the time and he doesn't get any love. And as shallow as they are, you'd think that a different hairstyle or wardrobe would represent acceptable change, but a poor politician has to be careful how much he or she pays for that coif. And what to wear? All we know is that you're not allowed to save the earth if you all of a sudden start wearing earth tones.

Wipe out

Just minutes after I declare for Bill Richardson, he quits the race. Now I've got to fight off despondency and cynicism about the direction of this great country of ours. New Mexico is an incredibly beautiful state. I think Richardson could have made the whole country just as beautiful. Too much of the east is flat and boring. More beautiful mountains and fantastic sunsets would have done us good. Oh well. Que sera sera. Insha'Allah baby.

Arizona is even better, so you'd think I'd be for John McCain, but he is much more a creature of Phoenix than a real Arizonan. Phoenix is a crime against the planet. If there were a just God, it wouldn't exist. And that's what McCain offers the rest of the country. He's probably never even seen a mountain or a sunset even though he's surrounded by them at least once or twice a year. All he sees is enemies. It's not that enemies don't exist, but he sees them in all the wrong places.

Which candidate should I support now that Bill has packed it in? McCain, aside from not really representing Arizona, is too submissive. Ever since Bush beat him like a dog in South Carolina he's acted like one. So I'm kinda leaning towards Giuliani. Not, as you might imagine, because of the New York skyline or ecosystem. Sure, it would be nice if more places were like New York -- Indianapolis, St. Louis, Nashville -- all those hellholes in the midwest could use a little New York style, and that's a good reason to vote for Rudolph, but I'm more drawn to the rotten reindeer because he's such a bizarre fucking psychopath. And in so many ways. If he were elected, much hilarity would ensue, at least until he starts fucking up the lives of his critics, say for a year or so. Still, better to have a few laughs in the meantime.

A lot of people are going to suffer and die for oil and misplaced notions of honor no matter who gets elected.

Catching the wave

Took my son up to New Hampshire today to photograph an Obama rally but the line was too long and his flacks too Bush-like, so we ended up at a Richardson rally in a park (see above photo). Now I'm leaning towards Bill. New Mexico is a beautiful state. Maybe he can make the whole country that beautiful.

Sunday funnies

I caught the end of the Democrat's debate last night. They all seemed like decent enough people and any one of them would be a world of improvement over any of the Republican psychopaths.

Only Obama or Richardson would have the remotest chance of being an effective president. Edwards is too direct in his challenge to corporate hegemony and there are just too many idiots out there with an irrational hatred of Hillary. Either Clinton or Edwards would provoke massive opposition that would be as well-funded as it would be vitriolic. We'd get at least four more years of ugliness, no doubt. With Obama or Richardson, at least there'd be a minute possibility that the tenor of the attacks would mellow.

I say minute chance. Does anyone doubt that if Obama is the nominee, the Republicans will go all southern strategy all the time and the news media will support them?

Already we see that our top journalists in both broadcast and print, perceive "race" as central to all Obama stories. Over and over again they note that in Obama's case "race" is not an issue and that Obama himself never mentions it. Yet for these poor stunted souls, our journalistic elite, it is all they can talk about. If Obama continues to do well, you can count on increasingly idiotic histrionics from the beltway pundits. They will be more than happy to amplify the Republican machine's southern strategy, with a tut tut and a wink of course. Today's topic: should Americans hide the white women if Osama, I mean Obama, becomes President? Fashion industry sees potential cash cow in veils. Meanwhile, latest bloodbath in mideast helps Republicans.

Well, if anyone with African heritage can withstand what's coming, he is Barak Obama. Our prejudices are much more related to culture than color and culturally Obama is white. Here's hoping the coming ugliness backfires on the racist Republican shit heads. Beggarman, get on your horse and ride.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post's Sunday editorial page is always good for a few sad laughs.

David Broder, who is the dean of Washington Punditry as long as you consider "dean" a synonym for "senile" writes:

That search becomes more urgent as the major-party politicians come to understand that Obama could be the most electable candidate the Democrats have fielded in many years.

What planet does this guy live on? Of the last four elections, Democrats won the popular vote in three of them and came close in the fourth. I think Broder and most of his beltway brethren have their heads so far up their beltway asses that they really cannot differentiate between their consensus opinions and the actual results of elections. It's truly amazing.

And finally, old sharp-stick-up-the-ass George Will claims that the middle class is only shrinking because the ranks of the rich are expanding.

Economist Stephen Rose, defining the middle class as households with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000, says a smaller percentage of Americans are in that category than in 1979 -- because the percentage of Americans earning more than $100,000 has doubled, from 12 to 24, while the percentage earning less than $30,000 is unchanged. "So," Rose says, "the entire 'decline' of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder."

Well, you know what they say about lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I have neither the time nor wherewithal to go deep into those particular statistics, but using the $30,000 to $100,000 income range to define middle class strikes me as silly. For one thing, those numbers obviously don't mean what they meant in 1979. And even if they are adjusted for inflation, $40,000 in New York is not the same as $40,000 in Bumfuck.

But the open sore that Will tries to band-aid with income statistics isn't poverty or any decline in the percentage of middle class folk. It's the income disparity between the truly wealthy and the other 95 or so percent of us and what that disparity means for our children. It means that if something isn't done to rein in those greedy fucks, most people's character and abilities, their merit, will have nothing whatsoever to do with their chance of success in this life. The semi-retarded scions of the wealthy who could never make it on their own, the George W. Bush's, Hank Steinbrenners, James Dolans, and so many more faceless others, will have it all wrapped up in tax free trust funds and off-shore accounts. If we don't tax these losers back to competitive reality, your grandchildren better hone their ass kissing skills cause that's where just about the only opportunity for advancement that will be left.

Photo of the day

I found about a thousand old photos on a hard drive I was about to throw away. A couple are kind of interesting. This one seems to have some resonance.

Another death knell for democracy

According to the New York Times:

Emily Rocheleau, 22, an independent, said she was weighing her choices between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama.

“It doesn’t necessarily mean that all of their positions are really moderate, but their rhetoric and their approach to politics is more about unifying the country,” said Ms. Rocheleau, who added that she had not yet chosen her candidate.

Honestly. Do these people really exist or do reporters just make them up? If she were five, I could sympathize with her reasoning. But I know a lot of eight year olds that have significantly more intellectual depth. Really, I do.

But at least she's open minded, I guess. Too many oldsters will vote for the party they vote for because that's their party, doesn't matter who the candidate is. For them it's like rooting for the home team. Once a Stealer's fan, always as Stealer's fan.

Just imagine. In this day and age, with all the monumentally important shit going on in the world, we could very well have an election which is decided by simple folk like Ms. Rocheleau, 22, an independent, who will choose between Obama and McCain based on whether she'd prefer the cute guy or the old guy as President, her boyfriend or her grandpa.

Conspiracy theories

You may note that I have made a few changes to the blog roll on the right. I've been meaning to for some time. I've always felt bad that I link to so few, but have always taken the position that I should only link to writers that I actually read regularly. I have a rather full life and just don't have the time to spend all my time on the internets, so those are only a few.

But there are so many others I like and read occasionally, so I added a second category to include those. As yet, the list is incomplete but I will try to grow it as I go along.

And sadly, I've added a third category. Favorite writers who somehow allowed their sites to become unreadable.

Putting TBogg in that category especially pains me. He is one of the few writers on the web who I would actually pay good money to read, but it is not worth the effort to navigate his new site. It is apparently designed to make visitors click as many times as possible. My guess is that he somehow gets paid based on the number of clicks. If that's true, fine, I wish him well. People who write that well should make money off it. But if not, if the new site is just a horrible design choice, someone please ask him to fix the goddammed thing. Then let me know and I'll move his link back up to the first team. Until then, I'm afraid he will just be another small hole in my life.

Tom Tomorrow is the other writer I put in the used to be great but became unreadable category. His site was taken over by some guy shilling a book called "The Prisoner of Trebekistan." Every third sentence on the blog was an advertisement for the stinking book. I understand that writers want to sell their work and am not opposed to marketing in general, but at some point it becomes too crass. Unfortunately, poor Tom's site turned into a cross between an infomercial and a RonCo advertisement. I had to stop reading.

You know what's odd? The guy who ruined Tom Tomorrow's site with the endless shilling of his book, Bob Harris, was mentioned in a TBogg post shortly before TBogg's blog disappeared. Hmmmmmm. Could he have them locked in a basement somewhere? Maybe someone should investigate.

On a positive note, I just scanned Tom's site for the first time in ages and didn't see any infomercials. Perhaps I'll get back in the habit of going there and move him back up the blog roll. I hope so. Can't have too many good writers out there.

All about eve

Conservative Christian viral email isn't always about politics. Sometimes they make funny:

A woman and a man are involved in a car accident on a
snowy, cold Monday morning; it's a bad one. Both of
their cars are totally demolished but amazingly
neither of them are hurt. God works in mysterious
ways. After they crawl out of their cars, the man is
yelling about women drivers.

The woman says, "So, you're a man. That's interesting.
I am a woman. Wow, just look at our cars! There's
nothing left, but we're unhurt. This must be a sign
from God that we should be friends and live in peace
for the rest of our days."

Flattered, the man replies, "Oh yes, I agree
completely, this must be a sign from God! But you're
still at fault ... women shouldn't be allowed to
drive."

The woman continues, "And look at this, here's another
miracle. My car is completely demolished but this
bottle of wine didn't break. Surely God wants us to
drink this wine and celebrate our good fortune."

She hands the bottle to the man. The man nods his head
in agreement, opens it, and drinks half the bottle and
then hands it back to the woman. The woman takes the
bottle, puts the cap back on and hands it back to the
man.

The man asks, "Aren't you having any?"

The woman replies, "No, I think I'll just wait for
the police...."

MORAL OF THE STORY:
Women are clever, evil bitches.

That little fable brought to you by our moral guardian wannabees. Forward it to all your friends.

Holiday in america

Where's Santa?

Gotta wear shades

According to Peter W. Galbraith writing in the Washington Post, we may be doomed, doomed, when it comes to Pakistan, a failed state which possesses over 70 nuclear weapons and hates us.

But there is hope, he writes. The United States can do two things:

First, we can demand an international investigation into Bhutto's death.

The international investigation, I agree, is a bold move. But that, by itself, is not enough to ensure Pakistan's peaceful and prosperous future as a staunch American ally.

It's also crucial that:

President Bush should choose his words more carefully.

Insha'Allah baby. Any plan dependent on Bush choosing his words carefully is obviously doomed to miserable failure.

I'm not saying that he is incapable of carefully choosing his words, although I grant it's not his forté. No, he has proven over and over again that he will carefully choose incredibly stupid words backed up by incredibly stupid actions that will make any situation much worse.

So if an international investigation and Bush's loquacity are not enough to save Pakistan, what can we do?

How about a bold, bi-partisan congressional investigation to lay the groundwork for a sensible solution that would depend on multiple unlikely scenarios coalescing in a timely manner on which all sides, or at least Democratic presidential candidates, could agree?

Or we could go conservative and ask what Jesus would do. He would bomb them, of course, fo instant gratification if nothing else. When you're the Jesus blessed greatest country in the history of the universe, violence is always a good answer. It's more than that. its duh'vine.

A better idea

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee wants to build a fence to keep potential Pakistani terrorists out of our great and God blessed country. He doesn't specify where to build this fence, Mexico presumably, though to be realistic we'd need to build a fence around Canada too. And let's not forget Hawaii and Alaska. Those Pakis can be sly devils.

But I have a better idea, more realistic and in line with the general Republican world view. Instead of a fence, let's dig a giant hole in the ground. Then we can collectively stick our heads in it. The "hole" solution would work every bit as well as a crazy assed fence for keeping the terrorists and their hand-held ballistic missiles, or little vests of dynamite, at bay in Brownsville. And it would be much more cost effective. Much more.

The only drawback is that so many Republicans, the presidential candidates first and foremost, would mistake a hole in the ground for their ass. Then they would stick their heads up their ass to keep the terrorists out.

Nasty stuff, I know, but still, a hole in the ground is a better solution than a fence. And it's not like most Republicans don't have their head up their ass without the existence of a big hole in the ground to confuse them.

Me? I'm lyin here

nothin in my ears

lyin on my bed

nothin in my head

Didn't get around to finishing my annual Xmas essay on It's a Wonderful Life. Sorry. Next year. I promise.

News from the front

Interesting developments in the war on Christmas. More to come tomorrow...