I Heart Mahātmablanc

Montblanc is "honoring" Gandhi's legacy by selling pens the average Indian (or American) can't afford. Reminds me a bit of Product (Red). Charity is not always the answer. But consumerism masked as charity? Some say it's better than nothing. And maybe they're right. But is better than nothing the best we can do?

Not Chicago, Continued

I'm happy for Rio de Janeiro. The Olympics have never been held in South America, surprisingly enough, so this is a big moment and long overdue.

Also, I would like to add that it's a little ridiculous that the media (left, right & center) is portraying this as a snub to Obama. Did it ever occur to them that the International Olympic Committee might have considered things other than giving our President a PR win or fail? Not everything revolves around the United States or its President or its Oprah.

Not Chicago

Losing the Olympics sucks, but I don't see why Matt Drudge should see this as a cause for celebration. I remember when most conservatives used to love America. I'm sure when Wasilla goes for the winter Olympics they'll be back on board.

I guess I'm rooting for Madrid now.

Happy Friday! Rock Out With Your Cock Out.

Nothing like a band at the top of its game. The Mars Volta. 2005. Frances Tour. Jon Theodore > Thomas Pridgen.













One song. Deal with it.

I wish my name was Austan Goolsbee

Austan Goolsbee, member of the President's Council of Economic Advisors and future Chairman of the Federal Reserve, won "Funniest Celebrity in D.C." recently. His routine is so old-timey it hurts, and that's why I love it.

Ruh-Roh!

Looks like l'affaire Ensign is a lot more of a BFD than previously thought. The best part is the extent to which holier-than-thou Senator Tom Coburn is involved. The residents of the C-Street House sure do love adultery.

EDIT: I don't blame Senator Ensign for his marital troubles though. We all know Czar Kevin Jennings and the gay agenda are to blame.

Where Things Stand

I don't want to alarm anybody but It looks like Obama is d00med. What a failure.

Actually, looks like he's back to his share of the electorate that he won on election day, and if my calculations are correct that's all he needs to win again. I know this is all more than three years ahead but it's fun to speculate!

Gay Is the New Straight, Continued

Last week I wrote a post discussing a New York Times article about gay teenagers coming out of the closet. I knew it was only a matter of time before some right winger stepped up to say that this is an awful thing, and Suzanne Fields has gladly filled that role, hitting all the right anti-gay notes.

She begins by saying that Austin, one of the boys featured in the Times piece, seems like a normal boy, but:

Tender age notwithstanding, Austin has another agenda. He's on the cover of the New York Times Sunday magazine, telling the world what he earlier told his parents and his classmates. He's gay. Not cheerful, happy and carefree in the original meaning of that word, but as how the untender times have redefined the word.

Haha! We're barely out the gate and Ms. Fields cannot resist using the right's favorite word when discussing all things gay: AGENDA! Austin didn't come out because he wanted to be honest with his friends and family, he came out because he has an agenda. It's about convincing all your little sons and daughters to be gay too. Whatever.

She then goes on to say that Austin is being exploited by the author of this story (who she makes sure to mention is also gay):

Some of us thought the early sexual revolution went too far, making the illicit explicit and the personal political and trivializing sex as the equivalent of fast food. The exploitation of children is still expanding.

Now she's getting to her main point, which is that older gay men are exploiting children to further their agenda. She doesn't say it quite so bluntly, but I figured I'd do her a favor and do it myself. You see, Austin isn't gay, but our evil society has convinced him that because he feels different, he's gay, and he should come out. However, if her point wasn't clear enough, she drags an Obama czar (groan) into the mix. Oddly enough it happens to be an openly gay man (who'da thunk it?) who's to blame, Assistant Deputy to the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, Kevin Jennings. Mr. Jennings founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, won numerous awards, and is a leader in combatting bullying in school. She echoes the right wing, "Family" Research Council-sponsored attacks on him claiming that he failed to prevent a 15 year old from having sex with an older man. Judging from the way Ms. Fields described him, you would think Jennings encouraged it or had sex with the boy himself. I'm not here to defend Mr. Jennings, but honestly, I fail to see what Mr. Jennings has to do with Austin coming out, but then if you look at it for Ms. Fields's prospective, it's all part of the grand unified field theory of the gay agenda. Older gay men exploit children for political (and sexual) gain.

Of course this is ridiculous, but many people absolutely believe this. They will never understand, either because they can't or they don't want to, that Austin is gay. He's gay if he comes out and he's gay if he doesn't come out. He doesn't need to hear it from some old guy to know he's gay. It doesn't mean he's going to go out and have sex any more than a thirteen year old girl posting magazine cut-outs of her favorite super-hunks means she's going to go get banged at a frat party.

EDIT: What d'ya know? In fact Kevin Jennings didn't do anything wrong, and Ms. Fields and her ilk are trying to destroy him. I am shocked, shocked that Fox News would distort the facts like this.

This is Why Nobody Likes Dallas.

We've addressed the "war on smoking" a few times on this site, and here is another example of of a kook from Dallas who wants to control what other people do in their own homes.

This woman's life was apparently ruined by her neighbor's smoking. According to the article, the neighbor's smoking, whilst in her own home, destroyed everything the other woman owned and made life hell for her and her daughter. This occurred despite the solid concrete wall between their homes, sealant plates, and industrial caulking.

Here is where these people live. It looks to be a very upscale establishment, where each town home is built to residents' specification. The smallest floor plan is a paltry 1,436 square feet...le sigh.

After reading the article, I was astounded by the extreme lengths people went o make this woman happy, and her ungratefulness in return. She even had her movers where surgical masks while they moved he out of the house! My God, are you kidding me? It just got my ire all bubbling.

I know people like this woman, people so "sensitive" that I tend to believe they make up things, exaggerate if you will, to cause a scene. It's ridiculous. These are the people who go to freaking Chili's and order a steak "medium rare, but more medium than rare, but not too medium, so a little rare, and well done on the edges, thanks." And when they get their steak, it's medium rare. So they poke at the meat cringing and looking disgusted; then ask for the manager because "apparently the stupid cook is a retard who can't make a simple steak" like they ordered....at Chili's. Sort of like that character in the movie Waiting.

This story is just indicative of the brats that inhabit Dallas.

Sarah Palin: "Blithering Idiot"

According to the left wing New York Post...Oh wait Rupert Murdoch owns it? Oops!

But seriously folks, that article made my day.

A Kinder, Gentler Military Junta

In the Republican National Committee-sponsored publication Newsmax, John L. Perry wrote a column basically claiming that the military has an obligation to stage a coup and take the reigns of power. Newsmax has taken down the column and says that columnist Perry is actually just a "blogger," like moi. Luckily, for you and I, Talking Points Memo still has the original text of the column. Perry claims that he isn't advocating for a military coup, but that such a thing is "afoot." However, he then goes on to advocate for a military coup while at the same time failing to provide any evidence that one is in the works. Basically a big FAIL of a column.

I have two things to say about this:

1. I love how he feels the need to separate a good American coup from a dirty, uncivilized, Spanish-speaking South American coup. Hey, he may want the military to depose a popularly elected government, but he's a conservative first, so anything that comes from a place where people are brown and speak Spanish is bad. In the United States, the generals will just have a little sit down with the President and explain to him that they're in charge of governing now, but he can stick around and give speeches. That's so nice of them. Mr. Perry is so reasonable.

2. Do these people realize that Obama has been in office for less than a year, and hasn't done much of anything other than sign a stimulus bill and an equal pay for equal work bill? I fail to understand how he has radically changed much of anything. I think we should just take solace in the fact that if these guys are this paranoid this early they'll probably tucker themselves out by the time a healthcare reform bill is signed, or maybe they wont.

Obama's Olympics?

The whole outcry against the Olympics being held in Chicago in 2016 had me a bit confused when I read about it earlier this week. I thought, why would anyone NOT want the Olympics in the USA? Sure, if selected, the games will be held in President Obama's hometown of Chicago, but so what? They will be here, in the USA. Awesome, right? Apparently not.

The latest polls show 47% of Chicago residents don't want the Olympics coming to their city. Again I asked myself, why? So, I did some research to find out.

To begin with, I am a huge fan of the Olympics. This is surprising I know, being that I'm all conservative, which means, for you knee-jerkers out there, I hate dirty foreigners and I'm far from enlightened in any respect, plus I just want to hate on anyone whose different, EXspecially gross HOMO-sexuals; God, I just want to hit all those people in the face till they die...with my BIBLE!!! ...what the F-ever, you petulant old man.

But, fear not, I rant with a purpose:

This particular attitude is the attitude some are ascribing to those protesting the Olympics, claiming the protesters are fanatical right-wingers who don't want foreigners in their country. (Unfortunately, while surfing I've lost my link to the site, but I promise its out there, you'll just have to take my word on it.) But, this didn't satisfy me as the actual reason, especially because Chicago is in the North, they're Yankees. Obama's their guy! Surely, lazy redneck teabaggers didn't pull their fatasses from their lazy-boy's and trek up North again to protest? What, with the Bill Engval marathon on TBS all this week??? [Note: The Bill Engval show sucks.] So how could this be, I thought, only Southern Rednecks hated the blacks and were all racists and it's the vile hatemonger of the religious right that's ruining A'merica. Racist bigots calling Obama Hitler, what vile, hatemongers....oops, sorry...wrong picture.

Anyway, as I continued my search, I found out that much of the rancor is about what most things are about: Money.

Apparently, the federal government is prohibited from funding the Olympic games. This means the city of Chicago will have to step up to do the job. I don't know how Illinois, as a state, would/could contribute. Either way, many Chicago residents are scared that they will end up paying for the games.

Despite the availability of private and commercial funding, and guaranteed tourism and influx of cash, the people still don't want the games. I don't know how much the Olympics cost, but that other vying nations are willing to help fund the games leads me to believe commercial funding alone is not enough. The people of Chicago seem to harbor such distrust for their local political system, that they believe any benefit brought to the city will be eaten up by those in charge, thus footing the regular folks with the bill. Simply amazing, in very bad way.

But, I'm not blind to the possibility that some people who disagree with Obama may hate to see him win at something, like helping to bring the Olympics to the States. Though I can see their reasoning, I personally think it would be a win for the county. I would argue they should put all the partisan bickering aside for now and just be happy we get the games here and don't have to watch on a 8 hour delay. Besides, Obama and the Democratic Congress are already fumbling around so much anyway with healthcare, the war on terror, etc...why add any more.

The Olympics should be non-partisan. I know it's historically steep in politics, but do we have to slap Republicans/Democrats on it, too?

In the end, if bringing the Olympics to Chicago will make an already troubled economy worse, rather than better, then lets skip it this time around and try again in 2020, instead of adding salt to an already terrible wound.

Hump Day

Let's get through this, y'all.

Perchance a Spot of Poetry This Evening

To Sooth the soul:

"On Government" by Sarah Palin

Government
you know,
you're not always a solution.
In fact,
too often
you're the problem.
So, government,
lessen the tax burden
on our families
and get out of the way.

Roma, Città Eterna

Another reason to go back to Rome...as if I needed one.

Chris the Libertarian...sort of

The "Deficit" is a funny thing. I put it in quotations because it's a major issue to the American public, and yet it isn't. Everyone seems to be quite concerned about it, but any measures that could meaningfully reduce it are incredibly unpopular. Any cuts in Medicare or Social Security will piss off seniors, the most dependable voters, any effort to cut military spending will piss off the military-industrial complex, and any effort to raise taxes pisses off conservatives, along with the people who's taxes are being raised. No one really loves to get less from their paycheck, even if they can accept that it is going to worthy things. Among the recent presidential candidates who campaigned on reducing the deficits were President H. Ross Perot and President Walter Mondale (conservatives seem to forget that Ronald Reagan didn't give a flying flip about the deficit). So yes, people are concerned, but it wont make them pry their ample frames from their favorite tan easy chairs during a rerun of the Bill Engvall Show to go do something.

But there are various proposals on ways to raise revenue and maybe reduce the deficit. One that's gotten much attention recently is a tax on soda. I consider myself a civil libertarian, and I would be fine with such a tax. I would be fine with higher taxes on cigarettes, even though I very much oppose any effort to restrict where people can smoke. Also, I'm opposed to the ban on trans fats that was implemented in New York City a few years ago. While this may seem inconsistent at first, there is a reason behind it. I believe the government has wide latitude to disincentivize certain behaviors that may be be harmful and are costing the public great sums of money, and one of the most effective ways it can do this is through taxing. I may be a civil libertarian, but like a good economic liberal I believe the government's power to tax is plenary, as long as it passes Equal Protection muster and ex-post facto rules, etc... However, I do not believe the government should ban things (I must concede they have the authority to do this, I just oppose it). They shouldn't ban smoking, trans fats, sodas, alcohol, prostitution, marijuana, driving without wearing a seatbelt, and many other things that are harmful and a net loss for society, but are so damn fun!...well, driving without a seatbelt is just stupid, but should still be legal since you're only hurting yourself. I take a pretty expansive view of government's role in the lives of people, but I don't think it has a role in stopping people from doing harmful things to themselves.

Government should allow harmful things like smoking, sodas, and drugs, but should also tax them heavily to provide for the health care these people will eventually need. I guess I view government like the bumpers on a bowling ball lane. It's not there to keep you veering from side to side, but it is there to keep you from going into the gutter, and maybe to push you in a certain direction...through taxes.

So levy a tax on sodas. It will probably result in a healthier country, but don't you dare tell me i can't drink them if I want to.

MUSIC: Live Review of AFI's new album "Crash Love"

So, I'll admit. I've had AFI's ("A Fire Inside") new album, Crash Love, on preorder since it was first available on iTunes. This review will track my feelings on the album as I listen to it for the first time--as I drink wine.

So far, it's f*cking awesome. Now, I realize it's a bit early for real unbiased review, but I'm loving it. I'll also admit that I was actually scared to listen to the album, because I had terrors bubbling to the surface of how I felt when I heard AFI's December Underground back in 2006. I felt so disappointed. I was actually sad. I felt like I was forcing myself to finish December Underground. What happened to AFI? Here was this band waving AFI's banner, a band I've been following since riding around in my brother hatchback in '99. What I did know is that this band on December Underground was not Shut Your Mouth & Open Your Eyes, The Art of Drowning, or even Sing the Sorrow. It was so...foreign. But, ultimately, December Underground was a solid album.

Okay, the album starts a bit different than I thought it would with "Torch Song." There's no intro, per usual. The album just jumps right in. It's good. It's got the rifts of an opening one minute intro, but it's a whole song that sort of reminds me of the Mars Volta, surprising enough...but not for long.

It's getting better. So far, I'm digging "Beautiful Thieves" and "End Transmission." "End Transmission" starts with the lyrics, " pull the top down, use your knees to drive," which just brings up a vision I'm falling in love with, only to be soon followed by "go grab your bag, I'll bring the gun." Images of John Dillinger are filling my head.

"Too Shy to Scream" has an interesting big band beat. It's good. I want to mosh.

Some of the guitars, beats, and melodies on the album are reminiscent of The Smiths to me, especially on the present track "Veronica Sawyer Smokes." Which isn't surprising, seeing as Davy Havok is a huge fan of The Smiths. "Beautiful Thieves" kinda made me think that way until the choir singing, not sure what I think about that...

"Okay I Feel Better Now." Track 6. Just okay, starts off with a Red Hot Chili Peppers re "Californication" guitar riff, a little boring because it's at a tempo that isn't slow but not fast, so it's easy to not notice. I'll have to give it another listen because I felt my mind drifting off to other things, but felt it was pleasant.

Alright now, "Medicate," it's pure AFI on Sing the Sorrow, which is awesome. Given that, it's not surprising this is the first single off the album. It's pretty kick ass, up tempo. Pretty awesome.

Some synth work in the background of "I'm Trying Very Hard to Be Here." Chris will dig that. A lot of layering, very busy. It picks up on the tempo of "Medicate" and keeps it going, so I feel like jumping around and dancing. And it's short at 2 minutes 44 seconds.

Digging track 9 "Sacrilege." Starting to notice I've yet to hear any of Davy Havok's signature screaming/shouting, just hints of his rasp/verge of screaming, but not quite there. This song is serious, lyric wise, and reminds me of The Art of Drowning or Black Sails in the Sunset. The melodies sound like God Call in Sick Today or Ghost Under the Stairs, but sped up.

Track 10,"Darling, I Want to Destroy You," seemed so promising from it's title. Pure crap. Tediously grating voice effect. Sh*tty sharp key. Very disappointing. It's noisy. I don't like it at all. Ugh...

"Cold Hands" starting well. God, I hate voice effect. Davy's voice is layered or something, it's irritating. I HATE it when singers do that. The song is a bit boring and noisy.

If AFI could make a song that sounds like Chris Isaak, they've done it with "It was Mine," at least with the main part. I never dreamt I would say that. And they've got some Queen-esqu elements in the breakdown. I don't know what this song is about, it's all over the place. Not digging it.

"Too Late for Gods," track 13. Some good group chanting. Which reminds me that AFI held a contest to get fans on the album for the chants. I can't recall if there was any real chanting before this, beside track one. This is making me a bit perturbed. But this song is pretty good. But, it just ends.

BONUS TRACK: "Breathing Towers to Heaven." Why is this song a bonus track. Am I the only one who thinks most bonus tracks are actually better than tracks that made the actual album?

END RESULT: Crash Love is a pretty good album that will take multiple listens to really get into. It's not as good as Sing the Sorrow or any of the predecessors. Unfortunately, it's also not as good as December Underground. But, then again I had hopelessly high hopes for this album. And it's still good. There are some truly great songs on here, which is why AFI is still around. I LOVE the track "End Transmission." And, I still can't wait to see them in November!

Happy Family Day, y'all!

September 28 is Family Day. The President decided to use to occasion to throw a bone to the gays in the opening paragraph of his proclamation. It's a sweet gesture I suppose, if pointless.

Still, it's better than Marriage Protection Week from the last guy.

Mark Your Calendars!

The release date for Sarah Palin's first tome, "Going Rogue: An American Life," has been bumped up to November 17. I just hope her prose lives up to her poetry. This is my personal favorite:

"Befoulers of the Verbiage"

It was an unfair attack on the verbiage
That Senator McCain chose to use,
Because the fundamentals,
As he was having to explain afterwards,
He means our workforce.
He means the ingenuity of the American.
And of course that is strong,
And that is the foundation of our economy.
So that was an unfair attack there,
Again based on verbiage.

More on Polanski

I thought this was an interesting comment on the whole Polanski ordeal by someone who's worked in Hollywood. And I quite agree with him, you just don't mess with a thirteen year old girl.

I believe Roman Polanski is a wonderfully gifted artist and film maker, but those things don't make a person above the law, which is not an argument I've seen made...directly.

To begin with, the reports from overseas appear to grumble about how Polanski was arrested on a warrant, still valid, issued in 1978. True, that little fact reads a bit oddly, but it's also good to keep in mind that Polanski's been actively avoiding capture during the interim. It's not like this was completely out of the blue. He was wholly aware if he set foot in the U.S., or a country with extradition treaties with the U.S., it was very possible he would be arrested and taken into custody. And that is exactly what happened.

More importantly though, I think it's important to remember that he admitted to having sex with a child. I don't know if there was any actual misconduct surrounding his plea deal as has been alleged, but it's certainly understandable why Polanski would rather flee than go to prison. Given what I've learned about how child molesters are treated in the pin (thank you Oz), I would be scared, too.

Furthermore, anyone shouting out in defense of Roman Polanski seems to be turning a blind eye to what actually happened, because from what I can tell, he did not just have sex with a child, it's likely he raped a child.

A quick look at wikipediea will lead you to a 2003 interview with the victim, Samantha Gailey. In it she recounts what happened that night at Jack Nicholson's home. In 1977, Roman Polanski, then 44 years old, was conducting a photo shoot with Ms. Gailey, then thirteen years old, a child. During the shoot, Polanski provided her with alcohol and quaaludes. Thereafter, he forcibly performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex on her. As Polanski did this to her, Ms. Gailey repeatably resisted and indicated her desire not to have these acts performed on her.

This is text book rape. It's also disgusting.

Now, whether the truth of the matter is what Ms. Gailey testified to, or if things were more mutual (shiver), the fact is Roman Polanski had sex with a child. For that, there is no excuse.

Mr. Polanski is now 76 years old, and Ms. Gailey (now Geimer) is, interestingly enough, about the same age Mr. Polanski was all those years ago. Ms. Geimer has communicated her desire to move on. She has moved to have the charges she brought against him dropped, but only because of the continued strain on her and her family. Whether the state will drop its charges is unknown, but I doubt they will (I support further prosecution after researching this story).

To me, it seems that people are transforming Polanski into the victim. I think that's a sad reaction to his arrest. That somehow, because of his gifts, he's above the law. The reports don't say that exactly, but the attitudes of his supporters' advocacy is screaming it.

In the end, it was Polanski's choice. He chose to have sex with a child. It was also his choice to live in exile rather than face consequences for his actions. After running from those consequences for over three decades, he's been caught. He has no one but himself to blame for any inconvenience he may be facing.

And, if I were in the Obama Administration, I wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole.

EDIT: I was mistaken on the warrant. In 2005, the U.S. government issued an international arrest warrant for Roman Polanski. Less of a surprise than I thought.

The Polanski Affair Overseas

I'm a little surprised by the near uniformity of opposition in France and Poland to the extradition of Polanski. The media there is emphasizing the dubious conduct of the original judge who was going to throw out Polanski's original plea agreement. I can understand why his friends and family would be opposed, but the feeling seems to be widespread. This will be an interesting story to watch as the call could go all the way up to Hillary Clinton and possibly Barack Obama.

Foreign Policy Advice From Joe Lieberman

Ross Douthat has apparently run out of ways to but in and fret about your intimate decisions regarding end-of-life, beginning-of-life, and just about every period of life in between, and in desperation just decided to talk to Joe Lieberman and write a column about it.

The shocking revelation in this column is that Lieberman is in favor of escalating a war in a Muslim country, in this case Afghanistan.

But seriously, the main thrust of Douthat's column seems to be that for the U.S. to be successful in Afghanistan, Obama will not only have to commit to a counterinsurgency strategy, but also become a "War President," whatever that means. If he means Obama will have to rally the public to the cause for any chance of success I'd agree with him, and he'll have his work cut out for him. Or, maybe Obama could listen to public will and decide that another 10-15 years of escalated involvement in Afghanistan is not such a great idea. Or, he could listen to Joe Lieberman.

My .02

I'm curious as to what's going to happen to Roman Polanski as I never really expected him to be picked up at this point. "Chinatown" is a near perfect movie. I wish he hadn't raped that girl.