June 30, 2006

Molly in Rare Form

Thank you, Ms. Ivins.

We spent all last week listening to cut-'n'-run Democrats talking about their cut-'n'-run strategy for Iraq, and the only issue is whether they want to cut 'n' run by the end of this year or cut 'n' run by the end of next year -- and oh, by the way, did I mention that Republicans had been choreographed to refer to the Democrats' plans as cut 'n' run?

Check her out here.

Posted by Chris on 06/30/06

Wow, that whole debate on breast milk spit takes really tired you out, eh? Where are you?

Posted by: Fattyfat at July 7, 2006 10:33 AM

June 29, 2006

Note to Movies

RE: The joke where the man accidentally drinks the breast-milk in the fridge.

Dear movies,

Sometimes there will be a movie where a new baby is involved, and the man opens the fridge and drinks right from a small container of milk. But guess what? It's breast-milk, you dope! And the girl says "that's breast milk," and then the man spits it out. Ha! What a dope!

Seriously, this joke has had a good run and we've all enjoyed hours of laughter at it in more movies than I can recall right now. But well... I think you see where I'm going with this. I think it's time to let it go.

Just... let it go.

Your friend,


Posted by Chris on 06/29/06

But don't you get it? It's GROSS! It came out of her boob! It's for the baby!

And he DRANK it!!


Posted by: Big Fat Brian at June 30, 2006 6:37 AM

Typical Chris, just typical. Point out a problem and offer no solution. If this hilarity is dropped from the script, what could possibly replace it? Are you suggesting a "new" gag or joke? An untested one? And where would this new, unpredictable gag or joke come from?

Right now we have a terrific back-catalogue of gags ready to be plugged in to earn the laughter - that is the goal of comedy, right? empty laughter, irregardless of broader points and themes or the story's merits - but you're suggesting something new? That would mean hiring at least one writer! And how would the audience feel? Would they know when to laugh? We could add a laugh track to ease them into it...I just don't know.

Posted by: simon at June 30, 2006 7:56 AM

Yeah, Chris, I'm also beginning to wonder if you know what funny is. Sexy + gross + totally unexpected = hilarious. It's boob-milk, man, BOOB-MILK!! Holy crap, that's funny. Sometimes the guy has a boob-milk mustache. Sometimes he shrugs it off and goes back for seconds. The key to great humor is mileage, my friend.

Just let me know right now if you think poop jokes are also passe, so I can unsubscribe immediately!

Posted by: Just Pete at June 30, 2006 9:40 AM

Dear movies,

In light of the possibility of losing my entire blog readership over this issue, please reinstate the breast milk jokes immediately, and accept my apologies for doubting.

Let me also take this opportunity to request a continuance of the following while we're at it:

-fart jokes

-poop humor

-kids kicking adults in the crotch

And of course,

-the close-up of the adorable dog that cocks his head quizzically at any of the above.

Thanks, movies, and sorry for the lapse!

Your bestest pal,


Posted by: Chris at June 30, 2006 10:57 AM

I read your blog everyday and agree with your orginal suggestion. As, I think, do all of you other readers, they just like to razz you cause they miss your face.

Posted by: Vickery at June 30, 2006 3:49 PM

No Chris, I'm with you. Although I haven't seen this gag, it seemed old just reading about it (for some reason I picture Adam Sandler). How is the gag set up? I mean, wouldn't breast milk be put into a baby bottle, rather than the standard milk container? Wouldn't the loving wife (or unmarried mother) warn her partner not to take from the container? Wouldn't she stop him before he clamped it to his lips?

For me it's not so much the age and repitition of this gag but the painfully obvious setup with the destination always in sight. If you have to go that far for a gag...I think you see where I'm going with this.

And can we scrub any mention of sexy from this gag? Breasts, and most things involving them, are incredibly wonderful and sexy up until the point their original purpose is introduced.

I'd like to see a list of other gags past their sell-by date.

Posted by: simon at July 1, 2006 7:24 AM

June 28, 2006

The Dark Side

Brace yourself: apparently there are some who believe that this war we're in got started in a pretty shady way by some of OUR people.


Right? I mean, come on! Somebody oughta sell tickets to this thing!

PBS has an excellent documentary they just aired on Frontline on this exact subject on their site right now.

After 9/11, Vice President Richard Cheney seized the initiative. He pushed to expand executive power, transform America's intelligence agencies and bring the war on terror to Iraq. But first he had to take on George Tenet's CIA for control over intelligence.

The show is available in its entirety online here: The Dark Side. Very good run-down of the affair, especially if you have trouble remembering the timelines and characters.

Posted by Chris on 06/28/06

June 27, 2006

My Addendum to Whatever Rules of Web Design Are Already Out There

Somewhere out there on the WWW there are some rules of etiquette and good design for web pages, I'm sure, but in case these points are not included, let me present them now.


    Why would I even have to say that? Why would I even have to say to a web designer, 'When I am perusing your site deciding whether or not I shall engage in commerce with you (as opposed to the dozens of other vendors who probably provide much the same product), try not to throw something annoying at my eyes!'

    Do the people at McDonalds come out and throw coupons at my head while I'm eating? Do the people at Borders snatch a book out of my hand and replace it with a flyer advertising other books? No. And you know why? Because they're not insane. NO POPUPS.

    OLD LADIES OF THE WORLD: Stop clicking on these popups. You're the only possible reason these would continue to be used. I know you just got the computer, and you just got on the Internets, but stop clicking on just anything that appears on your screen.

    And while you're at it, stop responding to spam and junk mail. You are the cause of all the junk on the internet. YES, YOU.

    And the rule still applies to these fancier "embedded" popups, the ones that emerge once I'm on a page, spreading out over everything and then I have to search for the X button to close them. I see them on even the A+ sites that should know better. Popups are almost as annoying as


    What? What? WHAT? You mean I have to TELL someone that I don't want to automatically hear a MIDI version of Bon Jovi's SHOT THRU THE HEART the second the page loads?

    Why would it even occur to you, as an innovator of web browser plug-ins, to give someone this option? After that improbability, why would it even occur to you as an amateur designer of your MySpace page that an unsolicited song, probably revealing me at work to be SURFING ON COMPANY TIME, would be welcome? Nothing makes me leave a page quicker than a song starting up unbidden.

    WHY. It doesn't make sense.


    Online businesses, we are ALL very impressed with your marketing materials. And truly the Portable Document Format is one of the greatest things in the world since puppies.

    But nothing irritates me more than clicking on a link, only to see that now Adobe Acrobat is starting up because you've used one of your company's precious .PDFs instead of just making a page. People - there is no reason to put PDFs on your website unless you are offering materials for download / later printing. It's lazy.

Posted by Chris on 06/27/06

June 26, 2006

New Inventions in Logic

Logic Experts of the future will be grateful when they dig up the works of Ann Coulter, especially her latest one, because they will have found one of the fabled Weapons of Mass Distraction that nearly destroyed our society back in Aught Six or Seven: some sort of self-referencing, recursive, anti-rational logical loop that defies reason itself.

To sum up what I have heard her say about her latest book, and no, I have not read it, I've merely listened to her own descriptions on about five talk shows, which surely should count, the Coulterian Logic goes more or less like this: I think it is wrong that I am not allowed to insult these harpies that rejoice in their husbands' deaths, just because the attention-seeking whores are 9/11 widows.

I'd say we were through the looking-glass here, but since it's Coulter I should point out that it's also at least our 8th or 9th trip. If these future Logic Archeologists are smart they will put her books right back in the ground where they found them and then cover them with giant spikes.

Coulter, whose statements you might be able to distinguish from that of Adolf Hitler's by taking this quiz, has created quite a little cottage industry for herself in bile, and perhaps the lesson we should take from her is not one on rights of expression, but entrepreneurial spirit. She saw a resource (hate, ignorance), and she used it to fill a need for impulse-buy books. Who can say she has not earned her royalty checks?

Posted by Chris on 06/26/06

June 21, 2006

Things related and not

Some randomry for a busy Wednesday:

  • Fun online game: HEXXAGON. I played this game a LOT when it was an arcade stand-up called ATAXX. I also suffered a years-long addiction to it in its Reversi variation. Now, here in the future, it's FREE.

  • Fun online laughing Quaker generator: HA! HA! I'm creating h1lari0s images to punctuate my Fark posts!

  • Fun ad campaign: http://www.idont.com/ Because people that buy iPods are such conforming sheep!

    When you get past all the graphics and 'tude, it turns out they're hawking the "Sansa e200" - a competing MP3 player. And one that sports a rather familiar design. BUT IN BLACK! IN BLACK! Anyway this thing MUST be great because the style of the site is like, spray-painted, man! Don't you get it?

  • Fun quote from Donald Rumsfeld to his aides on 9/11/01, regarding the government's response:

    "Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

  • Top five spam subject lines from last week:

    Obscene birds of the universe
    Re: an abandoned town to which the child seems drawn
    Be Cool! (From Leona Funk)
    Your cash, mist-exhaling
    Hi, nerve cell

    Posted by Chris on 06/21/06

    I curse you to hell for your link to the HEXXAGON game.

    Posted by: relpek at June 23, 2006 5:34 PM

    I'll second that cursing.

    Posted by: Big Fat Brian at June 26, 2006 1:06 PM
  • June 20, 2006

    Prairie Home Companion

    I can see the temptation in creating a backstory and a framing device for the film version of Prairie Home Companion, but it was a poor choice, and made for a boring film. Amazing, considering the people involved. Keillor's long-running show, an American treasure, is vastly more interesting as is than any invented characters and backstage melodrama.

    I found myself just wishing that Robert Altman had turned his restless camera on an actual performance of P.H.C. and made a documentary. The parts that were interesting were the parts with Keillor front and center behind his podium, doing his show - and that was it.

    I wish that Altman and everyone had been a bit more honest in their approach. If the desire was to do an ALL-STAR Prairie Home Companion, with a lot of big name actors joining Keillor onstage, then I wish they had simply done that. For as much as I admire and love Meryl Streep, Kevin Klein, and wonderful / fantastic / great Lily Tomlin, I'd have preferred them just playing themselves - or slight variations of themselves as Keillor does - than have them in "roles."

    I felt sad that Virginia Madsen's "Altman Experience" had to be in this role. I felt sad for ALL the first-time Altman players doing their best, like Woody Harrelson and John C. Reilly - but not Tommy Lee Jones. This was one of Jones' Fast n' Clipped roles, the ones where he steps slightly on the other actor's lines with a flat delivery, as if he's literally trying to rush individual moments so he can get through this hell and on a plane as fast as possible, away from this production he is only doing as a big, big favor to someone. Too bad. The man can bring it when he wants to.

    I found myself wondering what someone like Jonathan Demme - a man who knows how to turn live performances into movies - would have done with Prairie Home Companion. With greatest respect to the grand old man of movies, and to Garrison Keillor, I must suggest that you not see this movie, but instead rent "Gosford Park" again, or "M*A*S*H" - and tune in Saturday evening for Keillor's radio show.

    Posted by Chris on 06/20/06

    June 16, 2006

    Yesterday's Post If I Hadn't Been Too Busy

    Query: How much cologne would a construction worker have to be wearing for me, one lot away to the south and two stories up, to get a huge waft of it through my window, an amount so great that it actually left an after-taste?

    Assume a prevailing southerly wind.

    Let's also bear in mind that the building under construction one lot over is actually three stories high, so the perfumed worker in question was possibly more or less at my same altitude at the time of the transferring breeze.

    Posit: Well, the bottom line is, we can't know. All we can do is surmise the amount. And I, like you, have come to the conclusion that this man applied the cologne rather liberally on this day.

    Or perhaps "apply" is not the word anymore when we are talking these amounts. Perhaps "coat" or "varnish" is a more appropriate term. "Imbue" comes to mind.

    I believe, and this is just conjecture, but my belief is that for me to be able to get a goodly cloud of it in the mouth at a distance of one standard lot + one story, that this gentleman has created a noxious, eye-watering stink cloud around himself that probably acts as a buffer between him and all life, and has undoubtedly, at minimum, earned himself the Spanish equivalent of the nickname "Captain Cologne" amongst his construction colleagues.

    If called upon to identify him by sight alone I would look for the man who works in solitude, far away from the others.

    Interpolating, I feel we could probably match this Perfumed Worker up with a probable set of home decor themes, fancifully-altered car horn sounds, and a fairly accurate list of phrases he'd be likely to yell at a passing aye chihuahua mamasita, along with other demographic features, based on the cologne usage.

    Perhaps in his world he has created a veritable vortex of attraction, though. Surely there are those that could not possibly fight their way through the barrier of cologne-saturated air molecules without a HazMat suit, but if you're the kind of person for whom this "does it," then I'd guess at these levels you'd be powerless against him - even at a range of 30 feet or more.

    Posted by Chris on 06/16/06

    June 14, 2006

    Lingo Bingo

    Today I was called upon to give the updates for my team on the 6 AM call. I decided to spice it up amongst my few teammates by starting a game of Lingo Bingo.

    The rules were, during my update I would use all of the following bits of corporate-speak... except for one:


    The first of the teammates to IM me after the update with the correct missing word or phrase would then receive a free lunch on me.

    (The correct answer was LEVERAGE. Congratulations, Vijay.)

    Posted by Chris on 06/14/06

    Hilarious! When I was at the PR firm, we had a client (with a Vanderbilt MBA) who seemed to be speaking pidgin English at every meeting. We all stuck pens into our palms under the table to keep from laughing out loud. We couldn't make eye contact with each other for fear of exploding. Perhaps you might use some of her phrases for the next round of Lingo Bingo:
    -Coming down the pike
    -Roundtable (as a verb)
    -Circle back
    -Focus point
    -Blah-bitty-blah-blah-blah (instead of "et cetera")

    Posted by: Leigh at June 15, 2006 8:09 AM

    I mean, just to be clear on how painful the meetings with this client became, sometimes she would use all the lingo in the same breath. For example: "Okay, the next state-of-the-art focus point will be the new Razor Blackberry, which is coming down the pike next quarter. When I receive them, I'll send over the spec sheets, new logo and timeline, blahbitty blah blah. You all roundtable on internal and external communications then circle back with me on your plan for events, releases and pitches, blahbitty blah blah."

    Posted by: at June 15, 2006 2:11 PM

    Oh no - I believe you. I think that company and mine might have "circle back" in common, too. The lingo is kind of uncanny, and you're definitely swimming against the current if you try to resist it.

    Posted by: Chris at June 16, 2006 8:35 AM

    June 13, 2006

    An Inconvenient Truth

    I have been thinking about how to present my thoughts on this movie all day. Because I really, really hope that as many people see this movie as possible, and if I could convince you to go, then how great would that be.

    Like all controversial movies, no doubt you've already been exposed to some of the information and disinformation swirling around it, and maybe it's swayed you one way or another.

    Tell you what - put that aside and go check out what it actually says.

    If you are a Republican and do not care for Al Gore, I hope you are still interested enough in the subject matter - preserving life on this planet - to go and see it. Even if you go and see it only out of a desire to refute everything in it - I hope you see it.

    If you are a Democrat and feel betrayed by Gore - maybe you feel he betrayed us by not demanding justice and a recount in 2000, or maybe you think this is naked propaganda in support of another election campaign - well, I hope you see it anyway.

    Or maybe you're somewhere in between (or outside) these two parties, and simply do not want to go and see a depressing movie about how we're all doomed to live a Waterworld existence in fifty years because of the greenhouse effect, fighting for gallons of gas so that we can work as soldiers in Dennis Hopper's Jet Ski army, or else live like slaves on some man-made island of corrugated tin, at least until Kevin Costner can liberate us.

    Well - I can tell you that the movie DID terrify me as it promised it would. But it also left me with a definite set of things I could personally do to avoid all that, and a feeling of purpose and hope.

    If you are sick to death of politics, I hope you believe me when I say that the movie is not very preoccupied with that, except in areas where, well, frankly, it becomes impossible not to note how politics have influenced the issue.

    The movie is not the best documentary I have ever seen, but I guess it might be the most important.

    Here's the last thing I'll say about it, and then I'll turn it over to a better writer: I think it's an important movie, and it made me want to be a better, more mindful person.

    In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.

    Posted by Chris on 06/13/06

    I had a friend describe this film to me in the following way.

    "I feel like I paid money to attend a lecture."

    But in all fairness he said that it was very interesting and he recommends it.

    Posted by: Big Fat Brian at June 14, 2006 7:57 AM

    I'm not sure why this movie isn't playing in Nashville yet... All those damn rednecks who voted for Bush prolly ruined it for the rest of us. Come on, Al, do some home state reconciling! Some Tennesseans love you! Bless your heart. (And, by the way, I think it's damn cheeky of Bush to bring the Japanese PM to see Graceland. I don't think visiting the King's home should be awarded to an war-monger's war-mongering pal.)

    Posted by: Leigh at June 14, 2006 10:30 AM

    I think the current president's attitude toward seeing this film (probably won't see it) should be highlighted and underlined. It matches his ignorant response to the previous administration's predictions and suggestions that terrorism would be his biggest agenda.

    How did we get leaders who put their fingers in their ears and go la la la when confronted with grim reality and problems they don't don't want to think about? Does it reflect our real deep-down attitude?

    Catastrophic climate change? P-shah! What's really hurting America is gays wanting civil rights and lefties burning flags. God ain't going to let the climate destroy us.

    Posted by: simon at June 14, 2006 11:14 AM

    Brian raises an interesting criticism that he heard. If Al Gore can't make saving the Earth more entertaining, then maybe we SHOULD just let nature take its course.

    Posted by: Chris at June 14, 2006 12:16 PM

    Yep! No car chases. No explosions. No nipples. Most Americans won't see it. Sadly.

    But I'm excited about the new Superman movie too!!!

    Posted by: Big Fat Brian at June 14, 2006 12:34 PM

    For something completely different, Gregg Easterbrook exposes "The moral flaws of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth." Somewhat disheartening, but also interesting...


    Posted by: Leigh at June 14, 2006 2:02 PM

    Well - no surprise than an article in Slate would take a reflexively contrary view. Slate would more accurately be called "The Contrarian," in my opinion, with a slogan of "Whatever You Think Is Wrong." I'm waiting for the article that explains why it's really only a yuppie illusion that the sky is blue.

    I've noticed that the people that seem to be actually trying to do something about problems in the world get a level of scrutiny and fact-checking that others, the ones who only exert themselves to consolidate power or get richer, seem to avoid. If a CEO or a president defrauds the American people, people roll their eyes and shrug. But if someone suggests a plan, then it's release the hounds time. I'm not sure why that is.

    Did Easterbrook write an article about the moral flaws of our current administration's repeated, documented attempts to inhibit scientific evidence that didn't fit with their agenda? Or was it just that Gore was treading with a bit more celebrity on his own turf? I don't know - I'm actually asking.

    Still - more facts and opposing viewpoints are always good. I don't mean to say this documentary is unassailable because of its motives, or shouldn't have to work first as, well, a movie. Easterbrook (like Brian's friend) is disappointed because the movie is mainly an unadorned film version of Al Gore's well-worn PowerPoint presentation. The movie is no "Koyaanisqatsi," that's true. I was not stunned by the cinematography in "Inconvenient Truth" the way I was in, say, "March of the Penguins."

    But I think the ads are pretty honest about what the movie is, going in. And personally I don't think seeing a presentation by Gore is the worst thing that could happen to you in a movie theatre. (We all know the worst thing that could happen to you in a movie theatre this season would be "Tokyo Drift.")

    Easterbrook's other complaint is that the movie dwells on Gore himself too much. It's a "100-minute PowerPoint interrupted by outtakes from campaign ads." Really? It's a "moral flaw" for the movie to spend some time on Gore's personal history with the environmental movement?

    Personally, I think the guy has earned a section of the film. Gore didn't just adopt this issue last month after extensive polling to see how it would go over with the voters. (Like say, the "immigration debate.") Let's remember the environment has been Gore's thing all along (Remember "Earth in the Balance?"), even when all evidence continues to point to the fact that Joe Q. Public could not give less of a shit about it. Gore continues to dwell on it at his own political expense.

    And won't some critics interpret any appearance by Al Gore out of doors as a shameful, obvious campaign attempt? Certainly.

    Then there's the favorite complaint about the movie, what is no doubt meant to be the silver bullet in Gore's shameless attempt to destroy decent, hard-working mom-and-pop auto companies everywhere. Get this: GORE TAKES PLANES TO ALL THE LOCATIONS HE DELIVERS THIS BORING POWERPOINT. Environmentally unfriendly planes! Could anything be more hypocritical?

    Well - I suppose it's a valid criticism. Let's take it for what it's worth. In a perfect world if someone wanted stunning footage of Antarctica (And remember that Easterbrook's first complaint is the lack of cinematic presentation in the film) then I suppose they should paddle their own boat there. Also presumably they would bicycle to every university to deliver the message, although good luck with getting to China to discuss open pit mining with environmental experts.

    Out of the thousands of flights that already occur every single day, I'd say Gore's might have been worth it.

    (Although due credit to Easterbrook for the cleverness of his term "Hummer-Year" as a measure of fuel!)

    So beyond exposing how the film is a bit too Al Gorey and perhaps too secretly airplaney, the substance of Easterbrook's "morally flawed" argument seems to be that "Inconvenient Truth" 1) doesn't give us the sunny side of all the great things we've accomplished with fossil fuels, and also 2) exaggerates how much and how soon the oceans might rise.

    If it's a vast historical survey of fossil fuels and their impact on our past that he wants, then Easterbrook should make that film himself. Good luck not using too many charts and graphs, too. The scope of "Inconvenient Truth," though, is clearly about the present-day and FUTURE reality of continuing to use fossil fuels at this rate.

    And as to the exact timeline and amount of the Coming Deluge? I can't speak to that - perhaps he's correct. Perhaps the film indulges in too much Day After Tomorrowism. Maybe lower Manhattan WON'T be exactly underwater in 50 years. Maybe there'll be less water, maybe it will take longer.

    But the movie motivated me. To paraphrase Easterbrook from his own paper "Case Closed: The Debate about Global Warming is Over," which he links to from the Slate article, if there is a chance of an approach to greenhouse-gas reduction, then what are we waiting for?

    Posted by: Chris at June 14, 2006 3:49 PM

    Take that, bitches! (Oh, wait, I'm the one who linked to the Slate article.) Anyway, good points, man! Well done!

    Posted by: Leigh at June 15, 2006 8:00 AM

    June 12, 2006

    The Omen (2006)

    Unfortunately this movie is not an update or a reinterpretation of the weak original, but a faithful reproduction. There's still all this running around to various ancient churches and graveyards, and switching babies, and the Devil knocking off the two or three people that have suspected his infernal plan by hanging, impaling, and decapitation. It was just too tempting NOT to do a remake and release it on 6/6/06, I suppose.

    I guess when I heard it was being remade, I didn't have high expectations, but I WAS hoping they'd shed a bit more light on this jackal business. I still don't quite understand why they bothered to bury not only the jackal itself, but also the murdered Thorne baby. It just seems like some pretty damning (ha) evidence to keep around. Particularly since they obviously took pains to not so much hide as highlight the baby's massive head wound for anyone that may some day come a-diggin'.

    The movie has a great cast but there was not much point to a remake, except to capitalize on 6/6/06. And on top of that I have to say, my capacity for Revelations dread and horror of big black dogs is not quite what it was when I was a kid.

    And is it glib to posit that perhaps a horror film about the Anti-Christ positioning to take over the White House and plunge the world into a period of darkness seems a little quaint these days? It kind of feels like that bird has flown.

    Posted by Chris on 06/12/06

    I really wish I could find information on your blog about free ringtones. Where else will I get this most impertinent information? WHERE, I ask you?

    Posted by: Big Fat Brian at June 13, 2006 8:45 AM

    Ha ha HA, my friend. I bet they don't have the comment spam on MySpace that I do. ALTHOUGH - I did note this morning that two people asked me to "Friend" them that seemed to be robots trying to convince me to take surveys.

    Posted by: Chris at June 13, 2006 9:56 AM

    I've said it before and I'll say it again... "Can I get an Amen?"

    Posted by: Vickery at June 13, 2006 1:00 PM

    My inaugural address at the Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead, after I have raptured out billions!
    Read My Inaugural Address
    My Site=http://www.angelfire.com/crazy/spaceman
    Your jaw will drop!

    Posted by: Secret Rapture at June 24, 2006 2:24 AM

    June 8, 2006

    What to wear?

    From Bob Harris at This Modern World:

    I’ve been straight my whole life, but the Senate was unable to muster enough votes to “defend” heterosexual marriage.

    Obviously, if heterosexual marriage needs to be defended, and now the effort has failed, heterosexual relationships are now profoundly endangered. We straights are helpless — helpless! — to preserve our own relationships and orientation.

    So, I will be expecting the gay sex to arrive at the door sometime later today, and for all of my family and personal relationships to begin changing.

    You should do the same.

    I just wish I knew what to wear.

    Maybe FEMA will start handing out some kind of kit.

    It's only 7:30 AM here, but Bob gets Best Post Award for the day.

    Posted by Chris on 06/ 8/06

    I just finished Other Voices, Other Rooms by Truman Capote and he sums it up quite nicely:

    "...any love is natural and beautiful that lies within a person's nature; only hypocrites would hold a man responsible for what he loves, emotional illiterates and those of righteous envy, who, in their agitated concern, mistake so frequently the arrow pointing to heaven for the one that leads to hell."

    I've no problem with them "defending" marriage. Trouble is, all I've heard them talk about is preventing marriages not getting rid of divorce.

    Posted by: simon at June 9, 2006 9:32 AM

    June 7, 2006

    Where the commentary is above average

    Thank you, Garrison Keillor, for this:

    You might not have always liked Republicans, but you could count on them to manage the bank. They might be lousy tippers, act snooty, talk through their noses, wear spats and splash mud on you as they race their Pierce-Arrows through the village, but you knew they could do the math. To see them produce a ninny and then follow him loyally into the swamp for five years is disconcerting, like seeing the Rolling Stones take up lite jazz.

    Also thank you for "large shambling galoot." HA!

    Posted by Chris on 06/ 7/06

    June 6, 2006

    X-Men: The Last Stand

    Professor X having installed a psychic partition in Jean Gray's mind seems like a pretty big piece of information to just toss out during a scene a half hour into this movie. Did I missed something about this in the other two movies? I am familiar with the "Jean Gray's Powers Are Just Really, REALLY Huge, and That's Getting To Be a Problem" storyline from the comics, but in the context of the films, it seems a little out of nowhere that she suddenly becomes Dark Phoenix and then suddenly hates Xavier.

    Xavier's "death" seemed a bit unceremonious for such a major character. When someone like Professor X dies we need bagpipes playing "Amazing Grace" with the orchestra joining in as they shoot his coffin out of the ship, we need momentous crowds at funerals, we need hundreds of mutants crying.

    Of course that was nothing compared to the short shrift of Cyclops' last scene. Did James Marsden ask for too much money? They couldn't have whisked him out of the story any faster with a giant crooked cane from backstage. The character deserved better. He didn't even get the dignity of an agonizing mournful cry of "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" from Wolverine. Logan mentions that he "thinks" Scott may be dead at one point and that's it? Thanks a LOT.

    Mystique, one of my favorite villains, also had a rushed departure. And too bad Angel had nothing to do with the plot. I enjoyed this movie but it made me want to see Bryan Singer's take on Superman all the more.

    Posted by Chris on 06/ 6/06

    Don't tell me that you didn't stay for the short scene after the credits! Did you miss it?

    Posted by: Big Fat Brian at June 6, 2006 12:50 PM

    I MISSED THAT SCENE. I have heard about it from multiple sources. And I thought I was Mr. Stay For The Credits!

    Posted by: Chris at June 6, 2006 2:09 PM

    I'm ASHAMED of you. Frankly STAGGERED!

    Here it is on some punk's camera phone...


    That'll teach you. Enjoy!

    Posted by: Big Fat Brian at June 6, 2006 2:18 PM

    I think that the writers had to consider the fact that took about oh, three hundred different comic book episodes to explain the full concept of Phoenix, and then come up with something that ADD America could grasp onto.

    I was also startled by the departure of Scott. But as a fan of the X-Men, I know the truth. I KNOW THE TRUTH.

    Posted by: friend jessica at June 8, 2006 11:18 AM

    June 1, 2006

    The Straw Men Are Revolting

    ... but luckily Lileks is there to quash the discord. And even more luckily, Retardo at "Sadly, No" provides color commentary so we don't have to spend any time in the Lilekian Bubble ourselves:

    There’s the veneer of good ol’ Midwestern suburban manners, very aww-shucksy. Yet something’s too pinched about it, and as is par for the Bleat course, after some references to the kids and a bit of wistful, nostalgic study over a pop-culture relic of better days — back when whitebread was whitebread and the broads knew their place and the style was so atomic baby — Ol’ Jimbo gets down to business, which means that passive becomes aggressive and the okey-dopey Fred Rogers of Minnesota tears at his cardigan, bites the cork off a bottle of rot-gut and focuses his rage on those fucking hippies.

    The internet is good.

    Posted by Chris on 06/ 1/06