August 27, 2006
An important message from the president
.
Recently I came across a blog post that stated how easy it is for misunderstandings to occur in Blogovia, and that sometimes private negotiations clear things up better than public discourse, where tangents can distract from finding a solution.
I can relate, having been involved in several such dust-ups since I started blogging, and I am inspired by several comments as well as my desire for understanding and peace to post the official MTIH blog policy/mission statement:
Welcome. This being a big old blogosphere, I'm grateful that from among millions you have happened by. I welcome all grown-ups who have the desire for intelligent discussion and humorous chat.
I am not easily offended. Realize now that unless you're my family, my friends or possibly my boss then I don't care much what you think about me, or more accurately, about what I write. You should know this is generally not a place for the thin-skinned.
That said, as blogging is part of an effort to communicate and improve ourselves through the dialectic, friends will blossom and adversaries will make themselves apparent (this is way cool). But as a recovering Kool-Aid® drinker who has been burned too many times to ever again worry what one person/clique or another thinks about what options may be facing ME, I have learned that people who respect themselves and one another are the ones from which the most can be learned.
This blog is just a tiny speck in a big old universe, so if you’re inclined to bring in ill feelings, negatively bait people or otherwise annoyingly troll someone you don’t even know, then I would prefer you move along. Blue language is liberally tolerated save in the context of ad hominem affronts toward fellow commentators, whereby it is frowned upon.
For those not inclined to comment publicly there is always my email.
Thanks,
O’ Tim
President, MTIH editorial board
P.S. - Thanks to David Rochester for offering up some basic rules that I think should be spread far and wide across the blogiverse:
And the disclaimer David came up with is pretty handy (and is just fine in all CAPS, D.R.):
THE COMMENTS ABOVE WERE NOT DIRECTED AT ANYONE PERSONALLY. THEY WERE GENERATED BY SEVERAL MONTHS' WORTH OF OBSERVATION AND REFLECTION. ANY PERCEIVED RESEMBLANCE TO BLOGGERS LIVING OR DEAD IS PURELY COINCIDENTAL.
.
Recently I came across a blog post that stated how easy it is for misunderstandings to occur in Blogovia, and that sometimes private negotiations clear things up better than public discourse, where tangents can distract from finding a solution.
I can relate, having been involved in several such dust-ups since I started blogging, and I am inspired by several comments as well as my desire for understanding and peace to post the official MTIH blog policy/mission statement:
Welcome. This being a big old blogosphere, I'm grateful that from among millions you have happened by. I welcome all grown-ups who have the desire for intelligent discussion and humorous chat.
I am not easily offended. Realize now that unless you're my family, my friends or possibly my boss then I don't care much what you think about me, or more accurately, about what I write. You should know this is generally not a place for the thin-skinned.
That said, as blogging is part of an effort to communicate and improve ourselves through the dialectic, friends will blossom and adversaries will make themselves apparent (this is way cool). But as a recovering Kool-Aid® drinker who has been burned too many times to ever again worry what one person/clique or another thinks about what options may be facing ME, I have learned that people who respect themselves and one another are the ones from which the most can be learned.
This blog is just a tiny speck in a big old universe, so if you’re inclined to bring in ill feelings, negatively bait people or otherwise annoyingly troll someone you don’t even know, then I would prefer you move along. Blue language is liberally tolerated save in the context of ad hominem affronts toward fellow commentators, whereby it is frowned upon.
For those not inclined to comment publicly there is always my email.
Thanks,
O’ Tim
President, MTIH editorial board
P.S. - Thanks to David Rochester for offering up some basic rules that I think should be spread far and wide across the blogiverse:
1) Everyone is in fact entitled to his own opinion.
2) Personal insults don't facilitate a rational exchange of ideas, and should
probably be avoided.
3) There's not much to be gained by engaging someone in an argument who will never see your point and who chooses to be insulting, unless you get something out of descending to the two-year-old level.
4) Before taking something personally, perhaps one should take a moment to reflect upon the probable intent of the person who wrote it.
5) Freedom of speech . . . it's a wonderful thing. Let's enjoy it while we can, folks.
And the disclaimer David came up with is pretty handy (and is just fine in all CAPS, D.R.):
THE COMMENTS ABOVE WERE NOT DIRECTED AT ANYONE PERSONALLY. THEY WERE GENERATED BY SEVERAL MONTHS' WORTH OF OBSERVATION AND REFLECTION. ANY PERCEIVED RESEMBLANCE TO BLOGGERS LIVING OR DEAD IS PURELY COINCIDENTAL.
.
August 26, 2006
I know, moron the war
.
Nailhead, vol. IV
From the Chattanooga Times editorial page:
A disingenuous defense of war
With public dissatisfaction rising over the war in Iraq as November’s midterm elections approach, Republicans urgently want to deflect the negative fallout at the polls. To achieve that, President Bush has to begin pitching election-year spin for his "stay the course policy." His hastily convened news conference last week served that political purpose, but little else. Indeed, his disingenuous defense and lack of candor about the roots and spread of the sectarian violence and the Sunni insurgency in Iraq should repel voters rather than secure their support.
The thrust of the president’s defense of his war policy is that a pullout — his misleading description of opposing calls for phased withdrawal — would leave freedom-loving Iraqis in the lurch, promote chaos in the country, send the wrong signal about U.S. reliability in the Middle East and embolden terrorists.
In fact, there’s a stronger argument to be made that it is the Bush administration’s mismanagement of the war that has already achieved each of those tragic milestones to some degree. The continuation of its failed war policy is simply an invitation to deeper quagmire without any benefit or prospect for improvement in Iraq.
With the United States bogged down in the war, Iraq has become a terrorist breeding ground and, if not directly destabilizing other areas in the Middle East, at least emboldening Iran and Syria to unleash Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran also feels free to defy U.N. demands to halt its nuclear program, further plummeting U.S. prestige in the Muslim world (for those inclined to wonder what difference that makes waits the question, “Do we want to be right, or do we want peace?”).
Election-eve sloganeering won’t change all this; only a fundamental shift in policy holds out any hope for improvement in Iraq. Bush’s spin on the war may generate short-term political relief before the November voting. But in reality, it’s just a pitch to keep pursuing a policy that is imploding at a frightening pace.
The indices that measure the state of Iraqi life and the effect of the war over the past 18 months in Iraq confirm that: insurgent attacks, civilian deaths, police deaths, American deaths, and the numbers of wounded all around have all soared. Oil and electrical production still remain below prewar levels, joblessness and despair among Iraqis are higher, and 82 percent of them now think the first answer to their troubles is an American withdrawal.
Both the Sunni insurgency and the Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence — now a virtual civil war with ethnic cleansing increasing on both sides — are more violent and deadlier than ever. July was deadlier than June. June was deadlier than May, and so on going back into last year. U.S. Defense Department statistics confirm that, and this nation’s top three generals earlier this month acknowledged that Iraq is sliding into civil war.
All this is the result of a war policy that was inadequate to begin with, that has never been improved, and that has failed to get Iraqis to create a government that will rein in the sectarian death squads embedded in the Iraqi police and the wide-spread corruption in the Iraqi military.
The Bush administration ignored its generals’ prewar advice to put several hundred thousand more troops on the ground to preempt the predictable sectarian violence that would occur when Saddam's ruling Sunni minority that had massacred majority Shiites was toppled from power. Instead, it went to war in Iraq on the cheap and horribly unprepared for the long term, and has remained unwilling to do anything more than incremental tinkering.
Now this nation’s soldiers, treasury, and image abroad as well as in Iraq are paying the price. Bush’s defense of that is more disingenuous rhetoric rather than a logical argument to rally support for his policies.
Voters must wonder how following the Bush stay-the-course direction will improve matters. They should consider that it's a phased withdrawal (which would force Iraqis to choose between defense of a prospective federalized democracy or a disastrous, all-out civil war) that would provide the clarifying effect that the president has said he seeks.
Nailhead, vol. IV
From the Chattanooga Times editorial page:
A disingenuous defense of war
With public dissatisfaction rising over the war in Iraq as November’s midterm elections approach, Republicans urgently want to deflect the negative fallout at the polls. To achieve that, President Bush has to begin pitching election-year spin for his "stay the course policy." His hastily convened news conference last week served that political purpose, but little else. Indeed, his disingenuous defense and lack of candor about the roots and spread of the sectarian violence and the Sunni insurgency in Iraq should repel voters rather than secure their support.
The thrust of the president’s defense of his war policy is that a pullout — his misleading description of opposing calls for phased withdrawal — would leave freedom-loving Iraqis in the lurch, promote chaos in the country, send the wrong signal about U.S. reliability in the Middle East and embolden terrorists.
In fact, there’s a stronger argument to be made that it is the Bush administration’s mismanagement of the war that has already achieved each of those tragic milestones to some degree. The continuation of its failed war policy is simply an invitation to deeper quagmire without any benefit or prospect for improvement in Iraq.
With the United States bogged down in the war, Iraq has become a terrorist breeding ground and, if not directly destabilizing other areas in the Middle East, at least emboldening Iran and Syria to unleash Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran also feels free to defy U.N. demands to halt its nuclear program, further plummeting U.S. prestige in the Muslim world (for those inclined to wonder what difference that makes waits the question, “Do we want to be right, or do we want peace?”).
Election-eve sloganeering won’t change all this; only a fundamental shift in policy holds out any hope for improvement in Iraq. Bush’s spin on the war may generate short-term political relief before the November voting. But in reality, it’s just a pitch to keep pursuing a policy that is imploding at a frightening pace.
The indices that measure the state of Iraqi life and the effect of the war over the past 18 months in Iraq confirm that: insurgent attacks, civilian deaths, police deaths, American deaths, and the numbers of wounded all around have all soared. Oil and electrical production still remain below prewar levels, joblessness and despair among Iraqis are higher, and 82 percent of them now think the first answer to their troubles is an American withdrawal.
Both the Sunni insurgency and the Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence — now a virtual civil war with ethnic cleansing increasing on both sides — are more violent and deadlier than ever. July was deadlier than June. June was deadlier than May, and so on going back into last year. U.S. Defense Department statistics confirm that, and this nation’s top three generals earlier this month acknowledged that Iraq is sliding into civil war.
All this is the result of a war policy that was inadequate to begin with, that has never been improved, and that has failed to get Iraqis to create a government that will rein in the sectarian death squads embedded in the Iraqi police and the wide-spread corruption in the Iraqi military.
The Bush administration ignored its generals’ prewar advice to put several hundred thousand more troops on the ground to preempt the predictable sectarian violence that would occur when Saddam's ruling Sunni minority that had massacred majority Shiites was toppled from power. Instead, it went to war in Iraq on the cheap and horribly unprepared for the long term, and has remained unwilling to do anything more than incremental tinkering.
Now this nation’s soldiers, treasury, and image abroad as well as in Iraq are paying the price. Bush’s defense of that is more disingenuous rhetoric rather than a logical argument to rally support for his policies.
Voters must wonder how following the Bush stay-the-course direction will improve matters. They should consider that it's a phased withdrawal (which would force Iraqis to choose between defense of a prospective federalized democracy or a disastrous, all-out civil war) that would provide the clarifying effect that the president has said he seeks.
August 22, 2006
Personaliterarity
From Cheezy via Slightly Mad via...via...via:
1. One book that changed your life?* The Bible (mmm...I got bettah!)
2. One book you have read more than once? A Walk In The Woods by Bill Bryson. Katz just cracks me the fuck up.
3. One book you would want on a desert island? The Tao Te Ching by Lao Tse. No better time to be philosophical than when you've got that kinda time. It's either that or George Foreman's Big Book Of Grilling Barbecue And Rotisserie
4. One book that made you laugh? One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey. This book helped me get through a nine-day hospital stay.
5. One book that made you cry? Blue Highways by William Least Heat Moon. Numbers 4 & 5 are kinda interchangeable.
6. One book you wish had been written? Ravi Shankar's Big Note Sitar Book
7. One book you wish had never been written?
*flash forward* _____________ by George W. Bush.
8. One book you are currently reading? America's Promise Restored by Harlan Ullman
9. One book you've been meaning to read? A Confederacy Of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole. Several persons whom I hold in high esteem have recommended this to me.
*Black Elk Speaks would qualify for nos. 1 - 5.
1. One book that changed your life?* The Bible (mmm...I got bettah!)
2. One book you have read more than once? A Walk In The Woods by Bill Bryson. Katz just cracks me the fuck up.
3. One book you would want on a desert island? The Tao Te Ching by Lao Tse. No better time to be philosophical than when you've got that kinda time. It's either that or George Foreman's Big Book Of Grilling Barbecue And Rotisserie
4. One book that made you laugh? One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey. This book helped me get through a nine-day hospital stay.
5. One book that made you cry? Blue Highways by William Least Heat Moon. Numbers 4 & 5 are kinda interchangeable.
6. One book you wish had been written? Ravi Shankar's Big Note Sitar Book
7. One book you wish had never been written?
*flash forward* _____________ by George W. Bush.
8. One book you are currently reading? America's Promise Restored by Harlan Ullman
9. One book you've been meaning to read? A Confederacy Of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole. Several persons whom I hold in high esteem have recommended this to me.
*Black Elk Speaks would qualify for nos. 1 - 5.
August 21, 2006
Ages of Rock
.
A very good friend with whom I have an affinity regarding rock music (I confess we are incorrigible snobs) asked me this recently: Does it seem to you that the “veteran” bands of today have been around for 15 - 20+ years?
Well, my very good friend less than two years my junior, when you think that the members of bands like Pearl Jam, Blues Traveler, Phish and Dave Matthews were, like us, in their early to mid-twenties when they first broke on to their respective scenes, then they’re our age and thus approaching mid-geezerdom now. So I’m inclined to ask if time has seemed fast or slow to us in the past 15-20 years. My answer, akin to what a lot of others would say about a lot of other things more important than rock music but oh well, would be “quite fast.”
Through the years the pop of the day has never had much innovation that appeals to me. I’m automatically drawn to the rebel, the outsider, the unpopular, the counter-culture (but not always angry nor too weird). I probably would’ve hated the Beatles if I was a teen in the early sixties; perhaps a Thelonius Monk disciple or the like. Well the Beatles won the battle of my pubescent years, though quite some time after their breakup (thank God they and I did all those drugs), but now Monk’s in strong for the duration of the war.
That's the weird thing about musical tastes like yours and mine, my friend – they’re so anachronistic in terms of pop culture. Many would deem us old fashioned or behind the times, and I'd admit to a partial on both. A big reason I enjoy older tunes is for “imaginative nostalgia” - the yearning for a part of history you didn't live in. I've often thought stuff like, “I was in kindergarten when the Dead were tearing up the Fillmore” or “Man, to have seen Hendrix/Otis/Electric Flag at Monterey Pop.” Of course the principle applies less and less as time goes by and the sameness of adulthood obscures cultural reference points (the mid-90s are already a blur). I’ll be fine with fading memory taking care of the crap I didn’t like so long as my CD burner can keep up with saving the good stuff.
I am content to look toward the inspired music of the past versus the inspired music of the present as I'd see the difference between an ornate royal treasure room filled with sparkling wealth and a stainless steel bank vault filled with piles of green cash. Both are of great value, but which one am I drawn to investigate first? Right now I want to admire the beauty of the treasure, I'll count the cash later, after it turns to gold for me when mainstream culture has moved on.
A very good friend with whom I have an affinity regarding rock music (I confess we are incorrigible snobs) asked me this recently: Does it seem to you that the “veteran” bands of today have been around for 15 - 20+ years?
Well, my very good friend less than two years my junior, when you think that the members of bands like Pearl Jam, Blues Traveler, Phish and Dave Matthews were, like us, in their early to mid-twenties when they first broke on to their respective scenes, then they’re our age and thus approaching mid-geezerdom now. So I’m inclined to ask if time has seemed fast or slow to us in the past 15-20 years. My answer, akin to what a lot of others would say about a lot of other things more important than rock music but oh well, would be “quite fast.”
Through the years the pop of the day has never had much innovation that appeals to me. I’m automatically drawn to the rebel, the outsider, the unpopular, the counter-culture (but not always angry nor too weird). I probably would’ve hated the Beatles if I was a teen in the early sixties; perhaps a Thelonius Monk disciple or the like. Well the Beatles won the battle of my pubescent years, though quite some time after their breakup (thank God they and I did all those drugs), but now Monk’s in strong for the duration of the war.
That's the weird thing about musical tastes like yours and mine, my friend – they’re so anachronistic in terms of pop culture. Many would deem us old fashioned or behind the times, and I'd admit to a partial on both. A big reason I enjoy older tunes is for “imaginative nostalgia” - the yearning for a part of history you didn't live in. I've often thought stuff like, “I was in kindergarten when the Dead were tearing up the Fillmore” or “Man, to have seen Hendrix/Otis/Electric Flag at Monterey Pop.” Of course the principle applies less and less as time goes by and the sameness of adulthood obscures cultural reference points (the mid-90s are already a blur). I’ll be fine with fading memory taking care of the crap I didn’t like so long as my CD burner can keep up with saving the good stuff.
I am content to look toward the inspired music of the past versus the inspired music of the present as I'd see the difference between an ornate royal treasure room filled with sparkling wealth and a stainless steel bank vault filled with piles of green cash. Both are of great value, but which one am I drawn to investigate first? Right now I want to admire the beauty of the treasure, I'll count the cash later, after it turns to gold for me when mainstream culture has moved on.
August 18, 2006
MTIH 1st Blogoversary !
Wow, it hardly seems like a whole year ago. I guess that means no more excuses of rookie status anymore. I'm bonafide!
I have to say that in retrospect the blog experience imitates many aspects of life, being everything from exhilarating, hilarious, educational, and somewhat addictive to a downright pain in the arse at times. Sometimes I feel like I should be posting more often and at other times I realize that I spend way too much time on the 'puter (professionally and recreationally).
Cheers to all in my bloggerhood - here's to many more!
Now go on, take the trip down memory lane (see if you can find your first comment)
I have to say that in retrospect the blog experience imitates many aspects of life, being everything from exhilarating, hilarious, educational, and somewhat addictive to a downright pain in the arse at times. Sometimes I feel like I should be posting more often and at other times I realize that I spend way too much time on the 'puter (professionally and recreationally).
Cheers to all in my bloggerhood - here's to many more!
Now go on, take the trip down memory lane (see if you can find your first comment)
August 16, 2006
Under the rug again?
Honey, get the broom!
A recent string of posts/comments has got me thinking (watch out) - What about blogging makes us happy? For me it's mostly the attempts to provide interesting glimpses into each other's lives, thoughts and beliefs through witty banter and occasionally intelligent discussion. These attempts often get heated, but that's usually okay cuz a lot of times I learn something. But what I learned in said string is that too often we just let things get to a point where the most convenient (or desirable) thing to do is to fling a bunch of poop under the rug. Now I’m not the tidiest person, but fecal waftiness in my house is something that gets addressed post haste.
In this recent kerfuffle (<< word going on my favorites list, BTW) one of the main characters took issue with the supposed moderation of comments on my blog, and went on to characterize me at one point as “whinging and whining” about their behavior as I saw it. Well, I don’t know from whinging, but I guess I did suggest something like using the proper tool for the proper job, say, using a mitt for fielding hot grounders as opposed to yelling at the ball. I don’t have the comment moderation on my Blogger account turned on, and I have yet to delete anyone's comment since starting this about a year ago (of course I reserve the right to remove whatever I please if need be). Essentially what goes up stays up, no problem.
Sure, heated discussion and snarkiness go with the territory, a point I will acquiesce to aforementioned in'dvdl. But among the three or four blogs on which this was an issue, this comment was left: “Why do people equate name calling and character assassination with strength, but politeness and courtesy while arguing an issue as weakness? Seems like it would be just the opposite to me.”
Bullseye, as far as I’m concerned. The party of the first part says, “Cowboy up. It’s no tea party, peeps” (<< word heretofore disqualified for poseur ghettoness). The party of the second part (that’s me) says, “OK it’s a kegger!” My kind of crowd – fun, rowdy. But I’d say cowboys and beer makes "kiss my ass" a rather unpopular phrase, and would consider its use at such a function unwise, unless you’re partial to spitting out your own teeth. Sure, your physically safe on the Internet, but is a little common courtesy too much to ask?
Most times bloguments are at least entertaining if not educational. Again, blogging wouldn't be much fun if we never disagree or don’t get a bit snarky sometimes. But then it also wears thin when the so-called resolution frequently comes to sweeping harsh words and feelings under the rug all of the time. I'd think that eventually the parental types in the playgroup will lament entertaining/engaging the brats who come over and trash the place. Accumulating a laundry list of pissed off playmates is no way to go through life. No. 1 said, “If p%$ps don't know me by now, they never will.” That’s pretty shallow, even for the Internet. Is the nature of our bloggerhood so unyielding as to think we can't ever change someone's mind or vice-versa? No room for growing up? I’m not convinced yet because like I said, I’ve learned things. But if so, that sucks and will probably cause me to blog less and less.
A recent string of posts/comments has got me thinking (watch out) - What about blogging makes us happy? For me it's mostly the attempts to provide interesting glimpses into each other's lives, thoughts and beliefs through witty banter and occasionally intelligent discussion. These attempts often get heated, but that's usually okay cuz a lot of times I learn something. But what I learned in said string is that too often we just let things get to a point where the most convenient (or desirable) thing to do is to fling a bunch of poop under the rug. Now I’m not the tidiest person, but fecal waftiness in my house is something that gets addressed post haste.
In this recent kerfuffle (<< word going on my favorites list, BTW) one of the main characters took issue with the supposed moderation of comments on my blog, and went on to characterize me at one point as “whinging and whining” about their behavior as I saw it. Well, I don’t know from whinging, but I guess I did suggest something like using the proper tool for the proper job, say, using a mitt for fielding hot grounders as opposed to yelling at the ball. I don’t have the comment moderation on my Blogger account turned on, and I have yet to delete anyone's comment since starting this about a year ago (of course I reserve the right to remove whatever I please if need be). Essentially what goes up stays up, no problem.
Sure, heated discussion and snarkiness go with the territory, a point I will acquiesce to aforementioned in'dvdl. But among the three or four blogs on which this was an issue, this comment was left: “Why do people equate name calling and character assassination with strength, but politeness and courtesy while arguing an issue as weakness? Seems like it would be just the opposite to me.”
Bullseye, as far as I’m concerned. The party of the first part says, “Cowboy up. It’s no tea party, peeps” (<< word heretofore disqualified for poseur ghettoness). The party of the second part (that’s me) says, “OK it’s a kegger!” My kind of crowd – fun, rowdy. But I’d say cowboys and beer makes "kiss my ass" a rather unpopular phrase, and would consider its use at such a function unwise, unless you’re partial to spitting out your own teeth. Sure, your physically safe on the Internet, but is a little common courtesy too much to ask?
Most times bloguments are at least entertaining if not educational. Again, blogging wouldn't be much fun if we never disagree or don’t get a bit snarky sometimes. But then it also wears thin when the so-called resolution frequently comes to sweeping harsh words and feelings under the rug all of the time. I'd think that eventually the parental types in the playgroup will lament entertaining/engaging the brats who come over and trash the place. Accumulating a laundry list of pissed off playmates is no way to go through life. No. 1 said, “If p%$ps don't know me by now, they never will.” That’s pretty shallow, even for the Internet. Is the nature of our bloggerhood so unyielding as to think we can't ever change someone's mind or vice-versa? No room for growing up? I’m not convinced yet because like I said, I’ve learned things. But if so, that sucks and will probably cause me to blog less and less.
August 11, 2006
Nailhead, vol. III
Today's nailhead award goes to the lovely Arianna Huffington (who could, in my opinion, hold her own with Mark Twain and H.L Mencken). In this excerpt from a recent blog on The Huffington Post, she offers up a stern missive to the Reapuplickins whilst telling Dippycrats its time to shit or get off the pot.
At a time when the real enemies in the war on terror have reared their murderous heads (exploding shampoo? No need to sex that up), to hear Dick Cheney and company using illogical, over-the-top, fear-mongering rhetoric conflating Ned Lamont's victory with the war on terror is as deeply offensive as it is jaw-droppingly outrageous.
Chutzpah doesn't even begin to describe the Vice President of the United States suggesting that the outcome of the Connecticut primary might embolden “al Qaeda types.”
The GOP message machine knows how ludicrous it is to keep tying the war in Iraq to the war on terror, but they also know how effective it has been. So there they go again, with Cheney claiming that Lieberman was “pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security.”
Cheney knows damn well that, far from making us safer, “an aggressive posture” on Iraq has had the exact opposite effect. In a survey of 100 top foreign-policy experts (both Republicans and Democrats), 84 believed that we're losing the war on terror and 87 thought Iraq has had a negative impact on our efforts to defeat terrorists.
Here's the bottom line: Ned Lamont ran against the war in Iraq, a war that Joe Lieberman vehemently supported and still supports. A war that 60 percent of Americans are against. A war that is the defining foreign policy initiative of the Bush administration, an initiative that has been an abject failure on every level. A war that has put the GOP's back against the electoral wall. So it's firing back with it's favorite weapon, fear, trying to make the case that being against the war somehow makes Lamont soft on national security or, as RNC chair Ken Mehlman put it, “a leading proponent of the isolationist, defeatist, blame-America-first philosophy.”
Talk about desperate. So do Cheney/Rove/Mehlman really believe that 60 percent of the public are blame-America-firsters? Or that because 60 percent of us agree that Iraq is a disaster, we somehow don't, in Cheney's words, “have the will to stay in the fight and complete the task" of taking on the terrorists - and thus are encouraging al Qaeda types?
Of course not. They know being against the war in Iraq doesn't mean you are against fighting the war on terror. It means you are against a failed policy that has created more terrorists than it has killed, that has cost America 2,591 lives and $305 billion dollars, that has thrown Iraq into a bloody sectarian civil war, and that has so lessened our standing abroad that we are unable to be a real power broker in an exploding Middle East.
You want to know what really emboldens our enemies? It's not Ned Lamont beating Joe Lieberman; it's the idea of an impotent United States so over-extended and bogged down in Iraq that it has been pushed to the diplomatic sidelines.
What Lamont's victory should really do is embolden Democrats to aggressively counterattack the Republicans' scare tactics nonsense. Every Democratic leader should do the same every day, without fail, until the message finally breaks through the static. John Kerry effectively counterattacked, saying the thwarted London attacks “expose the myth that we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here. In fact, the war in Iraq has become a dangerous distraction... Nearly five years after the attacks of 9/11, we are not as safe as we can and must be... The 9/11 Commission's recommendations to secure our most vulnerable infrastructure remain virtually ignored.”
One of the main reasons this has happened is that Congressional Democrats have failed to hold the Bush administration accountable for taking its eye off the national security ball in order to pursue its imperial adventure in Iraq. It's worth noting that the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee is none other than Joe Lieberman, whose belief in bipartisan comity has kept him from holding the White House's feet to the fire. No wonder Karl Rove wanted to help him out, and Dick Cheney feels so concerned by his defeat.
Cheney and Rove know that this battle is for all the marbles. If Democrats can't effectively repudiate the GOP's fear-mongering strategy of linking Iraq to national security, they can kiss 2006 - and 2008 - good-bye.
Tell 'em sistah !
At a time when the real enemies in the war on terror have reared their murderous heads (exploding shampoo? No need to sex that up), to hear Dick Cheney and company using illogical, over-the-top, fear-mongering rhetoric conflating Ned Lamont's victory with the war on terror is as deeply offensive as it is jaw-droppingly outrageous.
Chutzpah doesn't even begin to describe the Vice President of the United States suggesting that the outcome of the Connecticut primary might embolden “al Qaeda types.”
The GOP message machine knows how ludicrous it is to keep tying the war in Iraq to the war on terror, but they also know how effective it has been. So there they go again, with Cheney claiming that Lieberman was “pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security.”
Cheney knows damn well that, far from making us safer, “an aggressive posture” on Iraq has had the exact opposite effect. In a survey of 100 top foreign-policy experts (both Republicans and Democrats), 84 believed that we're losing the war on terror and 87 thought Iraq has had a negative impact on our efforts to defeat terrorists.
Here's the bottom line: Ned Lamont ran against the war in Iraq, a war that Joe Lieberman vehemently supported and still supports. A war that 60 percent of Americans are against. A war that is the defining foreign policy initiative of the Bush administration, an initiative that has been an abject failure on every level. A war that has put the GOP's back against the electoral wall. So it's firing back with it's favorite weapon, fear, trying to make the case that being against the war somehow makes Lamont soft on national security or, as RNC chair Ken Mehlman put it, “a leading proponent of the isolationist, defeatist, blame-America-first philosophy.”
Talk about desperate. So do Cheney/Rove/Mehlman really believe that 60 percent of the public are blame-America-firsters? Or that because 60 percent of us agree that Iraq is a disaster, we somehow don't, in Cheney's words, “have the will to stay in the fight and complete the task" of taking on the terrorists - and thus are encouraging al Qaeda types?
Of course not. They know being against the war in Iraq doesn't mean you are against fighting the war on terror. It means you are against a failed policy that has created more terrorists than it has killed, that has cost America 2,591 lives and $305 billion dollars, that has thrown Iraq into a bloody sectarian civil war, and that has so lessened our standing abroad that we are unable to be a real power broker in an exploding Middle East.
You want to know what really emboldens our enemies? It's not Ned Lamont beating Joe Lieberman; it's the idea of an impotent United States so over-extended and bogged down in Iraq that it has been pushed to the diplomatic sidelines.
What Lamont's victory should really do is embolden Democrats to aggressively counterattack the Republicans' scare tactics nonsense. Every Democratic leader should do the same every day, without fail, until the message finally breaks through the static. John Kerry effectively counterattacked, saying the thwarted London attacks “expose the myth that we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here. In fact, the war in Iraq has become a dangerous distraction... Nearly five years after the attacks of 9/11, we are not as safe as we can and must be... The 9/11 Commission's recommendations to secure our most vulnerable infrastructure remain virtually ignored.”
One of the main reasons this has happened is that Congressional Democrats have failed to hold the Bush administration accountable for taking its eye off the national security ball in order to pursue its imperial adventure in Iraq. It's worth noting that the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee is none other than Joe Lieberman, whose belief in bipartisan comity has kept him from holding the White House's feet to the fire. No wonder Karl Rove wanted to help him out, and Dick Cheney feels so concerned by his defeat.
Cheney and Rove know that this battle is for all the marbles. If Democrats can't effectively repudiate the GOP's fear-mongering strategy of linking Iraq to national security, they can kiss 2006 - and 2008 - good-bye.
Tell 'em sistah !
August 10, 2006
Death just becomes
.
Today for the first time I had to interview someone that had just lost a family member before their time, or more accurately at a rather young age. Actually, I spoke with two people – the mother and the sister. It was by telephone, which spared this rookie from the fire outside the already simmering frying pan. Even so, a next time would be too soon, and I muttered a pathetic prayer to a higher power after I hung up.
I don’t know if it matters to tell you how this person died. It may have been a car crash, a disease, a roadside bomb or perhaps even lethal injection. The only clue I’ll offer is that for many in the family, a part of them probably expected his time would come before theirs.
The mother held up strong, only silent a couple of times - once through an awkward question that I tossed. She was fairly terse but forthright about her offspring, one of seven (like me, and her kid was only three years older than me) and the second to die in less than two years. The sister was a bit less so, almost breaking down at one point. She said something along the lines of how the death was a triumph of sorts but that she still wasn’t going to see any good in all of it.
The interview and subsequent filing of story were surreal at times, and has me thinking about how many times in the future I have to loathe in that I have not yet lost a human so very close. A favorite uncle of mine died tragically and I traveled far to be at his funeral, but that’s not the same at all as losing your child, your second child. Perhaps my deficit is causing me to get misty here in my middle age, for real.
I’m pretty in touch with my emotions inwardly, but sometimes I feel like I’ve been in a foreign country when it comes to “being there” for someone. I didn’t get a lot of guidance in that department growing up, despite (or in spite of) the religious upbringing often foisted on me. My folks were worn out by the time me and my sister (#7, born 7-7-67) got there. They had their hands full just being very good practical parents, and the old stern and stoic Viking blood ran too strong to much consider how a gosh darn kid felt.
We put mom in an elevated Alzheimer’s care wing a couple of weeks ago, kind of ahead of that schedule because she is still communicating lightly, though her doc noted some pronounced loss of balance which has her in a wheelchair most of the time now. I get a little twinge for her now and again but frankly I’m a bit more detached most of the time, thinking about how it sucks to get old like that for anybody.
I worry more for my dad, who likely has some time to go, and I hope he can break free from the guilt he has about my mom, that being simply from the fact that she was his caretaker for so long. Her disease has confused his sense of duty in that he doesn’t know what to do with his helpless wife. I think he just needs to be proud for what they had and not so glum that it hinders the rest of his happiness. He’s got a grandkid that he loves and another on the way, and I’d like to see some of his best years ahead of him.
Today for the first time I had to interview someone that had just lost a family member before their time, or more accurately at a rather young age. Actually, I spoke with two people – the mother and the sister. It was by telephone, which spared this rookie from the fire outside the already simmering frying pan. Even so, a next time would be too soon, and I muttered a pathetic prayer to a higher power after I hung up.
I don’t know if it matters to tell you how this person died. It may have been a car crash, a disease, a roadside bomb or perhaps even lethal injection. The only clue I’ll offer is that for many in the family, a part of them probably expected his time would come before theirs.
The mother held up strong, only silent a couple of times - once through an awkward question that I tossed. She was fairly terse but forthright about her offspring, one of seven (like me, and her kid was only three years older than me) and the second to die in less than two years. The sister was a bit less so, almost breaking down at one point. She said something along the lines of how the death was a triumph of sorts but that she still wasn’t going to see any good in all of it.
The interview and subsequent filing of story were surreal at times, and has me thinking about how many times in the future I have to loathe in that I have not yet lost a human so very close. A favorite uncle of mine died tragically and I traveled far to be at his funeral, but that’s not the same at all as losing your child, your second child. Perhaps my deficit is causing me to get misty here in my middle age, for real.
I’m pretty in touch with my emotions inwardly, but sometimes I feel like I’ve been in a foreign country when it comes to “being there” for someone. I didn’t get a lot of guidance in that department growing up, despite (or in spite of) the religious upbringing often foisted on me. My folks were worn out by the time me and my sister (#7, born 7-7-67) got there. They had their hands full just being very good practical parents, and the old stern and stoic Viking blood ran too strong to much consider how a gosh darn kid felt.
We put mom in an elevated Alzheimer’s care wing a couple of weeks ago, kind of ahead of that schedule because she is still communicating lightly, though her doc noted some pronounced loss of balance which has her in a wheelchair most of the time now. I get a little twinge for her now and again but frankly I’m a bit more detached most of the time, thinking about how it sucks to get old like that for anybody.
I worry more for my dad, who likely has some time to go, and I hope he can break free from the guilt he has about my mom, that being simply from the fact that she was his caretaker for so long. Her disease has confused his sense of duty in that he doesn’t know what to do with his helpless wife. I think he just needs to be proud for what they had and not so glum that it hinders the rest of his happiness. He’s got a grandkid that he loves and another on the way, and I’d like to see some of his best years ahead of him.
August 09, 2006
A tickle for the irreverent funny bone
.
Anti-Dentite Joel Stein hit a humor homerun in TIME this week:
Maybe We Should Just Make Mel Happy
Attacking anti-Semitism hasn't got us far in 3,000 years. It's time for some changes
By JOEL STEIN
Most times, when someone spouts off about how awful the Jews are, I blow it off as ignorance. If the guy just got to know us, he would totally dig us. We're funny and warm and smart and totally self-effacing. We send Ben Stiller to Iran for a few weeks, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be opening up Noah's bagel shops in all the strip malls in Tehran. The only problem is that with just 0.02% of the world's population, we can't do nearly as many personal appearances as we'd like. That's why we took over the media.
But Mel Gibson knows us--personally. He's been in Hollywood for more than 20 years, virtually surrounded by Jews. If Mel doesn't like us, maybe it's finally time to stop blaming everyone else for the bigotry and scapegoating and start to look at ourselves. As the saying goes, If people hate you for 1,000 years, you can blame them; if you're persecuted for 2,000 years, maybe you're unlucky; but if they still want to kill you after 3,000 years, you have to ask yourself if you're doing something wrong.
read the REST
(thanks to Beelers for the pass)
Anti-Dentite Joel Stein hit a humor homerun in TIME this week:
Maybe We Should Just Make Mel Happy
Attacking anti-Semitism hasn't got us far in 3,000 years. It's time for some changes
By JOEL STEIN
Most times, when someone spouts off about how awful the Jews are, I blow it off as ignorance. If the guy just got to know us, he would totally dig us. We're funny and warm and smart and totally self-effacing. We send Ben Stiller to Iran for a few weeks, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be opening up Noah's bagel shops in all the strip malls in Tehran. The only problem is that with just 0.02% of the world's population, we can't do nearly as many personal appearances as we'd like. That's why we took over the media.
But Mel Gibson knows us--personally. He's been in Hollywood for more than 20 years, virtually surrounded by Jews. If Mel doesn't like us, maybe it's finally time to stop blaming everyone else for the bigotry and scapegoating and start to look at ourselves. As the saying goes, If people hate you for 1,000 years, you can blame them; if you're persecuted for 2,000 years, maybe you're unlucky; but if they still want to kill you after 3,000 years, you have to ask yourself if you're doing something wrong.
read the REST
(thanks to Beelers for the pass)
Goodbye, Jerry
.
From the archives, an excerpt from a long letter I was composing to an old college buddy at the time of Jerry Garcia's death on August 9, 1995:
Well now, if that is not just fate. I got the news today (oh boy) about a lucky man who made the grave. The cork is popped, so here's a toast:
"To one of my best friends and definitely one of my heroes. Thank you for a real good time! With a tear in my eye and a smile on my face (for there is nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile) I wish you the fondest farewell. You certainly lived longer than you might have, but you definitely died sooner than you should have. I will miss you terribly. Have a good trip!"
Well Joe, I done shared all of mine now, so I guess it will have to be some Jack of your own when you get here. It is somewhat sad yet nice to know that we saw Jerry at the last place he ever played. Ironic that it was my first show within the limits of the city I was born in. I'm not sure where it goes from here, but I am certain that the torch is still lit and must needs be carried.
And so I do.
From the archives, an excerpt from a long letter I was composing to an old college buddy at the time of Jerry Garcia's death on August 9, 1995:
Well now, if that is not just fate. I got the news today (oh boy) about a lucky man who made the grave. The cork is popped, so here's a toast:
"To one of my best friends and definitely one of my heroes. Thank you for a real good time! With a tear in my eye and a smile on my face (for there is nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile) I wish you the fondest farewell. You certainly lived longer than you might have, but you definitely died sooner than you should have. I will miss you terribly. Have a good trip!"
Well Joe, I done shared all of mine now, so I guess it will have to be some Jack of your own when you get here. It is somewhat sad yet nice to know that we saw Jerry at the last place he ever played. Ironic that it was my first show within the limits of the city I was born in. I'm not sure where it goes from here, but I am certain that the torch is still lit and must needs be carried.
And so I do.
August 08, 2006
Say it ain't so
Many of you know I am a fan of cycling, and had cause not too far back for celebration when Floyd Landis won the Tour de France. Well anyone with a TV or radio has likely heard of the predicament Floyd is in with allegations of doping and his team canning him and losing his title because of it.
I saw Floyd on the Today Show this morning and it was tough to read him. He came across slightly as a defendant who is guilty but hangs in there for the hope that the jury may acquit him. It all has shades of Shoeless Joe Jackson, a baseball player who by all accounts was one of the best in the history of the game and loved it so much he would've played for free. In the midst of the 1919 Chicago "Black Sox" World Series fixing scandal, there is the anecdote of a young fan shouting to a dejected Jackson exiting the courthouse, "Say it ain't so, Joe!"
There's a lot going around about it, and the hottest conspiracy theory is that Floyd is a victim of sabotage by the French (or someone sympathetic to them or moreover jealous of another American spanking in the Tour), and I do not deem that implausible. The substance in question found in both of Landis' urine samples is synthetic testosterone. The level found is only recently above the permitted threshold, and aside from that a doctor friend tells me that a one-day dose of testosterone would do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to improve an athlete's performance. Landis tested clean on all other occasions prior to the failed samples.
I hope my enthusiasm for cycling doesn't go the way of my baseball fandom. I haven't been to a major league game in at least eight years - I just don't have the desire to go see a bunch of overpaid dopers (and I'm talking cheating, not recreation, FYI). The problem is that it has become status quo, so newbies have to catch on to catch up. Say it ain't so.
I saw Floyd on the Today Show this morning and it was tough to read him. He came across slightly as a defendant who is guilty but hangs in there for the hope that the jury may acquit him. It all has shades of Shoeless Joe Jackson, a baseball player who by all accounts was one of the best in the history of the game and loved it so much he would've played for free. In the midst of the 1919 Chicago "Black Sox" World Series fixing scandal, there is the anecdote of a young fan shouting to a dejected Jackson exiting the courthouse, "Say it ain't so, Joe!"
There's a lot going around about it, and the hottest conspiracy theory is that Floyd is a victim of sabotage by the French (or someone sympathetic to them or moreover jealous of another American spanking in the Tour), and I do not deem that implausible. The substance in question found in both of Landis' urine samples is synthetic testosterone. The level found is only recently above the permitted threshold, and aside from that a doctor friend tells me that a one-day dose of testosterone would do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to improve an athlete's performance. Landis tested clean on all other occasions prior to the failed samples.
I hope my enthusiasm for cycling doesn't go the way of my baseball fandom. I haven't been to a major league game in at least eight years - I just don't have the desire to go see a bunch of overpaid dopers (and I'm talking cheating, not recreation, FYI). The problem is that it has become status quo, so newbies have to catch on to catch up. Say it ain't so.
August 05, 2006
The Vault: Goin' Down The Road Feelin' Alright
The end of an era:
Marin Independent Journal
08/04/2006 08:38 a.m. PDT
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA - The musical legacy of the Grateful Dead - some 13,000 live audio and video recordings spanning the band's 30-year concert career - left Marin County in a temperature-controlled truck and is now being stored in a huge Warner Brothers Music vault in Southern California.
The transfer of the priceless "vault" recordings - from a Novato warehouse to a Fort Knox-like facility in Burbank - is a physical manifestation of a milestone deal that effectively dissolves Marin-based Grateful Dead Productions and turns over the Hall of Fame band's business operations to Rhino Entertainment, a subsidiary of giant Warner Music Group.
"It's sad to see it go," Grateful Dead tape archivist David Lemieux said of the vault collection. "But it couldn't be in better hands."
Read THE REST
Marin Independent Journal
08/04/2006 08:38 a.m. PDT
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA - The musical legacy of the Grateful Dead - some 13,000 live audio and video recordings spanning the band's 30-year concert career - left Marin County in a temperature-controlled truck and is now being stored in a huge Warner Brothers Music vault in Southern California.
The transfer of the priceless "vault" recordings - from a Novato warehouse to a Fort Knox-like facility in Burbank - is a physical manifestation of a milestone deal that effectively dissolves Marin-based Grateful Dead Productions and turns over the Hall of Fame band's business operations to Rhino Entertainment, a subsidiary of giant Warner Music Group.
"It's sad to see it go," Grateful Dead tape archivist David Lemieux said of the vault collection. "But it couldn't be in better hands."
Read THE REST
Where would we be without Jews?
.
OY! Es nisht ken gemolt zein!
August 3, 2006
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The California beermaker who brought the world He'brew, Miraculous Jewbilation and Genesis Ale has come up with a new brew commemorating the late Jewish comedian Lenny Bruce on the 40th anniversary of his death.
Bittersweet Lenny's R.I.P.A. has hit more than 1,000 stores in 25 states in a tribute to Bruce, the ground-breaking comic and social critic who died on August 3, 1966, at age 40.
The beer is made with "obscene amounts of malts and hops," says a statement from Shmaltz Brewing Co., in reference to Bruce's arrests for obscenity in his standup act.
A rye India pale ale, or R.I.P.A., it packs a punch with 10 percent alcohol.
"It's completely outrageous in terms of actual beer style to go along with his sensibility," said Jeremy Cowan, the brains behind the Jew brews.
Cowan said the inspiration for a tribute to Bruce came from his Jewish grandmother, who told of going with his grandfather to see Bruce perform at San Francisco strip clubs.
The San Francisco brewer, who lives part of the year in Brooklyn, started his He'brew beers 10 years ago and introduces a new brand each year. Total sales have passed 2 million bottles.
Cowan is not observant but said in a telephone interview he takes religion seriously and keeps his products kosher.
"I'm not making fun of Judaism. I'm having fun with Jewish culture and tradition," he said.
Hmm, honoring Lenny Bruce with a 10 percent rye IPA...Comedy and alcohol...You should need more proof of how indispensible our balebatisheh yiden are?
OY! Es nisht ken gemolt zein!
August 3, 2006
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The California beermaker who brought the world He'brew, Miraculous Jewbilation and Genesis Ale has come up with a new brew commemorating the late Jewish comedian Lenny Bruce on the 40th anniversary of his death.
Bittersweet Lenny's R.I.P.A. has hit more than 1,000 stores in 25 states in a tribute to Bruce, the ground-breaking comic and social critic who died on August 3, 1966, at age 40.
The beer is made with "obscene amounts of malts and hops," says a statement from Shmaltz Brewing Co., in reference to Bruce's arrests for obscenity in his standup act.
A rye India pale ale, or R.I.P.A., it packs a punch with 10 percent alcohol.
"It's completely outrageous in terms of actual beer style to go along with his sensibility," said Jeremy Cowan, the brains behind the Jew brews.
Cowan said the inspiration for a tribute to Bruce came from his Jewish grandmother, who told of going with his grandfather to see Bruce perform at San Francisco strip clubs.
The San Francisco brewer, who lives part of the year in Brooklyn, started his He'brew beers 10 years ago and introduces a new brand each year. Total sales have passed 2 million bottles.
Cowan is not observant but said in a telephone interview he takes religion seriously and keeps his products kosher.
"I'm not making fun of Judaism. I'm having fun with Jewish culture and tradition," he said.
Hmm, honoring Lenny Bruce with a 10 percent rye IPA...Comedy and alcohol...You should need more proof of how indispensible our balebatisheh yiden are?
August 03, 2006
Thirteen favorite movie lines
Take a crack at 'em kids. One point for the film, one bonus point for the character, actor or reasonable description of said. Since some of these are pretty tough, I've offered the year the film was released as a hint. Commensurate with my taste, there are three dramas and ten comedies. No Googling or IMDb'ing, please. Winner gets to take me to see the Mel Gibson movie of their choice (he is not quoted here, BTW).
UPDATES
1) "It's a terrible thing to hate your mother. But I didn't always hate her. When I was a child, I only kind of disliked her." (1962)
#1: I think Manchurian Candidate (you think correct, sir! FEZ = 1 PT.)
2) "Sure, I'm white. Didn't you hear me say, 'God bless George Washington. God bless my mother.'? I mean, now what kind of Indian would say a fool thing like that?" (1970)
#2 is Jack Crabb (D. Hoffman) in Little Big Man. One of my favorites! (KOS = 2 PTS.)
3) "This place has become impossible. Nothing to eat, freezing cold and now a madman on the prowl outside with eels." (1987)
Richard E. Grant in Withnail & I. If you like British comedy this is the mutts nuts, mate.
4) "Why didn't you tell me when we got married that you were this horrible gambling addict? It's like when you have a venereal disease - you tell somebody!" (1985)
#4 Albert Brooks in Lost in America. Albert Brooks is such a brilliant comedic actor. Defending Your Life? Fantastic. (KOS = 2 PTS.)
5) "They'll talk to ya and talk to ya and talk to ya about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em." (1969)
#5: Easy Rider (FEZ = 1 PT.)
6) "Oh, it's blessed are the MEEK! Oh, I'm glad they're getting something, they have a hell of a time." (1979)
#6: Brian (Life of, that is. It was on the tip of your brain, eh Joe? FEZ = 1 PT.)
7) "You're willing to pay him a thousand dollars a night just for singing? Why, you can get a phonograph record of Minnie the Moocher for 75 cents. And for a buck and a quarter, you can get Minnie." (1935)
#7: Night at the Opera (FEZ = 1 PT.)
8) "You know, there's a million fine looking women in the world, dude. But they don't all bring you lasagna at work. Most of 'em just cheat on you." (1994)
#8: Clerks (FEZ= 1 PT.)
9) "C'malong, Dexter, I know a formula that's said to pop the pennies off the eyelids of dead Irishmen." (1940)
#9 Philadelphia Story (KOS = 1 PT.)
10) "My enemy, my foe, is an animal. In order to conquer the animal, I have to learn to think like an animal. And, whenever possible, to look like one. I've gotta get inside this guy's pelt and crawl around for a few days." (1980)
#10: Caddyshack (FEZ = 1 PT.)
11) "What's the matter? Haven't you ever seen a gun before? What do you want me to do, count three like they do in the movies?" (1946)
#11 You don't even want to mess with me when it comes to Bogie (The Big Sleep)
(KOS = 2 PTS.)
12) "You put me right off my fresh fried lobster, do you realize that? I'm now going to go back to my bed, I'm going to put away the best part of a bottle of scotch... And under normal circumstances, you being normally what I would call a very attractive woman, I would have invited you back to share my little bed with me and you might possibly have come. But you really put me off." (1970)
#12 Mr. Hawkeye Pierce in M*A*S*H (actually, Capt. Pierce, but hey, I messed up my own signature line from the Holy Grail on yer blog last week so, hell, = 2 PTS. =8:{ )> )
13) "OK, I'm gonna get your money for you. But if you don't get the President of the United States on that phone, you know what's gonna happen to you?...You're gonna have to answer to the Coca-Cola Company." (1964)
#13 Keenan Wynn in "Dr. Strangelove" (JOE = 2 PTS.)
FINAL Tally:
JOE = 2
FEZ = 6
KOS = 9
UPDATES
1) "It's a terrible thing to hate your mother. But I didn't always hate her. When I was a child, I only kind of disliked her." (1962)
#1: I think Manchurian Candidate (you think correct, sir! FEZ = 1 PT.)
2) "Sure, I'm white. Didn't you hear me say, 'God bless George Washington. God bless my mother.'? I mean, now what kind of Indian would say a fool thing like that?" (1970)
#2 is Jack Crabb (D. Hoffman) in Little Big Man. One of my favorites! (KOS = 2 PTS.)
3) "This place has become impossible. Nothing to eat, freezing cold and now a madman on the prowl outside with eels." (1987)
Richard E. Grant in Withnail & I. If you like British comedy this is the mutts nuts, mate.
4) "Why didn't you tell me when we got married that you were this horrible gambling addict? It's like when you have a venereal disease - you tell somebody!" (1985)
#4 Albert Brooks in Lost in America. Albert Brooks is such a brilliant comedic actor. Defending Your Life? Fantastic. (KOS = 2 PTS.)
5) "They'll talk to ya and talk to ya and talk to ya about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em." (1969)
#5: Easy Rider (FEZ = 1 PT.)
6) "Oh, it's blessed are the MEEK! Oh, I'm glad they're getting something, they have a hell of a time." (1979)
#6: Brian (Life of, that is. It was on the tip of your brain, eh Joe? FEZ = 1 PT.)
7) "You're willing to pay him a thousand dollars a night just for singing? Why, you can get a phonograph record of Minnie the Moocher for 75 cents. And for a buck and a quarter, you can get Minnie." (1935)
#7: Night at the Opera (FEZ = 1 PT.)
8) "You know, there's a million fine looking women in the world, dude. But they don't all bring you lasagna at work. Most of 'em just cheat on you." (1994)
#8: Clerks (FEZ= 1 PT.)
9) "C'malong, Dexter, I know a formula that's said to pop the pennies off the eyelids of dead Irishmen." (1940)
#9 Philadelphia Story (KOS = 1 PT.)
10) "My enemy, my foe, is an animal. In order to conquer the animal, I have to learn to think like an animal. And, whenever possible, to look like one. I've gotta get inside this guy's pelt and crawl around for a few days." (1980)
#10: Caddyshack (FEZ = 1 PT.)
11) "What's the matter? Haven't you ever seen a gun before? What do you want me to do, count three like they do in the movies?" (1946)
#11 You don't even want to mess with me when it comes to Bogie (The Big Sleep)
(KOS = 2 PTS.)
12) "You put me right off my fresh fried lobster, do you realize that? I'm now going to go back to my bed, I'm going to put away the best part of a bottle of scotch... And under normal circumstances, you being normally what I would call a very attractive woman, I would have invited you back to share my little bed with me and you might possibly have come. But you really put me off." (1970)
#12 Mr. Hawkeye Pierce in M*A*S*H (actually, Capt. Pierce, but hey, I messed up my own signature line from the Holy Grail on yer blog last week so, hell, = 2 PTS. =8:{ )> )
13) "OK, I'm gonna get your money for you. But if you don't get the President of the United States on that phone, you know what's gonna happen to you?...You're gonna have to answer to the Coca-Cola Company." (1964)
#13 Keenan Wynn in "Dr. Strangelove" (JOE = 2 PTS.)
FINAL Tally:
JOE = 2
FEZ = 6
KOS = 9
