Infinite Monkeys
"...a sparkly blog..." - James Lileks"Read them only with extreme caution."- Hugh Hewitt
Infinite MonkeysA tough break for Jay Leno's staff today, especially coming amidst the holidays.
"Do we have a job when the strike ends? That's what everyone keeps asking," one former staffer said. "They've guaranteed no one a job. They just keep saying, 'The letter explains it."That letter is a notice from NBC's human resources department that says, "If your services are needed, we will contact you."
Ouch. As someone who has not had regular paycheck for the past couple of months, I can certainly sympathize. I hope the WGA and the producers come to a satisfactory resolution soon.
The daredevil is dead. He was 69.
"God never made a tougher son of a bitch than me," Knievel told USA Today last year. Hard to argue. Here's hoping he made that last great leap.
Henry Hyde, Republican stalwart from Illinois, chief manager of the House prosecution to impeach President Clinton, and author of the three-decade-old amendment bearing his name banning federal funding of abortion, is dead. He was 83.
Vice President Cheney saluted Hyde last year. David Freddoso and John Miller have some fond memories of Hyde's distinguished career. And National Review editorialized in Hyde's honor earlier this month, on the occasion of his Presidential Medal of Freedom. "Hyde’s reputation withstood a severe test during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, when he led the House in impeaching Bill Clinton but failed to convince the Senate to remove Clinton from office," NR's editors wrote.
He was attacked repeatedly and often ruthlessly. His determination to press the case nevertheless led to a meaningful punishment for Clinton (the disgrace of impeachment), as the public wanted and as justice demanded.During the height of the impeachment controversy, Rep. Maxine Waters, a left-wing Democrat, tried to scold Hyde: “History will not be kind to you.” She was wrong. History will remember Henry Hyde for precisely what he was: One of the great congressmen of his generation — or any generation.
My wife (then-fiancé) and I had the honor of meeting Hyde in 1999, when the Claremont Institute gave him its statesmanship award. We escorted him from the reception to his table in the ballroom at the Ritz-Carlton in Pasadena. I remember that he was extremely gracious, but that his back was hurting "like hell."
Henry Hyde was a statesman, mind you, not a saint. At the height of the Clinton-Lewinsky hullaballoo in 1998, smut-peddler Larry Flynt revealed that Hyde had an extramarital affair nearly 30 years earlier. Flynt and the press made the revelation under the utterly insipid belief that the Clinton impeachment was "only about sex." It wasn't. Jim Rogan, another House prosecutor who had played the field in his youth, joshed one day on with Hyde about Flynt's exposé. But Hyde turned to Rogan, crestfallen, and said, "How am I supposed to explain this to my grandchildren?"
Whatever his failings -- and Heaven knows we all have them -- Henry Hyde was a better man than Bill Clinton or four-fifths of his colleagues could ever hope to be. May God rest his soul.
I'm not at all certain whether I'll vote for Romney, but I'm sorely tempted to send him $150 to record a voicemail greeting for me. That would be pretty nifty. Should Fred Thompson's campaign make a similar offer, I'd be inclined to throw a few bucks his way, too. If I had a few bucks to throw, that is.
One of my regrets when I worked for the Claremont Institute years ago was to not ask Bruce Herschensohn, one of the kindest men who ever walked the Earth, to record a voicemail greeting for us. Bruce has a great voice. Sure, it would have been a tawdry and selfish request, but I'd like to think he might have done it.
I defy any living person to take this challenge just once...
The study of geography, of course, is the basis for a sound understanding of history. Nevertheless, I curse Jonah Goldberg for alerting me to this from the Corner, thus ruining my evening and several evenings to come.
Stuart Rothenberg sums up the Paul phenomenon perfectly:
This is a big country with hundreds of millions of people, some of whom are attracted to quirky, anti-establishment candidates. And some of those people are angry, looking for an outspoken leader and searching for an easy answer to the nation's problems.But there simply are not all that many of them.
One or two of them seem to have stunk up the comments section over at Hugh Hewitt's blog.
Our erstwhile friend and occasional ally Hugh Hewitt offers 20 books (or so) worth giving this holiday season. If you're attuned to books as I am, you've either read or bought most of these titles. I mean, if you haven't read The Looming Tower by now, there's something wrong with you... Zaius.
But that assessment may or may not be accurate. So let me rephrase. If you have any appreciation for the work that goes into this blog generally, you might consider a little something for my son. He won't be reading Lawrence Wright or even, I daresay, Hugh Hewitt anytime soon. But he loves the Justice League and the Teen Titans. Is this a shameless plea? Oh, yes. And I have no excuse for it, save a desire for my boy to have everything in the whole wide world. Now, the other Monkeys could same the same for their kids.
But I said it first.
Ha!
Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch of Reason have a fascinating op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post probing the Ron Paul phenomenon. As Gillespie and Welch note, Paul has "about 5 percent (and climbing) support in polls of likely Republican voters." At this rate, Paul could well lock up the GOP nomination by March of 2013.
Seriously, though, Ron Paul is a fine congressman. If he represented my district, I'd surely vote for him. And I agree with my libertarian friends that Paul, the presidential candidate, appeals to a certain brand of voter. At one point, a thousand centuries ago, I might have been that voter. Alas, I don't believe Paul will be my candidate this year.
Here's the thing. Gillespie and Welch write: "Paul's challenge represents a not-so-lonely GOP revival of unabashed libertarianism. All his major Republican competitors want to double down on Bush's wars; none is stressing any limited-government themes, apart from half-hearted promises to prune pork and tinker on the margins of Social Security."
I believe in freedom. I believe in the Constitution. But "Bush's wars"? Don't push me. The trouble is, you really need to believe that America is at war or not. Either the United States is facing an existential challenge from Islamist terrorists, or not. Either it's a Bushist fantasy, or not.
Evidently, Ron Paul believes the United States is engaged in a needless war, founded on a Bushist fantasy. If that's the case, Ron Paul is absolutely and unequivocally wrong. That isn't the only reason why the gentleman from the great state of Texas won't be president, but it's a damn good one. I agree that the government is too big, and that it spends too much, and does too much. But the war is real. And war makes government big. We'd better win, or the government will stay bigger than we honest-to-goodness libertarians would like.
Bay-area busy-bodies are contemplating banning the burning of fires in the family hearth. All for the betterment of the environment, you see. And this is hardly a new concept. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Board contemplated such a ban in September. And Southern California air quality nannies debated restrictions on burning fire places this summer.
We are supposed to believe, for instance, that soot and particulates from fireplaces cause 5,400 "premature deaths" every year. As a "compromise," regulators want to force Californians to install $3,600 pollution-control devices on their chimneys — which make the psychic and heating benefits of a warm fire a luxury for only the wealthy.
The nanny-staters are completely out of control. And, it takes a country bumpkin from NoCal to talk any sense in the San Francisco Chronicle:
The scientific method follows a rigid methodology. Ask a question. Do background research. Construct a hypothesis. Test the hypothesis. And then, communicate the results.So what is the question? Are the fires in our homes bad because they add to global warming? Release carbon dioxide into the air? Pollute the atmosphere with soot and particulate matter? All of the above?
Where is the research? The Chronicle reported that "government studies" indicate that 33 percent of all "particulate matter" comes from your fireplace and mine. With all the industry and all the cars in the Bay Area, does anyone actually believe that?
Shouldn't we be given more quantitative information such has, "How many fireplaces are there in the nine counties? How many are used each night? How many hours is each fireplace used? How much "particulate matter" is expelled from each fire? How many parts per million are in the air? How much dissipates into the atmosphere?"
... We worry that the real issue here isn't about health, global warming or energy savings, but about control.
No kidding. I love living in California. But sometimes it's maddening. The question is: Why stop at fireplaces when attempting to legislate away public hazards? Every year, dogs bite 4.7 million Americans, send 800,000 people to the hospital and kill dozens. Nearly 3,500 people drown in swimming pools every year. Even slip-and-fall accidents in the home kill thousands every year. When does the state's attempts to protect us from ourselves ever end?
I trust that the first politician to put fireplace bans on their platform will not be long for public office. And if our unaccountable Air Quality Management boards ban fireplaces on their own, I'll vote for anyone who pledges to reverse the foolish decision.
At what point will global warming panic-stoking reach its peak? I hope its with this issue.
John Kass of the Chicago Tribune has a penetrating column today in which he exposes for the 1,000,000,000th time this week what gullible morons we humans tend to be. Kass took some time -- probably all of 10 minutes, maybe 15 -- to confirm the Santa "ho ho ho" ban in Australia and shows it to be, well, hokum. I feel so ashamed.
I don't know how many bloggers latched on to the story -- Technorati indicates quite a few -- but I do know that mainstream media outlets such as Fox News were all over it. It's a small story really, but people were willing to believe the tale because it easily could have been true. Just another case of "fake but accurate," I guess.
Perhaps somebody should inform Rick Santorum. He writes:
What I call "common-good" conservatism not only relies as much as possible on private charities and faith organizations, market forces, individual choice and decentralized decision-making, but also sees a role for government in empowering the nongovernmental institutions of civil society that serve the common good.
Yeah, yeah. Blah blah blah. But I may be too sensitive. After all, I only kicked three homeless people in the gutter today before feasting on the gizzards of freshly killed seals.
Especially if he drinks two or three "pre-gobble gobblers."
Brad Dixon, a former writer for "The Tonight Show," has penned a humorous list of what Angelenos should be thankful for.
Funny stuff. A taste:
* I am thankful I live in a city where the penalty for smoking in public is increasingly as harsh as the penalty for committing murder.* I am thankful as a member of the Writers Guild of America that I may engage in a protracted strike so that the "Bionic Woman" scribes can split 6 cents every time their show is streamed online.
* I am thankful I live in a city that provides for its downtrodden and homeless by allowing them to pose for photos on Hollywood Boulevard dressed as superheroes.
* I am thankful that if I ever succumb to the malefic lures of alcohol or drug abuse, there are approximately 118 rehab centers within walking distance of my Malibu condo.
* I am thankful for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's plan to blanket all 498 square miles of the city with wireless Internet access by 2009, because this gives me hope that the city may mend the pothole in front of my house sometime around 2012.
* I am thankful Hal Fishman didn't live to see a local newscast last week in which the lead story was about "Dancing With the Stars."
It's worth reading the whole thing for a holiday chuckle.
In a word: gratitude. From today's Wall Street Journal, an editorial that has appeared every Thanksgiving since 1961:
We can remind ourselves that for all our social discord we yet remain the longest enduring society of free men governing themselves without benefit of kings or dictators. Being so, we are the marvel and the mystery of the world, for that enduring liberty is no less a blessing than the abundance of the earth.
And from my old stomping grounds, The Press-Enterprise:
Good fortune, after all, frequently depends upon the actions of others, whether in the creation and sustaining of a nation of liberty and opportunity, or in the fostering of a close and supportive family. Even enjoying a day off from work on Thanksgiving hinges on the federal government declaring a holiday and employers honoring it. Gratitude always requires looking outside the self. The onslaught of turkey and pumpkin pie, family chatter and football games can easily overwhelm such thoughts. And enjoying those holiday traditions is perfectly natural. But all the relaxation and fun rest on fortunate circumstances much of the world does not share.
Amen to that.
Happy Thanksgiving. Please try to stay out of the emergency room. Whatever you do, don't overfill the deep fryer.
And remember: Turkeys cannot fly.
Two years ago, Monkey Brad quipped: "...I'm thankful that we've been spared from a Barry Manilow comeback." You were saying?
Notwithstanding Barry's triumphant return, we still have much to be thankful for this year. I'm thankful we've been spared the comebacks of Meatloaf, Donovan and Carole King.
Oh, damn.
Tuesday was a bad day for John Doe. God help him if, in this busy travel season, he sees suspicious behavior among the purveyors of the religion of peace.
U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery ruled against the patriotic citizens who, one year ago this month, observed the so-called flying imams engage in what looked in today's post-9/11 world like a dry run for the next 9/11.
Six Muslim imams arrested on a U.S. Airways jet in Minneapolis last November after a passenger raised suspicions about their pre-flight prayers and boarding activities won an early victory Tuesday in their federal lawsuit against the airline and the Metropolitan Airports Commission.U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery's opinion and order rejected almost all of the defendants' arguments for dismissal. She said the question of whether airport officers had probable cause to arrest the men must be determined by the objective facts they had available at the time.
... Frederick Goetz, one of the imams' attorneys, praised the judge's decision, saying "This has always been a straightforward civil rights case. You had six individuals ... doing absolutely nothing wrong. They prayed in the airport and got arrested. That's unconstitutional, and they deserve redress."
Yeah. They were just "praying." Goetz, the slip-and-fall lawyer, forgot to mention the other details that weren't so innocent. The House, if you remember, passed a bill in March that would make sure these scheisters never get their CAIR-pushed "redress." But, unfortunately, the Senate is still dragging its feet. The World's Greatest Deliberative Body has still not moved the bill out of committee, a full eight months later.
As a paper in the Inland Empire put it a while back:
The passengers of US Airways Flight 300 did nothing wrong in November. In fact, the passengers did exactly what the federal government encourages travelers to do: report strange or suspicious activity. The six flying imams drew the attention of passengers and the flight crew by praying loudly, moving about the cabin in pairs and asking for seat belt extenders. Eventually, airport security officials determined that the imams posed no threat, but not before removing them from the flight.Federal government expects the public to sacrifice some liberty at airports for the sake of better security. The government should reward that sacrifice with protection from intimidating lawsuits.
Well, the government is not. And we're in big trouble if the courts keep fighting the war on terror for us.
Pretty funny stuff, especially for technology geeks, from CollegeHumor.com. Hat tip: K-Lo.
I'm a Ron Paul fan, in much the same way I'm a Ronnie James Dio fan. I'll buy the t-shirts, sure. I even like the message, more or less. But the idea that either man could actually be elected president of these United States is amusing enough, though not really... er, real.
Wait! Hold on! Am I suggesting that Dr. Paul is as unserious as Dio in his quest for higher office?
Yes. Yes, I am. Sorry, Robb.
But let me first stipulate a few things. I don't think Paul is an anti-Semite, a neo-Nazi, or even an isolationist as such. I do think he's wrong about the war and about Congress's authorization of it. But I think he's pretty much right about spending, about the size and scope of government, and about the Constitution. And unlike certain radio hosts, I think he's essentially right about letters of marque and reprisal.
Does Paul's candidacy appeal to some unsavory citizens? No doubt. But that in itself is no disqualification. Paul's beliefs, however eccentric they may seem to the media, are wholly legitimate. Such beliefs, indeed, deserve a voice in America's government. Just not the executive branch.
What disqualifies Paul from the presidency is his demeanor. He's a whiner. Any man who is going to take a stand for the Constitution needs to be strong. Paul sounds like a 98-pound weakling. He sounds like a trekker. He is a sandwich-board bearing madman, predicting the demise of the Republic.
Yet that seems too cruel. When I think of Ron Paul, for some reason I think of Fisher Ames. Ames, an outspoken Federalist, was brilliant and passionate. Ames had a keen insight on the Constitution and the pitfalls of democracy. Ames was a fine orator, polemicist and congressman. Even today, Ames's writings are worth reading. But Ames would have been a terrible president.
So, too, Ron Paul. It's one thing to be right. It's another thing to govern. And it's another thing to be a statesman. Paul has his place. It's in Congress, not in the White House.
Americans tend to eschew political dynasties, recent history notwithstanding. So George Will's column is worth contemplating: "Before shuddering at the prospect of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush, take heart: The third Bush is not running and the second Clinton is hardly inevitable."
Here's hoping. Personally, I wouldn't vote for another Bush if you put a gun to my head. Hell, I wouldn't vote for another Bush if you put a gun to my cat's head. Did I say cat? I meant son. And/or wife. The point is, I'm staying out the Bushes forevermore.
I'm among a handful of American conservatives who does not believe the end of the Republic began in the 1960s. I think it began much earlier, probably just after the Civil War. At the same time, I truly detest the '60 generation. The Baby Boomers are, frankly, scum. Money-grubbing, selfish scum. Are there exceptions? Sure. Will I enumerate them? No. Why not? Because we live in an era in which the Boomers rule.
Dan Henninger has a fine piece in Thursday's Wall Street Journal about the turning point in latter-day American political history: 1968.
Henninger writes:
What fell out of 1968 was a profound division over what I would call civic vision.One side, which took to the streets in Chicago or occupied Columbia University, concluded from Vietnam and the race riots that America, in its relations with the world and its own citizens, was flawed and required big changes. Their defining document was the March 1968 Kerner Commission report, announcing "two societies," separate and unequal. The press, incidentally, emerged from Vietnam and the riots joined to this new, permanent template. That, too, has never stopped.
The other side was, well, insulted. It thought America was fundamentally good, though always able to improve. The Voting Rights Act passed in 1964 on a bipartisan vote, opposed mainly by southern Democrats. This side's standard-bearer called the U.S. "a shining city upon a hill." But after 1968, no Democratic presidential candidate would ever speak those words. Nor will Mr. Obama ever repeat Mr. Sarkozy's explicit repudiation of that era.
Obviously, it's worth reading the whole thing. But I would simply note that the current campaign for the presidency is, in some ways, a referendum on the two '60s mentalities that Henninger describes. Either America is an unashamedly great power, or America is guilty of being a great power. An empire, if you like. You take the good, you take the bad. The question Americans face is, would you rather be an unabashed great power or... something else?
It's fall. It's cloudy outside. There's a slight chill in the air. The apple trees are sagging, ready to be picked.
Or so I've been led to believe. It was 85 in my part of Southern California today. My grass is dying. I have two little apple trees and, to be perfectly candid, they don't look so good.
Weather notwithstanding, it is -- or, rather, should be apple cocktail season. No, not the abominable appletini. I mean the good stuff. Hard cider. Calvados. Applejack. Well, mostly applejack.
Imbibe magazine last month had a nice feature on the supposed resurgence of applejack. I say "supposed" because I really don't know if applejack is the next small-batch bourbon or not. But if it is, I couldn't be happier -- especially if my favorite potent potable becomes easier to find in bars. I was in Vegas over the summer and after a particularly dismal session of poker at the Circus Circus I repaired to a casino bar to sulk. Lo and behold, I spied a bottle of Laird's Applejack behind the bar. "I'll have an applejack and soda," I told the Filipino barman. "A what?" he said. "That," I said, pointing. Turned out, there wasn't even a shot's worth of booze left in the bottle. That capped the night for me.
Applejack is an American original. According to E.C. Kraus, a home wine-making site, "Applejack is made by storing completely finished apple wine at below freezing temperatures. What happens is the water that is in the apple wine freezes and rises to the top while the alcohol stays in liquid form -- a process known as fractional crystallization. Each day you simply scoop off the ice that has formed, causing the alcohol and the apple flavor that is left behind to become more concentrated." Got that? Good.
There was a time in the Republic when applejack was more common than beer, wine and whiskey. Applejack, in fact, was the first natively distilled spirit in America. The earliest temperance activists advanced their crusade by chopping down apple trees. Eventually, applejack's popularity waned. "There used to be a number of applejack distillers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey -- the places it always called home, right up into the 1930s," writes Ted Haigh. "Now all are gone save one."
Calvados, which is an apple brandy produced in Normandy, deserves its own post. The very best Calvados is as good as any great cognac or armagnac.
A drink as old as applejack -- and apple brandy, generally -- has yeilded a number of cocktails over the decades. The most famous, I think, is the Jack Rose. Below are five applejack/apple brandy recipes that I highly recommend. Once again, I invite the other monkeys and our three or four regular readers to add their own suggestions or comments.
Five Awe-Inspiring Applejack Cocktails
1. The Jack Rose
(by way of Vintage Spirits and Forgotten Cocktails, by Ted Haigh a.k.a. Dr. Cocktail)
Shake and strain into a chilled cocktail glass; garnish with a lemon or lime wedge
2. Fort Washington Flip
(from the Green Street Grill in Cambridge, Mass., by way of Imbibe magazine)
Shake (and shake and shake) and strain into a chilled cocktail glass; garnish with grated nutmeg
3. The Calvados Cocktail
(adapted from the Savoy Cocktail Book by Harry Craddock)
Shake and strain into a chilled cocktail glass; garnish with an orange wheel
4. The Minuteman
(by way of Laird and Company)
Build in a tall glass over plenty of ice and stir well; garnish with a lemon wedge
5. Laird’s Applejack Cocktail # 6
(from Gary and Mardee Regan's Cocktails in the Country online recipe book)
Shake and strain into a tall, ice-filled glass; top with club soda; garnish with an orange wheel and a maraschino cherry
Pop culture is filth, some limey once said. And I believe him. Turns out, pop culture and porn culture aren't much different nowadays.
Dennis Prager has a fine column this week on the 40th anniversary of Rolling Stone. "It brings me no pleasure to say that, with few exceptions, the interviews reveal a superficiality and contempt for cultural norms... that should scare anyone who believes that these people have influence on American life," Prager writes. I no longer scare easily, but I get Prager's point. The culture, it is low. But should this surprise us?
Not really, no.
I haven't seen the anniversary issue of Rolling Stone, and I'm unlikely to buy it. Well, I might buy it. I don't know... hey buddy, can you lend me four bucks? OK, never mind. As it happens, I spent the past two days cleaning out my parents' garage in Running Springs. I am a notorious pack rat. I keep everything, including hundreds of periodicals I amassed from my college days. And so I found myself trying to decide whether to chuck copies of The Atlantic, American Journalism Review, GQ, Spy, Esquire and Rolling Stone from the early 1990s. It was easier than I thought. Four-fifths of the archive went into the recycling bin. Though, I kept some of those old Atlantics... and a few issues of Spy, when it was funny. And some antiquated issues of AJR. But no Rolling Stones.
I did, however, retain two of the three copies of Playboy magazine I've ever bought in my life. One happened to be Playboy's 40th anniversary issue, published in 1994. The other one was the issue with Rush Limbaugh's interview, in which he quite foolishly uttered "bullshit" on the record and thus shattered his credibility with the temperance ladies. The third issue, which I discarded long ago, featured Drew Barrymore, on whom I had quite a crush for a brief period in 1992. But I digress.
Seems to me, naked starlets and obnoxious actors notwithstanding, there is a commentary to be made about the two publications.
I am no subscriber of Hugh Hefner's philosophy, although I respect his high editorial standards. I cannot say the same for Rolling Stone, which is a mess. William Greider? Please. And he's the best of the political correspondents. Still, it's tough to decide which magazine has had a more pernicious influence on American life over the past half-century. They're both bad. Playboy has gone a long way toward undermining sexual mores behind a veneer of sophistication -- indeed, conservatism. After all, William F. Buckley Jr. has appeared in Playboy's pages more than once. But Rolling Stone has gone a long way toward dragging pop culture further into the gutter. The two periodicals bear more similarities than differences. In certain respects, all Rolling Stone lacks is the centerfold.
What struck me looking at the 13-year old copy of a pornographic magazine was how tame it is by today's standards. Tame and yet smart. Yes, there were photos of nude women. But there was a certain... decorum, I guess. Rolling Stone is just crude and stupid.
What a difference a decade can make. I don't know what Playboy is like now and I don't care to find out. I rather imagine it isn't as "sophisticated" as it was in the go-go '90s, when Bill Clinton was president and everything was lollipops and roses and cigars. George W. Bush is president now, after all, and the dark night of fascism is upon us.
As Mark Steyn notes at the Corner, Rolling Stone's claim to "authenticity" is threadbare. "Hard to believe in 2007 anyone can still think effin' and blindin' is cool or macho or authentic or whatever it's supposed to be...," he writes. Yeah. The low culture keeps getting lower. What might have been risque in Playboy 13 years ago is de reguer in Rolling Stone today. Hard to believe? I guess so. Maybe there's something to be said for the ill-effects of desensitization.
What's it like to be Pakistan's ruler? Bret Stephens explores the question in the Wall Street Journal today. The short answer: It ain't easy.
But it shouldn't be so difficult. If you were Pervez Musharraf, you might be wondering what the hullabaloo over democracy is all about:
Abroad, the conventional wisdom is that you have shredded what little legitimacy you had and that your days, politically or otherwise, are numbered. You think they're wrong. You're probably right...Besides, who in his right mind would want to return to the days of Mr. Sharif or the Bhuttos? When you took over in 1999, the country was $30 billion in debt and its credit rating was among the world's worst. Since then, the number of cell phone subscribers is up 100%, the number of air conditioners sold is up 200%, the stock market is up 800%, foreign direct investment is up more than tenfold and the economy has averaged 7% annual growth over five years. Did the shambolic democracy of years past ever register these kinds of figures?
Stephens thinks Musharraf will prevail, as has been the case so often in the past. It might be hard to be Musharraf, but that's the soldier's life.
... a primate menaces.
According to Reuters (via Drudge):
Authorities are struggling to contain primates that are stubbornly resisting efforts to portray New Delhi as a modern, clean and globalize capital.The city of 14 million people is growing quickly and experts say monkeys are increasingly being forced out of forests to lead urban lives, putting them on a collision course with humans.
I say, give the monkeys their own city and see how they govern it. The place might smell a little, but no worse than Dr. Zaius's pad. And the monkeys of India are undoubtedly smarter than the Monkeys of Phoenix.
Well, this has got to be the dumbest thing I've seen in at least a day or two. "Seventeen entertainment blogs—among them Televisionary, Give Me My Remote and The TVAddict—will go dark Tuesday, replacing their sites with WGA solidarity statements."
Dumb, that is, unless the stunt drives traffic to those sites.
Wait! For God's sake, don't click on those links! No! Nooooooo!
Ah, to hell with it. Look, the trouble with the strike is that the writers do not understand the market in which they now labor. I sympathize. But the fact is, the moment the audience turns away from their TV sets, that's when the writers lose. People don't need another reason to find yet another brand of entertainment. And the Guild, such as it is, can ill afford to further alienate its core constituency.
Over there ... and gone forever.
(Via Steve Hayward at No Left Turns.)
"The Writers Guild of America sucks. Not to mention it’s anti-American."
Alas, Natasha Naraghi wants her TV back. Let it go, Natasha. Let it go, America.
Here's a question: Are whiskey and beer more expensive? I think they might be and I think the ethanol craze is the reason why. Do I have evidence? No. Google is of no help, except to point to articles that I've missed.
I plan to post something substantial on rye before long. But I suppose I should at least link to Gary Regan's piece in the SF Chronicle and this story from the KC Star on rye's resurgence: "Edge is what rye’s about, and distillers often use the grain to give bourbon a spicy bite. To be rye whiskey, though, a spirit must be made with at least 51 percent rye or malted rye and aged in charred new oak barrels...." Yes, indeed. I prefer Old Overholt, but I try to splurge for Michter's whenever possible. (It used to be $30 at BevMo. What happened? King Corn, that's what!) If I had the money, however, I'd go whole hog, as it were, for Old Potrero.
Jones Soda has announced its holiday offerings of the year. The headline on AP's story? "Enjoy a Refreshing Ham Soda". Hmmm... I bet somebody in Seattle is a Primus fan. Incredibly, it's all kosher. And the "Happy Chanukah Pack" looks delicious!
"A man trying to loosen a stubborn lug nut blasted the wheel with a 12-gauge shotgun, injuring himself badly in both legs, sheriff's deputies said." Next time, use a .20-gauge with slugs.
Oh, and the headline? "Best to use tools when loosening lug nut." Wish I'd thought of that.
Yesterday, of course, was Veterans' Day. Today, many Americans will take the day off in "honor" of the holiday. But the honor belongs to the veterans, to whom we owe an impossible debt.
The Los Angeles Times has a compelling series on James Blake Miller, a.k.a. The Marlboro Marine. Miller's image, captured by Times photographer Luis Sinco in a moment of respite during the battle of Fallouja, became an icon of the war. But Miller's story since that day in late 2004 has not been a happy one.
It's all too easy to pity the warriors who return from war with bodies intact and psyches shattered. But these men and women do not need our pity. They need our support, in word and deed.
The pretentious, overrated American novelist and "provocateur" is dead at 84. I've never been able to get more than 50 pages into a Mailer novel, and at 36, I am too young to recall what the hell the hubbub was all about.
Thankfully, Roger Kimball provides the definitive obituary, 100 percent free of cant or hagiography.
Mailer, Kimball writes, "promised his readers what they longed to hear: that ultimate, self-centered ecstasy was theirs for the taking. Mailer once said that he would 'settle for nothing less than making a revolution in the consciousness of our time.' He did not make the revolution, but he assuredly became one of its most egregious abettors."
The results of Hollywood's attempts to protest the war — the highest form of patriotism — are in. And the box office returns are as grim as the prospects of Congress impeaching the Chimpy McBushitlerburton cabal.
In the Valley of Elah: $6.7 million in 8 weeks. It played to an "almost empty house" for Academy Award screeners this week, according to The LA Times.
Rendition: $9.5 million in 4 weeks. (And as Jonah Goldberg points out, it was crushed in its opening weekend by a re-release of the 14-year-old film, "The Nightmare Before Christmas.")
Lions for Lambs hit theaters Friday, and is getting slaughtered by even liberal reviewers. The New York Post — not a liberal paper, mind you — gives it a great (as in devastating in its mockery) review: "... if you want to be bored by pompous-assery, "Meet the Press" is free.
Only The Kingdom, which was marketed as more of a thriller than an anti-war screed, raked in respectable numbers. But it didn't fool me, or many movie-goers into plunking down $11 to see the thinly veiled message that the war on terror is problem for the FBI to take care of as a criminal matter.
But the real laugher in all of this is the LA Times' attempt to explain away the public's reluctance to embrace these star-studded bore-fest lectures.
I mean, really. Doesn't this picture from "Elah" just scream: DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE!
The Times has some unique theories on why these movies, and the slew of war-related films that will slip in by the end of the year for Oscar consideration, are bombing.
"Many members of the academy would like nothing more this year, as a run-up to the election, to stand up and be identified with a valiant and sincere antiwar film," said film historian and critic David Thomson. "But I don't think they'll go that far unless the public has gone down that road already. If the public accepts one of these films and . . . there's an undeniable feeling that this is an important picture, that could make it happen. I'm not sure it will happen this year."
Ah, yes. That pesky free market at work again, foiling the plans of Hollywood to "stand up" with their "valiant and sincere anti-war films."
More gob-smacking cluelessness that laments "Where's our 'Platoon'? Where's our 'Deer Hunter'?:
USC professor Nick Cull, president of the International Assn. for Media and History and a specialist in film and war propaganda, agreed that no matter how esteemed the current war-related movies are in the eyes of critics, they all face an uphill battle to get audiences.First, there is the question of "entertainment" value in watching films about war. "It's a remarkable moment," Cull said. "It's unusual to have critical and questioning films that are happening while the story is still going on. This is happening five years earlier than usual." ... 'Elah' is pretty much done, which is a shame. The reviews were good, the credentials and buzz seemed to have a lot going for it. But it came out, people yawned, and then they left," Hartigan said.
... On Friday, the megawatt-star-powered "Lions for Lambs" opens. Will it be the one to break the box office curse and give credence to early Oscar buzz? "If Robert Redford, Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep can't get it over $100 million, I don't know what can," Hartigan said. But reports that the film is too preachy could sink its chances. "Americans are extremely unhappy about this war . . . you've got to be awfully clever to get them to buy it as entertainment," Thomson said.
So the expert in "war propaganda," wonders why no one is embracing anti-war propaganda. (Clues for sale! Three for a dollar! Get your clues here!) Maybe it's because while most of Hollywood is "extremely unhappy about this war," most Americans are not. Movie-goers in flyover country have an aversion to seeing their country's leaders portrayed as soulless meat-grinder operators perpetrating endless war for personal or political gain. No matter how clever a movie-maker tries to be — and these films deliver their anti-war messages with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer — the public won't "buy it as entertainment." The public is simply worn out with endless anti-war coverage and protest from every corner of the popular culture.
Better questions than "Where's our 'Platoon'? Where's our 'Deer Hunter'"? are "Where's our 'Longest Day'? Where's our 'Green Berets'?"
The LA Times is predicting that The Kite Runner will suffer the same fate as "Elah" and "Rendition." I have my doubts. I think the public will be able to discern the difference between a tiresome anti-war screed and an inspiring story of triumph in the face of evil. But, then again, I'm no "expert" on war propaganda.
UPDATE: As Powerline notes, The Kite Runner's first U.S. screening was in the White House theater in September.
President Bush found the film powerful and the consensus of those in attendance was that it was a powerful and well-made movie that tells an important story.
Bush was moved by The Kite Runner? That is certain to color the reviews down the line. Anything that validates Bush's world view must be hammered down.
Everyone is an expert on Pakistan nowadays. I don't claim to know much more than the next man about Pakistan, beyond what I've read in a few books. But I do know how to link.
Mark Steyn writes:
Pakistan is not Persia. For one thing, it's a country only 60 years old whose slapdash creation was one of the worst disasters of British imperial policy. Yet even those who thought so at the time would be astonished to find that, a mere couple of generations later, a regional afterthought is not only a nuclear power that has dispersed its technology around the planet but also a driving force of the world's first global insurgency. If Gen. Musharraf is shooting without a script, what would you do if stuck in a toxic soap opera where the incoherent plot twists pile up with every passing decade?
Steyn offers no profound conclusions, except to warn that the democratic solution some putative experts suggest might not be all it's advertised to be. Pakistan is a hollow state bristling with nuclear warheads. Its government lacks control of large swathes of territory. The population is as fanatical as it was 60 or even 160 years ago, when Pakistan was part of India and under British rule. And while the Harvard-educated Benazir Bhutto might appear charming and gracious before pliant Western diplomats and reporters, beneath that democratic veneer she is as corrupt as any Pakistani pol. And as Diana West notes, "Yes, Mrs. Bhutto is very popular... But Shariah, or Islamic law, is popular, too."
Is Musharraf a bad bet? Maybe. But he looks like the best bet the U.S. has.
Can anyone or any thing stop the decline in newspaper circulation? I think so. Well, I hope so at any rate. But it won't be anyone in the industry right now and I doubt it will be a guy or gal with an MBA. That said, the numbers look really grim. (If you don't read the comments -- why not? -- you missed the link to the story on a rather unnerving slide in circulation at the place I used to work. I would blame myself, but I'm much too deluded. So I'll blame Zaius instead.) It's gonna be painful, the shakeout in the mainstream media. I think the patient might lose a limb or two before stabilizing.
This chart is horrifying, if you’re in the newspaper business, and contains some circulation numbers I didn’t expect. (Nobody expect the Spanish Circulation Numbers! Our chief weapons are dismay, denial, acceptance, and fine-tuning of the font size on the subheads!) Having sampled some of those papers on my various trips here and there, I can see why they sunk. One paper, which I won’t name in case I ever want to move to that city, struck me as the worst daily I’d read in a major metro area. Story selection + banal writing + legacy staffers cranking it out + fluff-tastic celeb drivel that was nine days behind the web gossip sites + anemic over-edited wire copy on national and international issues all added up to a paper that was done before I’d finished my bowl of cereal. On the other hand, the chart doesn’t include any Seattle papers, and I was impressed by those when I picked up a few copies last July. The difference? The former had no sense of place; the latter did. You could say the same thing about the cities they covered, frankly. Maybe that’s part of the problem.
No, not really. But what in the world should the United States do about a putative ally in the war on terror that is clearly on the brink of... what? Revolution? Democracy? Something else?
Charles Krauthammer suggests:
Our influence should not be overestimated. But we need to make clear our choices. The best among the awful ones Musharraf has presented us is to try to broker a truce between the two forces before the blood starts to flow, keep Musharraf to his promise of holding early parliamentary elections -- which Bhutto will win -- and then guarantee him a dignified and gradual exit that assures his protection while Bhutto and her allies claim legitimate authority and try to reach accommodation with Musharraf's successor as military chief.
Yeah, that'll happen. It's Pakistan. There will be blood.
The Slide Fire is 100 percent contained but not fully extinguished. Mountain residents began returning to their homes last week. My parents went up to inspect their house last Thursday. I joined them on Sunday.
Driving up Highway 18 through the San Bernardino Mountains to Running Springs, the first thing one notices is the absence of devastation. Yes, the Grass Valley and Slide Fires charred nearly 20,000 acres of tinder-dry forest and burned hundreds of homes to the ground. Everything those people owned -- some of their most precious memories -- are ashes. For most town residents, however, the worst they suffered was a fridge full of spoiled food. But evidence of the fires' work isn't obvious from the main highway. You have to go looking for it, and often the roads are closed to looky-loos. In fact, most of the damage the traveler sees is from the 2003 fires.
Only when we arrived in Running Springs did we begin to see signs that the town had just emerged from a disaster. Firetrucks and Red Cross vehicles were parked around town. A man from FEMA stood in front of Jensen's market with literature and forms. (For what it's worth, he wasn't getting too many customers Sunday afternoon.) People congregated around maps of the fire posted in front of the market.
The fires swept over the town from the northeast. Much of the residential damage is hidden. But the fires did reach Highway 18, hopping from tree to tree, roof to roof. I've posted photos below.
Truth is, most of Running Springs is still standing. The fire moved erratically through neighborhoods, and the firefighters did a fantastic job protecting the town amid the wind and embers and ash. The town is rallying around its victims. People are getting the help they need, and then some. I heard one report of a woman who accepted aid from the Red Cross even though she hadn't actually suffered any losses. Yes, disasters do bring out the best and worst in people. For the most part, however, Running Springs residents have much to be thankful for after the fires this time.
The otherwise sober and straightlaced Drudge Report has a page-topping headline splayed in all-caps and red letters: "$5 GAS IN CA"
Really? Because I just filled up and I paid $3.15 a gallon. With the price of crude nearing $100 a barrel, I expect to be paying quite a bit more at the pump in the coming days and weeks. But $5? Not just yet.
Turns out, the people paying $5 a gallon are the poor slobs who need to fill up along the sparcely populated but gorgeous stretch of Route 1 just south of Big Sur. Well, of course you're going to pay more for gasoline there. Ever heard of the law of supply and demand?
Jeffersonian democracy has a better of chance of sprouting in Pakistan than TV and motion picture writers have of winning a decent contract from the studio suits. It's tough not to sympathize with the writers, who spent their third full day on picket lines in L.A. and New York today without any progress in talks with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. One can't help but admire the writers' pluck -- and their technical skills. So why do I have a terrible feeling that the strike is doomed?
Perhaps because the writers overplayed their hand, choosing to strike when they could have made a deal? According to Variety, " 'I think that a deal could have been made in another 12 hours,' one source notes. Instead, the pickets appeared and talks collapsed before either side could start hammering out a compromise on the issue of residuals for downloads -- which was the key remaining issue."
Defamer, The Hollywood Reporter and Daily Variety are good sources for strike scuttlebutt. Loath as I am to admit it, the contemptible Nikke Finke has been indispensable. And I've found good analysis at Silicon Alley Insider and TechCrunch.
I visited the picket line in front of Warner Brothers in Burbank on Tuesday. There were about 150 writers walking, with a few actors in the mix. I saw Jon Cryer -- who actually looks younger in person, if that's possible -- and Julia Louis-Dreyfuss. Judging from the cars passing by, the writers have the overwhelming support of motorists. For all the good it will do.
Truth is, I was only in the neighborhood to have lunch at the Smoke House. (Catch of the day: $14. Bar tab: $20. Swiping a WGA strike t-shirt: priceless. Alas, I didn't get one.) Feeling confident after a delightful midday meal, I sauntered over to the picket line to find out what the hell the hubbub was all about.
I introduced myself up a chap standing by himself with a sling on his right arm, who turned out to be a rep from SAG. He pointed out that even though the actors have a no-strike clause in their contract, nothing prevented actors from showing up to show their support and solidarity with the writers. He was the guy who alerted me to Jon Cryer.
But I didn't want to talk to actors -- their contract isn't up until June anyway. So I chatted up a distinguished looking older gentleman in a pink dress shirt with a sweater tied around his shoulders. His name was Quinn Redeker. And even though he fully supported the union and the walkout, he did not understand why the writers and the studios couldn't hash out a deal.
Redeker's been around for awhile. "The '88 strike lasted five months. And what did we get out of it? Not much," he said. He worries that this strike might yield similar dividends.
The dispute, believe it or not, is over 8 cents. Specifically, the writers want 8 cents per DVD sold. And they would like a similar deal for downloaded programming and streaming video. That's it.
Could be the 8 cents is too much. Right now, the writers get 4 cents. Maybe a nickel would be a good compromise? It's a nice, round number. And with pennies losing popularity and all... Ah, but the producers aren't interested so much in pennies. A penny here, a penny there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.
Tim Goodman of the San Francisco Chronicle thinks the writers have a decent chance of getting what they want.
Although it was only one of what could be endless days of shouting slogans and carrying signs, all resolve is good for the writers. Why? Because the networks don't believe that three disparate unions (the WGA, SAG and the Director's Guild) will agree on anything or that Americans will back lowly writers despite the fact that television is a writer-driven media (unlike film, where the director is king). Surely this bunch will cave -- that's the thinking. And with scripted series not expected to show any wear and tear until late January at the earliest, there's a good chance that Americans won't become vested in this battle for some time.Actually, Les Moonves says the networks are in good shape through June. Maybe longer. And as Goodman understands, Hollywood ain't Allentown.
I don't think the writers or the studios understand the new new media market yet. According to one analysis, the producers are scandalously low-balling the writers. But a legendary mogul insists the studios simply have no money to give.
If it isn't obvious by now, the writers' strike will prove in the most painful way possible how new media will murder Hollywood much as new media is bleeding the music and news business. As Duncan Riley at TechCrunch notes, "Users are already choosing online entertainment over TV, how many more will switch off their televisions when their favorite shows stop going to air? These eyeballs present a real opportunity for online content creators at all levels; from the VC funded video startups through to the DIY part timers. " The only question is, who's shrewd enough to exploit the old, institutional weaknesses?
I hope the writers succeed. I really do. It's hard out there to be a hack. But the old union ways are fading. I hate to say it, but Fake Steve Jobs might be right.
French President Nicholas Sarkozy delivered some gracious remarks to the U.S. Congress today. My friend John Miller is skeptical, for good reason. But I happen to think Sarkozy is sincere, even if he represents a minority of French elite opinion and seems to be channeling Freddy Mercury and Paul McCartney. A sample:
Friends may have differences; they may have disagreements; they may have disputes.But in times of difficulty, in times of hardship, friends stand together, side by side; they support each other; and help one another.
You know, those filthy frogs might not be so bad after all. In the spirit of friendship, I believe I'll crack open a bottle of Calvados tonight. I recommend Ceour de Lion.
I bet this guy never gets tired of mad scientist jokes.
Still, it could have been worse. He could have been named Jeckyl. Or Mengele.
I got arrested for the school's First Annual Western Carnival. Thankfully some of my Monkey friends, other bloggers, cyclists, and more cyclists came together to bail me out. My bond raised $750 for the school. Overall, the day was a moderate success, raising about $5000 after expenses.
My promise to get video coverage of me banging the bars and shouting "Attica!" did not come to fruition due to technical diffficulties, though not to a lack of effort. Alas, all I've been able to come up with so far is this inspiring still photo of yours truly pouting bravely.
Thanks again to all who chipped in, or pledged to. I've covered those who needed to pay later out of my own account. Follow up would be greatly appreciated. Let me know if you need a reminder on the details via email or the comments here.
And as always, it's never too late to support quality k-through-12 classical Christian education. Donations big and small make a huge difference. If you don't have my email, just leave a note in the comments and I'll get in touch you.
The Suspendered One is a marvel of our age. An old-media dope who holds a destination on TV that people still covet. Credit his producers for that buzz, I guess, because Larry King is clueless. I almost admire Larry King's professional credo (that I read in a magazine 10+years ago): He doesn't research his subjects — like, for instance, read the book he guest wrote — because, being completely in the dark, he'll be more naturally curious and ask better questions.
I prefer Brian Lamb's method. But ignorance, I guess, can be the engine of curiosity. Yet Profound Ignorance can be a real bummer.
Check out the look on Jerry Seinfeld's face about 8 seconds into this clip. It's priceless ... the whole thing is funny, too.
Amid the jibberish that looks like squiggles and (I think) reads backwards, are some pictures of what we can only hope is the Iranian Revolution that keeps.
Courtesy of Michael Ledeen at NRO, here is what I hope is the face of the New Middle East.
The faces behind the faces are what really matters, and let's hope there are many, many more behind them. We're long overdue for an anti-Khomeni revolution in Iran. Let's pray it shows up before the bomb goes off in Tel Aviv.
In January of 1979, The Peanut Farmer from Plains sat by and allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by the Ayatollah Khomeini, claiming that the deposition of the Shah advanced the cause of human rights. While the Shah certainly was no prince, any rational human being would (hopefully) agree that the alternative - the Mad Mullahs - was worse. Much worse. Jimmy's folly gave us the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hezbollah, and the twenty plus years reign of Islamic terror. The Hostages, the Marine Barracks, etc., etc..
Now in Pakistan General Musharraf has in essence declared martial law and set aside (abrogation?) the constitution because of the rising threat from Islamists in Pakistan.
For what it's worth, the US has condemned the action, as I suppose we should. But let's not get all doe eyed about human rights and democracy and lose sight of what's important. A terror sponsoring regime like Iran is one thing. Such a regime with Nukes is another. There is still hope for Pakistan to become at least an imperfect democracy.
But God forbid Hillary! (or worse) becomes President and we relive the days of malaise. We cannot trust these people with our security again. They just do not take our enemies seriously.
There are people who are actually paying $250 -- or more! -- to listen to over-the-hill rockers play their greatest hits. Honestly, the albums are better. Use that $250 to buy an iPod or something.
I saw Hagar-era Van Halen at the L.A. Coliseum in 1988, when they headlined Monsters of Rock. That was an OK show, but not worth $250. If memory serves, tickets were about 1/8th that price for a day-long event. The most I've ever paid for a concert ticket was $85, and that was to hear Martha Argerich perform at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion.
I read the other day that even Led Zeppelin is getting back together. (Eventually.) But it cannot possibly be the same. The power behind the magic is long gone. (I saw Plant-Page 15 years ago. That was a good show, too -- again, not worth $250.)
On the other hand, I could see paying maybe $75 for The Police, even if Sting is the worst lyricist of all time.
The latest issue of Imbibe magazine contains a feature on 50 gift ideas for the discriminating boozehound (my term, not theirs). In it, I made three happy discoveries. The first is a limited-edition whiskey-barrel bitters by Fee Brothers. The second, after a visit to Fee Brothers' website, is the addition of two new bitters -- grapefruit and lemon -- alongside the tried-and-true peach, orange, mint and old-fashioned flavors. Alas, Fee Brothers does not sell direct to the public. But the third discovery may be the best: a fine website called Kegworks, which sells Fee Brothers and Regan's Orange bitters as well as mixing supplies and, of course, keg equipment.
Bookmark it.
Have I mentioned lately how wonderful Achewood is?
I personally guarantee that the Monkeys would sell way more than 242 books. Hell, I know at least a dozen straw... er, literary busboys and dishwashers who would run out and buy copies for themselves and their families on the very first day of publication!
Have your people contact our people. Let's make a deal.
